The views,
opinions, and
positions expressed by the author and the provided comments on these
blogs are
the authors and his alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views,
opinions, or positions of the Carolina Conference of Seventh
day-Adventists, its churches
or other employee thereof.
We are in the home strech of this ofen tense subject. |
As I mentioned from the outset, it is not the intention of this series to cover every step of history. This is a blog that I try to keep as short as possible. I offer an invitation for those who would be willing: to write a two-page (max) paper regarding any related area of study that I have or have not covered, I am willing to feature it on a future blog posting. However, too often have I seen our church spend more time in contemplating theory instead of engaging in action. You can spend your entire life looking at the why and the what if instead of looking at the ever important question of what now?
Hopefully, though, the past couple of blogs have given some indication of my familiarity with this issue from a conceptual, historical standpoint. That is to say, I get why we as a church are where we are today. To be clear, from my study, I found that the accommodation to establish regional conferences was just that: an accommodation. It started with tense race relations and moved on to institutionalized segregation. Take, for instance, a letter that Edson White wrote to his mother Ellen White (one of the Adventist Church founders), in 1899 regarding the opposition to the Battle Creek segregation practices. He explained that their adaptations were made in order to protect the lives of people of both races who were connected with their work.
“The fact is, the people of the North do not know anything of the true situation in this awful field. It is “Ku Klux” days right over and we are in the midst of it… the North MUST realize that the workers coming here will have to be the most careful that is possible for them to be. If not, they will not only imperil their own lives, but will also imperil the lives and bring distress upon the colored people themselves.”[1]
“I wish to say that it is necessary to use the greatest caution in working with the colored people… Those who go to the South must be very careful of what they say. Let them not criticize the white people in regard to the way in which the colored people have been treated.”[2]
Adventist integration efforts were the object of KKK persecutions early on. While in E.E. Cleveland's Oakland and Detroit crusades, the
Black Panthers supported the Adventist tent efforts by protecting the
Bible workers and the areas around the tents.
It is clear that Ellen White’s statement encouraging missionary accommodations were made against the backdrop of racial violence and a deep concern for the success of the Black work. Her fundamental belief in the equality of the races and the Christian duty to treat all people with respect had not changed. [3]
Even with all its defects, I love my church; I am speaking as a pastor
within the system, not standing on the outskirts throwing rocks. So as I share what may be some frank thoughts
on the matter, understand I want the best for the organization and am
expressing what I see holding it back from reaching the potential that I
believe God has for it.
Let’s assume for moment that these issues in
2014 were only a two-sided issue, a black vs. white thing. Here is a gross overgeneralization of what I
am seeing as I travel around the country and we as Adventists get comfortable
enough with each other to discuss these race-related issues in our church:
Whites: Many are oblivious to the reality that regional conferences exist and/or of their history. One pastor shared with me that one of his members came across a regional conference church, not knowing it was one. The member took a picture of this church in my area and took it to him asking if this church was in fact a “legitimate” Adventist church, or if they were just using the name Adventist (implying that they might have to get the legal department involved). There is another group that has not had much interaction with other culture groups, and some of the things said in ignorance about race thus come across as racist. Their ignorance can feed into the cycle of negative tension that keeps this divide alive. Take, for instance, one churchgoer who (when I told him I was Hispanic) responded with a surprised, yet honest, inquisitive question, “But pastor, I could’ve sworn that you had some Negro blood in you too!” Others feel so bad about the fact that regional conferences exist, they would much rather talk about something else instead of this issue.
Blacks (non-Caribbean's): Many inside and outside the regional conference structure still seem hurt about past injustices, and the impression is that they are looking for more than just an apology; it sounds like they are looking for the Adventist equivalent of reparations[4]. I grew up in, and still visit, regional conference churches and some of the comments that I hear from pastors and members is all about “how bad the ‘White’ conferences treated us” and why things will never change. A lot of it seems deep-seated and personal. Whenever you bring up the subject, the air gets tense because you sense resentment.
Interestingly enough, in response to my
question, “Why should the distinction between state and regional conferences
still exist?” the only answers that I currently have received from those in
favor of this distinction revolve around the following areas:Whites: Many are oblivious to the reality that regional conferences exist and/or of their history. One pastor shared with me that one of his members came across a regional conference church, not knowing it was one. The member took a picture of this church in my area and took it to him asking if this church was in fact a “legitimate” Adventist church, or if they were just using the name Adventist (implying that they might have to get the legal department involved). There is another group that has not had much interaction with other culture groups, and some of the things said in ignorance about race thus come across as racist. Their ignorance can feed into the cycle of negative tension that keeps this divide alive. Take, for instance, one churchgoer who (when I told him I was Hispanic) responded with a surprised, yet honest, inquisitive question, “But pastor, I could’ve sworn that you had some Negro blood in you too!” Others feel so bad about the fact that regional conferences exist, they would much rather talk about something else instead of this issue.
Blacks (non-Caribbean's): Many inside and outside the regional conference structure still seem hurt about past injustices, and the impression is that they are looking for more than just an apology; it sounds like they are looking for the Adventist equivalent of reparations[4]. I grew up in, and still visit, regional conference churches and some of the comments that I hear from pastors and members is all about “how bad the ‘White’ conferences treated us” and why things will never change. A lot of it seems deep-seated and personal. Whenever you bring up the subject, the air gets tense because you sense resentment.
1. Money and retirement
2. Infrastructure logistics and leadership makeup
3. History and reluctance for change
In the words of Yoda,"Do or do not... there is no try." |
Like I said earlier, let’s assume for a second that this issue in 2014 is only a two-sided issue, a black vs. white thing. However, the world that we live in is not a black and white one; there are many different ethnicities that comprise the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Let’s now throw in the fastest growing racial demographic in the country: Hispanics. Here is a hypothetical, logistical reason why the current divide we have in our church gets really redundant, confusing, and terribly frustrating.
Question: If regional conferences were started with the intention to better reach and serve the needs of Blacks in the United States, which conference is responsible for doing the same with Hispanics? Answer: It’s a trick question; BOTH conferences do the same thing today.
Let’s assume that we are all in Texas, the territory for both the Texas Conference and Southwest Regional Conference.
Texas...is a HUGE state... |
Simple: they can talk to the Southwest Regional Conference and ask to be
members of their conference… forming a new church, Church B, in the Southwest
Regional Conference made up of all the members of Church A (minus the pastor). Yes, the entire church. Putting aside the ethical fairness of what
this church may be doing, they would be within their rights to do exactly what
I have described. After all, there are
two conferences competing for the same
people group in the same territory.
Fact: Most Hispanics in the U.S. are natives (born here)-says Barna |
So, tell me, how can this administrative divide be considered a blessing to God’s work? You may say, “Well, double the workers means double the work being done in the area.” That would be true if the left hand knew what the right hand was doing. Among Hispanics, the reasons for the establishment of regional conferences are irrelevant to their everyday function. Notice that I didn’t say that it’s not important; I said that is isn’t relevant to them, probably since this history doesn’t involve them directly. The question many of them have is, “Why is there another Spanish church across the city with the same Adventist name as us, but for some reason, are not part of the same conference?"
Unfortunately, because many do not understand
the history, some Hispanic pastors have even counseled their member to not be involved
with churches from the other conference. Even from a secular standpoint, any efficient
business would be forced streamline this duplicity. Why does God’s business have to flounder
around like this? It’s because we are
more concerned with clinging to our history, money, power, and prestige than
going through the inconvenient transition that real change brings.
How many generations must we sacrifice in the desert? |
Why?
Like the generation in the Exodus story, I fear God has to allow those who refuse to trust in His power to bring us together to either retire, or be laid to rest, before He can entrust his vision to a generation that will be willing to step out in faith. Don’t get me wrong; I know there will be some Caleb’s and Joshua’s from the previous generation who will join in the movement to unite and march together. These are people who had an eye for this future even in the past. These are leaders and laypeople that wanted the church to trust in God’s promises and move forward corporately but were held back because popular opinion was against them.
Whether this is a right assessment or not,
those are my two cents and we are still here today. It turns out that this will have to be cut
into a part 3A and part 3B since this is already a lengthy post in itself. The next half will deal entirely with suggested solutions for members and leaders as we seek to move from where we are to
where, I believe, God wants us to be as a people in this journey into the
Promised Land together. I know I will get heat for this...but if you made it this far, I thank you for taking the time for at least hearing me out.
Till next time!
Till next time!
[1] J.E.
White to Ellen G. White, 14 May 1899, quoted in Graybill, E.G. White and Church
Race Relations, 61-62.
[2] Ellen
G. White, “The Southern Work,” 202-203.
[3] For
a treatment of this topic, see Graybill, E.G. White and Church Race Relations;
Roy L. Branson, “Ellen G. White- Racist or Champion of Equality?- 3: The crisis
of the Nineties,” Review 147. No. 17 (17 April 1973): 4-6.
[4] Reparations
are a proposal that some type of compensation should be provided to the
descendants of enslaved people in the United States, in consideration of the
coerced and uncompensated labor their ancestors performed over centuries.
No comments:
Post a Comment