Can Racial Reconciliation Happen Without Racial Justice Being Achieved First?

The following is an uncorrected transcript generated by a transcription service. Before quoting in print, please check the corresponding audio for accuracy.

Jim Davis
Welcome to TGC is good faith debates. This is a series of conversations that are designed to help you navigate issues or topics that are confusing. They could be contentious, they just could be difficult. And our hope is that we would be able to bring in people talk about this in a way that is helpful to the viewer of these debates. My name is Jim Davis, I pastor Orlando Grace Church, it is my pleasure to be able to moderate these debates and the topic at hand today, is the relationship between racial reconciliation and racial justice. Are they inextricably linked, whether that’s going forward or backward? Or is it possible for racial justice to move ahead, even if racial reconciliation doesn’t? So I’m for this conversation, I’m joined by Darrell Williamson, the lead pastor of living faith Bible Fellowship Church down the road from me in Tampa, Florida, and also by George Yancey, Professor of Religion and Sociology at Baylor University. Thank you both for joining us for this important conversation. Darrell, we’ll start with you. Can you give us your perspective on this issue?

Darryl Williamson
Sure. First, I would just say I’m, I’m really honored to be here. Like a lot of respect for you, Jim, and appreciate what you do. And Dr. Yancey, I’m just really eager to chat with you in to learn from you. I appreciate the question, which is really to ask, can you have really one without the other? Can I have racial reconciliation with no racial justice? Is it possible for those who have a strong conviction about justice? To move ahead with that without reconciliation? I think the answer to be blunt is absolutely not you cannot really divorce those. And it may seem that there’s conveniences and pursuing one versus the other. But I do think the way you asked it, that they are inextricably tied together, in so to go after reconciliation means to value, the situation and circumstances of those who have experienced in justices is so it’s important not to trivialize those experiences or circumstances in light of relationship goals. So the fact that we sit down together and have a meaningful moment, does not set aside what folks experience outside of that moment in that. And so I think it’s vital to recognize the value all the folks who are involved, to see their their dignity, to see their concerns, to value what’s going on in their hearts. And so for example, if we think about not to spend too much time thinking about the history, but if we think about, like, after the Civil War, meant when the federal troops were there in the south, providing protection and cover for the freedmen, why southerners were offended. And they found that to be a profound injustice, and then went through protests and political maneuvering, they were able to get the federal troops out. We saw kind of a reign of terror control that emerged during the era of Jim Crow. And so if we believe that segregation is an injustice, I think looking back on it’s easy. I mean, that’s not that’s not controversial today, I think we’d have consensus on that. But if we were to concede that, I think we would agree that there’s no way to try to achieve meaningful reconciliation, even amongst black and white Christians in the South, in the late 19th, early 20th century, without dealing with the subjugation that the freedmen that the the black southerners were experiencing, if we didn’t take seriously their experiences of lynching, the stealing of the land that had been given to them in many cases, there were reputational acts in the South that was done by certain slave owners, my family experienced benefited from that. Now, we don’t talk about that a lot. But it is a reality, our history, but a lot of those things were were stolen, were taken. And so there is no way to see meaningful unity between black and white in the church outside the church, those injustices aren’t dealt with. Now, why is that the case? Because ultimately, reconciliation is about peace or Shalom. And so it’s about a sense of centeredness. And Shalom does not mean paradise. It doesn’t mean that we’ve arrived in heaven. It just means that that we’re all at a place where we can meaningfully experience what God has called us to for this age. And so if somehow our cultural may and date calling is blocked or frustrated through injustices. We cannot have Shalom. Now. I think the question for us is okay, then how do we advance a Shalom vision, which is to say, how do we advance both a reconciliation, in justice vision in the church, so that the very least Christians can, can live this out. And obviously, I think there’s an impact that we’d like to see the church have beyond its borders. I think it begins with, I can’t think of a better way of saying it with us getting the gospel right. Now, when I say, by the gospel, I don’t mean a narrow definition of what God has done to count for our sinfulness, which which is core to the gospel, we think about justification. But I think it’s really more of a broader sense as to what is the baseline of our accountability before God? What will God judge us on when we stand before him? What is the basis of the judgments? And so on? I think that’s a part of the gospel, because there are safety at the judgment is the good news, right. And so and so I don’t want to arrive there at risk. And so I think it’s important that that we as pastors and leaders in a church, help our people to understand that the judgment seat biblically, is inherently ethical. It is not Orthodox, ethical. And so it is not a it’s not a doctrinal exam. And so you don’t get to give the password that I’ve accepted Christ as my savior. It is not the key to a favorable judgment. The key to a favorable judgment is a demonstrable righteousness that comes about because in a dwelling presence of the Spirit, and because we are regenerate. And so what is the basis of our regeneration at the judgment, it is not our confession, it is actually our living. And I think we need theologically our people to understand that which I think changes the whole, like conversation around and justice, because now I see by thinking about Matthew 2531 through 48. I see that indifference to injustice or indifference to need, right. And so when I was hungry, Jesus says, when I was thirsty, Jesus says, when I was naked, when I was sick when I was in prison, if you were indifferent to those things, that’s a judgment problem. And so we need to take Christ’s words very seriously. And I think that’s really a good place for it to for it to begin. I think if we can, we can broach that. It will change the attitude. I think right now there’s a lot of dismissiveness, I think we feel safe, many of us feel we can safely dismiss the concerns of injustice, because it’s not consequential for my eschatological interest, right. But the truth of the matter is, it is very much in your interest to get to get that right doesn’t mean it’s worse righteousness. It just means nature to judge. So I’ll stop right there. And so yeah,

Jim Davis
that’s helpful. I appreciate it. All right. Dr. Yancey, can we hear your perspective on things?

George Yancey
Thanks for having me. And pleasure meeting you, Darrell. And I don’t know if gonna have a lot of debate because I agree with what you said. I may come from a little bit different angle, but maybe that what we’re what the debate will be. But, you know, I agree with almost everything you’ve said. So let me just go ahead and get me started. So my remarks, you probably remember the famous first scene from the movie, The Godfather. That’s the scene with Bon Sara, where he comes to the godfather of seeking justice. Now, if you remember correctly, you know a big part of that scene was the Godfather said, Well, you’re not my friend. And that is a part of it. But another part was when the Godfather teaches us about justice. You see, bong, Sarah had his daughter who refused to have sex with her boyfriend beat him. She’s been by her boyfriend and a friend. On Sara want the men killed. The Godfather, a criminal Overlord, stated that is not justice. Your daughter the violated is a lie. And even when he agrees to take justice, he he talks about having careful men to make sure that they are not killed. See, justice is important. But justice can be corrupted. If we’re not careful. Justice can lead to revenge. You know, the godfather is a fictional movie, and we know this. But as Christians we know that there’s a truth here that justice can turn into revenge, and even people who are victimize can become victimizers themselves. Resources. Young, the kids who grew up in abuse families, their parents abused them grew up to abuse their parents or the parents or elderly. So we know that just because someone’s victimized does not mean that what they want is just because sometimes they wants revenge. Okay. It’s official movie. Does this happen in real life? Yes, it does. When casualty took over, isn’t in response to pasties does that oppressive regime that that movement, what Kashia created was movement of reprisals, and taken away, right. And even though the cute people had a press, it did not justify the movie that came after that. I think of the family of Nick Nicholas Ramapo who his family him, his wife and his kids were killed, because he supported autocratic rule. That movement was injustice. And what they got was revenge. So how do we make sure that instead of justice, is that revenge, wicked justice? Well, the answer some people may not like, but it comes down to the issue of the justice cannot remain in the hands of a single group, even the group as victimize. As Christians, we understand this, because we understand the nature of human depravity. And if we want justice, then we have to find ways in which everyone has a seat at the table. The way we find real justice, is that we bring everyone in there. Now, I can already hear the arguments. But I can ask depravity. How can I not depravity when the group that benefited from the injustice? has a say at the table? How is that acknowledging you know how it has? How’s that? Because Are they not going to maintain their injustice where we can see the table and the detractors are correct. If we keep the same polarizing conversations we have, individuals who have gained from the injustice of the past will continue to fight justice, subtle and overt ways they have no reason not to. So if we really want to have justice, sustaining justice, is bringing them in to the conversation we must have reconciliation must have unity, unity and justice have to happen together. Another argument I hear, how can I ask people of color to enter into conversation with others, given the emotional toll that’s had on them? How can I ask you a color to come into this conversation and come to the conversation in a way when it’s not a fair conversation because they bring this emotional baggage? I understand this critique, because I to understand what it’s like to pour my heart out on racial issues to a majority group member, it hasn’t swiped away, because as it was nothing, this conversation is gonna be costly for all of us. But it’s probably be more costly for people of color. There’s no doubt about that. What is the alternative, to not have the conversation to people go read a book and then come back and do what I want you to do? Unfortunately, a lot of what’s happened in our society under anti racism has to tell whites go and do appeal color tell you to do. And that’s not going to do it. Because that’s not gonna get us to justice, even though it’s uncomfortable. We have to have these conversations, and they have to have important conversations, I have to put myself out there. I want to hear from the person who has emotional pain, and I want to be there for them. But I have to know that because of emotional pain does not mean that I have to agree with them if they head towards revenge, instead of justice. So we have to have those sort of conversations. How do you bring everyone on board, we have to create a place for everyone to be involved in this conversation, a placement table, I don’t have the right to dismiss anyone’s concerns, because I don’t understand them. Just like they don’t have the right to dismiss my concerns, but they don’t understand my concerns. We must hear from everyone to serve. People of color have an interest in receiving justice. But whites have an interest in not experiencing revenge. We have to understand all those concerns if you really want to get to where we want to get to the justice will occur when we begin to work together. Here’s a Richard says about how we really convince people to work with us. We build rapport. We admit when they have a good point. We try to understand where they’re coming from. We do those things that build community instead of polarization. Polarization works against justice, we should want a less polarized society why justice because we’re polarization does is it creates the need to have enemies to fight against. And therefore you have people who see justice as their enemy rather than as something that they should want. If we want your justice, bounce justice, then we have to have record racial reconciliation. We have to bring unity along with that. Some feel that it’s such conversations let’s whites off the hook. I would say that I It is hard to keep them on the hook can prevent us from from finding true bounce justice, because we’re so eager to keep them on the hook that we don’t neglect when we may be going overboard. To see if we’ve really been human depravity everyone has to be held in check, to some degree because human depravity knows no race. It manifests itself into different races and different ways, perhaps, but it knows no race. Therefore, we must find ways in which we have had this conversation. If we are honest, we’re honest, there are whites who don’t want to don’t care what we have to say. But we’re also on and it’s there people of color who really want revenge, they really aren’t seeking honest justice. For this reason, I believe we will not have justice until we have some sort of racial reconciliation, unity. This is not to say that justice is not something that we strive for. I’m saying that this the best way to achieve it is to work together, the process of working together to find unity is a process of finding justice as well. You cannot divorce one without the other. You cannot get justice first. Because justice first usually is a group deciding what justice is for everyone. And our human experience has shown how awfully wrong with that can go.

Jim Davis
Thank you. Well, let’s have a conversation like this. It’s always helpful to start by defining our terms you specifically reconciliation and justice. For Justice, you use Shalom which I hear making the world the way it ought to be. Is that a fair different

Darryl Williamson
way it was created to be I think that there is a way the world is intended to be which has not been set aside fully by the fall in so that I don’t think that Shalom in that sense. Begin entails perfection is not a return to eat and anything like that it simply is an OT for humanity in this age. I think it’s fair for us to call that I think that’s a former shalom,

Jim Davis
okay, and how would you? How would you define reconciliation?

Darryl Williamson
So I think reconciliation is an interesting one. And I think it needs to occur contextually. And so so with that. So for me, that means and this is, I think reconciliation is a can be a bridge to justice, I think they can occur together. Reconciliation is a convergence upon the truth. And so reconciliation is not a relationship personality is not our sitting down and feeling good about each other. You know, we can talk without screaming. That’s not reconciliation. One reason why I think that’s not it’s because there are power dynamics in those relationships. And so reconciliation is a shared understanding of the truth. And so I think Justice is always one there’s God’s justice is not justice, based on my experience, or justice based on someone else’s experience. It’s really, it’s really are trying to find God’s perspective, we are reconciled. But we have arrived at a shared understanding as to what has happened, and how we might meaningfully go forward. And I mean, that in the thematics is not in a particularly not in a programmatic sense. But we realize the nature of what it means to go for, for example, you’ve been disenfranchised in franchising you is a part of the Ford narrative that connects to a historical narrative. If we can’t get to that we’re talking about detox. And I don’t think it’s what we mean, when we say reconciliation. So I think we need to push into a shared understanding of the truth we have that then we can be and I will say we are at the really at the the gateway to reconciliation.

Jim Davis
Okay, how do you feel about those definitions of justice and reconciliation? Do you agree?

George Yancey
Yeah, you know, I probably come in a little bit more sociologically, because it’s, it’s who I am. When I when I define justice, I define justice as you know, fair, and I agree that, you know, God’s the ultimate justice and you know, God justice while he plays a contextualise, ultimately, as a God and God’s above all, but you know, that people are treated fairly so that if you know, the guilty are punished and the innocent are set free, you know. So I think that in more generalized sense, when we think about groups, it’s you know, it’s a little bit different. Because it we’re talking about justice, and in light of our historical racism, and structural racism is not easy. You know, it’s not like you go to white people say, Well, you’re guilty and you need to be punished. But when we want to do is we want to try create a fairer society because for that white person, because they live in a society like this one, there have been certain things have happened that are unfair that we want to correct. It’s not about punishing that person. I think that’s a misconception that some people have that when people talk about justice, it’s about Oh, you want to punish white people? No. Now once again, you know, my my concern is that, that we focus so much on that, that we forget that you can go overboard and trying to make corrections or corrections can be made and I gave a couple examples of things I think we would agree are not justice, even though that they had happened beforehand where it was not good. What ultimately happened was not good as either. So, when I think about racial reconciliation, I think about racial reconciliation. You know, there’s there’s the Ultimate Reconciliation that happens on the other side of the grave. Okay. That’s, that’s something though. That’s a goal. But it’s not something we’re going to have in this last time. On this either grave, I think what we’re trying to do is we’re trying to best do the best we can to some to love other image bearers. In a way that is right. That means different things for different people. That’s that’s a very broad definition. Because I don’t think that what it means to love other image bearers is the same thing for individuals in the same context. There are some principles are the same, you know, but you know, when you get to the specifics, especially given our history, the United States is not going to be exactly the same. I think that’s something that’s that’s key. But to get there, though, we have to, I don’t want George Yancey to say, here’s what needs to be done. Because George Yancey is bias. georgiana’s He needs to be held in check by other people in here and other concerns. So that hopefully, together we can work what that really looks like

Darryl Williamson
just said, I think that and I don’t disagree. I think I do disagree with some things, I think but it’s minor. But I do think that we can we often find that justice, we believe that justice is something programmatic, that it’s a policy thing in policies flow out of justice, I don’t think that is justice. And so what we can share as a narrative, what we can share, there’s there’s an American narrative or idea that despite the various political perspectives that we’ve seen historically, but that was shared about American Republican democracy, no one was coming along and suggesting that we have a monarch no will come along and suggest that we eliminate the presidency. And so there was a shared narrative, I think we need a shared narrative, about our racial history. And about our like, what it looks like to see that resolved in the future, it needs to be somewhat inspirational. And so we get too quickly into these programmatic discussions. And we’ve not resolved our different convictions. And I do think there’s, there’s some facts, there’s some, some history, some, some measurables, to help us to build that narrative. But there’s one about precision narratives about direction. So where are we trying to go? What does it mean for us to go together? And how do we go together, recognizing what has gone down in the past black distance, if you think about black and white kind of experiences of racialization, in this country, it is not been like imbalance. And so we have to deal with it acknowledge that imbalance and recognize that without a shared narrative, some people will feel aggrieved, even when say simply being required, say, to make certain concessions or compromises to rectify the situation. And we need to be able to deal with that is that not all perceived grievances are perhaps I don’t want use the term objective. But those grievances may be situational to me in what I want. But they need to fit better with our understanding as to what actually happened. And I think that we need to push toward a shared understanding of that. That doesn’t mean the ones were sent unanimity. It just means as a strong consensus, I think, especially within the church, we ought to have because this is an ethical issue, we should share the same ethical narrative. If we have a different ethical narrative, that’s a real problem. It’s a theological problem. And so I think we need to push into that, and see if we can get to a consensus of what what that narrative is.

Jim Davis
One more definitional question. Do you use the terms racial reconciliation in racial harmony? synonymous? synonymously? Or do you think those are different things?

George Yancey
I do the related how to think about it. I, you know, so then about that, it seems like, well, they’re not exactly the same thing. You know, that. You know, it seems to me that you probably would get harmony through reconciliation, but you could have heart rate harmony without racial reconciliation, if you get what I’m saying. So, I think that’s what that’s why it feels a little off on me that they’re not exactly the same. Yeah, I

Darryl Williamson
don’t disagree with that. I think reconciliation is redemptive and restorative. Right. And so we’ve had an issue with trying to come back together, something has created a breach. Harmony is a state right. And so here we are, it’s harmonious. It doesn’t add it does not require there ever being a history of division and things like that.

Jim Davis
So, George, you said that if we’re not careful, our motives can slip into revenge. And we have people advocating different positions even in previous debates and and obviously you’re not insinuating revenge on their part, whichever one, whichever side the argument there is, but But how might we check our our souls or spirits in in this argument to to know if revenge is maybe a prime motivating factor or if we’ve crossed that line somewhere?

George Yancey
So I would say I’m thinking most people who engage in revenge don’t think that the revenge, okay. They think they’re doing what they’re doing is right. I think the people who killed the, you know, the Ramos family thought they were doing the right thing. No. So so that’s the that’s the thing aren’t so how do we know? I think we have to hear other people. Because I think that is important check. I think we have to hear their concerns. And I think we have to try to address it. Because there’s no hear me, I’m not saying that we have to say this, what you want them to give you 100% what you want, knowing gets 100% of what they want. We it’s dangerous to give us humans 100% of what we want, we don’t do well with that one that. But we have to hear and take that into consideration. And if you’re married, you know what that means. You’re married, if you can have some what you want, there’s a problem because your the bill is coming due? All right. So you know, so you have to be very careful that we need to negotiate and argue with one another? And are you in a good way, not in a polarizing way. I want to be also clear on this. What my thing is that we all have to enter into this discussion, honestly, at open to Liz Harris. Anyone else? That is something that I think everybody has in common? Well, I’m not saying we’re gonna have a common sense solution, the solutions go sometimes worked out. And given our racial history, a lot of times, perhaps not all the time, a lot of times a solution is going to look like, well, whites are gonna have to make more adjustments and people of color. I think that that’s perfectly fair, given our racial history. But even knowing that, if we don’t enter that conversation in a way where we’re going to hear people out, then we’re setting up the people will first us just scripturally. You know, the Bible tells us to think about the the interest of others. All right. So I mean, we may want to get away from that, but that’s there. But even just practically, you know, empirically, we set people up for backlash, but we set people up to fight us every step of the way. And that’s not how we’re gonna get there, either. So that’s a big part of what I’m advocating is that, you know, that we, we check ourselves by being in conversation with others in a way that’s respectful to them in a way that’s productive, that we build on each other’s ideas, they move forward.

Jim Davis
I like that. And we’re gonna get to the practical things, and moving forward things from both of your comments. But I want to ask you, Darrell, George, and make sure I say this, I quote you correctly, I heard him say racial justice cannot move forward. Without racial reconciliation. Do you agree with that?

Darryl Williamson
I don’t disagree with that. I think that they traveled together, I think they’re very much bound together, that does not mean that they’re exactly the same thing. And it doesn’t mean that all considerations for justice, have a reconciliation, a reconciliation kind of attribute. And so I know, we’re going to get to some of the practical things, but I’ll just say this now, there are various expressions of racial injustice in our society. And I think particularly around meaningful disparities. And so those disparate is being addressed is not something that we simply need to sit down and kind of talk about how you feel about it. How do you feel about the fact that there are significantly worse health care outcomes for black people? That’s not a discussion item. So we need to take that thing as a very serious data point of injustice, and figure out how to eradicate that disparity. I think that’s true in a whole variety of ways. And so I think it’s essential that we recognize that there are key aspects of injustices that aren’t things that we simply resolve in a conversation. But we do have to recognize that that’s a major problem in our national in it church narrative, and that we want to address those disparities, and bring the right people to the table to solve that problem, and not simply to get to a consensus.

Jim Davis
So I said I had my last definitional question. I was wrong. George, you said that you fear that much of what we see today in anti racism emphasizes telling white people that their job is to do what people of color want without question. Anti racism is a very technical term. Would you mind just fleshing that out a little bit in defining that term?

George Yancey
Sure. So when I wrote my book, what I did was I read the major anti racism book that were popular at that time. So you know, D’Angelo was the was the number one but there’s other ones out there. And I looked for just tenancies among the because I wanted to know popular anti racism, I was less concerned about, you know, the academic anti racism, which you know, in a journal that all 15 people read. So I want to know, you know, the errors of you are talking about what they mean. And that’s where I saw certain things that popped up in almost every book and article that I saw. And one of them was this sort of notion that they talked a lot about whites, and what whites should be doing. And so I just came to the conclusion that, you know, in popularized anti racism, there’s an expectation that wiser to do what people want them to do. And my challenge is, if I’m incorrect, then find me the popular anti racism book that doesn’t do that, because I cannot find that book when I was when I was reading all these books. And to me, that is one of the problems. There’s a lot of anti racism that I actually like and agree with. But I think that’s a major problem in it.

Jim Davis
Right? So I want to go back to this phrase, racial justice cannot move forward without racial reconciliation. I think I hear and I agree with both of you that they are inextricably inextricably linked, they go they move forward together, maybe one ahead of the other. But just in case someone’s out there thinking this, does that open you up to the the claim that that would not have solved slavery, that there are times when people were not hearing from everybody that we need to move, maybe even programmatically, if you want to call it that, that Justice just has to go forward? Even when the reconciliation is not? Or maybe you just say the gap is larger? How do you how do you apply that framework to something horrible, like American slavery,

George Yancey
right? So what you know, we’re talking about something different today than back in slavery? Praise God. Yeah. Okay. So slavery, definitely, we need a civil war, civil rights movement, we needed a political private political movement, the challenge the day, because if you think about the challenge the day through slavery through Jim Crow ism through all that was our people of color, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, human. That’s the question people had. I mean, that’s, I mean, we attribute white that your treatments less than human. That is not the major question today. If you ask people, you know, are people of color human? It was gonna say, Yeah, of course, as you asked me that question. The question today is, how do we overcome our centuries of racial abuse in a way that people think is fair, and naturally your disagreement? So you’re right, there are times in which you got to do the military or political or, or, or, you know, there are times where you have those sort of overt discrepancies, that the only way you could do is just change them as very clear. But it’s not quite as clear how we move forward in a way, that’s fair. And that’s why, you know, we’re looking at a different challenge. And we, we can’t do what we did in 1960s, and think it’s gonna work as well, in the year 2022.

Jim Davis
That’s helped.

Darryl Williamson
The one thing I would say to that is, even though I agree that if you were to ask people about the humanity of black or brown people that they would give you an affirming answer. Like, the question is, is there a perception of equal value? That’s evidenced in people’s behavior? In so do we see responses to people, whether it be attitude driven responses, or whether it be degrees of engagement and energy, like we see in healthcare? And so I think that the equal humanity in every way that matters of black, brown, white people in our society is very much in question today. And not just about kind of just the mere legacy of like, kind of institutional implications of historic racism. But how does bias play out in life in life prospects, what it means in terms of one’s ability to flourish? And so that is a formational issue. That’s a hard issue, in some ways is a heart issue, but they don’t have enough time to talk about kind of the sociology of bias. And, but, but I do think that we need to recognize that when black people are perceived, that they’re not perceived as white people in our society is, I don’t know if that’s even something that’s, that’s debatable. Maybe some folks out of some sense of ideological conviction would debate it. But I think we know that I think if we’re honest, we know that’s the truth. And so and we have to be able to deal with that. We can’t and that’s a justice issue and a reconciliation issue. And so if the justice issue because those prejudices lead to disparate outcomes, and so those things need a has to lean into. And I think in this, this is important for us not to disparage some fully disparaging anti racism, people, even those that perhaps we disagree with on some things. I think that the Angelo and those guys are trying to raise awareness, or trying to create a sense of self awareness about how people are acting in ways that they just don’t recognize. Here’s some evidence. This is anecdotal. It’s not necessarily quantitative, but anecdotal experiences as a part of the human experience. So we’re more than measures, their motivations that we have, they’re not precise. They’re convictions that we feel we can’t tell you why, but we have them. And so and so these things are very racialized. And I think that’s a key part of the racial justice and racial reconciliation agenda is to deal with those kinds of prejudices, which I think is a formational problem. And that’s a longer conversation. But I think it’s a formation issue.

George Yancey
Yeah. There’s no doubt that there’s biases and prejudice that people have to appeal to colors. There’s no doubt about that. Here’s where I think, well, here’s why I think it’s so important that this point is, you know, whether you’re fully human or not, because the way you can approach people totally changes when they have to acknowledge your human even if they are a bias, for example, you know, I’ve had great experiences talking to too many whites who at first started, and I think for a lot of them, it’s it’s it’s a matter of, they don’t care enough about what’s happening, you know, which I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying that’s a different challenge than you would say, the Civil War and Jim Crow ism and death are a thing. So when you can, when you can find a way to to hit that humanity to go, oh, I should care. It changes, whereas that was really not available. When we’re talking about the Civil War. We’ll talk about Jim Crow ism, we’re talking about Native American reservations and this sort of stuff, because they were not seen as fully human. And so I think that that is, there’s a, you know, what, I think what a challenge today, and that’s a critical difference choses the day as opposed to what we’ve had for most of our history.

Jim Davis
That’s helpful. Darrell, I’m interested in the eschatological ramifications to pull in that third a little bit. also appreciate that you were clear, we’re not taught we are closed in Christ’s righteousness there is that but that doesn’t get us off the hook, either. In the terms of the ethical and the way that we live our lives, that isn’t a reason to not just to throw up our hands and not do anything. So I’m a pastor. And I talk with other pastors, and this is probably true of a lot of just white people meet people in general, but I’m gonna zero in on white pastors for a moment. I get accused of saying too much and not saying enough. And I’ve heard you talk about the scatological ramifications directly in reference to white people not saying enough. And there are lots of injustices, there are more justices in the world than I would have time to speak out against. What advice do you have four people, let’s just say pastors, for right now, white pastors even how do we know the line? We’re all we’re also shepherding a specific group of people that God has given us, they’re going to all look very different. And so just some some, some advice on how to steward that to know when to speak when not to speak. When you’re running too far ahead of your congregation, you know, just shepherding?

Darryl Williamson
I think that’s a great question. Brother. I think there are a couple of things here. I think the the fundamental issue is the issue of discipleship, which is to help our people to understand what it looks like to follow Jesus, what it looks like to be shaped into Christ’s likeness. One of the things that Dallas Willard says, which I agree with is that to be a disciple of Christ, to be a mature disciple of Christ, is to have an inner life that’s like Jesus’s inner life. And there’s a sense in which our motivations, our motivations, towards the other. I think we as we disciple people, we have to help them to take Jesus’s words seriously, in that Christ’s words, becomes the center of gravity of the kingdom agenda. And we need to be honest with ourselves as pastors, that we’ve been mentored and shaped their ways to not value Christ’s words as core. So for example, a several years ago TGC, we had a panel discussion around if Jesus preached the gospel. And it was interesting, it was very good. I mean, it was very helpful. Tim Keller, Don Carson, John Piper very helpful dialogue, and we greatly benefited from it. However, the rhetorical question, the fact that it gives them bust us as a problem. The fact that we can ask the question, did Jesus teach the gospel helps us understand that there’s something in our understanding of the gospel that perhaps is deficient, it’s, it’s a miniature, it’s a shrunken gospel. It’s not that it’s invalid. It’s just that it’s Miniatur. And I don’t think we’ve taken see Seriously, the regenerative work of the Spirit, that spirit of God has the more to just cover us in Christ’s righteousness. He we, the HIS righteousness is imputed to us. But we are meant to be changed in the way to New Testament deals with the apologetics of the faith is largely to think about it ethically. So whether it’s John First John three, four and five, he’s very clear about what the implications of lovelessness are loveless This is gracelessness gracelessness is godless. This is so we need to help our folks feel on the race conversation, what we think about this, how we feel about this matters magnificently. I’m not just talking about a loss of rewards and things like that, I’m saying to you recognize that what Jesus did for you is not the same thing as being changed by the Spirit of God. It’s a new kind of human being. And so we need to help folks to feel that without judging anyone, no warning in Scripture is a condemnation. They’re simply an attempt to provide a framework for understand what it means to be in Christ. And I think as pastors that is not just on a race issue, it’s on every relational concern. I do not have the license to hate, or to diminish people, because i Firmed certain doctrinal truths. It doesn’t work that way. And I think Paul makes it very clear. He says, Don’t let anyone deceive you into words. You don’t want to live like this. This is why the wrath of God has come. And so as pastors, our calling is to present everyone imperfect in Christ as Colossians 128. That’s our call. And so we need to make sure that our people who we are responsible for, understand what it means to be in Christ, what it means to live in a Christ like way, and how we should think about the human beings. And if you are devaluing the situation, circumstances of the people that is an eschatological problem, I can’t make you any assurances, I can’t give you any guarantees. Just because you understand a principle or truth does not mean it’s a reality for you. I think that was James’s point of James chapter two. And so I think as pastors brother, it’s important that we is less about the race issue per se, inclusive event, we’ve got to help our folks know that being in Christ is a life and they love. And if those two things are absent, I don’t care where you have definitionally, you don’t have Christ. And the reason why that’s the case, it’s not because some rule is because it’s the Spirit’s work. And he’s powerful enough, he’s charismatic enough to make that work, efficacious, man, it’s real, it’s going to happen. And I think we need to help them to understand that.

Jim Davis
So what I’m hearing is, it’s possible to be accomplishing that and be quiet on social media.

Darryl Williamson
A good reason to be quiet, especially just as a principle, right? Well, I

Jim Davis
know, I know, a Christian leader who’s fairly quiet on social media about these things. And he gets attacked for it. But you look at his private life, and he’s very much investing his time and energies in individuals in his context, both in the church and outside of the marriage. Amen. And he’s probably accomplishing more than the loudest of us on social media. Amen, brother. All right, we’ve talked about formation than discipleship, I think we’ve established that it happens at the relational level. I’d love to hear each of you talk about practical things that we can be moving toward in the church to be seeing this happen more increasingly more in our own contexts. I think you mentioned formation first. So I’ll start with you. And then I want to hear your

Darryl Williamson
so I think the key thing about formation is that we have formation is only really meaningfully achieved in informational environment. And that’s meant to be the church in so I think what that means for us in this issue, I think it means multi ethnic, multicultural churches, as a goal that we should pursue that in a way that folks wiring about how they perceive people of different ethnicities and cultures can be reworked. I think the gospel gospel community is intended to reshape how we perceive each other. Paul says that we no longer view anyone from a worldly point of view. And so that community reshapes and D redefines my biases in so I think that’s first we’ve got to go after that. I think within that we have to educate people on the reality of these racial disparities and what some people in our churches are dealing with, just to get to raise their antenna, that this is not just a political issue or a social issue. It’s an issue for my brother, it’s an issue for my sister, and I begin to experience their encounter with these things. I think that makes me more sensitive. Now become an advocate both for them and also for other folks who have that same experience.

Jim Davis
Alright, I’m gonna I’m gonna come to you but so I want to ask a question. About practically developing that and say, my own context. I’m a white man pastoring, a church, largely white church, you and I were talking about a dear friend just a minute ago, who’s a black man who is pastoring, a truly multi ethnic PCA church in Orlando. And I, as a white man, though, I feel it’s challenging to move that ball forward. And you and I talked about this, we’re trying what are some? What are some things you would urge your white pastor brothers and church leaders, sisters, to what, what are some places you want to know, just want to hear.

Darryl Williamson
So the two things I would recommend to them, I can maybe there’s three. And then we start with the third one that just came to mind. I don’t think it means leading your church to become multicultural. And I think that the reason why I think it’s not that if it’s a larger white church, is that you’re probably going to end up creating an environment that’s going to feel alien alien, or perhaps hostile to people of color, we come in there. So I think it’s important not to try to diversify white spaces as a strategy for pursuing multi ethnicity multicultural churches. I think there are two things, though, that we can do. One is that we can like our friend, we can plant we can establish the DNA going into a church, we can plant multicultural, multi ethnic churches, churches that are reconciled, and also just so I think we can plant those churches. Here’s another thing that we can do that we don’t talk about nearly enough. I think that we can diversify, largely black and Latino churches that our church is storing. Our church was planted as an African American church. That was its definition. We are today multicultural church, about 40%, black, about 35%, white and about 25%, Latino, brown, Latino. And so I think that the churches of color are safe spaces for everyone existentially the ones that if a white brother or sister comes in, they’re not going to get hurt there that met it could happen, because these are human beings. But But largely, it’s a comfortable place for everyone. And it’s also less likely to have these culture wars inside the church around issues like racial justice. And so I think those two things, I think, planting those churches, I think, diversifying churches of color, I think, and white churches, kind of educating your people on the issues can be done without trying to change the church, which will lead to conflict, tension and resistance.

Jim Davis
That’s a good word. Thank you. All right, formation and discipleship to move both reconciliation and justice forward in the context of our local church. What? What advice do you have?

George Yancey
Yeah, so as I think about that question, I think two things come to mind. And, you know, I’m not a theologian, I don’t even play one on TV. But you know, one thing I think that we get these rise Christians that they’re not gonna run the rest of the world is it nature play humans are, you know, because of our idea of depravity, we know that humans are a great worth, and depraved whereas in a humanist philosophy, only humans are going to have great worth that which means that we know in interacting with others will force human depravity that Dr. Yun probably always starts with me. I started to me and then I can I understand others. So it doesn’t, Hey, y’all are deprived, you need to know if I really understand that doctrine means I need to learn from everyone else. And, you know, beyond race, this has such implications as to what we should be as Christians. I mean, I think that’s something that I would like to see churches teach more about the nature of what humans are to pray for, and yet still image bearers of God. You know, what does that mean? And how common should we be that we have all the answers given given this and I thought of as a sociologist as confirmation bias and such but really, it’s it’s true to on high, good science and good theology go together. So it’s was that on a more practical level, with a more practical level? You know, I think that we need to try to live a lifestyle that is more collaborative in our in our conversations inclusive. That means first off, it means yeah, having diverse friendships, if you don’t in this day and age of the internet, what’s wrong with you? Honestly, second, to be willing to have the conversation. My best friend in high and non High School in college was a white guy. We talked about God we talked about girls, we talked about politics, we talk about everything but race. I have a friend who’s Hispanic who wasn’t I wasn’t as close but we talked about racial issues. That’s on me that I was unwilling to have the conversation. He did not ever push it away. Okay. I won’t blame him. That was me. I was unwilling to have a conversation with be willing to have the conversation when it comes up in appropriate manners that when you meet someone say hey, listen by race, but when it goes up in appropriate manner, We have to have conversations so we can understand each other, not just browse the people down right like that. So we can understand one another, these principles of collaboration so that we can build rapport, and are some of the coming from an agreement of a good point. And these sorts of things, we need to engage in those conversations. And over time, we need to build a community, we need to build organizations that promote this sort of idea. I think that this idea goes against the what the world is saying. And that’s, that’s fine. Because I think the solution to racism resides in the church, we just have not done it. We instead have gone along with the world has died. The world says Be colorblind will be colorblind, the rule says do this, we’ll do this. We need to set the agenda, which is working together with reconciliation. And as we do that, finding ways to achieve justice. And you know, one of the things that I just feel, you know, the only thing Geralyn me other than some minor things is he approached this as No, we have to have justice, we go along. Now I’m saying no, we’ve had recessions go along. And we kind of both agree, we just came from different angles. And so I think that we’re kind of saying the same thing. We can’t leave one without the other. But because if you do, you know, out of the dangers of revenge, but you can’t leave by Justice, we’re all see at the dangers of injustice. But that will come in the conversations and that will come and working together and learn about each other and care about each other. Well, that’s

Jim Davis
a good point. And what if, what if we kind of land the plane a little bit with two questions. The first is, you talk about the the reconciliation, maybe you’re emphasizing the reconciliation side a little more, and you’re emphasizing the justice side a little more, I’d love for you to address the each extreme, maybe you can address the extreme on the reconciliation side that would say, Why do anything, you know, that would be the extreme. And the extreme on the justice side would say, we need things change no matter what. And we’re going to push policies and arguments and articles and social media to that end, going far ahead of the wreck, true formation or reconciliation. So if your word I’d love for y’all to engage those two extremes, we’ll start really

George Yancey
started me okay. So here’s what it looks like, when you you push reconciliation and don’t concern justice. What happens is that people start thinking, Okay, let’s not rock the boat. And so if you bring up something, oh, you’re rocking the boat. And what happens is that people are called racist for bringing up issues of concern. And so that is, that’s what happens when you when you say, well, will, we need to be we need to come together and love one another. And let’s not talk about these issues of justice. And you know, couldn’t you people call or put aside those issues, for the sake of reconciliation. And I think, you know, the way that and I gave, I gave examples of how I see this, but I think just describing this shows why that cannot work for as a person of color. You know, part of who I am as as African American, and parva, I understand that just couldn’t get out of hand. But, you know, I know that there are things that need to be corrected, I want to work towards that I’m willing to work towards I’m willing to, to work towards that working with people not to impose, but I have to feel that I’m working towards that.

Jim Davis
So that’s great. So that you said it. Well, reconciliation without justice. So what’s the danger of justice without reconciliation? Yeah, I

Darryl Williamson
think that, you know, I think Martin King addressed this really well, in one of his last speeches is that we can find ourselves in desegregation, and having, in some ways, some kind of physical proximity, but spiritual distance. And I don’t think it’s good enough, let’s think first inside the church, it is definitely not good enough for the church, and that truly be the church, we need to be joined, we need a shared spirituality, we need a shared experience of the Spirit of God. And so that requires us to be reconciled. We cannot be the church in be somehow separate, while achieving restorative things for people. And so I think that, that that would be a social vision, and not really a redemptive vision. So I think it’s important that we don’t lose that. I think in the broader society, though, it’s important even though we can’t talk about community like we can go after the church. I think God does have a vision still for a community, kind of a common grace community. And so we want that to be in place as well. We don’t want to have compartmentalize this kind of like balkanized reality, and so because what that does, it sets us up for future conflict, in the only way to to to mitigate that is to have a shared sense share system. timidity

Jim Davis
good answer. Last question for the both of you. Realistically Are we live in the already not yet. Jesus has inaugurated his kingdom, it will not be fully consummated until he gives comes back. And that’s where we live. So realistically, how much do you think can and should be accomplished this side of the Second Coming? We’ll start with you.

Darryl Williamson
Yeah, I think that is true for all of our relationships and our marriages. And we know that our marriages aren’t going to be perfect, but they can also still be good. The mayor for 34 years now, it’s a very, very good marriage. I don’t know what I said to my wife, but she married me. And in some grateful for that, I think we can have healthy churches, all healthy churches, we have issues that they’re dealing with. So it’s not the consummated kingdom. So I think the Lord would have us to pursue justice now. So think about the Lord Isaiah 59, where he talks about he looks, and he sees this absence of justice, it bothers him. I think it bothers him if we’re not going after it now. And we’ll make progress toward it perfection. No, but real gain, I think is possible, because we’re made in God’s image, and we can actually affect meaningful change. Thanks.

George Yancey
Yeah. I mean, I think that’s well said, I mean, you know, I, I do not expect perfection, I need grace. So I better give grace. And so when people mess up, I better be there to to have grace, if they are truly, you know, if someone asked for repentance, I need to be there for them. And so we’re gonna, we’re gonna make mistakes moving forward. But I think that we can make the effort moving forward. I think that’s very important to keep working with and for dealing with this issue doing that issue and keep with before, even though there will still be issues out there, and that process is a process of doing that is going to be it’s going to produce real racial harmony, not fake racial harmony, real racial harmony as we learn how to love one another and learn how learn about our own inadequacies. So I think that we can do that even though we know that we’re gonna mess up Oh, is gonna be we’re gonna mess up. We’re still gonna move forward.

Jim Davis
Well, thank you. But I really thank you both for joining us for giving your time for practicing what you preach for living, which you encourage. These are complicated, complex, and even personal issues. And I just appreciate you being open and transparent and giving so much of your time and mental life and emotional life to formation and discipleship and moving us forward, both at a local level. But things like this you’re doing at a larger level too. So I appreciate both of you and to you out there online. I hope that this has been a helpful and profitable use of your time and our prayers that God would use it in your life and the things that these brothers are talking about, would advance increasingly through you in your local context. Blessings.