Dear Mr. Editor: Please allow me the opportunity to comment on Mr. Martin La Maire’s response (THE OUTLOOK – letters, October 1971) to my letter (THE OUTLOOK – July 1971).
First, presumably, Mr. La Maire objects to my objecting to our Synod interfering with non-ecclesiastical matters. This, of course, is his privilege. However, if this were just a matter of two persons disagreeing, it would be futile on my part to reply. But, when Mr. La Maire labels my arguments “A Myth” I am not at all convinced by his less than intelligent response to my statement: School Board members are responsible to a parent-controlled organization. Moreover, Mr. La Maire overlooks more importantly my statement: School Board members are first of all responsible to God.
I don’t see how these two statements of mine justify him labeling my arguments a myth, I didn’t go into a long and detailed discussion of the Timothy-Lawndale case, as one can see by re-reading my letter. I rather strongly objected to our Synod passing judgment on a School Board’s decision. That our Synods interfered with the work of a School Board is an infringement on the rights and duties of a School Board elected to do a job. Here I part ways with Mr. La Maire and others who seemingly would leave this up to the hierarchy of the church. I cannot in good conscience endorse all that Mr. La Maire quotes about past Synods.
This world needs more Christians to enter the many spheres of the Kingdom, with fewer church pronouncements. The church is not fulfilling her mandate when she enters upon territory not belonging to her; we do not live under a theocracy.
Secondly, as I understand the Timothy-Lawndale case, the Timothy Christian School Board prayed and wrestled much over their problems, and they in good conscience e.1me to their decision not to integrate tile Timothy Christian Scl100l at this particular juncture in time, leaving open the very possibility at a later date, conditions improving, the integration of the school. But voices were raised to integrate despite bomb threats, which if carried out could mean the injury or possible death of both black and white students, Some would sacrifice the precious lives of black and white students so that integration would be carried out. Some people would allow the sacrifice of innocent children, and thereby seem to be oblivious to the fad that it is a duty to protect and preserve life. We me not to tempt God when lives are threatened.
Thirdly, no, Mr, La Maire, I would not want to “muzzle the church’s voice in speaking against sin.” But then, you, sir, must be cocksure that the Timothy Christian School Board sinned by their decision, May I remind you, as well as the church at large, not to “muzzle” the Spirit that motivated those Boned members who after much prayer and wrestling came to their decision. Let us not accept, also facto everything our Synods decide, when Christians in other spheres are doing their work prayerfully, Martin Luther loved his church, yet he went over the church’s head when he declared those famous words: “I can do no other, so help me God!” Thus the Reformation was born, and subsequently the Reformed Churches.
Somehow I get the general feeling that Mr. La Maire feels I am not in favor of Christian Education for black children or the integration of our Christian schools. Let me assure him otherwise by saying that there are several of us who are presently involved in supporting financially the Christian Education of blacks in the Kalamazoo area. But I also believe that no Synod has a right to stand between a member of the church and God, Every member has a conscience and the church must be careful not to tamper with it.
As I have written in my letter of July 1971, the opinions expressed by Rev. B. Essenburg changed my mind. I do not feel, Mr. La Maire, that you have succeeded in demonstrating that my brief statements relative to the explosive situation at the Timothy Christian School are a myth.
Very sincerely, PETER J. SLUYS
Dear Rev. Vander Ploeg – Editor:
In answer to the October OUTLOOK article on “Synod’s Right to Speak.”
Mr. Martin LaMaire stated that Mr. Peter Sluys’ contention that Synod had no jurisdiction over the Timothy School Board was a myth. I would like to refer Mr. La Maire to Article 28-A of the Church Order which states! “The assemblies, [Consistory, Classis, Synod] shall transact ecclesiastical matters only, and shall deal with them in an ecclesiastical manner.” I would also like to refer Mr. LaMaire to page 108 of Acts of Synod 1971, Article 136, II, C: “A.C.R.L. is not an ecclesiastical organization and there arc therefore no provisions in the Church Order for Synod to deal with this organization.” If Synod concedes that it has no authority to deal with A.C.R.L. because it is a non-ecclesiastical organization, why does Mr. La Maire insist that Synod has jurisdiction over the Timothy School Board which is also a non-ecclesiastical organization? His personal appeal along-with others’ was not acted upon by Synod (Article 105, p. 12, Acts of Synod 1971).
Mr. LaMaire implies in his article that the Timothy School Board members sinned against the gospel in their actions. Who made him a judge over their actions? “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matt. 7:1). If one would follow Mr. LaMaire’s reasoning to its final conclusion, every error in judgment by Christian Reformed Business Men, Educators, Laborers, Corporate Board Members, etc. would be, and should be subject to synodical discipline.
God gave us Christian common sense and the ability to use it wisely. The Bible and history teach us that the heathen sacrificed their children, Christians did not do this. God’s covenant children arc precious in His sight. We as covenant parents are duty bound to guard all of them, both black and white, from harm and danger as we so often implore God to do in our prayers.
MAYNARD HOEKSTRA
First, presumably, Mr. La Maire objects to my objecting to our Synod interfering with non-ecclesiastical matters. This, of course, is his privilege. However, if this were just a matter of two persons disagreeing, it would be futile on my part to reply. But, when Mr. La Maire labels my arguments “A Myth” I am not at all convinced by his less than intelligent response to my statement: School Board members are responsible to a parent-controlled organization. Moreover, Mr. La Maire overlooks more importantly my statement: School Board members are first of all responsible to God.
I don’t see how these two statements of mine justify him labeling my arguments a myth, I didn’t go into a long and detailed discussion of the Timothy-Lawndale case, as one can see by re-reading my letter. I rather strongly objected to our Synod passing judgment on a School Board’s decision. That our Synods interfered with the work of a School Board is an infringement on the rights and duties of a School Board elected to do a job. Here I part ways with Mr. La Maire and others who seemingly would leave this up to the hierarchy of the church. I cannot in good conscience endorse all that Mr. La Maire quotes about past Synods.
This world needs more Christians to enter the many spheres of the Kingdom, with fewer church pronouncements. The church is not fulfilling her mandate when she enters upon territory not belonging to her; we do not live under a theocracy.
Secondly, as I understand the Timothy-Lawndale case, the Timothy Christian School Board prayed and wrestled much over their problems, and they in good conscience e.1me to their decision not to integrate tile Timothy Christian Scl100l at this particular juncture in time, leaving open the very possibility at a later date, conditions improving, the integration of the school. But voices were raised to integrate despite bomb threats, which if carried out could mean the injury or possible death of both black and white students, Some would sacrifice the precious lives of black and white students so that integration would be carried out. Some people would allow the sacrifice of innocent children, and thereby seem to be oblivious to the fad that it is a duty to protect and preserve life. We me not to tempt God when lives are threatened.
Thirdly, no, Mr, La Maire, I would not want to “muzzle the church’s voice in speaking against sin.” But then, you, sir, must be cocksure that the Timothy Christian School Board sinned by their decision, May I remind you, as well as the church at large, not to “muzzle” the Spirit that motivated those Boned members who after much prayer and wrestling came to their decision. Let us not accept, also facto everything our Synods decide, when Christians in other spheres are doing their work prayerfully, Martin Luther loved his church, yet he went over the church’s head when he declared those famous words: “I can do no other, so help me God!” Thus the Reformation was born, and subsequently the Reformed Churches.
Somehow I get the general feeling that Mr. La Maire feels I am not in favor of Christian Education for black children or the integration of our Christian schools. Let me assure him otherwise by saying that there are several of us who are presently involved in supporting financially the Christian Education of blacks in the Kalamazoo area. But I also believe that no Synod has a right to stand between a member of the church and God, Every member has a conscience and the church must be careful not to tamper with it.
As I have written in my letter of July 1971, the opinions expressed by Rev. B. Essenburg changed my mind. I do not feel, Mr. La Maire, that you have succeeded in demonstrating that my brief statements relative to the explosive situation at the Timothy Christian School are a myth.
Very sincerely, PETER J. SLUYS
Dear Rev. Vander Ploeg – Editor:
In answer to the October OUTLOOK article on “Synod’s Right to Speak.”
Mr. Martin LaMaire stated that Mr. Peter Sluys’ contention that Synod had no jurisdiction over the Timothy School Board was a myth. I would like to refer Mr. La Maire to Article 28-A of the Church Order which states! “The assemblies, [Consistory, Classis, Synod] shall transact ecclesiastical matters only, and shall deal with them in an ecclesiastical manner.” I would also like to refer Mr. LaMaire to page 108 of Acts of Synod 1971, Article 136, II, C: “A.C.R.L. is not an ecclesiastical organization and there arc therefore no provisions in the Church Order for Synod to deal with this organization.” If Synod concedes that it has no authority to deal with A.C.R.L. because it is a non-ecclesiastical organization, why does Mr. La Maire insist that Synod has jurisdiction over the Timothy School Board which is also a non-ecclesiastical organization? His personal appeal along-with others’ was not acted upon by Synod (Article 105, p. 12, Acts of Synod 1971).
Mr. LaMaire implies in his article that the Timothy School Board members sinned against the gospel in their actions. Who made him a judge over their actions? “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matt. 7:1). If one would follow Mr. LaMaire’s reasoning to its final conclusion, every error in judgment by Christian Reformed Business Men, Educators, Laborers, Corporate Board Members, etc. would be, and should be subject to synodical discipline.
God gave us Christian common sense and the ability to use it wisely. The Bible and history teach us that the heathen sacrificed their children, Christians did not do this. God’s covenant children arc precious in His sight. We as covenant parents are duty bound to guard all of them, both black and white, from harm and danger as we so often implore God to do in our prayers.
MAYNARD HOEKSTRA