Defining Marriage
The articles "Biblical Marriage" and "Marriage under Siege" (Oct. 2003) show a profound lack of knowledge about the subject. I know these are "official" views, but I disagree with these interpretations and continuing degradation of gays in the average Adventist estimation. The verses William Johnsson quoted could be used for either orientation but are understood among the gay community as heterosexuals going against their nature.

The article "Marriage Under Siege" was even more degrading, using the old, "If homosexuality is allowed, why not incest or polygamy?" argument. I agree that marriage needs to be defined, but the Old Testament reveals that things we now disapprove were allowed to continue. In the New Testament the definition is clear: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge" (Heb. 13:4). Incest is clearly condemned in 1 Corinthians 5:1, and polygamy in 1 Timothy 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6. Otherwise Paul wrote: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth" (1 Tim. 4:1-3).

Thomas Straub
McAlisterville, Pennsylvania


Praise God for the words, wisdom, and stand of Roy Adams on the subject of marriage under siege. Increasingly I have watched with dismay, shock, and disbelief the position of numerous of our members on issues that I thought to be fundamental to our church: spiritualism (Harry Potter), evolution (Seventh-day Darwinians), etc. Were it not for men who are as true to duty as the needle is to the pole, such as Roy Adams and Clifford Goldstein, I would have been tempted to wonder if this is the same Adventist church I have been part of since my mother was seven months pregnant with me. I am now nearly 49.

This is the time spoken of in prophecy where we weep and cry because of the abominations in the church. For a time I am rejoicing and not weeping.

Sheila Davis
Jackson, Mississippi


Marriage under siege? The only threat to marriage has always been divorce. Nothing else threatens the integrity of marriage like divorce does. I wish the Review had displayed the requisite courage to speak on behalf of marriage when delegates at the General Conference Session in Toronto strengthened the siege against marriage by carving out an exception for "unbelieving spouses." It's bad enough that we have blindly followed other Christian theologians in interpreting Jesus' definition of adultery as a doctrinal statement and the basis for undoing marriage, the only symbol of the union between Christ and His church.

Gay marriage does not threaten marriage. It strengthens it, for it is a sign that gays believe marriage is the only legitimate relationship in which intimate love can be expressed. Their ideas on love may be flawed, but not their views on marriage. I'll be truly concerned about marriage when gays claim arbitrary grounds for divorce.

Darius A. Lecointe
Leesburg, Virginia


Thank you for addressing the gay issue, and the Seventh-day Adventist stance on it. My closest and dearest friend (who claims to be a Seventh-day Adventist) recently declared herself gay and is openly living that life. I am wrestling with this issue now as never before. I was pleased to see the articles clearly state that I can love my friend while not justifying her lifestyle.

However this relationship poses some ticklish questions for us as my young sons are best friends with my friend's child. We find ourselves interacting with this gay couple a great deal and I wonder how I'm going to handle the inevitable questions when my boys realize there is a "difference." I don't know how to guide my teenage daughter who has always looked up to my highly motivated and successful friend as a mentor.

I find myself very confused; torn between love for my friend and the clearly stated principles of the Bible. The articles in the Review were bold, comforting, and yet sensitive. Thank you!

Mindy MacKenzie

Art About Jesus
Thank you for such a wonderful gallery of heart-rending works of art ("Art for Jesus' Sake," Oct. 2003). I am still in awe and continue to ponder the messages depicted.

However, I am disappointed that there was one thing missing: the beautiful stained glass windows in the Oakwood College Church sanctuary in Huntsville, Alabama. Here, the vaulted windows marvelously display select biblical stories spanning creation to the Second Coming. There are six to eight such panels that come alive with authenticity. What a pity you did not share this with the Adventist Review readers. In the future, please give Oakwood College an opportunity to be part of such projects.

Sonia Paul
Huntsville, Alabama


All Adventist colleges in North America, and many of its health care institutions, were contacted about providing photographs of the art on their campuses. Not all of them responded.

Faith and Science Conference
Thank you for the well-written and calm report on this important conference ("Theologians, Scientists Discuss Vital Issues," Oct. 2003). It's nice to see the emphasis on tolerance and mutual understanding between Seventh-day Adventists with widely varying views of this issue.

This is an important, yet difficult, area for the Seventh-day Adventist Church to address, and the General Conference is to be commended for its careful but steady progress in the area. The Adventist Review is also to be commended for not ignoring the issue, and for providing a forum for voices with divergent views.

Bevin Brett
New Hampshire

Financial Mismanagement
I am very disappointed that the Adventist Review website reprinted the Washington Post story regarding the Dupont Park Seventh-day Adventist Church in Washington, D.C. I have been a Seventh-day Adventist all my life and have witnessed other situations where money has been misappropriated. I do not recall (although it may have) the Adventist Review printing a story and revealing names that invade a person's privacy and that of his or her family.

Yes, our church needs to be cognizant of errors that have taken place, and we need to put policies and procedures in place to prevent the reoccurrence of such errors. However, the Adventist Review should be more tactful in the way it presents these errors to the world church.

I hope the decision to make Dupont Park Church an example was done after much prayer that this was the right way to handle the situation. I also hope that when these types of negative situations occur, that the Adventist Review remains objective when making a decision to highlight the misdeed to the world church.

Clover Williams

Thoughts on Worship
"Can Joy and Reverence Coexist?" (Sept. 11, 2003) is a question the church needs to continue exploring. It was gratifying to hear the author espousing the use of the Bible as the answer to the question. We have a vast store of knowledge in the Bible and Ellen White's counsels; and we do not need to turn to others for answers about how to relate to God. God has given us answers and looks forward to our using the information He's given.

The answer to the question in the title is found in the picture of a small child bouncing along with Grandpa, engulfed in love for the adult and totally enthralled with the moment. Or in the article, "Private Moment, Public Witness," where God was so evident and precious that song was evoked without thought, and worship was offered in response to the awareness of God's presence.

Lyndon W. Ernst
Nice, California

Searching . . .
In the Adventist Review special issue, "Searching . . ." (Sept. 2003), Don C. Schneider wrote: "As one of the leaders of the church in North America, I'm responsible for what happens in our churches and schools. And since it is my responsibility to see that things are done right before God, and make them valuable for you, it falls to me to apologize when we don't live up to people's expectations."

If that is true, and if my understanding of our Seventh-day Adventist theology is correct, then it seems to me that God, as the Leader of the church Universal (Who also has foreknowledge and omniscience), would likewise be responsible for the sins of Satan and the fallen angels. Therefore God would need to apologize to us for not living up to our expectations in allowing the sin problem. I think Schneider went too far in his attempt to bring about reconciliation.

Rick Wilmot
Lodi, CA


I finished reading the Review special "Searching . . . ." This was meant for people who left the church. But many of the ideas from the authors apply to those of us who have been church members for 50 years or more. It is a help to know what caused others to leave so that we don't repeat some of the same problems.

Reading the stories about people who left the church and came back was inspiring. We could say, "If only they had . . . ," but praise God, they came back. May each of us follow the good ideas presented so that we are not the cause of someone leaving. Our Father is a loving Father! May we be more like Him.

Art Miles
Apison, Tennessee