omeone called me January 3. "Sorry to ask you a stupid question," they said, "but a friend of mine just told me they heard the General Conference is planning to change the church's name. Is that true?"

"Change it to what?" I inquired. "She said they're dropping the 'Seventh-day' part, and leaving only 'Adventist.'

"Nothing to it," I told the caller.

But my subconscious went ruminating on the conversation, I think; and about five hours later it dawned on me what likely had happened. I'd recalled reading a release from one of the offices in the General Conference or the North American Division advising those who write for the church to always use the church's proper name. Avoid the abbreviated "SDA," it said. Instead, we should spell out the name. And in spelling it out, we should do it right. Not "Seventh-Day Adventist" (with a capital D), but rather "Seventh-day Adventist." The directive further observed that the abbreviated form, "Adventist," often comes in handy--for variety, and when we need to shorten, as in a long document in which the church's name appears multiple times.

It was probably this communique that had become garbled as it made its way across the churches. Someone either misread it or got the information secondhand and ran with it.

It all reminded me of a pet peeve I've nursed over the years, having to do with the irresponsible way some Adventists assess spoken or printed material.

I remember calling the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) radio from my office at the Canadian Union years ago to upbraid them on something in their broadcast that morning. Why did you leave out thus and so? I asked accusingly. It made your reporting unbalanced, I said. Imagine how chagrined I was when the announcer read back to me part of what he'd presented that morning, proving that what I charged had been omitted was actually there! I was crestfallen.

It taught me a lesson about listening well, about reading carefully, especially when we intend to take issue. We sense that here at the Review from some of the letters we get.

But the problem is much bigger than people misunderstanding what we write in the Review. It has to do with the way we evaluate news reports, documents, speeches, publications, etc., that impinge on Adventist faith and the church's mission. The thought came to me some years ago in the wake of the alarm in some quarters of the church over the pope's Dies Domini ("Day of the Lord") Apostolic Letter. To hear the uproar, you would have thought the sky was falling in. Then I took time to read the document for myself. One or two lines with potential implications for religious freedom, yes, but basically a pastoral letter, such as any denominational head would have a right to send out to their own pastors, priests, or parishioners.

My point is that we do a disservice to the church when, misunderstanding the intent of a document, announcement, or release, we rush to judgment, warning of dire prophetic consequences, needlessly alarming fellow members by crying wolf--again.

Every responsible Adventist should be concerned that our colleagues and fellow church members read and listen carefully. You don't have to understand everything you hear or read. But when you intend to make something an issue, your first obligation is to make sure you do.

Some rumors in the church (such as the one I mentioned at the top) are easy to dispel. Others can leave a trail of destruction in their wake, including people's lives and careers. So before climbing on our soapboxes, firing off that letter, or ascending the pulpit to proclaim some new and exciting (prophetic or other) development, let's make it a habit to ask the right questions: Did he/she really say that? Did I miss something? Are my facts straight? Did I get it right?

We're all listening ears for the church, and all of us are voices. The church benefits when the majority of its members make it a habit of being hard-nosed about their facts. As Adventists, we should be noted for our fairness and our credibility. Spreading false reports and rumors is not our business--especially not in God's name.