Delysia Fehlberg
Cooranbong, New South Wales, Australia


JUDGING IN HUMILITY
In his column, "Judgment Day" (Jan. 27, 2005), Clifford Goldstein recognizes that each of us perceives reality through our own personal and faulty lens. That understanding should lead us to greater humility about our own strongly-held opinions and beliefs; and to greater tolerance and acceptance of those whose opinions and beliefs differ from ours.

Carrol Grady


SALVATION AND THE NATIONS
On "How Will God Save the Nations?" by Roy Adams (Jan. 13, 2005): Wading through the reams of rhetoric from various sources, I find it comforting to summarize it as follows:

Regarding salvation through Christ: Will not every saved being who has not in the present life heard the name of Christ eventually, in eternity, realize that they are there because Christ did, in fact, save them?

Regarding the importance of missions: As Christ taught in Matthew 25, isn't the main object of missions to enhance the present lives of people on an imperfect planet--teaching them better ways of living and clearer visions of their Christ-bought destiny?

Caesar Nawalkowski
Canada


YES, I CAN
Thank you for sharing Roy Adams' Bible reading plan, "You Can Do It--Yes, You Can" (Jan. 2005) and also for Wretha Lang's outline for Bible reading (www.adventistreview.org/2004-1501/BiblePlan.pdf).

Through the years I have been richly blessed as I have the read the Bible through from Genesis to Revelation. Sometimes I have taken more than one year, so that I can take my time and savor the depth of meaning. This year I decided to try Lang's challenging outline and what an exciting and inspiring journey it is proving to be.

For example, I found it so refreshing to go from the first few chapters of Genesis to Ecclesiastes and then back to Genesis again and then on to some of the Proverbs or some of the Psalms. I've also found it interesting to change from one version of the Bible to another. Truly, as Ellen White wrote: the "word of God . . . is a leaf from the tree of life" (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8 p. 33). I encourage all to partake of it.

Mildred J. White
Hayden, Idaho


FOOLISH CONSISTENCY?
Regarding "Consistency, Thou Art a Jewel" (Jan. 2005): the author is correct in observing that there is a problem. The problem, however, is that somehow over the course of the last century and a half we Seventh-day Adventists collectively (in the majority) have allowed ourselves to be deluded into thinking that consistency in behavior and belief is both a worthy and achievable objective when, in fact, it is neither.

What we should be learning, and more importantly, teaching, is what Ralph Waldo Emerson told us (also a century and a half ago): "A foolish consistency is a hobgoblin of little minds" (Essay on Self Reliance).

Bob Wonderly


MORE ON SPOUSAL ABUSE
As a survivor of domestic violence, I appreciated Beth Van Meter's article, "Unseen Tears" (Jan. 2005). Van Meter's insight into the dynamics of a battering relationship and her compassion for those caught in the trap of domestic violence is reassuring. I agree with her assertion that there are "our sisters in faith, who are hurting in our own churches--but hurting silently." Indeed, silence is one aspect of a battering relationship that allows domestic violence to be so prevalent in our society and in our own churches.

As a church, we need to continue to address domestic violence. We need to have programs in place for those courageous enough to ask for help, and we need to continue to understand and intervene when someone around us is hurting. It is everyone's responsibility when one of God's children, one of our sisters or brothers, is hurting and needs our help.

I applaud the Review for helping to bring this devastating lifestyle to the forefront and address it, not once, but many times. In fact, the Review published my own story ("Crisis at Home," Turning Point, Feb. 6, 1996).

Thank you for helping to make this world a safer place by having the courage and insight to publish articles like these. Also, please continue your work by illuminating controversial issues. I appreciate your dedication.

Teri S. Morgan (Klahr)

Beth Van Meter's article is much needed. I worked at a shelter for abused women. Anyone who abuses someone else will have some answering to do when Jesus comes--if they are allowed to see Jesus. A church member who abuses a spouse and/or children should be chastised as soon as it is known. The children, if the abuse is not stopped, would continue to do such to their spouses in the future.

Abuse does not speak well of what Jesus wants to do for us.

Florence Capron
Santa Rosa, California


DELAYED OBJECTION?
U. S. News & World Report (Feb. 14, 2005, Spotlight) focused on a Seventh-day Adventist Marine corporal who, upon being told of his deployment to Iraq, filed to become a conscientious objector (CO) based on his Seventh-day Adventist beliefs. This young man willingly re-enlisted after becoming a Seventh-day Adventist, in a branch of service most recognized for its aggressive fighting ability.

I was drafted into the U. S. Army in 1969 as a conscientious objector, which was the customary status Adventist young men requested when registering with the draft board. My decision to bear arms while serving in Vietnam as a medic with the 4th Infantry Division was based on helping to protect the men I served with, as well as myself, a decision I have never regretted. Indeed, many Adventists serve in the military today who have not requested CO status, and proudly serve both God and country.

I respect the corporal's decision, regardless of its timing, but I believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church's position has been misrepresented in the article.

David L. Vining
Apopka, Florida


OVERSTATING THE MATTER
Timothy Standish's report on the supposed "conversion" of philosopher Anthony Flew to belief in the "intelligent design" of the universe (Mar. 2005) is by now old news among evangelicals. Flew's alleged change of heart has been trumpeted in numerous evangelical publications ever since his announcement several months ago and is being held up for the idea that even the most elect among the secularists can "see the light."

The problem with these enthusiastic reports is that they mostly misrepresent Flew's point. What is missing in the evangelicals' reports, Mr. Standish's included, is that Flew's position really hasn't changed much.

First, Flew is adamant that he is not a theist, but a deist. Flew's "god" (small "g") may be a view that whatever order exists in the universe derives from some feature of the universe itself. Such a god does not stand over against the universe, as traditional theism asserts. Flew has made it abundantly clear that his new god is no miracle-working, interventionist divine being; Flew would deem it preposterous to assert that God created the universe in six 24-hour days. This tepid affirmation should be of little comfort to creationists. At age 81, Flew may now be saying something slightly different, but not by much.

Ironically, if Flew is affirming a designer over against the universe, the argument, if offered as a "proof" of God's existence, would necessarily fail; for reasons that Flew has been making, clearly and vehemently, for five decades. Classically, the teleological argument for the existence of God (the argument from design) points to numerous finite items we observe in the world that appear to be ordered, sophisticated--indeed, "designed," like a watch. The logical problem is that the argument, to achieve its conclusion in God, then jumps over a logical Grand Canyon and says that these finite things can only be explained by something infinite. The argument attempts to derive an infinite being outside the world from finite items in the world. And as Professor Flew so ably taught us 50 years ago, that is logically wrong.

While I would welcome Flew to the fold of theists, he certainly is not among us. Intelligent design is a faith response, no matter how many scientific facts it may point to. This is simply because there is no logical warrant for moving across the gap between the finite world to an infinite, wholly-other creator. That's Philosophy 101. Flew has not flown so far from his atheist nest to have forgotten that lesson.

That's why I suggest that those who believe in God--whether the one-week creationists or the theistic evolutionists--should stop worrying so much about whether they can "prove" their position through science. God may be best viewed as the answer to which the facts of the world are the question. But it is time to stop treating religion as the logical conclusion of science.

Karl W. Kime
Los Angeles, California