Short term mission trips can hurt those they are trying to help

RELATED ARTICLES:
Longtime discussion on faculty Christian requirement reignited

Profs may be hard to find, keep because of policy

Just the Facts The following is from a survey of the Calvin faculty and reported to Chimes by Tom Van Eck, director of institutional and enrollment research. Do you think it is reasonable for a church-owned college to require its faculty to enroll its children in a particular school system? 39 percent said yes In the case of Calvin College, do you personally object to the requirement of enrolling children in Christian Schools? 53 percent said yes Of those employed here five or fewer years, 73 percent object to the Christian school requirement, while for those employed here 20 years or more, only 28 percent object to theChristian school requirement. If Calvin did not have the Christian school requirement for tenure, would your children be (or have been) enrolled in a different school system? 22 percent said yes Of those employed here five or fewer years, 40 percent say their children would be enrolled in a different school system (if there were no requirement), whereas for those employed here 20 years or more, eight percent would have enrolled their children in a different school system.

Roland Hoksbergen
Chair, Dept. of Economics and Business:
... This requirement is absolutely not necessary for Calvin to maintain its reformed character. This is one of those external issues of the sort Jesus talked about with the Pharisees when he was comparing their outside appearance to the reality inside. The relationship is very tenuous, and Calvin should pay attention to what’s inside, not on outward appearances. We need to pay very close attention to how faculty are teaching and what kind of research they are doing, and we need to jealously guard the reformed character of this institution. But we won’t do it by worrying about this outward sign. Over the years I’ve known faculty whose teaching, philosophy of education, and research were virtually indistinguishable from colleagues at secular institutions, yet they sent their kids to CSI schools and manifested all the “right” outward signs, and so were never subject to careful scrutiny in their work and their fulfillment of Calvin’s mission. On the other hand, many top - quality teachers and scholars, deeply Reformed in their teaching and scholarship, but who for one reason or another had trouble sending their kids to CSI schools, were either turned away or chose not to come to Calvin. Again, this is especially relevant for minority faculty, evidence of which can be seen in several surveys done by the multicultural affairs committee.

A professor at Calvin must be deeply committed to educating his/her students and his/her own children to be faithful to God’s call in every area of their lives. But the classroom and the home are two different arenas, and the decisions a teacher makes in the former do not uniquely determine the decisions a father/mother/spouse makes in the latter. Decisions about raising one’s children to be Christ - followers have much to do with the character of the children, the character of the schools, the character of the home, and so on. The needs of one child might not be the same as those of another. While Calvin has every right to assess one’s commitment to the Reformed vision of Christianity, as evidenced by one’s teaching, research, and general Christian witness, Calvin has no moral right to force entry into our homes and make the decisions about the best schooling for our children.

Uko Zylstra
Chair, Department of Biology:
Although I am sympathetic to the argument that parents should be able to make the decision of schooling with regard to what is best for their children, I have not been impressed with many of the arguments by those who wish to send their children to non - Christian schools. An underlying issue for me is that the reason for Calvin’s existence and continuing mission is also the reason for Christian elementary and secondary schools. If parents are really convinced that non-Christian schooling is the best for their children, then why are they interested in teaching at Calvin? Is it simply because Calvin affords a good academic environment and provides a good job? Or is the faculty member really committed to the mission of the college? If it is the former, then I fear for the future of Calvin as a Reformed Christian college. So, on the one hand, I tend to agree that parents should have the responsibility to make this decision. But at the same time, if the faculty member has no commitment or desire to provide their children with Christian schooling, then I question the commitment to the mission of the college. That doesn’t mean that there might not be special circumstances for a particular child or family for whom a non-Christian school would be the most appropriate.

Calvin Stapert
Chair, Department of Music:
Calvin will not inevitably drift from its Reformed character if the requirement is dropped nor will keeping the requirement guarantee that it will remain Reformed. But I am convinced that the requirement helps keep Calvin Reformed. For Calvin’s commitment to the importance of studying all areas from a Christian perspective to be more than high-sounding rhetoric, there has to be at least a willingness (preferably an eagerness) to put that into practice, even when it entails sacrifice.

Lee Hardy
Chair, Department of Philosophy:
As chair of the philosophy department I think I can say that the Christian Education requirement has, over the last few years, kept a number of well-qualified people from pursuing an appointment at Calvin, people who could affirm, without reservation, Calvin’s theological position. One of the issues is, of course, financial; but another issue is one of control—some feel like they are being asked to give up control of their children’s education as a condition of employment at Calvin. Many of them are not Grand Rapids CRC people. They are not familiar with the GRCSA school system; they have not yet explored all the educational options in the Grand Rapids area; they are hesitant to decide, in advance, that the local Christian schools will be the right choice for all of their children at every level of their children’s development. And so they chafe at the requirement. Indeed, some of them are offended by it. I do not think that the Christian education requirement is essential to maintaining the “Reformedness” of Calvin College, although it may be essential to maintaining the perception of Calvin’s Reformedness. Let me explain. First, GRCSA is itself not a reformed institution. It is inter - denominational, and includes in its student body and in its teaching staff many members of non - Reformed denominations. My children have had teachers of Baptist and Pentecostal persuasions, and thus I cannot claim that all of their instruction has been along Reformed lines. Second, a vast majority of faculty at Calvin College would continue to send their children to Christian schools even if the requirement were dropped. Third, it could be argued, along Kuyperian lines, that the Christian school requirement is a distinctly unReformed feature of Calvin College. From this it would follow, ironically, that Calvin stands to increase in its “Reformedness” by dropping the Christian school requirement. That being said, it remains the case that the Christian school requirement carries an enormous amount of symbolic freight at Calvin. Releasing the requirement would be perceived as a sure sign of secularization, as an abandonment of the ideal of Christian education; and for those of us who deal with the various external constituencies of the college, perception is, unfortunately, reality. So, although I am not opposed to relaxing this requirement, and I do not think anything untoward would result from such a move, I think—given the fears that motivate many of us at this particular time—it is politically impossible.

Joel Carpenter
Provost:
There is not an evangelical college in America at which most of us who work here at Calvin would have no personal sacrifices to make in order to become a faculty member in good standing. I used to work at Wheaton, where I had to pledge not to partake of alcoholic beverages. I personally did not agree with that restriction, but counted the opportunity to serve at that college worth the sacrifice. My family has been constrained in its choices by coming to Calvin as well, and it was not a totally easy fit for us. But when you get a call, you should consider the cost, but then you go anyway. Compared to the deep joy that I have in my work here, and the blessings that have come to my family since we moved, the sacrifice looks smaller every year. I suspect that many faculty members who, when surveyed stated their opposition to the schooling requirement, would also say, in balance, that they weighed the cost coming in, decided to come anyway, and don’t regret their decision.

Claudia Beversluis
Professor of Psychology:
I find it helpful to understand the requirement as something a priori - i.e., something that should guide us in our search for faculty - something that defines the pool - rather than as a structure that goes into force when someone decides he/she would like to teach here. In other words, we should choose faculty who see Christian education - at all levels - as a matter of nurturing Vision - learning to see God and God’s purposes in all areas of the world.
Having said that, this helps my understanding of the requirement, I am still ambivalent about it, largely because I know many great additions to the Calvin faculty who are committed to the Vision project at the college level but see other competing priorities at the precollege level. They choose other schools for their kids because of a sense of mission, for example, or a desire for diversity, or because they haven’t been convinced that the Vision project is alive and well at the Christian schools. So I don’t agree with limiting the pool of candidates in this way - even though I would like most of the faculty to be so committed to the Vision project that they choose it for their own children. I have seen the havoc that the choice of schooling plays in many families with competing ideas for education, and I think that schooling choice basically is a family decision. (To go back to my earlier point - Calvin never says it isn’t a family decision, Calvin just says we want the kind of faculty who choose Christian schools ....)