It’s funny how, when Black people leave toxic church spaces we are the ones called “divisive.” We always have to bear the weight of judgment and have to explain ourselves.

When you see Black people leaving a predominantly white church space en masse, you should be asking...

Why are so many people walking away? Why are their stories all similar or exactly the same? Why is this not being addressed by leadership? Why does it feel like it’s being swept under the rug? Why is Black folks’ departure deemed as their issue or fault?
Why does the leadership of my church or organization only take the slightest of responsibility (if any at all)? Why do the sermons end teaching in my church seem to change for a season directly after departures? Why are the Black folks who remain given promotions or visibility?
I have observed a pattern of behavior around Black folks leaving white Christian institutions.

There’s a lot of folks who leave who won’t make public (or private) comment about their departure. Often it’s out of fear of what opportunities that it could cost them.
This allows the institution to shape the narrative around the departure and make it seem more amicable than it actually was. I’ve seen this pattern multiple times.
Another pattern of behavior that I’ve observed is when people are vocal about their departure, they are cast as being bitter or not willing to “play ball” in the institution’s effort. They are cast as being a problem and seen as being destructive.
The institution is able to blame shift and make it about the person’s tone and to cast them as angry and unwilling to cooperate and appreciate all that the institution is “done.”
Occasionally and institution might do a soft mea culpa. They might talk about all the work that they “have to do,” but still continue to lay the blame squarely on Black people for leaving the toxic place.

More from Society

Patriotism is an interesting concept in that it’s excepted to mean something positive to all of us and certainly seen as a morally marketable trait that can fit into any definition you want for it.+


Tolstoy, found it both stupid and immoral. It is stupid because every patriot holds his own country to be the best, which obviously negates all other countries.+

It is immoral because it enjoins us to promote our country’s interests at the expense of all other countries, employing any means, including war. It is thus at odds with the most basic rule of morality, which tells us not to do to others what we would not want them to do to us+

My sincere belief is that patriotism of a personal nature, which does not impede on personal and physical liberties of any other, is not only welcome but perhaps somewhat needed.

But isn’t adherence to a more humane code of life much better than nationalistic patriotism?+

Göring said, “people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”+

You May Also Like