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.)

Remember the Congo

Re “Situation in DR Congo serious” (Sept. 23). The plea by Pakisa Tshmika to remember Congo is definitely on target. Huge praise is due, under God, to the large cadre of missionaries who have served in Congo (Zaire) in the past. They worked in one of the most challenging physical environments imaginable. As a result, there are at least four Bible schools, two universities with strong MB input, and many hospitals/clinics. Currently in Kinshasa, there are more than 35 MB churches and the conference counts around 90,000 members. Praise is due also to the Congolese missionaries.

But our inattentiveness to Congo is squandering the “missionary success.” In late October, I returned from four weeks of teaching in Congo. In an earlier visit I was told, “Tell your people in North America not to forget us, their brothers and sisters.” Similar sentiments were expressed now by the newly-elected national leadership team in Kinshasa: “We are frustrated. How can you abandon your brothers and sisters in suffering? Greet the churches! We are grateful. Please pray for us.” They raised questions about the cutback of subsidies from North America. A senior teacher at one of the Bible schools receives only $40 a month, unacceptable even in a Congolese context.

People in Congo speak of a communication disconnect with the West and an economic crisis. Our brothers and sisters must know that we stand with them – in prayer, in financial support, through visits. Our theology is one of brotherhood. Our rhetoric is about family and sharing. Congo is a test case whether our theology and rhetoric have substance.

Elmer Martens,
Fresno, Cal.

A forgotten emergency

Mennonite Brethren should take special note of the desperate situation of our MB brothers and sisters in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The blessing of past missionary efforts has resulted in the DRC being one of the largest national MB constituencies of any country and now, even in the midst of suffering, they are sending missionaries next door to Angola. Oxfam describes the situation faced by Mennonites in the DRC as a “forgotten emergency.” This appears to be a loud wake-up call to us, the MB constituency in Canada.

George Epp,
Chilliwack, B.C.

Please see news on DR Congo.—Eds.

Peace distinctives

The Nov. 4 issue of the Herald was timely and the content of the issue was a welcome surprise, recognizing not only that peace is central to the gospel, but also placing it in the historical context of the Mennonite church being one of the historic peace churches. The entire issue was a much-needed reminder that if we don’t nurture our peace teaching, it will wither and die. While other denominations increasingly study the peace theology that is our heritage, many of us seem to be looking the other way.

Dave Hubert,
Edmonton, Alta.

Taking risks

I agree with “The dangerous art of peacemaking” (Editorial, Nov. 4) that says peacemaking is a non-violent act and urges us to take risks. Thank you for reminding us of this. Doug Schulz’s article also agrees with this thought, saying, “The best peacemakers are motivated by a confidence they have learned through interactions,” which means the same as not passively sitting in silence. Thanks to Doug for a fine presentation on the peace subject.

Lena Friesen,
Waterloo, Ont.

A wake-up call

Re “Down illiteracy’s path” (Viewpoint, Oct. 14).

I agree with Maria Hankey; we spend too much time with Christian self-help books and not enough time with the Bible. Thank you for the wake-up call!

Margaret Anne Warner,
Willowdale, Ont.

Thank you

Susan Brandt, who retired from the Herald this year, has faithfully served our MB church family in a number of different roles. I have appreciated the professionalism she displayed over the years, along with her superb journalistic abilities. She demonstrated compassion and grace in dealing with sensitive issues. In addition, Susan never hesitated to address difficult subject matters. Thank you to her.

Ken Braun,
Maple Ridge, B.C.

Equipped by the Holy Spirit

Re Board of Faith and Life resolution on women in ministry leadership (July 22).

I affirm the BFL for bringing forward a resolution acknowledging God’s power to gift women with ministry leadership abilities.

I respond to recent letters expressing concern about the violation of a “chain of command” of men over women. Anabaptists have always argued for the mutual submission of all believers – male or female – to one another within the body of Christ. Paul introduced the new Christian ethic of mutual submission to be upheld between Christian spouses. Female submission was not the new thing Paul was introducing – this was common. The entirely new thing was that in the Christian church, husbands were encouraged to love and serve their wives as well. Mutual submission broke the legitimacy of using power over fellow Christians. We need not fear each other if we love one another as Christ loved us.

Some interpretations of the creation order in Genesis make it seem like women are secondary to men, requiring the abilities of men to cover for their inadequacies. The creation account of Genesis 1 offers a different perspective, however. We are told that both men and women were created in the “image of God.” Both women and men have the human capacity to think, plan, act, speak and create. May we continue to affirm these basic human abilities for all, especially for the building up of the Christian church as it is equipped to serve a need-filled world.

Following the model of the early church, Anabaptists believed each believer was called to serve as a valued member of the body of Christ, according to the giftedness and equipping of the Holy Spirit. The gift of the Holy Spirit was not limited to those of a particular race, social group or gender. There is no limitation to what God can do through the women and men who are willing to be filled with, and serve through, the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit.

Gay Lynn Voth,
Abbotsford, B.C.

Hermeneutical differences

Re “Better hermeneutic needed” (Letters, Sept 23).

Richard Loewen suggests that if we see 1 Timothy 2:12–15 as a restriction to specific churches, “God and Paul seem to become liars when they explain a particular restriction in terms of creation order.” If those who take this restriction as less than universal make Paul and God liars, wouldn’t the same be true of those who follow our current practice regarding women’s head coverings? The command for women to wear a symbol of authority on their heads is based on the creation order (1 Corinthians 11:8–9), Christ’s relation to the church (11:3), the image of God (11:7), angels (11:10), what is natural (11:14–15), and the universal practice of the churches (11:16), yet most are content to ignore this command. How can this be?

I do not advocate a return to head coverings. Rather, I think those on both sides of the debate need to be aware of their current hermeneutical approach. For example, how do we presently interpret 1 Corinthians 11? How do we deal with Paul’s mention of baptisms for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29)? Do we follow Paul’s repeated command to greet one another with a holy kiss, or do we redefine that command based on culture?

There is indeed a hermeneutical difference in this debate. The literal view calls for the return of mandatory head coverings and women who are silenced completely in church – certainly no women worship leaders or women who can vote in decision-making. This is the way the restrictive texts were interpreted until the last century. It is disingenuous to appeal to that interpretational method to support our present position where women can now participate in all roles except head pastor (and without a head covering, of course). That is not the position that hermeneutic leads to.

Marshall Janzen,
Regina, Sask.