Below are emails received in response to our “Justice Denied” blog. The emails have been edited for clarity and brevity. They’ve also been edited to mask the identity of all writers, as there might be negative repercussions for some, especially current church employees, if their names were attached. Thanks to all who have cared enough to take time to write.
AFTER HAVING PUT your story and blog on the back burner for some time (I read it when it first appeared), I've just read some of the replies of your readers, and all I can say is, “Wow! How sad."
However, I’d like to share another angle of the same phenomenon: that of non-SDAs (even agnostics and atheists) who find, in the course of events, that they do business with Seventh-day Adventists—and detest the tactics used by Adventists.
I am an SDA, though I work for a firm which is not SDA. Nor does it have any religious affiliations or connections. (In fact, many of my firm's members are agnostics and even atheists.) We “contract” with a local SDA institution. And my colleagues know I myself am an SDA and proud of that tradition.
After years of a tranquil and mutually cordial and beneficial relationship, things have changed. It is the strong opinion of my partners (non-SDAs from my firm who are involved in the negotiations) that the leaders of the SDA institution are not proceeding in good faith, nor do they seem to have any scruples, nor do they adhere to the basics of ethical behavior one might reasonably expect from anyone in the public sphere, let alone from an entity that calls itself “Christian.” In fact, my partners label the tactics of the leaders of this SDA institution as deceptive, devoid of basic integrity, and profoundly dishonest. In essence, their word is worthless. An assurance or promise is without meaning.
So my colleagues come to me with deep questions: Why is “your church” so profoundly duplicitous and dishonest? Does one's voluntary alignment with Christ allow and encourage this? Is it acceptable for all ethics to be tossed if the beneficiary is seen to be “the mission of Christ”?
I am really struggling to know how to answer them. Does the noble “end” (extending the mission of Christ to the world) justify the “means”—in this case abject disregard for basic ethical honesty?
This is proving a very difficult “pill” to swallow.—Layperson
