A Report on the Candidacy Town Hall Meeting

by Nate Van Denend, Middler MDiv.

On the 13th of September, several members of the candidacy committee held an open meeting for students interested in learning more about the candidacy process. The members of the committee present were Duane Kelderman, Chair, John Bolt, Don Byker and Doris Rikker and an estimated 100 students also attended. Ron Nydam, a committee member, was absent from the meeting. The meeting began with a description of the place of the Calvin Theological Seminary candidacy committee among the other committees and groups that are involved in the candidacy process. The students were assured that that candidacy committee was ultimately their advocate and would stand by them when their names are submitted to Synod. After these matters were discussed the floor was opened for questions.

The first was a question regarding the means of communication between students and the committee. The questioner suggested that the progress of the student and the student’s intent to comply with the committee’s recommendations and suggestions be duly noted in the yearly communication from the candidacy committee. This was interpreted by the committee to mean that the letter should be more encouraging. Yet, in speaking afterward to the questioner, she believed that the question was misinterpreted. What the questioner was after was a simple recognition of work completed and an acknowledgement of the student’s intentions and plans.

A second question was raised regarding so-called “11th hour” recommendations concerning psychological evaluations. The questioner wanted comment on the situations of several students who felt that they were given additional recommendations at the last minute by the candidacy committee. While the committee was not able to comment on specific cases, it suggested that what often seems to a student like an 11th hour recommendation from the candidacy committee is actually a recommendation that has been made repeatedly over many years but is only finally taken seriously by the student at the 11th hour. The committee cautioned students to remember when they hear the claim of an “11th hour recommendation” that there is usually another side to the story.

The conversation then took a different turn, with a question about how seminary students should keep each other accountable particularly in the areas of moral and ethical conduct. Coupled with this question was a question about whether or not moral and ethical infractions should be reported. This question made everyone chuckle a little. The committee responded by saying that such reporting should not be formalized, because this may make for an unhealthy environment at the seminary.

A fourth question related to psychological assessments and particularly the technical definitions of the terms “suggest” and “recommend.” According to the Candidacy Committee, the term ‘recommend’ is used to promote a dialogue with the student about the results of the psychological testing. The questioners disagreed with this use of the term ‘recommend’ positing that the term ‘requirement’ more accurately communicates the weight the committee places on the words of the psychologists. To this the committee responded that the term ‘require’ may make the psychologist’s recommendations seem like more hoops to jump through and therefore may not be taken seriously. At this point time ran out for the meeting and the committee was thanked for its openness and willingness to hold the meeting.

Want to respond to this article? Send your letter to letters@kerux.org; see the guidelines for more information.