The Color Line.... In The Church?, how are we divided? Options

[HUGGINS130]

correct... but does the church want to deal with it? I don't think so....

are you sure about this last statement;

I don't think so....

Please in a brief sentence tell me why you don't think the church would like to deal with this issue...

This post has been edited by HUGGINS130: Apr 9 2007, 09:07 AM

[Clay]

are you sure about this last statement; Please in a brief sentence tell me why you don't think the church would like to deal with this issue...

it would mean recognizing that what christians say they do, and what they really do on a fundamental basis is incongruent.....

[awesumtenor]

are you sure about this last statement; Please in a brief sentence tell me why you don't think the church would like to deal with this issue...

For the same reason society at large doesn't want to deal with it; the haves don't want to become the have nots... and they want to be the arbiters of who else becomes a have...IOW Those who have power... or wealth... or both... like their club exclusive... that is why the rules are rigged to ensure that if you are a have not only will you remain a have, but your progeny and theirs will remain haves too... and if you are a have not, the possibility to become a have remains... but to do so remains difficult enough that most of the have nots will never be anything else.

The church, to it's detriment, has conformed to this world rather than to be transformed by the renewing of their minds... so the policies procedures and practices which govern the church are skewed toward injustice and the maintaining of the few at the expense of the many... just as those of the world are.

In His service,
Mr. J

[SoulEspresso]

I'm not sure where this is going, but let's consider a concrete example.

American society is racist. This racism affects the church. Does having separate black conferences help get rid of, or help propogate, racism and stereotypes inside and outside the Adventist church?

[awesumtenor]

I'm not sure where this is going, but let's consider a concrete example.

American society is racist. This racism affects the church. Does having separate black conferences help get rid of, or help propogate, racism and stereotypes inside and outside the Adventist church?

Inside, ultimately it helps propagate the very racism that was instrumental in their coming to exist in the first place, because it gives the african-americans in them an illusion of control and self-governance while just moving the the issues of injustice to the Union level from the Local Conference level... Outside it gives the lie to the profession of Christianity we make... especially when other churches that were organized in a similar manner, like the Pentecostal Church and the United Methodist Church, have taken steps to divest their organizations of that whole 'separate but equal' thing. The Adventist Church is not the only one where african american members have felt a need to have some type of church governance structure created where their voice could be heard; the Union of Black Episcopalians and a similar group to that in the Presbyterian Church came to be for the same reason as the Adventist regional conferences... while the United Methodists have changed their structure and their church by-laws to be inclusive, that was largely closing the barn door after the horse was gone, seeing that the AME, AME Zion, and CME denominations came to be because african-americans were expressly denied the right to be part of what is now the United Methodist Church from colonial times until fairly recently and while some AME/CME congregations returned to the UMC fold, the majority have not and currently are not inclined to do so.

I have believed for some time that at the point the fiscal resources of the NAD are no longer sufficient to perpetuate the historical influence the NAD has had on the direction of this church, then there will be a schism largely along ethnic lines; when I heard of Ron Gladden's Mission Catalyst Network and it's stated objective to 'evangelize the majority population in first world nations' I was even more sure... I know it is not Ron's intention to split this church... but the allure of controlling how and where monies are directed will prove too great to resist... especially as the membership that is from the 'first world' decreases and the membership from the 'third world' increases...

It has yet to happen... but it's coming, IMO


BTJM; YMMV...

In His service,
Mr. J

This post has been edited by awesumtenor: Apr 9 2007, 10:54 AM

[Clay]

I'm not sure where this is going, but let's consider a concrete example.

American society is racist. This racism affects the church. Does having separate black conferences help get rid of, or help propogate, racism and stereotypes inside and outside the Adventist church?

it will wander all over and that's fine... however to your question... it was not the blacks who decided to form their own conferences... Now that blacks have tasted power and leadership positions how many whites are willing to defer to blacks if the conferences were combined and jobs eliminated? As Kevin pointed out, those who have power are reluctant to let go of that power..... be they black or white...

Given the reluctance of whites in power to share that power with blacks historically in this church, what indication do we have that there has been a change in attitude?

[Clay]

From my great aunt who remembers.....

I would say neither Black clergy nor laypersons actually
pushed the start of Regional conferences. To be exact, the
meeting at the Stevenson Hotel was called by the White lead-
ers. Most of the Black ministers and workers in North Ameri-
ca were asked to attend. For the most part, they didn’t even
know why they were being invited or what this meeting was
all about. So I cannot say that either laypersons or clergy were
pushing the start of Regional conferences. They did not know
that the Regional conferences were going to be organized
when they went to that meeting in Chicago. Regional confer-
ences were introduced by the General Conference, not the
Black brethren at the time

from the 60th anniversary edition of the Regional Voice.....

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:4RCo2I...lient=firefox-a

the link may or may not work for everyone and I have no idea why.... I did note that if you search for the Regional Voice website it appears to be down....

[PeacefulBe]

I'm not sure where this is going, but let's consider a concrete example.

American society is racist. This racism affects the church. Does having separate black conferences help get rid of, or help propogate, racism and stereotypes inside and outside the Adventist church?

SE,

Great question! Many young, non-black Adventists are not even aware that there are black or "regional" conferences. Whether having the separate conferences helps rid or propagate racism and stereotypes depends, to a great degree, on the leadership and ministers within. Does the leadership work in heartfelt harmony with their non-black counterparts and union officials and visa-versa? Do ministers present non-racist views from the pulpit? How do the adults of the black conferences portray the white conferences as they sit around the dinner table with their children?

A few Sabbaths ago I spent hours researching the subject of Regional Conferences and had my eyes opened to this issue more than they have been in all of my adult life. I began by reading Ricardo B. Graham's Perspective article (from the 1990's I believe) "Black Seventh-day Adventists and Racial Reconciliation". Click Here for full article.

...Blacks had the benefit of higher education and organized themselves to present to the General Conference leaders in Washington, D.C., a petition titled "Shall the Four Freedoms Function Among SDAs?"

This large group of African-American SDA ministers and laypeople met with J.L. McElhany, president of the General Conference. Interestingly enough, their petition did not request the organization of Black conferences; it recommeded the eradication fo discrimination at all Adventist institutions. They also asked for a full accounting of the money that Black people were contributing to the denomination and requested that their Black leaders be treated with courtesy.

The denomination's response, not exactly what Black minister and laypeople expected, was a proposal to formulate segregated units of organization, and thus were born the Black conferences. It is important to emphasize that the formation of Black conferences was proposed by the White leadership as a response to Black SDAs' request for integration.

Among other compelling subjects, the article cites results from a list of questions regarding racism garnered by telephone interviews with both black and white ministers and laity. The results were telling. I was particularly surprised by the results from my neck of the woods. I completely expected that attitudes towards racism would be progressive in Northern California, and yet:

While only one of these African-American pastors openly admitted being prejudiced, the African-American ministers in the Northern California Conference who were interviewed have little to no dealings with White SDAs, either clergy or laity. They did not express a desire to interact or to intermingle with them.

Their perception seems to be that Whites are responsible for racial problems in the church and that it is their responsibility to initiate a change in the sad state of race relations. They felt that Whites are not willling to share the decision-making process, keeping all the real power to effect change to themselves. There is an emerging hostility between African-Americans and Whites, and these African-American pastors seemed to take a proactive stance in regard to addressing racism.

Of further interest and input on the subject is an article (Click Here)The Beginning of Regional Conferences in the US III. It cites the impetus for the "Four Freedoms" petition coming from the case of Lucy Byard:

One of the impetuses for the petition was the tragic case of Lucy Byard. Byard was a light-skinned Black SDA from Brooklyn who was admitted to the SDA owned and operated Washington Sanitarium and hospital based on her appearance. When her true racial identity was discovered from her admittance forms, Byard was wheeled into a hallway without examination or treatment, while a place in another hospital was sought for her. She was eventually taken to Freedman’s Hospital where she died shortly after of pneumonia. While it is impossible to ascertain, it is often stated that her condition—at the very least—worsened due to the time spent in the drafty hallway of Washington Sanitarium.

The final article I read that Sabbath was a 2005 Adventist Today article by Anthony W. Paschal discussing an attempt by California Black Churches to organize a regional conference.(Click Here) What I have not been able to find is anything that shows whether or not Regional Conferences have ever been successfully formed in California since the 1994 attempt.

I believe that a quote from R.B. Graham's Perspective article sums up the racism problem in our denomination:

Yet our beloved Adventist Church is largely silent - internally and externally - on the issue of racial reconciliation. Today Christianity in general, and Adventism in particular, is separated by an invisible wall of race. Blacks and Whites have been coconspirators in the dividing and weakening of the church by allowing this wall to continue to exist. From the General Conference to the pulpit, race divides. The result is a weakened church with a weakened witness to a sick and dying world.

So, what do we do about it?

[SoulEspresso]

it will wander all over and that's fine... however to your question... it was not the blacks who decided to form their own conferences...

That's not what I was told over the years ... I was told the conferences were formed at the blacks' request ... but that I was told that isn't surprising, is it?

I was also told that the black conferences would go away if the blacks no longer wanted them. But that's probably just as apocryphal.

Now that blacks have tasted power and leadership positions how many whites are willing to defer to blacks if the conferences were combined and jobs eliminated? As Kevin pointed out, those who have power are reluctant to let go of that power..... be they black or white...

Given the reluctance of whites in power to share that power with blacks historically in this church, what indication do we have that there has been a change in attitude?

I think most realistic church leaders agree that it won't be all that long (ten years would be my own figure) until we have a person of color at the helm of the church (administratively/humanly speaking), because that's where the weight of the membership has been tipped for years.

A few years ago when I was in school, we had a forum on this--racially mixed. And one of the black female pastors brought up what none of us on the other side of the color line could: the unspoken question for all of us was really, "Who's going to be in charge of the money?" Her feeling was, blacks tend to do better with worship, community involvement, and evangelism, while whites tend to handle the money better.

My conference is as white as it gets, and we have a terrible track record financially, so it's not necessarily true or blanket ... I put it forward to find out from the boards here whether that's as much part of the issue as leadership ...

[Clay]

That's not what I was told over the years ... I was told the conferences were formed at the blacks' request ... but that I was told that isn't surprising, is it?

Nope not surprising at all..... reality shaping at its best....

I was also told that the black conferences would go away if the blacks no longer wanted them. But that's probably just as apocryphal.
I think most realistic church leaders agree that it won't be all that long (ten years would be my own figure) until we have a person of color at the helm of the church (administratively/humanly speaking), because that's where the weight of the membership has been tipped for years.

A few years ago when I was in school, we had a forum on this--racially mixed. And one of the black female pastors brought up what none of us on the other side of the color line could: the unspoken question for all of us was really, "Who's going to be in charge of the money?" Her feeling was, blacks tend to do better with worship, community involvement, and evangelism, while whites tend to handle the money better.

My conference is as white as it gets, and we have a terrible track record financially, so it's not necessarily true or blanket ... I put it forward to find out from the boards here whether that's as much part of the issue as leadership ...

I think that is stereotypical.... it has been my observation that both colors can do poorly or quite well just depends... perhaps the working together would maximize strengths and minimize the weaknesses....

[princessdi]

I finally found the article where Jan Paulsen had a meeting with 35 OC students about racism in the church, along with other subjects. I bumped the thread, but you can also>>>>>>CLICK HERE to access it.

My question is, if the leadership has this type of mindset, will the problem ever be solved?

[awesumtenor]

A few years ago when I was in school, we had a forum on this--racially mixed. And one of the black female pastors brought up what none of us on the other side of the color line could: the unspoken question for all of us was really, "Who's going to be in charge of the money?" Her feeling was, blacks tend to do better with worship, community involvement, and evangelism, while whites tend to handle the money better.

My conference is as white as it gets, and we have a terrible track record financially, so it's not necessarily true or blanket ... I put it forward to find out from the boards here whether that's as much part of the issue as leadership ...

This is the very reason why I think Ron Gladden's group will cause a schism; there they provide what some in this church desire and currently have but could lose as soon as the next GC session... the ability to control the money. Historically, because the lion's share of the tithe has come out of the NAD, the NAD has had a great influence over how those monies would be distributed... continuing even past the point where the NAD made up the majority of the church's membership... and there were rumblings at the last GC in St. Louis that there was a faction in the church that was inclined to go that way already beause they felt that was the only way they'd be able to maintain control of the monies they were giving to the church.

When Ron Gladden's group first organized I believe the church could see such a thing on the horizon and they tried to get him to come within the bounds of the church but the issue of not sending all the tithe up the chain was a deal breaker...

In His service,
Mr. J

[LeePaDee]

Who gets to Boss others around?
Who has control of the money?
THESE are the controversial questions of any dot-org.

[Clay]

Who gets to Boss others around?
Who has control of the money?
THESE are the controversial questions of any dot-org.

true Lee... however as a christian .org we should be what? Or does the color component exacerbate the tension/problem?

[HUGGINS130]

After I finish reading the information about the white guy who commented on his take of those white people who have caused him ill will, the quote that Elder Josey contributed this morning, I'll read the remaining post leading up to this one, and will comment further, this is very interesting to me!

This post has been edited by HUGGINS130: Apr 9 2007, 12:23 PM