Awake?
I am gently concerned about the dire tone in the May 2005 editorial, “Stay Awake!” Is it possible that, in looking for Adventism’s predicted end-time scenarios, we may on occasion decry the good as being sinister? Christian Churches Together (CCT) specifically and prayerfully commits itself to “unity [being] celebrated in the midst of our diversity.” Its founding statement, drafted in Chicago, challenges believers to “[seek] reconciliation by affirming our commonalities and understanding our differences.” Are these not our values too?
Don’t Adventist missionaries in foreign lands pray for and praise the Lord for the faithful efforts of their fellow missionaries of other communions, as our official church statements say we do? Isn’t John 17:21, “That they may all be one … so that the world may believe that You have sent Me” — the theme verse of Scripture chosen by CCT — also one Adventists meditate on and accept as heaven’s ultimate goal for the body of Christ?
We sometimes ascribe less than charitable motives to fellow Christians who involve themselves in political causes. Yet exactly one page later in this same issue is a call for Seventh-day Adventists everywhere to blanket Congress with faxes and e-mails in support of a piece of legislation.
Also, there is a time and a place for prophetic warnings, and also a proper moment to simply mute our voices and offer sympathy. Just now, as 1.1 billion of our fellow believers are mourning the loss of their spiritual leader, is perhaps not the best or most gracious moment to reiterate our unique beliefs regarding earth’s closing crisis.
David Smith
Temple City, Calif.
Mostert Responds
Organizations and treaties that start out on one road often end up on another. Of course the CCT is going to proclaim the protection of everyone’s ideas and differences as a starting point. How else would you get people to begin discussion? But if nothing has changed after all the talk, what would be accomplished? The purpose for these discussions as stated is "unity." That can't happen if no one changes a position or compromises. And this is the first time Catholic leaders have joined Protestants in such discussions. So, we can assume nothing will come of it and say nothing, or stay awake to possibilities that will one day come. Many members who are not studying prophetic writings are not even aware of what possibilities are out there. As for the proper timing for such discussions, the editorial was written for Adventists, not those in other churches.
Tom Mostert
Union President
WRFA and ACLU
As a decades-long card-carrying member of the ACLU, I have become resigned to the fact that the organization is frequently used as a simplistic advertising device by the Right. Anything supported by the ACLU is bad; anything it opposes must be good. Most of this is nonsense and ignores the ACLU's valiant efforts over the years to defend civil rights, even when the causes have been unpopular. The ACLU is the only remaining institution in America that counterbalances the right-leaning radicals that are now sweeping away our rights at lightning speed.
Alan Reinach's article arguing for the virtues of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act (May 2005) is a classic example of how the ACLU label is used to advance a cause without even an attempt at accuracy. Reinach suggests that the ACLU opposes this law in principle. This assertion is false. I invite readers to look at what the ACLU is actually saying about the WRFA by clicking on
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15886&c=142. This article concludes that the WRFA may be create problems because it is too broad, is untested by the courts, and may be unconstitutional under the 11th Amendment. The ACLU supports an amendment, not rejection, of the WRFA, specifically to allow employees time off to observe religious holidays and celebrations, such as Sabbath. The ACLU is requesting that the law be narrowly tailored to accomplish precisely what Adventists want: protection for employees who wish to observe the Sabbath.
Whether the WFRA will have the effects that either Reinach or the ACLU suggest is a matter of speculation. What courts do with laws once cases come before them is notoriously difficult to predict. I am not — nor is the ACLU — against the proposed law's underlying principle of protecting the right to take religious days off work. I am, however, concerned by the law's breadth and its potential for misuse in litigated cases.
Aligning the Church with the agenda of the religious right may sound good to some people. But we should think carefully before joining forces with the radical religious right. We may be buying a ticket on the Titanic of religious liberty.
Karl W. Kime, Esq.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Defending Dr. Laura
I would like to respond to Mark Carr's article, "Principles of Congregational Ethics: Dr. Laura's Morality," in the February Recorder. I frequently listen to Dr. Laura while driving between appointments in my pastoral ministry. I appreciate her elevating the standard of morality, her defense of children, and her admonition for people to "do the right thing," instead of giving in to the abysmal lack of standards so prevalent today and living their lives based solely on how they feel. Why did the Recorder publish such a diatribe against her, allowing Mark Carr's personal perspective to label her "mean," "brutal," and "harsh"? As a professor of ethics, he ought to know that, while it is optimal for desire and action to go together, often people need to act on what is right, even if their desires are not yet present. With all the important things that are truly part of the Adventist message which the Recorder could publish, in my opinion, it was uncalled for and inappropriate for you to publish this article.
Pastor John Alspaugh
Grass Valley Church
Hi. Just a note to let you know that I did not appreciate a published bashing of Dr. Laura by Mark Carr in your Feb. issue. We all have a right to our opinions, but we don't have a right to publish bashing another person. Dr. Laura was one of the tools that God used to bring me to Him. What about those people now that really respect Mr. Carr's "opinion" and may have listened to Dr. Laura? God is perfectly capable of getting their attention other ways, but He should not have had to. His point of God changing our hearts was right on. But Dr. Laura didn't deserve to be bashed publicly. Her methods are tough, but she is limited on her time on the air. I highly respect her, thank you very much!
Lori Lynch
Via e-mail
Why is Mr. Mark Carr "bugged" by a person (Dr. Laura) who's heart and mind "desires" to love God and love her neighbor as herself? The heart of her message to people is to have the character, courage, and conscience to do the "right thing". Every time I've heard her she'd advise people to basically follow the Ten Commandments. She is given a short window of time to hopefully enlighten and shock listeners into doing the "right" thing. And has been valuable in helping to elevate the moral conscience in the world and at the very least has devoted her time to various charities and causes to benefit abused and neglected children. And remains on the forefront as an advocate for children.
I personally thank her for bringing attention to and honoring the role of mothers. And the importance and significance of family.
In my opinion, desiring to love God and loving God should be the goal. What comes first should not be the dilemma but that we get there. There are many of us who may not have had a desire to know God but by the words of the pastor, song of a singer, or kindness of a stranger (all through the Holy Spirit) desire to know Him. Action before Desire. Some of us may have desired to know God and deliberately go to church or read the Bible to know Him better. Desire before Action.
When we lack the desire and action of doing the right thing or loving God, Jesus still helps us in our behalf; "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak."
Before we spread opinions on another person (Dr. Laura) on paper don't we have the responsibility to give them the benefit of the doubt? Could we get our ethical question across without berating another?
Sheila A. Hodgkin
Redlands, Calif.
Dr. Laura Needs Criticizing
Other letter writers have taken Prof. Carr to task for allegedly “bashing” Dr. Laura. In my view, he did nothing of the sort. What he did do was criticize a brash public figure whose simplistic moralizing is in dire need of criticizing. Religious fundamentalists, including Seventh-day Adventists, too frequently view moral issues in unsupportable black-and-white terms, and justify their judgments with highly selective citations to the Bible.
Of all the lessons to be derived from the discoveries of psychology, sociology, post-Enlightenment philosophy and science, it is that normative judgments, the core activity of "ethics," are far from clear on most issues of dispute. We all condemn murder and theft — whether we believe in God, Allah, or that the universe is a godless, self-organizing entity. The moral issues that create controversy do not admit of the simplistic answers often given by Adventists — or by self-proclaimed moralists like Dr. Laura.
Prof. Carr usefully reminds us that the life of Jesus included dining with tax collectors and prostitutes, befriending Samaritans, and treating with non-judgmental kindness a host of others whose modern-day analogues wouldn't be welcomed into most Adventist congregations. Those who believe that Dr. Laura's ratings-oriented trash talk reflect praiseworthy religious values are reading the Gospels through a glass darkly.
Karl Kime
Los Angeles, Calif.
Tiny Tots
Your February cover picture was one-of-a-kind, unique and very cute. In youthful jargon, “Cool, man!” If the image is preserved by history-loving parents, these kids may become leaders, God-willing, in the next generation. That picture made my Sabbath especially beautiful!
Keith R. Mundt
Riverside, Calif.
