Timothy-Lawndale Matter – The packed visitors’ galleries gave proof of the broad and intense interest of the church in the issue being debated on the CRC 1971 Synod floor. The issue was the one known as the Timothy-Lawndale matter. At the heart of the matter is the refusal of the Timothy school board to enroll black covenant children from the Lawndale Christian Reformed Church in Chicago at the Christian school nearest them, the Cicero school in the Timothy system.
The reason for the refusal has been and still is the conviction on the part of the school board that the intensely hostile attitudes toward black people prevailing in the Cicero community pose a very real threat to the safety of black and white children and of the school property should black children be enrolled at this facility. The matter became a concern of Classis Chicago North and finally also of Synod.
With its eyes unavoidably focused on this sensitive situation Synod 1968 had adopted the following resolution, among others: “Synod declares that fear of persecution or of disadvantage to self or our institutions arising out of obedience to Christ does not warrant denial to anyone, for reasons of race or color, of full Christian fellowship and privilege in the church or in related organizations, such as Christian colleges and schools, institutions of mercy and recreational associations; and that if members of the Christian Reformed Church advocate such denial, by whatever means, they must be reckoned as disobedient to Christ and be dealt with according to the provisions of the Church Order regarding Admonition and Discipline.”
In response to a communication from the Lawndale consistory relating their problems in enrolling their children in the Cicero school, Synod 1969 expressed its “genuine concern” for the problems encountered by the Lawndale consistory and urged the parties involved “to do all in their power to meet these needs at the earliest possible date,” in accordance with the deliverance of Synod 1968 quoted above. Synod 1969 also stated that since the matter was being dealt with by Clnssis Chicago North (by means of a projected special session of the Classis), Synod could not enter into the ecclesiastical disposition of the matter.
The matter came to Synod 1970 by way of protest, particularly of the Lawndale consistory against Classis Chicago North. Synod declared that “in its handling of the Timothy-Lawndale issue classis Chicago North has failed to act in accord with the Declarations on Race of the Synods of 1968 and 1969, and Synod calls upon the Classis to bring its policy and practices into harmony with the deliverances of Synod without further delay. Failure to comply will cause classis Chicago North to be considered in contempt of synod and in open disregard of the judgment of the church of Jesus Christ.”
Of crucial importance in the record of Classis Chicago North in dealing with the matter was the tabling (July 1969) and subsequent defeat (September 1969) of the following motion: “To declare to be sinful the present policy of the Timothy Christian School Board by which black covenant children are excluded from the Timothy Schools in Cicero, and to declare that this policy cannot be continued without willful disobedience to Christ.” Furthermore, Synod 1970 instructed Classis Chicago North “to fully inform the Synod of 1971 of what it has done to bring its policies and practices into harmony with the Declarations on Race” of 1968.
As directed, Classis Chicago North reported to Synod 1971 (see Agenda for Synod 1971, pp. 345ff.). The matter was brought to Synod also by way of a large number of protests and appeals from consistories and individuals, as well as by the report of the Race Commission (Agenda, p. 150). The report of the Race Commission called the action of the Timothy school board “sin” and asked all concerned to “repent.”
Also at Synod was an overture from Classis Hudson urging that “Synod declare Classis Chicago North in contempt of synod and suspend the voting privileges of the delegates of Classis Chicago North to Synod until Synod is satisfied that Classis Chicago North is free from contempt of Synod and! or violation of the discipline of the church.” The overture was rejected on the ground that it asked that “the matter under consideration be judged before it is considered.”
Synod’s advisory committee presented a lengthy thirteen-page single-spaced report on the matter, a report revealing competence and much hard work. The committee noted that the report of Classis Chicago North to Synod indicated “some progress in an effort to comply with the declaration and instruction of synod 1970.”
Of particular interest were the disclosures that the Timothy Junior High School had been moved from Cicero to Elmhurst and that the Western Springs Christian School had merged with the Timothy system. As a result of these changes the Timothy School board could now declare in response to a pastoral letter from Classis: “The Timothy Christian School system will accept for admission, without regard to race or color, the covenant children of Reformed or Christian Reformed parents in all grades, kindergarten through twelve.”
However, the school board stuck to its decision not to take black children at the Cicero school because the conditions leading to the decision to exclude had not changed and the “risk of bodily injury and property damage” was still very real. Of crucial moment in the report of the Classis to Synod was the information that at a special meeting held in November 1970 the Classis defeated the following motion: “That c1assis declare that the practice of excluding black covenant children from the Timothy Christian School in Cicero out of fear is disobedient to Christ.” Synod’s committee eyed this focal point in the issue and said that “on this point the Classis has not brought its policy and practices into harmony with the deliverances of Synod.”
What Synod did—and did not do – The advisory committee came to the floor of Synod with thirteen recommendations, most of which were adopted. The thrust of these decisions was to continue to insist on a change in policy at the Cicero school and to urge the use of every means to that end—means such as address to the civic community on obedience to the law of the land, the discipline of the Word, the exploration of every legal avenue for the protection of the school’s children and property, the total support of the denomination, and self-examination on the part of the membership of the entire denomination as to their obedience to Christ in the matters at issue. 11 was also decided that Classis Chicago North be instructed to inform Synod 1972 fully “as to its obedience to the principles enunciated in the 1968 Declarations on Race and in the above decisions.”
Equally significant were the things that Synod did not do. Synod did not charge Classis Chicago North with being “in contempt of Synod.” This abrasive language was dropped because, as stated in a related action, such language is “legal phraseology” and “it is preferable in the ecclesiastical setting to use the expression ‘open disregard of the judgment of the Church of Jesus Christ’ to describe the nature of such possible actions.” But Synod would not use this terminology either, as it was asked to do in the recommendation of the advisory committee. Rather Synod decided to declare at this point that “Classis Chicago North has refused to comply fully with the decisions of Synod, and has not directly appealed these decisions.”
Furthermore, Synod decided to “withhold action” on the following recommendation: “Synod remind Class is Chicago North and its churches of the necessity of using procedural discipline when members refuse to heed the discipline of the Word in this matter.”
And finally, Synod decided to “withhold action” on the recommendation that the appeals brought in this matter be sustained “insofar as they appeal against the inadequate response of Classis Chicago North to Synod’s instruction.” Synod simply declared that the above decisions in the matter were its answer to the various appeals and communications brought to Synod on the issue.
Observations – Consider now the following observations:
1. The first observation that must be made, anti that this writer most wholeheartedly wishes to make, is that this entire incident is most regrettable. Anyone who seeks to live by the teachings of the Word of God, which so plainly reject any distinction among the membership of the church for reasons of race or color, cannot but be deeply troubled by this episode and the hurt that it has caused to our black brothers and sisters and to the church of Jesus Christ.
2. In the opinion of the present writer, the focal point in the issue as a matter for ecclesiastical disposition is this: much as one may regret the fact of the decision by the Timothy school board (yes, much as one may disagree with it) may we say that they have sinned in making this decision and are therefore deserving of the disciplinary procedures of the church? The judgment of the church (meaning Classis Chicago North) has always been that these black children should be taken at the Cicero school. Already in January 1967 the classis declared: “It is the conviction of the Classis that consistency with the faith we all profess requires that such children (from Lawndale) should be admitted” (Acts of Synod 1970, p. 310). In its pastoral letter to the school board dated December 3, 1970 Classis expressed itself as “imploring” the board “no longer to countenance the exclusion of children of black Christians from its Cicero school” (Agenda for Synod 1971, p. 386). But, as we have noted, Classis has steadfastly refused to say that the school board has sinned, and it is evident from the actions of the recent Synod that it also has refused to make this judgment.
3. The question that was raised on the Acts of Synod in 1968 when the pertinent resolution was adopted still forces itself upon us: how can an ecclesiastical body deal ecclesiastically with the decision-making process of a Christian non-ecclesiastical agency? That question has become something other than merely academic in the present instance in which a Christian non-ecclesiastical agency in a spirit of conscientious stewardship of Kingdom responsibility, life, and property has arrived at a decision that is not satisfactory to the ecclesiastical body. What can the ecclesiastical body do in such an instance? Can it use church disciplinary procedures or the threat of them?
The end result of the synodical decisions thus far would appear to he that in such cases ecclesiastical bodies (consistory, classis, synod) can and should make diligent use of the discipline and moral suasion of the Word of God, but that the threat or use of the procedures of church discipline is highly questionable. To this observer the net result of all the wrestling with this matter over the past few years is that through the discipline and moral suasion of the Word as exercised locally and by Classis and Synod progress has been made toward solving the problems involved in enrolling the Lawndale children in Christian schools.
This progress may not mean satisfaction to all concerned. Maybe black children will not be enrollcd in the Christian school in Cicero for some time to come, though many of us may feel keenly that they should be. But the use of the procedures of church discipline in the case of the members of the Timothy Board and of the entire School Society in its announced support of the Board’s policy would appear to be dead as a likely option.
4. The use made of a synodical resolution in this instance deserves further comment. It seems indisputable that the main appeal in the deliberations of Synod vis-a-vis Classis Chicago North was to the resolution of 1968. This fact did not lend any special measure of credibility or cogency to the synodical process. In the first place the resolution, though clearly rising out of the specific Chicago situation (it originated with a Chicago consistory), has some rather obvious loopholes in it so far as the Timothy-Lawndale matter is concerned. The board members at Timothy did not fear persecution or disadvantage to themselves but rather to helpless children, black and white.
I am not impressed by the appeal to Matthew 10:37 in this instance. Here Jesus says: “He that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” Who has not trembled before these searching words? But it is not for another person or agency to decide when one is to make a supreme sacrifice under the language of our Master. That decision is strictly a matter for each person’s own conscience.
Also, the Timothy Board insists that the reason for their decision was not race or color but rather the bitterly hostile attitudes in their community toward those of a certain race and color. And, furthermore, one would be hard pressed to prove that the members of the board “advocate” the denial of full Christian fellowship and privilege. I suspect they “advocate” nothing of the sort, but felt compelled to come to their hard decision and stick to it because of ugly facts beyond their control.
The resolution in point was not needed to teach the church that full fellowship and privilege are not to be denied to anyone in any truly Christian setting for reasons of race or color. The special feature of the resolution is its threat of the use of the procedures of church discipline, with the words “by whatever means” inserted to cover all situations. If the plain teaching of God’s Word is not sufficient to establish grounds for the exercise of church discipline, then appeal to a synodical resolution (with loopholes in it) hardly makes for a strong case, even when that resolution uses the threat of procedural discipline.
What is really the force of a synodical resolution of the sort under discussion? Is its force not simply that of an instrument in the moral discipline of God’s Word? Then is it proper to use such a resolution as a club threatening the procedures of church discipline? To be sure, such threat might conceivably he thought of as an aspect of moral suasion. But then we must ask, does the church want compliance with the biblical norms of love for our neighbor because of threats of possible excommunication?
The persistent call at Synod for a “more pastoral approach” to the problems involved in the Timothy-Lawndale affair instead of the use of a synodical club or threat highlights the pertinence of the questions this writer has with several aspects of the handling of this affair from 1968 on. May enough members of the church be similarly troubled so that we may have no more of such trial by synodical resolution.
Other Actions on Racial Matters – Certain other decisions of Synod in the area of race and race relations are to be noted.
1. One decision had to do with the recommendation of the Race Commission that the Christian Reformed Church become a full participant in Project Equality. An elaborate proposal was brought to Synod by the Race Commission detailing the nature of the project and the terms of the church’s involvement in it (see Agenda, pp. 140–148).
The proposal called upon the church to exercise its “economic muscle” by purchasing only from firms listed in Project Equality’s “Buyers’ Guide.” In this way the church wherever possible would do business only with firms that employed a fair and proportionate number of people from minority groups. Synod’s decisive rejection of the proposal said that the Christian Reformed Church could not become a participant “at the present time” on the ground that the program with its “many aspects” required more elucidation than had been given.
3. Also in the area of racial concerns Synod restructured the Race Commission, and spelled out its mandate in more detail. Synod 1968 set up the Race Commission under the wing of the Board of Home Missions with the following mandate: “To design, organize, and implement programs through which the denomination, individual churches, and members can effectively use all available resources to eliminate racism, both causes and effects, within the body of believers, and throughout the world in which we live.” Periodically evidence appeared that neither the Board of Home Missions nor the Race Commission was wholly satisfied with the arrangement Synod 1968 had instituted. The Commission felt “somewhat hampered in its work,” Synod’s advisory committee reported. Therefore the Commission came to Synod with a proposal that a separate committee, directly responsible to Synod, be set up. This proposal came with the blessing of the executive committee of the Board of Home Missions.
The Commission’s proposal was adopted, and the 1968 mandate, now more precisely “delineated,” was assigned to a new Committee on Race Relations. The more specific terms of the newly “delineated” mandate followed the proposed roster of duties of the Commission’s recommendation and in some measure satisfied those who had asked for a revision of the original broad mandate with its very general terms.
The Committee on Race Relations is composed of thirteen members, with three representatives of the Board of Home Missions, the Board of Foreign Missions and the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee respectively. The others were chosen with regard to their competence in the area of race relations and with concern for “ethnic and regional representation.” Synod also decided to continue the Committee for a period of three years, “at the end of which Synod shall determine its future.” The ground for this action speaks of judging “whether the committee’s mandate and work should be continued or revised” at the end of the three-year period.
It was also decided that the Committee shall “send periodic reports of its activities and expenditures to the consistories.” These added decisions would seem to indicate some sort of uncertainty with respect to the Committee and its work. It is to be hoped that the Committee on Race Relations will prove itself as an agent of blessing to the church and to the minority groups among which the Church seeks to do the Lord’s work.
4. In another action of Synod on matters of race the extensive report of the North American Conference on Race held under the auspices of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod at Chicago March 2–5, 1971, was considered. Synod simply commended the report to the churches “for study, reflection, and possible implementation as applicable.”
In Conclusion – More than once the remark was heard at Synod that the church of Jesus Christ does not see issues as a secular society sees them and likewise cannot deal with them in the way that a secular society does.
Surely this is true of the issue we have been discussing here. The church must always strive t., see such issues in terms of the Bible’s full teaching and must always deal with them in an orderly, churchly way. This means that excessive emotional pressures must be avoided, pressures that so often tend to reveal more of the old man than of the new man in Christ. And the shrill tones that so frequently mark discussions of racial matters in a secular society usually are productive of little real good, and surely do not belong in the church and her councils.
The Synod of 1971 sought, so it seems to this writer, to see this issue in various ramifications, in a clear biblical perspective, and in a church-orderly perspective. And tones that had tended to become shrill were subdued somewhat.
It had always seemed to this writer that the rather low-key approach to matters of race that charatcterized the Christian Reformed Church wasn’t good one. Without fanfare and the sounds of self-serving; publicity, the church moved ahead in its outreach among people of minority groups. Black people took their place in the councils of the church just as every one did, receiving no more and no less attention than anyone else received. Perhaps the forward movement was somewhat slow in the eyes of some, but it was the real thing, so it seemed to this writer.
It is deeply regrettable that the Timothy-Lawndale problem arose to disturb this forward movement in good race relations. May all be able to see this episode as only a relatively short detour in healthy development of good race relations. Surely, in an area as complex and sensitive as race relations, such detours could hardly be unexpected. Then let all look beyond this unhappy experience to continued effective cooperation in the work of the Church and Kingdom of our common Lord and Savior.
Edward Heerema is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Bradenton, Florida.
The reason for the refusal has been and still is the conviction on the part of the school board that the intensely hostile attitudes toward black people prevailing in the Cicero community pose a very real threat to the safety of black and white children and of the school property should black children be enrolled at this facility. The matter became a concern of Classis Chicago North and finally also of Synod.
With its eyes unavoidably focused on this sensitive situation Synod 1968 had adopted the following resolution, among others: “Synod declares that fear of persecution or of disadvantage to self or our institutions arising out of obedience to Christ does not warrant denial to anyone, for reasons of race or color, of full Christian fellowship and privilege in the church or in related organizations, such as Christian colleges and schools, institutions of mercy and recreational associations; and that if members of the Christian Reformed Church advocate such denial, by whatever means, they must be reckoned as disobedient to Christ and be dealt with according to the provisions of the Church Order regarding Admonition and Discipline.”
In response to a communication from the Lawndale consistory relating their problems in enrolling their children in the Cicero school, Synod 1969 expressed its “genuine concern” for the problems encountered by the Lawndale consistory and urged the parties involved “to do all in their power to meet these needs at the earliest possible date,” in accordance with the deliverance of Synod 1968 quoted above. Synod 1969 also stated that since the matter was being dealt with by Clnssis Chicago North (by means of a projected special session of the Classis), Synod could not enter into the ecclesiastical disposition of the matter.
The matter came to Synod 1970 by way of protest, particularly of the Lawndale consistory against Classis Chicago North. Synod declared that “in its handling of the Timothy-Lawndale issue classis Chicago North has failed to act in accord with the Declarations on Race of the Synods of 1968 and 1969, and Synod calls upon the Classis to bring its policy and practices into harmony with the deliverances of Synod without further delay. Failure to comply will cause classis Chicago North to be considered in contempt of synod and in open disregard of the judgment of the church of Jesus Christ.”
Of crucial importance in the record of Classis Chicago North in dealing with the matter was the tabling (July 1969) and subsequent defeat (September 1969) of the following motion: “To declare to be sinful the present policy of the Timothy Christian School Board by which black covenant children are excluded from the Timothy Schools in Cicero, and to declare that this policy cannot be continued without willful disobedience to Christ.” Furthermore, Synod 1970 instructed Classis Chicago North “to fully inform the Synod of 1971 of what it has done to bring its policies and practices into harmony with the Declarations on Race” of 1968.
As directed, Classis Chicago North reported to Synod 1971 (see Agenda for Synod 1971, pp. 345ff.). The matter was brought to Synod also by way of a large number of protests and appeals from consistories and individuals, as well as by the report of the Race Commission (Agenda, p. 150). The report of the Race Commission called the action of the Timothy school board “sin” and asked all concerned to “repent.”
Also at Synod was an overture from Classis Hudson urging that “Synod declare Classis Chicago North in contempt of synod and suspend the voting privileges of the delegates of Classis Chicago North to Synod until Synod is satisfied that Classis Chicago North is free from contempt of Synod and! or violation of the discipline of the church.” The overture was rejected on the ground that it asked that “the matter under consideration be judged before it is considered.”
Synod’s advisory committee presented a lengthy thirteen-page single-spaced report on the matter, a report revealing competence and much hard work. The committee noted that the report of Classis Chicago North to Synod indicated “some progress in an effort to comply with the declaration and instruction of synod 1970.”
Of particular interest were the disclosures that the Timothy Junior High School had been moved from Cicero to Elmhurst and that the Western Springs Christian School had merged with the Timothy system. As a result of these changes the Timothy School board could now declare in response to a pastoral letter from Classis: “The Timothy Christian School system will accept for admission, without regard to race or color, the covenant children of Reformed or Christian Reformed parents in all grades, kindergarten through twelve.”
However, the school board stuck to its decision not to take black children at the Cicero school because the conditions leading to the decision to exclude had not changed and the “risk of bodily injury and property damage” was still very real. Of crucial moment in the report of the Classis to Synod was the information that at a special meeting held in November 1970 the Classis defeated the following motion: “That c1assis declare that the practice of excluding black covenant children from the Timothy Christian School in Cicero out of fear is disobedient to Christ.” Synod’s committee eyed this focal point in the issue and said that “on this point the Classis has not brought its policy and practices into harmony with the deliverances of Synod.”
What Synod did—and did not do – The advisory committee came to the floor of Synod with thirteen recommendations, most of which were adopted. The thrust of these decisions was to continue to insist on a change in policy at the Cicero school and to urge the use of every means to that end—means such as address to the civic community on obedience to the law of the land, the discipline of the Word, the exploration of every legal avenue for the protection of the school’s children and property, the total support of the denomination, and self-examination on the part of the membership of the entire denomination as to their obedience to Christ in the matters at issue. 11 was also decided that Classis Chicago North be instructed to inform Synod 1972 fully “as to its obedience to the principles enunciated in the 1968 Declarations on Race and in the above decisions.”
Equally significant were the things that Synod did not do. Synod did not charge Classis Chicago North with being “in contempt of Synod.” This abrasive language was dropped because, as stated in a related action, such language is “legal phraseology” and “it is preferable in the ecclesiastical setting to use the expression ‘open disregard of the judgment of the Church of Jesus Christ’ to describe the nature of such possible actions.” But Synod would not use this terminology either, as it was asked to do in the recommendation of the advisory committee. Rather Synod decided to declare at this point that “Classis Chicago North has refused to comply fully with the decisions of Synod, and has not directly appealed these decisions.”
Furthermore, Synod decided to “withhold action” on the following recommendation: “Synod remind Class is Chicago North and its churches of the necessity of using procedural discipline when members refuse to heed the discipline of the Word in this matter.”
And finally, Synod decided to “withhold action” on the recommendation that the appeals brought in this matter be sustained “insofar as they appeal against the inadequate response of Classis Chicago North to Synod’s instruction.” Synod simply declared that the above decisions in the matter were its answer to the various appeals and communications brought to Synod on the issue.
Observations – Consider now the following observations:
1. The first observation that must be made, anti that this writer most wholeheartedly wishes to make, is that this entire incident is most regrettable. Anyone who seeks to live by the teachings of the Word of God, which so plainly reject any distinction among the membership of the church for reasons of race or color, cannot but be deeply troubled by this episode and the hurt that it has caused to our black brothers and sisters and to the church of Jesus Christ.
2. In the opinion of the present writer, the focal point in the issue as a matter for ecclesiastical disposition is this: much as one may regret the fact of the decision by the Timothy school board (yes, much as one may disagree with it) may we say that they have sinned in making this decision and are therefore deserving of the disciplinary procedures of the church? The judgment of the church (meaning Classis Chicago North) has always been that these black children should be taken at the Cicero school. Already in January 1967 the classis declared: “It is the conviction of the Classis that consistency with the faith we all profess requires that such children (from Lawndale) should be admitted” (Acts of Synod 1970, p. 310). In its pastoral letter to the school board dated December 3, 1970 Classis expressed itself as “imploring” the board “no longer to countenance the exclusion of children of black Christians from its Cicero school” (Agenda for Synod 1971, p. 386). But, as we have noted, Classis has steadfastly refused to say that the school board has sinned, and it is evident from the actions of the recent Synod that it also has refused to make this judgment.
3. The question that was raised on the Acts of Synod in 1968 when the pertinent resolution was adopted still forces itself upon us: how can an ecclesiastical body deal ecclesiastically with the decision-making process of a Christian non-ecclesiastical agency? That question has become something other than merely academic in the present instance in which a Christian non-ecclesiastical agency in a spirit of conscientious stewardship of Kingdom responsibility, life, and property has arrived at a decision that is not satisfactory to the ecclesiastical body. What can the ecclesiastical body do in such an instance? Can it use church disciplinary procedures or the threat of them?
The end result of the synodical decisions thus far would appear to he that in such cases ecclesiastical bodies (consistory, classis, synod) can and should make diligent use of the discipline and moral suasion of the Word of God, but that the threat or use of the procedures of church discipline is highly questionable. To this observer the net result of all the wrestling with this matter over the past few years is that through the discipline and moral suasion of the Word as exercised locally and by Classis and Synod progress has been made toward solving the problems involved in enrolling the Lawndale children in Christian schools.
This progress may not mean satisfaction to all concerned. Maybe black children will not be enrollcd in the Christian school in Cicero for some time to come, though many of us may feel keenly that they should be. But the use of the procedures of church discipline in the case of the members of the Timothy Board and of the entire School Society in its announced support of the Board’s policy would appear to be dead as a likely option.
4. The use made of a synodical resolution in this instance deserves further comment. It seems indisputable that the main appeal in the deliberations of Synod vis-a-vis Classis Chicago North was to the resolution of 1968. This fact did not lend any special measure of credibility or cogency to the synodical process. In the first place the resolution, though clearly rising out of the specific Chicago situation (it originated with a Chicago consistory), has some rather obvious loopholes in it so far as the Timothy-Lawndale matter is concerned. The board members at Timothy did not fear persecution or disadvantage to themselves but rather to helpless children, black and white.
I am not impressed by the appeal to Matthew 10:37 in this instance. Here Jesus says: “He that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” Who has not trembled before these searching words? But it is not for another person or agency to decide when one is to make a supreme sacrifice under the language of our Master. That decision is strictly a matter for each person’s own conscience.
Also, the Timothy Board insists that the reason for their decision was not race or color but rather the bitterly hostile attitudes in their community toward those of a certain race and color. And, furthermore, one would be hard pressed to prove that the members of the board “advocate” the denial of full Christian fellowship and privilege. I suspect they “advocate” nothing of the sort, but felt compelled to come to their hard decision and stick to it because of ugly facts beyond their control.
The resolution in point was not needed to teach the church that full fellowship and privilege are not to be denied to anyone in any truly Christian setting for reasons of race or color. The special feature of the resolution is its threat of the use of the procedures of church discipline, with the words “by whatever means” inserted to cover all situations. If the plain teaching of God’s Word is not sufficient to establish grounds for the exercise of church discipline, then appeal to a synodical resolution (with loopholes in it) hardly makes for a strong case, even when that resolution uses the threat of procedural discipline.
What is really the force of a synodical resolution of the sort under discussion? Is its force not simply that of an instrument in the moral discipline of God’s Word? Then is it proper to use such a resolution as a club threatening the procedures of church discipline? To be sure, such threat might conceivably he thought of as an aspect of moral suasion. But then we must ask, does the church want compliance with the biblical norms of love for our neighbor because of threats of possible excommunication?
The persistent call at Synod for a “more pastoral approach” to the problems involved in the Timothy-Lawndale affair instead of the use of a synodical club or threat highlights the pertinence of the questions this writer has with several aspects of the handling of this affair from 1968 on. May enough members of the church be similarly troubled so that we may have no more of such trial by synodical resolution.
Other Actions on Racial Matters – Certain other decisions of Synod in the area of race and race relations are to be noted.
1. One decision had to do with the recommendation of the Race Commission that the Christian Reformed Church become a full participant in Project Equality. An elaborate proposal was brought to Synod by the Race Commission detailing the nature of the project and the terms of the church’s involvement in it (see Agenda, pp. 140–148).
The proposal called upon the church to exercise its “economic muscle” by purchasing only from firms listed in Project Equality’s “Buyers’ Guide.” In this way the church wherever possible would do business only with firms that employed a fair and proportionate number of people from minority groups. Synod’s decisive rejection of the proposal said that the Christian Reformed Church could not become a participant “at the present time” on the ground that the program with its “many aspects” required more elucidation than had been given.
3. Also in the area of racial concerns Synod restructured the Race Commission, and spelled out its mandate in more detail. Synod 1968 set up the Race Commission under the wing of the Board of Home Missions with the following mandate: “To design, organize, and implement programs through which the denomination, individual churches, and members can effectively use all available resources to eliminate racism, both causes and effects, within the body of believers, and throughout the world in which we live.” Periodically evidence appeared that neither the Board of Home Missions nor the Race Commission was wholly satisfied with the arrangement Synod 1968 had instituted. The Commission felt “somewhat hampered in its work,” Synod’s advisory committee reported. Therefore the Commission came to Synod with a proposal that a separate committee, directly responsible to Synod, be set up. This proposal came with the blessing of the executive committee of the Board of Home Missions.
The Commission’s proposal was adopted, and the 1968 mandate, now more precisely “delineated,” was assigned to a new Committee on Race Relations. The more specific terms of the newly “delineated” mandate followed the proposed roster of duties of the Commission’s recommendation and in some measure satisfied those who had asked for a revision of the original broad mandate with its very general terms.
The Committee on Race Relations is composed of thirteen members, with three representatives of the Board of Home Missions, the Board of Foreign Missions and the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee respectively. The others were chosen with regard to their competence in the area of race relations and with concern for “ethnic and regional representation.” Synod also decided to continue the Committee for a period of three years, “at the end of which Synod shall determine its future.” The ground for this action speaks of judging “whether the committee’s mandate and work should be continued or revised” at the end of the three-year period.
It was also decided that the Committee shall “send periodic reports of its activities and expenditures to the consistories.” These added decisions would seem to indicate some sort of uncertainty with respect to the Committee and its work. It is to be hoped that the Committee on Race Relations will prove itself as an agent of blessing to the church and to the minority groups among which the Church seeks to do the Lord’s work.
4. In another action of Synod on matters of race the extensive report of the North American Conference on Race held under the auspices of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod at Chicago March 2–5, 1971, was considered. Synod simply commended the report to the churches “for study, reflection, and possible implementation as applicable.”
In Conclusion – More than once the remark was heard at Synod that the church of Jesus Christ does not see issues as a secular society sees them and likewise cannot deal with them in the way that a secular society does.
Surely this is true of the issue we have been discussing here. The church must always strive t., see such issues in terms of the Bible’s full teaching and must always deal with them in an orderly, churchly way. This means that excessive emotional pressures must be avoided, pressures that so often tend to reveal more of the old man than of the new man in Christ. And the shrill tones that so frequently mark discussions of racial matters in a secular society usually are productive of little real good, and surely do not belong in the church and her councils.
The Synod of 1971 sought, so it seems to this writer, to see this issue in various ramifications, in a clear biblical perspective, and in a church-orderly perspective. And tones that had tended to become shrill were subdued somewhat.
It had always seemed to this writer that the rather low-key approach to matters of race that charatcterized the Christian Reformed Church wasn’t good one. Without fanfare and the sounds of self-serving; publicity, the church moved ahead in its outreach among people of minority groups. Black people took their place in the councils of the church just as every one did, receiving no more and no less attention than anyone else received. Perhaps the forward movement was somewhat slow in the eyes of some, but it was the real thing, so it seemed to this writer.
It is deeply regrettable that the Timothy-Lawndale problem arose to disturb this forward movement in good race relations. May all be able to see this episode as only a relatively short detour in healthy development of good race relations. Surely, in an area as complex and sensitive as race relations, such detours could hardly be unexpected. Then let all look beyond this unhappy experience to continued effective cooperation in the work of the Church and Kingdom of our common Lord and Savior.
Edward Heerema is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Bradenton, Florida.