There are 2,000 draft-age male students at this school being black-balled by a morally lame church. They are being abandoned as they attempt to decide whether or not to fight in a war which they may feel is unjust and immoral.

Since 1939 the Christian Reformed Church has held in principle to a position of honoring selective conscientious objection to war. Yet today in the face of the decade's greatest moral dilemma, the church remains silent, refusing counsel and support to those who wish to act in accord with the synodical decision.

Any war disturbs Christian conscience, or it should. Since the earliest days of the Church, some Christians have rejected war altogether because they have believed it to be incompatible with Christian faith. War always presents pain, suffering, evil and ambiguity. Any war, therefore, demands scrutiny by Christians as a matter of faith and conscience. Sound questions have been asked about the justice of the United States' methods of warfare in Vietnam, about our very presence in the war-weary country, and about the personal justification of fighting and killing in a war which is at least morally questionable, if not totally unjust. Christian conscience is disturbed by war, especially where penetrating questions indicate an ambiguous situation.

The problem is old and we are all weary of it by now. Each of us is forced in one way or another to face it. I am not about to argue for or against the war: I've made my decision; you must make yours. What bothers me is that a great number of draft-age men in this school are facing a moral choice, either alternative of which presents solemn consequences, and the church has refused to counsel them. Although the church and its leaders have not actively refused to do so, they have by their silence denied the more seriousness of the problem. (The recent diatribe in the church's official publication explicitly denies the existence of a moral dilemma.) Perhaps never in the history of our denomination have its members been called on to fight in a war for which the goals are so much questioned and the military tactics so much debated. One part of the situation is very clear, however: the young men in the Christian Reformed Church cannot escape making a decision about serving their country in this war. At the same time, it is becoming increasingly clear that many thoughtful Christians have found service in this war repugnant to their consciences and the Word of God. Some are moving to Canada, some are going to seminary, some are applying for status as conscientious objectors. In the face of this dilemma the church remains obdurately mute.

Officially, since 1939 our church has upheld in principle the responsibility of Christians to refuse service to their government in certain situations. With especial reference to war our church has emphasized this responsibility:

The only conscientious objector to military service whose claim the church cannot repudiate is he who, recognizing his duty to obey his government and to defend his country in response to its call to arms, has intelligent and adequate grounds to be convinced that the given war to which he is summoned is an unjust war. When he is absolutely certain in the light of the principles of the Word of God that his country is fighting for a wrong cause, he cannot morally justify his participation in the given war...the only course open to such a person is to resort to passive resistance and to refuse to bear arms in that given war. (emphasis mine)

--Acts of Synod, 1939, p. 249

The statement is obviously emphatic. However the church simply has refused to apply this principle to our situation, to the war in Vietnam and those who object to it.

Notice particularly that the Synod's statement accepts as morally justified only one who objects to a given war, that is, a selective conscientious objector. But this position is not legally recognized in the light of present draft laws. One may only be granted CO status if he objects to all war. A selective conscientious objector does not exist in the eyes of the state.

In light of this conflict we need guidance. But we are given little or none. The church must offer suggestions as to what grounds it considers to be ``intelligent and adequate'' and what ``principles of the Word of God'' apply to the Vietnam war.

We are forced to decide whether direct participation in this war is contrary to our Christian duty. We cannot take such decisions lightly, although the church seems to sense an urgency in the problem. The possibilities are grave. The objector to military service is subject to imprisonment for up to five years with a possible fine of $10,999, in addition to the permanent stigma of having committed a felony. The church must not fail to address itself to these questions, pleading ignorance as its members face such alternatives.

Many of us, after careful study of the course of our nation's involvement in Vietnam, have been compelled by our consciences in the light of God's Word to oppose the war as immoral and unjust. And yet we have been roundly condemned by members and leaders of the church in spite of the official position.

The church must face the fact that a Christian's conscience is not an instrument of the Devil- or any of its modern equivalents. It must accept that there is no necessary link between the exercise of conscience and anarchy, which seems to be the reigning fear among the constituency. A Christian's individual conscience must be given its due respect. The Synod of 1939 certainly considered the Christian's serious concern for his moral responsibility as honorable. It was regarded as not only a right of Christians, but more, ``a duty under certain circumstances to refuse to be obedient to the civil government.''

But how are we individuals to act with moral or even physical courage, when the church has not the moral guts to stand behind a thirty year old decision?

Nor can we students sit back and wait for our famously tardy church to act. This church has an embarrassing reputation of issuing definitive statements on social issues long after any such position is significant. A case in point is the church's statement on race relations which did not appear until 1963, years after other churches had spoken significantly to the situation. Decisions made with the help of hindsight are great for accuracy but give little assistance in a moral situation here and now.

We cannot afford to wait: our lives, futures and consciences are on the line. General Hershey will undoubtedly not wait for Synod to decide whether it will honor the consciences of a brother.