Only after responding to the invitation of a trusted spiritual friend did I allow myself to go to a Mennonite retreat house and spend four days and nights in silence. My life was changed forever there. I discovered God's voice in an intimate, empowering way. Through that experience God has called me to serve Him by creating "Still Waters," a place for silence, solitude, and spiritual companionship.

It's been 17 years since that life-changing invitation to stop, be still, and listen. Even living in a retreat setting, I still have to be intentional in shutting out the noise so that the Spirit has opportunity to speak to my heart. We are creatures of habit, greatly influenced by the culture we live in.

Sadly, as Ms. Maran intimated, the culture of our church nurtures truth, activity, and doing God's work to the point of often keeping us so busy with good works that we have no time for intimacy with Him. Noise and busyness are the deceiver's greatest tools when he wishes to tempt those who are focused on doing good.

Jesus said, "Let anyone with ears to hear listen!" (Mark 4:9, NRSV). I pray that many will hear Maran's invitation and go further to hear God's invitation into quietness with Him.

Delcy Kuhlman
Buchanan, Michigan


SPOTLIGHT ON SERIOUS TIMES
William G. Johnsson's editorials are always the highest quality and superior to any others in the Adventist Review. His comments entitled, "Storm Clouds on the Horizon" (Jan. 20, 2005), rank with his very best.

It seems that in our churches we hear little about last day events; it's always grace, grace, grace--certainly a wonderful and life-saving gift, one beyond our comprehension that certainly needs to be studied in great detail. But there's more to the Seventh-day Adventist message than grace.

Too often it seems that lethargy has set in and we are oblivious to the times in which we are living. Thank you, Elder Johnsson, for bringing to our attention the seriousness of the times. Events are certainly taking place that will soon usher in the end of our earth's history.

Walter and Darlene Hamerslough
Riverside, California


REPORTS FROM VICTIMS
I just read the article, "Unseen Tears," about domestic abuse (Jan. 2005). The writer assumes that calling the police or a shelter will guarantee help for the abused. Not necessarily.

My daughter is not a "weak" person, either physically or emotionally. She is a strong sanguine/choleric personality, multi-talented, very intelligent and responsible. A number of years ago she was married to a severe batterer. He was a manic-depressive sociopath with a violent, hair-trigger temper; a "Christian" who put up a big show at prayer time in church. But when they were by themselves, he would verbally abuse her, bash her against the wall, strike her--sometimes in the face--all over the minutest of happenings.

Typically, there were times he "repented" and promised "never to do it again." Over time, he broke her nose, dislocated her shoulder, and tried to break her neck. She only got free of his grip that time by crying out, "Jesus, help me!"

The neighbors in the adjoining apartment called the police several times because they didn't like their children hearing such goings-on. When my daughter feared for her life to the point that she decided to make the break and tell her husband to get out (she was the bread-winner), she asked that the police be there when she got home from work. She suspected that he would be there; he was.

The police arrived 15 minutes later. The "help" they gave was to take her three blocks away and leave her alone at a phone booth to find someplace to stay. The women's shelter wouldn't take her because she had a job. She finally got lodging for the night in a hotel, where she had several times sent battered women as part of her work with disadvantaged and immigrant families. The hotel recognized her name and took her in, but she had to pay for her room.

When our daughter applied for restraining orders against her husband, she found out that the police had not even kept a record of the times they had been summoned to their apartment. It's not always as easy to get help as you may think.

Name Withheld

Unfortunately, I know from personal experience that a No. 9 needs to be added to the myths that appear in the sidebar that accompanied the article, "Unseen Tears."

It should read: "Myth 9: Abuse never happens to men at the hands of women."

Name Withheld


MORE ABOUT CONSISTENCY
I just finished reading the opinion piece, "Consistency, Thou Art a Jewel" (Jan. 2005). It was sad to read that a person could be dismissed from school because he saw a movie in a theater.

I had decided not to see the movie, The Passion of the Christ. But when the video came out, my husband (not an Adventist) decided he wanted to see it; so I watched it with him. I was watching with tears streaming down my cheeks, when out of the blue I said, "Forgive me, Lord." I did my part in putting Him on that cross. He died for my sins, as well as the sins of the world. I grasped the full meaning of what Jesus did for me. Reading it didn't put into perspective what Christ did for me as much as seeing it. This isn't going to be the same with everyone, but that's OK. We all have our own relationship with Jesus.

Monica M. Ernst
Corning California

I'm writing to express my dismay that our church still holds out-dated ideas, like not being able to see movies in a theater. We should stress the importance of content over location.

How many of us watch the same movies at home after they come out on DVD or video? How many of us have Blockbuster memberships and such, and yet think it wrong to see the same thing in a theater? What is the big drawback, the large screen? The amazing sound quality? The stadium seating?

I am not a teenager, but I teach them. And I have to admit that I find it hard to answer these kinds of questions when the answers do not make sense to me.

I find it sad that a student could be expelled for going to see "Fiddler on the Roof." I'm not sure how being in the building harmed him, but would he still have been expelled for watching the video? I doubt it.

Let's focus more on the principles of our actions as we try to represent Christ.

Jeffrey Jones
South Lancaster, Massachusetts

John Fowler's article about consistency regarding movie going neglected an important facet of the problem.

Consistency might be attainable for our global church when an underlying principle of evaluating the content of movies is practiced. What one sees is important; where one does the viewing is not.

The world has changed since Ellen White wrote her counsel, but the underlying principle is the same. With TV, video, DVDs, and Internet available at home, one doesn't ever have to step inside a theater. Simply saying, "Don't go to a movie theater," does not help our children learn to discriminate positive, negative, or neutral viewing content. By the way, entertainment reviews are a helpful tool in deciding what, and what not, to see.

Margie Ham
Hillsboro, Oregon

I'm writing to express my thoughts regarding two articles in the Adventist Review: "For Such an Hour as This" and "Consistency, Thou Art a Jewel" (Jan. 2005).

I'll start with the latter. Prem left the church because hypocrisy drove him out, the focus on things we can and cannot do. Toward the end of the first article we are pointed to the idea that it is time to speak out about our beliefs.

It is time to speak out and it is time to be consistent with our message. The question is what should our message be? Should it be guidelines about watching TV, or should it be taking sides on abortion, pro or con? Or is not the Lord's message about His coming more important?

We hardly get any clear and outstanding information on this subject from the many scattered churches. We could and should focus our combined energies on giving this message of hope and salvation to the people around us. This might also energize our current members, get us to be more unselfish, and focus our efforts on current world issues.

The disciples didn't get it when the Lord told them about His impending death. Do we get it, or are we being sidetracked as well?

Regina Rippel
Minneapolis, Minnesota


PRINCIPLED BEHAVIOR
The article about Sir James Carlisle, "He Said No to Her Majesty" (Dec. 9, 2004), brought back pleasant memories. Both Sir James and his wife visited us at Stanborough Park in Watford, England for Sabbath services at least twice to my certain knowledge. On one of those occasions they sat in my Sabbath school class and entered into the discussion.

Their son, Mark, was a pupil of mine in IT class. He had an air of dignity and self-respect that was probably copied from his father. For all the position and honor that had come to Sir James, he was happy for us to call him "brother."

There have been several prospective honorees of the Queen, who, for various reasons, have refused to be so rewarded. Some have been asked several times over a period of years if they would accept the honor, and they still refused. None of them was sent to the Tower. More important than the fact that Sir James was twice unable to be present for the knighting, is his rising to the highest office in his land. As a dedicated dentist of humble origins, he continues to witness to his faith and sets a safe example for all to follow.

Frank Blewitt
Watford, England