If you had to guess, which would you say came first? Adventist summer youth camps or Adventist youth camp facilities? If you guessed Adventist summer youth camps, you are correct. Although the first youth summer camp in the United States—Gunnery Camp in Washington, Connecticut—dates back to 1861, during the years between the First and Second World Wars, summer youth camps organized by both secular and religious groups become especially popular. In particular, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts organizations grew significantly in the 1920s and 1930s. Missionary Volunteer (MV) leaders in the Adventist Church recognized the benefits of the Scout camp programs: outdoor recreation, nature classes, camping skills, personal growth, and social opportunities. But MV leaders were also concerned about the incompatibility of these camps with Adventist principles, the most obvious conflicts being Sabbath observance and dietary standards. Harriet Holt, junior secretary of the Missionary Volunteer Young People’s Society of the General Conference from 1920 to 1928, was the first to suggest that Adventists should organize their own youth summer camps. Grover R. Fattic, MV secretary of the East Michigan Conference, was the first to do something about it. The First Adventist Summer Camps In the mid-1920s, “Fattic took a scoutmaster’s training course,” and then persistently petitioned the East Michigan Conference executive committee (and perhaps the West Michigan Conference’s executive committee, too, as its MV secretary, Roy MacKenzie also assisted with the camp) until they agreed that he could organize a camp for the summer of 1926 provided it did not cost the conference anything. In the company of Lake Union MV Secretary Gordon Smith, Fattic combed the west side of Michigan, searching for a location. Working on the recommendation of a scoutmaster of Fattic’s acquaintance, the two men discovered a beautiful campground at Townline Lake near Lakeview, Michigan. This first camp hosted sixteen boys, ages twelve to fourteen, who were accommodated in tents. Its success led to plans for a larger Michigan camp in 1927 which would include girls. A wave of new Adventist junior summer camps —also called Missionary Volunteer training camps— soon swept across the United States. For about the first twenty years, Adventist conferences did not own summer youth camp facilities. Instead, they rented them: any place in a good location ranging from county, regional, or state parks to YMCA camps was likely to be used. Generally, separate weeks were reserved for boys and girls in the late 1920s and early 1930s. By the mid-1930s, boys and girls were attending at the same time. By the 1940s, camps were divided into junior camps for pre-teens and senior camps for teens. This could vary from place to place depending on facilities and staff availability. The first junior camp in the Central Union was limited to the Fort Scott, Kansas, church school. The school’s teacher, Mrs. Leonard Wood, and her students spent three days at Camp Wildwood on the Marmaton River, July 25-27, 1929, where they rented three cabins. Mr. Leonard Wood and Bert Rhoads assisted her. The earliest known Colorado Conference junior camps were held at Glacier Lake, south of Ward, Colorado, in 1931 and 1932 under the leadership of George M. Mathews. In 1933 a camp specifically for juniors in San Luis Valley was held near Cumbres Pass, Colorado, and in 1934 Camp Juniorado was held near Evergreen, Colorado. But by far, the most common location for Colorado junior camps was a camp site in Pine Crest near Palmer Lake, Colorado. This central location, at a campground that apparently no longer exists, hosted camps in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1944, and 1947. Pueblo Mountain Park World War II brought changes to the summer camp program. Why the camp moved from Pine Crest to Pueblo Mountain Park near Buelah, Colorado, in 1941 is unknown. War-time rationing of gasoline and tires probably interfered with long distance travel. Thus, separate camps began to be held on the Eastern and Western slopes, although residents on either side of the Great Divide could choose to attend the opposite slope’s camp with a $1 discount to make up for the longer trip. The Western Slope camp met at Grand Mesa, while the Eastern Slope camp met at Pueblo Mountain Park in Beulah, Colorado. Located in a Ponderosa pine forest on the side of a mountain above the little cove that is home to the community of Beulah, Pueblo Mountain Park possesses the atmosphere of a rural county or regional park although it is neither. The park was first developed in 1919 as part of a collaborative project of the the Pueblo Commerce Club and the City of Pueblo to provide outdoor recreational facilities in and adjacent to the San Isabel National Forest. Although located some twenty-seven miles southwest of the city, Pueblo Mountain Park is still maintained by the City of Pueblo. Park roads, trails, playgrounds, and campsites were constructed throughout the 1920s. In November 1935, the park became home to the South Creek (Mountain Park) Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) camp whose laborers significantly developed the park’s infrastructure. The CCC camp was followed by Works Progress Administration (WPA) crews who constructed, among other structures and stonework, the distinctive adobe Horseshoe Lodge. (read more about Pueblo Mountain Park’s history) Horseshoe Lodge, with its bunk rooms and dining hall, was one of the most attractive features of the park for an organized summer camp. However, the rural location would have also appealed to Adventist MV leaders. While Pine Crest was located near Colorado’s most densely populated metropolitan area, Pueblo Mountain Park was well off the beaten path. All roads in this tiny mountain cove on the edge of the Wet Mountain Range seemed to deadend against the mountains (which is true except for Colorado State Highway 78). Announcements for summer camps at Pueblo Mountain Park always included detailed directions for how to find it, nearly thirty miles southwest of the city of Pueblo. They also made the park sound like paradise: Camp Beulah provides large, commodious dormitories which accommodate a total of about three Read more…

Church outreach programs play a crucial role in fostering a sense of community and belonging among all members, including individuals who are blind or visually impaired. These initiatives not only provide spiritual nourishment but also offer practical support and inclusion.   Recently, I spoke with Claire Marino, an individual who is blind and who attends her local Adventist church in Lincoln, Nebraska. This article explores some of her thoughts about the positives of church outreach for individuals who are blind and identifies areas where churches can improve to better serve this community. Positives of Church Outreach for Individuals Who Are Blind   One of the significant positives of church outreach for individuals who are blind is the availability of prepared lessons and materials. “Organizations like Christian Record Services provide accessible Bible study lessons, enabling anyone who can read to conduct Bible studies with others,” says Claire. This inclusivity ensures individuals who are blind can actively participate in spiritual activities and share the message of God’s love.   Churches also excel in providing physical assistance to individuals who are blind. Claire shared, “My church has done a very good job helping me use my walker and get around in the church.” This support is essential for those who may struggle with mobility, ensuring they can attend services and participate in church activities without feeling hindered.   Moreover, the willingness of church members to assist during events like potlucks is another positive aspect. “Even in potlucks, they bring us our food and people just seem to be very, very accommodating,” Claire noted.   Additionally, churches have been accommodating in allowing individuals who are blind to contribute to church activities. “In the past, I have helped with one of the Sabbath School classes once a month,” Claire recalled. This opportunity to serve and be part of the church’s educational programs highlights the inclusive nature of church outreach. Areas of Growth for Churches   Despite these positives, there are several areas where churches can improve to better serve individuals who are blind. One significant area of growth is the accessibility of visual materials. Many churches use screens to display song lyrics and other information, which can be challenging for those with visual impairments. “When they only put the words on the screen, it can be more difficult for those with vision challenges to see them,” Claire mentioned. Providing large-print song sheets or including song lyrics in bulletins could enhance accessibility.   Transportation is another critical area where churches can grow. Many individuals who are blind rely on others for rides to church and having a few more volunteers willing to provide transportation would be beneficial. “It would be nice if we could get a few more rides, if a few more people offered,” Claire said. This would ensure that individuals who are blind could attend services regularly without feeling like a burden to the same few individuals who currently provide rides.   Lastly, churches should consider forming committees or groups focused on accessibility and inclusion. These groups can work with church leaders to identify and address the specific needs of individuals who are blind. By actively seeking input from individuals who are blind, churches can create a more inclusive environment that caters to everyone’s needs. Summary   Church outreach programs have made significant strides in supporting individuals who are blind, offering them opportunities to participate in spiritual activities and receive practical assistance. However, there is always room for growth. By improving accessibility, enhancing communication, and providing more transportation options, churches can ensure that individuals who are blind feel fully included and valued in their communities. Through these efforts, churches can continue to spread the message of God’s love to all individuals, regardless of their abilities. Brian Carlson is director of communication for Christian Record Services headquartered in Lincoln, Nebraska.

When God created the world, He did it with a great deal of enthusiasm. However, that wasn’t enough. In Genesis 2 another descriptive name was given: LORD or Yahweh conveyed that He was also compassionate and trustworthy. The full meaning of those names would soon be seen when sin entered. God was indeed trustworthy.  GOD’S ORIGINAL GIFT God’s gift to humans was not only creating them in His image­ it included His continued presence. Regardless of the detour caused by sin, despite the spiritual and physical condition of humanity, God promised not to leave. The Bible clearly expresses the value of every individual. That value is not derived from what a person can or cannot do. Their worth comes from God and is respected by God to such an extent that He radically invested Himself for their redemption (John 3:16). Life is sacred, and it is only God who is in the position to determine one’s ultimate right to live. God is our identity both as individuals and as His church “body” (1 Corinthians chapter 12). Our identity from God’s perspective is based on who He is and the value He has placed in each person. Diversity does not detour His love; it is divinely inherent in the human DNA. Seeking to Understand  The World Health Organization reports that one in seven, or 15 percent of the world’s population, has a significant disability.1 The way we understand disabilities is critical. It influences the way we treat these individuals. What is not always understood, however, is that our treatment of them frequently shapes their own perception of their worth. Aimee Mullins was born without fibula bones in her shins. Her legs were amputated below the knee when she was a year old. She asks for no sympathy. She is a fashion model with prosthetic legs. She reminds us, “I want to be seen as beautiful because of my disability, not in spite of it.”2  Educator and author Stephen Covey shares that the single most important principle he has learned about interpersonal communication is to “seek first to understand and then to be understood.”3 However, if understanding is to be effective, it must be from the other person’s perspective. Hearing persons, for example, can easily misunderstand the life of a deaf person. To conclude that deaf people are isolated, disoriented, and uncommunicative and live in a world without meaning would be wrong. Such a conclusion almost begs for the deaf to be treated with sympathy. This is a false assumption. One writer points out, “In the hearing stereotype, deafness is the lack of something, not the presence of anything.”4 In reality, the deaf see their situation as a culture more than a disability. Their culture is filled with history, values, behaviors, art, and its own language. As is so often the case, if we don’t have the right starting point, it is not possible to fully appreciate the differences that do exist. THINK POSSIBILITIES How we see diversity and how we relate to others begins with the way we think. The German philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder observed in the 18th century that we cannot know ourselves without a reference point outside of ourselves. That reference point is Jesus. Any source other than our Creator and Redeemer will lead to destructive relationships and the depreciation of the unique contribution those who are not like us can make. To get it right, we must start right. The apostle Paul knew it was possible to change perceptions. He could personally say after becoming “a new creation” in Christ that believing makes it possible to see differently. “So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view” (2 Cor. 5:16, NIV). The story is told of Lawrence, a deacon in Rome in the third century. He understood not only the concept of diversity but also the unique value of every person. During the persecution of the early church, Lawrence was given a position of trust. He cared for the treasury and riches of the church and the distribution of alms to the poor. At the beginning of August 258, Emperor Valerian issued an edict that all bishops, priests and deacons should immediately be put to death. The emperor demanded that Lawrence turn over the riches of the church. Early historical records indicate that he asked for three days to gather the wealth. During those three days, he distributed as much of the church’s treasury to the poor as possible. On the third day, he appeared before the prefect or regional governor. When ordered to hand over the treasures of the church, Lawrence presented the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the suffering, and declared that these are the true treasures of the church. He reportedly said to the prefect, “The Church is truly rich, far richer than your emperor.” This act of defiance led to his martyrdom. What Lawrence believed and taught at the peril of his own life was a timeless truth: “Those whom we believe are the students often become our teachers.” Diversity of all kinds provides lessons needed for our character development. Ellen White suggested the same when she wrote, “I saw that it is in the providence of God that widows and orphans, the blind, the deaf, the lame, and persons afflicted in a variety of ways, have been placed in close Christian relationship to His church; it is to prove His people and develop their true character. Angels of God are watching to see how we treat these persons who need our sympathy, love, and disinterested benevolence. This is God’s test of our character.”5 I’ve learned that differences are important. Along with Aimee Mullins and a billion others who make up God’s family, I have discovered that God appreciates uniqueness. Indeed, God’s gifts come in many shapes, forms, colors, races and perspectives.     1       World Health Organization, December 1, 2020 (www.who.int/news­ room/facts-in-pictures/detail/disabilities) 2         Andrew Solomon, Far From the Read more…

Standards-based learning (SBL) is a transformative approach that places student learning at the forefront of education. With an emphasis on clearly defined learning targets, SBL shifts the focus from traditional instructional systems to ensuring that students achieve proficiency in specific skills and knowledge. This approach has been gaining traction in our Adventist schools across North America, where education leaders and administrators are actively embracing this shift. The North American Division has taken a leading role in advocating for the transition to SBL through providing numerous opportunities for educators to delve into the theoretical foundations and additional resources for implementation. To facilitate this shift, conferences within the Mid-America Union have organized a variety of professional developmentopportunities, including teacher in-services and attendance at educational conferences, aimed at deepening teachers’ understanding of SBL. Through these sessions, educators engage with the principles of standards-based instruction, learn how to align their teaching practices with the learning targets, and explore effective assessment strategies. This continuous learning process enables teachers to refine their approach to teaching, ensuring they are well-equipped to foster student growth within a standards-based framework.  An example of this ongoing effort occurred during the past summer when the Mid-America Union Conference hosted a specialized training event for multi-grade teachers in Lincoln, Nebraska. Teachers from different conferences gathered for a week-long workshop designed to immerse them in SBL practices, with a particular focus on building social studies units. The event provided an invaluable opportunity for educators to collaborate on discussing priority scales—tools used to outline the most essential learning targets for students—and to create standards-based units that align with those targets. By working together, the participants were able to share insights, brainstorm innovative ideas, and support one another in the transition to SBL. Practical collaborations Feedback from the group included appreciation for gaining further insight through the power of discussing learning targets in depth to determine what needs to be taught. Participants also enjoyed working together to develop daily lessons using instructional strategies that fit the needs of their students. Others shared that, while they have had multiple sessions on theory and process, this was their first opportunity to put all that knowledge into practice and div e into building meaningful lessons.  One of the central components of effective SBL is teacher collaboration. Collaboration goes beyond simply working together; it involves a deliberate process of co-creating lessons, designing assessments, and analyzing student work to ensure consistency and alignment with the standards. When teachers collaborate, they bring diverse perspectives and expertise to the table, which leads to a richer, more comprehensive educational experience for students. By cre ating a space for teachers to engage in meaningful dialogue about their instructional practices, we as a system of Adventist schools can enhance the quality of education students receive. This method represents a significant shift in how educators approach teaching and learning. By prioritizing clear learning targets, promoting teacher collaboration, and using data to inform instruction, SBL provides a framework for improving student achievement. Moving forward, the Mid-America Union Conference Office of Education is committed to partnering with the local conference to support the SBL educational shift. As schools continue to embrace this approach, the commitment to collaboration and student-centered instruction will play a pivotal role in shaping the future of education in our territory.