DEBATING DOCTRINE
Roy Adam's editorial, "Don't Knock It" (Mar. 25, 2004), reminded me of the famous quotation from Shakespeare, "That which we call a rose, by any other name would be just a sweet." The editorial subtly changed that to, "If it is called a rose, it must be a rose." The latter we know is not true.

When someone says, "People need to hear Christ preached to them, not doctrines," the individual is not launching a blanket bombing raid against doctrinal teaching, but is expressing frustration at the tendency to establish litmus tests based on unique teachings that may or may not have anything to do with allegiance to Jesus Christ.

At one time we held to the doctrine of the "Shut Door," discarding it when its flaws surfaced. The appendage of the name "doctrine" to a teaching does not automatically reflect its validity; and a defense of doctrinal teaching does not mean we have successfully defended the "doctrine" in question. If that were the case, we would have no authority to challenge anything taught as doctrine by any community of faith, nor would we have been justified in jettisoning the Shut Door doctrine.

Darius A. Lecointe
Leesburg, Virginia

In response to the question, "Why do we want people to explain the 2300 days before they can become Seventh-day Adventists?", Roy Adams goes to great length to miss the point of the question.

Does the church really require us to explain the 2300 days before we can become Seventh-day Adventists?

My mother has been a faithful Seventh-day Adventist since the 1930's. She can never explain the 2300 days. Does that mean that she cannot claim to be a Seventh-day Adventist?

I have studied the 2300 days and fully believe the point of the prophecy. But I cannot, without a written copy of the details, "explain" the 2300 days.

I was personally impressed by details in the study of the 2300 day prophecy that led me to get the whole picture. Now I cannot remember many of the details and cannot clearly explain them, but I am still impressed by the whole picture. Jesus said, "I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe" (John 14:29, NIV).

Our best approach is to remember that prophecy is not intended to enable us to predict the future; it is to lead us to believe in the God who prophesied. That's the big picture.

Don't answer a bad question with a bad answer.

Caesar Nawalkowski
Ponoka, Alberta

I just read Roy Adams editorial about preaching "doctrine versus Jesus." What some may not understand is that doctrine makes us unique in the Christian world. If it weren't for our doctrines, we would be other like some other churches that know Saturday is the Sabbath and that death is a sleep.

The 2300 days has the message that Jesus was exactly on time and that the heavenly sanctuary has to be cleansed; it's the point I want to communicate to other "born again" Christians. The Baptists preach Christ, but they don't know about the judgment or the heavenly sanctuary. They don't know that God requires us to keep His Sabbath holy or that it's important to know where our dead ones are. It's also important for us to have the "lesser light" and the insight God gave her on the "greater light."

I'm surprised that Adams bothered our family members on this. It sounds like they don't understand why it's important to be Adventists.

B. J. Gheen

I am comforted by reading Roy Adams' rebuttal to the attack against "doctrine" within our ranks.

What this movement needs today more than ever is more "meat" and less "milk," more solid doctrinal teaching, and less sentimentalism.

Since doctrine means teachings, can anyone truly identify and accept the true Christ without embracing His marvelous teachings throughout Scripture?

Along with Roy Adams, I joined and remain in the Seventh-day Adventist movement only because of Jesus and His beautiful doctrines. I remain confident Jesus is the Messiah because He came on time. He uniquely and perfectly fulfilled the time prophecies of Daniel 8 and 9.

It's powerful, saving, life-changing, and loving doctrine the world is waiting to hear.

Ron Myers
Archamps, France

SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE
I felt sad that Stephen Chavez thinks "science" is not always kind to believers, likening John Harvey Kellogg's personal ideology as science, for example ("Validation," Mar. 18, 2004).

Chavez's blind faith is commendable if there were no scientific facts that fit the Bible and its stories; but facts showing the hand of God are all around. It is the mindset of the interpreter as to how the facts are taken, i.e. the Grand Canyon-a long time and a little water, or a lot of water in a short time.

Evolutionists have come up with some pretty silly things to back up their philosophies; they want to be right so badly. In the Scopes Trial the tooth of an "extinct" pig was their "proof" of evolution. Some evolutionists even admit their theories are impossible, but the alternative of accepting special creation is unthinkable. Just because evolutionists have hijacked science doesn't mean we have to be bullied. The more scientists learn, the more creationists are validated. (We shouldn't bully evolutionists, either.)

Our Sabbath school class has been watching creation science videos for more than three years. It is important to study God's second book. The church has lost many young people because they can't reconcile evolution to the Bible.

A new, professionally-produced video series, The Seventh Day, produced by Adventists, is available from Amazing Facts. Part one deals with creation versus evolution. They are narrated by Hal Holbrook, and are great to share with friends.

Paula Nixon
Auburn, California

MORE ABOUT POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE
The Association of Adventist Colleges and Universities mentioned in Richard Osborn's article, "Less Pomp and More Circumstance" (Mar. 2004), is a good start. But I suggest we need to go further. We need to work toward an Adventist University of North America (and perhaps, in the more distant future, a global university), for which all of our present colleges and universities will be campuses.

Each will have its own specialty areas, as they do now, and all will share in fully interchangeable general education curricula at the undergraduate level. There will also be some regional specifics, such as teacher education programs. This will foster cooperation rather than competition, increase student choice and flexibility, establish somewhat more uniform policies, and reduce administrative overhead and costs. More could be said to eulogize the concept, but perhaps this brief suggestion will start some thinking about the possibilities.

Gerald Reynolds
Fresno, California

I was glad to see the article, "Less Pomp and More Circumstance" (Mar. 2004). It has puzzled me for some years that we seem to like the various attires and symbols of medieval education and use of them as often as we can find a good opportunity.

Don't misunderstand: I hold a graduate degree. And I have worn the appropriate gown and cap at graduations. Maybe graduations are the best place to display such finery. However, I have wondered: Where in Adventist educational history have we found a "mace?" What possible function would it hold in our system of education? Are we "medieval"? Do we have some type of "potentate" who needs such a symbol so that every knows just how important they are? Yet one was used quite prominently in the installation of Charles Hirsch, then president of Columbia Union College. Several years later a similar procession with the president of Southwestern Adventist College (now University), featured a key instead of a mace (I can imagine some reasonable use of a key as a symbol).

Is it not significant that in the United States today the vast majority of graduation gowns are paper and disposable? Does an academic gown make us a better student, teacher, or administrator?

"Less Pomp and More Circumstance" gave us several examples of what happens when Adventist young people get out there and show what it means to have received some of the "true education that come from God." Thank you for these examples.

Stanley Murphy
Zephyrhills, Florida

HELPING THE FATIGUED
Thank you for the article, "An Invisible Illness" (Mar. 2004). I am a pastor's wife who has struggled with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) for nearly nine years. When church members ask how I'm doing, I find myself answering, "fine," because it's too hard to explain how tired I am.

Shirley Kromann's article was very helpful in explaining what CFS is and how it affects a person's daily life.

One issue she didn't address is the advice we receive from well-meaning friends and acquaintances. Most of us have tried nearly every piece of medical advice available--exercise therapies, special diets, vitamins, minerals, and nutritional supplements. We have prayed for healing, been prayed for, anointed, even anointed by proxy. But sometimes God says, "Wait." Those who offer well-meaning advice about what I should or shouldn't eat, drink, or do, don't realize that they're adding to the burden of CFS.

If you wish to help your sister with CFS, tell her you're glad to see her. Let her know that you remember her in your prayers. Tell her that you love her. That's the best medicine there is.

Judi Johnson
Ontario, Oregon

IN THE FASTING LANE
I'm writing regarding the article, "A Different Kind of Fast," by Laurita Ludwig (Feb. 26, 2004). When life seems dark and hopeless, I seek my Savior and focus on Him alone. Often fasting has been the only way I could survive. Many times my prayers were answered and my spiritual capacity was broadened.

Yes, there are different kinds of fasts, but when our tummies are empty, we can experience the deeper presence of the Holy Spirit. Fasting is something essential to my spiritual development, to preserve me until that final sealing time.

Estrella Anacleto Jordan
Prilly, Switzerland