Print
'Our Firm Foundation' and Black People
At the height of the historic Civil Rights Movement which revolutionized the United States of America in the legal and extra-legal treatment of its citizens, Hope International was founded by one Lloyd Silver and four couples in July 1964. These charter members were laypeople of modest means residing in the Seattle metropolitan area. The organization’s express raison d’etre was to address perceived denominational apostasy stemming from the Martin-Barnhouse dialogue of the 1950s and its controversial literary product, the 1957 Questions on Doctrine. Hope’s goals were expanded in Article II of its constitution and bylaws in seven “purposes for which this Corporation is formed.” The final item is of particular interest to the inquiry of this piece: “To conduct research and develop projects in the areas of interest to the Corporation.” The charter members also spoke less formally but with more passion of “start[ing] a grassroots revival in the Seventh-day Adventist Church (1).”
Shortly after the group’s incorporation, a 165-acre ranch near Eatonville, Washington, was purchased, and the foundation would remain at that location for nearly four decades, relocating to Knoxville, Illinois, in 2002. Hope’s name; date of establishment; independence from the denomination; aim to research and develop projects in areas of interest; initiate a grassroots revival; and promise to rebuke the sins of the church seemed to bode well for a respectable record in addressing the previously ill-addressed issues of race in the Seventh-day Adventist church.
Hope International really entered into the Adventist consciousness in the mid-1980s through the considerable efforts of one man. In the spring of 1984 longtime church worker Ronald David Spear was allowed to speak in a barn on the Eatonville property. Beth Jennings, one of Hope’s charter members present at Spear’s talk, reported that she was “thrilled” at Spear’s “straight as an arrow” theology and thought “this was the man we had been waiting for all these years.” Jennings aggressively recruited Spear to join the staff, and after a brief period of wooing and courting, the sexagenarian Spear accepted the leadership of Hope International (2).
Ron Spear was born in Longpine, California, on February 11, 1924, and spent his formative years on the family ranch in a small northern California town called Carlotta. Spear served in the medical corp during World War II, and afterword attended Pacific Union College where he earned a degree in theology. In 1947 he married Betty Mink and the couple had two children, one of whom was killed in Vietnam in 1969. The Spears did missionary work in Tanzania, Africa, for parts of three decades—provocatively Africa’s era of struggle for independence from British colonization—garnering missiological strategies from ministerial labor there as did counterparts Robert Wieland and Donald Short. The ordained and credentialed Spear held a prominent pastorate and several positions at the General Conference before he opted for independent work—Spear prefers the term “self-supporting work”—after assessing the condition of the church as not good (3). Spear’s witnessing of African independence movements of the 1950s, 60s and 70s also boded well for a Hope International active in reforming Adventism race relations.
Ron Spear’s ultraconservative charisma—perhaps a phenomenon solely restricted to Adventism—put Hope International on the proverbial map. In October 1985 he debuted Our Firm Foundation (OFF), a monthly periodical whose “theme” was to “prepare our people for the great crisis” and to spur “a revival of true godliness”. Spear occupied the editorship, and was later joined by other veteran church workers including the brothers Standish and Ralph Larson. Initially the magazine was carried by carefully selected reprints from the writings of Ellen G. White, but soon articles with more specific and contemporary agendas were featured.
OFF became known to larger Adventism as a publication obsessed with the issues of the human nature of Christ; perfection; the delayed advent of Jesus; Questions on Doctrine and the subsequent doctrinal confusion; various lifestyle practices seen as discarded by Adventists; and the spiritual malaise of the church. OFF peaked in the early 1990s when the church’s official organ, Adventist Review, featured an insert in its November 2, 1992, edition entitled “Issues: The Seventh-day Adventist Church and Certain Private Organizations (4).” An exchange between the General Conference and Hope International garnered a notoriety within Adventism that the independent organization probably couldn’t have attained on its own. OFF’s decline paralleled the rise of the Internet in the late 1990s, and with Ron Spear’s resignation under contentious circumstances in 2006, the magazine and its parent entity Hope International are currently struggling for relevance. OFF, however, does boast millions of dispersed copies in its nearly thirty year history and translation in ten languages (5).
Our Firm Foundation, to my knowledge, has to date not been evaluated for its record on speaking out on issues of race. As a Seventh-day Adventist historian and sometimes idealist, I subscribe to the pronouncement of Jesus Christ that “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another (6).” From this and other like declarations, I maintain that the Adventist church is only viable as the members love each other and love the people of the larger world. Therefore, I unapologetically see how the races—particularly whites and blacks in the United States—treat each other as a litmus test for the Christian-ness of our church. If we discriminate on the basis of race, no matter the correctness of our doctrines, we are not Christian, not followers of Jesus Christ. This is a non-negotiable in my thinking, and supported, I believe, in the life and teachings of Jesus and the overarching notion of community and charity (koinonia and agape) in the Pauline epistles.
Hope International has been the leading entity in employing the moniker “Historic Adventist” to describe itself. Therefore, because this is a self-identification, I have always judged them according to it. Other than the deep historical inaccuracies the term “Historical Adventist” presupposes—there was never one single Adventism; “historical” is by necessity selective and subjective—the 1950s were “historical; according to Ellen White and other SDA pioneers the church was rarely unified; White often identified the Adventism of her day as in rebellion against God; and the church was dead-set against the adoption of any creeds for starters—my biggest problem with the term is the actions, better non-actions, of those who employ it. Historically, Adventists (that is, the “pioneers”) spoke out against racial injustice in the American republic. Ellen White, whose articles dominate OFF, not only spoke out against national racial injustice, but denominational racial injustice. Therefore, Hope, claiming fidelity to “Historical Adventism,” would go and do likewise.
My recently completed PhD dissertation is an 800 page examination of Ellen White’s lifelong relation to black people. In the course of my research I compiled some 700 pages of White quotes touching on blacks. What I discovered, for the purposes of this piece, was that White was preoccupied with denouncing racial injustice in the nation and the church and improving the lot of African Americans. Anyone doubting this may examine a representative sampling of her myriad statements on slavery, the Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, race wars; and her indictment of the church for their failure to aid blacks after the Civil War and obstinacy to support the evangelistic program of the Southern Missionary Society at the turn of the century at this site. Space does not permit here to note several other relevant historical items: briefly that the basis of Seventh-day Adventist’s conclusion of the United States’ malevolent role in the eschaton that OFF delights in highlighting was largely arrived at by the pioneers in their observance of the beastlike way the nation enslaved black people; and the incarnation of Jesus, in which God took man’s nature—a point on which Hope harps on and hinges—was the exemplary motivator in the thinking of Ellen White for urging white Northern Adventists to go South and work to uplift blacks.
But the “historic” Ellen White of course was not alone in her concern for blacks. Aside from Adventist Review writers’ ubiquitous denouncing of slavery and the South (Confederacy) in the 1850s and 60s, one of OFF’s and “Historical Adventism’s” greatest heroes, A.T. Jones, was a tireless activist for the equal rights of black people. In short, as the most sophisticated Adventist critic of American politics and legislation, Jones condemned the nation’s treatment of blacks as a grave violation of the claims of the Constitution. To hear the most complete exposition of Jones’ racial activism, see my video “1888 and Black People”.
Has Hope International, founded when Martin Luther King was talking about his dream and when the U.S. government was finally giving in and passing laws of racial equality; with a goal of effecting a grassroots movement of revival in Adventism; eventually run by a minister who served in Africa for more a decade and a half; and with the express purpose of “crying aloud and spar[ing] not,” (7) faithfully denouncing the sins of the church, been “historic” in speaking out on issues of race in the Seventh-day Adventist church? In its almost three decade history has Our Firm Foundation unflinchingly demanded that blacks be represented in church leadership; be treated equally at denominational churches, schools, conferences, cafeterias and hospitals; and that racial division and separatism be eliminated post haste in Adventism?
Our Firm Foundation has never printed a word about race. Not one word.
In my examination of the online archives of Our Firm Foundation, I discovered not one single article on race, race relations, racial equality, racial unity, or black people in the issues from 1985 to 2011. In my opinion, this oversight would be forgivable if the periodical featured a representative amount of black authors. It fails on this score, however, too. I only discovered one black author from 1985-2001, the Jamaican David Mould (8). I lighted upon three pictures of blacks, all in an article on an OFF’s writer’s prison visit; the blacks captured in the photos had been captured (9).
When the magazine switched to full color in 1999 I was naïve to think that there would be articles about or by people of color. From 2001 to the present I located five black authors—all African—who wrote a total of 9 articles—three from Samuel Koranteng-Pipim (10),—each adhering to Hope’s myopic doctrinal message. Also of note is the paucity of writers of other ethnicities—I located three reprints of the same article from the legendary Adventist Jew F.C. Gilbert and an article by Steve Wohlberg; articles from a couple of Asian writers; and pieces from Hispanics Fernando Chaij and Jim Arrabito—and women authors.
Further, in OFF’s heyday, the drawings of Bob Bresnahan portrayed embarrassing anachronistic caricatures of Victorian Anglos from a bygone era and flat out white supremacist sketches of a lily white Christ—the Jesus whom ironically the publishers attempted to present as fully identifying with fallen humanity. All in all, there are no articles by African Americans and no articles addressing race. My measured and protracted conclusion is that Hope International is a white man’s thing. Racial unity (human unity) is not at all important to them or even on their radar. Doctrine is more important than people. Being right trumps being loving.
When I emailed OFF’s editor Heidi Heiks (a white male) concerning a multi-error about a black Millerite named William Foy—a rare mention of man of color for OFF—in January 2008’s “Jonah: A Type of Remnant” (11) (“Like some who, in the early days of Adventism, were bidden to give a message but who ran from God’s call, there is a price for disobedience. We think of William Foss [sic] and Hazen Foy [sic], both given a vision to relate to God’s people; both ran from the call. Neither had peace again. Instead, the call was given to the weakest of the weak, Ellen Harmon, who tremblingly accepted”), Heiks did not cite Ellen White’s affirmation of Foy’s prophetic ministry in Manuscript 131, 1906—a strange and suspicious deviation from OFF’s protocol of citing Ellen White for validation—but J.N. Loughborough’s Rise and Progress of the Seventh-day Adventists as proof of the validity of the Foy error (12). I reluctantly concluded that not only is Hope unmindful of blacks, but dismissive of them.
I want to begin here—unfortunately in perhaps the last place a supporter of Hope would deign to go—a public dialogue with the editors and writers of Our Firm Foundation, not as a Spectrumite—trying to have a steady hand, I examined Spectrum’s articles, printed since 1969, concerning race, and there are myriad—but as a sincere black Seventh-day Adventist who is seeking answers. Did I miss something in my analysis of OFF? Have there been articles on race or improving the racial divide in the church? Has OFF denounced the sins of racism in Adventism and I have overlooked these articles? Allow me to pose one last question: Will Hope International work this year to live up to its title, “Historic Adventist,” by featuring pieces in Our Firm Foundation on healing racial rifts and racist attitudes in the Seventh-day Adventist church?*
*Several punctuation and wording changes were suggested by the author. Alterations were made to the essay on January 29.
—Benjamin Baker, Ph.D., teaches history at Washington Adventist University.
- http://www.hopeint.org/about.htm.
- http://www.hopeint.org/about.htm.
- http://www.eternalgospelherald.com/Ron_Spear_Bio.htm.
- http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19921105-V169-45__C.pdf#view=fit.
- http://www.hopeint.org/about.htm.
- John 13:35, KJV.
- This text is ironically from Isaiah 58, whose concern is treating the oppressed justly.
- http://www.hopeint.org/pdf-ourfirmfoundation/OFF0203w.pdf.
- http://www.hopeint.org/pdf-ourfirmfoundation/OFF0105w.pdf.
- http://www.hopeint.org/pdf-ourfirmfoundation/OFF2112w.pdf.
- http://www.hopeint.org/pdf-ourfirmfoundation/OFF2301w.pdf.
- Email reply from Heidi Heiks to Benjamin Baker, January 16, 2008.
User login
Recent
- Pagophilus Should Revival Begin at the Top?
- George Tichy The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith
- Rich Hannon Leaders Respond to the GC/NAD Conflict Over Equality for Adventist Women
- Fay Crombie Ellen White Remixed
- L Humberto Covarrubias Creation Care or Could Care-less?
- Aage Rendalen I have overcome the world
- Anonymous7 Leaders Respond to the GC/NAD Conflict Over Equality for Adventist Women
- John Allen Leaders Respond to the GC/NAD Conflict Over Equality for Adventist Women
- Tom Zwemer Should Revival Begin at the Top?
- Graeme Sharrock Clearing a Way of Love Through the Rhetoric of War
Newsletter
Adventist Forum Chapters
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Maybe they haven't printed anything about blacks because it's not particularly relevant today. Blacks enjoy a good standing in the SDA church. I bet they haven't written anything about Asian SDA's either.
Excellent summation, Dr Baker. To ignore culture, politics and social concerns is to ignore people.
A lack of understanding is the fundamentalist dilemma, and HI, OFF and more recently GYC all prove that ultra-conservatives care little for people's needs.
Today in the US we should be actively supporting the poor rural blacks, the 'illegal' Hispanic immigrants, and the urban unemployed. How well are we doing?
Thanks for this very provocative and insightful piece Benjamin. You raise questions that I think are not going to admit easy answers from those you have asked them of. I think another question needs to be asked in addition to the ones you've raised. We can ask why OFF didn't print more pieces by African Americans and about racial equality and racial injustice. But we might also ask in the light of what you've presented why OFF evidently failed to attract more Black and other voices along the way.
I realize the two issues are related but surely there is more to it than that. Is the kind of theology represented by OFF simply not appealing or resonating with the overwhelming majority of Adventist African Americans because there somewhat unique theological resources, understandings, and traditions within the Adventist African American community (or communities) that made the entire project of OFF seem off-putting (pun intended) from the start? If so, wouldn't this remain the case even if OFF made a concerted effort to attract more Black writers this year as you have challenged them to do?
I read you to be saying that the problem isn't only one of oversight and poor representation. If I haven't misunderstood you, what you are suggesting is that OFF has been preoccupied with a pretty narrow kind of individualistic pietism and perfectionism that simply has nothing to say to larger questions of social justice. People with some real experience of injustice, however, know that concern for social justice is central to the meaning of the Gospel. This is why, in all candor, I don't think that OFF will accept your challenge: because what you are asking of them would ultimately mean not simply greater sensitivity or efforts at inclusivity but in fact a theological change of course.
"In the course of my research I compiled some 700 pages of White quotes touching on blacks. What I discovered, for the purposes of this piece, was that White was preoccupied with denouncing racial injustice in the nation and the church and improving the lot of African Americans."
I think that's the main takeaway from this article. The race issue in the church and in society at large was settled long before 1985, so I wouldn't expect to see much coverage in a specialized publication beginning from that date.
@ David Read, it seems to me that you have missed the point.
Surely the article is yet more evidence of the narrowmindedness that preoccupies those preaching piety and a sinless last generation. Whether it is 1985 or 2012 Grace is our core doctrine, and it is sadly neglected by some who still demand a return to our 'foundations'
The race issue in the church and in society at large was settled long before 1985...
**************************
Really? So why do we still have regional conferences? And, does the statement that the most segregated hour in America is Sunday morning at 11:00 not apply to Adventism simply because we worship on Saturdays?
Thanks...
Frank
"The race issue in the church and in society at large was settled long before 1985, so I wouldn't expect to see much coverage in a specialized publication beginning from that date." David Read
"Maybe they haven't printed anything about blacks because it's not particularly relevant today. Blacks enjoy a good standing in the SDA church. I bet they haven't written anything about Asian SDA's either." Pagophilus
Astounding. And from commenters who claim they champion true Adventism.
____________________________________________________
"Wise advice to a listening ear is like gold earrings or fine jewelry." Proverbs 25:12
so, Mr Read, it simply is NOT settled. Time to face up to it, and work towards fixing it... and that will take cooperation and understanding - and acceptance.
People self segregate for worship because of different worship style preferences, not out of racial animosity ( I hope). Not just worship styles but other cultural differences, e.g., more political discourse is acceptable in black churches than in white.
My understanding is that all of the predominantly black churches could easily be administered by the regular conferences, but the blacks themselves want to maintain the regional conferences. Are we to force the liquidation of the regional conferences, over the objection of black SDAs, because we're embarrassed by the separate structures? I don't even view it as a racial issue, more like an organizational issue along the lines of, do we really need both conference and union levels of bureaucracy?
... an argument the old Confederate states would endorse!
Regional conferences exist--not because of a simple preference--but because of all the ways that racism permeates our culture & works against parity even in Adventist mission.
____________________________________________________
"Wise advice to a listening ear is like gold earrings or fine jewelry." Proverbs 25:12
Thank you for this article Dr. Baker. Very informative. I was not aware of OFF.
Please keep pushing the info. out. We need to know.
To Pagophilus-Blacks enjoy a good standing in the SDA Church? Really I supposed that's why there are still separate black and white conferences, churches, colleges, etc. I won't even get into the area of church leadership positions. Race will unfortunately always be relevant in America, it is in the country's DNA having be founded largely on the back of free slave labor and the deliberate systematic degradation of black people. As powerful as the gospel ministry Jesus Christ is, most American Christian churches including the SDA church could not resist the lure of racism and naturally infused it into their theology without a blink of an eye.
Why is it, 'Hopeful', that we would so often decry gold earrings, and fine jewellery?
Do I sense a new discussion starter?
To be fair, Adventists who live outside the United States may not be aware of the deep history of racism that America still struggles with today; and in particular how that affected the Adventist church in America.
Over where I'm typing from, I can't imagine anyone taking two seconds to consider someone's race when deciding who should be in church leadership at the conference level. No, rather, they'd consider things like "that man can preach" and "that man has talent." (I'd say person, but that wouldn't be true, nor is that whole debate relevant to this comment.) The colour of someone's skin wouldn't be thought of for a second.
It wasn't until I lived in the US, briefly, that I discovered just how differently things operate over there. So you'll have to pardon us internationals--race truly is a big issue in the US, and one that ought to be written about and discussed--but out here we really don't understand what the big fuss is all about. We don't know or understand how race is often one of the primary determinants in finding a leader, be it due to racism or affirmative action. We don't grow up in the shadow of racial tension. No, we judge people by the content of their character (okay, or else by their social connections), and not by the colour of their skin, and hopefully one day the American Adventist church can do so as well.
"It wasn't until I lived in the US, briefly, that I discovered just how differently things operate over there. . . . We don't know or understand how race is often one of the primary determinants in finding a leader, be it due to racism or affirmative action."
AP, are you implying that Obama was elected President of the United States only because he is black, as a sort of affirmative action? I'm not an Obama fan, but that's really much too harsh.
Oh David, youre like Father Jim - looking for far more than is being stated and blowing it into something else.
Some thick skinned people sure do have super-sensitivity to things - willing to dish out things harshly to people but when they think they or their ideas have been slighted (even if they haven't) they react.
In my country we have men of many nationalities as ministers, but any women ministers are usually white - just realized, and I wonder why.
Many city churches have people of all shades, but the affluent ones tend to be mainly white, and most rural churches the same.
Ministers are considered by their friendliness, ability to connect with people, to think clearly and well, and ability to inspire and lead. The colour of the skin is hardly noticed - unless they do poorly (and especially if they are hard to understand with their accent or language use) then sometimes their ethnicity is brought up. Racist talk is done in private at those times, not publicly stated. But nonetheless it is insidiously there.
Where I see the greatest racism, not overtly stated or planned for (but I,s definitely there, and again spoken between people informally but not publicly) regards indigenous people. There is not much place for them in the church, except for a few token ones who have highly adapted to the dominant culture), and attitudes about them often reek of ignorance and leave me cringing.
Until recently, anyone who talked in church about issues of social injustice, environmental abuse, global issues were considered to be out of place and bringing into church irrelevent issues. Personal piety was the focus, and personal adornment issues were where morality was seen. The larger issues of the world were ignored, marginalized and often denied. I think that is probably where the OFF movement was coming from. Also, people from dominant groups can easily not realize and understand what the "others" are going through. For them, life and society works quite fine so it should for everyone else.
I think one solution would be for the non-regional conferences and unions to disband and come under the umbrella of the regional conferences. Where churches are duplicated in an area, I've noticed that often the "black" ones are far more alive. I suggest the overflowing "black" ones look after the dead and dying ones and bring revival to them. There will be a lot of life in them then!
Racism like sexism are two sides of the same coin. I came of age in the 50's & 60's and watched with amazement as my church stood silent on both these issues as they came into the forefront of national attention. I was told at the time, our church is to concentrate on the "gospel" not human rights.
Thank you, Dr. Baker, for pointing out that 100 years prior to this our "pioneers" had no such reticence.
Thank you too, Dr. Baker for highlighting the absurdity and hypocrisy of some of those championing "historic" Adventism.
Frank
Adventists have Black Conferences upon the continued insistance of the Black power elite.
One of the General Conference Black leaders is quoted as saying: O.K. lets merge--you join us!
The same holds true for Black Colleges and Universities. Integration meant access of Blacks to predominately white colleges and universities while demanding the continued funding of predominately Black colleges and universities.
If ever there was tokenism it is predominately Black academic institutions.
Racism is a two way street.
Tom Z
I'm all for everyone else joining in with black churches, unions, conferences and colleges. Why should it be the other way?
An odd article. I was expecting something about how OFF had some racist tendencies or something of substance. Instead after a lengthy and interesting history that doesn't say anything is particularly out of the ordinary, a mere absence of a direct discussion on race in a independent publication is enough to imply it is racist? Is Baker trying to shame OFF into publishing on the subject? Why didn't Baker pick up the phone and call them and ask, or at least volunteer an article to break the grand? If he did this, Baker might have something worth writing about.
As it stands, it actually appears Baker is simply race baiting. It is hard to come up with a clearer example than this.
The purpose for which Hope International was established, and Our Firm Foundation was published, had nothing to do with race. Their focus was apostasy in the church. To fault them for not addressing racial inequalities is like faulting Jesus for not speaking out against slavery in the Roman Empire. It wasn't that He approved of it or was unconcerned; just that it wasn't His main focus. The arrival of the Messiah was the overriding priority at that time. And for Hope International, compromise of truth was their overriding priority.
This is sort of like faulting my business because we've never hired any Blacks or Hispanics. We are a "lily white" working place. But no Blacks or Hispanics have ever applied to work there. There are very few of them who live in the area (methinks most of them are smart enough to live in warmer climates).
And for Hope International, compromise of truth was their overriding priority.
*****************
Horatio...
Apparently you seemed to miss the point of the article. The article is rightly lamenting that Hope International's vision of truth has been based on a hierarchy of messed up priorities and sense of what compromise and apostasy is.
Their inaction over the years was nothing like Jesus not speaking out against slavery in the Roman empire. This would have been more like Paul not standing for equal inclusion of Gentiles in the church. He didn't remain silent on the issue when he saw such religio/ethnic discrimination happening. OTOH, Hope International in all their zeal to point out sin and apostasy, did. They chose instead to blather on about theologically arcane doctrines, and ancillary lifestyle matters, as if they were the sum and substance of godliness vs.apostasy, while separate but equal was being practiced INSIDE the church.
Apparently, that never bothered them, nor counted as a compromise with the world.
The NT, particularly Luke/Acts and the major Pauline letters, tells an entirely different story of what godly priorities truly are...and they center on the relationship that we hold not only to God, but to one another...especially how we treat the poor, the disenfranchised, and the marginalized in our midst. The church is to reflect the inclusiveness of Christ with our dignified and loving treatment of one another. We have sadly missed that mark in our history. Adventism has been no different from many other Christian bodies whose theology we repudiate, and has even been behind the curve of the world whom we are often quick to condemn.
OFF, in the heyday of all their critiquing seemed blind to this fact.
Thanks...
Frank
OFF is so Adventist of the kind I grew up with. As a child I would not have seen anything amiss in what they were doing. Thankfully I grew up, developed a larger vision of the world, and developed a sense of ethics.
... a sense of ethics about things that really count!
"AP, are you implying that Obama was elected President of the United States only because he is black, as a sort of affirmative action? I'm not an Obama fan, but that's really much too harsh."
Obama was not in my thoughts when I wrote that. I don't think he was only elected because he was black. It's still notable how much of an impact race played during that election campaign, however, both for and against.
Mr. Read, do you see the hidden prejudicial assumption in your post? What if the REGIONAL conference is in a better financial and membership position than the "White" conference, and it is the WHITE conference which has to be liquidated and folded into the "regional" conference? Why did you automatically assume that it's the regional conferences that have to be liquidated? You are aware that all of the growth in the SDA church in North America is in the immigrant and minority communities, with severe decline in the white churches?
I agree with you about the need for organizational reform, but do not ignore the racial issue. If you don't think that a "white" conference can/should be folded into a "regional" conference, you need to examine why it is you think so.
also, Dr. Baker may have had more luck getting OFF feedback if he posted this article on the Adventist Today website.
"...The race issue in the church and in society at large was settled long before 1985..." - David Read
This is a blatant denial of reality., a mask to cover up a sad situation.
Prejudice in church is much more alive than people would admit. Both racial and gender prejudice.
My first encounter with American "blacks" was in Sweden at the age of about 6 or 7. My dad took me aboard an American cargo ship in port at Malmo. We were escorted aboard by a black man - tall and friendly, brandishing a Cheshire grin so familiar in contemporary films of that day, minus the tap dancing. He offered me a roll of "Life Savers" and showed us around. Why we were there, I have no idea. I was overwhelmed at the idea of being on an American ship, as our conversations at home were mostly about our future move to AMERICA!! We landed in New York, sailing past the Statue of Liberty and all that; and I ended up in school, in a bedroom town on Long Island. I was now rubbing shoulders with "black" kids.
When I joined the SDA church at 16, I was surprised to learn that there was a "black" conference, and even a "black" college somewhere out there. In college my yearbook indicates that I had made close friendships with a number of "black" kids. Being it was AUC, there was quite a variety of colors and nationalities - one reason I liked it there.
When I finally emerged from the stupor that cultural and linguistic change had produced, I came to realize there was a problem - but the problem was two-sided. Quite often, along the way, I felt wrongfully accused of racism - not verbally, but by attitude. That hurt, and even made me angry at times; so I do understand the perpetual anger that infuses the black community in the US; but work has to be done on both sides. When I learned about "Black 'Alumni Weekends" existing at the school, I was tempted to insist on there being a "White Alumni Weekend". Of course that would not have been helpful.
I do understand Mr. Baker's concerns that black history within the SDA church has been pretty much ignored; but maybe we should ignore it altogether and just concentrate on being Christians. Yeah, I know - it ain't gonna happen. Too bad - really.
Sirje
The rules of Adventist marketing dictate that a particular message with an agenda is developed and broadcast to a peculiar audience. Within the weekly/monthly email, magazine, newsletter, and/or cd/dvd sent forth, a donation/tithe/offering envelope or online donate now button are prominently provided to support the spreading of this distinctive message which is only articulated via this ministry.
Baker asks, "Did I miss something in my analysis of OFF? Have there been articles on race or improving the racial divide in the church? Has OFF denounced the sins of racism in Adventism and I have overlooked these articles?"
If Hope International believed there was any sizable amount of money to be made from Black Seventh-day Adventists, proportionately articles on race, discrimination, racism, sins of racism within the SDA church would have been included in their publication. Or perhaps by including the aforementioned articles in their publications, Hope International would alienate some of their White Seventh-day Adventists financial supporters thus diminishing their influx of contributions. Clearly a delicate financial tight rope to walk? Is it?
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (NIV, Mark 12:28-31)
Jesus' life as recorded in the Gospels demonstrated what it means to ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Jesus continually broke down racial, civil, ethnic, social, and religious walls that ruthlessly divided people in order for God’s love to flow through. Jesus lived a life without concern for financial gain or loss.
Hope International non-profit tax returns which are freely available on www.guidestar.org reveal the following:
2010: No returns are available.
2009: Total Revenue: $629,416 - Expenses: $1,090,582 = Revenue ($461,166); Assets $1,962,767
2008: Total Revenue: $989,255 - Expenses: $860,146 = Revenue $129,10; Assets 2,423,933
2008: Total Revenue: $670,746 - Expenses: $750,599 = Revenue ($79,853); Assets $2,294,824
For these three years, the largest expense categories are: Print and Video Publications along with Postage.
Is Hope International simply A Money Making Machine? http://www.flickr.com/photos/haywardart/3974365384/
Hope International Website: http://www.hopeint.org/ Mission: SPREAD THE TEACHINGS AND DOCTRINES OF THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH
http://www.blacksdahistory.org/40811010.pdf
A bunch of people replying in this thread need to read this document; it details the list of grievances presented to the church by the black membership in 1944 and the remedy they desired... Creating a separate and less than equal system was not their desire... But just as the church unilaterally segregated Adventist churches in Washington DC in 1901, against the wishes of the membership, both black and white, they decided to create a separate power structure for black Adventists when all that was being asked was inclusion in the existing church hierarchy. There was an expectation that the regional conferences would fail and once that happened they would have a reason for the continued exclusion of black adventists from positions of authority in the church.
What is saddest of all is there are some who, even after they see what they believe in this regard is a lie, will continue to believe that lie because the truth is too inconvenient.
"It wasn't until I lived in the US, briefly, that I discovered just how differently things operate over there. So you'll have to pardon us internationals--race truly is a big issue in the US, and one that ought to be written about and discussed--but out here we really don't understand what the big fuss is all about...." - AP
I understand very well what you are saying. I live in the US now for 22 years. It seems that it is more difficult for the US-born people to notice how huge the racism problem still is in this country. When one comes from another country/culture (in my case, I was born in Europe, raised in Brazil) it is much easier to see the real cruelty of racism still alive here in the US.
And despite many people's attempts to deny it, prejudice permeates the SDA church very much. Both racial and gender prejudices.
" If Hope International believed there was any sizable amount of money to be made from Black Seventh-day Adventists, proportionately articles on race,
discrimination, racism, sins of racism within the SDA church would have been included in their publication"
So it never was about ministering the gospel; the end desired was making money and not alienating white people... Gotcha...
"Mission: SPREAD THE TEACHINGS AND DOCTRINES OF THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH"
This is clearly fishy. Isn't the Church capable of doing it itself?
How many other organizations are needed to spread Adventism? Unless I am completely mistaken, my guess is that there are many people working there, paid with money from contributions. An easy way to "get a job"... Money in, money out, many easy jobs, and "voilá" ... the Adventist message has been spread.
Apparently their "message" is also ultraconservative, right?
I am bemused by the fact that Our Firm Foundation was founded as a counter to what was perceived as apostasy on the part of the SDA church, which in turn was founded as a counter to what was perceived as apostasy on the part of protestantism at large, which was founded as a counter to what was perceived as apostasy on the part of Christianity at large.
I wonder how long it will take before another movement will arise inspired by the supposed apostasy of Our Firm Foundation, thus providing us with five generations of splintering. Don
Racism cuts both ways. Of course in America initiated by the "White" race.
In 1943 I was stationed at Fort Benning Georgia. I got a pass to attend the Columbus, Ga. SDA
Church. Being from Michigan I was taught that the polite way to seat in a bus was to go to the rear so that later comers would have easy access. So in Columbus, Ga. I went to the back of the bus.
About 4-5 Black ladies, on their way to do housekeeping were in the back. They interrupted their conversation and said: "You are in the back of the bus, this is our place--you go up front." Of course I moved up front.
Years later, having moved to Augusta, Ga in mid-summer I took the family on a Sunday to a state park.
Just as we were seated near the beach, a pick-up truck with the Seal of the State of Georgia on the doors. A uniformed Black man emerged, walked ovver and said: "I have by the authority of the State of Georgia to inform you that you are in a State Park reserved for Blacks only. Please leave--your park is another 6 miles up the road."
Attending the White SDA Church I was surprised to learn that the deacon door keeper would bar Blacks from entering: They would say your church is at such and such address, I am sure you will be much more comfortable there."
So I attempted to attend the Black SDA church one Sabbath. I was informed that "my church was at such and such address, I am sure you will be more comfortable there.
When I was teaching at LLU I enrolled a Black Gradute Student into my program. We chose a research project of lower crowding of the teeth of teenagers. We chose a population at a boarding academy--a similar population to a prior landmark study done at the University of Illinois.
So the Black student and I drove to an academy in central Calif. We did our study after classes. So we had much of the day to tour the county. I said to my student. I am interested in leaving LLU and establishing a practice in this area. Let us visit several realators. He and I started shopping. I explained to the realator that I wanted to visit small acre farms suitable for riding horses. I was told at each stop there there were no listings of that kind. Finally I said to my student friend, "Seems strange that none of the realators have anything listed. He replied: "Did you ever get a good look at my skin?"
"They all think you are fronting for me."
When I came to develop a dental school at the Medical College of Georgia, about the time Gov. Wallace was standing in the doorway of his university--we wanted an open admissions. I was threatened with death and worse. None the less, in five years we doubled the number of Black dentists in Georgia. Two of whom were appointed to the Board of Dental Examiners of the State of Georgia. By the way my Black graduate student became a Vice President of the American Dental Association a first.
Since any color but "white" is a minority: racism is a galling factor in many areas of life for Blacks, Browns, and Yellows. It is natural that resentments exist. The fact that it exists in a Christian community means we have miles to go to achieve Christian fellowship of any substance. Tom Z
Don, to extend your comment, here's a joke (you've likely heard it) that was voted funniest by readers of the website shipoffools.com:
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: "Stop. Don't do it."
"Why shouldn't I?" he asked.
"Well, there's so much to live for!"
"Like what?"
"Are you religious?"
He said: "Yes."
I said: "Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
"Christian."
"Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
"Protestant."
"Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
"Baptist."
"Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
"Baptist Church of God."
"Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God."
"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"
He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."
I said: "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.
Tom while bias and prejudice swings both ways, racism is unidirectional. While those black women on that bus could have made you uncomfortable the fact remains they had no way of preventing you from taking a seat in the back of the bus. Their reason for shooing you off had more to do with the fact that there was a small number of seats available to black riders to begin with and even those were not guaranteed to them; had the bus filled up they would have to give those seats up to white customers and have to stand; your coming back there made that inevitability a little closer when it did not need to be because there were seats availble to you in other sections of the bus. It was not about their being "racist" towards you.
George, no where in Adventism is intolerance and prejudice more notable than here on this blog by the SUPPOSEDLY open-minded and tolerant liberal majority who are not the least bit kind or open to competing conservative points of view. The arrogance of the liberal bloggers here is astounding.
Then I heard a voice from heaven say, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.”
K
Thank you for your spin. Tom Z
Rev 14:12,
Of course my view on this is the opposite.
As I see it, liberals stick to facts, while conservatives want to just "conserve" their radical positions in spite of the the facts.
Yes, there are actually two theologies: One is rooted in EGW and accepts the Bible as well. The other one is rooted in the Bible and does not accept EGW as source of authority.
There is a chair for every butt...
Dr Bakers observations are interesting. Quite how we manage to evade the prophetic calling of our time is amazing.
Last Autumn / Fall I holidayed in New England as a historic authentic resident English Englishman and decided to learn something about the American Civil War.To be honest I had never quite appreciated the depth or scale of the event. Neither had I quite taken on that it happened precisely at the time that our church was organised. Dr Baker alludes to some references to the Civil War in our early literature, yet it seems to me that our early literature saw far more threats from Europe than its own holocaust.
Strange that?
RE: “What I discovered, for the purposes of this piece, was that White was preoccupied with denouncing racial injustice in the nation and the church and improving the lot of African Americans.”
This may be true; however, EGW opposed the reading of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” the book that Abraham Lincoln when he greeted Stowe in 1862 said, “the little woman who wrote the book that made this Great War.”
“Dear Brother E: I have just read the Review and Herald and have seen your article giving a list of good books for our youth. I was much surprised to read your recommendation of Uncle Tom's Cabin, Robinson Crusoe, and such books. You are in danger of becoming somewhat careless in your writing. It would be well to give thought and careful study to whatever is to be immortalized in print. I am really alarmed to see that your spiritual eyesight is not more clear in the matter of selecting and recommending reading for our youth. I know that the recommendation in our papers of such infatuating books as Uncle Tom's Cabin will in many minds justify the reading of other books which are nothing but fiction.” EGW
RE: “What I discovered, for the purposes of this piece, was that White was preoccupied with denouncing racial injustice in the nation and the church and improving the lot of African Americans.”
______________________
So Ellen White was “preoccupied with improving the lot of African Americans." Really? Let’s take a look:
"Opportunities are continually presenting themselves in the Southern States, and many wise, Christian colored men will be called to the work. But for several reasons white men must be chosen as leaders." (Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 202)
"The Colored People should not urge that they be placed on an equality with White People." (Testimonies Vol. 9, page 214, Paragraph 3)
"No one is capable of clearly defining the proper position of the colored people." (Testimonies Vol. 9, page 213 paragraph 4)
"The work of proclaiming the truth for this time is not to be hindered by an effort to adjust the position of the Negro race." (Testimonies Vol. 9, page 214, paragraph 4)
Yes indeed. Ellen White was “preoccupied with denouncing racial injustice in the nation and the church and improving the lot of African Americans.”
Sure she was…
tg
pic.twitter.com/joxLzUI
(sorry I can't make it link; do copy/paste)
____________________________________________________
"Wise advice to a listening ear is like gold earrings or fine jewelry." Proverbs 25:12
brother Read,
I'm amazed you're glossing over the fact that blacks want to maintain the regional conferences out of fear of losing a viable voice within the SDA boundaries.There is nothing prior to the development of the regional conferences that suggests we will have equal opportunitiy for leadership positions or the current leadership lead by Ted Wilson has any initiative to bring us together on equal grounds with respect to race and gender. Even in the multi-cultural church I attend now there are subtle racial biases that determine how certain resources will be allocated.This is a racial issue first and cultural and other secondary.
Spectrum is currently featuring a sermon by pastor Dwight Jones(white male): The Truth in Black and White. Clearly some of our white brothers in leadership position see and acknowledge the chronic racial issue that embarrasses us to no end. To be fair too many of our black brethren have also not made the steps necessary to move us in the brotherly direction God would have us go.
It's embarrassing to have dialog along these lines when God has made it clear that after the 2nd Advent no such silly divisions will exist.
“Dear Brother E: I have just read the Review and Herald and have seen your article giving a list of good books for our youth. I was much surprised to read your recommendation of Uncle Tom's Cabin, Robinson Crusoe, and such books. You are in danger of becoming somewhat careless in your writing. It would be well to give thought and careful study to whatever is to be immortalized in print. I am really alarmed to see that your spiritual eyesight is not more clear in the matter of selecting and recommending reading for our youth. I know that the recommendation in our papers of such infatuating books as Uncle Tom's Cabin will in many minds justify the reading of other books which are nothing but fiction.” EGW - @ David JIB
Are you sure these words were not written by Ted Wilson?
Same retrograde mentality!!!!
Tom, as one who has lived nearly 50 years as a black person in this country, what I relate to you is experience...not spin... and it is a little troubling that you would so readily dismiss what I say just because it blows up your "everyone is racist" rationalization...
"Are you sure these words were not written by Ted Wilson? Same retrograde mentality!!!!"
George, you are usually the first one on this blog to point out disrespect and lack of Christian civility. Does that apply to you too?! You show an immense amount of disrespect towards our GC President and EGW. You are quick to call others to own up to your perceived disrespect. Are you willing to own your stuff?
K Josey
As long as the Adventist church is defensive about race and not repentant attitudes like Tom will persist. We need to follow Paul's admonition to 'be not conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewing of your minds'. We need to acknowledge our history in regards to racial matters in the USA, UK, South Africa and Nazi Germany is pathetic and sinful (and anywhere else where ethinc minorities are oppressed). Jesus wanted His disciples to be One as He and the Father are One. Sadly we are far from this goal whether we be conservative or liberal Adventists or any other label people want to use. How can we live together eternally in the New Earth until this is resolved? There will be no racitst in heaven so time for folks to really look in the mirror.
To me, Dr Baker hits the nail on the head when he summarizes religious conservatism as a cognitive cult:
"Doctrine is more important than people. Being right trumps being loving."
The reason why the most ardent Bible-believing Christians, a.k.a. fundamentalists or conservatives, for a hundred years went along with a program of ethnic terrorism known as segregation, was that social justice played little or no role in their lives. Their concern was, as Baker says, to be right, not loving. To them religion was primarily a question of tribal affiliation and orthodoxy. As long as you belonged to God's in-group and respected its mores and its ideological traditions, you were assured of eternal life, and to this kind of conservative, what could be more important than that?
Donna's comment is also worth while noting. Adventists, who believe that they have been singled out by God to represent him in a way that nobody else can, stood on the sidelines when people were risking, and at times giving, their lives, to fight for the full freedom of their black countrymen. If religion is merely a creation of humans, the way I happen to think, this scenario makes sense, though. A tribe creates its own tribal deity and is not concerned about the fate of other tribes. It's hard to see how a real God, the father of all, would want to be represented by those who so dastardly misrepresent everything he's supposed to be about.
The Civil Rights Movement in the US approximates, to my mind, the best in religion and humanism. But when that procession headed up the Via Dolorosa of the American South, Conservative Christians, black and white, stood on the sidewalk to observe the batons flying and the dogs attacking, taking notes for the day when they would build memorials to the heroes they didn't have the courage or inclination to follow.
Aage
Brother Baker,
I appreciate your perspective on this issue. I do however find it somewhat ironic that the only times when I was able to hear Ron Spear and Colin Standish speak in person were when they were invited by a small black congregation in a small Florida town with segregated churches:
During the late 1980's and early 1990's I was a member of a mostly white congregation on the East Coast of Florida. Just a few miles away was a smaller and all black congregation. From time to time I liked to visit and worship at this church and felt that in many ways the people there tended more toward the "historic" form of Adventism than did my own congregation. Eventually I developed a close friendship with many of these brethren. I was at that time an avid reader of OFF and was delighted to learn that Ron Spear was invited by the head elder of this black congregation to come and speak in their church.
Upon learning that he would be coming to our city, I sought to invite Elder Spear to speak at our church also. As I began to make the arrangements I was immediately informed by my pastor that he had contacted the conference office and was told that under no circumstances would Ron Spear be allowed to speak in our church. A short time later the elder from the black church was also informed that his pastor received the same message from his conference.
The elder from the black church then proceeded to rent a hall at the local community college where the meetings could be held. It was a blessed time with about an equal number of families from each congregation attending. Several more meetings were held in this same way with Ron Spear and at other times Colin Standish and once even Joe Crews coming to speak at the invitation of this small black congregation and they were always very happy to do so.
"Of course my view on this is the opposite.
As I see it, liberals stick to facts, while conservatives want to just "conserve" their radical positions in spite of the the facts.
Yes, there are actually two theologies: One is rooted in EGW and accepts the Bible as well. The other one is rooted in the Bible and does not accept EGW as source of authority."
If your beliefs are rooted in the Bible you're still a conservative, you're just a "wanna be liberal." And while I agree about the primacy of the Bible that's still a matter of faith and not "sticking to facts," so how about coming down off your high off and respecting people who have a different view of things than yourself.
K. /denny
How you could read me so wrong. I brought the first Black Roman Catholic into the Gradute Program at Loma Linda.It took me two years to persuade the Dean of the School of Gradute Studies to agree to admit him. A man who later went on to a Vice Presidency of the American Dental Association and the speaker of the hooding cerimony of the graduating class at Loma Linda. He and I traveled together and shared a motel room. He and his wife were later house guests during the Master's--they used my tickets to have up close and personal view of the August National and the elite golfers of the Masters.
I was the first to get a Black 4th grader enrolled in the Augusta SDA church school over the threats of bombing my house.
I won the admission of Black Students into the School of Dentistry at MCG as regular students--when the consensus was to create a separate curricular track.
I served for 7 years as Chief Affirmative Action Officer of MCG I was never overturned by either the Board of Regents or the Federal Courts. The man who followed me was overturned three times in his first year.
One female Black dental student failed her national boards. According to protocol she was to be dismissed from school. I suggested that I tutor her prior to the next scheduled exam. I spent two hours a day for a month. She retook the board and scored highest in the nation.
My initial blog was to demonstrate that racism cuts two ways. Such an observation should be read as an indictment of all. My commen on the Columbus bus I thought carried two points. Segregation in the South during and following WWII and how these ladies turned an obligation to an act of privilege.
I thought at the time what a delicious act of independance.
Regardless of the origin of separate conferences and churches for Black and Whites--the current status is to maintain the separation by the Black Causus.
Let anyone suggest that Oakwood be discontinued and all students merge on one of the other colleges and universities of the Church which are desegrigated even from the time I was a pre-war student at old E.M.C.
I have been a Democrat from the days of Truman while the SDA membership has a strong leaning toward Republicans as you recall the Civil Rights Act turned Southern Democrats into far right wing Republicans.
Off topic, I also recruited and enrolled 5 Mormon graduate students at LLU. They all graduated with honors.
I hope this sets the record straight. In passing I used to hoe corn at E.M.C. across the row from a Black student. Who became a physician practicing in L.A. and was appointed Commissioner of Education by the Governor of California. On the way to work we would have to pass the men's dorm
There were a number of religion majors with sponsorships sitting in lawn chairs giving us the
lip. We agreed that we would take the heat just so we could get the hell out of Berrien Springs.
I later returned as an invited panelist shared by Don McAdams. I was given the grand tour of the campus by the President. I also had the guest room in the men's dorm.
Tom Z
Michael Kay makes a good point. The doctrinal heterodoxy that Our Firm Foundation is concerned about is all coming from white people and predominantly white churches and institutions. Blacks don't flirt with Darwinism and moral influence theories of the atonement; the black churches are staunchly creationistic, and do not try to "new model" core elements of the faith, like the substitutionary atonement.
If Our Firm Foundation is to be criticized for anything in the area of race, it is for failing to hold up black Adventists and the black churches as laudable examples of simplicity and steadfastness of faith.
Aage Rendalen,
The problem for your viewpoint is that the best of humanism is really rooted in Christianity. The intrinsic value of all individual life and liberty can only be rooted in a transcendent moral code, and Christianity provided that. Secularism provides no grounds for an intrinsic and equal value to be given to human life. Many secularists seem to argue that what gives humanity its special value, is the ability to reason. However, I'm sure they would still recoil at the idea of treating mentally handicapped people or children who have no ability to reason, like animals; same for a person who might have a mental handicap. Humanists would rightly recoil at treating a human like an animal for any condition whatsoever. In other words they hold to the intrinsic value of humanity - the idea that humanity is not reliant upon some some condition to hold value, but has a value simply within itself. However, their worldview gives them no reason for holding to this viewpoint. There is no observable natural fact that says: "humans have special and equal value above the animals no matter their condition just because are humans." It is not a coincidence that humanism arose out of a Christian civilization. I believe in the many of the values of humanism, but I believe the only consistent humanist is like the first humanists - a Christian Humanist.
TJG,
I imagine those quotes are taken out of context, but even if they are not, they don't prove what you think they do. It would be quite possible, and indeed was the case that many people were quite liberal for those times in regards to race relations and yet by today's standards would be considered to be bigoted. There's also the matter of being pragmatic and not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. It's not fair to judge Ellen White's by today's standards and expect that she should have been some sort of MLK. The 19th cent. likely would have rejected MLK, and he would have just been a footnote in history. You seem to hold to hold the view of inspiration that God drops a message untainted from heaven calling us earthlings to immediately adjust to the ways of heaven and just bypass all that messy historical development. However, it is clear from the culturally tinted messages of the Bible that God does not work in this way.
What's interesting to me, is that people can look at this fact in Ellen White's writings and it causes them great trouble, and yet they're capable of doing the necessary mental gymnastics to say that no such problems do not exist within the Bible. It's also interesting how obsessed people still are with Ellen White, after rejecting her. Many of the critics discuss Ellen White, quote from her, and read about her, way more than most mainline Adventists who accept her. Whether or not She's a Prophet that kind of obsession can't be healthy. How about expending that kind of energy on reading and discussing the Bible.
I teach diversity at university. We explore the wide variety of differences and categories that humans so easily fall into using to divide and discriminate, even unintentionally. While each manifestation needs to be addressed and challenged, at the heart of it is the attitudes, mindset and practices of how we treat every individual. Regardless of whether we understand another person or group, regardless of whether we agree with them or their ways of acting/being, regardless of our comfort/discomfort and familiarity/unfamiliarity zones - can we see that each person is of value (even though we are all flawed), that none is worth more than another, that to have the heart and mind of Christ in us means we love, care for and value each person deeply without succumbing to the judgments and discriminations and misunderstandings that see easily tempt us and are conditioned into us.
I am constantly called and challenged to seek the treasure in each person and to be of service in ways that brings out their highest potential - and to make heart-full connections whenever I can. The class I teach does not mention this overtly, but it is a practical experience of increasingly awakening in my students "the heart of Jesus".
I don't necessarily think SDAs are blind to racism; I just think that our definition of truth as "information" often sequesters us into our own little world that places such things at the periphery.
On the one hand, I think that it's nice that we don't have to think like everyone else and follow everyone else's mold. I do think, however, that at the very least we should have our own relevant and bold ideas/contributions to the world.
Having said that, I think the conservative nature of Adventism has its pitfalls. As someone who considers himself conservative, I think that conservatives are often deficient in their self-evaluation. They sometimes seem to simply lack the skills to analyze themselves and their own motives and weaknesses. They prefer to trust in templates and formulas.
As such, race theory won't go down well at all with the brethren.
Just on a larger scale, I think if we insist we are God's remnant then we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard than others. It's sad when our church trails social trends towards justice--instead of leading them (actively or passively).
TJG – You forgot to mention several others references. EGW never was on the cutting edge of race relations, she reflected her culture as the will of God for all the Advent people.
God does not lead anyone into interracial marriage:
“In reply to inquiries regarding the advisability of intermarriage between Christian young people of the white and black races, I will say that in my earlier experience this question was brought before me, and the light given me of the Lord was that this step should not be taken; for it is sure to create controversy and confusion. I have always had the same counsel to give. No encouragement to marriages of this character should be given among our people. Let the colored brother enter into marriage with a colored sister who is worthy, one who loves God, and keeps His commandments. Let the white sister who contemplates uniting in marriage with the colored brother refuse to take this step, for the Lord is not leading in this direction.” 2SM 344
God cannot take to heaven literate black slaves:
“God cannot take to heaven the slave who has been kept in ignorance and degradation, knowing nothing of God or the Bible, fearing nothing but his master's lash, and holding a lower position than the brutes. But He does the best thing for him that a compassionate God can do. He permits him to be as if he had not been, while the master must endure the seven last plagues and then come up in the second resurrection and suffer the second, most awful death. Then the justice of God will be satisfied.” EW 276
Considering how even in the 21st century some Christians would find interethnic marriages abhorent (the idea of there is only one race has not sunk into their brains yet) I am not surprised by the advice Mrs White gave for her 19th century audience. Such marriages people were risking their very lives in the USA and I doubt the Adventist church considered poc to be their true human equals anyway as history proved. Her latter point regarded the plight of the slaves makes no sense and seem to be against the bible teachings of the resurrection. Slavery has always been with humans, even in bible times, so all the bible slaves who did not know God will be not resurrected? Is it a case of 'Every eye shall see him expect for the slaves from the Trans Atlantic slave trade'?
David JIB:
Haven't you heard? Everything you and I quote is taken out of context; just ask John Mark. That "out-of-context" thing is a new one on me. How about you; ever heard that? What a great argument.
Or, "they don't prove what you think they do." Now there's a slam-dunk. This one stopped me in dead in my tracks. I'm speechless.
How about this one: "It's not fair to judge Ellen White's by today's standards and expect that she should have been some sort of MLK." Yes indeed, another great argument. They just keep coming. Although neither you nor I "judged Ellen White by today's standards," it doesn't matter. As the saying goes: "it's an argument, might as well use it."
Here's mind blower: "You seem to hold to hold (sic) the view of inspiration that God drops a message untainted from heaven calling us earthlings to immediately adjust to the ways of heaven and just bypass all that messy historical development." John Mark must be a mind reader. Amazing. All that from just quoting Ellen White, impressive to say the least.
Here's a good one: "What's interesting to me, is that people can look at this fact in Ellen White's writings and it causes them great trouble, and yet they're capable of doing the necessary mental gymnastics to say that no such problems do not exist within the Bible." Hmmm.... Comparing Ellen White with Bible writers. That's new. Haven't heard that one either. I'll have to think on this a bit... Okay, done... Yep, all this mental gymnastics is making me tired.
Here's the closer: "How about expending that kind of energy on reading and discussing the Bible."
Sounds good to me. How about you David JIB?
tg
PS. John Mark: Honestly. You need to get some new material.
Tom where is the racism...particularly when white students can attend HBCUs at no cost. Black students are not given the same at predominantly white institutions... So, again, please show us where racism is so egregious towards person of european descent...
Tom all of that is admirable... But it does not mean you cannot have errant perceptions due to your having been imbrued in white privilege your entire life. You have had experiences with black individuals... Those experiences do not make you an expert on black people...and when you say something and someone who is actually black says you're off base the proper response is not. For you to double down and list what you think are your race relations bona fides and make the implication that because you have these experiences you are more authoritative on black people than black people.
John Mark
The issue is not the superiority of one ideology over the other but how we treat our fellow humans. Christians claim to have a unique foundation for acting ethically, but that is of little interest as long as there is scant evidence that it informs the behavior of Christians. After all, enslaving Africans and denying their descendants their equal rights was the work of Christians. Bull Connor and Lester Maddox would have taken great offense if you had suggested they were not Christians. Ideology doesn't provide much of a bulwark against human evil. Enlightened self-interest is not the perfect countervailing force, but it certainly has a better historical track record than the religions we're most acquainted with.
Humanism is built on a principle, that of the Golden Rule. It's not more complicated than that. The tragedy of Christianity is that it early on became a cognitive cult that regarded the Golden Rule as of no great consequence, certainly of far less consequence than tribal orthodoxies. The only thing that is unique about humanism--all cultures paying at least lip service to the Golden Rule--are the principles of the Enlightenment: freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. Neither Judaism, Christianity or Islam advanced these ideas that all modern constitutional democracies are based on.
To me the Civil Rights Era is fascinating on so many levels. It's a uniquely heroic era in American history, a modern retelling of the Exodus, if you will--and it's also a powerful story of human depravity dressed up in its Sunday best. Like nothing else it gives the lie to the idea that religion can be counted on to be on the side of good. As Jesus himself said, shouting 'Lord, Lord', can be a pretty hollow confession.
Ultimately I don't care about the philosophical legitimacy of humanism; what I care about is how we treat each other, individually and collectively.
Aage
K
It is not fair to this web site to extenuate this dispute. But racisn isn't in the skin. It is in the heart and mind of men. Never the less I think that thou does protest too much.
The bottom-line neither you nor I can change the heart of man. At least let us agree to disagree and move on to more pleasant thoughts of an earth made new. Tom Z
Aage Rendalen,
A book I am currently reading, "Reason for God" by Timothy Keller addresses these issues. The problem with the criticism you have leveled against Christianity is that it is Christianity which has given you the ethical values to make these criticisms. When you criticize Christians for not living up to the Golden rule, not standing up for human rights... you are essentially criticizing them for not being Christian enough. This is an eminently fair criticism of Christians, but ultimately it is a praise of Christianity. Keller also makes the point that Christianity should be judged by the ethical direction it moves people in. In other words, if Christianity takes people who are in a bad state spiritually and makes them better, but does not attract "those who are well and have no need of a physician" then Christians may at times not make a favorable comparison to non-Christians. For example, a zoo will make a great comparison to a hospital in terms of people's health, but no-one would argue that the hospital is harmful to people's health.
As to slavery and Civil rights, much of the argument on both sides were religious, and the secular arguments were ultimately ones that have their basis in religion. Self interest was certainly not on the side of freeing the slaves. Keller also brings out the Secular northern liberals were not originally as strong of proponents of civil disobedience and a direct attack on segregation as were the more religious black leaders. They believed in the ultimate goodness of the human nature, and thought that education should be enough to make the changes. Certainly MLK's call was hardly a secular one. Then of course there's the history of the Social Gospel calling for better treatment toward the poor, while rational self interest and Darwinism were a perfect fit for unfettered capitalism. Indeed the most brutal defense of unfettered capitalism came from the pen of an ardent atheist (Ayn Rand) who espoused "enlightened self interest" as the greatest virtue
So to sum it up, the record of Christians is spotty, but the record of Christianity is not. All the secular criticisms of christian inhumanity ultimately relies on the ethics which find their bedrock in Christianity. Therefore, Christianity constantly self-corrects itself as can be seen in the case of slavery and the Civil Rights movement. Secularism on the other hand is morality without a logical base. If there is no transcendent moral code, there is nothing to say Ayn Rand isn't right and it's every man to himself.
"Ultimately I don't care about the philosophical legitimacy of humanism; what I care about is how we treat each other, individually and collectively."
How should we treat each other? Wait, you can't answer that question because you don't care about philosophical legitimacy. Huh?
"George, you are usually the first one on this blog to point out disrespect and lack of Christian civility. Does that apply to you too?! You show an immense amount of disrespect towards our GC President and EGW. You are quick to call others to own up to your perceived disrespect. Are you willing to own your stuff?" - Rev. 12:14
Rev 12:14, whoever you are, please remember that it was Ted Wilson who preached to the church recommending that only books printed by the church should be read by SDAs. Whether he is the GC prez or not doesn't matter, and it's not the issue. Don't try to distract the attention from the issue. The issue is the futile recommendation he made. I know that it's easier to "lead" when people are ignorant, but... this tactic no longer works in the Era of the Internet!!!
I only wonder if EGW actually read those books that she condemned? Do you know for sure?
If she did, why did she condemn them?
If she didn't, why did she condemn them?
After reading spectrum for over a year now I have learnt as much about Americans as I have about Adventist. But this really is unbelievable, am I understanding correctly that over in the land of freedom you have separate conferencses for blacks and whites.
I recognize that over here we still have some work to do with indigenous Issues but I fail to see how segregated conferences are morally, biblically or legally justafiable.
PS
I hope that my shock is simply cultural misunderstanding but it sure will take some explaining.
Timp,
Your perception is right. There is a great separation still between the blacks and the whites in the US SDA church.
And worse, the discrimination against women is just as shameful. You probably read a lot about this also, so I don't have to go into details on women's discrimination. Just consider one event, that the president of the GC refused to pray for the commission-ordination of a woman in Australia!
And this is the so-called "remnant church"...?....
Tom I think the word you are looking for is 'extend'; to extenuate it would be to justify it's continuation... That said this exchange has demonstrated that little has changed in the nearly 50 years since the list of grievances was presented in 1943
John Mark
"When you criticize Christians for not living up to the Golden rule, not standing up for human rights... you are essentially criticizing them for not being Christian enough."
Only, John Mark, if you define morality as a uniquely Judeo-Christian concept, but altruism was not invented by either Moses or Jesus.
You go on to argue that "If there is no transcendent moral code, there is nothing to say Ayn Rand isn't right and it's every man to himself." That is of course true. But so what? It's like arguing that if parents don't teach their kids values, they won't be able to tell the difference between Ossama and Obama. In the real world, ethical outcomes are not determined by metaphysical narratives. The worst genocide of recent history took place in the most Christian country of Africa, Rwanda, and in Srebrenica, praying Serbs, who celebrated their status as children of God, massacred 8000 Muslim men and young boys with the same gusto as any secular monster before them.
The implication of what you're arguing seems to me to be that if Ayn Rand's "Law of the jungle" had been part of the Biblical narrative, it would have been ok. That's where we differ. I reserve the right to condemn attitudes and beliefs that are destructive whether they have religious or 'mere' secular backing. Humanism lauds what it considers to be constructive values and deplores those that are destructive. These are values rooted in the 'self-evident' idea that we are all human and endowed with certain 'inalienable rights'--to borrow the humanist terminology of the US Constitution (a document whose only reference to God is an oblique reference to 'Domino ("of the Lord") in the phrase 'Anno Domino.) Nobody quibbles with the civil and religious rights spelled out in the US Constitution, even though they are not anchored in any religious narrative.
Basing ethics on a religious footing makes the moral outcome no more certain than if our concepts of right and wrong had no sacred underpinning. Values can be enhanced or weakened by ideology, but everywhere values precede ideology.
Aage
"Mission: SPREAD THE TEACHINGS AND DOCTRINES OF THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH"
This is clearly fishy. Isn't the Church capable of doing it itself?
How many other organizations are needed to spread Adventism?
Apparently their "message" is also ultraconservative, right?
**************************
George...
Hope international clearly thought that the church was incapable of spreading the SDA message, because in their eyes, the church was in apostasy. They were self appointed watchmen to call the church back to the "straight testimony." And yes, their theology and message was and still is Adventist ultra conservative.
Back in the 80's and 90's, for every one scriptural quote in a typical article, you would find 10 SOP quotations. It produced some strange fire, so to speak. I would assume it isn't much different today. They were disfellowshipped in the early 90's. If I recall, the diversion of tithe monies had as much to do with this as did their doctrinal aberrations. (That's a whole nuther story)
What's interesting is how a whole movement could be built on quibbling over theological issues such as the human nature of Christ, and life style minors, while issues such as racial segregation and racism could be ignored on the ground that they were not part of "preaching the truth." It's also interesting that their idea of OFF was built on the unique Adventist doctrines listed on the masthead of their circular, with no mention of Christ himself (whom the NT refers to as the foundation and the cornerstone of all faith), his cross, and the grace of God.
The results speak for themselves.
Thanks...
Frank
One emendation. The everlasting gospel is indeed included on OFF masthead as being part of the foundation...equal with the other doctrines listed. That is also an aberration. The gospel, as revealed in the person and work of Christ is the only foundation the NT ever speaks of. To put the gospel on a level field with the Sabbath, etc., is to diminish Christ as the only center and only foundation of all faith.
Thanks...
Frank
Saying values proceed ideology is an ideology, and is therefore a self-contradictory statement. You say you laud whatever is constructive and condemn whatever is destructive, but how do you determine what is destructive and what is constructive, such a determination would be an ideology. What do you base the idea that all humans have equal intrinsic value on? Or do you hold to this position? If you don't hold this position then what is a constructive ethical outcome, which seems to be your guiding standard might be to let some die for others who are more valuable.
Humanists generally follow the presupposition that humans have intrinsic equal human value, and yet they have no basis for this, as this is not some observable fact of nature. You're right that they did not necessarily use theological reasoning to get to this point. Indeed for many the intrinsic value of man was probably an apriori assumption. However, enlightenment thinkers were not dropped onto earth from another planet totally disconnected from any earthling civilization. They happened to have come in Europe after centuries of Christian thought. Therefore, it is not far fetched to think that their assumptions about humanity may have been Christian ones even if they rejected Christianity. There's a reason the enlightenment arose from a Christian land. The constitutional ideas certainly don't seem self-evident to the Arab world, and they would certainly quibble with them. Why does it matter if we have a different ideology as long we come up with the same basic ethics? Because if you ideology under-girding those ethics is not solid, it will not last.
As to Christians committing atrocities I have already addressed that. Essentially your complaint about them is that they are not being Christian enough, well that's hardly an argument against Christian thinking.
"The implication of what you're arguing seems to me to be that if Ayn Rand's "Law of the jungle" had been part of the Biblical narrative, it would have been ok."
This is not entirely the case. I hold to their being intrinsic good in goodness, and that God is good, because he is good, rather good being good because it is from God. If something hurts it hurts. However, things like the equality of humanity, the intrinsic value of humanity over all other things... have no basis in the material world.
Dear Kevin Josey:
You are sharp as ever. Glad to run into you, here. I trust that your family is well.
Tom, I love reading your comments, typically, and have done so for some time. You are a delightfully original thinker.
However, what might surprise you is this: Your responses, here—the pattern of your comments, in their essential content—have been somewhat, well, textbook; i.e., of a kind that Kevin and I have seen all of our lives.
By this, I mean, we rather expect, when talking to white people with certain views of race, to face a) dismissal, then b) outrage, then c) withdrawal, in that order; that is, pretty much the sequence you have utilized, here.
It remains astounding, to me, to hear the utter lack of humility many white people employ when talking about racism with Black people. It is befuddling.
Because of how long you've lived with teeth, any predictions you make about enamel, based on your experience, I am bound to take seriously.
This is especially true because I've never been a dentist.
HA
Thank you Harry.
Enamel is a crystaline coating of the crowns of human teeth. exchanges like this set too many people's teeth on edge. I remain adamant that racisim is pandemic. Even the twelve tribes of Israel couldn't get along. I voted for Obama and plan to again.
You will hear no more from me on this subject no matter the provocation. Sinerely Tom Z
Excellent article Dr. Baker. I resonate with your sentiment that the litmus test of Theology and Ideology is how we treat one another. The passive silence, indifference and apathy of our church towards issues of socioeconomic and racial inequality, especially during the Jim Crow and Civil Rights eras, does not speak well for Adventism. Ellen White and other Adventist pioneers who could rightly be called "conservative Adventists" got it right. They were vocal advocates for freeing and educating the slaves, women's suffrage and temperance. They were neither socially neutral nor socially aloof, but struck an even balance between their heaven-bound ideology while being of some earthly good to the poor, disadvantaged and oppressed here on earth below. We have to get back in touch with our "real" Adventist Christian roots and constructively ENGAGE with the community that we are trying to reach with the Third Angels' Messages. God bless.
Harry
I am enclosing my Sunday School lesson as a treacher of the Heritage Class at Reid memorial Presbyterian Church written as a story--this dates back 12 years. Please note my bottom-line and a life long conviction that we are all kin and all stand in need of redemption.
Ruth
The book of Ruth is an epic appendage to the Book of Judges.
It was written in the days of the judges, as the introduction tells us.
There is strong speculation that it was written by Samuel. The tender nature of the story suggests Samuel or one with his sensitivity wrote the first version. The story has all the elements of a good novel: coping with adversity, tragedy, fidelity, intrigue, negotiations, and a happy ending. (A Grapes of Wrath Story with a Happy Ending)
Once upon a time in the land of Judah in the city of Bethlehem there was a severe drought. The land was barren as the dust bowl of Kansas in the 1930’s. Elimelech, a citizen and property owner of Bethlehem, took his wife Naomi and their two sons Mahlon and Chilion and traveled East, North of the Dead Sea into the high plateau of the land of Moab inhabited largely by the children of Lot.
Soon after they arrived, Elimelech died and his two sons married young women of Moab. Within ten years both Mahlon and Chilion died. Naomi, learning that the famine in Judah had ended, As a widow without means of support in Moab, she determined to return to Bethlehem and her kin. Although she was close to her daughters-in-laws, she urged them to remain in Moab and remarry. Orpah did return home. Ruth determined to stay with her mother-in-law.
Ruth’s response to Naomi is one of the great pieces of Hebrew literature. The King James Version preserved Ruth’s response as memorable English prose.
“Intreat me not to leave the, or to return from following after thee:
for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God, my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.” Ruth 1:16,17
The two women travel alone on foot for about 80-100 miles through the very country that Jesus describes as where a “man fell among thieves”.
Upon returning to Bethlehem, Naomi is surrounded by friends—wanting all the news since the long absence. Naomi begins her lament: she went forth full and returns empty. As we all do, she blames God for her misfortune and asks to be called Mara “bitter”.
Recall early in the Exodus, the Children of Israel, after crossing the Red Sea, came to Marah so named because of its bitter water. Moses was instructed to cast a tree into the well and the water became sweet or fresh.
We are now going to see how the bitterness of Naomi’s life becomes sweet once again. History tells us she became the mother-in-law to the future King David and eventually to Jesus Christ.
Naomi and Ruth arrived in Bethlehem at the time of the barley harvest. Ruth proposes to go and glean in the fields. Gleaning was a custom out of the laws of Moses. “When thou cutest down thine harvest in the field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands.” Deu. 24: 19
That lesson should have been burned into the hearts of all land owners and shop keepers. (It is interesting to note that the Atlanta Bread Company and others make their day old products available to Golden Harvest and other charities.)
By chance, providence, or through planning by Naomi; Ruth begins her gleaning in the fields near those of Boaz, a prosperous farmer and kinsman of Elimelech. Apparently the fields were not well marked as to ownership. Ruth soon was gleaning in the fields of Boaz. She caught his eye. Of course, he made inquiry as to her identity. He was acquainted with Naomi and her story. He was impressed with Ruth’s devotion and support of her mother-in-law. He undoubtedly was also impressed with her beauty, charm, and industry. He gave orders to leave generous portions of grain for her to glean and instructed her to glean only in his fields.
Ruth returned home that evening with a bountiful harvest. Naomi was impressed and learning of the source immediate set in motion plans to encourage the relationship. She instructed Ruth to bathe, put on perfume, dress well and go to the harvest festival and in proper time lay down at Boaz’s feet.
In the night, Boaz discovers Ruth, she explains her mission. He commends her and protects her reputation and sends her home quietly. Naomi is elated. She tells Ruth “The man will not rest until he has finished the thing this day.” It was obvious that Boaz didn’t need more land, but Ruth was a captivating young woman. Moreover, Naomi wasn’t a mother in Judah for nothing!
According to the custom of the day, Boaz seeks out a nearer kinsman and broaches the opportunity to purchase prime farm land. The kinsman readily accepts, then Boaz springs the catcher!
Ruth goes with the land! The kinsman must make her his wife and raise children in the name of Elimelech. The near kinsman defers.
Boaz, as the next in line says; “I will gladly purchase the land and take Ruth as my wife.” The deal is sealed in front of ten witnesses at which time the near kinsman offers his shoe to Boaz as a sign of agreement of covenant. Today it would be with a handshake and a notarized deed.
It is critical to note that in the transaction the term, redeem and redeemer are used. Meaning to buy back! Out of that transaction and subsequent marriage came a son named Obed who was the grandfather of David and in the direct linage of Jesus of Nazareth.
The women of Bethlehem rejoice with Naomi saying prophetically: “ Blessed be the Lord, which hath not left thee this day without a kinsman, that his name may be famous in Israel. And he shall be unto thee a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of thine old age: for thy daughter in law, which loveth thee, which is better to thee than seven sons, hath born him.” Ruth. 4: 14,15
What a story. But what are its lessons?
• We are all kin.
• There are no foreigners
• God is no respecter of persons
• Christ is willing to redeem not only His creation but share His inheritance with the redeemed.
• The Gospel Story carries the Bride/Bridegroom theme from beginning to end.
• Solomon the Great, Great Grandson of Boaz tells the story this way: “He brought me into the banqueting house and his banner over me was love”. Song of Songs 2: 4
• Paul Tells it this way:
11Remember that once you were not Jewish physically. Those who called themselves “the circumcised” because of what they had done to their bodies called you “the uncircumcised.” 12Also, at that time you were without Christ. You were excluded from citizenship in Israel, and the pledges£ God made in his promise were foreign to you. You had no hope and were in the world without God.
13But now through Christ Jesus you, who were once far away, have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14So he is our peace. In his body he has made Jewish and non-Jewish people one by breaking down the wall of hostility that kept them apart. 15He brought an end to the commandments and demands found in Moses’ Teachings so that he could take Jewish and non-Jewish people and create one new humanity in himself. So he made peace. 16He also brought them back to God in one body by his cross, on which he killed the hostility. 17He came with the Good News of peace for you who were far away and for those who were near. 18So Jewish and non-Jewish people can go to the Father in one Spirit.
19That is why you are no longer foreigners and outsiders but citizens together with God’s people and members of God’s family. 20You are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Christ Jesus himself is the cornerstone. 21In him all the parts of the building fit together and grow into a holy temple in the Lord. 22Through him you, also, are being built in the Spirit together with others into a place where God lives. Eph. 2: 12-22 The Message, The Bible in Contemporary Language.
Praise God that He gave us Jesus Christ through Boaz and Ruth.
We are children of the King!
Tom Z
It would be ironic for Pastor Ted Wilson to promote that members only read books printed by the church (religous facism or what?!) when the most important pioneer of Adventism - Ellen White did not practise this limited method of research when writing her books - I hope the Ted Wilson story is an Adventist myth, I don't know the man but such a prounouncement would make him an idiot. Unless the church decides printing the Complete Works of Shakespeare is another money spinner.
John Mark
I'm not a philosophical humanist. I don't care if I'm philosophically justified in advocating for the equal rights of all humans. My position is that talk is cheap, and that ethics with religious underpinnings delivers no better results than moral systems that don't have any, and, in my opinion, our experience with Segregation and Aparteid is consistent with that claim. You come close to arguing that since moral values belong to Christianity, any ethical charges against Christians amount to complimenting Christianity for its superior values (akin to the adage that 'hypocrisy is the compliment that vice pays to virtue.') The truth of the matter is that Bible-derived values reflect the same confused mix of in-group favoritism and out-group exclusion that we see in most ethical systems of the world. Moses doesn't have anything over Confusius or Lao Tse, and both fall short of the UN's Declaration of Human Rights.
As for your claim that "Saying values precede ideology is an ideology, and is therefore a self-contradictory statement," I disagree. I believe that a child growing up in any culture will favor kindness over cruelty. That's not ideology, but a fact.
Ideology is how we justify our values, be they good or bad. People are born at the intersection of self-interest and altruism, and all ethical systems reflect this fact. A measure of selfishness is necessary for survival, while a measure of altruism is required to build societies. Finding the right balance is the key to creating a successful community, and I don't think we can argue that Christianity is any more likely to get that balance right, when applied to nation-building, than secular humanism. Quite to the contrary.
PS Tom often gets beat up for pointing out what is self-evident, that having been the victim of gross injustice, does not automatically mean that you're devoid of the oppressors' passions, as well as for his view that today the SDA African-American community is the primary driver in wanting to hold on to separate conferences. Thirty years ago the push was to take it one step further and establish black Union conferences. Knowing how murky racial attitudes among a segment of white SDAs were at the time, I can readily appreciate the move to remain separate. Separate, racially based SDA conferences, is a scandal, but the reason for their persistence seems to be different from what most Europeans assume. The GC, for PR reasons alone, would want integrated conferences across the land. To them, as to most whites, history has moved on and created new realities. I will let black SDAs be the judge of that.
Aage
"It would be ironic for Pastor Ted Wilson to promote that members only read books printed by the church (religous facism or what?!) ..." - @ Denny
If I am not mistaken it was in his inaugural speech, or in the first address at the ASI that he stated that. There was an article about it on the Spectrum blog. You can find it doing a little research. Or may be someone will remember it and will give you the source right away after I post this. I just remember the fact, because it was very "impressive," ... I mean, scary!!!
Try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdbUL6_8Lyk
Aage Rendalen,
Well we're probably talking past each other at this point . You assume an absolute way to judge moral systems, claiming this is better than that. "My position is that talk is cheap, and that ethics with religious underpinnings delivers no better results than moral systems that don't have any..." but what's qualifies as a better result? The answer to that question is a philosophical one. Essentially you're using a tautology, "It's better because it's better" You use words like "right balance" and "successful" to describe why one system would be better than an another, but admit you have no basis for saying what is right or what is successful, as you reject philosophical basis. Your thinking assumes a transcendent moral code that can judge all other codes including your own, on the basis of its' rightness and success, and yet you admit that seek no such code, and you believe in nothing that is transcendent. To sidestep such an problem you claim that you don't care whether your view is intellectually justifiable, which is a strange position for a rationalist to take. As a final point, the validity of the Christian claim is not based in Moses, it is based in a transcendent lawgiver. I realize you don't believe in such a God, but your ethics assume it.
John Mark
You want to turn this into a debate about the intellectual merits of philosophical systems. When I say that religiously founded systems of ethics are no better than secular ones, I'm speaking about outcomes for people. For black Americans and South-Africans it made no difference that they were oppressed by people who believed in a transcendent code of ethics. Nobody has every said, 'thank God we're being denied our human rights by people of faith and not by those awful secular atheists we've heard so much about.' It doesn't matter to the oppressed what their persecutors believe in their hearts; the only thing that matters is how they act, and history has shown that Christians are no more likely to act decently than rank unbelievers.
I frankly don't care if Christian ethics is philosophically superior to other systems of morality. As long as Christianity can't demonstrate better outcomes, measured in terms of reducing human suffering and increasing human freedom and prosperity than rival systems, I see no reason to accept that it is better.
Aage
It matters a great deal what people believe in their heart. The evidence simply suggests that some non-Christians are more non-Christians in their hearts then Christians. They just don't whom they worship. Christianity expects this, though. We all have a dual nature as fallen sons and daughters of God, and we're not saved by being better than others, we're saved by grace and that only makes us better than what we were.
Aage
Thank you! It is refreshing to find someone with the analytical and literary skills as one's advocate.
Tom Z
"...The bottom-line neither you nor I can change the heart of man. At least let us agree to disagree and move on to more pleasant thoughts of an earth made new. Tom Z"
I find it interesting that when you are being counselled by those in the know on black issues, your response is to shut down dialogue. In the past, when asked why you persist on commenting on SDA issues even though you are no longer a part of Adventism, you answered that you felt compelled to try to get others to see, what you consider to be, the light. Why do you believe the heart of man can be changed in one instance and not in the other? Could it be because you believe in schooling others but not in being schooled? hmm.
carole
C.
I would never cut off dialogue or counselling. I believe the active public of Spectrum is not interested in prolonging a private disagreement. Rather than Alex telling me, so I took the inititive. The issue of the heart of man is one thing---loyalty to a failed theology is quite another.
I now know to "Accent the positive, eliminate the negative, and don't mess with mister in-between"
Granted I haven't walked in your shoes but neither have you walked in mine. I do assert that I have over 50 years of advocacy of Black involvment and acceptance in higher education. Just one point--I recruited the first Black SDA dentist to the faculty at MCG. Who now retired is first elder of the "White" SDA church in Augusta. Although not an Adventist, we remain good friends and I on occasion attend his SS Class. We have a free and easy personal relationship.
The issues you champion have been settled legally during the Johnson Administration---but neither he nor the Supreme Court could change the heart of man. That is and remains my principal point.
Your persistance is an excellent example of pursuing with passion a denial of the obvious.
Tom Z
Harry, it's been too long; I pray you have been blessed in the interim. Holla when you get a minute...awesumtenor at yahoo dot com... to borrow from the chinese proverb I have been living in "interesting times" for the last year but God came through as He is wont to do...
Carole, winner winner, fri-chik dinner... you hit this one out of the park... as I noted before... truth tends to be inconvenient for some... your response brought to mind the etymology of the word sincere... it comes from latin; in ancient times, if a potter made a vessel out of inferior clay or fashioned it such that it was flawed, sometimes it would develop cracks in the kiln. If he was unscrupulous, he would melt wax and pour it into the vessel so it would seal the cracks. The buyer would not know the vessel was flawed until the took it home and placed something hot in it; then the wax would melt and the contents of the vessel would leak through. The scrupulous potters would advertise their wares as guaranteed to be "sine ceres" - without wax. They guaranteed that what they presented to the buyer as being sound and without flaw was just that; that there was no intent to deceive or defraud... some of our brethren would do well to take notice; a well intentioned fraud is still a fraud... and there are some capable of seeing the fraud for what it is no matter how hard the attempt to conceal it is...
This disagreement is not private. It is for all to read. My responses and expressed thoughts are no more or less than those of anyone else. If the problem is addressing someone by name, then I will not do so.
I don't know what the 'active public' means but if the moderators are unhappy with what I have written, please let me know.
I would ask this question. In the future, when women's ordination is sanctioned by the church, if a women, nonetheless, experience discrimination within the denomination because of their femaleness, would those concerns be dismissed because discrimination is no longer the policy?
The Law provides redress for discrimination on the basis of race, religion,color, gender, or national origin.
Jesus taught us to pray: "Our Father which art in heaven" To pray that prayer is an admission we humans are kin regardless of race, religion, color, gender, or national origin.
Yet like original sin all are infected. The history of the treatment African Americans in America is a disgrace and a blight.
That does not mean that African Americans are free from racism.
That was and is my point in response to this blog. Having expressed myself clearly and openly I have been labeled an insensitive racist and dogmatic biased commentator. That is the clearest evidence that my initial observation was and is on point. I abhor racism in any form by any race, religion, color, gender, or national orign. Institutional racism or Jingoism is vulgar and unchristian as much as individual racism and/or Jingoism is sinnful. But to deny its existance in any culture or race is
folly.
I like Thomas Jefferson: I Have Sworn Upon the Altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
My record in church and in the university is witness to my fight against discrimination of any sort including classification or labeling. As far as the Seventh-day Adventist Church is concerned. Dr. Calvin Rock is the most effective spokesperson on the topic. As president of Oakwood and as Vice President of the General Conference and my colleague on the Board of Trustees of LLU I found him a voice of reason across a wide spectrum of Academic and cultural issnes. Retired in Las Vagas he remains a lucid voice of reason. I found him intellectually superior to his colleagues at the G.C. yet a most approachable and charming administrator.
Racism is a sin but not isolated to any subset of Americans. Tom Z
Friends
The argument that "no one can understand unless they have walked in my shoes" is true BUT that goes both ways.
Having had a "similar go around" with an author here on Spectrum last year I can sympathize with Tom.
Tom is NO racist!! He has always spoken out "strongly" against anything that hints at racism.
All the best
Fred
Thanks Fred
Tom
It seems that when discrimination of LGBT and women is discussed, there is much passionate expression by the supporters social justice; but when the discussion is around issues of race, there is much silence.
Sophia: Well, it has over 100 comments in two days. I don't call that silence exactly.
I will also support Tom and I also support Sirje and her observations.
I know for a fact that there has been repeated efforts through the years to integrate the black conferences and ALL of the resistance to a color blind system comes from the Blacks themselves.
It is beyond their ability to admit that they suffer from the same foibles as whites as Tom has suggested. Black men suffer from the same pride and myopic pettiness as any other race. It is this that has kept the conferences separate for at least 20 years.
Kevin Josey suggesting that Tom knows nothing about blacks unless he is one, is false on its face unless Kevin is also willing to admit that he knows nothing about Whites including his ridiculous statement that whites "have been imbrued in white privilege your entire life.".
Michael
The question has been asked but not answered. Yes, the Black conferences could integrate into the White conferences; but, if integration if is the predominate desire of the non-black conferences, why don't they then integrate into the black ones?
Since ALL of the resistance to a color blind system comes from the Blacks themselves, maybe the others should lead by example and give up their conferences for the sake of being Christians. And maybe Black history should be ignored altogether, but isn't there a truism cautioning that tossin out history may mean repeating it.
Dear Tom:
Thanks for your posts.
First, you're probably not going to like this, I expect.
But, as well, I've found it very typical in situations like this one that the white person with whom I'm corresponding does what you've done—promises no more comment, only to, immediately, well, comment, and often at some length, much as you have also done. So, perhaps, to "c) withdrawl," I should add, maybe, d) restate.
Your transcription of Ruth is lovely. I share your general conclusions about it, and from it.
Ruth, however, to be clear, is not a story about racism. There was no notion of "race" yet developed at that time. The story of race corrupts the conclusions you've rightly reached in Ruth's story: That we are all kin, that there are no foreigners, and that God is no respecter of persons. Race aborts all of these ideas.
As such, I think that there is a matter of authenticity and language at play, here. Put another way, you are an expert in dentistry, and a person who thinks about it every day. (I mean, maybe you've even dreamed about some aspect of it, or perhaps you've done so many times.) So, when a person comes up to you, and starts talking about dentistry, I'm sure that it's very clear to you if that person is a dentist, or knows anything about being one, or not.
Please accept that many Black people think about race an awful lot, and that there is a reason to do this that white people do not yet possess. So, when we hear white people speak about it, their lack of experience with basic concepts about it typically shines through. Some of these concepts are simply factual ones, having to do with, say, history. But many more have to do with the specific experience of being subject to racism—a victim of it—that Black people usually know very well.
(I wrote about some of this in 2009, for an essay titled, "Are There Racists at Old Navy, or Do They Think That We’re Dummies?" http://harryallen.info/?p=2714)
This language issue is what I hear in a lot of what you say. You may not even know that, to many Black people, ending comments like yours by saying that you voted for Obama, or that you helped get a talented Black student into a good medical school, merely induces groans. These kinds of admissions do not convey to us that you are just or that you are not possibly a racist suspect, particularly in the wake of more immediate concerns, such as those we're discussing here.
As well, when you make statements like, "Racism is a two way street," "Racism cuts both ways," "That does not mean that African Americans are free from racism," "Racism is a sin but not isolated to any subset of Americans," what do you mean by these words? Do you mean that Black people mistreat white people in matters due, or related, to racial classification? Do you mean that Black people bear an equal share for the weight of racism, historically? Or do you mean something else?
(Furthermore, did you say our discussion, here, on this post, is "a private disagreement," and imply it might not be appropriate for a post, above, about racism? Did I understand that clearly?)
Conclusions like these, on the face, are truly odd to many Black people. They are perhaps as odd as if someone said, "Tooth decay cuts both ways."
So, without even getting into the content, really, of your conclusions, I'm just trying to say that, if you're going to talk to Black people about a given issue—particularly race—you should either speak in a way that conveys you are familiar with doing so, or, perhaps, you should just ask more questions.
Or, perhaps you should just listen.
Mere suggestions, these.
HA
Colleagues:
C. Forde has elegantly posited the very question I have, admittedly only recently, begun to think about, and for which I am now seeking an answer:
Why aren't white conferences merely collapsed—folded—into the regional ones?
That is, doing this would end the speckled quality of North American SDA organization, at the administrative level, no?
HA
Harry
Black conferences were established at the behest of black SDAs, spurred by a particularly ugly episode during WWII, when a black SDA woman died because the SDA hospital in DC refused to treat her because of the color of her skin. While I understand why black SDAs want to preserve an administrative domain free of racism--even if at present we're talking more about white insensitivity to the concerns of African Americans than racism proper--I find it somewhat disingenuous to suggest that the "white" conferences be absorbed into the much smaller, and ethnically much narrower, black conferences. I put quotes around white, because I assume that the non-African American SDA churches no longer are lilly white. White people are on the way to becoming a minority in many states of the US, and it would surprise me if this reality is not reflected in SDA churches.
Disingenuous also because the issue is no longer primarily skin color but culture. I assume that what's driving black SDAs to want to hold on to their own conferences is rooted in much more than discomfort with uncomfortable whites. You'll have to correct my assumptions, but such as they are they suggest that blacks love their own music and the passion and language they bring to it and to worship in general, and that they'd be loath to give it all up in favor of the pervasive blandness of mainstream SDAism.
When Koreans operate their own churches, it's not because they hate white or black churches. They simply prefer to worship in the context of their culture, and I assume that's the way African Americans feel.
The reality is that nobody will not want to integrate into a subculture they don't feel at home in. For all the talk about the 'melting pot' that turned Germans and Scandinavians into Americans, the reality is that we are, as some scholars say, much more a salad bowl than a melting pot. We'll only have one common culture when people begin to intermarry across all racial and cultural barriers, and we're a long ways from seeing that as a common thing.
If Richmond, Virginia, where I live, is anything to go by, blacks and whites live in two separate worlds. Go to any public events, such as arts and music and food festivals, and you walk into a world as segregated as that of the 1950s. To me, as an immigrated Scandinavian, it's still shocking to see how ethnically divided the old South is. For blacks to give up their separate conferences in such a setting, would mean that they, as a minority, would have to check much of their worship culture at the church door. As long as the land is not integrated, I don't see why churches need to be. You could, of course, argue that a church should be able to create a new reality that transcended race and ethnicity, but I don't see any evidence of that happening.
Aage
Aage
There is evidence of the "integrating" of the churches in the DC area. Sligo and Capital Memorial are just two such examples. The SDA church is probably more integrated than "the land" in general. Richmond as the Confederate Capital, and going further south on I-95 is still "spotty" and in many areas not integrated to speak of. I agree with you that this is very slow but it is improving. I believe integrating the "regional" conferences would remain a difficult challenge as the basic concept of "majority rule" would dilute the "power and influence" (and as you point out) the "control" by the blacks as the minority. Culturally the differences are also pronounced in worship style etc. which are slow to change but the examples above show it is possible.
Fred
Dear Aage:
Thanks for these generous responses.
However, I've not suggested anything. I've asked a question; actually two:
1. Why aren't white conferences merely collapsed—folded—into the regional ones?
2. Doing this would end the speckled quality of [the] North American SDA organization, at the administrative level, no?
I think your response is to my first question. (You say it's "disingenuous," but by definition, how can a question be so?) However, I'm not sure you are answering it.
I'm also a bit unclear as to the meaning of your answers in several places, and have questions about those. I've written my queries, below. Some are multi-part in form.
Now, I know there are quite a few questions, and so you may not be inclined to answer them or take them seriously. If so, I understand. I hear white people not take Black people's requests seriously all the time. As you, yourself, may have noticed, this is a huge component of the race system.
However, please answer all of them, if you'd be so kind, in a way I might readily understand. (My comprehension is not as high as it should be.) Take as much time as you care, or as you need, to take. Hey: We may even get a good book out of this!
I've noticed your writing, here, at Spectrum is very thoughtful and detailed, so I look forward to reading your ideas.
Please:
You say:
"While I understand why black SDAs want to preserve an administrative domain free of racism--even if at present we're talking more about white insensitivity to the concerns of African Americans than racism proper...."
Question 3: What do you mean when you say "an administrative domain free of racism," and is that what you are saying Black regional conferences are? If so, or if not, why are they this way?
Question 4: What happens to Black people at Black SDA conferences that doesn't happen to them at white ones, thus creating "administrative domain[s] free of racism"? What happens to Black SDAs at white conferences, creating, presumably, the opposite effect?
Question 5: a) What is "white insensitivity," b) what is "racism proper," and c) what are the differences between the two?
Question 6: How much "white insensitivity" is there in "racism proper"?
Question 7: How much "racism proper" is there in "white insensitivity"?
I ask, because you speak about "white insensitivity" and "racism proper" as though they are two entities, as opposed to aspects of one, lovingly curled up inside aspects of another, like parts of a Klein bottle.
I just want to be sure of what we're talking about.
You say:
"I find it somewhat disingenuous to suggest that the 'white' conferences be absorbed into the much smaller, and ethnically much narrower, black conferences."
Question 8: Why? That is, small organizations swallow larger ones all the time. Why would this necessarily be an obstacle, or an insurmountable one?
Question 9: What do you mean when you speak of "ethnically much narrower, black conferences"?
Question 10: Why do you not capitalize the "B" in "Black"?
That is, your punctuation and grammar are excellent (see next statement). I'm guessing you would capitalize the "R" in "Cincinnati Reds," so why not "Black" when it comes to Black people?
You say:
"I put quotes around white, because I assume that the non-African American SDA churches no longer are lilly white. White people are on the way to becoming a minority in many states of the US, and it would surprise me if this reality is not reflected in SDA churches."
Question 11: Why would these facts, themselves, if true, prevent white conferences from being folded into regional ones?
You say:
"The issue is no longer primarily skin color but culture."
Question 12: When you say "the issue," you refer to the one which is operative in...what way, or manner? That is, 'the issue' that has what effect, at present?
Question 13: This statement seems to suggest that either a) Black people who share the culture of white people are not mistreated on the basis of racial classification by white people, or that b) Black people do not share the culture of white people.
Which is it, please, and why do you say so?
Question 14: What is white culture?
You say:
"I assume that what's driving black SDAs to want to hold on to their own conferences is rooted in much more than discomfort with uncomfortable whites."
Question 15: Why do you assume this?
Question 16: In what is what's driving white SDAs, to want to hold on to their own conferences, rooted?
You say:
"You'll have to correct my assumptions, but such as they are they suggest that blacks love their own music and the passion and language they bring to it and to worship in general, and that they'd be loath to give it all up in favor of the pervasive blandness of mainstream SDAism."
Question 17: Do you mean these—"their own music and the passion and language they bring to it and to worship in general"—as opposed to jobs?
That is, that Black people want to hold on to music and worship over jobs? Do you mean that that is the primary concern at the Black conference administration level under discussion, here: Music and worship [styles]? Do you mean these over jobs?
If so, why?
If no, then why did you not mention jobs?
Question 18: How do white SDAs feel about their music, the passion and language they bring to it, and to worship in general?
Question 19: You stated, above, that Black conferences began shortly after a Black female was fatally mistreated by white people.
Why would the fact of someone dying under those circumstances make others say, "We need our own conferences?" In other words, if they didn't create their own conferences, what were they afraid would happen?
Question 20: What role did music and worship [styles] play in any aspect of this original decision? If it didn't, when did it change?
You say:
"When Koreans operate their own churches, it's not because they hate white or black churches. They simply prefer to worship in the context of their culture, and I assume that's the way African Americans feel."
Question 21: How has this fact affected the development of Korean conferences, as opposed to Black ones? What do you think accounts for the differences, if any?
Question 22: Do white people prefer to worship in the context of their culture? How has this fact affected the development of white conferences?
You say:
"The reality is that nobody will not want to integrate into a subculture they don't feel at home in."
Question 23: This seems to be a direct answer to Question 1, above.
Is it?
You say:
"For all the talk about the 'melting pot' that turned Germans and Scandinavians into Americans, the reality is that we are, as some scholars say, much more a salad bowl than a melting pot.
Interesting. I've been calling it a melting plot for years.
You say:
"We'll only have one common culture when people begin to intermarry across all racial and cultural barriers, and we're a long ways from seeing that as a common thing."
Question 24: Why would such a "free-for-all" be in the interests of white people, given that whiteness is a genetically recessive trait in our species?; i.e., humans tend to be brown females.
In other words, the "open season" you describe would make short work of white people, given that they are the planetary minority.
Question 25: To what degree is this probable elimination of the white phenotype, and/or some aspect of this, the underlying basis for the failure of white conferences to fold into Black ones?
You say:
If Richmond, Virginia, where I live, is anything to go by, blacks and whites live in two separate worlds. Go to any public events, such as arts and music and food festivals, and you walk into a world as segregated as that of the 1950s.
Question 26: Why is it this way, do you think, and what, do you think, does this have to do with my first question, above?
You say:
To me, as an immigrated Scandinavian, it's still shocking to see how ethnically divided the old South is.
Question 27: In what ways is it different, in Scandinavia, if one is not white?
You say:
For blacks to give up their separate conferences in such a setting, would mean that they, as a minority, would have to check much of their worship culture at the church door.
Question 28: Are you saying, by implication, that if white people gave up their separate conferences—even you admit theirs have been separate longer than the Black ones; that they were formed separate [see "the SDA hospital in DC," above]—this would mean that they, as a planetary minority, would have to check much of their worship culture at the world's church door?
That is, white people are a minority on Earth, but, perhaps, an even smaller minority in the worldwide SDA church. Yet, according to one estimate several years ago, Black under-representation at the GC level averages about 2,200%. (I do not currently have the source of this estimate, thus it may be invalid.) So, the arrangements under discussion here, and typically advanced—that Black conferences be eliminated—appear to work in white power interests, mostly.
Thoughts?
You say:
As long as the land is not integrated, I don't see why churches need to be. You could, of course, argue that a church should be able to create a new reality that transcended race and ethnicity, but I don't see any evidence of that happening.
You have doubly answered your implied question. That's why they need to be: To create a new reality that transcends race and ethnicity, and because we don't see any evidence of that happening.
Many kind thanks. I look forward to your answers, Aage.
HA
Aage,
Maybe Harry already asked this in his 28 questions, but why would integrated conferences have to mean integrated churches. I would expect that if we gave up the officially segregated conferences, the churches would still largely stay same along historic lines just like we still have black and white neighborhoods. However, it would no longer be an official and established segregation like we have at the conference organization level. Different styles worships could be maintained and we wouldn't have the PR disaster of segregated conferences.
John Mark
That's a good point. I image at that point the sticking point would be money.More specifically the stewardship of the money contributed by majority African-American SDA churches. But you're right, it would be one way to improve the image of Adventism in the Southern states. Whether it would benefit black SDAs in the South is another matter.
Aage
I'm all for all conferences to amalgamate into the current regional conferences. No matter who amalgamated with who, there will people not happy with the change. So let's go in te direction of the churches and conferences with the most vibrancy. If anyone, or any churches want to disaccociate with Adventism over this, them let them! It's a free country.
Harry
You have to realize that I'm not an Adventist--left 30 years ago--and I have had no interaction with the parallel world of black SDA conferences and very little with mainstream SDA churches. For the last 13 years I've been teaching French and Spanish in a black city high school in Richmond, and that has probably influenced my views as much as my Adventist past.
Now, as for your questions:
1. Why not dissolve the mainstream SDA organizational structure at the conference level and integrate the churches involved into the black conference structure? Organizational integration has to work the way integrating parallel traffic lanes work, if it's going to be successful. The leaders of white and black conferences and churches would have to integrate a new center lane in a fair way and thus create a new structure that would be neither black nor white. But for all whites to move into the black lane or all blacks into the white one would not work.
2. About the mixed-bag quality of SDA churches, I can no longer speak from knowledge.
3. "What do you mean when you say "an administrative domain free of racism," and is that what you are saying Black regional conferences are? If so, or if not, why are they this way? I was referring to a conference run by blacks for blacks, respecting one's culture.
Question 4: "What happens to Black people at Black SDA conferences that doesn't happen to them at white ones, thus creating "administrative domain[s] free of racism"? What happens to Black SDAs at white conferences, creating, presumably, the opposite effect?" I imagine that blacks don't step on each other toes the way outsiders are more likely to do.
Question 5: a) What is "white insensitivity," b) what is "racism proper," and c) what are the differences between the two? Answer: At times well-meaning white will use expressions that are deeply offensive to blacks, such as saying "you people", etc. This certainly used to be the hallmark of a racist way of talking, but mostly--I think--whites commit these faux pas out of ignorance. I know of one specific case where somebody was laughingly referring to her and her husband being 'porch monkeys' to a black couple, not having an inkling that the expression had a history (she had just heard it out of context and thought it funny). The problem for somebody who's black is to know who's simply culturally ignorant and who's speaking from disregard of black people. In a black conference you'd not have to deal with stuff like that.
Question 6: How much "white insensitivity" is there in "racism proper"? See above.
I have to cut off here for now. I'll answer the others later.
Aage
Aage, thanks for you comments. They show true insight. Like Harry, however, I'm not so sure about the disingenuous bit. You are right that the evidence for real change unfortunately can't be seen.
I also agree with you that culture also contributes to prejudice . In fact, humans, being who they are, will always find ways to denigrate the other as long as a difference can be highlighted.
Scandinavians are culturally different from the French who are different from the English in the same way that African Americans are culturally different from the West Indians who are different from Africans. And all these groups have at some point exhibted a cultural prejudice toward other members of their own race. Can we then be surprised when discrimination is extended to those that are visibly different. The major difference is that in modern history, it is one group that has predominately oppressed others. And I would hesitate to argue, that in the same position, none of the oppressed groups would not have done the same.
But I can't help but notice something where I live. In Toronto, the majority of SDA churches are Black and the congregation is of Caribbean descent. West Indian Adventist worship traditionally has been heavily influenced by the Anglican church and so their services had 'high church' overtones: no clapping, no rhythm, no guitars or drums, formal attire, hymns or classical music with the off country flavour thrown in (Jim Reeves). And any response to a pastoral point was limited, at most, to a hearty amen.
It is only recently that these Black churches have adopted African American style worship i.e. music, lengthy services, frequent responses etc.. Yet, in spite of the predominately similar worship styles, when Blacks became a noticable presence in any church that was predominately White, the Whites left. In the past few years there has been an influx of Eastern Europeans (Ukrainians and Romanians) to the churches and no White people have left the churches to which these newcomers flock. If anything, the newcomers have left because the Canadian SDA culture has proved too decadent for them. There is actually a greater difference between the Slavic and Canadian culture than between the West Indian and Canadian culture, and more similarities between the West Indian and Eastern European culture but it is the Whites who congregate together and it is the Blacks who are left apart. This all leads me to think that while culture definitely plays a large part in discrimination, prejudice, based on skin colour, may still be alive and well, hidden under the veneer of other perceived differences, enabling it to be unrecognized for what it is.
Aage and Mark have it right.
The other thing integration would do is remove redundant overhead and expenses. No black church would notice a change in the local church.
I think Aage is right on the disingenuous part. Tom was told he didnt know anything about "black" issues because he wasnt black, he was part of the privileged whites.
When you are talking to people who are complaining about being in the back of the bus near half a century ago, and you promote the idea of full integration, (something they all wanted) and then they wont integrate when they have had the chance for years and years, that is disingenuous.
Too many still want to hold the past against whites, becoming integrated would be like giving up their ammunition.
Those that dont want to integrate shouldnt have marched for integration in the 60's. When you give a person what they want, only to find out they dont really want it, you start to see what they REALLY want.
Michael
Too many folks seem to believe that Black people look forward to exchanges on the subject of race so that they can whine and complain and play the race card. I cannot and will not speak for all Blacks but I know many find this tiresome but engage in the hope that at some point something will stick.
To say that no one can speak to an issue unless it affects them directly is nonsense. I don't believe that has been suggested. What has been said is that most often, those on the inside have greater insight into the issue at hand and perhaps those who have had peripheral experiences might do well to listen rather than lecture. (This is not to say that those on the inside should not consider what those on the outside are saying because it is sometimes from a distance that situations can be better seen.)
Not all Black people look at racial issues in the same way. And Black people know that not all White people see racial issues through the same lens. I sense that while Aage and I may come from different perspectives on race, we are close together on much and most likely closer in viewpoint than I am with some Black people. Aage dialogues rather than pronounces.
Well written piece by Dr Baker.
I particularly enjoyed the following, which reflects my sentiments, too:
"I unapologetically see how the races—particularly whites and blacks in the United States—treat each other as a litmus test for the Christian-ness of our church. If we discriminate on the basis of race, no matter the correctness of our doctrines, we are not Christian, not followers of Jesus Christ."
I'm amazed, though, how quickly the comments switched from OFF to Regional Conferences.
Regarding the Regional/State conferences, I must point out that the conference structure in the NAD is NOT segregated. The cafeteria of the GC once was, but Regional and State conferences are not. There is no legally prescribed and enforced system of keeping Black and White believers apart. I can apply for a job in any conference, and would be able to legally work there as a pastor, and my membership can be held in any conference, be that Regional or State. What we do have are historically Black institutions, such as the Regional conferences and Oakwood University, and we should refer to them as such.
In the Jul-Aug 2008 issue of Adventist Today, Pastor Freddie Russell, then a local pastor in Baltimore MD, wrote about the SDA church's "Peculiar Institution" and called for a debate about reorganising the administrative structures across the North American Division. A good article with good intentions, it attempted to look at the entire apparatus, not merely the Regional conferences. (Ironically, Pastor Russell was soon after elected president of the [Regional] Allegheny West Conference.) To call for the abolition of just the Regional conferences is myopic, and, if done by Whites, mostly perceived as patronising.
When it comes to race-related issues such as this, we White Adventists have to first properly deal with our history and its longterm fallout (not yet happened) before we make suggestions and comments. We invented the race system, we enforced it, and we benefited from it, and continue to do so. And most of us continue to live in a bubble called "white privilege" which, by the way, is not something we choose.
Maybe OFF could address that up in a forthcoming issue... (fat chance)
Doctrine is more important than people. Being right trumps being loving.
But the church could have chosen to identify racial equality along with social justice as doctrines upon which it sought to be "right". Doctrine and people need not be opposed or unrelated. But for whatever reason, neither the Adventist church, or the Christian world, have made a point of elevating our treatment of others and our involvement in society's institutions as something of utmost importance. Put simply, the Christian church (not just SDA) has claimed to have the prophetic gift, has claimed the ability to speak prophetically, but it has nonetheless chosen to speak thus only on particular, usually rather narrow matters. And for some of us the church's value judgments have been "weighed in the balance and found wanting."
C. Forde
Your Toronto story is very interesting .I know that UK Adventists went through quite a difficult time adapting to the idea that their 'white' church was becoming majority West-Indian. How that worked out, I don't know, but there is no doubt that white people often are extremely uncomfortable about the idea of being reduced to a minority in church as well as in society.
You also point to something that should be obvious, but still isn't, that the Black community is very diverse. I have students who hail from West Africa, the Caribbean and Virginia. Although outwardly Black, they're very different. The gap between Africans and Black Americans is often wider than the gap between Black Americans and white Americans. A father from Cameroon complained bitterly to me that he had been asked by Black Americans whether people in his country still lived in trees. That is the kind of cultural insensitivity I was referring to when I responded to Harry's questions. Only context would tell you if it should be labelled racism or not. (Spoken by a white person in Mississippi, you would be inclined to say 'yes', whereas a Black Virginian should probably be questioned about how much he applied himself in school when Africa was on the lesson plan.)
Harry
I didn't realize at first that you had written an entire dissertation's worth of questions, and I don't have the time to deal with all of them. I'll start writing Black with capital B, though. Having grown up overseas, I had forgotten that quirk of spelling convention (I did American Studies at the University of Oslo, and I seem to remember that it goes back to spelling 'Negro' with capital N, back in the day. But usage is obviously not uniform. C. Forde capitalizes both White and Black, while you leave off the capital for whites. No disrespect intended, as you must have known when you explored that possibility.
In fact, when I reflect more on your litany of questions, it strikes me that you're trying to make this about me and not about Black conferences. You could be viewed as trying to bury me in white guilt instead of dealing with the issue at hand. You have not, by a single word, indicated whether you favor separate Black conferences in the old South of the US. You want me to explore every nook and cranny of my view without being willing to show your own cards. You should be far more of an expert on this issue than I--who am neither white nor an Adventist. Instead of asking me to guess if Blacks are concerned about losing jobs, you should tell us what you know about that question. I don't have a clue, although I'm able to infer logically that it's probably a complex question of past history, style of worship, leadership jobs, etc. I also come away from this discussion wondering if you're unwilling to state for the record that you are in favor of a racially separate conference structure for African-Americans, and that you would rather hang the responsibility for such a questionable institution around the neck of the white SDA church than take ownership of it yourself. I certainly don't blame you for wanting to hold on the Black conferences, if that's your position. Unfortunately, it still seems to make sense.
As for your wondering aloud whether whites resist integration for fear of being swallowed up by Black America and lose their treasured pigmentation, I can categorically tell you that that's not the case. Whites, especially women, spend thousands of dollars in sun studios trying to obtain the skin color of Beyonce. Tanning in Spanish and French is called 'bronzing.' White people hate being so white. That's what the beach is all about, turning two-three shades darker. Blacks don't like their hair and whites don't like their pallor. Everybody, it seems, has a bone to pick with nature. If more Blacks would marry into the white population, we wouldn't have to ruin our skin to get tanned.
Aage
Dear Michael:
Thanks for your ideas.
Respectfully, and unfortunately, you've not given a serious response.
In other words, you haven't developed, or advanced, a meaningful argument; one that drives the conversation forward.
Dear Stefan Burton-Schnüll:
You, on the other hand, have done precisely that.
HA
Dear Aage:
Thanks for your responses.
1. My questions are my way of understanding the issue, and what you wrote.
2. I don't know if I'd prefer the SDA conference system to stay as it is, or to be changed.
3. Many white people enjoy "play" with "Blackness," or aspects of it. Few would adopt it as a permanent vocation.
HA
Stephan
You should not be "amazed, though, how quickly the comments switched from OFF to Regional Conferences." These are closely related matters. To hard-core white conservative SDAs, such as apparently inhabit OFF, Regional Conferences is part of a reality they'd rather not acknowledge.
A separate Black SDA church is an inconvenient reality they'd rather turn their face away from, the way white planters in the South for generations turned their face away from the Black plantation kids who were the spitting image of themselves. Adventism, to my knowledge, has never dealt honestly with its institutional participation in Segregation, and would rather that this inglorious and painful part of its history remain under the rug. It will probably still be a while before the Review or the Sabbath School quarterlies openly will tell the story of how during Jim Crow even the General Conference operated a segregated cafeteria that refused to serve black Adventists as well as hospitals that were off bounds for its own members of the wrong complexion. OFF is perhaps a tad bit less likely to deal with this part of the past than the official SDA organs, but not by much. Black conferences is a stark reminder of a past that should never have been, and that's one reason why whites are far more eager to see these structures go than Blacks. It doesn't go well with the idea that this is God's own latter-day copyrighted movement, the possessor of 'Present Truth.'
Aage
"....Only context would tell you if it should be labelled racism or not. (Spoken by a white person in Mississippi, you would be inclined to say 'yes', whereas a Black Virginian should probably be questioned about how much he applied himself in school when Africa was on the lesson plan.)"
I laughed out loud when I read that observation. It is refreshing that you understand.
When I hear White people complain that it is unfair for Blacks to be able to use the 'N' word but not them, I shake my head and wonder why they so long to use it and under what circumstances they would.
Jon Stewart often makes comments mocking Jewishness that coming from someone else would be offensive. Even though Stephen Colbert is a comedian, and most understand that he makes tongue-in-cheek comments, there is more of a cringe factor when he does the same.
Comments that can be taken as racially motivated will be taken that way when spoken by Whites about Blacks simply because there is no relationship, hence little trust . This can be understood on many levels. How often has it been said that the best way to spread the gospel is to develop friendships first. We may get angry with a loved one and criticize but let an outsider express the same sentiments and we would get our backs up.
It is possible that a White person from Mississippi who asks if Africans live in trees was asleep during geography and, believe it or not, most of the people here who are arguing that racism is alive and well would probably sigh, shake their heads and give that person the benefit of the doubt. If we didn't do this, we wouldn't get very far on a day to day basis considering the we interact with many who make comments that are just as daft. But when given a chance to raise awareness, we try.
"Our Firm Foundation has never printed a word about race. Not one word."
So? I see no significance in the alleged omission. In my view there is always someone out there trying to make something of an alleged slight. Get over it is my advice. We have real problems in our culture that surpass slights, real or imagined.
What a coincidence. This is a living example of what some have been saying. If you watch this and see nothing amiss, then the divide will not go away in your lifetime.
http://gawker.com/5880712/president-asked-to-dance-a-jig-by-random-inter...
"The GC, for PR reasons alone, would want integrated conferences across the land. To them, as to most whites, history has moved on and created new realities."
_____________________________________________________________
The only reason why history has moved on for most whites is because they can conveniently ignore it.
Racism is as strong within the church as outside of it. To believe otherwise is naive at best and dismissive at worst. It's like saying to women, most men have moved on from issues of sexism. Unless it is viable to see all people as equal participants in leadership the "moving on" is not a measure of progress but rather of diverted attention.
Harry
As passionate as you are about racial issues, I find it hard to believe that you haven't made up your mind about whether you'd like the euphemistically labelled 'Regional' conferences to persist. The fact that you're not willing to discuss a single aspect of the pros or cons is consistent with my assumption that you're very much in favor of them, but that for political reasons you'd rather not say so. I think you'd prefer to let this administrative structure hang like a burning tire around the neck of the white church.
Wouldn't it be more effective to argue that separate African-American conferences are, unfortunately, still needed since the underlying issues that gave rise to them still haven't been adequately resolved. Pretending that it's the white SDA church that is fighting to preserve these structures only causes resentment and does little to help the church move forward on racial issues.
Aage
The effort is appreciated, but if you do find any social consciousness or compassion among "Historic Adventists"--or pretty much anything beyond their myopic doctrinal concerns--then perhaps you should look for the Lost Ark of the Covenant next.
I contend that racial issues are not as prevalent as the spectrumites allege. If anyone, Black or White, approaches the issue with a chip on his shoulder it is likely that any racial problem will be exacerbated.
In my view, Baker has a chip on his shoulder which merely results mainly in much more division rather than unity. Don't we usually find what we are ardently looking for?
If the majority of Blacks wish to retain regional Conferences so be it.
Whose Friend...
Denial is a river. Let the separate power structures remain in place?
The primary expression of the gospel in a fallen world is expressed by Jesus in his high priestly prayer, " I pray that they may be one , Father, as you and I are one." Paul echoes this: " There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus. Paul rebuked other leaders, argued vehemently in his letters, and even risked his life to bring Jew and Gentile to the same table in the church. Now you blithely want to go on as if our separate administrative mechanisms are no big deal, as if there are much bigger fish to fry. Like what...to wear or not to wear wedding rings?
I'm not saying that I have the answers to just how to solve this quandry. But, a quandry it is... a major one. And, as long as we persist with this institutionally divided arrangement, as long as no one is willing to seriously dialogue about a solution that will require rearrangement of the existing structure and all the risks that come with it, we will continue to give lie to the gospel that proclaims all as one in Christ Jesus.
Thanks...
Frank
It's "quandary" as I have made the same error.
Regardless of the reason Black Conferences were formed is not the prime reason for their continuence.
The issues are turf, voice, and culture.
Paine College, ia Black College supported by the United Methodist Church is separated from the Medical College of Georgia by only 15th St. During my tenure as Vice President he became a close personal friend. As a Methodist minister he was invited to give the sermon at Aldersgate Methodist Church of which the Dean of the School of Dentistry was a member. The dean invited me to attend and to join him and the President for Sunday dinner following the sermon.
The President was at his winsome best. He thanked the senior pastor for the invitation and began an ecumenical story based sermon. A short way in, he remarked, I would feel more comfortable if I hear a few Amen's! I know you are good listeners but very shy with your responders.Now make me really feel at home.
Then he added, I was invited to speak at a nameless Methodist church. The service ran a little late
so the director of music announced the closing hymn as "In Christ There is No East and West"
He added for the lateness of the hour, we will sing the first, second, and last verses only.
The President went on to recite verse three:
Join hands, then, brothers of the faith
What-e'er your race may be.
Who serves my Father as a son
Is sturely kin to me.
Then he suggested that he would close with plenty of time to sing all four verses.
Years later he retired as President of Paine College only to be called back to be interim President of the Medical College of Georgia. A two year stint that remain among the high points of the Medical College.
So my benidiction is verse three of In Christ, there is no East or West.
Something my parents taught me from the knee up.
Tom Z
Dear Aage:
I admire the directness and clarity of your writing. Should I comment, here, more often, instead of mostly lurking, you may see that I share some of that tendency in my own correspondence.
As I said, I don't know if I'd prefer the SDA conference system to stay as it is, or to be changed.
On one hand, the idea of a regional conference in a Christian church is a non sequitr. This is fairly obvious, and inarguable.
On the other hand, my confidence in white Adventists to deliver, to Black SDAs, what we need for a life in Christ—everything from oxygen to symbology—hovers just slightly below zero. In other words, I don't see the white practice of Seventh-day Adventism as separate from the race system (white supremacy), generally.
In your comment, above, you speak of the embarrassment regional conferences remain to white Adventists. Perhaps, then, regional conferences serve the same purpose as the nail prints in Christ's hands; something of a living testimony, frozen in reality, marking what got us here, and, thus, should remain, if only for that reason.
You mention racism, historically, in the General Conference lunchroom. Wasn't seating in Andrews University's cafeteria allotted, based on racial classifications, at one time? I had a mentor who told me of being roomed in an Andrews U. basement while at college. I mean, like, in a storage area.
He said that, when Pastor William Fagal, of Faith for Today, came to Andrews to speak, my mentor and his similarly bundled friends approached him, and told him of their circumstances, hoping to enlist his help as an advocate. Pastor Fagal listened, nodded his head sagely, but did nothing.
As you note, there's no place in the narrative of Adventism where stories like these can be read, circulated, or threaded into the history of the church; that, the way, for example, Ellen G. White's reported hoisting of an 18-lb Bible with one hand is told and retold. The Adventist story is relentlessly, unnaturally heroic.
You say, above:
Wouldn't it be more effective to argue that separate African-American conferences are, unfortunately, still needed since the underlying issues that gave rise to them still haven't been adequately resolved.
I could agree with this, I think.
Then, you say:
Pretending that it's the white SDA church that is fighting to preserve these structures only causes resentment and does little to help the church move forward on racial issues.
I don't know if white SDAs are "fighting to preserve" regional conferences, but they are certainly preserving them...since the underlying issues that gave rise to them still haven't been adequately resolved.
HA
As I see it, liberals stick to facts, while conservatives just want to "conserve" their radical positions in spite of the facts.
________________________________________________________________________
This statement represents typical liberal bias and intolerance. Of course, conservatives can be biased and intolerant also, but intolerant conservatives are usually aware of their intolerance, while liberals close their eyes to their intolerance.
I'm just wondering - where is the love of Jesus in all this hatefulness? WWJD - What would Jesus do?
Bob Helm
Are you maybe a little too ready to fight? Is an analysis of a conservative that draws on its root word really a demonstration of intolerance or bias or hatefulness? I used to be a conservative and I don't remember being insulted by the term. (Rather, I was frustrated by my fellows' disinterest in data.)
Harry E..
Dear Harry,
I'm not ready to "fight.". I'm just making an observation. And I'm wondering why liberals think they are the only people who can determine what "the facts" are.
By the way, if Hope International is being equated with conservative, I want none of it. As far as I'm concerned, the theology of Hope International is beyond the pale of Christianity. But when it comes to the essence of Christianity - Jesus's cross and grace - I am very conservative indeed!
What is more Harry, I am extremely interested in data. In fact, I try to make decisions on the weight of evidence! It's just that I find the evidence for Christianity extremely persuasive!
... and I find the factual evidence for the validity of christianity's core severely lacking
Hello,
I am new to this form of online discussion, but after skimming through the numerous posts I feel compelled to jump in--
For those who question if racism and segregation still exist...
For those who wonder if Black individuals are just too thin-skinned or "have a chip on their shoulder"...
For those who think that discussing these issues just creates more division and "race baiting"...
I attend an SDA church in the Pacific Northwest where racism is openly practiced. I have seen white members decline to shake the hand of a Black newcomer. I have heard a church elder state that he "does not believe the cultures should worship together." I have seen a Black attendee asked to go to another church because his presence made one of the white members uncomfortable. I have seen this church shrink from 500 to 100 members in regular attendance because those with the finances and the power "love their church the way it is," and have no interest in attracting and welcoming individuals who may be different from themselves.
We as a denomination should be embarassed and ashamed, that in 2012 these behaviors are allowed to continue unchallenged. I don't understand why we aren't promoting training for our church leaders, who can in turn mentor and coach their congregants, to create a greater awareness of racism-- conscious, unconscious, or subconscious-- and an appreciation for, or at least tolerance of, the myriad differences we can all bring to the table. Mandatory trainings in the workplace teach cultural diversity and methods of enhancing unity, but in the SDA church we pretend it isn't a priority, or isn't needed at all?
I am very glad to see their are others who feel something needs to be done to encourage and nurture growth toward a beautiful tapestry of skin colors, worship formats, preaching styles, music choices, etc. We could do so much more to share the true gospel message if we all work together in equality and love.
To those of us interested in this conversation, I recommend the book: Canaan Land: A religious History of African Americans; by Dr. Albert J. Reborteau. Dr. Raboteau is the Henry W. Putnam Pofessof of Religion at Princetion University. He is a prolific writer on Black History and the impact of religion on that history. His book is a cogent seminal account of those Black caught into the slave trade and purchased by "American Christians?"
As one reads one is taken with own the Black slaves embraced the White man's Religion. It seems that the Old Testament had a great attraction with the Hebrews slaves in Egypt and their freedom by the direct intervention of God. They could identity with that drama. Further, they saw in the Christ Event deliverance also.
Even before, the Supreme Court ruled: "Separate but Equal" Blacks allowed into White Churches were told to sit in the back or in a balcony.
The book contains a chronology that touches the critical stages of emancipation.
The most compelling challenge is found in the sermon of Martin Luther King Jr. in his homily at the memorial service of the three Black little girls killed in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham. .
"These children--unoffending, innocent and beautiful--were the victims of one of the most vicious, heinous crimes ever prepetrated against humanity....They are the martyred heroines of a hold crusad for freedom and human dignity. So they have something to say to us in thei death, They have something to say to every minister of the gospel who has remained silent behind the safe security of stained-glass windows. They have something to say to every politician who has fed his constituents the stale bread of hated and the spoiled meat of racism...They have something to say to each of us, black and white alike, that we must substitute courage for caution...Their death says to us that we must work passionately and unrelentingly to make the American dream a reality. So they did not die in vain.
God still has a way of wringing good out of evil. History has proven over and over again that unmerited suffering is redemptive. The innocent blood of these little girls may well serve as the redemptive force that will bring new light to this dark city---- So in spite of the darkness of this hour we must not depair. We must not become bitter, nor must we harbor the desire to retaliate with violence. We must not lose faith in our white brothers. Somehow we must believe that the most misguided among them can learn to respect the dignity and worth of all human personality. MLK Jr. Sept. 1963
Tom Z
I am white and it is absolutely incredible to me all the white members who feel that the problem of racism is behind us. But perhaps they are not at fault. Our publications and media resources so sugar coat the race issue even when it is mentioned that many white members have no idea how others truly feel about it. I know the message I see from our publications and websites is far different from what I have heard from some in our multicultural churches.
I have seen parents of different races refuse to let their children socialize with those of church members from those of other races beyond the Sabbath School classroom. Just this past year I witnessed a white girl and a black girl who were good friends from parochial school, but were torn apart during summer vacation because their SDA parents were unable to get past the issue of race. Race IS still a problem in Adventism, and the longer we continue to sweep it under the carpet, the longer it will continue to wound God's children.
In this as with gender discrimination, the secular world is leading the way instead of the church.
Mandatory sensitivity training on these issues is normal for many secular employees. Maybe our Sabbath School quarterlies would be an excellent way to open dialogue on race relations. Alternatively, us white folks could just go on believing there is no problem, but eventually it could blow up in our faces.
This can certainly happen if we don't want to recognize the anger and let it be expressed so it can be dealt with. Sadly, we often feel it is better to believe it doesn't exist while living in a fantasy world of artificial niceness. However, we cannot simply plug our ears and go "Nah! Nah! Nah!" whenever someone who is hurt by racism cries out in anger and pain. If we continue to do so, they will find more dramatic ways to catch our attention. Sadly, if that happens we often blame them and ignore our own culpability in allowing things to go so far.
Dear UnityNow,
I would strongly suggest that you should find another congregation to worship with and that the church you describe deserves to die. Racism in any form is a sin. Now I realize that we are all sinners, but something this grievious should not be promoted or even tolerated by the church. Billy Graham had the courage back in the 1950s to tell the church leaders in the south that he would not preach in their stadiums unless they were integrated, and we need to exercise the same kind of courage and moral conviction.
I have just completed read Albert J. Raboteau book entitled :A Fire in the Bones" On 79 he tells a compelling story why there are sparate White and Black Churches. It is a long paragraph but worth the space and the reading.
"The story is a familiar one. On a Sunday morning in 1992 or 1993, the black members of St George's Methodist Church in Philadephia learned to their surprise that they could not sit in the benches they normally used. Instead, they were ordered by the sexton to sit upstairs in the gallery recently added at the rear of the church. Though the situation was unfair---they had, after all, contributed like the whites to remodeling the church--the complied with the order. As the opening prayer began, one of the white trustees told Absalom Jones, a respected black parishioner,to get up and move from the front to the back of the gallery. Jones, a dignified man in his late forties, asked the trustee to wait until the prayer ended, but the white man insisted he more immediately and motioned for another trustee to help him life Jones from his knees. As soon as the prayer was over, Jones and the rest of the black worshipers stood and walked out of the church in a body.
So began the movement that resulted in the most important black denomination and arguably the most important Afrian American institution for most of the ninteenth century, the African Medthodist Episcopal Church."
Certainly Christians have their warts. Tom Z
Tom
I suppose you meant 1892 and 1893, the year before Plessy v Ferguson approved of Segregation.
Aage
I found the artcle confusing because we have received many free dvd's of sermons and health talks by Hope speakers and one of them is black! So I don't see any racism in them any more than I would judge Breath of Life for not having any major white speakers that I know of anyway, or Amazing Facts and Voice of Prophecy to have any major black speakers. I do not look at either as racist in the least. Does Oakwood College hire equal amounts of Orientals, Hispanic, Indian, etc. to their staff? Are they to be considered racist if they don't?
Not only that, but Hope International gives out many dvd's free of charge. How many ministries do that nowadays? Not many that I know of-so they are helping the poor who can't always afford these things.
I am not saying that Hope is perfect in everything, but I think it is wrong to pick on them over nit picky things like this. It is amazing that someone would spend the time looking through all their materials to see what they have to say about race-maybe that is simply just not their focus any more than it is Amazing Fact's or Breath of Life's focus. It does not mean at all that they are racist or do not want people treated with kindness and love and respect, no matter who they are.
And why pick on a small group over this, when a much larger and more distressing situation exists in our regular churches regarding separate black and white conferences. In the city where we live, some churches are in one conference and some in another. To me that is far more disconcerting than anything Hope International does or has supposedly failed to do. I just hope this article wasn't written to find a roundabout way to put down conservative people who are trying to help us be ready in character and doctrine for the coming of Jesus. Again, I am not a Hope International fanatic, but from what I have seen of them, they do not seem off-the-wall or weird or racist or anything like that. They are a rather small group with some legitimate concerns that are spreading what they believe can help. I wish they and the regular church would work together better, but i see nothing wrong with their theology and I see much that could help us be more like Jesus.
This article talks about Foss and Hoy, yet neglects to point out that Heiks put both Foss (who was white) and Foy (who was black) as people who were called before Mrs. White, but who did not heed the call. He didn't make Foss better than Foy or vice versa. The point is that, even though Mrs. White had good things to say about Foy, that neither man accepted the call as she did. If Heiks was racist, he wouldn't have even brought out that God called a black man to be a prophet. Obviously, God is no respector of persons, because a white man, a black man and a woman were all called and all had equal chance to respond. Besides, I hear no Asians being upset that God did not call an Asian man, or Indians being upset He didn't call an Indian. Should any of us be upset because Jesus came as a Jewish man instead of an oriental, hispanic, black, white, or a woman? To expect exact numbers of races in equal proportion in all of our institutions is just not reality or practical. Jesus could only come as one race and sex.
I agree fully that all people are equal in the eyes of God and we should love all and look for justice, but I just felt this article was really grasping at straws and used some unloving terms and remarks about our brothers and sisters at Hope, when none was called for. If we feel Hope is wrong, we must at least treat them with the same respect we would wish them to treat us. It does work both ways. We can disagree with them, but we should not make hits at them and look for things that really there is no proof are there. The article seemed to me to be another attempt at downing those who believe that we have to become perfect in Christ before Jesus comes-which is what Mrs. White says we have to be. She also upholds our foundational doctrines and warns against tearing them down. She also, as this article points out, spoke against mistreatment of others based on race. All these things she spoke about. I think it would be good if Hope spoke about it, but I do not consider them racist if they haven't much, any more than Breath of Life isn't racist because they don't speak about the mistreatment of Native Americans.
Ministries simply have different focus and not one ministry covers it all. Some preachers focus more on grace-others on standards-others on race or political problems-others on health-others on prophecy-others on world events-others on standards-others on righteousness by faith, etc.. Paul says that we all have different gifts and focuses.We are not all called to focus on everything true and good out there. The Bible writers each had their personalities and focuses. That is how I look at Hope and I do not think it right to paint them as not interested in black people or any other race, unless there is solid proof of abuse or hatred. I bet if i researched many ministries, both black and white and hispanic, etc. I would find the very same thing where one race is represented far more than another. Each has their own specific ministry and they have no problems with ministries that focus on a different race or gender, etc.
Add your comment