|  | |
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.) |
Labyrinth satanic?
I have recently been hearing of several churches that have adopted the practice of “prayer walks” using a labyrinth. My first thought when I heard the word “labyrinth” was “mystical”, so I did a search on the Internet to find out what it was all about. Not only did I find that it was “mystical”, but also “pagan” and “New Age”: “Labyrinths in ancient cultures were tied to fertility and goddess worship” (Touchstone Magazine, Sept. 2000). Upon contacting Christian Research Institute to ask their opinion, I received the following letter:
“While we presently do not offer an in-depth exposé of labyrinth projects, our brief examination reveals they are incompatible with biblical Christianity. Those promoting labyrinth projects frequently utilize daily meditation and “guided imagery” in order to assist them in developing a deeper spiritual awareness. Daily meditation, within a biblical context, is certainly supported by Scripture (to meditate on God, on His works and on His Word). Within the context of the labyrinth, on the other hand, meditation is used to empty the mind in order to achieve harmony with self and the universe, encouraging practitioners to look within instead of to God; this is a self-centred and unbiblical concept. Likewise, “guided imagery” (or visualization) is unbiblical, as it is generally understood as being an occultic, New Age practice.
“Further, it is held that participation in the labyrinth enables some to uncover their own soul assignment. Scripture, however, does not recognize the labyrinth as a means of determining God’s will for spiritual direction. Rather, we are instructed to look to our Triune God for direction, knowledge and strength.
“Therefore, spiritual direction by way of the labyrinth undermines the clear teaching of Scripture and replaces it with Eastern mysticism and the New Age ideologies.”
I doubt that Christians would do a prayer walk in a pentagram, because of the satanic connotation, and I feel that the labyrinth is no different.
Lynda Magner,
Abbotsford, B.C.
Rightly dividing the truth
“A Second Chance” (March 22) began with the description of Paul the apostle as a criminal. In just about every particular, this version of Paul’s conversion is at odds with the scriptural record.
Paul was not a criminal. To commit crime, one must break a law with criminal intent. Paul put believers in prison with righteous intent and with written lawful authority (Acts 9:2,14; 26:9-11). Paul described himself at that stage as having been “as for legalistic righteousness, faultless” (Philippians 3:6).
He was not confronted about criminal behaviour. Paul was encountered by Jesus Himself because “he is a chosen instrument to carry my name” (Acts 9:15). He did not “decide to turn his life around”. Nobody could have persuaded him to join those he was persecuting. He had a dramatic, even violent encounter with Jesus and was supernaturally translated from death unto life.
“Instead of going to prison.” For what? He was not subject to being imprisoned. He was enforcing lawful authority.
“A chance to meet his former victims . . . and work out a plan for restitution.” I am not aware of any scriptural record of Paul meeting any of his specific former victims, nor did he “work out” any plan. The Lord thrust him into the group he had considered his enemies and the enemies of God. Paul was not “restored to society”. In fact, as far as society was concerned, by conversion Paul became one of the criminals he had been out to bring to justice. For this, he himself ended up in prison numerous times and was eventually executed.
So the story of Paul is not one of “restorative justice” in the societal sense. If one wishes a scriptural basis for “restorative justice”, how about Zacchaeus or Onesimus or even the Mosaic law. There is no need to twist Paul’s story (see 2 Peter 3:15-16).
Longhurst thinks that Canadian Mennonites should be supportive of restorative justice, but that the majority of us are not. He attributes this to our vengeful human nature, a misunderstanding of what restorative justice really means, and an unbalanced view of God. As one of that “majority” who support capital punishment and greater severity of sentences, I think our reasons have been misrepresented. We are just trying to be obedient to the will of God as revealed in the Old and New Testaments.
I would like to respond to the “reasons” attributed to us by Mr. Longhurst in the reverse of the order he presented them, because I think that understanding our “image of God” is key.
- Longhurst argues that we need to balance our image of God as just with His love and mercy. Such “balancing” is unbiblical. God is not merely loving; He is love. He is not just righteous; He is righteousness itself. God does not have “nasty” attributes which are balanced by “nice” ones to make a kind of acceptable neutrality. He is 100% good, holy, righteous, merciful, loving, kind, vengeful, unchangeable, just and awesome all at once. We, on the other hand, are often lacking in these attributes and become either harsh or mushy.
- I do not believe most Mennonites are unsupportive of true restorative justice in the biblical sense. God’s law requires restitution to victims and punishment for crime. If an offender admits his sin, truly repents (i.e. changes), makes restitution, accepts just punishment and is restored to society in submission to lawful authority, I would rejoice. But if a wrongdoer denies responsibility, consumes huge amounts of public resources with trials and appeals, is housed in a facility which provides him with excellent food, clothing, recreation, education and access to pornography, sex and drugs – all at the expense of law-abiding citizens – who can call this “justice”? His victims may be living in poverty, bereft of their breadwinner while public resources which could assist them are spent on the above services to the offender. Is it wrong to call this wrong and to support tougher treatment for the offender and more assistance for the victims?
- I don’t believe we majority Mennonites are seeking revenge. Revenge is when I, in anger, take the law into my own hands. If I report a lawbreaker to the authorities and allow the law to take its course, I am not taking revenge but cooperating with God. He tells us not to take revenge but to leave vengeance to Him (Romans 12:19). The authorities are established by God and are His “servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer”. This punishment includes the death penalty, for “he does not bear the sword in vain” (Romans 13:1-4). Remember Paul? It was he who, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote that even the wicked “know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things are worthy of death” (Romans 1:32). Paul said at his own trial, “If I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die” (Acts 25:11).
|
I should forgive my offender “seventy times seven”. But if his offence against me is also a crime against God and society, should he not also face punishment authorized by God?
Lorne Welwood,
Abbotsford, B.C.
Language important
I have become increasingly aware how indifferently we use the word “guy” in our speech and even behind the pulpit. To you and me, “guy” may mean a “man”. Yet, we as a Conference are an outreach ministry, planting churches. To some of the people we are reaching, “guy” may mean as two out of three dictionaries say, “a person of queer looks or dress”; or to “ridicule”.
May we never be careless when we address Bible characters, especially the Lord Jesus Christ. We can never be too careful to uphold the reverence of Scripture.
John P. Rempel,
Borden, Sask.
Fundamentalism has number of meanings
The Feb. 22 letter dealing with “fundamentalism” was interesting. Funk & Wagnalls defines fundamental as “pertaining to or constituting a foundation; basic”. Every culture and religion is fundamental.
People are not perfect. Since cultures and religions consist of people, cultures and religions, though different, can’t be expected to be perfect. In fact, some are mind controlling, even inhumane.
Consider some opposites. An MB congregation approved a pastor candidate but was reluctant to accept him because he was not married. This is in direct contrast to the Roman Catholic “fundamental” belief demanding clerical celibacy. Real personal celibacy is rare because people were created as sexually responsive beings. Restricted from this natural drive, no wonder some resort to deeds resulting in sex scandals.
Many consider Islam a “fundamental” religion. Its “moral” standards are so demanding that they are inhuman. A TWN broadcast, “Crime of Honor”, stated that if a woman allegedly had sex with someone other than her husband, to save family honour that woman must be killed by a close family member. The family is ostracized until the murderous deed is completed. There is also the belief that men have no interest in uncircumcised women. Humanitarian educational workers discussed the brutal surgery imposed on little girls and convinced area residents to take an anti-female-mutilation position.
A good culture, like a concerned religion, will evaluate the effect of its questionable traits on its people and its image. Just because something is different doesn’t mean it is bad. The word “fundamental” among other wonderful words, has, through misuse, mind control and inhumane elements, taken on pejorative connotations. No wonder the editor suggests caution when using the word.
Stuart Makaroff,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Dangerous declarations and innuendos
Much of Elmer Thiessen’s “Contemporary Worship Culture”, (May 3) is sound caution. Worship as performance has always been a temptation. We need the reminder to provide opportunity for expression of contrition and grief in the midst of our praise. We need to be vigilant about the incursion of worldly attitudes and values into our worship. Thiessen’s call to centre our worship on Jesus and His works is welcome.
The article is also rife with many dangerous declarations and innuendos.
It is very subjective to suggest that meeting people in an energetic way before worship is irreverent and that a quiet time of prayer before the service is more appropriate. How is the raising of hands and closing of eyes reflective of an inappropriately individualistic spirit, rather than a passionate, spontaneous gesture of submission to God? Would we also counsel the penitent against kneeling? Yes, manipulation of a good “feel” by programming and technology is misdirected. But, let’s regard handshake times as an affirmation of the corporate spirit rather than as some sly contrivance. Why stir suspicion that passion in a preacher is only theatre? Why imply that a “tear or two” is only for effect?
The story about the pastor who would relegate the elderly to the back of the sanctuary is lamentable. The worship leaders and pastors whom I know and who are “contemporary” in their style, are very compassionate toward the generation that is struggling with the changes in worship music. Why use the insensitive attitude of an individual as if it is representative, when it is not? I am impressed with the extensive body of contemporary music that focuses on “the great objective events that define the Christian faith.” The majority of song leaders exercise discernment about theological content. I rejoice at how many people from unchurched backgrounds have found the astounding truths of God and His gospel in a musical idiom that is accessible because it is not so strange musically. There are many for whom contemporary music has been the vehicle by which God has captured their hearts.
Elmer is right that “analysis of culture is not easy.” While it is not easy, it should be attempted, but with fairness.
Jim London,
Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont.
Worship in the heart of the believer
Thank you for “Contemporary Worship Culture” by Elmer Thiessen. I endorse every line of it. I read it aloud to our children aged 16, 14 and 12, and they agreed with his observations on the musical tastes of the younger generation.
These are my 14-year-old daughter’s thoughts: “This is a Mennonite Brethren church. We have our own musical style, SATB hymns. When people go to a church of this denomination that’s what they want to hear. When I go to the MCC sale, I want to eat perogies and sausage. The purpose of denominations is to make people feel comfortable worshipping God, surrounded by people who worship Him in a similar way. No one has the right to say who’s worshipping correctly because there is no definite right and wrong. Worship is in the heart of the believer, not in the mind of the sceptic. Why not try half hymns and half other? It would keep everything fresh and make everyone more comfortable.”
My 16-year-old son would like to learn to sing bass. Contemporary music doesn’t appear to have a bass line, and there is no strong sound of the men harmonizing around him during congregational singing so he could pick up the skill. Our feminist culture, which believes men are unnecessary, appears to be invading the church. As a widow, I would especially appreciate a strong male influence for my son within the church family.
The marginalization of the seniors breaks my heart. In our church, we are often reminded that the children are not only the church of tomorrow, they are the church of today. Why not invite the seniors to join the church of today as well? They, after all, have been given the mandate to instruct the younger generation.
I appreciate the last two issues of the Herald and commend you for looking into the topic of worship.
Karen D. Lilly,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Thanks for articles
Thank you to Jim Coggins for the two editorials on “Worship” (April 19, May 3), and for Elmer Thiessen’s “Contemporary worship culture” (May 3), which expressed my perceptions and convictions.
Hulda Nickel,
Abbotsford, B.C.
Volume overwhelming
I have enjoyed the recent articles on worship. Elmer J. Thiessen (May 3) discusses in depth many things I’ve also observed about contemporary worship services.
One aspect that hasn’t been discussed enough is the volume of sound. For many in the pews, the Sunday morning service has simply become too loud. Have our worship leaders ever considered that too much of a “joyful noise” may be harmful to one’s health?
Second, are we so entranced with technology and musical proficiency that we forget God may sometimes want to speak to us in a “still, small voice”?
Roland Derksen,
Vancouver, B.C.
Contrary to gospel
Elmer Thiessen’s “Contemporary worship culture” asks some important questions and makes some points I agree with but the spirit of his analysis runs contrary to the message of the gospel.
I agree that worship is more than singing or playing an instrument. I also share some concerns with the use of technology and turning Sunday morning into an hour of pure entertainment. A good point is also made in referring to older generations as more loyal.
However, the statements made about informality could not have been farther from biblical truth. Show me where believers are called to put on their “Sunday best”. Passages like James 2, 1 Peter 3, 1 Timothy 2 and Isaiah 3 say the opposite. God views the inner, not the outer person. When we pass judgement or make someone unwelcome because they enter our church with a baseball cap, then we are the ones with the problem. Not informality in dress but lack of humility and love for people is the sign of a “degenerate worship culture”. When did closing eyes and raising hands become inappropriate? Paul even requests that men pray and lift their hands (1 Timothy 2:8). These actions were done as a group, not just as single individuals. Where does this idea come from that Sunday morning has no place for the unsaved? Thiessen is promoting a very inward-looking church, when the people and communities around us are the walking dead desiring the life Christ can give.
Scotty Derksen,
Outlook, Sask.
Church can meet multiple needs
I agree with Elmer Thiessen’s “Contemporary worship culture” (May 3). I did not grow up in an MB church but our children have. Two years ago our nuclear and church family were torn apart over this issue of worship. We were attending an MB church that had contemporary services and a more traditional service. Without warning, we were told that all of this was going to change, all the services would be identical and this would bring unity to the church. The unity certainly didn’t come. By Christmas of that year, we were no longer attending this MB church on a regular basis, but our teenage children still were. During the next six months, we worked with some other church members to convince our MB church to bring back a more traditional service, to no avail. This past September, we started to meet as a new church. Once again we could worship in a style that was comfortable to us. Our teenage children joined us in November and are now very involved in this new work.
What made our family go with this new MB work? My husband and I could not worship with loud music, for we were coming out of church angry instead of loving. We also felt like the older people’s needs were being overlooked. These people felt their church had been stolen from them and they needed love, care and friendship. I know our children would prefer our present church to have more contemporary music, but they like it when people know them by name and they can be involved in many different areas.
Last fall, there was a formal reconciliation with the two church boards. Most of the people in our congregation have dealt with the negative emotions of having to leave a church that we loved and ministered in for years, but those negative emotions do resurface from time to time. We now have a congregation that represents all ages and are moving on.
Ruth Boadway,
Waterloo, Ont.
Part of the family
In commenting on my March 22 column, Myron Penner (Letters, May 17) suggests that “spotty MB Conference support” by some pastors can be explained by the fact that sometimes more and better benefits can be gained elsewhere. It all depends on one’s perspective, one’s overarching commitment and the extent to which one buys into the dominant current measuring stick for almost everything secular or religious: “What’s in it for me?”
When I get an invitation to dinner at our daughter’s house, I accept, unless I have a conflicting commitment. I could ask, “What’s on the menu? Are you serving something better than I could get elsewhere?” When our grandson invites us to his school’s Christmas program, I could say, “We have an invitation to a symphony concert the same evening. The symphony orchestra’s music is better than your school’s music. Grandma and I will go to the symphony instead.” He would be a very sad little boy. The point is that we support certain activities because we are part of a certain church family, we are joint owners of its obligations and we share its Kingdom mandate. We have assumed certain responsibilities. I attend MB conventions, and my home church, because I am an MB, I am part of the MB family. I feel at home there. I have benefited much from it. I want to do my part as faithfully as possible. Of course, I also feel good being with other Christians and on occasion visit other churches and conferences, but they are not part of the denominational family which I have chosen to join. They are also my relatives but not quite as close. But in those arenas also I tend not to ask “What’s in it for me?” but rather “How can I help?”
John H. Redekop,
Abbotsford, B.C.
Institutional church versus the Church
I am responding to the review of Philip Yancey’s Soul Survivor (April 19). I have not read the book.
I grew up in a pastor’s home in a well-respected evangelical denomination. My father sincerely loved God, and I have no horror stories about him. Our involvement in the institutional church, however, caused tremendous damage, some self-inflicted, to my whole family. We are walking with Jesus and working through many of these issues and finding that Christ Himself is enough – our Healer, Redeemer and Friend, no matter what the institutional church may do. I continue to refer to the “institutional church” as opposed to the “Church” which is Christ’s body, those who love Him and are following Him as their Head. This is what we need: the Church, others who love Christ as their life. The reviewer acknowledged the institutional church’s history rife with violence, bigotry and materialism. When we see this fruit, we can be sure that this is not the Body of Christ (Matthew 12:33). What Jesus began was not institutional in any way. Christ founded a brotherhood/sisterhood of believers.
Recently a friend who also grew up in as a “PK” and is not presently attending services at an institutional church, was out for coffee with a new acquaintance. This person asked if she “went to church”? My friend answered “no”, and that was the end of that direction of conversation. This was very hurtful to my friend. She knew the intent of the question was “do you believe in Jesus?” but in our evangelical subculture the all-important sign of belief is what institutional church you attend. How sad. The Christ ones may be found anywhere, including within the institutional church, but He and His fruit (Galatians 5) is all that defines them. Any time we turn to the world’s ways of governing, we have left the original mandate (Matthew 20:26, 18:2-4) and are open to deceptions which enable the Enemy to use us to hurt and destroy rather than spreading the healing life which flows from the Good News of Jesus Christ. All of our “church” positions (Matthew 23:10) create nothing but dissension and vying for control.
Verlynn Alexander,
Swift Current, Sask.
Church exists for salvation of world
Having read Elmer Thiessen’s article on worship (May 3), I have an overwhelming feeling of sadness that we have completely forgotten why the church exists. What I read, rightly or wrongly, behind Thiessen’s words is that the church exists for the edification and comfort of the already evangelized and that non-believers, if present at all, should not be catered to in an environment that is intended to minister to the believer.
Today, I am preparing a message reminding our congregation that there is one reason the church exists – to fulfill Jesus’ mission! The church exists not for the comfort of the believer (although it certainly does comfort us) but primarily for the salvation of the world! Satan’s greatest tool has been to convince us that the church exists for my personal comfort, edification and blessing, instead of to equip and empower us to fulfill the mandate Jesus left us – to win the world! Church exists for my benefit as a believer only to the degree that it equips me to be an agent of change in calling the world to Christ.
It has been our experience over the past several years that worship can be a powerful tool to draw people into a saving knowledge of Jesus. People comment over and over again that the music kept them coming long enough to hear and understand the gospel. It would break my heart to tell all the new Christians in our church that their conversion happened by default – that our main worship services were not for them – but should be relegated to some “special” evangelistic service. When Jesus Christ is lifted up in a public worship service, people cannot help but be drawn toward Him – both believers and non-believers!
Please publish some articles that will encourage and help those churches among us that want to impact our cultures with the gospel and not just critique or discourage us for everything we’re doing.
Mark Burch, Willow Park Church,
Kelowna, B.C.
Previous | Next Last modified July 19, 2002.
© 2002 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.
|
