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.)

Singing in church

Many will agree that something must change concerning the singing in our churches. Recently I was in church in a town near where I grew up. The worship team led up front, but the congregation was not singing. This congregation that had once been known for its vibrant, harmonious singing, now sang in unison, and it sounded feeble.

I believe the worship team approach is killing our four-part harmony. There are no notes to look at, and supplying your own harmony just doesn’t sound as good as written harmonies.

The seating arrangement in our churches also has something to do with losing four-part harmony. When I was young the girls would sit in front of the women, and the boys in front of the men, and we could learn from each other. I remember the first time I followed a lower voice behind me. I tried it out on the gooseberry patch the next day with my sisters, and we were thrilled that we were singing harmony.

Many worship songs are self-centred. It’s “I this” and “I that.” Most of the worship team members are young and seem to think the way we did things in the past was wrong. These intimate songs are good for young people, but mature Christians in our churches want songs with meat in them. I cannot imagine our older generation, who have walked many years in the faith and come through “deep valleys,” singing these songs. Sometimes the worship team tries to please my generation by singing a hymn, but they give the old song a different twist. It is difficult for some to catch on, and no one seems to know what’s wrong.

I have presented mainly problems, but I’d like to give a solution too. Why not work out the harmonies for the worship songs and put them in a book? We could add the pages to our Alleluia songbooks.

Mennonites have always been known for their singing – especially their harmonizing. Do we really want to lose that?

Mary Pauls,
Winnipeg, Man.

Viewpoint supported

Thanks to Harold Jantz for his urgent appeal for understanding and action (Viewpoint, Oct. 3). Among other things, he identifies the need to strengthen our teaching about human sexuality, re-examine marriage preparation, develop a much deeper concern with issues of sexual brokenness, and acquaint ourselves with resources. I support his viewpoint.

I wish, however, to expand somewhat on his statement that “many people, even in the church, have come to believe that homosexuality is something genetic that the person is born with and cannot be changed.” It is becoming increasingly clear in genetic and psychological research, that human behaviour must be explained by both nature and nurture. The discovery of how genes actually influence human behaviour, and how human behaviour influences genes is an exciting and stimulating discourse. Ridley, a leading authority on the influence of genes on human behaviour makes the following observation. “Genes are designed to take their cues from nurture. To appreciate what has happened, you will have to abandon cherished notions and open your mind. You will have to enter a world where your genes are not puppet masters pulling the strings of your behaviour but puppets at the mercy of your behaviour; a world where instinct is not the opposite of learning, where environmental influences are sometimes less reversible then genetic ones, and where nature is designed for nurture.”

As Christians, and as society generally, we will need to take seriously the findings of the human genome and incorporate these understandings into our knowledge base. We need to replace our simplistic models of linear causality with complex interactive models of circular causality. By far the most important discovery of recent years in brain research is that genes are at the mercy of actions of the environment. Genes are not only the cause of behaviour; they are also the consequence. They are the cogs responding to experience within the family, within the school, within the community and within the larger world. Genes are designed to be switched on and off by the culture within which they interact.

These findings are clearly in support of the Jantz position on homosexuality. It is a mistake to adopt a genetic determinist position on the development of homosexuality. Genes are not puppet masters of our behaviour. Cause and effect are not linear but circular. It is this understanding that must shape our theological and professional inquiry in the next century and form the basis of our position on social action.

John Friesen, Professor Emeritus,
University of B.C., Vancouver

Correction to Viewpoint

In the article I wrote about same sex unions and recent events in Canada (Viewpoint, Oct. 3), I used an expression I regret. In relation to the belief held by many that an inclination toward homosexuality is genetically based, I wrote, “This is a lie.” I should have said something like “this remains unproven” or “the case for this has not been made.”

In the first place, some may be thinking of those persons who have a confused sexual identity, who have the sexual equipment of one sex and the chromosomal makeup of the other. These instances occur from time to time, they bring great pain to the people involved and sometimes lead to requests for sex change operations. This is not what I was writing about.

And this is not what is involved in the overwhelming number of instances of entrance into gay or lesbian lifestyles. In their cases, the participation is usually rooted in a complex of reasons and choices, some conscious and some likely not, but to this point without a known genetic basis.

I have been struck in my reading and involvement with a ministry among gay or lesbian persons of how much is made of the holiness of God and the power of redemption in Christ to go to the root of the inclination to what are understood as sinful impulses. In responding thus, persons with homosexual inclinations are no different from any of us, who are by nature inclined to sin, but taught by the Scriptures to resist sin and find grace in Christ and strength through His Spirit to overcome it.

Harold Jantz,
Winnipeg, Man.

Volunteers should be recognized

We at Mennonite Mutual Insurance depend on volunteers to write up insurance policies, to assist with insurance claims and to address property coverage insurance questions as well as to be a liaison between the head office in Calgary and individual churches/constituencies. I would like to use “The words they need to hear”, by Philip A. Gunther (Sept. 12) and adapt it to our situation. I really appreciated the challenge to recognize the volunteers, not only from the perspective of the office but also to encourage the church and constituency to express their appreciation of the volunteers among them.

I also appreciate the mission of the MB Herald, as noted inside the front page.

Verna J. Froese,
Mennonite Mutual Insurance Co. (Alberta) Ltd., Calgary, Alta.

Examining the needle’s eye

Arthur Schmid corrected Stephen Mortley’s picture of a camel crawling through the end of a sewing needle (Matthew 19:24) by explaining that Jesus was really talking about a gate, not a needle. (Letters, Aug. 1). I have heard that explanation myself many times, and never had reason to doubt it. This letter and another conversation spurred me to research the issue.

It turns out that there are two serious problems with the explanation. First, there is no evidence that such a gate ever existed. The second problem is that Jesus’ original audience thought the feat impossible, not merely unlikely. This is made clear by context: after Jesus made the statement, the disciples were astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus replied: “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:25–26). Any interpretation that makes the camel passing through the needle’s eye possible is different from the interpretation of the original audience.

This type of hyperbole is not uncommon in Jesus’ teaching. He also spoke against the person with a plank in the eye who tries to remove the speck of sawdust from a brother’s eye (Matthew 7:3–5), and religious teachers who swallow a camel but strain out a gnat (Matthew 23:24). There is no need to water down these pictures. It is probably not a coincidence that creative interpretations of Matthew 19:24 are most readily accepted in affluent societies where the plain meaning stings too deeply.

Marshall Janzen,
Regina, Sask.

Coverage appreciated

I want to commend you for the excellent issue featuring the MWC assembly 2003 (Oct. 3). I enjoyed the attractive layout, the diverse perspectives and the brief reflections of personal experiences. The pictures and articles you included allowed us to share in a small way the experience of this great gathering. Thank you for bringing the MWC assembly into our homes.

Mary Friesen,
Winnipeg, Man.

I want to congratulate you on your wonderful coverage of the Mennonite World Conference assembly (Oct. 3). It brought back a flood of memories. David Wiebe’s editorial is truly inspirational.

Knowing personally what all could have gone wrong, that the assembly was such a “success” is nothing but a miracle.

Ray Brubacher,
Mennonite World Conference, Kitchener, Ont.

Negative journalism

With reference to Hank Hanegraaff, “The Bible Answer Man’s” financial matters, (People and Events, Oct. 3) I question the MB Herald’s motive in reporting this partial, yet defaming story. I am not defending the Christian Research Institute’s or Mr. Hanegraff’s activities but I am concerned that the brevity of the story discredits both the CRI and Mr. Hanegraaff.

Why would Evangelical Council of Financial Accountability (USA) choose to share the initial results of their audits with the media, prior to exhausting all efforts in resolving any member’s accounting inconsistencies?

I understand that both ECFA and Canadian Council of Christian Charities were established to protect the donor. We need them. These organizations are based on Christian principles. Thus, it might be wise that they work with, rather than against their membership, in hopes of restoring any perceived inconsistencies.

I would encourage the MB Herald not to fuel this style of negative journalism.

Don Neufeld,
Saskatoon, Sask.

Forms of address

“Laity and the problem of professionalism in our churches”, by Elmer J. Thiessen (Sept. 12) contains much food for thought, particularly his last point, “Titles.”

Jesus spoke harshly against the Jewish leadership for assuming titles that elevated them above other people. They were not to address any human as “father, master or rabbi” (or today, “pastor or doctor”). Jesus Christ forbade His disciples to covet or use these titles.

Suppose we were to use titles for other workers in our church: like Deacon John, Custodian George, Teacher Peter. No, he is Brother John, our deacon; Brother George is our custodian, etc. We see the same pattern used in the New Testament: he is Paul, an apostle (not Apostle Paul); James, a servant of Jesus (not Pastor James). Nowhere in the New Testament is any Christian given a title.

Thiessen is right in stating that titles result in “the increasing levels of hierarchy in church.” We ignore the teachings of Jesus at our own peril and loss.

Jakob Martens,
Abbotsford, B.C.

Modesty

Are Christian girls and women failing to heed the injunction of 1 Timothy 2:9, “I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and sobriety”?

Is it modest for youth to uncover their navel area with low-slung jeans, wearing sleeveless or wider than sleeveless tops, tank tops, tight tops to show off the breasts, the purse strap crossing between to accentuate it? When is short too short, or tight too revealing? A mother said, “As long as the essentials are covered.” Would that qualify for modesty?

And brides and bridesmaids, let’s take 1 Timothy 2:9 as our rule.

Dorothy Jean Jantzen,
Saskatoon, Sask.