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

Addressing Student Concerns

by Duane Kelderman, Candidacy Committee Chair

Nathaniel,

Thanks for your Kerux article in which you point out some of the areas where we need improved communication between the Candidacy Committee and students. I’d like to respond to each of the areas of miscommunication you mention. I hope my responses will be encouraging.

Regarding the need for clearer and more accurate letters from the Candidacy Committee, I think the new process we have in place will significantly address the concerns raised by the particular speaker you cite and many others. In the new process the FFM leader will work closely with the Candidacy Committee in composing this letter and will have the most accurate and up to date information on the student’s progress. We think this closer connection between the FFM leader and the Candidacy Committee will be a great improvement and will provide the kind of progress report that students seek.

Regarding the confusion created by the Candidacy Committee’s use of the word “recommend” when, for all practical purposes, it means “require,” I think you’re right that we have to take a hard look at this as a committee. We have explained why we use “recommend” but that explanation isn’t carrying the day. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, smells like a duck, quacks like a duck, maybe we need to call it a duck, er, a requirement. I pledge to take this up with the Candidacy Committee. I can’t promise what the committee will do, but we gotta deal with the duck.

Regarding the “as data” comment, I’m not sure what comment from the meeting you’re referring to, so it makes it a bit difficult for me to respond. Obviously it struck a chord with you and presumably others. Let me try to explain how we might use the term in candidacy committee discussions (and what I think Professor Nydam means by the term as he uses it in pastoral care courses). When a psych eval recommends a particular course of action for a student, and the student is highly defensive and resistant, that defensiveness and resistance is itself important information (data) that we as a Candidacy Committee invariably take into account as we’re trying to understand the whole situation. Most students are genuinely open to growth and are more than willing to give the psych eval “the benefit of the doubt” because they want to learn as much as possible from it.

Maybe a playful example from another area of ministry will help clarify what we mean by “data.” In a few short years, seminarians will stand as pastors at the door of the church after the worship service, shaking hands with people who just heard your sermon. Once every few years, when you least expect it, some congregant will come out of nowhere, do everything short of grab you by the neck, and accuse you of all kinds of terrible things that you said your sermon. The congregant’s blood will be boiling and you will be the direct object of his wrath, all for a sermon you didn’t even preach! You will have no idea where the congregant is coming from or what he is talking about!

When this happens in the first years of your ministry you will go home and writhe in pain. You will second guess yourself. You will doubt your calling. That congregant’s comments will devastate you. But as the years pass, you will realize that such people are saying more about themselves than about you and your sermon. Their blood pressure and sharp tongue is “data.” It won’t make you care for them any less. And it will still hurt. But you’ll be able to enjoy the rest of the day and sleep that night because you will learn that any strong reaction (actually, positive or negative) is usually “data” about the person doing the reacting more than it is data about you.

I’m sorry if the person who used the phrase “as data” was unclear or said it in a way that was unhelpful. But I think the idea that strong reactions usually say more about the reactor than the reactee (is that a word?) is one with which we’d all agree. I can’t tell you how helpful this ongoing dialogue between students and Candidacy Committee is. I’m eager to take this “recommendation” terminology matter to the committee. I’ll keep you posted.

Duane Kelderman