GOLDSTEIN AND THE HOLY OF HOLIES
While Clifford Goldstein's defense of the investigative judgment is admirable and should be commended (Graffiti in the Holy of Holies), he attacks what he calls "a perfectionistic, anti-gospel theology" being attacked by Dale Ratzlaff. The truth is on Goldstein's side, not on Ratzlaff's, but not the entire truth.

It takes genuine faith not only to believe in being justified through faith based on Christ's sacrifice at the cross and His current ministry in the most holy place, but also in a future state of perfection. Not only paying lip-service to claiming perfection when putting on Christ's white robe of righteousness but also being truly overcomers to every defect of character.

Perfection is attainable (through human efforts this is unattainable), but only through faith in Christ alone. That's one of the many aspects of the gospel.

We can be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect only if we fully grasp the reality that Christ can make us perfect. It takes greater faith to accept the reality that Christ can make us perfect--overcoming every defect of character--than believing what Christ has done for us in the past at the cross. Christ saves us from our sins, not in our sins.

Rejecting the reality of achieving a perfect and sinless state of existence just prior to Christ's coming is to reject Christ's power. After all, isn't the gospel the power of God to save through Christ?

If we accept both Goldstein's defense of the investigative judgment with the rejection of being made perfect by Christ, through Christ, in Christ, we reject Christ's saving power.

As individuals, it's up to us to study God's Word and cling solely to Christ and His teachings alone. While Goldstein has done a good job, it is incomplete and, ultimately, disastrous to the true disciples of Christ.

Let Christ be our all in all, yesterday, today, and tomorrow--to save us from the condemnation, guilt, power, and effects of sin. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins [justified], and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness [sanctified]" (1 John 1:9).

"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches" (Rev. 3:12,13).

No name

Goldstein's article ignores three important points:

1. The 1844 date can not be supported from Scripture.
2. None of his arguments about the judgement require a long period of time between the close of probation and the second coming.
3. Nowhere does the Bible clearly teach a period where humans can be alive but their judgement is complete.

These are the fundamental points that the Seventh-day Adventist Church needs to seriously consider retracting, not the general concept of a pre-execution judgement; obviously, there has to be one. What is not obvious is that it needs to go on for 160 plus years, or that there is a spiritually significant period between its commencement and the return of Jesus.

Also, if as Goldstein agrees, a significant number of the Adventist pulpits, members, and (presumably) literature has the issue badly wrong, how did it get that way? How can he criticize someone for disagreeing with what the church actually preaches if the Adventist church itself disagrees with what its members believe, preach, and teach?

Lastly, Goldstein ignores how far Ellen White's own views on the matter changed from her early years when she was a legalist believing in the Shut Door concept, to her later life when she emphasized God's love and power.

Bevin Brett
Nashua, New Hampshire

I recognize that this is an excerpt, but I was totally lost by continued references to "Brother Dale" and whatever book he wrote that Goldstein was responding to. My thought was, Who in the world is Brother Dale?

It wasn't until I got to the endnotes that I found any reference to Dale Ratzlaff and his book. I did some further looking at the article and noticed that none of the endnotes actually had their respective indicators in the article. I assume this is an unusual occurrence on the part of the Adventist Review, but I thought I would bring it to your attention, so that you might correct that situation and prevent others from having the same type of confusion I experienced.

Ken Graham

KILLING AND MURDER
Regarding "Is Killing Murder?" (Dec. 11, 2003): Murder is a crime. In certain situations authorized killing (war) and legalized killing (capital punishment) are not crimes, but difficult ethical decisions made by leaders in society on behalf of its larger interests. Those who carry out such directives must ascertain whether the specific order to kill actually has a sufficient mandate to follow the order, or risk imprisonment or death because of an act of civil disobedience. Though the person killed is just as dead, not all killing is murder.

Ted Toms

ANOTHER VIEW OF AMERICA
Mark Kellner's article about America ("America: Another View," Dec. 2003) was a reminder to every Christian--especially those interested in last day events--about why God raised up this great country. Notwithstanding our understanding of prophecy and what the future holds, Kellner provides a compelling argument for why Adventists can continue to be proud of this land and the traditional Judeo/Christian values upon which it was founded.

Ellen White called William Miller an "American Reformer," and as I read Kellner's article, I was continually reminded of this. One ideology in this struggle, the "elite intelligencia," mocks those who still believe in a loving God, who take their children to church, who use the Bible as the source of the principles that guide their lives, who teach personal accountability and responsibility for one's own actions and decisions, and who are not afraid to call sin and immoral behavior by its proper name.

After reading Kellner's article I was reminded of how blessed I am to know the differences and appreciate our history. God help those who don't.

George Martinet
Anaheim, California

I heartily congratulate Mark A. Kellner for his wonderful article.

In the last half year I have been facing the temptation of not being an Adventist anymore because of the unwarranted America bashing I've experienced from Adventist leaders--and I'm a seminarian at Andrews University! Even Adventist Today has joined the bashing, with its editor, John McLarty, railing against the "American empire."

I am not ashamed to love my country, and I don't put stock in propaganda from people who consistently exaggerate and tell downright lies.

I have walked out of at least two sermons since spring, and have longed to walk out of many classes where slander against our president and our country's intentions was put forward as the Advent message. If that is our message I want nothing to do with it.

It's about time someone made it known that Adventism does not equal anti-Americanism.

Dennis Berlin
Berrien Springs, Michigan

I appreciated the article "America: Another View" by Mark Kellner. My perception is that lately many articles in the Review have had more of a socio-political-economic viewpoint rather than primarily religious content. Issues of a religious nature should be discussed without promoting a specific national or socio-political-economic viewpoint.

Some seem to feel free to bash America because there exists a traditional Adventist view that America will one day "speak like a dragon." The apostle Paul obviously understood that Rome was likely one of the beasts described in Daniel 2, yet Paul did not castigate, Rome but rather appealed to Rome against his religious accusers. Likewise God uses kingdoms, at least at times, to accomplish His purposes. Only when an event comes to fruition can we clearly know how to apply proper prophetic understanding. Perhaps it is wise to wait and decrease the accusations, fears, and bashing.

I suggest that the Review refrain from any political-social-economic agendas unless they are able to show explicitly how something applies only to America, rather than the historic shortcomings of all nations. The United States is not perfect, but it has a tremendous track record of religious liberty and opportunity for all.

Let each have the privilege of loving their own nation, but let's not spend time alienating each other by our own political-social-economic views, which frequently cannot be explicitly shown and applied from Scripture. Rather, can we all agree that first one must "seek first his kingdom" and "all these things will be given . . . as well" (Matt. 5:48)? Do not the pagans first seek the material things of this earth rather than the kingdom of heaven? Our mutually agreeable message must be, "Ye must be born again" (John 3:7) and that is accomplished only in the person of Christ.

Chaplain Pat Travis
Oviedo, Florida

GENERAL THANKS
In response to the December, 2003 Adventist Review: I was moved by all the articles and thankful for the job well done from staff and writers. The article, "He Plunged Himself Into Our Mess," was truly inspired. I wept with gratitude for our wonderful triune God as I read it. Especially, the sections on "never too wretched for God" and "willpower won't work." So many times the articles appear just as I need inspiration and encouragement on a given subject--the Holy Spirit knows what I need. Praise His name.

M. Malmstrom
Homosassa, Florida

SADNESS ON GLASS
We read with sadness "Wall of Glass" (Nov. 27, 2003). Jack Harris seems to have missed a major reason for his college education. He expresses freely his view of time "wasted" on both algebra and Greek, saying those courses served no practical purpose. Apparently the only courses he would have chosen were those that appeared immediately useful. This is not uncommon, but that does not diminish its danger.

None of us likes to be pushed out of our "comfort zone." New and different ideas, seemingly unrelated to our immediate goals, are easily dismissed. But it is precisely the broadening experience of those ideas that make us interesting; able to function in a complex world and communicate intelligently and effectively with those around us. A narrow education misses all that.

It's too bad the editors let those sentences stand. They echo sentiments found in the article, "My Quarrel With Mathematics," by Gary Swanson (Feb. 24, 2000), and express a myopic view that has no place in an official Seventh-day Adventist publication. We thought the Adventist church placed great value on education (not just training).

Anthony Aaby, Jon Duncan, Jim Klein, Ward Soper, Tom Thompson, Ken Wiggins

A MONEY THING
In reference to "Entering the Lean Years" (Nov. 20, 2003): There was a time when Adventists did not lay up their treasures on earth "where moth and rust destroy, and thieves break in and steal" (Matt. 6:19, NIV). The report is that corporate and stock market thieves did break in and steal.

Before the church started investing in the stock market, most Adventists paid tithe. To fail to tithe was to rob God--unthinkable. To short the stock market has seemed a little more tolerable. The percentage of tithe-paying has decreased dramatically.

The purpose of investing reserve funds is to protect against losses that do not affect the general economy. What a company loses in a bad year may be made up in profits from some investments. But in a church the main asset is members. Seventh-day Adventists cover the whole spectrum of the economy. Therefore the best investment is not in stocks, but members. What stock investment can beat an increase of generous members who continue to give for a lifetime?

Had we had stock investments in 1929, what good would they have been? In 1932 the under-treasurer of the General Conference was instructed by the Lord to lay aside funds in a safe at the General Conference and send three months' worth of funds to each overseas division the day before the bank holiday that closed all U.S. banks for three months, freezing everybody's funds.

Of what use is a reserve if not to meet a critical need? Why not make a massive appropriation to the 10/40 window, then spend enough on increasing North America's membership to make up the difference. What an inspiration this would be to the membership to enter into bold giving.

I know that certain funds are required by law to be backed by investments. But should those investments represent ownership of stock shares in companies that are not ethical for a Christian organization to own? What about something like federal government securities--not the biggest return, but ethical. And what is a church for if not to be an example in ethics?

Frank Lang
Sutherlin Oregon

SIMPLE CELLS
The argument from design cited in Deryl Corbit's article, "The Simple Cell?" (Nov. 20, 2003), is, I suspect, compelling for Adventists on all sides of the current origins dialogue. However, the design argument only addresses the Who of creation, not the how nor the when.

I was thus disappointed by the author's conclusion, in which he seems to imply an eagerness to doubt among those who question our traditional position. To the contrary, these "educators and other church members" are often greatly troubled by their conclusions, having been driven, almost unwillingly, by their understanding of the scientific evidence.

Instead of impugning their loyalty, could we at least acknowledge that our historic understanding and the best available science appear to be in conflict?

Mark Haun
Pleasantville, New York