A Subtle Attack on Our Children.

In this transmission we send the first of two theological evaluations of the GraceLink curriculum by Larry Kirkpatrick, an ordained SDA minister. You may access this material on his website at www.greatcontroversy.org. GraceLink: Theological Reflections and Concerns

A brief evaluation of GraceLink materials and of the philosophies revisionists seek to press home to our youth

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

Our youth are our treasure. Every parent wants to give their children good gifts, build-up their Christianity, and set them on their way to heaven. Our young people are surrounded by a world, the media of which continually communicates principles at odds with holiness. Its effect is to saturate its hearers with destructive values. Parents have a right to expect that materials published by the church for their kids shall be spiritually advantageous and biblically sound. Much time, energy, and thought has gone into the new GraceLink curriculum in an attempt to produce Sabbath school materials that will benefit our youth. Unfortunately, GraceLink's portrayal of grace and obedience is unambiguously faulty, and incompatible with Adventism.

Many have objected to the artwork and other aspects surrounding these materials. This paper will address itself to primarily theological points -- an area not addressed in detail in most of the documents that have been raising concerns about this new curriculum.

Grotesque License in Story-Telling

Since we are examining a biblical question ("is the teaching of GraceLink on grace sound?") it is right for us to start by trying to sense what attitude these materials encourage toward the Bible. Do they lead us to consider God's Word reverently, respectfully, authoritatively? Numerous incidents of grotesque license in story telling permeate these materials. For example, in one case, the story regarding the confession of Peter that Jesus is the Christ begins with the playful antics of Peter's sneaking-up on Andrew and pouring water on him. The event proceeds with Jesus "stretched out full-length on the ground." Suddenly He asks whether people think He is the Messiah or not, continuing the discussion propped-up on elbow.1

This item illustrates a most regrettable mixture of the profane and the holy. Profane embellishment recasts this most solemn and treasured Bible story, placing it in a very light and relaxed atmosphere. We hardly need point out that Ellen White, who saw the actual events in vision, portrays the setting altogether differently.2

Would it be appropriate in the middle of a sermon to sneak-up behind a fellow parishioner and throw water on them? Would it be appropriate when in conversation with Jesus? We can hardly imagine how a water-fight or a prank like this, a completely contrived addition to the biblical story, can be woven into such a serious event by any intelligent mind. This evidences the approach to reverence taken in this curriculum.

Need the Bible stories such embellishment? If so, then we may blame the Holy Spirit for a lack of creativity that we supply in His absence. Work such as this sets the tone for a very loose approach to the Bible.

Other examples of this have been written about in other places, so we will not spend more time on it. From a theological perspective however, we open our consideration of GraceLink noting the tone that is set towards the Bible. We are signaled that much "creativity" is being injected, going much beyond both, the details of Scripture and, more importantly, the tone -- the very attitude -- set in and by Scripture. How regrettable that in an age characterized by the long ethereal anti-moral reach of anchorless post-modernist thought, the one unfailing anchor, God's Word, is handled in so cheap a manner.

Grace Orientation?

At the core of GraceLink is what is called a "grace orientation." Here is how the GraceLink website describes their purpose: "Through our lessons and children's stories we want to impart the full impact of a grace orientation. Discussions about salvation will emphasize the actions of God toward us. We will resolve the confusion about salvation by separating talk about our response to God's grace, the good works Christians do, from the discussion of the salvation God's grace has freely given us." [UPDATE: 16 November 2001, see footnote]3 By this paragraph we learn that it is expected that the teaching of a "grace orientation" potentially can have "a full impact," i.e., this viewpoint is expected to make an important difference in one's experience. We agree that a right or a wrong view of this topic will make a great difference in our experience.

Certainly, the actions of God toward us are a precious part of what grace is. What is interesting is this purported confusion that it is intended shall be resolved. The basis of the corrective formula is to separate talk about our "response" to God's grace, (defined as "the good works Christians do"), from "the discussion of the salvation God's grace has freely given us." That is, our would-be teachers intend to draw a sharp and distinct line in the air and put grace on one side, which is what God has done outside of us, and put our "response" to grace, the good works "Christians do," on the other side. I don't know whether you caught that, but the "full impact" is such that if we are saved by grace, we shall have nothing to do. It has all been done apart from us, and anything and everything that we do can only, at the very most, be mere response.

Does the Bible sustain this distinction? Actually, grace is something that we continue "in" (Acts 13:43). In Acts 20:32 we read, "And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified." The word of God's grace is not merely apart from us and outside of us, but here we have it "able to build you up," and give an inheritance among the sanctified. This "building up" is not just how we are accounted, it is what is happening within us. It is a process, a regeneration and internal change.

Not only the Bible, but Ellen White repeatedly violates the sharp distinction between faith and works GraceLink seeks to impose. She writes, "God's forgiveness is not merely a judicial act by which He sets us free from condemnation. It is not only forgiveness for sin, but reclaiming from sin. It is the outflow of redeeming love that transforms the heart."4 Again, "To be pardoned in the way that Christ pardons is not only to be forgiven, but to be renewed in the spirit of our mind."5 No wonder she says "Faith and works go together, believing and doing are blended. . ."6 She reminds us that "[in] the work of gaining salvation . . . God works and man works."7 In fact, "The righteousness by which we are justified is imputed; the righteousness by which we are sanctified is imparted. The first is our title to heaven, the second is our fitness for heaven."8

What happens outside of us when we are accounted "righteous" happens in a moment. Such is not process but event. What happens in our being saved, however, is more than this. Our hope of salvation includes a twofold reality: "Our only ground of hope is in the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and in that wrought by His Spirit working in and through us."9

It is quite evident as we view these two statements of Ellen White above that the experience of salvation is inclusive of two primary aspects. One is a title to heaven, Christ's righteousness counted to us; the other, our fitness for heaven, accomplished by His Spirit working in and through us. Together, these constitute "our only ground of hope." To cut away then the fitness for heaven from the title to heaven, is to remove the inward work of the Holy Spirit from salvation. It is impossible to reconcile such a view with either the Bible or the writings of Ellen G. White. Yet this GraceLink seeks to do.

Romans 1:5 reminds us that the purpose of our receiving grace is to enable our obedience. The linkage is close. If grace is something that we "continue in," and if grace is something that enables our obedience, and if grace makes possible our being 'built up," and that means actual internal change, then how can we create an artificial distinction between what God does outside us and inside us, between initiation and response?

What Christians do is not done on their own, apart from God. We cannot respond apart from the empowerment of God's grace. When we do respond it is in His power, not our own. Therefore, this occurs as part of grace, not as an isolated response to it.

Romans 3:24 says we are "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." It is evident that nothing we can do on our own, apart from God can have any saving merit. And yet it is just as evident that "the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" is a buying-back such that we are saved "from" our sins, not in them (Matthew 1:21). We are bought back, not so that we can be counted as changed, but so that "the word of His grace" might build us up truly.

Grace changes people on the inside just as it accounts them changed on the outside. Fine distinctions need to be carefully looked at. We need to ask questions, starting with, why make such a separation and a distinction as to limit grace to what God does and the result of grace as what we then do? The purpose in this distinction is to break the linkage between grace and working faith that is built into the gospel, and replace it with a rump gospel limited only to the forensic realm.

When we begin to look seriously at grace, the fine distinctions proposed in GraceLink (salvation as purely objective and external, with no subjective element), convenient though such may appear, cannot be sustained. We face inspired realities. The truth is, that the concepts of salvation presented in GraceLink are alien -- thoroughly alien -- to Adventism, and have been derived from liberal mainline Lutheranism.10

How fascinating that antipathy towards a gospel upholding the validity of the law and the importance of obedience to the law in the salvation plan, leads to what, from another perspective, is actually a very legal view of the gospel! To remove the necessity of obedience for being saved, a gospel is created wherein one can disobey and still be saved because of how one fictitiously is counted. The goal of this gospel is to bring in a sense of security for the disobedient. People want to feel they are "saved," apart from the requirements of the gospel. GraceLink pushes heavily in this direction.

Notice some of the sentiments the GraceLink curriculum seeks to teach our youth: "God's gifts are always free," "God does it all; we have nothing to add," "God is on our side."11 God's gifts are always free. But what do they hope our children will think this means? Apparently that "God does it all; we have nothing to add." God does it all? Romans 5:2 says that through Jesus we have access by faith into the grace in which we stand. Faith has a part to play. And the Bible says that authentic faith works by love (Galatians 5:6). James 2:17, 20, 26 all say that a faith without works is a dead faith, but a real faith is a working faith. A working faith has something in it for us to do. We are not saved by our obedience; that is, we receive no merit or credit or payment toward our salvation by our obedience. Our obedience is simply a necessary condition of being saved. We must obey.

"Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" (Romans 5:20). But some would have us think that where sin abounded, sin still abounds even with grace. Such is not grace "much more" abounding, but disgrace abounding. Grace does not co-exist with sin; it is an antithetic force towards sin, unceasingly working towards its eradication. In Romans 6:1 Paul asks the rhetorical question, shall we sin so that grace will more abound?, and the answer is no, that we are dead to sin by the power of the gospel. GraceLink, with its false distinctions, is not teaching this.

Dangerously Open-Ended Assertions

The church assigns to GraceLink the mission of teaching our young people rightly about the way of salvation. In dealing with such a critical topic, it would seem that precision of expression is demanded. Nevertheless, the materials we have examined are laced with loosely worded and open-ended statements that do far more to obscure than to clarify.

One example (from among the many that might be given) is, "God does it all; we have nothing to add."12 That might look good on paper. But we have a part to play, a cooperative role, work even. It is the meeting of the conditions by the power of God. It doesn't save us, just makes us eligible to be saved. God has designed no passive gospel, (although our young people are to be forgiven for thinking so when they are exposed to the strange teachings of GraceLink). The teachings of GraceLink are full of loose and open-ended statements that do little but blur what the Bible makes clear. What does it mean to say that, "God is on our side?"13 This is a mouth full of nothing. God is on our side, but let's define that. Otherwise, it could mean anything.

According to GraceLink, perhaps here is what that means: "If we can't be separated from God's love, and grace is working things out, and God is on our side, then, NO MATTER WHAT, JESUS IS ALWAYS THERE FOR US."14 Is Jesus always there for us? "NO MATTER WHAT"? It is true that Jesus stands ever ready to receive the repenting sinner. But if we teach a passive variety of Christianity, and rarely discuss sin or consider the consequences of sin, then what will our young people think? Furthermore, there is a time coming when probation will be closed, the day of mercy will be ended. We challenge anyone to find that teaching in GraceLink! No, according to GraceLink, "NO MATTER WHAT, JESUS IS ALWAYS THERE FOR US."

How many barriers does grace bypass? According to GraceLink, "God's gift of grace bypasses all barriers in order to save us."15What kind of grace would be such that it would "bypass" barriers to save us? In fact, our children are here taught that grace bypasses "all" barriers in order to save us. The statement is pure falsehood. It is unadulterated Calvinism, for Calvinism holds to the theory of "irresistible grace." That is, one is predestined to be saved (if he is very fortunate), or predestinated to be lost (if he is very unfortunate). If you are the recipient of "irresistible grace," then you will be saved and nothing can stop it. Then it would be true that what God did bypassed "all barriers" in order to save us. This might make an effective Calvinism, but it is the exact opposite of the Adventist conception of grace, which along with the Bible affirms that grace leads to repentance but does not compel repentance; that the human will is free to accept or reject God's initiative in grace; that in the last days, grace would be used as a cover and a code-word for lasciviousness and sensuality (Jude 4).

Our salvation is a mighty objective in heaven's plan, but not to the degree that God will do absolutely anything it takes to save us. He refused to set aside His law. Jesus had to die to meet the penalty of transgression in our place. There are many potential barriers to grace's working in our lives, and the first one on the list is our own freedom to choose to accept or reject His grace.

What can our children think when such extravagant, open-ended, demonstrably false, obviously unbiblical ideas are thrust before them?

Here is another definition of grace found in GraceLink:

"God's grace is the unlimited, for-sure, forever power that finds us, forgives us, frees us, and fills us with everything we need to live a full and wonderful life, serving and worshiping Him."16

Yet even the above definition statement is rendered vague by its plenitude of open statements. God's grace is here held as essentially a power that seeks, forgives, frees, and fills us. This wouldn't be troubling but for the fact that the philosophy behind GraceLink is pointedly said to be to "resolve the confusion about salvation by separating talk about our response to God's grace, the good works Christians do, from the discussion of the salvation God's grace has freely given us."17

In the same quarterly our being "set free," is said merely to mean that, "our sins are forgiven."18 Translation? Being "set free" is here limited to mere judicial focus. Yet even a cursory study of the Bible shows that being "set free" includes much more than how we are counted. The freedom of the gospel includes the inward work of the Holy Spirit, washing, regenerating, healing, God's people. It is true that GraceLink does not here say that it wasn't these things. But what is true is that GraceLink here never expanded on or included such aspects.

Some of us have been troubled by the strange vagueness consistently encountered in expressions found in these materials. Often a statement is vague, even true, in what it affirms, while disquieting or even effectively falsified by what is left out. Obviously this dilemma we describe is a judgment call. But why does such a situation exist? Are our highly educated GraceLink workers and consultants incapable of clear expression? Or bent upon carefully pressing home certain points which they fear to clearly expound?

On one occasion, the children are taught that, "God keeps His promises, His gifts of grace to us."19 Are there ever any conditions to these promises? Any? In the GraceLink quarterly we see no hint of such, not the slightest mention. And yet, "promises and blessings were always upon conditions of obedience,"20

Lessons Taught by Prodigal Son

Few of us can forget the powerful parable of the prodigal son. This selfish young man goes, wastes his inheritance, and returns home smelling of pigs. Much however, has been made by some of certain theological bent using this parable as a favorite vehicle. Often it is conveniently forgotten that the father never left his home, never changed the conditions there. Finally, much the worse for the wear, the prodigal returns home, and enjoys a joyous reunion with his father. The father, according to GraceLink. . ." didn't seem to hear the heartbreaking confession. Instead, he eagerly led the boy inside, called for a rich robe to cover the filthy clothes, and laid plans for a lavish welcome home party."21

But that wasn't the way it was, at all. Scripture urges us to confess our sins, assures us of our Father's redemptive desire to receive these confessions. But GraceLink teaches a strange variety of grace wherein God's grace covers sin. In the telling of this parable, we read that. . ." he eagerly led the boy inside, called for a rich robe to cover the filthy clothes . . ." But this is adding to the Bible.

Luke 15:22 says nothing of covering filthy clothes, but it does speak of bringing forth the best robe to put upon the repentant boy. In the Old Testament, Zechariah 3:4 tells of filthy clothing first removed before the placement of new clothing, a change of raiment. In the New Testament, the parable of the wedding feast never contemplates one covering filthy garments with the wedding garment provided, but rather that guests at the wedding wear the wedding garment provided (Matthew 22:1-14).

Ellen White, of course, makes clear the difference. Considering the same tale of the prodigal son, she makes an appeal to the reader, stating the following: "When Satan points to your filthy garments, repeat the promise of Jesus, 'Him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out . . . Your heavenly Father will take from you the garments defiled by sin."22 She next refers, as we already have, to the prophecy of Zechariah, where the filthy garments were first removed and sin was entirely purged before the new garment was donned.

The cover, incidentally, of this Quarterly shows the pigs following the prodigal home and into the waiting arms of the father.23 Someone else has well said that this symbolizes the thread of error on salvation theology running through the GraceLink materials. Here now is a portrayal where in the true, the garments are replaced and no pigs accompany authentic grace. In the false, the father's home is defiled by garments of sin and a herd of swine! Items such as this clarify that "grace orientation" as contemplated here is nothing more than a poor version of evangelicalism. It has nothing in common with authentic Adventism.

Emphasis Upon Feeling

Another aspect common throughout the materials we examined was an emphasis upon feeling. "[Record in a prayer journal] . . .experiences in which you feel God's grace."24

Here is a keyword for these materials: "feel." It seems the editors want our children to focus a good deal upon what they are feeling. To feel is not evil. But in the context of an overwhelmingly post-modernist culture, to feel and to focus upon how we feel is to press toward a new and different way of knowing and understanding truth.Post-modernism makes what we feel the sole criterion for determining what is truth. The media culture in our world today continuously assaults the senses, relentlessly appealing to our young people to make their decisions based on how they are feeling, on sensuality and the yearnings of a fallen and uninhibited nature.

How highly regrettable that GraceLink presses to the youthful lips of young Adventists the toxic cup of feeling-centered (un)faith. Were parents asked for permission to set their children up as sitting ducks for the gaping maw of the post-modernist dragon? GraceLink's persistent evocation of the feelings of our children seems calculated to inculcate a postmodern worldview and mindset in them, in our own churches, right under our own noses.

Other Miscellaneous Issues

Drama and Theatrics

Over and over again throughout these materials we find repeated sentiments such as these: "Act out the Bible story with your family for worship."25The Holy Spirit warned us through Ellen White that "everything" of a theatrical nature was to be shunned. "Not one jot or tittle of anything theatrical is to be brought into our work. God's cause is to have a sacred, heavenly mold. Let everything connected with the giving of the message for this time bear the divine impress. Let nothing of a theatrical nature be permitted, for this would spoil the sacredness of the work."26 If these statements have any validity, we cannot understand why the GraceLink writers so desire to continually press forward such ideas. The truth is that Ellen White consistently opposes the introduction of such things, pointing out their destructive capacity. But every issue of the GraceLink materials presses forward such ideas regardless of the obvious antagonism toward inspiration.

Actually, the emphasis on theatrics in the Christianity of closing 20th and opening 21st century north America came out of new methodology employed by prominent Sunday-keeping evangelists anxious to secure crowds of listeners. The early "Salvation Army" also had a purely forensically salvation theory. If you have an Ellen White CDROM, go and do a search on "salvation army" or "salvation army methods" and see what you come up with. You'll find the outcome interesting. The use of theatrics or the urging of our young people to mix together what is real with what is unreal is a snare with long-term implications. This is another strange doctrine entering the church from outside of the historic practice within our community of faith.

We note with interest that the editors of GraceLink are not uniform in their advocacy of dramatics. In one of the Quarterlies examined, we found virtually no suggestion that the young people act things out.27 We found this to be encouraging.

Bible Versions

These materials are not neutral when it comes to the question of Bible translations. . ." we insist on contemporary versions of the Bible. Children need to hear God's Word in everyday language and know that they can speak to God as a friend."28 But are parents aware that the baseline texts upon which all "contemporary" versions of the Bible are built are cobbled together from a tiny subset of contradictory manuscripts varying widely from the vast majority? Are they aware that many of the contemporary "translations" available actually rewrite the text of Scripture in order to make it politically-correct by making their language "gender-inclusive"?29If parents wish to instruct their children with a Protestant Bible, such as the King James Version, this is not favored by GraceLink. At the minimum, the GraceLink editors should be willing to exercise a strict neutrality toward Bible versions. But what version is used repeatedly by GraceLink? The New International Version. Some parents may not find this to be an issue, but others will. Yet the only provision made is to insist upon the supposed superiority of the contemporary versions.30

Women Elders

According to the official website, the GraceLink materials are designed so that the young people will become part of a church that will "actively challenge prejudice and division between gender"31 groups. None of us are for prejudice; but biblically ordained roles rising from our Creator's creation order -- roles that are distinct and different between men and women -- must be upheld. We have in GraceLink observed repeated attempts to lead our youth to accept as normal unbiblical positions such as female elders.

Readers may be interested in knowing that repeated interaction with the North American Division and the General Conference have failed to turn up the existence of any study materials from the Bible or Spirit of Prophecy used to arrive at the recommendations for women elders of the 1975 and 1984 Annual Councils. Such decisions appear to have been made purely as a matter of policy and/or expediency. To date, no credible evidence has been produced to sustain the biblicity of such a practice (as ordaining women elders). Again, to press such ideas upon our children independent of biblical sustenance is little more than to propagandize.

Actually, a mere glance at the list of those responsible for these materials will reveal the names of those who some of us, based on their writings, would have immeasurable difficulty in identifying with the Adventist mainstream or the conventional Adventism of our churches history.32 It is regrettable that the work of others of sounder persuasion is muted by the high-profile presence of those whose writings place them far afield of recognizable Adventism. These materials serve as the entering-wedge for the ever-destructive influence of extreme liberalism, and introduce such to our young people, bringing before them the starkly alien principles of a false gospel.

A Word on Ideologies

Lest someone read these lines and think that we are picking at nits, that actually we are all simply pushing in the same direction with our differing gifts, consider published quotes such as the following from those involved in GraceLink and its kindred projects. "Nothing less than a thorough transformation of our Victorian 'man of sorrows' will allow the average SDA to tolerate the image of Jesus dancing at a wedding or elsewhere."33 This book overflows with numerous misstatements and heresies. Of interest to us here is its advocacy of dancing, and its assertion that Jesus must have danced -- an argument from silence. Nothing less than "a thorough transformation of our Victorian 'man of sorrows'" can be accepted by that author. There is an agenda here, one leading away from Isaiah 53 and toward contemporary worship fads such as celebration. These are the people who would like to instruct your children.

Obedience and transformation, as we have seen, have a very strong and biblically sound lineage in Seventh-day Adventism. But hear now what Gillespie has written. "Too often when we think of the grace of Jesus acting in our behalf we add a 'but' behind it. We believe in the free gift of grace, but . . .we think we have to do something to earn it. We believe we should pray harder, get up earlier to study the Bible, share more, etc. These activities (works) are all good things to do, but they must come out of the abundance of our understanding of the free gift of Jesus by grace through faith."34

As we recalled above, no less a personage than Mrs. White goes out of her way to add crucial "buts" ("God's forgiveness is not merely a judicial act by which He sets us free from condemnation. It is not only forgiveness for sin, but reclaiming from sin," "To be pardoned in the way that Christ pardons is not only to be forgiven, but to be renewed in the spirit of our mind.") It is because we find her adding "buts" that we, having carefully considered what we have found in these materials, feel very clear to point out why, for the parents of Seventh-day Adventist youth, serious issues that reside at the very core of the GraceLink paradigm make them unusable for countless precious SDA families serious about spirituality.

Conclusion

How we regret the conclusions that we must reach. Readers should know that the author had labored repeatedly with the leaders of the GraceLink project to communicate such concerns for over a year previous to this. Repeatedly I received from Noelene Johnsson e-mails containing canned responses to my queries. Others had the same experience, forwarding to me copies of responses identical to those I received. Those carving out this new project, spending a great deal of Adventist money to produce these decidedly un-Adventist materials, have been at work for a long time. Their product lies now naked in the light of day. There has been sufficient time to be fair in our evaluations, and to give the benefit of the doubt. But now we must be plain.

We bear no animus toward the varied parties that simply follow the directions they've been given by those in charge. Among the artists, the writers, marketing people, etc., doubtless there are many who would have preferred to see at the last a far more acceptable product, but the decisions that would have made that possible were not theirs to make. To such we say we are sorry that you have been frustrated. We are thankful that some have sought to do better. Our people are, by and large, anxious to see God's work finished to His credit and for His glory, and to produce materials for our young people that honor what God intends Seventh-day Adventism to be.

This brief review has looked at the attitude toward Scripture inculcated by these materials. How saddened we were to report and document for your own consideration the lightness and irreverence and unbiblical glosses added by these materials. We spent most of our space in this document outlining issues at the very core of GraceLink, its theology of salvation. We wondered aloud why so many vague and open-ended statements abound, and how such Calvinist and Lutheran soteriology (salvation understanding) found its way into our materials, and noted how incompatible those ideas are with the theological foundations of Seventh-day Adventism. We noted, if but in passing, a variety of other points many have found troubling. Finally, we saw how a hostile-to-Adventism ideology, not merely in silence, but openly published on our presses, clearly enunciates the goals of principle participants in GraceLink to thoroughly transform Adventism into something very different.

Because such things are manifestly completely unacceptable, we here close our reflection and the sharing of our concerns about the GraceLink curriculum with the following statements.

We find these materials unacceptable for many reasons, foremost among these its open, theological incompatibility with real Seventh-day Adventism. We regret the decision some of our leaders have manifested in putting at the head of a project affecting so many precious Adventist young people, such an ideologically slanted group of known ultra-liberals. We call those charged with maintaining the theological integrity of these materials to make your intentions known; either you are sustaining the sharp revision of Adventism undertaken by these materials, or they are unsound and you should stop the presses and publish not one more page until our people can be assured of their legitimacy as soundly Seventh-day Adventist publications.

May God have mercy upon us for our unspeakable neglect of duty, and our tragic abandonment of our principles until now. Let there be a positive change and a clear mid-course correction without delay. If there is not, many, losing hope of seeing anything sound for our young people ever come off the Adventist presses again, will inevitably turn to other sources. The day will come when we close all of our presses and contract-out to non-believers. What a tragic circle that would be for SDA publishing work to come to! God forbid that such should come to pass. Unless action is taken, confidence in this department of the work will further erode, and that bleak future will move from possibility to certainty.

We hope that someone out there is listening.

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

ENDNOTES

PowerPoints, Vo. 67, no. 3, Year B, (Second Quarter 2001), Juniors/Teen, pp. 42-45.See Ellen G. White, Desire of Ages, pp. 410-418.http://gracelink.net/Philosophy/grace.html. (Accessed 18 October 2001, 3:22pm PST. We notice today that no link remains from the current index page to this page, however, as of this writing, it can still be accessed by manually typing the URL into one's browser window.) UPDATE: I have received word from one of the assistant editors at GraceLink that there has been a change in the wording expressed on their website. The new wording is as follows: "Through our lessons and children's stories we want to impart the full impact of a grace orientation. Discussions about salvation will emphasize the actions of God toward us." New paragraph "We believe that grace is the power behind 'the good works that Christians do,' even though we do not believe that 'the good works that Christians do' earn salvation." The new wording is most promising. We much prefer it, and hope that it signals a change not only in wording but philosophy. LK.Ellen G. White, Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing, p. 114.________, Reflecting Christ, p. 303.________, Selected Messages, Bk. 1, p. 374.________, Acts of the Apostles, p. 82.________, Review and Herald, June 4, 1895.________, Steps to Christ, p. 63.http://www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-gracelink-oi.php3.http://gracelink.net/History/mission.html. (Accessed 18 October 2001, 9:05am PST. See note 3 for details about current public accessibility of this link.)Ibid.Ibid.PowerPoints, Year B, Vol. 67, no. 1, (First Quarter 2001), Juniors/Teen, p. 50 (emphasis in original).Ibid., p. 69.Ibid., p. 2.http://gracelink.net/Philosophy/grace.html. (Accessed 18 October 2001 9:20am. See note 3 for details about current public accessibility of this link too.)PowerPoints, Year B, Vol. 67, No. 3 (Second Quarter 2001), p. 22-23.Ibid., p. 61.Ellen G. White, Redemption, Pamphlet 1, p. 40.PowerPoints, Year B, Vol. 67, No. 1, First Quarter, 2001, p. 37.Ellen G. White, Christ's Object Lessons, p. 226 (emphasis added).PowerPoints, Year B, Vol. 67, No. 1, First Quarter, 2001, cover. Also, in the picture provided at the top of this paper of the three Quarterlies spread out, you may be able to make out on the cover on the far right some of the pigs chasing the prodigal at his heels.PowerPoints, Year B, Vol. 67, No. 3 Second Quarter 2001, p. 93 (See also p. 90 for further emphasis upon feeling).Ibid., p. 9, 17, 23, 37, 45, 59 (these are but some of the references from but one of the quarterlies, given here as samples of a much more pervasive presence.Ellen G. White, Evangelism, p. 137.PowerPoints, Year A, Vol. 66, No. 7, Fourth Quarter 2000.http://gracelink.net/Philosophy/worship.htm. (Accessed 18 October 2001 10:05am. See note 3 for details on current public accessibility of this link.)The New Revised Standard Version is one such "translation."For a concise yet cogent discussion of some of these issues, see Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, 2nd ed., Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, pp. ix-xiii.http://gracelink.net/Philosophy/community.htm. (Accessed 18 October 2001 10:08am. See note 3 for details on current public accessibility of this link.)Prominent names included in the project are Stuart Tyner and V. Bailey Gillespie (a pastor and a professor associated with La Sierra University in Riverside California), and Pat Habada, (who served as editor of the pro-women's ordination and historical-critical-leaning book, The Welcome Table).Bill Knott, in Shall We Dance: Rediscovering Christ-Centered Standards, ed. Steve Case, p. 71. (Participation by Bailey & Gillespie, as noted on the front cover of this book published by the La Sierra University Press in 1996.)34. V. Bailey Gillespie, The Sounds of Grace in our Churches, Pacific Union Conference Church Resource Center, Hancock Center Publications, Riverside, CA 1996, p. 13.[For a free copy of Entertainment Syndrome, by Colin and Russell Standish, email your postal address to Hartland@Hartland.edu. About the book: Never in our history has there been such a systematic attempt to destroy the minds of a generation. Perceptive Christians recognize that entertainment is the key to the final efforts of Satan to destroy the witness of the faithful. It may be the single most dangerous element in the disruption of productive lives in modern society. There is hardly a woe in the world that cannot be directly connected to entertainment. Entertainment Syndrome explores how this large increase in entertainment impacts the physical, emotional, social, intellectual & spiritual life of the human race. In graphic detail, the authors portray what can be the outcome of even the simplest forms of what many might consider to be "innocent" entertainment. The book includes suggestions for alternative activities.Remember that you may also request copies of the pictures originally published in the GraceLink curriculum as well as copies of the cosmetic changes. For those interested in our printed Hartland Ministry Report sent by regular mail six times per year, email your request and postal address to Hartland@hartland.edu. The Hartland Ministry Report brings news and progress of God's work at Hartland. At present this offer is only available to North American Addresses. You may also view the Hartland Ministry Report on line at www.hartland.edu.]