A Letter to the Local Adventist Church Pastors

Over a month ago I sent the following letter to a couple of local church pastors. One ultimately gave me a substantive answer the other wanted to meet but since I was not in town at the time he desired I offered other alternatives but never received an answer. To my way of thinking no answer when the question is how do you treat Progressive Adventists in your church is in fact an answer. Since the pastor who answered did not want his answer published I will summarize it as: Progressive Adventists are welcome to worship with us. They cannot be leaders and they are stumbling blocks because they don't believe the strongly held beliefs of the church as a whole (see previous article the myth of the church as a whole). The "church as a whole" is kind of funny as in the letter I talk about the idea of having doctrines decided by a bureaucracy but that was still his ultimate reasoning.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been what can be termed a Progressive Seventh-day Adventist for over 20 years. Through most of that time I have been accepted in the Adventist churches I have attended. Through much of that time the average Adventist did not know what the term Progressive SDA meant. Possibly that was better for all concerned as they could hear what we had to say and judge the statements for themselves whether our views had substance or not. Today sides appear to have been drawn that tend to set traditional/historic Adventists against Progressive Adventists. With the effect that at least for me it appears that the leadership of the Adventist church has no real interest in me as a member or my opinions upon religion and theology.

Unlike many other Progressive SDA’s I have a blog and website which offers hundreds of pages of information about what I think on religion and theology. I have for many years been open about my views and I acknowledge that my views do in fact change which is one of the benefits of having written down my beliefs for numerous years. What I have always disliked about my Adventist experience is how those in leadership positions were usually afraid to engage in dialog (see here for my challenge to my local church actions against me over a year ago with still no answer or any attempt to answer made).

Many years ago in Boise I asked the pastor what he knew about the various atonement theories. He said that they probably studied them in seminary but he did not know or remember much about them.

How many of our church leaders are simply like that--assuming that that the information they were given is sufficient for the rest of their lives? What happens when they come in contact with the rest of us…with those of us who love to continue to learn and try to understand both history and the history of theology and religion?

For many of us Progressives Adventists we want to know if there is a place for us in the Seventh-day Adventist church.

After all, if we can’t contribute to the local church with our ideas except in the Adult Sabbath school classes are we really part of the local church? It seems some people feel that exposure of the young people of our church to Progressive SDA ideas simply can’t be allowed. It appears that these leaders feel it their responsibility to insure that only what they define as traditional/historic Adventist ideas are taught. Never mind that we as a church have in numerous areas changed our views from our historic understandings. Religions change, it is a fact of life and if you believe in progressive revelation there is no excuse to think that your religion won’t change. So if it is not tradition that informs these leaders to reject Progressive Adventists what is it? Is it a hierarchy, such that the local Adventist church must teach or expose its members to only those ideas approved by the General Conference, perhaps only those things taught in our lesson study guides? I would hate to think my religion is dictated by a bureaucracy but maybe that is what the leadership in my local church thinks.

I recently happened upon this quote from a local church which has since changed it’s name. Perhaps it expresses the view of your church:

“College Street Christian Church is an undenominational fellowship. It doesn't matter what kind of background you have (Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Atheist, Agnostic, or whatever); you are welcome here. Even if within one family there are varied backgrounds, this church can be an easy compromise for everyone. How? All we ask is that every person leaves teachings of man at the door. When you enter our building, you will only get the Bible; not anyone's opinion of it. So, check us out. See if we live up to it. No fake stuff; nothing weird. Just God's Holy Word. It's enough for us!”

That sounds like a high ideal. But, is it possible, even in a theoretical sense?

If your church is not bound by tradition or bureaucracy perhaps like the church quoted above you feel that it teaches only the Bible and not anyone’s opinion of it. It is good to teach the Bible but we certainly have to be realistic enough to know that the Bible is always taught through the interpretation of the person who is reading or studying or teaching from the Bible. It is impossible to get around the human component in understanding the Bible and we humans can often be wrong even with the best of intentions.

Having monitored and/or been involved with many Adventist internet discussion formats I realize that there is a deep rift between traditional and progressive Adventists. Deeper than we usually see in our social interactions in our local churches, which often involve little more than polite conversations with little depth. It is therefore possible that a person could go to a local church for several years before they determine how the leadership of a particular church feels about progressive Adventism. Which leads to this letter and the question what place does your church hold for a progressive Adventist?

Please understand that my question above is not merely rhetorical. I truly wish to understand the boundaries of acceptable Adventism within my current congregation or any near my home. How big is the tent? Do I really have a home in Adventism or am I deluding myself with thoughts of what Adventism could be? Should I give up on Adventism? Has it given up on me and those like me (or worse, become hostile to us)?

I would sincerely, welcome dialogue on this subject from my local Pastors, or representation from local leadership.

My spiritual journey has often been transparent. I share it on my blog. While not as widely read as I would like it becomes a form of public record and is useful to others in their own circumstance. Writing helps to focus my own thoughts, and forces me to avoid hazy thinking. I am not posting this letter, at this time, on my blog though I contemplated writing it as an open letter. I hope to do so in the future hopefully together with the results of a dialogue if those who respond are willing.

Sincerely,

Ron Corson

The Shack and the Adventist Review letter

Apparently I missed the Adventist Review article on "The Shack" on August 30. I may get back to that after I scrounge up the August 09 issues, but for now I will deal with one of the letters to the Review about The Shack:

Dismantling The Shack

Thank you so much for publishing such a fine and concise review of the book The Shack (Aug. 30, 2009). This dangerously popular book needed to be unmasked, and the Adventist Review has certainly come through. Cindy Tutsch has done a great job in summarizing its content. Thank you so much.

Having recently analyzed this book (the one I read said there are 3 million in print, and, yes, the paging seems to be different from the one Tutsch read), I found that beneath the layers of philosophy and tragedy lay a definite aversion and abhorrence to the law of God that The Shack attacks behind a mask and in the name of “relationship.”

This book brings up the Ten Commandments and portrays “god” saying, “Jesus laid the demand of the law to rest; it no longer has any power to accuse or command” (p. 203). To the direct question: “Are you saying I don’t have to follow the rules?” the answer from this “voice” is also direct and unambiguous: “Yes. In Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful” (p. 203). It adds, “Both evil and darkness can only be understood in relation to light and good; they do not have any actual existence” (p. 136). It is truly amazing how these statements fulfill prophecy to the letter (see The Great Controversy, p. 558).

Olga, San Diego

What is most interesting is that last paragraph. The abhorrence at the thought that we are not under law, that “all things are lawful”. First let us look at what the Shack is saying in context, Mack is the human with the questions, God is in the persona of a woman in this interchange:

“But as I’m sure you know there are many,” responded Mack, “who think they are made righteous by following the rules.”

“But can you clean your face with the same mirror that shows you how dirty you are? There is no mercy or grace in rules, not even for one mistake. That’s why Jesus fulfilled all of it for you—so that it no longer has jurisdiction over you. And the Law that once contained impossible demands—Thou Shall Not . . .—actually becomes a promise we fulfill in you.”

She was on a roll now, her countenance billowing and moving. “But keep in mind that if you live your life alone and independently, the promise is empty. Jesus laid the demand of the law to rest; it no longer has any power to accuse or command. Jesus is both the promise and its fulfillment.”

“Are you saying I don’t have to follow the rules?” Mack had now completely stopped eating and was concentrating on the conversation.

“Yes. In Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful.”

First all things are lawful is a quote from the writings of Paul.

(1 Cor 10:23 KJV) All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

When you read this it is pretty clear the book is getting its idea from the New Testament. “There is no mercy or grace in rules”:

(Acts 13:39 NIV) Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.

(Gal 2:21 NIV) I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

(Gal 3:21-25 NIV) Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.

Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

So it appears the author of the letter, probably a very good Adventist has no conception of the New Testament Gospel. That we are not under law but under grace, apparently she missed the whole Reformation thing in her Adventist education. A scary thought that for years some one can sit in an Adventist church listening to Adventist sermons and have no conception of what the New Testament teaches.

Now let’s look at her concluding sentence:

It adds, “Both evil and darkness can only be understood in relation to light and good; they do not have any actual existence” (p. 136). It is truly amazing how these statements fulfill prophecy to the letter (see The Great Controversy, p. 558).

This is not too difficult a concept to see, as evil and darkness our metaphors for actions and attitudes of intelligent beings, they are like light and good metaphors for actions and attitudes but they are opposites, the metaphors “light and good” find their reality in God, the reality is found in the actions and attitude of God and His influence upon intelligent beings. Here is the context, Sarayu is a personification of the Holy Spirit in the book:

Sarayu turned toward Mack; at least that was his impression. “Mackenzie, evil is a word we use to describe the absence of Good, just as we use the word darkness to describe the absence of Light or death to describe the absence of Life. Both evil and darkness can only be understood in relation to Light and Good; they do not have any actual existence. I am Light and I am Good. I am Love and there is no darkness in me. Light and Good actually exist. So, removing yourself from me will plunge you into darkness. Declaring independence will result in evil because apart from me, you can only draw upon yourself. That is death because you have separated yourself from me: Life.”

If this is what Ellen White was referring too then she was clearly wrong. The Great Controversy page 558 says:

Even in its present form, so far from being more worthy of toleration than formerly, it is really a more dangerous, because a more subtle, deception. While it formerly denounced Christ and the Bible, it now professes to accept both. But the Bible is interpreted in a manner that is pleasing to the unrenewed heart, while its solemn and vital truths are made of no effect. Love is dwelt upon as the chief attribute of God, but it is degraded to a weak sentimentalism, making little distinction between good and evil. God's justice, His denunciations of sin, the requirements of His holy law, are all kept out of sight. The people are taught to regard the Decalogue as a dead letter. Pleasing, bewitching fables captivate the senses and lead men to reject the Bible as the foundation of their faith. Christ is as verily denied as before; but Satan has so blinded the eyes of the people that the deception is not discerned.

The “present form” is spiritualism as the beginning of the next paragraph states:

There are few who have any just conception of the deceptive power of spiritualism and the danger of coming under its influence.

In fact the previous paragraph is pretty clear that it is not even speaking as a prediction of some coming deception but a deception already occurring during Ellen White’s lifetime, as she says:

It is true that spiritualism is now changing its form and, veiling some of its more objectionable features, is assuming (Page 558) a Christian guise. But its utterances from the platform and the press have been before the public for many years, and in these its real character stands revealed. These teachings cannot be denied or hidden.

It is not surprising that someone who does not understand the New Testament Gospel will also not understand Ellen White’s writings. But of course she is not alone, she is after all agreeing with the Adventist Review on the subject. That after all is the bigger problem, that we have a church that does not even know the Gospel. For more on The Shack see my article Review of William Young's The Shack

Letter to the GC Against Teaching Evolution Part 2

It appears we have the answer to the question in my previous post; Letter to the GC Against Teaching Evolution That the letter is from David Asscherick. Well at least as far as we can be certain in the electronic media. Since I don’t use any type of verification process in my comments section. But as I have not had any problem that I know of with fictitious authors I will act on the premise that the letter truly is from Asscherick. I am posting his comment here under its own thread since it does bring up some additional points to consider. Here is his comment:

David Asscherick here. I can confirm that the letter is, in fact, mine. Wow, a true rumor, that's novel! And on the internet no less! Someone call the press…

While I did write the letter it was not originally written or sent as an open, public letter. I sent it to a few colleagues for review. From there it was passed on to a few others, and the rest is history. Bad news travels fast. If only we could get our people this excited about sharing the Good News…

I have mixed feelings about the wide circulation my letter has received. I am happy to see this serious issue receive the attention it needs and deserves, but I could wish that it wouldn’t have happened with a personal letter being made exceedingly public. I have already been in touch with one of the individuals to whom the letter was written. I explained to him that it was not my intent to undercut him by broadcasting a private letter. He was very gracious and understanding. I would’ve expected nothing less, after all he is a fine Christian and a friend.

As for Ron's comments here, I am surprised that he fails to see the utter illogic of his position. The point is not whether or not Darwinian evolution is true (I don't believe it is, but that is another issue altogether). The point is an ecclesiastical one, not a scientific one: Like it or not (and I take it that Ron doesn't like it), the official, endorsed, published, voted, endorsed, sanctioned, (add your own synonyms here _____________) position of the world-wide Seventh-day Adventist Church is that the Genesis creation account is to be literally understood as communicating an actual, literal, solar Six Day Creation.

Surely this concept is not difficult to grasp.

No one is compelled to believe this, because no one is compelled to be a Seventh-day Adventist. However, it is logically coherent that if you are a Seventh-day Adventist you do believe this. Note: this also applies to professors, teachers, pastors, administrators, etc. In fact it applies to these persons doubly since they receive a paycheck to promote as true the teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Surely this concept is not difficult to grasp.

If someone wants to work for Nike, great! Let them sell Nike. But if they like Adidas better, then let them work for Adidas. If they work for Nike and insist on promoting Adidas as the superior product they are unethical. And Nike is delinquent in letting this behavior (provided they know about it) to continue.

There are lots and lots of universities these guys/ gals can teach at. Let them teach "the preferred and normative worldview of most every area of science", as Ron calls it, there. We wish you the best, and commend you heartily for your ethically upstanding decision.

Note: this is my first ever blog post. So I'm feeling very modern and hip right now.

Have a great Sabbath! (That is, if you believe in those kinds of things...)

Warm regards,

David

I particularly want to deal with this statement:

As for Ron's comments here, I am surprised that he fails to see the utter illogic of his position. The point is not whether or not Darwinian evolution is true (I don't believe it is, but that is another issue altogether). The point is an ecclesiastical one, not a scientific one: Like it or not (and I take it that Ron doesn't like it), the official, endorsed, published, voted, endorsed, sanctioned, (add your own synonyms here _____________) position of the world-wide Seventh-day Adventist Church is that the Genesis creation account is to be literally understood as communicating an actual, literal, solar Six Day Creation.

Is this really an ecclesiastical issue? That apparently is what makes my position that a science class should teach generally accepted scientific theory and information. Dictionary.com defines ecclesiastical as “–adjective of or pertaining to the church or the clergy; churchly; clerical; not secular.” My feeling is that science classes are secular rather then church oriented. I also feel that the janitor cleaning the classroom of an Adventist University is occupied in a secular vocation. Being paid by the church organization does not make everything the church organization pays for fall under the ecclesiastical umbrella. I don’t think our students would be too thrilled to find out that their degrees are ecclesiastical degrees. We and those students for the most part want to have educations that will be readily accepted by other non ecclesiastical institutions whether of higher learning or research or technical institutions or employment. If that is not the intent of our Colleges and Universities I think once that fact is know there will be a steep drop off in students at Adventist colleges.

Do I agree with the statement that the “Genesis creation account is to be literally understood as communicating an actual, literal, solar Six Day Creation.” Well of course not. There was not even a sun until the 4^th day per the story (Genesis 1:14-19) so that would be an illogical statement. I tend not to agree with a lot of committee type publications about doctrines as they are often poorly stated. At some point the committee just wants to get out of there and garbage gets included as official language. As an SDA am I bound but what someone at the General Conference says? I think Ellen White would even have a problem with that one, and she thought at one time that the GC in general session was the highest authority on earth. It did not take too many years before she seemed to realize that they were just as fallible as any else, in or out of session. Even the preamble of our fundamental beliefs acknowledges we can change our positions if we receive new light on a subject.

With all the animosity the Adventist Church has had toward the Roman Catholic Church it is troubling to see some in the denomination try to recapitulate Catholicism in the Adventist church. A person would think the reformation thinking would lead us away from the all powerful dictation of a church hierarchy.

So where is academic freedom if we hold to Adventist colleges and universities as ecclesiastical institutes?

Letter to the GC Against Teaching Evolution

Recently I was forwarded a viral e-mail letter from David Asscherick to some General Conference officials. The letter is a politely worded document complaining about evolutionary theory taught in science classes at La Sierra University. The outcome of the letter is clearly to have denominational leadership dictate the curriculum of science course for the welfare of Adventist University students, which the letter equates to little children. I was unable to find a copy of the letter posted on the internet connected to Asscherick however. I will post the letter in its entirety here with a few of my comments (in red). While the letter does sound like it is from Asscherick I cannot say it is with certainty. Someone may be able to say for certain, if they can I would like to know.

Circulating by viral e-mail

April 30, 2009
Pastors Jan Paulsen, Don C. Schneider, Ricardo Graham
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
12501 Old Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD 20904

Dear Pastors Paulsen, Schneider, and Graham,

Greetings in the name of Jesus Christ. Like each of you, I am an
ordained pastor of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church. I write these words with my heart on full display--from pastor to pastor. This letter concerns the teaching of evolution at La Sierra University. While I am not a formally trained scientist, I am, however, familiar with many of the apologetic, philosophical, and theological issues surrounding the theories of naturalistic evolution. I have made this an area of special study in my life and ministry. So, I feel both comfortable and qualified to speak to the issue, especially in its ecclesiastical ramifications.

It is a matter of incontestable fact that naturalistic evolution is being taught at La Sierra University. This is not in and of itself a bad thing. Evolution should be taught at our denominational universities. But it should be taught as a competing and inimical worldview to the biblical worldview. We need our young people to know what it is they are up against, yes, but when naturalistic evolution is taught as fact or as the preferred and normative worldview, then we can be sure that the enemy has breached our lines.

There is no point in equivocating. I have seen the class materials with my own eyes. Frankly, I think every Seventh-day Adventist deserves to see them. Our people need to know what is happening. Many of them have heard various rumblings, but being the conscientious, confiding, and hopeful people they are, they have generally assumed the very best. We are making capital of their trust.

Notice his beginning argument: teaching evolution is OK but only if we teach that it is a view that we oppose. We should not even teach it as the preferred and normative worldview. Yet clearly it is the preferred and normative worldview of most every area of science. This is an important point when we seek to find what the intentions of the author of the letter are speaking about. He does not want the university to acknowledge the scientific reality, the worldview of modern academia. Instead we should only teach how to oppose the reality, the worldview. Something that numerous Young Earth Creation books have tried to do and something that has failed to move practically anyone in the scientific community to the young earth creation viewpoint. This should reflect that what David Asscherick wants, is in itself not possible at this time. Perhaps in a religion class where the focus is upon some type of church apologetic, then it would be appropriate to teach an inimical view of evolution. But in a science class the idea is to teach the most widely accepted scientific information.

In 2003 I preached a two-week evangelistic meeting on the Loma Linda University campus. The event was student-led and university-sponsored. Many students from La Sierra University attended those meetings, and I personally visited with many of them. They told me what was being taught in some of their science classes. I shall never forget the looks and questions of unadorned incredulity that I witnessed among those students. I have talked to many more since. "What should I do?" "Should I say something?" "Should I just attend a non-SDA school?" Do our leaders know about this?" "How come these people are allowed to teach at a Seventh-day Adventist University?" These young people, and many others like them, are justifiably nonplussed. Frankly, I share their confusion!

At this point we have to ask the question; why are the students confused? Is there some reason that they think that they should not be taught current scientific information at a university? Apparently the answer for these particular students is no, they should not be taught scientific theory at a Seventh-day Adventist University. That raises the second question why would they think that an SDA university because it is run by a denomination could or should only teach the beliefs of the denomination? I doubt the denomination has any particular teachings regarding physics or electrical engineering or even English classes. Do they honestly expect our University instructors to submit to denomination bureaucrats details of every part of their curriculum? We see that there is a problem of expectations. That is there are certain assumptions being made about the Bible, particularly Genesis, that it is meant as a literal account of creation, as if what is recorded was actually recorded by a first hand witness.

Later in the letter Asscherick, tells of his recent evangelistic meetings where the theme was follow the Bible. What he really means is follow one particular interpretation of the Bible. The one that says in the beginning God created light, but we have no idea what that light could be because it was before the creation of the sun. The earth was formless and void and covered with water. But without a sun water would look like stone, frozen solid, the deep is a phrase used of liquid water, not to mention the planet would not retain water without an atmosphere, something again created later according to the Genesis account. Then we have the creation of the sun, moon and stars. But we know from the speed of light those stars could not possibly have been created and be visible to us if the young earth creationist view is correct.

So really how literal are we to take the Genesis account? Are we really following the Bible because we make claims about interpreting possibly symbolic/allegorical stories? Remember the two trees in Eden, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, with a talking snake, does that really sound like a literal story? What about nature, lions, tigers, sharks and parasites? How do we explain them? Nothing about how they came to be as we see them in nature, we could of course blame it on Satan’s manipulation but we don’t see that at all in Genesis or anywhere else in the Bible. So there are legitimate other ways of interpreting the Bible stories, to claim that whatever our tradition is the only way to “follow the Bible” means that we may in fact be the ones leading our children astray.

What deeply concerns me is that the faith of many students, who look up to their Adventist professors as more than just academic instructors, but also as spiritual leaders, is being undermined. Jesus' words in Luke 17:1, 2 about causing "one of these little ones to stumble" carry inestimable weight, and they should be reason enough to propel us to responsible action. Brethren, what are we doing and allowing? Will not God hold us accountable in our respective spheres for what happens on our watch?

I am aware, of course, that the church's governmental structure gives institutions like La Sierra University a necessary degree of administrative freedom. This is a good and wise arrangement. But this freedom, surely, is not synonymous with virtually unaccountable autonomy. La Sierra University is, after all, a denominational university. If the board has not yet adequately addressed this matter, then doesn't that evince a kind of complicity, if not outright mismanagement and denominational disloyalty? I genuinely ask, at what point is La Sierra University's board accountable and answerable to you men and the levels of church government that you represent? When, if
ever, can someone step in and save our children and the institutions they attend?

Governing and administrative structures are not the church. The people are the church. The governing and administrative structures are the scaffolding of the church. Scaffolds are for building and strengthening a thing; they are not the thing itself. But what if some are using the scaffolding to tear down the very church they were commissioned and created to build up? What then? I genuinely want to know. Where does the buck stop?

Perhaps you feel that your hands are tied by policy and protocol. But surely they cannot be tied completely. What should I, as a church pastor, do if someone is teaching doctrine that undermines the church's biblical positions in one of my Sabbath School classes? Wouldn't it be expected of me, the pastor--shepherd--of the flock, to address it? To ask this question is to answer it. Of course, I would work though the Sabbath School council and the church board, but you can be sure that I would deal with the problem. My conference president, to say nothing of my Lord, would surely hold me in contempt if I told him lamely that my hands were tied, no?

Furthermore, the greater the errancy, the greater the urgency. As even a cursory analysis plainly reveals, few doctrines are at greater philosophical odds with Seventh-day Adventism than naturalistic evolution, the arguments of well-meaning theistic evolutionists notwithstanding. Our Magna Carta is Revelation 14:6-12. If naturalistic evolution is true, Creation is cremated, the Sabbath is sabotaged, and our very name is neutered. What becomes of Scripture? And of our unique eschatology? We are not talking about bongo drums, wedding bands, and Christmas trees here.

If our hands are tied, then surely we must let an unfaltering love for God, for His Word, and for His young people dash these fetters into so many deserved pieces! We must do something. You must do something.

Who knows but that you have come to your positions for such a time as this. My ministry places me in somewhat of a unique situation in the world church. In partnership with the Central California Conference, I run ARISE, a mission training school that has seen hundreds of young people over the last seven years. I also have the privilege of preaching regularly on 3ABN and the Hope Channel. Too, I travel all over the world holding evangelistic meetings and preaching at camp meetings, youth conferences, weeks of prayer, etc. I genuinely feel that I have my finger on the pulse of the "average lay person" in the Seventh-day Adventist church the world over. Especially the young people ages 15 to 30. I can say with unblinking confidence that God is working in His church! Praise Him!

I just arrived home from the Youth Mission Congress in Frankfurt, Germany. Over 1600 young people attended the meetings. Night after night I preached the Adventist message--I preached Christ! The theme chosen for the congress was Follow the Bible, and what an indescribable joy it was to see, at the end of my last sermon, hundreds and hundreds of young people streaming forward. All of them had personal decision cards in their hands. A beautiful, five-foot-tall wooden Bible had been constructed for just this moment. On the side of the Bible was a slot designed to receive the decision cards the young people clutched in their surrendered hands. One by one, each placed his or her card in the Bible. The symbolism was rich and thrillingly profound. It was impossible to not be moved at a fundamental level as each eager young person placed their decision, and thus their life in that wooden Bible. My translator openly wept at the sight. "We will follow the Bible," they were each saying. All over the world, God's people--and in particular, it seems, His young people--are saying We will follow the Word--the Living Word, Jesus, and the Written Word, the Bible.

God has entrusted us with these young people. They are His. He has given us His wise counsel to raise up institutions of learning to educate, equip, and empower them. To build them up.

But what do we do when one of our institutions turns from this inestimably important responsibility, a responsibility that is fraught with eternal significance and involves the souls of those Jesus died to save? This is what I want to know.

And so do many, many others.

I thank each of you for your time, and, in advance, for your thoughtful responses.

Sincerely,
David Asscherick
Director, ARISE