|  | |
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.) |
Cults not always as easily identified
I am a student at the University of Manitoba and always read the Herald with great interest. James Toews, (“Cults”, March 3) wrote that cults claim their own truth, not Jesus’, and that they are secretive in their beliefs and goals. The Winnipeg “Church of Christ” (COC) has been very active on my campus. I was recruited by them, but now, by the grace of Jesus, am back with my MB church and have a deep relationship with Christ. The COC openly claimed the “truth” as Jesus, they were not at any time secretive about their intentions, and they base their doctrine only on the Bible. They desire to be Christians saved by grace, and they serve as Jesus would. In fact, they do not exhibit any warning signs of a classic cult, which makes them very dangerous to Christians who are unsure of their faith. Yet they are still a cult. They preach salvation not by faith alone but by faith and actions, misinterpret New Testament passages, and use a hierarchy to control their members. The purpose of this letter is not that readers go out and learn the theology of the COC, but rather that they be absolutely confident in their salvation from Christ through faith. This is a very real spiritual battle that almost every student at secular universities across the nation will face. But don’t worry, because we can claim Jesus, and He answers prayers. He has answered mine with resounding might.
Tim Giesbrecht,
East St. Paul, Man.
Saddened by story
I was surprised, appalled, then saddened by “A story of restoration”, (March 17). How could this have transpired in a contemporary MB church? Prayer, love, compassion, yes; discipline, yes; even excommunication, yes; but step two? The restoration in this case does not justify such action.
“The church . . . removes the protection of the Holy Spirit and the angels of God from that person and hands that person over to Satan.” How presumptuous! That it was also ineffectual is proven by her claim that “God has been faithfully placing people in my life to challenge me, to make me think.” Thanks be to God, the Holy Spirit was still at work in Allison, notwithstanding step two.
The prayer of restoration, We, as the church . . . address ourselves to the powers of darkness. We command you that you have no authority over Allison,” is equally disturbing – its efficacy negated by her claim to be “still struggling every day.” While I affirm all of Hebrews 12, the need for this action baffles me. It is inconsistent with the God I know of both the Old and New Testaments. Since when do we pray to the powers of darkness?
In the Old Testament experience – the exile – God permitted great grief to engulf His covenant people. Being His people did not immunize them from the penalty of sinning. They were still His people, however; and God did not go back on His covenant. He cast them out, but He did not cast them off. He made a way of return and restoration. As was true of Israel nationally, so it is true of God’s people individually. The very desire to return is His work within. Oh, the patience and tender mercy of God toward us through Jesus Christ!
Was not the Corinthian situation unique? Was the remedy necessarily prescriptive for all time? Why were the laypeople of the Richmond congregation silent on that day? Where are today’s MB theologians on this issue? How does the MB Conference regard this matter? If it condones such cruel and extreme action, I would not want to be a member of such a church. I was disappointed to read about this in the MB Herald, clearly the best magazine of its kind in Canada.
Walter W. Wiebe,
Victoria, B.C.
Judgement brings restoration
I read with sadness the article by Peter J. Woelk’s “Why I won’t judge Amy Grant” (March 17). I assume it’s not an editorial coincidence that the same issue also carried an article entitled “ A story of restoration”. It seems that Woelk has ignored the advice of Paul in 1 Corinthians 5. The pastor and his congregation in “A story of restoration” seem to have followed it to the letter. Who was showing real love to the fallen fellow believer?
When rumours first hinted at a relationship between Amy Grant and country singer Vince Gill, I, like many other believers, sincerely hoped they were just rumours that would eventually go away. Then it was announced that Grant was divorcing her husband for a relationship with Gill. It was truly a sad day, partly because of the influence Grant had, and has, with young people (who already have enough mixed messages from their role models). Her decision to pursue the adulterous relationship seems to have been made over a protracted period of time. I guess her crossover from Christian music to secular music was more poignant than we realized.
In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul recommends judging others for two reasons. First, it is a drastic step taken to save a soul from an eternity separated from God. Second, it prevents the eventual contamination of the entire body: “Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough?” (1 Corinthians 5:7). The minute Grant claims to be in the Body of Christ, as fellow believers, her actions become our business. We are all accountable to one another for maintaining the purity of His church. Sin, especially sexual sin, is rampant in the Body of Christ today because none of us really wants to be held accountable for our own actions.
Sadly, the North American church, has decided that Paul was too harsh in his judgement of the wayward believer in Corinth. Rather, some argue he should have been accepted without correction. Eventually, after much critical self-evaluation, he might have come back into God’s obedience. This is not love. Woelk quotes Grant as saying “No one is ever changed because of judgement.” Grant is right if she is referring to judgement without love. But judgement and love are not mutually exclusive. Practised in tandem, these actions could be called exhortation. At various times, we all need some exhortation.
Woelk did not quote the end of John 8:11: “Go now and leave your life of sin.” Jesus is in the forgiving and restoration business, but we must accept His help in changing our lives. Amy Grant has chosen not to leave her “life of sin”. If, when she takes steps to reconcile herself with her family, I will forgive her and praise the Lord for her restoration. Until that time, she should remain under the judgement of the Body.
Alvin Penner,
Duchess, Alta.
Other sins ignored
I also will not be judging Amy Grant (March 17). Having been through an experience of premarital cohabitation myself, I am familiar with the hypocrisy of Mennonites and other fundamentalists who “throw stones” at “sinners”. Fundamentalists say “Jesus died for my sins,” with one side of their mouths, and with the other side judge and condemn others who sin. Fundamentalists are most excited by non-malicious sexual sin. Harmful or malicious acts, such as wife battery, often go ignored by the church.
Amy Grant’s ministry is not tarnished. Her songs will still inspire many. Even an imperfect sinner can have a useful, effective ministry to others.
John R. Johnson,
Burnaby, B.C.
Physical expression necessary
In “Teens, hostile music and ‘the pain factor’ ” (March 31), I think that author Bob Waliszewski goes in the right direction but misses the mark. Having done my own primary research on hostile music and pain as a teen, I suggest “the release factor” goes further to explain Christian teens choosing to experience hostile music.
I didn’t listen to music, I experienced the raw emotion, sang along to it, danced and played air guitar. That kind of physical release and expression of inner pain was cathartic, but yes, didn’t heal the wounds. The “artists” who facilitate this release are secondary.
Where are the Christian artists that sing about this pain in an honest, cathartic and loud way? It’s called punk and large numbers of Christian kids experience it as a valid way to work out inner turmoil.
This type of physical and emotional release hasn’t been sanctioned by churches. When our youth do experience healing, there’s no way to stop them from moving their feet and expressing their hope through active movement in worship. Dancing isn’t what it was a half a century ago.
It’s time to rescind the directive to disallow dancing in MB churches, because to deny our youth physical expression hinders the growth of Christ’s church and forces Christian kids to seek other ways to express themselves.
Charles W. Morrison,
Portage la Prairie, Man.
Evangelical literalism
As a post-evangelical still interested in Christian ideology, I was disturbed to read of a bizarre “binding and loosing” ceremony (“A story of restoration” March 17). To me it seemed strange, fearful, and superstitious – as if the Holy Spirit waits for our invocation.
In my opinion, such questionable aspects of evangelicalism usually result from the evangelical insistence on a literal, infallible, trans-historical Bible.
Randy Schroeder,
Calgary, Alta.
Jubilee 2000
I am grateful to D. Stewart (March 31) for calling our attention to Third World debt and the international interfaith Jubilee 2000. We may think in terms of loving our neighbour (Luke 10:25-37) or doing justice and loving mercy (Hosea 6:8) or egalitarian economic principles (Leviticus 25; Deuteronomy 15) or bearing one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:2) or redemption from bondage (Exodus 3; Romans 8:2; Revelation 5:9) or transformed relationships in the body of Christ (Romans 13:8; Romans 14:15) or witness to God’s marvellous forgiveness (Matthew 18:23-35). Whatever the angle, the unpayable and choking debt of developing countries is surely an issue of Christian faithfulness. We do well to address it.
John Derksen,
Winnipeg, Man.
Enjoy the debate
After reading “The Spirit still speaks” (Letters, March 17), I became even more convinced that many Christians understand Scripture differently. That is not always a bad thing. Differences are to be expected when people try to ascertain what the authors of the passages really tried to say. But does it really give us the right to say to a differing brother, “I am tired of Christians like. . .?” I fully understand the viewpoint Huebert offers, but I do not agree with it. My own beliefs on this matter are more aligned with those of Bob Koivisto, (Jan. 21). If I look closely at both sets of beliefs, I find that both are rooted in interpretation of Scripture. On one hand, we have a set of beliefs that the special revelations (voices, visions, etc.) given to early church Christians are to be sought after and expected by Christians today. On the other hand, we have a set of beliefs that these phenomenal manifestations of the Spirit were given at a particular time in history as the church of Christ was being built. Does God still lead? Of course. The question is not whether or not God leads, but rather how He leads. Are the two views capable of being reconciled? Probably not, but instead of becoming weary of those who oppose our particular viewpoint, we should enjoy the debate.
Ron Friesen,
Niverville, Man.
Jesus’ death fulfilled Scripture
“Did the cross kill Christ?” (Letters, March 31) is absolutely right; the cross did not kill Christ. God’s special mode of execution – crucifixion – seems to have been selected by God for at least three reasons.
The first was to point us unambiguously to the why of Christ’s death – sin and the curse (“Anyone who is hung on a tree is under God’s curse,” Deuteronomy 21: 23). Our desperate sinful condition and the need for God the Father to pour out the full measure of His holy anger upon God the Son – the cursed One who substituted for us – is better illustrated by the tree of cursing than by any of the other modes of execution historically known to the Jews.
Second, nobody kills God. Custance points out that crucifixion was the only execution mode that allowed Jesus to unambiguously demonstrate that He died at the time of His own choosing and not at the instigation of His enemies. Crucified people normally stayed alive for 24 hours or more on the cross. In contrast, the Old Testament modes of execution (beheading, burning, stoning) either caused instant death or immediately imparted massive trauma. Only the cross allowed Jesus to die “unexpectedly quickly”, demonstrating that He – the voluntary sacrifice (John 10:18) – had sovereign control over His destiny at all times.
Third, crucifixion and Jesus’ “early” departure kept both Messianic prophecy and Christ’s Passover lambship (Isaiah 53:7) intact. Breaking the bones of Passover lambs was forbidden (Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12). Jesus specially timed His death (John 19:30) so that His bones would not be broken (John 19:36), illustrating Christ’s Passover purpose on the cross and God’s sovereign control over prophesied events (Psalm 34:20).
Richard Loewen,
St. Catharines, Ont.
Previous | Next Last modified May 4, 2000.
© 2000 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.
|
