|  | |
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.) |
Someone has to give in
During the past month, nations have done much soul searching about the conditions of this world that brought about the terror of Sept. 11. The president of Pakistan in a televised speech spoke of terrorism as a tree. He said if bin Laden would be done away with, it would be like cutting off a leaf. If bin Laden’s whole organization would be rooted out it would be like cutting off one branch of this tree. But to get to the root of this tree and rid us of all terrorism, the president suggested that the conflict in the Middle East, as well as some other major conflicts, needs to be resolved.
My solution to the Jewish/Arab conflict is this: Let the Muslim mosque in Jerusalem stand where it is, and let the Jews build their temple at a lower level using the existing Wailing Wall as the perimeter.
Somebody’s got to “give in”. We were a family of 9 children who grew up doing a lot of fighting (sibling rivalry). Often mother would say, “The smartest one gives in.” The Jews and Arabs have the same father, Abraham.
Hildegard Thiessen,
Abbotsford, B.C.
Article a disservice
Stéphane Rhéaume’s article (Sept. 28) is critical of the current church, and he uses half of his article to list its shortcomings. His experience has certainly been contrary to what I have experienced in the MB Church. He does give credit in certain areas, even though he considers them a drawback, (the Bible is central to our worship, and the gospel is the message of personal salvation). The one area that I wish he were correct in is his statement that the current church is more interested in spiritual matters than material ones. I take exception to his analysis of what has motivated Christians in the present church model (which I take to be the church of my era). To suggest that their love for Christ and their service in His kingdom were done out of fear, guilt and manipulation infers that their commitment and devotion to God were not real. It would have been much better if Rhéaume had highlighted the strong evangelical emphasis of the current church and than added that he wanted to work to make Christ’s church even more responsive to His Word.
Peter Funk,
Abbotsford, B.C.
Appreciation
Jim Coggins did a good job in the editorial on “Terrorist attacks” (Sept. 28).
I found two other articles in the Sept. 28 issue worthwhile (I re-read them a few times and shared them with a few other people): “A new model of evangelical church” by Stéphane Rhéaume, and “Things I didn’t know” by Teresa Klassen. I keep running into people who have given up on the evangelical church. One said, “I had to leave the evangelical church to retain my Christianity.” Another has been struggling with a deep unease with the church for a number of years and at age 71 recently said, “I’ve had it with the church. I’m leaving.” I hope “The new model” article will make him take a second look.
I was converted and raised in the Evangelical Mennonite Conference church in Kleefeld, Man. My wife Esther was raised in the mother MB church in Canada (Winkler). I need to admit that after our wedding I took her out of the MB Church. After over 45 years, we returned to the Mennonite fold at Highland Community Church in Abbotsford, B.C.
Our time outside the Mennonite church was in the Evangelical Covenant Church, the Evangelical Free Church and the United Church of Canada. In all of these non-Mennonite churches, both of us, as well as our four children, never lost a deep appreciation for Mennonite beliefs.
We clearly need prophets like Rhéaume and Klassen to keep us on track, relevant and effective in doing church work. It is only the gospel that is loved and shared in the context in which people live that will really change lives and prepare people to “let their light shine before others and thus glorify our Father in heaven”. We are not just saved from something, but we are saved to live and serve in a society that is in desperate need of what the gospel of Jesus Christ has to offer here and now.
Albert Menno Un-Rau,
Mission, B.C.
On-line Herald helpful
Thank you for the excellent archives the MB Herald maintains on-line. I was doing some research using the Internet and discovered the editorial “Something to die for” (Dec. 20, 1996). I recently used that story in the introduction to my sermon at a combined baptismal service our church (MB) was having with Royal Oak Church (Baptist). Thanks for your help!
Rudy Unger,
Deaf Community Christian Church,
Burnaby, B.C.
Buffy not innocent
A point of clarification to “An encouraging moment” (Crosscurrents, Oct. 26). Buffy is not as innocent as a teenage witch. She is, in fact, a vampire slayer. The TV series is a spin-off from the movie of the same name, which was actually a dark comedy. The series is not very funny. This makes it even nicer that 7th Heaven won.
Nancy Boese,
St. Catharines, Ontario
Reminiscent of Jonathan Edwards
I was intrigued by Len Hjalmarson’s “Renewal: The Hype, the Hope and the Reality” (Sept. 28). In 1994, many of us on the “outside” of this particular renewal movement intuitively felt the same things Len has articulated, yet still longed for some of that refreshing renewal in our own lives. We couldn’t understand why we had to board an airplane and fly to Toronto in order to receive God’s grace, yet somehow some of us secretly entertained the twisted theology that just maybe God’s grace was geographic.
In the early 1700s, the Great Awakening hit New England as Jonathan Edwards preached his heart out to a “dry” Northampton congregation about the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. Len’s “12 problems with renewal” were all there at the Great Awakening, and Edwards faithfully strove to address them and achieve balance through it all. Edwards insisted that the Holy Spirit was present and active in the Great Awakening yet refuted overemphasis on physical manifestations, emotional responses, etc. and underemphasis on true transformation and holiness. He advocated an “intellectually responsible religion of the heart” and tirelessly repeated the importance of genuine “religious affections”. In the last part of his Treatise Concerning Religious Affections, Edwards presents 12 distinguishing signs of truly gracious, authentic and holy affections. These 12 might provide a positive balance to Len’s 12 problems.
Finally, Len mentioned that he left the renewal movement. I know what he means and I know that he’d say that in another sense he will never leave the renewal movement. God is in the business of renewing. May God continue to provide us with a balanced framework of faith/reason to safely guide us through the stormy seas that renewal often brings with it.
Darrel Giesbrecht,
Kelowna, B.C.
Idealism
I question whether the theological positions set out in articles and editorials in the Herald since Sept. 11 are too idealistic and perhaps even irrelevant in these turbulent times. At first, I agreed with much of the traditional pacifist argument in the Sept. 28 editorial. However, upon reflection, I concluded that there were compelling counterarguments.
The comments about resisting revenge, while noble in theory, would deprive a nation of its right to combat the most terrifying and destabilizing form of violence our society has faced this century. The statement that these acts “came partly in retaliation for US actions which have killed and injured thousands” overlooks the overwhelmingly positive influence the US has had on international peace and security in the last 60 years. Furthermore, to view these criminal acts as just due to past US action is equivalent to blaming the victim for his/her assault.
Dr. Schmidt (Oct. 12) condemns the US government for using nuclear weapons against Japan. The book The Rape of Nanking, by Iris Chang, leaves no doubt that the US, by defeating the Japanese in World War Two, saved civilization from unspeakable suffering which would have been inflicted by the Japanese, as it was on the Chinese of Nanking. This is not to suggest that we should accept every action of the US government as morally correct.
I disagree with the Sept. 28 editorial that these events “are scarcely unique”. These acts will define the world in which future generations live.
The Sept. 11 tragedy has forced me to re-examine my comfortable theology of pacifism. I have not found, in the pieces penned by Conference leaders, enough to help me hold on to the historical peace position of our church. I continue to respect the faithful follower of Christ who, as a matter of conscience, refuses to carry a weapon of violence. In the absence of convincing teaching to the contrary, I will also support the US President as he, together with other allied leaders, brings justice to the criminals and governments who have perpetrated these actions. In accomplishing this, he will create an opportunity for lasting peace and freedom for the people of Afghanistan, and perhaps the world. I will never forget the TV images of Taliban religious leaders executing innocent civilians in the public squares of Kabul. Without justice, there can be no real peace.
I pray that my children and future grandchildren will enjoy the peace and security I have taken for granted, and which many brave men and women sacrificed their lives to preserve in the last World War. It has been easy to be an armchair pacifist during my adult life. I hope I would have the courage to defend freedom and justice if I were asked to do so. In the meantime, I support the actions of President Bush, the only leader in the Western world who openly declares his personal faith in God.
Mark Kroeker,
White Rock, B.C.
Historic biblical model
Re Irma Dyck’s letter (Sept. 28) and Brad Huebert’s response (Oct. 26).
The subject of women being silent in church is part of a larger topic of the role of women in the church and the role distinctions (if any) between men and women. Until 1975, Dyck’s position was the official position held by the MB Conference. So Huebert has a daunting task. He must exegete church history and doctrine and show that he and our current church leaders are more able to accurately interpret Scripture than all of our forefathers. Two thousand years of church history have been abrogated.
The foundation for such a change is the cultural argument: “Paul was a man of his time and culture. Therefore, we must take this into account when we read what he has to say about women and their function and role in the church.” This kind of argument, which is prevalent in the church today, undermines Scripture and removes its ability to speak objectively and authoritatively to the church, thus making our current culture the interpreter of Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16 says that “All Scripture is inspired by God.” The Greek word that Paul uses for inspired is Theopneustos, which means “God-Breathed”. Scripture is either Theopneustos, or it is not. If it is not, then it is reasonable to say that Paul’s writings are bound by his culture and that therefore what he wrote about women is not valid for us today because we live in a different culture. But, if Scripture is Theopneustos, which means that it derives its authority from God, then we must conform our culture and beliefs to it, not it to our culture.
No one was more ably equipped to bring clarity to this issue than Christ. He could have easily appointed women as apostles to show that there are no role distinctions between the sexes – but He didn’t. He attacked the religious leaders of the day for their traditions that undermined the Law, but He didn’t change the creation role distinctives when founding His church. Nor did His apostles. Are we to say that God Himself must be interpreted according to the cultural time in which He incarnated? I think not.
As for exceptions such as Deborah, when exceptions become the impetus to change the rule, then the rule becomes meaningless. Israel was apostate; therefore, the sin of Israel and God’s call on Deborah are not a valid reason to change the model. As for Priscilla, in ministering the way she did as recorded in Scripture, she in no way violates the creation role distinctives. Women can be involved in Bible studies, teach Sunday school, write books and play a vital role in the growth, health and maturity of the church. But they are not to be elders and pastors (which is the real issue). Those are role distinctives that are for men. It has nothing to do with men being better than women, nor does it “put God in a box”. It has everything to do with remaining faithful to the historic biblical model that God has laid out and not using the unfortunate legalistic extremes that have occurred in the church as valid reasons for throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Brian Anderson,
Mission, B.C.
Previous | Next Last modified December 7, 2001.
© 2001 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.
|
