| Author | Message | ||
| Plain Patti |
Hi, friends. We were having a discussion on another forum, and I was wanting additional input. Even as a child I was never able to understand the segregation practiced by SDA congregations. Granted, I have been out of the church for 20 years, but I understand there are still separate regions for black congregations. Is this widely practiced? Was it ever widely practiced in the States? I was raised in the South, so I do not know if this was SOP (standard operating procedure) in the rest of the country. How could a denomination claim to be God's true remnant and be exclusive and segregated? Any comments? Grace and peace, Patti | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Hi friend Plain Patti (love that moniker!), Nice to know you're staying with us! The answers to your questions on SDAs and race relations have an exceptional history with deep and unimaginably complex root systems. In short, you need three things to reach an understanding: (1) historical background, (2) historical background, and (3) historical background. I will do some Internet searching and get back to you with, what I fear will only be a pitiful start. But it will be sound material, not speculation or opinion. But still, and most importantly, a start. Back shortly (hopefully) from the time machine, Jude | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
[Plain Patti, following is the title page (and a bit more) to a truly excellent paper on Ellen Gould White and her relationship to the Advent Movement. Following this is an excerpt showing basically, that EGW thought "some races of men," (e.g., Hottentots and other black people) resulted from the heinous sin of white people mating with animals, probably ape-like creatures, since the flood and producing offspring. Being Victorian, EGW couldn't bring herself to use more dscriptive terminology than "amalgamation," giving later SDA apologists the excuse to say, in the immortal words of Ronald D. Graybill, Ph.D., and SDA apologist par excellence, "We don't know what she meant." Believe me, Plain Patti, Graybill MOST CERTAINLY DOES KNOW "what she meant," and the much more couragious SDA historian Arthur N. Patrick is going to prove it. Hold on tight!] RE-VISIONING THE ROLE OF ELLEN WHITE FOR SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS BEYOND 2000 by Arthur N. Patrick, D.Min., Ph.D. Visiting Associate Professor Church History and Pastoral Ministry La Sierra University Introduction Section I: Ellen White Studies Since 1970 Section II: The Continuing Relevance of Ellen White for Seventh-day Adventists Section III: How, Then, Shall We Use the Writings of Ellen White? While these ideas have been honed by comment from and discussion with many people, I take the sole and full responsibility for their expression in this paper. Arthur Patrick. [Patti, following is a very small excerpt from this much longer paper.] Amalgamation of Man and Beast Ellen White often proclaimed God as the Creator of life and beauty, and Satan as the destroyer of life and loveliness. In 1864, within a discussion of those larger themes, she told the newly-organized Seventh-day Adventist Church: 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 almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men. 73 This understanding of amalgamation, implying the interbreeding of humans and animals, created a vibrant debate during the 1860s. Uriah Smith weighed in on Ellen White's side, dealing with this and 51 other issues in a series of articles in The Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. Smith's series was soon collected in the book which James White endorsed strongly and sold widely at camp meetings. 74 Smith not only defended the notion that inter-breeding between animals and humans had occurred, he went on to affirm that the results could be clearly seen amongst nineteenth-century people-groups. Such an explanation of racial characteristics is unthinkable to us, by reason of what we now believe to be scientific fact. But as late as 1870, the paragraph from Spiritual Gifts was grammatically adjusted, yet it was essentially unchanged as it was republished in the first volume of The Spirit of Prophecy: The Great Controversy Between Christ and His Angels and Satan and His Angels. 75 [Patti, following are the numbered end-notes corresponding to the reference numbers in the text above.] 73 Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, 3: Important Facts of Faith, In Connection with the History of Holy Men of Old (Battle Creek: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1864), 75. See also page 64. 74 Smith, The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White. 75 See 78, cf. 69. For further documentation, see my article, "Does Our Past Embarrass Us?" Note the way in which the term "amalgamation" is used by Ellen White in Review and Herald, 23 August 1892; Manuscript 65, 1889; Manuscript Releases, 16, 247. See also W.C. White's comment in Selected Messages, 3, 452. [Patti, more later if you're still interested. -Jude] | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
[Plain Patti: Here's more.] Truth or Fables http://www.truthorfables.com By Robert K. Sanders "What Did Ellen G. White Mean By Amalgamation of Man and Animals?" Ellen G. White wrote, "In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision--the precious rays of light shining from the throne." -Testimonies 5 p. 67 Ellen G. White is saying: She is presenting what the Lord told her. She does not write her own ideas. She receives her material from visions. The material is "precious rays of light from the throne." After you read the documentation, see if Ellen G. White's statements are true or a myth. If you find they are a myth ask yourself, why do you support the cultic beliefs of Ellen G. White and the Seventh-day Adventist Church. E. G. White has written two statements on amalgamation that has caused much embarrassment through the years in the Seventh-day Adventist Church because they are not Biblical or biologically true. Several Adventist apologists have written books and articles in a vain attempt to explain Ellen's nonsense. "But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere." -Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 64, 1864. "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. Ellen G. White is saying in first quote: 1. Amalgamation was the sin above all other sins that caused the flood and the destruction of the race. 2. The amalgamation of man and beast defaced the image of God and caused confusion everywhere. In the second quote Ellen is saying: 1. Every species that God created were preserved in the ark. 2. The confused species that were the result of amalgamation were not allowed on the ark and were destroyed by the flood. 3. Since the flood there have been amalgamation of man and beast and may be seen today in species of animals and certain races of men. We are asked to believe that there are part human and part beast creatures about us today as there was before the flood. Why was this "precious light from the throne" left out of E. G. White's later published books such as Patriarchs and Prophets? Her son, Willie C. White gives us the answer: "Regarding the two paragraphs which are to be found in Spiritual Gifts and also in the Spirit of Prophecy regarding amalgamation and the reason 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."-Selected Messages, Book 3, p. 452. Does a prophet have a right to add and delete God's "precious rays of light from the throne? Uriah Smith Comes to Ellen's Defense in 1868 Ellen's first amalgamation statement was published in 1864; it created such questions as to whether the Negro race was human. Four years later in 1868 Uriah Smith wrote to defend Ellen's visions covering fifty-two objections in his book "The Visions Of Mrs. E. G. White. OBJECTION 39. - THE NEGRO RACE NOT HUMAN. "The visions teach, says the objector, that the negro race is not human. We deny it. They do not so teach. Mark the language: " 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." This view was given for the purpose of illustrating the deep corruption and crime into which the race fell, even within a few years after the flood that signal manifestation of God's wrath against human wickedness. There was amalgamation; and the effect is still visible in certain races of men." Mark, those excepting the animals upon whom the effects of this work are visible, are called by the vision, "men." Now we have ever supposed that anybody that was called a man, was considered a human being. The vision speaks of all these classes as races of men; yet in the face of this plain declaration, they foolishly assert that the visions teach that some men are not human beings! But does any one deny the general statement contained in the extract given above? They do not. If they did, they could easily be silenced by a reference to such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of the Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country, &c. Moreover, naturalists affirm that the line of demarkation between the human and animal races is lost in confusion. It is impossible, as they affirm, to tell just where the human ends and the animal begins. Can we suppose that this was so ordained of God in the beginning? Rather has not sin marred the boundaries of these two kingdoms? But, says the objector, Paul says that " God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth," and then they add, " Which shall we believe, Paul or E. G. White ?" You need not disbelieve E. G. White, in order to believe Paul; for there is no contradiction between them. Paul's language will apply to all classes of men who have any of the original Adamic blood in their veins; and that there are any who have not this, is not taught by the visions, nor claimed by any one. But for this text to weigh anything in favor of the objector, he must take the ground that God made every particle of blood that exists, in any human being. Is this so? Then God made all the scrofulous, leprous, or syphilitic blood that courses in the worst transgressor's veins! From any view which leads, to such a blasphemous conclusion, we prefer to be excused. But what has the ancient sin of amalgamation to do with any race or people at the present time? Are they in any way responsible, or to be held accountable for it ? Not at all. Has any one a right to try to use it to their prejudice? By no means. The fact is mentioned simply to show how soon men relapsed into wickedness, and to what a degree. But we are to take all races and peoples as we find them. And those who manifest sufficient powers of mind to show that they are moral and accountable beings, are of course to be esteemed as objects of regard and philanthropic effort. We are bound to labor, so far as in our power, for the improvement of their mental, moral and physical condition. Whatever race of men we may take, Bushmen, Hottentots, Patagonians, or any class of people, however low they may apparently be in the scale of humanity, their mental capabilities are in every instance the basis on which we are to work, and by which we determine whether they are subjects of moral government or not. Then what about all this ado over the charge, which is itself false, that the visions teach that the negro is not a human being? What does it amount to? It is simply an effort to create prejudice in the minds of the people, unworthy any one who makes any pretensions to being a Christian, or even a gentleman."-Uriah Smith, THE VISIONS OF MRS. E. G. WHITE, A MANIFESTATION Of SPIRITUAL GIFTS ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES, pp.102-105, 1868. Uriah Smith's Argument There was offspring living in Ellen and Smith's day that was the result of amalgamation. 2. Some of "the confused species" that Ellen failed to name Smith jumped right in and named them. He named the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of Hottentots also from Africa, Digger Indians from America and Patagonians from South America. 3. Smith believed as did the evolutionist that, "Moreover, naturalists affirm that the line of demarkation between human and animal races is lost in confusion." It is impossible as they affirm, to tell, just where the human ends and the animal begin. Can we suppose that this was so ordained of God in the beginning? Smith did not know that human blood and animal blood do not merge into one blood. 4. That these black people should be treated as human because they had human blood in them from Adam. 5. These people were of low mentality because of the sin of amalgamation and thy are not responsible for that sin. Keep in mind that Ellen approved of Smith's defense. If we use Smith's argument that the confused species that were the result of amalgamation were Negro or Black people, then we are faced with another problem. Moses married or amalgamated with an Ethiopian woman. (KJV). -"Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite."-Num 12:1 (NIV). Would God have choose Moses to lead Israel if he had committed the greatest sin known to man and the one sin that called for the destruction of the race by the flood and his offspring were defacing the image of God? James and Ellen Sells Smith's Book. James White read Smith's book and warmly recommended it in the August 25, 1868, Review and Herald: "The Association has just published a pamphlet entitled, "The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White, A Manifestation of Spiritual gifts According to the Scripture." It is written by the editor of the Review. While reading the manuscript, I felt very grateful to God that our people could have this able defense of those views they so much love and prize which others despise and oppose. This book is designed for very wide circulation. James White. - Spectrum, June 12, 1982, p.14. "James and Ellen White took 2,000 copies of Smith's book with them to campmeetings that year."- Spectrum, June 12, 1982, p.14. If Uriah Smith was in error in explaining Ellen's vision why did Ellen not correct him. She had 47 years to correct him before she died in 1915. "And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so."- Gen 1:24 (NIV) "All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another." -1 Cor 15:39 (NIV) The Bible says that animals would reproduce after their kind. Where is the evidence that a sexual union of man and beast (bestiality) could produce offspring? Science has never produced such evidence. The flesh of man and animals are different as well as their blood. Certainly if such creatures were alive as claimed by White and Smith this would be easily to prove and they could be vindicated. If this human/beast creature could be found then the evolutionists would claim their theory of evolution, as being correct for the missing link would be found. Ellen G. White and U. Smith have sided with the evolutionist. Ellen could only see this man/beast creature in her supposed vision and Smith could only see it wearing Ellen's glasses and the evolutionist wish they see it in fossils. There should be many bones from the living and the dead creature/animals for them to verify if this were true. Francis D. Nichol: In 1951, sixty-seven years after Ellen wrote her first amalgamation statement Nichol wrote a 703 page book defending Ellen G. White, titled "Ellen G. White And Her Critics." Nichol claimed what Ellen meant was the amalgamation of man with man is what defaced the image of God. Not man with beast. The descendants of Cain mating with the descendants of Seth that caused the defacing of God's image. p.309. Nichol goes on to tell us that it was Satan that caused the change in the animals to sin. -"Ellen G. White And Her Critics," p. 319. How can the descendents of Cain and the descendents of Seth deface the image of God by marring and having offspring? Both groups were created in the image of God and both groups were sinners the same as people living today. How can animals mating outside of their species produce offspring? Some animals mate within their species and produce sterile offspring such as a horse and a donkey producing a sterile mule. How can this deface the image of God when animals are not created in God's image? Can animals sin and be guilty of the base crime of amalgamation? This is what the Adventists apologists would have us to believe from their animal to animal theory of amalgamation. In any case there is a lot of donkey mentality going on defending Ellen's false visions as attempting to change her words to get her to say what she did not believe. Uriah Smith certainly knew better what Ellen meant than later apologists. George McCready Price: Wrote in the April 1931 issue of The Ministry, that he would like to make a slight alteration in Ellen G. White's statements. "Since the flood there has been an amalgamation of man and (of) beast, as may be seen in almost endless varieties of species of animal, and in certain races of men." "The Problem of Hybridization" The Ministry April 1931, p. 13. D. E. Robinson for many years Ellen G. White's personal secretary took issue with Price: In a paper titled "Amalgamation Versus Evolution" said that Price's insertion of the word "of" into Ellen White's statements did violence to the "obvious meaning " that the author herself intended." Spectrum June 12, 1982, p.14. Dr. Harold Clark a biologist tells the truth: "Clark called attention to his work with Ellen White's son, W. C. White and D. E. Robinson, her secretary. Neither of these men ever doubted that Ellen White meant the crossing of man and beast by the phrase "amalgamation of man and beast." Spectrum June 12, 1982, p.11. Geoscience Research Institute I am inclosing a letter from Clyde Webster Jr. Ph. D. Senior Research Scientist at Loma Linda to Rex DeGoyler now deceased dated April 15, 1991. You will see from Mr. Webster's letter that he believes in amalgamation as taught by Mrs. White and ignores science and the Bible to prop up his prophet. Geoscience Research Institute Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California 923SO Affiliated with: Loma Linda University and Andrews University April 15, 1991 Mr. Rex DeGolyer 19 Sunshine Lane Avon Park, FL 33825 Dear Mr. DeGolyer: I am sorry that you were not at the afternoon meetings where this topic was discussed in some detail. Concerning the amalgamation of man with beast I believe this was how the Image of God was confused, and as Sr. White points out, was the ultimate cause of the flood. It would have been impossible to ascertain whether this living form was man or beast thereby confusing the Image of God in which man was originally created. I personally believe that the evidence seen today for such amalgamation is what science calls the "ape-man". such species as the austrailio Pithicus, a. Africanus, a. Robustus, and others would fit into this category. Neanderthal man on the other hand would not be classified as an ape-man, but rather a degenerate homo Sapiens sapiens. Not being sure of what you were seeking for as an answer, I trust that these few comments have met your needs. Sincerely, Clyde L. Webster Jr., Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist cc: Pastor Emil Moldrik Copyright © 1998 Robert K. Sanders [Plain Patti: I think the general idea is this: If SDAs thought, as did most Bible-toting white slave owners in the South during slavery years, that blacks or Africans were somewhat less than human, then slavery would be justified. "God cursed Ham," you'll remember, "and since Ham was black [uttter garbage, of course, but it worked back then]," then Blacks or people of African descent are not to be re-amalgamated with white people. Keep the races separate. Ergo, separate conferences, churches, etc. SEGREGATION! Fit in well with the "Jim Crow," "Dred Scott" South of the time. Bottom line: Adventists were not different than Southern Baptists when it came to segregating Blacks from Whites. Intermarriage was a "no no" because Blacks had -- gasp -- ANIMAL blood! I remember Edward Heppenstall, then chairman of the theology department of the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews, saying that he wouldn't want HIS daughter (who was blond and blue-eyed, and very beautiful, by the way) marrying a black man, even if that black man was a Seventh-day Adventist minister or University professor. This was the spirit that segregated the races and resulted in separate-but-unequal churches, conferences and unions. Sigh, Jude] | ||
| Allenette |
Jude: "This WAS the spirit..." past tense? I think not. To this day, a white SDA attending a black SDA church is still more considered like going to the circus: a novelty indulged in for entertainment's sake if done at all. As in, "Look here, the church bulletin says that Little Richard will be preaching and singing at the Bordeaux church next weekend. Let's go see him." | ||
| Plain Patti |
Wow, Jude! I know James Michener always started with the dinosaurs, but I didn't expect you to! Must be the sign of a great writer! Seriously, that is quite a bit to swallow, isn't it? Do you think that it is fair to say that Ellen and Uriah Smith were more or less simply justifying their personal prejudices? I have known about the amalgamation statement for years. Someone "let it slip" to my mother back in the seventies. I understand it had been more or less kept under wraps before this?? What I am amazed at (or rather ashamed of) is that we accepted at the time. What an AWFUL doctrine! And there are those on A-I and other SDA forums that will defend utterly groundless statements like this to the hilt. One time, an SDA defender did all kinds of contortions to defend the "solitary vice" statements of Ellen--saying that there had never really been any longitudinal studies to prove whether "it" produced embiciles, deformities, blindness, consumption, and cancers. So when did the SDAs decide they needed to work with our black brethren? Thanks for your efforts, Jude! Grace and peace, Patti | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
[Plain Patti and Allenette, In answer to your question, Patti, about how the SDAs could "evangelize" African Americans: Following is a presentation made by Ellen White to General Conference bretheren which was later preserved in her book, Southern Work. This material is from the E.G.White Estate, so read it with that caveat. -Jude] XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Ellen White's Appeal To The Church THIS BASIC APPEAL WAS READ BY ELLEN G. WHITE TO THIRTY LEADERS OF THE CHURCH ON MARCH 21, 1891, IN CONNECTION WITH THE GENERAL CONFERENCE SESSION AT BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN. COPIES WERE SOON FURNISHED TO KEY MEN AND ESPECIALLY THE LEADING MINISTERS IN THE SOUTH. LATER THIS IMPORTANT MESSAGE WAS PUBLISHED IN A 16-PAGE LEAFLET. THIS IS THE OPENING ARTICLE IN THE SOUTHERN WORK.--WHITE TRUSTEES. Our Duty to the Coloured People There has been much perplexity as to how our labourers in the South shall deal with the "colour line." It has been a question to some how far to concede to the prevailing prejudice against the coloured people. The Lord has given us light concerning all such matters. There are principles laid down in His Word that should guide us in dealing with these perplexing questions. The Lord Jesus came to our world to save men and women of all nationalities. He died just as much for the coloured people as for the white race. Jesus came to shed light over the whole world. At the beginning of His ministry He declared His mission: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord." The Redeemer of the world was of humble parentage. He, the Majesty of heaven, the King of glory, humbled Himself to accept humanity, and then He chose a life of poverty and toil. "For your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich." When one came saying, "I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest," Jesus answered him, "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." He, the Majesty of heaven, depended upon the generosity of His followers. 10 Jesus did not seek the admiration or applause of the world. He commanded no army, He ruled no earthly kingdom. He passed by the wealthy and honoured of the world. He did not associate with the leaders of the nation. He dwelt among the lowly of the earth. To all appearances he was merely a humble man, with few friends. Thus He sought to correct the world's false standard of judging the value of men. He showed that they are not to be estimated by their outward appearance. Their moral worth is not determined by their worldly possessions, their real estate or bank stock. It is the humble, contrite heart that God values. With Him there is no respect of persons. The attributes that He prizes most are purity and love, and these are possessed only by the Christian. Jesus did not choose His disciples from the learned lawyers, the rulers, the scribes, and Pharisees. He passed them by because they felt whole, as many feel in this age, and prided themselves on their learning and position. They were fixed in their traditions and superstitions, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. He who could read all hearts chose poor fishermen who were willing to be taught. He gave them no promise of large salary or worldly honour, but told them they should be partakers with Him in His sufferings. Jesus while in this world ate with publicans and sinners, and mingled with the common people, not to become low and earthly with them, but in order by precept and example to present to them right principles, to lift them up from their low habits and manners. In all this He set us an example, that we should follow in His steps. Those who have a religious experience that opens their hearts to Jesus, will not cherish pride, but will feel that they are under obligation to God to be missionaries as was Jesus. They will seek to save that which was lost. They will not, in Pharisaical pride and haughtiness, withdraw themselves from any class of humanity, but will feel with the apostle Paul, "I am debtor both to the Greek, and to the barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise." After my severe illness one year ago, many things which the Lord had presented to me seemed lost to my mind, but they have since been repeated. I know that which I now speak will bring me into conflict. This I do not covet, for the conflict has seemed to be continuous of late years; but I do not mean to live a coward or die a coward, leaving my work undone. I must follow in my Master's footsteps. It has become fashionable to look down upon the poor, and upon the coloured race in particular. But Jesus, the Master, 11 was poor, and He sympathises with the poor, the discarded, the oppressed, and declares that every insult shown to them is as if shown to Himself. I am more and more surprised as I see those who claim to be children of God possessing so little of the sympathy, tenderness, and love which actuated Christ. Would that every church, North and South, were imbued with the spirit of our Lord's teaching. While at St. Louis a year ago, as I knelt in prayer, these words were presented to me as if written with a pen of fire: "All ye are brethren." The Spirit of God rested upon me in a wonderful manner, and matters were opened to me in regard to the church at St. Louis and in other places. The spirit and words of some in regard to members of the church were an offence to God. They were closing the door of their hearts to Jesus. Among those in St. Louis who believe the truth there are coloured people who are true and faithful, precious in the sight of the God of heaven, and they should have just as much respect as any of God's children. Those who have spoken harshly to them or have despised them have despised the purchase of the blood of Christ, and they need the transforming grace of Christ in their own hearts, that they may have the pitying tenderness of Jesus toward those who love God with all the fervour of which they themselves are capable. The colour of the skin does not determine character in the heavenly courts. "If ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.... Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently." "Ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: wherefore there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering." "Who," says Paul, "maketh thee to differ?" The God of the white man is the God of the black man, and the Lord declares that His love for the least of His children exceeds that of a mother for 12 her beloved child. Look at that mother: the sick child, the one afflicted, the one born a cripple, or with some other physical infirmity--how the mother labours to give him every advantage! The best food, the softest pillow, and the tenderest nursing are for him. The love bestowed upon him is strong and deep--a love such as is not given to beauty, talent, or any other natural gift. As soon as a mother sees reason for others to regard her child with aversion or contempt, does she not increase her tenderness as if to shield him from the world's rude touch? "Can a mother forget her sucking child . . .? yea, they may forget, yet I will not forget thee." O what impartial love the Lord Jesus gives to those who love Him! The Lord's eye is upon all His creatures; He loves them all, and makes no difference between white and black, except that He has a special, tender pity for those who are called to bear a greater burden than others. Those who love God and believe on Christ as their Redeemer, while they must meet the trials and the difficulties that lie in their path, should yet with a cheerful spirit accept their life as it is, considering that God above regards these things, and for all that the world neglects to bestow, He will Himself make up to them in the best of favours. The parable of Dives, the rich man, and Lazarus, the poor beggar who feared God, is presented before the world as a lesson to all, both rich and poor, as long as time shall last. Dives is represented as lifting up his eyes in hell, being in torments, and seeing Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom,--"he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented." When the sinner is converted he receives the Holy Spirit, that makes him a child of God, and fits him for the society of the redeemed and the angelic host. He is made a joint heir with Christ. Whoever of the human family give themselves to Christ, whoever hear the truth and obey it, become children of one family. The ignorant and the wise, the rich and the poor, the heathen and the slave, white or black--Jesus paid the purchase money for their souls. If they believe on Him, His cleansing blood is applied to them. 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 colour cannot elevate or degrade men. The character makes the man. 13 If a red man, a Chinaman, or an African gives his heart to God, in obedience and faith, Jesus loves him none the less for his colour. He calls him his well-beloved brother. The day is coming when the kings and the lordly men of the earth would be glad to exchange places with the humblest African who has laid hold on the hope of the gospel. To all who are overcomers through the blood of the Lamb, the invitation will be given, "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Arranged on the right and left of the throne of God are the long columns of the heavenly host, who touch the golden harps, and the songs of welcome and of praise to God and the Lamb ring through the heavenly courts. "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." Among what are called the higher classes, there is a demand for a form of Christianity suited to their fine tastes; but this class will not grow up to the full stature of men and women in Christ until they know God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent. The heavenly intelligences rejoice to do the will of God in preaching the gospel to the poor. In the announcement which the Saviour made in the synagogue at Nazareth, He put a stern rebuke upon those who attach so much importance to colour or caste, and refuse to be satisfied with such a type of Christianity as Christ accepts. The same price was paid for the salvation of the coloured man as for that of the white man, and the slights put upon the coloured people by many who claim to be redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, and who therefore acknowledge themselves debtors to Christ, misrepresent Jesus, and reveal that selfishness, tradition, and prejudice pollute the soul. They are not sanctified through the truth. Those who slight a brother because of his colour are slighting Christ. I call upon every church in our land to look well to your own souls. "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" God makes no distinction between the North and the South. Whatever may be your prejudices, your wonderful prudence, do not lose sight of this fact, that unless you put on Christ, and His Spirit dwells in you, you are slaves of sin and of Satan. Many who claim to be children of God are children of the wicked one, and have all his passions, his prejudices, his evil spirit, his unlovely traits of character. But the 14 soul that is indeed transformed will not despise any one whom Christ has purchased with His own blood. Men may have both hereditary and cultivated prejudices, but when the love of Jesus fills the heart, and they become one with Christ, they will have the same spirit that He had. If a coloured brother sits by their side, they will not be offended or despise him. They are journeying to the same heaven, and will be seated at the same table to eat bread in the kingdom of God. If Jesus is abiding in our hearts we cannot despise the coloured man who has the same Saviour abiding in his heart. When these unchristian prejudices are broken down, more earnest effort will be put forth to do missionary work among the coloured race. When the Hebrew people were suffering cruel oppression under the hand of their taskmasters, the Lord looked upon them, and He called Israel His son. He bade Moses go to Pharaoh with the message, "Israel is my son, even my firstborn. And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me." The Lord did not wait until His people went forth and stood in triumph on the shores of the Red Sea before He called Israel His son, but while they were under oppression, degraded downtrodden, suffering all that the power and the invention of the Egyptians could impose to make their lives bitter and to destroy them, then God undertakes their cause and declares to Pharaoh, "Israel is my son, even my firstborn." What thoughts and feelings did the message arouse in Pharaoh? "This people, my slaves, those whom the lowest of my people despise, the God of such a people I care not for, neither will I let Israel go." But the word of the Lord will not return unto Him void; it will accomplish the thing whereunto it is sent. The Lord speaks in no uncertain manner. He says, "Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn." God cares no less for the souls of the African race that might be won to serve Him than He cared for Israel. He requires far more of His people than they have given Him in missionary work among the people of the South of all classes, and especially among the coloured race. Are we not under even greater obligation to labour for the coloured people than for those who have been more highly favoured? Who is it that held these people in servitude? Who kept them in ignorance, and pursued a course to debase and brutalise them, forcing them to disregard the law of marriage, breaking up the family relation, tearing wife from husband, and husband from 15 wife? If the race is degraded, if they are repulsive in habits and manners, who made them so? Is there not much due to them from the white people? After so great a wrong has been done them, should not an earnest effort be made to lift them up? The truth must be carried to them. They have souls to save as well as we. At the General Conference of 1889, resolutions were presented in regard to the colour line. Such action is not called for. Let not men take the place of God, but stand aside in awe, and let God work upon human hearts, both white and black, in His own way. He will adjust all these perplexing questions. We need not prescribe a definite plan of working. Leave an opportunity for God to do something. We should be careful not to strengthen prejudices that ought to have died just as soon as Christ redeemed the soul from the bondage of sin. Sin rests upon us as a church because we have not made greater effort for the salvation of souls among the coloured people. It will always be a difficult matter to deal with the prejudices of the white people in the South and do missionary work for the coloured race. But the way this matter has been treated by some is an offence to God. We need not expect that all will be accomplished in the South that God would do until in our missionary efforts we place this question on the ground of principle, and let those who accept the truth be educated to be Bible Christians, working according to Christ's order. You have no license from God to exclude the coloured people from your places of worship. Treat them as Christ's property, which they are, just as much as yourselves. They should hold membership in the church with the white brethren. Every effort should be made to wipe out the terrible wrong which has been done them. At the same time we must not carry things to extremes and run into fanaticism on this question. Some would think it right to throw down every partition wall and intermarry with the coloured people, but this is not the right thing to teach or to practice. Let us do what we can to send to this class labourers who will work in Christ's name, who will not fail nor be discouraged. We should educate coloured men to be missionaries among their own people. We should recognise talent where it exists among the people, and those who have ability should be placed where they may receive an education. There are able coloured ministers who have embraced the truth. Some of these feel unwilling to devote themselves to work for their own race; they wish to preach to the white people. These men 16 are making a great mistake. They should seek most earnestly to save their own race, and they will not by any means be excluded from the gatherings of the white people. White men and white women should be qualifying themselves to work among the coloured people. There is a large work to be done in educating this ignorant and downtrodden class. We must do more unselfish missionary work than we have done in the Southern States, not picking out merely the most favourable fields. God has children among the coloured people all over the land. They need to be enlightened. There are unpromising ones, it is true, but you will find similar degradation among the white people; but even among the lower classes there are souls who will embrace the truth. Some will not be steadfast. Feelings and habits that have been confirmed by lifelong practices will be hard to correct; it will not be easy to implant ideas of purity and holiness, refinement and elevation. But God regards the capacity of every man, He marks the surroundings, and sees how these have formed the character, and He pities these souls. Is it not time for us to live so fully in the light of God's countenance that we who receive so many favours and blessings from Him may know how to treat those less favoured, not working from the world's standpoint, but from the Bible standpoint? Is it not right in this line that Christian effort is most needed? Is it not here that our influence should be brought to bear against the customs and practices of the world? Should it not be the work of the white people to elevate the standard of character among the coloured race, to teach them how Christians should live, by exemplifying the Spirit of Christ, showing that we are one brotherhood? Those who have been favoured with opportunities of education and culture, who have had every advantage of religious influence, will be expected of God to possess pure and holy characters in accordance with the gifts bestowed. But have they rightly improved their advantages? We know they have not. Let these privileged ones make the most of their blessings, and realise that they are thus placed under greater obligation to labour for the good of others. God will accept many more workers from the humble walks of life if they will fully consecrate themselves to His service. Men and women should be coming up to carry the truth into all the highways and byways of life. Not all can go through a long course of education, but if they are consecrated to God and learn of Him, many can without this do much to bless others. Thousands would be 17 accepted if they would give themselves to God. Not all who labour in this line should depend upon the conferences for support. Let those who can do so give their time and what ability they have, let them be messengers of God's grace, their hearts throbbing in unison with Christ's great heart of love, their ears open to hear the Macedonian cry. The whole church needs to be imbued with the missionary spirit, then there will be many to work unselfishly in various ways as they can, without being salaried. There is altogether too much dependence on machinery, on mechanical working. Machinery is good in its place, but do not allow it to become too complicated. I tell you that in many cases it has retarded the work, and kept out labourers who in their line could have accomplished far more than has been done by the minister who depends on sermonising more than on ministry. Young men need to catch the missionary spirit, to be thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the message. "Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof." Work in any capacity, work where God leads you, in the line best suited to your talents and best adapted to reach classes that have hitherto been sadly neglected. This kind of labour will develop intellectual and moral power and adaptability to the work. You must have the grace and love of God in order to succeed. The strength and spirituality of the people of God are manifest by the distinctness of the line of demarcation which separates them from the world. The people of the world are characterised by love for earthly things; they act selfishly, regardless of the principles which Christ has set forth in His life. Christians will manifest the self-sacrificing spirit of Christ in their work, in connection with every branch of the cause. They will do this heartily, not by halves. They will not study their own aggrandisement nor manifest respect of persons. They will not, cannot, live in luxury and self-indulgence while there are suffering ones around them. They cannot by their practice sanction any phase of oppression or injustice to the least child of humanity. There are to be like Christ, to relinquish all selfish delights, all unholy passions, all that love of applause which is the food of the world. They will be willing to be humble and unknown, and to sacrifice even life itself for Christ's sake. By a well-ordered life and godly conversation they will condemn the folly, the impenitence, the idolatry, the iniquitous practices of the world. The converting power of God must work a transformation of 18 character in many who claim to believe the present truth, or they cannot fulfil the purpose of God. They are hearers but not doers of the word. Pure, unworldly benevolence will be developed in all who make Christ their personal Saviour. There needs to be far less of self and more of Jesus. The church of Christ is ordained of God that its members shall be representatives of Christ's character. He says, "You have given yourselves to Me, and I give you to the world. I am the light of the world; I present you to the world as My representatives." As Christ in the fullest sense represents the Father, so we are to represent Christ. Let none of those who name the name of Christ be cowards in His cause. For Christ's sake stand as if looking within the open portals of the city of God.--E. G. WHITE, Battle Creek, Mich., March 20, 1891. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX [When I was in Seminary this book, Southern Work (SW), was out of print. If you were doing research for an approved paper you were writing, you could read a copy of SW under the watchful eye of Hedwig Jamison in the Heritage Room, but you could not make copies or check the book out. This was in the second half of the 60s, and there were race riots going on in Detroit, Nashville, Los Angeles, etc., and racial tensions were very high in SDAdom as well. When a group of Seminary students "raised the roof" to get SW republished, the "request" was refused. Hedwig said (paraphrasing), After you Seminary students have proven that you've read ALL of the rest of Sr. White's materials, then we [she repped the EGW Estate on campus at the time] consider republishing SW." She won. We lost. End of story. Almost. Eventually SW was republished and I believe you can get it now. But you can also believe that the whole thing is HEAVILY bowdlerized. And the full truth will NEVER be known. Of that I am absolutely certain. So save your shekels. The truth is MUCH LESS SAVORY, you can bank on that! Even what little truth can be extracted is very difficult (the church is more than 90% non-white now, you know). Ron Graybill did write a book, MISSION TO BLACK AMERICA (MTBA), on the subject, but that was before he earned his Ph.D. but he was extremely naive then (as was I) and his research was tainted. For purposes of research, MTBA is a snowjob and worthless, as is the EGW Estate material, and indeed all of her book SW. At some degree of risk, I will tell you something I heard at the time by way of the grapevine, but I have no way at present of substantiating it. If Graybill would tell what he knows, we would find out in an instant. He's employed by the church, you know, and his knowledge affords him considerable job security. At any rate, for what it's worth, here's what I heard at the time: The REAL debate centered on the "drop of blood" controversy. The two sides lined up like this. On one side were those who said, if an amalgamation (a black person) had ONE DROP of "white" (human) blood, even though all the rest of the blood was "black" (animal) the person was save-able due to that one drop. (This was predicated on the belief that animals, such as your pet kitty and your pet puppy and your pet parakeet and your brother's pet tortoise and his pet garter snake, having animal blood, wouldn't be in heaven.) The other side said, No, if there was one drop of "black" (animal) blood, even though all the rest of the blood was "white" (human), the person was not save-able because of that one drop of "black" (animal) blood. Obviously, due to EGW's "vision-based intervention", the faction advocating "one drop of white blood" as qualifing for Christ's blood, won the debate. Then EGW's bowderization was promulgated. For some strange reason a quote from Lewis Carroll's "Jabberwocky" seems appropriate here. So here it is: "And has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Calloh! Callay!" He chortled in his joy. Case closed. But, remember, even this scuttlebut is a deep dark secret, so don't tell anyone. Jude | ||
| Colleentinker |
Thank you, Jude! I appreciate your research as well as your writing! | ||
| Plain Patti |
I have a question. I have been out of the church for 20 years now. Are the conferences in North America still divided racially? Or is it regional? Thanks for all your research, Jude. | ||
| Still SDA |
Canada's racism is more subtle. In larger centres, we have "black" & "white" SDA churches - but not called by those names. My husband & I (both white) attended a white church for a few years. Blacks usually sit at back & seldom hold office. We also attended a black church for several years. Whites are warmly welcomed (token whites "prove" the church isn't racist) - until they speak up or become members there. Both groups seem blissfully unaware of their racism. It's very sad. | ||
| Still SDA |
I should have added that we also have mixed churches - with power struggles. A few churches are separate, of course, because of language (Spanish, Korean, etc.) | ||
| Lynn W |
Racism is not just an SDA problem, it's a human problem. But Ellen White made matters worse with her racist teachings and her teachings on eugenics (selective breeding to eliminate undesirables). But I doubt if those writings are available at the ABC. "A Solemn Appeal" is full of it. | ||
| jtree |
EGW and Racial issues. Testimonies Number 9 Page 202, "But for several reasons white men must be chosen as leaders." Page 206, "In regard to white and colored people worshipping in the same building, this cannot be followed as a general custom with profit to either party - especially in the south." Page 210, "Let the colored believers have their place of worship and the white believers their place of worship." Page 213, " No one is capable of clearly defining the proper position of the colored people." Page 214, " The colored people should not urge that they be placed on an equality with white people." Page 223, "We cannot expect that, in all things, they will be as firm and clear in their ideas of morality." Makes me go Hmmmm... | ||
| Lynn W |
Thanks, jtree. I looked up & highlighted all those quotes and a few more. In their context, she is defending the "colored people," but still putting forth some racial ideas. Have you read her writings on eugenics (selective breeding?) Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) & Hitler would have appreciated Ellen White. | ||
| Questioner |
Is there any proof at all that Ellen G. White was a racist? It seems somewhat unfair to try to put the social standards of today against those of yesterday. I believe that the situations mentioned may be viewed from a couple other ways. One of which is that there are many churches of all denominations which practise some form of unwritten segregation even today, perhaps for the purpose of personal comfort. That cannot be considered racism, nor can it be exclusivity. In Christian love, I can't imagine a way to force the black congregations to worship with the whites if they don't want to. That just wouldn't be Christian. Jude's explanation couldn't be more wrong. We should be careful of what we say about our Christian brothers and sisters. Since we may no longer agree with their doctrinal set, we may have some flaws in ours as well, since all of Christianity seems to. (By the way, if anyone knows of a perfect church, I'd like to know about it. I'm still looking for it. Or even one that comes close in practise.) As for jtree's comments, I am surprised that jtree and Lynn W would consider those partial quotations as racist. That is definitely against the rule numbers "b" and "g" of this forum. Anyway, I am sure that the Whites and Smiths of those days so long ago were far advanced in their understanding of proper race relations compared to the rest of their society of the time. Although I remain open to consider any worthwhile topic, perhaps we need to give them the benefit of the doubt and not cast dispersions upon our brothers and sisters in Christ. By the way, I have yet to hear or read from any brother or sister in the black conferences of the SDA church about this supposed racism. | ||
| Patti |
True, there is no perfect church; But there are those who as a denomination do not promote blatant heresy; who do not uphold a human being to the level of the Holy Spirit; who do not deny the complete and perfect and finished work of Jesus Christ for the salvation of His people. The "no-perfect-church" defense is hardly a justification for the heresies of the SDA church. | ||
| Questioner |
There are many heresies taught by many churches, but the ones you mentioned were never taught in all the SDA churches I used to attend, nor were they ever taught in any of the schools of theirs which I attended. Yes, there is no perfect church, and as such they all teach some form of heresy. I wonder, what heresy does your church teach, and what excuses do you use? | ||
| Breezy |
Alot of people on this forum are talking about their own experience in the Adventist church. I also have never experienced what Patti is talking about above, but I do respect that she and others have had that experience. I do not however believe that that is what is pervasively taught in the Adventist church. Wendy | ||
| Patti |
Questioner: There are many heresies taught by many churches, but the ones you mentioned were never taught in all the SDA churches I used to attend, nor were they ever taught in any of the schools of theirs which I attended. Yes, there is no perfect church, and as such they all teach some form of heresy. I wonder, what heresy does your church teach, and what excuses do you use? Patti: "MY" church? I have no church, except the invisible and indivisible universal church of Jesus Christ, comprised of all peoples of all ages who have believed in the saving work of Jesus Christ. The Truth of Jesus Christ can never be organized into a "true church" denomination; it is much broader and wider and fuller than any human organization could ever contain. Not only that, any human organization becomes tainted with the selfish opinions of sinful humans, by definition. The true church of Jesus Christ is alive and well and thriving in all denominations, as well as outside of them. Having said this, there are churches who, as a denomination, officially contradict the Gospel of Jesus Christ. SDAism is one of them. | ||
| Bmorgan |
Questioner, Pardon me if I misunderstood you. I do not mean to make this an issue. However, since you claim ignorance, I hope I can enlighten you a bit. You wrote: <>By the way, I have yet to hear or read from any brother or sister in the black conferences of the SDA church about this supposed racism.<> From their own mouths, you can read "Righteous Rebel" by W.W. Fordham, 1990. He chronicles the struggles for fairness and equality for blacks within the "Remnant" Church. Also there is a book by Delbert Barker. In it he defends, William Foy- the Mulatto (half Black) supposedly precursor to EGW, as messenger to the people. He was made out to be a disobedient servant, who was passed over by God for refusal to deliver the "Third Angel" messages to the people. I now disagree with Adventistism and SOP, however, I hear the passion of the blacks within SDAism to be treated as equals. I had membership in black conferences, and race relations is a big issue to them. Among the leaders in the black conferences, their distrust of white leadership is no secret. It is their history. Hence, the strong untireless effort to remain separate and self goverened in their own (regional) conferences. In order to defend our dearly beloved family-SDAism-, we go to lengths and bury ourselves in denial about the family's flaws. The observation you made in your post : <>Anyway, I am sure that the Whites and Smiths of those days so long ago were far advanced in their understanding of proper race relations compared to the rest of their society of the time.<> This may be offensive to an African-American adventist, who has a little knowledge of the church's historical record. Have you ever heard about the black woman who died at the SDA hospital? Hospital policy: "Whites Only." The woman was admitted because admission personnel mistakenly thought she was white (she was of a light complexion). When it was discovered she was black, she was refused treatment and left to die in the corner. That was outrageous! I have a difficult time seeing SDA being more : <> "advanced in their understanding of proper race relations compared to the rest of their society of the time" <> Something similiar happened a one Dr. Charles Drew, a black physician, (who invented the procedure to help with the storage of blood plasma). He also was left to die from lack of medical care because he was black. It can be argued that other churches were guilty of this sin, but it does not remove the deceptive teachings of SOP/EGW/SDAism. More and more, as I look at EGW's record and becoming more aware of her manipulative tactics, I am suspicious about her vision from God to build Oakwood College for the "coloured" people. Was this an attempt to keep blacks in their place? The path of least resistance. The appearance of good, but not a heart of love for God's creation. Patti, I wholeheartedly agree with you; <>The "no-perfect-church" defense is hardly a justification for the heresies of the SDA church.<> Neither is there a perfect family, but ones which are normal and others which are very dysfunctional. Questioner, I stand corrected, if I misunderstood you drift. In Christ Alone. BMorgan |
