PASTORAL REMUNERATION
Regarding Jan Paulsen's comments about pastoral remuneration ("In Times Like These," Apr., 2003): The gas station, the supermarket, and the clothing store do not recognize my sacrifice as a gospel worker. Food, clothes, gas, and everything else costs the same for me as it does for my members who, in the main, earn much more than I do.

The present salary for pastors is a disincentive to do full-time work. A large part of the pastoral workforce otherwise engaged than in the pastoral ministry do just the necessary things of life. When will the powers that be recognize that valuable time is being spent by gospel workers trying to make ends meet instead of trying to win souls?

Have they read Acts Of The Apostles and the prophet's advice on remuneration of workers? I think not. We have lost the services of some of the brightest and best minds because they knew they could hardly survive on the present pay package. And I dare say that before it's over we will lose more.

After almost 34 yrs of faithful, sacrificial service I have little to show for it; and I wonder what will take me into my retirement years. Don't tell me that God will provide. I know, and He has, but the church has not provided me a living wage.

S. Peter Campbell
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

LABOR UNIONS
Gerald Colvin's article, "Another Look at Labor Unions" (Mar. 27, 2003), offers some accurate, needful insights into the relationship of Seventh-day Adventists to labor unions, while at the same time suggesting an approach to Ellen White's counsel that could easily produce misunderstanding.

From my own study of Mrs. White's counsel on this subject, I have long been persuaded that the condemnation of labor unions and confederacies found in her writings extends across the labor-management spectrum, and in no way singles out labor as the particular focus of concern. Bill Knott's sidebar, "A Wider View," correctly notes this fact. White's warning, not only against membership in labor unions, but also against business partnerships with unbelievers (Counsels on Stewardship, p. 38), also underscores this point.

In reality, White's warnings on this subject are merely an extension of the principle found in 2 Cor. 6:14: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers." Often this verse is quoted exclusively with regard to marriage, but in fact marriage is only one area to which this principle applies. To acknowledge the undeniably good things accomplished by labor unions no more invalidates White's counsel against joining them than does the fact that persons not of our faith, who have a genuine Christian experience, nevertheless remain out of bounds for Adventists as possible marriage partners due to fundamental differences in faith and lifestyle (see Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 364).

Where Colvin runs into trouble is with his suggestion that White's counsel against union membership might have been a conditional prophecy, no longer applicable to our day. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the principle of conditional prophecy. In the Bible, the conditionality of prophecy is solely concerned with the spiritual response of those to whom God's warnings are addressed. It is not dependent upon social or circumstantial conditions that might seem to make a prediction more likely at one time than another.

For example, Jonah's prophecy that Nineveh would be overthrown in 40 days had nothing to do with whether a military power then existed that was strong enough to do this, any more than Noah's prophecy of a coming flood had to do with the perceived scientific plausibility of such an event.

It should also be noted that while labor union membership has indeed declined in recent years, the percentage of unionized workers when White first wrote her warnings was even more minuscule, and in most cases nonexistent. And nowhere in her predictions did she ever claim that at the end of time union members will constitute either a majority or a substantial portion of the work force. She simply identified these unions--along with the confederacies which clearly include business combinations--as one of the agencies that will bring about the end-time crisis.

Kevin D. Paulson
New York, New York

Another angle on unions was not addressed in the article by Gerald Colvin.

I am employed by Kaiser Permanente, a large Health Maintenance Organization that also runs its own medical centers and clinics. All nursing positions (except management) are union "eligible," meaning mandatory or "closed shop." The particular union is the California Nurses Association (CNA), which is a large and powerful organization.

While the goal of providing a better work place and benefits for the nurses is laudable and leaves little to object to, the other functions of the union raise some problems. The CNA is very politically active and not only takes strong positions on political issues, but takes strong action in promoting and supporting the issues and politicians allied with those positions. Many thousands of dollars, directly from dues paid by members, go to support positions and persons that may be in direct opposition to my beliefs as a Christian. Since the union does not allow members to have any control over where their dues are used, by paying dues members may be directly financing a political campaign or ballot issue that is in direct conflict with their religious beliefs.

Since very few unions are only there for advocating labor/management relations, dealing with the issue of politics and values is a real concern.

Brian Holland, R.N.
Angwin, California

In the article, "Another Look at Labor Unions," the author wrote, "It is at least possible that Ellen White's labor union forecast was conditional prophecy, and that changing times and social attitudes could make it less applicable to our era."

I ask the question: Has the devil given up on labor unions? My answer is no. It is just "'Welcome,' said the spider to the fly" tactics.

Just as the papacy cannot change its stripes, neither can unions. The papacy is doing a "great" job in ecumenical matters and is even gathering our church under its wings. In describing Christians outside its fellowship, it has altered the word "heresy" to "separated brethren," but it still feels the same way about them. It has apologized for the killings in the Dark Ages, but in the next sentence says that it was necessary to preserve the "faith," and continues to say that, if necessary, it will do so again.

So, too, with unions; it is still the same force or power driving the unions, with the same goal. Trust God, not humans.

Heiki Henrichsen
Norway

Two things come to mind as I read this article. One: He has no knowledge of how the unions work. And secondly, perhaps someone in the author's family is involved in a union and seeks to justify his or her affiliation with it. Labor unions exist to make money and they will use any modus operandi to justify their existence.

I was a member of a union some years ago that represented bus drivers. All the union did was bad-mouth the company and file grievance after grievance, just to make life hard for the company. At one company I worked for, the union wanted too much of a raise; and when the contract expired, it was not renewed. Forty people lost their jobs and the new company that took over started with a lower wage.

My parents worked for General Electric in the 1960s when there was a big strike. When the union fund for striking workers dried up, the union didn't lift a finger to help the striking workers. They had collected millions of dollars from the rank and file, and the union bosses pocketed the money.

Most unions lean toward the socialist viewpoint and deny God. The unions want an equal distribution of the wealth, but as I recall, so did Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao.

Can we Adventists go along with such behavior? I think Dr. Colvin needs to do a little more research into labor unions before he writes any more about them. The devil always paints things in a good light, but underneath it's the same old thing.

Stuart Dixon

KNOWLEDGE AND FAITH
I have occasionally objected to Clifford Goldstein, but I have always believed him to be a Christian; at least a believer in the the God of the Judeo-Christian ethic.

So I was a bit surprised to read the first paragraph of his column, "The Problem of Knowledge" (Mar. 27, 2003). After quoting Fish from Harper's, Mr. Goldstein asserted, "As an Adventist who believes that our message is true and universal (see Rev. 14:6, 7) and yet can't necessarily 'demonstrate its truth to all rational persons,' I love Fish's quote because it affirms a thought that's been flagellating my frontal lobe for decades: I can believe what I can't always prove, a helpful concept for someone whose worldview is founded, at the bottom, not upon equations, formulas, axioms, and laws, but upon that most wistful (yet powerful) force among fallen creatures, and that's faith."

Excuse me, I am forced to exclaim. Where does Goldstein believe all the "equations, formulas, axioms, and laws," came from? Neither Lucifer nor humanity has derived one of the equations, formulas, axioms, and laws that define the operation of the universe. Faith is not a "religious" concept in the sense that we define faith. Anyone who depends on any institution, system, or paradigm that reflects a certain degree of reliability, is exercising faith.

Western musicians compose music based on their faith that the scale is the same today as it was yesterday. Scientists explore the universe on the basis of their faith that the laws that operated "millions" of years ago continue to operate today. Let's not forget that when Hubble captures light from a distant galaxy, it is observing the operation of God's universal laws in a sinless environment. This must be true if we really believe that this earth is the only blight on the face of God's pristine universe.

I don't know about Goldstein; but my worldview, which I thought was at least closely related to his, is founded, at the bottom, upon powerful equations, powerful formulas, powerful axioms, and powerful laws that were put into place when God created this vast universe. More importantly, these equations, formulas, axioms, and laws continue to be maintained by God; and humankind has only scratched the surface of their operations.

Care to think this again, Mr. Goldstein?

Darius A. Lecointe, J.D., Ph.D.
Centerville, Ohio

Western philosophy is an intellectual cul-de-sac. As one perceptive observer noted, "Philosophy is its own first problem." It is surprising then to find Clifford Goldstein, who gives evidence that he understands the self-contradiction of rationalism, posing philosophical questions in relation to knowledge that have never been answered satisfactorily by philosophers. If philosophy cannot provide coherent answers to these questions, what point is there in asking them philosophically?

Reason is a tool of our commitments (Luke 5:22). Therefore, the possibility of true knowledge is dependent upon a form of revelation that is consistent with reasoned enquiry, but which always remains superior to it. We find this form of revelation in the Bible (Isaiah 55:8, 9, cf. Isaiah 1:18). The knowledge that flows from it, including that gained experientially, is reliable. That's why we are told that life eternal is to know the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom He sent (John 17:3). As Ellen White wrote, "We could not rejoice in and praise a being of whom we had no certain knowledge" (Review and Herald, Mar. 9, 1897).

We may not be able to convince the willingly ignorant (2 Pet. 3:5), but that does not in any way diminish the knowledge that has been entrusted to us, or our obligation to assert confidently its truthfulness.

Barry R. Harker, Ph.D.
Flaxton, Queensland

I believe that Goldstein's concern that we can't "know truth," but that we can only believe it, totally misses the important point. To believe anything without adequate evidence is not faith but folly. Belief without adequate evidence can be a sure recipe for disaster.

Ellen White wrote, "God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. His existence, His character, the truthfulness of His Word, are all established by testimony that appeals to our reason; and this testimony is abundant" (Steps to Christ, p. 105).

Richard B Hanson
Milford, New Hampshire

BALANCE
Jennifer Jill Schwirzer had some important things to say in her article, "I'm Judgmental" (Mar. 20, 2003).

We've become awash with sentimentalism. In too many church board meetings we ignore the broad picture of sin and how it cost the life of our dear Savior, while concentrating on the picture of forgiveness.

Dorothy Kromrei