One Conference President’s Perspective

Are we sure Jim Brauer—Conference President—is not other than a Seventh-day Adventist? There are several possibilities after the written statement, “If you insist on the degree of change called for in this proposal, you ought to resign and start your own church.” (AT Jan/Feb 2005). Somewhere in this statement, I missed God’s voice asking us to come and reason together.

Jim Brauer fits better as one voicing the Fourteen Fundamentals in following the Prophets (Mormonism) First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything. Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray. Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time. (A sample of the fourteen: by Ezra Taft Benson.)

Jim Brauer may be the only conference president able to sit back and pontificate in the manner of speaking “ex-cathedra.”

We have pushed out more age groups from the Seventh-day Adventist Church with endless mistakes. We do not need those so insulated from the congregations believing they not only have the right to say, “Love it or leave it,” but also are held in honor within the church.

Steven C. Schroder

Assistant to the Evening Dean

Heald College Roseville Campus, Calif.

Conference President’s Perspective

While reading through the letters to the editor (AT Jan/Feb 2005) I was caught by the reply from Jim Brauer. The first part is pretty standard, then he indicates that Conferences are not the channel for congregations to access the General Conference. Furthermore, if you do not like policy as is (we are not talking about doctrine), get out, because our policy is God-given. Now in the final paragraph the twist turns into meaningless jargon/babble. His mission as Conference President is “sharing Jesus and helping local churches be more responsive and effective in their own communities.” I am guessing this is to be done without finances on the local level.

Dick Larsen | Via the Internet

The Passion of the Christ

Reviews of Mel Gibson’s “Passion” often cite passion plays, which are relatively rare in North America. More familiar to Adventists raised Catholic are the Stations of the Cross, enacted in the passion plays and the movie. One of the Stations of the Cross is Veronica’s Veil. In the movie at one point a woman appears on screen going about her domestic chores, seemingly unconnected with the rest of the plot. I guessed she was Veronica, and sure enough on the Via Dolorosa she takes off her veil, wipes the bloody face of Jesus with it, and tries to give him a drink of water. In a passion play she would then display the veil to the audience, showing the face of Jesus imprinted on the cloth like the Shroud of Turin.

Which brings me to a neglected aspect of Mel Gibson’s movie. The Shroud of Turin is a relic. Veronica’s veil was once a relic. Pilate’s wife supplies the two Marys with fluffy white towels to mop up the copious blood which Jesus shed while being scourged. That blood was being collected for a reason—veneration in churches like the other relics. Luther started the Protestant Reformation as much over relics as over indulgences.

One other point, often passed over. In the Bible, Satan’s presence in Gethsemane is never mentioned, but the visit of an angel to strengthen Jesus is mentioned. Mel Gibson’s movie neglects this angelic visitation, but features Satan. Perhaps this is one more example of how evil is often more entertaining than good.

Jim E. Miller | Madison, Wisconsin

Kevin’s Quandary

Thank you for your kind letter and I am pleased to renew my subscription, which lapsed some time ago. At the time it appeared that the articles were not hitting on things of interest to me. The present issue with the so believable story of “Kevin’s Quandary” (AT Jan/Feb 2005) sparked my interest because of the unchristian treatment he received at the hands of some “church leaders.” I have recently become interested in homosexuality and wonder if this is one of the manifestations of the sin of Adam passed on to his children, us. Paul has given us a picture of how far the race had fallen in Romans 1:23-32, and homosexuality is prominently mentioned. As such, can it be any worse in the eyes of God than unrighteousness, fornication, covetousness, maliciousness, envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, spiteful, proud, boasters, and on and on? Homosexuals are people afflicted with the sin of Adam manifested in sexual disorientation, and they deserve no worse or no better treatment than the rest of us who also bear telltale marks in our character of Adam’s sin. We all have a cross to bear. Their cross to bear is to not participate in homosexual practices. Jesus covers the repentant sinner with His righteousness and took the death penalty in our place. In the eyes of God homosexuality is no worse than the other covenant breakers. And we have no right to treat them any differently. It falls under the admonition to Love God and your fellow man.

Edwin W. Reiner, M.D. | San Diego, Calif.

Cultural Adventists

I find much of the writings of Clifford Goldstein helpful, but I do have a problem with his problem with cultural Adventists. I’m not just sure how he would define cultural Adventists, but I am glad they are in our church. Is our church a retreat for sinners or a hospital for saints? Do we feel that those who disagree with us are not authentic Adventists? If so, we might take out many so-called tares; and maybe others would class us as cultural Adventists. I think we challenge each other’s views, and I think that is a good motive for studying and knowing what we really believe. I am 89 years old, and maybe Goldstein would class me as cultural since I don’t agree with all he writes.

Janice Schilt | Via the Internet

Goldstein on Cultural Adventists

I found odd the comments of Clifford Goldstein on cultural Adventists. I do understand the dismay which some converts find with cultural Adventists. I converted 27 years ago, and that is how I felt. But then again, I was unchurched at the time and was raised Catholic in a community that largely ignored which church you went to. In contrast, Clifford Goldstein was/is Jewish, and the traditions of cultural Jews are even stronger and more enduring that those of cultural Adventists. Nonobservant cultural Jews retain their identity for generations and are a substantial and distinct portion of the Jewish people. How can Mr. Goldstein say that cultural Adventism is “a concept that makes no sense to me”?

Jim E. Miller | Madison, Wisconsin

Enrollment Gains Reported

Being an alumnus and former teacher at La Sierra University, I looked for a mention of LSU in Dr. Stirling’s article and was disappointed. I received the following information from the registrar at LSU: While the head count is down 38, La Sierra’s FTE count was up 27. While we generally quote the head count when people ask about our enrollment, the FTE count is what really counts! Since the FTE is the number that is more important, it seems worthy of mention in Stirling’s article. The article commented (in red) “For the rest of the Adventist colleges the enrollment news was not so cheering.” Well, this is not the feeling at LSU, where there is a cheerful feeling! Twenty-seven FTEs amounts to a sizable financial increase.

Walter S. Hamerslough, Emeritus Professor Riverside, California

Editor’s reply: We are happy to hear that according to the registrar La Sierra’s head count was up. However, we took our figures from the official summaries published by the North American Division Department of Education, the most recent at the time of publication. These listed the FTE for La Sierra beginning in the fall of 2003 as being 1,633, and in the fall of 2004 as being 1,619. That was a drop of 14. (The head count was down 16.) Somehow the registrar’s optimistic figures for the fall enrollments did not get reflected in the official tally.

Who Is Biased?

In reading through the last issue of Adventist Today (Nov/Dec 2004), it was rather amusing for me to see in the letter from Russell Burrill when he accused AT of being biased. I have only read one of his books, Radical Disciples for Revolutionary Churches or something like that, and found it very biased.

Dick Larsen | Via the Internet

Ron Gladden’s New Denomination?

Somehow I must have missed something in an earlier issue of Adventist Today. In the letters to the editor of the November/December issue Russell Burrill mentioned Ron Gladden’s new denomination. Has Ron Gladden left the Adventist church to start his own denomination, or did Ron just do something that Elder Burrill did not approve? I have really appreciated Ron’s contributions towards making our church more user-friendly and relevant, and I never heard him disagree with our basic doctrines; in fact, the seemed to discourage attempts to undermine them.

I respect your ethics and integrity in printing letters that are critical of what the magazine does. By the way, this publication helps me keep my sanity in this hotbed of Adventist conservatism and legalism where I live in SW Virginia and southern West Virginia.

Henry Miller | Via the Internet

Editor’s reply: As described in some detail in the July/August issue of AT, Ron Gladden does not disagree with the church’s doctrinal statements, rather, he endorses them and expects that those who ally themselves with his Mission Catalyst program will also do so. His difference with the church is mainly in structural elements and the distribution of tithe money.

The Healthy Church

Gary Fraser wrote on this subject (AT Jan/Feb 2005) explaining, mostly from a health perspective, why the “ceremonial laws” for cleanliness were given to the Israelites at Sinai. Many were instituted to protect the health of the wanderers in the wilderness, as it must have been very difficult under such circumstances. However, in setting forth some of the laws concerning childbirth, the quarantine period for new mothers giving birth to male children was twice as long as for female children. If that was only for health, did God know something about the sex of infants that is not known today? Or that following a longer menstrual period she had to offer a “sin offering”?

The dietary laws were most effective in preventing any association with the pagans. Keeping kosher laws, still practiced in Orthodox Judaism, is extremely difficult and time-consuming. Middle Eastern customs even today require that strangers must be welcomed and offered food, the hospitable gesture almost universally practiced. If the dietary restrictions were faithfully followed, that would have prevented any association whatsoever with other than their own people.

Should we read the Old Testament laws as Prescriptive rather than Descriptive? Isn’t the New Testament the final and last word for Christians? Paul set new guidelines for the Christian church in his separation of clean and unclean foods, thus reinforcing his position, repeated in his letters, particularly in Romans 2, where he says that Christ has broken the barriers that used to keep them apart from the Gentiles. Is there anything that could separate one culture from another more than their food—the “breaking of bread” together?

Elaine Nelson | Fresno, Calif.

Your special issue

March-April 2005, was great! Each article was well done—fresh and provocative, worth sharing and keeping. I have only one complaint—no by-lines. You must have had a reason, but it would help me personally to know who’s producing what!

Raymond H. Woolsey | Via the Internet

Editor’s Note: As announced on the cover of the March-April 2005 issue of Adventist Today, the entire issue was written by our editor, John McLarty. Each article was an excerpt from his forthcoming book—which is due to be published this summer. For more information, please visit us online: www.atoday.com