|  | |
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.) |
Points to consider
I was surprised to read (News, Dec. 21) that delegates to the MCC Canada annual meeting chose to send a letter to Prime Minister Chretien to “raise concerns about the ‘war on terrorism’ ”. The letter has some political overtones which do not represent the views of all members. I offer the following points for consideration:
- Afghanistan’s Taliban government brought the war and the bombing campaign upon themselves and the Afghan people by refusing to turn over al Qaeda members to face international justice. Since the terrorists could not be brought to justice, the US and its coalition partners took justice to the terrorists and their Taliban hosts.
- It appears that the bombing campaign has been a remarkable success, bringing down the Taliban regime and crippling al Qaeda in a short time with relatively few civilian casualties.
- Are countries poor because of the “injustice in the international economic system” or because their governments have chosen totalitarian regimes over freedom and democracy? A number of Arab countries actively support Islamic fundamentalism in other countries in order to deflect the legitimate grievances of their citizens against their own governments. The West makes a convenient scapegoat.
- The letter contends that the “war may cause a deterioration in inter-religious relations”. The coalition has made every effort to communicate that the war is against terrorism, not Islam. Most people recognize that Islamic fundamentalists are perverting Islam in order to further their aim of imposing a totalitarian state on their people, but many North Americans were disappointed by the apparent reluctance of Muslim leaders to soundly condemn the Sept.11 attacks.
- The letter suggests that the perpetrators of the Sept.11 attacks could have been brought to justice through the “UN and other multilateral procedures”. The UN’s track record, which includes the catastrophe in Rwanda and the recent debacle in Durban, hardly inspires confidence. The US chose a better route by building support among its coalition partners and jointly taking direct action against the perpetrators and their Taliban confederates.
|
What do you do when there are no good choices? In this case, the US and its partners, including Canada, opted for the least bad choice. The Afghan people will ultimately be better off, and we in the West will be safer, as a result.
Bruce Danyluk,
Oakbank, Man.
Pacifism not passive
Mark Kroeker’s letter (Dec. 7) raises crucial questions about how we may be Christ-like in a broken world.
One question concerns the nature of pacifism. Kroeker describes pacifist perspectives as “idealistic” and “irrelevant”, perhaps because he thinks pacifism is passive describing it “comfortable” and “armchair”.
Jesus is idealistic but never irrelevant. His theology is not comfortable. In a context of domination (Romans dominate Jews; priests dominate worshippers; men dominate women; masters dominate slaves; landowners dominate debtors), Jesus rejects domination. He is passionate about human dignity, justice and reconciliation. When Jesus says to “turn the other cheek,” He is not calling victims to be floormats. When He says, “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s,” He is not counselling blind obedience. Jesus’ words address both the victim and the oppressor. The victim is to respond in a creative way that will throw the oppressor off balance and spur him to think again, perhaps see new light and end the domination.
Pacifism, too, rejects domination and is passionate about human dignity, justice and reconciliation. And so it seeks a negotiated settlement. In business and in political conflict, negotiations work best when power is balanced. When power is unbalanced, pacifism works to empower the weak and balance power so that negotiations take place in good faith and neither party feels victimized. Thus, pacifism anticipates, prods, provokes, challenges, confronts, mediates, conciliates, imagines alternatives, brainstorms, speaks the truth and holds parties accountable – all to balance power, to enable dialogue, to resolve conflicts before they explode and to mitigate violence before it escalates out of control. Pacifism is never comfortable or “armchair” but always proactive.
Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, and Mahatma Gandhi were all deeply engaged in political affairs, and all were victims of oppression. King and Tutu were committed Christians. King and Gandhi were absolute, religious pacifists; Mandela and Tutu were “practical pacifists”. Their pacifism was idealistic, supremely relevant and effective. It was never comfortable or “armchair”; indeed, it cost King and Gandhi their lives.
A second question concerns President Bush, “the only leader in the Western world who openly declares his personal faith in God.” All Muslim leaders also declare their personal faith in God. Actions speak louder than words.
Luke 10:27, 1 Corinthians 12-13 and Galatians 5:22-23 agree that the best evidence of faith in God is love. King, Tutu, Mandela, and Gandhi all showed love in their political struggles. When their moment of power arrived, they showed love to their oppressors. Like King, Gandhi and Mandela, Bush might have offered to walk into the Afghan desert to meet Bin Laden personally.
A third question concerns the ability of military force to bring about “lasting peace and freedom”. Military operations always leave wounded parties with lingering bitterness. In the short term, military force may appear realistic and effective, but in the long term, pacifism is more so, for it works to heal the opponents’ lingering bitterness. As Martin Luther King Jr. noted, peaceful ends must have peaceful means.
Rightly we pray that our “children and future grandchildren will enjoy the peace and security” we take for granted. Let us widen our view and pray that the children and future grandchildren of Africans, Asians and all dominated peoples also enjoy the peace and security we take for granted.
Kroeker rightly hopes that he “would have the courage to defend freedom and justice if asked to do so”. We have already been asked to do so – by Jesus! Let us respond, not with bombs, nor with “armchair” pacifism, but with the creative, active pacifism of Him who calls us.
John Derksen,
Winnipeg, Man.
Words carefully chosen
Darlene Erho chastised the Herald for printing an article containing “inferred swear words” (Letters, Nov. 23). She quotes that we will have to “give account . . . for every careless word” (Matthew 12:36). But Erho admits that the inferred swear words may have been used to convey how horrible a person was feeling. Without these words, that horrific emotional state would not be felt by the reader. Good writers use every word carefully. “Inferred swear words” may be used carefully, while tamer words may be used carelessly. Jesus used words as harsh as “brood of vipers” (Matthew 12:34). The verse states that we will be judged for every “careless word”, not every swear word.
Stephen Kent,
Edmonton, Alta.
Not appropriate review
I was surprised to see The Peony Season reviewed in the Herald (Nov. 9). I started to read it, but did not finish. I do not think the “f” word and other coarse words are appropriate in Christian literature. Even in secular work, they often don’t write it out. I wouldn’t want our young people to read it. They get enough foul language in school.
Sue Froese,
Abbotsford, B.C.
US foreign policy not good
Mark Kroeker’s assumption that United States foreign policy is fundamentally “good” (Letters, Dec. 7) is misguided. To think that the President is attempting to bring “lasting peace and freedom” for anyone but American citizens is foolhardy. George Bush Sr. played a role in putting the Taliban in power, but no American political group cared about freedom for Afghanis before it became a by-product of winning this “war”. That US foreign policy actions are carried out to keep them on top rather than to liberate people is demonstrated by US support of Saudi Arabia’s royal family. The government of Saudi Arabia is arguably more enslaving and constrictive than the Taliban but the Saudi royals allow the US cheap access to their oil in return for political support. The Christian response is to graciously love and work for the freedom of all peoples, not just those who are linked to the wellbeing of the West.
Justin Klassen,
Abbotsford, B.C.
A matter of gifting
Brian Anderson suggests that because I challenge the traditional position on the role of women, I do not believe that the Bible is God-breathed. But it is precisely Scripture which has led me to challenge the accepted position. If the passage seems to say that women can’t in any circumstance lead or teach men but God sovereignly raises up women to lead and teach men, then we have to re-examine our doctrine. (Do we still believe that God’s actions never contradict His Word?)
Anderson states that the Bible is God-breathed, not cultural. He seems to say that taking Paul’s culture and setting into account when interpreting what he says is somehow undermining its divine origin. It helps us understand the Bible better to know that the Romans commonly used crosses to kill criminals and that Jesus was Jewish. In the same way, Paul’s male-dominated society plays into the passage we are now discussing. This is not making the passage fit with our culture; it is honestly reflecting on the culture it came to.
Anderson does not take the passage literally either. He says that it’s OK for women to lead Bible studies, that the real issue is whether women can be elders or senior pastors. But the passage doesn’t say that. At least, Irma Dyck follows the literal interpretation to its logical end – which is a good way to check our interpretation. If we follow it to its logical conclusion, is it still in harmony with other things we know for sure?
I’m not exactly sure what 1 Timothy 2:11-14 means. What I do know is that Scripture shows us a God sovereign enough to find exceptions to Paul’s statement. I agree that fallen human beings probably can’t decide when such exceptions should apply. It is God who gives spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4-6) so if He gifts a woman to teach or lead, I assume that God’s gifts are God’s vote. None of us can assume ministry positions as a matter of course or aspiration. For all of us, it is a matter of gifting and, even more importantly, a matter of the heart.
Brad Huebert,
Winkler, Man.
Interpretation must be consistent
I share Brian Anderson’s passion for the authority of Scripture (Letters, Dec. 7). I agree that it is easy to throw away those passages which are not in harmony with our own pet beliefs, but it seems that this is precisely what Mr. Anderson is himself doing by dismissing the accounts of Deborah and Priscilla as “exceptions”. Particularly in the Old Testament, which is so profoundly focused on law, Deborah is a legal precedent. As for the New Testament, whatever happened to “neither male nor female in Christ”?
As for those other difficult passages, traditional interpretations seem to demand that women should be wearing hats or kerchiefs during services, an idea which we now completely ignore. Yet we dogmatically insist that “a woman must not teach a man”. If this last traditional interpretation is applied consistently, rather than just used selectively to keep women from the pastorate or eldership, then in practice it should be forbidden for a woman to teach any man anything anywhere. This includes Sunday schools and Bible studies.
Clearly our own prejudices influence our interpretations. (For example, early Greek manuscripts had no punctuation, which can significantly affect the interpretation of a passage.) Therefore we need to be more critical of our own biases, humbly recognize our own fallibility and keep focused on what the Word truly teaches. By preserving our prejudices regarding women in leadership, the devil is able to keep half of God’s leaders in the bleachers. Consider the potential impact in our churches if we had twice the workforce in evangelism, preaching and leadership.
Gender is not the issue in leadership; gifting is. All our abilities and gifts come directly from God. God did not choose Deborah as a judge because there weren’t any good men available. (After all, He also used Gideon and Samson, who were hardly shining examples of courage or character.) God chose Deborah because He wanted to use a woman. He sovereignly gave her the gifts she needed to do the job, and no man in Israel stood above her.
Yet, as a woman, I am told that I must ignore or minimize such gifts and disobey God’s call on my life.
Just as God created Eve to be an equal partner with Adam, so men should welcome the partnership of women in all areas of Christian life and service, including leadership. God saw Adam as inadequate by himself “not good”, the only inadequacy in the original creation. God did not create woman simply to be a pleasant partner in procreation or as slave labour, but as a partner in all areas of life. Only together can we fulfill our destiny as the Body of Christ.
Sherry Klassen,
Winnipeg, Man.
Previous | Next Last modified February 11, 2002.
© 2002 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.
|
