racial divisions in Pen

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

  REGARDING           Re: racial divisions in Pentecost



First of all, allow me to say that I'm 
a member of the same denomination as Bro. Dan.  
That denomination is the Apostolic Assembly, Faith
in Christ Jesus.  A (very) brief history is that
during the time of the Azusa street revival, some
Mexicans also received the revelation of the oneness
of God, and subsequently joined the PAW.  After a 
time, there was an amicable separation between the 
Spanish ministry and the rest of the PAW (due to 
language difference).  Indeed, for quite some time
after that, our assembly's ministers were still
getting their ministerial credentials from the 
PAW.  

I'd like to comment on what was written.  I 
want to make sure that no-one on this list, and 
especially those in the UPC, gets the wrong 
impression.

>I was once a guest at the headquarters of the UPC while 
>traveling to Missouri.  At lunch with one of the very 
>higher-ups, I was asked how our Assembly leadership 
>would likely respond to an overture from the UPC to 
>bring the oneness groups back into a sort of loose 
>fellowship or coalition.  My response was not welcome 
>(and I never delivered the overture). I replied that I
>could never speak for the leadership of the 
>denomination, but that as a layman who loves our 
>church, I believed that our response would be similar 
>to that of Blacks to such an overture:  until the UPC
>repents of the original sin of racism that lies at its 
>very origins, the Brown and Black brothers would 
>probably not come to the table being set.  Thereupon
>ensued a long conversation over the state of race 
>relations in Pentecost, with all the attendant
>dynamics of the larger national conversation/argument
>over race: sincere and slightly clueless Whites, angry
>and suspicious Blacks, and bemused and confused Latinos
>on the sidelines.

	He purports not speak for the leadership, but 
then proceeds to speak for the laymen?  Based on my
knowledge of Bro. Dan's previous writings, in my 
opinion, Bro. Dan sees everything through the prism 
of race.  One needs to keep that in mind when 
reading his narratives.

	He knew that whomever he spoke to was a "higher up"
and yet he never spoke to our leadership.  That is just
plainly irresponsible.  I can imagine that this was a 
sincere overture by one denomination to another for 
fellowship and unity (something the bible says we 
should strive FOR) and it's poisoned by a personal and 
political agenda.  The situation was left like that, but 
no-one on our side was ever spoken to who could speak 
with AUTHORITY.  That is heart-breaking.  Can you imagine
the move of God were we to worship in unity?

	I can't believe Dan unilaterally decided that 
the UPC should grovel at his (and our!) collective 
feet.  No-one asked me, no-one asked my congregation,
no-one asked the other churches!  Should that even be 
needed, I would expect that sort of conviction to come 
from the H.G., not someone who purports to know the 
hearts and the minds of the faithful and claim they 
"would probably not come to the table being set."

	And talk about stereotyping: "clueless whites,"
"angry blacks," "confused latinos." Anyone out there 
match those descriptions?

>Meanwhile, back at the rancho, our pioneers, especially
>Bro. Antonio Nava, came to the conclusion that "los 
>gringos no se preocupaban por nosotros" (The gringos--
>both White and Black--did not worry themselves about 
>us), and incorporated a very Mexicano and Chicano 
>oneness denomination in California that, together and 
>in solidarity with his colleagues in Mexico, he built 
>up and stamped with an indelible Mexican/Chicano 
>identity.  

	Some things need to be said here, also.  

Firstly, "gringo" is most times a pejorative.  My 
mother-in-law, who is Bro. Nava's daughter has never
heard him use that word.  I spoke to her today, and 
she had spoken to HER mother-in-law and their relatives
previously about this very issue, and all remember that 
he only ever used the term, "los Americanos."  Those 
memories go back to the late 1920's.

I don't know where Dan digs this up from, but he 
loves to trot this quote out to imply that no-one cared 
about "little ol' us," and legitimize his view of the
state of race relations.  I gave the reason for the 
separation earlier (language) and according to the man 
himself (by way of his daughter) and published accounts, 
the separation was a practicality dictated by 
demographics, nothing more, nothing less.

	Secondly, "chicano" is a political word.  Our 
assembly is not political, and that is one of 
Dan's complaints.  We aren't active in the "No More 
Grapes" campaign, don't have an official position on 
Affirmative Action, and generally haven't articulated 
the positions that some deem expedient.  We have no 
chicano identity in our assembly.  Sure we have a 
Mexican/Mexican-American/South American feel to our 
assembly, but that is as a result of the majority who 
are there, not a political decision, and not because 
we don't feel welcome elsewhere.

	The Apostolic Assembly has bigger fish to fry
than having Nat. Urshan, et. al., scrub our toes to show
us how sorry they are.  I would ask that no-one take Dan's 
letter and attitude as representative of our assembly's 
attitudes, leadership-wise, nor member-wise.

Thank you,
Bro. Steven Sanabria