This month the alma mater or fostering mother of so many—proudly and affectionately called onze school by our stalwart, Dutch–speaking forebears becomes a centenarian. Congratulations alma mater and may God bless you richly!
To fail to take note of and to rejoice in the plethora of God’s goodnesses shown during the one hundred years of Calvin‘s history would be base ingratitude indeed. For everything there is a time and a season—and this is a time for appreciation, commemoration, and also celebration.
Personalia – Bear with me then, if for a moment I reminisce on my own uninterrupted eleven years as a student at Calvin from 1919 to 1930—four years at Calvin “Prep” School, four years at Calvin College, and finally three years at Calvin Seminary—all in one and the same building on the Franklin Street campus.
Those were precious and also very profitable years when competent and consecrated teachers, some more and others less, challenged us to learn, to think, to stretch our minds, to glimpse the vistas of learning open to us, to love the Reformed faith, and to be committed to a dynamic Calvinism for all of life.
The limited enrollment of those bygone years made close contact between faculty members and students possible. At that time professors even traveled to distant parts of the city, by streetcar if necessary, to visit us in our homes. To be sure, the good old days at Calvin were not all good—but they did afford us certain advantages and blessings that are treasured by us to this day as a precious heritage.
Later I had the privilege of serving on Calvin’s Board of Trustees, for a time as chairman of the executive committee, and also as the chairman of the language planning committee at the time when in God‘s gracious providence Knollcrest became available and was proposed as the future site of Calvin’s campus.
However, insignificant as my own participation in all this may have been, I am so hold, if not indiscreet, as to mention it lest the lines that now follow be misconstrued as coming from an inveterate malcontent always incapable of anything but negative criticism and reactions.
Please, believe me then, that Calvin’s real needs are remembered regularly also in my intercession before Him whose marvelous mercies have made the stupendous achievement at the prestigious Knollcrest Campus possible, and also that I want to be counted among those who, before God, have long had the very best interests of Calvin and of our supporting CRC very close to their hearts. Looking back, after more than forty-five years in the ministry, I cannot deny that, in the long run, some of my critics were among my very best friends. Calvin may well ask whether the same may not be true for her.
To avoid euphoria – With all their scholarly attainments as well as their knowledge of psychology and theology, those who occupy prominent positions at Calvin have no need of me to inform them of the dangers of euphoria in the celebration. However, it is possibly not superfluous for those of us who can look at Calvin from a distance and can be more objective than the insiders, to reiterate or underscore the dangers of this euphoria or feeling of well-being when some may become so exuberant as to believe that there is not even a single cloud in the sky.
During my years at The Banner, for a time I had a secretarial assistant who handled my correspondence, both the input and the output. At the time laudatory and encouraging letters were received, but also some with stinging rebuke –as you may be sure there were also before my time there and have been also since. When the mail would come, this assistant had one favorite comment as she would have to place those bitter herbs of correspondence before me. It was a bit amusing and also consoling to have her dismiss cantankerous correspondents, one after another, by saying, “He’s a paranoid.” Well, in a good number of cases that may have been true. But, deep down in my heart, at least in some cases I had the sneaking realization that maybe the correspondent was right and that possibly I could learn something also from my “paranoid” critics.
Caught lip in an aura of celebration, commemoration, adulation, and jubilation, Calvin‘s non-discerning enthusiasts may easily be tempted to separate Calvin’s critics as “the bad guys” from “the good guys,” while they consign the former to oblivion and laud the latter to the skies. Calvin could make no greater mistake than to take these fair-weather friends or drum-beaters too seriously—and, it is my fond hope and conviction as weB, that Calvin’s real leaders of stature will not give their boisterous applause an ear. May God graciously grant that “onze school” will not be carried away on a wave of euphoria and fail to rise to the challenge of a future, the like of which she has never known before.
To embrace and practice a responsible academic freedom – Does teaching at Calvin allow for academic freedom? The answer is, I believe, yes and no. The centennial challenge once again confronting all who teach at Calvin, whether in the Seminary or in the College, is to embrace the former and to repudiate the latter.
As Webster defines “academic freedom,” there can be no room for it at Calvin. Webster is brief and simple: academic freedom is the freedom “to teach or to learn without interference.” Anyone who teaches at Calvin with the understanding that he may teach there with that kind of freedom is holding his or her position under false pretenses.
Why? Because all who teach at Calvin have been accepted there only after expressing a serious and solemn (also joyful, we would like to assume) commitment to the whole Bible as the only inspired, authoritative, and inviolable Word of God, and also to our doctrinal standards (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort) as expressing their own honest convictions.
This means that anyone teaching at Calvin may enjoy academic freedom to his heart’s content—but only within the framework of the Bible as God’s Word and our confessional standards as expressing our persuasion. Anyone who might regard this as a straitjacket to which he is unwilling to be confined should be honest enough to recognize that he has no other freedom except to leave and go elsewhere.
It is by no means reassuring when one encounters those who appear to squirm at such restriction. “We must be free to ask questions,” I have been told in asking about someone’s view of academic freedom. And, of course, he was right. But, as an astute lady in the group, replied without a moment’s hesitation, “We don‘t only want questions at Calvin, we also want answers.”
No small part of the centennial challenge for “onze school,” as I see it is to manifest a responsible academic freedom—and to do so enthusiastically, joyfully, and contagiously.
To pursue the right priorities – It is told of a poor German schoolmaster that he had this proud inscription carved over the door to his humble dwelling: “Dante, Moliere, and Goethe live here.” Scant as his earthly possessions were, this lowly teacher had obviously sorted out his priorities and was glorying in them.
Even so, now that a century has elapsed, “onze school” still writes over her imposing campus and buildings: “John Calvin lives here.” And now, the challenge that comes to our generation from this great reformer of more than four hundred years ago, and also from John Calvin‘s God, is this: Either strive with all you have and are to live up to it; or, otherwise, change your name.
For John Calvin, the sovereignty of God was fundamental to and central in his whole life-and-world view that he set forth so clearly, so Scripturally, and with such brilliant scholarship, all of which should challenge us to deep gratitude and also earnest emulation.
This faith of John Calvin of Geneva and the other reformers is the faith of the apostles, this faith of the apostles is the faith set forth by Christ and His disciples, and this faith of Christ and His disciples is the faith that runs like a golden thread through all of Scripture. The challenge is to hold fast that which we have, to defend it, to propagate it, to live it, and also to integrate it into every subject taught at Calvin or anywhere else.
To be true to her name, our alma mater must in all things make it clearly evident that the “Calvin” part of that name is not merely a tag for identification but rather a commitment still held in honor.
“By what standard?” is a question to be applied consistently also to the genuineness of all that goes on at Calvin College and Seminary and that which proceeds from there.
Chimes, Calvin‘s literary productions, drama, films, every course at both the College and Seminary fail to achieve their purpose unless they can honestly be laid at the feet of the King of kings for His honor and approval.
The literary achievements of a Peter De Vries, a Fred Feikema Manfred, or a David Cornell De Jong notwithstanding their widespread acclaim that may evoke misguided emulation on the part of students who aspire to become writers of like renown—simply do not qualify as achievements honoring to our King.
An imposing campus with prestigious buildings and facilities can be a great blessing as long as Calvin, under God, keeps her priorities in order—but they become a curse if all this glamor and magnificence ever blinds us to the religions be-all and end-all which Calvin must be all about.
If those who are at Calvin, or the church to which Calvin belongs, either by default or by design, allows the secular to preempt the sacred, then the glory will have departed and all the gold will have turned into brass.
To be sure, it is inescapable that those who are trained for the ministry at Calvin Seminary must familiarize themselves with the molders of contemporary theology: Schleiermacher, Ritschl, Von Harnack, Kierkegaard, Tillich, Barth, Bultmann and others who, since their time, are now moving into the forefront. Those who occupy our pulpits and teach the youth must be knowledgeable with respect to the theological amalgam and heresies of our own as well as of a by-gone day and must also be able to put themselves as well as others on guard against them. But, surely, they should read and study and react to all these and also to the present-day proponents of “the new hermeneutics” antithetically if we are to be worthy sons and daughters of the Protestant Reformation.
The writings of the moderns must of necessity, claim our attention. However, at Calvin Seminary, as well as in especially the young minister’s study, these writers are to be relegated to second place and to be used only for collateral reading.
There have been and still are giants in the Reformed faith with whose writings we are to saturate ourselves first of all—to wit, Calvin, Warfield, Hodge, Vas, Murray, Van–Til, Berkhof, Hendriksen (writer of outstanding commentaries) and others.
With respect to those mentioned who nre our own contemporaries, let’s beware lest we allow familiarity to breed contempt. Vital to the future of Calvin is that we sort out and pursue only those priorities that arc pleasing to our Lord.
To revive the “onze school” aspect – As often as I hear or read someone who resorts to this “onze school” designation of Calvin, my mind is set to wondering. Is this done for good public relations, out of nostalgia, or is it a situation that still obtains to this day? If I am not altogether mistaken in thinking that this designation no longer evokes the grass-roots response it did at one time, I would urgently suggest that Calvin put forth an all-out effort to revive whatever we may have lost in that respect.
Next to our Lord‘s blessings, the best stock-in-trade Calvin has is the goodwill and confidence of our constituency. It will not do to say, as someone prominent at Calvin Seminary has told me, that our leaders there are entitled to our confidence. Mutual confidence between the constituency and Calvin is a precious commodity that is not simply to be taken for granted. When a minister accepts a call to a new congregation, he is not to assume that he has the full confidence of the people the first time he steps on that pulpit. He first has to earn it, and he must first be heard and observed before unqualified confidence is extended to him. Even so, our leaders at Calvin may rightly be expected to teach, to write, to speak, and to preach in such a way that full confidence will be forthcoming genuinely and spontaneously as a result and not as a foregone conclusion.
Needed so urgently are dynamic speakers to refute the godless theory of evolution and to proclaim again our historic view of creation (not theistic evolution). Eager as we are to be able to put confidence in Calvin, we are envious to observe that those who are boldly doing this very thing in the public arena arc men like Dr. Henry M. Morris and Dr. Duane T. Gish from California and Dr. John N. Moore from Michigan State University.
A seventeenth century writer once wrote this telling statement: “I had rather see coming toward me a whole regiment with drawn swords than one lone Calvinist convinced that he is doing the will of God.” Is it too much to expect of Calvin as “onze school” that her graduates will go forth in great numbers in that spirit to uphold the whole Bible as God’s authoritative and inspired Word as the opposition, both within and without the CRC, becomes vocal and ever bolder?
When criticism of “onze school” surfaces from time to time, it is to be understood that Calvin is sensitive about this. After all, that’s human nature. Moreover, at times Calvin may have been made the whipping boy when parents, pastors, and consistories have failed to assume their own share of responsibility for the conduct of their own young people. As Woodrow Wilson once said in reply to criticism while he was president of Princeton University, “The reason for our not being able to do more with your children is that they are your children.”
So, the centennial challenge is for all of us to put our hand within our own bosom. At the same time, criticism of Calvin should not he too easily dismissed and allowed to fester beneath the surface. The pastor of one large church said some time ago, “We still pay our quota [for Calvin] but our hearts arc no longer in it.” It would be easy to dismiss this as an isolated else. But let’s not be too quick to come to that conclusion.
I have a suggestion. At The Banner, during tenure as editor, a survey of the readership was conducted to receive anonymous reactions to and evaluations of our publication. Although one awaits the outcome of such a somewhat cold-blooded experiment with apprehension, the results did prove to he profitable.
Would it he too hold to propose that both Calvin College and the Seminary also face up to the facts that such a survey might reveal? Calvin College, no doubt, has the know-how or expertise for conducting such a survey. The outcome might be highly gratifying, exceedingly painful, or somewhere in between—who knows. At any rate, the challenge to know the real situation is one that ought to merit consideration.
It may be, with government money available, that Calvin is no longer as dependent on the goodwill of the constituency as once upon a time. Be that as it may, we surely are not ready to despise our birthright for what could prove to he a mess of pottage. I am certainly not ready to believe that leaders at Calvin are not genuinely concerned about the grassroots goodwill of the CRC.
lf the Lord tarries, what the next one hundred years will be for Calvin, only God knows. To Him he all the praise for the countless blessings of 1876–1976, and may He also continue to have mercy upon us!