Letters to the editor

Thank you for the Millennium issue (June 11). Speculation about the events surrounding Christ's return has caused much confusion throughout the history of the church. Your articles have brought a much-needed balanced and biblical perspective to this important topic.

Mark Friesen, (E)
Toronto, Ont.

The Herald is always exciting and thought-provoking.

Re the millennium (June 11), Wally Unger, John Vooys and David Ewert explained, warned and gave us some goals to strive for. I settled this issue 57 years ago and since then have been sitting back and waiting for the predictions that we read about in God's Word. Job was confused and waited. The prophets announced it but did not see clearly. Christ paid the price for us so that we would have this hope, but even He cannot tell us the time. So let's keep on waiting hoping and working. We still need to be active in witnessing.

George Goertzen (May 28) mentioned the thrill of praying with sinners to receive Christ. That is indeed exciting. However, once that has happened then comes the mentoring. The first comes with joy, the second with effort and time, sometimes even pain. The reward is great when you see new converts mature in the Christian life and also become witnesses.

Sometimes it is difficult to take someone to a hockey game or engage in a business transaction, knowing that God wants to use you to share Him. But what joy to see victory in your life for obedience and victory in the sinner's life by accepting forgiveness.

I love positive affirmative articles. Keep on pushing us to higher levels of understanding of what commitment to Christ is.

Jake Klippenstein,
Langley, B.C.

Thank you for the articles (June 11) on the second coming. It seems to me that from the apostles on, a proper stance has been to believe that Christ will come in my lifetime—to me that is not "date setting" (Matthew 24:33-44). It appears to me that three stances are imperative in respect to the second coming of Christ: 1) Have faith to believe Jesus' words; 2) Love His appearing; and 2) Believe in the imminence.

Should we quote the Washington Post on matters of faith, especially quoting Jerry Falwell out of context? Falwell has probably communicated to more people than all us MB pastors put together. In things pertaining to the gospel and ethics, he is reliable. In church growth, church planting and training young pastors, he is to be emulated. Let us not discredit a man with whom we agree fundamentally on so many things,.

Could this be what Jesus meant when He said that His servants "begin to smite their fellow servants" because they disagree about the time of his Lord's return (Matthew 24:48,49)?

We read and cherish the Herald. May the Lord bless and guide you in your editorial responsibility.

H.R. Baerg,
Chilliwack, B.C.

When I inquired about the quotation, Jerry Falwell’s organization (Liberty Broadcasting Network) graciously sent me a tape of the three sermons he preached on Y2K. The quote in the Washington Post is essentially accurate ("food, sugar and gasoline" is a summary of a longer list of essentials to stockpile). In the sermons, Falwell discouraged panic, building an arsenal, joining survivalist groups or fleeing the country, but he made the statement we reprinted. Falwell said the Y2K bug could be a very serious problem (he was speaking a year ago, when this seemed more likely). He also said it could be a judgement of God on human arrogance and that God could use it to bring revival, perhaps the prophesied pre-rapture end times revival. The preparations he stressed for Y2K were prayer, repentance and recommitment to God. In encouraging some personal stockpiling of necessities, he did not mention stockpiling for other people, not even fellow church members. In listing possible problems, he said that Y2K could disable the US military’s missle system, which "puts us in a dangerous position with our enemies out there". Falwell noted that preachers, like politicians (and editors?) like to talk and thus eventually say something that gets them into trouble. We carried Falwell’s original quote because it was a clear, provocative statement that would stimulate our readers to think. JC.

The articles relating to the "last days" (June 11) were of great interest, written by careful biblical scholars. I ask two questions:

1. What about the Jews? How can one understand Romans 11 and the countless Old Testament references to the Jews that have yet to be fulfilled? Is the emerging nation of Israel not a clear indication of the "end times"?

2. Is the invitation no longer valid? Page 3 states that eschatology is "quite enough to give our lives purpose, hope and joy". But in Revelation 22:17 we have a clear appeal to mankind to come to Jesus for the free gift of salvation. Should not our prime objective be to welcome the lost to Jesus? All of the articles appear to have missed this invitation.

Jake Martens,
Abbotsford, B.C.

David Ewert (June 11) rightly says that the apostles believed the end of the age to be at hand. However, he then goes on to say that we are still waiting for the end of the age. The event that the apostles eagerly looked for in their time cannot be imminent at two periods of time separated by nearly 2000 years.

Jesus, in Mark 13:30, says that "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." "All these things" is not mysterious; it means all the things Jesus spoke of in the Olivet Discourse up to that point. Also, the word genea, (translated "generation") is used by Jesus with the natural meaning in Matthew 1:17 and 23:36. Regardless of what Jesus says after Matthew 24:34, "all" the things spoken of up to that point must have taken place in the generation living at Jesus' time. What major event took place in that generation that fulfilled "all these things"? In A.D. 63-70, Christ came in judgement upon the nation of Israel, using the Romans to "end" the Jewish age. This is exactly what Jesus spoke of in Matthew 21:33-46 and Matthew 23.

Jared P. Giesbrecht,
Fort St. John, B.C.

The Herald is to be commended for allowing the discussion on homosexuality. Although it is a very difficult topic, it has long been necessary for this issue to be openly addressed. It is evident that people are poles apart, from those who sternly condemn to those who find this harshness so painful that they are unable to continue reading. There are those who claim to be reaching out, yet their words are unbearably hurtful.

It is well-known that you catch more bees with honey than you do with vinegar. Vinegar is demonstrated in our congregations when we are hateful, bitter, cliquish and scornful of others. Honey, on the other hand, is found in congregations who are caring, who show love to one another and to those outside the flock.

If homosexual behaviour is a sin, then let God change the homosexual as He changes the hearts of all sinners. He does this with grace and love. When we are aggressive about changing someone, we hurt them deeply.

Homosexual behaviour is not the unforgivable sin-renouncing Christ is. All of us are sinners. Since the majority of us do not know the exact time of our passing, we will enter heaven with some sins unconfessed. On the premise that the homosexual is a sinner, then s/he will go to heaven with that sin unconfessed. But if the homosexual believes in Jesus as Lord and Saviour, then s/he will go to heaven. How is that different from the rest of us.?

Jesus came not to condemn the world, but to save it. We have been instructed not to look at the speck in the eye of another while ignoring the log in ours (Matthew 7:3), not to judge (Romans 2:1; 14:10), not to gossip (Romans 1:30; 2 Corinthians 12:20), or slander (1 Corinthians 5:11). Satan loves when we talk about sin and highlight the bad things others do instead of talking about joy, peace and praiseworthiness (Philippians 4:4-8).

1 Peter 4:7-11 says, "Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins." How would Jesus receive a homosexual? He went to sinners' homes. He loved them and reached out to them. If Jesus can look beyond the sin and love the person, had we not better try?

James tells us, "With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. . . My brothers, this should not be" (James 3:8-11). Stones have been flying at homosexuals in the Herald. Jesus said, He that is without sin, cast the first stone (John 8:7).

This is just scratching the surface of how we can reach out in love to our own children, brothers and sisters who are struggling with the realization that their own sexual orientation may not be heterosexual. Whether or not we believe that it is a sin, how will we minister to them?

Helma Schmidt,
Leamington, Ont.

The editorial "Statistics" (April 30) MB Herald presented a detailed analysis of the writers contributing to the Herald.

What I missed is an equally thorough analysis of the magazine's readers. How many recipients of the Herald read it on a regular basis? You observe that "The Canadian magazines that have folded were magazines that depended on selling subscriptions, not those sent to the home of every church member." This troubles me. Do we send free magazines to every church member's home to ensure the survival of the magazine because it might fold if we had to pay for it? Or do we assume people will read it simply because it is there, free of charge? That might be wishful thinking.

I have a sneaking suspicion that a large number of copies go into the recycle bin unread. I frequently don't get around to reading one issue of the Herald before the next one arrives and I probably do more reading than the average church member.

Gary Kalmbach,
Abbotsford, B.C.

The Herald surveyed its readers in spring 1998. Of the 1200 surveys sent out, 354 were returned. Of those responses, 52 said they read all of the Herald, 170 read most of the Herald, 89 read about half, 35 read very little and 4 read none of the Herald. Editors

With sadness, I relate an incident concerning Concord College's performance in our church on June 6.

It was the children's morning worship time, and all little ones gathered to the front. Six chairs were set up in a semi-circle. Then six Concord students sat down and announced this would be a prayer session; all little heads were bowed and waiting reverently.

The first prayer was given by a very timid, fearful, fidgety person. The second prayer was a ramping, stomping, shouting prayer, demanding of God, walking here and there on stage.

My friend and I walked out. It was sacrilegious! How dare we portray such praying to little ones, frightening them? Have we a right to confuse young innocent minds? Have we a right to criticize prayer in any form?

Irma Guenther,
Morden, Man.

As director of the Concord Vision Team, I would like to acknowledge Irma Guenther's sincere conviction that our presentation at Westside Community Church was offensive and inappropriate. I take her feedback seriously.

The sketch we presented was written to illustrate some common sins in prayer: lack of faith, pride, gossip, etc. At no time did we intend to frighten anyone or mock any style of prayer.

When I first heard that our ministry may have offended some people, I immediately contacted the pastor. He indicated that he had not heard of any concerns. Nevertheless, we pulled that sketch and did not use it again throughout the summer.

Our intent has always been to glorify God by serving the church in ways that honour God and bless people. We obviously failed to bless this writer. For that we apologize. I would welcome direct conversation, should the writer so desire.

Melanie Unger,
Director, Vision Team '99

I commend you for the excellent July 16 issue. Your strong support of enduring marriage covenants is timely. You left no ambiguity about the intent of the marriage covenant as understood from a biblical perspective.

I also want to commend you for the fine suggestions about Christian ministries to persons whose marriages ended in divorce. As Christian churches, we can be faulted on two counts. On the one hand, when seeking to minister to people whose marriages are breaking, we can be accused of being soft on the enduring nature of marriage. On the other hand, when we choose not to minister to them lest we be seen to be compromising, we fall into the trap of being judgemental and callous towards people in whose shoes we have not walked.

I encourage you to continue to state the truth without compromise, but to do so with the love and the grace that is descriptive of the Christ who gave us a second chance when we encountered Him.

Isaac Block, (E)
Winnipeg, Man.

In "Turbans and Conscientious Objection" (June 25) John Redekop reasons that because some baptized Sikhs believe that turbans are not an article of faith, then turbans are not an article of faith for all Sikhs. This is akin to saying that because some baptized Mennonites believe that pacifism is not an article of faith, then pacifism is not an article of faith for Mennonites. I doubt he would agree with this proposition.

Redekop infers that Avtar Singh Dhillon and his supporters, not the public, should be willing to pay the financial costs of brain damage, other disabilities and welfare support for non-helmeted injured motorcyclists. What Redekop fails to point out is that there are costs associated whenever a government grants exemptions on the basis of conscientious objection. When Mennonites claim exemption from military service, the government does not send one less soldier into war; it finds someone else. If that soldier is killed, then his family bears the emotional and financial cost. The stand we take on pacifism can cost others much more than the medical bills of a motorcyclist who chooses not to wear a helmet.

I raise these points as a committed pacifist. I fear that if Mennonites become too judgemental about another religion's articles of faith, then we risk the same criticism next time we claim exemption from military service. Mennonites should pick their political battles, and the helmet exemption for Sikhs is not one of them.

Judith Sept, (E)
Coquitlam, B.C.

Return to the Encounter No. 14 Home Page