Prejudice in the Adventist Church Options

[Denny]

However, neither does the Bible seem to condone unity of all "races" (in the Bible, "peoples"). Or at least, not after the flood!

"And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."

Personally, I think it is the issue of language which causes the most division and prejudice among "peoples" today.

Using this text to support racial separateness?.... please what next using this text to support we are all equal but don't marry one of 'them' cos God wants us to be separate for a reason? Last I checked Jim Crow was dead and buried (in theory). Your premise is flawed this text does not recognise the concept of different races as we see it. They were divided by language not by some artifical racial concept. As you know different ethnic/racial groups can speak the same language and the same ethnic/racial group can speak different languages.

[Green Cochoa]

Denny, perhaps this issue is overly sensitive for you, for I did not say the things you have claimed I said, nor even imply them. I made no mention whatsoever of marriage, and your final conclusion agrees with mine. I'm sorry if I have in any way contributed to this, but you have completely misunderstood and misrepresented my comments. BTW, I don't know Jim Crow. History was not my strong point in school, though it does interest me much more now.

When you say "Your premise is flawed this text does not recognise the concept of different races as we see it," I guess I might have to say that my premise was not what you thought it was, and considering you and I evidently see the concept of races differently (I still have no problem with thinking of "peoples" per the Bible, or "ethnic groups" per you as "races"), I'm not sure the Bible would ever recognize these things "as we see it." My statement was meant to convey the idea that God was the originator of the divisions, that He is in control (and God loves variety anyway), and that the divisions were based NOT on colors, but on languages. If God caused the divisions Himself, upon what basis would you say the Bible is "against" those divisions in the here and now? Would you say this is condoning unity of all peoples?

It's something to think about.

"As you know different ethnic/racial groups can speak the same language and the same ethnic/racial group can speak different languages."

Yes, I'll agree with this. And my belief regarding this is that it is the language barriers which cause more division than the racial differences. The simple reason is this: Without clear communication, you have either no communication or a miscommunication; either of these equals misunderstanding. Misunderstandings are the most common cause of prejudice and war.

They were divided by language not by some artifical racial concept.

Yep. So, are we on the same page again now?

Blessings,
Greenie.

[awesumtenor]

Awesumtenor, I understand where you might have experienced a lot of negativity. I'm not trying to add to that.

You know that presumption thing you do from time to time ( actually more often than not )? You're doing it again...

I've said before, and I can say it again if you like, I'm not prejudiced regarding colors, races, skin tones, complexions, or whatever term you might prefer.

You like to think you aren't at any rate... which explains the constant reiteration... but there is a patent inconsistency between this statement and others you have made which call the veracity of this statement into question...

The fact is, the world does use a definition of "race" which last time I checked was not considered politically incorrect and which applied to "skin tones" as y'all seem to be preferring.

And the fact is, Christians have an obligation to 'be not conformed to this world'... the fact is 'all that is in the world... is not of the Father' ... the fact is that and no, you arent getting away with painting we as "politically correct" either. This is not about political correctness. This is about 'except your righteousness exceed that of the scribes and the pharisees'. As a Christian, " good enough for the world" doesn't clear the bar wher God sets it for the members of the household of faith.

Maybe things have changed. I don't know. That's why I was asking if it was offensive to you.

Not that so much as a certain smug condescension...

Having asked, you said "no," and then immediately went on to say things that make me thing your "no" is not said with confidence. Quite frankly, your post sends a mixed message, and leaves me confused. Is the word "race" ok, or not ok, with all of you?

Re-read the answer I gave you before... this time don't read into it any of your preconceived notions.

Surely you would not deny the fact that, as Clay mentioned earlier, skin color is something we see at first glance. Clay mentioned that it was up to the perceptions of it that made the difference. I agree with that.

The perceptions.. thoughts... feelings that appear when you see skin color is, in fact, prejudice; you pre-judge that one based on what you see and then if you have any interaction with that person that interaction will either confirm or refute said perceptions/thoughts/feelings.

I'm not putting one race before another just because I see a difference between them. The fact is, they are different.

You believe this because you are the product of a society that has told you that from small, that there is a pecking order predicated on the amount of melanin in one's skin (or the lack thereof) that places you and those who are like you at the top and those who are like me at the bottom. This has become ingrained in you in subtle and not so subtle ways to such an extent that it affects your thinking at both the conscious and subconscious level...

Just like men and women are different. I've spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out exactly what it is in a man's or a woman's face that clues me in to their gender--and I still don't know, but just the face is all it takes. Now, if you are thinking that recognizing differences among peoples who should be equal is bad, pretty soon we won't be able to make any gender references either...hmm....or maybe I'm just confused.

Seeing that men have a tendency to peruse a person from the ground up, rather than from the head down, you should have a couple of clues that make gender obvious long before you look upon the person's face... and in some cases those clues are more pronounced than others...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Clay]

Greenie... a snippet from the prayer that Jesus prayed just before his death....

John 17:20-22 And I do not pray concerning these only, but also concerning those who will believe in Me through their word; (21) that all may be one, as You are in Me, Father, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. (22) And I have given them the glory which You have given Me, that they may be one, as We are One:

It is my belief that Jesus prayed for the unity of his believers that in so doing the world would believe the message they were presenting....

Fact is that His so called believers are not unified, and the world doesn't really believe now does it?

[Denny]

Denny, perhaps this issue is overly sensitive for you, for I did not say the things you have claimed I said, nor even imply them. I made no mention whatsoever of marriage, and your final conclusion agrees with mine. I'm sorry if I have in any way contributed to this, but you have completely misunderstood and misrepresented my comments. BTW, I don't know Jim Crow. History was not my strong point in school, though it does interest me much more now.

When you say "Your premise is flawed this text does not recognise the concept of different races as we see it," I guess I might have to say that my premise was not what you thought it was, and considering you and I evidently see the concept of races differently (I still have no problem with thinking of "peoples" per the Bible, or "ethnic groups" per you as "races"), I'm not sure the Bible would ever recognize these things "as we see it." My statement was meant to convey the idea that God was the originator of the divisions, that He is in control (and God loves variety anyway), and that the divisions were based NOT on colors, but on languages. If God caused the divisions Himself, upon what basis would you say the Bible is "against" those divisions in the here and now? Would you say this is condoning unity of all peoples?

It's something to think about.

Yes, I'll agree with this. And my belief regarding this is that it is the language barriers which cause more division than the racial differences. The simple reason is this: Without clear communication, you have either no communication or a miscommunication; either of these equals misunderstanding. Misunderstandings are the most common cause of prejudice and war.

Yep. So, are we on the same page again now?

Blessings,
Greenie.

Partly on the same page depends on your definition of the word condone - it normally means to accept something that is considered immoral are you suggesting that humans being united is a bad thing?

[Green Cochoa]

Partly on the same page depends on your definition of the word condone - it normally means to accept something that is considered immoral are you suggesting that humans being united is a bad thing?

Thanks, I stand corrected on that word usage. I meant "advocate" instead of "condone." Sorry.

Humans being united WAS a bad thing (causing God to intervene). Whether or not it IS a bad thing is not established.

[Denny]

Thanks, I stand corrected on that word usage. I meant "advocate" instead of "condone." Sorry.

Humans being united WAS a bad thing (causing God to intervene). Whether or not it IS a bad thing is not established.

Humans being united in order to 'outdo God' - (building the tower of Babel) is abad thing. Humans being united as a concept is not or else John 17 is null & void.

[jene]

I would like to comment on the original topic. Let's pretend for a moment that all conferences were restructured to be divided up geographically and not racially. Would that change the racial makeup of churches? I don't think so. I'll tell you why. Races, ethnicities and countries have cultures which make people "different" or perhaps I should say diverse.

People tend to socialize with people who they share something in common with, mainly culture. Just hear me out for a minute. I know some people say that church is not for socialization, well in a broad sense it is. If not, everyone could stay home and read their Bible every Sabbath. Admit it, we get together to socialize and celebrate God collectively. This gives us encouragement and strength.

OK. Black people and white people (and of course asian, hispanic, etc) have different cultures. In church we see this as enjoying different music and responding to services in different ways. I think it was greenie who said that in black churches it is common for people to say "amen" and "preach it pastor" out loud on a regular basis. It is not common at all in white churches. In black churches the music is different. Even conservative music in a black church sounds like it is sung in, well, a black church. Those are just a couple of examples of how churches are different depending on the cultural makeup. I don't see how changing conference names on paper is going to force anyone to switch churches. I just don't get it. A conference name does not stop any black, white, hispanic, asian, other person from attending a certain church.

I will tell you another reason why black and white people will probably not start mixing and matching churches. This is just my experience and I hope it is an isolated one. I attend a "white" church. This is my first one. The reason I started going here is when I moved to town I went to the "black" church at about 10:30 and saw one vehicle in the yard and no sign out front. I thought maybe the church moved or something. By the time I started attending and getting friendly at the "white" church it was too late to start attending the " black" church because I had been going there for months. They were probably at camp meeting or something that Sabbath. Anyhoo, what irks the daylights out of me is that it seems like the black people at my church do most of the grunt work. I'm talking about stuff like cleaning, setting up and serving potluck, ushering, children's sabbath school teachers etc. It makes me feel like the black people are serving the whites. Our head deaconess does not do anything (white) while the assistant (black) does everything from scheduling to holding the meetings. Our head deaconess does not even dress up in white on communion Sabbath like the rest of us do. Another thing that galls me is that white people do not attend AY. It bothered me so much I approached the pastor about it. He said most of the kids are black and whites are not as spiritual as black people. I am fed up. As soon as my time for deaconess is up I am going to have black flight.

Jene'

[LadyTenor]

Re, share some of your ...

[princessdi]

No, it probably would not. However, it might send a message that the church has moved up to where the rest of the world is, and at least give lip service to that face that segregation is wrong. As it stands now they have renamed it cultural diversity, and celebrate it. The church should not be trailing the world in anything where right and wrong are concerned.

There is a difference when you sit on the back of the bus because it is your preference, and quite another because of racism. It one thing to have black conferences out of choice, it is quite another that they were formed because whites did not want to worship or administrate with blacks. Balck conferences were formed from the racism of whites, SDA whites. That was a wrong that needs to be repented and righted. Not just change the name to something more.......pc. That works for some, but not all.

I would like to comment on the original topic. Let's pretend for a moment that all conferences were restructured to be divided up geographically and not racially. Would that change the racial makeup of churches? I don't think so. I'll tell you why. Races, ethnicities and countries have cultures which make people "different" or perhaps I should say diverse.
Jene'

[LeePaDee]

JENE WROTE:
I would like to comment on the original topic. Let's pretend for a moment that all conferences were restructured to be divided up geographically and not racially. Would that change the racial makeup of churches? I don't think so.
------You are probably wrong, whites would leave SDAism in stampedes if Blacks were the leaders of their conferences. When a Black person was*being thought about* as the president of GC ... certain bretheren threatened to leave and "take out" several SDA institutions!!!! White-Flight just ain't gone stop!!!!

[jene]

There is a difference when you sit on the back of the bus because it is your preference, and quite another because of racism. It one thing to have black conferences out of choice, it is quite another that they were formed because whites did not want to worship or administrate with blacks. Balck conferences were formed from the racism of whites, SDA whites. That was a wrong that needs to be repented and righted. Not just change the name to something more.......pc. That works for some, but not all.

OK OK Great point. If or when that time comes when conferences are no longer divided along racial lines I hope the church also makes strides to make all things equal. For example, a couple of my friends from the "black" church here in town have asked me repeatedly why I give my money(tithe) to the "white" church. For a long time I thought that was an incredibly racist and jealous thing to say, not to mention offensive. However, they explained their reasoning to me. Basically it boils down to divisions giving more financial support to white conferences than to their black counterparts. As a result, the black conferences come up short unfairly.

One of these friends told me how she was pulled aside and told about the black church years ago when she first visited my church . By the way, she didn't ask anybody for directions to the black church. She felt like these white members were boldly telling her blacks were not welcome. Even more shocking is that some of those same people are still attending members today .
Maybe I should stop with all these stories because there are some genuinely loving and kind people at my church. I just think the SDA church as a whole needs to stop ignoring the elephant in the room instead of making sweeping statements like do away with the racially divided conferences.

Jene'

[princessdi]

You are right, they really ALL are loving kind people at your church, and believe it or not they believe what they are doing is for the good of those they love. Howeve, so do KKk members. Most call themselves christians and attend church onthe regular, be ie Saturday or Sunday. The basis for racism,a nd even slavery, wew substantiated with Bible text.

Now I say that, so you will know how deep rooted this is, and how it will not be easily rectified.

OK OK Great point. If or when that time comes when conferences are no longer divided along racial lines I hope the church also makes strides to make all things equal. For example, a couple of my friends from the "black" church here in town have asked me repeatedly why I give my money(tithe) to the "white" church. For a long time I thought that was an incredibly racist and jealous thing to say, not to mention offensive. However, they explained their reasoning to me. Basically it boils down to divisions giving more financial support to white conferences than to their black counterparts. As a result, the black conferences come up short unfairly.

One of these friends told me how she was pulled aside and told about the black church years ago when she first visited my church . By the way, she didn't ask anybody for directions to the black church. She felt like these white members were boldly telling her blacks were not welcome. Even more shocking is that some of those same people are still attending members today .
Maybe I should stop with all these stories because there are some genuinely loving and kind people at my church. I just think the SDA church as a whole needs to stop ignoring the elephant in the room instead of making sweeping statements like do away with the racially divided conferences.

Jene'

[västergötland]

Why would that be a problem if the threatened consequences of a black GC president really happened?

[awesumtenor]

Why would that be a problem if the threatened consequences of a black GC president really happened?

Because the tithe received by the church is disproportionately received, with the majority of tithes still coming from the NAD. As I heard it, those making the threat would have significantly adversely affected tithe receipts if they left the church and took their money with them, which would have put outreach and mission objectives in jeopardy. Since the nominee in question withdrew his name from consideration, the bluff was never called...

DISCLAIMER: This is what I heard from an NAD delegate; I have not independently verified same....

In His service,
Mr. J