White Flight

[Ted Oplinger]

Your post raised a thought I wished to respond to, Gerry, but this post is not directed as a direct response to you personally. It's a launch pad.

The very pertinent question has been raised, but few seem willing to really address it without dancing the very worldly (and unBiblical) game of political correctness.

If blacks can have "black fight" to form their own conferences for their desires and reasons...if the Spanish can have "brown flight" for reasons of their culture and language being "so very different" from Anglos and blacks...if Koreans, Vietnamese, and every other nationality can group together with "their own" and it is regarded as OK, even encouraged - but if a group of white people should be found to do this - even if for totally innocent reasons - there's something immediately wrong? Suspicion must necessarily abound about...racism?

Perhaps the answer might be found in that little double standard? That all are equal in the eyes of God, but due to certain "issues", some are "more equal" or "less equal" than others? As if that will "make up" for sins committed generations ago or ongoing poor attitudes today?

In all truthfulness, I don't see agape love as a license to become someone else's doormat just because they just don't "get it" yet. One would think after decades with their own churches and conferences, the Holy Spirit might have prevailed upon at least a few to "get it" on the subject of universal love. From personal experience, though, I find more whites AND ethnicities "get it" than don't, even when they have very divergent perceptions and opinions to the issues at hand.

Love demands we value each other with the value of Christ on the cross - that is what cost we are each bought and redeemed with, no less. No matter what skin color or ethnicity. We are to be truly neutral on this issue.

Love does not give people a license to assume a false guilt, nor does it give others the license to "not get it" and remain true to Christ for very long. Sooner or later, Christ does expect us to "get it" and regard all around us - not just those who are "like one another" - as blood-bought children of God. If you can't do it here, you're not going to do it in heaven, either. We can't say we don't love our differing brothers/sisters "as much" (either in word or action) and say we really love God.

Christ's words to love one another do not carry the words, "except when your forefathers were slaves", "except when your forefathers were stepped on by a neighboring nation", or "except when your forefathers did bad things to other peoples" - etc., etc., etc. If someone can show me the loophole to His express words, I'd be more understanding. But I don't see such a loophole.

Instead, I see far too many "exceptions" to the command going on today due to political expedience today - and more being created everyday. In my opinion, this is very antithetical to the Eternal Gospel the remnant is to preach to every nation, kindred, tribe and tongue. We can either worship the True and Living God as He is, or we can worship a false god of Balkanized political correctness - of man's own creation. They are mutually exclusive.

[lazarus]

[lazarus]

The bar keeps changing. We used to have to call them colored people. Then they wanted to be called blacks. Now they insist on being called African American.

If you took the time to try to understand why then you would understand.

[BobRyan]

Redwood forgot "people of color". What was he thinking!!@!

[lazarus]

And while we are discussing the "power factor".... why was it that the regional conferences seceeded from the pension plan of the denomination and set up their own to be administered for and by them alone against counsel of the General Conference? It seems to be "We want what 'we' want and you had better like it or else. No thank you.

Why put that spin on it. Sounds like evil surmising. They did what was best for they staff. They were proved right. While many conference employees have lost 30 -50% in the financial crisis due to the new program, regional conferences have fared much better. It's was just a smarter move not a power trip.

[lazarus]

Gerry Cabalo said"I could be wrong, was not the reason for the Black Conferences their exclusion from the power structure of the church?"_

Ah, yes....now we are getting down to the nitty gritty.....

POWER

Here are some of the reasons....

http://h0bbes.wordpress.com/2006/09/05/the-beginning-of-regional-conferences-in-the-us-iii/

.....By 1944 however, the situation had changed—the Black membership of the church had grown considerably and Black members were better educated and more confident than in the past. This lead a group of Black SDA laity to form the National Association for the Advancement of World-wide Work Among Colored Seventh-day Adventists on October 16, 1943. The group was chaired by Joseph T. Dodson, other members included Eva B. Dykes—one of the first Black American woman to receive a PhD, while the Corresponding Secretary was Valarie Justiss—the second SDA Black woman to receive a PhD.

Eva B Dykes

The group met on at least two occasions with J. L. McElheney—GC President. They presented a petition entitled Shall the Four Freedoms Function Among SDAs? to the GC leadership in Washington DC. (The document takes it’s name from the State of the Union address given by Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 6, 1941. The four freedoms were:

1. Freedom of speech and expression

2. Freedom of every person to worship God in his own way

3. Freedom from want

4. Freedom from fear (See Wikipedia entry. See a copy of the speech.)

The group was not requesting the formation of Black conferences but rather recommending an end to racial discrimination in all SDA institutions. Graham states that the group also “asked for a full accounting of the money that Black people were contributing to the denomination and requested that their Black leaders be treated with courtesy.” (Ricardo B. Graham, “Black Seventh-day Adventists and Racial Reconciliation” in Perspectives: Black Seventh-Day Adventists Face the Twenty-first Century Calvin B. Rock ed. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 1996, 136)

Racial discrimination was rife at SDA institutions and the Four Freedoms document did not hesitate to point out specific cases:

· “The Washington Sanitarium refuses to admit colored people.”

· “Colored girls are denied admittance to the Washington sanitarium School of Nurses and some other schools open to the whites.”

· It was the policy of Emmanuel Missionary College to seat Black students at the rear during chapel services.

· “There are no Negroes so far as we know on staffs of Adventist institutions.”

· “There is not even one General Conference office filled by a colored person.”

· “There is no colored editor, circulation manager, and business manager of the only Adventist periodical devoted exclusively to the interest of the 13,000,000 colored people in the United States.”

The document draws frequent contrast between SDA practice in these areas and the practices of secular or other religious organizations. These include:

“Since white and colored eat without friction daily in the cafeterias of the Library of Congress, Union Station, National Art Gallery, Interior Department, and other government buildings, it is illegal to segregate the Secretary of the Colored department for his meals.” (All quotes from Shall the Four Freedoms Function Among SDAs?

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

McElheney introduced the topic of Regional Conferences to the GC Committee’s Spring Council held April 8-19, 1944, in Chicago. Following some debate (Of the 22 speakers on record, 17 spoke in favour, 3 against, and 2 asked questions of clarity. See Delbert W. Baker “Regional Conferences: 50 Years of Progress” Adventist Review November 2, 1995, p11.) a resolution was passed:

“WHEREAS, The present development of the work among the colored people in North America has resulted, under the signal blessing of God, in the establishment of some 233 churches with some 17,000 members: and WHEREAS, It appears that a different plan of organization for our colored membership would bring further great advance in soul-winning endeavours; therefore WE RECOMMEND, That in unions where the colored constituency is considered by the union conference committee to be sufficiently large, and where the financial income and territory warrant, colored conferences be organized.” (Quoted in Baker, “Regional Conferences” p14.)

From 1945 to 1947, seven Black Conferences were formed: Allegheny, Lake Region, and Northeastern (1945), South Atlantic and South Central (1946), and Central States and Southwest Region (1947). In 1967 Allegheny divided into the Allegheny East and Allegheny West, while the South Atlantic divided into the South Atlantic and Southeastern Conferences in 1981. Regional Conferences were not formed in the two westernmost districts: Pacific and North Pacific Union Conferences. Work amongst the Black population in these areas was coordinated by a Regional Affairs Office. (Baker, “Regional Conferences”, p14.)

Other resources

http://www.oakwood.edu/forms/history/learning/StudentRe/regional%20conf%201.htm

http://www.oakwood.edu/forms/history/learning/StudentRe/regional%20conf%20pacific.htm

[Woody]

Redwood forgot "people of color". What was he thinking!!@!

I never considered that a valid name. Blacks are not a 'people of color' they are a people 'without' color.

[Richard Holbrook]

There are a bunch of white associations. Most American Newspapers, TV channels, publications cater primarily to white interests that's why black people set up their own entities.

There are no white associations. There is no "White Entertainment Television" or (WET), and there is plenty of black programming and has been for years, so they're not "catering" just to whites as you say.

There is no "White News" or "News for White People" and again plenty of black news.

[lazarus]

If 90% of programming, issues, presenters are is white then they are catering primarily to white people. This is not bad. It's just how it is.

Why Negro Baseball leagues?

Because blacks were not being accepted into the major and minor baseball leagues, they formed their own teams and had made professional teams by the 1880s.

Why Ebony magazine?

Ebony cover photography has since its inception focused on African American celebrities and politicians, from Lena Horne and Dorothy Dandridge to Michael Jackson and Barack Obama. Persistently upbeat like its generic contemporary Life, Ebony has striven always to address African-American issues, personalities, and interests in a positive and self-affirming manner. Corporations here and abroad have for decades created advertising specifically for the pages of Ebony featuring black models driving cars and enjoying soft drinks—the first magazine to feature such ads.

Why TV One?

TV One is a television network based in Silver Spring, Maryland and primarily owned by Radio One and Comcast Corporation. It targets African American adults with a broad range of programming. The network airs original lifestyle and entertainment-oriented shows, movies, fashion and music programming, as well as classic series such as Amen, Good Times, Living Single, Martin, The Parent 'Hood and All of Us.

TV One is available in over 38 million homes [1] via DirecTV, Comcast, Cox, Charter, Time Warner Cable, Insight, and other smaller, regional cable operators.

[Woody]

Quote:

If 90% of programming, issues, presenters are is white then they are catering primarily to white people. This is not bad. It's just how it is.

And pray tell me why should there be more than 10% geared towards the blacks? Since blacks represent around 10% of the population .... demanding more than 10% of the programming, issues and presenters would be racist.

[Richard Holbrook]

I think the 90%/10% ratio is a little off both on programming and population.

[GreatLakesGramma]

Originally Posted By: GreatLakesGramma

I don't know about the conferences where each of you are, but in the Lake Union, each state has its own separate conference, but the Lake Region Conference covers the entire Lake Union. If the individual state conferences merged into Lake Region, that would be a huge conference covering too many people, and too large of an area to administer effectively.

But that is what the black conferences deal with now already.

Allegheny East

Allegheny West

Southeastern

(the ones I'm familiar with)

These all cover more than one state. Apparently it can be done.

There are a lot more state conference churches in the Lake Union than there are in the Lake Region Conference. All of the small rural churches I know of are in the state conference. The Lake Region churches here are in cities, where there are also at least one state conference church, and sometimes several. Putting all those churches into one conference would be too much for one administrative unit to handle effectively.

[Kountzer]

Who cares about secular television content? It's all a bunch of junk. For the record I seldom watch BET, and I watch TV One less than i watch BET. If someone wants to start a 'WET' channel then go right ahead. Like I said 98 % of tv is junk any way you slice. I mostly watch the hope channel, sometimes A&E espn, and the local news. Most of the rest is not talking about.

[Richard Holbrook]

we are not as color blind as we want others to believe we are.

Speak for yourself. You are not the spokesman for white people

[Key Guy]

I tried the 'WET' channel. It shorted my TV and got water all over the floor.

Can't do 'BET', either. I don't live on a reservation or in Vegas.

No 'Nick at Night'... I shave in the morning.

Dropped 'AMC'... too much 'rambling'

'TNT'? You kidding?! That's explosive programming, baby.

'Oxygen'? I hope it's matchless.

Not even 'USA'? Not permitted here in the Conch Republic.

sigh... I guess I have a damp TV for sale

[Gerr]

[/uote]

I think that you heading one track no matter what I suggest.

I must have missed it. How many suggestions have you made?

Quote:

In dissolving both and setting up a new integrated conference there is no first or second fiddle. The field decides who gets what position.

That sounds fair. But here's the reality that I see. Where the majority rules, the odds will always be overwhelmingly against the minority. I am not saying that's not fair. That's just the nature of man and democracy. But that's why in politics we have quotas and gerrymandering to make the representation more equitable.

Quote:

And while we are discussing the "power factor".... why was it that the regional conferences seceeded from the pension plan of the denomination and set up their own to be administered for and by them alone against counsel of the General Conference? It seems to be "We want what 'we' want and you had better like it or else. No thank you. I shouldn't like to be under that type of regime..... You can call it second fiddle if YOU want...but we both know that you are playing with words. I wonder who is going to be expected to pick up the pieces when the pension system goes bust? Yeah, you guessed it.

I know nothing about this. No use commenting on something I am totally ignorant about.

[Gerr]

Quote:

If blacks can have "black fight" to form their own conferences for their desires and reasons...if the Spanish can have "brown flight" for reasons of their culture and language being "so very different" from Anglos and blacks...if Koreans, Vietnamese, and every other nationality can group together with "their own" and it is regarded as OK, even encouraged - but if a group of white people should be found to do this - even if for totally innocent reasons - there's something immediately wrong? Suspicion must necessarily abound about...racism?

Personally, I am totally against ethnic churches other than for language reasons. If we all speak the same language, I think worshiping under the same roof will enrich everyone culturally and promote better understanding. I can't imagine heaven split up along racial or ethnic lines. If certain groups of people join up to the exclusion of other groups, then I become suspicious.

Quote:

Perhaps the answer might be found in that little double standard? That all are equal in the eyes of God, but due to certain "issues", some are "more equal" or "less equal" than others? As if that will "make up" for sins committed generations ago or ongoing poor attitudes today?

In all truthfulness, I don't see agape love as a license to become someone else's doormat just because they just don't "get it" yet. One would think after decades with their own churches and conferences, the Holy Spirit might have prevailed upon at least a few to "get it" on the subject of universal love. From personal experience, though, I find more whites AND ethnicities "get it" than don't, even when they have very divergent perceptions and opinions to the issues at hand.

Until enough people understand that "love does not insist on its own way," and not enough people are willing to take second place, then the impasse remains.

Quote:

Love demands we value each other with the value of Christ on the cross - that is what cost we are each bought and redeemed with, no less. No matter what skin color or ethnicity.

Amen, brother!!!

[GreatLakesGramma]

I don't believe that either merging or replacing the conferences would work, no matter how it's done, because neither group trusts the other, and both groups would feel they were getting the short end of the stick.

[Key Guy]

I don't believe that either merging or replacing the conferences would work, no matter how it's done, because neither group trusts the other, and both groups would feel they were getting the short end of the stick.

If that's true, and I believe it is... We have a lot more prayin' and surrenderin' to do 'round here!

[Kountzer]

Even if the conferences were merged the individual churches would still look like they do now. People that like one style of worship will be at one church, others that like another style of worship will be at another.

[Gerr]

I don't believe that either merging or replacing the conferences would work, no matter how it's done, because neither group trusts the other, and both groups would feel they were getting the short end of the stick.

As long as the object for these positions is power, I believe you are correct.

[GreatLakesGramma]

Even if it's not power, there would still be doubts. There was a dispute in the early christian days, because the Greek widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. That didn't have to do with power so much as with the majority overlooking the needs of the minority. That could still be a problem.

[Gerr]

But that had/has nothing to do with the structure of the organization.

[Ted Oplinger]

Until enough people understand that "love does not insist on its own way," and not enough people are willing to take second place, then the impasse remains.

Gerry, Agape love does not insist on taking "second place". Agape love both in giving and returning, seeks the win-win for everyone - regardless of skin color. It does not look at "place" as a zero-sum game where someone must lose for another to win.

God is the epitome of agape love as found in 1 Cor 13, yet nowhere do I see any of the Godhead ceding "second place" to any human being. We are to submit to Him, not the other way around. Yet, at the same time, I do see Him joining humanity to Himself, and in doing so, creates a win-win for Himself and for mankind. In the process, I don't see the angels taking "a step down" in the process - they keep their places.

Yet we here on earth turn all that on its head.

Truthfully said, agape love will motivate people to seek the place of the least honor. God's true leaders should not want the chief positions for the sake of honor, influence, and power. To do so is to place one's self square on Satan's ground. Yet, what is the most-oft stated reason for division? That there is not enough of "one kind" in represented in leadership. If a group's "needs" is based solely on number of people represented in the top positions, then I would humbly suggest there is the exact opposite of Godly love at work, and the Gospel automatically suffers because of it.

Is that how the early church solved the issues between the Greek-speaking and Hebrew-speaking Jews? No, they did not divide over language or culture, but rather determined needs were met, that the Gospel should not suffer.

We make the ancient mistake in thinking our leadership election is to be patterned after the democracy of the world, complete with the politics and gerrymanderings of worldly origin. When we make the arm of flesh our dependence, we reap the due consequences.

The lesson of the rebellion of Korah is goes unheeded by Laodicea. Leadership in God's kingdom comes by His election, not from a popularity contest. The appearance of "democracy" should be that only - appearance...just as the ancient practice of casting of lots was only the appearance of arbitrary chance.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Until enough people understand that "love does not insist on its own way," and not enough people are willing to take second place, then the impasse remains.

,

Gerry, Agape love does not insist on taking "second place". Agape love both in giving and returning, seeks the win-win for everyone - regardless of skin color. It does not look at "place" as a zero-sum game where someone must lose for another to win.

You might want to re-read my post, Ted. I never said love insists on second place. That "love does not insist on its own way" IS from 1 Cor 13. In most cases, I would agree that love is a win-win proposition. But when there is an impasse, love is willing to say, not, "you win, I lose", rather, "alright, to maintain harmony, I'll give up my rights and have it your way." I do that fairly often with my wife.

Quote:

God is the epitome of agape love as found in 1 Cor 13, yet nowhere do I see any of the Godhead ceding "second place" to any human being.

I hope you have not forgotten that when Jesus came, He did take the form of a servant. The Creator washing the disciples feet who should have been washing His!

Quote:

We are to submit to Him, not the other way around. Yet, at the same time, I do see Him joining humanity to Himself, and in doing so, creates a win-win for Himself and for mankind. In the process, I don't see the angels taking "a step down" in the process - they keep their places.

While God is the Ruler of this universe, He DOES submit to our wishes if we don't want to worship Him!

Quote:

what is the most-oft stated reason for division? That there is not enough of "one kind" in represented in leadership. If a group's "needs" is based solely on number of people represented in the top positions, then I would humbly suggest there is the exact opposite of Godly love at work, and the Gospel automatically suffers because of it.

Are you saying there has not been exclusion of non-whites in the church hierarchy?