The Lucy Byard Incident

bob_2 · 03-02-09 3:59 pm

I believe that "Abe" had a relationship with God, not a copy cat belief system from some other god, or society. Your view is one spin, I just don't buy it. God was calling him away from other god worship. I believe that the sacrificial system the Jews were given, this request was the precursor of it. I do not believe it is a copy cat of anything, if anything, the devil tried to get a duplicate of it in front of Abraham and God's conversation.

john8verse32 · 03-02-09 7:53 pm

started a new thread for discusion of whether or not God was responsible for child sacrifice.... <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=5&post=2564#POST2564" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?t pc=5&post=2564#POST2564</a>

bob_2 · 03-03-09 10:26 am

Don, to get back to the original thread topic. Wouldn't you be more proud of the brethern had they dealt with the incidents of inhumanity with motions and actions in committee than to separate as they did. Now there is a movement for economic and possibly other reasons to reunite them. I have worked in the Black community for some 20 years. What I found, at least in modern day, is the issues that keep urban sprawl a real issue is behaviors in the inner cities of our country. Not just white people moving to the suburbs but black people also, tired of the behaviors in the inner city, gun shots not an unfamiliar sound, threats of shutting down highways or public transportation. To use poor Ms. Byard's death as the reason to create separate conferences, was a real shame, and now for those trying to reunite conferences for that to be the "supposed" reason for separating, makes it harder to reunite, I would think. Just as Southcentral LA and burning immigrant businesses down, and smashing a brick to a white man's head, has there been enough retaliation. Or is more needed. I think the point you came across in one of your articles by Bradford, that the Black Conference, truth be known, was a place for Black ministers to apprentice. Why weren't people removed at the Washington Adventist San. Why was that not requested by the Blacks, rather than to create a split down the middle of the church organization from 1944 to the present day that has outside people looking on at a sort of apartheid. As with the Fairness Doctine, if a radio station can survive with advertisers and supporters, I would say, abolish the Regional Conferences and let individual churches survive based on support, let predominantly black conferences exist within the normal organization of the church if there is support for such. Let votes determine leadership and position. Are all ready for that? Or What is the reason now for division???

don · 03-03-09 11:02 am

What is the reason now for division??? I have not studied this much and will need to invest hours of reading before I can give an answer. Another topic to investigate. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> Wouldn't you be more proud of the brethern had they dealt with the incidents of inhumanity with motions and actions in committee than to separate as they did. As I look over the development, I am pleased with the sensitivity of Kinney, and the committee arising from the Byard incident, and the willingness of McElhany to help meet their concerns. I admire Humphrey's energy and creativity. (He has been referred to as an African American Kellogg-type. I believe that Humphrey's situation could have been handled more wisely.) It is going to take a stong, charismatic leader to lead the local conferences back into visual unity again. Here are some of the facts:<ul><li>C.M. Kinney proposed separate conferences in 1879. At the Camp Meeting where he became the first ordained African-American SDA minister, his white colleagues suggested that they divide the campgrounds by race so the white folk in the community would feel more comfortable attending. Kinney opposed such visual apartheid. He proposed separate organizations which would run separate camp meetings. <LI>James K. Humphrey proposed a similar arrangement at the 1929 Spring Council. The matter was referred to a committee where it died. <LI>The Lucy Byard incident prompted a group of African-Americans to create a high profile committee addressing racial inequity within the church. They effectively persuaded the presidency of J.L. McElhany to take action. Lucy died in the fall of 1943. By early 1944, the Spring Council voted to implement separate conferences where numbers warranted. In January of 1945, the Lake Region Conference became the first "black" conference with others following their example. <LI>The Regional conference plan has allowed black leadership to develop unencumbered by white leaders trying to manage the racial issue. <LI>Times have brought about significant changes. Both "black" and "white" conferences have become "mixed". <LI>I have witnessed present day concerns re: ethnic differences. At one point some Quebecois Adventists expressed frustration at not being able to reach their own ethnic group because the Conference was managed by a leadership of Caribbean African descent. <LI>When visiting in France, I noticed that the churches in Paris seemed to be divided along ethnic lines (same conference). <LI>Here in Toronto, churches naturally divide along ethnic and language lines. (same conference) I understand that it has been the Ontario conference's practice to appoint a white Secretary of the Conference if the president is black. <LI>The goal is to spread the Gospel in word and practice. The division of black/white conferences is judged to be contrary to unity within the church. It began because some "white" church leaders thought that much of American society would not tolerate the integration of the two races.</li></ul> .

bob_2 · 03-03-09 2:01 pm

Wouldn't you agree the original reason for splitting was so there would not be open confrontation or hostilities. Also, as Bradford stated I think in one of your researched articles, that society still had a lot of racial unrest. Forcing the two together would only be asking for a bad situation, maybe whites leaving the church, maybe Blacks leaving, and economic consequences to follow. Now the economy is almost crying for reunification, wouldn't you agree???

don · 03-03-09 6:59 pm

Wouldn't you agree the original reason for splitting was so there would not be open confrontation or hostilities. Yes. We have Humphrey's example. We have inexcusable demeaning of an indentifiable racial group. American Adventists of African descent were denied the blessings that had accrued to Adventism. African American Adventists in the capital region could not send their children to Adventist schools, enjoy a meal at the Review and Herald cafeteria. They could not work in Adventist institutions and their young adults could not train for nursing or other degrees offered within Adventism in their geographical area. Not only did the leadership vote to establish regional conferences, they set in motion plans to establish more black schools and health care facilities. Society's real and perceived racism were barriers which led "white" Adventist leaders to resist integration and to support regional conferences. Their "black" colleagues had come to accept the plan as one way to solve injustice within the church. The "white" brethren realized that something had to be done or their "black" members could leave the church en masse. I think that the re-integration of the two systems of local conferences will take some time. A plan could be devised where those conferences that desire to re-integrate may do so. I don't think it would be wise to force the matter. . (Message edited by Don on March 03, 2009)

john8verse32 · 03-04-09 12:33 pm

White people will be minority in afterlife (if not before) In a letter to the editor in our local paper: quote: In his inaugural address Pres Barack Obama acknowledged that we are a nation of "Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and nonbelievers" Many Christians were offended by his inclusion of atheists, and some were upset at the mention of Muslims. What if God believes in affirmative action? and allows atheists into heaven? What better way to turn them into believers? Suppose God acknowledges her creation of Adam and Steve, views gays and lesbians as normal and natural, and invites them in as well? Since there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, its reasonable to believe many of them lead righteous lives, and may have their passports stamped. What if God decides the national language in heaven will be Spanish, and that English will not be spoken. And since the vast majority of the world's population is black, brown and yellow, white people will undoubtedly be a minority in the afterlife. Will God reward the people who said the most prayers and committed the fewest sins with heavenly privileges, or will there be equal treatment for all, even those who barely made the cut? That seems unfair and smacks of socialism!! Its possible that heaven is a socialistic state inhabited predominately by people of color, and includes atheists, gays and Muslims, all conversing in Spanish. Since many Christians can't abide these people here on earth, how will the spend eternity with them in paradise? They may want to go elsewhere. Perhaps, there is room on the ranch in Crawford, Texas.... (ouch!!)

bob_2 · 03-04-09 3:00 pm

Let's step away from SDAism for a second. I helped with Mentor St. Louis for a while. I was assigned a little black boy in a rough section of St.Louis, the Elliot school district. I could tell that the black leadership, who by the way lost the leadership to the State recently, the black leadership, I question if they want the students when finished to be American citizens or African American citizens. There are other hypenated Americans in America that are caught up with making a living to stay off welfare. Concern for the African village over Math and Science will keep the schools failing and the kids turning into dependent citizens rather than productive ones. The Regional Conferences can fixate on the Byard incident or the OJ Simpson incident, but what positive suggestions do they bring to the table besides "I want something because I'm black" if that's something positive. Teams with a mix equal to the community served is what I would want, if the candidates applying wer qualified. If not qualified, get qualified. (Message edited by Bob_2 on March 04, 2009)

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#26 03-02-09 3:59 pm

Re: The Lucy Byard Incident

#27 03-02-09 7:53 pm

Re: The Lucy Byard Incident

#28 03-03-09 10:26 am

Re: The Lucy Byard Incident

#29 03-03-09 11:02 am

Re: The Lucy Byard Incident

#30 03-03-09 2:01 pm

Re: The Lucy Byard Incident

#31 03-03-09 6:59 pm

Re: The Lucy Byard Incident

#32 03-04-09 12:33 pm

Re: The Lucy Byard Incident

#33 03-04-09 3:00 pm

Re: The Lucy Byard Incident

Board footer