The other side of the coin that folks don't talk about is that "black" conferences are no longer black. They include Hispanic and Filipino churches, too. And the "white" conferences have churches with majority black and Asian members. How can the historical reasons for their formation continue to apply when both kinds of conferences now look very different?

The members are paying (through the nose) for the duplication of service. In addition to a large and well recognized Black SDA church in the community, there are a number of small ehthnic ones: most are small, yet they must have a pastor who can speak in their language.

After reading the history of the formation of separate conferences, there were pros and cons: giving the black ministers a chance to "move up" and run church departments and have their own separate administration; additional funds needed.

Costly? Of course. All the members contribute to both conferences with its layers of duplication. Growing up in the Deep South before Civil Rights, separate churches were necessary; however, the separate conferences should never have been initiated.

But, like women's ordination, the SDA church is the last to make societal changes that have been introduced and progressing for several decades.
I would be ashamed to be part of a church that is so far behind in their discriminatory practices.

A few points,
Alex, Calvin Rock gives contemporary, not historical, reasons for maintaining Black conferences. He clearly says that this present reality is not our destiny. Your post reads as if you were reading past what he actually said. To quote,

It is both inaccurate and inefficient to superimpose the Christian and secular liberals’ construct of “social ought” upon the pervasive “is” of American sociality and function “as if” the day of general racial acceptance has come. Such a position is delusionary, and destructive to mission in the Black community.

Elaine, your point about cost duplication would have reason if the members in these Black conferences wanted their separate structures done away with.

To quote his closing, emphasis are mine,

Many are now asking, “Does not the election of Black union conference presidents tell us that Black local conferences are no longer needed?” The answer is No, it does not. What it does say is that more and more union conference committees and constituencies are willing to recognize talent and experience in an unbiased manner. That 
is commendable. But such elections do absolutely nothing to change attitudes and social conditions in the neighborhoods where White and Black churches function; local community dynamics were the primary reasons Black conferences were created and continue to exist. Highly placed Blacks are welcomed role models positioned to influence policy and planning in ways their White counterparts may not have imagined. But more than the occasional Black placed in a high position, we need bona fide vehicles for maximizing mission at the “grassroots” or neighborhood level.

White flight and the hardiness of Black culture have to a great extent prevented African-Americans’ absorption into the nation’s cultural melting pot. Consequently, there is a huge difference between “structural integration” (relationships in the corporate office or workplace) and voluntary “social integration” in which the masses congregate and worship.

This reality reminds us that the ultimate operational good is not elevating Blacks to conspicuous posts within the general structure of the church; it is elevating men and women by gospel proclamation in the neighborhoods where the vast majority of Blacks live and die. Black conferences are functioning exceptionally well in this regard, and in ways clearly superior to the other accommodation, Black coordinators.

Why not leave them alone?

I agree firmly with Calvin Rock. Their constituency desires their structures and these separate conferences further the primary objective of our church which is to further the Gospel.

To say that the church should be a sign and foretaste of the Kingdom of God does not in itself remove us from our society nor change the look of our neighbourhoods or churches.

The larger question for those who think this way is this: Will the means justify the ends? Black conferences are not separatist. They are united with their union offices and local sister conferences by doctrine and policy, are highly productive, and generously integrated. The nine Black conferences currently in place house more than 70 other ethnic congregations—Hispanic, Korean, Portuguese, Caucasian, etc.—not to mention thousands of ethnic members worshipping in hundreds of individual congregations. That being the case, exactly what is the problem with their existence? How would solving that perceived problem by their dissolution be a greater benefit than that which their presence provides?

I'm reminded of housing covenants in Los Angeles. Clauses are attached to titles which require the owner to sell the house to a particular race. While illegal, they are still printed on many older titles. A state assemblyman wants to have the clauses stricken from titles when houses are sold but the problem never was the titles in themselves but the segregated neighbourhoods which they sought to maintain.

The 'problem' with Black conferences is that it points to racism in our church and society. That makes a lot of people uncomfortble. They point to these conferences as being racist in and of themselves as if Black conferences were the problem when the reality is that Black conferences are furthering our purpose as a church in those congregations and neighbourhoods in which they serve.

I would argue that we're already seeing the results of the church in North America confronting racism. To the extent that there are Black congregations outside of black conferences in regions where they exist, and to the extent that Black conferences are becoming integrated themselves, we are seeing the 'elimination' of segregated conferences.

A false solution, and Rock said this also, would be to eliminate Black conferences. That would result in, as he said, the dampening of the Gospel work in Black neighbourhoods. I agree with him- leave them alone.

Eliminating black conferences will no more magically create societal integration than eliminating covenant language will eliminate segregated neighbourhoods. To borrow and twist a phrase from the first President Bush, the arguments from those well meaning people who want to do away with Black conferences are to integration what Reagans supply-side view was to the economy, voodoo reconciliation.

I believe the time has come to do away with separate administrative functions for two reasons, (1) the perception of the public and the current generation, and (2) it would provide the much needed catalyst to begin conversations on what could be the best administrative structure for the entire church. If handled from the grass roots up – but with support from the top - valuable insight could be gained as to the administrative structure that would provide the needed support to our churches and schools. If conversations could be kept open and honest – without political maneuvering – but with the goal of finding a way to meet the most important needs of the people and the organizations --- I believe we could see a true revival. But that is just my opinion. It would not be easy - but think of the meaningful conversations that might take place - what a chance to grow.

Ellen

Johnny, actually that quote you share emphasizes the present. Note: "the pervasive 'is' of American social relations vs. the "inaccurate and inefficient" imposition of “social ought”.

Thus, I stand by my analysis and hope that: "Elder Rock believes that present reality [the 'is'] does not mean destiny [the 'ought' of integration]."

Where does he clearly write that the present is not our destiny, as you say?

Furthermore, I'm not clear how this is not a historical reason?

"5. The most sobering deterrent to optimism regarding racial conditions in the U.S. is Ellen White’s telling statement of more than a century ago: “The relation of the two races has been a matter hard to deal with, and I fear that it will ever remain a most perplexing problem” (The Southern Work, p. 84). Gratefully, progress toward racial parity has been made in our country and our church. But the unvarnished reality is that there are more Black families living in separated neighborhoods and a lesser percentage of Black students studying in integrated grade schools now than there were 54 years ago when “separate but equal” was repealed in the famed Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education. It is both inaccurate and inefficient to superimpose the Christian and secular liberals’ construct of “social ought” upon the pervasive “is” of American sociality and function “as if” the day of general racial acceptance has come. Such a position is delusionary, and destructive to mission in the Black community."

He's saying that things, especially at the congregation/community level are not there yet. Fine, I believe him. Then I'm hoping that present reality doesn't limit our vision and action for solving the current impediments.

He doesn't articulate much of a prophetic social vision for it ending. Of course he probably would agree that if the caveats he lists were moot, the separate conference system would dissolve, but his emphasis is clearly on maintaining the status quo.

His argument that things are hard (he's clearly not optimistic about racial reconciliation) when ethnicities mix on equal terms doesn't obviate the greater social good of actual engagement and deeper understanding.

So according to Rock's perspective the final criteria in this situation is that since the Eastern half of the USA is segregated and the Western half isn't (the current reality), we should just leave everyone alone and preserve the status quo because to do otherwise would be "too hard"?

Thankfully local congregations and faith communities don't have to model those in "higher" places otherwise I might have to ask those with a different hue of skin tone in my congregation to please go to the (regional/non-regional) church down the street.

So...instead of the Adventist church venturing to the cutting edge, and hammering out a way of administering across racial lines, it should maintain a structure that works within the cutltural "is" as has been stated. Any attempt to do business differently is "voodoo reconciliation?" So we shouldn't really take seriously Gal. 3:28 when it comes to this issue? I can't accept that. Change, or the effort to change needs to begin somewhere, even if it's hard.

If Rock represents the "party line" within administrative circles, that leaves one option. The real integration of the church has to begin and grow on the grassroot level and work its way up...kind of de-facto. Wouldn't be the first time that leadership needs to be led.

Thanks...

Frank

Frank,
Voodoo reconciliation is the idea that eliminating separate conferences will eliminate racial problems in our church.

To the extent that there are Black congregations outside of black conferences in regions where they exist, and to the extent that Black conferences are becoming integrated themselves, we are seeing the 'elimination' of segregated conferences- to use your words, a grassroots reconciliation.

But then again, I already said that didn't I! So where is the disagreement?

Johnny,

I'm not naive enough to believe that the elimination of separate conferences would eliminate racial problems within the church. But the act of integrating the conferences, or a plan through time to do such, would still send a powerful message from the leadership that a segregated order of things is not acceptable, nor in line with the gospel, IMHO. Movement should be happening on both ends.

Thanks...

Frank

Maybe if they had more women in "high places," even 35% or more distribution, things might change. It takes someone who has been discriminated against since history began to understand what the "underdog" experiences. I'm not holding
my breath.

Earlier this year a conversation I was enjoying with John Cobb surprisingly drifted into this territory. He said something like this:

"My denomination, The United Methodist Church, has devastated its ministry in this country to Hispanics by insisting on integrating many structures in the name of 'inclusiveness.' Our Hispanic outreach was once vibrant and effective; now it is either sick or already dead. I hope other denominations don't make the same mistake we did. There is something important about cultural and racial clusters that we ignore at our peril. You can quote me on this."

Thoughts to consider from a denomination that has already made some unwise decisions!

I have worked with Calvin Rock on the Board of Trustees of Loma Linda. I must say that he was the voice of reason in most if not all issues that came before the board. A Godly rational man in a very ego centric body. I have not studies his latest as I am still under heavy medication. But given history I would put my money on Calvin Rock. Tom

My dad worked in the Lake Union Conference that had regional conferences. From his stories, The leadership of the regional conferences were much more atune to reality that the sum of the rest.

I found the following regarding the state of the United Methodist Church:

•No U.S. jurisdiction reported overall membership or attendance growth in 2004.
•Reported Hispanic membership was up 6.18%, the eight consecutive year of growth.
•Reported Asian-American membership was up slightly, the fourth consecutive year of growth.

http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=2739159...

What does the above mean? That ethnic/Hispanic membership increase is inevitable regardless of the state of care or neglect by their parent body? Mainly by transfer or immigration?

Would anyone have any idea what United Methodist structures have been integrated in particular that in/directly "has devastated its ministry" to Hispanics?

In my idealistic youth, I could not conceive of a reason for separate regional conferences. When my Conference decided to establish Regions (some along geographic, and others along cultural/racial lines) within the Conference, I was initially against it. After years of observing and participating in the inner workings of my local (multi-cultural) church, the Region and the Conference, things are not so clear any more.

While I'm not familiar with how Regional Conferences work in other parts of the country, and although I am still against Regional Conferences for the purpose of separating and discriminating, I support the Regional system, as implemented in my conference, for the following reasons:

1. Minority groups (African American, Hispanic and Asian/Pacific) themselves supported and lobbied for the Region system. I, like everyone else, have options and choices. While I personally prefer, and have chosen, an integrated congregation and Region, I cannot deny someone else their own choice.

The issue is not unlike that of women-only schools and colleges. They exist because the women (or their parents) demand it. Ideally, I prefer an education that does not separate by gender. The reality is, many women flourish in these environments.

2. While having focused ministry groups could be framed as segregating, exclusive and discriminatory, the situation can, likewise, be framed as inclusive and enabling, casting a wider net than that which previously limited and excluded. Are women’s ministries discriminatory toward men? Are music ministries exclusive to non-musicians or the tone deaf? Are sports ministries insensitive to the clumsy and uncoordinated? Is advocacy for Christian education elitist toward non-intellectuals? Things are not as clear cut as we’d like them to be. As Calvin Rock said, “Things are difficult.”

3. Structural and organizational divisions enable innovations at the margins before they are accepted by the other groups comprising the larger church. There are advantages to not having to wait for complete consensus from the entire body before changes can occur. I’m glad there are world Divisions, Conferences, Regions and local churches that apply the Gospel in their own cultural context, even though they sometimes challenge the mainstream denominational orthodoxy.

4. Jesus himself, given the ultimate opportunity to make the idealistic, inclusive, politically-correct, selection of his “starting 12” apostles, chose only JEWISH MEN (What, no token women, Greek, Roman, Samaritan,!!!?) Perhaps he, too, found his situation “difficult.”

Neville,

Have we not institutionalized segregation by the regional structure of each conference in the Pacific Union? I'm not sure if it's correct to say there's an "integrated" region in the Southern California Conference. Do we not have congregations in each of the SCC regions (White, Hispanic, Asian-Pacific, African-American) that have become multiracial accidentally rather than intentionally?

Younger Adventist pastors and lay people in general, not unlike Methodists, seem not to see this as a social/race/ethnicity issue but more as a matter of increase in membership or church growth by the homogeneous unit approach. Will integration happen if we just let it? Perhaps so. I'm of the minority opinion that change must be intentional. Be that as it may, and though I'm far from being an expert (like Monte Sahlin, for example, and associates, who've done our church a great service) let me share what I've observed and read about what has been happening since way back:

"Multiracial Congregations Project
"There are two main types of multiracial congregations--accidental (different people groups just seemed to show up) and intentional (preparations and changes were made to become racially mixed). Not surprisingly, the congregational model that seems to have the largest effect on parishioners' attitudes, religious understandings, and social networks is the intentional model."

http://www.hartfordinstitute.org/cong/research_multiracl.html

"Faith Communities Today
"FACTS on Growth
"While most congregations in America are composed of a single racial/ethnic group, those that are multi-racial are most likely to have experienced strong growth in worship attendance."

http://fact.hartsem.edu/Press/churchgrowth.htm

"Megachurches Today 2005
"Summary of Research Findings

"Our 1999-2000 research found megachurches likely to have a significant multi-racial presence in the congregation. This survey confirmed that fact as well, but also offered evidence of a powerful attitude of racial integration at work.
"Fifty-six percent of those surveyed said they were making efforts to become intentionally multi-ethnic. These efforts seemed to be effective since on average 19% of persons in the congregations were of the non-majority racial group. Thirty-six percent of churches reported having a 20% or more minority presence and 10% of congregations claimed to have no majority racial group."

http://www.hartfordinstitute.org/megachurch/megastoday2005_summaryreport...

Joselito,

While at HKAH (Island) there was an instance when it was brought up that some preferred the Filipino community not continue to grow but attend another church.

The makeup of the church was Chinese,American, European, Indian, Sri Lanka and Filipino and various others.

My comment was Gal.3:26-29. I feel intentional segregation springs most often from wrong motives. I was rather clear in my statement. They relented on the motion. 5 years later my Filipino wife and I were baptized at HKAH.

I've rededicated so many times I was water logged. I think by God's grace the last one took "for conscience" sake...though likely not biblically necessary. The Spirit was always calling me home to Jesus.

I think originally the Atlantic conference began over money issues and support as well as a racial preference on the part of the members (both sides). When they came (AC) quite independent financially then some of the brethren thought that might be a good time to share tithe. That's just the drift I've heard as an 'ole Atlanta boy. It may now be about money and independence as much as anything.

Hey,who wants to hear a white guy preach anyway! ;~)

regards,

pat

I appreciated your observations Neville.
I envision the issue with an eye toward functionality.
What I mean is, if regional/ethnic conferences exist, they exist to support those who feel a specific environment alone is the most effective for outreach and/or fellowship.
Those who do not hold that viewpoint could choose to attend a multi ethnic church whose leadership structure was in a regular conference.
In some ways as we try to appeal and support as many as possible, it is good to have both until the membership no longer feels the need for segregating themselves.
In larger studies they have shown it may take 2+ generations for some people to percieve of themselves generically instead of ethnically.

Black conferences and segregated churchs were as much a Black idea as a white one. In non-segrgated churchs and confernces the black members were given little notice, less voice in policy making, and occupied few positions of responsibilities--although talented and gifted. Once the separate conferences were established, many black leaders "fought" to keep their positions of influence and power. One can count on the fingers of one hand those blacks who rose to positions of influence in the chruch at large.

Maybe Clavin is speaking to a new generation that is talent oriented rather than color sensitive. I was the first to bring a black graduate student into Loma Linda. He became among other things a Vice President of the American Association of Orthodontics. A non-smoking, non-drinking Roman Catholic at that. One of my proudest accomplishments was to follow his rise in leadership. It is brains, skills, character, and ethics that matter, not color. Tom

Pat

Repeat baptisms, like you said... is unbiblical. There's only one Lord... one baptism. In regard to professions of faith by the foreign born who claim inability to trace their previous church membership, this and repeat baptisms of first generation immigrants further complicate the reported stats in their homeland.

Tom

Regional conferences and the regional structural segregation within each conference of the Pacific Union represent a needless duplicate bureaucracy, IMO; they consist of an alternative status system for non-white clergy. Is it not for those who, for one reason or another, can't make it in the mainstream? One thing is certain though: the isolationism, consequent to the segregation of our professional clergy only promotes mediocrity rather than excellence among them. I won't speculate on what this means for the congregations they lead.

From hereon, I'll confine myself to my Asian/Pacific region experience and let others speak up for the other groups. Edwin I. Hernandez, of the University of Notre Dame, for example, is probably someone best qualified and positioned to provide current information in regard to Hispanic ministries. His group submitted the following recommendations:

1. Better opportunities for formal theological education,
2. Training for laity to assume leadership responsibilities,
3. Increased cultivation of second- and third-generation Latino youth,
4. Initiatives that would help church leaders to advocate for the social needs of their communities,
5. Programs to provide lay leaders and clergy with practical administrative skills, and
6. A permanent national dialogue on Hispanic pastoral leadership.

- STRENGTHENING HISPANIC MINISTRY ACROSS DENOMINATIONS:
A CALL TO ACTION

Written and Edited by
Edwin I. Hernández, Milagros Peña
Rev. Kenneth Davis, CSC, and Elizabeth Station

http://www.pulpitandpew.duke.edu/hispanicrpt.pdf

Joselito,

Like I said earlier, the Regional system can be framed as institutionalized segregation or, conversely, casting a wider net; it’s all a matter of focus and perspective.

With respect to integrated regions in the Southern California Conference: while not perfectly integrated, the local churches in the geographically-defined Regions (West, Metro), and to some extent, also the churches in the culturally/ethnically-defined Regions, for the most part, seem to reflect the cultural/ethnic composition of their respective geographic neighborhoods; which is about as “integrated” as one can expect to be.

With respect to choosing Region representatives, much effort is taken to select a representative mix of cultures and ethnicities, men and women, lay-persons and clergy. While I cannot speak for the other regions, this usually was a very smooth and efficient process in the Region meetings I participated in. There were more than enough qualified candidates.

As for hiring pastors at the local congregation and in the Region to which I belong, I have observed hiring across racial/ethnic lines—Black, White, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific.

The composition of church attendees on a typical Sabbath church service is racially and ethnically integrated, the church leadership in the local church is integrated, the Region representation is integrated, pastoral leadership is integrated—all these seem to make a strong case for racial/ethnic integration to me. Are homogeneous unit principles at work? Perhaps; although it would be difficult to argue that these are defined by ethnicity or race. Is the system perfect? Not by any means. Could one describe the situation as “integrated”? Most definitely.

Of course, I speak only for my local church and Region. My guess is that the other geographically-defined Regions in the SCC, and the local congregations, are very similar to what I describe. Perhaps the reason we are not more “intentional” about racial and ethnic integration is because it is quite difficult NOT to be. There are other much more pressing challenges.

Do others choose to join more ethnically-homogeneous congregations? Absolutely. If they thrive and are spiritually fed in that environment, all power to them (refer to my previous analogy to all-women schools/colleges). Do those churches choose to band together, forming a culturally/ethnically-defined Region, and collaborate in making disciples in their respective cultural communities--tailoring their ministries, evangelism, liturgy to what makes the most sense for them? Why not? The Regional system allows for more options—a wider net is cast.

Neville,

I'm not surprised that those who have sat for sometime on local conference boards would speak like you do. I believe there's more than just "group think" that's at work. To a greater or lesser degree, denominational traditions bear an important influence in the decision-making process.

'Evangelical ministers are influenced by church growth strategies that involve targeting a “homogeneous unit” of people sharing similar ethnic, class, and generational characteristics. Evangelical pan-Asian congregations thus draw symbolic boundaries based on the similar family upbringing and professional status of their members.

'Mainline pan-Asian congregations, in contrast, draw upon the social justice teachings of their denominational hierarchies. These latter congregations “see Asian Americans as a
marginalized group in need of empowerment,” and they focus on issues of racial discrimination and community development (225).'

- The above is an indirect citation of Russell Jeung, “Asian-American Panethnic Formation and Congregational Culture” in Religions in Asian America: Building Faith Communities edited by Pyong Gap Min and Jung Ha Kim (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2002), 215-243.

ASIANAMERICAN RELIGIOUS LEADERSHIP TODAY: A PRELIMINARY INQUIRY
by Timothy Tseng, et al

http://www.pulpitandpew.duke.edu/AsianAmerWEB.pdf

Joselito,

I’m a bit amused (as I’m sure many who know me personally would also be) at your characterization of me as one of “those who have sat for sometime on local conference boards”, and someone under the influence of “group think” and “denominational tradition”. My involvement with local conference boards has been sporadic, brief and often tangential.

As a passionate, idealistic layperson, I’ve had more than my share of run-ins with the church hierarchy. I would be one of the last to be an apologist for denominational tradition—when I truly believe they are off base. I have often thought of quitting this imperfect church (gender and racial equality, leadership corruption and incompetence, unjustifiable doctrines and practices, and meaningless worship being some of my internal battleground issues). As someone once referred to Noah’s ark, “If it weren’t for the storm raging outside, you couldn’t stand the stench inside.” A key turning point came when a previous pastor challenged me with: “You’re an intelligent, creative, competent young professional—quit bellyaching and do something about your complaints about the church—or quietly walk away.” I’m glad he knew me enough to know my reaction, although I did come close to walking away.

Today, my main interest with church politics and process is primarily at the local church level, where I prefer to initiate improvements, and encourage and enable creativity and innovation while living out the Gospel through service, and making disciples in one’s given cultural context.

My interest in the issue of regional structure has to do with how it affects what I do at the local church level. I simply point out that the Region system, as implemented by the SCC, seems to give my local church the most latitude to be as creative and innovative as possible in living out the Gospel and making disciples in the context of my local community. After all, a “vibrant, thriving, multi-cultural, multi-generational, creative, innovative, large metropolitan, inner-city SDA church” is just as much of a “minority” as any “Black, “Hispanic”, or ”Asian/Pacific” congregation in the sisterhood of American SDA churches. And like those other minorities, our ministries, evangelism, liturgy, etc., may be just as foreign, intimidating and threatening to the mainstream denominational orthodoxy.

One can live out one’s life railing against the system and making principled stands. Or one can actively do something about it. I have chosen the latter—at least for now.

I agree with Neville's conclusion "it is quite difficult NOT to be [integrated]"!

Is this inclusiveness authentic? Or, is it not mainly due to happenstance?

The racial/ethnic composition of residents in the two geographically-defined (West and Metro) SCC regions is as Neville describes. In point of fact, we're told:

"Los Angeles is a major gateway city for new immigrants and is already home to a population where one person in three is foreign born."

Other major ports of entry for new immigrants (to differentiate them from early, first-wave immigrants who arrived prior to 1965) include Chicago, Houston, Miami, New York, San Francisco, and Washington.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/private/docs/publications/immigr...

At the same time we're witnessing an influx of the foreign born and their increased participation in congregational life, a negative Anglo member accession rate is also taking place. A white flight? Or, is this similar to the loss of Anglo adherents that has been the experience of several mainline denominations since the 1960's as well?

"The United Methodist Church is most effective at reaching whites and African Americans but is even struggling today to reach those groups."

http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=2739159...

PS Neville - I posted about the same time with you. I also do what I can under the situation and am trying not to be too argumentative. Thank you!

Joselito

I suggest that an independant polling organization take a poll of the Presidents and Treasurers of Regional Conferences and determine how many and how strongly they favor integration.

I guess the major would want the Regional to remain but open pathways to Chair Union Conference Offices.

As to the membership--I think you will find it equally divided. There are elitest in every sub-set of society.

Of course in Christ there is no East or West nor Black or White
All are precious in His sight.

The First Elder (Head) of the Augusta Seventh-day Adventist Church is Black. He is also the most popular of the Sabbath-School Teachers. I recruited him to Augusta--he was educated at AUC and Trained in Dentisty at LLU.

Integration can be accomplished but not by fait but by faith and charity.

Five of my top 25 orthodontists are black. Color has nothing to do with intelligence, skill, ethics, or accomplishments.

It certainly has nothing to do with whom to worship and why. Of course there are wide cultural differences around the world on style of worship and self expression. Those differences have a great impact on congregational worship. Finally, power at the top, culturally expression throughout are the primary reasons for the continuing separation. Jim Crow died a long time ago-it is just my generation that attempts to revive it. We will be gone in five years or less.
Tom

Tom,

In regard to Asian/Pacific coordinators, my guess is similar to yours about the thinking of Local Regional Conference presidents and treasurers: no integration but open pathways for upward mobility in the church hierarchy! People in positions of privilege won't voluntarily yield their seats, except when they're being asked to move up!

Thanks Joselito

I am not an advocate for Regional Conferences, I just was attempting to explain the politics of the situation. We are one people under God. Let us relate to each other as we really believe it. Thanks again. Tom

If we go the "inclusive route" to integrating the regional conference with the other, then what about inclusive doesn't include qualified women? Currently, there are more women prepared to take on ministerial roles but they must find employment elsewhere. Are they as equally qualified as their male counterparts? When more than 50% of all college graduates are female (even MIT), to have women at the starting gate and never to be called is not demonstrating an inclusive church.

"People don't change when they see the light; they change when they feel the heat."

Neville

Must admit that I, too, was rather amused by the reasoning behind your initial post. I held back, trying my best not to be too argumentative after you cited the example of women-only schools/colleges. In my part of the world, all boys and all girls schools are a thing of the past. They've all become co-eds since about the 1960's, I believe. Women's ministries? Jesus' innermost circle of _Twelve Jewish Men_ ?

A recent Sightings piece by Martin Marty refers to an essay by a Catholic nun who advocates inclusion of women to the priesthood. According to her, the all-male tradition of Apostolic succession has been defended by the hierarchy primarily on sacramental, foundational grounds. Theological arguments are only secondary. It's foundational in the sense that Jesus' example at the time of sacrament's institution has been followed to the letter.

http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/sightings/archive_2008/0728.shtml

http://www.archny.org/seminary/st-josephs-seminary-dunwoodie/administrat...

How about restructuring the Women's Ministries dept to an integrated Women's Region in the SCC? A woman coordinator may be appointed but pastoral assignments and the composition of congregations within the Women's region will be as inclusive and as integrated as they can get.

Elaine

I've not seen your quote before. But you're so right and on target! In my country, People Power was needed to drive out a dictator who rigged an election against a woman political opponent. After becoming our first woman Head of State and Commander-in-Chief, she still needed the support of men (of the military) and women (of the religious orders in particular) around her. It was vital to the survival of her presidency.

I agree with Elder Rock. I've lived my life dipping my feet in both ponds - being a member in a nonregional conference, but being involved in Pathfinders and other youth activities [largely unavailable anywhere else] in a regional conference. Certainly, things have changed a lot since I was a kid: the church I grew up in [that once circulated a petition to request black members leave and attend the regional church] is now ~35% black and ~15% Latin@. It's actually kind of amazing to go home and visit.

But the nuts and bolts of things still don't work out easily - take (for example) the two church schools in town. One in each conference. The total enrollment is probably around 35-40 kids [and that's being generous, it might be more like 25-30]. Each school has a principal, and at least one teacher. Each church is heavily subsidizing their school because they're operating at a serious loss. But talks of collaboration/combining that [amazingly] were broached, once, about 10 years ago, never went anywhere.

Because somebody's gonna be top dog, and somebody else is gonna be out of a job. And even now, the results are nothing more than a foregone conclusion.

As for intentional vs organic, the change in demographics of my home church has certainly not been intentional. It has been due to changes in demographics of the city, and also largely due to the nearby military base.

We are still operating in a time and system where on the most basic of levels, people are unsure of how to relate with those of a different race.

I would suggest the continued collaboration of regional and nonregional conferences [as is being done for GC2010 in ATL], and intentional, informal collaborations and meetings on more local levels to encourage the breakdown of the barriers we are still holding on to.

The future DOES hold a fully integrated church. The question is whether that future will be attained prior to reaching heaven.

jen*

One way to assess intention is by looking at how folks approach Today. There is little the church cannot do when it decides Today is the time. On the other hand, when the church decides Tomorrow is good enough, there will always be another Tomorrow on which to do it.

The root issues for us are the same as when the disciples disputed amongst themselves. What progress in 2,000 years? We might have shifted the labels a little but we still nurse the same folly even though every time we do our ordinances we testify that we know better.

How long did the Gentile and Jewish widows face inequities in Acts? We don't know how long, but we do know the church saw it for the blight it was and took aggressive steps to fix it.

We have our own Today and have had it for years now. It's obvious that dismantling .org structures [A] is not the same as dismantling dodgy thinking [B]. But it is lame to argue that because A is not B, A should not be done. We have every reason to pursue both A and B, and to do so post-haste. Doing other than that is to risk saying by inaction that Christ's prayer in Jn 17 was a pipe dream.

Joselito,

I believe you may be missing the subtleties of my position. But before proceeding, I’d like to point out that we’re on the same side (I think) on the larger picture: Racial harmony, co-existence as equals, and mutual affirmation and respect. The same applies to gender. Where we might differ is in the perception of the factors causing/influencing the present realities, and our response to it.

Your position (if I may be so bold as to re-state it—and feel free to correct me if I am wrong) is that the Regional system’s reason for existence is racism, and its purpose, segregation/separatism. I cannot speak for other parts of the country, but in the case of the SCC, I believe the justification for its existence is to accommodate a wider range of ministries, evangelism strategies, etc. for the different population groups, decentralized (in the region and local church vs. the conference) decision making and allocation of resources, and opportunities for development of leadership (more varied styles, skill sets and cultural sensitivities) within the various Regions. I support the region structure because it accomplishes these goals (not without its own set of problems), not only in the culturally/ethnically-defined regions, but also in the “integrated”, geographically-defined ones (like the one to which I belong). It’s a win-win situation.

Do you appreciate the irony of our positions? You’re arguing for racial unity and the affirmation of the various cultures and ethnicities by advocating for a unified, one-size-fits-all conference; while I advocate for a broader view of our common humanity by encouraging multiple expressions and interpretations of the Gospel through a decentralized, flexible, multi-pronged organizational structure?

The reason I brought up all-women colleges and the twelve Jewish, male Apostles is to make the point that not all situations can be viewed through a simplistic, purely-racial or gender framework. Further, I was making the point that advocating for dispensing with the Regional System (which, for the most part, is supported by the supposedly “oppressed minorities” themselves), COULD be compared to advocating for the closure of Vassar and Mt. Holyoke for being sexist, and disbanding Jesus’ original twelve for being racially exclusive. Let me be clear: I don’t maintain you, or anyone else, holds these positions—they’re just hypothetical examples of positions one can arrive at, if one views the world through strictly racial or gender-tinted lenses. My position, and I believe Calvin Rock’s, is that there are many other factors involved in the existence of, and the rationale for, Regions.

The piece you cited, where the church hierarchy justifies its all-male priesthood by the tradition of Apostolic succession, only further highlights the folly of decision-making that factors in only gender or race, to the exclusion of other influences. Likewise, viewing the Regional System as a purely racial institution over-simplifies a much more complex and nuanced set of circumstances.

I am not the one questioning Jesus’ apostle selection criteria, using guilt-by-association with the male-dominated RC church hierarchy, nor the one accusing him of implementing evangelical, “homogeneous unit” strategies for church growth. I simply point out a circumstantial fact, the interpretation of which I leave to each individual to apply, or not apply, to the situation of Regional systems and single-ethnic groups.

As for your suggestion of a Women’s Region, which I assume you were being facetious: Be careful with what you suggest. If you were in my church and made a creative suggestion like that, we may run with it because it really is a brilliant suggestion! In one broad stroke it accomplishes a lot of good things: It will mean the ordination of women (since ordained clergy seem to be a requirement in every Conference sub-committee); it puts women in intermediate leadership roles, from which the church draws its top leadership, it creates an alternate Conference structure, without dismantling the old one, that may just have a different way of viewing the world than our present male-dominated conferences. Hmmm, maybe I’ll suggest your idea at the next constituency meeting. My point? What you imply would be a segregationist organizational structure may, indeed, be creatively used to move the church further along toward a common goal we share—unity, mutual understanding and respect. It’s a matter of focus and perspective—looking for opportunities for growth and improvement, where others only see barriers and stumbling blocks.

Thank you for allowing me to indulge in a lengthy post to clarify my position in response to your comments. I also try not to be too argumentative, but I sometimes enjoy a vigorous discussion. Granted, my line of reasoning may be amusing and unorthodox, especially coming from a “progressive”, but you have yet to convince me that it is unsound :)

just thought y'all might like to see this article at CNN.com for another perspective. we're not the only ones dealing with this.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/08/04/segregated.sundays/index....

jen*

Perhaps the church I attend is unusual. WDYT?
There are caucasians, asian-orientals, blacks, mixed-race couples, Latinos, and ? We've had speakers of all those races, including a woman.
We have elders belonging to all races, including women.

If there's been an objection, I've not heard it.

Where we choose to fellowship, whether or not our reason is based on the ethnic or racial majority composition of the congregation we're most comfortable with, is between us and God. On what basis, however, are Adventist congregations that are only within a couple of city blocks from each other grouped further, with the added distinction of the racial/ethnic background of their respective presiding clergy? Perhaps it's not racism. But, is there a special reason, or an additional spiritual benefit that may be derived by such racialization and ethnicization of the hierarchy?