Archives: Christianity

INTRODUCTION 

In the first part of this article, I addressed the idea of “faith and learning” within the larger notion of Faith Integration. In this section I will address the idea of academic integration which is sometimes called the integration of “Truth and Knowledge” or the “Unification of Knowledge”.  

ACADEMIC INTEGRATION  

For academics and professionals, the process of academic integration is a major challenge. Academic integration is the engagement of the relationship between one’s academic major or interest and the academic discipline of theology. This may be in the natural sciences (astronomy and theology) or the behavioral sciences (psychology and theology) or any other academic discipline (music and theology or architecture and theology). Because theology functions as an academic discipline, its relationship with the other disciplines is a matter of comparison and contrasts between assumptions, epistemologies, theories and data.  

One of the problems of academic integration is that many academics and professionals have a graduate level understanding of their discipline as a result of completing a Masters or Doctoral program in that discipline, but they only have a layman’s or Sunday School level of theological understanding. Conversely, many pastors and theologians have a layman’s knowledge or a popular understanding of a given academic discipline such as psychology or medicine. The result is that the integration of theology and a given academic disciplines is, at best, uneven. 

An additional consideration is that within any academic discipline there are schools of thought that differ in their understanding of the scope and knowledge acceptable within that discipline. And in theology there are differences between and within Judaism and Christianity. For example, significant theological differences between Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Reformed and Free-church theologies exist. 

What is needed is a relatively equal understanding of one’s academic field and that of theology. The problem of academic integration is that it requires significant time and access to quality content. Few professors have that level of training and understanding. There are, however, some academics in each discipline that, as believers, have struggled with and worked out an understanding of the relationship between their academic discipline and the theology of their faith. This gives us a place to start. 

Academic integration is more problematic in the behavioral sciences because of the enormous overlap in focus between anthropology, psychology and sociology and theology in both understanding human nature and behavior, and the application of that knowledge to human development and suffering. The foundational assumptions of the secular Behavioral Sciences and those of the Judeo-Christian theologies make for conflict in several areas of inquiry. For example what is the relationship of sin and/or mental illness in our understanding of human nature?  And how does this affect the interpretation of data related to causes and nuances of human behavior? But even with these differences in worldview and theoretical variance, we can allow for fruitful discussion of the relationship between behavioral science and theological understandings of the human condition. 

We must start with the assumptions of the behavioral sciences and theology. The central core of religious belief is the idea that God is, and that humans were created by God for His purpose. For the behavioral sciences, the assumption that guides them is naturalism. This means that God does not exist or is not considered in the causes and results of human behavior.  This is a serious difference and must not be discounted because it has implications for how we interpret data. 

Over the last several decades several approaches to integration of theology and the behavioral sciences have been posited. One is the conflict model that takes the posture that there is no compatibility between theology and behavioral science knowledge. This is largely based on the incompatibility of the assumptions of naturalism within the secular behavioral sciences and the supernaturalism assumption of theology, but it is also a conflict of epistemology, that is, the relationship between empiricism and special revelation. 

Another approach is a compartmental model. This model considers theological knowledge (Truth) as valid and also accepts behavioral science knowledge as factual (truth). This big T and small t idea of truth argues that these sources of knowledge are both valid but significantly different. Therefore, they must be kept separate in scope and application. In this case mental health and sin are not able to be considered together and therefore psychotherapies and religious practice must also remain separate so as to not compromise the content of either. 

A third model is functionalism. This model sees the behavioral sciences and religion as different attempts at the same goal. In some cases, an alcoholic responds positively to the help of a higher power (God) who assists in the resistance to the damaging results of the sin of drunkenness. In other cases, a person may be made worse by such an approach but seeing their problem as an illness that is not their fault opens them up to the possibility of help through medical and counseling methods. In each case, what works for one person will not work for another. The functionalist is not so much concerned with the method but with the result – sobriety. 

Finally there are eclectic models that see a benefit in putting theology and behavioral science knowledge together. These models often claim that “all truth is God’s truth” and believe that accurate knowledge in the behavioral sciences and correct theology are fully compatible. There are two versions of the eclectic models. “Mining” models see some truth in the Bible and theology and some truth in the behavioral sciences and attempt to put them together for a fuller and more accurate understanding of human behavior. This view of the Bible as containing truth tends to be found in more liberal theologies of Judaism and Christianity. In most cases, behavioral science data is held as valid and theological considerations are adapted to those facts. 

The other eclectic model is one that “Filters” behavioral sciences through a conservative theology that considers Truth to be revealed in scripture and accurate knowledge (truth) to be discovered by research. In these cases, behavioral science theories and data are filtered through a Biblical screen. If the content does not conflict with cardinal conservative theology, it is accepted as compatible.   

Of course there are variants of these models like the one developed by myself and Dr. Nathan P. Lewis. The Systematic-Relational Models begins with an openness that a given theory and theology may be in conflict, or may be compartmental, or functionally equivalent or compatible but this requires an understanding of the assumptions, theories, specific data and application that avoids simplistic connections and maintains the integrity of theology and the behavioral sciences. 

We have examined personal faith and learning and academic integration. Our final section will look at professional integration of values and ethics. 

This is part two of the Faith Integration series, make sure to check out part three!

INTRODUCTION 

In education, academia, and various professions, there is a concept of faith integration that is of particular concern to persons of faith. The idea of faith integration or “faith and learning” is mentioned often but has several connotations that can make the subject difficult for the new student, scholar, or professional to grasp. This three-part article will attempt to describe three types of faith integration that are commonly engaged. They are: 

1.  Faith and Learning 

2. Academic Integration 

3.  Professional Ethics Integration

Each of these actually intersects with the others but it can be helpful to separate them for purposes of clarity. This three part article will address each of them in turn beginning with Faith and Learning. 

Before addressing Faith and Learning, we need to understand the use of the term “Integration”. The term generally means to put two or more distinct items or concepts together. The purpose of integration then is to bring these items together for a greater good or use. I define the term integration, with regard to Faith and Learning, Academic Integration or Ethical Integration, as putting faith and knowledge into proper relationship. This definition of integration avoids blending or overlapping them. In this way, I attempt to maintain the integrity of each aspect being integrated while understanding the purpose and benefit for such integration. 

FAITH AND LEARNING 

In the case of Faith and Learning, we are putting one’s personal faith tradition and education into proper relationship. This is the most personal and individual level of integration. Faith and learning recognize that as a person of faith, there is an impact of one belief system and behavior connected to that faith tradition. The impact is on how one engages in education, both formal and informal. How a person learns is often dependent on their perspective on the nature of knowledge and their concept of reality. This determines what they will consider worthy of study and investigation. This also varies based on one’s exposure to modes and contexts of learning. 

 Historically, Christianity follows its Jewish roots as a literate faith. Adherents to Christianity have generally been encouraged to read and write the scriptures and to engage knowledge regarding the creation and humanity in relationship to scripture as a revelation of truth. While literacy is not required in all modes of learning, its historic benefit for access to knowledge is unparalleled. Libraries are the collective memory of humanities searching and understanding on reality and life. 

For the Christian growing up in a religious home and community, the process of learning is an integration of one’s faith tradition and culture. Faith formation of children in religious homes and congregations has often been intended to be synchronistic. The faith tradition and cultural knowledge are internalized at the same time and at the level of the child’s maturity. This can, at times, be difficult to separate because the cultural tradition and faith tradition form a single learning experience for the child. They become a second nature.  In other cases, because the learning is taught separately as in a public school and a separate religious instruction, the learning of these may be separated and result in a more compartmental yet parallel integration. This will also be affected by the compatibility between the faith tradition and the general culture. When the faith tradition is the dominant one to the culture, a greater compatibility exists between ethnic and religious identity and cultural belonging. When the religious tradition or family ethnicity is not the dominant cultural expression, a greater sense of marginality with regard to personal identity may be manifested. 

For the convert, the faith must be learned and integrated into an existing knowledge of the cultural way of life. This is certainly true of adult converts. This transformational integration of faith will involve some conflicts and changes in priorities resulting from the faith being internalized. Again, much of this depends on the amount of conflict or compatibility that exists between the dominant culture and the faith tradition. 

At the heart of faith and learning is the development or changing of the worldview and identity of the individual person.  Worldview is formed as one learns their culture and faith tradition and therefore it both guides and limits the parameters of experience. 

Whether the process is synchronized or a conversion transformation, the student engages knowledge against a background of religion and education that has been internalized and informs their personality and character. This is integral to their identity and perception of reality and influences and affects their learning style and content. 

Because this is the most individualized aspect of integration, more cannot be said about it in this article. But the other forms of faith integration, Academic and Ethical, can be separately discussed with regard to their characteristics and dynamics.  In part two of this blog I will address academic Integration. For our purposes, this will be focused on the integration of Theology and the Behavioral Sciences. 

This is part one of the Faith Integration series, be sure to check out part two and part three!

This is Part 3 of a 3-part blog post.   

Read Part 1: Why Does Commitment Matter in Marriage?

Read Part 2: Personal Commitment in Marriage and a Personal Worldview

As I explained definitions of moral commitment in the previous blog, moral commitment in marriage refers to “the sense that one is morally obligated to continue a relationship.” Johnson (1999) has argued that moral commitment is affected by three components: a belief in the value of consistency in the marriage, values regarding the stability of a particular type of marriage, and the sense of obligation to one’s partner. Moral commitment provided a sound explanation of relationship stability. Researchers found that moral commitment has connections with relationship maintenance behaviors in a sample of married individuals. Ramirez (2008) reported that moral commitment is positively associated with relational maintenance behaviors as a means of maintaining marital relationships, including assurances of a marital future, including important friends and family, expressing attraction to the spouse, a positive approach to the relationship, and acceptance of household responsibilities. Ramirez explained that individuals’ relational maintenance behaviors increased their spouse’s sense of moral obligation because the spouses perceived the expressed relational maintenance behaviors as the desire to continue the relationship. Researchers also found that commitment to marriage was positively associated with moral standards, religiosity, and church attendance, while it was negatively associated with the number of times married. This result showed that this dimension of commitment reflected moral conduct and personal integrity based on a sense of right and wrong. 

Religion and spirituality are important parts of marriage, and they strengthen marital commitment. Several studies showed the existence of a relationship between spirituality/religion and the quality of marriage. Religious orientation provides the prime motivation for marital commitment. Religious devotion and spirituality reinforce the moral aspect of commitment by providing the value that is placed on the marital bond and spiritual support. Mahoney and others (2008) reviewed 94 studies on religiosity and marital functioning. Their review reported that greater individual religiousness is related to greater commitment to marriage.  

Including God in the marriage enhances married individuals’ belief that the institution of marriage should not be broken by divorce. Religious married individuals believe that since the husband and wife are united with God in a threefold cord, God is displeased with breaking this cord through a divorce. Accordingly, in order to avoid the displeasure of God, these married individuals are motivated to remain in the marriage. The belief that their partner would not consider divorce gives them a sense of peace and security and an increased desire to work through the problems in their marriage. Conversely, commitment to the institution of marriage works as a barrier to divorce, even when married individuals’ marital quality is not high. When the religious community in which married individuals are involved forbids or strongly discourages divorce, married individuals who seek a divorce feel concerned about disincentives from their religious community. 

Religiosity also provides a sacred calling and purpose for committing to marriage. The belief that God is included in marriage offers the perspective and sacred purpose needed to remain committed. In his sacred calling, a husband and wife find meaning in their commitment to marriage. Finding meaning in commitment to marriage as a sacred calling gives married individuals a desire for relationship permanence, which helps married individuals work through difficulties rather than an unpleasant obligation. Waite and Joyner (2001) argued that marital commitment was strongest when married individuals had a clear sense of the future together. Since religiosity provides married individuals with a sacred meaning for relationship permanence, they perceive increased benefits to staying together. 

Moral commitment in the Bible 

Marriage as a permanent covenant is not merely a human agreement between two consenting individuals but a sacred bond between a man and a woman entered before and under God as a witness. Malachi 2:14 describes the marriage agreement between the woman and her husband before God: “Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.” The Hebrew word for “companion” is haberet, which refers to “friend, partner” or a closer relationship involving a covenant. Malachi spoke against Jewish men who were divorcing their wives for the purpose of entering advantageous marriages with pagan women who worshipped other gods. Malachi indicated that divorce was a violation of the marriage covenant because one’s wife was a spiritual companion who had come into association with a covenant. Since the Lord had acted as a witness to these marriage covenants, Jewish men’s behaviors were an affront to God. Accordingly, divorce is not part of the Creator’s perfect design. It is to be prohibited since it breaks a unique and holy union.  

In Matthew 19, Jesus cites Genesis as the foundation for understanding marriage. When the Pharisees questioned Jesus about divorce saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” Jesus replied to them by quoting from Genesis 2:24: “Have you not read that … a man … be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matt 19:4-6). In Moses’ day, permission for divorce was a temporary concession made due to the fallen nature of humanity. However, Jesus indicated that God’s original design for marriage was permanent and that the hardness of the heart itself should not be a legitimate excuse for divorce. Jesus’ teaching shows the truth that marriage is more than a contract for the convenience of the two parties. Since marriage is a unique and holy union, divorce is not in accord with the Creator’s perfect design. 

Consequently, the belief that God is part of their marriage as a third cord gives married individuals the strength to remain committed. It includes that God “brought them together,” and their wedding vow is a covenant with God. Since they perceive the relationship with God as the center of their marriage, commitment to marriage is an outcome of commitment to God. They are motivated to be committed to their marriage.  

References

Johnson, M. P., Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (1999). The Tripartite nature of marital commitment: personal, moral, and structural reasons to stay married. Journal of Marriage & Family, 61(1), 160-177. 

Johnson, M. P., Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (1999). The Tripartite nature of marital commitment: personal, moral, and structural reasons to stay married. Journal of Marriage & Family, 61(1), 160-177. 

Ramirez Jr, A. (2008). An examination of the tripartite approach to commitment: An Actor-Partner Interdependence Model Analysis of the effect of relational maintenance behavior. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 25(6), 943-965. 

Waite, L. J., & Joyner, K. (2001). Emotional Satisfaction and Physical Pleasure in Sexual Unions: Time Horizon, Sexual Behavior, and Sexual Exclusivity. Journal of Marriage & Family, 63(1), 247-264. 

This is Part 2 of a 3-part blog post.   

Read Part 1: Why Does Commitment Matter in Marriage?

Three Types of Commitment 

It is important to note that the reason partners commit to their marriage may vary. The “tripartite commitment” approach (Johnson, 1991; Johnson, Caughlin, & Huston, 1999) explains commitment as a multidimensional construct that consists of three types of commitment: personal commitment, moral commitment, and structural commitment. Personal commitment refers to “the extent to which one wants to stay in a relationship.” Personal commitment is affected by attraction to one’s partner, attraction to the relationship, and couple identity. Moral commitment refers to “the sense that one is morally obligated to continue a relationship.” Johnson (1999) has argued that moral commitment is affected by three components: a belief in the value of consistency in the marriage, values regarding the stability of a particular type of marriage, and the sense of obligation to one’s partner. Structural commitment refers to “the sense of constraint or that there are barriers to leaving a relationship.” Johnson has argued that this commitment is described in four components: alternatives, social pressure, termination procedures, and irretrievable investments. The first component, alternatives, involves a spouse’s decisions about relationship dissolution because of the availability of alternative circumstances such as economics, housing, and employment. The second component, social pressure, involves opinions or reactions from people who may or may not approve of relationship dissolution. The third component, termination procedures, involves the difficulty of procedures to end a marital relationship. The last component, irretrievable investments, involves feelings about having invested time and resources into a relationship if the relationship comes to an end.

The Importance of Personal Commitment

Married individuals consider commitment to their partners as an essential factor to their current marital satisfaction. Several studies found that individuals who are more committed to their partners have more tolerance and more realistic expectations, spend more time together, give more compliments to the spouse, and forgive their partners, compared to more weakly committed ones. Several studies found that married individuals who are highly committed to each other as persons were found to have significantly less difficulty in solving marital problems in all areas of marriage because commitment provided a foundation for healthy conflict resolution. Research has found that this type of commitment was also related to willingness to sacrifice, better communication, greater happiness, and an increase in accommodation toward partners.   

Clements and Swensen (2000) reported that personal commitment is the strongest and most consistent predictor of marital quality. Swensen and Trahaug found that married individuals whose commitment was primarily to each other as persons had fewer problems and more reciprocal love in marriage than couples whose commitment was mainly to the institution of marriage. 

Personal Commitment In the Bible

The concept of personal commitment is evidenced throughout Scripture. The Hebrew word hesed, which is a strong relational and covenant term, cannot be captured with one English word. Hesed can be translated as love, mercy, grace, faithfulness, loyalty, goodness, and benevolence that are all positive characteristics of God that are true of people. The quality of hesed is going beyond the obligations to duty to show exceptional faithfulness or kindness to those with whom one relates. Although people seek to fulfill their needs on their own behalf, true covenant faith is expressed by placing the welfare of others ahead of oneself. 

In the Old Testament, love is an expression of covenant commitment in acts of hesed. Ruth and Boaz serve as models of hesed by having loved other people more than they loved themselves. When Ruth offered herself in marriage to Boaz, he praised her for a great act of hesed, because she showed kindness and grace. Boaz also treated her with true hesed, even though she was Moabitess. Accordingly, hesed exists in a marriage when a husband and wife go beyond the minimal requirements of his or her obligation and show real kindness to his or her spouse.  

Throughout the Bible, marriage is frequently used as a metaphor to describe the nature of the relationship between God and his people. In the Scriptures, the marriage commitment reflects a permanent covenant between God and His people. Hosea describes the covenant He made with His people as a marital relationship: “I will betroth you to Me forever; Yes, I will betroth you to Me in righteousness and in justice, In loving kindness and in compassion” (Hosea 2:19).  

Biblical marriage based on personal commitment is more than a human contract. Hosea describes Israel’s spiritual condition in Hosea 4:1. “There is no faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgment of God in the land.” The marriage between God and Israel is the covenant, which implies more than a contract where business is at the heart of the relationship. While a contract can be maintained without any love between the two parties, the covenant as marriage is a relationship of love between God and His people.  

As a result, married individuals who show hesed do not simply fulfill their duties to their spouse but go beyond an obligation in a marriage relationship by showing real kindness to their spouse. 

References

Block, D. I. (1999). Judges, Ruth. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman Publishers. 

Clements, R., & Swensen, C. H. (2000). Commitment to one’s spouse as a predictor of marital quality among older couples. Current Psychology, 19(2), 110. 

Garrett, D. A. (1997). Hosea, Joel. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman. 

Johnson, M. P. (1991). Commitment to personal relationships. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in Personal Relationships (Vol. 3, pp. 117-143). London: Jessica Kingsley. 

Johnson, M. P., Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (1999). The Tripartite nature of marital commitment: personal, moral, and structural reasons to stay married. Journal of Marriage & Family, 61(1), 160-177. 

Swensen, C. H., & Trahaug, G. (1985). Commitment and the long-term marriage relationship. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47(4), 939-945. 

This is Part 1 of a 3-part blog post.   

Marriage is the most stable social institution, with approximately 90 percent of adults choosing to marry. Despite high rates of divorce, people expect to marry since they want a deep, lasting, and loving relationship. A number of studies have shown the appeal and benefits of a healthy marriage. Compared to those who are in unhealthy marriages, those who are in healthy marriages are physically, emotionally, financially, and sexually healthier. Married couples, on average, create more economic assets and save and invest more for the future than do otherwise single or cohabitating couples. A healthy marriage not only provides greater life satisfaction and a sense of meaning but also reduces negative emotions such as loneliness, depression, and anxiety. Despite these benefits of marriage, marital cynicism abounds. Young married couples in their first marriage have about a 40 to 50 percent divorce rate. The divorce rate of those who marry more than once rises. These statistics revealed that the level of confidence in marriage has declined.  

Why is a commitment in marriage important? 

Relationship researchers have investigated protective factors and risk factors that affect marital outcomes, including marital satisfaction and marital stability. Among the factors that increase the likelihood of positive marital outcomes, marital commitment has been given a great deal of research attention. While the definition of commitment varies in the literature, the general consensus is that marital commitment requires partners’ intention to preserve their marriage regardless of their situations and feelings or evaluations of their marriage. Such intention stems from partners’ sense of loyalty, devotion, dedication, and sacrifice. Committed partners to each other make intentional efforts for their marriage even in times of conflict and stress. 

Numerous studies revealed that lack of commitment was one of the most important contributors that affected divorce. On the other hand, partners’ high levels of marital commitment have been found to be associated with positive marital outcomes. Highly committed partners are more likely to express their affection, feel close to and interdependent with their partner, have the willingness to accommodate and sacrifice for their partner, and may be more forgiving in response to their partner’s betrayal and transgressions. Furthermore, partners in a highly committed marriage tend to have a strong sense of unity as a couple, share a long-term view of their marriage, prioritize their spouse and marriage over self-interest and are more willing to sacrifice self-interest to preserve their marriage. 

Marital commitment is also an important contributor that increases marital stability, and partners’ lack of commitment is known to be a risk factor for marital dissolution. Highly committed partners expected their union to be life-long, so divorce was not considered even during difficult times. They tend to perceive their marital issues as “solvable” and demonstrate a willingness to work on those issues. Marital commitment is also important for the stability and longevity of remarriages. What makes remarriages likely to end in divorce may be a lack of commitment rather than marital conflict itself. Commitment appears to be a vitally important variable in influencing marriage stability. 

What does the Bible say about commitment?  

The term “commitment “ is little mentioned in the Scriptures, but the characteristics of commitment are similar to those of covenant that is evidenced throughout the Scriptures. The Hebrew transliteration for the word “covenant” is berit, which refers to agreements or pledges between men or a covenant between God and men. The term covenant generally implies “the idea of a solemn commitment, guaranteeing promises or obligations undertaken by one or both covenanting parties.” Grudem (2000) defined covenant as “an unchangeable, divinely imposed legal agreement between God and man that stipulates the conditions of their relationship.” The essential element at the heart of the covenant is the unchangeable promise.  

Genesis 2:18-25 provides important teaching about marriage in all of the Bible. The passage about Adam and Eve portrays marital commitment in these words: “a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). “They shall become one flesh” refers to the sexual act as the consequence of their bonding, which unites husband and wife in one new person. The Hebrew transliteration for “be joined” used in this verse is dabaq, which means “to adhere,” “to cling,” or “to stick.” The Hebrew word dabaq is commonly used to describe covenant relationships in the Bible. One of the examples of a covenant relationship in the Bible is Ruth’s commitment to Naomi. When Naomi allowed Ruth to return to the place where she was staying, she clung (dabaq) to her. Ruth’s statement revealed the nature and depth of commitment. “Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God” (Ruth 1:16). 

Conclusion 

Marriage continues to be considered an important social institution in which individuals secure a loving, committed relationship with their partner. Americans have become less likely to marry, while unmarried cohabitation has rapidly increased. The divorce rate of those who marry more than once rises. Lack of commitment was one of the most important contributors that affected divorce. As this research shows, commitment appears to be a vitally important variable in influencing marriage stability. Commitment is as a critical aspect in enabling married individuals to persevere in marriage. The Bible also shows that commitment is a primary motive for God’s covenant love for people and a long-term marriage relationship. 

References 

Adams, J. M., & Jones, W. H. (1997). The conceptualization of marital commitment: An Integrative Analysis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 72, 1177-1196.  

Cate, R. M., Levin, L. A., & Richmond, L. S. (2002). Premarital relationship stability: A review of recent research. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 19, 261-284.  

Grudem, W. A. (2000). Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan. 

U.S. Census Bureau, (2014). America’s families and living arrangements. Retrieved from:  https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2014/demo/families/cps-2014.html 

Whitton, S. W., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Johnson, C. A. (2013). Attitudes toward divorce, commitment, and divorce proneness in first marriages and remarriages. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 75, 276-287.  

This is Part 4 of a 4-part blog post. 

Read Part 1: Black History Month: A Call For Healing Conversations

Read Part 2: Healing Conversations on Race: The Role of Empathy in Building Christlike Racial Unity

Read Part 3: Healing Conversations on Race: Acceptance

---

We sat around the dinner table on a typical weeknight; my husband, myself, my 10-year old daughter, and my 7-year old son. We were probably eating pizza or Chinese food (I can’t remember). As we watched the evening news a commercial came on advertising an upcoming documentary special celebrating Black History month. In just a few moments the trailer for the program highlighted slavery, the civil rights movement, and the Jim Crow era. My son turned to me and asked “Why do White people hate Black people?” Then my daughter chimed in “Yea, why do White people always try to kill Black people? Why are they so mean?”  I was frozen and didn’t know what to say. I planned on having a simple dinner not answering deep sociological questions from a 7- year old. This was a painful question to answer because, based on historical and current facts, I could see why they would conclude that White people must hate Black people. What other conclusion could they draw about slavery, segregation, or the murder of George Floyd? However, I didn’t want them to believe that ALL White people are hateful and violent towards Black people. I needed them to feel hopeful and believe that the “arch of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice”. What my children were experiencing is what some scholars call intergenerational racial trauma. Although my children have not experienced racism directly, and live in a very racially diverse and loving environment, they still feel the sting of anti-black racism in society.  

As I sat at the table searching for a response to my children’s questions I thought quickly back to the book my colleagues and I wrote; Healing Conversations on Race. The chapter I spent the most time writing was about Love. In this chapter, we suggest to readers that the love of God and love of others is a commandment. Also, Christlike love should be demonstrated through actions that exemplify the nature of Christ. Further, we have both an individual and collective responsibility to demonstrate Christlike love in all our relationships. It is critical to recognize that Christlike love is incompatible with racial disunity and racism. As we move closer to consistently living a life that demonstrates Christlike love we should be compelled towards a pursuit of racial unity.  

So I said to my children “Do you think it’s true that ALL white people hate Black people?” “What about your best friends Jennifer and Conner?” “What about Aunt Alice?” “Do they hate you?” These were all people who are very close to our family and love them dearly. They also happen to be white. We started a conversation about what love looks like and how it’s impossible to hate someone and be violent toward them if you truly love them. We talked about the ways our white friends demonstrate their love towards us.  As we had this conversation, I could see their wheels spinning and see them begin to develop discrepancies between the hate they saw displayed in that commercial and the love they experience in their lives.  

The experience my children had was one I pray more Christians have. The Healing Conversations on Race book helps Christians have these kinds of conversations. In the book we teach that God hates sin, racism is a sin, so God hates racism. The book guides us to see how our life experiences, relationships, and internalized narratives have led us to have beliefs about folks who are racially different from us. Many times these beliefs are inaccurate and inconsistent with scripture. We suggest that love is not a cliché or ambiguous feeling and the Bible teaches us what it looks like to really love others. We suggest that love is displayed through Christlikeness, humility, and self-sacrifice. We teach that love is incompatible with racist thoughts, behaviors, policies, and societies and loving conversations can bring healing.  

My children are still young and will continue to wrestle with understanding race and racism. Our brief dinner conversation does not negate the reality of racialized hate in this country. However, I hope that our conversation helped them to think more deeply about their relationships and the ways they can engage with white people (and others who are racially different) in a way that draws them into loving, Christlike relationships. My hope for them, and for you, is that we can practice humility, empathy, acceptance, and love that drives out hate and racism and brings us closer to unity in Christ. This is very challenging work. However, it’s through intimate relationships with those who are racially different that we can have new experiences and rewrite narratives. It’s through these relationships that God will convict, and draw to repentance, those who harbor racial hatred or complicity towards racial injustice. Ultimately, I pray that through this approach we can HEAL our racial wounds and truly be the body of Christ that God desires us to be.  

Thank you for following this blog series and I invite you to take the next step. You can visit our website to learn more about the book and how to begin the HEAL journey. We believe that reading the book will give you the foundational knowledge and skills necessary to engage in a real conversation with a racially different brother/sister in Christ. We are confident that taking this important step will move you as an individual, and the Church as whole, closer to racial unity which is consistent with Christlikeness. Through this process, Christians stand to be a shining example of the transformational power of Christ by demonstrating a solution to the racial disunity and racism that plagues our society.

---

This blog is the final of 4 in our Black History Month Blog Series for 2023. Check back each Wednesday of February for more on how to have healing conversations. CBU Students who comment on these blogs will have a chance to receive a copy of the book. Winners will be emailed in early March. Listen. Learn. Engage.

---

References

This blog is the first of 4 in our Black History Month Blog Series for 2023. Check back each Wednesday of February for more on how to have healing conversations. CBU Students who comment on these blogs will have a chance to receive a copy of the book. Winners will be emailed in early March. Listen. Learn. Engage.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution.” Speech given at the National Cathedral, March 31, 1968. https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/remaining-awake-through-great-revolution-address-morehouse-college  

Wyatt, T. R., Taylor, T. R., White, D., & Rockich-Winston, N. (2021). “When No One Sees You as Black”: The Effect of Racial Violence on Black Trainees and Physicians. Academic medicine, 96(11S), S17-S22.  

www.healingconversationsonrace.com  

This is Part 3 of a 4-part blog post.   

Read Part 1: Black History Month: A Call For Healing Conversations

Read Part 2: Healing Conversations on Race: The Role of Empathy in Building Christlike Racial Unity

Read Part 4: Healing Conversations on Race: Love

---

I remember standing in the check-out line at a Chevron station, staring at the candy shelf and wondering whether I should indulge in a pack of Whoppers. The man in line behind me slowly made his way next to me and smiled, saying, “Hey.” While I was preoccupied with the Whoppers, he moved a little closer and then asked a question that I always dreaded, “What are you?”

I didn’t know how I wanted to respond. I knew that he was asking about my race or ethnicity. As a biracial woman, I’d been asked the question many times in the past. But in this unexpected moment, my emotions took hold, and I felt many things at once. Initially, I was angry (I’d been minding my own business thinking about Whoppers) when the unwanted question was posed. I wanted to tell the man, “I’m a human.” As the line started to move, I chose, despite my anger, to say to him, “I’m mixed.” I then paid for my gas and left the Whoppers behind. Yet, even as I drove away from the Chevron, my pulse raced, and I felt flush, not knowing how best to respond to the many emotions I was experiencing.

Emotions can often feel unmanageable when we are in the heat of a sensitive moment like the one I described. This can be especially true when talking about race or race-related topics or when a person of color is faced with racism. So, what do we do with our feelings when we talk about these topics with others, especially when these conversations occur in the midst of our cross-racial relationships? According to the Healing Conversations on Race (HEAL) model (Vazquez et al., 2023), a key practice is the use of acceptance.

Acceptance (the A in the HEAL acronym) refers to the acceptance of emotions. Given that race-related topics can stir up strong emotions, finding ways to respond to these feelings in a helpful manner is important if we want to build and maintain cross-racial relationships. First, we need to differentiate between the two types of emotions we experience: primary emotions and secondary emotions.

Primary emotions are the initial, deeper, and more vulnerable emotions we often have when responding to topics of race and/or racism. These emotions might include fear, sadness, hurt, shame, or righteous anger. The good thing about primary emotions is that they remind us of our relational needs Greenberg & Paivio, 2003; Kobak et al., 2015). For example, sadness might remind us of a relational need for comfort from others, or fear might remind us of a relational need for others to help us feel safe. When we share our primary emotions and our needs in relationships with others, we connect with others on a deeper level than when we avoid these feelings and needs or attempt to ignore them altogether. In fact, this type of emotional sharing can even help heal old wounds created in cross-racial relationships (even if the person you share with did not create the wound; Makinen & Johnson, 2006).

On the other hand, secondary emotions mask or cover up our primary emotions and our relational needs. In conversations on race, secondary emotions might include frustration,

defensiveness, and unrighteous anger. Unfortunately, these are often the emotions we focus on when struggling to have conversations about race-related topics. Secondary emotions, though, create distance in relationships because they place a barrier between us and others by hiding our deeper, more vulnerable feelings and our relational needs.

As Christians, we believe that God created humans as emotional beings and that sharing emotions can bond us together in our relationships with others (Howard, 2018). Given that primary emotions provide signals for our needs within relationships, we believe that becoming aware of and accepting of your own, and others, primary emotions is a key practice in having conversations on race. As a strategy for doing this, we suggest practicing acceptance.

Acceptance can be described as an emotion regulation skill or coping skill. It is a means of tolerating your unpleasant thoughts and primary emotions rather than attempting to escape them or cover them up with secondary emotions. It includes non-judgmental observation of your own emotions and offering yourself compassion while you stay fully emotionally engaged with others (Knabb, Vazquez, et al., 2019; Knabb et al., 2021). For Christians, this includes inviting God into your emotional experience, asking for his presence, love, and active care in the midst of recognizing and responding to your primary emotions. You can do this by cultivating attention toward your emotions (concentrating on one emotion at a time), present-focus (focusing on the here-and-now rather than jumping to the future or the past in your mind), and awareness (recognizing/naming your thoughts and feelings with non-judgment) (Feldman et al., 2007; Knabb et al., 2019, 2021).

Returning to the story of my interaction at the Chevron station, what might have been different had I known then what I know now about acceptance? I might have slowed down my whirlwind of internal thoughts with present-focus and attempted to recognize and name my primary and secondary emotions without judging myself in the process. I might have noticed not only anger but also sadness and loss at, once again, feeling misunderstood and different from others. I then could have taken a moment to become aware of those feelings and invite God to be with me as I better sought to understand my relational need at that moment – to be accepted and understood. I could then have sought ways to reach out to others in my cross-racial community to ask for that relational need to be met.

To put acceptance into practice in your cross-racial relationships, here are a few questions to ask yourself during conversations about race-related topics:

• What are my current primary or secondary emotions?

• What are my emotions telling me about my current relational needs?

• What steps am I taking to actively engage in “acceptance” of my own and others’ emotions?

As you think about today’s blog post, I encourage you to share your thoughts about the following question:

· How might you have benefited in some of your prior conversations on race by practicing acceptance?

---

This blog is the third of 4 in our Black History Month Blog Series for 2023. Check back each Wednesday of February for more on how to have healing conversations. CBU Students who comment on these blogs will have a chance to receive a copy of the book. Winners will be emailed in early March. Listen. Learn. Engage.

---

References

Feldman, G., Hayes, A., Kumar, S., Greeson, J., & Laurenceau, J. (2007). Mindfulness and emotion regulation: The development and initial validation of the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29, 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-006-9035-8

Howard, E. (2018). A guide to Christian spiritual formation: How Scripture, spirit, community, and mission shape our souls. Baker Academic. https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Christian-Spiritual-Formation-Scripture/dp/0801097800

Knabb, J., Vazquez, V., & Pate, R. (2019). “Set your minds on things above”: Shifting from trauma-based ruminations to ruminating on God. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 22(4), 384-399. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2019.1612336

Knabb, J. J., Vazquez, V. E., Pate, R. A., Garzon, F. L., Wang, K. T., Edison-Riley, D., Slick, A. R., Smith, R. R., & Weber, S. E. (2021a). Christian meditation for trauma-based rumination: A two-part study examining the effects of an internet-based 4-week program. Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 9(4), 253-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/scp0000255

Makinen, J. A., & Johnson, S. M. (2006). Resolving attachment injuries in couples using emotionally focused therapy: Steps toward forgiveness and reconciliation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(6), 1055–1064. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.6.1055

Vazquez, V., Knabb, J. J., Lee-Johnson, C., & Hays, K. (2023). Healing conversations on race: Four key practices from scripture and psychology. IVP Academic. https://www.amazon.com/Healing-Conversations-Race-Practices-Psychology/dp/1514003929/

This is Part 2 of a 4-part blog post.  Read Part 1 here, Part 3 here, and Part 4 here.

Read Part 1: Black History Month: A Call For Healing Conversations

Introduction 

In Healing Conversations on Race: Four Key Practices from Scripture and Psychology (Vazquez et al., 2023), four racially-diverse authors with advanced training in the behavioral sciences present four key steps for Christians to cultivate and maintain racial unity within the Body of Christ. Drawing upon the Bible as the beginning and ending point, then supplementing Scripture with insights gained from the psychological sciences, we advocate for humility, empathy, acceptance, and love to promote relational healing among racially-different Christians. 

In the book—which was written for Christians who are committed to following Christ and want to improve their ability to engage in, and deepen, conversations on race and racism—we offer four key steps that we believe can make a salient difference in Christian communities, including (a) maintaining an attitude of humility when having difficult conversations on the sensitive, and often painful, topic of race, (b) using empathy as a way to understand others’ unique race-related thoughts, feelings, behaviors, memories, experiences, narratives/stories, needs, and so forth, (c) effectively moving toward the acceptance of one’s own and others’ emotions, experiences, and needs, and (d) displaying Christlike love in being behaviorally responsive to others’ emotional pain and needs. Although these four steps are explored in much more detail in the book, I would like to devote this short blog to presenting the second key step—empathy. 

Therefore, in this second in a series of four blog posts to dually present the four steps of the book and celebrate Black History Month, my goal, as one of the contributing authors, is to advocate for the foundational role of empathy in having healing conversations on race. In other words, I, along with my three co-authors—Drs. Veola Vazquez, Charles Lee-Johnson, and Krystal Hays—suggest that moving from disunity to unity within diverse, yet tragically segregated, Christian communities requires a deeper understanding of the emotions and needs of others. To start, I would like to define empathy, including its ingredients, then place it in the context of a healing conversation on race. My hope in this short blog is to point readers to the book, which includes much more thorough explanations, steps, activities, exercises, and examples of how to have healing conversations on race within diverse Christian communities. 

Empathy Defined 

According to the APA Dictionary of Psychology (n.d.), empathy is “understanding a person from his or her frame of reference rather than one’s own, or vicariously experiencing that person’s feelings, perceptions, and thoughts.” So, in essence, empathy involves trying to make sense of someone else’s story, from the inside-out and a place of compassion, including the various thoughts, feelings, and experiences that collectively capture the powerful narrative of another’s life. This ability seems to be uniquely human, with human beings having the God-given skillset of trying to understand the inner world, not just the outer behavior, of others. 

Of course, for Christians, we have the grand story of the Bible, or God’s special revelation, as a starting point, which includes four overarching themes that span the Old to New Testaments—creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. In other words, God created humankind in his image. Yet, Adam and Eve turned from God and, consequently, were banished from the Bible, Because of the fall, humans now experience all sorts of suffering, including the sin of racism and racial disunity, even in Christian communities. Still, God has offered humans a redemptive plan, based on the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So, for Christ followers who have put their faith in Jesus Christ, a restored relationship with God is possible as Christians faithfully wait for God’s eventual restoration of all things, and Christians are to emulate Christ in building and maintaining Christlike unity, regardless of race, within Christ’s Body. 

With Scripture as a trustworthy guide, racially-different Christians have a shared story in which we are all embedded—God’s story—which means we have a firm foundation upon which to build and maintain racial unity. However, each Christian also has a unique story to tell, and Christians of color often face, on a regular basis, the enduring effects of the sin of racism. As a result, empathy can allow racially-different Christians to learn more about, and respond to, each unique race-related narrative that has developed over time in a fallen, broken world. 

In the context of healing conversations on race, compassionately trying to understand the other person’s story, made up of a unique amalgam of thoughts, feelings, perspectives, and experiences, is key, especially their deeper, more vulnerable emotions and corresponding relational needs. Put more succinctly, feelings are signals that reveal what we need from those around us. Sadness, for instance, may convey loss and the need to be comforted by another during moments of grief and mourning, whereas fear can communicate present-moment danger and the need to be protected by someone else. Anger, as another example, can reveal themes of unfairness, unmet expectations, or injustice, with the need to create distance or attain a sense of control in relationships, and guilt can let us know we have wronged someone else and need to take steps to repent of the wrongdoing. 

To offer a quick race-related example, if a Christian of color is expressing the pain of racism to a White Christian, the White brother or sister in Christ can compassionately listen to their story, especially the deeper, more vulnerable emotion (possibly sadness, fear, anger, hurt, shame, and so forth), along with the corresponding interpersonal need (e.g., validation, affirmation, support, responsiveness). To do so, a few important questions can be asked. 

Empathy Applied 

To make an intentional effort to empathize with another person when engaged in a conversation on race, asking a few key questions can be helpful: (a) What is this person feeling right now, and how can I communicate I’m understanding the feeling? and (b) What does this person need from me right now, and how can I meet the need?  

For instance, in returning to the previous example, if a Christian of color is expressing the pain of racism, the White brother or sister in Christ can try to identify the feeling in the moment, then convey they are attempting to understand with a few key phrases, such as “That sounds so painful,” “I can’t even begin to understand the hurt you must feel,” “That seems like such a scary experience,” or “That must have been such a huge loss.” 

From there, the White Christian can begin to compassionately pinpoint the need that the Christian of color has in the moment, such as being affirmed and validated (e.g., “You have every reason to feel hurt”) or supported (e.g., “I want you to know I stand with you right now”). Or, if the White Christian is unsure of how to respond, they can ask a few simple, direct questions, such as “What can I do right now to support you? “How can I help?” or “What do you need from me right now?” Ultimately, the uniquely human ability to empathize involves striving, albeit imperfectly, to better understand the emotional world, and corresponding relational need, of the other person, placed against the backdrop of personal and scriptural narratives. For brothers and sisters in Christ, we are one Body, which means we are called to respond to each’s needs in a fallen, broken world, emulating Jesus Christ in all we do. 

Conclusion 

To summarize, in Healing Conversations on Race, empathy is the second of four major steps. Placed in the context of the four others, we first commit to displaying humility as we enter into, and continue on with, healing conversations on race. In doing so, we also empathize with the other person’s story, which includes their spectrum of inner and outer experiences. From there, we accept our own, and other person’s, emotions, given they are signals that can convey vital information about relational needs. Finally, we display Christlike love by behaviorally responding to the other person’s emotions and needs, then commit to continuing to respond to our racially-different brothers and sisters in Christ in order to glorify God in all we do. 

---

This blog is the second of 4 in our Black History Month Blog Series for 2023. Check back each Wednesday of February for more on how to have healing conversations. CBU Students who comment on these blogs will have a chance to receive a copy of the book. Winners will be emailed in early March. Listen. Learn. Engage.

---

References 

Vazquez, V., Knabb, J., Lee-Johnson, C., & Hays, K. (2023). Healing conversations on race: Four  

key practices from Scripture and psychology. InterVarsity Press. 

APA Dictionary of Psychology. (n.d.). Empathy. https://dictionary.apa.org/empathy  

This is Part 1 of a 4-part blog series.  Read Part 2 here , Part 3 here and Part 4 here.

In 1926, Carter G. Woodson, known as the “Father of Black History”, launched “Negro History Week” to be observed annually every February in honor of the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809), and Frederick Douglass (estimated to be February 14, 1818, due to no official recordings of slave births).  Carter G. Woodson stated, “If a race has no history, if it has no worthwhile tradition, it becomes a negligible factor in the thought of the world, and in it stands in danger of being exterminated”.  Negro History week, which later became Black History Month, was created by Woodson to encourage knowledge and interest in Black achievements and adversities while moving America to not simply focus on “Negro History, but on the Negro in History”.  Woodson believed that appreciation of Black History would not only lift the confidence and esteem of African Americans, but enable African Americans to confidently, courageously, and comfortably engage in healthy conversations with White Americans, and other races, as equals in the advancement of humanity. In essence, the spirit of Black History Month is to enable all people to engage in healing conversations on race, that propel us towards a higher love and harmony amongst one another.   

In the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, I and my colleagues were in a faculty meeting that was proceeding with business as usual.  I remember the meeting concluding as I thought to myself “Are my white Christian colleagues really not going to say anything about the fact that another unarmed black man has been killed at the hands of law enforcement on video?” At the time, I had been working at CBU during the law enforcement murders of Greg Gunn, Philando Castille, Paul O’Neal, Terrence Crutcher, Jordan Edwards, Eurie Martin, Stephon Clark, Marcus David-Peters, Antwon Rose Jr., George Robinson, Botham Jean, Ronald Greene, Javier Ambler, Elijah McClain, Manuel Ellis, Breonna Taylor, Daniel Prude, and now George Floyd (we must say their names because their lives mattered), with these being the high profile cases that got news coverage, not including the 91 other documented murders of African Americans by law enforcement officers during this same period that received little to no attention.  Nothing that we were discussing in that meeting seemed as important to me than the reminder the entire country had just witnessed through the camera phone of 17-year-old Darnella Frazier, that Black Lives Don’t Matter, and that I, my children, my family, my friends, my neighbors, or my students could be next.  I, and my colleagues of color felt invisible in that meeting, unseen, unimportant, and insignificant, scarred by the silence of a Christian white majority that seemed to be disconnected from what we were all feeling on that day.  In an angry outburst and tears, I expressed my feelings at the close of the meeting, presenting a scathing rebuke of the all too familiar silence of white Christians on social issues impacting people of color.  I felt the words of Dr. King when he stated “There comes a time when silence is betrayal”; “He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it”; and “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends”. 

The hurt of that meeting led to some transformative hallway meetings in the James building of CBU, in which white and black colleagues engaged in healing conversations on race, which later led us to writing a book together, to help ourselves and others have cross-racial conversations that lead to healing, empathy, acceptance, and love, all in our collective pursuit of Christ and Christlikeness.  In the process of these conversations, I discovered that my assumptions about the reasons for my white colleagues’ silence were wrong, and they learned that as their friend, I needed their voice and presence when tragedy strikes our community.  The book that we have written as a result of these conversations is entitled: Healing Conversations on Race: Four Key Practices from Scripture and Psychology, is now available, and free copies of the book will be raffled to those who interact with our posts during Black History Month, in which I, and the three other authors of this amazing book, share thoughts, reflections, and suggestions based on the book, on how we can all have Healthy Conversations on Race.   

The book uses the H-E-A-L acronym as a model to guide conversations on race.  Each week during Black History Month, one of the letters of the acronym will be explained by one of the authors.  For our first week, we will focus on “H” which is short for Humility in our model.  I must confess, it was hard for me, as a black man, to begin any conversation with the suggestion that I needed to be more “humble” in a conversation on race.  The collective black response to intergenerational, systemic, and historical oppression has been the model of humility, as we have sought to ingratiate, integrate, and imagine a better America while facing injustice, water hoses, unjust laws, de jure and de facto segregation, police dogs, lynchings, murders, rape, imprisonment, voter suppression, redlining, gerrymandering, invisible ceilings, medical experimentation, media stereotyping, microassaults and microinsults, and much more.  Why should I, and those like me, be humble after enduring such domestic terrorism, provocation, and dehumanization?  In the search for an answer to this question, I discovered an important truth, that we must grapple with in order to proceed.  The call to have a healing conversation on race, cannot be motivated by the worthiness of the person with whom you will discourse, nor one’s personal feelings of being willing to engage.  The call to healing conversations is not one that is led by an individual, but rather led by God, who reminds us that we, people of all races, are made in the Imago Dei (Image of God), and it is His desire that we “lower ourselves” to one another, just as He lowered His Son into our world, for our individual and collective salvation.  If God could lower himself to be in skin, walk in the darkness of this world, be born into poverty, endure the nastiness of Roman oppression, be subject to wrongful imprisonment, police brutality, injustice in the court system, and ultimately murdered like George Floyd in the streets of Golgatha; who am I to say that I cannot embrace humility in conversations on race?  While cultural humility is the lifelong process of reflecting, acknowledging, and critiquing one’s personal biases, what we propose in our book is a Christ-centered humility, which transcends cultural humility, because it moves us away from the adoption of the thoughts and trends of modern culture, and instead advances us towards a focus on Christ, as the perfect measure for understanding how we should engage with one another.  In our gratitude for the grace extended to us from God, we humble ourselves before our brothers and sisters of different races, seeking to imitate our Savior, who came to heal the enmity between man and God; we humble ourselves to heal the racial tension that pervades our world.  We are guided by the words of 2 Chronicles 7:14 “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”  We begin healing conversations with humility, understanding that when there has been a tear in a relationship, the most important thing is not to prove who’s right or wrong, but rather to move ourselves into a position where God can take control, and transform our opposition to another into an opportunity for us to grow closer together. 

This Black History Month, I encourage everyone to consider engaging in healing conversations, focusing first, on Christ-Centered humility, responding not as the culture dictates, but rather adopting a Christlikeness, in which we lower ourselves so that God can initiate the healing process between us.  In your celebration of Black History Month, in what ways can you adopt a Christ-centered humility to move you to be a better listener, encourager, supporter, and ally of someone of a different race? Your reflection on this question places a smile on the face of Carter G. Woodson and transforms Black History month from being a moment, into becoming a movement.  Join us in the movement of promoting healing conversations on race.

---

This blog is the first of 4 in our Black History Month Blog Series for 2023. Check back each Wednesday of February for more on how to have healing conversations. CBU Students who comment on these blogs will have a chance to receive a copy of the book. Winners will be emailed in early March. Listen. Learn. Engage.

---

Read Part 2 here.

---

References 

Goggin, Jacqueline (1997) Carter G. Woodson: A Life in Black History.  LSU Press 

Vazquez, V., Knabb, J., Lee-Johnson, C., & Hays, K. (2023). Healing conversations on race: Four key practices from Scripture and psychology. InterVarsity Press. 

By E. Russ Bermejo, MSW, Lecturer 

This is Part 3 of a 4-part blog post.   

Read Part 1: An Invitation to CBU Faculty and Students

Read Part 2: Designed for Courage: Me & Myself

Read Part 3: Designed for Co-Creation: Teacher and Student

_____ 

The Third Relationship: Researcher and Participants 

So how can we be more connected in our research?    

Freire’s critical examination of the student-professor relationship in the classroom would extend to how research agendas are set by universities. When asked to describe how Freire’s work could impact research, Valerie Kinloch of the University of Pittsburgh stated the following:  

“(Freire) encourages us to take a critical perspective, especially when collaborating with other people in community contexts, as we attempt to address pervasive questions about inequality. He also situates research within the reach of the everyday – the everyday realities, lives, lived conditions, struggles, and hope of people – to make research accessible to who we are working with and writing with/about in our research. Thus, research is not singularly about publishing articles and books, but about writing new ways of being into existence that can, fundamentally, change the world for the better.”

If universities are to be organized to address the most pressing social, economic, and political inequities,⁵ it would take direction for its research agenda from the needs identified by marginalized and oppressed communities.   

Freire’s critical pedagogy was influential in developing participatory research models such as participatory action research (PAR). Relationships and power are examined once again, this time in the context of research. Freire’s concept of praxis, (that knowledge is developed through a cycle of action and reflection) is essential to PAR’s methodological approach that engages researchers and community members in dialogue (Hardina, 2012).  

Participatory approaches to doing research have gained critical attention across the behavioral and social sciences, as scholars, activists, and practitioners committed to social action work closely with communities to identify their concerns and develop plans for transformative change (Torre and Fox, 2015).  It is research that translates knowledge into action.   

The values orientation of participatory research, such as PAR and community-based participatory research, challenges the hierarchical and extractive approaches of traditional research through its core beliefs that:  

• Knowledge is not a product of academia, but a result of engagement with the community⁶ 
• Community participation is critical in every phase of the research process.⁷  
• Decision-making should be done by those most affected by the outcomes of the decision. 
• Development of structures, processes and social networks within the community to meet their own needs empowers members towards self-determination and exercising power over their own lives. 
• Building and maintaining mutually beneficial relationships between academia and community 

Our recurrent theme emerges once again:  An essential part of being fully human is exercising our God-given capacity to create, make, and build. We do this in partnership with our Creator and in collaboration with others. These creative and relational capacities are part of our imago dei DNA.   

Conclusion – An Insurrectional Faith 

It seems that pedagogy, scholarship, and research have an insurrectional quality and function. If that is true, then we must choose between courage or comfort.  As Christian scholars, we have (or should have) an insurrectional faith and worship a King that does not stay in ivory towers (see Philippians 2:6-7). How we teach and pursue knowledge are consequential and fundamental matters especially in our fragmented times. The great objective is that we can recapture what it means to be truly human – inextricably connected mutually interdependent, and creative beings. This is how we were designed. Once we realize this, we can know in our hearts that we truly belong to our Creator and one another so we can courageously get on with our three-point agenda spelled out in Micah 6:8 – “to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God.” 

Reflect and Discuss: 

1. What values orientation drives your research practices and approach? Are there any parts that you feel need to be re-examined?   

2. How insurrectional is your Christian faith? In what areas (especially teaching, scholarship, and service) do need to challenge the status quo or business as usual? What kind of relational and institutional supports could help you meet those challenges?   

________________________

⁶ The relationship between the university research center and the community is re-examined by Jenny Onyxher in 2008 article entitled “University-Community Engagement: What does it mean?” published in the International Journal of Community Research and Engagement

⁷The slogan “Nothing about us without us” asserts that no policy should be created without the full and direct participation of those it affects. It was adopted by the disability rights movement in the 1990s as a call to action around the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

References: 

Hardina, Donna (2012). Interpersonal Social Work Skills for Community Practice. First Edition.  Springer Publishing Company.  

Torre, Maria E. and Fox, Madeline (2015). Participatory Action Research in Social Research. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Second Edition.