Keith

We should get an evening together and trade stories. My first encounter with the South was Fort Benning/Columbus, Ga.
After several weeks of being confined to barracks, I got a pass to attend the SDA Church in Columbus, Ga. I hitch-hiked into Columbus, made inquiries about the location of the SDA church and caught the correct bus. As taught in the North, I went to the back of the bus so that late arrivals could have s seat near the front. The rear of the bus was filled with Black ladies, deep in conversation, obviously on their way to do house work. One lady kept staring at me and finally spoke, very rapidly and in a Southern accend. Finally it dawned on me, that I was in the back of the bus, and than my place was up front! I apologized and moved up about six rows: all the ladies nodded approvingly. Twenty-three years later, I was invited to join the Medical College of Georgia to design a dental school, recruit a faculty, and organize a curriculum.
Within a year, I was elected Chairman of the Board of the Church School. A Black SDA physician, an Army major was stationed at Fort Gordon. He inquired about enrolling his daughter a third or forth grade student into the all white SDA Church School. I, of course, argued for accepting the young lady. The Board was strongly divided. Finally, the pro's prevailed. The church was threatened by one member of the board, a childless male, with blowing his $4000.00 contribution to the Church and Church School out the back side of the structure. I was threatened to be beaten up in the parking lot and threats were made against my recently build home in the suburbs.

A few weeks later, serving as a deacon in the lobby, A black visitor entered the lobby and was immediately approached by another deacon. The black man was told that this was the White SDA church. The Black church was about a mile East and about three blocks West. The visitor was given a map outlining the location and directions. Of course the visitor left.

Several weeks later, I decided to visit the Black Church. I was greeted by a deacon who firmly told me that I was in the wrong place. He gave me directions to the White SDA Church.

Several years later, I recruited a Black SDA dentist to MCG a first graduate of LLU School of Dentistry. By that time we had eight white SDA dentists. The Black dentist and his family joined the white SDA church and the children attended the Church School. Today, that Black dentist is head elder at the White SDA Church. The Black SDA church still operates and still directs all whites to the white SDA Church.

During our first Summer in Augusta, I took the family for a ride through rural Georgia along the Savannah, River. We saw a sign that read: State Park. We drove in, found a shady spot near the water. Just as we got comfortable, A Black uniformed guard stopped his pick-up beside my car and motioned me to approach. He gave me his name, rank, etc. He then said in a every formal tone of voice: "I have been commissioned by the Governor of the State of Georgia to inform you and your family that you are tresspassing on a Blacks' only state park. The White State park is 12 miles down the main road. I suggest that you leave immediately and don't return." I responded. "I am sorry sir, but I am from California and I didn't know there was a difference."

Today there is only one State Park. The state gave the Black State Park to Columbia County, Ga. It now serves all races.

I no longer attend the SDA church. I was invited to give the elegy for one of the SDA dentists who passed away from Cancer.
Following my short elegy, I sat down next to my wife on the front row. The Black Elder then gave a lengthy homily, during which he made a point to walk over to stand directly in front of me and lectured me on how our dear departed brother was faithful to the end and not like some others who gave up the Truth for career advancement, etc, etc, and etc.

We have since become friends again.

My point is simple: man is a very perverse critter--color not withstanding.

I liked Obama's retort when Letterman mentioned race to him recently on his program: "I was black before they elected me."

He is in a tight place: of course, he is keenly aware of racism, how could he not be? But, to admit to racism, although it's obvious, he cannot put himself in that position which would denigrate his present status. He is trying to rise above race. He maintains that it is on his positions that people object. Who is to know for certain, as only the signs showhing him as a black witch doctor are clearly racist.

We hope that one day, like MLK said, that one day little children (and all) will be recognized for what they do, rather than their skin. How long must we wait? Living on the West Coast, there is less racism than in other parts of the country: lots in interracial marriages and while a few older generation has trouble with that, it is becoming more common and causing much less "talk."
The church I attend has mixed ethnic groups for everywhere.

This post got suckered into casual thinking rather than the expression of critical thinking.
It declares ex president Jimmy Carter as some kind of Moses coming off the bench to rescue a struggling president by thundering some needed to be said, but uncomfortable truth.
Well, to the contrary, Carter yelled fire in a crowded room and consumed valuable oxygen that could have been devoted to critical attention on the healthcare debate.
This marginalized ex president craving relevance played the emotionally charged race card.

Sure racism exists, but the extent pronounced by Carter no.
Racism will always be a part of the background in the character of America, but when it is given the type of weight that Carter did, it reduces the value and seriousness of this issue and marginalizes one as without argument, so an emotional grenade will be used to clear the room. Two weeks later Carter is back peddling from his statement, wonder why?

Carter’s declaration was like pop; provided lots of fizz, but no strategic value.
This article is applying a static racial prism to view race relationship that uses emotion rather than facts to support it argument.

Folks, let’s keep our eyes on the prize, and exercise a discipline and discernment that were key ingredients to afford continued maturity in race relationships.
The real challenge we should be addressing is what type of new mental model should we develop in the age of Obama with regards to race?

Your column brings to mind Dale Carnegie's assertion that bears will get off the path to let a skunk pass since clobbering it wouldn't be worth it. I think Obama is in that position. Racism is a poison that contaminates everything it gets in contact with and there is no way known to man to leach it out of those so afflicted. When even the Christian faith is powerless to make much of an impression on racist believers, White House rhetoric certainly is not going to do it.

Although I believe President Carter to be right, I would also add that Bill Clinton evoked the same frenzied rage as Obama is now experiencing. When people are enraged they usually resort to the most hurtful insults they can hurl at the object of their rage, and Obama being black, it's no surprise that right-wing demagogues reach for the racist language they have always been so comfortable with.

Let me also say, Keith, that the ten years I have spent in this country have been spent teaching in a predominantly black high school in Richmond, Va. Those ten years do not diminish the seriousness or the validity of what you're saying but they also speak loudly of missed opportunities that have little to do with institutional racism in today's society.

Keith and Tom,

Interesting insights. I wonder what I would do if I went to a church and was told that because of the colour of my skin I wasn't welcome and should piss off elsewhere! Is that really what Jesus taught? Yet Ellen White was quite clear that the "races" should be kept separated and that God instructed her that people should not intermarry with people of a different skin colour (she did not mention different hair or eye colour, so I am assuming it's an open question). She also explained that some "races" were a result of amalgamation of humans with beasts. Wonder which group she was referring to. Clearly not us, Europeans? Given that I am a European married to an African, from an orthodox Adventist view does it mean that we are commiting a sin being together? Is our daughter (just like Barack Obama) cursed because of that?

Jag, it seems like you are implying that Ellen White was a racist. The record does not not support that idea, as the following passages make clear:

"The Black man’s name is written in the book of life beside the White man’s. All are one in Christ. Birth, station, nationality, or color cannot elevate or degrade men."

"Those white people who appreciate the ministry of Christ in their behalf cannot cherish prejudice against their colored brethren."

"How little of the spirit of Christ has been manifested in the treatment given to the colored race in this so-called Christian country! . . . They are often treated as if it were a disgrace to sit by their side, or even to worship in the same congregation."

"For many years I have borne a heavy burden in behalf of the Negro race. My heart has ached as I have seen the feeling against this race growing stronger and still stronger, and as I have seen that many Seventh-day Adventists are apparently unable to understand the necessity for an earnest work being done quickly."

"Much might have been accomplished by the people of America if adequate efforts in behalf of the freedmen had been put forth by the Government and by the Christian churches immediately after the emancipation of the slaves. Money should have been used freely to care for and educate them at the time they were so greatly in need of help. But the Government, after a little effort, left the Negro to struggle, unaided, with his burden of difficulties. Some of the strong Christian churches began a good work, but sadly failed to reach more than a comparatively few; and the Seventh-day Adventist Church has failed to act its part." Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 205, par. 1.

"Sin rests upon us as a church because we have not made greater effort for the salvation of souls among the colored people." The Southern Work, p. 15.

Her advice against inter-racial marriage was merely prudential, not based upon some sort of racist principle:

"All should consider that they have no right to entail upon their offspring that which will place them at a disadvantage; they have no right to give them as a birthright a condition which would subject them to a life of humiliation. The children of these mixed marriages have a feeling of bitterness toward the parents who have given them this lifelong inheritance. For this reason, if there were no other, there should be no intermarriage between the white and the colored race."

This remained prudent advice throughout Ellen White's lifetime and for a long time thereafter. Today, it doesn't apply. There is no controversy or disadvantage attached to inter-racial couples or mixed-race individuals, as many people, including Tiger Woods and Barack Obama, can testify to. Were Ellen White alive today, I cannot imagine that she would have any objection to inter-racial marriage.

Keith,
good article.

I prefer to narrow the sphere of your question and just ask the church: "Are we there yet?" It is here that the power of Christ's transforming grace should be demonstrated to the world at large. Should be...

The reason why we are not "there yet", IMHO is not because God is powerless in the face of racist and racialist attitudes among His followers, but because we have not allowed Him access to those cherished (?) areas of our existence. Hence the importance and urgency of your altar call.

Jag, I, too, live in a "mixed" family, and Sis White, were she alive today, would be happy to see our families. Thanks, David for the clarification.

I am wondering why Jimmy Carter is getting all of this attention.

One, this just shows the power of whiteness and white privilege. Some people are praising Carter for what he said. They are saying, "well he should know because he grew up in the segregated south. Well how about approaching the hundreds of thousands of African Americans that were/are recipients of racism in the segregated south. I am sure they can tell the story better than Jimmy Carter can.

Two, there have been African Americans on t.v. saying the same thing but falls of deaf ears. Why because African Americans are just race baiters, whining and complaining. It takes a white man with privilege and power to make it have any sense of credibility.

Lord have mercy on us as sinners!

Peace.

Tony
Good point. Nobody can speak to this issue with the authority of those who live it. It is, however, understandable that people listen when Carter speaks because he is seen as somebody who doesn't have a dog in this fight.

White people resist the charge of persistent and wide-spread racism because they feel, rightly or wrongly, that it's talking about them, and the majority of white people are not racists. Even in the old days of segregation, hard-core racists were relatively few. The problem, though, has never been the hard-core, vicious Aryan Nation type racists but the multitudes who allow themselves to be cowed by them.

The silent majority back in the day collaborated with the racist regimes in the South and therein lies their shame. The same thing is happening again today, especially within the conservative world in the US: a silent majority stands cowardly by and watches race-bating hate mongerers paint Obama's face to resemble the insane and sociopathic Joker from the Batman movies. They howl with indignation when they hear Carter's words because they know that's not who they are. They just lack the decency and courage to speak up against it.

Some do. Joe Scarborough is unambiguous in his condemnation and obviously many others are, too. But the overall silence from white, especially Republican America, is deafening.

Many Evangelicals still can't work out that race and gender rights belong to the very same category- How can, then, one expect them to to have enlightened take of what is now going on in Obama case?
Did not Carter leave the southern Baptists because of their 'biblical' view on woman's role just recently?... Bit late, some would say- but at least he had guts to do it now. In our church we are trying to be as wise as serpents- we tabled the issue until our brothers in the third world catch up a little bit. I wonder to whom would Lord say: 'well done my faithful servant' in this (and other) case.

As far as the EGW & pioneers are concerned the judgment is also in the eye of beholder -at least to some degree. If applying standards of our times all of them would easily fall in the racist category - including all famed abolitionist of the time. Looking at things from their historical etc context things look quite different.

President Obama has in more than one occasion answered Keith's question. Like many others, he has said: "We have made some significant progress, but we are not there yet."

Tom Zwemer says,

"I no longer attend the SDA church."

Oh but critical opinions blaze aplenty about the SDA church in SpectrumLand, his SDA "church" of choice.

Strange folks these former SDAs are. Never seen any "ex" church members so occupied with their "ex."

Ellen White had it pegged -- our most severe critics would be the "ex" who would go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and . . .

Happily SDA,
Jody

Please God, keep your inquirers of the faith from stopping at SpectrumLand. Thank you.

The election of Barack Obama was not a statement about race. It was a statement about partisanship. We are not post-racial. We have entered the post-partisan era and our racism is theatening that.

However, it is time to stop talking about the problem. We have done that enough. Let us now seek the solution and be careful that our proposed solutions are not partisan in themselves. The problem is not racism but partisanship. As long as we encourage partisanship in any of its forms we are in no position to challenge racism.

If you dream of a world inhabited only by those humans who share your philosophy you are sitting in the same pew as the racists you despise.

One Race, Indivisible.

" keep your inquirers of the faith from stopping at SpectrumLand. Thank you."

Those who would prefer only one view presented should be able find, very easily, many SDA forums who would appreciate such views, and censor or delete any that do not. Happy hunting! As Truman once said: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

i have, since the 8th grade, lived as a minority white in a mostly Caribbean/Latino/Black populated school. i was made fun of for having white skin. they'd call me cracker, and whitey, and would say i couldn't dance, had no style, no rhythm, no idea what good food really was ..... don't get me wrong-- they didn't hate me. in fact, i was friends with everyone in that school. i knew their jokes were in jest; they'd smile kindly, say something about white people, i'd make a joke about weaves, and that was that.
we recognized our differences, were even tongue-in-cheek about it all, but we were still friends. we still encouraged each other, worked and ate together, sang and prayed and worshipped together, moaned about teachers and homework and dated each other....

there were a few instances where a black student would be angry with a white teacher and his comments would cut deep b/c at that point in time he meant what he said, even though he knew better.
and there were times where a white boy would not be given the time of day by a black girl he liked, so he'd spew comments that would rub her soul raw for a few days, even though he knew better.... and these people usually got their senses back together and would apologize to the offended party--because they knew better. we all know that we were equal human beings. color was just another way to lash out at someone--just as people, when angry, sometimes talk about how ugly a person's face is.... which we all know, just like skin color, has nothing at all whatsoever to do with intelligence or integrity.

what i'm getting at, is that i feel that a lot of the time the only reason why i even think about race at all, at any point in time, is because someone feels that they need to bring it up. they write an article, insert worries about racism into an interview, blog about it....
these people keep re-opening the wound, and cause all of us to whip our collective necks around yet again to look back at the ugly car accident.....

i know for a fact that there are still racist white people, and yes, racist black people out there. the less attention we collectively pay them as the human race progresses, the less they'll be inclined to bother striking out.
more than anything, it's safe to say that we all know better. even if we're angry at someone, or something, i think it's safe to say that every single american knows in their heart that white people are NOT superior to anyone on this entire earth.
it's a rarity to find older folk out there who still believe blacks are useless only because their momma and daddy taught them so.
people who are younger are simply using color comments as a front to strike out at someone--anyone-when their problem is really their low self-esteem, or that they're unhappy about their level of income, or where they live, or the type of work they do....
unhappy people only want to see others unhappy as well--and this particular problem is a common issue in the human race in general.

i really feel that the race issue is NOT what it used to be about. there is still some meanness.... as there will always be meanness in the world. but it definitely is no longer a "he's just a damn ape" kind of racism.
and i really feel that a lot of the time black people make a bigger deal of it themselves than they need to. i understand that they are dealing with a mindset that has been in place for years.... "we've got to fight against white oppression!" ...... but by not constantly thinking as though they are on some kind of hate/watch list, they can help break up those last remaining bits of the thinking/culture/mindset that is unfortunately only helping everyone, including other colors who think this same way to continue on in the "race is an issue" vein.
i am just so sick of it. the people who truly know how to be colorblind need to work hard to show just how colorblind they are.
sometimes too much can be said about a subject, and now that we are at this point in america, when will it end?
we have a black president for goodness sakes! this is a wonderful thing!!!! let's sit back and enjoy it! why keep drudging up the past?!

in recovering from racism in america we've all come a long, long way, but as long as we all continue to try to examine for evidence of it in every single crack of our lives, we will never be able to rid ourselves of its stench!!
this is not a rose-colored, "everybody just love everybody!" sickly sweet view of the world. it is a matter of forcing yourself to ignore a type of mindset--and everyone of every color needs to do this.
constantly bringing up race as an issue-- instead of ignoring those unhappy people (who we can be practically 100% sure in this day and age honestly know better when it comes to racial superiority) is not going to help it go away.

oh and i should add that not everyday of my life in school as a minority was a happy one. sometimes we'd have arguments and then suddenly the comments weren't gentle and friendly. they slapped my face. i retaliated simply by focusing on the argument itself and ignoring color comments. they dissipated and usually the offender would apologize later for hitting below the belt. i think we all came away a little wiser.

@ Aage

President Obama is actually hurting the issue as well. He continues to minimize race which only continues to empower white people. I can understand as President he needs to be political expedient but while doing it he is actually doing a disservice to race relations in America.

He continues to tell black america to straighten up and disciplines yet NEVER I mean NEVER does Obama hold white people to account. He doesn't even say the word "white." He points out specific falling in the AA community but does not finger point the issues in the white community that perpetuates racism.

I just hope Obama does not really feel that way if he does then he is no different from Clarence Thomas in my book.

I think there may be a few people in the US who do actually believe that white people are superior but I think the problem has become much more subtle than that.

I think we are seeing it played out both during the campaign and now. I think some people are reacting more instinctively to a fear of "other," and especially the black other than to a view that white people are superior. It is more the "different people are scary, especially black people" that often operates at a level below our conscious awareness. This fear makes it easier to believe the most outlandish rumors because they see Obama as some"thing" very alien.

It was much easier to believe Michelle hated America for her mild comments than to believe Todd Palin hated America for belonging to a successionist party. Why? Because Todd is someone they can relate to and Michelle is too "different."

Imagine if McCain had been elected instead of Obama and armed black people started showing up where he was speaking. Would we be told that they were simply exercising their rights and there was no danger (just like we are told about the tea-baggers?) Somehow I don't think so. The country would be in an absolute frenzy.

Obama makes some people mad because of his policies. For many of those people though, I think their fears for America are intensified by their too easy acceptance of the worst rumors because of his race and background. If he were white, they'd still be mad and scared but I don't think to quite the level we are seeing.

Tony
There is a perception among many whites that African-Americans only see the failings of white people. When Obama addresses the problems specific to the black community, he assures white America that he shares their values. It's an important factor in white America's acceptance of him.

His inclination to avert his eyes from what's ugly in white culture is frustrating to lots of whites as well. Many of us would love to see him clobber the skunks that stink up our very partisan political scene. I'm sure that it's part of a conscious strategy, and it may well be vindicated by history but it's still frustrating to see evil unchallenged in the here and now.

Another thought. It's commonly said that when your opposition is busy destrying itself from within, you should step aside and let them proceed. The tea baggers and their enablers are in the process of destroying the Republican party (read David Brooke's NY Times column today) and maybe Obama is hoping that his bipartisan vision will give rise to a reasonable party on the conservative side of politics, a party with which he can work.

found the Jimmy Carter racist test:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2009/09/obamaflowchart21....

I suppose know we can add the IOC since they didn't select Chicago for 2016 - clearly a decision based upon President Obama's race.

Is the church there yet? Not even close – at most if not all levels. Of course I can only pull upon my own experiences – so this is antidotal and only my opinion. I had a conversation with a conference president within the last six years regarding pastor vacancies and if the conference would select an African-American for one of the smaller churches. Answer – no. The small churches were not ready and wouldn’t accept him. At the school level, I’ve heard parents complain that our Adventist school was being brought down because of “those kids” from the he inner city (referencing Blacks and Hispanics). The church’s youth department has the tendency to favor some youth’s over others. Unsurprisingly, the “most favored” teens belong to the most favored families. Mentorship is almost non-existent. Since education is key, my wife (who was a substitute teacher) and I do what we can for all the youth, but particularly those who the church and school have given up on. Since education is key, we try to steer them to the sources we know to find college scholarship money. We stay in contact, get updates, giving moral support, and time to time pull money out of our pocket when needed. My wife and I are also blessed with very close friends who happen to be Black.

Am I a racist – I certainly hope not. Yet, without knowing anything else about me, it seems people like Jimmy Carter (but hopefully nobody on this blog) will label me a racist simply because I’m against liberal policies, which for now, are being advocated by President Obama.

Aage, the David Brooks column doesn't argue that the Republican party is destroying itself from within. Rather, he's pointing out that the party is not controlled by radio talk jocks like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glen Beck, as the jocks themselves and the Democratic party opposition sometimes claim. The conservative talk radio hosts were almost uniformly opposed to John McCain as a squishy moderate, insufficiently conservative, yet the Republican Party nominated him anyway.

Brooks is right. The Republican Party is not all that conservative. Since WWII, they've nominated exactly two conservatives, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. By contrast, the Democratic Party has nominated a liberal in every election cycle since 1968, although Clinton ended up governing somewhat moderately.

BTW, the Obama Joker face was done by a 20-year-old Palestinian-American college student, Firas Alkhateeb.

Well written and very thoughtful Keith. There’s little question that our President is in a precarious political position. And we would do well to remember that he is in the domain of politics. The reason for these seemingly simplistic assertions is that the issue of race in America is always more convenient to discuss in terms of racism rather than its more fundamental cause, White privilege. Peggy McIntosh (1988), Mark S. Kiselica (1999), and Sue and Sue (2008) have written insightfully on the root cause of the primary problem—White privilege.

To think that President Obama would saw off the narrow and fragile limb on which he stands and diminish his overall effectiveness within the context of two prongs of a privileged system: White supporters and White haters (though there are a minority of minorities on the hate side) is to underestimate his intelligence and his political savvy.

My guess is that once Mr. Obama is out of office, he will devote much more time and energy to addressing the issues of White privilege and racism—by extension. Even then he will still be considered the leader of the Democratic Party and will be measured in his approach. What he has on his side is demographics. By now everyone knows that the magic number is the year 2025.

Personally, I think that the President has chosen a wise course of action because addressing the issues right now will not change anything. Calling out privileged White folks, supporters and haters alike will not bring change. Change will come when we have harvested a new generation of Americans who own up to their privileged status and work to dismantle it; who despite not personally being culpable for the present conditions, refuse to perpetuate it; who awaken to the reality that centuries of depicting Jesus, the angels, and most other Bible characters as White has been more of a statement about power and privilege than it has been about truth; who resist the deceptive notion of a “color-blind” society.

The election of Barak Hussein Obama is one giant step forward for mankind. Are we there yet? We are where we just stepped.

Dab
That's not what Carter said. It's possible to disagree with Obama without coming within miles of a charge of racism. The issue is about people who wave posters of Obama as the Joker and who bring guns to political meetings. They may have left their hoods at home but, like Carter, I have no doubts about where their animus comes from.

I never really understood racism until moving to China. Now this is a racist society. Some businesses which provide services have a printed price schedule which states the significantly higher price foreigners [black or white] pay for services. It's not a 10% mark up. It can be a 800% mark up. File a complaint? LOL. Good luck with that. Oh, you don't want to pay? No problem. Get out. As a matter of principle, many Chinese will not do business with a foreigner if they can't gouge them.

Racist taunts are standard, every day. The Chinese have a word, the equivalent of the oh so horrible "N" word. It is tossed around with impunity. Parents, grandparents describe foreigners to their children using the word. Sniggering university students discreetly call it out as you walk by a group of them.

People you think are your friends or would like to be, sometimes delight in spitting the word in your face, as if they have attained some long sought aspiration by so doing.

Of course, racism is quite effective in China. It's an incredibly homogenous society. Many [or so it seems] of the social problems are caused by the people from Xinjiang. Han people know that. They don't want them in their hotels. The Xinjiang people can be violent, are known as thieves, and are generally loathed by the Han people. There are other minority people in China, but the Uyghur people Xinjiang are a unique group.

The problems with blacks in America are really not with blacks. The problem is with American blacks. It's more of a cultural issue than a racial one. If you have any friends from Ethiopia or other African countries, they are as different from most American blacks as night is from day.

Of course, the blacks in America who have assimilated get along OK. But there is a large number who reject the "white" value system and culture

America is reaping what it sowed during the slave trade days.

Aage,

Carter said: "When a radical fringe element of demonstrators and others begin to attack the president of the United States as an animal or as a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler or when they wave signs in the air that said we should have buried Obama with Kennedy, those kinds of things are beyond the bounds,.."
I don’t recall Carter speaking out when people from the left compared President Bush to Hitler.

Judy

This very week the local SDA Church is spending over a 500 dollars a day for 10 days to tell the people of Augusta that they are hell bound if they don't join and be baptized--to reject this message could be their very last opportunity to be saved.

Therefore, I only think it fair to point out to the self assured that they are mistaken on a number of counts.

It has been my experience that no more than 50% of the evangelists who come to Augusta with that message, believe it themselves. Their subsequent history speaks to that reality.

Certainly there are also serious doubts about the faculties at SDA colleges. The Administraton knows too well that either a chanlenge or a purge would be the end of the SDA church as a viable orgainization, at least in North America.

Frankly there is no sustainable theological basis for the gifts of E.G. White, or for the IJ and its sequlea.

Of course, Spectrum can turn me and others off in a heart beat. But it wouldn't change the Truth about the faulty exegesis that grew out of the Great Disappointment.

There are many issues that Spectrum addresses officially that fly in the face of E. G.White in a much more challenging fashion that I and others "outside the church have raised".

The problem among serious students of theological history on the pay roll of the SDA church--were do they go with the investment they have made in the work?

Thus it is for the naive like yourself that I keep a running account. You deserve the Truth even if it seems to hurt and trouble you greatly. You have no idea of the pain, I experienced in learning the Truth about the history and present doctrines of the SDA Church.

May your study bring you to the Truth which is not the proprietary holdings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church or any of its subsets. Christianity is not an institution it is a confession in One Lord and Savior. To grasp that is such a joy as to wipe away all tears of the past. Praise God from Whom all Blessings Flow through Jesus Christ, our Lord and coming King. Tom

... Carter yelled fire in a crowded room and consumed valuable oxygen that could have been devoted to critical attention on the healthcare debate.
This marginalized ex president craving relevance played the emotionally charged race card."

How true and I consider the article by Keith as not reflective of reality. There are Black writers who are much more realistic as for example Thomas Sowell. With Keith's obvious agenda we will never get there wherever that may be.

I think Jimmy Carter is right that, at least in the South, much of the hatred of Obama is racially induced, but I also admire President Obama for trying to stay above the race issue. I just pray that we don't have a tragic assassination. In our gun-control-less society, it could easily happen.

Although I grew up in a pretty color-blind atmosphere and don't think that I have much racial prejudice, I do recognize the discomfort of dealing with other cultures.

While I agree with Mr. Burton that we do still have a long way to go in becoming a color-blind society (and even further to go in overcoming our prejudice against women and homosexuals), I think the chip-on-his-shoulder, sarcastic tone of his writing does more harm than good in the effort to get "there."

This very week the local SDA Church is spending over a 500 dollars a day for 10 days to tell the people of Augusta that they are hell bound if they don't join and be baptized--to reject this message could be their very last opportunity to be saved.
Posted by: Tom Zwemer | 03 October 2009 at 1:23

I would appreciate a link or an actual copy of the advertisement. You can write it word for word here if that is the best one can do.
I would actually like to read it for myself rather than take your characterization as absolute fact.
Would that be possible?

O.K. I'm tired. Tired of the way we continue to dance around this issue, even when we take sides in confronting the argument. Some people only want to argue that racism is alive and kicking, while others say it's a relic of the past. There are those who wish we'd all sing Kumba Ya, while others believe we must be vigilant forces for the cause. All I know is this. There's never been a day in my life where I wasn't completely aware of my skin color. As a Black man, born and raised in America, I've seen the best and the worst this country has to offer. I've come to know the strange dichotomy of loving a country that in so many ways either ignores or hates, but seldom fully embraces me. It frustrates me when white people say, "I don't even see color". Ha!. How could you miss it. I don't want people to be colorblind. I just want people to embrace the differences we have and move beyond them.

What Pres. Carter said was so significant, because prominent white people never say it. I'm tired, because we've moved to a point in this country where anyone who decries racism is automatically discounted, and white folk have come to bear automatic immunity from it. Spare me the outrage of being accused. Racism is rooted so deeply in the fabric of this country, that even black people aren't fully aware of the impact it's had on our community, our lives, our finances, our mentality, heck, even our food. Obama cannot confront the topic as headlong as I'm sure he'd love to. But, I suggest that he doesn't have to. He makes the most powerful statement possible, simiply by being seen in the White House everyday.

Tom Zwemer says:

"It has been my experience that no more than 50% of the evangelists who come to Augusta with that message, believe it themselves. Their subsequent history speaks to that reality.
Thus it is for the naive like yourself that I keep a running account."

First, where do you get your stats?

Second, keep "running accounts" on your ex church? Is that fun?

Third, "Naive like yourself" -- have you met this person you call naive?

Fourth, "Christianity is not an institution it is a confession in One Lord and Savior." Jesus is coming back for his church, is he not?

Fifth, please don't be so bitter. Be a model of Jesus' character. Can you empty yourself of this compulsion to keep stabbing your ex?

You sound like you have a good heart; then the damaged heart takes hold of your writing. As he says peace, love, hope, and joy; all hell breaks lose.

I'm hurt and troubled by the harm you may be doing to inquirers of the faith. Having been around the blocks for over 60 years, I relax into the truth I find in the SDA doctrines. I do not feel compelled to go on forums against my ex-es. I'm happy that they are happy; and they are happy that I am happy . . .

Another naive gal,
Jody

I don't think there's much outrage attached to being accused of being a racist. Nowadays, it just elicits yawn. The people who yell "racism" never have any objective evidence. They're the kind of people who insist that this is a racist country despite our black president and our many black governors and mayors. Even in the conservative south, Obama won Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. Ironically, Barack Obama probably would not have been the first black president had Colin Powell chosen to run for the Republican nomination in 2000.

It's pointless even to discuss these things, however, because they're entirely irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if every elected official in America were black, this would still be a completely racist, bigoted nation. In some people's minds, their every failing and unhappiness, every disappointment, every unacheived dream, is due entirely to racism. Because, as everyone knows, white people don't have disappointment or unhappiness, or unfulfilled dreams or disappointments. Because we're white, and we control everything.

Jody

I don't think a continuing conversation between us would be helpful to you or me. We see the world differencely. I don't believe a point by point rebuttal would be useful or helpful.

The data is readily available to any seeking soul. I suggest you do your own research. The most reliable and comparatively recent' would be: Answerss to Questions on Doctrine; A Prophetess of Health, Fred Veltmann's Confirmation of the use E.G. White of Sources. Des Ford's extensive paper, Elder Cottrell's recorded remarks re: Dan 8:14 available on the Web. This should keep you busy. There are many more: The Neutering of Adventism, Several current threads on Spectrum Blog, The Secularization of Adventist Colleges.

If you have the stomach for it, look up Elder Canright's book on E.G. White it is published on the Web.

For a deeper review, get the minutes of the 1919 Bible Conference chaired by the President of the General Conference A. G. Daneiels.

Then there is Dr. Don McAdams paper of Great Controversy sources.

Get the minutes of the disefellowship of Kellogg et al.

By naive, I mean one who reads only Cliff Goldstein et al.

I don't think it wish from me to do more than point you in the right direction. Argument will do neither of us any good.

My God bless your study of the true foundational story of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Tom

By the By Christ's Church is not an institution it is a people.

He is appealing to you to do some prayerful introspection as you confess your biases, repent, receive God’s forgiveness and seek a new agenda in life.

Is being biased (I assume Keith is implying racially) a sin to be repented of? There is one verse in the NT that says something along the lines of everyone being equal in God's eyes. What "equality" is being spoken of here? Jesus called the Samaritan woman a dog. He instructed his disciples allegedly saying: These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew 10:5&6)

As a theologian, Keith should be aware that the Bible is full of racism and genocide endorsed- and COMMANDED- by God. The progressive North in America has been battling the fundamentalists of the South since the 1840's and I don't see it changing any time soon. Put up a map of North America with the Confederate States highlighted and compare it to the Blue/Red states from the election last fall. Very similar.

Growing up in the Southeast the Yankees were still the adversary of the southern white. The landscape is dotted with monuments to the Confederate dead. The feeling is that to repudiate White Supremacy is to disrespect what their ancestors fought and died for. Generally they accept that they lost the war but do not accept the laws forced on them by the Yanks requiring them to give equal rights to the slave's descendants. The racism is not an "American" thing so much as it is a Southern thing. Figure out when they will have gotten over the loss of the Civil War and you will have an idea of when racism will be at a minimum. The fanatics in the middle east are still holding grudges between their own factions from a thousand years ago. Will Southern Rebel descendants still hold the grudges in 850 years? Most likely.

Personally, I haven't seen much empirical evidence that blacks, overall, have much of a desire to change their status. They certainly don't like being treated the way they are personally, but to succeed in this type of capitalist, representative government system they would need to show some initiative like the Japanese have exhibited since the internment camps of WWII. Blacks are the most religious racial group I believe (the Hispanic Catholics are much less systematic church attendees) yet have the highest illegitimate birth rate, incarceration rate, highest illiteracy, etc. Sitting around feeling sorry for themselves while living on a diet of preacher exhortation to trust in God to "see them through" is clearly not working.

I've carpooled with a black friend who was a production supervisor for a company in the South. We traveled with guns under the car seats loaded for action as the number of threats received by the company was staggering. I spent a night in the county jail for demanding to know why my black friend was pulled over. I don't think the cop knew he had a non-black passenger and was flustered by my questions. After the night in jail I went before the judge. He opened the file folder, looked it over for a minute or two with a strange look on his face, and said "Case dismissed". I could tell you many other stories. The fact is the south has a lot of racists and those that believe its going to change any time soon because the Federal Government passed the Civil Rights Act (or any of the other actions of the yankees) are mistaken.

They should be easier to spot now. No need to check for Confederate flags or swastikas- just observe what radio or tv staion they have on or whether they qualify as the "Republican Base" by supporting Sarah.

And I'll add another anecdote... When we left the south in the '80's we sold our house to a black family. To the FIRST black people that would be living in a very large subdivision. When word got around that we had sold to a black family there were many late-night threats via anonymous phone calls. We seriously thought that the house would be burned down before we moved by one of our Jesus-loving christian neighbors.

David,

Racism has many forms and degrees. Think about the American South during segregation. Or South African Apartheid. Officially they were not about racism - separate, but equal was the catchcry. In South Africa they called it separate development. Perhaps some proponents really believed this was not racism.

White appears to have had a similar mindset. Otherwise, please explain why she ordered that you should reject someone courting you just because of the colour of their skin? The SDA church grew out of such thinking too - hence such dreadful, unchristian attitude as Tom described in his story.

Your quote from White is not the only one, but let's look at it closely: "...For this reason, if there were no other, there should be no intermarriage between the white and the colored race". What does that "if there were no other" mean? Clearly, there must be something else... Isn't it her belief that the "coloured" people as she rather insensitively calls them are a result of amalgamation of "man and beast"?

There is a ferment in the SDA church. How about separate churches for women, and for gays? Maybe that would solve the problem...

When I started the graduate program in orthodontics at LLU one of the first black applicants was black. The dean of the graduate school suggested that I not accept him in the first class although he was fully qualified.

He was accepted in the Second Class.

Eventually he became a Vice Prsident of the American Dental Association and was asked to be the grauation speaker for the School of Dentistry several years ago.

He and I did a research project at one of the Calif academies.
We drove together, ate together, and had a motel room together.

We stopped at a Real Estate offe to inquiry about property, I was thinking of leaving LLU and opening an office in Northern Calif. Of course the agent said they didn't have anything along the lines I describes. As we left the office, I said, That seemed strange. Most agents would have looked. My friend said, did you ever look at the color of my skin? The agent did! Tom

Michael speaks of Chinese racism. I remember talking to a State Department employee who saw Chinese store clerks wipe clean the counter after a visit by Tibetan customers. Japan, from what I read, is not much different. In fact, discomfort with people who don't look like us seems to be very universal. In fact, it is the basis of speciation in the animal kingdom. Species arise when outward differences between groups become noticeable, which then leads them to stop interbreeding. Racism is our most fundamental fact of life. We might as well acknowledge it, all of us. The issue is, do we fight our Darwinian vestiges?

Which again leads me to an abiding mystery: why is it that those who are most likely to reject Darwinism in biology are the most likely to adopt it as political philosophy?

Jab
You said: "I don’t recall Carter speaking out when people from the left compared President Bush to Hitler." That was because it was an isolate point of view (I can't even remember hearing the charge) that had no support in the Democratic party. The Nation magazine featured George Bush as Alfred E. Neuman and bumper stickers proclaimed Bush as lacking in smarts but when did you see posters of him with Hitler mustaches and socio-pathic grins? And when did people show up in Crawford with AK 47s to protest the President of the United States?

It's a fair question to ask whether we should publicly disrespect any President elected by the people. The President is, after all, a symbol of the nation. I'm still considering that question but I'm certainly clear on the fact that there is no place for today's Darwinian race-baiting posters.

Aage

I think that we can agree that those and similar signs carried through the years should be condemned and that the people who carry them are idiots.

There is a tendency for outrage to be tempered by one’s support or non-support of the politician being attacked. It seems to be easier not to discuss a specific issue but rather attack a person or group – (President Obama, President Bush, those democrats, those republicans, those Catholics). And I have to admit, that sometimes I judge an issue based upon the politics of the messenger, not upon the message. Reading the posts of some, it seems I’m not alone.

Aage, I hope you have a great day.

regards

Aage, given the time in which Ellen White lived, she was miraculously sensitive on the topic of race. The idea that the word "colored" was insensitive is an anachronism. Blacks frequently used that word to described themselves; what do you think NAACP stands for?

In many of the pictures I've seen of Ellen White, she appears to be mixed race herself. I would not be at all surprised if that were the case. That would help explain why she was, for her time, such an astonishingly un-racist individual. It also might explain how she would know that "the children of these mixed marriages have a feeling of bitterness toward the parents who have given them this lifelong inheritance." It might also explain the savage stone-throwing assault on her by one of her schoolmates.

Regarding the "amalgamation" statements, there is no evidence to support the idea that Ellen White believed that any modern race was the result of a mixture of humans with animals. I've given a great deal of thought to the amalgamation statements, which can be found in my book "Dinsoaurs - An Adventist View." I concluded that (1) Ellen White did not understand, nor could she have understood, the concept revealed to her that she termed "amalgamation" (2) others were using her statements to support racist theorizing that she did not approve of, therefore, (3) she left the amalgamation statements out of later writings, like Patriarchs and Prophets, where they would have been expected to be. Again, I have an in-depth discussion of this issue in the book.

David Read wrote: "Regarding the 'amalgamation' statements, there is no evidence to support the idea that Ellen White believed that any modern race was the result of a mixture of humans with animals."

So what are you saying David; that Ellen White didn't believe what she wrote?

"Every species of animal which God had created, were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the endless varieties of species of animals and certain races of men."- Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p.75, 1864.

It was commonly believed by the contemporaries of Ellen White that the African black race was that "amalgamation of man and beast." There is no way to wiggle out of this historical fact. Ellen White was a part of that culture. By the way, it was the publishers of Ellen White's writings who removed those statements in later editions of her books.

"I'm hurt and troubled by the harm you may be doing to inquirers of the faith. Having been around the blocks for over 60 years, I relax into the truth I find in the SDA doctrines. I do not feel compelled to go on forums against my ex-es. I'm happy that they are happy; and they are happy that I am happy . . .

Another naive gal,"

Jody, you have expressed it so well that I can add nothing except to say you are right on the mark.

David
Mike McLennan is right. The only argument against taking the amalgamation statements at face value is to argue that she couldn't have believed an outrage like that. The case for the straight-forward interpretation is compelling:

1. The statements are clear in and of themselves

2. Uriah Smith wrote a book defending Ms White in the 1860s. In it he said that critics who accused EGW of teaching that blacks were half animals should listen to the experts. They, according to Smith, pointed out that in the case of Hottentots and "Digger Indians" you could not tell where the animal ended and the human began.

3. James White, ever the entrepreneur, thought Uriah Smith had nailed it. He ordered, I seem to remember, about 2000 copies of this book to sell to church members and recommended it in the Review and Herald.

I can give you exact quotes, page numbers and other publication data in case you might be swayed by facts.

Jody, I am glad you are happy. I know of four suicides within 4 blocks of E.M.C./Andrews. Dispair marked each death--in a community of theologians and scholars who "held the ultimate in 'Truth'" If you are cosy in your beliefs--please tell the world--hundreds if not thousands fail to see it and walk out with their feet. It is for those voicelss multitudes that I remind a trimuphalistic society--there are troubles in your "City of God".

If it were not for Graham Maxwell and a few others there would be no Christian SDA physicians coming out of LLU.

There are untold numbers of Chritians within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Few hold high administrative ot academic positions. It is for God not me to identify them. We would all be surprised. Tom

Mike, it is a very, very weak argument to say that two people must believe the same thing because they were contemporaries, meaning that they lived at the same time. Do you want to answer for everything I believe? If not, why not? We're contemporaries, that means we must believe the same things, right?

Also, my understanding is that the "amalgamation" statements were never edited out of any later edition of a work in which they originally appeared. They appeared in "Spiritual Gifts" and "The Spirit of Prophecy" and they are still there in current editions. They were not edited out of "Patriarchs and Prophet" where one would expect she would have included that material; rather, Ellen White never put them in that book. This puzzling omission occasioned sufficient comment to warrant the following editorial statement, found in Appendix C (p. 452) of book 3 of Selected Messages:

"Regarding the two paragraphs which are to be found in Spiritual Gifts and also in the Spirit of Prophecy regarding amalgamation, and the reason why they were left out of the later books, and the question as to who took the responsibility of leaving them out, I can speak with perfect clearness and assurance. They were left out by Ellen G. White. No one connected with her work had any authority over such a question, and I never heard of anyone offering to her counsel regarding this matter. In all questions of this kind, you may set it down as a certainty that Sister White was responsible for leaving out or adding to matters of this sort in the later editions of our books."

Aage, the "amalgamation statements" are anything but clear, and have been the source of a great deal of disputation and speculation, continuing to the present day. Nobody has ever known what they mean, including apparently Ellen White. The fact that Uriah Smith believed something certainly does not mean that Ellen White believed it. (For example, she never endorsed Uriah Smith's Arian views, and later implicitly rejected them with several statements on the nature of Christ in Desire of Ages.") She never endorsed Uriah Smith's views as to the meaning of amalgamation. Even the fact that James White had Smith's book copied carries little weight; presumably there was much more in the book than that one comment.

But I do believe that Uriah Smith's racist interpretation, which was undoubtedly shared by others, is exactly the reason why Ellen White left the amalgation material out of Patriarchs and Prophets and other later writings: She did not want anything she had written to be the basis for racist theorizing.

I can always be swayed by facts. Give me all you've got.

David
I think the statements are very clear and it's inconceivable that James and Ellen White would have promoted Uriah Smith's book if it had attributed a scandalous interpretation of her words, as seen from their perspective.

As for Arianism, everything indicates that EGW for decades was an Arian. Her Great Controversy theology is based on the assumption that Jesus and Satan were coequal. EGW's Satan is upset that Jesus, his equal, is favored by God. It would make no sense whatsoever for EGW's Satan to be upset that a being coequal with God, a mysterious manifestion of the godhead, was favored over a mere creature. The fact that she introduced or allowed the introduction of trinitarian language in Desire of Ages in the late 1890s just shows that she gradually moved closer to the Christian mainstream.

David,

Do you seriously believe that there was an amalgamation of man and beast after the flood (=very recently, only a few thousand years ago)? Please answer clearly - yes or no.

If no, do you think White invented the idea instead of it being given to her by God?

If yes, why is there no scientific evidence for this whatsoever, and on the contrary, science proves that it would be an impossible thing?

David wrote: "Mike, it is a very, very weak argument to say that two people must believe the same thing because they were contemporaries, meaning that they lived at the same time. Do you want to answer for everything I believe? If not, why not? We're contemporaries, that means we must believe the same things, right?"

David, my comments about it being a common belief of the times of Ellen White was only intended to add context to what she wrote. Here is the proof:

"Every species of animal which God had created, were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the endless varieties of species of animals and certain races of men."- Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p.75, 1864.

If this statement is true, what races of men do you think Ellen White meant by this statement?

I think the last time it was attempted was at LLU in transplanting a primate heart into an infant with a serious heart defect. It didn't take.

Ir is a pity that Ellen White just couldn't say: "I simply don't know!" Or even, " God has not seen fit to reveal that to me as yet!" Her zeal did her in! No dark glass for her. Tom

David Read and the Ellen G White Estate: Ellen White wrote: "But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man with beast which defaced the image of God and caused confusion everywhere. . . . The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals and in certain races of men."

Notice David, that it says man with beast and not man with man or beast with beast. That was before the flood. That is clear and no one can argue about what Ellen White meant. Ellen White put "this sin" as the main reason for God destroying both humans and these "confused species" by the universal flood. Then Ellen White goes on to compare the situation in her times with the situation before the flood. Same thing: Almalgamation of man and beast: "almost endless varieties of species of animals and in certain races of men." It doesn't matter whether these "races of men" were almalgamated with animals or came about by some other method. But isn't the gospel that there is "neither race or creed", and whosoever will may come?

Thank God that Ellen White moved away from that exclusive mentality of racism (“certain races of men”) to the gospel.