Better late….

I have previously blogged on Race and Seventh-day Adventism in South Africa: here, here, here and here.I want to briefly recap the situation focussing on Helderberg College (extracted from my ASDAH presentation here):

While at least one Black student and several Coloured students were admitted to Claremont Union College–the forerunner of Helderberg College, established in 1893–early in its history; the school’s constituency remained almost entirely White until 1974 when having been relocated and renamed Helderberg College Coloured fourth-year Theology students were officially admitted.[1]

• Coloured students attended Good Hope College established in 1930 which when compared with Claremont/Helderberg College, was grossly under-resourced, understaffed, and underfunded.
• From 1909, the Seventh-day Adventist church also operated a separate school for Black students. The institution operated under various names and in various locations most recently as Bethel College. It was also grossly under-resourced, understaffed, and underfunded.

In 1968 Alwyn du Preez became the first non-white to graduate from Helderberg College, completing the third and fourth years of the theology course there after graduating from the two year Good Hope course in 1957. His presence was a special concession by the college; du Preez was required to live off-campus and was barred from using an college facilities other than the classrooms and library. He was not permitted to attend the Helderberg College graduation ceremony in 1968.
In 1971, Robert Hall a black student from Zimbabwe who had completed three years of the Theology course at Good Hope College was grudgingly permitted to enrol at Helderberg College.
Similar restrictions to those placed on du Preez were placed upon Hall. He was not permitted to board in the dormitory, nor to eat in the cafeteria; nor was he allowed to graduate with his class in 1971.[2] That same year, the administration of Helderberg College asked the South African Government to rule on the acceptance of a foreign non-white at an all-white South African educational institution. They were told that it was not, and never had been, government policy to interfere in the training of ministers by any denomination. As has been pointed out, this meant that Adventists of colour had been barred from Helderberg College all these years because of naked racist attitudes, not by government laws![3]

[1] I. F. du Preez and Roy H. du Pre, A Century of Good Hope: A History of the Good Hope Conference, its Educational Institutions and Early Workers, 1893-1993. (East London: Western Research Group/Southern History Association, 1994), 181-182. Antonio Pantalone points out that even if some non-White students were enrolled, the college’s graduation records show that during its 25 year existence, not a single non-white student ever graduated at [Claremont] Union College. “A Missiological Evaluation of the Afrikaanse Konferensie (1968-1974) and its significance for the Seventh-day Adventist Church in South Africa” (Dth, University ofDurban-Westville, 1998), 177.

[2] du Preez and du Pre, A Century of Good Hope, 104-105.

[3] du Preez and du Pre, A Century of Good Hope, 109-113.

Well why bring up this shameful history once more? Well on November 25, 2007 at a Graduation Ceremony at Helderberg College, small steps were taken towards righting these past injustices. At this ceremony–to a standing ovation–both Alwyn du Preez and Robert Hall were graduated (Post Facto); 39 years and 36 years late respectively.

Alwyn du Preez (Left) and Robert Hall (Right)

Thanks to Claudelle for the photos.

Amalgamation: EGW & the “Science” of Race

Ellen White’s statements concerning “amalgamation” are among her most troubling & difficult to understand. Recently I came across a .pdf of a Powerpoint presentation by Dr T. Joe Willey at the Association of Adventist Forums meeting on the 13th of October, 2007; in the Tierrasanta SDA church in San Diego, USA, that examines this issue in some detail. Willey’s presentation is available in .pdf form here. The original webpage raising the issue was For the Gospel.

For those unfamilar with the quotations in question:

“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. God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before Him.” (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p 64.)

“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 almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.” (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p 75.)

This volume was published in 1864 & republished in 1870; though it is no longer being published by an SDA press. It forms the basis for her later “Conflict of the Ages” series.

Willey does an excellent job of locating White’s comments on race within Antebellum culture–focussing more broadly on White’s anthropology as a whole. I highly recommend it.

Other resources on the topic include the less well researched http://ellenwhiteexposed.com/critica.htm; and the White Estate’s official response: http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/faq-unus.html#note-c1-1 The White Estate’s response argues from semantics that White did not actually mean what she says but rather meant something else. It is a quite superficial & inadequate response.

Goodbye & Thanks, Irene

Johnny’s Cache pointed me towards a recent Adventist Review news article on the death of Irene Morgan Kirkaldy on August 10, 2007. In 1944, Morgan–11 years before Rosa Parks–as a young SDA woman, refused to surrender her seat to a white couple while on an interstate bus. I have previously presented her story in much greater depth here.

Goodbye, and thank you. You made a difference.

Irene Morgan

The story of Irene Morgan has been told before—most comprehensively for an Adventist audience here. However, it is good to remind ourselves periodically of our history.

To summarize:
“Eleven years before Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a city bus in Montgomery, Alabama, a young woman named Irene Morgan rejected that same demand on an interstate bus headed to Maryland from Gloucester, Virginia. Recovering from surgery and already sitting far in the back, she defied the driver’s order to surrender her seat to a white couple. Like Parks, Morgan was arrested and jailed. But her action caught the attention of lawyers from the NAACP, led by Thurgood Marshall, and in two years her case reached the Supreme Court.
Though the lawyers fervently believed that Jim Crow – the curious pseudonym for racial segregation – was unjust, they recognized the practice was still the law of the land, upheld by the 1896 Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson. Instead of seeking a judgment on humanitarian grounds or the equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, they made the seemingly arcane argument that segregation in interstate travel violated the Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause.
On June 3, 1946, that strategy paid off. In Irene Morgan v. Virginia, the court ruled that segregation in interstate travel was indeed unconstitutional as “an undue burden on commerce.” But though that the decision was now law, the southern states refused to enforce it, and Jim Crow continued as the way of life in the South. Yet there were those determined to do something about it.”

Extract taken from: http://www.robinwashington.com/jimcrow/journey.html

Interestingly this account—and most others—leaves out the fact that Irene Morgan was a Seventh-day Adventist.
Other accounts:
Washington Post article
A compendium of newspaper accounts
Wikipedia entry
You Don’t Have to Ride Jim Crow! documentary website.
Presidential Citizens Medal website

You can read a copy of the US Supreme Court’s decision here.

Listen to Bayard Rustin sing “You don’t Have to Ride Jim Crow” here. Rustin co-wrote the song with George Houser. The song refers to Irene Morgan’s win in court on June 3, 1946, as the impetus for the first Freedom Ride in April 1947.

Known as the Journey of Reconciliation, riders engaged in direct protest by intentionally violating the segregated seating patterns on Southern buses and trains. Along the way, they were beaten, arrested and fined. Further information on the Freedom Ride can be found here & here.

Irene Morgan changed the world. Let us not forget one Seventh-day Adventist woman who sat down (!) for what she believed in.

The Association of Adventist Women has chosen its Adventist Women of the Year for 2006. You can read about the awardees–women who also changed their world–here.

The Beginning of Regional Conferences in the US III

In October 1928, W. H. Green—the Colored Secretary of the General Conference (GC)—died. His position was not filled immediately as many Black ministers felt that “the only way to improve the work among Negroes of the country is to organize colored conferences, whereby the colored people may handle their own money, employ their own workers and so develop administrative ability and all cultural lines of work…to organize Negro conferences that would function in exactly the same relation to the General Conference as white conferences.” (Quoted in Jacob Justiss Angels in Ebony p46.)

After discussion, the GC appointed a commission of eleven Whites and five Blacks to study the issue. J. K. Humphrey had been one of the Black ministers calling for Black Conferences and was one of those appointed to the commission. Humphrey later accused the White members of the committee of meeting separately and asking the Black members of the committee to rubber-stamp their decision that Black Conferences were not appropriate. Humphrey later left the SDA Church and formed the United Sabbath Day Adventist Church.

J. K. Humphrey

By 1944 however, the situation had changed—the Black membership of the church had grown considerably and Black members were better educated and more confident than in the past. This lead a group of Black SDA laity to form the National Association for the Advancement of World-wide Work Among Colored Seventh-day Adventists on October 16, 1943. The group was chaired by Joseph T. Dodson, other members included Eva B. Dykes—one of the first Black American woman to receive a PhD, while the Corresponding Secretary was Valarie Justiss—the second SDA Black woman to receive a PhD.

Eva B. Dykes

The group met on at least two occasions with J. L. McElheney—GC President. They presented a petition entitled Shall the Four Freedoms Function Among SDAs? to the GC leadership in Washington DC. (The document takes it’s name from the State of the Union address given by Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 6, 1941. The four freedoms were:
1. Freedom of speech and expression
2. Freedom of every person to worship God in his own way
3. Freedom from want
4. Freedom from fear (See Wikipedia entry. See a copy of the speech.)
The group was not requesting the formation of Black conferences but rather recommending an end to racial discrimination in all SDA institutions. Graham states that the group also “asked for a full accounting of the money that Black people were contributing to the denomination and requested that their Black leaders be treated with courtesy.” (Ricardo B. Graham, “Black Seventh-day Adventists and Racial Reconciliation” in Perspectives: Black Seventh-Day Adventists Face the Twenty-first Century Calvin B. Rock ed. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 1996, 136)

Racial discrimination was rife at SDA institutions and the Four Freedoms document did not hesitate to point out specific cases:
· “The Washington Sanitarium refuses to admit colored people.”
· “Colored girls are denied admittance to the Washington sanitarium School of Nurses and some other schools open to the whites.”
· It was the policy of Emmanuel Missionary College to seat Black students at the rear during chapel services.
· “There are no Negroes so far as we know on staffs of Adventist institutions.”
· “There is not even one General Conference office filled by a colored person.”
· “There is no colored editor, circulation manager, and business manager of the only Adventist periodical devoted exclusively to the interest of the 13,000,000 colored people in the United States.”
The document draws frequent contrast between SDA practice in these areas and the practices of secular or other religious organizations. These include:
“Since white and colored eat without friction daily in the cafeterias of the Library of Congress, Union Station, National Art Gallery, Interior Department, and other government buildings, it is illegal to segregate the Secretary of the Colored department for his meals.” (All quotes from Shall the Four Freedoms Function Among SDAs?

One of the impetuses for the petition was the tragic case of Lucy Byard. Byard was a light-skinned Black SDA from Brooklyn who was admitted to the SDA owned and operated Washington Sanitarium and hospital based on her appearance. When her true racial identity was discovered from her admittance forms, Byard was wheeled into a hallway without examination or treatment, while a place in another hospital was sought for her. She was eventually taken to Freedman’s Hospital where she died shortly after of pneumonia. While it is impossible to ascertain, it is often stated that her condition—at the very least—worsened due to the time spent in the drafty hallway of Washington Sanitarium.

McElheney introduced the topic of Regional Conferences to the GC Committee’s Spring Council held April 8-19, 1944, in Chicago. Following some debate (Of the 22 speakers on record, 17 spoke in favour, 3 against, and 2 asked questions of clarity. See Delbert W. Baker “Regional Conferences: 50 Years of Progress” Adventist Review November 2, 1995, p11.) a resolution was passed:
“WHEREAS, The present development of the work among the colored people in North America has resulted, under the signal blessing of God, in the establishment of some 233 churches with some 17,000 members: and WHEREAS, It appears that a different plan of organization for our colored membership would bring further great advance in soul-winning endeavours; therefore WE RECOMMEND, That in unions where the colored constituency is considered by the union conference committee to be sufficiently large, and where the financial income and territory warrant, colored conferences be organized.” (Quoted in Baker, “Regional Conferences” p14.)

From 1945 to 1947, seven Black Conferences were formed: Allegheny, Lake Region, and Northeastern (1945), South Atlantic and South Central (1946), and Central States and Southwest Region (1947). In 1967 Allegheny divided into the Allegheny East and Allegheny West, while the South Atlantic divided into the South Atlantic and Southeastern Conferences in 1981. Regional Conferences were not formed in the two westernmost districts: Pacific and North Pacific Union Conferences. Work amongst the Black population in these areas was coordinated by a Regional Affairs Office. (Baker, “Regional Conferences”, p14.)

It should be noted that there has been some recent agitation amongst Black SDAs in these western Union Conferences regarding the formation of a Black Conference. (See articles in Adventist Today.)

References:

Delbert W. Baker “Delbert W. Baker Regional Conferences: 50 Years of Progress” Adventist Review November 2, 1995, p11-15.

Ricardo B. Graham, “Black Seventh-day Adventists and Racial Reconciliation” in Perspectives: Black Seventh-Day Adventists Face the Twenty-first Century Calvin B. Rock ed. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 1996, 136)

Jacob Justiss Angels in Ebony chapter entitled “Regional Conferences”. Available as part of the Telling the Story Anthology (Part 2, p37-48)

Shall the Four Freedoms Function Among SDAs?

The Beginning of Regional Conferences in the US II

Between 1877 and 1890, the question of how to relate to Southern prejudices regarding separate churches etc. for black SDAs was debated by SDA leaders—the 1887 GC minutes describe “animated discussion” over race. Some argued that discrimination was morally repugnant, stating, “if the people of the South do not want to mingle in a congregation with the colored, let them stay away.” (General Conference Bulletin 27 November, 1887, 2-3.) Others were pragmatic and urged the GC not to arouse unnecessary prejudice” but to preach “the truth to all who come, leaving the spirit of God to obliterate the color line in the hearts of those who may be converted by the truth. (General Conference Bulletin 27 November, 1887, 3.)
All members agreed that there was no biblical or theological basis for racism.

EJ Waggoner proposed the following resolution which was carried:
“WHEREAS, The Bible says that there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond, but that all are one in Christ Jesus, therefore,
Resolved, That it is the decided opinion of this Conference, that when the colored of the south accept the Third Angel’s Message, they should be received into the church on an equality with white members, no distinction whatever being made between the two races in church relations.” (General Conference Bulletin 27 November, 1887, 3.)

Kinney made an important contribution to the debate in 1889 during the Southern Conference camp meeting in Nashville, Tennessee. R. M. Kilgore had suggested that black attendance at the camp meeting was to blame for the low turn-out of white’s. He suggested therefore, that future meetings be segregated along racial lines. In response, Kinney made some recommendations, stating, “It is probable that my ideas may be a little different from what has been expressed by some…In the first place, a separation of the colored people from the white people is great sacrifice upon our part: we lose the blessing of learning the truth—I have reference especially to general meetings….It would be a great sacrifice upon the apart of my people to miss the information that these general meetings would give them; and another thing, it seems to me that a separation in the general meetings would have a tendency to destroy the unity of the Third Angel’s Message. Now, then this question to me is one of great embarrassment and humiliation, not only to me, but to my people also.” (Quoted in Utzinger, “The Third Angel’s Message for My People,” 30-31.)

Kinney continued: “I am glad to state that the third angel’s Message has the power in it to eliminate or remove this race prejudice upon the part of those who get hold of the truth.” At the same time he reasoned:
“The third Angel’s Message will enable us to remove that obstacle. The color line question is an obstacle; in other words, the very presence of the colored people in church relation and in our general meetings is an obstacle, a barrier that hinders the progress of the Third Angel’s Message from reaching many of the white people. (Quoted in Utzinger, “The Third Angel’s Message for My People,” 31.)

Kinney presented twelve propositions, number 4 bluntly stated, “Where the two races cannot meet without limitation in the church, it is better to separate.” Later he stated, “I would say in this connection that in my judgment a separate meeting for the colored people to be held in connection with the general meetings, or a clear-cut distinction, by having them occupy the back seats etc., would not meet with as much favor from my people as a total separation.” (C. M. Kinney’s Statement on the Concept of Regional Conferences October 2, 1889.)

The concept of separate Black conferences was apparently first suggested by Kinney when confronted by efforts to segregate him and his members at a camp meeting on the day of his ordination. He advocated Black conferences as a way to work more effectively among Blacks and to help ease the racial tensions in the church. These Black conferences would, “bear the same relation to the General Conference that White conferences do.”

The bottom-line is: Conferences divided along racial lines were always a second-best solution–they were never presented as the ideal or best solution to the SDA Church’s racial problems.

References:
C. M. Kinney’s Statement on Regional Conferences 1889

Utzinger, J. Michael. “The Third Angel’s Message for My People: Charles M. Kinney and the Founding of the Seventh-Day Adventist Missions among Southern African Americans 1889-1895.” Fides et Historia 30, no. 1 (1998): 26-40.

The Beginning of Regional Conferences in the US

The first SDA minister to enter the South was Elbert B. Lane. He travelled to Tennessee in 1871. Lane held his first outreach in a railway station house: “the white people occupying one room and the colored the other.” (The Advent Review & Herald of the Sabbath, May 2, 1871, 158.)

Elbert B. Lane

In The Advent Review & Herald of the Sabbath of September 26, 1871, under the heading, “The South,” Lane reprted:

“I had not long left the Ohio river before I saw what I had often read of and seen pictured, that is, the large plantation with its mansion and many negro huts or cabins, sometimes built of brick, but usually of boards or logs. They are small, one story buildings, often without windows or ventilation, except by means of the door. These buildings are now rented to the negroes who are in the employ of the planter. They receive low wages, ranging from five to ten dollars per month. The condition of this unfortunate race is truly lamentable.”

Lane continued:

“This is in many respects an unfavorable field in which to labor, owing principally to the feelings of dislike which the people bear toward the North. This however gradually gives way. My first congregations there were very small, perhaps ten or twelve, while my last were between two and three hundred.…I felt a deep interest in the work there, though I labored under some embarrassment. I could not get the people to come and listen to me till after I had been there some little time, and was obliged to leave them before I should after the interest was aroused. I baptized five before I left the State, and felt assured that my labors there would result in much good for the cause. As near as I could ascertain a few had decided to obey the truth, besides those baptized.”

The first SDA Church to be established in the south was at Edgefield Junction, Tennessee. It was founded by Lane who responded to an appeal by a R. K. McCune who had received SDA literature & requested that the Church send a minister.

Edgefield Junction Church members–the Allison family.

The photo comes from a page documenting the history of the South Central Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

In 1877 R. M. Kilgore was sent by the General Conference to the South—Texas. He spent 8 years working there. He faced threats of lynching and once his tent was burned. He was called as president of the Illinois conference in 1885. In 1888 he returned to the South when placed in charge of District No. 2—all the southern states east of the Mississippi. At the time there were 5 ordained white ministers and no black. There were about 500 white church members and 50 black. In 1889, the General Conference heard a report from the Southern Field that pointed out some difficulties workers were facing:

“Considering the peculiar sentiment and prejudices existing in the South…[and] the difficulty of reaching both whites and blacks in one public meeting…” (General Conference Bulletin Vol. 3, 1889, 26.)

In Charles M. Kinney accepted the Adventist message in Reno, Nevada, as a result of the preaching of John Loughborough and Ellen White. A colporteur, then preacher and evangelist, Kinney was ordained by Kilgore in 1889, becoming the only ordained black minister in the denomination.

Charles M. Kinney (The photo is also from the aforementioned History of the South Central Conference.)

In an 1885 issue of the Review and Herald, Kinney wrote: “I earnestly ask the prayers of all who wish to see the truth brought ‘before many peoples…,’ that I may have strength, physical, mental, and spiritual, to do what I can for the Colored people.”

Pre-Apartheid Discrimination & Separation?

Well its been a while since I posted–much longer than anticipated. Excuses? I have plenty–I was sick, it’s been hectic at work–setting & marking exams etc & a myriad of others. Ultimately though it doesn’t matter because as Ryan Bell accurately points out in a post on his Intersections blog: “I just entered a busy period of life, got sick, and just generally didn’t feel like writing. Which got me to thinking…this blog doesn’t own me. I own it! I can choose not to write if I want to! So, if you’ve been checking and haven’t noticed anything for a few days, I do apologize. Now, let’s get back to it!” http://ryanbell.typepad.com/intersections/2006/05/blog_silence.html

Back to it then.

In my previous post I began a discussion of the racially divided SDA church in South Africa, pointing out that the SDA church has since its earliest stages been divided along racial lines. Unlike some of those vocal voices in the current debate on separate conferences here in South Africa I do not accept this as evidence that this is the way it should be! Yes it is indeed accurate to state that the SDA church’s separation began well before the official beginning of apartheid in 1948–what should also be recognized is that racial discrimination in South Africa generally did not begin with Apartheid (which in Afrikaans means “apart-ness” or “separateness,”) itself.
“The term Apartheid was introduced during the 1948 election campaign by DF Malan’s Herenigde Nasionale Party (HNP – ‘Reunited National Party’). But racial segregation had been in force for many decades in South Africa. In hindsight, there is something of an inevitability in the way the country developed its extreme policies. When the Union of South Africa was formed on 31 May 1910, Afrikaner Nationalists were given a relatively free hand to reorganise the country’s franchise according to existing standards of the now-incorporated Boer republics, the Zuid Afrikaansche Repulick (ZAR – South African Republic or Transvaal) and Orange Free State. Non-Whites in the Cape Colony had some representation, but this would prove to be short-lived.” http://africanhistory.about.com/library/bl/blSAApartheidFAQ.htm

So in summary then, both racial separation & discrimination in the SDA church and in South Africa generally began well before 1948.

It is not therefore a legitimate argument to base the proposed continuation of racially divided conferences–”minority status” or otherwise–around.

NOTE: For those of you out of the “loop,” here in South Africa it has been proposed that following the amalgamation of most conferences that an application be made to the General Conference (GC–the governing body of the SDA church: http://www.adventist.org/) to set up (resurrect?) separate White conferences with “minority” status.

The SDA Church–Structurally Divided Along Racial Lines I

In a recent email circular doing the rounds in South Africa, Geoff Garne states, “I cannot understand why separate racial and linguistic groups in USA are permitted to operate their own non-territorial organizations and even operate their own educational facilities, whereas in South Africa separate Conferences for a minority group is not permissable. That is beyond my comprehension….”

In the same email, Gerhard van Wyk asks, “Is the General Conference protecting minority rights in the USA, but majority rights in South Africa?”

Similarly, Max Webster: “Think also of the hypocrisy of the church that will allow regional (black) conferences in the USA but seeks to destroy so-called white conferences in South Africa on the basis of their being a legacy of apartheid, which is not true. Separate governance of the church in South Africa began before apartheid, and one of the aims was to develop black leadership.”

Valid questions!

I’ll begin by discussing the history of the SDA Church structure in South Africa:

Currently, all but two conferences in the Southern African Union of the SDA Church http://www.adventist.org.za are racially integrated–the Transvaal Conference–which is predominately White, and the Trans-Oranje Conference–which is predominately Black. In South Africa, racially divided conferences date back to 1920 when under the newly formed African Division, the SDA Church’s organizational structure was divided at union level into the South African Union Conference–caring for White conferences–and the Southern Union Mission–caring for Black Missions. In 1922, the church was structurally merged at all levels. However, in 1927, racially separate conferences were revived under a single union–a situation that continued until 1953.

“Since 1953 the South African Union has functioned in two parts–Group I and Group II–meeting separately in general, but jointly for the transaction of certain business. Using this as a foundation, the Union administration has now been re-organized into two parts, Group I and Group II. In Group I are the four conferences for the European and coloured membership, The Indian Mission, and the South West Africa Field….Group II comprises the mission fields and institutions serving the African population.” (South African Division Outlook, March 15, 1961, 8.) Read it here.

In 1965, the separate “groups” were recognised as separate unions–the South African Union Conference–caring for the White, Coloured, and Indian conferences and fields–and the Southern Union Mission–caring for Black fields. This situation continued until December 1991 when the South African Union Conference and the Southern Union merged to form the Southern African Union Conference. Mergers at local conference level then took place until the present structure emerged. (On March 26, 2006, a bid to unite the remaining two conferences–the Transvaal and the Trans-Oranje conferences failed.)

The SDA Church in South Africa II

One of the SDA Church's biggest problems has been its willingness to compromise its Christian teachings in exchange for societal approval. This might seem an odd statement in view of the SDA Church's perceived separation from society–its insistence on keeping the seventh day (Saturday) Sabbath, its lifestyle distinctives (no pork, no alcohol etc.), its belief in the separation of Church and State etc.–but in the important areas of race relations and gender equality (to name but two), the SDA Church has been anything but a prophetic voice in the wilderness. Rather, the Church has allowed the inequalities and injustices present in society to determine its attitudes and actions.

In the the same letter quoted previously, Pieter Wessels stated:

"So there is the colour line drawn which is very distinctly drawn here in society. For my part I do not care. [Of course he cares! See the previous post on Pieter's refusal to allow his children to mix with non-Whites socially.] I can shake hands with the coloured people and so forth. But our association with them is going to spoil our influence with others who are accustomed to these things…to have any influence with the higher class of people, we must respect these differences."

P. J. D. Wessels to Ellen G. White, January 14, 1893.

Thus for Wessels, it was more important to retain the values of his surrounding culture than to take a moral stand on the issue of racial equality. Ironically, his aim in doing so was in order that members of society with racist attitudes could be reached with the gospel. One has to ask though–is a racist gospel really the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Racist From the Start? The SDA Church in South Africa

On the 14th of January 1893, P.J.D. Wessels wrote to Ellen White:

"I do not want my children to associate with the lower classes of coloured people. I will labor for them and teach my children to do so. But I do not want my children to mix with them for such is detrimental to their moral welfare. Nor do I want my children to think there is no difference in society that they should finally associate and marry into coloured blood."

DF 506, as quoted in Antonio Pantalone's DTh. thesis.

Like all historical accounts, official accounts of Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) history are selective and gloss over much of the darkness. Official (and most unofficial) accounts of the SDA church in South Africa are almost hagiographic in nature. You can find an account of the conversion of Pieter/Peter Wessels–one of the first converts to the SDA church in South Africa at:

http://www.sdadefend.com/P-Wessels.htm

http://www.sdadefend.com/p-wessels2.htm

There is no doubt that the Wessels family donated large amounts of money to the work of the SDA church in South Africa, Australia, and America and their generosity should be remembered. We must also however, take note of the racist attitudes of these early SDA members and the impact that such attitudes have had on the church in South Africa–which is still in one area divided along racial lines. Recommended reading is Antonio Pantalone's 1998 DTh thesis: A Missiological Evaluation of the Afrikanse Konferensie (1968-1974) and its Significance for the Seventh-day Adventist Church in South Africa (University of Durban Westville) pp 177-187, 306-314.