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.)

Truth

Two articles, “Truth on trial” and “The Bible and the painting that came to life” (June 13) are almost disturbingly divergent in how they characterize spiritual truth. They demonstrate that the truths which undergird Christianity are in an unsettled state. “Truth on trial” concludes with defending the truth of the gospel message, which should raise no argument with Christian readers since it is a prerequisite to being a Christian. However, the article tends to give the impression that discovering truths and falsehoods on issues pertaining to Christianity is almost as simple as looking up the answer in the Bible. The article claims the Bible presents truth as absolute, knowable and normative. Even if that is so it can only be relevant to the extent that the Bible is understood and comprehended. No one can claim complete mastery of that. The article also claims correctly that believing something does not necessarily make it true, as is the case when the facts on which belief is based are faulty or when facts are incorrectly assimilated. On the other hand, nothing can become truth without believing in the reasons for it. When those reasons form a conclusion a truth emerges. The article also rules out any room for relativism about truth and yet sometimes relativism actually enhances truth. If it is conceded that keeping the Sabbath can also mean keeping the Sunday the truth about keeping the Lord’s day is enhanced. Relativism is less the problem than the use of it to rationalize the tailoring of truth to accommodate sinful purposes. However, clinging tenaciously to the concept of absolute truth is also fraught with dangers like reliance on works (legalistic compliance) and like having an attitude of having arrived; of being closed to learning and discovery. Focusing on truth absolutism tends to justify not being obligated to ponder a point of view more deeply. There is security in shutting out a challenge. The writer singles out premarital sex and abortion as being sinful. The more complete truth is that there is also much opportunity for sexual sinfulness within marriage. Also, is some sexual behaviour before marriage acceptable? Abortion is typically labelled as a murderous act but the more complete truth is that often sinfulness begins prior to a conception. To be absolute on a narrow aspect of an issue tends to diminish the credibility of the Christian message.

The second article cited takes the approach that there is opportunity and need for the continuous discovery of truth through study and contemplation and trusting God to reveal truth through His spirit. It emphasizes the need to be consumed and permeated by truth in addition to knowing it; to have the joy and edification of living within it as opposed to legally conforming to it. Trusting to find new and more complete truths does not take away from those already experienced. The Pharisees missed the greatest opportunity ever to discover truth from Christ Himself because they were very absolute about already having it. Often, throughout history those who considered themselves Christian fought bloody wars in the defence of absolute truth. Both sides could not have been absolutely correct.

If there is a need to refer to truth as being absolute what is just simply truth? It must be what Christians individually and collectively find it to be in the process of seeking to know God. The humble message to the world can then be, “Seek after God and you will know truth.” Such truth is just as true as absolute truth and it does not stand in the way of being continually blessed with a greater understanding of and an affinity for spiritual truths.

Jake Janzen,
Abbotsford, B.C.

Who defines truth

Re “Truth on Trial” (June 13th). My concern with Dan Hiebert’s argument that truth is absolute, knowable and normative, is its application.

He laments that biblical truth is in opposition to the 21st century view of truth. The problem with Hiebert’s argument is that he fails to articulate which truth is in opposition. There is a notion of truth that authentic Christians are supposed to know by default. This becomes problematic since the text itself (the Bible) holds to values (truths) that have been criticized, even by Mennonites. Does Hiebert allow for a contextual reading of the text? If this is the case how should one insert the proposition that truth is absolute, knowable, normative? His argument that truth is the same in Mongolia as it is in Abbotsford troubles me. Is there, like Aristotle might argue, a primary truth and a secondary truth (granted, Aristotle doesn’t refer to truth per se)? Which is which?

But if truth is about ethical values, then perhaps Hiebert may have a point. I would suggest that biblical truth and 21st century values are not categorically antithetical as Hiebert argues. Some postmodernist writers are in agreement with ethical principles laid out in the Bible, namely, that justice is first about ethical principles where ethics is about ordering relationships with the Other, with those who are normatively marginalized because they do not ascribe to the values of the status quo.

My primary concern with Hiebert’s article is that he does not expressly articulate his notion of truth. This can potentially leave the reader wondering about who defines truth. The 21st century critics of whom Hiebert is suspicious have at least tried to address this dilemma; they have tried to carry on an honest debate about the nature of imposed truth. I would suggest that Hiebert familiarize himself with the debate that is taking place in the realm of social theory which is trying to come to grips with institutions that endeavour to impose their version of truth over all else.

My concern is that truth is given less respect than it deserves by holding it up as though only a more enlightened people have the right to define truth. In this, truth becomes a subtle lie assuaging a paranoid consciousness.

Richard Toews,
Lecturer, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C.

Correction to Kempling story

Thank you that the MB Herald appeals to Christians across denominational lines. My wife and I grew up in MB churches, accepted Christ and were baptized there. We now attend the same church that Chris Kempling attends (People and Events, June 13). There is one inaccuracy in the story as printed.

Kempling is not quitting his teaching position. While it is true that he applied for a number of different positions this past spring, he was not been offered any. He will continue in his present position as a teacher and counsellor in Quesnel, B.C. The Courts have granted him an injunction against the one-month suspension until all appeals to the courts are finished with.

The entire College of Teachers which suspended Chris was fired by the provincial government and temporarily replaced with a government-appointed College. It is not surprising that the previous College convicted my friend of “conduct unbecoming a member”. At present, we do not know what direction the newly appointed College will take regarding Chris’s case. The case is due to be heard in BC Supreme Court near the end of July.

To its credit, the BCTF paid most of the legal costs of Chris’s College case, but it has stated that it will not pay any of the costs of subsequent appeals to the Courts. The BCTF’s own lawyer was quoted as saying, “This is a very bad decision for teachers.” She probably said this because of the far-reaching implications if other members voice beliefs on other topics that are against BCTF or College policies. The implications of him losing this case are serious for all Christian teachers and, for that matter, any other teacher who publicly takes a stand on any issue that the College deems politically incorrect and therefore, “conduct unbecoming a member”. This decision essentially would take away our Charter rights to freedom of belief and public expression of that belief.

Jim Sagert,
Quesnel, B.C.

Celebrating marriage

Much is being said these days for the homosexual agenda to change the laws of our land concerning marriage. They are a loud voice yet very small in number. How is it that such a small minority is able to create such a ruckus on Parliament Hill? It was a question I recently asked MP Stockwell Day.

In our church, (Grace MB Church, Penticton, B.C.) we had five couples celebrating their 50th anniversary this year. We threw them a party and invited everyone to come. The invitations were entitled “Celebrating 250 years of Marriage”. Those invitations went to friends, relatives and neighbours, and also to the Prime Minister of Canada, MP Stockwell Day, MLA Risk Thorpe, Premier Gordon Campbell, the mayor of Penticton and David Wiebe and Ike Bergen of our Conference. Stockwell and Val Day accepted the invitation.

Our purpose was to honour the folks whose faithfulness to one another was a testimony to not only the institution of marriage but to God’s faithfulness to those who keep their covenant vows. Hebrews 13:4, “Marriage should be honoured by all” was the focus of the event. We had music and special speakers, and of course where Mennonites meet, Mennonites eat. Our honoured couples, Ben & Helen Guenther, Walter & Irene Goerzen, Rudy & Laura Spenst, Walter & Sadie Stobbe and John & Susan Martens, (see photo, p. 21) were blessed and everyone felt that something “very special” had happened.

During his presentation to the couples Stockwell Day shared with us his passion for upholding the marriage laws. Though his main focus was on honouring the couples for their commitment to one another he also gave a plea for believers to take a stand this September as the marriage bill is being debated. I asked for the most effective way to be heard in Ottawa. Day said, “Call, your MP’s office and let them know that you will be voting for the candidate in the next election who will be supporting the current definition of marriage, as between one man and one woman, and mean it!” I asked if e-mails and writing letters are as effective. He said, “No, an MP who gets even 10 calls in a day will stand and take notice, whereas they have many people looking at the letters and e-mails and many ways to ‘auto-answer’ those forms of communications”.

Blake Wagner, pastor,
Penticton, B.C.

Differences in worship

I have noticed a disparity in the congregation in which I worship. There are those whose lives have been transformed by the grace of Jesus. They recognize the great debt that has been lifted and they worship in the manner that God commanded His people to do: with dancing, shouting and clapping. There are also those do not yet know the grace of God. They do not feel free to worship, and so stand by passively. When we have events geared for such seekers we tone down our worship style.

There are also those who are learning to express themselves more freely. Falling before the throne of the Lamb, shouting joyfully to the Lord or dancing in praise, does not come naturally. We remind ourselves that we do not live naturally, but by the Spirit. It is in God’s power that we learn to express ourselves.

I want to be more like Yahweh who dances when the prodigal comes home and I want to be less like the older brother who mutters like the Pharisees. I want to be more like the faithful disciple John, who fell at the feet of the Living One and I want to be less like the church of Laodicea. I want to be more like the one leper who praised God in a loud voice and less like the other nine. I want to be more like my Lord and Saviour.

David Olson,
Surrey, B.C.

Debate continues

Re: The debate continues (Letters, June 13) on what is and what is not true worship. Some argue that modern, loud, expressive worship is not what God wants from us. However, what does God really want? The truth is that no one knows, we can only speculate. No Scripture gives us the facts. Instead of asking that question we should ask, “Are we continually leading people into relationship with Jesus Christ?” God doesn’t care how we get to know him intimately as long as we do get to know Him.

Some people needing the freedom of expression in worship, feel that connection with God. Different people have different ways of “talking” to God. We are beginning to realize that everyone is different and this is why we should evaluate worship within the church. Some people may be turned away from certain churches because they find the worship too soft, others because they find the worship too loud. When large numbers of people turn away from the church, a red flag should go up in our minds. God did not want the church to be for believers, but as a place for non-believers to find Him. Romans 12:2 states that we should not be conformed to the world, but expressing ourselves in loud worship is not conforming. A non-believer walking in on a service with modern worship would probably wonder what it was that was making those people act like fools, because that is what we are, fools for Christ. As an 18-year-old I hope that in the years to come we will stop bickering about how we get to know God and just get there.

Mandi Walde,
Kelowna, B.C.

Understanding Scripture

Stephen Mortley writes (“Tell me the stories of Jesus”, June 13): “Can anyone improve on the image of a fetid, loutish camel squirming its way through the hole at the end of a sewing needle?” The Bible is clear if we study correctly. Several explanations tell us that the eye of a needle was a small door next to the main entrance to a city. If a traveller came after the closing of the main door, he would have to force his camel on its knees to enter the city. Our teacher explained that to us before I was 8 years old.

Also, you cited Matthew 16:24; it should have been Matthew 19:24.

Arthur Schmid,
Penticton, B.C.

Editor’s Note: The Bible reference has been corrected in the online version of the article.