Resistance to Change

Good luck to my old friend and former colleague George Knight (book review: "Organizing to Beat the Devil," AT May/June 2003). May he succeed and not merely tilt at windmills. There's a lot of inertia and resistance to change in any established order, and I'm sure the SDA Church is not immune. . .There are many who have vested interests in resisting change. . .I believe to truly understand Adventism today, one must understand the role that institutions play in the church's self-identity and perhaps even survival. Cases in point are communities where major Adventist employers moved on-Takoma Park, Mountain View, Skogsborg, and so forth. Knight does well to focus on mission, but perhaps he doesn't understand the real SDA mission, which may merely be to preserve itself and its organizations in the face of changes in its environment.

Harvey Brenneise East Lansing, MI

Salvation and Grace

I should think articles concerning salvation, grace, faith, the death and resurrection of our Lord should appear in Adventist today. . .There are Adventists who are not Christians. . . So many believe they are on target knowing Adventist distinctives without knowing him personally.

Paul Jackson Wallingford, Pennsylvania

Faith Enough Not to Be Healed

I just read your article given to me by a friend. My father is dying of cancer-lymphoma which has metastasized to his lungs. He is a Christian and we know we will see him again. Seeing him suffer has been very difficult for me and my siblings. This article was such a comfort. I am traveling to see him this weekend and will take this article with me to share with him. I'm sure it will bring him comfort also.

Carolyn Milnikoff Via email

Religious and Spiritual Abuse

The article that was written by Cheryl Cooney was done in such a direct, specific manner that it means to me that she has carried this painful experience very close to her heart for many long years. I am proud that you are willing to be transparent enough to allow Cheryl to share the truth about an issue of religious and spiritual abuse that has been hushed by too many at the higher levels of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Phyllis E. Peck Oswego, New York Via Email

Issues at Glacier View

I wanted to comment on an article that my father forwarded to me called "The Issues Going In" and relating to the 2003 Faith and Science Conference at Glacierview dated Aug 12 about the church's stand on Creation/age of the earth etc. I was an Adventist until about 20 years ago and continue to watch the internal workings of the church with some interest. I especially liked the points you made as to how a change would affect 4 fundamental beliefs that are the reason for Adventists to exist--Death before sin, Sabbath and Creation, Beginnings and Endings, and the Bible as infallible. I wanted to say that I thought your (and E Taylor's) article was stimulating and very well written; both my husband (not ever associated w/ Adventism except through me) and I enjoyed reading it and I would like to continue to be on an email list that goes out with these attachments or whatever you call them.

Teriz Mosley Via email

Discussing the Issues

I still think it would be a great thing to have the supporters of Adventist Today, in each major metropolitan area, get together to discuss the most recent issue (and the issues in the issue). Coffeehouse? Restaurant? Public facility? What about a Friday night at sundown?

Darrell Willis Via email

Reader's Comment: "Two Authorities, or One?" (by Kenneth Richards, AT Mar/April 2003)

Ken Richards sets up a typical though fallacious dilemma between the canonical writings of Scripture and other prophetic testimonies which the Scriptures both acknowledge and authorize.

The Bible not only places the gift of prophecy in the church (I Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11-14) and declares it will function till the coming of Christ (I Cor. 1:6-7; Rev. 12:17; 19:10; 22:9); it also records the labors and witness of prophets who, though not canonical, could hardly be viewed as less than fully authoritative. Certainly we all remember Elijah, Elisha, Deborah, Huldah, John the Baptist, and countless others. Who, when studying the Biblical record, could honestly conclude that these prophets wielded less authority in the faith community than such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Ezekiel?

The Bible even speaks of books written by such prophets, like those of Nathan and Gad (I Chron. 29:29), both of whom--though non-canonical--offered guidance and correction to a canonical prophet: King David (II Sam. 3:7-17; 12:1-14; 24:11-19). This helps us understand a simple rule: A prophet is not authoritative because he or she is canonical. Rather, a prophet is canonical because he or she is authoritative.

Richards' position seems confusing at best, since at one point he says he had "no problem with the writings of Ellen White being considered an 'authoritative source of truth,'" then later objects to those writings being used either as an "additional" or a "lesser" authority. Which in fact is his position regarding Ellen White? Does he view her as a subordinate authority, or as no authority at all?

Nothing in Ellen White's writings lends credence to the theory that her statement about her writings being the "lesser light" in relation to the Greater Light of Scripture (3SM 30) in any way implies some lesser degree of prophetic authority or reliability. Such statements simply affirm that no doctrine or lifestyle principle taught in Ellen White's writings is original with her. In her own words: "Additional truth is not brought out, but God has through the Testimonies simplified the great truths already given" (5T 665). . .

Non-canonical prophetic authority presents no challenge to the authority of Scripture, since--as noted earlier--Scripture presents numerous examples of such authority. So long as a prophet's testimony agrees with Scripture, the authority of Scripture is not in question. But if, as claimed by some, Ellen White ever disagrees with Scripture, she can have no more authority for Christians than Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, David Koresh, or Marshall Applewhite.

No middle ground is possible on this issue. God does not have junior prophets. According to Ellen White's own testimony, if her writings ever disagree with the Bible, they must be wholly rejected (5T 691), not accorded some partial degree of devotional, historical, or sentimental respect. For those who believe Ellen White contradicts the Bible, the question of finding for her writings some lesser status in the church makes no sense. If she ever disagrees with the Bible, her authoritative role should not be reduced, but eliminated.

But if, as I firmly believe, her writings stand in full accord with Scripture, the record of Scripture itself gives the church no option other than viewing her writings as possessing full prophetic authority.

Kevin D. Paulson New York, New York

Editorial response: Kevin Paulson gives expression to a sentiment held by many Adventists, who feel that anything Ellen White ever wrote in letters, spoke in sermons, or put into print in pamphlets or books was given by direct inspiration from God. Certainly she prayed over her work and studied her Bible diligently, and God spoke through her. Her writings have indeed helped many millions of people gain deeper insight into the Word of God than they might have had otherwise.

However, a primary proposition of the Reformation was "Sola Scriptura," the Bible only as final authority. There were saintly people through the centuries who had written religious messages that the Reformists felt were not supported by the Bible, and therefore were not be followed. Adventist pioneers aligned themselves with this stance. Thus now where there is question regarding the biblical basis for proposed church doctrines or practices, some Adventists advocate that where Ellen White has written on the topic her word must be taken to clarify the uncertainty. Even where modern scholarship and translating of the Bible has established better understanding of the problems involved, if White's word does not conform to this improved view of truth, they insist on rejecting it.

Such a view was not held by Ellen White herself; on numerous occasions she changed her views as she got better information or engaged in conversations with colleagues. These changes did not tarnish her image as a spokeswoman for God; rather they confirmed her as one who sought to know and promote present truth.