A LAWSUIT TO BE REPUDIATED
It is regrettable, to say the least, that the Synodical Committee On Race Relations gave legal, moral and financial support to the parents who brought a law suit against the Timothy Christian School Board and the Timothy Christian School Society, in which they sought no less than $122,000 in actual and punitive damages.
This action by SCORR was contrary to both Scripture and the Church Order of the Christian Reformed Church. Such a law suit, in which brother goes to law against brother, is clearly forbidden in I Corinthians 6:1–8. Furthermore, since SCORR is an official agency of the Christian Reformed Church, the Church became involved in this law suit. It was no longer only a matter of brother going to law against a brother. The Church was going to law against some of its own members. The Church was at work through its Committee On Race Relations. This committee, by becoming a party to this action in which punitive damages were sought, was engaging in a form of Church Discipline on behalf of the Church. They were very apparently attempting to get the Timothy Christian School Board to conform to the decisions of Synod. They were in this way trying to accomplish what the proper ecclesiastical way had failed to do. And they were using the offering of the Church to do so. This was contrary to both Scripture and the Church Order. Only a consistory may carry out Church Discipline. To me, it is as if SCORR was saying, “We have a powerful weapon. This ought to bring them around.”
It is also contrary to Scripture and the Church Order for the Church, through a consistory or some other agency, to take punitive action against any of its members in dealing with moral and ethical problems. Scripture always prescribes only discipline which is spiritual in nature. I am sure that the committee cannot find one passage in Scripture to justify this action! The Church Order (Article 78), in harmony with the Word of God, says, “The admonition and discipline of the church are spiritual in character and therefore require spiritual means.” It would be a shameful departure from Scripture and the Church Order (as well as the practice of the Church in the past) if we would approve of the means employed by the Synodical Committee On Race Relations.
Some seek to justify this action by saying that SCORR was not bringing this law snit; it was only assisting the parents. However, it matters not whether such a law suit was initiated by the parents by the Committee on Race Relations through the parents, or by this committee directly. By giving legal, moral and financial support to such action the committee became a party to it.
It will be argued that the mandate of Synod permitted, or even required, such action by SCORR. Synod 1971 did say that SCORR could assist “in obtaining legal and economic aid where specific racial problems require.” However, Synod could not possibly have meant this kind of action since it is contrary to both Scripture and the Church Order.
Such action on the part of SCORR should not be allowed to stand. If we do not repudiate this kind of activity on the part of the Church, we will have taken another giant step in the wrong direction. Dr. DeKoster, in his editorial in which he supported this action, said, “Cicero might not be the last place where such rights, in one form or another, will be tested in the courts.” Who knows how many and what kind of law suits will be initiated and/or supported by the Synodical Committee On Race Relations unless Synod takes an unequivocal stand against such law suits? If this one official agency of the Christian Reformed Church is permitted to take such action, who or what is to prevent others from using the same method to attain their goals? Without doubt, there would be parents in many areas quite willing to initiate a law suit. How much of the offerings of God’s people will, then, be used for this unlawful action? This indeed could be only the beginning.
JOHN KRUIS
John Kruis is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Neikerk, Michigan.
It is regrettable, to say the least, that the Synodical Committee On Race Relations gave legal, moral and financial support to the parents who brought a law suit against the Timothy Christian School Board and the Timothy Christian School Society, in which they sought no less than $122,000 in actual and punitive damages.
This action by SCORR was contrary to both Scripture and the Church Order of the Christian Reformed Church. Such a law suit, in which brother goes to law against brother, is clearly forbidden in I Corinthians 6:1–8. Furthermore, since SCORR is an official agency of the Christian Reformed Church, the Church became involved in this law suit. It was no longer only a matter of brother going to law against a brother. The Church was going to law against some of its own members. The Church was at work through its Committee On Race Relations. This committee, by becoming a party to this action in which punitive damages were sought, was engaging in a form of Church Discipline on behalf of the Church. They were very apparently attempting to get the Timothy Christian School Board to conform to the decisions of Synod. They were in this way trying to accomplish what the proper ecclesiastical way had failed to do. And they were using the offering of the Church to do so. This was contrary to both Scripture and the Church Order. Only a consistory may carry out Church Discipline. To me, it is as if SCORR was saying, “We have a powerful weapon. This ought to bring them around.”
It is also contrary to Scripture and the Church Order for the Church, through a consistory or some other agency, to take punitive action against any of its members in dealing with moral and ethical problems. Scripture always prescribes only discipline which is spiritual in nature. I am sure that the committee cannot find one passage in Scripture to justify this action! The Church Order (Article 78), in harmony with the Word of God, says, “The admonition and discipline of the church are spiritual in character and therefore require spiritual means.” It would be a shameful departure from Scripture and the Church Order (as well as the practice of the Church in the past) if we would approve of the means employed by the Synodical Committee On Race Relations.
Some seek to justify this action by saying that SCORR was not bringing this law snit; it was only assisting the parents. However, it matters not whether such a law suit was initiated by the parents by the Committee on Race Relations through the parents, or by this committee directly. By giving legal, moral and financial support to such action the committee became a party to it.
It will be argued that the mandate of Synod permitted, or even required, such action by SCORR. Synod 1971 did say that SCORR could assist “in obtaining legal and economic aid where specific racial problems require.” However, Synod could not possibly have meant this kind of action since it is contrary to both Scripture and the Church Order.
Such action on the part of SCORR should not be allowed to stand. If we do not repudiate this kind of activity on the part of the Church, we will have taken another giant step in the wrong direction. Dr. DeKoster, in his editorial in which he supported this action, said, “Cicero might not be the last place where such rights, in one form or another, will be tested in the courts.” Who knows how many and what kind of law suits will be initiated and/or supported by the Synodical Committee On Race Relations unless Synod takes an unequivocal stand against such law suits? If this one official agency of the Christian Reformed Church is permitted to take such action, who or what is to prevent others from using the same method to attain their goals? Without doubt, there would be parents in many areas quite willing to initiate a law suit. How much of the offerings of God’s people will, then, be used for this unlawful action? This indeed could be only the beginning.
JOHN KRUIS
John Kruis is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Neikerk, Michigan.