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 1310 Taylor Ave. Winnipeg, Man.  R3M 3Z6 or send via e-mail. (Please ensure that your postal address is included in your e-mail correspondence.)

More discernment needed

Stephen Kent said: “Christians reach a point of maturity where they can look past objectionable material and see what is at the heart of a film” (Letters, Feb. 7). This is a potentially dangerous position. How does anyone know they can actually do this? Because of desensitization, could a person not mistake maturity for callousness?

Re Harry Potter 2, we have two critical responsibilities. First, prior to watching this movie, we need to determine whether it will benefit us and those under our care. There is a place (and need) for entertainment in a believer’s life, but this need must be balanced with our purpose for living. We are not here primarily to engage culture, to be entertained or to search for truth in popular film (although there is nothing wrong with these). Our number one priority is to be holy. It behooves us to wonder if we are as clean walking out of this movie as we are walking in.

Second, we have a responsibility to critically engage this film after (if) we have seen it. This is our sieve, our defence. The question is whether we are using the Bible to interpret culture or whether we (through irresponsible over-consumption of entertainment) are using popular culture to interpret the Bible. Certainly there are films that can help us understand life better, but some films hurt more than they help. Harry Potter 2 is one of them.

When it comes to popular culture, less is more. This, however, is not the message we are getting from our “entertainment is god” society. In a culture struggling with the lies of relativism (any option is as good as another), the Christian church needs to be encouraged to define, not blur, the lines of truth and falsehood. Maybe some people are better than others at filtering objectionable content – which always leads me to wonder why we choose to subject ourselves to this kind of material in the first place.

I am critical of Harry Potter 2 not because it doesn’t have the occasional moment of intrigue, but because it has so disproportionately more negative and unbiblical elements.

Paul H. Boge,
Winnipeg, Man.

Redekop ignores Christian “reality”

John H. Redekop’s “The Iraqi War” (Feb. 28) did not provide an adequate Christian response to the escalating crisis.

Redekop polarizes the positions of “peace advocates” and “war advocates” and then offers “wiser counsel”. This wiser counsel is one in which the church is reduced to the role of advice giver. Redekop says that even though the church is divided on the issue, we are all to work and pray for peace. But how can we work and pray for peace if our definition of peace is polarized? A Christian definition of peace cannot be enforced by military might; it is built on just economic and social relationships. Unfortunately, Redekop deems this perspective naïve because it does not accept our present “reality”.

Redekop seems willing to let the “God-ordained” institutions of government and military do what they need to do. This argument is justified by a narrow reading of Romans 13, which states that there is no authority except that of God. Government is not ordained by God but rather instituted by and therefore subject to God. Governments are not mandated by God to act autonomously in their own ethical realm – they, too, are subject to God’s rule. For Christians to be subject to authorities who are also subject to God requires that the church call governments to account when they act unjustly and perhaps at times also disobey these authorities. The wider context of Romans 12–13, where Paul has instructed the Romans to “not be conformed to this world” but to discern the will of God (12:1-2), must be included in the interpretation.

The only “reality” that Christians accept is that we are under the rule of God. The reality that we serve is not one that merely gives advice. Rather, it is a new social order under the lordship of Christ which lives in the power and hope of resurrection. The reality that we serve speaks out when millions of Iraqis have died of economic sanctions; it stands beside Iraqi people who have been exploited by their own government and ours; it prays for government leaders; it does not allow the propagation of fear to justify killing; it fasts for peace. Perhaps most importantly, the reality that we serve is unapologetically Christian, obedient to God’s call to be peacemakers – even when such a stance divides the church.

Bruce Guenther,
Winnipeg, Man.

Review raises more questions

We respond to Cal Bergen’s review “Postmodernity creates opportunity for Mennonites to develop own theology” (Jan. 17). The fundamental belief of postmodernity is that absolute truth is not possible. Postmodernists want to be able to respect everyone’s beliefs, so they say that everyone’s ideas are true. Postmodernists also state that all of the things we believe in religion are only stories or myths that we make up to give our lives meaning, but none of those stories are ultimately true about the world. This way of talking about the truth means that postmodernists contradict themselves. When they say that no one’s beliefs are true, or that there is no absolute truth, they still believe that postmodern ideas are the absolute truth.

What does this mean for Christian theology? Postmodernists say that no theology is ever true, that everyone lives in a different reality, and that what feels meaningful is important; we should only try to interpret the Bible or understand God in ways that feel meaningful, and try to live by those, whether they are true or not.

In view of this, what is Bergen’s article saying? First he says Anabaptists should step away from the “general theology derived from mainline Christendom”. Is he saying that we should abandon the beliefs that make us part of Christianity? Should we give up the idea that Jesus is really God’s Son, or that He rose from the dead? Is he saying that we shouldn’t trust anyone who, like C. S. Lewis, claims to be a Christian but is not an Anabaptist?

Second, when Bergen says that Mennonite theology “should assert itself on equal footing with the theology of Christendom”, what does he mean? It seems that he means Mennonites should separate themselves from Christianity, rejecting most other Christians because they don’t agree with our belief about non-violence. In fact, he suggests that the earliest Anabaptists thought of themselves not as Christians, but as Anabaptists implying that we should separate ourselves more and more from Christianity. In the end, Mennonite theology will be seen as “an alternative to the theology of Christendom”.

We should not promote our Anabaptist heritage by rejecting the rest of the Christian tradition. Anabaptists believe in the Bible and in Jesus’ authority, just as the rest of Christendom does. Anabaptists do not define themselves as believers in non-violence first and as Christians second. We are non-violent because we are Christians first and we believe that Jesus’ teaching was a non-violent one. If we gave up our fundamental Christian beliefs for the sake of non-violence, we would either be secular activists or the founders of a new religion, but not followers of Christ.

Matthew and Betty-Anne Siebert,
Winnipeg, Man.

Worship changes won’t hold youth

“Contemporary worship culture”, (May 3, 2002), accurately, yet graciously has described and challenged contemporary worship practice in the Mennonite church at large.

While a member, and eventually an elder, of an ACC Mennonite Church in Pennsylvania, I faced these same issues. I agree that much of the emphasis of contemporary worship practice is on self, not on God.

A generation within the congregation have developed a form of worship to suit their own tastes. The older saints in the congregation have been ignored, and held in contempt. It has been claimed that changes are necessary to retain the youth. However, the Mennonite church in America is losing its youth in any event, and this trend increases with the implementation of contemporary worship. No further changes have been made, as one might reasonably suppose they would be if retention of the youth were the true priority. I remain convinced that the changes are made solely to please the generation that has implemented them.

This is the same generation that has decided that there is no efficacy in plain dress, the headship veiling, and a free ministry preaching from a bench of ordained men selected by lot. It is not surprising that a church that has dispensed with the outward symbols of Christian nonconformity, and the discipline required for inward separation, should so soon afterwards overtly embrace the ways of the world.

It is reminiscent of the children of Israel demanding a king so they could be like the other nations. Having thus established a worldly element between themselves and God, a subsequent generation of God’s chosen people claimed no other king than Caesar. Similarly, I believe that the inevitable consequence of the choices made by the current generation of Mennonites will only make it that much more difficult for our own children and grandchildren to recognize the Lord Jesus for who He is. Are we not guilty of placing a stumbling block before those whom we most want to share our faith?

John Clarke,
Kildare, Ireland

Historic event

The convention of the MB Church of Manitoba on March 1 approved participation in the proposed inter-Mennonite seminary program to be implemented in Manitoba through MB Biblical Seminary, Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary, Canadian Mennonite University and Steinbach Bible College. The new seminary will be sponsored by five Mennonite conferences.

While the pertinent recommendations were adopted with large majorities, it seemed that the historical significance of this project was lost on many participants in the round table discussion and in debate in plenary session. Having grown up among these people east of the Red River and having lived and taught on both sides (Dittsied un Yantsied), I feel gratified that the three smaller conferences have the courage and confidence to cooperate with us, after all the prejudice, arrogance and patronizing we have shown them for many decades since the migrations of the 1920s. May the Lord bless and use this cooperative venture to build the kingdom of Christ.

William Schroeder,
Winnipeg, Man.

I encourage others to write to Prime Minister Chretien re Bill C-20

Although Bill C-20 addresses many issues, it does not do enough to protect our children from abuse and other damaging effects of child pornography.

I have lived in Canada for 54 years since I immigrated from Germany. My family has been very fortunate to live in a country that gives us freedom of religion and many other liberties. Child pornography needs to be addressed because it is an infringement on the liberties of individuals. I urge the government to pass a bill that does not allow offenders to claim that what they do is a form of artistic expression and thus escape punishment. I also urge the government to give the authorities the tools, such as more officers or equipment, to investigate and enforce this immoral practice.

Tougher laws would ensure the safety of our young people and children for generations to come and would help to make sure that our young people can live as freely as I have for so many years.

C.H. Wohlgemuth,
Kitchener, Ont.