If you had the power to make changes in Adventism, what would they be?

[SivartM]

I think it would be cool as part of prayer meeting (I don't go to prayer meeting myself, though), but I was thinking more about it being an ongoing project that involved people all week long.

[whatisthis]

Interesting points, didn't quote them all, just this one I want to comment on.

In the case of "black" conference, does it just need a re-name? Wonder if it's more cultural than it is color? My black friends in the (for lack of a better name) white conference seem more edgy about my sometimes worshipping with the "black" church than my white-skinned friends are. Yet, much that I hear and see in the "black" church reminds me more of my Great-grandmother's generation. She actually reached either adolescence or teenage in the 1800's, and lived with us when I was small, which was in the 1960's. I met several other of her friends in prayer meeting, and have a lot of mundane cultural style memories from them. They also remind me of Cherokee or even Samoan culture a bit, or at least the very mixed native culture that has arisen from it today, and there's a good reason for that, too, since a lot of them are mixed with Cherokees and other ethnic groups, who don't tend to be so arrogant about color. So there's good valid culture, here. Doesn't seem arrogant to me, isn't rap culture or something, at least what I've experienced in most random samplings of attendance in various areas so far.

[Tom Wetmore]

All this back and forth about whose conference should be eliminated to solve the obvious problem that we have the embarrassment of a racially divided church at any level is quite the same as the experience in South Africa. The desired direction was to merge the white and non-white conferences together. But the disagreement stalled for a time over which would be the surviving organization.

Someone earlier suggested the hope of a compromise that would avoid getting rid of either the regional conference or the regular local conferences. There is a solution that could gain some traction as it would realize even what Woody has hinted at, some increased efficiencies and real cost savings.

I say we eliminate that entire level of structure. Dissolve the whole layer of local/regional conferences. Operate the administrative oversight of the local churches and local schools from the union conference level. That would solve multiple problems with one step in the right direction.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

WOW!!! That would put a lot of people out of work..

[Tom Wetmore]

Some but not all. Many would be reassigned to pastoral work, others would be absorbed by the union conferences which would need additional personnel to handle some increased responsibility. The biggest savings would be reduced upkeep and maintenance of conference facilities that would be closed/sold. In large part it would not be a reduction in programs and ministries, but a major reallocation of resources and personnel to the rubber meets the road, so to speak.

[SivartM]

If we get rid of the conferences that will sure make Pathfinders complicated.

[Woody]

Yes SivartM. There is so much that is run from the conferences. Personally .... I so no need for the Unions and that is what I would axe.

[SivartM]

I think we ought to get rid of the divisions. They're so... divisive. Just look at the name.

[Woody]

Yes. By definition ... they are divisive.

[Tom Wetmore]

Under this idea, the things done by local conferences would be taken over at the union conference level. Pathfinders under youth ministries, for example, would obviously continue on but with fewer redundant directors for the whole union territory.

Some might question whether a single administrative unit could effectively cover that large of a geographic territory and larger numbers of members spread over that territory. But the current existence and function of the regional conferences already typically covers that large of a geographic territory. So it can be done.

A technical complication in restructuring the denomination tends to favor eliminating the local conference level and preserving the union conference level. The union conferences are the structural constituent parts of the General Conference. To eliminate the unions would require a constitutional amendment at a GC Session and a complete reworking of the structure and delegate selection process and representation. That could get complicated. One would expect that an elimination of the local conferences would not be done all at once and would likely be adopted by some areas of the world and impractical in other areas. This could be done without complicating or disrupting the structure.

[mrsducky]

I'm not so sure that tests really ID a person's gift(s). The church I belong to did that type of testing a few years ago and after all was said and done, the nominating committee decided to use the test information to match people to offices in the church, etc. It was a dismal failure! They haven't been mentioned since.

I think what we really need is more genuine fellowship among the members--getting to really know each other and to encourage each other to be better Christians. It isn't enough to get together once a week for church and hug each other like we are best friends and then ignore them until next week when we repeat the same meaningless ritual. We need more transparency. Just my 2 cents.

[DeeAnna]

I don't understand about the conferences --- are you saying that there are black conferences and they are black, but the white conferences are black and white ? Are white people allowed to participate in black conference activities ?

[SivartM]

No, there are no white conferences. The "white" conferences are not race-specific, the black conferences are. So some black people join the black conferences, and some join the other conferences.

[nuff sed]

It is interesting to note that, originally, those who chose to 'not' be part of the "black" conferences were mostly those who came from 'the islands' (Jamaica, Bahamas, Trinidad); whose culture was NOT Afro-American but was more British-oriented. The lines have been blurred, however, over the last twenty years or so. 'nuff sed

[shelly]

It depends on where you live. In the south there are "white" conferences that have no black members or integrated in any form. There are also churchesfrom the 2 conferences who function as sister churches and the two churches socialize and support one another. I think the separate conferences are more a cultural statement than anything else. Worship services in black churches have a different feel than integrated or white churches, to me.

[Woody]

I find that extremely hard to believe. Conferences are very large. I sincerely doubt there is a conference where they have zero blacks attending in any of their churches.

Hey ... I'm willing to be educated. Can you name a conference where this is true? I would love to contact them and verify this claim.

[Dr. Shane]

There are actually "black" churches in "white" conferences in the South. A "black" church can choose which conference to belong to.

[Woody]

That is IF the white conferences will HAVE them. I know of some black churches that have been refused.

[phkrause]

Well that's christian of them, it's no wonder that we have black conference's. I know I don't blame them for wanting there own conference's.

[Dr. Shane]

Maybe they were refused because the black conference wanted them and there was some politics going on behind the scene. Oh, the things we will learn in heaven!

[shelly]

Your right. It is individual churches. But the same can be said about "black" conferences. Usually there are hispanic and white members present in the entire conference but not prevelent in the individual churches. I have attended both black and white conferences and the cultural differences can make worship styles different. That seems to be the main issue now with the conferences. When a church becomes truly integrated the tone and culture of the church changes. This is both good and bad. I attended a church in a military town where the was a wide array of cultures expressed. As the church became more muli-cultural original members became upset that their church was changing and evolving into a place that they were no longer comfortable with. Both sides had valid points. We choose chuches that we feel is condusive to our spirtual growth and worship. When the tone of the services changes that can be uncomfortable . However, the new members had a valid point in wanting to become fuly involved with the direction of the church rather than being free to come but being barred from making themselves a home.

[Woody]

Okay ... I'll go ahead and give one example. And those who might know more details on this can jump in.

One example is the All Nations Church in Berrien Springs, MI.

It is my understanding that the Michigan Conference refused them admission to their conference because they were not conservative enough for their liking. One problem was that due to the cultural factor ... this church used drums occasionally.

Drums are prohibited in the Michigan Conference except for the Pioneer Memorial Church which has it's own autonomy being a University Church and connected to the GC.

Okay ... that's my take. You fill me in with your input.

[mrsducky]

If I could change Adventism, I would like to see all the meaningless discussions about skirt lengths, jewelry, make up, gossip, what activities are permitted on Sabbath, vegan vs vegetarian vs meat eating diets, what music is ok and what isn't, etc. permanently end. Instead I'd like to see a total focus on Jesus and our relationships with HIM. I'd like to see each of us start seeing our pew mates for the humans we are--sinners saved by Grace. If we weren't distracted by all these "critical issues" then we could really move toward the Kingdom!

[DeeAnna]

AMEN....and AMEN again !! ( Actually, I clapped when I read that ! ).

[Overaged]

I haven't read one good idea here...all a bunch of complaining.

Besides; I belong to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. What is "Adventism?" Can anyone describe it, with proof?