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.)

Contrasting liturgies

Re “Why are Mennonite Brethren joining liturgical churches?” (Jan. 16, 2004)

A conservative theologian once remarked, “All churches are liturgical; some just have a better liturgy than others.” A liturgy is, after all, a set routine that we follow every Sunday, and ours is as rigid as any Orthodox or Anglican liturgy.

Consider my home church. Every week we listen to about 8 songs in a row, interspersed with a prayer of invocation, announcements and an offering. Then we hear a sermon and perhaps one more song, and the service is over. We are encouraged to sing with the musicians, but quite often less than half the congregation does so; some of the “praise” tunes are difficult to sing, the words on the screen aren’t always in synch with the music, and in any case nobody misses our singing because our musicians are amplified.

Contrast this with the Morning Prayer liturgy from the Book of Common Prayer (Anglican). It opens with Scripture reading, followed by an exhortation to publicly confess our sins. Then the congregation says the General Confession together, and the minister proclaims God’s forgiveness to them. Everyone then recites the Apostle’s Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. By this time, all of the basic Christian beliefs have been reinforced. During the service the congregation performs many Scripture readings, prayers and hymns, either in unison or responsively, and the people are in constant motion between standing, sitting and kneeling. Except for the sermon, hardly a minute goes by without the congregation saying or doing something.

In short, the Anglican liturgy is participatory, whereas our MB services are a spectator sport. This is a major reason why my children (at least, those who still go to church) have opted for Anglican and Orthodox congregations.

I have wonderful, caring, loving friends in my local MB congregation and a pastor who is passionate about our mission in Christ. I love these people and consider myself blessed to be associated with them. But our liturgy leaves me empty, just as it did my children.

Name withheld by request

Biblical perspective needed

Re “Why are Mennonite Brethren joining liturgical churches?” I am not surprised at the trend (though I think small at this time) to move away from what the article refers to as “revved up energy” services.

What I miss in Dorothy Siebert’s question, “Is it time to stand on tiptoe and peer over our fence?” referring to Anglican, Orthodox and Catholic churches, is any reference to doing so from a biblical perspective. Liturgy used by churches reflects their theology. Do we find ourselves in harmony with their theology? When we plan our services, select our songs and say our prayers we must ask the same question. Perhaps we have endorsed our society’s pop culture more than we realize, thereby creating a vacuum which some are seeking to fill by choosing churches with liturgical services, without adequately considering the theological implications.

Wilmer Kornelson,
Abbotsford, B.C.

Reasons for leaving a liturgical church

I read “Why are Mennonite Brethren joining liturgical churches?” with interest and a sense of irony.

Some 25 years ago, as an adult in my early 30s, I came out of the “liturgical” Anglican church in which I had grown up to attend first a Southern Baptist, then a Mennonite Brethren church, both of which I will label “evangelical.”

The reasons given for attending liturgical churches are the flip side to some of the reasons I had for joining the evangelical church at that time.

Having grown up memorizing liturgy, I felt a refreshing freedom in the non-liturgical service of the evangelical church.

Having learned by rote all the prayers and passages in a Book of Common Prayer, and rarely reading straight from a Bible, I absorbed Bible teaching in adult Sunday school and mid-week Bible study like a dry sponge.

Having had a minister who gave a “reasonable explanation” for one of Jesus’ miracles, causing me to question his teaching and understanding of the things of God, I felt confident in being able to learn more accurately the truth of God’s Word from the Bible-believing men and women in the evangelical church.

When my husband and I chose to be “re-baptized,” my family was somewhat taken aback but not antagonistic. Within a couple of years, my parents, sister, brother, brother-in-law and sister-in-law were all baptized as believing adults and joined the Mennonite Brethren Church.

As I became familiar with God’s Word and its truthful application, I have seen “God’s footprints” in some Bible-based Anglican church yards, but I have also been saddened by the scripturally inaccurate, sometimes Bible-opposing, beliefs and teachings of some of the hierarchy.

As I have grown older, and evangelical churches have become more liberal in worship style, dress, and music, I admit I have found myself longing to relive some of my old Anglican ways, but I think that has more to do with aging than spiritual hunger.

For me, the Bible knowledge and personal relationship with God gained since moving to the evangelical church far outweigh any loss I might now be sensing.

We in the evangelical churches may soon find ourselves on a transitional cusp as the pendulum swing to a freer style begins to swing back, but I will be praying that our churches will be very careful to ensure the solid foundation of biblical truth isn’t undermined if there is a move toward melding liturgical and evangelical church yards.

Barbara Armstrong,
Delta, B.C.

Healthy spiritual life has balance

“Why are Mennonite Brethren joining liturgical churches?” was enlightening. Having spent most of my life as an MB, (we currently attend an Evangelical Free church), I can appreciate why some MBs and other evangelicals find it more spiritually enriching to attend a liturgical church.

As someone who appreciates structure, I find it disconcerting to see the demise of the church bulletin. Once a reference for the order of service, it has been reduced to little more than a weekly calendar of church events.

As for worship style, I believe worship bands do have their place. “Days of Elijah” stirs my heart just as much as “Guide Me O Thou Great Jehovah.” But I think there’s a place for the choir as well. The January 16 Herald cover talks about “slowing down enough to listen and grow.” An alternative to a praise song to begin a worship service might be a choral rendition of “The Lord is in His holy temple, let all the earth keep silent.” Praise is fine but there is also a place for silence and contemplation in our services.

A healthy lifestyle has to have balance, whether it is on the physical, emotional or spiritual level. We have found a church that has incorporated praise songs and hymns, as well as a choral selection most Sundays. Many evangelical churches have not fared as well. May God grant us wisdom, love and cooperation so our worship experience nurtures and enriches all of us and brings glory to God.

Wendell Penner,
Winnipeg, Man.

Same sentiment

I thank the former MBs quoted in Dorothy Siebert’s article “Why are Mennonite Brethren joining liturgical churches” (Jan. 16) for articulating how I feel about the present trend in worship in MB and other evangelical churches. Fortunately, in my MB church we have not capitulated entirely to the “choruses only with rock band” type of worship service. But if the trend to incorporate more showiness into our services continues, then I too may have to jump the fence into the liturgical yard.

Douwe Smid,
Medicine Hat, Alta.

Venerating the liturgy or worshipping God?

As I read and hear differing views about the forms of worship, I wonder how much of this discussion is missing the point entirely. What often becomes apparent is how important the form or style is to many people and how much emotion the topics generate. I wonder whether we could be accused of spending more effort venerating the music or liturgy than worshipping the object of these things. Could it be that beautiful music, whether hymns or choruses, has replaced our first love? If we depend on these expressions to bring us into the worship of God, we have placed responsibility for our relationship with God into the hands of others. Possibly this is why we place heavy and unrealistic expectations on the church to fill us, encourage us, or strengthen us every Sunday and why we leave when it’s not doing it for us any more.

Chuck Penner,
Winnipeg, Man.

Taking sides not enough

Responding to Sylvester Dirks, (Letters, Jan. 16).

I am a member of Christian Peacemaker Teams, and have been in Hebron Israel/West Bank to live out Jesus’ message of peace. The hatred, violence and prejudice are almost beyond description. It is important that those who work for peace respond to all people with love and integrity. It is also important to remember that to work for peace between the Palestinians and Israel does not make you an enemy of Israel. Christian Zionism would have us believe that to love Israel means that we must mistrust and even work against the Palestinian people. One Israeli soldier said it best: “Neither we nor the Palestinian people want this war. We just don’t know how to get out of this mess.” Christian Zionism is understood by many as perpetuating the violence. Christian Zionists believe that if Christians do not support Israel, God will punish us. The Scriptures demand a much greater compassionate response than merely taking sides. I encourage people to become more informed about the Christian response to violence in the Holy Land. Palestinian Christians in Jerusalem are planning a conference to address Christian Zionism, April 14–18, 2004. For information see sabeel.org.

Lorne W. Friesen,
Winkler, Man.

A better answer

It is true indeed that Israel needs help, as Sylvester Dirks points out (Letters, Jan. 16). Not money though, nor “friends.” As a client state of the USA, Israel receives billions of dollars for all kinds of uses, including new settlements (illegal as well as legal) and its military. If it is isolated, it is because of its brutal oppression of the Palestinian inhabitants, its policies of home destruction and eviction, and its racist policies with regard to the people who have lived there for centuries.

For help it should consult its own prophets, as in 2 Chronicles 7:14.

The state of Israel is no longer David facing Goliath; with its IDF and atomic weapons it has become a terrifying Goliath itself.

There is reliable, up-to-date information on developments in the disputed territories on the website of Christian Peacemaker Teams.

Victor Doerksen,
Kelowna, B.C.

Peacemaking

Re Sylvester Dirks’s letter on supporting Israel (Letters, Jan. 16). Is there a higher priority for a Christian than Micah’s dictum to “do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God”?

Christian Zionism has rarely been logical, and Dirks emphasizes its contradictions by saying “The so-called road-map to peace being imposed upon her is a sure road to Armageddon.” I thought Christian Zionists were eager to get to Armageddon!

Christian Zionism does not belong in the Mennonite tradition. Anabaptist history includes an abortive attempt to set up a “city of God” in Muenster in 1534, and after this terrible event ended in the deaths of thousands, peacemaking entered fully into the confession of faith, never to leave.

Israel needs help to explain to displaced Palestinians, including Palestinian Christians, who are surely the most abused minority in this sad land, why this corner of the world is so important to them, in such a way that Palestinians are encouraged to share it with them. This, Israel has never done. In the early days, some Zionists and some Arabs foresaw a way to ensure security of both peoples, but others such as Ben-Gurion forestalled any attempt at peace and set Israel on the violent course it has been on ever since.

Dirks would do himself and the church far better to follow the Jewish myth of Tikkun Olam – becoming a soul who undertakes the repair of the world – and live out the Confession of Faith. More boring than the Rapture perhaps, but God’s work nonetheless.

Andre Pekovich,
Vancouver, B.C.

Punctuation changes/errors

I am pleased to see in the Herald that the use of commas and periods in quote marks has been changed. It is good to see commas and periods inside the quote marks. However, there are still a few errors.

Thank you for a great Herald and I do read most of the articles and obits etc.

Glen Lorch,
Australia

Incorrect quote?

Thank you for your continued efforts to publish a first-class Christian magazine.

I noticed what may be a typographical error in “MEDA celebrates 50 years” (Dec. 26). Reimer states, “. . . there are currently more people in the world than the total of those who have ever lived.” That sounds like a mathematical impossibility.

Phil Wiebe,
Burnaby, B.C.

Editor’s note: In checking with MEDA personnel, they replied: Of all the people who have ever lived, more than half are still alive.

Is globalism what we want?

I read with considerable concern, “MEDA celebrates 50 years of ‘doing business’.” While I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of hope, opportunity and economic well-being for the world’s poor, I am concerned that global citizenship – and globalism in the Canadian Liberal government context – is a concept Mennonite Economic Development Associates might entertain. Undoubtedly, flexibility will be an asset in doing global business, but has MEDA really counted the cost?

Simply stated, a global citizen will choose “the good of the whole” above all else. Tolerance is an essential ingredient. Consensus is imperative. Firm, inflexible values [absolutes] do not fit.

Our nation’s classrooms have been a hothouse for globalism in recent years. Global education is a way of thinking and believing rather than a body of knowledge, and the purpose is to reshape the worldview of our youth. They have been taught world citizenship through multicultural, anti-western, anti-family, anti-Judeo–Christian education. Globalism sounds compassionate but exacts a high price. It has cost our students academic excellence and sent them out with compliant, cooperative values instead. A person with poor literacy and soft reasoning skills is easily ruled.

Initially globalism was marketed as pluralism, but Christianity soon emerged as the odd man out. Christians will indeed pay the highest price. Globalism requires us to not only give up our faith, but also our family to “the state.” (“It takes a village to raise a child.”) It is not about freedom; but rather that “the state” knows best. It is re-packaged, westernized socialism on a global scale. It reduces its subjects to a common denominator. A good global citizen is content to work for the greater good and do as he’s told. Globalism destroys the pillars that have made North America great. An enemy of democracy, it effectively lays the groundwork for a New World Order.

How will MEDA reconcile global values with biblical truth? I think it is in their best interest to be more discerning about the guests they invite to their table. And my hope is that they clearly and firmly define – biblically – the way they do global business.

M.R. Heinrichs,
Abbotsford, B.C.

Taking exception to ad

Re an advertisement for Englischer Wunderbalsam.

I’ve been reading the Herald for over 25 years and do not remember seeing an issue that included ads with such claims (“promotes vigor and vitality”). Is there any scientific proof for such statements? What is the Herald’s policy as to what ads are appropriate? I understand ads bring money and help cover operational costs of the Herald. My concern is that if such an ad is acceptable, there is the potential for serious issues to be raised, since the MB Herald is a church-based publication, not a secular magazine.

Perry Ng,
East Lansing, Mich.

Suggestion

I sympathize with Mary Pauls’ lament over the disappearance of 4-part harmony singing in our worship services. Unfortunately, the issue of harmony or unison voices is now irrelevant. Ever-improving (or rather expanding) sound systems have created musical environments that make it difficult to hear people singing. Why try to sing in harmony if you can only see your friend in the next pew mouthing the lyrics?

I have a suggestion. Why don’t our churches try occasional Sunday morning services without any instruments or sound amplifiers? It might be refreshing (and enlightening) for the members to actually hear each other sing.

Roland Derksen,
Vancouver, B.C.

Not using God’s gifting

Re “Today’s music is different” (Letters, Dec. 26). Hildebrand says, “To say that we need to sing in 4-part harmony is erroneous.” I believe this statement is erroneous. God created us with voices of different ranges – basses, tenors, baritones, altos, mezzo-sopranos and high sopranos. You cannot lump us all together to sing in unison. It’s too high for some, too low for the higher voices. That’s where singing in harmony is so useful, as well as beautiful. I also find it disconcerting to learn new songs by rote, instead of by notes. I have been teaching singing most of my adult life and to move away from harmony is like throwing away this wonderful gift of God’s – diversity of voices.

Why can’t today’s songwriters compose with the harmony added? That way we could all sing with ease and pleasure.

Justina Wiebe,
Winkler, Man.