Episode 7: "Where Do We Go From Here?" with Dr. Michael Emerson

In today’s episode we talk with Dr. Michael Emerson, Department Head and Professor of Sociology at the University of Illinois, Chicago.  He is the author of the classic: "Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America." 

The killing of George Floyd hit home for Dr. Emerson, a native of Minneapolis. In this episode, Dr. Emerson talks to us about how his faith has shaped an incredible, long-standing body of work focused on religion, race, and the different ideological perspectives on justice, equity, and the moral right, in black and white communities of faith. 

Dr. Emerson’s research contextualizes the division that we are witnessing in Christian communities today. When asked, “Where do we go from here?” he points to the need for truth and reconciliation commissions that include historical testimony and create plans for restitution. Emerson says this type of reconciliation is not only needed, it is the gospel work we have been called to do.  

Support the show

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The real Christian faith, they would understand
justices absolutely core.
I mean, you, if you did anystudy of the Bible, that word
comes up.
So often that God's saying I ama lover of justice, the prophets
constantly railing because ofthe injustice and so on and so
forth.
So if they see justice andJesus, as in conflict, then they

(00:22):
haven't known,

Speaker 2 (00:35):
Hey, kinfolk folk.
I am here with dr.
Michael Emerson.
He is the professor and head inthe department of sociology at
the university of Illinois,Chicago published widely in the
areas of race, religion, andurban sociology.
He's the author of tons of booksor seminal books that I've read

(00:57):
and loved divided by faith.
I've got him here with me today.
Dr.
Please introduce yourself.

Speaker 1 (01:04):
Hey, uh, so yeah, I'm dr.
Michael Emerson and I've beenlooking forward to this.
We're going to have some fun inthis conversation and thank you
all for listening.
Well,

Speaker 2 (01:14):
Uh, let's get to it.
So, um, I want to talk aboutman, your journey to sociology
in general.
What is sociology and why areyou interested in it?

Speaker 1 (01:25):
Hmm.
You know, I went to college andI did, I think what a lot of
people do, uh, is I thought,well, I want to help people.
So how do you do that?
I started in psychology.
I thought maybe I'll be acounselor or something.
I stumbled into taking a classin sociology and it just rocked
my world because when I was inpsychology, I kept asking the

(01:48):
professors, okay.
The act like that way.
And they kept saying, well, it'sinfluenced by what goes on
around you, you know, by yourfamily, by society.
Like, okay, well then we shouldtalk about that.
And so sociology is thediscipline that lets us talk
about that all the time, how oursociety, how our groups, how our
friends and family influence us,influence each other.

Speaker 2 (02:12):
Uh, what, what, uh, propelled you to say, I'm gonna
move past doing a bachelor's andI'm going to be a subject
matter, matter expert associology.

Speaker 1 (02:23):
So I, I love learning and, but I felt like I was just
getting started.
And, uh, I was also looking fora profession that would allow me
to, uh, spend time with mychildren flexibly.
Like if they had a ball game orsomething, I wanted to make sure
I could go.
And so I thought, wow, if I lovelearning, why don't I become a

(02:43):
professor?
So onto the masters, onto thePhD,

Speaker 2 (02:49):
You grew up in Minneapolis?

Speaker 1 (02:51):
Yeah.
Minneapolis area.
That's right.

Speaker 2 (02:53):
Can you describe your, your childhood?
What would you say?
Uh, when, when someone says, howwas childhood?
What was it like?

Speaker 1 (03:05):
Uh, well, I'll say very white, um, Norwegian
father, Italian mother.
And, uh, we started out inMinneapolis.
We eventually went into a suburband then even my parents bought
a little roller rink out in asmall town.
So starting at fifth grade untilI graduated, I was in a small
Minnesota town and, uh, prettymiddle class.

(03:29):
My father worked commuted toMinneapolis.
My mother was usually home,sometimes running the roller
rink.
So just kind of a basic whitelife.
I think our town was, uh, 100%white.
Wow.

Speaker 2 (03:44):
So which brings up an interesting question that I
wanted to ask your work seems tofocus on race.
Well, not all your work, you'vegot tons of work, but a lot of
your work seems to function, tofocus on race as a sociological

(04:05):
sociological category in theAmerican experience.
Why is that

Speaker 1 (04:11):
Two things?
So it started with, I mentionedmy mother being Italian.
And if you're familiar withMinnesota, you know, land of the
Scandinavians and which myfather fit into, but my mother
never did.
And I would watch how peoplefound her bizarre.
And then my grandfather livedwith us and he was actually from
Italy.
So I was intrigued by that.

(04:32):
And this town that we lived in,even though it was all
Scandinavians, except for mymother and two others, uh, was
completely divided in a, in away that nobody would understand
unless you were there.
And it was Norwegians and Swedeson one side and Finnish folks on
another, they went to separatechurches.
They use the spaces like thecouple of restaurants in town
separately.

(04:53):
We never injure married afterbeing age five.
You weren't allowed to befriends and spend time together.
So that really intrigued me.
I was actually born in Chicago.
So of college.
I returned to Chicago and I wasstruck by the physical nature of
Chicago that I could, where Iwent to school.
I would get off the train and itwas all African American.

(05:15):
I'd walk, a couple blocks, allwhite.
And of course the areas lookedvery different and that's really
what, like, why is this, how canthis happen?
Yeah.
So it's those things combined.
Wow.
Um, you also do work, uh,

Speaker 2 (05:33):
With religion and sociology.
How'd you get there?

Speaker 1 (05:39):
We, I, yeah, like in grad school, I didn't study
religion at all, but we hadgotten a grant to study American
evangelicals.
Um, and I was just added to thegrant.
That wasn't one that I hadapplied for and they added me
because like, well, we needsomeone to interview.
African-Americans it tells you alittle bit about the makeup of

(05:59):
the group, but yeah.
Uh, so then I started learning,you know, as a Christian, I was
interested, but I hadn'tformally studied it, but that
was the impetus.

Speaker 2 (06:09):
And so it seems like a lot of things that were
happening in your lifepersonally, um, infused the type
of scholarly work that youendeavored on.
Um, speak to me specificallyabout man, how you came to faith
as a Christian.

Speaker 1 (06:30):
Yeah.
So I grew up in a home that wasat best nominally.
Uh, was it actually Catholic?
And then we moved to, when wemoved to this small Minnesota
town, there was no Catholicchurch in the town or any of the
towns around.
So we started, uh, occasionallygoing to a Lutheran church.
But these back then there was agroup called, um, campus

(06:51):
crusade, campus life.
It was called and they wouldallow people to come onto our
campus they're in school.
So, uh, the particular leaderwould often sit with us at the
lunch table.
And one time he asked me to goout to have a dinner and he
asked me those two famousquestions.

(07:12):
Right.
Uh, if you were to die tonight,would you go to heaven and why?
And I gave the standard answer.
I hope so.
Cause I try to be a good person.
And, uh, that's when he sharedthe gospel with me, prayed to
accept Christ there.
And then a teacher that I hadactually two that married.
Um, they lived across the streetfrom me and they really, they

(07:33):
were strong.
Christians really took me undertheir wing, mentored me as did
this person that led me toChrist.
And so that was the journey.

Speaker 2 (07:42):
And so as your journey through and trying to
finish, uh, your master's andyour PhD, were there any
roadblocks?
You know, cause I thinkprobably, you know, during the
time you would get in your doingyour work, there was conflicts
that there were, I like to saymade up conflicts between, uh,

(08:08):
this is faith.
This is science.
How did you reconcile that inthe world that you came up in?

Speaker 1 (08:15):
Yeah, the way I reconcile is the way I teach my
Christian students today, whichis when you're studying a
discipline, it's teaching you amethod to know a method to know
about God's creation.
You are allowed to have yourfaith influence, what questions
you ask and what motivationsthat you might have as long as

(08:37):
you use that method that isdesigned as specified as the
scientific method.
So that's how I combine them andtry to teach others to do.

Speaker 2 (08:47):
Hmm.
Uh, so you're not afraid to sayI come with a certain set of
assumptions to everything thatI, I do.
I come with a certain Jesus isLord.
The resurrection is real, but Ibring that to, uh, I, I, you're
not, it seems like you're notafraid to say I bring that to
every scientific endeavor.

(09:09):
I, I have bar

Speaker 1 (09:10):
That's right out of the room, totally out of the
blue actually, when I was, um,just starting on in college, a
Christian fellow student who Ibarely knew, came up to me and
he said, I have a word for you.
God will anger you by that,which is not a nation by that,
which is divides us.
And he just walked away and Ihad no idea what he was talking

(09:32):
about, but I never forgot it.
And uh, yeah, that's the guidingprinciple of my work.
Like why would I be interestedin race by that?
Which divides us it, there itis.
Yeah.
And religion.
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (09:48):
Um, you, you authored a book over 20 years ago.
It seems to be the seminal book,uh, in this particular category
called divided by faith.
And I've got a three partquestion.
I know people should,

Speaker 1 (10:03):
I'm not smart enough to hold that all in my head.

Speaker 2 (10:05):
Well, you know, we'll we'll journey through this.
Um, why did you write the bookoriginally?
What is the central premise ofthe book?
And do you still think it holdstrue today?

Speaker 1 (10:19):
Alright, those are good questions.
All right.
So I wrote the book is goingback.
As I mentioned, we were doingthis project and I was of the
nine people on the researchproject.
That was the only oneinterviewing African-American
the way it was originallydesigned is that we would each
take divide the country up intonine segments.
And we need you to take asegment, but because no one else

(10:40):
felt comfortable interviewingnonwhite.
It was interesting.
They signed.
Yeah.
Why did they pick you?
Because I had studied race.
So, and all of them felt like, Idon't know anything.
Like they literally were livingin white worlds.
Right.
So they felt like, how can Ididn't even know, how would I

(11:03):
start?
How would I find people tointerview?
So I was flying around thecountry, spending w my method
was, I would like show up inBirmingham, Alabama, and not
know anybody, but meet oneperson eventually.
And then that one person wouldhelp me connect and find people
to interview in differentchurches.
And it started snowballinguntil, you know, after I've been

(11:25):
there a month, I would haveseveral dozen interviews done.
Then go on to the next.
What that afforded me was thatI, as I'm interviewing black and
white and in this project,that's we really only
interviewed black and white.
Uh, I was in two differentworlds that I just couldn't.

(11:45):
I mean, everybody we were in wasChristian, serious Christians,
but they were talking abouttheir face.
So fundamentally using theirfaith in such different ways
that it was that tension that Ijust had to wrestle with what's
going on.
And that's what the book dividedby faith was my way of trying to

(12:06):
figure out what's going on.

Speaker 2 (12:10):
Uh, do you think your central premise of the book, do
you think it holds true todayand what is that central
principle for you?
So, yeah, it's, uh,

Speaker 1 (12:21):
Focuses mostly on, uh , white evangelicals in the book
, uh, and, but always comparingto black Christians and finding
fundamental differences.
So it wasn't just that I'mexperiencing this in interviews.
Then we went in and looked atnational data.
We had collected and sureenough, this dramatic
differences in racial views inthe ways that we think

(12:45):
Christianity should affectchange and how we understand, uh
, the role of government.
And it goes on and on.
So the argument in the book isthat there's a white
evangelicals have created acultural toolkit that they use.
So if you think about a toolbox,you've got some tools in there
that the tools they have aredifferent than the tools

(13:07):
African-American Christianshave.
So, and I'll just briefly saywhat those are.
We can go,

Speaker 2 (13:13):
Let's get into it.
I think people, people need tounderstand that there's a, that
there's two different worldsbecause anytime we talk about
unity and we'll get here, it'salways the conversations let's
just unify, but I don't know ifpeople know what they're
unifying into or what they'remade of to be able to say, we're

(13:33):
going to integrate like this,but I want to hear this as
fascinating.
Sorry.

Speaker 1 (13:38):
No, that's great.
I appreciate that.
So the first one has, is itseems like a fancy term, but
we'll break it down.
Freewill accountable,individualism that's tool,
number one.
So what is that?
So for white Christians, uh,individualism is the fundamental
principle.
How do I become a Christian?
I individually decide to accept,right?

(14:01):
Don't do it as a group.
I do it individually.
That's what I'm taught.
I just described my own faithjourney.
That's what I was taught.
Okay.
So individualism becomes verycentral, but it has these two
conditions on it.
Freewill accountable individual.
I freely can choose.
I can choose Christ or not.
That's my free will.

(14:22):
It's accountable.
I will be held accountable formy decision.
Alright, what I'm going to argueby the way, is that these three
tools that I'll mention, whichare fundamental to the faith,
become fundamental in how peopleunderstand the world.
So they, they generalized them.
They use them for understandingeverything, their relationship
and so on.

(14:42):
And that is the next tool, whichis relational ism.
If I think about individuals asthe core of what reality is, if
my faith is about a relationshipwith Christ, then I understand
the world that way.
So I think about individualrelationships with others.

(15:03):
It's not uncommon to hear thephrase, changing the world one
heart at a time, that's takingthose two tools and it becomes
obvious if those are your tools,that's what makes sense to you.
That's how you change the world.
You don't change the world by,uh, having a television station
in influencing people orchanging a law.
You change people's hearts.

(15:25):
So the third one then is thecounter to those, which is anti
structuralism.
And if I believe you change theworld one heart at a time, then
things like, uh, structures,laws, all those kinds of things.
They don't really exist.
What I heard over and overagain, when I interviewed white
Christians, not black Christianswas that when people talk about

(15:50):
structures, laws, those arefacades.
Those are things put in toconfuse us.
They are the wrong answer.
They will never lead to heartchange and heart changes.
The only thing that matters.
So therefore we need to resistthose kinds of things.
So if we talk, you know, as weprobably get into systemic

(16:11):
racism, uh, yeah.
All those kinds of systematicthings.
Well, not only do I may notbelieve they're there, I
actually have to actively resistthem.
Otherwise I'm violating my faithunderstanding.

Speaker 2 (16:28):
Yeah.
Which, which can explain some ofthe backlash against it, which
whether you're proponent or notreally doesn't matter is just
the fascination of the backlashagainst what people have turned
critical race theory, but we'vegot all these other things that
we kind of hold onto, uh,nationalism, patriotism, all

(16:51):
these big categories.
But in the case of somethinglike this, when it's mentioned,
there's outward resistance, youknow, you don't want Marxism,
but we're fine with anothercategory capitalism, you know,
it's just, this is, it'sfascinating to see the

(17:12):
conversation just kind of evolve.

Speaker 1 (17:16):
Yeah.
And can I add on that?
So the reason that you wouldsupport capitalism and not
Marxism within thisunderstanding of these cultural
tools is capitalism is viewed asrewarding.
Those individuals who arewilling to work hard and
sacrifice.
And so there it goes.
Right.

Speaker 2 (17:32):
Okay.
Uh, and so you named these,these three things, it, why
Christians in particular, holdon to, in your study, what were
some of the tenants that blackChristians held onto?

Speaker 1 (17:47):
So some, some that we like almost never heard of when
white Christians talked abouttheir faith, one is a, um, much
more flexibility of liketheological doctrine.
So God is a much more active Godin the world, uh, than we saw
for most white Christians.
So theology matters, but whatmatters more is seeing God work

(18:11):
in the world.
And one of the things that Godworks in the world for is just,
or right.
Relationships for fairness.
So God is actively doing that.
Our part is to be supportingthat, connecting with God in
that.
Uh, yeah.
So that's, that is onefundamental difference.

Speaker 2 (18:30):
It's interesting that you say that because I guess the
country's history fundamentally,uh, our, for our forefathers
were deist.
And so, you know, we do, we doevery God helps those who help
themselves.
Uh, God is generally not active.
He's placed us here to do thework.

(18:51):
And so it seems like eventhroughout the years, that, that
the ism has kind of seeped into,uh, popular white evangelical
evangelicalism.

Speaker 1 (19:04):
Yeah.
Yeah.
And it's so interesting becausethese are people of the book,
but it's such a high percentwhen you ask does, is it in the
Bible that says, God helps thosewho help themselves say, yeah,
it's in the Bible.
Of course it's not, but,

Speaker 2 (19:18):
Oh.
Um, so do you think that thosecategories and that
understanding of Christianityfrom, uh, the white perspective,
black perspective, do you stillthink 20 plus years later that
that holds true today?

Speaker 1 (19:38):
Oh, it totally holds true today.
So what we've been engaged inlast couple of years here, uh,
continuing right til now isredoing that study to see if
things have changed.
And here's what I'll conclude.
Two things.
Uh, one almost on every measure,things have stayed exactly the
same, or if there's changed, thedivide is now larger than it was

(20:01):
20 years ago.
We see zero evidence of anythingcoming closer together.
The other thing I would add isthis, uh, and, and I'll think,
uh, some African Americanscholars who have asked, why do
you think these cultural toolsare the white evangelical
cultural tools?

(20:22):
Is it just by chance or might itserve a larger interest of, you
know, maintaining the advantagesthey have?
So I would say that the culturaltools, uh, are specifically
emphasized because they do allow, uh, whites to maintain their
advantages.

(20:42):
They're very conducive to that.

Speaker 2 (20:46):
When you say whites, uh, maintain their cultural
advantage, are you talking aboutwhites as individuals or whites
as well?

Speaker 1 (20:55):
Yeah.
See, I'm talking about white asgroup, but when you, when you
make the cultural tool argumentthat there is only individuals,
then you cannot make the changenecessary.
Right?
The racial advantages thatwhites have the have them,
because they've been codifiedinto law, into our policies

(21:16):
since we began.
But if you deny that exists,that's very advantageous to
making sure it never changed.
Oh yeah.

Speaker 2 (21:24):
True.
So there are a few quotes in thebook that I kind of want to get
to.
Uh, and, uh, one is ofTocqueville.
It says when I bought it, I donot imagine that the white and
black race, wherever live in anycountry upon equal footing, but
I believe the difficulty to besteel greater in the United

(21:45):
States than elsewhere.
An isolated individual maysurmount the prejudices of
religion of his country or ofhis race.
And if this individual is aKing, he may affect surprising
changes in society, but a wholepeople can not rise as it were
above itself, a desk spot whoshould subject the Americans and

(22:05):
their former slaves to the sameyoke might perhaps succeed in
commingling they're racist.
But as long as the Americandemocracy remains at the head of
affairs, no one will undertakeso difficult a task.
And it may be foreseen that thefree of the white population of
the United States becomes themore isolated will it remain.

(22:28):
Why did you include that quote?
And do you think it's still truetoday?

Speaker 1 (22:35):
So that's Tocqueville is if those who don't know as a
French intellectual from wayback in the early mid 18
hundreds, and he came to theUnited States because we were
doing something so odd that theworld had never heard of
democracy where the peoplesupposedly rule and he wanted to
see what was this country like?

(22:56):
How does it actually operate andwrote an incredible book on it?
Any think about it.
He wrote that in, I think it was1840s.
Yeah.
Would that not be true today?
It's totally true today.
Isn't it?
Where's the we're, we're in themidst of such struggle, uh, over
those very issues.
And I think he really pinpointsone of the weaknesses of

(23:20):
democracy.
If you have a majority group,uh, why are they going to vote
against their own interests?
They're not.
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (23:31):
Oh man.
So what struck me about thisquote was the last part of it,
which is white isolation.
I I'm just being introduced tothe term.
I, I'm not a white person, so Iwouldn't know, but it just
struck me.
What does that mean?

(23:53):
And then, I mean, is that stillsomething that is relevant to
today?

Speaker 1 (23:59):
Yeah.
So one of the things that Istudied a lot and there's a
whole big literature on issegregation like housing
segregation and all theconsequences from that, but it
was always skewed.
It was black folk or Hispanicfolk or segregated from white
folk.
Well that's because it wasmostly white people doing the
analysis.
And so on.

(24:20):
It turns out that the mostsegregated people by far in this
country today, as it has alwaysbeen, are white people.
They are the least likely tohave contact with others, their
children, I bar far the mostlikely to grow up isolated from
other racial groups, usually insuburban or rural areas.
And so we're in a constant thingthat kids go to college and

(24:43):
they're suddenly beingintroduced to diversity and Oh,
why didn't I ever learn this?
And then they graduate get anice job.
And they do the same thing andthey move to a principally white
suburb and raised theirchildren.
And then we go again, the nextgeneration that isolation.
Yeah.
It hasn't dissipated at all.

Speaker 2 (25:01):
And as you're describing it, it seems to
describe both politicallyconservative people, leaning
people and politically liberalleaning people as well.
They do the same thing.

Speaker 1 (25:16):
They do the exact same.
They talk differently.
They say they believedifferently, but in their
actions, there is no difference.

Speaker 2 (25:24):
Um, man, let's not run away from this in your
trying to help people tounderstand this particularly,
uh, by people to understandthis, what have been some of the
reactions from conservativespolo?
Let me, let me, cause there'sreligious, conservative,
religious liberal, I'm talkingspecifically politically,

(25:45):
politically conservative,politically liberal people.
What are their differences intheir reaction to hearing this?
Or is it basically the same,

Speaker 1 (25:54):
Uh, to the message of isolation or which message.

Speaker 2 (25:57):
Yeah.
Oh, sorry.
Specifically the message ofisolation.
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (26:01):
Yes.
Okay.
So this is, and I'll give anillustration.
So we published a piece, uh,calling and I, what we did was
we said, what happens as peoplebecome more educated?
White people become much moreprogressively liberal.
So there's a very strongcorrelation there.
Okay.
So we looked at where do thehighly educated compared to the

(26:23):
less educated whites send theirchildren to school.
This is a national study.
And we found a very, very clearpattern.
As whites become more educated,their children are in less
diverse schools.
And we were able to see thatthere's a clear pattern of why
as the schools are children arein become more diverse.

(26:43):
They take their children out ofthe schools and put them
elsewhere into wider schools.
We had to submit that thing andgot it rejected nine different
times over a five year periodbecause who's reviewing this
educated whites.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay.
So if people aren't familiar,when you're trying to publish
something in a journal, you sendit blind review by three other

(27:06):
scholars, and then they decideif it can be published or not.
So they kept saying things likethis, can't be true.
Go back to your data.
That's not how we understand it.
We become more educated.
We're more progressive.
We wouldn't do that.
Then it was well, once we wereable to establish, it really is
true.
Then, well, black educated woulddo the same thing.
So we went and got data on blackand we found this exact opposite

(27:29):
effect.
So as black men come moreeducated, their children are
more diverse.
All right, we finally could notget it published in the United
States.
We sent it over to England for ajournal.
They have a journal on race andethnicity in England.
They accepted it immediatelybecause they now, they weren't
being assaulted.
Cause it wasn't, uh, the samecontext.

(27:50):
Right?
Yeah.
So that, that is, uh, thatillustrates, um, I actually find
more resistance from whiteliberals.
Uh, at least when we talk aboutactions.

Speaker 2 (28:01):
Wow.
That, that, I think that, thatsummarizes some of the feeling
of frustration that some of uswho try to work with, uh, the
white politically liberalestablishment face cause on its
face, it's, there's the wordsthat are said and the things

(28:22):
that are said, they see that therhetoric is always peer and
good, but the actions seem to bethe same if not worse.
Um, but let's move on.
So the second quote I wanted totalk to you about from the book
was a quote.
The framework we hear use racialis race racialization reflects

(28:48):
that adaption.
It understands that racialpractices that produce racial
division in the contemporaryUnited States are one
increasingly covert two areembedded in normal operations of
institutions.
Three avoid direct racialterminal terminology, and four

(29:09):
are invisible to most whites.
You use this as a rubric todescribe what you, your term
racialization, what some peoplemay now call systematic racism.
I just want your reaction 20years later, do you still hold
to those four tenets or havethey evolved as, as, as time

(29:31):
progress?

Speaker 1 (29:32):
Yeah, so I think they're evolving in that it's
becoming less covert.
Uh, it's certainly as deeplyembedded as it's always been in
our institutions, uh, unlessinvisible white, uh, partly
because of the changes in whatwe can see on TV and social
media, uh, I think we'rebecoming more aware we are

(29:53):
divided, uh, but also moresophisticated to explain a way
why that's okay.
When you say

Speaker 2 (30:00):
More sophisticated in our ability to

Speaker 1 (30:04):
Explain in a way, what do you mean by that?
So a, a big function of, ofracism, which we can get into
the definition, but its functionis to justify our racialization
or racial inequality or racialdivision.
Right?
So if, if we can present dataand evidence or if we can
clearly see we are raciallydivided and I then say, I

(30:29):
explain it away.
Well it's because what's reallyhappening is it's class or it's
uh, because some groups aregetting married more and
marriage matters and I'm tryingto find ways to not address the
issue just to account andexplain the issue and say why we
don't have to deal with it.
Yeah.
So getting into this, uh, whatis

Speaker 2 (30:54):
The definition of racism

Speaker 1 (30:56):
And

Speaker 2 (30:58):
You use racialization in your explanation, help me
understand what racialization isand how it relates,

Speaker 1 (31:06):
What people describe as racism.
Yeah.
So racialization is, uh, andthere's only a couple of
countries in the world that are,that certainly South Africa and
that you can find a few others,but it means that most of life
is structured by race, that youyou're born into it.
You are structured into itwithout even knowing it it's the

(31:28):
air we breathe.
So racialization means itinfluences, uh, our life
opportunities, our life chances,our social relationships, you
know, that's certainly notrandom who we ended up marrying.
We almost always are marryingwithin our own race.
Uh, there are exceptions andthere are nations for why
there's exceptions.
So racialization means that'sembedded into laws.

(31:51):
And then ultimately it meansthat it forms a ranking of
groups by rates.
So yes, there's variation withinracial groups, but there's never
been variation in our country.
When you rank the groupsthemselves, whites are always at
the top Asians, Hispanics,African Americans, and then a

(32:13):
group who doesn't even getranked.
Of course, native Americansoften just forgotten.
So racism here.
So we talk about systematicracism and we talk about
individual racism.
Let me, let me make it clear.
So I think individuals can beracially prejudice and
individuals are raciallydiscriminatory.

(32:33):
They do things.
And they think things based onrates.
But when I talk about racism andwhen sociologists talk about it,
we define it as this, thecollective misuse of power, the
collective, it's not somethingan individual does.
Individuals can do prejudice andthey can do discrimination the
collective and do racism.

(32:55):
And it's the misuse of power byone racial group that harms
other groups.
And the reason that they'redoing it is because it benefits
their group and they have thepower to do it.
That's why it's the misuse ofour, um,

Speaker 2 (33:13):
Collective use of racism.
Someone who may be listening maysay, how is it that people
collect?
How do the, how does thecollective use their power when
I'm sitting here in Houston,Texas, and I've just voted every
four years, how has it been?
My collective is using my power.

Speaker 1 (33:35):
Yeah.
So we are in a democracy.
So voting is the ultimate waythat we use our power.
So if we collectively vote forpeople to put into court, to
codify laws, that advantage onegroup over another, then that is
how we do it.
We can do that by you thinkabout red lining, where we made

(33:56):
it acceptable, that certainneighborhoods, and it turned out
by the federal government.
If you even had one black familyin a neighborhood, it got red
line, meaning you can't getloans there.

Speaker 2 (34:07):
This happened in your hometown or Chicago.

Speaker 1 (34:09):
Oh my gosh.
It happens all the time.
Yes.
Um, with,

Speaker 2 (34:19):
I wanna, I wanna move to the last quote that I have
from your, um, but Oh, before weget there, uh, do you think
things have changed for thebetter over the last 20 years?
And if it has it, then can youelaborate as to why not

Speaker 1 (34:43):
As a Christian?
I want to say, cause I'm alwayshopeful.
I think, you know, we are, weknow what happens in the end.
God wins.
The kingdom is ushered in, inthe last 20 years by all data
we've been studying.
No, it hasn't gotten better.
And again, by many accounts,it's gotten worse.
Why that is, uh, as I can dothis in two different ways, but

(35:11):
we have have, uh, we have aconstant history of racial
division that gets expressed indifferent ways, whether that was
slavery.
That was Jim Crow.
What we're in now has beenidentified in that wonderful
book called the new Jim Crow,uh, is that we moved to the law
and order society and useincarceration.
We find ways consistently tomake African Americans second

(35:35):
class citizens, when youincarcerated course, and we
incarcerate more than any nationin the world by far, then once
you get out, you, if you getout, you remain a second class
citizen in terms of voting andso on.
So the form changes, the resultis the same and that's where

(35:56):
we're at.

Speaker 2 (35:56):
Yeah.
So I forgot to ask you thisrace.
As most of us understand race,those are who are not initiated
to sociology.
We understand race as a skincolor, but from what I've been
reading and from what I've beenhearing, can you explain what it

(36:17):
means for race to be a socialcategory, how it evolves
historically over time?

Speaker 1 (36:26):
Yeah.
I mean, a race really only comesinto existence around the 15
hundreds, uh, for specificreasons to explain to account
for this inequality andmistreatment of human beings, we
created a category of race.
And then we think about thewritings and these were the
scientific writings, how thewhite races at the top and the
most blessed with best brainsand on and on at the founding of

(36:49):
our country, we put it into theconstitution.
And because we were doing thisgrand experiment called
democracy, our founding fatherssaid, we have to have educated
people who are under control tovote.
I mean, can't just behaphazardly voting.
They got to know what they'redoing.

(37:10):
So they made it into a racialissue by saying this white folks
are people who are ruled bytheir minds.
Everybody else is ruled by theirpassions so they can be citizens
who can vote.
So they were not allowed to becitizens.
And that's why, so you startcreating this, these categories

(37:33):
that you might think are justlike some color differences in,
you totally view them with allof this deep meaning that, you
know, in the end they'restereotypes.
That aren't true, but there theyare.

Speaker 2 (37:46):
You write about Italians and Irish moving from
one racial category to another.
Can you elaborate on what youmeant by that?

Speaker 1 (37:57):
So the brilliancy of whiteness is that it's flexible.
I've been reading since Istarted graduate school that by
the year 2040 or the yearvaries, but somewhere 20, 40 to
25th, whites will be theminority.
And then everything will changewhile here to say, no, they
will.
Not that that's a wrongunderstanding of whiteness.

(38:17):
Whiteness keeps expanding toalways maintain it a door.
So when my grandfather came fromItaly and my grandmother in the
1920s, uh, they came throughEllis Island and I have the
document, uh, from their entryand they had to write their race
and they both wrote white.
And the clerk that worked therecrossed off on both of theirs,

(38:39):
white and wrote what was theracial category then called
swarthy, which was something inbetween black and white, not to
be trusted often given toSouthern Europeans.
Um, so my grandparents, whenthey came here were swarthy by
the time they got into the 1960sor so they were white.

(39:01):
That's what I mean by theflexibility of whiteness and an
expanding.
Um, and we, one of the things weare tracking closely now is, is
that happening with some Asiangroups?
Are they going to be defined aswhite right now?
They're all honorary white andoften held up as representing
good whites.

Speaker 2 (39:20):
This is, this is amazing.
So, uh, with the research thatyou're doing with Asians, what
have you found well, is it done?
And what are some of theconclusions that you guys have
come to?

Speaker 1 (39:32):
So when we're looking at, and this is from the study
in these last two years, whiteand black Christians are so
fundamentally far apart, andthis is partly why the original
book was called divided by faithbecause white and blacks in this
country are quite divided, butwhite and black Christians are
more divided on every measure welook at.

(39:52):
And that's why we had to find,well, what is it about the faith
themselves?
That's driving them furtherapart for Asians.
What we're finding now is thatthey so closely mirror, white,
Christian, white, Asian,Christians, closely mirror,
white Christians on almost allthese things.
It makes sense when we talk,what I just talked about about

(40:14):
this kind of becoming honorarywhite, maybe being flexed into
the white group when needed,they are acting in thinking very
much like white Hispanics aremuch closer to African American.

Speaker 2 (40:25):
Yeah, man.
Um, and this, this face out, Ijust wanted to make sure we, I
got the quote.
So evangelicals usually fail tochallenge the system, not just
out of concern for evangelism,but also because they support
the American system and enjoyits fruits.
They share the Protestant workethic, support, laissez, Faire,

(40:49):
economics, and sometimes fail toevaluate whether the social
system is consistent with theirChristianity.
Uh, do you still agree with thattoday and why?

Speaker 1 (41:03):
Yeah.
I don't think that has changedeither.
Um, so that when you think aboutit, that, and I had mentioned
this a little bit earlier thatyou have these cultural tools
and understanding of faith thatare both deeply held and have
the consequence of preservingand celebrating the country,

(41:25):
which were in the book I'mworking on now is called the
grand betrayal.
And it is making this argumentthat white Christianity, white
Christians have continuously andendlessly betrayed their black
and Hispanic brothers andsisters in the faith.
And they've done it because ofthe roots by which they receive

(41:51):
in terms of material, reward,respect.
And so on.
In fact, I'm going to make theargument that white
Christianity, and this will bethe controversial part at least
to some isn't Christianity, thatwe did a series of experiments
where you could choose betweenwhiteness or, or the biblical
Christianity and whitesoverwhelmingly would choose
whiteness when given theopportunity, these are white

(42:14):
Christians.
So I'm going to make theargument though, what white
Christianity is, is the worshipof the group itself, the white
tribe.
So well, so let's get into it.
What opera

Speaker 2 (42:26):
Questions are you asking

Speaker 1 (42:30):
To come to these conclusions?
Cause[inaudible],

Speaker 2 (42:34):
You know, those of us who, who retort size for a
living, but do no data with it.
We would, we would agree withthat conclusion and shout it to
the heavens, but like you'reactually doing the work that
goes behind the conclusion.
What are you operationally doingto come to these conclusions?

Speaker 1 (42:54):
Yeah.
Thanks for asking.
So I'll give you two examples.
Um, one is that we are, we gavepeople a chance to express
emotion.
So part of, uh, understandingrace is not just, you know, what
do you think on the issue, buthow do you feel about these?
So we had a series of questions.
We did a national survey ofabout 3000 Americans after them,

(43:19):
Christian half, not raciallydiverse on purpose, so we could
compare and we would ask thingslike, and this is the examples
of the feeling questions.
Uh, what do you feel when youhear the word black power?
What do you feel when you hearthe word reparation?
And then we let people respond?

(43:39):
Why here's what we found whiteChristians get angry.
In fact, that was the number oneword angry.
And usually they'd write thesethings in all caps.
So they were doing this onlineso we can see how they're and
with exclamation points.
And this is ridiculous.
And it really, you can see theintensity of the feeling.

(44:01):
The second example is this.
We asked a series back, it wasfour questions about the Bible.
Uh, so let me set this up forpeople listening.
We first asked people, do youbelieve the Bible should be used
to determine right and wrong?
And if they said, yes, I believeit should be used to determine
right and wrong.

(44:21):
Then we asked them the next fourquestions.
These questions were designed.
So that three of them are askingyou about other groups.
And one of them is asking abouta personal morality issue.
So that one about personalmorality is the Bible says not
to use it in wholesome words,therefore it's wrong to use cuss
words.
So what we would do is we wouldgive a Bible verse.

(44:43):
We'd actually say where it'sfrom.
And then we would repeat it justas I did.
The Bible says not to useunwholesome words, therefore
it's wrong to use unwholesomewords.
Do you agree or disagree?
The other three were about, as Isaid, other groups, one is about
welcoming the foreigner and thestranger.
So about immigration.
Another was about, um, the, thefirst, uh, ethnic conflict that

(45:06):
we see in acts, right?
Where the, uh, what was it?
The, the Greeks were saying ourwidows are not getting the same
amount of food and you rememberthe brilliant solution then,
okay.
Then let's put, reach and powerto make sure you get enough
food.
So then we said, that's what weshould do.
Right.
Just repeat it.
Okay.
The findings here's, here's,what's interesting on the one

(45:27):
about, uh, using unwholesomewords, the majority of
Christians, no matter whatracial group, they agree, that's
what the Bible says.
But on the other three questionsthat had to do with other
groups, the majority of blackand Hispanic Christians agreed.
That's what the Bible says, butfor white and usually for Asian,

(45:47):
never more than a third agreed.
That's what the Bible said.
So we followed up like, okay,well, if you don't think that's
what the Bible says, we're justrepeating what the Bible says,
why?
And then there, you see thedefense mechanisms coming.
Well, you'd have to look at thecontext.
And, um, the one on immigrationwas really interesting cause

(46:07):
they said, well, the Bible isreferring to legal immigration.
Then I will not ever supportillegal immigration, which is
what really is happening here.
And we have to fight that.
And so, yeah,

Speaker 2 (46:18):
Man, this is fascinating.
Oh man, we, we gotta talk whenthat book comes out.
I like to talk about it.
Um, this is interesting that yousay this because getting ready
for this interview, I wasthinking where I would land as a

(46:39):
black person who happens toevangelize.
Uh, we, I think we think thatevangelism and fulfilling the
great commission is a thing weought to do and we're involved
in it, but I almost, buteverything outside of that, that

(47:00):
might sometimes keep us fromengaging injustice has to deal,
not so much with, you know,being an American per se, but in
, during suffering.
Well, so where I find morekinship, not with, uh, white

(47:21):
American Christians, I find morekinship with Christians who are
suffering all around the world,whatever the color of their
skin.
So that I'm, I feel like I'm ina, I'm a nation within a nation.
And so our discussions arealways, should we engage with
that other nation and quoteunquote waste time when we could

(47:46):
be, you know, um, uh, helpingeach other and growing with one
another, or should we be a partof the struggle that we see
everyone else go through?
And it's so fascinating how, youknow, the, the culture completes
white evangelical Christianityand we see it almost as the

(48:08):
world that the thing that'sopposing us.
Hmm.
Very interesting.
Um, I read your article, goodbyeChrist.
I've got justice duty.
I agree with a lot of results.
I read anecdotes.
What challenged me was this man,are we sure that the people that
, that these people wereintroduced to Orthodox Christian

(48:32):
faith, that the gospel waspreached, they heard it, they
believed it.
I mean, what, what do you, whatdid he say to that?
Because that's the first thingthat I thought about the people
who are, and I guess I shouldhave set it up.
People are leaving thesechurches, uh, white evangelical
churches.
Uh, and I guess you even madethe argument that black people

(48:55):
might be also leaving theirchurches, which is true.
Um, and that justice, wow.
A noble endeavor and should, andan endeavor that should be part
of the Christian understandingand faith to seek justice, that

(49:15):
we should never put it overJesus.
And so I say that to ask thisquestion, do we think these
people left Christianity or didthey live like leave
Christiandom?

Speaker 1 (49:30):
Great question.
So, yeah, just again, this was a, just a little, uh, basically
opinion piece that was inChristianity today recently.
And it's my observation ofwatching people that are in
Christian churches coming torealize we live in an injust
unjust world and they startgetting involved in justice work

(49:52):
and slowly but surely, andsometimes more fast, they, they
drift away from churches.
They drift away from Christianfaith and they're just done with
it.
In fact, they often can becomeanti-Christian.
So your question is, well, arewe sure that they were actually
introduced to the real Christianfaith?
And I would have to say theywere not the real Christian

(50:15):
faith.
They would understand justicesabsolutely core.
I mean, you, if you did anystudy of the Bible, that word
comes up.
So often that God's saying I ama lover of justice profits,
constantly railing because ofthe injustice and the so on and
so forth.
So if they see justice andJesus, as in conflict, then they

(50:36):
haven't known true Christianity.

Speaker 2 (50:41):
Do you think articles like this?
Cause I, I saw, uh, an assessored Stetser react to this.
Do you think when white Kristindumb, I don't want to say
Kristen's Kristen dumb reads anarticle like this.

(51:03):
Their reaction is, ah, guys,just come on home.
We'll figure it out.
This, that the article mayperpetuate a feeling of, Hey,
maybe not that we whiteChristian dumb a vindicated, but
that is safe for you guys tocome home.
And the reason why I ask that isthat the person who is thinking

(51:28):
about coming home is probablyasking the question back.
Well, what are we going to dowhen I come home?
I mean, are we just gonnacontinue to do what we're doing?
Or are we going to forge a newpath?
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (51:43):
And I say a little bit in there, the answer isn't
to leave Christendom, you mayfind that you have to leave
white Christianity, but theanswer then is to find healthy
black churches, multi-racialchurches, immigrant churches,
and find true Christianity,right.
Christianity that actually saysjustice matters.

Speaker 2 (52:10):
Where were you when you heard about what happened to
George Floyd and what were yourfeelings?

Speaker 1 (52:20):
It was like probably so many people, right?
Cause of the pandemic I was inmy home and I was upstairs, uh,
having a snack.
Uh, and uh, one of my childrencame up and said, did you hear
what happened?
I said, no, what happened?
They said it happened.
We have most of our family livesin the twin cities area.
So it was like, somethinghappened big at home, came down

(52:42):
into our basement where we haveour television saw just a
glimpse of the video We werebeing.
I couldn't, I could not keepwatching it.
I did not watch it all.
And I remember thinking, Oh mygosh, we're going to explode.
I've been saying for the lastfive years or so, our country
has become so unequal in termsof wealth.

(53:03):
When you look at, while it justkeep the gap, just keep getting
bigger and bigger.
And I said, there is no evidenceanywhere of country having this
much racial wealth gap thatdoesn't explode.

Speaker 2 (53:14):
So this was,

Speaker 1 (53:16):
This was going to be it because the power of the
visual is much larger than anywords could be.

Speaker 2 (53:23):
So let me ask this, I mean, let's go, we come back to
this.
When you say racial wealth gap,what do you mean by that?
And how are you coming to thatconclusion that there is a
widening racial wealth gap.

Speaker 1 (53:40):
Yeah, because we've been tracking it for many
decades and that's justeverything you own and then
subtract everything you owe.
What do you got left?
That's your wealth.
So when we were first doing thisin the most detail, starting in
the 1980s, the gap was huge.
It was whites had 10 times thewealth as black Americans, nine

(54:02):
times, as well as HispanicAmerican, that gap is more than
doubled today.
Every time we look at it, itgets bigger.
And it's because the more moneyyou have, the more money you can
make, right?
You can invest it.
You keep.
And I do.
Uh, I study a lot as do mygraduate students about what
happens in the way that we buildwealth as middle class

(54:23):
Americans, it's through homeownership and white
neighborhoods make way moremoney.
In fact, a study just came outfrom my grad students.
They're not professors, but likea week ago.
And what they did is since 1980,what's happened to the appraised
values of homes in whiteneighborhoods and black
neighborhoods, whiteneighborhoods have increased
$200,000 more in blackneighborhoods.

(54:45):
That means they just added$200,000 of their, what their
wealth that African Americansdid not get.

Speaker 2 (54:52):
Yeah.
And so you think some of this isbehind the explosion that we're
seeing in light of what happenedto George Florida?
Absolutely.
Um, so in seeing this, what doyou think should be the response

(55:17):
of our nation to these events

Speaker 1 (55:23):
We need to do what other countries have done that
have made some progress.
And that is form a truth andreconciliation commission have
testimony both historically andcontemporary of what has
happened, how people havesuffered, how people have gained
and then figure out how to makeretribution for that

(55:47):
reparations, whatever it takes.
We cannot keep pretending andsaying, well, we just need to
move on.
Let's let's be friends.
Let's move on, is not going towork.
It hasn't worked.
I mean, how can we think if ithasn't worked to this date, that
more, the same is going to getus anywhere.

Speaker 2 (56:05):
Uh, when you say truth and reconciliation, they
did this in South Africa.
Yeah.
Some would say some would argue,well, will it work here?
If the result, I mean, there'sstill a gap in, in wealth in
South Africa, somewhat argue,would it work here?

(56:27):
What would your response be?

Speaker 1 (56:29):
I would say, look at any country, that's done it and
learn from them.
What worked and what didn'twork.
What's improved the process, butwe need to have that process.
We have to have a space wherepeople can speak, where people
can see the results of whatwe've done.
What we get now, right.
Is George Floyd, blips, and thencounter movements in resistance

(56:54):
to it.
We're not dialoguing, we're notcataloging and putting down or
official record what hashappened.
We have to,

Speaker 2 (57:05):
For those church men out there is truth and
reconciliation, just thestructure of it.
And, and the practice of it isthat something Christians is
that Christian or is that, youknow, some type of critical race
theory

Speaker 1 (57:23):
Is Christian, right?
The truth shall set you free.
We are not free.
We are not, we are tied up withthe devil and his lies.
And until we will willing totell the truth to each other, we
don't have reconciliation wherewe are.
We are called a reconciliationand ultimately we are called to
be one.
So this is truly gospel work.

(57:44):
We can't be resisting this.
We've got to do it.

Speaker 2 (57:49):
Um, you know, it's, it's interesting that you came
to the conclusion of us having atruth and reconciliation.
I think in my own just journey.
I think that seems likeeveryone's talking around it,
but I think you've been thefirst to say, we need, I hear

(58:10):
reparations.
We need this, we need that.
But like the core of that, whichleads to all that is a truth and
reconciliation committee.
But in saying that, what is thechurch's role in that response?
First of all, you know that youdo the sociological work here,

(58:30):
you see the divide.
I mean, how do we get there ifwe've got no unity within,
within ourselves.

Speaker 1 (58:40):
That's why I think we, like I say, if we don't
start with enabled to justlisten to each other, often
people ask, okay, so what can wedo about this?
Right.
My first thing is we have toactually just trust each other.
So if, if you say to me, I'mexperiencing racism, my first
reaction can not be, no, you'renot.

(59:02):
It can't be defensive.
Like why are you call me aracist?
It needs to be, tell me moreabout that.
My fellow brother in Christ, Ineed to know more what's
happening.
I have to start from that basisof trust.
I live for a year in Denmark.
Denmark has the highest level ofsocial trust in the world.
And it is unbelievable what youcan do in a society.

(59:25):
When you trust each other, howmuch money you save insecurity
and all these things you have todo, how much you save in
efficiency and having that nothave so much time spent in
drawing up contracts thatspecify every possibility of how
you could cheat and how you canactually talk to each other.
If you come from the startingpoint of trust, that the person

(59:48):
across from me or the groupacross from me once a good life,
just like I want a good life.
And they're saying they'reexperiencing difficulty.
Then let's work together.
Why is that so hard?
It's because the devil hastricked us.
We have bought into the lie thatI am an opposition to a fellow
group.
Even when they are fellowbelievers.

(01:00:10):
That's what blows my mind.
We, how can we do that?
But we do it constantly.
It's gotta stop operationallywhen you,

Speaker 2 (01:00:20):
I hear often the black church and a white church
must come together.
I believe that in a sense,

Speaker 1 (01:00:31):
But from a sociologist perspective,

Speaker 2 (01:00:36):
Is that practical.
And if it is, how do we, how dowe actually do it?

Speaker 1 (01:00:41):
Yeah.
Well, it, in what it means, twodifferent things.
Again, in our divided world forwhite set means let's let's, I
will confess and you accept myapology and we move on.
And for African Americans thatoften means are, hold on a
minute, I always use thisexample.
If I came, installed your TV,and then I feel guilty about

(01:01:03):
after a while or something.
And I say, Hey, I'm really sorryabout that.
Can we, would you forgive me?
And could we move on?
And you know, let's cometogether.
Well, of course, you're going tosay, um, if you give me that TV
back first, maybe we can havethat discussion.
Uh, so that's what I'm sayinguntil we have that discussion,
we have to stop saying, Oh, itwasn't me.

(01:01:23):
It was people in the past thatare no longer here.
It doesn't matter if it waspeople in the past.
They're no longer here we arebenefiting or suffering from it
a day.
It will continue.
We, I gave you one example,which is the wealth gap, which
just keeps getting bigger.
So that's real.
That's happening right now.
If we don't stop it, we don'thave any chance at unity and

(01:01:45):
reconciliation.
Well, we've got a,

Speaker 2 (01:01:50):
Which leads me to another question we've got in
the middle of black and white.
We've got Asians, we've gotHispanics, we've got a
multiplicity of people who livein this America.

Speaker 1 (01:02:03):
I mean, why would this be

Speaker 2 (01:02:07):
Important for them to be a part of?
I mean, it just seems likethey're caught

Speaker 1 (01:02:11):
The middle.
Yeah.
Like imagine if, you know, ifyou're an immigrant from say
Peru and you've been here forsix years, like this is saying,
what does got to do with me?
I'm just trying to make aliving, but anybody that's
living in the society and wantsto stay here, you have to care
because it does affect us all itshapes.
I mean, you see that what'shappening in our country right

(01:02:32):
now.
Are any of us not impacted bywhat's happening in our streets?
Not we are all impacted.
We have to care.
Um, last question.

Speaker 2 (01:02:44):
What would your action plan be for black pastor
in the foot for someone like metrying to be a help to the body
of Christ and his country, wouldthere be something
educationally?
I mean, what, what would you,what would you suggest?

Speaker 1 (01:03:03):
Okay.
A couple things.
And one of the things I've cometo write is, um, this sounds
funny, but I think in many ways,all people who want to see
progress and change, we're sortof stabbing in the dark.
Like I can remember, you know,in the late sixties and such the

(01:03:25):
answer was, well, if we couldelect black mayors and, uh, you
know, Windera thought if wecould have a black president,
but we've had those continue tohave black mayors and it doesn't
make the problems go away.
I mean, in Chicago, we have ablack mayor and a black chief of
police, and they're beingaccused of being racist and

(01:03:47):
creating a system that isunfair.
Right?
So I say that to say, we keeptrying things.
Someone gave me theillustration.
Once of we have a onion and wepeel away a layer and we think
that's a solution.
But to only define that there'syet another layer and another
layer.
So we have to keep crying untilwe find the African American
church has always excelled inbringing hope to African

(01:04:12):
American parishioners, tobringing a sense of worth in a,
in a society that basicallytells you every day that you are
not of equal worth.
I can't think of anything morefundamental and in the Christian
message than that, a place oforganizing for justice and
getting people to exercise theirvoice.

(01:04:33):
So that's one, I think anotherone huge.
And I think you are particularlygifted at this, is that there to
have any kind of discussion atall to begin white pastors,
white leaders need, they'relooking for willing partners
African-Americans that would bewilling to speak to them.

(01:04:55):
Uh, and yeah, I think as I'veseen you, uh, you have that
gift.
You have a particular gift ofputting people at ease that they
can get to a point of trustingand then hearing the messages
that you have to bring.
That's where we have to get to.
So we need people like you to dothat.

(01:05:18):
Mmm.

Speaker 2 (01:05:19):
Last question.
And it's a pushback, first ofall, thank you.
Um, I, I thank you for thecompliment.
There are some people who wouldsay we've been having
conversations every time ahashtag happens.
We have a conversation andnothing seems to get, uh, worked

(01:05:40):
out.
What would you say to that?
Is it we're not having the righttype of conversations.
Cause that's what it seems like.
I hear you saying, we, we kindof have the confession, Hey
accept.
And we move on, but we're nothaving the right type of
conversations that actuallybring healing.

Speaker 1 (01:05:59):
Yeah.
Well, we're having the wrong onecause it has no teeth in it.
So what I'm, that's why I'msaying, when you have a formal
truth and reconciliation, it'sformed with the specific goal
that it's going to bring change.
And we're going to specifythrough discussion through
people, witnessing their ownexperience.
What has to change

Speaker 2 (01:06:17):
You and I are familiar with truth and
reconciliation for those whothis may be the first time they
heard this concept, how doesthat actually play out in, you
know, operationally?
I mean paint the picture.

Speaker 1 (01:06:34):
Hmm.
Uh, and so I may be butcheringhow it's done like in South
Africa, but you, uh, you haveofficials who actually have
power to make changes and theysit there and they listen to
people who come up and telltheir stories, tell how their
family has been harmed byracism, how their own
experiences and all of that isdocumented.

(01:06:58):
Those folks can ask for whatwould they need to get over
their hurt?
What would they need to get overthe wealth that's been taken
from them and their families?
And the idea is supposed to beone, it's a healing process
because we are, we have peoplebeing able to share their hurt.
We have people that arelistening to it, but it only

(01:07:18):
matters if you then take thenext steps.
And as you pointed out, like inSouth Africa, they have yet to
take all the steps they need.
So they've got a long ways togo, but it has to be the next
steps.
Be those next steps have to be.
And this is where getcontroversial, right?
Those who have gained are goingto have to give up some so that
those who have suffered havesome more, if one is standing on

(01:07:40):
a table, one standing on theground, we're both going to have
to move so we can stand on achair.
We're going to have to meet inthe middle.
It's there's not enoughresources to say all that I
have.
I hope everybody else can haveit too.
It's going to have to actuallybe some sharing.
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:07:56):
You asked power sharing, wealth sharing.
This is, this is the crux of it.
It is.
Hmm.
Well, dr.
Emerson, I thank you for yourtime.
We are going to do this again,and I hope it's around the
discussion of your new book.
Uh, this has been enlightening.

Speaker 3 (01:08:16):
I've got other questions.
Maybe we'll do it again just todo it again, but uh, thank you
for your time.

Speaker 1 (01:08:24):
Spend time with you.
Appreciate[inaudible].