Haloviak on Morgan

In reviewing Doug Morgan's book, Adventism and the American Republic (AT Mar/Apr 2002), Bert Haloviak at least partly misses the mark. First, the claim is made that Adventist predictive eschatology has precluded a nuanced relationship to Roman Catholicism. However true this may have been in the past, it is no longer true today. Seventh-day Adventist institutional interests closely parallel those of the Catholic Church in America, since we both run hospitals and schools. Accordingly, on a host of legislative and judicial issues, Adventists and Catholics work closely together to defend the principles of religious freedom and institutional autonomy. This is true both with respect to areas of doctrinal and practical divergence-like the Catholic practice with respect to family planning and contraception-as well as to common concerns such as the principled commitment to avoid dealing with labor unions. Here in the Pacific Union, there is a close working relationship between the California Catholic Conference and the Adventist Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty. Attorneys for Adventist Health also work closely with their counterparts for Catholic Healthcare, which now employs at least one Adventist attorney.

This close association is not a rejection of predictive eschatology. Rather, it is based on the very premise that Haloviak insists is needed: a more "Christological perspective within the Adventist approach to eschatology." Our religious liberty ministry is premised on fundamental truths about the character of Christ and the primacy of the cross. Love must be free, as Ellen White wrote in Desire of Ages. Moreover, the plan of salvation itself demonstrates that freedom is more important to God than obedience. Indeed, if security and obedience were of primary importance, God could have placed a barbwire fence around the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. An omnipotent God could easily solve the sin problem by adjusting human brain chemistry, but instead, he chose a plan that protects human freedom.

Application of this understanding to eschatology does not require revision of the "eschatological scheme." Rather, it provides depth and theological significance to that scheme. The final crisis, then, is not over the issue of a day, but what the day reflects. The legislative enforcing of Sunday worship portrays God as a tyrant, willing to coerce outward conformity, which is nothing short of hypocrisy. In the words of Roger Williams, such forced worship "stinketh" in God's nostrils.

By contrast, Sabbath represents more than an arbitrary day God commanded for worship; and more even than the full range of theological meanings attributed to the day. Too many Adventists can proclaim the Sabbath message with the spirit of the beast: i.e., either you keep the right day or God will kill you. Sabbath embodies the freedom which is central to the plan of salvation, and it becomes the practical expression of the character of a loving God who coerces no one into being saved.

In sum, Haloviak's chief omission is his failure to recognize that the very correlation between a Christ-centered theology and Adventist eschatology he seeks already exists. To be sure, such a view is far from universal in Adventist ranks, but it is widely proclaimed by the church's organized religious liberty ministry, and it will no doubt have an increasingly salutary impact on the church as it becomes more widely disseminated.

Alan Reinart, Esq., President of the Seventh-day Adventist Church State Council

Westlake Village, California

Dealing With Issues

Alden Thompson's "Daniel 9: Putting the Focus on Jesus" (AT July/Aug 2002) was excellent. It can be instructive for how we should deal with perplexing or controversial issues. His was a straightforward, honest approach minus handwringing or not so thinly veiled criticisms of Adventist doctrines, thought or behavior.

I have long felt we should ask the question: so what? So what if technical Biblical issues are still being resolved? How many issues over which some in the church get rather heated, or become discouraged, really have anything to do with our relationship with Jesus or our confident hope of salvation?

As Thompson inferred, I think, Rev. 14:12 concentrates the mind on what is most important for individuals and the core truth by which Adventists can be defined corporately. We should devote our time to thinking about and communicating how many, if not all, other Bible truths support Rev. 14:12. Maybe this approach would keep us from tending to "throw the baby out with the bath water" every time we face a new challenge theologically or otherwise.

Dean Riley Banks, Alabama

Respecting Fundamentalists

As I read your editorial, "Nonfundamentalist Adventism" (AT July/Aug 2002) I did not sense a "pastoral concern" for our fundamentalist brothers and sisters. I am no fundamentalist (see "The Charlottesville Story--AT vol. 6, no. 4); but it seems to me that you succumbed to the liberal's tendency to lump all fundamentalists into one basket-"controlling, not humble, unteachable, loud, squeezing others into their mold," just as many fundamentalists label all liberals as "unspiritual, insincere, anti-E.G.W.," etc.

Can't we confront and debug the fundamentalist's theology while respecting them just as we do members of our own family who may not be SDA or Christian? Did not most of us so-called liberals once live in a literal, concrete world of absolutes during our early teens and perhaps even later?

A liberal may now see his/her former views as "spiritually stunted"; yet, if s/he is now truly liberal-minded and liberal-hearted, s/he would not judge those who are still theologically and socially immature as unteachable or controlling, or scold them for being loud and proud. If we meet a person who is mentally retarded, we do not accuse him or her of being unteachable or controlling. We liberals should be as patient with fundamentalists as we would have wanted liberals to be with us when we were passing through a stage of blind obedience to authority and a rigid law orientation.

Alton D. Johnson Banning, California

Davidson on Ford

I sat down this evening to relax and picked up the Adventist Today that recently arrived. Without having read the entire letter, I was struck by the comments of Richard Davidson on the bottom of page 11 where he was clearly trying to distance himself from Des Ford. Perhaps if I had read the whole thing I wouldn't have been so shocked. I don't know who Davidson is and only have a distant historical perspective of Ford, so nothing personal here.

Davidson states, "I would only support Des Ford's reinstatement into SDA Church membership if he once again embraces the 'present truth' that distinguishes this Church from other denominations. And for that change of heart on the part of my brother Des, I earnestly pray! I also pray for the SDA community in Australia and beyond, that we continue to reach out to Des, loving him, interceding for him, laying hold of the Arm of Omnipotence on his behalf, calling him back to the old landmarks that stand more solid than ever!"

As with many Adventists, I am sure he feels his attitude represents the love and care for others that Christ would portray, without a clue to the absolute arrogance and condescension his attitude actually exhibits. First, "if you don't think like I do you can't belong to the church." Every group has a right to determine what it takes to be a member. However, in Adventism the essence of that statement is isolation from "God's chosen people" and relegation to the realm of the lost. This is demonstrated by the capital C Davidson uses in church. When you feel compelled to "pray earnestly" for a fallen comrade, it signals that you don't feel they are acceptable to God but rather in desperate need of His intervention. When will Adventism realize that their Christian brothers are not the enemy, but colleagues on the side of good in the tug-of-war with evil?

Then comes the guilt and duty (great Adventist motivators) associated with his prayer that if only Australians and others showed enough love Des would return to the "truth." Could it be that God has led someone else down a different path than He has led you? Is it possible that you are both following the path God has for you? I realize this must be incomprehensible for someone who is "so settled in the truth that they can't be moved."

Davidson's comments have got to be one of the clearest and most accurate representations of classical Adventism I have experienced as an ex-Adventist. It is the arrogance of Adventism that is most striking to one looking from the outside. This is especially true for someone who has "known the truth" and then been set free by God's grace.

Marvin Butler Via the Internet

Ford, Davidson and Others

Isn't Davidson aware that not only Des Ford, but many Bible scholars view the sanctuary doctrine as Des does? Davidson and his opinions on this doctrine (AT July/Aug 2002) are shrinking in Adventism. That is not to say that the historic ideas are not well and still kicking, but just not so forcefully. And to call this "the core distinctive of Adventist doctrine" should be an embarrassment to the church. Our core distinction should be Jesus Christ, His life and death, the Cross and what it means to humanity. Davidson sounds like a politician, determined that his view is the one everyone should believe. He is behind in more ways than one. He states that he desires with all his heart to see Des back as a member in good and regular standing. Good news Davidson, Des is a member and in good standing, he just believes that the true gospel is Jesus! And continues to preach this in many SDA churches where he is invited to speak.

RE: The Fundamentalist Factor

One of the best articles I've read lately (AT July/Aug 2002). I'm so glad to hear another side. We can be united, but we don't have to be in uniformity. John McLarty's article said Amen with capital letters. There are nonfundamentalists out there, and we need to speak up!

RE: Too Hot to Touch

Good work, David Newman (AT July/Aug 2002)! You hit the subject right on the head. Our Victorian ideas, many times spring from tradition rather than from Biblical principles!

Barb Konrad Loveland Colorado

Joreteg Answers Moon on the Year-Day Principle

Jerry Moon (July/Aug 2002) admits that "historicists hold that in certain time prophecies a "prophetic day" represents a whole year, but not in others. Who is to say where the principle applies? And when it is, the time period spells out the punishment of the people; at the end of it the people are set free, not judged.

Toby Joreteg Loma Linda, California

Loving New York

Congratulations. Excellent article (Sept/Oct 2001), I wish I could see this kind of writing more often, especially in the SDA magazines. I have worked for Country Life and I know exactly what you are talking about. Hope the Church changes and helps more the cities. I am studying Sociology/psychology in UK, but I am from Brazil and as you may know Sao Paulo is the 4th biggest city in the world and I would love to see that city being evangelized from south to north. I must tell you if we don't do something the "stones" will do as they are already starting.

Ailson Moraes Via the Internet

Judging the Little Horn

I enjoyed the July August issue, and was fascinated by the writer's comments on Daniel 7, 8. I am not sure he has considered all the ramifications of the stated fact in the article that it is the little horn that is judged in these two chapters. . . . I can agree with the author's view that the passage is about the judgment of the little horn, however I believe it is the proclamation of the gospel that judges the little horn even now. But more so at Jesus' Coming it will meet judgment, if it doesn't give up the polluting doctrine.

Fred Speyer Via the Internet