With separate "black" conferences, can we still be "the remnant church

[abelisle]

I want to thank Woody for opening the door to this topic and I want to apologize publicly for taking his thread off topic.

Ever since I was a child, I could never reconcile this situation in my mind, especially when older Adventists around proudly proclaimed that we were "the remnant church." Now we not only still have separate "black" conferences but a tremendous increase in ethnically fragmented churches (at least here in NYC and probably other large urban areas).

Why hasn't our leadership both not say anything in this regard or neither encourage a total integration of our membership?

Alex (if this has been discussed before, feel free to ignore or delete this topic Stan)

[SivartM]

I have no concern if none of the people who go to those churches feel slighted in any way... I mean, it's not like people HAVE to go to "their color's" church. There are people of many races in my church.

That said, I did sign a petition a Pathfinder in my conference was passing around to desegregate our churches.

As far as language-segregated churches, though, I can understand that if people want to worship and be around others who share their native language. We have a separate Spanish campmeeting in our conference.

[teresaq]

Quote:

especially when older Adventists around proudly proclaimed that we were "the remnant church."

i do so know what you mean, (not in a racial context, tho.)

but this is where the confusion comes in. at the risk of making an awful lot of enemies cause its a big no-no to say this, our denomination is the remnant church.

that does not automatically make the members the remnant people. the remnant people are in those other churches.

Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Mat 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write;...Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock:

Rev 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, ...

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people,

[phkrause]

I want to thank Woody for opening the door to this topic and I want to apologize publicly for taking his thread off topic.

Ever since I was a child, I could never reconcile this situation in my mind, especially when older Adventists around proudly proclaimed that we were "the remnant church." Now we not only still have separate "black" conferences but a tremendous increase in ethnically fragmented churches (at least here in NYC and probably other large urban areas).

Why hasn't our leadership both not say anything in this regard or neither encourage a total integration of our membership?

Alex (if this has been discussed before, feel free to ignore or delete this topic Stan)

You bring up a good point, and I know we've talk about this in the past. I have no problem with the different conference's. I have no problem with people wanting to spend time with people of there own race, culture, etc. I know that for me it never matter who I hung out with, having grown up in an intergrated neighborhood in NY. I'll take this a little further, at work even, we congregate together with those from our own departments, especially at office parties. Not because we dislike others but because we either feel safer with those we've work next to for long periods of time. I don't think there is nothing wrong with this. As far as our churches are concerned, when we first started expanding the message and tried working in the south, we were not successful at first. And we were in the middle of the civil war at the time. Even EGW said it would be better for blacks to work with blacks. Even today its far easier for a sda jew to work with jews, etc. And the reason for separate conference's has to do more with African Americans wanting to do more for the church and not being able to do so. So they asked for this and they got it. I could be wrong so someone who knows a little more about this, please correct me.

pk

[Outta Here]

Forced integration will be of no benefit to any of the parties involved. Integration will happen on its own, naturally over time. It may not happen in our lifetimes, but it will happen.

[olger]

I feel the same way about seperate conferences, Alex.

Sam Pipim has been calling for the dissolution of the seperate conferences as well.

g

[Woody]

I feel the same way about seperate conferences, Alex.

Sam Pipim has been calling for the dissolution of the seperate conferences as well.

g

I can't say that I consider Pipim a ringing endorsement ... but this is probably the first time ever that I have agreed with him on any subject.

[nuff sed]

I think it very interesting that while the black population of the US was fighting to be recognized as having the same rights as anybody else and a rightful place in society, black Adventists in the Eastern United States were fighting for and won the right to be separate. Remember that this phenomenon of separate racial conferences is only about fifty years old. Also, we seem to lose sight of the fact that the area where the conferences are divided is all in the East, and that there are only five of them. Because of the culture and climate in which we currently live I do forsee that there will be any change in this matter.

[Woody]

Good COmments Glad.

[Tom Wetmore]

...Also, we seem to lose sight of the fact that the area where the conferences are divided is all in the East, and that there are only five of them...

Actually that is not correct. The only Union territories in the US that do not have regional conferences are the Pacific and North Pacific Unions. It is not just the Eastern US. There are three regional conferences in the Southern Union, two in the Columbia Union, and one each in the Southwestern, Mid America, Atlantic and Lake Unions. That makes a total of 9 regional conferences. And even though the leadership of the Pacific Union successfully held the line against it, they have been under considerable pressure from some to have one or more regional conferences within the Pacific Union.

Part of the rationale for having formed the regional conferences in the 1940's was that African American pastors were being passed over for consideration for any leadership positions because of the level of racism that existed at the time, or at least the self-perpetuating good ol' boy network that was pretty much only white. Most of the churches and schools were completely segregated. There was a felt need for Leadership development and opportunity. And it was felt that having leadership from the segregated constituency was needed to best serve the needs of that constituency.

For the most part, none of that holds true anymore. In fact, it is rather mixed up from that original rationale. The majority of non-regional conference churches and schools in the US show substantial integration and diversity. Leadership in the non-regional conferences, Unions, NAD and the GC have substantial diversity. Currently there are a significant number of Union and Division elected officers that are black and it has been increasingly so for several decades. (If any group is under-represented it is Asian and Hispanic) While most regional conference churches remain predominately, if not exclusively non-Caucasian, not all regional conference churches are exclusively black, or even African American black. Increasingly, there is a growing number of Hispanic, Haitian, Asian and other ethnic churches and even integrated congregations of a wide variety of ethnic groups within the regional conferences. But ironically, given the original rationale, the regional conference leadership remains predominantly black, if not exclusively in most cases, with very little if any leadership diversity reflective of their own increasingly diverse constituency.

It is my understanding that the greatest resistance to change in this area is among regional conference leadership. And the separate retirement plan without any portability has made it difficult for regional conference pastors to take calls to non-regional conferences or for even merging the regional and non-regional conferences.

But IMHO, we are long overdue to do something positive about this problem. I sincerely believe that our inability to completely break down these barriers and walls is what is delaying our final entry into God's kingdom. We are divided. Only a unified body of Christ will live in peace for eternity.

[abelisle]

Tom,

Thank you for clarifying this issue in such succinct terms. Church leaders in my conference have expressed to me in private, the same issues that you mentioned that hinder any progress in this area.

At least now with your post, all the facts have been laid on the table.

Alex

[lazarus]

It is my understanding that the greatest resistance to change in this area is among regional conference leadership. And the separate retirement plan without any portability has made it difficult for regional conference pastors to take calls to non-regional conferences or for even merging the regional anda non-regional conferences.

Thanks Tom for correcting earlier points.

Whilst i would agree that the greatest resistance to change comes from the regional conferences my guess is that there may be a feeling on their part that attitudes have not changed sufficiently give up the autonomy they have gained. As someone who works for a "White" conference I can still see the work needs to be done to heal the cultural divisions in the church.

A process of dialogue about the past, present and future is a good start.

[lazarus]

BTW, were we the remnant church when the General conference cafeteria was segregated or when Washington Adventist hospital didn't treat Black patients?

[nuff sed]

Tom: I stand corrected about the number of regional conferences. While I did lump the Southern and Columbia Unions as being "Eastern" I forgot about the Southwestern. I do see, however, that we are on the same page. In order to "become as one" as some want us to do it would mean the total dissolution of conferences and re-establishment of "totally new ones". In the climate of distrust in which we live I do not see this happening.. Examples:

In the colleges we have Student Associations....and adjunct Black Student Associations ( why no Hispanic ones?).... We have separate Black Pastors Associations, etc. etc. etc. BUT......If anyone would suggest that there be a White Association......all "you-know-what" would break loose. How come you are not a racist if you belong to an "all-black" association but you are a racist if you form an "all white one"..?. Having said that I will , probably, incur the wrath of all the black brethren... who , in fact, do not know exactly "what" I believe or stand for. I, personally, am tired of chewing the cud and going round and round on the same topic over and over and over. I can read the same thing in the newspaper by just changing some names and institutions.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

good post, Glad!!!!!!!

[lazarus]

In the colleges we have Student Associations....and adjunct Black Student Associations ( why no Hispanic ones?).... We have separate Black Pastors Associations, etc. etc. etc. BUT......If anyone would suggest that there be a White Association......all "you-know-what" would break loose. How come you are not a racist if you belong to an "all-black" association but you are a racist if you form an "all white one"..?.

Let my try to explain.....

In the past and to some extent currently associations and organizations for "this and that" have been "white" because they run exclusively for and by white people. They were not called "white" but they were organizations for white people.

The Christian Union at my university was run by white Christian young people who did not invite black Asian of black pastors to speak. They invited "white" bands to play. They only discussed issues that white Christian students were focused on. To all intents and purposes it was a white Christian union.

When the Black Christian Union was formed it addressed the issues, concerns and needs of the black students. Ideally the Christian Union should have served the needs of all Christian students.

There were negro baseball leagues because?

Black ministers and members wanted to use their spiritual gifts in the same way that white ministers were allowed to. They were prevented from doing so. Regional conferences were essentially about that problem. It's time we moved on but first we must understand why we are where we are.

[Woody]

Tom: I stand corrected about the number of regional conferences. While I did lump the Southern and Columbia Unions as being "Eastern" I forgot about the Southwestern. I do see, however, that we are on the same page. In order to "become as one" as some want us to do it would mean the total dissolution of conferences and re-establishment of "totally new ones". In the climate of distrust in which we live I do not see this happening.. Examples:

In the colleges we have Student Associations....and adjunct Black Student Associations ( why no Hispanic ones?).... We have separate Black Pastors Associations, etc. etc. etc. BUT......If anyone would suggest that there be a White Association......all "you-know-what" would break loose. How come you are not a racist if you belong to an "all-black" association but you are a racist if you form an "all white one"..?. Having said that I will , probably, incur the wrath of all the black brethren... who , in fact, do not know exactly "what" I believe or stand for. I, personally, am tired of chewing the cud and going round and round on the same topic over and over and over. I can read the same thing in the newspaper by just changing some names and institutions.

Instead of ancient history being given to answer your good question ... I do hope that someone will come along and give a 'curent' answer to your 'current' question. At least that is my challenge to someone.

[Kountzer]

[Woody]

Thank you Kountzer.

[phkrause]

Good post Lazarus. This is what I've heard from many of my black friends, which I have many more of than white friends. The only time things like this come out, is in discussions like this. Otherwise my friends are my friends period. As you said christians should be christians, not white christians, black christians etc. And Alex can verify this.

pk

[Dr. Shane]

I have always been welcome when I attended black churches. Not all black churches belong to black conferences. I love attending black churches. If we had one in my area, I would attend there often.

[Kountzer]

BTW, were we the remnant church when the General conference cafeteria was segregated or when Washington Adventist hospital didn't treat Black patients?

Yesh.