Theology in the Raw - S9 Ep923: Active Listening and Thoughtful Nuance in Race Conversations: Dr. George Yancey

Episode Date: November 29, 2021

In the midst of polarized conversations about race, Dr. George Yancey is a breath of fresh air. He’s a huge proponent of active listening--being genuinely curious about another another person’s perspective and getting outside your echo chamber to consider other points of view. In this podcast episode, we talk a lot about his forthcoming book: Beyond Racial Division: A Unifying Alternative to Colorblindness and Antiracism, which published by IVP (March 2022). Dr. George Yancey (PhD, University of Texas) is a Professor of Sociology at the Baylor University. He has published several research articles on the topics of institutional racial diversity, racial identity, academic bias, progressive Christians and anti-Christian hostility. His books include Compromising Scholarship (Baylor University Press) a book that explores religious and political biases in academia, What Motivates Cultural Progressives (Baylor University Press) a book that examines activists who oppose the Christian Right, There is no God (Rowman and Littlefield) a book that investigates atheism in the United States, and So Many Christians, So Few Lions (Rowman and Littlefield) a book that assess Christianophobia in the United States. Theology in the Raw Conference - Exiles in Babylon At the Theology in the Raw conference, we will be challenged to think like exiles about race, sexuality, gender, critical race theory, hell, transgender identities, climate change, creation care, American politics, and what it means to love your democratic or republican neighbor as yourself. Different views will be presented. No question is off limits. No political party will be praised. Everyone will be challenged to think. And Jesus will be upheld as supreme. Support Preston Support Preston by going to patreon.com Venmo: @Preston-Sprinkle-1 Connect with Preston Twitter | @PrestonSprinkle Instagram | @preston.sprinkle Youtube | Preston Sprinkle Check out Dr. Sprinkle’s website prestonsprinkle.com Stay Up to Date with the Podcast Twitter | @RawTheology Instagram | @TheologyintheRaw If you enjoy the podcast, be sure to leave a review.

Hello, friends. Welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. If you have not signed up for Theology in the Raw's Exiles in Babylon conference yet, then you absolutely need to do so because space is filling up. That's March 31st through April 2nd here in Boise, or you can live stream the conference if you can't make it out here. But we're going to have loads of awesome fun here in Boise, Idaho, if you can make it out here, March 31st to April 2nd. Or you can go to PrestonSprinkle.com and find out all about the Theology in the Raw Exiles in Babylon conference. Also, if you have benefited from the show, please do consider supporting it through patreon.com forward slash Theology in the Raw. Or if you can't afford to or just don't want to,

please consider leaving a review. There's some pretty lame reviews on the podcast app, which are super entertaining. I love reading the one-star reviews. They're hilarious. But if you want to give it a higher review because you've benefited a bit from this show, then please do leave a review. Consider sharing this show on your social media outlets. My guest today is Dr. George Yancey. Dr. Yancey has a PhD in sociology from University of Texas at Austin. He is a professor of sociology at Baylor University, has written lots of books, several on race and racism, and he has a forthcoming book called Beyond Racial Division, which you can pre-order now on Amazon, which you definitely will want to get a hold of, especially after you listen to this awesome conversation.

So please welcome to the show, the one and only Dr. George Anson. Hey friends, welcome back to another episode of Theology in Iran. I'm here with Dr. George Yancey. George, thanks so much for being on the podcast. Really appreciate it. Thanks for having me. Why don't we begin just by telling our audience just a little bit about who you are and what you do. And then I really want to get into, um, your forthcoming book, uh, beyond racial division. Cause I just, I, man, I, I, yeah,

I can't wait to dig into that one. Cause I could probably, yeah, I have a sense of kind of what you're going to, where you're going to go in it. And I'm just really interested in what you're going to have to say. So yeah, tell us about who you are and, uh, what you do. Yeah. I, I work as a sociologist at Baylor University with the Institute for Studies in Religion. I've been there about three years now. I spent 19 years before that at University of North Texas. So I've been in sociology. I've been writing about racial issues

for quite a while. In fact, I took a little break from it for about 10 years until last year. So I've been dealing with this personally, as a Christian, intellectually, academically, for a good chunk of my life. And that's why I hope I can bring something different to the table than what a lot of other people are bringing. What led you into sociology? Was that something that you feel like you've always been interested in? No, not really.

They don't teach sociology in high school as a sociology course when I was growing up. Maybe they do now. They didn't. So I didn't know anything about sociology when I went to college. I took a couple of sociology, but I majored in economics. And it wasn't until grad school when I was trying to get my master's in economics that I found out that I really didn't have that much more interest in economics. I took some other sociology courses that got me interested in sociology.

And so it was an acquired taste, if you will. And where did you do your grad work at? University of Texas in Austin. Hey, friends, I'm so sorry, but we had some audio problems over the next 10 to 12 minutes of our conversation. I didn't even realize it until we looked at the recording a week later. So our conversation was fluid and there were no glitches, but apparently there was some glitch with the audio for the next 10 or 12 minutes. We chit-chatted a bit about where he is teaching at Baylor University, about his denominational background. We talked about his book a bit. And then I asked him a question

about active listening. He was talking about active listening, and I wanted him to tease that out a little more. So we're going to jump to that question. And the first few seconds of his response, those few seconds are gone. But I think you'll be able to get the gist of what he's talking about here. It's such an important thought that he has about active listening. So we're going to jump right into that question. And we say listening to other people. Are you saying primarily people who maybe might not share the perspective you currently hold? mean this has a general statement like getting outside of an echo chamber and just having genuine curiosity towards other that's fine that we have those people in our lives but if that's all we listen to and what research will say is if if people if

you don't have around people around you disagree disagree with you, you become more confident that you are right to the point that you cannot understand how other people can even think something differently. And then you can see where the conflict will come from that. And I think that how can you even believe this thing that goes against my belief? Because everyone around me says that this is right. It must be right. And how can you? Therefore, you must not says that this is right it must be right and how can you therefore you must not only be wrong but there must be something wrong with you yeah and right now both sides are calling each other racist yeah because if you can't clearly see

what i and all my friends see something's wrong with you you must be racist yeah and of course that gets us nowhere that's where your defenses go up that's where your people can no longer listen that's so common today joy i mean what you're describing is great but i'm like it's so rare for for well i i don't know i i feel like maybe some of the loudest voices are controlling the conversation as i talk to just yes normal people like you get off twitter or whatever and you talk to real people like you're yeah i feel like there's a lot more nuance i don't know like i feel like people are hungry this conversation on social media yes yeah yeah yeah um who i'm i'm sorry i'm kind of darting around but um i that confirmation bias thing is is huge and especially in a day and age i mean even throwing covet and all this stuff

and like views on vaccines and masks like yes there's always you know somebody can find some study somewhere that supports their preconceived view and then it makes it look like oh no i'm just following the science whatever that means but it's like right no you you know i don't know like it's like you know as a scholar a fellow, I'm a biblical studies guy. It'd be like somebody saying, well, biblical scholars say that. I'm like, stop there. There is no consensus on anything in biblical. Well, scholars say that Genesis 3.

No. Yeah. Some say all kinds of things. The idea that there's some sort of consensus among scholars, that doesn really i don't know um but but that that it's that confirm it's like we want we already have a view that we hold to and there's probably complexities of why we hold to that and then we'll just kind of grab hold of stuff that supports that which is all the is everything you're saying so i'm just repeating just getting outside the echo chamber um what do you i'm curious what what are your views on so i i read a wide diversity of stuff on the race conversation and sometimes i'll post

pictures i'm reading this i'm reading thomas soul i'm reading kindy you know yeah and people like yay and boo and yay and boo and like no you should be saying yay yeah we should read wide range of smart people on this. We should. What's your perspective on the conversation slash debate on systemic racism versus personal agency? And I think you already know probably what I'm saying there, so if you need me to explain more. Yes, yes. You know, obviously there's economic, there's all kinds of disparities that still exist between majority white people

and people of color, African-Americans in particular. And there's lots of debates about why that is. Do you have a, do you have an opinion? Yeah, I mean, look,

reality is so often so much more nuanced than we give it credit for. We think that, I mean, look, reality is so often so much more nuanced than we give it credit for. We think that, you know, this is how we create heroes and villains and there's one cause of things and that sort of stuff. So is there systemic racism, discrimination? Yes, there's clear research on that. And it doesn't mean that everyone's a racist, obviously, but there's still institutions that have these centuries of abuse.

It's left scars, and there's left scars in our institutions, and it impacts us. Is there human agency? Yes. I can give you examples of people of color who blame the man, and yet, you know, they've not gotten off their behind in order to do what needs to get done. What do wise have to do in order to succeed?

And so before you can blame the man, you have to at least do the bare minimum of what other people are doing. So there's human agency as well. So reality is not as simple as saying it's only and always – institutional racism is only and always human agency. Institutional racism is always human agency. There's a mixture of all of that that impacts the way race looks in our society. And I think that that is part of why the conversation is necessary because some people focus so much on institutional racism. They sometimes don't see that, well, human agency matters too, and vice versa. They focus on human agency.

They don't see how that matters. How much it each matters in a given situation I think varies. I think there are situations where the institutional racism is so powerful, so overwhelming that human agency is not that big of a deal, and vice versa. And so there's no one-size-fits-all that we need to say it's 70% this and 30% that but we need to have the conversation to get more say of nuance it when we talk to people who differ from us in a way where we can hear them they can hear us I think we will gain more nuance in our understanding of what's happening our society I think that's lost in a polarized America too often and we don't understand the nuance of what's happening in our society. I think that's lost in a polarized America too often. We don't understand the nuance of what's occurring around us. Who are some people in the race conversation that you would say are doing this well?

If you could recommend a few people besides yourself. Are there some leading thinkers that you really appreciated that are providing helpful nuance? Yeah. You know, as far as leading thinkers, it's hard for me to think of people who are popular right now that I think are actually doing this. I know a book's coming out. Isaac Adams, I think, is it of race or thinking of speaking or talking about race, where he is a Christian minister who talks about how we can have this dialogue from a point of view

as a minister. And he does an excellent job of holding all sides accountable for the dialogue, not for the outcome, for the dialogue. And so there's ideas like that. I really would like to see, I mean, there's Jarvis Williams, he has some really great stuff that he's coming out with. Of course, I gotta give a shout out to my boy, Michael Emerson, who I've worked with him, and his classic book, Divided by Faith, I think still is a must-read for Christians, even though it's 20, 25 years old.

It's like it was written just a few years ago. It's crazy. But it's a classic. I hope that over time we can get a groundswell of thinkers who push this because I think you're right. I think a lot of people really want this as opposed to the other two ideas. And I looked at this survey a while ago. It was on critical risk theory, but it gave, it broke things down for me. And as I look at the results of that survey, I don't remember them exactly, but I came to the conclusion that it's probably about 15, 20% of people who are so wedded to colorblindness that they're not open to the conversation.

About 15, 20 percent of people are so wedded to this sort of activist anti-racism, they're not open to the conversation. But I think there's 60, 70 percent of the population that while they may favor one or the other or maybe the middle, they're open to something new. And I think they're open to, hey, can we have a real conversation in our society? So I think the majority really is there, but they're not the ones who get on Fox or NBC or CNN or PBS or anything like that. I just listened to a fascinating podcast yesterday with an author. She's got a PhD from Berkeley.

I'm blanking on the name. I can put it in the show notes. But the whole book was on how media outlets have just exacerbated the polarization. have just exacerbated the polarization and she even talked about moving from like an ad-based revenue source for media outlets to subscription base so now they're getting their funding from subscriptions and the people that are going to subscribe are the ones that are going to pay money to hear what they want to hear and it has just exacerbated this polarization and then they know that certain emotions like anger and outrage how could that person say that i can't believe anybody was so stupid and and both camps are doing this

you know and subscriptions go up and they're all losing money it was fat it blew me away i mean it it blew me away in the sense that it kind of confirmed a lot of what i've already seen but um my confirmation bias. How much do you think, yeah, that media outlets have increased this kind of echo chamber-y polarization? Do you think that's a big part of the problem or just a part? I think it is a part of the problem. I have no doubt that's a part of the problem, that if you want to listen to certain views, you go and you turn on to certain media, and they deliver you what you ask for.

I remember, I think it was not too long ago, that on MSNBC, their Morning Show, I think Morning Joe, had Ben Sasse on. And they had Ben Sasse on critiquing Trump. But Ben Sasse also said a few things because he's a Republican. And so he critiqued some things probably a little bit more gently. And from what I read, that the people on the show were outraged that Sasse would dare to critique the Democrats because they turn on the morning show to get their daily fix of progressive politics. Likewise, when you turn on Fox and Friends in the morning, you're there to get your daily fix of conservative politics.

We have a polarized society, and race is a big issue of that polarization, but by no means the only issue of that polarization. And because we're so polarized, it makes the racial conversation worse. I'm still in the midst of thinking about how this really fits together in this sense. We look at race and politics and religion

and they somehow just interact. So you get certain archetypes. So you get the white evangelical conservative, political conservative, and then you get certain archetypes. So you get the white evangelical conservative, political conservative, and then you get the Colin Kaepernick black activist. And I think that we create these archetypes in ways to allow us to more easily have enemies we can hate and heroes we can love. And I think that that's part of why we're so polarizedizing. So the race is a part of that whole polarization piece. Part of my hope is that maybe if things that I say get caught on well enough, and even if we start just looking at this racially, then maybe we can pull a thread at the sort of process of polarization that we're in,

and maybe it can fall apart and we can say hey we can have differences of opinion and i can think you're wrong about something and that's fine but that doesn't mean i have to dehumanize you uh because i fear too much in our society the way that we talk about other people we have to dehumanize them right right oh man okay you've mentioned in passing cr, so I have to ask you your thoughts on CRT. I feel like that's just that initials are polarizing and have been just – I don't know. We could use a lot more listening, I think, in that conversation. Give us your perspective on CRT and maybe explain what it is for those who think they know what it is.

Yeah. You know, I see CRT as sort of a placeholder for the argument on racial issues. And so, you know, what is CRT? Well, when I taught at the University of North Texas, I taught undergraduate race and ethnicity. I taught my first graduate level, the first graduate level race and ethnicity course, and then an upper division graduate level in race and ethnicity. Only in that upper division, graduate level race and ethnicity, did I discuss CRT. recent ethnicity did I discuss CRT because for me it was not it was it was something that I want students to have a certain amount of background before I jumped into something like that and really wasn't that important of a theory

it was out there with other theories but it wasn't like this dominant theory that was dominating everything and now it's been made into this behemoth, this monster that controls the conversation well beyond its influence. Having said all that. So that's where I come from on that. I think that certain individuals

use it to articulate an opposition to something that is CRT related, but not CRT proper. That makes sense. Yeah. It's a derivative of CRT, but it's not CRT proper.

There. So, so what's happened is that everything comes CRT. So let's say that you, you have D'Angelo taught in your school and it's like, oh, that's CRT. Well, D'Angelo technically is not CRT, but you say CRT because that becomes the sort of – the way to frame – the way to signal that this is bad, this is wrong. On the other hand, there are those who say, well, CRT has no influence in our schools. And I find that a little disingenuous.

It's one thing to say they're not teaching CRT in schools. I think that's fair. I think that's true. It's quite another to say there's no influence of CRT because even people like Kennedy says he's a huge influence by critical race theory. So if you're going to teach the ideas of Kennedy, you're going to teach the ideas that have been influenced by CRT. So the other side has their other ways of sort of massaging the issue that's less than, let's say, less than honest.

But my druthers is that we just eject CRT out of this conversation altogether and directly discuss the issues at play. And so if you have a problem with wife agility being taught in your junior high, and I personally would, then discuss that. Don't say this is CRT. Let's get it out. Discuss here. Here's why I think D'Angelo's wife agility is not good to be taught in schools. And then focus in on that rather than say it's CRT and therefore we have to get rid of it. Yeah. And just one last thing on CRT.

I went to the Southern Baptist Convention last summer. And a lot of people had these stop CRT buttons walking around saying they're stop CRT. And they would go up and they would say, we can't have this taught in our schools because we have these stop CRT buttons walking around saying they're stop CRT and they would go up and they would say we got it we can't have this taught in our schools because we had stop CRT I remember sitting next to my pastor going pastor that's not CRT and it's sort of like that they're trying to search for what to articulate what they don't like yeah and it's just become this placeholder and it's reaching to the church as well as everywhere else. And so rather than people at the church discussing, honestly,

problems they may or may not have, it's CRT, it's bad, let's get rid of it. And it's just a sort of weak way of thinking about how we're going to address these issues. I mean, you articulated, and I've dabbled, okay? So I've read some original source material from critical race theorists, and I've read D'Angelo and Kendi and other people that seem kind of adjacent or at least influenced by or communicating some of the similar ideas but wouldn't be kind of critical race theorists.

And, yeah, I'm trying to put you exactly what you said is exactly what i've been thinking and haven't been able to articulate that it's like a placeholder for maybe some bigger broader racial perspectives that some people find troubling on the flip side you know when i hear people, typically more progressive, say, well, none of this is incidentally to embrace critical race theory. Consider as well how many influential commentators, journalists, books, such as Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow, develop critical themes while hardly mentioning their origins in critical thought. Might critical race theory one day diffuse into the atmosphere like air so that we are hardly aware of it anymore so that that that's that shows that that there can be an influence of this highly academic largely legal kind of theory that does diffuse in the words of one of the main proponent you know diffuse into the air so it does

have an effect on other things so It's exactly what you're saying. CRT is not the best name for all the stuff that people are opposing or discussing. At the same time, to say it's completely unrelated would be wrong as well. Yeah.

I think it's fair to say, look, I think CRT is influencing some of the things happening in our schools. I think it's fair to say, look, I think CRT is influencing some of the things happening in our schools. And I think that's – depending on what it is, I think that's kind of accurate. But the problem is why even go there? Why not just go directly to the thing that you don't like in the school rather than say CRT impacted? Right.

So I don't think CRT is this magical thing that if it's around that it's poison. Look, do I have my difference with CRT? I do. Do I think that it also can bring some insight in certain ways? I do. So it's not this – I think its influence has been overblown. I don't think it's this deadly thing, but I think it does.

There are certain problems. I think that it's... I find certain claims of it not well defended. Other claims, very insightful. Just like a lot of different ways. Lots of different theories. I've tried to get in the habit of just anytime a slogan

or some big broad brush catchphrase is thrown at me like, hey, what do you think about this? I'm like, my response is almost always, ask me about a particular issue within let's leave aside the slogan and ask me about a particular issue

that you think this thing's talking about and I'll be honest. I'll probably say I probably say, you know, I don't know. I don't have enough expertise to have a strong opinion. Here's some thoughts I have maybe. But, yeah, I think part of it's just laziness in that we are driven by fear. And it's much easier to have our tribe tell us, here's this bad thing. And then we don't have to do the hard work of actually examining that. We just say, okay, that thing is bad.

This sounds like that. Bad. Bad tribe. Bad, you know. But again, it's just exacerbating that polarization, which hinders communication. What did you think of D'Angelo's book? You mentioned her.

Is it Beverly? No, Robin D'Angelo, White Fragility. Robin, yes. Robin, yes. Yeah, I'm not that impressed with her book. Her concept is not well-defined. It's not something that you can really look at empirically. You have to ask the question,

is fragility something unique to whites? If so, why? Why is it only whites would have this sort of fragility? She doesn't really answer that. There were some factual errors in the book. For example, she made a claim that all presidents between I think it's 2016, all these people are white, including the presidency. Well, of course, that's not true. In 2016, Obama was their president up until, you know,

I don't find it useful. She used very little research in that book. I mean, she used some stuff on implicit bias, but that's very questionable, the way that she was using it. The idea that talking to whites and ultimately here's the big problem. You know all that. The big problem is this. Alright, so if you're a white person

and you read White Fragility, what are you supposed to do? According to D'Angelo, basically what you're supposed to do is shut up, listen to people of color, and do what they say. Now, as an African-American guy, yeah, that sounds great. Yeah, listen to me. Do what I say. I can live in that world. But I know, and research shows, that that is not going to be very effective. But I know and research shows that that is not going to be very effective.

There's a certain percentage of whites who are going to feel a certain amount of guilt and are going to abide by it. There's another percentage of whites who are going to rebel by it. But there's this third group, which I think is very interesting, who understand that race is a problem. And you have to convince them that institutional racism is a problem. They understand that and they want to do something about it. And they may even try to go this route for a while. I've talked to some who have. I heard this, and I said, you know what, that's our role. But ultimately being told to sit at the kids' table and not be able to have an input is something that they sense is wrong.

They see a problem. They cannot start to correct them. input is something that they sense is wrong they see problems they cannot start to correct them and they can't stay in that atmosphere and honestly I can't believe it I can't stay in an atmosphere like that where I have to shut up and I'm not allowed to have an input in what's going to happen

that and to me that is beyond the other problems that is the big problem with white fragility. It does not provide a solution. It makes things worse. Yeah. Again, I've read a lot of stuff on various sides. And yeah, I just thought the book was just, could have used some more editorial attention.

Like it was just, and to me, I'm open to whatever. Maybe she's told, maybe her conclusion is totally right. You know, it wasn't really about that. It was more how she got there that just seemed really terribly argued and just poorly done. It seemed to capture like – it had this kind of like white progressives that I think are – I don't know who's worse, kind of the radical right or the white progressive group or whatever.

But I think both of them have some serious issues. worse you know kind of the radical right or the white progressive group whatever but i i think both of them have some serious issues i've written a book i'm like this is exemplified it's kind of like the almost the neo-colonial air that i feel from white progress i mean all the people hiring d'angelo to come in and do the diversity trainings or whatever like are they people of color are they primarily like white progressives bringing her in? I don't know. Maybe I'm cynical. That would be interesting.

That would be interesting to find out. She gave him a new book, you know, Nice Racism. No, I haven't seen it. You haven't heard of the book? Nice Racism? Yeah, she gave him a new book, Nice Racism. Yeah, which is interesting. I think the subtitle and i remember don't call me with a word is you know how how white progressives are making things worse oh good so she has her audience so she kind

of has her audience no it was her critique of white progressives is not your critique of white progressives trust me on this yeah but uh but yeah so uh i mean she has her audience uh and i i guess you know this book is aimed at that audience okay and yeah my guess is you know the most the most culturally most powerful people in this country are white progressives a lot of white progressives own companies and and are rich and so yeah i mean look like that she she's the right key she could get called in and to speak in some more books but uh i'm not read this book so i can't critique it yeah uh i'm not eager to read it after having read my fragility so i'll see but i liked kendy's book better i still have you

know you know it comes with a very very far progressive um framework i thought it was better i thought i got a lot more out of these but i can still have you know question some again i don't have enough knowledge base in the area to say i disagree really but it's some things i'm like i'm not sure this this is most helpful but i found his approach better um yeah there was that study that came out from a yale a couple yale or one y Yale professor on how it was so fast. I just read it this morning. It was this morning or yesterday about how white progressives, when they're speaking to people of color, they like dumb down their language. Did you see this? I've heard that study. Yes. And it wasn't it wasn't I mean, it was promoted by The Washington Post. It wasn't like – it wasn't crazy.

They basically said like white conservatives don't care about the even tried to build. Yeah. But the white progressives like dumbed down their language. And it's like so like – you think that's helpful? Anyway. I think white progressives would be an interesting group to study. I'll tell you that much. Here's what I'll say about Kendi.

I have a serious problem with Kendi's books as well. But Kendi is... He is... How should I put this? He is more serious in ways that D'Angelo is not. I think he is more serious about

his approach to India. And maybe he feels freer to be more serious because he's an African-American and she's white. I don't know. So, in some ways, I mean, he's got this center at Boston University. Yeah. Get millions of dollars for it. I mean, he wants to make some real changes

in society. Now, I think some of those changes seem to make it very problematic. Yeah. But I think that he's a more serious player in some ways than Diageo is. Yeah. what do you think about some of the um well they're not really they're labeled as conservatives but i don't think they all are but some of the more uh black intellectuals like john well i mean of course yeah john mcwarder or glenn lowryry, Coleman Hughes, who's a young – I mean, but he's pretty brilliant. Wilford Riley, of course, Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele and these guys.

Are you familiar with them and do you have thoughts or warnings about them? Yeah, I'm familiar with most of those. Riley, I've only seen one article from him. So other than that, I don't know that much about him. You know, I think is I think that they bring in their own perspective uh it's it's kind of interesting I mean a lot of what they bring is what I would call more colorblindness to it okay and yet being being an African-American when they do it when they do I I have a lot of similar critiques when they do it when they do it, I have a lot of similar critiques when they do it, when whites do it.

But when they do it, they almost, you can see that they acknowledge a little bit more that there are racial problems. But they still come back to the first thing to do is to ignore race. they still come back to the thing the first thing to do is to ignore race they nod in a way that i don't always perceive when i when i hear certain whites talk about colorblindness okay so i think it's a little bit different yeah i would have to really do a close reading of them and some others to really articulate what i'm seeing but i do feel that there's a difference there sure okay no as i said i i, I critique both approaches, both them and whites and the colorblinds, because I don't think it works.

But I think there is a little bit of awareness, yeah, racism is a problem a little more. We just think this is the best way to do it. Whereas when I read some whites that they talk about colorblindness, it's like, racism is not a problem. People can probably guess, but for the few that maybe

not know what exactly that means, when you speak of colorblindness, is it more negative, like this isn't a helpful thing? It's the idea that the way to beat race is to ignore race. The way to beat racism is to ignore race. Don't treat anyone differently. Don't treat them differently on a personal level.

Make sure the government doesn't treat anyone differently. For of action's a problem. Don't treat people differently on a personal level. Make sure the government doesn't treat it differently. For of action is a problem. Don't treat people differently by race. Hate crimes, legislation is a problem for the same reason. Programs should be color neutral. Maybe that's a better term, color neutral. Okay.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah. That's helpful. Doesn't it come from a misunderstanding of that famous Martinin luther king quote judge someone not by the color of the state yeah isn't that kind of like i don't think that's where i mean i don't know if it comes from that and that quote either put in the context of king's entire life okay so king's entire life was not about colorblindness you know you could take anyone and take a quote

out of context and say this is what this person represents. And King is fighting at a different time too, and that's something – King was – we are trying to deal with the history of racial abuse. King was dealing with racial abuse at that current point in time. Sure. And so I think that you have to be very careful to just rip this quote out of context and then say, okay, this is King's life calling. I think that people who do that are doing a disservice to King. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, that's good.

Help us – give us some distinctively Christian perspectives on the race conversation because a lot of what we've been talking about is more kind of the broad race conversation in America. conversation? Because a lot of what we've been talking about is more kind of the broad race conversation in America. What are some things that Christians in particular should really make sure we don't lose sight of as we dive into this conversation? Yeah, I've already

mentioned one. I think the whole notion of human depravity is something. And it's easy for us to recognize it in others, and hard for us to recognize it in ourselves. And so I think that we have to be very careful that we're open to human depravity in ourselves and listening to others. And that's kind of where I build on. I also, though, would say that as Christians we are charged to think of others and put others

before ourselves. And that aspect has come to the racial conversation. That as I engage, I have to have in my mind, how am I going to engage in a way that is to the benefit of you, or who I'm engaging with, and not just me. One of the things I like to say is, you know, the big enemy of the Jews of that day was the Samaritans. And, you know, you're a Bible teacher, so I don't have to tell you that the Samaritans, there's a history there. The Samaritans were half-breeds in the way that we would think about today. So in some ways, that is, while it's not a perfect parallel, it's a good parallel to think about racial issues.

So how did the Bible treat the Samaritans in the New Testament? You know, the woman at the well. You know, the story of the good Samaritan. Okay, going to do what likewise. You go in our society, if I'm the Samaritan for you, and you do likewise, you treat them with human dignity as Jesus did when he warmed the well. You actually see them as having something to offer as Jesus did when he warmed the well. And you care about what they're doing. You see them as the good Samaritan. You know, someone, if they're wounded, you take care of them as a good Samaritan. You take care of his ideological, ethical,

ethnical enemy. You treat them in that way. Paying the hotel manager and I'll take up you sacrifice for people you think of as your enemy.

That is a hard road to hoe for anybody, for anybody. But that's what I think we're called to do as Christians. And I want to articulate a way in which we could try to do that. Yeah, that's great. Wow. Can you speak just in the couple minutes we have left directly to my white Christian audience who is asking, I know we've kind of touched on it a little bit, but they're like, hey,

I don't like racism. I'm not sure what's going on. I hated what happened to George Floyd. And yeah, I hate this polarization. What can we all do to help and further the race conversation? Yes.

So, you know, for whites, as far as this rich conversation is a very difficult and I understand what's coming from is that they don't want to accuse of being a racist and they don't want to accuse that anything this is a race and I'll be the first one to say that some of what some people could do to whites is unfair some of the some of the hyper you know some of the microaggression type stuff you know it's it's not well based. Some of it is unfair. So what do you do? Do you take that fear

and then get back on the racial conversation? Well, there's a story once I was told of a bird. And this bird was flying around and some boys threw some rocks at it and wounded the bird and fell down. And the boys were coming around, they're sticking at the bird, you know,

they're just little boys, this is what they do. And this girl's like, oh no, no, stop doing that. And she was like, get on the boys and get them to stop. So finally the boys got tired of messing with the bird and stopped. So the bird was going to let them go and pick up the bird. The bird saw the girl and bit the girl. Why the bird bit the girl? The bird bit the girl because it experienced with kids to that point had been to throw rocks at it and to stick it. And so when the girl came at the bird with love, its reaction was to strike back. Sometimes people of color strike back.

It is not always fair. It is, however, understandable. As white Christians, your call is to love through that. Now, are there people who are unreachable that you have to sometimes let go? Yes, there are. But the best we can do is to love people through that. Understand why the pain may be there. Listen to their pain.

Listen. Sometimes people just need to vent their pain. They're not looking for solutions. When they want solutions, that's when the mutual conversation has to occur. But sometimes all people need is someone who's there to understand that they're in pain. Listen to that.

And then as things open up, I would also say to whites, when you reach out to people of color, don't reach out in a way to where you're maintaining control. What I mean by that is if there's a black congregation, don't go to the black congregation and say, hey, we have the answers. Here's what you need to do. Find out what that black congregation is doing, and you support them in what they're doing

and then develop those relationships so over time it's going to be mutual. So I'm a big believer in mutual relationships, but I also know that the way it's developed, we're going to have to work towards that at times. It's not going to just happen over, you know, just instantly. Hey, we're equal

and we just have this easy conversation. Understand where the pain comes from and then be ready to deal with that. The book is Beyond Racial Division. You can go pre-order it now. I'm going to go pre-order it now. Or maybe I'll ask your publisher to send me a copy because I do want to. Save me a few bucks. But George, thank you so much.

I so enjoyed this conversation and I just love your perspective. I love your humility and just your emphasis on that kind of active listening and being genuinely curious. Man, if we can all do that, I think the world would be a better place. So thank you so much for this. This is a super helpful conversation. Really appreciate you. Thank you and God bless. Hey friends, if you've been blessed, challenged, encouraged, or angered by this podcast, would you consider supporting it through patreon.com? That's patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw.

All the infos in the show notes. You can support the show for as little as five bucks a month and get access to Q&A podcasts, monthly Patreon-only blogs, and basically just get access to the community and help support this ministry that we're doing at Theology in the Raw. Again, check out the show notes and consider supporting this show.