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.)

Doesn’t fit like a glove

Re “The Prodigal” (Intersection, Dec. 16). James Toews gleans some insights from Aristotle for understanding Jesus’ parable of the loving father and prodigal son. What does it mean to be a prodigal? Toews cites Aristotle that “prodigal means a person who has one definite vice, that of wasting his substance.” But what does it mean to “waste one’s substance?” It’s clear from the context of the Aristotle passage that Aristotle identifies a prodigal as one who cares too little about one’s own wealth. For Aristotle, this is a form of self-destruction because “our living depends on our property” (Nicomachean Ethics, Book IV). Aristotle places the prodigal at one end of a range of possible attitudes towards wealth – caring too little. At the other end is the ungenerous person who cares too much about wealth.

For Aristotle, virtue is found in between two vices, and thus the proper attitude toward wealth is generosity: caring enough about one’s wealth so that one is able to live, but not caring so much about wealth that one doesn’t give to others.

Does Aristotle’s concept of prodigality or wastefulness help us understand Jesus’ parable? Yes and no. We can, with Toews, recognize that Jesus’ prodigal falls short not just in the excesses of his reckless behaviour, because being prodigal isn’t identical to such recklessness. On the other hand, it is unlikely that Jesus’ point in the parable was about the proper attitude toward one’s wealth. Perhaps we can expand the concept of wealth beyond the concept of material wealth employed by Aristotle, and say that spiritual prodigals care too little about the spiritual riches of a loving relationship with God. Certainly we can do this, but we leave Aristotle behind.

Jesus’ parable doesn’t, as Toews suggests, fit Aristotle like a glove. The fit is more like using wool socks for mittens – there’s substantial area of overlap, but fundamentally we’re talking about different kinds of things.

Myron Penner,
Abbotsford, B.C.

Scripture is consistent

Re Board of Faith and Life resolution on women in ministry leadership (July 22). The Old and New Testaments are consistent regarding the relationship of male and female roles in the home and church. We just need to read the stories of Ruth and Esther to get some perspective on God’s order of authority in the home and church. Paul is simply reiterating this orthodox arrangement in the New Testament epistles. I believe the conservative or even orthodox route concerning this important issue is the safest biblical route to go. There is no need for hermeneutical gymnastics. Just allow the Scripture to speak for itself.

Harry Wiens,
Chilliwack, B.C.

Redemptive movement hermeneutic

Re Board of Faith and Life resolution on women in ministry leadership (July 22). I agree that the women in ministry leadership issue revolves around our hermeneutic. I was raised on what is called a “static” hermeneutic. I had great difficulty determining what Scripture was applicable to us today and what was just for the group to which it was written (ie. what was “transcultural” for all time, and what was “cultural”).

The book Slaves, Women and Homosexuals by William Webb finally provides, for me, the necessary tools for answering the cultural/transcultural question. The book proposes a “redemptive movement hermeneutic,” and is widely used in Bible colleges and seminaries. Webb deals in detail with the women in ministry leadership issue and with 1 Timothy 2:12–15. I believe a consideration of this “better” hermeneutic would greatly assist in the current debate.

Marian (Bud) Webb,
Abbotsford, B.C.

Obedience most important

Re “All equal in the sight of God” (Letters to the editor, Nov. 4). It is true that all are equal before God, but not every member is given the opportunity to be an elder or pastor of a church. There are spiritual considerations. It is God who chooses the gifts of spiritual service. All are equal before God, but not all have the same gift given to them. It is not a matter of opportunity or restriction, but divine designation of placement in the body of Christ. Obedience is more important than “grasping for opportunity.”

The Scriptures tell us “the greatest among you shall be your servant” (Mark 10:43–44), but I do not see people fighting to become the lesser among us. Many follow the secular definition of greatness as having “equal opportunity” and being the “head.” However, not so with our Lord Jesus Christ. He, “who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (Philippians 2:6). He chose submission to his Father. The only restriction was obedience to God.

Michael McLeod,
Surrey, B.C.