Dear Mr. Editor:
Whether Synod not only has the right, but also the duty, to apply the Word of God to church members—who have committed racial discrimination against fellow church members—is a question that involves the integrity of the Christian Reformed Church.
Two writers have said in these columns that Synod had no right to become involved in the Timothy-Lawndale dispute because the Timothy Board is a non-ecclesiastical organization. One writer quotes Article 28-A of the Church Order, which states that ecclesiastical assemblies shall “transact ecclesiastical matters only” (THE OUTLOOK – Letters, July, 1971, p. 16; December, 1971, p. 10).
We have stated that because Timothy board members belong to the CRC they are, therefore, subject to its admonition and discipline, if their actions are found to be disobedient to Christ (THE OUTLOOK – Letters, October, 1971, p. 15).
It is apparent, then, that we are in disagreement on what constitutes an ecclesiastical matter. In this letter we shall further explain our position, and thus conclude our contribution to the discussion.
The church’s official position states that any member who advocates denial to anyone, for reasons of race or color, of full Christian fellowship and privilege in the church or in related organizations must be reckoned as disobedient to Christ. This means, for example, that any Consistory refusing to receive Black families into its congregation—for reasons of expediency—would be guilty of racial discrimination. Is this type of discrimination really any different from that which excludes Black children from a Christian school—for the same reasons? Or does the context in which church members discriminate determine whether their action is disobedient to Christ?
If a church member embezzled money from the church’s general fund, Or from the school’s building fund, it is still looked upon as embezzlement no matter where it occurs. And that act of stealing warrants the church’s admonition and discipline. Why, then, is it so difficult for some people to see that racial discrimination—no matter where it occurs—also warrants the church’s admonition and discipline. We think the answer lies in the unwillingness of some people to recognize that racial discrimination is disobedience to Christ.
One writer charged that “some would sacrifice the precious lives of black and white students so that integration would be carried out.” We are unaware that anyone has advocated such a reckless course of action. What we have long advocated is for the Timothy Board to use legal means to protect its school, and occupants, from those who have threatened to commit acts of violence.
We Christians should have collectively stood up to the racists of Cicero and Berwyn who have used tactics of intimidation. It troubles our conscience that school and church leaders have acted in compliance with this form of tyranny. In effect, our leaders have allowed racists to determine who may attend Timothy’s Cicero school. It is our opinion that the intimidators should have been brought before a court of law.
Anyone who has lived in Cicero and Berwyn for any length of time knows that many of his fellow church members harbor racist sentiments. But more important than individual racism is the institutional racism which, to a large extent, governs school and church affairs in this area. A lack of leaders with courage to make known “the manifold wisdom of God . . . to the principalities and powers” (Eph. 3:10) has implicated the church in racism. This is why there is no effort by our local consistories and Classis to act in accord with Synod’s decisions on racial matters.
When church members violate the church’s teaching on race relations by discriminating against fellow members; causing disillusionment, anguish, and alienation; and when those aggrieved seek redress of their grievances by way of protest and appeal to the church’s assemblies then, who wishes to still assert that this is a “non-ecclesiastical matter”?
Were Synod to concur with the charge that such happenings are “none of the church’s business” it would do irreparable damage to the integrity of the church’s Declarations on Race adopted in 1968. It seems that it is easier for some people to say that racial discrimination among church members is a “non-ecclesiastical matter” than it is for them to say it is right or wrong.
MARTIN LAMAIRE
Whether Synod not only has the right, but also the duty, to apply the Word of God to church members—who have committed racial discrimination against fellow church members—is a question that involves the integrity of the Christian Reformed Church.
Two writers have said in these columns that Synod had no right to become involved in the Timothy-Lawndale dispute because the Timothy Board is a non-ecclesiastical organization. One writer quotes Article 28-A of the Church Order, which states that ecclesiastical assemblies shall “transact ecclesiastical matters only” (THE OUTLOOK – Letters, July, 1971, p. 16; December, 1971, p. 10).
We have stated that because Timothy board members belong to the CRC they are, therefore, subject to its admonition and discipline, if their actions are found to be disobedient to Christ (THE OUTLOOK – Letters, October, 1971, p. 15).
It is apparent, then, that we are in disagreement on what constitutes an ecclesiastical matter. In this letter we shall further explain our position, and thus conclude our contribution to the discussion.
The church’s official position states that any member who advocates denial to anyone, for reasons of race or color, of full Christian fellowship and privilege in the church or in related organizations must be reckoned as disobedient to Christ. This means, for example, that any Consistory refusing to receive Black families into its congregation—for reasons of expediency—would be guilty of racial discrimination. Is this type of discrimination really any different from that which excludes Black children from a Christian school—for the same reasons? Or does the context in which church members discriminate determine whether their action is disobedient to Christ?
If a church member embezzled money from the church’s general fund, Or from the school’s building fund, it is still looked upon as embezzlement no matter where it occurs. And that act of stealing warrants the church’s admonition and discipline. Why, then, is it so difficult for some people to see that racial discrimination—no matter where it occurs—also warrants the church’s admonition and discipline. We think the answer lies in the unwillingness of some people to recognize that racial discrimination is disobedience to Christ.
One writer charged that “some would sacrifice the precious lives of black and white students so that integration would be carried out.” We are unaware that anyone has advocated such a reckless course of action. What we have long advocated is for the Timothy Board to use legal means to protect its school, and occupants, from those who have threatened to commit acts of violence.
We Christians should have collectively stood up to the racists of Cicero and Berwyn who have used tactics of intimidation. It troubles our conscience that school and church leaders have acted in compliance with this form of tyranny. In effect, our leaders have allowed racists to determine who may attend Timothy’s Cicero school. It is our opinion that the intimidators should have been brought before a court of law.
Anyone who has lived in Cicero and Berwyn for any length of time knows that many of his fellow church members harbor racist sentiments. But more important than individual racism is the institutional racism which, to a large extent, governs school and church affairs in this area. A lack of leaders with courage to make known “the manifold wisdom of God . . . to the principalities and powers” (Eph. 3:10) has implicated the church in racism. This is why there is no effort by our local consistories and Classis to act in accord with Synod’s decisions on racial matters.
When church members violate the church’s teaching on race relations by discriminating against fellow members; causing disillusionment, anguish, and alienation; and when those aggrieved seek redress of their grievances by way of protest and appeal to the church’s assemblies then, who wishes to still assert that this is a “non-ecclesiastical matter”?
Were Synod to concur with the charge that such happenings are “none of the church’s business” it would do irreparable damage to the integrity of the church’s Declarations on Race adopted in 1968. It seems that it is easier for some people to say that racial discrimination among church members is a “non-ecclesiastical matter” than it is for them to say it is right or wrong.
MARTIN LAMAIRE