Dennis Negron, Dean of Housing, was quoted in this article which filled nearly 14 column inches of space; but the principle person quoted was Dwight Magers, the Dean of Men at Talge Hall. He would be the proper one to quote since he is in charge of the large men’s dormitory, which the co-ed wing, when completed, will be attached to. This entire news clip is reprinted on page 2.**

Act 2: I mentioned this Southern Accent news clip on page 3 of the December 2003 issue of Checkpoints, where I list documents of interest to be sent to special friends that month. This entire one-paragraph mention is reprinted on the top of page 4.**

Act 3: Several folk who saw the startling paragraph, contacted officials at SAU. All concerned did not recognize that the single-paragraph announcement referred to an official announcement, published earlier in Southern Accent—and did not constitute a rumor I had heard. After reading my announcement, so many people expressed concern and a rethinking of the situation at SAU.

Act 4: In response, on Sunday, December 21, Dwight Magers (Talge Hall Dean of Men) told someone over the phone that he knew nothing about the matter and, after discussing the matter with President Gordon Bietz, could say that it was true that a building called "The Far East" was being constructed adjacent to the East Wing of Talge Hall; but it would only house men and women on separate floors. I received a copy of this e-mail about the first of January. Mager’s December 21 reply is quoted in a December 23 e-mail and reprinted on page 3.**

Act 5: That same day, December 21, Gordon Bietz, President of SAU, handwrote a brief note in which he flatly declared that no co-ed dorm of any kind is under construction. Instead, he declared that the new building would be exclusively a "men’s dorm." So no women would be housed anywhere in it. I received a copy of the letter on January 9. Bietz’s letter is reprinted on page 4.**

Originally, men and women throughout the second and third floors intermingling freely was changed to men and women locked on separate floors. Then this changed to men only—with not one woman in the building.

Comparing the various documents, reprinted elsewhere in this four-page report, it is clear that the facts, as reported by SAU officials and its press, do not agree. All I have done—and continue to do—is to tell you what is being printed or written down there in Collegedale. As is well-known in America, it is public knowledge of situations which help clean them up.

Personally, I believe that their originally announced plan—to use the forthcoming co-ed wing as a means of luring students to leave private homes in the Collegedale community and come live in the exciting new co-ed facilities—has been radically changed under the spotlight of public notice which we gave the project. To whatever degree that is true, we thank the Lord that it accomplished its purpose.

In November, I phoned a knowledgeable friend in the Collegedale area and was told that the co-ed construction project, announced in April, was being done in order to crowd students back into the dorms, because this would increase room and board income. Those students are now living out in the surrounding village, many in private homes with families—and they do not want to be moved into dormitories. That exactly matched the information, as originally stated by Dean Magers, in the original April 2003 announcement. This will be discussed below.

In December, we briefly announced that a co-ed wing at Southern Adventist University was under construction. A copy of the actual SAU news clip was sent to a number of friends that month.

Later in December, as news of the startling project spread, one person was told over the phone that, after conferring with the president, yes, something was being built, but it would only be an attached wing; and the men and women would be on separate floors. So everything would be all right. He also mentioned that another dormitory, with men and women on separate floors, already existed as an attachment to the women’s dorm.

More people were contacting SAU; and another person was told by the SAU president that no such building existed. No dorm or wing of any kind—for both men and women—existed or was under construction on the campus. The only thing being built was a dorm for men only.

1. A co-ed dorm wing, housing both men and women students, was already under construction as early as April 2003.

2. The new building will be attached directly to the back of the large men’s dormitory (Talge Hall). This will make it easier for all the men in the entire dormitory to visit rooms in the wing.

3. The students living in the village are deeply upset about the project. They do not want to be crowded together into a co-ed dormitory.

You may recall the Orthodox Jew who, a year or so ago, sued Harvard University. Having enrolled at the school, he objected to being required to live in a co-ed dormitory. Declaring that living in a building housing sleeping quarters for both men and women students was immoral, he demanded permission to live in the surrounding village. When his request was refused, friends paid attorney expenses; so he could sue the university for the right to not live in the co-ed dorm. I do not know the outcome of the case; but, if an Orthodox Jew would not want to sleep at night in a co-ed building, why should our Adventist youth attending Southern Adventist University be enticed to do so?

4. Although a high-placed official at SAU told someone that our announcement of the SAU construction of a co-ed wing was totally false, in the article, Dennis Negron, Dean of Housing at the school, called the project "a very sensible action."

5. Now for the worst part: Paragraphs 5-8 is explosive, for the motives it reveals:

Because the village students do not want to return to dorm living, Dwight Magers said he was quieting their complaints with the wonderful news that they would be able to visit women—right there in the dorm!

Listen not to SAU officials who tell you (1) that there never was such a building project or (2) that the men and women would only be housed on separate floors or (3) that men and women students would not be able to visit one another randomly, with no restrictions, at any time of the day. The original plan was radically different from what they are now saying. Read this:

"Aware of the disapproval of many of Southern Village residents, Dean of Men Dwight Magers has come up with an incentive bound to mitigate the barrage of complaints.

" ‘We know that people from Southern Village will not be happy to move into Talge,’ said Magers, ‘so we are making the new wing co-ed for those who are used to visiting friends of the opposite gender.’

"According to Magers’ plan, students of both sexes will occupy rooms on the second and third floors while the first floor will house men only. [Men only on the first floor; men and women mixed on the second and third floors. That was the official April objective.]

" ‘I think students will be glad to move back into the dorm if they can have anyone over at any time throughout the day,’ Magers told the Accent [the campus newspaper]. ‘The next problem we’ll have is that pretty soon everybody’s going to want to live there. We will obviously have to set a cap [a limit on how many students can move into those second and third floors, obviously because so many men and women students will want to reside on those two floors]."

• Paragraph 9 declared that co-ed dorms at SAU are nothing new, so no one need be shocked—for Thatcher South Woman’s Dormitory has had co-ed housing for quite some time.

• It is clearly stated that it should be all right for SAU to have a co-ed dorm, since La Sierra University has a co-ed dorm also. The assurance is given that theirs is safe; since the men and women living in it, day and night, are on "a co-ed honors" system. No hallway guards are needed; for everyone has promised to conduct themselves properly. The article did not say whether SAU thought it would need a similar "honors" requirement.

• The article concluded with these words: " ‘It is certainly something new for the men of Talge. I think,’ says Magers, ‘our men will be pleased.’ "

What is it that will please them so much about having a new co-ed wing attached directly to their building—the largest building housing men students on the campus?

There is nothing pleasing about it to the pure in heart; but there is much in it to please the carnal minded. We need that Jewish Orthodox student to enroll at SAU. He would put a stop to this quick.

One new change has recently been made: In his December 21 phone call, Magers stated that SAU intends to install cameras to continually monitor each door. But that will not reveal what is taking place behind them.

But if, as stated by President Bietz, the new building would only house men, why would continually running cameras need to be placed at each of its doors? Is that already being done at the other dorms on campus? The only answer to the puzzle about these conflicting statements is that the original plan for the new building is changing very fast.

However, we are very thankful that it is changing for the better. Leadership at SAU must have received many letters of deep concern. Your letters really help!

**Web Editor's Note- documents available in tracts but not on web at present.

TITHING WORLDWIDE

The October 2003 Annual Council provides information on our current denominational tithe-paying. The following quotes are from Adventist News Network, October 28, 2003:

"Annually, tithe brings the Adventist Church US $1.1 billion to $1.2 billion."

"Since the 1970s, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has seen its tithe, or members donating 10% of their earnings to the church, drop 75%, per capita, adjusted for inflation."

"About 30% of Adventist Church members worldwide give tithe. In parts of Africa and South America as few as 10% give tithe."

"Tithe receipted by the church has been declining for at least the last 25 years, when compared to income."

"In the 1970s, 70%-80% of members attended church regularly and 65% tithed. Now 45%-50% of members regularly attend church and 30% tithe."

What is the cause of this tithing problem? The faithful recognize that there are two primary causes: (1) Repeatedly, since the early 1980s, loyal believers have been pushed out of the church when they pled for a return to the church’s historic teachings and practices. In sorrow they left, taking their wallets with them. (2) Those remaining in the church are frequently taught by new theology pastors that they do not need to obey Bible standards. So why continue paying tithe?

Unfortunately, our leaders do not recognize the primary causes. Here are what they consider to be the nine causes of reduced tithe paying. The following are comments by those in attendance at the Annual Council, as quoted by ANN:

Lacking assurance of salvation: "All our studies show that a majority don’t have an assurance of salvation."

Lack of "a disciplining program": "The cure is a serious discipling program."

"Spirituality or the lack of it": "The real issue behind the decline in tithe receipt is spirituality or the lack thereof."

The baby boomer generation isn’t tithing: "This steady decline can be explained if the tithing behavior of the various age cohorts [groups] remained relatively stable. As each of the younger cohorts aged, they made up a larger percentage of wage earners. That they tithed at a lower rate means that over time the rate of total members who tithe decreases."

"Political unrest": "In the last 10 years—particularly in the late 1990s—within this region, political unrest and other related events . . had a real impact on our church members’ ability to return God’s tithe."

"Currency values": "Tithing in Europe may be due to the increase in currency values."

"Priorities, technical things, and Sun Accounts": "It’s a matter of priorities . . Nowadays technical things tend to take up the finances—IT and Sun Accounts."

Lack of "self-esteem" by the members: "Self-support says, I can do it. It promotes self-esteem and removes a dependence syndrome."

Financial problems: "Countries in the region are going through a tough economic phase . . Our currencies are softening each day and the cost of living is rising higher and higher."

So now you know why the church has tithing problems. Obedience to God’s law or our historic standards was not mentioned once.

Robert Lemon, General Conference Treasurer, presented his annual report to the Annual Council. He said there was "a decline in world mission offerings, which fell from $48 to $46.4 million in the past year." This occurred in spite of an increase in church membership.

"[Steven] Rose [GC Undertreasurer] noted that this year’s actual expenses will exceed the GC’s 2003 world budget by $3.1 million."

"The Annual Council, the highest administrative body between GC Sessions, voted the church’s first deficit budget in recent years. The 2004 world budget listed expenses at $118,222,507 with income of $115,083,730."

"If we don’t turn things around in a year or two, we may have to look at major restructuring."

"Associate treasurer Don Robinson also commented, ‘It is possible to make cuts, but there is nothing more destabilizing to an organization than to lay off and then take back employees."

"Former GC treasurer Robert Rawson expressed concerns over accounts receivable from the institutions [money owed to the conferences, unions, General Conference by its educational, publishing, etc., institutions], which he categorized as a ‘precipitous increase.’ ‘It is increasingly more difficult to collect accounts receivable from other church entities,’ he said, adding that ‘There is a growing tendency to put the church last.’ "

"In a related financial matter, Adventist Risk Management [GC insurance company] president, Robert L. Sweezey, presented a brief report entitled ‘Does the Adventist Church Get Sued?’ He stated that ARM deals with 450 current lawsuits on average, with 150 new per year." (All quotations on this page are from Adventist News Network, October 2003.)