WILL THE REAL EXPERT PLEASE STAND UP?
I'm upset with how your "experts" answered the question regarding vaccines ("Ask the Doctors," Apr. 24, 2003). I am a registered nurse and have spent many hours studying the effects and preparations of vaccines. Too bad the doctors don't study for themselves instead of accepting standard practices. Vaccines in some cases may be needed, but today's children now get 33 doses of 10 different vaccines by the time they reach kindergarten. That's criminal--an assault on their developing immune systems.

Some vaccines do contain known carcinogens in small amounts that act as preservatives. These can harm the central nervous system. What do you think vaccines are made of, sterile water? Purified animal blood and pus are used as cultures for the desired organisms to grow. Has anyone noticed how so many children are sickly and how many are on drugs to control hyperactive behavior?

Mary Maki

WHAT IF . . . ?
It may redound to our benefit that the law of unintended consequences appears to have wormed its way into the fabric of Lael Caesar's article on the importance of the resurrection to the life of the Christian ("What If It Never Happened?" Apr. 24, 2003).

It is difficult to avoid the clear logic of his argument that a Christian faith that is based on the reality of the resurrection is rendered invalid and void absent the truth of the resurrection.

But what are we to make of his claim that "those who reject faith in Christ's resurrection live at the mercy of humanity's logic?" Just what is the problem with humanity's logic? And to whose logic is it being compared?

We often unintentionally give the impression that logic is a by-product of sin; a tool of the devil. As a result there are many among us who believe that logic has no place in matters of religion, failing to appreciate that logic is only a tool that enables us to develop and disseminate ideas. Whether we apply logic formally or informally, without it human progress would be stunted. However, the value of logic rests not in the conclusions it enables us to draw but in the transparency it provides by allowing us to test new ideas to determine whether they can withstand the cold, harsh glare of reality.

Secondly, it is true that the disciples on the road to Emmaus were limited by human understanding, but this was not a flaw on their part. These were not skeptics or followers of little faith. Christ had given them the promise of His resurrection but their concern was not a failing of human understanding. I find no difference between their condition and twenty-first century Christians who, in the face of the divine promise that God will not forsake His own, fall to their knees asking for divine aid. Are we faithless because our faith leads us to God?

Finally, Dr. Caesar contrasts between "the master of logic and imagination," and "the God of biblical revelation." Is there truly a difference between the two? I seem to recall that in the etymology of the word "logic" resides a word with tremendous meaning for the Christians: logos. Jesus is the logos. He is the Master of Logic, and one look at the immensity and variety of His creation suggests He is also the Master of imagination. Revelation does not negate the need for logic and imagination. They all come from the same Source. If the truth be told, we often miss the revealed truth because we have no imagination or are flawed in our logic.

I accept Christ's resurrection by faith, not because it does not fit the demands of logic, but because I was not a witness to it. The disciples did not have to accept the resurrection by faith because they witnessed the risen Christ. Faith does not mean the absence of evidence; only that the one exercising faith did not observe the event. There is logic to the resurrection; both Christ's and mine.

Darius A. Lecointe
Centerville, Ohio

SINCE YOU ASKED
I am disappointed to see that you have "no love for Saddam Hussein" ("Since You Asked," May, 2003). On a personal level you are letting your personal politics override the Christianity that Christ taught (Matt. 5:43-48). On a public level you are misrepresenting what the Seventh-day Adventist church is about. Even the reasons you gave for the Adventist Review not taking a strong stand supporting the war in Iraq, though valid, were political rather than biblical ones.

The column by Angel Manuel Rodríguez ("Christians and War," Apr. 10, 2003) was biblical and balanced and more reflective of the teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and could have been a useful reference in responding to the questioner.

Adventist church periodicals, whose target audience is international, reflect more the realities of American life. For some Adventists this has led to a cynical rejection of the relevance and the role of the Adventist Review for them as church members and Christians. Unfortunately, I have difficulty in rebutting that position because many of their observations are valid. Maybe a balance could be sought. I remain supportive of the Adventist Review and believe in its potential for binding together a world-wide church and for being a catalyst for spiritual progress.

I'm sorry that my first letter to the Adventist Review is in the form of a reprimand, but my prayer is that the Holy Spirit will use the sharing of these concerns for the advancement of God's kingdom.

Gloria Brown Wright

FRIEND AND SAVIOR
I wish to affirm the Adventist Review for the inspiring, refreshing, and balanced article by Juan Prestol ("A Friend or Just a Business Acquaintance," April, 2003). It was clear, direct, and thought-provoking. His emphasis on the need to know God in a personal way cannot be overemphasized. Ellen White wrote: "Nothing is more needed in our work than the practical results of communion with God . . . This will impart to the worker a power that nothing else can give" (The Ministry of Healing, p. 512).

Having served in administration for a number of years, and now as a local church pastor, I can testify to the veracity of the thoughts presented. Knowing Jesus as our personal Friend and Savior is the most important experience in life. Nothing can compare to the joy, blessing, and power of having an intimate, personal relationship with Him.

Pete Geli
Santa Barbara, California

THE BIBLE ONLY?
I was disturbed by Athal Tolhurst's devotional, "Father, Into Your Hands" (Apr. 10, 2003). It was fine until it began the section "Jesus Did Not Know!" in which the author asserts that Jesus "couldn't see through the portals of the tomb." I don't see why this thought is so pervasive in the Seventh-day Adventist Church when it is quite unbiblical. Jesus told others about his resurrection. He told one of the criminals crucified with him, "You will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43).

The next section, entitled, "Who Killed Him?" also fails to heed to what the Bible says. Tolhurst says: "As Adventists, we know that before the Jews got their hands on Him, Jesus had fallen dying to the ground in the Garden of Gethsemane." The Bible does not say anything about Jesus dying in the garden. So if such a fact is not in the Bible, how is it that Adventists know this piece of information? Did God let us down with the biblical accounts that they need to be supplemented nearly 1,800 years after the fact?

But it does not end there. The author tells us: "Then who was it that killed my Lord? I know who it was. I did. And you did. The Bible tells us that He died of a broken heart. We all killed Him." Obviously, the Bible does not tell us Jesus died of a broken heart. Nor does the reference to blood and water flowing from his side indicate any such thing. So why does the author not use his Bible and let it tell us who killed Jesus? In Acts 3 Peter addressed the men of Israel and said: "You killed the author of life" (verse 15). Five times in Acts the murder of Jesus is mentioned, and each time refers to the people there and then who did the act. In Acts 3:17 Peter says that he knows his brothers acted in ignorance. But we don't have to continue in ignorance.

All humanity has benefitted from the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. But certainly we who were not even born did not kill Him. The idea that our sins, though 1,900 years before even being committed, caused Jesus' heart to break is really a weak argument. It seems that instead of growing in our understanding of Christ we have fallen into a rut whereby we just repeat the same old story over and over again. Even worse, we say that the Bible says things it simply does not say. The story of God becoming man is mystical enough, we don't have to substitute mysticism for the love, forgiveness, and restoration that is Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Remember, the cross is used by the New Testament writers not as a stand-alone incident, but as a reflection of Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Would it be too much to ask the editors of the Review to consider the other explanations of why Christ died and what His death did for mankind?

Ron Corson
Clarkston, Washington

SHEPHERDS AND WOLVES
The article, "Unfaithful: When Shepherds Become Wolves" (Feb. 27, 2003), is very timely. It helped me understand the procedure that must take place whenever a situation like this occurs. We are dealing with the same issue at our church, and I can't describe the pain everyone is dealing with.

We were deceived by our pastor, who stood before us and told us about the situation. He left out parts of the story that showed his guilt. We all thought it was a big set up, but there were so many details we did not know about.

We found out he was guilty when a letter was circulated by a friend of the victim outlining details of the pastor's indiscretions. Then we found out that several members of the church knew about them but never came forward with the truth.

I trusted this man. I never imagined that he would do something like this to himself and his family. It will take our church a long time to recover. Please pray that we will stand firm in the Lord and keep our eyes on Him.

Christiana Stoner


I am outraged at how many have been sexually abused by pastors in this denomination. What a shameful thing. It is time to turn the problems of women over to women clergy. Men, in some cases, have proven that they cannot handle working with females. These young women need a trained pastor to work with them, not a well-meaning deaconess.

I hope the conference will soon realize this and start hiring more female clergy in response to this growing problem.

Sarah Walker
Southern Adventist University


I am baffled at the age of the sex offender in your "Dear Editor. . . The Flock Responds" (Apr. 24, 2003). Name Withheld (on p. 8) writes: "I was sexually abused by a well-respected Seventh-day Adventist minister when I was 10 years old. In fact he had led some of the song services when Ellen G. White spoke . . . I am now 54 years old."

Name Withheld was born in 1949. The abuse happened in 1959 by "a [still] well-respected Seventh-day Adventist minister [who] led some of the song services when Ellen G. White spoke"? Ellen White died in 1915. Do the math. This is the epitome of a "dirty [very] old man!"

Jafet

KUDOS FOR STATE U
You must take quite a bit of flak over the column, "Tales From State U." Well, from those of us who have more or less marginalized ourselves from our beloved church because of such beliefs and opinions as Ed Christian expresses, I'm stepping up with pom-poms and megaphone to let you know he has a cheering section.

Commendations also to those with the courage to publish such ideas. Those guardians of the barricades of egocentrism and tradition have plenty to read already. Please, please don't let them halt or taint this refreshing wind to the shadow church outside those barricades.

Susan Scoggins
Hagerstown, Maryland

NOT CRAZY
Just a few points about Duane Covrig's devotional, "Called Out, but Not Crazy" (Mar. 20, 2003).

In reference to the author's statement concerning an Australian Adventist couple who brought about the death of their child by extreme diet: as much as New Zealanders would love to keep the story this way, the truth should prevail. It happened in a north New Zealand town where a group of about 12 Adventists brought much embarrassment to their local church, not to mention the rest of the Adventist population in New Zealand. Australian Adventists may have also caught some of the public backlash.

His comments on "Elitism" and "An Unteachable Spirit" have probably had some effect on most of us somewhere along the line. I could hope we've grown through it.

Covrig's third section, "A Penchant for Conspiracy Theories," applies mainly to splinter groups. The danger here is that we fail to grow in an understanding of the apocalyptic books, from which we have much to learn.

With criticism unintended the application of Isa. 43:18,19 wasn't the intent of the text, which reads: "Remember ye not the former things. . . . Behold I will do a new thing . . . I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert." God is saying here: Forget how I led the Hebrews through the desert and sea to the promised land because when return I will create a far more grandiose way for you follow, so I may reveal to you my final act on earth, the resurrection of the dead (Isa. 40:3-5; 35:8-10; 55:12).

John Rothery
Auckland, New Zealand

WAR IN IRAQ
I'm stunned. In the editorial, "War and Peace in Iraq" (April, 2003), William Johnsson spent a lot of space writing about those who will die during the American liberation of Iraq. But your only mention of Saddam Hussein was that he tried to unify Iraq. No mention of his torture chambers, of gassing of his own people, of his persecution of so many, including Christians, some of whom were Seventh-day Adventists.

Using this logic, all Hitler tried to do was unify Europe. This kind of propaganda puts the Review on the level of the Iraqi Information Officer and Al Jazeera and insults all Iraqis.

Johnsson asked in his editorial, "Will the peace be safer or less safe than before?" Look at the joy on the faces of the liberated Iraqis and you have your answer. Where did you get the idea that Americans look at Iraqis as our "enemies"? It's certainly not the case in this area where we have the highest concentration of Iraqis outside Iraq, nor has it been noted elsewhere. Iraq's enemies were her leaders, enemies of freedom who enslaved the Iraqi people.

By propagating this falsehood you smeared all Americans. As the Review is a worldwide publication, it will further contribute to ill will toward the United States by people outside this country.

Will a post-Saddam Iraq be perfect? No. That won't happen until our Savior comes. But finally Iraqis will be free to worship God as they wish.

You cannot say that just because a handful of Seventh-day Adventists are allowed to worship in Iraq they have religious freedom. I worship every week with Iraqis who escaped to the United States because they were persecuted in Iraq. Perhaps you should have spoken with some of them before you wrote an editorial that essentially puts Saddam Hussein's Iraq on the same moral plane with the United States. You might also want to consider the incredible restraint used by our military, and compare that to Iraqi troops who used innocents as "human shields."

Peace is a noble goal. But it is a Christian's duty to do more than just pray for peace. If you saw a man raping a child, would you not do all in your power to stop him, including calling the police? We're only beginning to learn of the atrocities that occurred during Saddam Hussein's reign of terror. It is therefore unclear why the church thinks it is wrong for a country to defend and protect itself or its neighbor from the same by calling upon its ultimate police, the military. It's all a matter of semantics.

Using Jesus Christ as the example that we should not protect ourselves militarily is inaccurate. His mission was to die to save us that we might have life and have it more abundantly. Although Jesus' sacrifice should never be trivialized, the mission of the coalition was to do the same for the Iraqi people. Jesus also said, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends"--it maybe greater for a stranger (John 15:13).

As a people of the whole Bible, this analogy leaves out Old Testament examples: Israel was commanded by God to drive heathen nations from Canaan and destroy others who were beyond rehabilitation. And warrior David, a man of blood, was a man after God's own heart.

I agree that, as a publication that goes to Adventists in 200 countries, the Review should not take a strictly United States view of world events (a good number of the Review staff are immigrants to this country). But, neither should it ignore the United States viewpoint either. In a misguided attempt to be fair, you can also distort the truth and put evil on the same moral plane as those who are making the ultimate sacrifice to help their fellow humans.

Cheryl Kovalski
Northville, Michigan