Via Media Podcast, Episode 42 Race and Covenant: The Black Churches and the National Covenant Derryck Green April 16, 2020 Announcer: The Institute of Anglican Studies at Beeson Divinity School welcomes you to Via Media, a podcast exploring the religious and theological worlds from an Anglican perspective. Here is your host Gerald McDermott. McDermott: Welcome back to Via Media. Today, we�re doing the first of a two-part series on the new book that�s coming out titled, �Race and Covenant: Recovering the Religious Roots for American Reconciliation.� It�s a series of essays that I edited that is coming out with Acton Books in June 2020, in which we explore the dominant race narrative in America, and bring Christian presuppositions and convictions to bear on our very troubled conversation in this country about race. Today we�ve got Dr. Derryck Green with us who is a political commentator, a writer, a member of Project 21, which is a network of Black thinkers. His work has been featured and cited in a number of media outlets like Town Hall, The American Spectator, the television network NBC, the Daily Caller, the American Conservative, CQ Researcher, and many newspapers across the United States. I should say, too, before I go on any further, that this book in which Dr. Green has a very provocative chapter comes out of a conference that was co-sponsored by the Institute of Anglican Studies at Beeson Divinity School. Also co-sponsored by Beeson Divinity School itself and also the IRD (Institute for Religion and Democracy) in Washington, D.C. So, Dr. Green, thank you for being with us on Via Media today. Green: It�s a pleasure. Thank you for having me. McDermott: Now, Derryck, this book, �Race and Covenant,� has been organized around the themes of race and covenant, thus the title, but more specifically national covenant. The idea that God deals with whole nations and not just individuals. Now, you talk in your chapter about the American national covenant. Can you tell us what this is? Green: Sure. I think the national covenant is probably best articulated in the Declaration of Independence, which the ... I guess you�d call them the founders ... positioned the moral foundation of freedom and self determination. I think in defense of the Declaration was a necessity to dissolve dependence on external forces. So, I think that was the foundation of the national covenant. But that separation from an external force didn�t really apply to all of the citizens in which the declaration appealed or referenced. It said that the truths were self evident that all men were created equal. And that was the founding document for the pursuit of life, liberty, flourishing, development, and happiness. They were lofty ideals and I think that the phrase �all men� simply wasn�t applied to enslaved Africans. So, I think the national covenant is best articulated with the Declaration of Independence, but it was also ... I want to say codified necessarily but the Constitution tried to build upon what was articulated in the Declaration of Independence. So, even then the ideals that were in the Declaration and the laws that were in the Constitution although neither document appealed to race, the protections that were codified in the Constitution simply weren�t extended to, at that point in time, enslaved Africans. McDermott: So, this is how you say that the American national covenant was compromised, I think that�s the word that you used in your chapter was �compromised.� And I think most Americans would agree, even if they don�t understand this concept of national covenant. But speaking of this concept of national covenant that God deals with whole nations and not just with individuals, and that God punishes violations of this covenant, do you think, Dr. Green, that our continued racial conflicts, and some would say that we have greater tension racially in this country today, in 2020, than for many years � do you think that our continued racial conflicts are part of God�s judgment on this nation for its slavery of African Americans? Green: You know, it�s a tough question. I would say, in part, I think it is. I think our inability, in some quarters, and unwillingness in others, to resolve our racial differences is part of God�s judgment. I think, in my opinion, it�s very difficult because I think that not only slavery, but segregation, as well was a very black part of our nation�s history and I think that currently because of the past hurts, the past traumas, the unwillingness of people to let go of some of those historical traumas is an impediment to racial reconciliation. So, I think that God is forcing us to address these issues, and until we�ve fully addressed these issues soberly, in a position in which people are going to be honest about historical traumas, the reality of slavery, the reality of Jim Crowe segregation, and the implementation of second class citizenship from both parts of our history, I think God is still going to punish us. I think that for people, American Blacks who are, like I said, unwilling to let go of those hurts and then to make our fellow citizens, White Americans, pay for past historical sins, sins that they haven�t committed, I think that is an impediment to reconciliation as well. So, I think these racial differences are going to continue to be strained. It�s going to continue to foster resentment by both parties, which is further going to separate us, rather than unite us. So, to answer that question I think it is God still judging us. But at the same time, I think part of that judgment is the responsibility of Christian Blacks and what I mean to say by that is I think that we need to re-embrace our Christian identity and the responsibilities that come with being a new creation in Christ that is going to facilitate the reconciliation process; that�s going to prompt us to forgive rather than hold grudges, and want to seek a level of vengeance. I think until we embrace what comes with being a Christian and being a disciple of Christ, I think that we as American Blacks have to accept that responsibility of the strained relationship and God�s judgment on the country. McDermott: You said an awful lot there and let me try to unpack it a bit. You said that our continued racial conflicts are part of God�s judgment on this nation for slavery, but then you said we all have a responsibility, Blacks and Whites and Hispanics, et cetera, Asians ... for achieving some degree of reconciliation. I sense that what you�re saying is that sins since that time have not just been on the part of Whites. Whites are not the only sinners. But I want to go back in your chapter, because I think it�s a very important part of your argument in the chapter. To the 1960s, the Civil Rights movement, because there you argue that God used the Black churches to renew our civil compact, and later on in the chapter you say the national covenant. In the process, through the leadership of the Black Church, in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, that God used them to help American achieve a degree, not complete of course you say, but a degree of racial neutrality and integration. Tell us about how the Black Church did that back in the 1960s. Green: I think one of the ways that the Church was instrumental in changing the hearts and minds of the country, and again to your point which is correct, not fully, but at least there was a change in the right direction, was that they employed the Christian Church ... let me back up. The Black Church, broadly speaking, is known as the invisible institution. It goes back to the days of slavery in which Christians or enslaved Africans would meet on their own, trying to teach one another what was found in the Bible as new Christians. Whether they were evangelized by slave owners or fellow slaves it was an invisible institution that kept the souls of Blacks during a very difficult period. I think that the Black Church, from that time on, had a very healthy sense of what it was like to be in troubled situations but also try to pursue and achieve justice. All of that is to say that there�s an institute- there�s a line of heritage that goes back to slavery. In the 1960s more than a hundred years of developing that, they had a very healthy sense of pursuing justice, and I think they had a very healthy sense of what it meant to be created in the image of God. So, what they sought to do was to transform the nation and hold the nation accountable, not only to the ideals that were articulated in the Declaration of Independence, not only codified in the United States Constitution, but to achieve that moral standard in which Blacks were going to be created equal. There was a discrepancy there. One of the ways that they were able to do that was through the Christian non violent movement. I think that Reverend Martin Luther King, who was probably the most recognizable person of that movement, decided on a very ... how can I say this ... a keen tactical advantage in that he knew that televisions ... he made use of television, and he knew that with people watching across the world, non violence was the key. Non violence was the key. He was able to allow people watching on television around the world to distinguish between the non violent and the violent, to make a clear moral distinction between the two sides and to support the Christian non violent movement. So, God used the Black churches in this way, I think, to help change the moral fiber of the nation. Also, one of the interesting things about the Civil Rights movement and the use of Black churches is that they used the element of race neutrality. What they said was there was no intrinsic commodity in race. Race was a neutral factor. So, when you minimize the tool that was used to subjugate them, I think that added to the moral credibility of the movement, and I think that was a very, very ... I think it�s an under acknowledged part of the Civil Rights movement. That they weren�t simply advocating for integration and assimilation, but they were arguing for the idea that race didn�t matter. I think that helped that movement go a long way. McDermott: That�s significant because then you argue that in the decades after the 60s a new approach was taken by many leaders of the Black churches. And you also go on to say, and this is quite provocative, that this new approach deviated from Orthodox Christianity. Can you tell us about this new approach and why you think it deviated from Orthodox Christianity? Green: Sure. The new approach was called Black Liberation Theology, or Radical Black Theology. I�m not just saying that it deviated from Christianity, I think the two movements overlapped, but they were definitely separate. They were separate because even the members of the Black Liberation Theology, the Radical Black Theology movement wanted to separate themselves from the elder statesman of the Civil Rights movement, not only in tactics but in the religious application. So, the Radical Black Theology movement was kind of a moral offshoot of the Black Power movement. And again, they were very separate. They were coming out, they were radical Black activists, they were entirely secular, and so one of the ways to try to improve the moral standing of the Black Power movement was to try to give a kind of religious credibility that the Civil Rights movement had with the Black churches. So, they deviated from it because these people wanted to incorporate a secular agenda and Christianize it to move what they felt the Civil Rights ... or to achieve certain goals, I guess, one could say, that the Civil Rights movement did not achieve. So, rather than embracing racial neutrality of the Civil Rights movement, they embraced racial partiality. Rather than embracing integration that the Civil Rights movement preached, they preached a form of racial separatism. The movements were very distinct. Both in practice and the religious credibility that was assigned to both of them. McDermott: You say in your chapter that one thread of this new Black Power movement was its reconnection with the African roots of Blacks in America. And you suggest that that was misbegotten, that was problematic. What is wrong with Blacks trying to connect with their African roots? Green: Well, it�s interesting. They wanted to reconnect with a pride in being Black, and so everything that had been demonized about them � their hair, their skin color, facial features, cultural aspects � the Black Power movement, the Black Consciousness movement, and eventually Radical Black Theology wanted to embrace as a central part of who they were. They wanted to kind of redefine themselves and then have mainstream American deal with them on their terms of self definition. The idea of identifying oneself with Africa is it doesn�t seem to be problematic on the surface. I understand the idea of what I�ve called �rootlessness,� not knowing where one came from. The problem is that Africa is not a country, it�s a continent. And so for people who are able to trace their lineage back to slavery, as I can, know that the slave routes came from the western part of Africa. But we don�t know where on the western part of Africa. We don�t know the tribe or the clan. And so I think what ends up happening is we ... Blacks that want to identify with Africa, whether they�re wearing kente cloth, or the brightly patterned clothing, adopting Swahili, or what they did in the 60s, adopting this new holiday called Kwanza, is that it works as an impediment. What I mean by that is if American Blacks are constantly looking toward the past and constantly trying to embrace African features or Black features as a sense of self belonging or a psychological salve what happens is it prevents us from moving forward. That is to say America, in its history, has not always been kind to us, but I think that it prevents Blacks when you�re continually looking to the distant past, prevents us from embracing the only country that many, many Blacks have ever known, and deciding to say the country hasn�t been good to us, but this is our home, so let us move on. Let us embrace the aspects of American culture that work in our favor. That isn�t to say we trivialize the past, but we move forward. We don�t let it hinder us, not only from moving forward in terms of Black development human flourishing, but also reconciliation. It�s not necessarily bad, but I think that it has worked as an impediment for far too long in the process of forgiveness and reconciliation. McDermott: Just a few years ago Shelton and Emerson came out with a book entitled, �Blacks and Whites in Christian America.� This book got quite a bit of press. They argued, Shelton and Emerson, that Blacks tend to be what they called �structuralists� in their thinking about race in America, because they think there are structural factors behind Blacks being behind Whites in socioeconomic success. Whites, they say, tend to be more individualistic in their focus on personal responsibility and personal work ethic. Are Shelton and Emerson right in this large generalization, this typology that they�ve constructed? Or is this too much of a generalization? Green: I think they�re correct. I think Blacks, by and large, are more likely to attribute impediments to Black success, and reasons for Black frustration on structural issues. This is one of the reasons why American Blacks appeal to systemic issues, systemic racism, because they say it�s part of the structure of American culture, American society, that is intent on holding Blacks back, whereas White Americans are more likely to say, no, it�s individual merit, it�s hard work, it�s sacrifice, it�s risk. So, I think that they�re correct in that, and I think that ... let me back up a little bit. I want to say that I think the idea of structuralism has merit insofar as it was a structural system of slavery and a structural system of Jim Crowe that worked to keep Blacks down, obviously to enslave and to minimize Black ability to enter mainstream America. Now, having said that, post Jim Crowe segregation I think that the country has moved in a decidedly more area in which it has embraced Blacks and other minorities, so I don�t think that the systemic factors or the structural factors that Blacks say are holding us back are there in ways that they were in the past. My problem, I guess, with the structural mindset is that it disarms Blacks in that we are not ... it gives us an out. We don�t control what we�re able to control, what we�re able to control toward Black success, toward human flourishing. And when we don�t control what we�re able to control it�s easy to blame external factors for our lack of success and our mounting frustrations. I think it would be more to our credibility to adopt a more ... not necessarily a fully individualistic perspective, reflective of White Americans in the data that Shelton and Emerson found, but to say let us control what we�re able to control. Because when we do that we can find out if there are structural forces out there that are responsible for Black frustration, and then solve or overcome those issues. But when you simply muddy the water and say everything is a result of structural issues, it dis-empowers us. And so I think for all the talk about Black empowerment and self determination, it�s very difficult to embrace those ideas when you disarm yourself and dis-empower yourself at the very beginning. McDermott: Dr. Green, you note that while Blacks have voted for the Democratic party for many decades, there�s nothing new here, what is new, you say, is the commitment to racial identity over religious identity. What do you mean by this? Green: I think that it�s residue from the Black Power movement in the 1960s and 1970s in that we define ourselves primarily by our race, and it was one of the issues that I didn�t touch on enough with Radical Black theology in that our identity is centered in our race, not in created in the image of God and renewed in the image of Christ. The residue of the Black Power movement, Radical Black Theology, and the Black Consciousness movement of the late 1960s and the 1970s wanted to center who we are and what we do in race, and so we�ve embraced our racial identity. I think evidence of that can be seen over many generations. During the Civil Rights movement we identified as negroes and we were called negroes. In the Black Power movement Blacks said that �negro� was too passive and it was too reflective of the integrationists and assimilatioinist movement of the Civil Rights movement. We wanted to be Black, so we redefined ourselves as �Black,� Black is beautiful, Black pride, the cultural identifiers of being Black we embraced. But then in the 70s it was no longer Black it was Afro American. And we defined ourselves as Afro American. We started wearing big afros, the dashikis, the Black Power fist was still embraced. Then in the 1980s we redefined ourselves as African American. So, we see this pattern of racial redefinition throughout, for the last 30 to 40 years, and every time we redefine ourselves it�s primarily through race. We haven�t once tried to redefine ourselves through our Christian identity. We�ve not said our identity and who we are and our dignity, which is the most important, comes from being created in the image of God. Blacks are the most religious demographic in the country. Most religious, meaning Christian. There are Blacks who are Muslims, but the majority of Blacks are Christians. If we�re Christians we�re not only created in the image of God, but we�re renewed in the image of Christ. We have not once sought to redefine ourselves in that identity. If one isn�t religious, I think an argument can be made that over multiple generations of redefining ourselves racially we have not redefined ourselves nationally. We have always said we are Black Americans, not American Blacks. We�ve always said that we�re Afro or African Americans, not American from African descent. We�ve never redefined ourselves with our national identity either. So, my chapter, what I�m trying to communicate in my argument is the process I think that will initiate the process of reconciliation is to redefine or reprioritize our racial identity below our Christian identity, and all the responsibilities that come with that in terms of what it means to be part of a multi ethnic brotherhood of Jesus Christ in the family of God. How does that affect forgiveness? How does that affect reconciliation? I don�t think that we can fully realize what it means to be reconciled to our brother if we�re still trying to primarily identify ourselves by our race and identify others by their race. McDermott: That seems to be incredibly important, this question of identity, racial rather than religious or national. Is this connected, do you think, to what you call the collapse of the Black family? Green: I think it is. I think that what has happened is redefining ourselves racially over multiple generations we have started to incorporate particular behaviors and de-stigmatize self destructive behaviors in many part they have been identified as being culturally Black. I don�t take pride in it. I think it�s been entirely destructive in that part of what it means to be Black now with some many children being born out of wedlock, there�s only roughly 30% of Black children who grow up in two parent homes. People outside of being Black start to identify these destructive cultural traits with what it means to be authentically Black, and I think that has been destructive, not only to our cultural fabric, but it�s been destructive to what it means to be an American Black or a Christian Black in the family of God. These are self destructive things that have ... the effects linger throughout our lives. People who grow up in broken homes are more likely to foster broken homes themselves once they get to a particular age. It grieves me. I lament what has happened to Black families as a result of this, and I think that on top of embracing self destructive behaviors and them being identified with culturally Black, I think that what it also means to be culturally Black is ... going back to your previous question on voting almost monolithically for one political party ... there are policies in that political party that are entirely destructive to who we are. And I think that voting for policies that encourage the breakdown of the family, whether they are expansive welfare states or government intervention in place of Black men, has been destructive, and I think that Blacks should take a second look to see what policies are effective at further disintegrating the Black family. I think if we were honest with ourselves, the bigger the government ... it�s not only destroyed Black families and encouraged Black mothers to have children out of wedlock, it has made Black men disposable. It has made Black men irrelevant, it has made Black men invisible. So, you have generations of Black men who have abdicated their responsibility not only as men, but as fathers. There�s been destructive outlets for that, and so I do think that the disintegration of the Black family, breakdown of the Black family, and our lack of ability in redeeming the Black family has had some issues that we need to address. McDermott: These are some striking things that you�re saying about the Black Church and the Black family and the Black community. Let�s turn to White churches. I think another reason why your chapter is going to be quite provocative to readers and might be even talked about more than most of the other chapters in the book is that you say that the way that most White churches are trying to heal the racial divide is badly thought, is badly conceived. Tell us about some of the bad ways in which White churches have tried to attempt racial reconciliation. Green: Well, I think both White churches and some Black churches as well, but particularly the White churches, what I think that they�ve tried to do is they�ve tried to incorporate secular racial justice programs, Christianize them, to say this is how we�re going to attempt racial reconciliation, or this is how we�re going to attempt racial justice. I think that we can look back several years ago when the Black Lives Matter movement was at its cultural apex. You had a lot of people, both in Black and White churches, almost tripping over themselves to be part of the Black Lives Matter movement or to incorporate in their justice programs in their churches. I see that as replaying what happened during the late 60s and the early 1970s with the radically Black Theology, that is to incorporate secular agendas, Christianize them, give them the moral authority and say we�re doing Jesus� work. So, I think that�s been wrongheaded. I think that it�s been counterproductive. I think several years ago when Intervarsity had their Urbana Missions Conference they had a speaker come up and talk about trying to incorporate Black Lives Matter into the Church. I think that you have parachurch organizations, like the Gospel Coalition, they�re not entirely bad, so please don�t misunderstand what I�m saying but some of their articles seems to be incorporating secular racial justice agendas into the Church. I think that�s counterproductive for a number of reasons. One, it almost reinforces the idea that White guilt can be used as a tool towards �racial justice.� I think it re-emphasizes or bolsters the idea that Blacks are still victims of White oppression. I think it re-emphasizes a notion that Whites are still oppressors. And so it�s very difficult to try to have a constructive justice program, particularly in the Body of Christ when you re-institute the earthly racial hierarchy. There�s no equality there. What ends up happening with these programs is that Whites have to shut up and listen, Blacks are still victims, and the only way that we�re going to see any sort of �racial justice� is if Whites take leadership responsibilities. So, from my perspective, even in the Church, under these types of programs, Blacks are still not equal and co-laborers with their White brothers and sisters in Christ. So, you can�t Christianize or reinforce a level of inequality and expect forgiveness, expect repentance, expect reconciliation to happen. It just doesn�t make sense. I think that what White churches need to do and what Black churches need to do is to say there is no ... in the Body of Christ there is no racial justice. The Bible is very clear. Justice cannot be compartmentalized. If justice needs a modifier it�s not justice. So, Christians should do away with the idea of racial justice, social justice, economic justice, environmental justice. Biblical justice is comprehensive. It is loving our neighbor as ourselves. It is doing unto those that we would have done unto us. It is embracing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with our God. That�s what justice is. That�s what biblical justice is. I think if we�re ever going to be serious about racial reconciliation we have to have a biblical understanding of justice, not an earthly understanding of compartmentalized justice. McDermott: So, a church group formed to seek racial justice within that church is misconceived? Green: I think so. I think the idea is ... listen, I think racial reconciliation by my understanding, by definition means there�s an element of justice, there�s an element of reciprocity in that. So, again, if they�re going to say we want to plant the seeds for racial reconciliation, I give them credit. If they are going to say this is racial justice, to me that�s a trigger, because that�s what the world is trying to do. They�re trying to seek racial justice. Again, there can be no racial justice if there�s an element of White guilt. There can be no racial justice or justice ... racial justice doesn�t exist because it actually employs the tools of manipulation, coercion � I think that it breeds racial resentment. Those kinds of things. Biblical justice doesn�t do that. And so if churches are going to say this is how we�re going to attempt to have racial justice, just know what that involves and I think that it�s a mistake. I think they should open up their Bibles, read and understand that justice obviously by definition has a social element, because without other people there�s no need, but to employ what is biblical justice or providential justice. McDermott: You also say that without a change in Black consciousness there will be no reconciliation. What do you mean by this? Green: I think the idea of, again, trying to define who we are or the central aspect of who we are in our racial identity, that informs everything else. It informs our religion, it informs our theology. I think that a lot of this is being taught in seminaries across the country. And so I think the change of the consciousness of Christian Blacks has to say we see one another, we show no partiality � we don�t see each other based on race, we obviously understand that people are a different race, racial backgrounds, ethnic compositions, but we don�t regard one another by that. We regard one another, again, being created in the image of God. I think we need to remove all the clutter and get back to elements of being a good Samaritan to our brother, to offering forgiveness to one another, allowing one to repent and not holding that over their heads. I think I really would like to see Christian Blacks re-embrace the idea, the theology, the religion that was so effective in the Civil Rights movement. Those protestors and those elder statesman, they knew that they were Black and they understood that. That was one of the reasons why they were marching and demonstrating, because the fact that they were Black meant they were second class citizens, but they didn�t want to make that the central element of who they were. They tabled it, almost. They understood it. I think that we should re-embrace that notion. Of course we know that we are Black. God�s diversity in his creation is a beautiful thing. But I don�t think we need to marginalize that or categorize that and prioritize that as number one. We have to change our mentality. Anyway, I�ll just leave it at that. I think we need to change our mentality from a racial one to a religious one or a theological one. McDermott: Well, you particularly make this sort of argument toward the end and you say that without a change in thinking, without a change in theology, �churches will keep imitating the world�s way of reparation, rather than using their own theologies of redemption and atonement. They will have sacrilized the secular. The churches will continue to suffer self inflicted wounds as a result of plagiarizing false propheteers and baptizing their secular programs with tainted water.� Whoa, Dr. Green, those are strong words. Anything you want to add to that? Green: Listen, I believe that wholeheartedly. I think that if we�re ever going to have true racial reconciliation it has to be within the bounds of the Church. And I think we have to open up our bibles and have to read what justice really means; for us to demonstrate what true reconciliation looks like so then the world can follow. But bringing what the world has tried over the last 50 years and have failed with no change in thinking, with no change in strategy, with no change in practice has failed. We can try to, like I said before, Christianize that as much as we want, but it hasn�t worked. It just simply hasn�t worked. It�s an old playbook. So, starting within the Church. Listen, a lot of people will read this chapter, or listen to what I�m saying, and try to say that I�m assigning a lot of blame for the lack of racial reconciliation on Christian Blacks. That isn�t my point at all. What I actually think is if Christian Blacks extend the olive branch of forgiveness and allow ... and not try to impugn their White brothers and sisters in Christ with sins that they haven�t committed, I actually think that�s more of a form of, from their position of Black empowerment, saying that we�re no longer going to hold the sins of the fathers through the third and fourth generation. We are going to offer forgiveness. We understand the racial traumas, and we�re not trying to ignore them, but there�s no way that we can move on unless we decide to move on. I think that pattern has a lot higher chance of success than trying to repeat what has failed repeatedly in the past. McDermott: Would I be wrong to say that part of what you�re saying is that a church�s focus on race can be dangerous? Green: Absolutely. Because there�s so much baggage that�s included in it. Think about all the talk on college campuses across the country about White privilege and White supremacy, and all of these things that are used to, again, manipulate guilt from Whites to bludgeon them into silence, to say that it is their fault ... not only is it their fault for Black frustration, but they are the ones responsible for starting the process of Black success, so on and so forth. It�s not just Blacks, you can go with homosexuals. You can go with Hispanics, illegal�s. On down the list. This idea of White supremacy and White privilege has been entirely destructive. If churches are going to embrace what has been destructive in the world, how did they expect to have any success? It just doesn�t make any sense. The idea that Blacks are still going to be victims, again, it just reaffirms this racial hierarchy that even in the Body of Christ we are not capable enough to work with our White brothers and sisters toward repentance, towards forgiveness. What does that say? Are we trying to say that separate and unequal in the Body of Christ is okay? Listen, Paul, in the Letter to the Corinthians, was very adamant about this type of inequality. Particularly as it related to the Lord�s Supper. Why don�t we extrapolate from that and say the only way that we�re going to prove that our vertical relationship with God is intact is if our horizontal relationship with our brothers is intact. This is what we have to do. McDermott: You close the chapter on a positive note, and I think it�s a good way to close this podcast. You say the Black Church can once again be America�s moral leader. Green: Absolutely. Again, I think it is in our heritage with Black churches and the Black Church, and I think that, again, once we are able to change the consciousness from a racial one to a religious one, a decidedly religious one, I think that Black churches, as has been in the past, can be the moral beacon going forward in the future. I think that the history of Black churches show that Blacks are able to endure a lot of pain and overcome a lot of pain as well. I think that they have demonstrated our ability to forgive and to embrace one another. I think that�s in sight. I think that is entirely capable and I think that is entirely possible. It�s just whether or not Christian Blacks want to change the focus from racial to religious and that remains to be seen. I have hope. I think that there�s a lot of data out there that shows that even though Millennials are less churched, particularly Black Millennials are less churched than their parents and their grandparents, they�re still more churched than their White counterparts. Also, they haven�t embraced fully this notion of Black victimization. I think that whether they admit it or acknowledge it or not a lot of Black Millennials are much more integrated than even Gen Xers. So, I have hope that the idea of making race the center of our identity is going to be reprioritized second, third, fourth, and fifth, and I think hopefully that makes its way into the Church so we can start developing Christian programs for reconciliation going forward. McDermott: Derryck Green is the author of an explosive chapter titled, �The Black Churches and the National Covenant,� in the new book from Acton Books titled, �Race and Covenant: Recovering Religious Roots for American Reconciliation.� Derryck, thanks for being with us on Via Media. Green: Thank you so much for having me. I enjoyed it. Announcer: You've been listening to Via Media with host Gerald McDermott, the director of The Institute of Anglican Study Studies at Beeson Divinity School on the campus of Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. The Institute of Anglican Studies trains men and women for Anglican ministry, and seeks to educate the public in the riches of the Anglican tradition. Beeson Divinity School is an interdenominational evangelical divinity school training men and women in the service of Jesus Christ. We hope you've enjoyed this episode of Via Media.