Kerux: a portfolio of Calvin Theological Seminary - Volume 42.3 - 17 Oct 2007

Communication Breakdown

by Nate Van Denend, Contributing Editor

This article is the first of a series of pieces meant to continue the conversation that began on the 13th of September regarding the candidacy process. While confidential matters should remain confidential, it is my estimation that there are several issues common to many students regarding the candidacy process. This article is written with respect to these common concerns. Let it also be said that this conversation is not a conversation among equals. We, as students, are in submission to this institution, trusting that it has the best interest of the church in mind. We are thankful for the committee’s decision to be open and to hear our input into this process as students.

It is appropriate to begin by looking more carefully at the discussion during the September 13th meeting. It is my contention, and the contention of several students I spoke with after the meeting, that the committee and student body were failing to communicate effectively with one another. This failure to communicate effectively occurred not only at the town hall meeting but also in other conversations with the committee.

First, there was the question about the letters which students receive on an annual basis regarding their candidacy status. The questioner wanted the annual letters to read more like progress reports, stating what had been completed, what the student was intending to complete and what still needed to be completed. This was taken to mean that the letters should be more encouraging and perhaps less blunt. That was not, however, the point of the question at all, (I asked). Here we witnessed a breakdown in communication regarding the very means of communication!

The second issue of miscommunication is the technical definition of the term “recommend.” In colloquial usage the term is weak. For example, dentists recommend Colgate toothpaste, 4 out of 5 doctors recommend Bayer Aspirin, and the psychologist recommends CPE. In each case the word used is the same, yet in the context of the psychological evaluation the meaning is much stronger. Failure to fulfill a “recommendation,” to use the language of my candidacy letter, may be “an impediment” to the candidacy process. Hardly the stuff of a health-and-beauty guideline.

Instead, as laid out on the 13th of September, a refusal to follow a recommendation will be taken “as data” by the candidacy committee. In short, the use of the term recommend is the cause of some confusion. To this end, I recommend (in the colloquial sense) that the committee adopt the term “requirement” instead. There are several reasons for this: We live in an academic institution where fulfilling requirements is part of the air we breathe. The term requirement connotes the seriousness that the committee considers these psych report recommendations to have. The term requirement would also shift the dialogue in the direction the committee intends, namely toward self reflection. While the term requirement communicates the seriousness with which the psychologist’s report is taken, it also does not render its content absolute. Indeed, all of us are familiar with having requirements waived under extraordinary circumstances.

The third issue ties directly into this idea that a refusal to follow a recommendation will be taken “as data.” What does “as data” mean? Well, according to the Dictionary of Pastoral Care and Counseling… oops, there is no entry for the term “data“...(although our example from 901 has to do with a client expressing erotic love for a counselor---not exactly what is going on here). I am not sure what the statement “a refusal to follow a recommendation will be taken ‘as data’” means to the speaker. To many students, however, the phrase is disconcerting. It leads the student to suspect that their thoughts, opinions, arguments and discussions of a given matter will not be understood as the student expects them to be understood. In fact, it appears that their words will be analyzed on two levels. On one level they will be taken on their own merit. On the other they will be understood psychologically, “as data.” This second level is completely mysterious and nebulous to the average student. Arguments, discussions, thoughts, opinions, all these are fair game and familiar territory for most of us. However, being evaluated on this “as data” level is completely foreign. The student wonders, “can I be angry or visibly upset… should I show any emotion or none at all… can I talk about this…with whom…what is my recourse…perhaps for fear of being pscyhologized and placed in a box I should just remain silent…” And silence is what the committee gets. No one wants to have what they say about something as significant as the results of a psychological evaluation taken “as data” in any sense of the term.

With these illustrations of miscommunication in hand, we continue the conversational process in the hope of clearing up some contradictory understandings. I propose that we think as a community about the role of psychology in relation to the many spiritual, academic and moral issues in the candidacy process, especially as it seems that much of the miscommunication at CTS these days revolves around our psychological evaluations and recommendations. Meanwhile, Kerux welcomes the reflections of both the candidacy committee and students on the candidacy process (letters@kerux.org).