Skip to main content
Saturdays at Seven Conversation Series

“A Prophet and a Comforter” ft. Baylor University’s George Yancey I Saturdays at Seven – Season Three, Episode Thirty-Nine

By June 13, 2026No Comments

Click here to listen to the episode on Spotify

In the thirty-ninth episode of the third season of the “Saturdays at Seven” conversation series, Todd Ream talks with George Yancey, Professor of the Social Sciences at Baylor University. Yancey opens by reflecting upon how he makes sense of race relations in the United States since 2010. While the tragic events involving individuals such as Trayvon Martin and George Floyd serve as watershed moments, Yancey also notes that the shifts in politics rooted in who occupies the executive branch also play critical roles. For a season, DEI and antiracism captured the interest of individuals in power. Presently, the reserve almost proves true. In the end, Yancey notes that the inability of those in power to relinquish power fuels an unproductive cycle from which the American public and, in some ways, the Church, has yet to free itself. Yancey then moves on to share how his initial interests in economics gravitated toward sociology as defined by his overriding conviction that the scholarship he is called to prepare should enhance the relationships individuals and groups share. In relation to the Church, Yancey contends scholars can play critical roles as long as they are willing to serve as prophets and comforters and refrain from the inclination to collapse into one convenient option or another. Such a perspective is one Yancey strives to offer in books he writes for scholars and books he writes for the Church. The key to doing so, however, according to Yancey is for scholars to engage in the ongoing process of cultivating intellectual humility.

Todd Ream: Welcome to Saturdays at Seven, Christian Scholar’s Review’s conversation series with thought leaders about the academic vocation and the relationship that vocation shares with the Church. My name is Todd Ream. I have the privilege of serving as the publisher for Christian Scholar’s Review and as the host for Saturdays at Seven. I also have the privilege of serving on the faculty and the administration at Indiana Wesleyan University.

—

Our guest is George Yancey, Professor of the Social Sciences at Baylor University. Thank you for joining us.

George Yancey: Thanks for having me.

Todd Ream: Among other interests, your research includes race relations, multiracial churches, and interracial unions. As you look back over the course of the last 15 years, how do you make sense of the conversations that have occurred in the United States concerning race relations?

George Yancey: Yeah, so I guess 15 years ago, that would’ve been about 2010, and what, what kind of happened around then is that there was a lot of interest built up on talking about racial issues as well as gender and that sort of stuff. It had a period of time where, yeah, things were happening, but they weren’t the top of the conversation. And then probably the last 15 years they’ve been a, a, a big part of the conversation.

Now, you know, I hate when people use hyperbole, you know? There’s no Jim Crow 2.0 or, or, or that sort of stuff that’s happening. That’s what politicians say. We obviously have moved past the sort of time of our history where people of color were seen as, you know, inferior animals by 99% of Americans. But still sort of negotiating where we are racially with our racial past, our racial history, our racial traumas, you know, that’s an ongoing issue that we continue to go back and forth on.

And right now, the voices that have articulated a more colorblindness, just ignore race, that sort of thing, they’re in ascendancy right now, but they won’t be forever. Uh, just like those who are pushing more of an anti-racism were not in ascendancy forever. So that’s, until we can resolve something more permanently, then I think that’s where we’re going to be in our society.

Todd Ream: Are there any particular social markers or events that prove most compelling to you, if any, in terms of identifying the arc of the conversations that have taken place during the period of time we’re discussing?

George Yancey: I guess, you know, that, that, that’s an interesting question, is there any single social event? I don’t know if there’s any single social event. I mean, I think you look at our political elections as, as part of it, that social event. You know, that we went, we went from having the first black president of the United States to someone who is, you know, who’s very dismissive of the concerns of, of African Americans. Uh, and, and I think that that was, was, you know, a traumatic event that occurred that really illustrated a lot of the turmoil and racial issues. I do know the election of Trump in 2016 there was a lot of breakdown between previous attempts at reconciliation because a lot of people of color felt betrayed by white people who voted for Trump. So you know, in some ways, that was a, a, a very event.

But there’s a, there are significant, I mean, Trayvon Martin, which helped to set up Black Lives Matter. You know, that’s how Black Lives Matter got started. And then of course, George Floyd which really energized that whole anti-racism movement. So, so yeah, we’ll, we’ll see, we’ll see some of the other things that may happen over time as far as you know, trying to gauge the different racial attitudes.

But I mean, just right now, DEI’s on the outs, you know, anti-racism on the outs and, and, and, and the people with control, you know, they are, they are, they are just as aggressive trying to get rid of these programs as four years ago, the forces for anti-racism were trying to implement these programs. So there’s a, there’s a real mirror to what we’re seeing happening.

Todd Ream: Thank you. In your theological estimation then, what, if anything, is the ideal that, say, members of the body of Christ should pursue in relation to these conversations? What should be the marker that binds us together and towards which we move during this season where things seem to be moving back and forth in so many significant ways?

George Yancey: You know, the thing that I talk about as a Christian, and here’s where I think you know, many people get it wrong, is human depravity. Uh, and so what, what, what I say of this is that people understand human depravity in other people but not in themselves. And so when those who were, were, you know, when anti-racism was all the rage a few years ago, they understand human depravity of whites not caring about racial issues. They didn’t understand the human depravity of how they themselves could get carried away and engage in excesses which contributed to their demise.

Likewise, I see the same thing happening among the more conservative elements today. They understand human depravity of how some people of color do use a race card or do misuse some of the things. They’re not seeing the human depravity of their sort of callousness. Uh, I look at the immigration issues today. Uh, I, I just remember reading someone says who’s very conservative and says, “I don’t hate immigrants, I just love my natives.” I’m like, that’s a really low bar. Not hating the foreigners is a really low bar. I mean, aren’t we supposed to love the foreigners?

And, and I’m not advocating an open border policy by saying that. I mean, you know, but our bar is not, “I don’t hate you.” Didn’t Jesus say even the world does that? Uh, our bar should be we love, you know, people around the world no matter who they are. We may not be able to do everything we can for them, but we’re supposed to try to love them. And so that’s a sort of blindness I think we have when we do not recognize the importance of human depravity in our own decisions.

Having said that, once we recognize that, we need to move ahead towards having productive conversations where we can find solutions that we can all live with, rather than have the conversation is of, how can we beat down the people that we oppose so that we can get our way? Which is the conversation that I see too often happening across the spectrum.

Todd Ream: Thank you. Where have you seen if any of these productive conversations taking place amongst members of the body of Christ? Spaces which, and efforts which may give you hope as we contend with our own depravity?

George Yancey: I know there have been Christians who have taken it seriously and had these conversations. You know a book by Spencer and Rice, I’m trying to remember their names. Uh, I’ve forgotten the name of this book, but they talk about how they had these conversations when Rice, a white man, came to the ministry to Spencer’s neighborhood, which is predominantly Black, and started ministering for a while. And then there was all this sort of, you know, tension, and then they had honest conversations about where we need to go. And so you do see this happening sometimes sporadically.

What we don’t see is a systematic effort to have these conversations. And the reason why we haven’t, and we Christians need to recognize this, is that when our social group or political group gains power, we cease wanting to have those conversations, because we think that we can use our power to get what we think is the right way. Now, recognizing our own human depravity has poisoned the way in which we see things.

So honestly, the onus may have been on the more progressive elements in our faith a few years ago, but it’s on the more conservative elements in our faith today. Neither one of them have shown a proclivity to want to have conversations when they feel like they have the power. So are we willing to give up a little bit of our power to find a lasting solution, or are we going to play this game where we’re going to try to hold onto our power as long as we can to get what we want?

Todd Ream: Yeah. Thank you. In addition to the kinds of conversations that you’re highlighting here, are there other practices which you would encourage members of the body of Christ to participate for formation toward the ideal that we’re discussing?

George Yancey: I would say that awareness and listening to others, practicing how that we can listen to others is of great value. We develop more compassion when we’re really willing to listen to people we disagree with. Uh, not so that we can say, “All right, you were right and I was wrong,” but why have you come to the conclusion that you came to? Uh, there’s a, there’s a distinct lack of curiosity as to why people do what they do, because it’s so much easier just to demonize them and say that they’re, you know, they’re awful, they’re woke, they’re racist, they’re whatever.

And to me, this is part of loving people. You know, the part of loving people is listening to them and being concerned about them. Uh, and I think we fail to do that too oftentimes when we feel that, we have to, to earn these social, political victories. So, you know, these are the sort of things that we need to think. You know, it would really change our world, our Christianity, well, not just on racial issues, but on a lot of things, we learn how to listen to others, have curiosity, and work with them to find solutions, and not feel like we have to have our way all the time.

And you know, you could imagine the different issues that this comes up that would just change things. And what if the Church was known for being the place where you go and they listen, they hear you out, and they try to work with you? What if the, what if the Church was known for that rather than what we’re known for today, which is not that?

Todd Ream: Yeah. Thank you. I want to shift now to asking you about your own formation for the academic vocation and the interests then that have captivated you and defined your work as a sociologist. You earned a bachelor’s degree in economics from what is now West Texas A&M University, and then a-

George Yancey: Boo, boo. I’m a Longhorn fan, so I hate when they changed that name.

Todd Ream: It happened after the ink was dried on your diploma.

George Yancey: Yeah, that’s true. I always call it West Texas State University I won’t, I won’t, I won’t, I won’t, I won’t, use that name that should not be named.

Todd Ream: There we go. Well, then you found your way to your iteration of the promised land here in some ways in higher education because you came to Austin and earned a degree in economics, a master’s in economics from UT Austin.

What was it that initially drew your interest to economics? Because you then went on at UT Austin to pursue a PhD in sociology.

George Yancey: You know, it’s kind of interesting. So I’m a first-generation college student, so no one in my family got a college degree before myself. When, when that happens, you don’t have people. I couldn’t go to my parent or grandparents or aunts and uncles and ask, you know, “What should I major in? What should I do?” They didn’t know. They wanted me to go to college. They encouraged me. And then, and my mom helped me greatly prepare me for college, and she finally got her degree after I got mine.

So I just thought, well, economics sounds kind of interesting. And, you know I probably had an early intro economic course that I found fascinating, and it’s about money. So I just, you know, once you get, once I, once you got started in that major, I just kept on until I got my bachelor’s degree in economics.

So when I went on to graduate school, once again, now, I had built some friends, people who had gotten college degrees, so I had a few people to talk to, but I didn’t really have those close primary relationships. So I just assumed if you get a bachelor degree in economics, you have to get your master’s degree in economics. So when I, when I applied for grad school, when I decided to go to graduate school the only thing I knew to apply for was economics. So it was only when I got into grad school and I got my master’s in economics, and I discovered I didn’t like it quite that much, that I realized that I didn’t have to get a PhD in economics.

And so when I decided to go on for a PhD degree, I had taken a couple sociology courses I found fascinating. And I had taken a sociology class or two as an undergraduate, but, you know, I mean, it’s just one of the many classes. I was just concentrating on getting my economics degree. And so I decided, you know, if I was going to go on, that I’d do it in sociology, and that’s, that’s what happened.

Todd Ream: The experiences that then perhaps captivated your interest in relation to sociology and aided this discernment process, were there any in particular that you’d want to highlight or note?

George Yancey: Well one sociology class that I took was on sociology of the family. And I was a, I was a, I won’t say a totally new Christian, but I had only been a Christian for about five or six years, I think, at that point in time. And so, you know, issues of family and divorce and the divorce effects, that was all fascinating to me. So when I went into sociology, I originally was looking at doing research in the family. I was, you know, I was not really looking to do anything on race or anything on religion per se maybe I would look at it as an effect on the family.

But I was, I was interested in divorce effects more than anything else going into sociology, because that, to me, that was, you know, I think at the time there was a lot of discussion about divorce effects, and Christians were talking about, you know, how divorce was ravaging. And so I, I just picked up on that and I’m like, “Oh, you can learn about this. You can study it.” And I was seeing holes in the literature and I’d say, “Hey, this, this, you know, why not look at this? Why not look at that?” Uh, and so that was really the impetus that got me into studying sociology.

Probably about a year or two into it, I was no longer really looking to study the family, but that was the driving force.

Todd Ream: Mentors then along the way and/or authors who were pivotal in terms of your formation as a sociologist?

George Yancey: The author that I say was the most pivotal on, on how I see things as a scholar beyond the Bible, you know, take the Bible aside, was you know, the author is Thomas Kuhn and the, The Structure of Scientific Revolution because I was under the, the illusion that science was this objective search for truth. They’re open to all truth that’s out there no matter what, where you find it.

And when I read Kuhn, and, and for those who don’t know, Kuhn makes this argument that science works in a paradigm. And so while you’re doing science, what you’re doing is you’re trying to reinforce the paradigm. You’re not open to alls, the paradigm tells you the answers, what questions you can ask, so forth and so on. And the only way you get out of the paradigm is when the paradigm breaks apart so badly that you can no longer use it, and you search and search for a new paradigm, and then you’re constrained to that paradigm.

And that, when I read that and I thought about what’s happening around me, it came pouring into my realm because, because I’m so different from most other academics. I grew up in the South. I’m religious. I’m not a political radical. I wouldn’t say I’m a conservative, but I’m not a political radical. Uh, I’m an African American. Uh, all these things, you know, I, I, I grew up in a single-parent household. All these things are different from and I saw, so I saw the world differently from everyone else. So it helped me to see where they were making, taking for granted assumptions that they were blind to. They were in a paradigm.

So when I read that, I realized science was not this open search for truth. Now, now Kuhn was talking about the hard sciences. Uh, the issues he’s talking about are even more dominant in the social sciences. So that one really opened up my eyes, and it’s, and it’s, and it’s allowed, it’s given me permission to, to challenge the paradigm and to do work that doesn’t comport to the paradigm. I do some research that fits in with the current social paradigm of the day, but I’m also willing to do research that does not. And I think it’s a lot because of Kuhn.

Todd Ream: Thank you. You served briefly on the faculty at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, but then came back to the Republic of Texas and served on the faculty at the University of North Texas for 20 years.

In what ways did those years prove formative in terms of how you came to understand your calling to the academic vocation?

George Yancey: Yeah, technically it was 19 years, but it felt 20 years. Uh, you know, I think, I, I think by and large I had a good time in North Texas. Uh, it was my first time working with a doctoral granting program you know, and I felt like I got, you know, decent amount of support there. And just learning how to, I mean, yeah, I spent, I had a few years in Wisconsin, but, you know, I had longer relationships with, with the faculty at North Texas. And so so, so yeah, I I didn’t have people, with one exception, I had one colleague, we did, we did publish together. I didn’t have people who were interested in what I was interested in working with. And so I do miss that.

Uh, but just being on campus, being on campus four days a week and, and interacting with students and, and, and that sort of thing, you know being in a college town you know, a, a real legitimate college town, which I did have in Austin. It was good.

I do feel towards the end of it, towards the end of my stay there, that I was starting to become uncomfortable. Uh, you know, nothing really bad or dramatic or anything like that, but just some of the dynamics that I began to see, I, I think in part because I didn’t have colleagues I could work with, and I saw not just, not just as a scholar, but as how things should be run. I saw, I saw, I had, I had disagreements with that.

And so that’s why, you know, when Baylor came calling, I was, I was more open to that than I had been, I probably would’ve been 10 years ago or something like that when I was still kind of in a groove. So I was feeling some disconnect at the very, very, at the tail end of it. But by and large, you know, it was very enjoyable.

Todd Ream: As you just mentioned, you accepted an appointment at Baylor University in 2019. In what ways has your time then at Baylor now, as it approaches ten years, or excuse me, seven years proven formative in terms of your research interests and the ways that you’ve invested in those interests as expressions of your vocation?

George Yancey: Yeah, so the Baylor experience is a little bit different, you know, better in many ways. Uh, I don’t live in Waco, whereas, as you know, I still live in Denton. And so I’m not on campus four days a week. And so I, I wonder how much difference that would make my experience if I was on campus that often because you get a feel for the campus. And I’m, I’m only now, a few years in, getting a feel for the Baylor campus, because I’m only on one day a week.

Uh, but I mean, Baylor’s been incredibly supportive of what I’ve wanted to do. And, you know, the Christian element, I don’t know if academically Baylor students are better than North Texas students, but there does seem to be, and I know not every student in, at Baylor’s a Christian in that. But there, there, there is a, there is a different feel there that, that I didn’t have.

I, I felt like in North, North Texas, there was more of a humanistic perspective that permeated. And, and there were some very nice people there, and stuff like that. And so I do perceive the students, you know, with the Christian element, I think that that does especially when I teach on religion, it does create a qualitative difference in, in, in that, in that sort of experience. You know, the administration has been supportive, and I don’t have, you know, any, any sort of major complaints on that.

I’ve, I’ve had a chance to work with Byron Johnson, and, you know, he landed this huge grant that’s been fantastic, and he has tried to help me to hopefully find some, some grant money on my own. So yeah, I’ve enjoyed Baylor.

Todd Ream: Thank you. I want to ask you now about your publishing efforts over the course of your career. Uh, broadly speaking you’re the author of about 20 books, and about 75% of them are for academic audiences, for fellow scholars, and about 25% of those books are for popular audiences, primarily Christians, parishioners seeking insights concerning how to live out their faith. That ratio of books and, and audiences that you’ve sought to serve has been one that you’ve roughly kept over the course of your career. So it hasn’t changed necessarily or become sort of recent, writing for parishioners since your time at Baylor.

Can you offer a few details concerning how you discern when you’re striving to serve scholars and when you’re striving to serve parishioners, and the difference in habits that you’ve needed to develop in relation to those two audiences?

George Yancey: Well, it’s kind of funny because my very first book I ever wrote was a Christian book, and I was writing it when I was working on, you know, when I was in graduate school. And my advice would be do not write a non-negative book when you’re in graduate school, trying to finish your PhD degree. So that probably delayed my finishing for a little bit. So I don’t recommend that.

What I generally like to do is I like to do research, academic research, publish academically, and then publish it in a Christian format. I mean, the first book was an anomaly. Uh, and so part, part of what I see my calling as is to be a translator, a translator of academic work, a lot of it I’m working on, translator of academic work to a, to a laity audience. I think that’s one of my calling. I mean, I think it’s not the only thing, but I think it is one of the elements of my calling.

Uh, and so I’ve, I’ve tried to do that. I mean, I worked on the issues of race and ethnicity. We got a grant looking at multiple churches. We got an Oxford University Press book out of it. Uh, I, I worked on a book of my own looking at Christian colleges and racial issues.

Consequently, I also published a book on, you know, for InterVarsity Press on how to help your church become more racially diverse. For me, it’s taking that, that information and putting it in a language and format that’s more easily understandable by educated laity audience. So I did the stuff, my work on anti-Christian bigotry, and I’ve done, did research on it, published an academic book on that. Uh, well, one on cultural progressives, and then one on Christianophobia. Had another book on academic bias. And then I decided, well, okay, let’s put this in a format so that someone doesn’t have to go and, and read three academic books. They could distill it down in a, in a, in a Christian format, and thus Hostile Environment was written. So that’s been sort of the way I’ve done things.

You know, I went, walked away from race ethnicity for about 10 years or so and then came back to it, and that’s when I published my latest Christian book on Beyond Racial Division, because I, I had thoughts and, and, and things I’ve considered over those 10 years and reinforcing that. Uh, but that’s kinda how, how I, how I’ve done it.

I have a book on identity politics coming out that’s academic. I may, I may do a Christian book on identity politics, because I think that, you know, that that’s something that’s worth, I think it’s something that Christians really need to think about. I’ve not really, I don’t have any plans to at this point in time, but that, that’s, that wouldn’t, that would not be unusual for me to do something like that on, on identity politics from a Christian point of view. So yeah, so that’s sort of how I see things.

I think that the role of the Christian academic should be one of both a prophet and a comforter. Uh, I think we should be a prophet in that we should challenge the Christian Church to do better. We should not be just a cheerleader. But I also think we need to be a comforter because there are things that are unfair to the Christian Church. And so we should call that out, too.

Uh, I am not trustful of Christian academics who do only one or the other. You know, those who, who, you know, there’s a few who all they do is they rah-rah. You know, they cheer, and they don’t really challenge the Church. There’s probably more that do the other ones, that all they do is challenge the Church. And they do it so much you realize, “Well, why do you even call yourself a Christian?” You know? Uh, so I think that that’s the role that I strive to play, and I think it, I think it can frustrate people because they see me in one role, they think that’s the role I’m always in. Uh, and of course it’s not.

Todd Ream: For younger scholars then, who sense that they’re called to engage not only their colleagues in academia but also fellow parishioners in the Church, what advice would you offer them as they cultivate these habits that would then allow them serve as both prophets and comforters?

George Yancey: I would say first, you know, learn your craft well. Learn your craft excellently. Bring your different perspectives, but make sure that you’ve that, that you’re sufficiently rigorous in, in, in how you do your work. Don’t use it as an excuse, “Well, they don’t like me because I’m Christian,” to do inferior work. Uh, and then apply that. I think if we honestly apply what we learn, we are going to see elements that need to be challenged in the Church, and we’re going to see the need to defend the Church from time to time. If we’re honest about it.

Uh, don’t get so wrapped up in the zeitgeist of your, of your academic discipline that you’re not, your eyes are not open to some of the misuses of research, misuses of, of humanities. However, don’t get so wrapped up in, in, in your church that you blind yourself to the, to the weaknesses, to the, to the failings of the Christian Church. And if you do that, then I think you can, you have something really, you’ll have something really valuable to offer the Christian Church. If you don’t do that, then yeah, there’s going to, you know, you’re going to fall into one or the other. And then people will pigeonhole you, and you’ll just find yourself talking to the people you already agree with.

Todd Ream: Yeah, thank you. At the outset of our conversation, we of course discussed the role race relation plays in your scholarship, along with the observations you’ve encountered and then been able to offer and share through those efforts.

Your research interests, however, also include the sociology of science, progressive Christians, anti-Christian attitudes, and atheism, echoed in some of the things that you talked about in terms of the books that you’ve offered.

In what ways do those interests relate to one another? And in what ways might they be separate or distinct from one another?

George Yancey: Well, the most common way they relate to one another is I’m interested in all of them. So that’s the most common way they relate to one another. You know, I’ve thought about that, you know, what is the thread to what I choose to study? You know, if I eliminate the one-offs. Like there’s one paper on height and dating, which is, is a big one-off.

I think part of what it is is how people learn how to get along with each other. I think that if there is, if there is a, a, a theme to my work, its trying to figure out how we can solve problems instead of just documenting problems. And to me, part of it is, you know, how we learn how to get along with each other.

And as a sociologist, I wish more sociologists were, were, were pouring over how do we do that beyond a conflict theory type of way of, hey, we get along with each other when, when our side wins and, and they capitulate to us, which of course is, you know, we know that that’s not going to create any sort of lasting harmony. And, and this side of the grave, you know, maybe lasting harmony isn’t going to be possible, but we could do better.

Uh, so you know, when I think about, you know why do I study white progressives, well, they’re understudied, and they play a major role in why we don’t get along with each other, just like white evangelicals do. But white evangelicals are studied through the yin yang. You don’t need another book on Christian nationalism or white evangelical racism or, or any of that sort of stuff. That’s, that’s all covered. No one wants to study white progressives. I do.

You know, interracial conflict, same thing. Uh, atheists to some degree, because that was at the height of the New Atheism, and, and, and so that sort of conflict was coming in. The New Atheism has really metastasized into something that I did not see happening whereas now about half of them seem like they are Trump supporters. So you know, so I did not, I did not have that in my playbook to happen. But you know, at the time, so I think that, you know, part of it is how do we get along with each other. I think that that is, you know, a common theme that I see in a lot of my work.

Todd Ream: Yeah. Thank you. In terms of this theme and the arc of the interests that you’ve had and the contributions you’ve sought to make, is there a book that you look back on in terms of serving academic audiences, serving scholars, that is perhaps more definitive than others of your understanding of your calling?

George Yancey: I’m not sure that there is. I mean, I guess the closest I would say is the one I did with Emerson on transcending racial barriers because it, it, it, it does make the argument of the way we transcend racial barriers is we, we gotta work together and that sort of thing. But most of my academic books are more about documenting the information that’s out there. Although some of my, some of my thread does work into the book. That book probably is the closest one that captures it completely, more consistently. Uh, but yeah, other than that, I think, I think it comes out when you read the book and you read some of my critique of what’s happening. But a lot of the book is demonstrating what is happening,

Todd Ream: Thank you. Comparable question then, but in terms of parishioners, is there a book that you’ve written that you think is more definitive of your expression of your vocation than perhaps the others that you’ve generated to date?

George Yancey: I think the last one, Beyond Racial Division would be, because I’m more explicit about the need for collaborative conversations. And, and I think whilst on racial issues, I think that you could also talk about it as far as religious differences, as far as you know any other sort of conflict we have in our society. If we, if we talk with each other in a way that’s, that’s productive, then then we’ll get a lot more further than trying just to beat each other down,

Todd Ream: Thank you. Perhaps you’ve already addressed this in terms of the relationship that you view scholars hold in terms of being comforters as well as prophets. But as a sociologist, how have you come to understand or perhaps even define the academic vocation? What’s the good of it? What characteristics define it? And then also, you know, what threatens it today?

George Yancey: In theory, academia is a really great way of knowing things because we use the scientific method in order to test and retest. And we do this in, in the community so that you know, if I did a test that’s off, someone else says, “No, no, no, no, you need to do it this way.” And then the community sort of works around it.

And, and, you know, and this does happen. I’m not saying that this never happens, but this does happen especially on issues that are not politically raw. Uh, you know, you, you do see the scientific, you do see the, the scientific method used in ways that are very productive.

One of the reasons why I think that it probably happens more in the hard sciences than the social sciences is some of the questions that they deal with you know, you, you don’t want to get wrong because they’re like for example, you’re, if you want to learn how to develop a combustible engine, you don’t want to get that wrong because if you get it wrong, and it blows up or it doesn’t move. And so I think that it probably works a little bit better. Not perfectly, by no means, but better.

Uh, second part of your question, what, what goes wrong is we have been caught up in our own ideas of self-importance. And instead of being discoverers of the truth, we’ve become those who determine what truth is. Uh, and thus then we try and reinforce that, our notion of what truth is, through our research. And this has led to some research that is badly done and yet applauded. Uh, there’s research that is well done, but just reinforces the same point over and over again, and still has the same weaknesses of that paradigm. And it’s also unfortunately led to a mistrust of the sciences. And sometimes mistrust is well earned. And so when we do have something to offer, we can’t, because the public doesn’t trust us.

Here’s, this isn’t sociology, but, I mean, I think this is one of the best examples, you know, during COVID, when you really need science to solve the problems, people are not trusting science. They’re not taking the vaccines. Why not? Why weren’t people taking vaccines? Now, there’s a variety of reasons. There’s no one reason.

But to me, the event, you asked for events earlier, so here’s an event that’s really crystallizing. The event that for me crystallized, okay, now I understand why people don’t trust science, because I’m, I’m having a hard time trusting the science, was when the George Floyd protests began to happen, and the, I believe it was NIH, the disease control, I forget I forget if that’s the right acronym or not, where they had made a statement where as before they said, “We cannot have protests because of COVID, because we don’t want people getting infected.” And all the protests were, you know, anti-lockdown protests. They said, “This is about health. Do not do this.” Floyd protest happens, and they reverse themselves 180 degrees.

I’m not a disease doctor, but I know a disease does not care whether or not you’re protesting for George Floyd or for, and, you know, I mean, I, I have a clue. Uh, that was clearly a political statement done on the behest of science.

Now, I took the vaccine, but if someone says, “I’m not getting the vaccine because look what they just did back there. Is this, I mean, how do, how do I know? How do I know this is not politics?” I don’t have a good comeback for that, other than I, I, you know, I really think that this vaccine’s going to work, and I’ve seen evidence it’s going to work. I don’t have a good comeback because they did play politics with that.

And that science done badly. It’s not done in community. It’s not done where we’re open to all answers, and people realize this. That was clearly, people realize that. And, and, and now, we do not have the authority that we need or do what we need to do.

Todd Ream: In terms of this perception of scholar as prophet and comforter then, especially within sociology, in your estimation, what virtues, particularly moral and intellectual virtues, prove most important for sociologists to cultivate? And then what vices are also most important for sociologists to be willing to confront?

George Yancey: I think just trying to be as honest as possible. And you know, objectivity, as we don’t know, is a myth, that you can’t be totally objective. But we, you could, you can keep questioning yourself. I, I, I think the ability to engage in introspection is very important advice, very important virtue, and it’s also a very difficult one to develop. And you know, I struggle with it myself. I’m not holding myself out here as, “Oh, yeah, I engage in perfect introspection all the time,” because I don’t. 

You know, I had my wife just the other day in a situation say, “Well, why, why don’t you do this?” And I didn’t want to, then I realized she’s right. So I hope she doesn’t ever see this because, you know,, I’ll never live it down.

Todd Ream: We all have a few of these moments here and there.

George Yancey: One thing that concerns me is the lack of introspection I see among so many scholars, in part because you know, we, we are told that we’re the scholars and, and we’re the intellectuals. Uh, and then that leads then to, to the vice, the vice that I think that we, we struggle with. I think that because of our position in society and also because people who have the sort of intellectual status that we’re given usually are compensated a lot more than what we are, like a doctor or lawyer. You know, they’re compensated much more than we are.

I think that we as scholars tend to make huge battles over small things because it, we need to reinforce our feelings of importance. And so I can say that I am, you know, one of the foremost experts in this very sliver of information, topic. There are certain topics I could argue I’m one of the most foremost, foremost experts in that. Uh, and so that does not make me an expert in a lot of other things. And so there’s a temptation for me to think that I am the expert in all those other things.

I’m not trying to pick on the New Atheists, but Dawkins, from my understanding, is a great expert in certain aspects of biology. Uh, when you read his book, he is not an expert in philosophy or theology, and it comes across in his book. He talked with the confidence that he was. I think that academics, we have our expertise, and that’s, and, and of course we should, you know, talk with that expertise. But we shouldn’t forget that we’re not experts in everything. And, and when we act like we do, we are, then we, we badly overreach. And it’s one of the reasons why people don’t trust us.

Todd Ream: Yeah. Thank you. As we close out our conversation then today, I want to ask you to unpack a little bit more for us based on the experience you’ve had of writing for both academic audiences and for the university.

Because in what ways do you estimate that scholars could be of greater service to the Church and the Church perhaps can also be of greater service to scholars?

George Yancey: Yeah. Well, I absolutely believe that we scholars can be of greater service of the Church. Uh, I think if we write in an honest way where we’re sensitive and, and we defend the Church as well as critique the Church, we can help the Church become better. And I think the Church, the Church should listen to us, although they have reasons not to, and, and sometimes I think their reasons are very sound. Uh, some of the scholarship I’ve seen directed at Christians about Christians, you know, is totally tone deaf and, and totally uncharitable.

 Uh, you know, Christian scholars, but all scholars could learn, I think there’s a perspective in, in, in the Christian theological framework that should be taken more seriously. And that perspective is that because of human depravity, no one has all the right answers, and thus, there’s a notion within within certain elements of academia that if we did the right things that we’d create utopia, and I am very skeptical of that because of my Christian foundation and the evidence I’ve seen around in my life that we can’t create utopia.

I think academic scholars would do well to consider that we can’t create utopia. What we can do is make the world better where we’re at today. And, and the danger of trying to create utopia is you, you can justify doing a lot of things. Uh, you know, hey, if some people will die but we create a utopia for everyone else, so, you know, that, that, that’s fine. And, you know, if you look at the folly of Marxism as implemented in the Soviet Union when th- there’s this ideal, I’m not even saying this as a critique of Marxism, but the ideal that we can have this, this utopian society that leads to tens of millions tens of millions of deaths, that’s almost predictable when you believe you can create a utopia.

And so I think if academics took a step back and say, “How can we make society better?” And, and do a, a rigorous cost-benefit analysis, and not think that, “Well, we got to do whatever we gotta have to do in order to create utopia,” I think, I think I think it would you know, help our, our sciences and humanities to have that sort of perspective. Uh, so I think that’s how we could each give each way, yeah

Todd Ream: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Our guest has been George Yancey, Professor of the Social Sciences at Baylor University. Thank you for taking the time to share your insights and wisdom with us.

George Yancey: Thanks for having me.

—

Todd Ream: Thank you for joining us for Saturdays at Seven, Christian Scholar’s Review’s conversation series with thought leaders about the academic vocation and the relationship that vocation shares with the Church. We invite you to join us again next week for Saturdays at Seven.

Todd C. Ream

Indiana Wesleyan University
Todd C. Ream serves as University Professor and Executive Director of Faculty Scholarship at Indiana Wesleyan. He also serves as a senior fellow with the Lumen Research Institute and the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities and as the publisher for Christian Scholar’s Review.

Leave a Reply