That Calvin College and Seminary have served, and are serving, as pillars of the Christian Reformed Church can hardIy be questioned. The following simple facts may suffice as evidence. Nearly all the men who now constitute the ministry of the Christian Reformed Church were educated at Calvin College and Seminary; the great majority of present teachers at Calvin College are themselves products of Calvin College, several of them also of Calvin Seminary; and with few exceptions the present members of the Seminary faculty arc graduates of both Calvin College and Calvin Seminary. Besides, numerous graduates of Calvin College are serving OUf church in other positions of leadership, notably as teachers in Christian grade and high schools.
Yet the facts just named do not in themselves indicate how well Calvin College and Seminary have to date served the Christian Reformed Church as pillars, nor do they give promise that Calvin College and Seminary will serve the Christian Reformed Church well as pillars in time to come. With those aspects of the matter this article proposes to deal. In other words, it will attempt an evaluation of Calvin College and Seminary as pillars of the Christian Reformed Church and to offer suggestions as to how they may serve effectively in that capacity. The limitations of space do not permit that to be done exhaustively; but may the evaluation be fair, the suggestions both pertinent and constructive.
A Necessary Two-fold Emphasis
Among the emphases which the Christian Reformed Church has the right to expect of its schools, two loom very large. They are learning or scholarship and orthodoxy or loyalty to the Word of God. And these two must go hand in hand. Never may they be divorced. There is the story of the American who was spending a week end in London, Eng. land. On Sunday he heard two famous preachers: CharJes Haddon Spurgeon and Joseph Parker. On the way to his hotel after the evening service he remarked to himself that he had that day heard two well-organized and eloquently delivered theological discourses, but had received little or no food for his soul. Just then his
attention was arrested by an outdoor crowd being harangued by a speaker. On coming within hearing distance, he caught the words: “I’ve never been to college, but I have been to Calvary.” That was music to our anti-intellectual countryman. It stilled his soul’s hunger. To be sure, if one had to choose between a preacher who has been only to college and not to Calvary and one who has been only to Calvary and not to college, the choice should not be difficult. The latter should receive unqualified preference. But ordinarily there is no good reason why a prospective preacher should not go to both college and Calvary. In fact, he ought by all means to go to both. And that holds not only for ministerial students, but for all other students as well. They need both learning and Christianity. More precisely, they need Christian learning.
Insistence on Orthodoxy
As the Christian Reformed Church celebrates its centennial, it rates as one of the most orthodox churches on this continent not only, but in the world. For good reason a recent history of that church was subtitled A Study in Orthodoxy. II the question should be asked whether the church has kept its schools orthodox or its schools
have kept the church orthodox, the answer would likely have to be that both are true. How well the writer recalls the infra-supra controversy in our church. It extended over several decades and not infrequently waxed warm. Only when it became clear that neither position is unorthodox did that controversy subside. But let no one suppose that it died out for paucity of interest in doctrine and lack of zeal for sound doctrine. The controversy itself was evidence of such interest and zeal, and they persisted after the controversy was concluded.
Came the Bultema case. The teaching of the Muskegon pastor was condemned by the Synod of 1918 not, as has often been said, because of its pre-milIennial character as such. There have been other premillenarians in the Christian Reformed ministry, but not one of them was brought to trial for heresy. The Reverend Mr. Bultema was a dispensationalist. He denied the unity of the church of the old and new dispensations as well as the kingship of Christ over the church. On those two points he contradicted the Word of God as interpreted in the Forms of Unity.
The early twenties brought another doctrinal issue to the fore. Dr. Ralph Janssen, Professor of Old Testament in Calvin Seminary, was said by his colleagues to have been influenced unduly by the higher criticism. Unfortunately that matter was never threshed out thoroughly. Although several of our ablest ministers inclined to the opinion that the professor could be defended, he refused to participate in his own defense at the Synod of 1922 on the ground that certain members of that Synod by their denial of the doctrine of common grace were disqualified from passing judgment on his teaching. That stymied the defense. Synod found Janssen guilty of some of the charges alleged against him. However much one may regret certain aspects of the procedure in that case, the church must be credited with unwillingness to tolerate so much as the semblance of Modernism.
Janssen had alerted the church to the presence in its ministry of deniers of the Reformed doctrine of common grace. Without delay the church took action. Under the guidance of a seminary professor the 1924 Synod drew up its famous three points on the doctrine in question, and soon there· after certain ministers who could not sub· scribe to them were deposed.
The bits of history just related—to which could more easily be added—give abundant evidence of a determination on the part of the Christian Reformed Church and its schools, particularly its seminary, to uphold the Reformed faith.
The Matter of Scholarship In the opinion of the writer of this piece Calvin College and Seminary have in the past been less insistent on scholarship than on orthodoxy. This is not to deny that today both the college and the seminary rank high scholastically among comparable institutions. No doubt, they do. Nor is it to deny that outstanding scholars have served, and are now serving, on their faculties.
Some might be named, were it not that to do so would imply proverbially odious comparisons. The observation may be added that academic degrees are not nearly always a reliable measure of scholarship. This writer has sat at the feet of truly great scholars who had neither honorary nor earned doctorates, and he has met Doctors of Philosophy who were incredibly stupid. Almost anyone can by going to school long enough acquire a doctor’s degree. And, sad to say, even at so highly regarded a school as the Free Reformed University of Amsterdam the requirements for the Th.D. degree are not as rigid as they ought to be.
Calvin College is the outgrowth of “the literary department” of “the theological school” which came into being in 1876. It did not become a four-year college until 1920. Thus the Christian Reformed Church did not provide a full-fledged liberal arts education for its prospective ministers, or for that matter for any of its young people, until that late date. That is a rather disconcerting fact. In the interest of fairness however, it must be noted that from the very beginning the curriculum of the so-called literary department excelled in such solid subjects as languages and philosophy.
Professor Arthur Bestor of the University of Illinois recently wrote two noteworthy books entitled Educational Wastelands (1953) and The Restoration of Learning (1955). In its November 30, 1956, issue United States News and World Report published an interview with Dr. Bestor under the title: “We Are Less Well Educated than Fifty Years Ago.” That noted educator is convinced that for some decades now American education by and large has been deteriorating. His specific objections are that it is “geared to mediocrity,” that the so-called three R’s: reading, writing, and arithmetic, are not taught as effectively as they should be, and that the professional educators by their insistence on “life adjustment” education and the like have been crowding such fundamentals as English, science, mathematics, history, and foreign languages off the curriculum. In consequence few young Americans are today receiving a truly broad and thorough liberal arts education.
Bestor is right. Undeniable facts substantiate his criticism. And sad to say, the deterioration which he observes has affected, not only the public school system of these United States, but to some extent also ow Christian schools. No doubt, there are in the latter schools teachers who are valiantly resisting the downward trend, and our schools have not succumbed to the extent that most public schools have; yet a little leaven is threatening to leaven the whole lump.
As it is, Calvin College and Seminary find themselves in an unenviable position. If children have learned the fundamentals neither in grade school nor in high school, it becomes exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for the college to make up the deficiency; and if it is not made up in college, the seminary is indeed in a sorry plight. Today Calvin College is compelled to teach many courses on the high school level. If the reader will permit a personal note, the graduates of Calvin College’s pre-seminary course today know no more Latin, Creek, and German than the writer knew when he graduated. from “prep” school, in this instance the Morgan Park Academy of the University of Chicago, in 1903; and more than a few students at Calvin Seminary are unable to write a sermon without flagrant errors of grammar and misspellings, or to deliver a sermon without unpardonable mispronunciations. Obviously the college pre-seminary course needs to be revised, and fortunately that is being contemplated. But that alone will not solve the problem. One of the saddest aspects of the present situation is that some of our prospective teachers, on graduating from college, do not know the fundamentals as they should and consequently are unable to teach them to their pupils. Thus we are caught in a vicious circle. Bestor makes the radical suggestion to extend the college course from four years to six or seven and to use the first two or three for making up the deficiencies of grade and high schools. In the case of Calvin College an extension of one year might possibly prove sufficient.
As great a scholar as ever taught at the school now known as Calvin College and Seminary was Dr. Geerhardus Vas. In point of scholarship he towered head and shoulders above his colleagues. But, having sat at the feet of Abraham Kuyper, he was a supralapsarian. On that account there were those who made life unpleasant for him, and that had a bearing on his departure for Princeton Theological Seminary in 1893. From the viewpoint of scholarship the dismissal, in 1922, of Dr. Janssen, who had likewise sat at Kuyper’s feet, and at Herman Bavinck’s too, was also regrettable, for he had considerably more formal education than did any of his colleagues and excelled as a pedagogue.
Will the reader bear with a bit of a boast? This writer has been around sufficiently to know whereof he speaks when he asserts that Calvin Seminary ranks high in point of scholarship among the theological schools of the North American continent. But he is compelled to add that this is accounted for in no small measure by the weakness in that respect of most other seminaries. At this point he would call attention to two aspects of scholarship with reference to which there has for some time been room for improvement at Calvin Seminary. Not enough attention has been paid to contemporary thought. Specifically, biblical criticism has received too scant attention, and it took our seminary too long to wake up to the peril of Barthianism. Also, generally speaking the method of teaching has been too elementary, That is to say, the professors have too often done nearly all the thinking for the students and have not stimulated their students sufficiently to productive thought. That helps account for it that too few graduates of the seminary aspire to the pursuit of advanced studies, whether by themselves or in other schools.
From Here On
When a denomination celebrates its centennial, it naturally looks backward and reviews its history. It should not neglect to assess its present position and, thence looking forward, to inquire into its prospect.
The Christian Reformed Church still is one of the most orthodox churches on the face of the globe. Are there signs that it is weakening? That question it must face honestly and seriously. God forbid that it should succumb to the deadly disease of complacency. What will become of our church in the next hundred years? Frankly, no one can say with certainty. The promise that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the church (Matthew 16:18) gives complete assurance that there will be a true church on earth to the very end of time, but it does not guarantee the continuance of any given denomination as a true church of Jesus Christ. Many an erstwhile sound church has degenerated into a false church, a synagogue of Satan. Such a fate may overtake the Christian Reformed Church. Nay, it may be said unhesitatingly that precisely that is bound to occur unless the Christian Reformed Church strives to retain its soundness. And it is the sacred duty of Calvin College and Seminary to take an active part, even to playa leading role, in that striving. They can do so by vigorously promoting Christian learning. Some eight suggestions—admittedly overlapping at times—as to the effective performance of that task follow.
As to Scholarship
As was already painted out, the standard of scholarship at Calvin College and Seminary needs to be raised. One suggestion made to that end was that the college course be extended from four years to five. Now let it be said that the seminary course should by all means be extended from three years to four. Not only would that make room in the curriculum for subjects that are not taught at present; it would also make possible some specialization by students, as well as more advanced methods of teaching; for instance, by way of seminars and research. In recent decades schools of medicine, dentistry, law, engineering, in short professional schools general1y, have greatly lengthened their courses. It is more than time that theological schools should follow suit.
A few additional notes on the matter of scholarship may well be in order.
The remark is sometimes made that a given person because of the trees cannot see the woods, and there are also said to be persons who because of the woods cannot see the trees. Some there are who have accurate knowledge of almost countless details but seem blind to the grand picture in which those details blend. Others are determined to generalize with little nor no knowledge of particulars. Both fall short of true scholarship. A scholar sees both the individual trees and the woods as a whole. In terms of Christianity, he knows numerous facts and realizes that all facts add up to a revelation of the divine Creator.
Humility is essential to true scholarship, and the Christian scholar is sure to excel in that virtue. However much a scholar may know, he is keenly aware how little he knows. Therefore he is ever eager to learn from others. A scholarly professor willingly learns from his students, a scholarly pastor from his parishioners. When the great Abraham Kuyper was serving his first charge, an unschooled woman took him to task for his theological liberalism. Christian scholar that he was, he gave heed. May the members of our college and seminary faculties never regard themselves as intellectual aristocrats occupying an ivory tower far beyond criticism by the laity. And may our students be kept from acting superior as they acquire a little learning, which is a dangerous thing.
As to Distinctiveness
In recent years Calvin College and Seminary have grown apace. The seminary has a student body of a hundred and twenty-five and a faculty of eleven; the college now has an enrollment of more than seventeen hundred and a teaching ,st.:’lH of more than seventy. Looking back, one is reminded of the saying that from little acorns great oak trees grow. And here is cause for gratitude to God. However, it can hardly be denied that such growth entails no small peril. The danger is very real that undue emphasis will be placed on what the world counts greatness, that our schools will ape the big universities in the hope of gaining their plaudits, that externals will be stressed at the expense of distinctiveness. If that should come to pass, it would constitute a calamity of the first magnitude. For it would simply mean that Calvin College and Seminary were lOSing their reason for existence.
Calvin College is not just another college, but a Christian college. Calvin Seminary is not just another seminary, but an orthodox seminary. More specifically, they arc Calvinistic institutions. And Calvinism is not merely one brand of Christianity on a par with other brands. It is Christianity in its most consistent form. Such is the distinctiveness of Calvin College and Seminary, and that distinctiveness constitutes their reason for existence. While there is no danger whatever that they will lose their distinctiveness over night, the danger is anything but imaginary that they will lose it gradually, little by little. In the measure in which they surrender their Calvinistic character, in that very measure their reason for existence will vanish away.
As to Integration
When Robert M. Hutchins was president of the University of Chicago, he rightly insisted on integration of the instruction given in that institution. But he encountered strong opposition from many members of his faculty and, sad to say, h e himself was at a loss to propose a satisfactory principle of integration. Harvard University, the oldest institution of higher education in these United States, gave beautiful expression to its principle of integration when, in 1642, it adopted the rule: “Let every student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3, and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning.” Calvin College and Seminary too have an infallible principle of integration. It is the Word of God, inscripturated and personal And it is a matter of nothing short of supreme importance that they take that principle seriously.
It is sometimes said that a seminary should teach nothing but the Bible, but that statement can hardly stand. The courses in Apolegetics, for instance, must needs deal with false philosophies, and the courses in Church History of necessity present a mass of extra-biblical material. But it is obviously true that aU that is taught in a seminary must be integrated with the Word of Cod. Human philosophies must be judged by the Bible. Every movement in the history of the church must be evaluated in the light of Holy Scripture. In Dogmatics the ultimate question is not what was taught by Augustine, Calvin, Charles Hodge, or Herman Bavinck, nor even what is taught by the best creeds of Christendom, but what says the infallible Word. Also in the field of Practical Theology only the Word is normative, not the traditions and usages of the soundest of churches.
No more important task confronts Calvin College than the integration of general revelation with special. That task is as difficult as it is comprehensive. In this regard the goal of perfection has, of course, not been reached. For that matter, it never will be. But he who does not strive persistently toward that end has no business teaching at Calvin College. Not a single subject may be taught as it is wont to be taught at a state university. Christianity must permeate all the instruction. The objective standard of the good, the true, and the beautiful—all three—as presented by God’s self-revelation in the Bible must ever be upheld.
As to Orthodoxy
Historic Christian doctrine has fallen on evil days. Not only is it being denied blatantly by many, but many more have relegated it to the limbus of the obsolete. Doctrinal indifference is rampant and middle-of-the-roadism in doctrinal debate is popular. If Calvin College and Seminary are to continue to serve the Christian Reformed Church as pillars, they will have to remain orthodox not only, but they will have to be so insistent on sound doctrine as to constitute bulwarks of orthodoxy.
Basic to all Christian doctrine is the doctrine of the Bible as the Word of God. The older modernism rejects it boldly. Of late it is being subjected to a much more insidious attack. In his monumental Kirchliche Dogmatik Karl Barth appeals constantly to the Bible as the Word of God. and yet he is far from identifying the Bible with the Word of God as did the sixteenth-century reformers. He and the other dialectical theologians find. as do the higher critics, both mistakes and myths in the Bible. They denounce as extremely inaccurate the doctrinal position taken by the Evangelical Theological Society, “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written, and therefore inerrant in the autographs.” Let no one think that the Christian Reformed Church and its schools are immune to Barthianism. There are indications that the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands have become infected by it. What is happening there may happen here.
At times one can hardly help wondering whether Calvin College and Seminary are as insistent on orthodoxy as they should be. Are not ethics often stressed to the detriment of doctrine? Is not zeal for sound doctrine every once in a while denounced as “heresy-hunting”? Some, it would seem, are so “fed up” with doctrinal controversy as to be willing to forego a little truth in the interest of peace. And it may safely be set down that doctrinal sensitiveness and discernment are not nearly as evident among our students as they ought to be. Such facts bode no good for the Christian Reformed Church.
As to Godliness
There exists the closest relationship between orthodoxy and godliness. Jesus said: “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). He was referring to freedom from sin. Knowledge of the truth is basic to goodness. It follows that Calvin College and Seminary can contribute immeasurably to the godliness of their students, and through them of our Christian Reformed people, by the inculcation of orthodoxy. Contrariwise, to rusparage orthodoxy is to undermine both truth and goodness.
That the peril of orthodoxism, or dead orthodoxy, is ever with us may not be denied. Therefore it must be emphasized, not only that truth is basic to goodness, but also that goodness is the touchstone of truth. The founders of the undivided Presbyterian Church in the United States of America were right when, in 1788, they unanimously declared: “That truth is in order to goodness; and the great touch· stone of truth, its tendency to promote holiness.”
What the bones are to the human body, that sound doctrine is to Christianity. On the one hand, a body without bones certainly is not worthy of its name. On the other hand, bones alone constitute only a skeleton, not a body.
At the very Ileart of tIle Reformed faith lies the doctrine of salvation by sovereign grace. According to that doctrine men are saved, not by works, but by faith. But Scripture nowhere teaches that men are saved by a faith that does not work. Quite to the contrary, it insists that salvation is only by a living faith which works through love (Galatians 5:6).
The basic principle of Calvinism is the sovereignty of God. Human responsibility is its corollary. Men are responsible to God because he is sovereign. Precisely because the Calvinist is wont to stress divine sovereignty so very strongly, he should stress human responsibility no less strongly. In other words, God’s sovereignty comes to expression not only in his eternal counsel of foreordination, but in his commandments as well. And this is the sum of his commandments: that we should love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbors, enemies included, as ourselves.
As to Leadership
Throughout the centuries the Head of the church, at the right hand of God, has kept his promise to lead the church into the truth by the Spirit of truth (John 16:13). Hence there runs through the church’s history a line of orthodoxy. To that line the church should by all means adhere. In this sense it must be conservative. It is also a fact that the Spirit of truth has led, and continues to lead, the church progressively into the truth. Therefore it must be progressive as well as conservative. With that in mind our Reformed fathers taught us that a Reformed church ever continues in need of reformation. Said they: “Ecclesia reformata est reformanda.”
It is a solemn duty of the faculties of Calvin College and Seminary to give leadership to the Christian Reformed Church as it travels the road of progress. The question arises how that duty is to be performed.
In today’s educational circles much goes under the name of progress which is quite unworthy of that name. For instance, a great many schools that were built upon the infallible Word of God have in course of time abandoned that Word. Aforenamed Harvard is but one example. They have destroyed their own foundation and, strange to say, they call that “progress.” May God withhold such “progress” from Calvin College and Seminary.
Teachers at Calvin College and Seminary are obliged to sign a so-called Formula of Subscription, in which they declare their agreement with the Forms of Unity: the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dordt, and promise to adhere to these doctrinal standards of the Christian Reformed Church in their teaching. The question is often asked whether that requirement does not rule out, or at least greatly restrict, progress. Two observations must here be made. The first is that the Forms of Unity are not infallible, as is Holy Scripture, and therefore are subject to amendment properly proposed. The second is that the Forms of Unity do not nearly exhaust special revelation and do not begin to exhaust general revelation, for which reason new things as well as old may, and must, be brought forth from both.
Churches have a way of accumulating man-made traditions, and when such traditions have become well established, it is not at all unusual for churches to deem them as binding as is the Word of God. Then traditions stifle progress. Rome is by no means the only church which has fallen into that error. Likely it is found to some degree in every Protestant communion as well. Calvin College and Seminary must proclaim aloud that no human tradition, no matter how ancient and even noble, may be equated with the Word of God. The Protestant principle that God alone is Lord of the conscience must ever be upheld. Article XXXII of the Belgic Confession must be stressed, particularly the assertion: “We reject all human inventions, and all laws which man would introduce into the worship of God, thereby to bind and compel the conscience in any manner whatever.”
As to Contemporaneity
For many reasons the instruction given at Calvin College and Seminary ought to excel in contemporaneity. A few may be named. It is requisite for scholarship. A scholar is an authority on some subject. In order to qualify as an authority he must know what others have said on that subject. And he must know, not only what was said yester-year, but also what was said yesterday.
That we are living in the middle of the twentieth century is no accident. Divine providence has brought it to pass. Obviously, God wants us to live, not in isolation from our surroundings after the manner of hennits and stylites, but in full awareness of the times. Our schools must aid our people in doing that.
Christ’s church is in the world, although assuredly not of it. And it has no business trying to get out of it, for it has a duty to perform in and by the world. It is the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13, 14). But it can hardly operate efficiently in those capacities if it is ignorant of the world. In order to act pertinently as a preservative, it must be conscious of the rot in the world. And how can a church properly shed abroad the light of the gospel if it is ignorant of the dark areas of the earth, or for that matter of the city?
lndisputably, there is much good outside the Christian Reformed Church. Some of it is the fruit of God’s saving grace, much of it is the product of his common grace. It is no less clear that evil abounds outside the Christian Reformed Church. Calvin College and Seminary must help our people profit by the good and shun the evil.
To be specific, our age is characterized by the ascendance of missions, ecumenism, the dialectical theology, statism, and organized labor. Let no one think that the movements just named are unrelated to one another. Together they constitute a pattern, and that pattern impinges on every church, ours included. That fact gives rise to certain questions. Did Calvin College and Seminary arouse the Christian Reformed Church to its present commendable zeal for missions, or did the church compel its schools to take serious note of missions? Is it not high time that our theologians should make clear to our people what arc the Scriptural principles which must guide them in their relations with other churches, and how those principles are to be applied in the existing situation? Are our schools doing their utmost, with due appreciation of whatever elements of truth may be found in the dialectical theology, to fortify the church against its utterly ruinous errors? Do our leaders stress sufficiently the Scriptural truths that the individual, the family, the church, and the state are sovereign, each in its own sphere, and that the individual, the family, and the church derive their sovereignty, not from the state, but from God? Are Calvin College and Seminary as insistent as they ought to be on the complete comprehensiveness of Christ’s mediatorial kingship?
How clear that contemporaneity is essential to leadership!
As to Militancy
It is commonly said that the church on earth is militant, the church in heaven triumphant. That statement is too simple to be precise. The church on earth shares in the victory of its triumphant Head. And it can hardly be denied that “the souls of them that were slain for the Word of God” sounded a militant note when John heard them cry with a loud voice from under the altar: “How long, O Master, the holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge ow blood on them that dwell on the earth?” (Revelation 6,9, 10).
Beyond all doubt, we are now in the militant church. Not only is the seed of the serpent at enmity with that of the woman, the woman’s seed is at enmity with that of the serpent. The Christian’s laudable determination to love both friend and foe in all his strife in no way alters that fact. It must be so. Militancy is of the essence of the church on earth. When a church ceases combating God’s enemies, it capitulates to the foe and forfeits every just claim to the name church.
Today, if ever, it behooves Christ’s church to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude:3). The enemy is both without the gate and within. Sometimes he manifests himself as a roaring lion, more frequently perhaps he appears as an angel of light. Among the religious leaders of our times are “false apostles, deceitful workers, fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ” ( II Corinthians 11:13). Never has it been more needful for God’s people to “prove the spirits whether they are of God” (I John 4:1). Lest the very elect be led astray, every minister of the gospel must warn the people committed to his care against wolves in sheep’s clothing that would devour the flock. And a school which prepares men for the gospel ministry is under solemn obligation to fit them for that part of their task. To that end the mere refutation of error will not suffice; truth must be set forth in contrast with error.
Militancy is the price which a church must pay for its continuance as a true church. To be sure, even though the school which trains the future leaders of a given church should desist from militancy, the sovereign and almighty God could keep that church militant and true. Whether he would, no human being can say. But certain it is that such a school would no longer qualify as a pillar of that church. May God forbid that that verdict should ever become applicable to Calvin College and Seminary.