The history of the race problem in the Christian Reformed Church goes back to an overture at the Synod of 1968 resulting in the adoption of the Race Declarations. The Synod of 1970 faced the knotty problem of judging an entire Classis because, it was alleged, it turned a deaf car to such Race Declarations. Synod then replied to the church with a threat of “contempt of Synod” (legal terminology) if such Declarations were not respected and applied (Art 114, E, I p. 64, Acts 1970).
The Synod of 1971 was confronted with equally grievous charges in three protests directed against the Classis plus a review of the entire action taken. The Synod of 1971 has now given its judgment as to what type of further action should be pursued and whether a “contempt of Synod” citation has validity in the church of Christ. The Synod declared that “Classis refused to comply fully with the decisions . . . without having appealed these; . . .” But it was evident in one protest before Synod that very strange vocabulary appeared when speaking about an official assembly in the church. “Ecclesiastical anarchy,” “impudent,” and “delaying tactics” are phrases used with reference to procedure within the church itself. Such phrases surely do not prove a desire for remedial action on this problem.
Now the racial problem enters the church from another source. It is the recent report of the race Conference (March 2–5, ‘71) which was circulated throughout the denomination by the Race Commission, and which report is to be referred to the congregations for “study, reflection, and possible implementation as applicable.” In this report, wide-sweeping social, educational, and political actions are desired for all sectors of the organized church. What are some of these to be recommended to the church?
Schools are told to incorporate curriculum changes which under in a “mandatory course to produce an understanding of the nature of racism.” There are to be “minority study programs.” Ministers are admonished to “preach the whole counsel of God regarding rights, privileges, and duties of all Christians” (taken for granted by the ordination vow itself). They are also to “shape attitudes and implement programs” in societal and congregational life.
Diaconates are urged to present in the annual church budget “equal funding for both ministry of the Word and the ministry of mercy.” This ministry of mercy must be in “the areas of housing, employment, and education.” Congregations must “reappraise (their) need for . . . elaborate facilities used for worship . . . luxurious parsonages, and affluent lifestyles among its members.” Besides, with questionable theological language, it demands a “personal commitment and redemptive suffering on the part of all Christians . . .” in “locating and alleviating the causes and consequences of poverty.” Individual members are reminded over and over (12 citations) that they, the church-at-large as a cross section of middle·c1ass religious society are “racist,” an odious connotation conveniently employed by many social activists (but surely not by the church community).
But a more alarming charge or criticism of this report is its outline of recommendations in the church’s mission in a “non-kerygmatic” context. In many recommendations, one discovers that social aims are spelled out in detail but still divorced from Scriptural reference. Must we then understand that such social objectives are independent of sound biblical warrant for Christ’s church? Isn’t this the same “Kingdom building” which the church opposed in the past century?
Of course, we understand from Scripture that “respect of persons” in the matter of salvation is evil (James 2:1). But it must also be remembered that to correct any appearance of this evil, the preaching of the Word to the heart of man is commanded (II Tim. 4:1, 2). Therefore, all extra-Scriptural additives are contraband and do not express the definition of the church’s real mission. Our Lord expressed the norm of such mission well in such passages as Mark 16:15, 16; Luke 24:47; and Acts 10:42, 43 (with his apostles). Such a norm is to permeate our society with all its evils in a world-and-life manner that the whole creation “which groaneth in pain” can wail for ultimate redemption.
C. William Fietstra is pastor of the First Christian Reformed Church of Ripon, California.
The Synod of 1971 was confronted with equally grievous charges in three protests directed against the Classis plus a review of the entire action taken. The Synod of 1971 has now given its judgment as to what type of further action should be pursued and whether a “contempt of Synod” citation has validity in the church of Christ. The Synod declared that “Classis refused to comply fully with the decisions . . . without having appealed these; . . .” But it was evident in one protest before Synod that very strange vocabulary appeared when speaking about an official assembly in the church. “Ecclesiastical anarchy,” “impudent,” and “delaying tactics” are phrases used with reference to procedure within the church itself. Such phrases surely do not prove a desire for remedial action on this problem.
Now the racial problem enters the church from another source. It is the recent report of the race Conference (March 2–5, ‘71) which was circulated throughout the denomination by the Race Commission, and which report is to be referred to the congregations for “study, reflection, and possible implementation as applicable.” In this report, wide-sweeping social, educational, and political actions are desired for all sectors of the organized church. What are some of these to be recommended to the church?
Schools are told to incorporate curriculum changes which under in a “mandatory course to produce an understanding of the nature of racism.” There are to be “minority study programs.” Ministers are admonished to “preach the whole counsel of God regarding rights, privileges, and duties of all Christians” (taken for granted by the ordination vow itself). They are also to “shape attitudes and implement programs” in societal and congregational life.
Diaconates are urged to present in the annual church budget “equal funding for both ministry of the Word and the ministry of mercy.” This ministry of mercy must be in “the areas of housing, employment, and education.” Congregations must “reappraise (their) need for . . . elaborate facilities used for worship . . . luxurious parsonages, and affluent lifestyles among its members.” Besides, with questionable theological language, it demands a “personal commitment and redemptive suffering on the part of all Christians . . .” in “locating and alleviating the causes and consequences of poverty.” Individual members are reminded over and over (12 citations) that they, the church-at-large as a cross section of middle·c1ass religious society are “racist,” an odious connotation conveniently employed by many social activists (but surely not by the church community).
But a more alarming charge or criticism of this report is its outline of recommendations in the church’s mission in a “non-kerygmatic” context. In many recommendations, one discovers that social aims are spelled out in detail but still divorced from Scriptural reference. Must we then understand that such social objectives are independent of sound biblical warrant for Christ’s church? Isn’t this the same “Kingdom building” which the church opposed in the past century?
Of course, we understand from Scripture that “respect of persons” in the matter of salvation is evil (James 2:1). But it must also be remembered that to correct any appearance of this evil, the preaching of the Word to the heart of man is commanded (II Tim. 4:1, 2). Therefore, all extra-Scriptural additives are contraband and do not express the definition of the church’s real mission. Our Lord expressed the norm of such mission well in such passages as Mark 16:15, 16; Luke 24:47; and Acts 10:42, 43 (with his apostles). Such a norm is to permeate our society with all its evils in a world-and-life manner that the whole creation “which groaneth in pain” can wail for ultimate redemption.
C. William Fietstra is pastor of the First Christian Reformed Church of Ripon, California.