HS #89 2022.12.8
Calvin and Hope
Calvin VanderWerf, President of Hope College 1963-1970, had a couple of noteworthy ideas. One was his humorous definition of an atheist as someone who doesn’t care who wins a Hope-Calvin basketball game. A second was separating Hope College from the control of its parent denomination, the Reformed Church of America.
Both of those ideas are front and center these days. Calvin University recently announced that football is in their future. Given the rivalry of other Hope-Calvin sports teams, one can anticipate full stadiums and cheering crowds on both sides. West Michigan will be the richer for it.
Indeed, the rich rivalry between Calvin and Hope goes beyond sports. Traveling around the country giving talks at various colleges and universities, I have grown to appreciate the uniquely balanced competition between these West Michigan institutions – iron sharpening iron. Years ago, when touring the Art Institute of Chicago, I spied a group of Calvin-clad students. Tapping one on the shoulder, I asked, “Calvin College – that’s that nice school in Holland Michigan?” “No – that’s Hope.” “Oh – you’re the one that won MIAA basketball this year?” “No – that was Hope.” “You’re the one with all the undergraduate science research?” “No – that’s Hope.” I then admitted I was a Hope professor.
But the joke could easily have gone the other direction. Especially in the humanities, Calvin has produced noteworthy scholars including Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff, not to mention the recent thoughtful challenge, “Jesus and John Wayne” by Kristin Kobes Du Mez. Both institutions are making their respective impacts.
Their “respective impacts” – that brings us to VanderWerf’s second idea. As is happening in many Christian denominations, the RCA (Reformed Church in America) and the CRC (Christian Reformed Church in North America) are wrestling with the LGBTQ+ issue. However, since Calvin University is under the ownership and direction of the CRC, the CRC’s decisions in this matter have a greater impact on their institution.
As is seen on the CRC website, the denomination holds official positions on a number of matters. Some of these, such as belief in the infallibility of inspired scripture and that certain historic creeds faithfully represent scriptural doctrines, form the bedrock of the faith. These are raised to confessional status, while most, including observance of the 4thCommandment (Lord’s Day), baptism, divorce, and creation and science are not.
This summer the 2022 Synod (CRC governing body) affirmed that the sin of “unchastity” in the Heidelberg Catechism includes homosexual sex (even within a monogamous marriage) and raised this issue to confessional status. Interestingly, while this biblical position can perhaps be defended (as can the opposing position), it is not clear from scripture why it was raised to confessional status. Which issues would achieve confessional status if scripture were one’s sole guide (Sola scriptura)? Perhaps the Ten Commandments - including swearing and Lord’s Day observance? Perhaps justice and mercy?
But while I don’t understand the action taken by the CRC, I still respect it. Those making the decision undoubtedly did so from an inner conviction that they were doing the right thing. Unfortunately, future high school students may increasingly have inner convictions that the decision was the wrong thing. Given the increasing challenge attracting enough students given declining high school demographics, this presents an additional hurdle.
But while the CRC’s authority over Calvin University presents challenges, it also provides Calvin with a steady anchor and clarifies its identity. This, by contrast, reveals its rival’s challenge.
Unmoored from the RCA, Hope College has been free to evolve depending on its leadership and board. While this has resulted in a dynamic chapel program, Hope would do well, especially in hiring/tenure, to clarify its identity and settle into a stable niche, distinct from Calvin’s, but also distinct from secular colleges. Presently, Hope asks candidates for an expression of faith and relationship with God. But with no foundational doctrinal statement, who then decides if it is adequate? And how? (For example, Nietzsche observed, “Only a person of deep faith can enjoy the luxury of skepticism.”) Hope might instead consider using SOLELY the mission statement developed by VanderWerf’s successor, Gordon Van Wylen: “The mission of Hope College is to offer academic programs in liberal arts … in the context of the historic Christian faith.” Instead of attempting to evaluate the adequacy of a personal faith expression, simply ask: “How have you, do you, and will you support this mission?” Simple and straightforward.
This would provide two distinct and distinguished institutions of higher education in West Michigan.
