Prejudice in the Adventist Church Options

[FRE]

It is puzzling to me that the SDA church still seems to be having problems with wide-spread racism. I've been aware of that problem in the SDA church since about 1962.

One afternoon in 1972, I was at the house of a former landlord and his wife (we were all white), both of whom were SDAs. Somehow the conversation got onto the subject of race. I was shocked by what they said, to the extent that that was the last time I saw them. Both Mr. and Mrs. "X" believed that blacks should have their own institutions, including churches, schools, hospitals, hotels, etc. When I pointed out that Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves, Mrs. X stated that they loved them, that they just didn't want to be near them. Regarding inter-racial marriage, she stated that the Bible tells us not to be unequally yoked together. Of course I pointed out that the next line was, "with an unbeliever" and that that had nothing to do with race. Mrs. X insisted that it did include race. Their daughter very much disagreed with them; she was firmly opposed to racism in any form. Mrs. X stated that if her daughter were raped by a black man and became pregnant, she'd want her daughter to have an abortion. The very fact that she even thought of such a thing was very revealing of her racist attitudes.

I am a member of the Episcopal Church. Although I cannot say for certain that there is no racism in the Episcopal Church, I have NEVER seen any evidence of it. The church is strongly opposed to racism of any kind. It is not unusual in some areas to have an Episcopal parish that is about 80% black and 20% white. That's because of cultural differences in worship styles and some whites prefer the more active congregations that are typical in churches that are mostly black. But, even in those areas, churches with mosty white congregations generally have a few black members, except in cities where there are very few blacks. Many of us white Episcopalians make an extra effort to make blacks feel welcome and even in churches with a small minority of blacks, blacks are often in leadership positions.

It's interesting that as the Jim Crow era was ending, those denominations which tended to take a very literal view of the Bible clung to racism longer than churches which were considered more liberal and had a less literal view of the Bible.

To me, the most important part of the Bible is where Jesus was asked which is the most important law; He responded by stating (greatly condensed) that it is to love God and your neighbor. In some churches with a liturgical service, that is refered to as the Summary of the Law. Jesus followed that by saying, "On these two commands hang all the law and the prophets," and by stating that everyone who follows that will be saved.

People who discourage those of a different race from attending their churches are in violation of the Summary of the Law; they are violating a direct command of Jesus himself. There is no way to escape that conclusion.

In earlier times, there was a problem with racism in the Episcopal Church. Some members actually owned slaves. However, the Episcopal Church has condemned racism since the middle 1950s that I am aware of, although there was still some intentional segregation in Southern churches 'til perhaps the early 1960s.

I strongly suggest that all SDAs of whatever race, who can think for themselves and have any backbone, strongly work to end racism in the SDA church. Now that we are aware of the fact that racism is contrary to Christian belief, any parish that condones racism cannot truly consider itself to be Christian. It may be out of place for me, a white Episcopalian, to be saying this, but it is something about which I feel very strongly.

Because I have limited knowledge of how the SDA church is organised, my ability to suggest a course of action is very limited. However, it has been demonstrated many times that social mixing strongly tends to reduce racial prejudice. So, regardless of how the SDA church is organised, it would be constructive to organize social and religious functions which would be attended by SDAs of all races and see to it that there is social interaction at those functions. In any case, unless deliberate and intentional action is taken, the problem could well persist for another half a century.

[Richard Sherwin]

My first reaction to your post was to bristle and say "who do you think you are telling us how to run our church", but then as I read on and thought about it what you wrote is truth. We do have a racism problem in our church, but then I'd guess that all churches do have this problem to some extent or another. But I agree with you, if we are raciest then we are not real Christians. Racism goes against everything that Christ taught. Thanks for the post.

Richard

It is puzzling to me that the SDA church still seems to be having problems with wide-spread racism. I've been aware of that problem in the SDA church since about 1962.

One afternoon in 1972, I was at the house of a former landlord and his wife (we were all white), both of whom were SDAs. Somehow the conversation got onto the subject of race. I was shocked by what they said, to the extent that that was the last time I saw them. Both Mr. and Mrs. "X" believed that blacks should have their own institutions, including churches, schools, hospitals, hotels, etc. When I pointed out that Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves, Mrs. X stated that they loved them, that they just didn't want to be near them. Regarding inter-racial marriage, she stated that the Bible tells us not to be unequally yoked together. Of course I pointed out that the next line was, "with an unbeliever" and that that had nothing to do with race. Mrs. X insisted that it did include race. Their daughter very much disagreed with them; she was firmly opposed to racism in any form. Mrs. X stated that if her daughter were raped by a black man and became pregnant, she'd want her daughter to have an abortion. The very fact that she even thought of such a thing was very revealing of her racist attitudes.

I am a member of the Episcopal Church. Although I cannot say for certain that there is no racism in the Episcopal Church, I have NEVER seen any evidence of it. The church is strongly opposed to racism of any kind. It is not unusual in some areas to have an Episcopal parish that is about 80% black and 20% white. That's because of cultural differences in worship styles and some whites prefer the more active congregations that are typical in churches that are mostly black. But, even in those areas, churches with mosty white congregations generally have a few black members, except in cities where there are very few blacks. Many of us white Episcopalians make an extra effort to make blacks feel welcome and even in churches with a small minority of blacks, blacks are often in leadership positions.

It's interesting that as the Jim Crow era was ending, those denominations which tended to take a very literal view of the Bible clung to racism longer than churches which were considered more liberal and had a less literal view of the Bible.

To me, the most important part of the Bible is where Jesus was asked which is the most important law; He responded by stating (greatly condensed) that it is to love God and your neighbor. In some churches with a liturgical service, that is refered to as the Summary of the Law. Jesus followed that by saying, "On these two commands hang all the law and the prophets," and by stating that everyone who follows that will be saved.

People who discourage those of a different race from attending their churches are in violation of the Summary of the Law; they are violating a direct command of Jesus himself. There is no way to escape that conclusion.

In earlier times, there was a problem with racism in the Episcopal Church. Some members actually owned slaves. However, the Episcopal Church has condemned racism since the middle 1950s that I am aware of, although there was still some intentional segregation in Southern churches 'til perhaps the early 1960s.

I strongly suggest that all SDAs of whatever race, who can think for themselves and have any backbone, strongly work to end racism in the SDA church. Now that we are aware of the fact that racism is contrary to Christian belief, any parish that condones racism cannot truly consider itself to be Christian. It may be out of place for me, a white Episcopalian, to be saying this, but it is something about which I feel very strongly.

Because I have limited knowledge of how the SDA church is organised, my ability to suggest a course of action is very limited. However, it has been demonstrated many times that social mixing strongly tends to reduce racial prejudice. So, regardless of how the SDA church is organised, it would be constructive to organize social and religious functions which would be attended by SDAs of all races and see to it that there is social interaction at those functions. In any case, unless deliberate and intentional action is taken, the problem could well persist for another half a century.

[awesumtenor]

It is puzzling to me that the SDA church still seems to be having problems with wide-spread racism. I've been aware of that problem in the SDA church since about 1962.

One afternoon in 1972, I was at the house of a former landlord and his wife (we were all white), both of whom were SDAs. Somehow the conversation got onto the subject of race. I was shocked by what they said, to the extent that that was the last time I saw them. Both Mr. and Mrs. "X" believed that blacks should have their own institutions, including churches, schools, hospitals, hotels, etc. When I pointed out that Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves, Mrs. X stated that they loved them, that they just didn't want to be near them. Regarding inter-racial marriage, she stated that the Bible tells us not to be unequally yoked together. Of course I pointed out that the next line was, "with an unbeliever" and that that had nothing to do with race. Mrs. X insisted that it did include race. Their daughter very much disagreed with them; she was firmly opposed to racism in any form. Mrs. X stated that if her daughter were raped by a black man and became pregnant, she'd want her daughter to have an abortion. The very fact that she even thought of such a thing was very revealing of her racist attitudes.

I am a member of the Episcopal Church. Although I cannot say for certain that there is no racism in the Episcopal Church, I have NEVER seen any evidence of it. The church is strongly opposed to racism of any kind. It is not unusual in some areas to have an Episcopal parish that is about 80% black and 20% white. That's because of cultural differences in worship styles and some whites prefer the more active congregations that are typical in churches that are mostly black. But, even in those areas, churches with mosty white congregations generally have a few black members, except in cities where there are very few blacks. Many of us white Episcopalians make an extra effort to make blacks feel welcome and even in churches with a small minority of blacks, blacks are often in leadership positions.

It's interesting that as the Jim Crow era was ending, those denominations which tended to take a very literal view of the Bible clung to racism longer than churches which were considered more liberal and had a less literal view of the Bible.

To me, the most important part of the Bible is where Jesus was asked which is the most important law; He responded by stating (greatly condensed) that it is to love God and your neighbor. In some churches with a liturgical service, that is refered to as the Summary of the Law. Jesus followed that by saying, "On these two commands hang all the law and the prophets," and by stating that everyone who follows that will be saved.

People who discourage those of a different race from attending their churches are in violation of the Summary of the Law; they are violating a direct command of Jesus himself. There is no way to escape that conclusion.

In earlier times, there was a problem with racism in the Episcopal Church. Some members actually owned slaves. However, the Episcopal Church has condemned racism since the middle 1950s that I am aware of, although there was still some intentional segregation in Southern churches 'til perhaps the early 1960s.

I strongly suggest that all SDAs of whatever race, who can think for themselves and have any backbone, strongly work to end racism in the SDA church. Now that we are aware of the fact that racism is contrary to Christian belief, any parish that condones racism cannot truly consider itself to be Christian. It may be out of place for me, a white Episcopalian, to be saying this, but it is something about which I feel very strongly.

Because I have limited knowledge of how the SDA church is organised, my ability to suggest a course of action is very limited. However, it has been demonstrated many times that social mixing strongly tends to reduce racial prejudice. So, regardless of how the SDA church is organised, it would be constructive to organize social and religious functions which would be attended by SDAs of all races and see to it that there is social interaction at those functions. In any case, unless deliberate and intentional action is taken, the problem could well persist for another half a century.

I recall having this discussion with you before... your personal experience notwithstanding, there are scant few denominations in America that have not been stained by racism... the only one that comes to mind offhand is the quakers and I am sure even among them there were some who didnt quite embrace the "all men are brothers" mantra. As for the Episcopalian communion in the US...The existence of the AME and CME churches, the refusal of the Southern Baptist Convention to allow black churches to be part of their fellowship and the existence of groups like the Union of Black Episcopalians are a testimony to the racist legacy in your own denomination, all of which are a direct result of racist actions and attitudes in the Anglican camp ( both baptists and methodists started out as Anglicans ).

This of course does not alter your experience with those Adventists... but given the Adventist church is another branch on the Anglican tree, seeing most of the Adventist pioneers came out of the Methodist Episcopal and Baptist denoms, it could be argued that the racism found in her came with those Methodists and Baptists and sprung from the same root found in the Anglican church.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Richard Sherwin]

Hey AT (Appalachian Trail?) are there any black Amish?

Richard

I recall having this discussion with you before... your personal experience notwithstanding, there are scant few denominations in America that have not been stained by racism... the only one that comes to mind offhand is the quakers and I am sure even among them there were some who didnt quite embrace the "all men are brothers" mantra. As for the Episcopalian communion in the US...The existence of the AME and CME churches, the refusal of the Southern Baptist Convention to allow black churches to be part of their fellowship and the existence of groups like the Union of Black Episcopalians are a testimony to the racist legacy in your own denomination, all of which are a direct result of racist actions and attitudes in the Anglican camp ( both baptists and methodists started out as Anglicans ).

This of course does not alter your experience with those Adventists... but given the Adventist church is another branch on the Anglican tree, seeing most of the Adventist pioneers came out of the Methodist Episcopal and Baptist denoms, it could be argued that the racism found in her came with those Methodists and Baptists and sprung from the same root found in the Anglican church.

In His service,
Mr. J

[HUGGINS130]

black amish...not hardly...

[awesumtenor]

Hey AT (Appalachian Trail?) are there any black Amish?

Richard

No... although there have been black Mennonites since 1897.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Richard Sherwin]

It's true that people are very seldom, from what I've read, converted over to being Amish but still you would expect there to be some. I've never heard of them having any racial prejudices but I'm sure it exists there as well.

Are the Amish a church or a ethnic group?

black amish...not hardly...

[FRE]

I would guess that the majority of Episcopalians are unaware of the existance of the Union of Black Episcopalians, which is unfortunate. We are all aware that there are some differences in culture between blacks and whites, the differences being greater in some areas of the country than others. We also know that some blacks respond more positively to other blacks than to whites. For example, it would not work well for a white person to attempt to mentor a black child who lives in a poor area of a large city and is in danger of becoming involved with a street gang. There are some things that only blacks can do well, so it makes sense to have organizations of blacks to do these things. Ideally there would be no need for such organizations as the Union of Black Episcopalians, but realistically, the need is likely to continue for many decades.

Each Episcopal parish is run by a vestry, which is elected by the members. In a parish which is financially independent, the vestry even has the power to hire and fire the priest; it is similar to a board of directors. Even in parishes in which blacks are a small minority, it is common to have a black man or woman on the vestry and, since the vestry is elected at an annual parish meeting, that indicates that he or she has been elected by a majority of the members of the parish.

It would be unreasonable for me to say that there are no racial tensions in the Episcopal Church; obviously I have not visited all parishes. Also, it would be socially unacceptable to admit having negative attitudes towards blacks; that would induce prejudiced people to keep quiet. But I can honestly say that in the last 30 + years I have never seen any evidence of racial prejudice in the Episcopal church and I have attended services in parishes on many parts of the country. On a recent motorcycle trip, during which I rode 3600 miles, I visited a 1st cousin once removed in Memphis and attended an Episcopal Church there with his wife (he is a Unitarian). It was in a very prosperous neighborhood and the congregation at the late service had only a couple blacks. I made a point of observing how the blacks were treated and saw no evidence of problems; everyone was very friendly towards them and, after the service, they attended the adult education program. My relatives had 2 domestic helpers and introduced me to them as though they were part of the family. Also, my relatives were very pleased with the progress which the South had made, although they recognized that there was still some distance to go.

I was told a story about a white girl who attended a pre-school. When she returned home, her parents asked her who her teacher was. She replied, "Janet," whereupon her mother asked her which Janet since there were 2 teachers with that name. The girl replied that it was the Janet with red shoes. One of the Janets was black and the other was white, and the parents were delighted that their daughter paid more attention to the shoes than to the race of the teachers.

In the 1950s, there were Episcopal churches in the South in which a majority of members favored segregation, even when the parish priest opposed racism. Many of the priests refrained from speaking up, either out of fear of loosing their jobs (they could be fired by the vestry) or out of fear of loosing what limited influence they had. It was during that era that some Episcopal priests from the North marched in the South in civil rights demonstrations. A white widow friend of mine in San Diego was involved in that movement, with the approval of her husband. In fact, she was even arrested in the Deep South.

From 1994 to 2004, I lived in Fiji. I learned that before Fiji became independent from England (in 1970, I think), in Anglican churches, the white colonists sat in front and the locals (both ethnic Fijians and Indians) were required to sit in back. That indicates that racism was not limited to one part of the world which, of course, is no surprise. Ending it is a struggle which will probably take many more decades, but it will not go away by itself. Rather, it will take constant work by people of all races.

For a while after the Civil War, it looked as though racism was on its way out. But, then progress halted and, in fact, was reversed. The Plessy vs Ferguson decision certainly did not help. Then there was the Brooker T. Washington sell-out, and president Woodrow Wilson, to the detriment of blacks, segregated the federal civil service which had previously been integrated. Even the armed services reversed the progress which had been made. It would be fool-hardy to assume that such a reversal could not happen again. As has been rightly said, the price of freedom is eternal viligence and, unless we are viligent and keep pushing for more progress, the progress which has been made could be reversed.

[awesumtenor]

It's true that people are very seldom, from what I've read, converted over to being Amish but still you would expect there to be some. I've never heard of them having any racial prejudices but I'm sure it exists there as well.

Are the Amish a church or a ethnic group?

They are a church group that, through isolationism, has become an ethnic group... no diving in that gene pool; it's way too shallow.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Richard Sherwin]

I think you are right.

I have business dealings with them from time to time and have come to the conclusion that we could learn a lot from them, but I'm not ready to become Amish Good hard working people willing to do any job. OT, sorry.

They are a church group that, through isolationism, has become an ethnic group... no diving in that gene pool; it's way too shallow.

In His service,
Mr. J

[PrincessDrRe]

They make good cheese and noodles too...but....

To keep it "in the family" they will literally do it....in the family if you get my drift...

*ugh*

[pacunurse30]

[quote name='FRE' date='Dec 11 2007, 01:48 PM' post='227721']
I would guess that the majority of Episcopalians are unaware of the existance of the Union of Black Episcopalians, which is unfortunate. We are all aware that there are some differences in culture between blacks and whites, the differences being greater in some areas of the country than others. We also know that some blacks respond more positively to other blacks than to whites. For example, it would not work well for a white person to attempt to mentor a black child who lives in a poor area of a large city and is in danger of becoming involved with a street gang. There are some things that only blacks can do well, so it makes sense to have organizations of blacks to do these things. Ideally there would be no need for such organizations as the Union of Black Episcopalians, but realistically, the need is likely to continue for many decades.

Each Episcopal parish is run by a vestry, which is elected by the members. In a parish which is financially independent, the vestry even has the power to hire and fire the priest; it is similar to a board of directors. Even in parishes in which blacks are a small minority, it is common to have a black man or woman on the vestry and, since the vestry is elected at an annual parish meeting, that indicates that he or she has been elected by a majority of the members of the parish.

It would be unreasonable for me to say that there are no racial tensions in the Episcopal Church; obviously I have not visited all parishes. Also, it would be socially unacceptable to admit having negative attitudes towards blacks; that would induce prejudiced people to keep quiet. But I can honestly say that in the last 30 + years I have never seen any evidence of racial prejudice in the Episcopal church and I have attended services in parishes on many parts of the country. On a recent motorcycle trip, during which I rode 3600 miles, I visited a 1st cousin once removed in Memphis and attended an Episcopal Church there with his wife (he is a Unitarian). It was in a very prosperous neighborhood and the congregation at the late service had only a couple blacks. I made a point of observing how the blacks were treated and saw no evidence of problems; everyone was very friendly towards them and, after the service, they attended the adult education program. My relatives had 2 domestic helpers and introduced me to them as though they were part of the family. Also, my relatives were very pleased with the progress which the South had made, although they recognized that there was still some distance to go.

I was told a story about a white girl who attended a pre-school. When she returned home, her parents asked her who her teacher was. She replied, "Janet," whereupon her mother asked her which Janet since there were 2 teachers with that name. The girl replied that it was the Janet with red shoes. One of the Janets was black and the other was white, and the parents were delighted that their daughter paid more attention to the shoes than to the race of the teachers.

In the 1950s, there were Episcopal churches in the South in which a majority of members favored segregation, even when the parish priest opposed racism. Many of the priests refrained from speaking up, either out of fear of loosing their jobs (they could be fired by the vestry) or out of fear of loosing what limited influence they had. It was during that era that some Episcopal priests from the North marched in the South in civil rights demonstrations. A white widow friend of mine in San Diego was involved in that movement, with the approval of her husband. In fact, she was even arrested in the Deep South.

From 1994 to 2004, I lived in Fiji. I learned that before Fiji became independent from England (in 1970, I think), in Anglican churches, the white colonists sat in front and the locals (both ethnic Fijians and Indians) were required to sit in back. That indicates that racism was not limited to one part of the world which, of course, is no surprise. Ending it is a struggle which will probably take many more decades, but it will not go away by itself. Rather, it will take constant work by people of all races.

For a while after the Civil War, it looked as though racism was on its way out. But, then progress halted and, in fact, was reversed. The Plessy vs Ferguson decision certainly did not help. Then there was the Brooker T. Washington sell-out, and president Woodrow Wilson, to the detriment of blacks, segregated the federal civil service which had previously been integrated. Even the armed services reversed the progress which had been made. It would be fool-hardy to assume that such a reversal could not happen again. As has been rightly said, the price of freedom is eternal viligence and, unless we are viligent and keep pushing for more progress, the progress which has been made could be reversed.

I think your experience with that particular Adventist family is not necessarily the norm. For the most part, the divisions within this church are based on cultural preferences. Even among "Black" people, there are cultural divisions. People tend to homogenize Black people as a group, forgetting that we come from so many different cultures. Worship style has to be the single most divisive issue within the SDA church. I don't care how anyone tries to make it sound like it's something else, but it really is about worship style when you get right down to it. It's drums vs. organ; clapping vs. complete silence; gospel vs. the hymns. When I was living in NY there was a small church made up of mostly traditional West Indian members. They were exteremely conservative. The pastor even preached a sermon once on how people should dress when they come to church, and what kind of music is appropriate for worship. He insisted that men should be in a suit and tie, not dressed down like they're going to dinner somewhere. They also don't believe in women preaching or teaching. There are no female elders. I think the women function in the capacity of serving other women along with teaching the children. On the other hand, there was achurch further down the way made up of mostly Black Americans, or 2nd generation Blacks (West Indian or African parents). These were 20 and 30 somethings who had no problem with drums, clapping, even dancing to a certain degree during divine worship. Fast forward to today, and there's a local church where I live made up of mostly White members. Again, extremely conservative. Very critical of churches that have a contemporary worship style. There are a number of mixed congregations here in Maryland, don't get me wrong. And usually the worship style steers in a certain direction depending on the age of the members, and the racial mix of the congregation. For example, if the church is White, Hispanic, and Asian 20 and 30 somethings, they are most likely singing contemporary songs that you would hear on a Hillsong or Steven Curtis Chapman album. If the church has that same racial mix, but the members are older, you will hear anthems and old hymns. If the church is young, but mostly Black, you will hear gospel songs, and a hymn or two done "the Black way."

Now here's the question: is this wrong? I honestly don't know the answer to that. People should be able to get past preferences and worship with others no matter what. However, you would always have this war over what should and shouldn't be done during divine hour. Some people are just not gonna bend on certain issues (ie drums).

[AzA]

I think pacunurse might be right in that the divides have become worship-style driven and only secondarily cultural. But until the beginning of the Caribbean immigration waves (40s-60s), I'd say the divides were much more rawly "our people vs these people." Maybe the diffusion of the argument from race and ethnicity into the fuzzier styles and preference mimics some of the changes in the wider culture over the last few decades.
Also, you're likely to find significant differences between "just-off-the-boat" immigrants and "been-here-for-a-minute" immigrants, and between both groups and their "call-myself-local" grand- and great-grandchildren.
Thought I'd add those complications too.

In London where there have been several waves of immigrants since the end of WWII, the church has its own prejudices to work over. First there's the London vs Provinces face-off, which boils down to Afro-Something or European vs Anglo-White because of the shifted demographics of the church in the BUC since the 60s and 70s. Second match-up pits the the Big Island folk and the Small Island folk against each other. Third post-up involves Caribbean folk against the Africans (with mini melees between the East and West coasters). It's all completely ridiculous but still in 2007 has traction. Every single Union session there's still grumbling about certain islands being overrepresented in the administration, and certain continental countries lobbying for influence. Power might smell nice but far too often it leaves a really bitter trail.

I've been frustrated by it for years. And I do remember when the current GC fellow came in talking a really encouraging talk about unity and diversity and I thought "Maybe this is when it all gets sorted out."
Evidently not.

I don't mean to suggest that everything would be fine if all our folly-ridden structures got torn down, but that doesn't stop me from wishing they would be torn down. Individual believers can and should do their piece; it's just discouraging when you see the structures undermining all that such that now I don't know if most folk can even imagine things being any other way, and should you suggest it, their first objections are the logistics of restructuring pay and power.

[FRE]

" Worship style has to be the single most divisive issue within the SDA church. I don't care how anyone tries to make it sound like it's something else, but it really is about worship style when you get right down to it. It's drums vs. organ; clapping vs. complete silence; gospel vs. the hymns. "

In the Episcopal Church, we often deal with that by having different styles at different services. I think it's important to understand that some of this is simply a matter of taste and has no theological implications. I myself prefer the traditional 3Bs, i.e., Bach, Beethoven, and Brahams and really don't like drums, clapping, etc., so I simply go the 11:15 service instead of the less dignified 9:30 service. Although the organ is an ancient instrument, and I really appreciate a good organ, there is nothing in either the Bible or Christian tradition that mandates using an organ or that proscribes other instruments. In fact, the OT actually refers to other instruments being used for worship services. If a parish has a smaller congregation, it might not be possible to have multiple services to accomodate everyone, in which case people simply have to be more tollerant.

Recently we had a visiting bishop because our bishop is resigning; you may have read about some of the problems that our church is experiencing. Anyway, the visiting bishop was a black woman. Although she is a wonderful person, her style was not what I personally would prefer, but there are more important considerations. Our parish makes a point of welcoming everyone regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender, physical or mental disabilities, national origin, etc. etc.

[SDAOiler]

here in the United States sometimes what happens is when black members begin attending predominantly white churches when it reaches the point that there are too many black members, the white members of that church begin to leave and find other places to worship... eventually all the white members disappear leaving just the black members in that church...

Sometimes they flee because the worship style changes because of the black
members. I remember posting the following earlier this year:

I used to often visit a church that was close to me as I was search for
a home church after moving to the Poconos. The church had two services,
an early morning and then a regular divine hour (11:00a) service. When I
first visited, the church was pretty mixed with those of African descent from
all parts of the globe and those of European descent. Church was usually
over by 12:30p followed by a Pot Luck.

Over what I'd say was about a year, I watched the congregation get
larger with mostly more Black members and the regular service ending at
1:00p, then 1:30p, then 2:00p and then finally at 2:30p (the Spanish
service started at around 2:30p so they HAD to end).

During this same period, the White membership descreased dramatically
if not entirely and they just went to the early morning service.

When I, African-Haitian, noticed that the services were not going to
get shorter but would remain ending at 2:30p, I pretty much stopped
visiting. I actually started attending the Spanish service in the afternoon
on a regular basis (and eventually became a member of that group) and
visited other churches in the area during the morning hours until the
Spanish group got their own church and now also worship in the mornings.
We still end our services at around 12:30p (preferably 12:15p) and always
follow by a potluck. Our group is primarily Latino, however, we have
and "English-speaking" population that are Latino, Black and White (no
Asians yet, but we're open to that option). The services are bilingual
and I teach the English Sabbath School class along with my White
assistant teacher.

I guess it all depends on where you come from. Let's take some time
to look at ourselves and see if we are part of the blame for White Flight.
Things aren't always as they appear.

... but then perhaps it because I was raised in a white-racist society and
my choices are skewed and I may not truly be black???