It's been said that unless we learn
from the past, we are doomed to repeat it. Last week, I shared some experiences
of missionaries in the South and the initial struggles they faced in trying to
reach out to the southern Black population. They encountered unequaled racism in an
area that they called "a closed field, where violent men defended
prejudices with guns and whips."1
According to Kessia Bennett, who dedicated her master’s thesis to the study on the resistance and accommodation that Southern Adventist missionaries had in reaching out to Blacks during this time (again, this series is based on that thesis; a link to it can be found here), this probably explains why, in part, the church was so late to begin laboring in that region. It certainly helps explain the reactions of mild astonishment when Northern missionaries encountered Southern racial customs at the time.
We also saw how the original two separate entities in the South (the Southern Union Conference and the Southeastern Union Conference) were created with the intention of "better reaching the needs" of Black people. However, Bennett writes that the missionaries who sought to evangelize the area did not believe this rationale as part of their missionary endeavors. They believed that the barrier to true racial harmony was not integration, but prejudice, which explains why they viewed the segregation of conferences as a concession to prejudice. 2
If you noticed the dates in the last blog though, you will see a 40 year gap between the violent acts that Mr. Rogers had to endure (not the Mr. Rogers you might be thinking of, this is the non-PBS missionary) to the formal establishment of regional conferences in the 1940s. So what happened during this time? This leads me to the point of this week’s look at the debate: it would be nice to say that the church established regional conferences as a concession to only the “external” societal pressure that they faced in trying to reach out. However, historically, that is sadly not true. Racism, particularly in the form of segregation, infiltrated the policy and unconscious culture within the Seventh-day Adventist church in America. This racism was manifested in hiring discrimination, underrepresentation in leadership, unfair financial practices, and persistent segregation of policies.3
According to Kessia Bennett, who dedicated her master’s thesis to the study on the resistance and accommodation that Southern Adventist missionaries had in reaching out to Blacks during this time (again, this series is based on that thesis; a link to it can be found here), this probably explains why, in part, the church was so late to begin laboring in that region. It certainly helps explain the reactions of mild astonishment when Northern missionaries encountered Southern racial customs at the time.
We also saw how the original two separate entities in the South (the Southern Union Conference and the Southeastern Union Conference) were created with the intention of "better reaching the needs" of Black people. However, Bennett writes that the missionaries who sought to evangelize the area did not believe this rationale as part of their missionary endeavors. They believed that the barrier to true racial harmony was not integration, but prejudice, which explains why they viewed the segregation of conferences as a concession to prejudice. 2
If you noticed the dates in the last blog though, you will see a 40 year gap between the violent acts that Mr. Rogers had to endure (not the Mr. Rogers you might be thinking of, this is the non-PBS missionary) to the formal establishment of regional conferences in the 1940s. So what happened during this time? This leads me to the point of this week’s look at the debate: it would be nice to say that the church established regional conferences as a concession to only the “external” societal pressure that they faced in trying to reach out. However, historically, that is sadly not true. Racism, particularly in the form of segregation, infiltrated the policy and unconscious culture within the Seventh-day Adventist church in America. This racism was manifested in hiring discrimination, underrepresentation in leadership, unfair financial practices, and persistent segregation of policies.3
This is why this situation has
become a hot button issue and an “elephant” within our church: because we have to sit
down, look at ourselves in the mirror and admit, “Yes, we as a church treated
our fellow believers no better than the rest of society at the time… the only
difference was that we were better at keeping our racism under wraps through
the guise of piety” (and it's hard to admit that kind of glaring hypocrisy). This lack of knowledge in many ways is what keeps this
issue from being dealt with in the honest way that is needs to be. By the
1940's the formation of regional conferences was the climax of long
dissatisfaction within the Black community about the church's treatment of
their community and mission; it was an easy and convenient way to provide a
“separate but equal” administrative structure where Black Adventists leaders
could advance professionally while having their own structure and White
Adventist could have their own.
I know that is a pretty bold statement to make. However, I am comfortable saying that because there is plenty of historical evidence to support it. Below are some examples of leadership discrimination manifested when the church appointed White leadership over the Black work during the early part of the 20th century, even though the church had already produced some very capable Black leaders by then:4
- Although the equivalent departments for Germans and Scandinavians were led by people of the targeted ethnicity, for nine years (1909 through 1918) the North American Negro Department was led by a White man.
- The editor of Message, the denomination's magazine for Black leadership, had a White man as its editor for 13 years from 1932 through 1945.
- Until 1932 Oakwood's top administration (the Historically Black Adventist university) was White.
These
influential and important leadership positions in the Black work were
held by Whites, revealing that the denomination either did not trust that
Blacks could lead the work, or that they felt they should lead it instead.
You may think "Hey, how can you know what they thought at the time?" You are right, I can't know for sure, but history shows that hiring discrimination was not limited to the key leadership
positions. Doctors, nurses, and office secretaries were all underrepresented on
the church payroll, thus revealing a disturbing trend at all levels of the adminsitrative structure. Being hired did not guarantee equal treatment either, though. W. H.
Green was the first Black man to lead the Negro Department at the GC. Here are
his words regarding his treatment on the job:
“It
was very uncomfortable from the very first… I could not eat in the General
Conference cafeteria with everyone else. Some whites would not even greet you
when they saw you in the morning. When they saw you coming, they would look at
you, look by you - there would be no greeting at all. This was largely on the
part of the womenfolk, but once in a while the men would do it too.” 5
One of the most visible features of racial inequality in the North American Church was the segregation of Adventist facilities. Black students were denied entrance to the Adventist schools on the basis of their race; Black Adventist patients were even denied care at Adventist hospitals.6 By the 1940s, enough dissatisfaction with the status quo had occurred among the Black community that the church was forced to take action.
“Black ministers felt that the only way to improve the work among Negroes of the country was to organize colored conferences, whereby the colored people may handle their own money, employ their own workers and so develop administrative ability in all cultural lines of work ... to organize Negro conferences that would function in exactly the same relation to the General Conference as white conferences.” 7
Bennet notes that "Some thought
that regional conferences would advance the mission to Black America (which
indeed they did), but there were other Black Adventists who opposed it. It
ended up being something like a lukewarm compromise -- better than being
ignored and kept from leadership positions, but not the full recognition and
integration that had been hoped for."8 Regional
conferences were voted in the Spring Council of 1944, long after they had been
proposed. This was not full integration and empowerment, but but it did mean
much more self-determination for Black administration while remaining in the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist church. Regional conferences are not segregationists in
the sense of the Jim Crow laws of the past era; they are not attempts to keep Whites and Blacks socially separated because of racial superiority or
inferiority. The formation of regional conferences as a parallel structure
within the church did, however, testify to the failure of North American
Adventism to offer full legitimacy to its Black American members.9
Two non-Adventist historians looking at the Adventist church, Bull and Lockhart, claim that the establishment of regional conferences was adopted only to appease the Whites, not for the sake of Black people. In what some have called a "singing criticism," they wrote about the church during the 1940s, "[Adventism] was still a White movement, with a mission to White America, and Blacks were not allowed to jeopardize the evangelistic objective of the denomination."10
Two non-Adventist historians looking at the Adventist church, Bull and Lockhart, claim that the establishment of regional conferences was adopted only to appease the Whites, not for the sake of Black people. In what some have called a "singing criticism," they wrote about the church during the 1940s, "[Adventism] was still a White movement, with a mission to White America, and Blacks were not allowed to jeopardize the evangelistic objective of the denomination."10
Sadly, still no change took place. Twelve years
later, at the 1962 General Conference session in San Francisco, it took
physical demonstrations, written demands, and front-page news stories for the
announcement to come that indeed the church would desegregate.11
Preview of next week's blog |
1.
Arthur Spalding, first volume of a
history of Seventh-day Adventist covering the years 1845 through 1900.
captain of the host, page 488.
2.
Kessia Reyne Bennett, Resistance
and Accommodation to Racism Among Early Seventh-day Adventist Missionaries in
the American South, (Andrews University Press, Berrien Springs, MI), p. 36.
3.
ibid, 63.
4.
Ibid, 65
5.
Malcom Bull and Kevin Lockhart,
Seeking a Sanctuary: Seventh-day Adventism and the American Dream (Indiana
University Press, 1987), pg 201.
6.
Bennet. Pg. 65-66
7. Justiss, Jacob. Angels of Ebony (Justiss, 1975)
8. Bennett, Kessia. Personal interview. 19 Feb. 2014.
7. Justiss, Jacob. Angels of Ebony (Justiss, 1975)
8. Bennett, Kessia. Personal interview. 19 Feb. 2014.
9.
Roy Branson, “Adventism’s Rainbow
Coalition,” In Make Us One, edited by Delbert W. Baker. (Pacific Press)
pg.77-80
10. Bennett. Pg 68.
11. Bull and Lockhart (1989), pg 197.