|  | |
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.) |
Forms of baptism
In “Some arguments for believer’s baptism” (May 31), Jim Coggins states that the early church practised baptism by immersion. The verses that he quotes do not say that immersion happened. In Acts 8, Philip and the eunuch both went into the water and both came up. This doesn’t prove that immersion happened.
In Acts 2:41 those who received Jesus were baptized and 3000 souls were added. In Acts 4:4 another 5000 believed. Does it seem feasible that all these people were individually immersed? Or were they sprinkled?
“The Holy Spirit was poured out upon all flesh.” People were baptized in the Jordan River, but with water, not in the water.
In the Old Testament, when a prophet or king was anointed for service, a horn of oil was poured on their heads. It seems logical that the mode of baptism would continue in the same manner of pouring during the time of the apostles.
Mark 1:8: “I have baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” The Holy Spirit came to the believers on Pentecost in the form of tongues of fire on their heads.
Some years ago when we took a tour to Israel, several persons of the tour got baptized in the Jordan River. They had all been baptized before by immersion. The baptizees changed into white gowns. After the dunking, they walked out of the cool water dripping and shivering.
The one baptizee seemed especially pathetic. As she was being lowered into the cool water, she shrieked and screamed. Then she hurried from the place into the shelter where she could get dried and dressed. I was wondering how much her physical discomfort and alarm outweighed her spiritual feelings of being buried with Christ in baptism and being raised with Him to newness of life.
Then I thought of my own baptism. It was a beautifully festive event.
It is tragic that some MB leaders and members have been so fanatic and opinionated about the immersion form of baptism. I can visualize how the Archenemy of our souls laughs with glee at our vicious nitpicking about the inconsequential detail of how this ritual is to be performed. Surely it is not the baptism that gives us salvation but rather faith in the redemptive work of Jesus on the cross. Then we can fellowship and have communion together – and respect our (not so important) differences.
Mary Giesbrecht Friesen,
Winnipeg, Man.
Foyer ministries
The reports, business and speakers were a very important part of this year’s MB Conference convention. Equally important were the half-hour coffee breaks. As I wandered through the foyer, I noticed people hugging each other, others praying for each other, many hands being shaken, introductions being made, and theological discussions taking place. I saw many tears of joy at just being together. These foyer ministries touched people, as no other part of the convention could. My confusion as to why half-hour coffee breaks were necessary (at all of the other conventions I had been to, the coffee breaks were no more than 20 minutes) was cleared up by all of the visions of sisterhood and brotherhood which were evident during this part of the convention. Thank you to all those involved in planning this year’s convention.
Jane Woelk,
Winnipeg, Man.
Most encouraging
On July 27 I wandered as the lone male into the Leading Women Network Lunch at the Canadian MB Conference convention. When I realized my relative uniqueness in the room and expressed my feelings that I was an “invader” at a women’s meeting, a number of the women quickly assured me that the issue of women in leadership must surely be of interest to men as well as women and I should feel very welcome – so I stayed. Sitting at the sandwich bar, I heard Sharon, Laura and Michelle call on the women in the room to consider issues such as networking with one another, spiritual growth, personal growth, leadership development, church ministry and more. What I heard at the meeting was women warmly encouraging and calling one another, calling all of us, to community, caring, and church ministry. Among the multitude of conversations and sessions I was a part of at the convention, this meeting was among the most encouraging and hope-bringing. The talk of these women of our Conference added to my excitement at being a part of this people leaning into our future.
Dan Unrau, Pastor, Fraserview MB Church,
Richmond, B.C.
History must be considered
In all of the discussion regarding leadership in the MB church, it seems that we have lost touch with our heritage. As a child of the 50s, I look back with fondness to where I came from, both culturally and in terms of my faith. In thinking back, I penned this verse.
These are my People . . .
They were people of faith
Who would not wage war
They suffered in silence
And made ploughshares from swords
People of the black land
They knew Mother Earth
They treated her lovingly
So she wouldn’t be hurt
Gentle people they were
Sisters and brothers
Gentle with the land
And gentle with each other
Large family circles,
Their lives simply lived
With uncles and aunts
And dozens of kids
Abraham and Jacob
Sarah and Mary
Names from the Bible
Their children would carry
Women sitting here
And men over there
Voices raised up in worship
Hands folded in prayer
Men with rough hands
And faces of leather
Worked hard in the fields
And prayed for good weather
Women with aprons,
Who smelled like fresh baking
Spoiling their grandkids
With cakes they were making
Strong men and women
Taking a stand
Where faith was considered
Part of God’s plan
My face is not leather
And my hands are just fine
But I’ll treasure the memory
Of these people of mine
Ken Hildebrandt,
Winnipeg, Man.
Need thoughtful analysis
After reading the letters in subsequent editions of the Herald, I re-read Elmer Thiessen’s “Contemporary Worship Culture” (May 3). Several letters seem to have misconstrued Thiessen’s position. Some offered illustrations from personal experience to counter Thiessen’s claims. Others accused him of naming certain practices (raising hands, closing eyes, clapping) as sinful. It is important to remember that Thiessen is writing a cultural analysis, primarily looking at the broader themes within our church culture; he is not saying that all of the practices are evil of themselves. Undoubtedly, there will be exceptions to the rule, but they do not invalidate Thiessen’s analysis of the larger picture. To do that, a writer would need to offer a different, more adequate interpretation of the whole.
Several letters mention that Thiessen’s article is harsh, divisive or argumentative. I find that Thiessen may be too generous to some of the practices of our worship culture. It troubles me that some of the letters imply that topics such as worship should not be examined carefully and critically and that difficult issues ought to be left alone for fear of division. The danger, however, with ignoring such issues is that it leaves us open to pragmatism, justifying our ministry methods with criteria other than sound theological thinking.
If anything, we need more articles that analyze our church practices from a theological/cultural perspective. This, of course, ought to be done in a spirit that attempts to contribute to the health of the church. Having sound doctrine is more than just giving intellectual assent to a few arbitrary propositions. It is learning to ask, “How can we live faithfully as the church in this context?” Sometimes, we need to hear that our practices have not been matching up with what we confess biblically. I commend Thiessen for his courage to write on this subject.
Dustin Resch,
Caronport, Sask.
Worship not about us
We read the “worship” issues and the ensuing letters with interest. Thanks.
As long as we live under the delusion that worship is even remotely about us, we will never get it right. The articles and letters are permeated with an understanding of worship that is self- and body-centred (“Different people . . . have different expectations and needs in worship”; “Worship is primarily about us being living sacrifices”; “Sharing a memorable worship experience from the past year and why we were impacted by it”; “Prayer and praise cannot be purely private, God-directed activities when others are present”; “To have my hunger satisfied . . . to measure my spiritual growth . . . to renew commitment . . . to receive instruction . . . to share needs and encouragement”; “I also notice others who come and visibly experience the presence of God.”
Worship is about God, period. It is not about meeting our expectations or needs, having a memorable experience, being impacted, touched, satisfied, measured, or instructed. While I cannot deny that God may answer or visit those who give Him praise (although, by the same token, He may not; cf. Psalm 13), to seek or expect such an answer or visit is misguided. To worship God with even a hint of thinking that one may benefit from it is to take God’s place – He is the sole beneficiary of our true worship. The only acceptable measure of worship is how God feels – how we feel is of no consequence. If it is, I contend that we haven’t worshipped God.
Paul Unger,
Honiara, Solomon Islands
Three silences
Thank you for Elmer Thiessen’s “Contemporary Worship Culture” (May 3). As stated in that issue’s editorial, Elmer has elevated our discussions about worship services by pointing us to proper theological questions. It is easy to support our worship patterns exclusively on three important platforms, none of which are entirely stable: tradition (whether established over 10 years or 10 centuries); pragmatic concerns (our means can be ungodly even when they lead to godly results; cf. Philippians 1:15-18); and statistically-based research (human reason is always limited and fallible). We need to build our worship patterns on the one foundation which stabilizes all other platforms, continually asking the tough question, “What does the Bible say?”
In these times of significant change in worship practices, the three silences of 1 Corinthians 14 can help us ground our worshipping in God’s will.
Paul first instructed those who speak in a tongue to be silent if there was no interpretation of the unfamiliar speech. Similarly, we should go to great lengths to interpret our differing musical dialects so that everyone may be built up. We should not be surprised when people become angry or leave a church because they do not understand what is being expressed – or when their own language is not understood by others.
Paul then told the prophets to be silent when someone else received a revelation. Paul’s priority was that everyone be given an opportunity to contribute. (Paul expected both women and men to be prophesying and praying; cf. 1 Corinthians 11) As our congregations become large, it can be difficult to create safe spaces in the worship gatherings in which anyone can be free to contribute. However, without this component, our services can too easily become performance-oriented or even domineering.
Third, Paul reminded the women not to chatter their questions during the gatherings; seemingly they were being a distraction in the assembly. We, too, must strive to remove those things which distract us from focusing on the activities of the gathering. For instance, we can learn not to talk while someone else is sharing their “revelation” on an instrument during the service. Also, we can develop a visual environment in our meeting places which focuses our worshipping, rather than distracting us by its clutter.
By heeding these three calls to silence in our worship gatherings, we will build up each person present. Then unbelievers will recognize the presence of God among us.
Andrew Dyck, Pastor, King Road MB Church,
Abbotsford, B.C.
Needs more information
Re the letter by Alan Chattaway (Aug. 2): I checked his references in Leviticus and Numbers; in each case, possibly contaminated people were to take a bath and wash their clothing. I found no reference to immersion. Of course, if you were going to wash your clothing, that would be an assumption. I have a problem seeing those verses as forerunners to water baptism.
I would like to know more about “mikvah” (the Hebrew word for immersion) because the word immersion is not in the King James Bible. What other word was used to translate “mikvah”?
Jake Peters,
Winnipeg, Man.
Previous | Next Last modified October 3, 2002.
© 2002 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.
|
