Esteemed Editor:

May I again be privileged to use your paper to further substantiate statements which I made and which are seemingly assumed to have no basis in fact and remarks for which I supposedly must hang my head in shame?

First of all I must say that it is not my intention in this controversy over the CLA to become personal in respect to those who disagree with me. Neither do I think we should stand on the heights and classify our opponents and call “shame, shame” or say that this or that is not to his credit or assume to know how much or how little our opponent knows about his subject. Not that the undersigned is greatly affected by such remarks but I feel that, besides the fact that such things sound a bit juvenile, that is not the issue and the matter in hand is of more importance than the personal opinions of any individual contributor. I would rather let our readers compare the various articles themselves and let our arguments stand or fall by their own judgment. If brother B. V. feels that I have been uncharitable in my remarks he certainly has that privilege as creatures of the dust we are subject to error and readily submit to correction and reproof if necessary.

Let us then treat the matter as they appear in brother Veldkamp’s article entitled “Unwarranted Con elusions” and perhaps enlarge somewhat on proof for the conclusions which are supposedly unwarranted.

In the first place I utterly fail to see how anyone can speak of this or that being “more Biblical” when he himself has advanced no Scriptural proof to substantiate his argument. Of course we agree that there are passages in which we can plausibly conceive of more than one interpretation but our interpretation must not conflict with the rest of Scripture and both parties must present such a text and that has not been done.

If now then your opponent advances Scriptural proof to substantiate his statements may we then quit ourselves of the matter simply by saying, “I am not an exegete?” Must we be afraid of wrong conclusions that, rather than risk it, we very literally close the Scriptures and reason with our own little finite minds? Neither do I claim to be an exegete but I refuse to believe that any child of God has been denied so much grace or has received the gift of the Spirit in so small a measure that he cannot understand and interpret the Scriptures according to the measure and ability which God in His Wisdom has deemed good for him. To my mind it is positively dangerous to infer that conditions have changed (although basically they have not) and therefore certain passages hold little or no meaning for us!

I also trust that brother B. V. being well acquainted with Eph. 6:11-18 will have noticed that it very distinctly is a spiritual warfare to which the Apostle has reference—“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood. . .” and the weapons of offense are very distinctly not the arm of flesh but “the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God.” We also find a related passage in II Cor. 10:3, 4.

And now brethren of the opposition it is assumed that I know but little concerning the organization which you so staunchly defend. It is assumed that it is nothing other than base ridicule when I place “Christian” in quotation marks when speaking of the CLA. Let me then state some plain and unquestionably true facts which are very easily verified by at least three separate parties and more if need be. I shall only take the liberty not to give the names of the individuals concerned but these may be supplied at your request.

  1. Is it not true that an officer of the CLA, an ardent worker for the cause and a zealous organizer of the shop men in Holland, Michigan, was not a church member and to the best of my knowledge never attended church services. And is it not true that he was separated from his wife and that when this man passed away a short time ago it was necessary to call in a thoroughly modernistic preacher who, had he been there, would have pronounced a eulogy over the body of Judas Iscariot himself! I ought to know for that officer lived under my roof for some six months, I hope for your sakes, brethren, that this is one of those rare exceptions yet nevertheless he was one of your brethren in the CLA.
  2. Is it not true that when I was employed for a short time at the West Mich. Furniture Co., one of your CLA men earnestly besought me to “join up” at the first opportunity he had to approach me on the matter. And that without knowing who I was, for 1 was relatively a stranger here, or what I believed or did not believe. I daresay I could have been an atheist and the invitation would have as warmly been extended me to affiliate with your organization!
  3. Is it not true that at least a percentage of your members have stated to acquaintances of mine that they prefer to work next to a CIO man rather than a non-union man?
  4. Is it not true that by joining the CLA it becomes very easy to take another step and join the other unions? For, is it not true that the carpenters of our fair city were CLA men and when they found that the CLA had not enough prestige and power to secure for them the wage increase they sought they promptly joined the AFL?

These facts cannot be denied brethren and if your organization continues to entertain such on your rolls I see no reason why they cannot in time become a majority and “extend the sphere of their influence” in your midst. These are not words of bitterness or sarcasm but they are the truth as both I and others have experienced them. Neither have I conducted a “snooping campaign” to discover these things. They were literally thrown at me. Do you perhaps have an explanation for such a phenomena?

I have not found basis in the Scriptures for a Utopia in this life but have found comfort in such passages as: “Be of good cheer for I have overcome the world. . .Let not your heart be troubled. . .If in this life only we have hope in Christ. . .A table Thou preparest me in the presence of my enemies. . .Be patient therefore brethren, unto the coming of the Lord . . .Behold we count them happy which endure. . .If ye suffer for righteousness sake happy are ye. For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing . . .If any man suffer as a Christian let him not be ashamed,” and many, many more.

If it is true that my proposition favors State Socialism then so does Rom. 13 and Art. 36 of the Belgic confessions. For what in brief do I propose? Simply this: That I believe that the government is instituted by God for the punishment of the evil-doer and for the protection of those that do well. Very as gross acts of violence, cause themselves to fall into well then, if a man or group of men (and I have employers and companies in mind) by their unrighteous and wicked acts be it by robbing the hireling as well the class of evildoers, it is the duty of the government to punish such evil-doers and they i.e. the government may very well be made aware of such a state or condition by a direct appeal to them by the well-doer or doers. I trust that that is clear.

There is also much more to be said in respect to the right of one man or a group of men to leave his or their work or threaten to do so simply for the sake of another who belongs to their organization and who demands higher wages when it is possible that he is already being remunerated to the full extent of his worth to his particular employer. But that matter had better be left lest our patient editor feels that we occupy too much space.