Unrepresentative Governance

Your latest issue (Nov/Dec. 2001) was a winner! From John McLarty's opening editorial to the back cover.

The report on the IBMTE illustrates the same method used by Congress when rushing through a favorite, but little recognized, attachment at a late midnight session: very little representation, but the eventual shocking discovery when daylight comes. We have not heard the last. As McLarty so aptly states, "What happens to us in the short run will come to you in the long run," and "not a single person had anything good to say about this program." So much for representative governance. Witch hunting will soon follow such a poorly devised policy.

Maryan Stirling's "The Chosen" further serves to illustrate the paucity of female representation in most institutions, including the SDA, and the results. It echoes Ellen Goodman's recent editorial on this subject recalling how women had often been the "moral guardians" of society, serving as "whistle-blowers" in the recent Enron debacle while the men remained silent. Women do have a different view of the world, perhaps more "nurturing"; but that has been sorely missing in most of the legislative sessions in the world's business and especially in religious institutions. Perhaps some of history's rush into wars might been delayed or diplomatically resolved if an equal number of women thought first of all mothers' sons who were being so callously offered to Mammon.

As young men replace their fathers in all branches of power, they will increasingly call on women, having long recognized their unique ability and skills in relationships so vital to democratic governance. That day cannot come too soon.

Elaine Nelson
Fresno, California

ATS "Big Lies"

One of the rules of political propaganda is that, even though a statement is totally false, if you repeat it over and over enough times, people will come to believe it. This rule--and the idea that a "big lie" is not intrinsically more difficult to propagate if you simply repeat it more often than a "small lie"--was a key tactic of the Nazi movement in Germany in the 1930s.

Readers of AT can read a classic example of this in the comments of Ed Christian, editor of the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society (ATS). In your recent interview of him (AT Nov/ Dec 2001), he stated that the ATS is "an organization of centrist Adventist biblical scholars." First of all, most of the members of the ATS are not biblical scholars; the vast majority of ATS members are laypersons. A majority of SDA biblical scholars are members of the Adventist Society of Religious Studies (ASRS) and not the ATS. Second, to state that the ATS is a "centrist" organiza- tion is like saying that the Klu Klux Klan is "centrist" on the subject of race relations.

As has been well documented by Raymond Cottrell, the ATS actually represents a very conservative reaction to the progressive tendencies exhibited in North American Adventism in the 1970s and 1980s. One needs only to read the requirements for becoming an ATS member to confirm this. However, for some strange reason, ATS wants to propagate the false idea that it is "centrist." Only by reasoning in a manner that would make a Jesuit proud can one argue that the ATS is anything but a right-wing or- ganization adhering, with few exceptions, to a fundamentalist agenda.

Shame on Adventist Today for publishing this piece of ATS propaganda.

James Hilton
Loma Linda, California

Adventist Core

I was saddened to see the tone of the article (AT Nov/Dec 2001) comparing the ASRS and ATS meetings in Denver last November. You were nearly triumphal in declaring that the ASRS meeting "appeared to be an open forum for the exploration of ideas," while proclaiming the ATS meeting to be "designed to promote a particular viewpoint." Since I sat immediately behind you in the ATS meeting, I think I can legitimately comment on the content of that assembly.

The ATS meeting was, in fact, very open. The discussions (several of which you missed) were vigorous and tackled controversial issues. Somehow you failed to appreciate that fact. Instead, because it presented biblical views with which you disagree, it was "polemic."

How can there ever be open dialogue regarding theological issues when parties who disagree with you are denigrated? Is it not possible that there is an honest appreciation for the truth of Scripture in ATS, and ASRS finds that offensive because they no longer regard the Bible as the word of God who cannot lie?

The SDA church is founded on the principle that God has revealed himself to us in the Bible. It is our responsibility to carefully consider his word and to act in accordance with its requirements. It is not a "nice" book that can be read selectively for self-help, while parts of it are regarded as fable because they seem inconvenient. If one sentence is declared to be less than true, then where do you stop? Is the next sentence true? Or should it be thrown out as well? Since the standard for this is the opinion of finite man, the word of Infinite God becomes of no authority.

If any part of the Bible is not true, then you have no assurance of salvation. That rests on the trustworthiness of God. If he lied in his Word about past events, then how can you be sure that he told the truth about Jesus' atoning sacrifice? Your assurance depends on the utter truthfulness of the Bible. And this is what ATS upholds.

By contrast, Alden Thompson's book Inspiration declares that parts of the Bible are not true. And this is the pattern of the articles in Adventist Today. The Creation account is relegated to the dustheap of fiction, even though there is good evidence for its truthfulness. (See my article, "A Scientific Paradigm for the Genesis Flood," in the latest Journal of ATS.) Faith is only as valuable as the truth of its object. If you believe in the falsity of Genesis 1-2, then your faith in the cross is worthless.

I do not say these things to be harsh. Rather, the truth is unyielding. God makes exclusive demands, as pointed out by Ravi Zacharias in "Jesus Among Other Gods." I know in whom I have believed. Do you?

Ted Noel, MD
Maitland, Florida