Interview: Chicago Pastor Daniel Hill on Getting White Awake

This is Q&A was published in Faithfully Magazine No. 2 (Fall 2017). D aniel Hill is the founding pastor of River City Community Church in the Humboldt Park neighborhood of Chicago, Illinois. Hill, who previously worked on staff at Willow Creek Community Church, has written a book about his journey of awakening to his White cultural identity. In the book, White Awake: An Honest Look at What It Means to Be White , Hill chronicles his missteps and wisdom gleaned in coming to terms with how whiteness has shaped how he views the world. Hill calls on other White Christians to embark on their own racial and cultural journey, pointing readers to the reconciling work and example of Christ. Hill offers a seven-point roadmap for the journey, which includes “encounter,” “denial,” “disorientation,” “shame,” “self-righteousness,” “awakening” and “active participation.” It is pretty brave to put a book like this out there and you are taking a risk, as you very well know. There’s the possibility that you will be misunderstood. With that in mind, who did you envision as your audience when writing White Awake ? I only pictured it to be White people to be honest, but it has been interesting that a lot of the most positive feedback I’ve gotten has actually been from people of color who do a lot of work with talking to White people. (They) found it to be helpful just even in understanding kind of the psychology or mindset of how White folks tend to engage with race, especially in some of the earlier stages. I’m really happy about that, too. But definitely, at a broad level, (the book was written) to White folks...I’d probably say White Christians. I try to be as hospitable as I can in the language, so I’m hoping—in fact, I’ve already had a number of White folks who are not Christian read it. So I’m hoping ... it will introduce them to some of the concepts around race and maybe even help them connect with the faith and even bear witness to Christ at some level. Even if they interact with it, I think it’s actually problematic when we approach these things without some kind of a— for Christians, I would say—a faith perspective, and when I’m talking about it with secular folks, it has to have kind of a moral imperative to it. I don’t imagine people who are really (not open) to it are going to read it, though that would be great. I think it’s probably especially for those who are just beginning to recognize that there’s a much deeper thing happening, a much bigger reality happening that they’re not really aware of and they’re looking for some kind of a resource or guide to help them start making their way. Why was it important for you to be careful with the words you choose, and to take the time to break down some of the terms you present in White Awake ? I ask thinking of white fragility and how sometimes what is being said or communicated on the part of the speaker is not what’s received by the hearer. I think my drive to be careful with words is more just like in the hopes that people will get it. I’m not really trying to go super-far out of my way to be over-comforting or anything like that for the reader. I think there’s a necessity for—I talk about this in one of the chapters—that there’s a necessity to be resilient in these kinds of things if somebody’s going to make any kind of genuine progress in their own kind of enlightenment. I’m expecting that of somebody, that they’re going to be open to developing that. My desire really is more just about I think that there’s just a lot of mythology or misunderstandings that kind of form for people where they get lost on this stuff, so my drive to be careful with words is more about trying to remove any of my own unnecessary personality traits or remove clutter that kind of gets in the way of the core thing. I’m just trying to help people get right to the core idea of this so they can try and make some genuine progress in their own journey. As you’ve come to understand it and use it, how do you defines “whiteness?” I don’t know how to talk about “whiteness” without breaking into a few subcategories. ... One is the social construct of race; one is the ideology of white supremacy; one’s the narrative of racial difference; and then one’s that it plays out on a systemic level. For me to understand “whiteness,” I feel like (with) all four of those, there’s got to be a little bit of functional understanding. Which of those four pieces do you think is most prevalent or visible? My own personal journey has been greatly enhanced by the work of Bryan Stevenson, who’s the founder of the Equal Justice Initiative and professor at New York University School of Law and I just think a really brilliant thinker, being able to take some complicated ideas and synthesize them in such a way where it doesn’t lose the essence but it’s very approachable. One of the key phrases that he built his whole intellectual model around is this phrase “the narrative of racial difference.” He invites his students or his listening body, whoever it is at the time, to kind of go back... He would show how the narrative of racial difference was just as important for some of the Native genocide as well, but he tied it especially to slavery. He says, “You know, there’s just this philosophical question that has to be asked: how is it that White Christians ever were able to justify owning human beings in the first place?” It would seem to go against every fiber of the human conscience. It seemed to go against everything that’s in the written Word. Like, how is it that White Christians ever got on board with Black slavery? He says the only explanation is that there’s a narrative of racial difference that was created where we not only saw racial difference, which he would say and I would say, too, is a good thing to do. I think that it’s a very biblical reality to recognize cultural diversity and the different ways that God creates people. I think diversity can be such a wonderful thing, to celebrate the differences. But that’s so endemic to our country, this narrative of racial difference to not only recognize racial differences but, more importantly, assign human value to those differences. ... It’s a social ill, but from a Christian perspective, I would go so far as to say it’s even demonic. I think that there’s this narrative that says there’s a spectrum of race and that human value can be delineated based on where somebody falls, and we’ve made whiteness to be that which is the most superior; we’ve made blackness to be the most inferior. Where somebody falls on that, the narrative would suggest human value is tied to that. He says that’s the only way we’re able to justify slavery in the first place. Even though in 1865 we formally toppled that social institution, we didn’t topple or uproot the narrative that allowed for it. So that narrative is as alive and well now as it has ever been and is sort of the source code for some of the systems and structures that are being built now... Every single one of us, we’re all affected by that in ways that oftentimes are unexamined. That, to me, would be a huge part of when we’re talking about “what is whiteness.” It’s a sometimes very overt affiliation with that narrative, (and) many times subversive where we’re not even aware of it. It’s an assumption, that narrative that whiteness is that which is most valuable and which should be most esteemed and we should aspire to live in a White neighborhood and be educated at White institutions and have access to things that whiteness represents. I think it’s a disease that infects us all (in) varying ways. That narrative of racial difference would be one of the primary ways I would come to understand what the system of whiteness is. How do you get people to understand that a critique of whiteness is not necessarily an attack on White people? That’s sort of been my experience. For White folks trying to engage with this stuff that’s probably the single most important milestone they have to cross through or the jump they have to make, is to be able to differentiate the critique of the kind of system that promotes these messages versus the White individuals who are just as beloved by God as anybody else is. That seems like it should be an easy delineation to make but because the stuff comes across as big and scary oftentimes, that distinction is not even being made, so it does sound, unfortunately, to people like an attack on White individuals. I think, to reference a biblical idea, the battle is never against flesh and blood. Ultimately, it’s against principalities and powers. The enemy is not White people. If the enemy is White people, I think we all lose. I think that just recreates all different kinds of problems. It’s one reason why I do appreciate Bryan Stevenson’s terminology of the narrative of racial difference. I think of the Zora Neale Hurston quote. She said the best way to make a common friend is to have a common enemy. I think if White people are the common enemy, we can’t have common friends. But if the system that says White is more valuable is a common enemy, then we can all align around saying that’s evil and destructive for all of us and we need to uproot (it) in every way we can. I’ve certainly had many folks who are not able to make the distinction but the good news is I’ve found lots of people are able to and that feels like a real breakthrough moment, once someone goes, “Oh right, this isn’t an attack on me. This thing that is evil and wrong puts me at risk like it puts other people at risk. We’ve all got our own recovery and liberation process that is necessary. So my own liberation is not only bound to the liberation of others, but I’m literally oppressed in my own kind of way by this ideology and I, too need to get free of it.” I’m thankful for the many stories I have seen where people have been able to differentiate that. I think that’s probably the first big key move that has got to happen for a White individual if they’re gonna (make) any kind of significant contribution or (be an) ally in combating some of this stuff. In the seven stages of the cultural identity process, you mention “encounter” as a starting point and “active participation” as the final stage. Why are these two parts of the process so important? If it’s true that the narrative of racial difference is one of the primary ways that the evil of the race (concept) plays itself out—which I believe it is—if I can get somebody to agree with that, it would then hopefully make some logical sense that what’s evil about that is that it says whiteness is more valuable and everything else is less valuable. Most White people are not going to have ever been conscious of that system growing up because they were never hearing overt hateful messages saying “you’re less than because of your racial background.” Therefore, I think that’s one of the primary ways in which privilege manifests itself. It’s not in anything that somebody did wrong, but you’re almost incapable of seeing the world through the eyes of oppression... Certainly someone could experience it along another axis, it could be upon gender or socio-economics or human sexuality or something, but in terms of the racial system that says White is more valuable, everything else is less valuable, it’s just almost literally impossible for a White person to see that without them having some kind of an encounter. I think at a spiritual level, it requires God to reveal that to us. But I think at a social level, we’ve got to begin to see (it). We’re all wired to defend and hope for the best and paint a rosier picture, so it’s kind of a natural inclination for people to assume that the world is a kinder or more equal place than it actually is. I think there have to be encounters where we see—oftentimes it’s a loved one, sometimes it can happen through news and media—but where we can see systems or structures that are operating off of this valuation of human delineation and want to begin to see that. That can kind of create a discomfort that leads to a quest to understand how we got to where we are. So there must be some possible dangers in these seven stages of the process. For example, if someone gets stuck at “denial” or sinks too deep into “shame.” Sometimes the pain is too great and we get stuck in denial. I think the shame one is huge. I think once we start to see things for what they are, it’s just really easy to fall into a sinkhole. I’ve heard so many White people say, “I don’t even want to be White anymore. I don’t want to associate with anything White. I don’t want to go to a White church.” There’s like, this monumental over-correction where they’re just so ashamed of their cultural heritage that they just want to disassociate from it and kind of make the pain a little bit easier. I don’t think that’s helpful at all. I think the self-righteous stage is one I see often, too. I reference Dr. Robin DiAngelo’s work (in White Awake )—she’s the one who originally coined the term “white fragility.” She comes at it from a secular perspective, but I think it matches very closely the teaching of Jesus on the dangers of self-righteousness when she talks about how that for a lot of us who are White, the way we best make sense of things is we say there are good White people who are on the right side of this and there are bad White people who are on the wrong side of this. We end up investing enormous amounts of energy into proving that we’re part of the group that’s the good White people and we’re therefore seeking acceptance and validation, and then we demonize people that are the bad White people. She would say, and I would agree, that’s actually totally destructive because it doesn’t do anything to help things. It just makes it sound that the problem of race is found in a small number of people who do bad things, and if we could just get everybody to stand on the good side of it the world would be a better place. In actuality, I don’t think that’s what the problem is at all. I think there’s this deeper system and this set of lies. The point isn’t to prove we’re good White people. I think the point is to acknowledge this deep sickness that’s in our veins and go on a journey to try and get free and liberated from it. I find the self-righteousness stage to be a real pitfall for people as well. What is “white trauma” and why does it need to be acknowledged? I’m borrowing the work of Mark Charles ... who is a Navajo theologian and practitioner. He, too gets that question. I’ll try to make the disclaimer that white trauma is nothing compared to the trauma of people who have actually been abused or beaten or suffered as a direct result of this. One of the things Mark Charles does (as a theologian and historian) is he systematically takes White people through the basically indisputable facts that have led to the creation of our country. It’s all about the Doctrine of Discovery and the papal bull that basically told White European Christians that anything they discovered, they were allowed to take that land, and if the people wouldn’t become Christian they were allowed to kill them. He then kind of builds on that with slavery... He finds that what happened to White people is very similar to what happened to him. When he was a teenager, he was driving a car with this brother in the passenger seat and he got into an automobile accident. His brother got killed in the car accident, which is just a horribly sad and tragic story. He would say, clearly the one who was most traumatized is the one who got killed. There’s no comparison in terms of the trauma from that. But he talks about how for many, many years he was less of a human being because of the trauma he experienced in that, too. He just couldn’t recover from how traumatizing what he had done was to his brother. That’s a different kind of trauma of when you are involved in the actual miscarriage of justice. So he thinks that this is one of the things that shut White people down. Once the light bulb begins to turn on in the ways that we’re complicit with the over-the-top violence that has happened to so many different groups of people ... that’s kind of what leads some to denial. There’s so much grief that arises that it’s its own form of trauma, that they participated in it not really even being fully conscious (of it). That conscience just starts to begin to arise, that it’s its own kind of traumatic effect on us and therefore leads into temptation to go into denial. If you could give one word of advice to White Christians who do not think they need to be awakened to any racial or cultural realities, what would it be? Two verses (that) essentially say the same thing in different ways. One, 2 Corinthians 5, is a very key passage for me where it talks about the ministry of reconciliation. It says, first, that we’re reconciled to God through Jesus Christ. But then I think it’s a really important verse (because) Paul says on behalf of Jesus that Jesus makes his appeal to the world through the ministry of reconciliation. I know so many White Christians who are very, rightly so, concerned with evangelism and bearing witness to Christ. So I think that’s a pretty haunting verse to think that the way Jesus makes his appeal to the world is through reconciliation. I mean, the church in America is as divided as ever, so I don’t know how anybody could claim we are experiencing reconciliation, however you would define that. Even at a simpler level, then, in 1 Corinthians 12, when the apostle Paul says when one part of the body suffers we all suffer and when one part of the body hurts we all hurt, I think to turn a deaf ear to suffering within our community would just be a sense of anti-community. I think it just goes against the heart of God. So for anybody who wants to be following Jesus and stay attuned to the pain in the Body of Christ, I don’t know how his pain wouldn’t lead you to a more deeper engagement with the history of race. Do you think there is anything missing from discussions about race and racism? That’s one reason why I went with the title I did of White Awake . I think we minimize the role of seeing clearly. Not that there are many who are really engaged with this anyway, but when we do become engaged the kind of initial questions are always: “What do I do? What do I do? How do I change things?” I think there’s a flawed assumption in there that just because I got a little glimmer now of what’s wrong I can suddenly participate in a solution. I think that to really embrace the fact that this goes deep and I really need to see a different reality that’s happening is really core to the transformation process. Negatively, I think we underestimate how important seeing is. Positively—it doesn’t feel productive, but that is a kind of work to do, that is a kind of productivity to pursue where I become the kind of person who can see differently than I do right now. It’s also a very biblical motif of blindness and sight used so regularly throughout the New Testament. I think that’s oftentimes what’s missing in the discourse, the acknowledgment that one of the results of being privileged is that we don’t see the world as it is and that there’s a lot of work involved with learning to see correctly. Where are you now on your personal journey? I think all of the things I lay out there that have been a part of my journey continue to be part of my journey. I still hope that those around me (still) consider me a student, one who’s trying to understand better; one who’s trying to see better; one who’s trying to live in solidarity, I feel extremely blessed even within our church settings. Our staff and elders are comprised of some of the most gifted thinkers that I know around race and justice. I can’t think of a staff meeting that goes by where someone doesn’t say something or even challenges me where I go, “Man, I just never saw that before, but that makes so much sense.” I’m just constantly lamenting that there’s so much I still don’t see, and simultaneously utterly thankful that there are folks who believe in me to walk alongside of me as I’m on that journey. I’m certainly not trying to showcase myself as some kind of an expert. I’m still very much on a steep learning curve and I’m exceedingly thankful to have folks in my life who are walking with me. This is a very heavy subject. Where is the hope in all of this? Where do you point people who feel burdened or discouraged by race work and related discussions? From a theological perspective, one of the driving forces for us is that not only do we believe Christ is the focal point of this, but the way that Christ identifies himself with freedom, with truth, with those being central components of who he is: “I’m the way, the truth and the light.” He says in John 8 (verse 36) “whoever the Son sets free is free indeed.” ... When we talk about this stuff, in kind of mixed settings here, talk about this valuation of humankind along this racial spectrum, it really brings up... Sometimes (with) people of color in our congregation what happens is it brings up old wounds or re-traumatizes them. It is very heavy. It’s not only heavy in its own way for White folks who are just discovering some of this, but it’s obviously really heavy for others. We’re trying to walk this gentle path of believing that even though it’s painful to name the lie, that we don’t get to walk into that other side of the resurrection without naming and confronting that demon that says human value can somehow be measured based on racial background. Our hope in Jesus is that by exposing this lie and bringing light into the darkness, that there is a freedom, that there’s truth on the other side, there’s a deeper sense of knowledge of who we are in Christ where we can walk with (our) shoulders back and heads held high because we know who we are in Christ. I think there’s a temptation ... to do an end- around and try to get to that point without actually going through the heavy process of exposing the lies that prohibit us from living into that fullness of life. Just trusting that Jesus is really truth and light and that lies are something that aren’t just problematic, they’re reflective of the evil, the devil and the world. The mission of Jesus is to expose and defeat those (lies) and when we name those (lies) and when we name the truth ... there’s resurrection life on the other side—that’s the hope. Is there anything we did not touch on that you would like to mention? Another big theme that I’m really trying to develop in the book is that, and this is particularly applicable to White Christians, probably White Evangelicals more than anything, but I’m trying to listen to the parts that White Christians already agree with and then try to help them find some common ground. One of the things almost every White Christian I know strongly believes in is that identity in Christ should be the foundation that we build our lives upon, that should be the end goal that everything moves us towards, is living out this identity in Christ more than any other, which I agree with. ... A connection point that I’m trying to help White Christians make is that one of the chief, if not the chief barrier to living in our identity as children of God, as people whose identity is rooted in Christ, is the system of race. There’s such a big role the system of race has played in forming our current sense of identity that without doing some critical self-analysis and self-reflection, Holy Spirit-led reflection to see the ways in which our current sense of identity has been formed by this racial system, we’re not able to fully live into the very thing we say we want to live into as being children of God. That’s another dimension of this conversation that (is) important to me as well.

Interview: Chicago Pastor Daniel Hill on Getting White Awake

RELATED POSTS

This is Premium Content.

Share This Post

Share This Post

Related Posts

Recommended Stories

Popular Stories

Welcome Back!

Create New Account!

Retrieve your password

Share This Post

Add New Playlist

Add to Collection

No Collections

Are you sure want to unlock this post?

Are you sure want to cancel subscription?