Sex reserved for heterosexual marriage partners
Re: “Lets talk about it,” Feb. 4, page 34.
After reading this article on sex, and how to do it, it’s no wonder our kids are confused. One youth pastor presented abstinence till marriage as the “ideal,” while another pastor wanted to affirm sex in committed relationships.
The Bible is quite clear that sex is reserved for a man and a woman united in marriage. All the emotional, spiritual and physical reasons for this should be clear to any trained pastor. To suggest otherwise is exposing yourself to God’s wrath.
I am aware that all fall short, and I am as guilty of that as anyone, but that is where confession and repentance come in. It is no wonder our church is going through such soul-searching on matters of sexuality when our leadership is as ambiguous as this.
Ernie Reesor, Listowel, Ont.
‘Banning’ authority should not extend beyond local church
Re: “A fourth way,” Feb. 18, page 14.
I would like to endorse Dave Rogalsky’s article. As he makes clear, agreeing to disagree—his fourth option for Mennonite Church Canada’s Being a Faithful Church (BFC) exercise—is the way we live in most of our relationships, always allowing room for persuasion, but never for coercion.
A very practical implementation of this concept should be terminating the practice of area churches banning congregations and the de-credentialling of pastors that we have witnessed in recent decades in both the U.S. and Canada.
As initially conceived by the early Anabaptist Balthasar Hubmaier in 1527, the ban was to be applied to individuals by local congregations in order that the church not be publicly disgraced. It happened only after due fraternal admonition, and its intent was always discipline with the end goal of reconciliation. Although the misuse of the ban became a serious blight on Mennonite history, Hubmaier saw it as a reform of an even more misused practice of excommunication then current in the Roman Catholic Church.
To extend the banning authority from the local congregation to the area church, as we do today, removes the element of intimacy implied in Matthew 18. Without that Christ-centred intimacy, majorities are prone to burden minorities with all sorts of unfairness, as our Mennonite history shows both internally and in its relations with the outside world. That may be characteristic of secular governments, but it is not appropriate for Christian churches.
Fraternal admonition by the area church to the congregation is to be encouraged, but coercive banning must be restricted to individuals who have the opportunity to look into the eyes of their accusers within the intimacy of the congregation. Even this local banning may seem archaic and unnecessary in our 21st-century context, but that can await future discernment.
Rudy Wiens, Toronto
Early Anabaptists had a strong sense of social justice
Re: “A hijacked faith” editorial, Feb. 18, page 2.
Thank you for your courage in speaking out on caring for the environment.
However, it is difficult to agree that early Anabaptists weren’t involved in justice issues of their time. Menno Simons appealed for religious toleration, objected to war, and expressed concern about officials who taxed improperly and thereby sucked the lifeblood from people. Michael Sattler spoke against Christians waging war with the Turks. Some Anabaptists had earlier been involved in the German Peasants’ War, motivated by a list of social-justice matters; their concerns likely did not just vanish when they became Anabaptists.
On the matter of Christ’s atonement, there are many wonderful meanings to the cross brought out in Scripture. A nonviolent view of the cross is one wonderful meaning, and another is penal substitutionary atonement, to name only two. Some proponents of a nonviolent atonement rule out penal substitutionary atonement, but I suggest that such a conflict is found in their modern system, not in such passages as Romans 5:8-11, II Corinthians 5:18-21, Galatians 3:10-14 and I John 4:7-12.
Reverend Terry M. Smith, Mitchell, Man.
Poetic reflections on the left-right divide
Re: “The left, the right and the righteous” columns by Will Braun, Feb. 4, page 27, and Feb. 18, page 29.
I’m writing to applaud Braun’s treatment of the liberal-conservative “blind spots,” and to express appreciation for his writing generally.
My poetic reflections on the issue, inspired decades apart, confirm this as a chronic human tendency, not merely within the church, but also in university contexts:
“Viewpoints”
Pitting fraction of truth against fraction,
Often generates unholy friction
That divides a group into factions,
And chars the truth into fiction.
Dogmatic defense of opinion,
Mine as better than theirs;
Even if, reveals little else
Than the sparring of two polar “bears!”
(1961)
“Black and White”
I like the hues of black and white,
They make the “truth” so clear,
What’s white is safe to emulate;
What’s black is good to fear.
I also like familiar sounds,
The way we’ve always spun it;
But when my comfort zone’s disturbed,
I’m more inclined to shun it.
Yet something haunts my consciousness
In the safety of extremes;
What if the truth’s not there at all,
But somewhere in between?
(1979)
Or maybe truth is grander still
Than “in between” can hold
And begs perspective broad enough
For mystery to unfold.
(2009)
Ike Glick, Edmonton
‘Second best predictor’ statistic requires proper context
Re: “A hidden darkness” editorial, March 4, page 2.
I first want to applaud Dick Benner for naming an ongoing issue in society from which the church is not immune. Good on him for advocating that we “remove the cloak of secrecy from sexual abuse and deal with it openly.”
That said, I have a serious concern with the passing reference to research published by Carolyn Holderread Heggen: “. . . the second best predictor [of abuse] is conservative religiosity, accompanied by parental belief in traditional male-female roles.”
On an emotional level, I find this statement offensive. It appears to only serve an inflammatory purpose; no effort is made to develop or reference these research conclusions. It doesn’t identify what “second best predictor” implies, and fails to identify the study definition of “conservative religiosity” or “belief in traditional male-female roles.” Like Scripture, statistics require context to interpret. The paragraph could be removed with no effect on the editorial, as it doesn’t support the main argument—which begs me to ask, “Why write it?”
I would self-identify as theologically conservative. My wife and I mutually discern equally important but different roles in our family. Should social services be concerned for the safety of my children?
At a statistical level, study conclusions can be affected by methodology, making context for interpreting survey results critical. For example, did a random survey of sexual abusers find that many of them counted themselves as “conservative” or “traditional” in gender roles? Did a random survey of the population at large, who self-defined as “conservative” or “traditional,” have a higher proportion of sexual abusers? Both? Or something else entirely?
I am not familiar with Heggen’s research, and the accuracy of her conclusions is not my point.
What I am suggesting is that Benner—and Canadian Mennonite—should exercise caution in the use of statistics in editorials. Generalizing and printing potentially offensive statements of this nature should be properly explained, rather than used to ambiguously imply that a certain subset of the church should reconsider its theological and ideological beliefs on the grounds its members are more likely to form them into abusers.
Child abuse is not a “conservative” versus “liberal” issue. Abusers of any theological or ideological stripe equally offend the God who told the little children to come to him.
Sean East, Baden, Ont.
Reader questions use of ‘second best predictor’ quote
Re: “A hidden darkness,” March 4, page 2.
Unlike Wordsworth, whose heart leapt up, or Chief Dan George, whose heart soared, my heart sinks whenever I hear a call for a new look at society, sexuality or the church. If the past is any indicator, I can assume what we will be getting is a feminist/modernist/neo-Marxist attempt to replace the biases of Classicism, Christianity and western culture with thoroughly modern biases. This tendency is even more depressing when it is accompanied with a distrust of “dead white male logic.”
For example, your editorial includes the sentence that “the second best predictor [of sexual abuse] is conservative religiosity, accompanied by parental belief in traditional male-female roles.” We could spend time analyzing this quote, but let it suffice that here in one short clause we have a negative spin on conservatism, religiosity and perhaps parental beliefs.
Furthermore, there is the suspect phrase, “traditional male-female roles.” The word “traditional” is unnecessary here, since even in modern societies normally only females give birth to babies, and only males inseminate females. The feminist argument, that both females and males should be totally unprepared for such roles, will not win agreement from everyone.
Moreover, the clause is very open to misinterpretation. It could easily be read to mean that conservative people, religious people, people with strong parental beliefs, or people who recognize male and female roles, are naturally prone to incest and pedophilia.
It would be more useful to ask why incest and pedophilia are normally hidden, and why certain people are more likely to partake in them. The simple answer is, most kinds of sexuality cannot be open, especially in small, secluded communities. For example, the pastor cannot be seen leaving the brothel at 4 a.m. Therefore, whatever sexual impulses he may have are normally hidden. And this is partly the reason why conservatives and Christians get false positives when it comes to incestuous and pedophiliac tendencies.
Unfortunately, any inquiry of this sort will tend only to ask politically correct questions. That is, the ideological parameters of the inquiry will be a given even before any inquiry begins. Because, of course, too many people would be uncomfortable if they didn’t know the answers before they ask the questions.
I believe that if we truly regard these matters as important, we would shed our blinders before proceeding, whether they be traditional or modernist.
Kevin McCabe, St. Catharines, Ont.
Let the little children come . . . to church
When infants and toddlers are introduced to the church for the first time, it is our biggest job to make them feel safe and loved. It delights my heart when the little ones realize that they have just pulled into the church parking lot and are excitedly toddling towards church because they know that it is going to be fun! These positive feelings of joy are going to be the building blocks for them as they advance into our kids ministry.
When the child enters the room and sees something fun, it can make those first moments more relaxed. Simple ideas, such as using a cute and cuddly puppet as a non-threatening introduction to the strangers in the room, can help soothe an apprehensive child. Blowing bubbles is fun for babies and toddlers, and is a familiar and fun activity that will draw them in. Laughter and giggles can erupt when some balloons are brought out for toddlers. An easy transition to the room can teach kids their first lesson that Christians are filled with love, joy, peace, kindness, gentleness, self-control and patience.
Some infants and toddlers do need a measure of gentleness and patience on the part of parents to help make the transition go smoothly. The kids will make the transition faster and have less separation anxiety if they only have positive experiences in the room. Going into a nursery/toddler room environment once a week is more difficult than day-care for children because it is not a part of their routine, and rotation of volunteer caregivers means that these are strangers that the child doesn’t trust yet.
If a child is crying inconsolably in the room, this will affect compassionate children that have made the transition to independence and set them on edge as they worry about the hurting child.
Having Bible stories associated with negative feelings and being upset is completely opposite to what we want to accomplish in our ministry. Let us not teach kids that Sunday means they will go to our church and hear about the Bible in a state of fear, confusion and anxiety. These are not seeds for us to sow.
Instead, let’s invite our kids into our Sunday school rooms with the joy and love that can only be found in God. This might mean a little patience on everyone’s part, but it’s worth it!
Ellen Friesen, Saskatoon
Leave a Reply