July 18, 1991

Dear Rev. Campbell,

Thank you for your response to my letter of May 29, 1991.  Let me assure you from the start that in spite of our differences, my personal respect for you is not affected and it remains my deep desire that all channels of communication between us remain open.

Your latest letter confirms, what I have implied in the past, as the primary reason why the Social Credit Party both Federal and Provincial has failed; namely, its compromise on Principles.  The most vivid illustration of this phenomenon is the rise and fall of the Alberta Social Credit under Aberhart and Manning.  This movement had all the ingredients of a party based on integrity and Christian Principles.  It failed because these convictions were put up for grabs within the party structure.  No well-defined adherence by the members to these principles was required and consequently when the Party grew and gained power, the opportunists took over control and principles became secondary.  The B.C. Social Credit has recently signed its own death warrant by removing the Christianity clause from their constitution.  The same seeds of destruction are thriving within the Reform Party.  Issues which both you and I are firmly committed to, are put into question from the outset and left undefined from within the Party structure to be decided upon by the voters by means of a dubious referendum process.

Ken, you did the CHP and its members a great injustice by alleging that the spirit of “Mien Kampf,” and the principled CHP approach to politics are synonymous.  You further implicate yourself by saying that: “The gospel of Jesus Christ can only be authentically identified with the Spirit of “Magna Carta” – “government by consent of the governed.”  If, as you say, (and I believe you) you “share the Biblical principles to which the CHP is committed,” then why don’t you help us present them to the Canadian people as the problem, which, presented to them as a “Responsible Alternative,” they may choose to accept or reject.  Instead you advise people to divide their loyalty between more than one Federal Party in order to propel Preston Manning into power, something even the “unresponsive three old Federal Parties”, as you call them, see as ethically unacceptable.

You and I both know that membership in a party does not deprive members of their freedom to cast their ballot for whom they will n election day.  The flip side of the coin is that membership in a political party clearly identifies one with the policies this party stands for.

It has become very clear where the Reform Party stands on the crucial issues of the day.  It is not neutral, but instead has indicated to men of principle, like pro-life lawyer Paul Formby (who is seeking the Reform Party nomination in Burnaby, B.C.) that he would have to take whatever position was available by his constituents on moral issues.  Mr. Formby rightly refused on the grounds that society cannot decide moral issues by popular appeal.  Based on this principled position, Mr. Formby was told he would not be acceptable as a Reform candidate.

Does this not confirm, Mr. Campbell, that if principles are not formulated within a political party for people to vote on, no principle will emerge?  Those who are committed to the principles of secular humanism have no trouble with this concept, they will advocate them religiously, and demand adherence from those who propagate them in public.

Why then do you, as a man of principles, and in a position of influence, advise us to divide our loyalty?

No, dear friend, I must decline your invitation to reconsider your call contained in your letter of May 16.  I shall continue to advance the principles to which the CHP is committed.  The CHP shall place these principles before the people during the next federal election campaign for their acceptance or rejection.  Principles upon which Canada may be renewed under God’s blessing, principles which are not pit up for sale, neither will be decided by Reform Party referendum.

Instead I challenge you to present yourself as a Principled Candidate for election, to the Reform Party.  Tell them that you will espouse “in the name of Christ the Liberator” the values of our Judeo-Christian heritage, on which this pluralistic society was founded and has flourished,”  and see if you will not join the ranks of Mr. Formby.

If this takes place, Ken, then it is not too late to tell others and join the “CHP KAMPF” to reaffirm “the good ways.”

Yours in His and Canada’s service,

E. Vanwoudenberg

Editor’s note: This article, dealing with the Reform Party, is unusually long.  However, because it was considered so important, Vitality printed the correspondence in its entirety.  We ere therefore forced to omit regular features such as Jim’s Column, the Editorial and Bits and Pieces.

Watch the next Vitality for their return.