Letters to the Editor

The Aug, 28 editorial, as Kent Gaston (Letters, oct. 23) says, "was excellent and well thought through. The letter by Connie Epp (Oct. 23) says, "The Bible does not directly address loving, committed, homosexual relationships." Following are 20 scripture references telling us what God says about sodomy: Gen. 13:3; 18:20; 19; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Deut. 23:17,18; I Kings 14:24;

15:11-14; 22:46; II Kings 23:7; Judges 19:22,23; Ezek. 16:49,50; Rom. 1:24-32; I Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-21; Col. 3:4-6; I Tim. 1:9-11; II Peter 2:6; Jude 7; Rev. 22:15. God addresses sodomy very directly. We would do well to study what God says instead of trying to use human reasoning.

Peter Neufeld, (E)
Winnipeg Man

Bob Semple (Letters, Oct. 23) argues that "There is no call to expel....adulterers." I believe he is wrong. If a "practising" adulterer would openly flaunt his adultery in the MB Church, he would be expelled quickly. Most practising adulterers do not come out of the closet like some practising homosexuals. It is difficult to expel people if they "practise" in the closet. The difference with a homosexual is that he wants to shout from the rooftops, God approves what I am doing." Now he wants to shout it from our pulpits and demand approval from the church.

Semple also insinuates that the MB Church will not allow a homosexual to attend church services. Again I believe he is in error. I do not know of any evangelical church that bars homosexuals from attending church services. Many homosexuals are being saved as they attend services, turn from that sin and allow the Lord Jesus Christ to change their lives. Most evangelical churches welcome homosexuals and all other sinners with open arms to attend their services.

Peter Neufeld, (E)
Winnipeg Man.

God, not Bible has authority over us

Recently, I read about a preacher who read a passage from his Bible to his congregation, then threw it out a window, saying, "There goes your god." He was making a point about the idolatry talked about in Exodus 20:3. The Bible, in his eyes, had become a graven image.

Imagine my surprise when I found Jim Coggins saying that "it is the Bible which has authority over us" (Editorial, Oct. 23). Does not God have authority over us? Clearly, the Bible's texts have been inspired by the Holy Spirit, and offer a deep, poetic understanding of God and God's purposes for creation, but these revelations are still filtered through the finite grid of human perception and language, by both the biblical writers and readers. Ultimately, in the words of Paul, we still see "in a mirror, dimly" (I Corinthians 13:12).

Contrary to Coggins's claim that biblical texts speak for themselves, biblical interpretation is complex, as evidenced by the endless wrangling over specific passages by theologians. While reading specific passages, we must keep in mind the socio-historical context, the apparent intent of the author, the passage's relationship to the rest of Scripture, the intent of those who included this passage in the biblical canon, and whatever experiences and biases we bring to the text. It is therefore unlikely that we can always claim that there is a "plain meaning of texts", particularly in reference to problematic passages cited in defence of particularly thorny Conference positions. Interpretation is a potentially messy and dangerous business. Those in all denominations over the centuries have exaggerated, downplayed or shifted the meaning of biblical texts to "make their points", often to the detriment of those on the receiving end of those "points".

What Coggins fails to mention is that through God's grace we are given the voice of the Spirit, who has the ultimate authority to inform us of the underlying truths or "spirit" of the Bible. Through the voice of the Spirit, we come closer to God's Word not the finite human words of the Bible, but the infinite Word of God Himself.

If the Holy Spirit truly has authority, and it informs our reading of the Bible, then we will recognize when we have been clinging to the comfort of orthodoxy (i.e. ,time-worn Conference positions) and engaging in a bibliolatry that keeps us from heeding the true voice of God.

Dale Enns, (E)
Nakatsugawa, Japan

I don’t like the name "Mennonite Brethren". It doesn’t name me. I am not a "brethren". Why are we stuck with this antiquated and inadequate title? What are we afraid of losing by re-naming ourselves something more inclusive? In another day when the English language allowed male pronouns such as "he" to include the "she’s" of us, it might have been acceptable to call a congregation "Brethren". Today the word does not carry that same inclusiveness.

Edith Neumann-Toews, (E)
Abbotsford, B. C.

Thank you for putting the past issues of the Herald online. I had read Jim Holm's excellent article two years ago at Christmas about how God preserved the royal line of Jesus, and I wanted to use it in my Sunday school class and care groups. With almost no effort, I found it on your Web site.

Darrell Goddard, (E)
Orillia, Ont

Return to the M.B.Herald Vol. 38, No. 1 Home Page