SCAMS AND THE CHURCH
When I read Allan Lengel's article, "SE Parish Divided in Wake of Scam", it almost brought tears to my eyes. The adversary is a clever, roaring lion. I have a small export company and was almost robbed blind.

In my case, someone [in another country] sent an order for computers. I asked for a wire transfer and was told I would received a check for $37,000 in the form of a bank draft from the United Kingdom. When I received the check, our local bank told me it would take about 10 days to clear. The customer was anxious to receive the laptops he had ordered. I remembered a brochure from a company in Rhode Island offering to cash foreign bank drafts and inquired about the service. They paid the check and I went on to buy $10,000 worth of computers and ship them via United Parcel Service (UPS).

When I told the customer I shipped only a partial shipment, he said he needed money to pay for some legal problems. "Please wire me $5,000 and ship the rest of the computers when they are ready," he said.

The wire I sent at Western Union cost $250, but I felt, Well, if he needs the money, let's send it to him.

As I was coming home Suzanne informed me that Commonwealth Bank had called to inform us that the check was a fraud and we owed them $37,000, or else they would sue us.

I called UPS in Benin and begged them not to deliver the computers. Next, I went to the Western Union office and received my money back. Six weeks went by, and every day I followed up. The computers went to Paris, then to Algeria, then to Cyprus, and then to Benin. One day I came home and they were on my doorstep. Thank you, Jesus. We lost about $1,000 and could not return the computers, so I am typing this letter on one of them. We were sued but are working toward recovery.

It's easy to judge, but as a general rule remember: If it's too good to be true, it probably is.

The church should set up stringent accounting measures and change accountants every five years to prevent fraud. Money should be used for the Lord's service and to help the poor, not to be invested in risky ventures.

Michel Kordas


As a member of the Dupont Park Seventh-day Adventist Church I was surprised that the Adventist Review would stoop so low as to further spread this article around the world.

In the first place, we are far from being divided. Further, the congregation has taken this opportunity to come together and support the church throughout this painful ordeal. We continue to have members from other churches transfer their membership into our congregation. As a matter of fact, the tithe and offering for our congregation is unchanged. That should speak for itself.

Yes, it is painful. But, it is easy when you really have love in your heart.

I thought we were family. Should family air each other's dirty laundry. We all have a long way to go to be like the Lord.

Fran Williams Thorn

WHAT WOULD JESUS DRIVE?
I just read Nathan Brown's provocative column, "What Would Jesus Drive" (Sept. 18, 2003). Come on! This is one of the most legalistic viewpoints I have heard since food legalism. It takes a phony, peripheral viewpoint (one that is not even Adventist) and exploits it to create some sort of guilty motivation for a lifestyle change that will do nothing to further Christianity or save the earth.

The author's premise that to ride the bus (what, buses don't use fuel?) or drive a politically-correct vehicle will somehow demonstrate a higher morality is ludicrous. Such a viewpoint merely reflects a lack of understanding of the reasons and necessities of vehicle choice and furthers the notion that members of our church are weird or fringe fanatics.

This viewpoint seems, unfortunately, to have gained popularity among twenty-somethings on college and university campuses across the nation. It also seems to be popular among the Hollywood crowd and followers of a previously-failed U.S. presidential candidate. However, this idea that SUVs are somehow more sinister than buses or Volkswagens doesn't bear up to intelligent examination.

Last time I checked, most vehicles were improving gas mileage because most consumers want to save money on fuel. The reason we have so many different types of cars is because we have so many different types of needs: tall people, short people, fat people, skinny people, lots of kids, no kids, lots of friends, no friends, good roads, terrible roads, snowy weather, rainy weather, and so on. Let's see that four-cylinder Escort pull a boat or a trailer.

Let's focus on furthering recognition of Jesus and awareness of our church as the place where Jesus can be found. That's what Jesus would do. As for which vehicle would He drive? None. There were several modes of transportation in his lifetime: horses and other work animals, chariots, wagons, liters, and caravans. With a few exceptions, He walked everywhere He went. Unless Nathan Brown can do the same, he has no right to assume he is morally superior to me and my little Dodge Neon.

Let's keep the legalists and the vehicle police out of our church parking lots.

Kasanda K. Howard
Houma, Louisiana


It amazes me that so much distortion is propelled at "those driving SUVs." First of all, just because you can't afford them doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.

Pollution doesn't come from motor vehicles alone, it comes from everything we use daily. What about products we wash down the sink? Have we considered what they do to the environment? What about batteries? Do we dispose of them properly? Do we use a cell phone, beeper, or electronic games? E-pollution!

Jealousy is not godly; please be careful of your next topic.

Françoise Wynne
Spokane, Washington


We don't need to speculate as to what Jesus would drive. The Bible is very clear that He drove a Colt (a small car manufactured by Dodge).

David Patterson
Ooltewah, Tennessee

SEARCHING . . .
I want to commend the September NAD edition of Adventist Review. Kim Peckam's piece was extraordinarily on point, as was Don C. Schneider's. Wow, wow, wow!

I joined the church young in or around 1981 and left the moment I could; too much hypocrisy (hey, I was young and knew nothing about following Christ rather than church folks); too much legalism; too many no's and not enough yes's.

Well, I returned the last day of 1998 having turned 30 years old that year, and slipped right back out around 2001 or so. So much drama, so many unanswered questions. I've been through trials only a novel could handle. Deep, hard questions were raised to God; many were left unanswered.

I was one foot in/one foot out-ing it like a pro. Then the article I read this morning online in the Review woke me up more and made plenty of sense. So much sense, in fact, that I know God's leading me back.

I debated which church I could go to, you know, having visited so many in the area and being turned off, tired of boring services, whatever. I discovered a small congregation more than an hour from where I live. For the past day or so I've felt a burden to go to this church again but kept finding reasons to stay away. This edition of Review is direct confirmation that I should return.

Keep writing truth; forget sugarcoating.

Jennifer L.


I read Don C. Schneider's apology to those who left the church, "It's Not the Same Without You," with interest. I've never seen such an apology offered by any responsible church official since I joined the church some 18 years ago. It's refreshing.

I concur with many points he made in the article since I've seen members and new converts get hurt and leave. Most were the result of hasty baptisms (done by pastors more concerned to show their productivity by numbers of baptisms being reported to the conference) coupled with members' thoughtless expectation of the overnight conformity to our standard by "newbies" (and even non-member visitors).

Yet there is another aspect this leader is wholly ignoring: those who have been offended by many frivolous programs and activities promoted and shoved on them by trendy pastors and church leaders during the past several decades. When members protested and aired complaints, they were ignored and in some cases vilified. This was usually the way most of these folks started supporting independent ministries (some bad, some good). This systematic vilification of viable and faithful independent ministries and their supporters must stop and apologies be offered to them, also.

One example of this unwarranted vilification is the Biblical Research Institute's disastrous report on Hartland College and Hope International a few years ago. Many concerned members from both spectrums honestly wish it would be publicly rescinded. The official church must find ways to mend these strained relationships if Schneider's apology is to be taken seriously by the general members who have seen too much inconsistency and expediency from church leadership.

There is also the issue of sexual abuse of members by church employees (pastors and teachers) that has not been handled fairly over the years. This is one area that seriously harms our God-given mission if not handled diligently and with utmost care. There is already serious agitation against the church urged by victim support groups. The leadership of our church needs to be very serious about this issue--even revisiting old cases that are still causing pain and shame for victims and many who know about these incidences. A sincere apology from the leadership along with systematic reformation must be forthcoming on this issue as well.

I hope Elder Schneider realizes that what both current and former members want to see is specific actions backing up words and professions by leaders. Words are cheap, and many folks aren't convinced. They got smart and somewhat cynical a long while ago. If the church leadership in North America wants to foster truly meaningful unity in the church, it needs to dispel the perception (whether true or not) that many members have about the attitude of church leaders--"Give us the money; you may believe and do as you please"--by the consistent, living demonstration of the servant leadership Christ has shown us.

Justin Kim
Pomona, New York


Have you ever considered that possibly people leave the Seventh-day Adventist denomination because they study their way out of it? I know a lot of people who were once Seventh-day Adventists but are no longer because they began studying God's Word and went to more truthful churches.

Susan Epp

THOUGHTS ON WORSHIP
I read "Can Joy and Reverence Coexist?" (Sept. 11, 2003) with interest and anticipation. Although I quit the Seventh-day Adventist church more than 20 years ago, most of my extended family still practices your religion.

The article was interesting to read, and I enjoyed most of what Lilianne Doukhan had to say. But I wish to comment on two sentences that disturbed me.

The author wrote: "I strongly believe that the worship service belongs to the entire congregation, not just the pastor." This was a shocking statement because it implies that some Adventists believe that their worship service belongs to their pastor--that he is in control of corporate worship to the extent that the body's freedom to worship is inhibited.

I agree with Doukhan that the worship service belongs to the entire congregation. I believe in the priesthood of the believer--that all are free to come to God's throne and worship him, with or without their pastor's blessing. Most of the worship services I participate in are Spirit-led, not pastor-led. Worship is not of, by, and for the pastor. Yet Doukhan's comment demonstrates that some Adventists believe it is.

The other sentence that disturbed me asked, "Is there a difference between the kind of joy we experience in worship and the celebration we experience at a football game or music event?" Even though I haven't been in the Seventh-day Adventist Church for decades, I still realize the weight of that highly charged political comment that describes a worldly football game as "celebration" and a church worship service as "joy."

What do you think happened in the New Testament Church in Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost? Do you think the people just sat there quietly with their hands folded while a few politely said "Amen"? Why didn't the author describe some of the incredible worship services E.G. White participated in and wrote about? They went well beyond the joy promoted by Doukhan.

Bob Laubach
Mifflintown, Pennsylvania

REMEMBERING 9-11
I am sympathetic to the tremendous losses of family, friends, and loved ones in the 9-11 tragedy. However, I am a little concerned that the American people are being a little bit callous. What about all the family, friends, and loved ones who lost their lives in the Oklahoma City bombing? How do you think they feel about all the publicity given to the 9-11 tragedy? Do you think it makes their loss seem less important? Do you think it is like rubbing salt in their wounds?

My heart goes out to all the people who lost their lives due to tragedies such as these--not just the 9-11 victims. Don't you think the 9-11 tragedy has been over done? Let's let their souls rest in peace already. After all the television and radio hype, when I pulled up my Review, there it was again. I just get a little weary of it.

Linda Dabbs

CONSCIENTIOUS NON-COMBATANTS
I commend Douglas Morgan for his article on the history of Adventist relations to military service. It was well done. But I will comment on a couple points:

When Dr. Morgan says, "Church leaders in 1969 somewhat reluctantly went on record supporting those who chose a pacifist stance, thereby making available the 1-0 classification for members," one might believe that Selective Service Classification was dependent upon connection with a denomination that took such a position. In fact, it was not true then, and it is not true now. Decisions of the United States Supreme Court mandated that such decisions be based upon personal conviction, not a denominational position, and allowed people to be given such classifications for other than religious reasons. During my 20 years of service in the U. S. Army, I personally saw conscientious objectors who were Methodists and Roman Catholic, although neither denomination takes such a position.

Few people today understand the contribution that Desmond Doss made to the Seventh-day Adventist Church and to God's work. His contribution cannot be minimized. But surrounding his story has grown up some "pious fiction." The caption under his photo: "Desmond Doss. . . the only conscientious objector to receive . . .[The Medal of Honor]." and the statement, "the first ever awarded to a noncombatant" contribute to this.

A "noncombatant" is not the same as a "conscientious objector." A noncombatant is expected to not participate in battle armed and attempt to kill others. All U. S. military chaplains are noncombatants. They participate in battle without carrying arms, and can be disciplined if they are caught carrying weapons. This status is unrelated to their personal belief in regard to conscientious objection. They may be formally classified, as such, as was I for the 18 years that I served as an Army chaplain, or they may not be so classified.

U. S. Navy Chaplain Joseph T. O'Callahan received the Medal of Honor for clearly spiritual ministry on board the USS Franklin, on March 19, 1945. I cannot testify as to whether he was a conscientious objector or not. But he was clearly a noncombatant.

The Viet Nam War produced a young, African-American conscientious objector medic, who was awarded the Medal of Honor. Desmond Doss was not the only conscientious objector to receive that award.

Some of the noncombatants (my list is likely not complete) include: Donald E. Ballard, USN; Gary B. Beikinch, USA; Thomas W. Bennett, USA; *Maurice W. Canon, USN;* Donald W. Evans, USA; Kenneth Michael, USA; Jospeh LaPoint, USA*

All of these were noncombatant medics, who performed services somewhat like that of Doss. Those with an "*" after their branch of service died in the battle for which they were awarded the Medal of Honor.

T. Gregory Matthews
Brighton, Colorado

FOR THE LEAST OF THESE
It is commendable that General Conference President Jan Paulsen and the church should be concerned and helpful to the abuse victims of Brazil. As God's people in a hurting world, we should be doing something. I fully agree that we should be involved in stopping abuse and aiding the healing process of its victims.

However, as I read about Brazil, I couldn't help remembering the many children in Indonesia who are sold because of the poverty of their parents and wind up as sex slaves to the perverted foreigners who come practicing their perversion and hurting those poor, innocent children.

Why haven't we spoken up about them? Couldn't we offer help to the parents who keep and protect their children? Don't we have any dialogue with their government? What about using diplomatic and economic channels? ADRA is a very good place to help them. We should be doing something for them!

Betty Green