THE GREAT CONTROVERSY--ABBREVIATED
Jack Blanco not only abbreviated the Great Controversy; he disfigured it ("The Great Controversy--Abbreviated," Apr. 22, 2004). Am I expected to believe that our purpose is "to help settle the question between God and Lucifer over the authority of Christ?" Blanco provided no logical foundation for that conclusion.

His portrayal of Lucifer's rebellion suggests that it happened in a universe already under the influence of rebellion. How does a loyal subject "become proud and turn violent" unless pride and violence are already part of his experience? Blanco's version would have us believe that Lucifer was "in sin" before he rebelled.

We cannot explain the introduction of rebellion into the universe by suggesting that God created Lucifer and the angels "in sin." God created beings capable of growth. Lucifer was elevated to the position of covering cherub, and he apparently desired further advancement. This desire was natural and was fulfilled in the angel who was promoted when Lucifer's position became vacant. Today we encourage each other to be like Christ, who is God. The Bible never suggests that Lucifer desired to replace the Most High.

Lucifer could not know that there are limits to one's ability to advance. Lucifer probably only thought of the glory that God had, and did not realize that to be completely like the Most High would require shared authority in the universe. The Creator would no longer be the Supreme Ruler.

We should not be taught that Lucifer was allowed to "spread his rebellion" in heaven. God would not allow it. When Michael confronted Lucifer with the implications of his natural and lawful desires several things must have happened. Lucifer had not yet approached any of the other angels with his desires. We know that because Revelation 12 says that Michael fought against Lucifer and then Lucifer fought back with his angels. It occurred to Lucifer that only God could have divined his thoughts, meaning that Michael was also God. That realization also increased Lucifer's importance in his own eyes for it meant that God had found it necessary to consult with him, giving him the feeling that he was equal to God. That feeling was automatic and intoxicating.

But even then Lucifer was not in rebellion. He had the opportunity to accept Michael's advice. When he decided he would not back down he crossed the line into rebellion. His desire to be like the Most High was partially fulfilled, and he would not give it up. He then approached other angels complaining of "the cloud ceiling" that had been imposed. In so doing he besmirched God's character. He represented Him as an arbitrary ruler who did not wish the best for His creatures; Who created them with the desire for advancement, then crushed them when they rose too high. This has always been the issue in the Great Controversy, not the authority of Christ. Lucifer echoed it when he suggested to the woman in the Garden of Eden that God wanted to deny them access to that which was good for them. He has continued to misrepresent the nature and character of God through the ages, and this is what the church has been called to counter.

Blanco tells a wonderful story, but he has misrepresented the Great Controversy. Any account that is contrary to what the biblical account implies should not be encouraged.

Darius A. Lecointe
Leesburg, Virginia

I am disappointed in Jack Blanco's view of the issues in the Great Controversy. Blanco writes: "While our mission is to take the gospel to all the world, our unique emphasis is to help settle the question between God and Lucifer over the authority of Christ."

Since when? I wonder what Blanco thinks of the next article in the same issue. Ellen G. White wrote: "God could have destroyed Satan and his sympathizers as easily as one can cast a pebble to the earth; but He did not do this. Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power."

From White's book, The Desire of Ages, is this statement: "The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise."

If the Great Controversy is about God's authority, why did Christ spent so much of His ministry teaching about God's love as opposed to His power and authority? Was it not Christ's failure (in the eyes of many) to show power and authority that led many to reject Him as the Messiah?

James 2:19 reads, "You believe that there is only one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder" (NIV). It seems that if the Great Controversy was about power and authority, the devil would have been destroyed long ago.

Richard Hanson
Nashua, New Hampshire

I'm always discouraged when I see articles that seem to focus on God's authority and power. According to James, even Satan believes that God is more powerful--and he trembles with fear. This whole thing is not about whether God is more powerful, it's about how He uses His power. Dr. Blanco fails to realize that what makes God so powerful and sovereign is the fact that in Christ He would wash Judas' feet.

When this Great Controversy comes to an end, there will be two kinds of people: One group will be looking for a God who sits on a big throne commanding people to bow before His authority; and another group will be sitting at the marriage supper of The Lamb, shocked that the one who is taking their dinner order is none other than Christ Himself.

Remember, we become like the God we worship.

Marco Belmonte, youth pastor
North Cascade Seventh-day Adventist Church
Burlington, Washington

THE MOST POPULAR ADVENTIST SIN
Praise God that Evelyn Caro has the courage to speak out against class distinctions in the church ("The Most Popular Adventist Sin," Apr. 22, 2004). I have recently been struggling with the harsh words found in James: "If you pay special attention to the rich, you are committing a sin" (James 2:9 NLT). The secular, non-profit world has developed practices that intentionally focus on the wealthy, and it seems leaders and members of the Seventh-day Adventist church have accepted these practices without questioning the spiritual implications. This "discrimination guided by wrong motives" (James 2:4) is one of the major reasons why emerging generations are increasingly missing from the church.

Money follows ministry. If we focus on doing the work to which God has called us, He will provide more than enough resources to ensure success. We each need to seek and pursue God's unique calling for our lives, regardless of how that looks to others. Influence in the church should be given to those who are passionately living out God's calling in their lives, rather than to those with wealth or professional status.

Larry Witzel
Vancouver, Washington

I congratulate the writer of "The Most Popular Adventist Sin." It deals with a topic we often bear in mind, but usually don't feel comfortable mentioning. I hope this article will be read by many and help change our way of thinking.

Evelyn Oliveira
São Paulo, Brazil

If there were more cut-to-the-heart articles in the Review like this opinion piece, many people would be helped, and the Review would be prized again by those who love the truth.

Daniel Winters

Wow. I need to live in Whittier, California. From where I sit, being a successful professional gets you absolutely nothing in church society. In my church people who are willing to lead, lead. God made some people leaders; they don't care if people follow them.

I am personally tired of the constant talk about the fact that in the end non-professionals will be the strong arm of the church. Less talk, more action. If that's so, and you're not a professional, get out there and lead us to heaven.

Furthermore, there appears to be a presumption that the way professionals became successful is evidence of woeful ineptitude at reflecting Jesus character and spiritual immaturity. Where is that written?

I am a successful woman in a profession that was traditionally male when I started working in it. The only reason for my "earthly" success was the example and hard work of my Christian parents, and the belief that "with God all things are possible." Constant exposure to that verse made me oblivious to the potential for failure. Of course, it would not occur to me to be the one-talent servant who did not take the time to develop the entire talents that God provided me. I don't believe this makes me worse than a blue-collar worker.

Does my worldly success make my church seek me, put me on a pedestal, revere my every word, and follow my leadership? If only! Currently I am a leader of a department for which the church couldn't find a leader, and which I love. If anyone follows my example it is because I do what I believe in and try to give thanks in all things (which naturally leads people to conclude my life is enviable--again, if only!).

There may actually be churches where the leadership is mostly professional. My bet is that the surrounding area is populated with mostly professional people. The choice of leaders is from the people who attend.

There are other factors that may play into the choice of leadership. If the church were a business, which it isn't of course, positions would go to the experienced. Professional leaders have experience. They may be no more important, but having demonstrated that they can do certain tasks, the church would be foolish to ignore the experience factor.

Could we please have less focus on what a person does to earn a living, and more on whether or not they are willing to serve? I am tired of this constant sermon that we should not favor professional over non-professionals. God can fit anyone for any leadership positions. He provides each church with its members. If those with professional experience are willing to serve, fine. If those who are not professional wish to serve, they should not have or voice the reverse discrimination that is evidenced so often. God may say that the unschooled will be leaders, but He also has a lot to say about willingness to learn and take guidance. If you believe that the unschooled will be uneducated, you're wrong! If you need proof, read Proverbs.

Worldly success? Just exactly who do you think provides riches and "worldly success?" Satan? Or does God? If God provides riches, and does so many times based upon the person's hard work, what makes this blessing something to be despised?

In my opinion, the most popular Adventist sin is "mind reading," judgmentalism. I appear to be a certain way, and the church reads my mind and heart and decides that I am . . . (fill in the blank with your own despised label).

Finally, as much as this church and its efforts need financial support, how can we despise any method that God provides to put money into His coffers? Worldly success comes with a commensurate obligation to share the financial success with the various needs of God's people. Why is the church so quick to vilify people from whom they then zealously seek financial contributions? It may be wrong to worship success, but it is equally wrong to vilify it.

We are all trying to do God's will, to reflect Jesus to the world, and to become people fit to associate with angels. If I promise to worry more about myself, will you?

Carol J. Carmichael
Beaverton, Oregon

THE UNFINISHED CHURCH
What a provocative piece of writing by Michelle Oetman ("The Unfinished Church," Apr. 15, 2004)! "How long," she asks, "would it take for God's work to finish if everyone did as much toward finishing the Great Commission as you do--no more, no less?"

Well, how long indeed? Let me see: I volunteered at the Soup Kitchen--once. I volunteered at Community Services--again, once. I helped at the Nursery Sabbath School--ah, yes, years! I even went through training, along with my husband, to mentor a family in Benton Harbor; but for some reason our group was never assigned a family. Well, you get the idea.

It's not that I wouldn't like to do more; I just don't. What is the cure for that "every minute is already filled to the brim with stuff to do" mentality? We plan for devotions, healthy eating and exercise, paying the bills, spending time with our families, connecting with friends and family, keeping up with property maintenance and yard work, and we're supposed to work 40 hours a week. What are we supposed to leave out in order to finish the work?

Living under the shadow of Andrews University and Pioneer Memorial Church, it's easy to get lost in the crowd and take the attitude that "somebody else" will do it. Frankly, though, I'd like to think that we have too many programs and committees within the church. Rather, we need is to get out of the church, roll up our sleeves, and work shoulder to shoulder for the good of a downtrodden society.

If we demonstrated to our communities that Adventists are at the top of the heap in helping, is it possible they would be more willing to look at our religion?

Rosie Nash
Berrien Springs, Michigan

ANGELS AND GOLDSTEIN
Clifford Goldstein's column, "Where Angels Fear to Tread" (Apr. 22, 2004), had special meaning to me since I've had doubts, starting with questioning Bible doctrines and, eventually, the Bible and God. I tried to prove my religion from science and history, but I eventually doubted even these and sought for proof of these things. It progressed until my own existence came into doubt.

This sounds ridiculous, but a man named Descartes determined to doubt everything. He found that he could doubt everything except the fact that he was doubting. He decided that thinking proved his existence. So he came even to the point of having to prove his existence.

The fundamental starting point for belief is God. I felt God fighting the Great Controversy in my life, therefore I came to believe in God; then I found the Bible to be the voice of God. From there I proved other facts of life. I disagree that the Bible is the starting point for belief. I believe God is the starting point, but this may be a matter of semantics.

I'm glad Goldstein pointed out that the Bible and belief in God are to be used to determine and judge facts, not vice versa. However, I disagree with the statement: "We all start with presuppositions, with things too fundamental to be provable." I disagree that your starting point can't be proved. It is true that it can't be proved with something besides itself; otherwise that something would be your starting point. However, your starting presupposition may, and must be, self-provable.

God proved Himself to me. Am I relying on reason, emotion, or science to prove God? No, I am relying on God. God can't prove Himself in a test-tube, but He can prove Himself in the human heart.

John Osborn
Broken Bow, Nebraska