.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
Opinion
Eaton, Charles
2012
|
A House Divided
Submitted: Feb 23, 2012
By Charles Eaton
Why do the two Seventh-day Adventist Conferences continue to be separated, de facto, by race?
Admittedly, I am not much of an historian, but some basic research into the history of this church demonstrates that the two conferences were indeed necessary when overt racism was rampant through the United States. It seems that they were started as an initiative by both white and black leaders in the 1940’s so that more black people could join the church while it worked out its internal racist issues; it was never intended to be a permanent division, but rather a temporary stop on the way to unification. I have no qualms with how and why we first divided into two conferences; in fact, I think it was a great idea to keep the church expanding while giving authority positions to African Americans. However, since that time, the military has pioneered racial integration during WWII, schools were racially integrated not too long after that, and we elected our first half-black President of the United States all while the church continues to split itself along racial divides in a post-modern society. Credit where credit’s due: Individual churches have done a phenomenal job inviting and including people of other races into the loving fold of fellowship, but the governing body of the Adventist church continues to foster the same “separate but equal” doctrine that African Americans fought against for decades.
Unfortunately, one of the primary reasons why that doctrine continues to be accepted into the church while it has been rejected everywhere else is because a large number of African Americans support it themselves. When I asked one prominent African American pastor about why we still have two conferences today his reply, essentially, amounted to self interest. Paraphrasing, “The reality is that the interests of the African American community rarely take center stage, or even off-center stage, when combined with European interests. We can serve our own community better by ourselves than would be possible if the two conferences were merged together.” Another black minister told me, again paraphrasing, “Quite honestly, a merging of the conferences would mean that some individuals from both sides would be forced out of power. It’s hard to convince people that it’s in their best interest to reduce their own authority.” A third person who works for the Regional Conference told me, paraphrasing, “The system has been in place for so long most people are simply satisfied with the way it works now. Also, those who want an integration of the conferences are often short on the practical ways it can be done.”
None of these reasons hold enough weight to justify the segregation of the conferences, but they are windows into the heart of race relations within Adventism. Frankly, I cannot believe that the primary excuse to continue the separation of the conferences is, of all things, inconvenience. It is inconvenient to merge the conferences, so why fix what’s not broken? It is inconvenient to risk losing power, so let’s not rock any boats. It is inconvenient to not set our own agenda for community action, so we’d rather not share. I firmly believe that we are missing out on direct blessings from God, perhaps to the point of holding off the latter rain, because of this silly segregation issue that no one wants to seriously address. The Holy Spirit did not fall upon the early believers until they were all of one accord under God’s will. It is a sad, sad day when our secular government sets any standard of social equality ahead of the church, but perhaps, with a new generation of young people who have no real living memory of white/black racism in this country, we can start to catch up.
________________________
Join in the discussion:
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
I wouldn't expect the church to lead in any social justice issues. We have never made a move until legal events or social pressure made moving unavoidable. It shouldn't be that way, but in a conservative church, can we expect anything else?
In our little church, in a predominately white State, we have a relatively high percentage of non whites. Until recently we had one individual from a country in Africa. We have a couple of individuals from a Caribbean nation. We have South American and Mexican, Philipino, etc., etc. And this is a very small church. At our church race is irrelevant. Everyone there has at least 2 things in common: we are all SDA', and we can communicate with each other in a common language. It is enjoyable to be able to get different perspectives from these folks from various parts of the world. It can be the same way on a conference level. We just need to do it.
There will be no Black, Hispanic, Oriental, or white conferences (or churches) in Heaven. Why should there be any now?
In our system, it is the conference session that votes on whether a conference should amalgamate with another, and a Union session which votes for the Union level. That is why we have financially unviable conferences, and why we have way more conferences than we really need: they would have to vote themselves out of existence, and that rarely happens. The same thing applies to Unions. It has happened, but very rarely.
Once again, you've put your finger on a timely issue and highlighted the big factors used to argue pro and con. Well done!
Perhaps a good starting question is: Who cares about what issue? If it is power, that usually is the focus of those (few) who hold power and feel threatened by the prospect of losing it. If it is control over funds, it is usually those who control the funds, or wish they had more funds coming their direction. But whatever the issue, most often it is the pursuit of the illusion that the issue is of superior or paramount importance. Noting who is engaged in that pursuit often identifies those who are devoted to a concept of how we are to advance the work of God, but without the empowerment or guidance of the Holy Spirit to more than a minimal degree.
In recent years I have enjoyed the great blessing of being part of planting a new church just a few miles from Oakwood University. While we are part of the traditionally majority caucasian conference, race is not an issue to us because we are focused on gift-based ministry and the fellowship of believers that comes when people are united by God. We have members whose origins are around 20 countries around the world. Every continent is represented. How a person is gifted by God and their ministry are far more important than the color of their skin or how they speak.
I do not believe that the blurring of conference lines leading to full unification within the denomination will be driven from the top-down because it is at the top where the power games are played and divisive issues get argued most loudly. It is when we have growing unity of believers in the local congregation that minimizes race that the change will grow from the bottom-up.
Thank you for bringing this point out in the open. I had no idea that this situation still existed among SDAs. In my opinion, it is both astonishing and unconscinable. Even STUPID and self-defeating. Why would anyone be attracted to such an archaic organization?
While I can understand that differences in traditions associated with ethnicity can result in different personalities of congregations and services, it is astonishing to see a formal institutionalized segregation in any group that professes to believe in fairness and brotherly love.
Let me assure you all that this stance does not suggest a Godly connection or spirit in your church, and, even though I have given some thought to making contact and attending a local adventist church, finding out about this really ensures that I will shelve any further consideration of those thoughts. How can any of you possibly tolerate such a division in your own church? It is simply incredible....
While Charles offers one understandably idealistic perspective; allow me to share with you another. Please read the first blog that I ever posted on this site on this exact same topic, entitled Marching to Zion, From America. This may provide you something else to consider—besides the fact/truism that, for better or for worse, the most segregated hour (or three) of the week, all over America, is 11 o’clock on either Saturday or Sunday morning.
http://www.atoday.org/article/286/blogs/foster-stephen/2009/marching-to-zion-from-america
After reading your blog, while a very interesting perspective, I think you were off on a couple things. I think you contradicted your self when you compared the Adventist church to McDonalds, in that "No matter where you go, the menu items are virtually the same; we all study the same Sabbath School Quarterly, sing from the same hymnal, and the fries all taste the same." Then in the next paragraph highlight all the differences between conferences such as song choice, preaching style, worship style, and time management. While I agree that individual churches take on many different forms and fashions when it comes down to worship service, they should still be under the same umbrella conference. We may not like each other, and we may have racial problems even within the two conferences, but the fact that we haven't gotten over it yet is downright embarrassing to us as a denomination.
Let’s face it however Charles, while you are perhaps comfortable patronizing a McDonald’s in an affluent suburb; suburbanites may not be comfortable patronizing a McDonald’s in the hood. The inverse of this is also true. (Well, that may not be a good analogy for a variety of reasons; but there are some parallels to our situation.)
The conferences are, in my opinion, merely pragmatic responses to the demographic composition of the congregations/churches therein. When, as is apparently the case, the churches become less homogeneous, so will the conferences; then pragmatism will again dictate that the organizations reflect reality.
Meanwhile I maintain that this current ‘situation’ is in actuality more reflective—and is more a function—of the racial, societal and cultural history of the United States of America than it is anything else (hence the title of my initial blog).
Israel had 12 tribes, each with unique features and purposes. It was organized this way, purposefully. There are, according to Revelation 21:21, gates to the heavenly city (presumably, they will all be used). The only unity constant throughout the Bible is in Christ.
Ideally, we should all get along together, here in our churches. But, we do not. This is not unique (well, perhaps it is especially unique to "churched" people). The Southern Baptist Convention and the The National Baptist Convention exist for much the same reason as the (formerly) majority Conferences and Regional Conferences in Adventism: the closer we associate (in terms of organization, administration, and power), the less we seem to get along.
Blacks and whites do not share power and authority well.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." But, sadly, a house separated to operate toward the same goal, might stand longer than we might like.
You stated "Blacks and whites to not share power and authority well." You are correct in observing that there is a lot of history of people who contrast racially having difficulty working together in many settings, including the church. However, where people are united in purpose, even those who are physically diverse can work together in great harmony. While the 12 Tribes of Israel were distinct, they did not overlap each other and they worked in harmony under God's guidance. May we do the same!
"All of them are wrong (the article and the commentators). The conferences are DIFFERENT not segregated. People go to church not to conference. A gathering of Adventists in a new location is not a church plant, it is church swell. Plant is growth. Relocation is swell."
I can only add that with campmeetings considered,
one is doing far better than the other. Just sayin'...the Southeastern conference rocks.
Perhaps, like the ordination issue, its just another symptom of the power virus.
At least that's how this gringo (or haole) sees it.
Those who most vehemently lament the status quo should lead by joining congregations currently comprised of people of another ethnic background.
My anecdotal observations are that blacks and Hispanics often join previously predominantly white churches, but white Americans very seldom join predominantly black and/or Hispanic churches; and that, as Preston has pointed out, some of America’s largest Christian denominations are organized in such a way that their racially different organizations are actually effectively functioning as separate denominations. At least we haven’t gone that far. (The fries continue to all taste alike?)
We should not perhaps ignore The Pink Elephant in the Room. The fact is that white Adventists are apparently becoming, shall we say, less numerous in the so-called “First World;” including of course, North America.
I suspect that crisis will soon enough bring everyone together. But then, everyone doesn’t anticipate the same crisis; so when it is here, what will we do then?
Fortunately my home church is very ingetrated as are most non-regional churches. We have a black associate pastor as well. I can't think of anyone who likes the separate conferences except administrators. I hear that many whites don't go to the regional churches, because by being designated apart from the rest of the church, they are assumed to be for blacks only. I don't see them reaching out to the other local churches. I wish our local regional churches would advertise their programs/concerts more so that we would be aware of them. As you can see, I do not call these black churches but regional because that is the institutional name and they exist by virtue of the insitituion.
So why do we not have the conferences run by professionally trained lay members? May I suggest that one reason is an unstated assumption reflecting a traditional ideology about who should run the Adventist Church. It appears that it is assumed that God is involved in the selection of conference officials and apparently God does not want non-clergy to run the church. I personally don’t believe that but I offer this as one reason. Objections are welcomed.
There are other factors which others might wish to suggest.
May I again suggest that the root cause of the problem is that conference officials are all human beings—like all of us offering our critical comments. They find themselves selected to be a conference officer. Most know they do not have inadequate preparation for the jobs into which are thrust and most do the best they can under very difficult circumstances.
If Jesus could take a group with such diverse backgrounds as the apostles and use them to provide the diversity of leadership necessary in the apostolic church, why do we imagine using only clergy for church leadership positions as we prepare to meet Jesus?
We have an interesting organisation. We sometimes accuse the church of being a bureaucracy, but if you read Weber's description of what he means by 'bureaucracy', you would soon see we aren't. We are an ideological movement, which brings all sorts of huge problems (and possibilities) that would not exist if we were a bureaucracy. In a bureaucracy, the administrators are paid to be 'dictators'. Everyone down the line obeys commands from above. That is not our system at all. Conferences pay pastors, but their success depends on the cooperation of the local church. Each level of the church is meant ot oversee the level below, but the officials are elected by delegates from the level below. Each official is therefore meant to oversee the work of those who put him in office. If you can't see the problems inherent in that, you've never worked in an organisation. The only level with any coercive power over church members is the local church. The local church where he is a member can discipline the GC President, while he has to rely on his 'moral' authority to deal with anyone in the organisation. Any decision he makes can be over-turned by the GC session or executive committee. We may be more highly structured than the RCC, but no one in our hierarchy has even the authority of a local RC priest. I have known a few administrators who would love to return to the work of a local pastor. The more I see of how the church works, the more I sympathise with their position.
Kevin,
Speaking as an MBA with advanced training in corporate structures and management, the only corporate structure I can show you that is more bureaucratic and fiscally inefficient than the Adventist Church is the US federal government. The first and foremost function of a bureaucracy is self-preservation. To that end the church has built a mystique of exclusive clergy qualification that permits measurement only by criteria it defines, so it has become to varying degrees insulated from the realities of ministry needs in the local church.
It is from that view that I question the potential success of any movement like the One Project seeking spiritual transformation if the majority of those in attendance are church leaders.
Whether you view a system as 'fiscally efficient' often depends on the theory on which you base your evaluation. And what you are comparing it with. Fiscal efficiency is actually down the list of our priorities. It has to be for any organisation whose primary commitment is to an ideology and its mission. When we focus on fiscal efficiency is exactly when our mission tends to suffer. I notice a lot of people who criticise our present system do so almost solely from the POV of what it does to a local church, and tend to be in favour of a more congregational structure. I personally believe we would be making a huge mistake in moving in that direction. I am in favour of restructuring our present sytem of GC - Union - Conference to make it more efficient, but not of changing the underlying rationale or theory of how the church should work.
I also would question the success of any movement that attracted only church leaders. That is because most of the changes that we need need to occur in the local church, not higher up. Revival is more effective at the local level. But when revival does occur at the local level, the long-term results can be more effective if there is a church organiation standing behind it to lend support. There is no reason why the organisation should be out of touch with the realities of the local church. If their delegates keep selecting and voting for people who are, then I guess they deserve what they get.
The assumption that God calls only theology students to serve in church administration is not biblical. Indeed, unity is accomplished through the employment of a diversity of spiritual gifts, per 1 Corinthians 12. There are a diversity of spiritual gifts that, if employed, would organically address the issue Charles raised.
The lack of diversity in how our church is run, purposefully or not, organically calcifies the problem.
For the sake of supposing let's assume that glorious day comes when this dispicable barrier is done away with. What will be the rules then? Will we say that a certain percentage of white and non-whites, male and female must hold certain positions at all times? We know human tendancy will cry "foul" if any one race/gender gains(or maintains) a decided edge. Someone else mentioned that as of now there is not a viable transition plan on the table to deal with the "x & o's" of making it happen in a functional, productive manner. The saddest part of this discussion is that leadership at the highest levels on both sides aren't of mind to make it a priority.
I truly think reform will occur with the next generation or so(assuming Christ doesn't come) just because they're better socially equiped to make it happen. If projected statistics hold true that within the next couple of decades more children will be born of dual heritage as opposed to one race the issue (at least in North America) may genetically work itself out through natural processes.
If Blacks generally wish to maintain separate conferences I cannot see or understand any basis why they should be forced to integrate. It is neither incorrect nor racist to say that Black divine services are often quite different from those of other ethnic groups. That is not saying one is right and others are wrong -- they are just different.
Isn't the term "self-interest" judgmental?
I can think of one such conference in Chicago where any church in the country could become part of their field and send tithes there and another one in Florida where Administrative incompentence is rampant.
As Kevin points out, mismanagement is not unique to black conferences. It is, evidently, an equal opportunity trait. Pioneer Valley Academy, Atlantic Union College, and other majority conference affiliated concerns have gone "belly up." GC retirement "investment" funds lost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Black conferences are the fastest growing Adventist entities (re: baptisms and tithe) in North America. May we all be so "mismanaged." It may be past time to integrate, but mismanagement by blacks is not primary reason. The perception that mismanagement is unique to blacks is, likely, a reason why many blacks -- and whites resist integration.
Black conferences however, show contumacious mediocrity and incompetence in management and this has nothing to do with being black per se as there are hundreds of hispanic churches which belong to black conferences as well. I'm puzzled at the phenomenon and would like to understand why. I suspect it's because being ostracized from the mainstream organizational structure has bred a whole set of different disfunctions.
Thus let it be clear: I believe theior dysfuntion is an ecclesiological phenomenon, not a racial one which is one more reason to abolish these organizational aberrations from our midst.
For that time same period, of the nearly $117 million of tithe returned in the Columbia Union, nearly $38 million (or about 32%) was from the regional Allegheny East and Allegheny West Conferences (combined).
In the Southern Union, of the over $187 million of tithe returned during this same period, nearly $58 million (or about 31%) was returned from the regional South Atlantic, South Central, and Southeastern Conferences (combined).
In the Atlantic Union Conference during this period, the net membership growth total was 2,462. The net membership growth of the regional Northeastern Conference alone was 1,450. Of course, of the 101,498 members of the Atlantic Union Conference at that time, 47,865 (or 47.2%) were from the Northeastern Conference.
The net membership growth in the Columbia Union as of Dec. 31, 2010 was 3,246 over the previous period. The net membership growth of its regional Allegheny East and Allegheny West Conferences (combined) was 1,298. Of the 128,915 members of the Columbia Union at the end of 2010, 46,652 (or 36.2%) were members of either of the two regional conferences in that union.
The net membership growth of the 246,216 members of the Southern Union—of which 108,822 (or 44.2%) were members of one of the three regional conferences in that Union—was 2,766 for the period ending Dec. 31, 2010. The net growth in the largest of the regional conferences in the Southern Union— the South Atlantic Conference—was 3,467. (This was more than offset, however, by the loss in net membership of 5,403 in the South Central Conference. The Union as a whole experienced a net loss in membership of some 660.)
This information is readily available on the North American Division website and reflects information on the largest North American Unions for which this information is applicable. The largest Union in the Division is the Pacific Union; which does not recognize any of its conferences as regional. Nonetheless, the churches in that Union are comprised similarly to churches elsewhere in the Division in terms of their heterogeneity or homogeneity of composition.
I am curious as to why you assume that regional conferences are managed less well than are other conferences, generally speaking?
If there is to be a disbanding of conferences, from a business management standpoint, wouldn’t those entities in which growth or productivity are slowest, rather than those which are growing fastest or are most productive, be the most likely candidates for elimination?
-----
Because they are. I speak from experience, I've dealt with at least two of these. Numbers really say nothing, they are not a way to measure success in the kingdom.
We are talking about very basic notions of ethics, organization and honest approach. Regional conferences have churches anywhere in the country, they do not respect territory. Any church in the country can send them tithe, they'll accept it. Fledgling churches in their territory are allowed to hire pastors on their own and pay them on their own by the use of tithe. This has led to all kinds of abuses.
Morale amongst pastors is generally low because management is chaotic. In a particular state in the South, a regional conference is in constant conflict with the regular conference because of lack of due process in several aspects.
There's really no reason for segregation in the Adventist Church. We can do more if we're united.
The numbers are relevant to the extent that the rates of growth of these conferences and the contributions of the members of these conferences are suggestive of a degree of competence and effectiveness and productivity.
If you are talking about corruption (as opposed to "mismanagement"), you should be specific and not paint with a broad brush.
This is a debate of ideas Stephen, no need to name names. You should be able to do your own research and verify what I've been sharing here.
I have not mentioned or hinted or implied that you are saying that this has anything with race, have I?
Any burden of proof of your claims is, in all fairness, on you; as you are the one who brings these allegations, and are speaking from personal experience.
If you want to know what some sections of the church really think about those from different races/cultures, it is interesting being of mixed 'heritage' but blending into one. From a couple of conversations with people who are in a similar position but 'blend in' with a different group, I would say that blaming one group for the problem is simplistic - in fact, just plain wrong. I sometimes wonder how many churches (or committees at higher levels) have come to the conclusion "we don't want 'those' people here, they just wouldn't fit in". It makes for interesting ponderings when 'those people' happen to be almost all relatives of yours [or your father, as my mother would put it :) ]. I know it is human to want to be mostly with people 'like us', but it is the disregard with which some 'good' Christians can treat others that bothers me. To say that some people (not necessarily differing in race) wouldn't 'fit in' with the current membership of the church may be a valid observation, but to continue to do nothing to in any way share the gospel (or even the love of God) with them seems wrong to me. I have not yet found a way to share my thoughts with people who say such things without them getting the (admittedly correct) impression that I am considering their words and actions to be 'racist' and not entirely Christian, and that leads to defensive justification rather than actual listening. So I usually say little, or nothing, which isn't easy for me.