|  | |
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.) |
How my faith survived James Toews
My reading of Philip Yancey’s Soul Survivor: How My Faith Survived the Church makes me think that the review by James Toews (April 19) missed the mark. James does an admirable job of providing a synopsis of Yancey’s book, but then assumes the book is flawed by slander about the church. A careful reading indicates just the opposite. Yancey writes in the first chapter “Yes, I went through a period of rejection of the church and God, a conversion experience in reverse that felt like liberation for a time. I ended up, however, not as an atheist, a refugee from the church, but as one of its advocates.”
The subtitle, How My Faith Survived the Church, is perhaps misleading, as this is not the gist of the book. Yancey’s religious beginnings are important in understanding his faith journey, but his emphasis is on identifying how his faith has been challenged by the writings, experiences and even doubts of other pilgrims. The closing remarks of the epilogue make this clear: “I have dealt mostly with my past in this book, for these guides set me on my own pilgrimage at a crucial time when my beliefs were taking shape. As for the present – well, that’s the subject of most of my other books.”
As someone who has read most of the “other books”, I can attest to the priority Yancey places on the church as the Bride of Christ. One example is Church: Why Bother? in which he gives a glimpse of his pilgrimage back to faith and to the church as a place of real community and spiritual vitality, where God’s redemptive power is released through fallible human beings, where the church’s faults are set against the overwhelming strength of a heart for God, care for the hurting, outreach to the lost, and support for the family and community.
Arnie Berg,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Abuse has always been in the church
I have read Philip Yancey’s Soul Survivor: How My Faith Survived the Church. The only thing that I have found “subtly, but seriously flawed” was James Toews’s critique of the book. The fundamental flaw with his review is the assertion that Yancey has slandered the church. The implication is that Yancey should not have come into the open with his experience of spiritual abuse within the church. To be honest about one’s experience of spiritual abuse at the hands of the church is not slander. Rather, it is a call for the church to repent and go beyond where it is. The title How My Faith Survived the Church could easily be written by many Christ followers throughout the ages. The prophets of the Old Testament and the disciples of the New Testament had their faith severely tested by the established “church” of the day. The early Anabaptists were not quiet about abuses in the established church of their day. The same could be said of the original Mennonite Brethren. In these cases and countless more, people of faith spoke loudly about the problems of the church, and suffered for it. They, too, were accused of disloyalty and slander. Yet they are regarded by many of us today as heroes of the faith. Toews makes the argument that the church is the “only organization that Jesus came to establish on earth”. The problem with the argument is that it sets up a false dichotomy. It suggests that one must either silently suffer at the hands of the church or reject the church. This misses the whole point of Soul Survivor, which is that there is another way – communicating openly and honestly about the abuses within church, while at the same time remaining committed to it.
Another argument Toews makes is that the church has always been full of sinners. The implication is that we shouldn’t really expect any better given the fallen nature of those within the church. However, to say that the church is a place for sinners does not justify the abuses of those in positions of power within it. He forgets an important distinction between the spiritual body of Christ and the institutional organization. The two are not always synonymous, and at times throughout church history have been in direct conflict with one another, as evidenced by the examples cited above.
The real sadness of the review is that by focusing so much on critique there was little mention of the book’s actual substance. None of the content past chapter two is reviewed in any detail – wonderful detail such as how different people helped Yancey at different stages of his faith journey: GK Chesterton, whose relationship with God seemed life-enhancing and not life-destroying; Dr. C Everett Koop, a Christian who got involved in the public arena with integrity; Dr. Robert Cole and Annie Dillard, writers who are able to express their faith to a wider secular audience. None of these people (or seven others) are mentioned in the review. Soul Survivor was the best Christian book I have read in the past year. It inspired me to a deeper walk with God and His people. It reminded me that God accepts people where they are at, and that there are those within His church who are trying to do the same.
Mark Friesen,
Winnipeg, Man.
Coming back in spite of the flaws
James Toews makes two glaring errors in his review of Yancey’s Soul Survivor (Apr. 19). The first is in reference to Jesus’ mission. I challenge that Jesus came to establish an organization. He came to restore our broken relationship with God. Christ is the agent of our salvation, not the church. To gloss over the evils perpetrated by men in the name of Christ is a slap in the face of countless people who have suffered at the hands of the church, which includes our Anabaptist forebears. To sweep all that evil under the rug by saying that, from the beginning, the church has been made up of “flawed individuals” is shameful.
I personally understand where Yancey is coming from. I am currently in the process of trying, by small steps, to come back to a church that has been so flawed institutionally, but populated with so many beautiful models of Christ. I consider it a miracle that I still have an ounce of faith.
Ben Wiebe,
Winnipeg Man.
A misreading of Yancey
I’m glad James Toews (April 19) has read at least some of Philip Yancey’s, Soul Survivor. It is an excellent book for all who experienced a suffocating, intellectually and emotionally abusive church. Even though my church experience as a child and teen was largely positive, I suspect there are many Mennonite Brethren my age who resonate with Yancey. We were a denomination in transition from its high control European origins to a less oppressive environment. When I attended MB Bible College, everyone knew which churches retained high control, had narrow-minded and often emotionally abusive pastors and leaders. Instead of the Conference recognizing the symptoms, it awarded these personality types Conference leadership – though they were never able to sway the Conference to their narrow positions. As a result, many either left those churches or embarked on a spiritual journey somewhat similar to Yancey’s.
I have known Yancey since his days as a Campus Life magazine editor. He is not against participation in the local Body of Christ – he is simply reflecting on his own experience and the long journey to spiritual recovery. There’s a reason his book became a bestseller – there are many who have had similar church experiences. James Toews may have missed the key sentence in Yancey’s book: “In the end, I did return home as a humbled prodigal to the very institution I had fled in pain and rebellion” (page 59). He remains an active member of a local church.
Yes, a cursory reading of parts of Soul Survivor would support Toews’s position, but a careful reading will be a cathartic experience for anyone who grew up in a church that did not represent what the Bible teaches about the Body of Christ. Without The Jesus I Never Knew (an earlier Yancey book), the church becomes a caricature of what Jesus wants it to be – just like four of the seven churches Christ addresses in the Book of Revelation. Instead of attacking the mirror held up by Yancey, why not follow the admonitions of Jesus to those churches?
Les Stobbe,
Haverhill, Mass.
Out of context
I disagree with James Toews’s review of Philip Yancey’s Soul Survivor (April 19). I have read most of Yancey’s works and feel Toews is taking this book out of context. First, Toews seems to believe that Yancey’s criticisms of the church mean a complete rejection of the church. This would be like throwing out the idea of marriage and family simply because divorce and incest exist.
Second, there is a confusion between the local church and the Body of Christ. Yancey does want a strong and unified Body of Christ. He doesn’t necessarily support a particular denomination. He sees (rightly) that the Body is built from within as each member seeks to draw close to God in his personal life. It isn’t simply a matter of meeting together and going through the motions.
Third, as we grow closer in relationship to Christ in our private life, we will grow hungry for more spiritual food and nourishment. That can be found at your local church.
Yancey is calling the church to be more thoughtful and accountable, to more thoroughly explore who God is and what He has done for us. He gives examples of writers who have done this. Interestingly, not all the writers were Christians. He challenges us by showing us that Mahatma Gandhi may have had a better understanding of who Christ was and of how to live a life of sacrifice than most Western Christians.
The knee-jerk reaction of Toews to Yancey’s book is exactly what he is criticizing the church for.
M.R. Sherwood,
Abbotsford, B.C.
Another look at the church
As a senior, former pastor, and educator, I am saddened by Elmer Thissen’s analysis of church services (May 3). “The contemporary style of service” is not an attempt to copy the culture around us, but to address the present culture in terms meaningful to it.
My views are based on firsthand experience of five to six churches. As a rule, there is no more time spent in singing in a contemporary service when one combines the previous practice of congregational signing, choir singing, group and/or opera style performances. The sermon is often twice as long as before and exclusively Bible oriented rather than being a humanistic homily (as illustrated by the article “What is the cause of fights and quarrels among us?” in the same issue. Where does the contemporary service pick up the lost time? The service is extended and the 20-minute “community calendar”, which had next to nothing to do with worship, has been drastically reduced or eliminated. To claim that the contemporary service is performance driven is not true. The people I know who work on these services are driven by two motives: They want to genuinely be in touch with God Almighty, and they want people who don’t know God to get in touch with Him.
H.J. Eckert,
St. Catharines, Ont.
Article disappointing
I was disappointed by Elmer Thiessen’s “Contemporary Worship Culture” (May 3). The only reason we have “worship wars” is because of negative, inflammatory commentary such as this. I agree, with Jim Coggins, that Elmer is asking the right question, “What does God want?” But such acidic writing does not help the debate, and is especially unhelpful for new people we bring into the MB fold. It would be quite simple to take Elmer’s categories, Worship As Praise, Technology, Performance, etc. and write a completely different and positive piece, based on what I have seen and experienced, but I’m not interested in extending the battle. Paul told the Galatians that church fights are a result of living by our sinful nature, instead of walking in the Spirit (Galatians 5:16-26).
In worship music, there will never be a balance. Pendulums only appear balanced when there is no movement at all. So take hold of the worship pendulum and enjoy the ride! I encourage people to read some current, post-modern resources on these issues, especially Leonard Sweet or Brian McLaren.
Brian Wiebe,
Chilliwack, B.C.
Much in Scripture about worship
Thank you for the fine job you do editing the Herald. I appreciate the scope of subject matter, and that you are not deterred by whether or not an issue might be considered “delicate” or “difficult” (e.g. Mental Health and Restorative Justice).
Elmer Thiessen (May 3) asked, “What is appropriate to corporate versus individual worship?” In the Bible, there are seven Hebrew words to describe praise and worship.
All seven are employed in corporate worship:
- Towdah means to extend the hands in thanksgiving, adoration and acceptance. Psalm 43:4: “I used to go along with the throng and lead them in procession to the house of God, with the voice of joy and thanksgiving.”
- Yadah means to throw out the open hand forcefully and/or victoriously. Psalm 35:18: “I will give Thee thanks in the great congregation.”
- Barak means to bow or kneel. Psalm 68:26: “Bless God in the congregations.”
- Shabach means to shout triumphantly. Psalm 145:4: “One generation shall praise Thy works to another.”
- Zamar means to pluck strings, make music accompanied by the voice. Psalm 108:3: “I will sing praises to Thee among the nations.”
- Tehillah means to sing. Psalm 22:25: “From Thee comes my praise in the great assembly.”
- Halal means to become vigorously excited, to make a show, to rave, to celebrate, to become clamorously foolish. Psalm 35:18b: “I will praise Thee among a mighty throng.” Psalm 106:5 “That I may glory with Thy people.”
|
It is interesting to note how many times the “praise” words are prefaced by “I will”. God has created us with a need to worship, and we will worship something. If we can go to a hockey game and do the wave with a bunch of strangers for a team of human beings with sticks chasing a piece of rubber, how much more should we be able to Yadah and Halal and Shabach Jesus both individually and with other believers!
Susan Arens,
Sorrento, B.C.
Worship needs to be broader
I heartily endorse David Esau’s suggestion (April 19) that our definition of worship is too narrow. We cheat ourselves if we think of worship only in terms of Sunday morning. We cheat ourselves even more if we allow the word to be narrowed to a certain kind of music. I agree that worship must involve our whole lives and must include our brothers and sisters. I wish the article had elaborated on our outward focus on the world. Our worship must seek to embrace not just the world right outside our door, but also the most remote parts of the world. We have brothers and sisters in every country and some of them are even more in need of the touch of our worship than those who are sitting with us. The world at our door needs to be drawn to our worship, but so do those who worship false gods in far places. If our worship is to be people-sensitive, then our “worship services” need to include components that will help us to see others both near and far. Intercessory prayers, requests, reports, and news items all become fuel for worship if we learn to worship as three-dimensional Christians.
George C. Bush,
Bedford N.S.
Previous | Next Last modified July 10, 2002.
© 2002 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.
|
