|  | |
Previous | Next
 |
Letters to the editor
Mennonite Brethren Herald welcomes your letters on issues relevant to the Mennonite Brethren Church, especially in response to material published in the Herald. Please keep your letters courteous, brief and about one subject only. We will edit letters for length and clarity. We will not publish letters sent anonymously, although we may withhold names from publication at the request of the letter writer and at our discretion. Publication is also subject to space limitations. Because the Letters column is a free forum for discussion, it should be understood that letters represent the position of the letter writer, not necessarily the position of the Herald or the Mennonite Brethren Church. Send letters to:
Letters, MB Herald
3-169 Riverton Ave.
Winnipeg, Man. R2L 2E5
|
or by e-mail to mbherald@mbconf.ca. (Please ensure that your postal address is included in your e-mail correspondence.) |
Another view of infant baptism
I continue to enjoy Reuben Pauls’s series on “What We Believe”, but I do not think he made a very strong case for the MB Church’s position on baptism (Jan. 25). I still fail to find a compelling argument for the idea that people should only be baptized upon reaching the “age of reason” or adulthood.
Several points ought to be considered:
- The Scripture references in the MB Confession of Faith Article on Christian Baptism do not prohibit the practice of infant baptism. In fact, there is not a single passage in the Bible which prohibits infant baptism. The common argument that infant baptism is wrong because it is not mentioned in the Bible is akin to saying that closing your eyes while praying is wrong because it is not in the Bible.
- There are numerous historical references to infant baptism being performed in the early church (AD 100–300). However, there are no references to the practice being criticized in any fashion in the early church. Nor are there any examples of early Christian parents delaying the baptism of their children. In fact, infant baptism was the exclusive practice of the church throughout its history up until the Anabaptists condemned the practice in the 16th century.
- There are several examples in the New Testament of believers and their entire families being baptized (Acts 10:24-48, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33-34, 1 Corinthians 16:15-17). While it is certainly plausible that every family cited was comprised only of adults who heard, understood and submitted to the message of the apostles, it is also equally plausible that these families contained children and infants.
- Baptism is referred to by Paul as the “new circumcision” (Colossians 2:11,12). If Israelite male infants could be circumcised and therefore enter under the umbrella of God’s covenant, why is it not reasonable to assume that infants can also be placed under the new covenant of baptism?
|
While Scripture does not spell out the process of baptism and who is eligible with exactness, it seems to me that the burden of proof is upon those who claim infants ought not to be baptized. I’m sure there are some strong arguments in favour of anti-infant baptism, and I would welcome anyone to bring these to the table. I am keeping my heart and my mind open.
Jason Rekker,
St. Catharines, Ont.
The feature articles on baptism in this issue were published partially in response to this letter. For further reading, see the Sept. 8, 2000 issue of the Herald. – Ed.
Correction
Re: “What is the cause of fights and quarrels among us?” (May 3). I wanted to clarify one important piece of information: The drama was written by one of our pastors, Connie Epp.
Janet P. Schmidt,
Winnipeg, Man.
Truth about church
Reading Philip Yancey’s book Soul Survivor: How My Faith Survived The Church, we are puzzled by James Toews’s negative review (April 19) of Yancey’s exposure of flaws and evil in the church. Did Yancey “slander” the church, as the reviewer puts it, or did he tell the truth about it? Paul, in his letters to the early churches, never hesitated to point out the sins that were widespread in the church from the beginning. How else were these churches to grow and understand themselves? By heeding Yancey’s advice and admonishment, modern-day churches can repent and be healed, becoming more Christ-like in the process. When we in our churches sweep sin under the rug and refuse to expose it, we contribute toward their decay. Just like a spouse who commits adultery, “the bride of Christ” must confess her sin in order to be cleansed and forgiven; otherwise, she does not deserve the name Christ has given her.
Hardy and Elfrieda Schroeder,
Kitchener, Ont.
Purpose for coverage
I am concerned over the Herald’s coverage of the Richard Nixon/Billy Graham 1972 audio tape conversations (People & Events, April 19). What Christian purpose does the Herald have in printing sensational excerpts from a conversation 30 years ago? I doubt that the Herald is aware of the intimate circumstances surrounding many of the conversations between Rev. Graham and President Nixon or the numerous other US presidents that Rev. Graham has counselled. How much knowledge does the Herald have on the Jewish business community’s involvement in the 1970s pornographic/media/entertainment business? The Herald has shown an eagerness to provide its readers with headlines that would be more suited to grocery line tabloids. This looks like one more example of the Christian Army shooting its wounded. If readers have an interest in this topic, I encourage them to log on to www.billygraham.org and read Rev. Graham’s complete statement on this issue. As believers, we are in a battlefield every day in our homes, places of business and schools. The only thing that many of us need the Herald for is to provide us with “positive ammunition” with which to fight the Evil One.
Don Neufeld,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Resolution must happen first
It is fitting that after more than 100 years of the “General MB Conference”, a celebration of praise to God is planned in Abbotsford, B. C. at the July convention. There is ample reason for thanksgiving.
Earlier this year, I was teaching the Book of Amos to a group of church planters at the Mennonite Brethren Centenary Bible College in India. Together we memorized a key passage which speaks about “justice”. We learned that justice is much more than fairness; it is the observance of “honourable relationships” as prescribed by God in His Word: “I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. . . . Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters, And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:21-24).
It may be fitting to celebrate; but it is also sobering. Unjust relationships within churches, or even between larger Conferences, will need to be resolved before God will take delight in the July celebrations. The most important business of the Conference may well need to take place before the convention.
Elmer Martens,
Fresno, Calif.
Fundamentalism has number of meanings
The Feb. 22 letter dealing with “fundamentalism” was interesting. Funk & Wagnalls defines fundamental as “pertaining to or constituting a foundation; basic”. Every culture and religion is fundamental.
People are not perfect. Since cultures and religions consist of people, cultures and religions, though different, can’t be expected to be perfect. In fact, some are mind controlling, even inhumane.
Consider some opposites. An MB congregation approved a pastor candidate but was reluctant to accept him because he was not married. This is in direct contrast to the Roman Catholic “fundamental” belief demanding clerical celibacy. Real personal celibacy is rare because people were created as sexually responsive beings. Restricted from this natural drive, no wonder some resort to deeds resulting in sex scandals.
Many consider Islam a “fundamental” religion. Its “moral” standards are so demanding that they are inhuman. A TWN broadcast, “Crime of Honor”, stated that if a woman allegedly had sex with someone other than her husband, to save family honour that woman must be killed by a close family member. The family is ostracized until the murderous deed is completed. There is also the belief that men have no interest in uncircumcised women. Humanitarian educational workers discussed the brutal surgery imposed on little girls and convinced area residents to take an anti-female-mutilation position.
A good culture, like a concerned religion, will evaluate the effect of its questionable traits on its people and its image. Just because something is different doesn’t mean it is bad. The word “fundamental” among other wonderful words, has, through misuse, mind control and inhumane elements, taken on pejorative connotations. No wonder the editor suggests caution when using the word.
Stuart Makaroff,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Impugning, not slandering
I could hardly agree more completely with Dorothy Siebert (Letters, May 17 – Phillip Yancey did not “slander” the church in his book, Soul Survivor: How My Faith Survived the Church. I have misspoken many times in the past and will surely do so again, but this time it was the editor, who, in attempting to clarify and condense my prose, (and who has, on other occasions, rescued me from grammatical sins) substituted “slandered” for the word “impugned”. “Impugn” means “to suggest that somebody or something cannot be trusted or respected”. I do not want to be accused of slandering Phillip Yancey, but inasmuch as he is the writer of this book, I am impugning him just as he has the church. I feel, however, that I am justified in my impugning while he is not. The reason that I call Yancey’s book into question is because of the subtle but central premise in this otherwise informative book, in which Yancey places his personal faith and character on a higher order than the church Jesus came to establish. If that is not the case, he should have chosen another title and tone. If that is the case, Yancey is simply wrong and deserves to be impugned.
With this clarification and correction, I believe my article will be better understood (and less annoying). I am not in any way suggesting a cover-up or even a minimization of wrongs committed in the name of the church – but the distinction between the church that Jesus declared as His Bride and the sins committed in its name is important for serious writers to acknowledge. This is a distinction that is repeatedly made in the New Testament. Terrible sins have been committed in the name of Christ, and He is impugned because of them, but He remains “the Way, the Truth and the Life”. Likewise, in the past 2000 years, the church has been hijacked innumerable times by armies of unsavoury characters, but it, too, remains the only institution Jesus established, and membership in it is not optional for God’s people. The miracle of the past 2000 years is that the church has survived its members – some of whom get overly clever in the titles they choose for their books and articles. Sometimes we become so angry at each other’s insolence that we can hardly sleep at night – and yet we are eternally bound together in this amazing Body. I find that astonishing. Maybe someone should write a book about that.
James Toews,
Nanaimo, B.C.
Previous | Next Last modified June 14, 2002.
© 2002 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.
|
