Back in the spring, we did a GetReligion podcast that was accompanied by a post with this title: “What parents (and journalists) can learn from LGBTQ debates at Calvin.”

The Big Idea in that podcast was that Calvin University isn’t just another Christian college — it’s the base camp for a kind of Reformed intellectual A-team that punches way, way, way above its weight in the Council For Christian Colleges and Universities (the global network in which I worked and taught for a quarter of a century or so). Thus, I stated: “What happens at Calvin doesn’t stay at Calvin.”

If you have followed Calvin closely in recent decades, you know that a significant chunk of its faculty believes (this is my summary) that those who truly honor and teach the great Reformed Tradition of Calvinism know that it’s time for new Reformers (that would be them) to reform the out-of-date theological conclusions of their ancestors. You can see similar streams of thought among Methodists, Anglicans, Catholics and even (in a few zip codes) the Eastern Orthodox.

With that in mind, it’s time for this week’s “Crossroads” episode (CLICK HERE to tune that in), which offers an update on Calvin and tensions inside its denomination, care of a Religion News Service story with this headline: “Christian Reformed Church codifies homosexual sex as sin in its declaration of faith.” Actually, if you read carefully, the CRC affirmed 2,000 years of Christian teaching that (a) sex outside of marriage is a sin and (b) Christian marriages unite a man and a women. Here is the overture of that RNS story:

(RNS) — The Christian Reformed Church, a small evangelical denomination of U.S. and Canadian churches, voted … at its annual synod to codify its opposition to homosexual sex by elevating it to the status of confession, or deration of faith.

The 123-53 vote at Calvin University in Grand Rapids, Michigan, caps a process begun in 2016 when a previous synod voted to form a study committee to bring a report on the “biblical theology” of sexuality.

The vote, following a long day of debate, approves a list of what the denomination calls sexual immorality it won’t tolerate, including “adultery, premarital sex, extra-marital sex, polyamory, pornography and homosexual sex.”

“The church must warn its members that those who refuse to repent of these sins — as well as of idolatry, greed, and other such sins — will not inherit the kingdom of God,” the report says. “It must discipline those who refuse to repent of such sins for the sake of their souls.”

Just asking: That “what the denomination calls” language is interesting. Doesn’t that kind of imply that these teachings belong to the CRC alone — as opposed to being doctrines affirmed by the world’s largest Christian bodies, such as the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, Third World Anglicans and most evangelical and Pentecostal believers.

Back to the RNS story:

But 190 delegates to the synod spent the preponderance of time debating same-sex relations, with many warning that passage of the so-called Human Sexuality Report and elevating its teachings to the status of confession would alienate LGBTQ people as well as younger generations of CRC members who have a different understanding of sexuality.

“This motion harms LGBTQ people, harms the church’s witness, and naming this as confession will have disastrous consequences for people and institutions,” said one delegate to the synod who voted against the motion.

Synod members were unswayed.

They were also, it appears, silent or maybe they simply didn’t have anything to say that merited inclusion in this report — as opposed to a stream of voices (valid material, of course) on the doctrinally liberal side of the debate. This kind of sourcing is, of course, a common trend in RNS coverage of debates about moral issues linked to doctrines that clash with the teachings of the Sexual Revolution.

The big question: If “What happens at Calvin doesn’t stay at Calvin” is an accurate statement, then what happens next at Calvin and how does that reflect larger national stories inside Christian higher education.

Let’s go back to the RNS analysis:

Wednesday’s synod actions will also have profound consequences for its flagship university, Calvin. In December, one-third of Calvin faculty signed a letter expressing concerns about the Human Sexuality Report, and some are now expected to leave. Faculty at Calvin University must sign a document saying their beliefs align with the historical creeds and confessions of the Christian Reformed Church.

It was not clear what the status of the document might be moving forward.

“Many people are polishing their CVs, starting to look at what else is out there and preparing themselves to leave,” said Kristin Kobes Du Mez, a professor of history at Calvin University and one of its star faculty.

The university is known in the larger Christian higher education world for its supportive and pastoral approach to LGBTQ students.

The contents of that letter played a major role in the previous “Crossroads” podcast about these debates. Hold that thought.

Now, Du Mez — author of the groundbreaking “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation” — is a superstar of the post-evangelical world. Her resume will soon, I would thnk, launch her into the Ivy League and, perhaps, a regular gig with The New York Times op-ed page.

Thus, it’s important to note her reaction to the CRC affirmation of small-o orthodoxy, as posted on her Substack page: “LGBTQ in the CRC.” Read carefully, since this is powerful material on multiple levels, especially in terms of what Calvin-influenced people are thinking on other campuses.

Often, I hear traditionalists claim that LGBTQ inclusion is a slippery slope to abandoning gospel truth. Or that by opening our churches to LGBTQ believers, we have already abandoned the gospel. I’ve heard enough debates on the subject to know where that argument comes from. But … what if they’re wrong? Because LGBTQ Christians in my orbit are some of the most resilient in their faith of anyone I’ve met, and they’ve ministered to me. 

Similarly, from the other side, I hear people question why on earth LGBTQ folks would stay in places where they’re not welcome. 

Why would someone who is not straight even attend a college like Calvin? 

Granted, for some it’s because it’s the only college their parents will pay for.

True, that.

Of course, journalists can flip that equation around and ask if recent declines in Calvin enrollment have anything to do with “traditionalist” parents and churches losing faith in the school. But back to Du Mez:

… (For) many, it’s because they are drawn to the mission: to think deeply, act justly, and live wholeheartedly as Christ’s agents of renewal in the world. They want a Christian education. Some are there for the disctinctively Reformed Christian education. I’ve known students whose parents not only kick them out of their homes when they come out, but also cut off tuition payments. But these students are so committed to their Reformed Christian education that they find ways to stay, sometimes going deep into personal debt to do so.

And that’s why so many of us stay. Because they stay, and at great cost.

In other words, these new Reformers hang on in order to reform the Reformed, trusting that the weight of their intellectual tradition and culture are actually on their side (in part because of what they were taught during their student days on these campuses).

This brings us back to that earlier protest letter at Calvin, written by faculty who now face tough decisions about the doctrinal foundations linked to their faculty contracts:

The signees, a third of Calvin’s faculty, wrote, “The report and its potential adoption by Synod could undermine the academic freedom of faculty and our standing as a reputable academic institution in the Reformed tradition.”

Key word there is “reputable.” What happens at Calvin doesn’t stay at Calvin.

The letter states, “Adoption of the report’s claims regarding confessional status would cause harm to our Reformed community by severely impairing staff and faculty’s ability to care for our LGBTQ students in the way that our conscience dictates and the scholarship supports. While staff are not required to sign the Covenant for Faculty Members, some would consider working for an institution for whom the report was afforded confessional status a violation of conscience.”

It will be important, of course, to see what happens to enrollment patterns at Calvin — which is already stressed like many (but not all) schools recruiting students in the post-Millennial Generation marketplace.

Here is a potential story, if Calvin leaders were willing to answer questions: If progressive faculty leave, how many applications will administrators receive for those open slots (if they can continue to fund them)?

Anglican thinker Steven Wedgewood had some thoughts on some of these questions, writing for the editorial website of World magazine: “The CRC’s valiant stand and Calvin’s moment of truth.” The current crisis, he notes could:

… be an opportunity to lessen or reverse the consistent demographic decline at Calvin. The university’s enrollment has steadily dropped, even more so than similar Dutch-Reformed schools. Compared to nearby Hillsdale College, Calvin’s numbers look abysmal. Hillsdale is less expensive than Calvin but can be much more selective. And over the past few years, the same years of decline for so many, Hillsdale has experienced an enrollment boom. RNS’s reporting has it all wrong. Calvin is not looking at some new looming catastrophe.

Stay tuned. I would expect elite-media coverage of the Calvin crisis this coming fall.

Enjoy the podcast and, please, share it with others.

FIRST IMAGE: Screen shot from YouTube video entitled “No Easy Options for Progressive CRC Churches.”