There were some who subtly came unto the Bride of Adam II and said. “Yea, hath God said the Bible is literally the inerrant Word of God? Did God really say women should not have authority over a man? Do you think He truly meant it when He said that homosexuality is an abomination? Nay, these things are open to interpretation. You cannot be sure of what He meant until you are thoroughly familiar with the cultural, anthropological and historical context.
“What’s that? You thought you were familiar enough with it to understand a plain and simple command? Ach! You’re just showing your naivete. God wants you to be mature. What He really wants is for you to decide for yourself what is good and evil. He spoke to you to give you a sort of reference point. His Word was never intended to be as static as you think it is.
“Death? Oh, no. You shall nor surely die! You shall become relevom!”
With deep concern,
Steve M. Schlissel, Elder
IN DEFENSE OF A “HERESY”
Having been declared by the Acts of Synod of 1984 a “Heretic,” I believe it is appropriate that before the burning fagots and the enveloping pyre burns away and destroys a dissenting viewpoint forever, the “heretical” view should at least be expressed. (They do still burn them at the stake, don’t they?) I freely admit that I harbor instinctive as well as doctrinal support and sympathy for the policies of the Union of South Africa. I can report also that I am experiencing on a very minor trauma that might be associated with the chastening rod of C.R.C. hierarchical vatican decree. There is also only insignificant embarrassment upon discovering that once again I am athwart of Synodical pronouncements and decisions.
As an ad mined “heretic,” according to Synodical standards, I hereby publicly confess that 1see nothing ethically wrong or morally reprehensible with the “equal but separate development” principle as currently practiced in the Union of South Africa . It should be obvious to all, except perhaps those that have been blinded by the pr~ paganda show of our day, that the concerns m South Africa are with two distinct cultures (admittedly not ideal, but in South Africa a fact nonetheless). One of them is qualified to be and is entrusted with the administration of a highly developed and sophisticated society; the other is not far removed from the stone age and is in many instances still living in primitive tribal communion. It is (sad to say) years premature to turn over the reigns and responsibilities of this complex society to those who obviously do not yet have the administrative skill and knowledge to function within it.
Notwithstanding this cultural chasm. amazing progress is being made under the “equal but separate development” principle. The newest and most modern schools arc for the blacks, the newly constructed hospitals are for the blacks, and the new housing projects are for the blacks. A prodigious effort is being made in every area to Improve the lot of the blacks, both materially and intellectually so that they can be assimilated into South African society and take their place alongside the whites to responsibly govern South Africa to everyone’s mutual advantage , under freedom . Until this condition is approximated South Africans have determined and correctly so, I believe, that the “equal but separate development” course is the best means to ameliorate the current disparity that exists between the two races and to achieve an efficient and stable country. They are determined to do this in contradistinction to that which has occurred in all the other African nations who have utilized different methods for change and in which results have been catastrophic. The most recent and glaring example of course is Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) where Mugabe, the Marxist, rules. and chaos. has once again become the way of life, as ancient tribal dissentions and Communist terror have become the determining forces.
If the motives of our synodical brethren, those who initiated this decision, were pristine and pure , it seems that they would have been as zealous and determined to issue concomitant condemnation relative to those unfortunate people and nations that have fallen under Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe. What? May I ask, about Poland, Czechoslovakia Romania (where there is a pathetically beleaguered Reformed community) Lithuania, Hungary, etc., etc. Here in each instance, the worst variety of Apartheid exests. Here all basic freedoms are denied. Here there is no freedom of worship (a freedom not denied in the Union of South Africa), no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom of assembly. Here the people live under the most monstrous tyranny in all of history . If Synod is to address the injustices in the world as it sees them, why is it only silent concerning the lamentable condition and fate of those people just mentioned? Why is only South Africa condemned? Must I believe that South Africa has been singled out because this decision relies the bias of a coterie of domestic Dutch collectivists within the CRC which is acting in concert, consciously or unconsciously, with philosophical and political cousins across the Volga? They too are straining every effort to effect the fall of the Union of South
Africa. There is ample evidence to demonstrate that the difficulties in South Africa are less “black” than they are “Red.” The patent policy discrimination of Synod to me is an abomination and their hypocritical slip is showing.
Rudyard Kipling penned it all years ago, and I commend his words to those who have so successfully set the Christian Reformed Church in America against the pro-western, anti-communist nation of South Africa and against our Reformed brethren there:
“Let it down by the foot and the head
Shovel and smooth it all
Thus we bury a nation dead
Who will be next, with your good help, to fall?”
Albert C. Wiersma (Heretic), Grand Rapids, MI