If we are open to God's suggestions, He will lead us to those who truly seek Him. They will be saved, along with those who worked for them.

Fred L. Webb, MBA, Ed.D.
Adventist International Institute for Advanced Studies
Silang, Cavite, Philippines

Roy Adams' article has raised interesting and vital questions about missions. Having worked in the mission field (albeit for only two years), I've discovered that often missionaries receive a greater blessing than those to whom they were sent to serve (ask any volunteer or student missionary). If only for that reason alone, missions should be continued.

But that's not Adams' thesis: he is speaking to the point of what happens to the millions of all times who do not have the opportunity to hear of Christ. This has many times caused me to wonder about our work of reaching the masses. Often guilt plays a part in the scenario.

Now, with the gospel reaching most of the world via TV/radio/satellite, we may feel more inclined to rest at ease with the question. We recline in our comfortable chairs and say: "They have opportunity to learn of Jesus and be saved." We, of course, often forget that the gospel is usually spread from person to person much more effectively than through media, although media is a powerful ally.

Although Adams used a strange and sometimes confusing method of reaching the main subject, I liked his conclusion, backed up effectively by statements from Ellen G. White. God reaches every person in one way or another--through person, angel, or Holy Spirit.

But regardless of that, if I'm not willing to reach the unreached within my sphere of influence, then the framework of the Great Commission can fall down around my ears, and my attitude may cause me to lose my salvation.

I want to touch as many as I can with the gospel. But I'm encouraged that in the end the entire work of spreading of the gospel to all the world is under the auspices of GME--God's missionary enterprise.

Thurman C. Petty, Jr.
Burleson, Texas

Roy Adams carefully deals with the problem of how people can be reached with the gospel, and how others not being reached by the gospel might be saved. Additional references could be added to the subject.

What a reasonable God we have who says, "The Lord shall count, when He writeth up the people, that this man was born there" (Ps. 87:6). Our omniscient God knows who is safe to save for heaven, and who is not. "Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt" (Dan. 12:2).

Dorothy Oster
Colfax, California


STORM CLOUDS
Thank you for the editorial, "Storm Clouds on the Horizon," by William Johnsson (Jan. 20, 2005). This seems an appropriate time to ask something I've wondered about for a long time:

God's promises are usually conditional. God's promises to Israel depended on their obedience and faithfulness (He did say, "if"). We know that they did not do His will and were not faithful.

Yet Protestants think that God will still fulfill His promises to Israel, and Christians use that promise as their reason to back the present nation of Israel in everything.

Why aren't we correcting them? I have not read any Adventist writer disagree with that premise. Did Ellen White? Wouldn't it be a good thing to tell them?

B. J. Gheen


FORGIVING AND FORGETTING
Regarding the article, "It Takes Two," by Bonita Shields (Jan. 13, 2005): The author implies that God does not forgive and forget. A dictionary definition of "forget" uses the words: "fail or cease to remember." The word "remember" is defined as "to keep from forgetting."

So why is it wrong to say that God forgives and forgets? I think it is marvelous to have a God who can forget our sins after forgiving them, unlike we human beings. Nothing is impossible for God. He can will to forget, and He can also bring it back to His remembrance.

Won Bae
Marlboro, Massachusetts

Thank you so much for Bonita Shields' article. How often I have longed to see someone explain the kind of forgiveness needed in an ongoing painful situation. I have even written the Review requesting it.

Betti Knickerbocker
Big Pine Key, Florida


SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF VICTIMS
I am delighted to see the article about domestic violence, "Unseen Tears," by Beth Van Marter (Jan. 2005). It is way past time we as a church talk about this issue. Since I was a child I have known of Adventist families in which domestic violence has occurred.

This article addresses violence against women, but we need to be aware that women can also be abusers, although usually to a lesser degree. Domestic violence is a big social issue in society today. I have worked for years in social/human services and have heard the horror stories. We Adventists tend to be isolated. We hear of the O. J. Simpsons, who make the headlines, and think it only a small problem. I assure you it is not.

In the United States victims of domestic violence can have protected, confidential addresses. Most states should have this available. Victims can also ask once in a lifetime for a different social security number.

Sue Walley
Lake Stevens, Washington

The article, "Unseen Tears," was excellent. One would think that Christians would not treat one another with violence or coercion, but some apparently haven't gotten the message that abuse is sin. In the past the church has not addressed the subject much, so whole generations go on acting like the models they have seen growing up.

I'm so glad that our church leaders have adopted the Abuse Prevention Emphasis Day--the fourth Sabbath in August--each year, a time for the church to educate its members regarding this issue. The material is prepared by a number of church departments at the General Conference. It is only as we talk about abuse, educate about it, pray about it, and support those who are abused, that our homes and our churches will become safe places.

May God continue to bless as you write about things that make a difference to the member sitting in the pew.

Ardis Stenbaken
Loveland, Colorado

I take offense at the decidedly feminist (anti-male) bent provided by Ms. Van Meter in her pontification regarding domestic violence. Having been falsely accused of such in order to be put at a legal disadvantage in the "People's Republic of Maryland" during a child custody hearing, I know first hand the mindset that creates ungodly prejudice against men and fathers in liberal court systems. These are the same people who come up with conclusions based on "the seriousness of the allegations" rather than upon jurisprudence.

Van Meter shows her bias against men in general by not once providing clear guidance on the biblical roles of wives as helpers, companions, comforters, supporters, and co-laborers with the family's spiritual head of household. In fact, she points out what men should do (in a self-serving context) without giving women any responsibilities or accountability. Such tactics have been used by feminists to destroy families, encourage resentment in women, and foster the bearing of false witness against the so called "oppressive" male society. In turn the state imposes exorbitant child support upon the father at the point of a spear. Many women have been seduced into unrighteousness by such corrupt practices.

Abuse is unacceptable in any form, whether it is at the hand of an unrighteous man or the verbal cutting and maliciousness of a manipulative and insolent woman.

Van Meter failed to point out that women are just as guilty of domestic abuse as men. The verbal and emotional culling I endured for seven long years was far more painful and scarring than any hit I ever took on the football field (including two major knee surgeries).

Perhaps the next time the Adventist Review endeavors to tackle a serious social issue it would do well to provide its commentary in a balanced manner and provide a more definitive "thus saith the Lord," rather than leave the reader with the false impression that women are being pummeled in epidemic proportions behind closed doors in Adventist households.

The unbalanced leaven presented in this article does as much to undermine families as the sophistry of the arch-deceiver lays waste the bonds of matrimony. Satan is the instigator of abuse. Perhaps you should point the finger where it rightly belongs instead of at my Adventist brothers.

Robert Charles
Panama City, Florida


A RETURN TICKET
My wife received the January North American Division edition of the Adventist Review in the mail, and I took it with me when I went out for coffee. I read the whole thing. This edition inspired me to return to the Lord after being away for a long time. Thank you for publishing this magazine.

Curtis Negret
Scottsbluff, Nebraska


PRESERVING OUR YOUTH
Kudos to Shirley Gast Lynn for sharing her personal story and thoughts on the youth--or their lack--in our church ("Where are the Young People?" Dec. 16, 2004).

I'm glad my home church (Azure Hills Church, Grand Terrace, California) is so supportive of our youth. Because of such open and strong support from our pastoral staff we have many active youth programs. Our youth hold evangelistic meetings, lead out in song service, and serve as junior deacons. Many are involved as leaders and members in our Adventurers and Pathfinder clubs.

As a member, parent, and youth leader, I see how our church loves kids from Cradle Roll to college. We encourage them, support them, and involve them in all aspects of church life. As a result, many parents are involved as well, which is transforming our members from spectators into participants.

If Seventh-day Adventists want to stop the exodus of youth, we grown-ups and leaders of the church had better start valuing them as important members of our congregation. Learn their names, get to know them personally, invite them to be involved, give them positive reinforcement. They are the future of our church. If we drive them away, who will lead?

I pray that every Adventist church has a Shirley Lynn who is willing to speak out against such atrocities.

Ernie Medina, Jr.
Loma Linda, Calfornia