|  | |
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.) |
Survivor has merit
Re the Sept. 8 review of the Survivor television series.
I was part of its weekly audience, as were a number of Christian friends. Did Survivor have questionable comments from its cast? Definitely – but each of the quotes in this article were from Rudy, a racist, outspoken older gentleman. The show did not belittle Dirk, the only Christian on the island, but gave him every chance to defend his faith, as well as allowing the other castaways their opinions. There was no “casual sex”, and a number of the other negative emotions listed also were not present or not common.
Survivor is a game. It’s not likely that any of these people act even remotely similar to their edited actions on TV. If we Christians condemn this series, then we should point out the greed and dishonesty in other game shows, and our own “game nights” (even in Monopoly!).
I found Survivor an excellent tool in relating to my co-workers, and I don’t believe I compromised myself. I have been able to stand with Dirk in what he believes, and it’s amazing the conversations that have resulted.
We as Christians need to be cautious that we do not condemn all that the entertainment industry has to offer. Certain items can be a way to relate to our unsaved friends. I look forward to the next Survivor series and the discussions that will result.
Kevin Doerksen,
Thorold, Ont.
More on preventable genocide
Thank you for the review of Gourevitch’s book (Sept. 22). My wife Cathy and I were in eastern Congo in 1994 and worked with refugees in Congo 1994-96.
In the years since the genocide, there has been considerable work done trying to understand why this happened. The international community has taken some ownership for its role, reluctantly. What was truly known by the international community prior to the genocide will perhaps never be fully understood. I suspect that if it was, the acceptance of blame would be much greater.
While I applaud the Herald for printing this story, I have some difficulty with the concluding paragraph that “hope lies in returning to (Judeo-Christian) roots”. I firmly believe following Christ would have made a difference in Rwanda. At the same time, followers of the Judeo-Christian worldview were implicated in the genocide. It is too easy to assume the Christians who were part of the genocide were not really Christian. Followers of Christ killed on both sides of World War II, and even with the Mennonite perspective on pacifism, we do not assume all soldiers in that conflict were non-Christian. If we suggest the Judeo-Christian worldview has a higher view of human life than traditional beliefs in Africa or Islam or first nations in Canada, we risk positioning the reality of Christ in a way that does harm. The truth of the cross needs to be seen in the context of every culture. I have sometimes wondered if the framing of Christ in a “Judeo-Christian” understanding was part of the reason the message of Christ did not have the roots that were needed when the crisis hit Rwanda. If the message of Christ had been understood in traditional culture and patterns, there may have been greater hope.
Terry Sawatzky, Africa Department, MCC,
Winnipeg, Man.
Value story rather than criticize details
Re “Keeping the story straight”, Barbara Armstrong’s review of Francine Rivers’s book, Leota’s Garden (Sept. 22). Editorial errors bother me more than the average reader, but I do not think it responsible to discredit an author based just on those details. I work in our church library, and many people come back to tell me about the powerful impact Rivers’s books have had on their lives. I have seen the book Redeeming Love change lives as people come to fully understand the concept of grace for the first time. We have all of Rivers’s books in our library but they are so popular there are almost never any on the shelves.
Lorie Battershill,
Winnipeg, Man.
Are we neglecting the Holy Spirit?
The Canadian MB Conference Convention 2000 had a challenging theme, “Healthy growing churches”. However when I looked at the essential elements for growth, I missed mention of the Holy Spirit. Is He not relevant to growth? The Herald did not mention His Name in the reports. The book of Acts describes the birth and building of the New Testament church. In the first 13 chapters, the Holy Spirit is mentioned 28 times. In Decision magazine, the Holy Spirit is mentioned 14 times.
Do we as Mennonites have room for the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit was involved in creation; inspired Scriptures; convicts people of sin, righteousness and judgement; regenerates and transforms us; indwells and seals us; gives assurance of salvation; gives spiritual gifts and produces the fruit of the Spirit; teaches us (John 14:26); provides the power for a victorious life (Acts 1:8; 2 Thessalonians 1:7); and presents our groanings in prayer. Why do we find Him so irrelevant?
Elmer Thiessen wrote a good, discerning article on Natural Church Development (Sept. 22) but he, too, made no mention of the Holy Spirit’s relevance to church growth and development. In the MB Confession Of Faith, Ephesians 5:18 (“Be filled with the Holy Spirit”) is not included. Isn’t that command too important to omit?
The Christian life is a supernatural life. We cannot save ourselves, nor live the Christian life in our own strength. Therefore God provided the Holy Spirit.
Just because some Pentecostals rolled on the floor a hundred years ago or recently in the Toronto Blessing, do we shy away from the Holy Spirit? Edwin Orr made the study of revivals throughout history a focus of his ministry. I met him in Bangalore, India. He said, “Revivals are the work of the Holy Spirit. However in every revival the enemy has succeeded in producing aberrant or strange behaviour on the fringe so as to bring the whole movement into disrepute.” Will we miss the real thing because of the enemy’s counterfeit?
Abe Dueck reports a Canadian Conference increase in membership of 1.6%. If fewer than two grains in every 100 planted, germinated and reproduced, would not the farmer consider it a total crop failure?
Every believer is born to reproduce. A pregnant mother carries her infant day and night for nine months. If every believer would take on the burden of at least one person, pray for him/her morning and night, show love and care for nine months, would we not see thousands born into the kingdom of God?
The world through its wisdom did not come to know God (1 Corinthians 1:21), and science makes little contribution to church development. The early church grew by leaps and bounds as they clung to the essentials of Scripture, prayed, were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the Word of God with boldness (Acts 4:31).
Henry P. Poetker,
Edmonton, Alta.
Thanks to Thiessen
Wow. Thanks for publishing the two articles by Elmer J. Thiessen, “Reflections on Natural Church Development” and “Builders, Boomers and Busters” (Sept. 22). I appreciated both articles.
Annely Epp,
Chilliwack, B.C.
Preaching of the Word enough
I received my Sept. 22 Herald today and as usual have already read it. The article by Walter Unger on Rwanda was informative and challenging. I read as well the articles by Elmer Thiessen. What does the church really need except to preach the word of God? Paul told Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:2-3; “Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage – with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.” It is sad that this is the state of many churches today. We gather around us teachers who tell us what our itching ears want to hear, and the Word of God goes unpreached or watered down to such an extent that it is unrecognizable. Some churches claim to be “seeker sensitive”. I see no mention in Scriptures of such a term. Romans 10:17 tells us that faith comes from hearing the Word of Christ. We ignore the fact that salvation is a work of God, not man, and that if we simply preach the Word, God’s people will come. Remember Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 2: “My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom but on God’s power.”
I would also like to ask the same question that pastor James Toews asked himself in his review of Gladiator: What was he doing in that theatre? The Psalmist wrote, “I will set before my eyes no vile thing. I will have nothing to do with evil” (Psalm 101:3-4). The youth pastor in our church challenged me with this reference, and for this I am grateful. I can come up with no justification to go into most movie theatres today. The images portrayed can either lead us to sin or desensitize us to hurt. It is not necessary to enter the lion’s den to know that one may be chewed.
Bob Hart,
Delta, B.C.
More than violence to the movie
Re James Toews’s review of the movie Gladiator: While violence is certainly a major component of the movie, it is not the purpose of the movie. Nor is Maximus, a “modern” character. Maximus is a stoic, one of the many ancient schools of philosophy that emphasized finding happiness by duty and reason and a life free of entangling passions. He also is the incarnation of all the ancient Roman virtues, piety, faithfulness, courage and strength. The makers of the movie very carefully created Maximus to be as accurate a portrayal of those characteristics as possible. (See the movie’s official Web site.) They have created a reasonably accurate picture of life and attitudes in the Roman Empire of the late 2nd century.
The point of the movie is that through all the horrible events that engulf Maximus, he remains true to his beliefs and does not yield to the attempts to destroy him; he does not become the monster that many would expect, though he clearly wrestles with it. He begins and ends the movie as a good man, his beliefs and virtues intact.
The movie invites self-reflection. How would we fare if we fell upon such horrors? Would we remain faithful and “good”, or would we surrender to the malignancy of evil? The Romans were a complex people, filled with noble virtues and base vices, and so are we.
Heath McClure,
Madera, Calif.
Baptism, church membership issue needs more study
I received the Sept. 8 issue on “Baptism, Membership and the Lord’s Supper” with great anticipation. I had hoped to get help with some nagging questions on this topic, but did not receive much of what I was hoping for.
The issue did have some good teaching on baptism and what it means to be a member of the Body of Christ. The idea that every believer is a member of the Body of Christ is basic to the New Testament. The idea that every believer should practise this membership in a local context is also quite clear. Most Christians worldwide today and through the ages would heartily agree with these basic ideas.
But when we as MBs talk about being a member of a particular MB church, we mean something far more formal and specific than merely being a part of the local Body of Christ. The kind of membership we are talking about is far more earthly and practical.
When we become members at MB churches, are we not committing ourselves to a certain way of doing church? Are we not accepting a certain denominational approach and agreeing to a constitution? Are we not affirming our choice of a particular institution, albeit one which hopefully serves the heavenly reality of the Church? I personally don’t have a problem with committing myself to these externals, but let’s not confuse external denominational preferences with the internal reality of membership in the Body of Christ.
We practice a kind of covenant with a denomination.
We have no evidence for such a practice in the church of Paul’s day. Do we have any biblical grounds to attach formal denominational membership to the sacred rite of baptism? Can we require this kind of membership of all those who come to us for baptism? Baptism is commanded in Scripture, as is participation in the Lord’s Supper. Our practice of church membership is not.
Why do we practise it then? Mostly because it fits well into our system, our way of doing church. It is effective, but probably not biblical. My hope is not that we would abandon the system, but rather that we would redefine our practice so that our system more authentically honours the Truth that it serves. This forced relationship between baptism and membership is our way of ensuring the believer’s understanding of commitment to the Body. But is that something we can legislate? If we would do a better job of teaching and practising this kind of radical commitment to the Body of Christ, we would perhaps not need such means. It is not uncommon that believers who hold no formal church membership clearly understand their union with other believers and function faithfully and effectively in the local church context. Likewise, there are many church members who are living as pagans and have no apparent interest in or connection to the Body of Christ.
Mark Klassen,
Yarrow, B.C.
Convention stats
Although the Canadian MB Conference Convention 2000 is long over, I thought that some might be interested in attendance statistics gathered from registrations. Of our 222 churches in Canada, 114 (51%) had at least one delegate in attendance. Sixteen (21%) of those represented a church with a membership of 50 or less, and all but one of our churches with a membership of over 500 were represented. The majority of convention attenders (51%) were from churches with a membership of 100-300; 30% from churches with 100 or fewer members, and 19% from churches with more than 300. Representation ranged from a low of 12.5% of the churches in Quebec (although some Quebec delegates listed ministries/boards instead of churches, so this could be low) to a high of 79% of the churches in Manitoba. The host province sent the most delegates.
Ruth Peters, Convention Registrar,
Waldheim, Sask.
Name identifies what we believe
What’s significant about a name? A person’s name has a face and personality attached to it. A church name, too, has a face, (a physical location) and a personality by which it is known. If that be the case, why do churches change their name? Many churches have deleted Mennonite Brethren from their name, but none have left the MB Conference. If we no longer want to be known as an MB church, why would we still want to be associated with the MB Conference? Are we ashamed of the MB doctrine, values or heritage? “MB” is being dropped because it is a barrier to the unchurched, but are the unchurched offended by the name because of their experience with certain MBs? Changing the name does not change the character of the people.
The B.C. MB Conference Board of Church Extension has issued guidelines to assist new churches in choosing a name. The first three are: 1. Should be attractive to the unchurched. (But it’s people that attract people, not names.) 2. Should have present meaning and focus. (You would think this should include doctrine and values, which a nondescript name would not convey.) 3. Should suggest openness and inclusiveness. (Webster describes church as a building for public, Christian worship. So it is redundant to call it a Community Church.) If we want to drop MB from our church name, but in small letters indicate that we are part of the MB Conference, how do we explain that to the unchurched who find “MB” as a barrier?
I feel so strongly about the MB name because 1. Our future depends on our past (Exodus 20:5). 2. It takes only one generation to forget how God has led us (Judges 2:10). 3. The history of the MB Church is God’s story of how He has led and blessed (Psalm 78:3-4).
In 2 Timothy 2:14 Paul warns about arguing about issues that are not really important in comparison to verses 1-13 of this passage. Have we missed the real issue of getting the message of salvation to those without Christ? We can spend time, effort and money on the external but miss the heart of Christ’s message (Luke 19:10).
Peter J. Funk,
Aldergrove, B.C.
Previous | Next Last modified November 29, 2000.
© 2000 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.
|
