[Editor’s Note: This sermon was presented at the Steps to Life Camp Meeting, July 2003. The conversational style of the speaker has been preserved.]
On March 21, 1891, Ellen G. White, 64 years of age, slowly walked to the podium of the Battle Creek, Michigan, Tabernacle Church. From the pulpit, she observed the delegates of the General Conference session and thought about the sermon she was about to deliver. Her sermon, entitled “Our Duty to the Colored People,” focused on an issue that she felt would win her no friends. The Seventh-day Adventist Church, in her opinion, must grapple with an issue they had been skirting for too long. Convinced that the leaders of the church could no longer look the other way, pretending that the problem was not there, she contemplated the task before her. She was not at ease, uncomfortable with the issues that she was about to unleash on her brethren. Knowing that many would not be happy with her words, she struggled through the presentation with carefully measured words. On one side, she did not want to hurt any sensitivities; however, she felt the need to push the leaders of the church into action, to shake them from what she considered to be a sad indifference towards Negroes in the United States.
Color Line
Feeling that Negroes in the South had been abandoned by the Seventh-day Adventist Church for too long and that it was time to launch reforms and change the policies of the church, she opened her presentation declaring, “There has been much perplexity as to how our laborers in the South shall deal with the ‘color line.’ ” The Southern Work, 9. With this sentence, she projected onto the leaders of the church an issue that made them uncomfortable. In the sermon, she clearly stated her position on the nature of racism in America and the stance that the church should take.
Over 100 years have passed since Ellen White expressed her concern in regard to the “color line.” Although non-Adventist scholars have written thousands of books on race and racism, the literature produced by Seventh-day Adventist writers and scholars, with the exception of the writings of Ellen White, displays a pronounced silence on the topic. Adventist historians have, by and large, looked the other way. As a community, Seventh-day Adventists feel uneasy with the issue. However, the “color line” continues to be one of the most pressing issues facing the church today.
When Ellen White spoke of the “color line” in 1891, she was referring to a unique American phenomenon. Although the ideas have been exported to all of the corners of the earth, its roots are deeply imbedded in the history of the United States. The term “color line” refers to the fact that, in the United States, the quality of a person’s character is judged by the color of his/her skin. People with light-colored skin, or “whites,” as they are generally termed, are deemed to be of a pure and better stock. People of color, and especially Negroes, because of their dark skin, are considered to be of inferior stock.
Evidently it not only appears to be a thought accommodated by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but a living reality in our experience, that the white brothers and sisters are superior to the black brothers and sisters in the church and that the churches should be led only by “whites.” So, the church does not display much difference in attitude and behavior from the American society and the world at large.
Control and Power
In order for us to understand the uniqueness of the American racial attitude, the concern of Ellen White, and how it affects us as Seventh-day Adventists, we need to define the words slavery and racism. According to Webster’s Dictionary, slavery is defined as “the condition of a slave, bondage, the keeping of slaves as a practice or institution. Slavery emphasizes the idea of complete ownership and control by a master.” Racism is defined as “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievements, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.”
In both definitions, we see no mention of color. What we do see is a desire to rule and control for selfish purposes. In the experience of the Israelites in Egypt, we clearly see that their situation had nothing to do with color: “And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation. And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them. Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel [are] more and mightier than we: Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and [so] get them up out of the land. Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses.” Exodus 1:6–11.
What we see in these texts is a position of control and power—not color, but control and power. So the American form of slavery and/or racism, which Ellen White called “color line,” is indeed a unique American phenomenon that has affected the nations of earth. It is this, friends, because it says that a person is not judged by his/her character but by the color of his/her skin, and that will determine the person’s character. But most specifically, this determination is aimed at the black race as the inferior race and the white race as the superior race.
Secular Perspectives
In the book Uprooting Racism: How White People can Work for Racial Justice (Kivel, Paul, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada, May 2002), it is stated that the American society has been built upon a foundation of racism for so long that it has become part of the landscape—always there but seldom acknowledged. The author, a Caucasian, also notes that racism is pervasive, its effect devastating, and the need to fight against it urgent, that people of color are being blamed for social problems and attacked on all fronts. Recent immigrants, African American women on welfare, youth of color, and affirmative action programs are just some of the current targets of white anger. It seems like gains made in Civil Rights and Social Justice during the 1960s and the 1970s are being rolled back in the 1980s, the 1990s, and 2000s.
Mr. Kivel also wrote that white people do many things to survive the heat. They move to the suburbs, put bars on their windows, put locks on their hearts, and teach their children mistrust, for their own protection. They believe the enemy is “out there” and they can be safe “in here.” They have never thought about what it means to be “in here” with other white people and why they are so afraid of people with darker skin color “out there.” Since they do not talk about their fears, they are precluded from doing anything effective to put out the fire.
Racism is often described as a problem of prejudice. Prejudice is certainly one result of racism, and it fuels further acts of violence towards people of color. The assumption of Kivel’s book is that racism is the institutionalization of social injustice based on skin color, other physical characteristics, and cultural and religious differences. White racism is the uneven and unfair distribution of power, privilege, land, and material goods, favoring white people. Another way to state this is that white racism is a system in which people of color, as a group, are exploited and oppressed by white people, as a group.
During a recent seminar entitled Vision Beyond the Dream presented by Dr. Claud Anderson (author of Black Labor, White Wealth: The Search for Power and Economic Justice, PowerNomics Corporation of America, Bethesda, Maryland, August 1994), racism was defined as a power relationship or struggle between groups of people who are competing for resources and political power. It is one group’s use of wealth, power, and resources to deprive, hurt, injure, and exploit another group to benefit itself. He said that the root word of racism is race, which means to be in competition, in a contest, or in a match for a prize or other group benefits.
Church Perspective
In a Review and Herald article dated January 21, 1896, under the title “Am I my Brother’s Keeper?” Ellen White made a very serious statement: “The law of God contained in the ten commandments reveals to man his duty to love God supremely and his neighbor as himself. The American nation owes a debt of love to the colored race, and God has ordained that they should make restitution for the wrong they have done them in the past. Those who have taken no active part in enforcing slavery upon the colored people are not relieved from the responsibility of making special efforts to remove, as far as possible, the sure result of their enslavement.”
Could it be that, as a church, we have adopted this American phenomenon philosophy from a religious perspective and have sought to justify it by misquoting the testimonies of the Spirit of Prophecy to suit our unregenerated hearts? Are black people within the Seventh-day Adventist Church contemplated and tolerated on the basis of economics?
In the book Against the Odds (Bowser, Benjamin, Editor, et. al., University of Massachusetts Press, November 2002), a native South African shares his experiences of racism in the Seventh-day Adventist Church in South Africa. He accounts that racial discrimination in the church raised its ugly head the first time for him personally in 1930. W. H. Branson, then President of the African Division of Seventh-day Adventists with headquarters at Clairmont, South Africa, separated the white members from the colored members in the Windberg church and instructed the former to attend the Clairmont church. The excuse was that colored people would have greater opportunities for leadership and that evangelism would be more effective among their group. The separation, in which colored members had no say, caused great bitterness among them. They felt rejected by their white brethren. Only a child at the time, this South African experienced the events on that fateful Sabbath in 1930 and listened to the feelings expressed by his family and other church members. The segregated colored church at Windberg remained a part of the Cape Conference until 1933. Ironically, Elder Branson, the man who set the Seventh-day Adventist Church on the road of racial segregation in South Africa, went on to become President of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists!
Thus it was Americans who introduced apartheid into the Seventh-day Adventist Church in South Africa. Unfortunately, white South Africans built on this episode and proceeded to institutionalize separation on the grounds of race in all spheres of Adventist life in that country. It is a sad fact that apartheid in the Seventh-day Adventist Church preceded apartheid in South Africa.
Misapplication of Quotes
Elder Branson, like many other white believers, evidently used Ellen White’s writings to justify segregation of whites and blacks, more specifically, worshiping separately. I suppose he used quotations such as those shown here:
“Let as little as possible be said about the color line, and let the colored people work chiefly for those of their own race.” Testimonies, vol. 9, 206.
“The colored people should not urge that they be placed on an equality with white people. The relation of the two races has been a matter hard to deal with, and I fear that it will ever remain a most perplexing problem.” Ibid., 214.
“In regard to white and colored people worshiping in the same building, this cannot be followed as a general custom with profit to either party—especially in the South. The best thing will be to provide the colored people who accept the truth, with places of worship of their own, in which they can carry on their services by themselves.” Ibid., 206.
The reasons for those statements made by Ellen White must be made clear. It is one thing to make statements, but it is another thing to make the statements clear. Why did Mrs. White make these statements? Did she support segregation? As a servant and messenger for God, who regards all men as equal, did she support racism? We know from her testimonies that she did not. There are justifiable reasons for her statements. We are given some very positive explanations in the same book; I will give six of them that she listed. These appear immediately following those statements given above.
She states, in regard to black and white worshiping together/separately that: “This is particularly necessary in the South in order that the work for the white people may be carried on without serious hindrance.” Ibid., 206.
“Let them [colored believers] be shown that this is done not to exclude them from worshiping with white people, because they are black, but in order that the progress of the truth may be advanced. Let them understand that this plan is to be followed until the Lord shows us a better way.” Ibid., 206, 207.
“Let us follow the course of wisdom. Let us do nothing that will unnecessarily arouse opposition—nothing that will hinder the proclamation of the gospel message. Where demanded by custom or where greater efficiency is to be gained, let the white believers and the colored believers assemble in separate places of worship.” Ibid., 208.
“Let the work be done in a way that will not arouse prejudice which would close doors now open for the entrance of the truth.” Ibid., 209.
“While men are trying to settle the question of the color line, time rolls on, and souls go down into the grave, unwarned and unsaved. Let this condition of things continue no longer.” Ibid., 210.
“The time has not come for us to work as if there were no prejudice. Christ said: ‘Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.’ Matthew 10:16. If you see that by doing certain things which you have a perfect right to do, you hinder the advancement of God’s work, refrain from doing those things. Do nothing that will close the minds of others against the truth. There is a world to save, and we shall gain nothing by cutting loose from those we are trying to help. All things may be lawful, but all things are not expedient.” Ibid., 215.
Mrs. White is here expressing concern about something, as God has expressed it to her, which shall be brought up shortly.
Intermarriage
Then there are those who are against intermarrying of whites and blacks on the grounds that Ellen White says so, without again addressing the reasons for her statements. Quotations such as the following ones are used.
“But there is an objection to the marriage of the white race with the black. All should consider that they have no right to entail upon their offspring that which will place them at a disadvantage; they have no right to give them as a birthright a condition which would subject them to a life of humiliation. The children of these mixed marriages have a feeling of bitterness toward the parents who have given them this lifelong inheritance. For this reason, if there were no other, there should be no intermarriage between the white and the colored race.” Selected Messages, Book 2, 343, 344.
Notice, she did not say between whites and other races; she said between white and colored races. There is a reason. She further wrote:
“In reply to inquiries regarding the advisability of intermarriage between Christian young people of the white and black races, I will say that in my earlier experience this question was brought before me, and the light given me of the Lord was that this step should not be taken; for it is sure to create controversy and confusion. I have always had the same counsel to give. No encouragement to marriages of this character should be given among our people. Let the colored brother enter into marriage with a colored sister who is worthy, one who loves God, and keeps His commandments. Let the white sister who contemplates uniting in marriage with the colored brother refuse to take this step, for the Lord is not leading in this direction.” Ibid., 344.
But why did Mrs. White give this counsel? Was she against interracial marriages? She further states in the same book, “Time is too precious to be lost in controversy that will arise over this matter. Let not questions of this kind be permitted to call our ministers from their work. The taking of such a step will create confusion and hindrance. It will not be for the advancement of the work or for the glory of God.” Ibid.
So we see that the thing God was concerned about, and thus shared with Mrs. White, was that these controversial matters not obstruct His work. If we were to accept the interpretation of some brethren concerning Ellen White’s instruction as fact that God is against races intermarrying, then we would need to address ourselves to the Holy Scriptures, where we read of Moses’ experiences with his sister Miriam and his brother Aaron.
“And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.” Numbers 12:1.
Backbiting, criticizing behind Moses’ back, Miriam spoke against his wife, who was of a different race. In the book Patriarchs and Prophets, 383, we understand that: “Yielding to the spirit of dissatisfaction, Miriam found cause of complaint in events that God had especially overruled. The marriage of Moses had been displeasing to her. That he should choose a woman of another nation, instead of taking a wife from among the Hebrews, was an offense to her family and national pride. Zipporah was treated with ill-disguised contempt.
“Though called a ‘Cushite woman’ (Numbers 12:1, R.V.), the wife of Moses was a Midianite, and thus a descendant of Abraham. In personal appearance she differed from the Hebrews in being of a somewhat darker complexion. Though not an Israelite, Zipporah was a worshiper of the true God.”
Some believers will still maintain that Mrs. White is only supporting what the Bible teaches, and they will quote Scriptural references such as Deuteronomy 7:3, 4; Judges 3:6, 7; Ezra 9:1–3,12.
“Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.” Deuteronomy 7:3, 4.
As you read the other scriptural references, you will see that the matter of concern arising out of these texts is that of intermarrying with heathen or unbelievers. The counsel had nothing to do with marrying people of color. Why should they not have married these heathen or unbelievers? Because the influence of these unbelievers would have turned the hearts of the children of Israel from following Jehovah. That was the concern of God.