...

Esteemed Editor:

The undersigned was interested to note that in your Jan. 1 issue of The Standard Bearer he has received his classification card from Mr. Veldkamp. He is classed as an extremist which is extremely interesting.

It appears from B.V’s. article that there are three classes or schools of thought in regard to labor organizations. There are, on the one hand, the radical materially-minded C.LO.’s and the A.F.L.’s; on the other hand the extremists such as Rev. Hanko, Mr. Ten Elshof and others and between the two we find B.V. and his social justice plans which he expects to attain through the C.L.A.

However, let me state at the outset that I am always a bit suspicious when someone states that this or that is what he believes to be more Biblical and neglects to quote a single text to substantiate his point. Perhaps it was merely an oversight. And I wonder too how we can use the comparative degree in this connection. Can one thing or one expression be “more Biblical” than another? Could we on this basis then say that the Arminian doctrine is Biblical but the Reformed position is “more Biblical.” Pm sure I don’t understand. And I am still waiting for someone to refute or disclaim the words of Jas. 5:6-8. Surely you do not with Luther call this a “straw book.” It is indeed news to me that the Christian fights against sin and injustice by means other than through the power of the Spirit, I was, under the impression that our weapons of warfare were specified in Eph. 6:11-18. And since when have we taken the position that we are going to band together, outside of the band which there is in Christ, and with this band which is a conglomeration of all beliefs, no beliefs, all creeds and no creeds and therewith make our influence felt. I truly know that that is not an exaggerated or “extreme” description of the C.LA. I know both by personal experience and contact with officers of this “Chris- who have had similar experiences. As far as I know tian” organization and the direct testimony of others it isn’t even required you be a Christian, even in the external sense of the word, in order to belong to this “Christian” association! At least such has not been my experience. I do not say this simply to slander or to heap infamy upon those with whom I do not agree but my point is this: If you are going to testify against sin and injustice shouldn’t you first see to it that the organization which you represent at least bears a semblance to the name by which it is called?

In regard to the strike clause, B. V. would seek to allay our fear somewhat, “You see,” he says in substance, “that’s in there all right but we’ve never used it and don’t expect to, so rest in peace.” But nevertheless the potentiality remains does it not? If a man were to hold a loaded gun to my head, had the hammer pulled back, and finger on the trigger, he could easily still my anxiety by informing me that he had never shot a man in his life! Cub bears may be harmless and make interesting playfellows—until they are full-grown and have attained enough strength to crush a man in this embrace. Even the law recognizes potentialities. How often haven’t you read of the apprehension of an armed man who had intent to do bodily harm?

It also appears that it is rather easy for B. V. to question what is the will of God. I am very glad that Moses did not question, to the extent of disobedience, and that he did not say that it could not be the will of God that Israel leave Egypt. Indeed it was slavery but they might all starve in the wilderness too! Perhaps Lot should have questioned the will of God in respect to leaving Sodom. No doubt he had a good living there. Perhaps he had an abundance. Remember Lot’s wife! Was not she questioning the will of God? But why draw more references? Their number in the Scriptures is legion.

Bluntly B. V. tells us that it is God’s will that His people shall have a sufficient amount of it. (i.e., daily bread) Then there is never a case of a Christian who had died of starvation? Then, to cite one example, there is not a starving Greek Christian in all of Europe?

However, B. V., my gyroscope is working and I’m not so unbalanced that I would refuse to employ God-given talents and energies to advance or promote myself. That is not only our right but also our duty. We certainly may and must use and not abuse the things of this world so that as Eph. 4:28 put it, “we may have to give to him that needeth.”

But, you will object, regardless of how true your statements are they are merely negative and filled with destructive criticism. Have you nothing positive to offer? Anyone can knock but it takes a carpenter knock and at the same time build a house.

May I then humbly suggest that if you will bear in mind these points (and perhaps others have more and better to offer) we can come to some understanding:

  1. We understand that the duty of the punishment of the evildoer rests with the government and not some organization outside of it. I would consider an unjust robbing employer an evildoer.
  2. Have an organization if you will in order to protest and petition our government that they function as they should in respect to evildoers,
  3. If that organization is to be called Christian (not necessarily denominational) make provision and enforce it that only those who confess the name of Christ be admitted as members.
  4. If after you have used legitimate and Christian means to attain your end you fail—let it rest with the Lord and know for a surety that their day is coming. Remember, they have their reward.

However, I full well realize that such a proposition would not be popular. They would not “get things done”. But I do believe that it is a Christian method and one which without faith we could not subscribe to. Whether or not B. V., you and your followers agree is not all-important. I am ready to say with the well-known Dr. Machen: “God and I are a majority”.