CHALLENGES FACING THE CHURCH
I just finished reading "Under the Microscope." I agree that we do have both weaknesses and strengths. I disagree that our number one problem is losing the youth. Our number one problem is a lack of faith and trust in God.

When we start living our faith and stop relying on our resources, the youth will be so attracted they will want to stay. They are more intelligent than we give them credit for. Let's give them an example in our own lives of total dependence on God. The righteous shall live by faith, not resources.

We have far too many canned sermons, Bible studies, tapes, books, etc. We have highly educated and polished speakers and music that rivals the world's. We think we are rich; we have resources. But these very things stunt our growth in searching the Scriptures for ourselves and letting the Holy Spirit guide us. We are poor, blind, and naked. The antidote and answer to all our problems--big or small--is faith tried in fire, Christ's righteousness in our lives, and discernment to see the world as though we are looking through God's eyes.

Just being that, instead of doing it, will change the church for the better. That's what youth are hungering for.

Janet Doseff

I just finished reading the Annual Council bulletins. I look forward to and enjoy the information. More than any other time in history we need to be involved; getting our youth involved is just another way to keep them interested in serving and doing the Lord's work. I will never forget how much the Sabbath morning visits to other churches meant to me while attending Adelphian Academy in Michigan. Elder Pratt took a group out almost every Sabbath and we each preached about a 15-minute sermonette. It was wonderful; it helped keep me a Seventh-day Adventist.

Keith Dunnigan
Longmont, Colorado

THEOLOGIANS, SCIENTISTS, AND ORIGINS
I am pleased to see the Seventh-day Adventist Church take a positive stance on the Creation doctrine. (Faith & Science) I was pleased to attend the International Faith and Science Conference (IFSC) at Glacier View in Colorado. The most constructive time was the several month e-mail exchange before the conference. The conference allowed for the airing of issues, which is good, but did nothing to solve them.

It is obvious that the church has missed the real issue between Creationism and Evolutionism as illustrated by this quote from the Conference report: "Assertions based on a study of Scripture often stand in stark contrast to those arising from the scientific assumptions and methodologies used in the study of nature. This tension has a direct impact on the life of the Church, its message and witness."

The "assumptions and methodologies" that are commonly used are not "scientific" but metaphysical--they do not arise from science and do not belong to science. Some of these commonly used "assumptions and methodologies" that cause the greatest tension arise from the atheistic philosophy of Naturalism. Naturalism is the belief (religiously and blindly held) that matter, energy, and motion are all there is, ever has been, or ever will be, and nothing outside of nature can influence them in any way.

Corollaries from this faith-based assertion are 1) abiogenesis, 2) evolutionism, and 3) "there's no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end" (Hutton, 1795). This religious belief is in direct conflict with the biblical claim that God created the universe and life on earth--there has been a beginning and there will be an end.

As commonly studied in worldly, scientific institutions, cosmology, geology, and anthropology are based on Naturalism; therefore, we are taught that the life originated millions of years ago and has evolved over vast ages, and humankind has slowly evolved from brute beasts. These assumptions cause this direct contrast to the biblical story. But Creationists need not do science using atheistic assumptions. We can draw from the Bible all the assumptions needed to do science.

But doesn't this make religion rule over science? Yes! And this is also done in regard to Naturalism and science! Naturalism is a religious belief system, and any science that uses its assumptions are subject to its religious beliefs--i.e. Evolutionism. The real issue is not religion versus science (which the church seems to be focusing on), but religion versus religion--the philosophy of Naturalism based on atheism versus the philosophy of Creationism based on the Bible.

The reason there is tension within the church is because some Seventh-day Adventist scholars and scientists who received their higher education in worldly institutions have somehow missed the important distinction between philosophies. Ellen gave this sound advice 105 years ago: "Theories which originate with the world must be given up. . . . [some] cannot with safety receive their education from those who know not God, and acknowledge him not as the life and light of men. These [educators] belong to another kingdom . . . and they mistake phantoms for realities" (Review and Herald, Aug. 1, 1897). "There is constant danger among our people that those who engage in labor in our schools . . . will entertain the idea that they must get in line with the world, study the things which the world studies, and become familiar with the things that the world becomes familiar with. This is one of the greatest mistakes that could be made. We shall make grave mistakes unless we give special attention to the searching of the Word" (Loma Linda Messages, p. 405).

In regard to geology Mrs. White wrote: "I have been shown that, without Bible history, geology can prove nothing. Relics found in the earth do give evidence of a state of things differing in many respects from the present. But the time of their existence, and how long a period these have been in the earth, are only to be understood by Bible history" (1864). She knew more than 140 years ago that interpretation of geologic data is not science versus religion, but religion versus religion. It's time we reaffirm and refine the biblical basis for science.

Allen Roy
Ash Fork, Arizona

Science is valuable. It has provided many benefits to mankind. For the past two centuries it has been regarded as the means of bringing about the Utopia humanity has longed for. However, science fails in the field of providing a moral human character. The best it can do is tranquilize, and sometimes this tends to suicide. How does Christian faith approach science? It must approach it with the conviction that God exists and His Word is true. Without this conviction one cannot dialogue with science as it is practiced and not have one's faith compromised.

Imagine Genesis 3:1-6 in a contemporary setting. God said, "You shall not eat of this tree. You will die if you eat its fruit." It is possible that Adam and Eve had seen animals eat the fruit. Why should we think animals never ate from the tree of knowledge? Science would begin by feeding the fruit to various animals to see what would result. There would be no adverse effects. Science would analyze the fruit and discover certain facts. No poison is present. In fact the fruit is full of vitamins, nutrients, enzymes, and other elements, all of which are good for physical health. It might be extremely rich in seratonin and elements which are beneficial to the brain. It would be promoted as a food to make one wise. All of the laboratory results would be used to proclaim it a super fruit. Advertising might suggest it could produce god-like qualities. Human science would support the serpent's words, not the word of God.

So it is that Eve took her faith away from God and placed it in the serpent. She acted on the serpent's words and set aside God's word. The principle, "no gods before Me," was violated. Humans who attempt to dialogue with the wisdom of the serpent will never win. The serpent has too many years of experience, too many thousands of ideas to be answered point by point. This is why Jesus, when He was tempted, did not debate or dialogue with Satan. Christ's answer was the answer of faith in that which God had spoke, "It is written." Our Christian faith must do the same.

We can find much good logic in interpreting geology and biology according to the Bible record, but we still have to admit there are questions we cannot now answer.

David Manzano
Harriman, Tennessee

SAME STORY, DIFFERENT VERSION
I read with interest Bronwyn Mison's article, "Braving Cannibals and Crocodiles" (Sept. 9, 2004), and it took me back 30-some years to when I was the government officer at Nomad River, New Guinea.

I was absent from the station at the time of Daniel's contretemps with the crocodile, but I heard all about it when I returned to the station a few days later. It seems that the story of Daniel in the Crocodile's Den has grown considerably (as has the crocodile!) over the years and this latest version is greatly sensationalized.

Here are the basic details as told to me at the time (in Pidgin with which I am totally familiar; I did not need to be told in a mixture of "English, pidgin, and hand gestures"):

Daniel was in a village a few hours' walk from Nomad River (the main government station of the district) when he heard that some of the villagers had caught a crocodile, had bound its snout with a length of vine, and had left it in a riverside pool, planning to kill, skin, and eat it later. Daniel, and some of the villagers, including the luluai (a government-appointed leader; your story calls him the "chief," which he wasn't, but it sounds better) went to see the crocodile. When they arrived at the pool they noticed that the vine around the crocodile's snout had worked loose. Daniel offered to dive in and re-secure the bond. He did so and as he fiddled with the vine the crocodile grabbed him by the arm. Daniel tried to break free but the crocodile had too firm a grip. The luluai then jumped into the pool, tackled the crocodile, and Daniel was able to extricate his arm and gain the surface of the pool. The luluai, smaller than Daniel and many years older, is the real hero of the story.

Daniel was helped to the bank and some primitive first-aid was applied to his severely injured arm. Runners set off to alert the authorities at Nomad station. Daniel, helped by the villagers, walked some distance to a bush road where the group was picked up by someone driving a Toyota Land Cruiser who had driven out from Nomad. Daniel was taken back to the station and later flown out to a mission hospital closer to the coast.

Sorry to pour water on your story, but that is how it happened. No 12-foot monster crocodile (it was probably less than 6-feet long) and certainly no blood-thirsty cannibals, itching to consume Daniel. One of these days I will probably bump into Daniel again, and I will sit down with him and say, "OK, Daniel, tell me what really happened?"

Laurie Meintjes
Cooranbong, Australia

DOES GOD KILL?
I am deployed overseas with the military. I saw a posting of the article, "Does God Kill?" by Leslie Kay (Oct. 2004). Since my reading time was short, please forgive me if I missed some things, but I don't see any evidence that Leslie Kay has any understanding of the issues involved.

The big problem is that we actually have three views here, not the two that she argues. I get the impression that Ms. Kay was actually meaning to criticize the third view rather than the first, but didn't know the difference between the three and ended up muddling the first and third views together.

The three views are:

1. Those who maintain that God does not kill. Yes, they do exist, but they are a small group; not as influential as the article seems to indicate.

2. Those who see God doing two separate things at the end: something nice to the saved, and something not so nice to the lost. God's punishment comes in the form of a fire, with the same pain we get when we touch a hot stove. The lost refused God's grace and then it's too late to receive it. They are destroyed by a hell fire that eventually burns out, as is often taught in our evangelistic meetings and Bible studies.

3. A view that teaches that God's presence, His character of love, grace, and forgiveness is the consuming fire. This view, taught by college and seminary professors and contributors to The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, has been taught in academic Adventism since at least the 1920s and is trickling down to the laity. It says that Jesus is our deepest desire; we are attracted to Him. At the end Jesus reveals Himself in all His beauty and those who have yielded to the Holy Spirit's promptings will find it heaven to be with Him. Those who have fought the Holy Spirit continue to fight.

In this third view even the lost are attracted to Jesus. He is their deepest desire, but they refuse to yield to His love. They see loved ones they want to be with, but continue to be selfish and use others for their advantage, knowing they can't do that under the watchful eye of Jesus.

God's love is not a sticky, sweet sentimentalism but a power that brings out the best in us. Those who have chosen to suppress it and allow the worst to control them are shown their sins from God's perspective, are horrified, but do not believe that God can forgive and heal them. This conflict between their irresistible attraction to the beauty and grace of Jesus and their inability to yield becomes so intense that it literally destroys them. The glory of Him who is love will consume them.

God Himself is the consuming fire. Since God's love never ends, hell fire does indeed burn for ever and ever. As Isaiah 33 says, the righteous will live forever in the eternal fire while the wicked are consumed by it (verses 14-16). God treats us all the same, we only have two different responses to seeing God in all His glory and beauty and experiencing the full force of His drawing love on every heart.

If God was not going to kill, all God needed to do was not show up in all His beauty, sparing the sinner the light of His irresistible grace. Justice and grace don't need to be balanced. Grace is always offered, but if sinners resist yielding to the only source of life, God will not force the connection. Like a lamp's cord pulled out of the electric socket, sinners disconnected with Christ will go out. Of course God kills, but the action that kills the wicked is the same action that gives life and love and makes heaven for those who yield to His love.

Those who hold the second view keep trying to defend it by saying that those who hold the third view are teaching the first view. Our disagreement is not over whether or not God kills, but whether God acts two ways at the end: one toward the saved and another toward the lost. Or is God's act heaven and life to the saved, and hell and death to the lost?

Kevin Hellerud

"Does God Kill?" Not unless He takes on the characteristics of the devil, whom Jesus identified as "a murderer from the beginning" (John 8:44).

God loves everyone, without respect of persons. The God of heaven is not angry with His ignorant, rebellious children. "The dragon was wroth . . ." (Rev. 12:17). The "only true God" (John 17:3) is only good (Matt. 19:17) and Jesus is just like Him. (John 14:9).

Jesus said, "The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them" (Luke 9:56). And Paul wrote: "If God be for us, who can be against us?" (Rom. 8:31). "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 8:38, 39).

I could go on and on, but I'll refrain for now.

Gordon Butts
Naples, Florida

THOSE YOUNG EDITORS
I'm afraid you're showing your (young!) age when you insert the words "at Andrews University" in brackets after the reference to the seminary in the letter from Rubye Sloan Sue in the October NAD Edition about the cover story, "Door to Door for God" (Aug. 2004).

In 1941 the seminary was located adjacent to the General Conference headquarters building in Takoma Park. If Ms. Sue moved from W. P. Elliott's office and F. D. Nichol's office into the seminary position, all she would have had to do was go next door.

Thanks anyway, for the "good old Review," which I always enjoy.

Catherine Lang Titus
Glendale, California

MORE ABOUT MOSQUITOES
The article, "The Mosquitoes Are Out," by Tom Kohls (Sept. 2004), quoted some of my favorite Ellen White passages. It reminded me of her famous statement: "When at one time a brother came to me with the message that the world is flat, I was instructed to present the commission that Christ gave His disciples, 'Go ye therefore, and teach all nations'" (Gospel Workers, p. 314).

However, I wondered at his inclusion of "the sanctuary question" in his list of subjects into which we are warned not to enter controversy. His reference from the book, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 160 (including footnote), makes it very clear that Ellen and James White had to meet erroneous ideas about the sanctuary (and the denial of "the fulfillment of the prophecy in 1844") with "testimonies right to the point." Instead of unimportant, the reference seems to indicate that the subject was erroneous--a significant difference.

Bill Krick
Clovis, California

In the September NAD Review Tom Kohls told of the deplorable waste of time and nervous energy to argue about trivia or minor matters. I can have fellowship with people not of our faith if there is an open, charitable spirit, recognition that we don't know it all nor have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit, but continue to seek to learn the "whole counsel of God" by personal study, prayer, our own experience, and that of others.

However, I see the attempt to categorize major and minor truths as futile, somewhat like Rome pontificating lists of mortal and venial sins. Paul "kept back nothing that was profitable" and "shunned not to declare the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:20, 27). Mrs. White wrote that we should dwell more largely on practical godliness than the theoretical points of our faith. "If we ever know the truth, it will be because we practice it," she wrote. "We must have a living experience in the things of God before we are able to understand His word." (Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students, p. 97).

Maurice K. Butler, M.D.
Morrison, Tennessee