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.)

Deceiving rhetoric

Re “The good news according to Oprah Winfrey” (Crosscurrents, May 19). No doubt the popular TV show host has averted catastrophe in many peoples’ lives due to informative and practical topics. But a closer look points to an “Oprah ideology” stealthily creeping into our churches, laced with eastern mysticism and “new age” ideas.

On her website, Oprah’s personal technology trainer, Omar, suggests certain websites to “help make life easier,” including horoscopes. Themes that enthuse Oprah promote trusting in your feelings rather than the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Let’s not get confused with deceiving rhetoric. Spiritualists pray and some call themselves born again Christians. “God” has become a vague term many use to describe a “higher being” or beings.

Yes, Oprah is popular, entertaining, and practical. I like her. But I first choose to seek his face. I pray that Jesus Christ will be my “higher consciousness” and source of inner peace. It’s the best news in the world, and it’s not found on Oprah.

Lois Fast,
Steinbach, Man.

True compassion

Re “The good news according to Oprah Winfrey” (Crosscurrents, May 19). I enjoyed this article. Oprah’s compassion for the underprivileged is what she does best. Her response to hurting and abused people by becoming personally involved, whether in the form of finances, encouraging viewers to give towards the “Angel” organization, or travelling to underprivileged countries, truly shows compassion. Maya Angelou states it well: “I have found that among other benefits, giving liberates the soul of the giver. . . .” Ecclesiastes 11:1 has a similar message: “Give generously, for your gifts will return to you later.” Oprah is a good example of this.

Elvira Thiessen,
Abbotsford, B.C.

Don’t rely on talk shows

Re “The good news according to Oprah Winfrey” (Crosscurrents, May 19). I was discomforted by how much we rely on a talk show to bring us hope and wisdom. If Christians need to watch Oprah in order to learn to “live consciously . . . have time to reflect . . . and be grateful,” it seems we do not understand the immense depth of the life and death of Christ.

I’m not saying don’t watch Oprah. I’m saying be careful how much you take from her show. And if you’re looking for hope, wisdom, or a “You can do it!”, open the Gospels or go out with a friend instead of staring at a TV screen.

Erin Diewert,
Vancouver, B.C.

Encouraging Bible study

Re “The life of discipleship.” I’m thoroughly enjoying Jim Holm’s Bible study. I can’t wait to read the next part in his discipleship series. His writing is encouraging and challenging. I always come away feeling inspired, thinking of ways I can incorporate his suggestions in my daily life.

Jerelyn Erb,
Waterloo, Ont.

Negative attitude towards the city

Re “Church today” (Herald, May 19). It’s distressing to see that not much has changed in our Anabaptist practice in cities in 100 years. John Unger’s fine historical piece about Mennonites and cities underscores our antipathy but bold action.

However, David Eagle’s piece only serves to underscore a negative attitude towards the city. His four snapshots are all negative, although his solutions are fine. As someone who has lived in large metropolitan areas of Canada all my life, I don’t recognize Eagle’s descriptions at all.

In 100 years, we still don’t know how to take cities seriously from a biblical and theological perspective. Urban missiology over the past 25 years has sought to engage Canadian cities for what they are. Too bad the Herald steps back once again.

Glenn Smith,
Professor of urban missiology, ETEM
Montreal, Que.

Called to love poor people

Re “An urban nation” (Feature, May 19). I affirm David Eagle’s significant reflection and trust that God would increasingly take our conference in this direction.

Why do Christ-followers stay in the heart of the city, or plant new churches in tough urban communities? We’re motivated by our theology and the biblical call to love the poor, the immigrant, the orphan, and the widow. Let’s consider what portion of our time, energy, and money is used to carry out these mandates.

Jesus authenticated his ministry through what he said and did among those who were considered on the fringes of cultural norms. For this reason, I applaud the Manitoba conference in drafting a clear vision for “Dream Manitoba” that includes a commitment to ministries to and with the poor.

One of the fears of suburban churches is that new urban churches will “drain” significant resources and never become viable. One of the fears of urban churches is that our suburban brothers and sisters will so distance themselves from the poor that, in the process, they lose something more significant – not just a part of our heritage, but our soul.

We who serve urban communities under the MB umbrella must connect. Feel free to contact me.

Fred Stoesz,
World Impact
Winnipeg, Man.

Inspirational painting

Who knew the Ontario MB conference would adopt a congregation that had inherited a painting so representative of the conference’s current mission, seeking to deliver Jesus to the diversity of cultures making up Canada today?

Follow Me, a painting by Lew Beaver, was presented to the Christian Fellowship Chapel in Orillia in the early 1940s. In 1944, the MB conference adopted the church, comprised of people from a mix of cultural backgrounds.

The painting is a refreshing reminder to embrace all people and teach them about Jesus. Here is a man, Jesus, who doesn’t keep track of our historical backgrounds, but takes us as we are – little children. Inclusiveness is essential in our work of bringing Jesus to those who have not embraced his salvation.

The painting, which hung in the Sunday school area of the Orillia church for many years, was a welcome sign to parents and children of all cultures.

David Duncan,
St. Catharines, Ont.

Don’t swear allegiance

Re “Membership has its responsibilities” (Editorial, May 19). As followers of Christ, we must be in communion with others. But the swearing of oaths and promises made to a local congregation do not in themselves make us members of his body or cause us to belong to him. Many have been deceived to think that their covenant to a congregation of people binds them to Christ.

Nothing in Scripture indicates that we are to make a covenant with anyone or anything other than Christ. Committing ourselves to one particular congregation of believers is not scriptural. When we make such promises to people, aren’t we making them our authority? When we commit our finances to one particular congregation, aren’t we playing God in determining where he should spend his money?

Committing ourselves to Christ is how he intends for us to follow him. In turn, he causes us to be in communion with others in the body.

I choose to belong to Christ and what he established, rather than to what humans institutionalized. Jesus is my sole authority and I will not swear allegiance to any group. I allow him to connect me and my family with the body of Christ as he sees fit.

Rod Campbell,
Calgary, Alta.

Essential debate

Re “A legacy of great ideas” (Intersection, April 7). “Intersection” is one of my favourite pieces in the Herald and I always appreciate what James Toews has to say. The Apr. 7 article was no exception.

However, I was perturbed by the comment that “we are so easily suckered into debates that don’t concern us” with regard to the creation and abortion debates. If we don’t find the mechanics of creation important, why would we believe God raised Christ from the dead, as he said he did? Are not all his claims equally important?

Also, if human life doesn’t begin at conception, who’s to say when it begins? Thankfully, science has shown that everything making up a baby is there from conception, so it’s either human in the womb or it’s not.

Sarah Kamp,
Abbotsford, B.C.