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.)

MCC fights for justice, peace

Re “Letter to Canada’s Prime Minister” (Letters, Sept. 1, 22). I find it interesting that people would respond so negatively to this letter. MCC is one of the most highly esteemed Christian organizations in the world. These people dedicate their lives to working towards the well-being of others and standing up against oppressive political and social regimes in order to promote peace.

Instead of so quickly running to the defence of the prime minister or the nation of Israel, let’s consider that the people who wrote this letter are Christians with extensive experience in Palestine. They work with people who matter just as much as people in Israel.

As Christians, we’re called to fight for justice and to bring peace. MCC is an organization that has dedicated its existence to these two goals. Perhaps we should set aside our own understanding and agenda, and listen to what they’re saying.

Erin Peters,
Vancouver, B.C.

Politically unacceptable

Re “Does love demand tolerance?” (Viewpoint, Nov. 3). This article misrepresents the concept of tolerance as defended by Canadian laws and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The right to express religious opinions on homosexuality and homosexual marriage is protected by the very concept Mr. Williams is attacking. The principle of tolerance means that all parties are entitled to free expression of their opinions.

Williams argues that members of Christian churches should be lovingly intolerant of their neighbours because of a paternal or religious right to rule. The concept of democratic freedom, and the corresponding practice of tolerance, guarantees that we do not have such a right. We are not to treat our neighbours in any other way than “born free and equal in human dignity and rights.” No distinctions are to be made on the basis of political or religious opinion.

Williams neglects the separation of church and state set forth passionately by early Anabaptists. This separation is now a fundamental principle of Canadian political and religious culture, and should be protected. Church members may heartily set forth their individual understanding of how the Bible is to be interpreted regarding God-honouring expressions of human sexuality within their communities, and may fully express individual viewpoints through the democratic process. However, no religious group is allowed to be coercive in regards to their neighbours’ practice of private convictions, as protected by law.

Civil responsibility requires a relationship with our Canadian neighbours that is unique from the accountability and responsibility we have towards each other within our church groups. We are encouraged by our covenant with each other as citizens to tolerate each other with equal civil respect, human dignity, and freedom of expression. As Christians, we are granted the same opportunity. As fellow citizens, we must protect these opportunities and resist calls to exercise undue religious authority over our Canadian neighbours.

Loving, intolerant accountability can only happen within communities of free association, where each freely agrees to follow a communal code of conduct. Arguing that Christians should be intolerant of their neighbours’ actions, when these acts are permitted in law, will simply lead to further accusations of intolerance, crippling our Christian witness.

Gay Lynn Voth,
Lindell Beach, B.C.

Hurtful article

Re “Does love demand tolerance?” (Viewpoint, Nov. 3). My initial response to this article was anger and upset. The Bible says homosexuality is wrong. But debating the topic divides people and furthers hostility; it’s not peacemaking. Jesus walked with grace and compassion, and managed to reach out and heal without hurting. I’m growing weary of the argument “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” It’s neatly packaged, but hurtful.

I was confused when Mr. Williams drew a parallel between parental love and the love we ought to have towards co-citizens who practice homosexuality. I’m not sure they can be compared. I try desperately to love our children unconditionally, despite the sins they commit. Simply being intolerant of the wrong decisions they make doesn’t necessarily prevent them from falling again. I accept them, love them, forgive them, teach them, and pray every day that my heart will overflow with grace and compassion, being aware that I, myself, am broken.

As I struggled with an eating disorder as an adolescent and young adult, I felt that God was so intolerant of my sin that he actually turned his face and abandoned me. This article brought up sadness and memories of rejection and feeling judged by other Christians. I had forgotten that God says his grace is sufficient and his love covers a multitude of sins.

Rhonda Wiens,
Abbotsford, B.C.

Not so logical

Re “People of the Logic” (Intersection, Oct. 13). I have enjoyed James Toews’ insights and contributions to the Herald. But I was surprised when he argued that the word logos would have given support to Christianity embracing reason and logic as the primary guide to religious truth. John the evangelist would have inserted logos in his prologue and received the opposite reaction from those reading the Gospel for the first time.

With the rich philosophical background of logos in Hellenistic and Jewish thinking, who would have thought it logical that the “divine spark” would succumb to flesh, the clothing of earth dwellers? The incarnation would have been an intellectual stretch, illogical, and outright scandalous. Somewhere in this must be a lesson for retelling the gospel to our postmodern culture.

Vic Ratzlaff,
Allanburg, Ont.

Bridging science and religion

Re “People of the Logic” (Intersection, Oct. 13). The perception persists that faith and logic, church and science, are incompatible. Upon first reading James Toews’ article, I got a bit excited. At last, here was someone willing to tackle the strain between logic and faith; and by extension, the conflict between science and religion.

Toews concurs with Rodney Stark. However, Stark uses the term “logic” as “reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity,” which stems from the Greeks’ attempt to come to grips with the natural order. Toews uses the term in a faith context. Though a Greek word – and no doubt still carrying some of the Greek meaning – logos in the New Testament is a proclamation of God’s creation, sovereignty, and salvation. Christ is the logos; the gospel is the logos.

If Toews wants to identify with Stark’s conclusion of Christianity’s effect on the history of this world – and I think he should – he must bridge the two perceptions: the Greek understanding of logic as rooted in the natural order, and the biblical, faith-based understanding of logic. In his article, Toews doesn’t achieve this. Is it possible? I believe it has to be. The Bible is God’s Word (logos); science is a description of natural order, God’s creation. The two cannot disagree. If there are disagreements between Christian theologies and scientific theories, they’re rooted in an inadequate understanding of one or the other – most probably both.

Any chance of further discussion bridging the two logics?

Henry Bergen,
Winnipeg, Man.

Between bad and worse

Re “Lest we forget” (Crosscurrents, Nov. 3). Much of what Mennonite intellectuals write about these days, when commenting on war, is distressingly predictable. It’s often painfully ideological, self-preoccupied, and patronizing. This article was no exception.

May I remind those who agree with the sentiments expressed in this piece that WWII was not about anybody’s feelings or heartfelt sensibilities, however sincere they may be. It was about stopping a great evil. If it had not been for the Allied effort, which incidentally included many Mennonites, the world would now be a very different place. For one, there wouldn’t be a Jew left alive in Europe today.

Maybe it’s time Mennonite Brethren honour our great heritage by taking a long and hard look at what Scripture actually teaches on the use of force. Maybe we will rediscover the reality of sin and evil, and that sometimes the only option is a choice between the bad and the worse.

Pierre Gilbert,
Canadian Mennonite University,
Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary,
Winnipeg, Man.

Declaration on marriage signed

In November, 40 religious leaders from across Canada signed a joint declaration on marriage.

“As different faith communities, we have come together to present to parliament and society as a whole, our common view on marriage,” said Bruce J. Clemenger, president of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. “The prime minister, by promising to hold a vote to re-open the debate on marriage, is giving Canadians an opportunity to have sober, second thought on this issue.”

David Wiebe, executive director of the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches, was among the leaders from Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, and Muslim groups who signed. To add your personal endorsement to the declaration, visit the EFC’s website.

We, each from our respective theologies and traditions, understand marriage to be in its essence the union of a woman and a man. Each religion has, in its distinctive way, understood marriage to have religious significance. Yet the unitive understanding of the structure of marriage is not exclusively religious. It is shared by societies and cultures throughout the world and throughout time. The following is a public statement on the nature and structure of marriage which reflects this common understanding of marriage.

We the undersigned abide in our affirmation of the institution of marriage: the public covenanting together of a man and a woman in a loving, enduring and exclusive relationship through which our society may be enriched. Marriage bridges and celebrates sexual difference and is the primary relationship within which children are begotten and nurtured.

The institution of marriage ensures children their birthright to know and be nurtured by a mother and a father in the most stable type of relationship. As Supreme Court Justice La Forest wrote as part of the majority decision in Egan v. Canada: the definition of marriage is “firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual.”

Although the reality of marriage in Canada sometimes falls far short of the ideal, this is not grounds for the diversion of marriage from its purpose. Marriage as a life-long covenant between a man and a woman is older than our oldest democratic and parliamentary arrangements, older than our court systems, and is more universally accepted than any code of law ever promulgated. Marriage is society’s real and symbolic affirmation of and commitment to a child’s right to know and experience a mother and a father, as recognized in the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by Canada. Though not every marriage brings new children into the world, it is the context in which most children are born. Thus it is the state in which a woman and a man become responsible co-parents together, embodying the differences and complementarity of the sexes, and labouring in love to entrust the best that they are and have to their offspring.

As a social institution, marriage is primarily concerned with the common good and not individual rights. The marriage of a woman and a man therefore merits deferential government protection and social recognition. The interest of the state in the institution of marriage has always been, and should continue to be, the union of one man and one woman, for the good of society. The recognition of this distinctive relationship in law and public policy is vitally important for the stability and security of our country and its children. As the recent report commissioned by France’s National Assembly has acknowledged: “The best interests of the child must prevail over adults’ exercise of their liberty.”

Changing the definition of marriage involves a repudiation of millennia of history and experience. Redefining marriage as being “between two persons” eclipses the essence and full purpose of marriage; the inner connection between marriage, the complementarity of the sexes, procreation and the raising of children is lost. When severed from its nature and purpose, marriage becomes simply a euphemism for a committed relationship between two consenting adults. Such an understanding diminishes both the sacred and civil dimensions of marriage and fails to promote the common good of society.

Faith communities need language to express their principles and beliefs along with freedom to promote and foster ways of living that have stood the test of time. Yet, how can they promote an institution when the identifying language has been stripped of its real meaning, has been legally redefined, and means different things to different people? With what language can they encourage a distinctive and necessary relationship? As their understanding becomes viewed as narrow and intolerant, will they be afforded the public space to present their beliefs and the freedom to abide by them? The freedom of conscience of marriage officials and service providers is already being violated.

To ensure that future generations do not lose the distinctive and fundamental institution of marriage, we appeal to the members of the Parliament of Canada and to all Canadians to reconsider the decision to redefine marriage and to work together to re-establish in law and public policy the historic and universal definition of marriage which reflects its unique and essential nature.