How Difficult it is to be Right!

Ephesians 4:1-3

Purpose: To see how imperative it is to maintain mutual respect for one another even though we might differ significantly on various issues.

Date: 3/10/07-Benson; 3/17/07-Midvale Park

I would be surprised if any one would raise their hand to indicate that they are wrong on issues they feel strongly about. Each of us have come to our own conclusions and opinions about right and wrong over an extended period of time, through a variety of experiences, through our own study and meditation as well as our observations of others who we have admired or even been hurt by. Our conscience is bound in a variety of issues ranging from moral issues such as we should save the sexual relationship for only the person to whom we are married. But we may have equally conscientious convictions regarding issues of diet and exercise which may not assume such importance. Since most of us have formed our strongly held opinions after considerable reflection we are pretty sure we are correct in our thinking. That doesn’t mean that we are right but certainly we think we are right. We have certain authorities we refer to whether they be scriptural or those whose opinions we highly regard. So how are we going to get along with one another when each of us feels we are right and we may have differing opinions? It is difficult!

But Paul addressed this problem in Romans 14:1-19. Paul was dealing with a very specific situation. One of the issues he was dealing with was the issue of food offered to idols and whether it should be eaten or not. Some felt it was a non issue because the idols were nothing so by offering food to idols it did not change their food value. Others felt restricted from eating because they had such a fresh connection with idolatry and had conscientious convictions about not eating such food. While we are not dealing with such lofty moral issues as sexual purity we are dealing with issues that are matters of conscience. While the KJV uses the phrase, “doubtful disputations” it does not mean that they were unimportant matters. In fact he recognizes that the issue revolves around the issue of conscientious convictions. He dealt with this issue because it was a difficult issue. It was a difficult issue then and it is a difficult issue now although we may not be dealing with the same presenting circumstances.

It is difficult being right because

• It can pander to our pride of opinion.

• It can make us like a porcupine, difficult for others to live with.

• Being right and humble at the same time is hard to pull off.

• We might want to correct others who we think are wrong.

• We may think everyone else should agree with us.

• We may think we should be able to persuade everyone else that our position is right.

• It leads us to think we may be right in other areas where we may be dead wrong.

• We may think that we are above being corrected.

If it weren’t for God’s grace that helps us deal with those differences that are created we would be hopelessly locked in conflict, misunderstanding, self-righteousness. We would be polarized pockets of opinions.

We might say to ourselves that inspiration is on our side. We might say to ourselves that we have all the facts. We might say that the other party has an immature attitude.

So how does God’s grace enable us to deal with such differences of opinions so that our fellowship is not fractured by deep fissures in our relationships? How do we maintain the bond of peace without making the ones we differ with feel like we are attacking them? How do we maintain unity when our opinions are so different?

A month ago we looked at Jesus’ invitation where he said, “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

Jesus was humble without being weak. He was right without being arrogant. He was right and people still loved Him and loved being around him except those people who thought they were right all the time and in positions of power to maintain their control. He was right and the people around Him could be wrong but they still loved being around Him even when they didn’t realize how wrong they were. His disciples didn’t feel He was judgmental toward them when their flaws were being pointed out. Jesus was not critical. He accepted people as they were. Yet they were transformed over time to become like Him so that even the leaders and the Sanhedrin observed that they had been with Jesus (Acts 4:13). He rubbed off on them through the process of admiration and intimacy.

There was a song we used to sing years ago that applies here:

Put your hand in the hand of the man
Who stilled the water
Put your hand in the hand of the man
Who calmed the sea
Take a look at yourself
And you can look at others differently
Put your hand in the hand of the man
From Galilee.

© Gene MacLellan

This morning I have chosen as my text a passage from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians 4:2,3. In this passage Paul appeals to the church to “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” This hammers home Paul’s counsel to the Romans on the same issue: Romans 14:19 “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.” This is tremendously important to the success of the church. Not only does Paul tell us the target to aim at but he tells us the spirit in which we are to pursue our goal: “Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.”

So how are we to deal with differences of opinion? Are all issues and questions of equal magnitude? What are the transcendent issues? Is it possible that I can be both right and wrong? Is there something that I need to learn from the exchange of ideas? How can I show respect for those who I differ with? How can I win the confidence of those I differ with? Is the opinion of the one I differ with less significant than mine? Is it possible for me to be wrong, wrong in the interpretation of the facts I have gathered or wrong in the attitude I may have toward those I differ with? Is it more difficult or less difficult to be right? What is more important who is right or in what spirit those who differ exchange their ideas?

So how are we to pursue unity of the faith through the bond of peace? We should make sure we understand each other’s point of view. We need to make sure we are not talking past each other. We need to make sure we are not participating in the dialogue of the deaf where we are so intent on getting our message across that we do not listen to what the other person is saying. It would be well if we could hear the message so clearly that we can repeat it with clarity back to the person we are having a dialogue with. It seems that would make communication much more effective. When we demonstrate sincere interest and understanding of the other party don’t you think that will foster the same spirit on their part?

But there is another mistake and that is attributing to the other person a diminished capacity as a Christian. Another name would be judgmentalism. We need to affirm the authenticity and equality and genuineness of the other person’s Christian experience regardless of how different our opinions are.

It is clear from Romans 14:5 that we need to respect one another’s conscientious convictions and not diminish the value of the persons who hold them. Is it possible for those who eat meat and those who are vegetarians experience mutual respect and admiration toward each other? Can unity be experienced between those who have televisions in their homes and those who do not? Can there be harmony between those who dress conservatively and those who do not dress conservatively according to the more conservatively dressed? Can peace exist between those whose musical choices vary significantly from one another? Can we live with each other without being critical of one another when some wear wedding rings and the others may not? Someone might quote Amos 3:3 which says, “Can two walk together except they be agreed?” That is a great verse but we need to consider what the setting is for that verse. If you read it carefully it is describing the relationship between God and his people. They were poles apart so Amos was sent by God on his prophetic mission where he rebuked the sins that sprang from material prosperity, the extravagances, the revelries, the debauchery of the rich, who were able to do this by oppressing the poor and by perverting judgment, through bribery and extortion.[1] It wasn’t a matter of doubtful disputations as is the case in Romans 14 where you have two groups of people with conscientious convictions about the appropriateness of what they were doing.

When John heard that there were some who were casting demons out in the name of Jesus he appealed to Jesus: Mark 9:38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” Jesus did not side with John but surprised him by saying, “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.” Then Jesus went on to say how terrible it would be for one of us to cause the other to sin because of the position we might take that would wound: “And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. 43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where “‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’ 49 Everyone will be salted with fire. 50 “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other.”

Moshe Dayan (1915-1981), Israeli Military Hero and Camp David Accords Negotiator, made a great statement: “If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.” In other words when we disagree with others we cannot make peace by talking to those we agree with and ignoring those we differ with. We must engage in understanding those we disagree with.

I remember how difficult it was for me when I found out that our second son had enlisted in the Marine Reserves. I went to the recruiting office to see if there were any exemptions for Sabbath observance and bearing arms. Having been raised in the church where being a conscientious objector was held up as the only right approach I wasn’t prepared for the decision that Greg had made. If you look at the developing position that the church has taken you will find that it has determined to no longer be the conscience for its members in this situation. Individuals will not lose their membership if they choose to bear arms even though the church encourages a conscientious objector status. So who was I to be conscience for my son? I needed to step back and support him even though I didn’t agree with his decision.

By U. S. and international law, all military chaplains and physicians are non-combatants, and medical aid personnel can carry weapons to protect their patients if they elect to do so. Some medics serve without bearing arms of any kind. The most famous of these is, of course, Desmond Doss, who won the Congressional Medal of Honor for service on Okinawa as a combat medic who saved the lives of over 70 of his unit who were wounded in one action. He remains as the only Congressional Medal of Honor winner who won that honor as a non-combatant.

Even though Desmond Doss’ conscience compelled him to be a non combatant the church has recognized that it cannot be conscience for others who might have different convictions.

Take a look with me at the citizens of Germany in 1914. This is taken from a paper prepared by D. E. Robinson (In 1905 he married Ella White, Ellen White’s eldest granddaughter, whom he had met in Australia. He continued as secretary and compiler for Mrs. White until her death in 1915. Then he spent two years in Colorado in pastoral and evangelistic work and teaching Bible and history at Campion Academy in that state.

After two years on the editorial staff of the Southern Publishing Association, at Nashville, he returned in 1920 to South Africa in response to a call for an editor who could handle both English and Dutch papers. He spent four years with the Sentinel Publishing Company, one year at Spion Kop (now Helderberg) College teaching Bible, and three years in charge of the teacher training work at Rusangu Mission in Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia).

From his return to the United States in 1928 until his retirement 25 years later, with the exception of one year spent teaching Bible at Humboldt Academy, he was on the staff of the White Publications, first at Elmshaven and then in Washington, D.C. While in Washington he wrote The Story of Our Health Message (1943) and took an active part in building up the Spencerville, Maryland, church and school.[2])

Here is his explanation of the events in Germany for our church members: “The sudden plunge into war in the first days of August, 1914, threw our brethren in Europe into great perplexity. The German government was ruthless in its drafting of men for military service. Not even ministers were exempt, and it did not hesitate to shoot those who disobeyed. Upon the decision of the denominational leaders, and upon the statement they might make to the government depended not only their own freedom, but the lives of hundreds and thousands of our young men. And a decision must be made at once. Under those circumstances in counsel with the few leaders available our brethren as a body obeyed the draft summons into the German army.

“As a protection against the civil penalties that might be invoked against our youth because of any refusal to obey the military regulations, a statement was prepared by the President of the larger German Conference and sent to the war department in Berlin. This statement, dated August 4, 1914, assured the government of the loyalty of the Seventh-day Adventist members, and pledged their support in behalf of the emergency, even to the extent of bearing arms on Saturday (Sabbath). It was plainly stated that although under ordinary circumstances the church members endeavored to “put aside all work in the day,” yet “in these times of stress,” and “under these circumstances,: they would take their stand “on the Scripture found in 1 Peter 2:13-17, ‘Submit yourselves to every ordinance of men for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil-doers… Fear God. Honor the king.”

“…As citizens of the countries opposed to Germany in the First World War, we may be convinced that Germany was the aggressor, and was determined to bring all Europe under her domination. In all fairness, however, it should be remembered that the citizens of Germany were honest in their belief that their country was in imminent danger of invasion and that, as far as they were concerned, they were assured that their country and their own homes were in danger. To them it was a struggle for the defense of the very lives of their loved ones. Letters written from the brethren in that country during those last months of 1914 make this very clear. Whatever our judgment may be regarding the decisions made at that time under the strain and stress of the situation, we should recognize the difficulty of those decisions which concerned not themselves alone, but which might mean life or death to many others.

“Writing under the date of August 16, 1914, two weeks after sending out the circular letter to the churches, Elder C. Dail in a letter to W. C. White, told of the effect of the conscription on our church members.

‘Here in Germany about 2,000 of our brethren had to join the army, among them quite a number of Conference presidents, ministers, and colporteurs. All our brethren in Hamburg that had to join the army had a special meeting, both elders presiding. Here opportunity was given them to express themselves to do their duty faithfully as soldiers, in the fear of God toward their country. A number of Nazarenes in Austria-Hungry who refused to do military duties were shot at once. In these countries it is not what I like to do, but what must I do. Here it is different than in America where only volunteers are in the army.’” The Beginnings of the “Reform” Movement in Germany, by D. E. Robinson.

This decision was arrived at not by the hierarchy of the German church but by a group employed at the publishing house and those subject to military duty with Elder Dail as the only conference official present.

There were some who allege that there were a number of conscientious objectors who refused to bear arms or to do Sabbath duty in the army and that they were disfellowshiped because of that. According to the records that was not true.

So we need to be careful about sitting in judgment of other people’s motives. We need to understand how they have come to their conclusions and support them in following the dictates of their own consciences.

In order to maintain the unity of the faith and the bond of peace it might be helpful to consider method as well as the attempt to understand one another’s position.

A study reported in Psychological Science discovered that the "best" arguers are those who don't point their fingers. According to the study, the person who says "we" the most during an argument suggests the best solutions.

Researchers from the University of Pennsylvania and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill used statistical analysis to study 59 couples. Spouses who used second-person pronouns (you) tended toward negativity in interactions. Those making use of first-person plural pronouns (we) provided positive solutions to problems.

The study concluded: "'We' users may have a sense of shared interest that sparks compromise and other ideas pleasing to both partners. 'You'-sayers, on the contrary, tend to criticize, disagree, justify, and otherwise team with negativity." Rachel A. Simmons, Peter C. Gordon, and Dianne L. Chambless, "Pronouns in Marital Interaction: What Do 'You' and 'I' Say about Marital Health?" Psychological Science (Volume 16), pp. 932-936; submitted by Ted De Hass, Bedford, Iowa

What works in the home also works in the church family. If we want to maintain the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace we will want to use we statements instead of you statements so we won’t fall into the negative mode of criticizing, being disagreeable, being defensive and generating a lot of negatively charged statements.

We can learn something else from Pennsylvania. Not from the university but from the Amish. On the morning of October 2, 2006, a troubled milkman named Charles Carl Roberts barricaded himself inside the West Nickel Mine Amish School, ultimately murdering five young girls and wounding six others. Roberts committed suicide when police arrived on the scene. It was a dark day for the Amish community of West Nickel Mines, but it was also a dark day for Marie Roberts—the wife of the gunman—and her two young children.

But on the following Saturday, Marie experienced something truly countercultural while attending her husband's funeral. That day, she and her children watched as Amish families—about half of the 75 mourners present—came and stood alongside them in the midst of their own blinding grief. Despite the crime the man had perpetrated, the Amish came to mourn Charles Carl Roberts—a husband and daddy.

Bruce Porter, a fire department chaplain who attended the service, described what moved him most about the gesture: "It's the love, the forgiveness, the heartfelt forgiveness they have toward the family. I broke down and cried seeing it displayed." He added that Marie Roberts was also touched. "She was absolutely, deeply moved by the love shown." Amish Mourn Gunman in School Rampage," USA Today (10-7-06); submitted by David Slagle, Atlanta, Georgia

If the Amish can stand beside the family of the man who murdered their children why can’t we as a body of believers stand beside those who we differ with on issues of much less significance and affirm each other’s infinite value, their conscientious convictions worthy of our respect even though we might differ with them?

Let me close with our scripture reading: Ephesians 4:2,3

Teachings that we leave to ones conscience: (1) lacto oval vegetarian diet; (2) whether or not to belong to a labor union; (3) the amount one gives as offering; (4) whether or not people exercise; (4) whether or not people study their Sabbath School lesson; read their Bible and pray; (5) how people keep the Sabbath etc.

First of all I would like for us to look at Paul’s and Barnabas’ experience to help us realize that there can be honest differences of opinion. Turn with me to Acts 15:36-41. It is clear that we should do everything possible to avoid conflict yet when it does happen we need to affirm the value of one another and pray for one another.

The position of the church now allows for members to be not only conscientious objectors but also does not take disciplinary action against those who do bear arms.

German reformed were disfellowshiped because they refused to bear arms?

2 Tim 2:24 The servant of the Lord must not be quarrelsome.

Sharp contention between Paul and Silas over John Mark

The disciples complained to Jesus about those who did not do things exactly the way they did it.

Jenni, our daughter-in-law, was criticized for not having accurate probes. But Jane reminded her that in her continuing-ed classes when a periodontist who was lecturing on probes he made the point that those doing probes will not always get the same reading.

We must be careful about taking positions that polarize us with those who we may differ from because we may in the end not be right or not completely right which is not to say that there should not be a discussion.

We need to develop not only tolerance with those we may differ from but mutual respect.

Put your hand in the hand of the man
Who stilled the water
Put your hand in the hand of the man
Who calmed the sea
Take a look at yourself
And you can look at others differently
Put your hand in the hand of the man
From Galilee*

© Gene MacLellan

When it came to building the tunnel under the English Channel connecting England with France (later called the "Chunnel"), the French had the perfect word for it: bicephele, two-headed. There were two mammoth firms built from scratch to complete the project: one charged with finance and operation, the other responsible for building it. Each of these companies was also two-headed: equally French and British.

No one was allowed to take charge. Leadership, more times than not, was reduced to the management of conflict. Said a high-ranking executive, "The project…created a lot of tension because it [was] not geared to solving problems; it [was] geared to placing blame." The English yelled at the French, and the French yelled at the English. Said another executive, "There were nervous breakdowns galore."

The problems were primarily from a lack of shared standards. The two countries had a different word for everything. The French had their accounting system, so did the English. The French ran on 380 volts, and the British ran on 420. Instruction manuals were bilingual. There were even two different standards used to measure sea level.

"When you have people coming from two different nations," said one of the engineers, "each believes that only their regulations are right."

Robert Lewis with Rob Wilkins, The Church of Irresistible Influence (Zondervan, 2001), pp. 205-206; submitted by Lee Eclov, Vernon Hills, Illinois

The documentary The March of the Penguins follows the emperor penguins of Antarctica on their incredible journey through ice and snow to mating grounds up to 70 miles inland. Narrated by Morgan Freeman, this beautiful film captures the drama of these three-foot-high birds in the most inhospitable of environments.

Once the males have reached the breeding grounds and have been given responsibility for the eggs, they override their competitive nature and form a team for the sake of survival. As a massive storm sets in, vicious winds pelt the penguins, which are huddled now in a single mass. As the view alternates from close ups of ice-caked penguins to panoramic shots of the huddled throng, Freeman narrates:

As the fathers settle into their long wait at the breeding grounds, the temperature is now 80 degrees below zero. That's without taking into account the wind which can blow 100 miles per hour. Though they can be aggressive during the rest of the year, at this time the males are totally docile, a united and cooperative team. They brace against the storm by merging their thousand bodies into a single mass. They will take turns, each of them getting to spend some time near the center of their huddle where it's warmer.

As I sat with my family at a local breakfast establishment, I noticed a finely dressed man at an adjacent table. His Armani suit and stiffly pressed shirt coordinated perfectly with a "power" tie. His wing-tipped shoes sparkled from a recent shine. Every hair was in place, including his perfectly groomed mustache.

The man sat alone, eating a bagel, as he prepared for a meeting. As he reviewed the papers before him, he appeared nervous, glancing frequently at his Rolex watch. It was obvious he had an important meeting ahead.

The man stood up, and I watched as he straightened his tie and prepared to leave. Immediately, I noticed a blob of cream cheese attached to his finely groomed mustache. He was about to go into the world, dressed in his finest, with cream cheese on his face. I thought of the business meeting he was about to attend. Who would tell him? Should I? What if no one did?

Suddenly the sermon on "community and accountability" I was preparing to preach flashed into my mind. I pushed my chair back and stood to warn him, but the tables were too close and the noise of the crowd too loud. He was at the door and on his way before I could stop him. Hopefully, the man looked in the mirror when he got into his car and saved himself from embarrassment.

All of us have flaws. That's why Christian community is so important. We need others to walk with us, friends who see us as we are, including our blemishes and blunders. We need brothers and sisters who care enough to speak the truth in love and offer a word of kind correction.

James R. Needham, Tallahassee, Florida

How do we deal with differences of opinion? Do we listen so we clearly understand what those who may appear to have different views than we espouse?

When we clearly understand the differences how strongly should we push those issues?

How do we differentiate between core and peripheral issues? Or is everything clearly black and white?

How can we prioritize core issues?

What About Conscientious Objection and Noncombatancy?

Since the beginnings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church the denomination has been challenged with the issues of what members should do in time of war. On one hand each member is to be a loyal citizen of their country (render therefore unto Caesar what is Caesar’s...) And at the same time remain loyal to God (and unto God what is God’s. Matthew 22:21). This can, obviously, create a tension for someone who also reads in the Ten Commandments, “Thou shalt not kill” and then hears the military requiring them to train with a weapon.

Historically the development has followed along these lines:

1860-63 The Adventist Church begins to organize in North America

1881 James White’s editorial in the Review “The Nation” where he says, “The fourth precept of that law says ‘Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy’, the sixth says ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ But in the case of drafting the government assumes the responsibility of the violation of law of God, and it would (be) madness to resist.” (August 2, 1862, vol. 20, page 84)

1864 Adventist leaders appeal successfully to the Governor of Michigan and receive recognition as being conscientiously opposed to the bearing of arms. Similar letters to the governors of Wisconsin, Illinois and Pennsylvania are sent and received with approval.

1886 Ellen G. White, while visiting Switzerland, commends several men who must do their military time in the Swiss Army. While she comments on their regimental ribbons and uniforms, she makes no remarks about weapons use. (Letter 23, 1886)

1918 President Woodrow Wilson issues an executive order allowing for religious conscientious objectors to serve in the U. S. military.

July...the General Conference authorizes $30,000 to construct barracks and begin training of non-combatants at Loma Linda and the Washington Sanitarium for pre-induction training in the medical corps.

1950 Dr. Everett Dick begins the Medical Cadet Corps at Union College.

1953 U. S. Army begins Operation Whitecoat (1953-1973) where nearly 2500 Adventist young men volunteer as human subjects in medical preventive medicine studies.

1954 The Annual Council states that the official position of the church is non-combatant. The National Service Organization is begun to work with military Adventist personnel.

1969 Annual Council (October 12) reaffirms the statements of 1954 then goes on to change the wording to “the church advocates non-combatancy, but allows members to elect to be pacifists as well.

1972 Annual Council affirms the statements of 1954 and 1969, but makes the decision a personal matter for each member. This leaves the decision up to the individual with strong encouragement from the denomination to consider the historical position of non-combatancy but leaves the door open to those who elect to train with or carry arms.

Thus, it is seen that the first statements were modified from a pure combatant stance, when drafted into service, to a non-combatant position to a non-combatant recommendation without a church requirement to be a non-combatant. Careful examination of the dates helps explain the changes. Initially, during the Civil War, the Adventist Church was struggling with many issues of identity and theology. There was some confusion and much discussion. The refined decision was to serve honorably in the military, but to do so as non-combatants.

That remained in place until 1969. What happened then? The U. S. was involved in Vietnam, and only those individuals who could show religious backing for their pacifism would be released to alternate duty. Since the Adventist church’s stance was non-combatancy (serving without weapons) any Adventist drafted who claimed to be a pacifist was denied that status because the stance was at variance with the church’s stated policy. Hence the 1969 change to allow for pacifism as a choice while encouraging members to serve as non-combatants. When members are allowed to select how they shall serve, they may also elect to serve being trained with weapons and as combatants, although that is not the recommended type of service.

This remains as the church’s stance today. The Seventh-day Adventist Church advocates that members serve in the military as non-combatants, but accepts those who elect to serve in other capacities or not to serve at all--according to the conscience of the individual member. The church, therefore, ceased being the conscience of the individual and began a process of informing the individual in order for them to make individual decisions for which they are personally responsible.

It must also be recognized that in the initial stages of the church organization all Adventists lived in the Northeastern part of the United States. That has changed into a 12 million membership spread around the globe. In some nations it is not an option to serve as a non-combatant and it would be impossible for the church to mandate that members there serve in that capacity. Thus the current recommendation (not requirement) for non-combatant service.

----

[1]Nichol, Francis D.: The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 4. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978; 2002, S. 954

[2] The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2002