One of the odious evils of our day is racism, the belief or practice that views or treats certain racial groups as inferior and therefore justifiably the object of domination, discrimination, and segregation.

While the sin of racism is an age-old phenomenon based on ignorance, fear, estrangement, and false pride, some of its ugliest manifestations have taken place in our time. Racism and irrational prejudices operate in a vicious circle. Racism is among the worst of ingrained prejudices that characterize sinful human beings. Its consequences are generally more devastating because racism easily becomes permanently institutionalized and legalized and in its extreme manifestations can lead to systematic persecution and even genocide.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church deplores all forms of racism, including the political policy of apartheid with its enforced segregation and legalized discrimination.

Seventh-day Adventists want to be faithful to the reconciling ministry assigned to the Christian church. As a worldwide community of faith, the Seventh-day Adventist Church wishes to witness to and exhibit in her own ranks the unity and love that transcend racial differences and overcome past alienation between races.

Scripture plainly teaches that every person was created in the image of God, who "made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26). Racial discrimination is an offense against our fellow human beings, who were created in God's image. In Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek" (Gal. 3:28). Therefore, racism is really a heresy and in essence a form of idolatry, for it limits the fatherhood of God by denying the brotherhood of all mankind and by exalting the superiority of one's own race.

The standard for Seventh-day Adventist Christians is acknowledged in the church's Bible-based Fundamental Belief No. 13, "Unity in the Body of Christ." Here it is pointed out: "In Christ we are a new creation; distinctions of race, culture, learning, and nationality, and differences between high and low, rich and poor, male and female, must not be divisive among us. We are all equal in Christ, who by one Spirit has bonded us into one fellowship with Him and with one another; we are to serve and be served without partiality or reservation."

Any other approach destroys the heart of the Christian gospel.

 

This public statement was released by the General Conference president, Neal C. Wilson, after consultation with the 16 world vice presidents of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, on June 27, 1985, at the General Conference session in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Re: "Is there something more that this conference does that isn't being accomplished by the conferences that are already established?"

YES.

I suggest that you read the history of the so-called Regional Conferences. Then study current discussions on this very subject. Once you has assimilated that, give thought as to why certain of the Regional Conferences have essentially pulled out of the Genral Conference retirement program, and run their own retirement program.

The questions and issues arround the question that you raise are very complex, and there is no simple answer.

The so-called Regional Conferences exist in the following Unions in North America:

Atlantic Union Conference

Columbia Union Conference

Lake Union Conference

Mid-America Union Conference

Southern Union Conference

Southwestern Union Conference

The following Unions, in North America, do not have a Regional Conference:

North-Pacific Union Conference

Pacific Union Conference

SDA Church in Canada

Re: "Why then, is there a Central States Conference that serves states . . . that already have working conferences?"

Let us set the record straight: The Central States Conference was organized before the Rocky Mountain Conference came into existance. Your question might be better stated as: Why was the Rocky Mountain Conference organized in a place that already had a working Central States Conference.

The Central States Conference was organized in 1952.

The Rocky Mountain Conference was organized in 1981.

NOTE: I am aware that there was a Conference organizaiton that covered Colorado that was organized in 1882. But, the decision was made to take that organization out of existance (For legal reasons it still exists.), and to replace it with a new Conference with expanded geographic coverage.

To speak further to your question with dates, the Central States Conference is older than the following Confernces in the Mid-America Union which were re-organized as of the following dates:

Dakota Conference, 1981

Iowa-Missouri Conference, 1980

Kansas-Nebraska Conference, 1980

Rocky Mountain Conference, 1981, already mentioned.

In actual fact, the Central States Conference is the second oldest (in its present form) Conference in the Mid-America Union. The oldest is the Minnesota Conference, organized in its present form in 1862.

The above dates raise a major question: During a time of major reoganization of the Conferences in the Mid-America Union, why was not the Central States Conference also reoganized, and given a specific geographic area that was not included in any other Conference area?

That answer comes to understanding the issues.

Mr. Matthews,

Thank you for this deeper understanding. I would like to access the same source in which you've referenced in these posts. I would like to be able to do more research on my own.

Maybe you can help with one more question though. You've mentioned the term "Conference" in two different forms. Is the Central States Conference a Union, or a local Conference?

Chrys

The so-called Regional Conferences, as is the Central States Conference, is a local Conference. It is not a Union Conference.

I suggest that those of you who are interested in this subject go to "Town Hall," and the thread "Racism in the SDA Church." Please read the post that I made in which I quote from an article by Charles W. Drake, III, in the February issue of OUTLOOK. Whether one agrees, or disagrees with it, I think it makes an important statement, that will help us to understand another viewpoint. As I did not quote the entire article, it may be helpful for you to go that publication, if you can obtain it.

Jan Paulsen was asked about this on the Hope TV program "Let's Talk" a couple of weeks ago. For those that have a place to put a dish, it really is an asset to one's spiritual life.

the "so-called" regional conferences came into existence in the 1940s because when black leaders asked for leadership roles within the already established conferences, the brethren responded by suggesting that regional conferences be formed.....

Not exactly true... The black brethren in New York "Demanded" their own conference... The reason is not important for purposes of this discussion. Don't try to tell me differently...I was there. My father was Atlantic Union Auditor at the time and it was his responsibility to help separate assets from Greater New York Conference so that the new Northeastern Conference could be established. The first and only black leader that I have heard willing to discuss this in that context is Elder Calvin Rock. See the Adventist Review August 10 issue. Article: Readers Respond to "Four Big Questions" Regards, Don

Not exactly true... The black brethren in New York "Demanded" their own conference... The reason is not important for purposes of this discussion. Don't try to tell me differently...I was there. My father was Atlantic Union Auditor at the time and it was his responsibility to help separate assets from Greater New York Conference so that the new Northeastern Conference could be established. The first and only black leader that I have heard willing to discuss this in that context is Elder Calvin Rock. See the Adventist Review August 10 issue. Article: Readers Respond to "Four Big Questions" Regards, Don

And that has been true in other regions as well. In some cases, those demands have been acceded to, and separate Conferences set up. In other cases, compromises have been worked out instead.

The reality is that cultural differences exist, reflected in both administrative styles and worship styles. For example, in the hispanic culture, pastors are more authority figures. Hispanic administrators often tend to be more authoritarian. That simply doesn't work with Anglo constituencies.

It is quite challenging to please everyone! Church planting experts recommend separate churches for different focus groups, whether on the same campus or at other locations. Logically, that would seem to carry over into larger administrative units as well.

David, What "bugs' me is that I keep hearing about how racist the church is because we have separated the "blacks" away from the "whites" . This usually comes from the uniformed "younger generation" who don't know better or from some who have "their own agenda">>>Regards, Don

Many evangelicals are racist. Millions of them!

Let me explain. The sensational (and popular) end-time scenarios of Hal Lindsay, Tim Lahaye, Irvin Baxter Jr., and Marvin Rosenthall are specifically racist in that they teach that God is obligated to save all the Jews in spite of their decisions or obedience.

Ain't that somethin?

People with nothing better to do, on certain msg boards in particular, love to break out the topic of racism in the church, and stir up mean words and contention. Does racism exist in the sda church? If you look hard enough, racism can be found in every institution in this country. I haven't noticed it, but then I am not looking that hard.

I try to be pragmatic when it comes to issues like this. In college, I enjoyed classwork in sociology and cultural anthropology. My experiences after leaving college have confirmed some sociological principles. The hard facts are that cultural differences exist. There are cultural differences between caucasian, African-American and hispanic people groups. These manifest themselves in significant differences in worship style, in evangelistic techniques and in administration. Perhaps the old way of looking at things was to try to fit everyone together under the same roof, so to speak, and please everyone. Reality is that it doesn't work. The church planting intensive which I took via seminary extension, was a real eye-opener for me. The OPPOSITE of the old-school principle is taught in church planting. That is, DON'T try to please everyone or fit everyone under the same roof in the same room at the same time. It doesn't work. Instead, have focus groups, and faith fellowships built around those focus groups.

Thus, in one large city, you should ideally find a number of Adventist churches, appealing to different demographic constituencies. And, there are some 'rainbow' communities, cross-cultural in character, which would support a rainbow church. Yet, even within a rainbow church, a balance must be maintained, an equilibrium. Fairfield, CA is an example. It is a rainbow church, but I understand there are formulas for representation from the several cultural groups in church leadership, to preserve that balance.

We must also recognize that many communities are not there. To attempt to impose a cross-cultural church upon a community which is not cross-cultural in character, could be disastrous. Work with what you have to work with, and do nothing that would interfere with bringing souls from the community to the truth.

So, I submit that if the overriding goal is to win souls for the kingdom of God, that is, to be seeker-driven, then that principle will determine the character of the outreach, of the church and of adminstrative units.

Dave

As an "uniformed" young pastor and one who works for a white conference I can see why black pastors asked/demand separate conferences. The inability of some white Christians to accept diversity is evident in their need to flee churches and conferences when diversity reaches a critical mass.

Whats the agenda Don?

Dave,
I like your approach and I think the church planting movement offers the church a brighter future.
Here's the challenge though. How does a Church plant that is made up of 99% white folks deal with a influx of hispanic/African/ Carribean seekers. My guess is that alot of the white folks would struggle with it for all kind of reasons. I've seen racist attitudes lie at the root of white flight and result in very little or no evangelism at all. This goes for African American chruches too.

In some areas the most receptive to the gospel are those in transition, those on lower incomes etc.

Some folks would rather see their church die than have it revitalised/grow rapidly by immigrants!

Hi Lazarus,
I tend to be seeker-driven. I take a look at the community--demographics and such. I would then design an outreach approach which is compatible with the community. There are rainbow communities, in which a rainbow church would not be a problem. There are other communities, however, in which it would. My goals in developing and outreach program include networking with community leaders, building up a good 'footprint' in the neighborhood, etc. So I would identify the constituencies in the community, see how they interact, and plan accordingly. Personally, I am not a fan of one-size-fits-all. I do believe in neighborhood churches, reflecting the demographics of the neighborhood. In a public high school neighborhood, I would want to plant a family-focused church, same for middle school. IOW the neighborhood would determine the constituency of the church, because it would be a part of, and fed by the neighborhood.

So, foreseeably, in a community of 100,000 people, I could see, say, ten Adventist churches, strategically placed to serve the various constituencies in the city. Drawing a circle of 2-mile radius around each church, would determine the demographic profile of the church. I believe that excellent church growth could take place, if the church is in tune with its surrounding community, and is seeker-driven (or at least seeker-sensitive) within the parameters of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy.

Dave

I pastor in an area of Maryland where there are over 70 churches I'm told. Most of the churches attract people from all over the metro area. Folks will drive past several chruches to reach the church they want to attend. Even if you plant churches as u suggest people are people and they go where they please. All black people don't go to the same typesof black churches. My guess is that there will be alot of cross over.

But I feel that my main question has not been addressed.

Lazarus, I must ask you a question which has bugged me for a very long time. Why do you spend so much time and focus on racism?

I have many black friends who attend mixed congregrations and when I have shown them some of your posts they simply shrug ,,,

Red, yellow, black or white ... we all should be recognized for our worthiness. We should also have the options to worship in a cultural setting which affords us an opportunity to be at ease without having to be concerned about the race card.

In the debate about racism in the church .... I feel that there is racism. But my experience is that it is a little different than most experience. I see that if you are a women or a white and heaven forbid if you are both ... that there is a lot of discrimination in the church. Minorities are usually given preference over whites and women for most positions in the chruch. In Michigan we rightfully voted to do away with affirmation action which was legalized discrimination against whites and women. In the church the biggest group that is discriminated against is women. How many women leaders and pastors do you see now days. Women in leadership positions have declined since our Women prophet died in 1915 and has not recovered. They (Women) make up a much larger percentage of our membership than blacks yet the blacks have a much larger representation in leadership. So ... where is the racism and discrimination?