Our Economic Problems
To the Editor,
The Wall Street Journal recently predicted another recession in 1985 because deficit spending will cause high interest rates—another product of the New Deal of the thirties.
The New Deal was our point of departure. Under Franklin D. Roosevelt we lost our self-reliance and learned, instead, that providing for our individual needs was a function of the government. It was a slow-acting poison—but look at the patient now. Talk to the average man on the street and he will tell you that he deserves a comfortable retirement, a guaranteed income, relief from the high cost of medical care, etc. After all, government has taught him that there is no need for anyone to suffer. Our disease is the assumption that the world owes us a living, a lesson learned from the government.
Life is frequently cruel and unfair. In a free society, that is, one in which there are no government hand-outs, everyone suffers an occasional setback, severe disappointment, and sometimes outright disaster.
The cumulative effect of such adversity is healthy in that it teaches us to be thrifty, cautious, self–reliant, responsible and compassionate, among other virtues.
One of the greatest of economists, Dr. Ludwig von Mises, in his writings explained that the business cycle was caused by central planning of money matters and that booms and busts are inevitable when government is in charge. This principle of government manipulation is observable today as we see the economy stimulated so that conditions will improve with a view to this year’s election.
The biggest share of the blame for this situation goes to the Democrats who have come up with the costly appropriations bills. President Reagan has only vetoed four appropriations bills, whereas he could have vetoed more had he not listened to his closest aids and liberal Republican leaders of congress, all of whom prefer the politics of compromise to that of confrontation.
Although a recent issue of Human Events suggested that Reagan fire Volcker, Stockman and Feldstein, that would not help much if we continue to be selfish instead of self-reliant. President Calvin Coolidge said, “Selfishness is only another name for suicide.”
If America wishes to be prosperous again we must return to the ideals that made it. All government benefits are added to the cost of things we buy. Thus such benefits are a cause of recession and unemployment.
Sincerely,
Adrian Blauwkamp
Zeeland, Ml 49464
From New Zealand
Dear Brother Pete:
Let me share a few of my observations and reactions as an American living in New Zealand.
First of all New Zealand is a very beautiful country; in many many places the natural beauty of the earth remains as it came from the hand of the Creator—mountains, rivers, lakes and streams and mighty glaciers—all relatively unspoiled. We have considered living in the midst of this beauty a real privilege and blessing.
New Zealand has always capitalized on the agricultural advantages of the climate and fertility of the soil. In Nelson Province there are large orchards in which are apples, pears, peaches, kiwi fruit and more. Most of the produce is exported to the U.S.A. and Europe as well as Japan. Dairying is big business here with tons and tons of butter, cheese and other dairy products. The largest thing in agriculture is sheep raising. Sheep graze well on the steep slopes of the bills and mountains . We are told there are over 60 million sheep in the land. Naturally, from the sheep come wool of every type and variety, lamb and mutton, most of all of this for export. In the Freezing Works (a nice term for a slaughter house) Musslim butchers do the killing of the sheep and mutton to satisfy the Musslim buyers of these meats.
The pace of living in New Zealand is much slower and more casual than in the U.S.A. The attitude often prevails—don’t do today what can wait for tomorrow. The drive after one almighty dollar has not penetrated the heart of the businessman here as it has elsewhere. Early on in our stay here we decided to do a little Saturday morning shopping. When we arrived downtown to our amazement we found the place deserted–almost all the shops and stores were closed. New Zealand merchants and businessmen and women cherish their Saturdays and Sundays. The only businesses open on Saturday are petrol stations because thirsty automobiles must be cared for and attended to and some restaurants remain open to feed hungry people. The rest of the community is quiet and peaceful on Saturday and Sunday. The pubs and other drinking places close every night no later than 10 p .m. and remain closed all day Sunday. There is no commercialism on T .V. or radio all day Sunday (what a blessing). Not even a chemist, known in the U.S. as a druggist, is open on the weekend.
Now, no one who reads what I have said about Sunday closings and the quietness in the business community on Sunday should conclude that then the churches of New Zealand must be full on the Lord’s Day . Nothing of the sort is true. The churches of New Zealand are as empty as are the churches of Europe and the U.S. I have found that many, many New Zealanders claim membership in the Anglican Church—but few, pitifully few, take any pan. Someone said to me that the church here is for hatching, matching and dispatching, nothing more. As weak as the churches of New Zealand are it is more interesting that on the sign boards in front of each building and in their newspaper advertising they all, including the Anglicans, hold evening worship services.
The Reformed Church of New Zealand has been in existence about 30 years. It is a product of the great exodus from the Netherlands after WWII. The congregations are made of a cross section of the various parts of the Reformed churches of the Netherlands, with the GKN predominating. To all appearances they have learned to bury the differences that they knew back home in order to work for the good of the kingdom “down under.” The denomination consists of 19 churches scattered from Auckland to Dunedin. Christ church is the largest of the congregations with a bit over 100 families. Some of the churches are very small and struggle to survive—and survive they do. I have been amazed at how our God blesses small efforts.
So, Pete, according to my promise, I have endeavored to give you and your readers a bit of a view of New Zealand. If you feel more would be of benefit I shall endeavor to write more when we return stateside next month, D. V.
As Ever,
Clarence Werkema
Toward Biblical Reformation
Dear Editor,
As you know, I have been concerned about the current issues in our church, and some of the ways in which certain ideas are expressed and promoted. I expressed my concern specifically with regard to the CW-CRC. It appears to me, however, that this committee is not the only group which might be guilty of what l might term “illegitimate politicking.” It seems to me that people on both sides of the issue of women in office are engaging in similar tactics, ones which I think all involved must consider in light of the Scriptural and Reformed understanding of the Church.
Allow me first to explain the things which I have in mind, and then to set forth the dangers which I see. When I hear talk about seeking to obtain a decision by means other than expounding the truth of Scripture (such as withholding quota support, boycotting meetings where the opposed issue is accepted, etc.), then I wonder if we hold Scripture to be our final and only authority. And I wonder if we are really trusting in the power of the Word rather than in the means of men. Just consider the effects of obtaining a decision of policy based on, for example, quota withholding. No one’s mind would be changed in the least, for robbing a church of support serves only to embitter, and not to promote right doctrine or life in a personal sense. Sure, it could get a formal change in doctrine, but would the truth of Scripture really have won? No. Any means other than allowing the Bible to speak, is a way of gaining leverage by temporal and physical means, and not spiritual. And I do not think that anyone really wants this kind of decision. Scripture hasn’t triumphed in such a case; the ways of the world have. Besides, Paul doesn’t make any exceptions when he commands support to be given the church Ill obedience, prayer and gifts (1 Cor. 16:2 – each one is to give: Eph. 6:18 – pray for all the saints; Heb 13:1 – obey the church leaders), even though Paul was a member of a church with some very serious problems. as Acts 15 and the letters of Corinthians. Galatians and Acts 15 show. Paul certainly worked for a pure church. But his striving was not placed in antithesis to full commitment to it and communion with it.
Our conception of the church is important in this whole matter, and affects how we approach the kind of issues we face today. Is the church a voluntary association of individuals, who have autonomous authority over their relationship with the church? Or is the church something which authoritatively calls believers into itself, and calls for faithful communion? Calvin certainly teaches the latter (see his treatment in Inst. IV1.1–12). Can we be faithful members in communion only in part? Its hard to imagine so. Now it must be said that Calvin is clear that true love and fellowship can only be had where true faith is. But at the same time Calvin is quite aware of the necessity to recognize human ignorance and sin, and even goes so far as to give a few guidelines of the kind of things which would necessitate a breaking of fellowship (IV 1.12). And the issues under discussion this year do not seem to me to be in the same categories Calvin delineates. Can we justify ‘partial fellowship’? I don’t find it in Calvin or in Scripture.
As much as anyone in the Christian Reformed Church I desire to see us walk in our Lord’s ways, as set down in Scripture. With all that that means. And I hope that all our members continue striving to make this church the best it can be for our Lord. But either it is a false church, from which all true believers must exit (and I do not believe she is), or she is a true church with faults, just like every other temporal manifestation of Christ’s body. If this is the ease, we continue in her as whole-hearted, enthusiastic participants, seeking her purity through her only authority, God’s Word.
In Christ’s Love,
Bill Green
Wyoming , Michigan
Editor’s Reply
I appreciate your readiness to speak out on behalf of church reformation and your expressed concern about using only proper methods in pursuit of it.
I’d also agree that the end doesn’t justify the employment of improper means and that decisions that are achieved by mere political and financial pressures fall far short of genuine reformation.
We must also submit to legitimate church authority even where it is imperfectly used. At this point, however, the matter becomes somewhat more complex. Must we also submit to church authority when someone usurps or seeks to abuse it? When in 3 John we read that Diotrephes “who loveth to have the preeminence” opposed the apostle and cast those who refused to obey him out of the church, was the church obligated to submit to him? Indeed, not! It was enjoined not to follow that which was evil. When Peter in his conduct compromised the gospel (Gal. 2:11) did Paul say that one must submit to this because of his apostolic authority ? Indeed not! He “withstood him to the face” and publicly corrected him. To acquiesce to misused church authority is to lose the Biblical Reformation and return to the false church authority of Roman Catholicism.
This letter suggests a common but mistaken assumption regarding the nature of church “quotas.” These are commonly regarded as a per family assessment which it is our duly to pay without question, as the Bible enjoins us to pay government taxes (Romans 13:6). This letter, accordingly confronts us with the alternative to either pay or leave. Until 45 years ago quotas were commonly called “assessments.” Then in 1939 that whole idea was challenged as a false view of the churches giving, and the synod agreed saying, “with respect to all the work in God’s kingdom, for which we as Christian Reformed Church are jointly responsible we use the term ‘quota’ to indicate the amount per family recommended by Synod to the congregations” (Acts 1939, p. 72). Notice especially the ward “RECOMMENDED” which means to “advise,” “counsel,” “suggest.” That cannot in any way be properly turned into “order” or “command.” (It is significant that Overtures 6 and 7 in the 1984 Agenda use the illegitimate term “assessments” for quotas.)
Stressing the same fundamental principle is Article XXXII of the Belgic Confession of Faith in which ‘“we reject all human inventions, and all laws which man would introduce into the warship of God, thereby to bind and compel the conscience in any manner whatever.” If church quotas were a tax we would be under obligation to pay them just as other taus. Regarding church offerings, we not only have the duty to support the work of the gospel but also the right and duty to see that what we “give,” as far as we are able to see, will support the gospel, not be used to oppose or interfere with it. And we have the right and duty to determine to what extent we should support one kind of effort in comparison with others. Our quota system is lending itself to abuse because in it the right and duty of consistories and church members is being increasingly ignored. As Christians it is our duty to try to correct that , not blindly submit to it. A young minister once called me asking whether we in our church had been collecting for all of the agencies the synod recommended. He and his consistory had been doing so and were nearing the end of the year short of the money needed to pay local church expenses! We badly need to rediscover the Biblical and therefore Reformed principle of the primary and “original” authority the Lord has committed to local church elders.
Thank you for your letter in praying and working for church reform we need to face the issues which you raise.
P.D.J.
Unconditional Good News: Neither Biblical Nor Universal (May Issue)
It has come to my attention that in the writing of my article in the May issue of The Outlook, Rev. Neal Punt perceives my statements as constituting charges against him as a CR minister. I wish to make it known that I hereby withdraw these.
Thank-you,
Yours in Christ,
Wayne Leigh
Editor’s Note:
Our readers, to avoid being confused, deserve a word of explanation. Rev. Mr. Punt has attempted to squelch public criticisms of his book by threats of church discipline against critics. The contradictions in this confusing book enable him to claim that what is strongly stated in one place is denied in another, inviting endless and useless argument. Our readers are invited to judge for themselves whether criticisms of the book in these pages have been well documented.