It was, of course, no surprise that the synod of ‘84 turned down the overture of Class is California South which asked that Calvin College be put under society control. But it is. nevertheless, annoying and disgusting to take note of the arguments that synod used for its decision. In no way did Classis California South get a fair hearing, and in no way did the decision of synod do justice to the well-worked-out overture of this classis. Much the same happened several years ago when Classis British Columbia presented a similar overture—a principled and well–documented and worked out overture. But it did not get to first base either. It is very obvious that the “establishment” in Grand Rapids is not impressed with principal arguments. Calvin must remain under church control, come what may. And too many synodical delegates (many of them products of Calvin) are ready to nod their approval to maintain the status quo. They have been so mesmerized by the “onze school” slogan that they can’t entertain any other possibilities. And meanwhile the quotas keep co ming in, which is, of course, the key to the whole problem. As long as that faithful old cow keeps giving milk, she will be milked. It’s too bad that a lot of consistories and classes don’t stand up and say: Enough is enough! Calvin has no more right to denominational quotas than any of the other church-related colleges. Even a child can see the justice of that statement.
Note the grounds of synod’s decision as found on p. 588 of the 1984 Acts of synod:
“1. The overture does not demonstrate that the maintenance of Calvin College by the church violates scriptural principles.”
That is a total co p–out. That has been demonstrated time and again throughout the history of the CRC, not only by Classis California South & B.C., but by countless other writers. And synod itself has said on more than one occasion that on biblical, principal grounds, it was wrong for the church to operate a liberal arts college. It was always said that the “time was not ripe” to implement the principle. Here the synod denies what previous synods have clearly stated. Any Reformed person who understands something of the biblical principle of sphere-sovereignty knows very well that the church–institute has no business running a school or labor union or political party. Ground One has no validity at all. The wish is father of the thought and replaces principle.
“2. The overture does not present new, persuasive, or substantive reasons for a change in the governance of Calvin College.”
Reply: Of course not. All the arguments have been presented in the past, and they were persuasive and substantive too. It’s simply a matter of listening to those arguments and putting them into practice. The fault lies not in the arguments, but in those who do not want to listen to biblical arguments.
“3. It is advantageous to the church, its related colleges, Calvin Seminary, and other educational institutions that Calvin College remain under the control of the church.”
Now that is a real humdinger! One wonders who in the world concocted such a dandy! For years those connected with other CRC-related colleges have said that it simply was not fair and just that Calvin should receive preferential treatment. And that is why they asked synod to put Calvin under society control like the rest of them. But here synod turns this around and tells them that synod knows better what is good for them than they do themselves! That reminds me of Russia telling the citizens of East Berlin who want to escape over the wall that they really don’t know what’s good for them: they have it much better inside the wall.
A statement is made here without a shred of evidence. One would like to have some demonstration for what is said here. How it is advantageous to the other colleges that Calvin remains under church control? And who are those “other educational institutions?” How do they fit into the picture? It’s all very strange and very confusing.
“4. Church ownership and direct control assure the continued integrity of Calvin College as a Reformed Christian institution.”
This ground is patently false. Church ownership has proved to be a hindrance rather than a help in maintaining the Reformed character of Calvin. Witness the numerous protests that have come to the Board of Trustees and synod over the years regarding matters of teaching, administration, etc. And how many of them “died on the paper” simply because Calvin was a church institution, and to touch Calvin was to touch the church? It resembles the practice of having the coyote guarding the chicken coop. It is extremely difficult to discipline an institution which has such intimate ties with the church. Fact is, at times the loyalty borders on idolatry, worshipping our “sacred” institutions. It is much easier to “clean house” in a private institution, for the simple reason that people will withhold their money if they don’t like the institution or the product. But with our quota system we are “locked into” supporting Calvin, no matter what. Which is one very bad aspect of the quota system which the churches should reject.
It simply is not true that chu rch control of Calvin has maintained its Reformed character. The contrary is true.
In short, none of the grounds given for the decision of synod holds any water whatsoever. They are hollow arguments, as any observant reader can see. What the synod is really saying is: We’ve been wrong for so long; let’s just continue to be wrong. Only it tries to cover this up by nice-sounding words.
J. Tuininga, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada