March 1, 2004 - 12:00pm - Editors

 

Mike Scofield’s article (AT Jan/Feb 2004) hit me like a fresh breeze on a hot July day.

 

“Is the World Getting Better or Worse?” is a topic for which I was almost fired in 1961. I was head of the theology department at Atlantic Union College. A conference president had asked me to give a series on “last-day events” for his workers’ meeting. Part of my talks were directed to the “signs,” where I spent some time reviewing the same kind of topics that Scofield did so well, emphasizing that Jesus was more interested in the state of the church than the state of the world. I simply let Matthew 24 lead us along.

 

Apparently the ministers were in uproar because I was taking away from them some of their “best” evangelistic sermons. I thought I was giving them better arguments!

 

A few days later, the conference president (who today is a warm, close friend) was in the union president’s office demanding my resignation. For several hours the secretaries and others heard the verbal exchange. Thanks to an enlightened union president I was spared. Interesting, isn’t it? We still need articles by men like Scofield to keep us focused on the light, not on the shadows that may seem to be more interesting.

 

We are not against focusing on the deterioration of the global fabric, any more than Noah did or could. But there were better reasons to listen to the gospel call. After all, when the Door of the Ark was closed, when the end-time Door of Probation is closed one of these days, the world never looked so good to thought leaders. That is why Noah seemed to them to be so fanatical and why end-of-the-worlders will find much to be positive about.

 

Herbert E. Douglass
Lincoln, Calif.

 

Music Guidelines and Christian Contemporary Music (CCM)

 

To try to categorize the music of the church into either “traditional” or “CCM” is only to be narrow-minded (AT Nov/Dec 2003). Some of today’s music is only transitory, while some of it may prove to be enduring. Music should be chosen that is appropriate for the occasion, just as we would not dress the same way for a swim in the pool as for an evening concert. A new dress or suit that is simple in design rather than “faddish” can be fitting for a long period of time, so might be defined as “classic” in the broad sense of the term.

 

Contemporary music is not always “faddish” or extreme in style. Yet we should not close our minds to the value of that which has been around for a while. Our music leaders must learn to choose music appropriate for the occasion, whether traditional or contemporary; that is, what might be appropriate for individual listening might not always be appropriate for the worship hour, where the wide spectrum of listeners must be considered and respected. A variety of styles, avoiding extremes, is usually preferable.

 

So if we define the purpose of the setting—(1) church worship hour, to uplift, inspire and instruct the full body of Christ, (2) church-sponsored concert, to entertain a specific audience, or (3) individual Christian listening, for relaxation and personal enjoyment—we might find it easier to choose what may be appropriate.

 

Carol Mayes
Chatsworth, Calif.

 

War in Iraq

 

Reasonable people can disagree about the nature of the liberation of 25 million Iraqis from the domination of the Baathist regime. However, Glenn Henriksen’s screed (AT Nov/Dec 2003) represents not a reasoned disagreement but a selective diatribe. He is too long on polemic and too short on balance.

 

“Messing up Iraq,” he says “has terminated more children, women and elderly in Iraq than were killed in the 9/11 attack on New York.” This may or may not be the case, but how does Mr. Henriksen ignore the more than 300,000 Iraqis who were brutally murdered under the Saddam Hussein regime, whose mass graves were only found after liberation? Surely it would have been good to have saved those lives, had the world community only found its will earlier. Have we all forgotten the tragic lessons of silence exhibited in the Holocaust, in Cambodia and in Rwanda?

 

He further writes that the Iraqi people are “infuriated” and determined to avenge their national honor by killing every American they can find. Is this really the case? Or is it the remnants of the former regime—under--standably upset at their sudden loss of privilege and power—who are trying to throw a monkey wrench into democratization?

 

His assertion that the United States—and, inter alia, the world—are not more secure because Saddam is gone is not borne out by current facts. Libya has abandoned its WMD program. Syria is acting more reasonably. There have been tentative moves towards an Israeli-Palestinian peace. Even the North Koreans, as I write, are discussing nuclear issues in six-party talks. All of these have been attributed to the result of getting Saddam out of power. I do not rejoice in war or suffering or death. But it is possible, is it not, for us to understand that war is sometimes necessary to protect freedom and to liberate the oppressed? All AT readers would do well to ponder how that freedom was obtained, how it was secured, and how it has been defended. Until Jesus returns and until the Kingdom of God is established on Earth, we must defend freedom and extend it as much as possible. Instead of ranting and raving, we should be grateful to those willing to pay the price to defend that freedom.

 

Mark A. Kellner
Rockville, Md.

 

Gospel to Hurting People

 

Thank you for the information on the Gay and Lesbian Adventist Kinship Advisory and Kit Watts’ article on women’s ordination (AT Nov/Dec 2003). I am thinking of family members who are gay, and others who have been so abused by men (some of them church leaders) that it would seem impossible they could ever “hear” the gospel from a man. But Jesus loves these kinds of people, also. Many who work with domestic violence victims believe the social structure of many churches actually facilitates violence against women (and homosexuals).

 

When I hear Adventists praying that Jesus would come soon, I think, “No, Lord, my loved ones need to know about You first!” I yearn for the day when my loved ones can freely walk into a warm and uncondemning church and find Jesus—or the day when Adventist people will take Jesus to the places where my loved ones are.

 

Kit Watts wrote, “Today, most Adventist church leaders believe women’s ordination is dead.” Since there are so many perplexing populations of people to be reached, I wonder why “most Adventist church leaders” are not wrestling with the challenge of taking the gospel to these hurting people rather than impeding women who have been called to such a ministry. Considering these things and the fact that my daughter (and many other youth who grew up in my former church) have been grieved out of church fellowship, perhaps the question posed on your front cover should have been, “Is the Church Getting Better or Worse?”

 

Karolyn Kasprzak
Tacoma, Wash.

 

Antinomies

 

No matter how much I like Bob Johnston personally, his paper (AT Jan/Feb 2004) reflects the kind of intellectual sophistry typical of those who think they can be Adventists and evolutionists at the same time. Sure, it’s not easy understanding how God could be one and yet composed of three entities, but it’s not impossible; it’s not easy to understand how the Holy Spirit can function one way in one situation and another in another, but it’s not impossible. And yet, according to Bob, these are analogies for the idea that God created the world in six literal days but took millions of years to do it? Come on!

 

Does he really expect anyone to believe this? I sure hope his students at the Seminary (our future ministers) didn’t.

 

Clifford Goldstein
Silver Spring, Md.

 

Goldstein on Bleats

 

Bill Blythe’s essay, “A Few Bleats…” (AT Nov/Dec 2003) drove me to revisit Clifford Goldstein’s article “Seventh-day Darwinians” (AT Sept/Oct 2003) with greater scrutiny, and I was affirmed of my first reaction. I found his article appalling. I was struck by his apparent elitist display of “holy intellectualism.” Goldstein seems to espouse the “belly-button theory” of church membership: one must become either an “innie” or an “outie”—”believe as I do or get out!” That rigid old snake of purging or purifying the church rears its ugly head every 10 or 20 years. However, many of us have been in “the way” far too long to make changes of fellowship, personal theology, subculture or anticipation of heaven—convinced that the church needs us all, the full range of conservatives and liberals. Theology, Darwinism, Creationism, Huxleyism and their various points of view tend to raise more questions than answers and none can be fully supported by observation or experiment. A fuller, more substantive, belief-conforming study seems more suited for Heaven. An affirming metaphor of faith borrowed from the legal community by means of which many of us have experienced conviction is: circumstantial evidence.

 

Richard R. Williams
McMinnville, Ore.

 

Ellen G. White and the Heavens

 

Thanks for your crisp Glacier View reports and the latest AT. In one of the reports and in a letter from my dear friend Patti Hare, reference was made to Joseph Bates’s amazement/appreciation for Ellen White’s vision of the planets and also her description of the “opening heavens.” What seems to be lost inthe two AT references is that Ellen White never identified the “planets” she was describing nor did she mention the number of moons any planet may have. In Messenger of the Lord, I wrote: “But Bates attached the planets’ names to what he thought Ellen White was describing, and others [Loughborough] reported what Bates seemed to have understood from her brief comments. Telescopes today reveal much more about the planets, the number of their moons, and other heavenly phenomena than Bates would ever have dreamed of. What really astounded him was not the description of the “opening heavens,” a reference to the so-called “open space in Orion.” He was reported to have said that her description “far surpassed any account of the opening heavens he had ever read from any author” (page 144-145). But Patty and Ed Hare understood the big picture as she wrote: “It is so obvious and such a wonderful illustration of how God uses inspiration for specific purposes and how important it is to take into account time and place.” Exactly! Continuing in Messenger of the Lord, “The point seems clear: the vision was not a lesson on astronomy that was intended to be verified by modern telescopes. Rather, it provided enough information, by a young woman totally uninformed on astronomy, that conformed to the limited information that Bates, an amateur astronomer, had in 1847. If Ellen White had given a preview of what the Hubble telescope revealed in the 1990s, Joseph Bates would certainly have been convinced that Ellen White was a fraud, a misguided zealot. His doubts would have been confirmed” (145).

In an early Review and Herald, Aug. 1, 1849, Ellen White wrote: “Then I was taken to a world which had seven moons. Then I saw good old Enoch, who had been translated.” Again, she did not identify which “world” had the “seven moons.”

 

Herb Douglass
Lincoln Hills, Calif.

 

Adventists and “The Passion”

 

I enjoy your publication immensely! It is so necessary in today’s church. Something on the arrogance and embarrassing positions many Adventist took on the “The Passion” would be appropriate. Starting with the Review’s editorial and our retired academic professors.

 

Doug Mace
Loma Linda, Calif.

 

Schwisow on 3ABN

 

I felt Ed Schwisow’s article was written from the mindset of a conservative “in the box” SDA. It is so hard for many people to accept change even when change will let God help us fly higher. Schwisow wants Dan and Linda and crew to fly a two-seat Cessna that would not be so expensive, get better mileage, and visit fewer churches. I felt much of his article was gossipy and small.

I am sure Schwisow knows that several SDA conferences have had to cut back on their payrolls the last few years, some drastically, because of the bad economy. To know this and to blame 3ABNs’ financial setbacks on the plane, on Dan’s leadership, or other gossip and print it in AT is very distasteful to me. It is so hard to build something successful and not have some people complain.

 

I like 3 ABN’s success in reaching the world, and the thousands it has brought to know Jesus Christ. Schwisow would keep the Sheltons in the hanger and not let God fly them high to the world.

Ellsworth Wellman
Yakima, Wash.

 

In Defense of Goldstein

 

In reply to Ervin Taylor, “Church Apologetics and Sola Scriptura” (AT Jan/Feb 2004), I have the following comments:

 

First, while Clifford Goldstein is an esteemed friend, I can’t help wondering how he warrants the honorific, “the church’s most outspoken church apologist.” Nor does Taylor explain in what way Goldstein’s views on Ellen White’s authority represent “official, orthodox Adventism.” His assumption that Goldstein’s belief in Ellen White’s “fallibility” in theological and other matters represents “movement” in conservative or official Adventist thinking toward a more moderate stance, is not supported by the facts. No hint along such lines can be found in the larger body of conservative Adventist thought and literature just now, nor has Adventist officialdom approved any statement which reduces Ellen White’s role and authority in this manner.

 

Second, Taylor makes another unproved assumption when he claims Goldstein’s defense of the sanctuary doctrine represents a “minority point of view within the community of Adventist professional biblical scholars.” For starters, one must ask how Taylor defines a “professional biblical scholar”—a phrase which smacks of the sort of elitism that often injures the reputations of the so-called “intellectuals” among us.

 

Third, Taylor thinks Goldstein “ignores the facts” by saying Desmond Ford’s attacks on the sanctuary doctrine were discredited long ago, since Taylor claims a large number of the scholars who initially examined Ford’s position agreed with much of what he said. But merely because professed scholars see light in a position doesn’t mean it can’t still be discredited on the basis of evidence. The fact remains that attacks on the Adventist sanctuary message inevitably arise from one of two sets of presuppositions: (1) the evangelical gospel of a finished salvation at Calvary, which makes both an end-time atonement and character perfection unnecessary; and (2) the higher critical approach to Bible study which refuses to allow Scripture to transcend its cultural matrix and become its own interpreter.

Once the Bible is permitted to discredit these two sets of presuppositions, one easily understands why conservative Adventists fail to be impressed with the reams of “scholarly” invective hurled against this doctrine.

 

Finally, no one who accepts the Bible-based, classical Adventist sanctuary message needs to “try to find a reasonable explanation” of its profound relevance to contemporary life. The heart searching and character development held by historic Adventism to be the essential corollary of this doctrine, is awesomely practical in its meaning for how we treat each other, how we subdue destructive tendencies to self-indulgence, and how we see ourselves in the larger cosmos. The problem is not with a lack of contemporary relevance in this particular doctrine, but a lack of contemporary willingness to accept its self-crucifying demands.

 

Kevin D. Paulson
New York, N.Y.

 

---

 

The article entitled, Three Angels Broadcasting Network: A High-Flying Organization, by Edwin A. Schwisow (AT Jan/Feb 2004) was most interesting.

 

Brother Schwisow has clearly made his case, and I will assume with high motives, to challenge 3ABN to more seriously consider its decisions and be even more effective in its expressed mission. Please allow me to speak to just a few of his observations.

 

It is true. We the members of the board of 3ABN are only human and it is true we are not many in number. While some might consider this a deficiency, our board is efficient, flexible and able to respond to opportunity and need-an advantage many larger boards might envy. Brother Schwisow may be correct in noting that some critics interpret our governance as compliant with Danny’s heavy-handed control. So be it! In fact, any board that functions according to the dictates of its critics is already in trouble. The truth is that 3ABN and Danny have an excellent working relationship. We do not micromanage-by design. We have perceived our role as giving him room to move as the Spirit of the Lord directs-having a common understanding that with the free reign there is also responsibility for action. We are listened to and heard when we have advice and counsel, and are available to him when he has needs and concerns. It is difficult for me to conceive a better model for success than this. In addition, Danny has a number of other counselors whom he consults frequently-though unofficial, these serve much as an advisory board might serve.

 

The article makes note of Danny’s exorbitant salary-exceeding the salaries of even the highest paid administrators of the Adventist church. In face, we have patterned 3ABN salaries after the church with the exception we do not provide most of the benefits the Adventist church provides for its workers. Three of our board members are administrators within the organized church and can vouch for this fact. It is also a fact that many of the royalties on music and publications made by the Sheltons are donated to the ministry. During the hearings regarding taxing 3ABN properties at the State last year the prosecution pressed the defense very hard attempting to find evidence that Danny and Linda were hiding something about their income-like many other TV ministers. They found nothing; in fact, they expressed amazement with the economy with which 3ABN and its administration operate.

 

Finally, the last point I wish to make, and the one triggering the article: the commercial jet. My comments will be short. The board has been involved in all of the discussions and planning regarding the planes. Our discussions and decisions have been deliberate. Our board has only one objective, i.e., to be faithful to the proclamation of the Three Angels Message to the world in preparation for the return of Jesus. We believe God has called us to this ministry and is faithful to his promises to his servants. We have not made our decisions carelessly, nor without divine petition for wisdom. I believe the board would agree with me in saying that God is not generally governed by public opinion, nor is He limited in his provisions. Furthermore, when we look at the world around us and see it spiraling rapidly downward to oblivion, it is inconceivable to me that God would withhold any good thing from His servants who have accepted the burden He has commissioned. And this includes airplanes!

 

Having said that, the record of heaven is true, God does discipline his children when needed and in ways that will ultimately glorify His name. Throughout the twenty years of its life, God has kept a close hand on 3ABN, opening and closing doors as only He understands. Undoubtedly there is a reason for the reduced income of the past year. It is our responsibility to seek the reason and correct it when discovered-assuming that is the reason for the financial reduction. Certainly we are all human and very capable of misinterpreting the signals from heaven. We are involved in a universal conflict between God and Satan that is real. We expect conflict, and hope to grow the stronger because of it. And certainly we are grateful for those of our critics who honestly desire to see the cause of God go foreword to glory. From these we covet not only admonition, but earnest prayer for guidance from the Almighty as well.

 

Walter Thompson, M.D., chair of the 3ABN board of directors, lives in Burr Ridge, Illinois.