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.)

Analogy frustrating

It was with great frustration that I read “The challenge of inclusion” (Aug. 1). The writer uses the analogy of adopted vs. biological children to describe church patrons from “outside” the church family compared to “born into the church” type. This analogy is the basis of my frustration:

Many times I had heard parents of adopted children say, “I love them just like I love my own biological children. As I know my heart, there’s no difference in the way I treat them.” And I believed them. Still do. But in that flash of insight I understood that one cannot treat adopted children “just the same” as the biological and anticipate that they will receive the same amount of love. The mountain of rejection they carry as a result of having been in some way unattended or set aside by their natural parents is just too great.

They need more, much more. Listening, loving, forgiving, lavishing care. Then maybe, by the grace of God, they may hear the same message that the biological children have already heard: “I love you.” And when it is finally heard, they often grasp it more deeply than anyone ever did who did not know their rejection.

I am adopted. I was adopted from birth by the best parents anyone could ask for, and am, unequivocally, their daughter. My parents do not love me more than my 2 (biological) sisters, nor do they love me any less. What offended me the most about this poorly worded analogy was the assumption that all adoptees need more love, more acceptance and more understanding. It seems the writer assumes that all adoptees are emotionally fragile and may never get over the perceived rejection that apparently goes hand-in-hand with being adopted. I want to dispel any inappropriate notions people might have about adopted people:

1. My adopted parents did not do me any special favour. Although I am grateful for my parents, I am no more appreciative than any other person should be of their parents.
2. I do not carry a “mountain of rejection” concerning the circumstances of my adoption. I understand why I was put up as a newborn for adoption, and I do not have any resentment towards my birthparents, nor do I have any abandonment issues. I was not “set aside” nor was I left “unattended”.
3. I am a full and complete member of my family – no more and no less than my siblings. Adoption does not have any inherent special privileges or give me the right to ask my parents to love me more than my sisters. My parents’ love and support is sufficient and does not elevate my needs above the needs of their other children.

Adoptees want to be treated with equality, not with pity. We are capable of understanding the sacrifices made by our birthparents. We are also emotionally secure enough to understand that our parents love us – not as if we were “their” children, but as their children.

Janine Peters,
Winnipeg, Man.

What would Jesus do?

Re “Ontario ruling provokes shock, disappointment, confusion” (July 11), referring to the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision on gay and lesbian marriage. In our churches we are encouraged to write or phone our MPs registering our protests. I wonder what the correct Christian response should be? What would Jesus do? I believe the answer is nothing.

First, Jesus made it clear to His followers that the world and His church are radically different. His kingdom is not of this earth. Earthly government is not Jesus’ government. During His time on earth Jesus did not speak to political issues. Even the moral ills of the society did not receive Jesus’ harsh criticism. The harshest criticism was reserved for the spiritual leaders and the spiritual sins.

Second, the reformers, including Menno Simons, went to great lengths to say that the church and state should be separate. Throughout history, when the church got too closely linked with the state, the church invariably suffered spiritually. The reason most of our ancestors came to Canada was for religious freedom. This implies a separation of church and state. I do not believe this Ontario ruling in any way hinders our freedom to practise what we believe.

Third, I wonder why we have come to criticize homosexual sin so much more than other sin. C.S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity, says the sins of the flesh are bad, but the sins of the spirit are much worse. John Fischer states, “The sins we love to hate are the ones we have the least trouble with ourselves.” All of us battle many of the spiritual sins, such as pride, self-righteousness, slander, gossip, etc. Do we feel better if we can criticize the sins of the flesh? Perhaps the homosexual lobby is correct when it accuses us of being homophobic. Does our love show by our protests?

Edgar Dueck,
Coaldale, Alta.

Editor thanked

Thank you to Jim Coggins for his 19 years with the MB Herald. Jim demonstrated a deep devotion to God, and a love for the church and Conference. Through Jim’s leadership the Herald has served a significant role in keeping the vision of the Conference before us and in helping us move forward together. I always enjoy it when the Herald arrives.

Thanks for a job well done.

Lorne Willms,
Coaldale, Alta.

Direction needed

I read “Rite and Pilgrimage: a study conference on baptism and church membership” with interest and would like to comment on it.

I understand that the church is a body, an organism and not an organization or a club or society. “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself?” (1 Corinthians 6:15) and “The Body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body – whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free – and we are all given the one Spirit to drink . . . Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it” 1 Corinthians 12:12–13, 27).

If the theologians would use the Bible to explain the question of baptism and membership, they would find clear guidance. In Psalm 119:105 we read, “Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path”. Why do our leaders make the answers so complicated? Paul quotes Isaiah 29:14 in 1 Corinthians 1:19, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligent I will frustrate.”

Urgent plea to our Board of Faith and Life. The Bible says “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18). Please give “the sheep” (flock) a clear direction. We need more green pasture.

Peter Loewen,
Abbotsford, B.C.

Worship God, not the Bible

Thank you for your recent series on the Bible. I must take umbrage, however, with Philip Gunther’s article on “Bible-intoxicated” people. My reading of the Bible encourages me to be a “God-intoxicated” person (Ephesians 5:18). I do not read any similar passage about the Bible. While I receive spiritual nurture, direction, correction and encouragement from my daily reading of the Holy Scriptures, I do not expect to be reading the Bible under a tree in heaven. However, I do expect to be fully engaged in worshipping God (See Revelation). I have discovered often that “Bible-intoxicated” people can easily become “scribes and teachers of the Law” while “God-intoxicated” people are full of joy and grace. So, while I read my Bible, I have found with Jake H. Friesen (“Revelation prayers”, MBH July 11) that the Bible is a wonderful guide into prayers that allow me to be filled with the fullness of Christ.

Ron Friesen,
Phoenix, Ariz.

Salvation is individual

I wish to contribute to the discussion on baptism and church membership. Sam J. Mikolaski writes in The Bible Expositor: “The New Testament knows no such thing as particular individualism for Christians. The goal of the Spirit is a saved man in the church. God does not save an aggregate of individuals – no, just as individuals and nothing more. And that individual should be found in the church and not elsewhere.”

P.M. Hamm, former missionary to India, wrote a book entitled Continuity and Change. It is an enlightening book to read and gives correct advice on how we should conduct ourselves as Mennonite Brethren. It would do us much good.

Our Lord Jesus Christ did have continuity in His work and doctrine when He was on earth the first time and He requested that same thing from His disciples after His resurrection (Luke 24).

As for baptism, the first MBs consulted a dictionary for the meaning of that word and when they found it, that settled it for them as far as they were concerned.

Jacob I. Bergen,
Abbotsford, B.C.