One group in our church looks to the past and wishes we could recapture a spiritual quality they feel we’ve lost. The other group looks to the future and longs for something they feel hasn’t yet existed. One group looks for more guidelines and clearer definitions. The other group advocates focusing on principles and leaving most final decisions to the individual.

One group rejoices when "the trumpet is given a certain sound." The other group is heartened when someone admits that we don’t have all the answers.

I suggest that until we learn to appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches, the church will suffer. As a colleague of mine puts it: In order to fly, a bird needs a right wing, a left wing, and a good body between. The same applies to the church.

The church needs people who constantly question the wisdom of change, who are deeply concerned lest we lose sight of our church’s original mission.

And the church equally needs a group who ever push us on to new frontiers, who clamor for greater consistency, who force us to re-evaluate our mission, who ensure that we’re speaking to and meeting the needs of our world today.

One group safeguards us from going off on a tangent. The other safeguards us from slipping into a rut. Each type of thinking has its merits.

For example, the more a message is presented in black-and-white terms, the more likely it is to attract converts. By contrast, tolerance makes great friends. But it doesn’t make people sense that they must change or risk damnation.

Openness creates a healthy environment for discussion and the exchange of ideas, but certainty gets people into the baptismal font. Certainty also gets them into tithing, giving generous offerings and working long hours for the church.

Both aspects are important. And we need to keep the long term in mind as well as the short term. Subsequent generations of Adventists need room to forge their own faith. And unless they find a tolerant environment for their own spiritual quest, they’ll simply drop out.

So when I hear people on the left murmuring about the need to muzzle the right, I become a champion of the right. And when those on the right want to muzzle—or even disenfranchise—the left, I champion the left.

Rather than taking the position that we’d be better off if we eliminated "the opposition," we need to recognize that, even though people with a differing view may cause us discomfort, they play a vital role in keeping the church vibrant and on course.

Only when the right wing and the left wing both exist, only when they both recognize their need to stay firmly attached to the body, will our church ever soar to the heights that God intended for it.

—Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor

"Ground Zero Mosque"-1

[The following article first appeared in The Washington Post. It was written by James Standish, the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s official liaison with the United Nations and the deputy secretary general of the International Religious Liberty Association. Standish works under the auspices of the Public Affairs and Religious Department at the church’s world headquarters.]

Anyone paying attention the last couple of weeks has heard multiple reports about plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero. It’s been labeled a "victory mosque," described as towering over the memorial to the victims of 9/11, and as being the pet project of a terrorist-sympathizing Muslim imam. All of this would be cause for Americans to get upset, and, no surprise, polls show we are.

But what if what we’re being told are gross distortions mixed with bold-faced lies?

Three simple fact checks help put the flap in context:

1) There is no "Ground Zero" mosque. If you take a minute to Google Map the address of the supposed "Ground Zero" mosque, 45-47 Park Place, you’ll find the proposed site is on a small city street buried in the middle of the block. It is separated by two full city blocks of towering buildings from the World Trade Center site.

While the entire lower Manhattan might be considered "Ground Zero," the site of the mosque is separated visually and physically from the World Trade Center site. No one visiting the World Trade Center site will see it––unless they take a wrong turn on the way.

2) There is no "Victory" mosque. The stated goal behind building the Muslim center in lower Manhattan is to recapture the spirit of mutual respect between Judaism, Christianity and Islam that existed in Cordoba, Spain, from 700 to 1200 AD.

While Europe was trapped in the Dark Ages, marked by bloody religious repression, Cordoba thrived as a commercial and cultural center with what was, for the time, a high level of religious freedom. For example, in the 10th century, Cordoba became the intellectual capital for Jews worldwide.

The stated point of the project is creating a world where Jews, Christians and Muslims connect again in a way that builds mutual understanding and respect. This is precisely the opposite goal of the 9/11 terrorists.

3) There is no Terror-Loving imam behind the mosque. The Imam behind the mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is reported to have good relations with the Jewish community and has strongly condemned terrorism.

He is precisely the kind of imam that violent Islamic radicals despise the most. He has been lambasted in some quarters in the US for stating that American support of corrupt and coercive regimes in the Middle East motivated the 9/11 terrorists.

While the precise motivation of the terrorists may be subject for debate, his analysis can only be dismissed blithely by those unfamiliar with the deplorable practices of American "allies" in the Middle East, ranging from the Saudi regime to Egyptian government.

But this misses the point; we don’t have to agree with his analysis or the way he expressed himself to agree that in a free society, unless someone is engaged in criminal activity, they have the same rights as anyone else to build and operate a house of worship.