Return to the M.B. Herald Vol. 35, No. 15
Home Page
It concerns me that Christians who need to be relying upon Scripture, are relying upon human knowledge and education ("esteemed MB thinkers" and scientific "studies") as their foundation for assessing sin issues. Redekop's article implies that we should review our thinking on this subject in light of the trends in societal norms, North American laws, homosexual organizations, etc. I agree that "we do well to visit this matter again", but only with the purpose of reiterating the biblical truths. I find it disconcerting that Redekop did not once quote God's inerrant Word, including passages such as I Corinthians 6:9-11.
Our understanding of this issue, as well as numerous other controversial issues, are not merely differences of opinion and interpretation. The much deeper issue is that ultimately the inerrant Word of God is being subtly and sometimes blatanly challenged (II Timothy 4:2,3).
As the pressures increase for the church to conform to the world's standards, we need all the more to study and teach biblical truth. The task of studying and interpreting Scripture must not be left to seminary graduates and theologians, but all Christians must take this task upon themselves.
Terri Redekop,
Lethbridge, Alta.
Having taught biblical eschatology for years, I had much occasion to study numerous books and articles in this field beside the Bible itself. Historically there are four major systems of interpreting and organizing the scriptural data on the end times (with considerable internal variation): amillenialism, postmillenialism, historical premillenialism and dispensational premillenialism. The content of those letters, and even more their tone, seemed to indicate that the writers adhere to the fourth school of thought. I frequently found dispensational premillenial authors somewhat intolerantly, even arrogantly, dismissing any view other than their own. The former president of an evangelical seminary denounced a book by an equally erudite scholar of another evangelical seminary for positing certain understandings contrary to his. No "Bible-believing Christian" could do that, he dogmatically maintained. I tried to teach my students that a scholar's Christian orthodoxy should be tested much more by his salvation theology than by his eschatology.
In North American evangelical churches, including Mennonite Brethren, many people unquestioningly follow the dispensational model of the end times, blithely assuming that there can be no other. But when sincere Bible scholars better educated than I, and able to study Hebrew, Greek and Latin sources, honestly disagree among themselves, who am I to assert that only my interpretation of some detail can be correct? One letter writer, without citing Scripture or other evidence, simply announced the names of two writers whose eschatological views should be accepted, while saying that Ewert, a prominent scholar of our own church, should not be listened to. Ironically, Ewert is held in high esteem far beyond our denomination.
Neither Menno Simons nor the early MB church held to the dispensational premillenial interpretation of the Bible. P.M. Friesen, the eminent Mennonite historian, lamented in 1910 the negative results since the church had adopted this type of millenialism from the British Darbytes, perhaps two decades earlier.
As Matties points out, we need to keep in mind what the biblical writers were telling their very first readers. They were not writing only for our generation, after all. A few weeks ago, I heard a radio sermon on the end times that was obviously a re-run from five years ago. In it, the revelation of the Antichrist and the return of Jesus were tied to specific political circumstances now woefully out of date in the light of subsequent developments in the Middle East and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Then came the "altar call". I cringed but felt relieved that our houseguest was out of the room just then. He would have scoffed, I feared, and the "gospel" would perhaps have been brought into disrepute.
William Schroeder,
Winnipeg, Man.
Here's some good news: God has made salvation acceptable to the world because of Jesus Christ's finished work on the cross and resurrection. God is so crazy about us that He pours out His scandalous grace on whoever accepts it. Nothing breaks the Father's heart more than people walking away from His love offering of relationship with Him. The Father desires with all of His being that every person will experience the joy of His salvation. The Bible records very few times when the Father gets really excited. One time was when He created man and woman and said it was very good. Another was when His Son was baptized and the Father tore open the heavens and shouted to all within earshot, "That's My Boy, whom I am so crazy about and so proud of!" Finally, God gets really excited when people turn to Him. He throws a party like we have never experienced: so much laughing, so much celebrating. It is our responsability to remove every barrier between a seeker and God except for the cross.
I also wonder why being called out of this world is only brought up when it involves something that we think is wrong. Robert's Rules of Order is not included in my Bible, yet we believe this is the spiritual way to do business. I can't find one example of a congregation voting in the Bible, yet we believe this is not of this world. Things like secularism, materialism, judgementalism and competitivism are not dealt with anywhere near the passion that an issue like dancing is. These other things are more harmful to the church than any dance.
Here's what I think God would say to us: "Oh boy, do I love you! I get so excited when I think of you! Receive My grace, My love, because you are so important to Me. And don't worry so much about fringe stuff. Love Me, love others and Kingdom build."
Don Boddy,
Winnipeg, Man.
Return to the M.B. Herald Vol. 35, No. 15
Home Page