We are currently marked by division amidst ongoing debates about the future of the Calvin community. Program cuts, restructuring of academics and student life and recent Synod decisions delivered from the top down have created not only disagreement, but a growing crisis of trust.

These tensions are not new. They reflect enduring questions about authority and autonomy, tradition and change. In order to move forward into the future well, we must ask: what does a mature religious community look like in an educational setting? What does it mean to be a faithful religious community when institutional authority is becoming increasingly prescriptive? 

A mature religious community is not defined by rigid top-down control, nor is it defined by complete autonomy by any one group. It is most importantly defined by mutual recognition of authority, responsibility and shared values; mutual recognition grounded in trust and a commitment to live out tradition through practice. 

At Calvin, this shared understanding has historically taken shape through relationships. Students and faculty recognize one another as participants in a common project. Faculty are trusted to guide students in that formation, where the university’s mission is carried out most fully. The administration and the Christian Reformed Church maintain structures of accountability that situate the university within a broader tradition. 

But between faculty and administration, that mutual recognition now appears increasingly strained. 

This breakdown matters because the future of the university hinges on the relationship between faculty and administration. Administrators must acknowledge the importance and authority of faculty, and faculty, in turn, must remain open to change, resisting defensiveness. 

Faculty are the key to a functioning university. Throughout Calvin’s history, faculty have been essential in shaping the institution and the formative work Calvin promises. Their creativity and expertise are essential for co-creating solutions that work within the structure provided by administration to create accountability and sustainability. 

Rules are enforced guidelines for creating such accountability and sustainability; they are crucial in determining how a community functions. But they are not neutral — they are shaped by inherited norms and institutional pressures. What matters most is how they are lived out. The enactment of rules is not the end of the story.

If rules are interpreted in a non-legalistic way, it opens up the possibility for a space in which the whole community can share in the responsibility of how the rules are lived out. Rules can be transformed into a more holistic reflection of the community’s values and encapsulate a more bottom-up approach — especially when they were originally imposed from the top down without opportunities for communal input.

To govern a university where faithfulness to the CRC and tradition is secured through rigid, prescriptive rules and propositions is to misunderstand both education and faith. 

Education, at its core, is not about producing certainty. It is about forming people who recognize that understanding is not fixed, but evolving; a recognition of our being deeply situated in a world that leaves us with incomplete information and biases. It is about the formation of virtuous people who can live faithfully within uncertainty — people who can think critically, act justly and engage a complex world without retreating into fear. This is, ideally, what faculty model for students. 

If the university attempts to measure success primarily through numbers, enrollment targets, retention rates and budget transformations, it risks allowing perception to dictate reality. A university can be stable on paper while its mission quietly erodes away. A mature community resists this temptation. It does not confuse the easily measurable with what is ultimately meaningful. 

Faithfulness cannot be lived out through narrow constraints. Over-policing often produces the opposite of what it intends: fear and disengagement rather than understanding and growth. A mature religious community recognizes that there is a difference between accountability and control. It holds its commitments seriously without attempting to eliminate all ambiguity. 

How, then, do we practically live in a community with mutual recognition amidst ambiguity and uncertainty?

The solution cannot be unilateral control, nor can it be unchecked autonomy. It must be found in the difficult, ongoing work of negotiation, grounded in mutual respect, open dialogue, and a shared willingness to inhabit uncertainty. It is giving up some control on both sides to participate meaningfully in the community and negotiate how rules are made and implemented. But this requires time and trust.

This requires a shift in the attitudes of all individuals involved. It requires moving beyond hard-heartedness, beyond isolating responsibility and authority and beyond assigning blame. Every enactment of value is shaped by an incomplete understanding, inherited traditions, prejudices and human finitude. We need to constantly confess our human limitations and forgive each other, working towards adopting an attitude of humility and magnanimity in order to build trust. Such trust is not given once and for all. It is built through ongoing practices of confession and forgiveness as social practices that sustain community over time. 

As Jesus modeled, faith is not about coercion or asserting power. It is about service, humility and sacrificial love. A mature faith community guides, teaches and nurtures others in virtue, not forcing submission on either side. Attempting to sustain a Christian tradition through fear and compliance is not a living tradition; it is a fragile one.

This means having an open posture towards the possibilities of the future. An open posture not constrained by fear, but defined by radical hope for the future.

A mature religious educational community leans into discomfort rather than avoiding it. It resists the temptation to rush to resolve complex tensions through oversimplification. It understands that clarity often emerges not from control, but from sustained engagement across differences. The goal is not merely to preserve a tradition, but to participate in its faithful development. It recognizes that our current understanding is not fixed, but unfolding over time. As a community, we can positively influence how things play out and work together to bring about good. 

We must move into an environment of trust and shared governance, recognizing our individual and communal limitations. If we proceed on this current trajectory of prioritizing perception and control over trust and formation, faculty will continue to leave. Academic freedom will be threatened. The mission to act justly and think critically as agents of renewal will be eroded. We are risking losing what makes Calvin unique.

Whether we like it or not, Calvin is already changing. 

Will Calvin become a community where faculty are trusted to form students through engagement, mentorship and shared inquiry, or one where that formative work is slowly displaced by control, compliance and administrative priority?