|  | |
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.) |
No compromise on baptism
When Christians debate the subject of baptism (see May 31), the usual topics are (1) what baptism signifies, (2) the right age for baptism and (3) the proper rites and rituals for baptism. Hardly ever do you hear discussion of why any church practises any form of baptism in the first place. The basic answer is obviously “because the apostles did it, and John the Baptist did it”, but that only raises the question of why they performed baptisms.
Something similar to baptism was practised throughout the Old Testament, except that most translations don’t use that term. In the King James Version of Leviticus and Numbers, the phrase “bathe in water” occurs 17 times in connection with purification rituals. By the time of Jesus, this immersion in water (“mikvah” in Hebrew) was performed routinely before the Sabbath and before entering the temple in Jerusalem. The mikvah was a total immersion, and the rabbis (who had rules for everything) had specified the minimum amount of water and many other regulations for a valid mikvah. There would have been many mikvah pools near the temple, and participants often brought a friend as observer, to let them know if they had missed the top of their head and needed to do it again. Some Jewish groups still practice the mikvah as a ritual.
If (as I believe) Christian baptism originated as a variation on the mikvah, it settles at least two of the three big questions: baptism is for those mature enough to understand what they are doing and why they are doing it; and baptism should be by total immersion. On the last point, since we believe baptism is purely symbolic and there is no spiritual merit in using larger quantities of water, I’m willing to concede that sprinkling will suffice – it is only a symbol of a symbol, but that’s close enough for fellowship. On the first point, there should be no compromise; when the Old Testament roots of baptism are taken into consideration, there is no ambiguity about what Scripture teaches, and it’s precisely because we adhere to Scripture on this point that our spiritual heritage is called “Anabaptist”.
Alan Chattaway,
Surrey, B.C.
Tradition can handcuff
Having been baptized as an infant in the Reformed church and later baptized in my teens in an MB church, I have come to understand the position of both the pedobaptist and the anabaptist. By the grace of God, I was able to come to a point where I understood that my baptism as an infant was simply a sign on behalf of my parents (much the same as described in Dan Unrau’s article). I also came to understand that it was a logical step in my development to publicly declare my faith by being baptized through immersion. Believer’s baptism became for me a fulfillment and honouring of my parents’ decision to baptize me as an infant – not a rejection of that baptism.
As an aspiring young pastor, my concern over believer’s baptism lies in two areas. First, I find challenge in the fact that some denominations (not MB) reject the validity of adult baptism if not done specifically by immersion. My mother and I were baptized in an MB church on the same day; however, because of her physical disability, my mother could not enter a baptismal tank. My own church views my baptism as superior to hers, regardless of her physical circumstances.
Perhaps the foremost concern of mine is the link between baptism and membership. To date I have not been able to find this link in Scripture. The Word of God claims that we receive spiritual gifts upon salvation, not upon baptism or membership in a local church. It is perplexing that we will not allow solid, non-baptized believers to hold an office in the church, vote at church meetings or even teach Sunday school because they are not yet ready to profess their faith in such a way. The journey from pedobaptist theology to anabaptist theology takes time and great sensitivity, not a forced conformity. When did it become our prerogative to override Scripture regarding the use of spiritual gifts in light of one’s membership status in the local church? It is a tragedy when we handcuff the Body of Christ on the basis of our tradition. Unintentionally we have created second-class citizens in the kingdom of God.
For the record, I held membership in the MB church and married an MB. We still have a deep love for the MB church but have found employment in the Baptist church.
Jeremy Doorten,
Calgary, Alta.
Don’t judge a book by its title
It is amazing to me that Mr. Toews (April 19) has got himself so hung up on the title of a book. One could refer to his review of Philip Yancey’s latest work as a “title critique” rather than “book critique”. It is almost as if he got so angry at the title that he didn’t get past the first chapter. His review contains nothing of the actual content of the book past the first chapter. If he had continued with an open heart, he would have realized that the book is actually about one man’s journey back to God and His church despite the things people in the church do. The same words that have irritated Toews so much may be a means by which some people will be reintroduced to God and His church. They may identify with Yancey’s story of spiritual abuse, and realize that there is another way other than suffer in silence or reject the church. Yancey suggests a better way – speaking out with integrity about the sins and yet remaining committed to the community of faith. This is the example set forth in the Scriptures by the prophets and apostles. It seems to me that with his “overly clever title” Yancey has comforted the afflicted and afflicted the comfortable. Those who have been deeply wounded by the institution of the church will be comforted to know it’s okay to acknowledge that pain, yet still find a place in the church. Those who are comfortable in the church have been afflicted with the truth of some its abuses. This is very much the way of Christ, who attracted those furthest from the “church” of His day, and infuriated those who most closely identified with it.
Mark Friesen,
Winnipeg, Man.
Book encourages
Many times I have thought of participating in the interesting discussions that take place on these pages. The discussion about Philip Yancey’s book has given me the final push. I am bewildered by James Toews’s conclusion (April 19) that the book is about the Universal Church rather than the local “Christian” organizations of this century we call churches. I found the book to be gentle and gracious, and I heard from it a call not to give up on the local church. I have met many wonderful individuals in churches over the years, but experienced a corporate closet abuser as active and ugly as the open abuser Yancey describes. The picture Yancey gives of a diverse group of forgiven sinners sitting side by side in pews inspires me more than Toews’s picture of a people lying in their beds, sleepless with anger at each other while simultaneously “miraculously” bonded in the heavenlies.
A. Kroeker,
Altona, Man.
Status of infants was missed
Thanks for the May 31 issue on believer’s baptism. This sort of discussion needs to take place, and I am glad it is out in the open.
Baptized in infancy and later in a Baptist church, I didn’t find Ron Toews’s article that helpful. He missed the pedobaptist argument from original sin; he did mention that “sin and the will to sin are inherent in the human race” – and then didn’t explain the anabaptist view that infants are safe in Christ until the age of accountability. He failed to properly explore the relationship between water and the Word, dismissing it with “Believing faith cannot be passed on by a ritual.” We also need a more convincing exegesis of Colossians 2:11-12. It might have been pointed out that 1 Corinthians 7:14 says that children of a believing parent are holy (without baptism being mentioned) and that 1 Peter 3:21 speaks of baptism “as a pledge of a good conscience toward God” (which does not fit an infant).
The third paragraph of Jim Coggins’s article also causes me concern. It is easy to sweep over early church history, when it seems to have been rather complex. Perhaps the statement that “the usual practice of the early church was believer’s baptism” could be defended more by evidence than by assertion. In the same article, the mention of pouring showed a weak understanding of its significance; my conference, the Evangelical Mennonite Conference, practises both pouring and immersion on confession of faith.
In the table of contents, the Viewpoint has the title “I’ve been thinking about infant baptism”, while the article itself has “I’ve been thinking about infant dedication”. Was this a Freudian slip? I agree with Dan Unrau that the practice of baby dedication needs to be rethought. There is no specific New Testament reference to it, and it seems to spring from the same concern that caused churches to develop infant baptism and confirmation. It’s interesting that some Anabaptists can be so analytical when it comes to infant baptism and so unreflective when it comes to a practice that they developed, baby dedication.
What was lacking throughout the issue was a sense of the spiritual status of an infant, which is an impetus behind infant baptism.
Terry M. Smith,
Mitchell, Man.
Not an attack on the church
It seems to me that those who were central to the formation of our denomination (Martin Luther, Menno Simons, etc.) did more than their share of “impugning” the church (James Toews, Letters, May 31). How is it, then, that Philip Yancey is bordering on blasphemy in celebrating the spiritual food that has nourished him through a period of bitterness against the institution? I suspect it is because, instead of arguing his position based on Scripture, Yancey simply points to stories about people who have inspired him to faith by their own inspired response to Jesus. How does this become a subtle, subversive attack on the church?
Joel Wiens,
Abbotsford, B.C.
Dedications are celebrations
Dan Unrau makes an interesting point (May 31) by suggesting that baby dedications are “poorly disguised infant baptisms”, but I always thought that infant baptisms were “misnamed child dedications”. I think that child dedications are wonderful celebrations for all the reasons that he gives.
James Toews,
Nanaimo, B.C.
Questions not answered
Jason Rekker (May 31) dared to ask some questions that are not very popular in Anabaptist and Baptist circles. He was answered by several articles that presented the usual defence of believer’s baptism. I am not sure they answered his questions.
I am particularly disturbed by some comments in Dan Unrau’s reflection on infant dedication. (I accept the title of his article in the Table of Contents as being a very unfortunate mistake.) No doubt there are abuses of infant dedication. Are there no abuses of adult baptism? Is it not appropriate for parents to give public thanks for the safe birth of a child, to commit themselves to creating a Christian home for the child, and to seek the support of the congregation in that difficult task? He fears a “lurking perception that our . . . ceremonies carry at least a tiny guarantee that the child is on the way to being saved.” There is certainly no guarantee, but dare we deny that sincere prayers for the spiritual welfare of the child play a part in shaping the child’s life? Do we believe that God answers prayer?
George C. Bush,
Bedford N.S.
Worship needs to be more than worship team
If we find it difficult to come together on how we worship, it merely underscores that none of us are much different in our ability to appreciate what others appreciate. This is an issue on which we should strive for balance. We need each other. Choirs, hymns and the traditions of the past still have relevance, while contemporary music, new songs and renditions are needed to make a connection with people who’ve grown up in new musical idioms.
As I read Elmer Thiessen’s provocative and helpful article on “Contemporary worship culture” (May 3), I thought of two questions.
One concerns the interaction of worship leaders with people in the pews. This ought to be an important goal of worship leaders, but when I observe what happens in services led by worship teams, I’m not convinced it’s seen as important. For example, I attended services in two settings in quick succession where the text put on the screen differed from what the worship team was singing. The team sang on, apparently oblivious to the confusion of the congregation, ignoring what was happening and making no attempt to correct the problem or explain it afterward. I’ve attended services where the worship team will launch into a song without any suggestion to the congregation of what they are going to sing. Where the songs are well-known, this may pose no problem. But often they aren’t. People are forced to find their way into the melodies and lyrics – and it’s a struggle. On numerous occasions I’ve seen people around me remain silent because they couldn’t figure out the melodies or simply found the songs unsingable. There was no music in their hands or on a screen in front of them. No attempt was made to help them learn the melody. Even something as simple as worship leaders using hand motions to show the rise and fall of the melody line was neglected. It appeared that the worship team wasn’t really concerned about involving the congregation.
I don’t feel old, but I clearly remember the time when we debated organs in the church because we feared they would drown out the congregation or stampede the singing tempo. It seems to me that worship teams run the same risk – perhaps even more so because the sound systems today are so good. Even if no one sings, they can fill a sanctuary with sound. That’s the temptation they must surely resist, because it’s got to be the church singing which represents true worship.
A second question concerns how our worship connects to the church’s experience across the centuries. It should, but in many churches it doesn’t do it enough. If we sing nothing but the songs of the past, we likely won’t connect with the people of the world around us, but, conversely, if we sing only contemporary stylings, we’re not likely to remain true to the God who has carried the church through the centuries. Some strands of teaching which have been prominent in other times and places get short shrift in our affluent, entertainment driven, media-influenced North American culture. Songs birthed at times of suffering, amid the tensions of the Reformation, in the era of the awakening missionary movement, from ethnic groups new to the Christian faith, from the pens of great Christian leaders (Luther, the Wesleys, Finney or Sankey) and from a variety of Christian streams (the Orthodox, the Anabaptist, the evangelical or the Catholic) all have something to contribute to our faith. If we cut them out in an overriding desire to be contemporary, we’ll have impoverished ourselves. We have to ask ourselves whether it is healthy evangelicalism that cuts itself off from the wider worship of followers of Christ at other times and places. Thank you, Elmer, for prodding us. We need it.
Harold Jantz,
Winnipeg, Man.
Does worship lead to obedience?
In Old Testament times, the living God time and again warned His people through the prophets that they not adopt the customs of the nations in which they found themselves residing. We read in Scripture the dire consequences of disobedience. The article by Elmer Thiessen (May 3) is as timely and prophetic as were the words of God’s prophets.
Our desire to win converts to Christianity should continue to revolve around the biblical principles of our forefathers: a quiet and contrite heart, a broken spirit before God Almighty, repentance and acceptance of God’s sacrificial Lamb, followed by the joy of salvation in living a life of obedience to God. Are we, in our church worship today, really seeing contrite hearts and broken spirits when we blast our congregations with over-amplified, distorted, high decibel sounds? Or are we seeing worshippers entertained, as the world entertains, often accompanied by almost hysterical and emotional applause? It would be well for us to sometimes silence the worship clamour and follow Psalm 46:10: “Be still and know that I am God.”
Herman E. Wilms,
Winnipeg, Man.
Position needs re-evaluation
Re “An open letter to MCC” (June 21): Finally someone has had the courage to speak up against some of the practices of MCC. I noticed a change coming when MCC discontinued using the labels “In the name of Christ” on articles and goods being sent abroad. In response to my inquiry, I was informed that it was offensive to other religions. Really? What then is MCC’s focus?
Many are the growing disgruntled remarks amongst constituents regarding MCC’s numerous political involvements. It’s not peacemaking; it’s agitation.
MCC has many good workers and causes, but some in the upper echelons of the MCC power structure have lost sight of the mandate, standards, goals and principles they initially stood for. MCC will need to analyse and re-evaluate its position if it wants to avoid a major backlash.
J.B. Penner,
Winnipeg, Man.
Pray for MCC
Thank you to Ron Redekop and the elders of Northside Community Church for their very informative article (“An open letter to MCC”, June 21). Thank you for standing up for Jesus and defending the inspired Word Of God. Unfortunately, it is becoming all too common for Christians to water down the gospel. There was a reason why Paul was stoned and beaten. The gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is an offense to the world. The world hates the truth. Please, MCC, don’t stray from the inspired Word of God. Do not embrace the world’s New Age and humanistic philosophies. It’s wonderful that MCC feeds and clothes people, but a full stomach and new clothes won’t get them to heaven. The peoples of the world need Jesus! We as evangelical Mennonites need to pray for the leaders and workers of MCC. Thanks to Redekop, we as a church body are now able to pray more specifically.
Megan Fast,
Leamington, Ont.
Do beliefs and agendas harmonize?
I thank Ron Redekop (“An open letter to MCC”, June 21) for voicing an important issue. MCC has traditionally been a model of ecumenicalism, bringing different Mennonites together in common goals. The spirit of cooperation continues, but we must ask if it is all still in the name of Christ. I also think MCC does many great things, but we need to ask ourselves: Where are we going? Times change, and beliefs and agendas evolve. We are witnessing an increasingly widening gap between our beliefs and those of some of our partners in the MCC. While Redekop is correct in asking for a return to scriptural standards, is this where MCC will be going? Is non-support of programs that fall outside of our beliefs enough? The “driving force” and the agendas of the different committees within MCC will always be set by all of the members of MCC. Actions and agendas are always determined through belief systems. For them to act outside of their beliefs would be hypocrisy. As we witness the increasing gap between our beliefs and those of some of our partners, we need to ask ourselves if we can live with these agendas . . . for they believe in these agendas.
Clinton D. Friesen, Pastor,
Carrot River (Sask.) MB Gospel Mission
Disturbed and outraged
While disturbed by the objections of Ron Redekop (June 21) to a few of the positions articulated by members of MCC’s working groups, I was positively outraged by the bullying tone of the open letter written to MCC. Should MCC make the changes right away, or would it be OK if the rest of the Conference membership (not to mention other conferences that fund MCC) discuss the matter?
Joel Wiens,
Abbotsford, B.C.
MCC response
The “Open Letter to MCC” (June 21) raises important issues for ministry “in the name of Christ”. The issues address MCC’s international work as well as its national involvements. Accordingly, this joint response involves input from the national MCC jurisdictions.
The mission of MCC is clear: “MCC strives for the peace, justice and dignity of all people by sharing our experiences, resources and faith in Jesus Christ.” In most cases this is done through local churches in ways that are culturally appropriate. In some situations, we cannot work through churches (e.g., Iran, North Korea, Iraq). At all times we are guided by Peter’s injunction to give account of the hope that is within us, doing that always with great respect, humility and gentleness (1 Peter 3:15-16). The MCC missiology follows that of Paul (Acts 17) – being in the middle of religious, cultural and political diversity, accepting people for who they are, and then giving a passionate witness to our faith in Jesus the Christ.
Because MCC “seeks to demonstrate God’s love by working among people suffering from poverty, conflict, oppression and natural disaster”, almost all our activities – feeding the hungry, binding the wounds of war, assisting refugees, sheltering the homeless, advocating for the voiceless – have a political dimension though not necessarily a political intention. But the motivation for this involvement is neither the pursuit of “politics” nor the use of “power”, but rather a compassionate Christian response to the anguish and struggle that is so much a part of our global reality. Our involvement witnesses to our biblical faith (cf. Isaiah 58:6-9; Luke 4:18-19).
If MCC and the church are to have integrity, we need to hear, amplify, interpret, challenge and respond to these voices from wherever they come. In the case of the Middle East, MCC has been walking with Palestinian refugees for over 50 years and still their plight has not been resolved by either neighbouring countries or the world community.
MCC’s brochure “Referendum: Confused?” was a response to many calls in British Columbia from both lay persons and pastors asking for guidance and suggestions. MCC’s long history with aboriginal people is well known. MCC has gained credibility within the aboriginal community as well as in the broader society, including the provincial and federal governments. The decision to provide a resource to our constituency, in the form of a brochure, was made by the MCC B.C. Board after long deliberation in response to requests and in keeping with MCC’s commitment to justice. The purpose was to provide information and a recommendation for those who wished to register a “principled disagreement” with the referendum process or questions. This was endorsed in several public forums and in the press.
The Women’s Concerns Report seeks to stimulate interest and dialogue amongst women within the Mennonite and Brethren in Christ churches on a variety of issues and perspectives. Compilers and writers from outside MCC staff but within the constituent churches, write from their personal perspectives and experience. Sometimes these differ from denominational policy or theological positions, that at any rate vary across the denominations. The legitimate question is whether MCC publications should allow for this type of dialogue.
MCC welcomes ongoing counsel on these important and complex issues.
Ronald J.R. Mathies,
Executive Director, MCC Binational
Previous | Next Last modified August 13, 2002.
© 2002 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.
|
