|  | |
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.) |
Self-righteousness not appropriate
John H. Redekop drew our attention to the anti-Christian prejudice that dominates our society (Feb. 2). After spending the last year on a university campus, I affirm his conclusion: “In our day, intolerance of Christianity has become a hallmark of so-called toleration.” I am troubled, however, by the implication that this should anger those who identify with the name of Christ.
“Do not be surprised if the world hates you” runs like a refrain through the writings of John. Admittedly, it is difficult not to be angered by the manifest hypocrisy of the world’s call for tolerance. As Redekop’s article assures us, justice is on our side. Yet we are called to follow the example of Christ, who, though justice was certainly on His side, did not defend Himself, but entrusted Himself to the One who judges justly (1 Peter 2:21-23). Even if our complaints are justified, an angry response is not appropriate.
I wish that I could end there, assuming that the world hates believers primarily because of our righteousness. I am afraid, however, that we have also merited their disdain with our self-righteousness. We, like the Pharisee in Jesus’ story, are often tempted to thank God that we are not like the sinners of our society. We do the Kingdom of God no service by protesting our innocence. Perhaps the world’s complaint that the church is more concerned with moralism than with love should not generate indignance, but rather repentance.
Ryan Schellenberg,
Hepburn, Sask.
Just because we can . . .
Leon Wieler’s Viewpoint, “Are We Desensitized?” (March 30), provided an excellent challenge to our North American perspective on wealth. I recently took a group of 18 students on a two-week mission to Cluj-Napoca, Romania. We worked with orphans, street people and pediatric cancer patients. Daily we were challenged to consider how very blessed we are due to the good fortune of our birthplace. Many times our team members sat back and considered, “Why was I born in Canada instead of Romania?” where the average monthly salary of those who were able to find work was a meagre $60 Cdn.
In Canada, if we find an item on sale for 10% off, we can easily turn down the deal. At 25% off, we might still turn away. At 50% off, we might consider buying the item. At 75% off, even if we don’t need it, we buy it simply because it is an amazing deal! Surely, we could find someone to buy it from us, or maybe it could be a gift for an upcoming occasion. In Romania, the entire country is 90% off. Being a Canadian makes us all instant millionaires. The question “Can I afford it?” always has the same answer: “Of course!” The only factor that limited our spending in Romania was the restriction on luggage placed on us by the airline that whisked us home.
On our flight home, while I was leafing through a magazine, the Lord drew my attention to a full-page ad which pictured a young couple filling the trunk of their car with newly purchased articles. The caption read, “Just because you Can, doesn’t mean you Should”. The ad was for a new credit card company that would help limit your spending. While I agree the question needs to be asked, the solution, a credit card that limits your spending – another external limiter – is not the answer. We need to come to the place where we choose freely to limit our materialistic pursuits.
I teach Social Studies to middle years’ students. When examining “culture”, we discuss the notion that one can tell what people value by looking at what they spend their time, energy and money on. Leon Wieler challenges us to consider the extent to which we value our interests over the interests of others, particularly the interests of the poor and destitute.
I am thankful that I live in Canada. I am wealthy even by North American standards and am challenged daily to consider not just what I can do, but what I should do with my time, energy and money.
Milton J. Block,
Osler, Sask.
Lead, not convince
Thank you for the editorial “Leadership” (March 30). Excellent point: Pastors should be leaders. Leaders are visionaries, set direction, have foresight and understanding, see needs. But “convince”? I strongly disagree. Convincers convince. Leaders lead and not by convincing. So I went to dictionaries, Bible and concordances.
The All Nations Christian Dictionary defines convince as “to persuade someone else that something is true; to cause someone to believe”. It defines lead as to guide or direct someone or something in a certain direction, by going first or by holding their hand”. I want to be led by a leader. I want leaders in my life to have direction in their lives and to expose themselves so I can see and understand why they believe what they believe, do what they do and say what they say. As for being convinced, I trust in the Holy Spirit. I value my free will. Often man interferes with it. In the end, God alone can move me through the Holy Spirit.
How did Jesus lead? Looking for the word “convince” in concordances led me to biblical passages that use the words “convict” or “persuade” and “encourage”. But nowhere did I find that Jesus convinces or uses persuasion.
Myself, I use persuasion and strong opinion to convince others, and therefore interfere with their freedom to choose. Charles Spurgeon, in his book Holy Spirit Power, wrote: “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”
I pray to the Holy Spirit to help me and others, especially leaders, see that to lead is to do like Jesus: love people, respect their freedom to choose, encourage, share and ask God our Father for His will to be done as we do only our part.
Cecil Corbiere,
Kincaid, Sask.
Discerning view
D.P. Thiessen’s “God and homosexual marriage” (March 16) reflects a balance that can only be arrived at with a Spirit-guided sense of discernment. Thiessen has the courage to address a very sensitive issue and to do so with grace and compassion.
One of the problems that the openly gay individual faces in church communities is that Christians, being aware that the Bible considers homosexuality to be morally wrong, often feel an obligation to confront and ultimately shun the homosexual individual. Jesus, in His dealings with individuals of all walks of life and walks (and falls) of faith, never confronted anyone prematurely or heedlessly. He invariably applied an abundance of grace and compassion, and He seemed to have a keen respect for each individual’s complexity as a biological, psychological and spiritual being. If we adopt a one-dimensional view of man, seeing him strictly as a moral being, then the natural consequence is a spirit of condemnation. On the other hand, if we exclude the moral dimension, we are doing our gay brother or sister a great disservice.
While it is clearly a moral issue, to openly adopt a gay lifestyle is not a simple choice in most cases. My goal, as a psychologist who often works with homosexual individuals, is not to rush in and demand immediate change. Rather, it is to display the type of unconditional acceptance and balanced guidance that is needed to lift a dark psychological cloud that prevents spiritual light from entering. This cloud is almost always formed by childhood sexual abuse, so it is never a simple matter of entreating that individual to conform to God’s ideal. If the church adopts the type of perspective introduced by D.P. Thiessen, one that conforms to the compassionate, gently confrontative example of Christ, it will become a powerful healing agent of change in the life of gay individuals.
Bruce L. Thiessen,
Sacramento, Calif.
Another view of a shepherd
In “Leadership”, (editorial, March 30), Jim Coggins observes that the word “pastor” literally means “shepherd” and that “Leaders should be a little ahead of their people – not so far ahead that they have lost touch with them and yet not so much with them that they can’t lead them forward to a better place than where they are now.”
Nelson Mandela of South Africa, too, links leadership to the term “shepherd”, but he offers a slightly different perspective on how a shepherd leads. In his autobiography, Mandela says that as a child, after the death of his father, he was placed in the care of a regional African ruler. From this ruler he learned a lifelong principle of leadership. “I always remember the regent’s axiom,” Mandela writes. “A leader, he said, is like a shepherd. He stays behind the flock, letting the most nimble go ahead, whereupon the others follow, not realizing that all along they are being directed from behind.”
Within the flock called the church there are those who are most nimble in teaching, in serving, in giving, in encouraging, in acts of mercy, in administrating and in the many other things required for a flock to be whole (Romans 12:6-8; 1 Corinthians 12:27-31; Ephesians 4:7-13). “Letting the most nimble go ahead” while leading the rich diversity of the flock from behind, as shepherds forever have, suggests some rich possibilities.
Dalton Reimer,
Fresno, Calif.
Correction
Thank you for your excellent coverage of the Ontario MB Conference convention (March 30). I personally was very encouraged by the powerful worship, the inspiring messages, the helpful workshops and the business, which was conducted in a positive spirit.
One correction: At the end of the article, it was mentioned that two boards were dissolved. Actually, the recommendation to dissolve the Board of Church Ministries was presented as a notice of motion, to be voted on at next year’s convention. Sharon Johnson (Canadian MB Conference Christian Education Ministries director) and I asked that delegates and their churches pray for the revival of this board over the next year, as we feel that its ministry is vital to the discipleship of children, youth and adults in Ontario.
Roger G. Thiessen,
Orillia, Ont.
Member, Board of Christian Education Ministries
Leaders need not be high level
Of course, the editorial on “Leadership” (March 30) deals with high level, visionary, strategic leadership. MBs are mostly educated, upper-middle class yuppies anyway.
Why not do articles on the grassroots, tactical leadership exercised by Bible study leaders, deacons and other small group ministry leaders “in the trenches”? This is where most people learn about Christ and fellowship; this is where you will impact the neighbourhood.
I learned in the army that not all leaders need to set direction. Lower level leaders follow the direction set by higher level leaders, but they can minister more intensively to small groups of followers.
John R. Johnston,
Burnaby. B.C.
An open letter to MB Conference leaders:
This summer will mark eight years since the MB Conference deliberated the issue of women in church leadership. In July 1993 – and at least once since then – the Conference has “held the course” with respect to its position of a decade earlier and affirmed that women may be invited to serve in any position of church leadership with the exception of the lead pastoral role.
The purpose of this letter is to ask clearly, openly and in humility: When shall our daughters prophesy? Is our membership content with the 1993 affirmation? Is our church inclined to hold its course into the next decade? If so, this decision will impact the choices many of our daughters – and sons – will make. The discussion and vote of 1993 was not so conclusive as to resolve the question definitively. And yet the issue of women in church leadership has seen very little discussion over the past eight years. Why is this? Is it because the church membership has reached a general consensus? Is it because we are afraid to broach the issue once again? Is it because many members are so dispirited as a result of the 1993 decision that no one has seen fit to bring it forward?
It is my hope that this letter will encourage positive, active dialogue on this issue. Allow me several assertions:
First, the distinction made in our church polity between the lead or head pastor and any other church leadership position is, at best, arbitrary and artificial. Such a distinction is made without biblical support.
Second, the reasoning applied to the idea that women are not eligible for the lead pastoral role can be equally well applied to any leadership role whatever. No one in our denomination would dare state the position that women should truly “remain silent”.
Third, the two conflicting views on this issue both claim biblical support. Proponents on both sides are deeply committed to doing what is right in God’s sight and to being faithful to the biblical record.
Fourth, the “slippery slope” argument – that dealing with this issue will force us to deal with other, even more thorny questions thrust on us by our cultural environment – is not valid. The issue of women in ministry is independent of any other. The question is: Has there been an adequate resolution of the issue of women in ministry within our Conference? If not, let us debate it openly and move towards resolution.
Fifth, the question of women in leadership is not a confessional issue. Even if it were, our reluctance to confront those churches which disregard clearly stated confessional statements should provide precedence for a variety of responses on this issue.
Sixth, while the issue of women in leadership has proven – and will prove – divisive, it will be divisive whether we discuss it or not. Our fear should be that many who care deeply about the church will simply leave our Conference for another denomination which doesn’t maintain an arbitrary distinction.
I am confident that the vast majority of people in MB church leadership support the present church position merely out of a sense of loyalty, deference and obligation rather than out of conviction. We need to hear from these leaders. I have two daughters. I hope that, one day, they will decide to join our church. I know that they are more than welcome there. Like other young women their ages, they are being conditioned to nurture their gifts and to aim high. To date, I have not had the courage to tell them that within our church there is a single role to which they – and half the membership of the church – must never aspire. While I lack the courage for this conversation, I must inform them so that they can make their own choices.
Let us put the issue of women in leadership back on the table. Let us pray about it, read Scripture together and discuss the issue in our seminary, our university, our colleges and our churches. Let our current church leadership develop a strategy and a timeline for addressing this issue effectively and courageously. Let this be our agenda now, and let us audit our progress on it from convention to convention.
Donald Peters,
Winnipeg, Man.
Previous | Next Last modified June 5, 2001.
© 2001 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.
|
