Continued From Page 13

``Urging'' is not ``Requiring''

I thank Professor John Bolt for responding to my article concerning the Christian schooling requirement, especially because he states concisely why many supporters of the requirement stand behind it: namely, article 71 of the Church Order:

The council [of each congregation] shall diligently encourage the members of the congregation to establish and maintain good Christian schools and shall urge parents to have their children instructed in these schools according to the demands of the covenant.

One might expect me to show my point of disagreement with Professor Bolt, but I do not disagree. I even agree with his concluding remarks: ``it is appropriate and consistent ... that the CRC expects the faculty of its school to demonstrate ... support for Christian education.'' My only quibble is that the more specific point for which Professor Bolt argues is expected Christian schooling, not education - a distinction I made before.

One might wonder how it is I have gone from my first article to this seemingly new stance. I answer, I have not changed at all. I still believe Christian schooling should be supported, and I still believe it should not be required. Professor Bolt's letter and article 71 of the Church Order never mention requirements. Professor Bolt speaks of ``expectations,'' which carries connotations of requirements, but even this takes the Church Order further than it goes. Article 71 states very clearly that churches should ``urge'' parents to send their children to Christian schools - something the CRC has never interpreted as ``require'' for any of its members, including the clergy. To move from ``urge'' to ``require'' is to turn something that is not law into law.

Examine the implications. If the Church ``urges'' Christian schooling, and parents decide to send their children to public school, they have not violated any Church law and remain in communion with the Church. On the other hand, should the Church ``require'' Christian schooling, then these same parents would find themselves heretics - outside the laws and outside the communion of the Church. Whereas recommendations, even urgings, can be followed or not depending on the reasons of the agent, laws are rarely debatable.

It remains the case that Calvin should support, should ``urge,'' should perhaps even ``expect'' its faculty to send their children to Christian schools. It also remains the case that Calvin should not require it. ``Urge'' carries within its very meaning the absence of requirement. One cannot urge what is required; that can only be enforced. Calvin actually goes against the direct reading of article 71. It does not ``urge'' its faculty to comply; it forces them. Although this mistake has been characteristic of historical Christianity, it is still a mistake, and one that Calvin should set right.

Historically, Calvin has gotten these reversed, which is perhaps the reason for confusion now. Thirty or 40 years ago, Calvin began requiring Christian schooling. Only recently has the institution offered monetary aid for a policy it believes in. Calvin should keep the second and lose the first, supporting and urging instead of requiring. Then it would more closely follow article 71 of the Church Order. Under the current policy, Calvin acts purely under an interpretation of article 71 (an erroneous interpretation, as I have argued). In this case, let us all be literalists together, and take the article for what it says. You will not find in there a requirement of any kind. Nor will you find in the history of the Christian Reformed Church any requirement regarding Christian schooling. Only under Calvin College's own policy, and standing on its own authority separate and distinct from the grounds of the Church, will you find a requirement regarding Christian schooling. As a requirement, Christian schooling has never been a part of CRC history; it is a part only of Calvin College - a part of the college that harms the whole.

Abram Van Engen

`03