To Pursue the Mission Part IV


previous page...next page IV. Plan for the future ministry of the CRCNA in higher education *A. Components of the plan* For the long‑range development of CRCNA ministry in higher education, specific planning needs to be done in the following areas: Personnel (recruitment, training, placement, supervision, nurture). Strategic locations for new campus ministries. Criteria for faithful campus ministry. Institutional relationships for campus ministry. Funding (policies and means for funding campus ministries). Accountability (clear lines of accountability for campus ministries). 1. Personnel a. Recruitment—Profiles of desirable personal and professional qualifications for unordained and ordained persons applying for campus ministry positions will be developed. Sites for interns will be identified and qualified applicants sought for those positions. Potential campus ministers will be identified and recruited. A centralized file of these names will be kept in the denominational agency responsible for campus ministry and with the advocate for campus ministry. Recruitment will be less of a problem once a structure is in place for enabling and promoting campus ministry in the CRCNA.[39] b. Training—Standards and programs for promoting the ongoing spiritual formation and professional capabilities of campus ministers will be established. The resources of Calvin Theological Seminary will play a key role in this effort. c. Placement—Standards for contractual agreements will be developed relative to the staffing and funding of campus ministries. These agreements will include all the partners involved in any given campus ministry and will spell out responsibility and accountability in detail. d. Supervision—Supervisory responsibility, reporting formats and procedures, along with accountability, are to be defined for each ministry in terms of the contractual agreements made for that particular campus ministry. e. Nurture—Ongoing attention to the welfare and morale of campus ministers shall be one of the principal assignments of the advocate for campus ministry. As one means of ensuring opportunities for nurture, persons engaged in CRCNA campus ministries would be encouraged to join the CR‑CMA, participate in its annual conferences, and enter into a "partnership" relationship with some other CR‑CMA member. 2. Strategic locations for campus ministries So as to put the resources of the CRCNA to the best use, it will be necessary to develop criteria for selecting new campus ministry fields and recruiting personnel to staff them. Such criteria will include attention to the following: a. The strategic importance of the university in question. b. The nature and extent to which Christian ministry is already present at the university in question. c. The willingness of faculty, students, and local churches to be partners in the proposed ministry. 3. Criteria for campus ministry If CRCNA campus ministries are to be contextual, it is understood that they will exhibit considerable variety and emphases in their "lead programs." For example, in some locations the IVCF chapter could be the focus of activities; in another it might be the teaching and counseling of the campus minister; in yet another location it could be the activities of a worshipping group/congregation that "lead" the ministry; perhaps one campus ministry is directed mainly toward students whereas another is directed toward faculty and/or staff. On the other hand, there seems to be general agreement that faithful CRCNA campus ministry would exhibit some common goals and objectives. It has been difficult to formulate a satisfactory list of common features and how they might be identified in reporting formats. Needless to say, the supervision, the funding, and the evaluation of ministries require some agreement as to the goals and objectives expected of any particular campus ministry. Generally, local campus ministries have been expected to develop their own goals, objectives, and evaluative procedures. But that approach is complicated by the fact that funding from other sources has usually been accompanied with specified or implied expectations of the ministry. Promotion and support for CRCNA campus ministry in the future will demand greater clarity and consensus on at least the "basics" of campus ministry. Campus ministries need an administrative structure which holds them accountable to the church at large and, at the same time, enables and enhances their ministry. It is hoped that the recommendations of this report will help make that possible. Campus ministries themselves have been the first to seek clarity on criteria for faithful ministry. Their conversations have returned again and again to some very "basic" ministry concerns. The list below is representative of those concerns. a. Job descriptions for campus ministry personnel, committees, etc. b. The place of prayer and worship, including the Word and the Sacraments, in campus ministry. c. Liturgical vehicles for renewal and/or reaffirmation of faith commitments. Evangelizing and discipling, on campus with integrity. Exploration of the integration of faith and learning. Promoting Christian community and mutual care in academic settings. Being faithful to the prophetic dimensions of the Gospel in the arena of higher education. Finding opportunities for developing the skills of leadership and service in higher education, the church and the world. Finding creative ways to promote, fund and interpret campus ministry to its wider constituency. 4. Institutional relationships for campus ministries Campus ministers have a difficult time maintaining confidence and morale when they are perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be marginal to the life of the denomination. It is therefore essential to find a secure and honored place for campus ministry within the denomination's institutional structure. This is the first step the denomination must take toward a new day for its campus ministries. Dr. Peter Borgdorff, executive director of ministries for the CRCNA, solicited this report and will introduce it appropriately to the rest of the church. Perhaps this report will, in some form, make its way into the agenda of the CRCNA synod and/or its classes. That should lead to the secure and honored place that campus ministries need. The CRCNA and IVCF have worked together in campus ministry since the early 1960s. Those cooperative ministry arrangements have been mutually beneficial. There is every reason to believe this will continue to be the case for the future of campus ministry in the CRCNA. To that end, mutually agreeable means for strengthening those ties and for their periodic review must be found. Generally, the chaplains of the colleges associated with the CRCNA have not been included in listings of its campus ministries, nor have CRCNA persons engaged in non‑CRCNA ministries in higher education been included. The implications (and complications) of institutional connections may account for this. These persons also need to be integrated into the collegial fellowship and concerns of CRCNA campus ministries. Membership in the CR‑CMA provides one means to that end. 5. Policies and means of funding for campus ministries Adequate funding for CRCNA campus ministry will depend upon a number of factors, some of which do not now exist but all of which must be implemented if campus ministry is to enjoy a new future in the CRCNA. a. Inclusion of campus ministry in the list of the funding priorities of the governing bodies in the denomination. b. The existence of supportive partnerships for campus ministry that entail both participation in the ministry as well as financial support. c. Compelling interpretation and promotion of campus ministry in the total life of the church. CRHM has been the primary source of synodical funds for campus ministry. Administrative restructuring of CRHM has led to the more decentralized funding policies associated with "grant funding." Those policies may be appropriate to strategies for church development, but they have not worked well for campus ministries. They have made the funding of existing fields more tenuous. They have made it difficult, if not impossible, to open new campus ministry fields in strategic locations.[40] The future we prefer for campus ministry requires access to funds from a more central place in the denominational structure. The denomination will have to make some institutional adjustments in order to obtain the staff and office for such a central place. Of course, other sources besides denominational agencies fund campus ministries. These sources include congregations, classes, personal donations, endowments, and so forth. If the desired future for campus ministry is to be realized, all of these possibilities will also have to be pursued, and reliable partnerships will need to be formed to support the campus ministry efforts in the CRCNA. 6. Lines of accountability for campus ministries The term accountability, as used in this report, refers to more than fiscal responsibility. Rather, it points to the common interests and the shared hopes of those whose commitments call them into a common future. The lines that connect campus ministry to the rest of the church need better definition in the CRCNA. Criteria for faithful campus ministry are still not universally accepted. The "white waters" of ministry in higher education never stand still. Ministry partners will have to be more deliberate in their strategies for keeping in touch with each other. It cannot be assumed that everyone has today the same assignments and responsibilities they had yesterday. Understandings and perceptions change, and therefore they need to be reviewed constantly. Clear, detailed contractual arrangements will help to identify the lines of accountability and will help to keep them intact. Clearly stated agreements will help ministry partners avoid misunderstandings and may head off unnecessary conflicts. The future for campus ministry in the CRCNA, therefore, ought to include criteria and models for such contractual agreements. Some campus ministries already have them.[41] *B. Institutional structures for denominational ministry in higher education* The task force will recommend that a denominational office for campus ministry be established. Below are five possible structures for such an office. The first four would definitely give campus ministry a place in the institutional structure of the denomination. A synodical board for campus ministry. A department within CRHM. A new division within Pastoral Ministries. A caucus within the Chaplain Committee. A coalition for ministry in higher education funded by a "free‑standing" foundation (such as the Barnabas Foundation). The task force spent a considerable amount of time exploring the implications and relative merits of these several alternatives. Its observations are summarized below. 1. A synodical board for campus ministry This alternative might be ideal from campus ministry's point of view. Most of the larger Protestant denominations have agencies devoted specifically to promotion and supervision of ministry in higher education. A relatively small denomination, the Presbyterian Church (US), has adopted something similar to this for promoting its campus ministries.[42] It is unlikely that the CRCNA would adopt such a move, given the twin trends toward administrative consolidation and decentralization in the denomination. 2. A department within CRHM For this alternative to work, CRHM would have to revitalize its historic commitment to campus ministry and reshape its administrative structures so as to make room for a department for ministry in higher education. There are two distinct advantages to this alternative: (1) a historic continuity would be maintained, and (2) campus ministry would be linked to a major missions agency already having existing personnel and resources. Disadvantages are that (1) inclusion of campus ministry concerns might deflect CRHM from its focus on Gathering, (2)campus ministry, as envisioned in this report, would not easily "fit" the focus CRHM has assigned to Gathering and church‑growth projects, and (3) current CRHM policies for funding campus ministry would have to be changed. 3. A new division within Pastoral Ministries Several independent ministry agencies of the CRCNA are currently being clustered together as divisions in a new agency called Pastoral Ministries. A division devoted to ministry in higher education could be formed and placed there with the other ministries. This alternative has some appeal: (1) Pastoral Ministries is just now under development and could therefore still be shaped to accommodate a campus ministry division as envisioned in this report, and (2) the parallels with chaplaincies provide some existing personnel and supervisory models for campus ministry. Disadvantages are that (1) divisions in the cluster lack experience and expertise in the funding and supervising of ministries, (2) completely new policies for staff and funding would be required, and (3) campus ministry includes a number of components which take it beyond the boundaries assumed by the other divisions in the cluster (e.g., the missiological component of campus ministry). 4. A caucus within the Chaplain Committee Compelling reasons to move funding and supervision of campus ministry to this committee have not appeared. Historically, the Chaplain Committee has neither funded nor supervised chaplains, and it is unclear how it could supervise and fund a campus ministry caucus. Task‑force conversations with the director of chaplains have pointed toward some cooperative and supportive relationships that could be arranged between campus ministers and chaplains. 5. A coalition for ministry in higher education A new ministry agency similar to Christian Schools International or United Calvinist Youth could be created with overlapping and contractual relations to the official CRCNA ecclesiastical structures and the campus ministries. This alternative would provide campus ministries the freedom to develop a coherent approach to ministry in higher education without being co-opted by the different and/or expensive ‑ agendas of the larger CRCNA agencies. Disadvantages readily appear: (1) it would be difficult to promote the sense of community among campus ministries and to integrate campus ministry into the life of the denomination, and therefore increasing marginalization of campus ministry in the CRCNA might occur; (2) it is not clear that campus ministry has the necessary human resources for organizing a supportive constituency, dependable funding sources, and a competent staff for a "free‑standing” agency. *C. Task‑force recommendations* After this report has been reviewed by the members of the CR‑CMA at their June 1995 conference, it will be referred to the executive director of ministries for the CRCNA. He will introduce it to the Ministries Coordinating Council (MCC) and relay appropriate feedback to the CR‑CMA. Then the report will be forwarded to the denomination's Board of Trustees, who may, after receiving appropriate feedback from the CR‑CMA and the MCC, forward the report to synod. The integrity of that process required of the CR‑CMA task force that it recommend what it considered to be the best‑case scenario for the future of campus ministry in the CRCNAwithout giving primary consideration to whether or not the recommendation would be politically acceptable. The appropriate denominational agencies, not the CR‑CMA, would have to determine whether that recommendation could be implemented. The task force has reached a strong consensus that the desired future for CRCNA campus ministry requires the establishment of a distinct office for campus ministry. That office would require staff and resources for enabling and nurturing campus ministry in the life of the CRCNA in terms of the vision that is spelled out in this report. The attention of the task force was directed to the first three alternatives cited above (synodical agency, department of CRHM, and division within Pastoral Ministries). Conceivably, any one of the three was a possibility. The question then became which would be the best for campus ministry and the CRCNA? The first alternative—separate synodical agency—was discarded as being unrealistic. In the context of restructuring the denomination's ministries, the task force was advised that implementation of this alternative would be most unlikely. The task‑force recommendation, therefore, had to be between CRHM and Pastoral Ministries. 1. Considerations A number of considerations have led the task force to recommend CRHM as the better of the two alternatives. Some have already been mentioned in this report (p. 22). The principal considerations are reiterated below: a. The Mission Statement (p. 15 of this report) intends to affirm that the CRCNA campus ministry is basically missiological in character. CRHM is the mission agency of the CRCNA. The missiological priority of campus ministry therefore identifies it more closely with CRHM than with the other alternatives. b. The vision for campus ministry in the CRCNA, as outlined in this report, will be more clearly understood by people in the CRCNA and is more likely to be supported if campus ministry is framed unambiguously in missiological terms. That will be easier to do in the context of CRHM than in Pastoral Ministries. c. The choice of CRHM is predicated on the assumption that a campus ministry department would be expected to articulate standards for administration and pursuit of CRCNA campus ministry in harmony with the Vision for Campus Ministry statement and the mission statement contained in this report. 2. Recommendations The task force therefore recommends: a. That a distinct denominational office be established for ministry in higher education and that it be established as a distinct department within CRHM. b. That a transition team be appointed to effect the formation of the new office, define its initial policies, goals, and objectives in terms of the contents of this report, and schedule the priorities and time lines for achieving those objectives. c. That the transition team and the CR‑CMA executive committee work cooperatively with each other, having spelled out clearly their lines of mutual accountability. d. That the efforts of the CR‑CMA be coordinated in mutually acceptable ways with the new denominational office so as to provide CRCNA persons in ministries of higher education with the resources and services they need to do their work well. previous page...next page

IV. Plan for the future ministry of the CRCNA in higher education

A. Components of the plan
For the long‑range development of CRCNA ministry in higher education, specific planning needs to be done in the following areas:

Personnel (recruitment, training, placement, supervision, nurture).

Strategic locations for new campus ministries.

Criteria for faithful campus ministry.

Institutional relationships for campus ministry.

Funding (policies and means for funding campus ministries).

Accountability (clear lines of accountability for campus ministries).

1. Personnel
            a. Recruitment—Profiles of desirable personal and professional qualifications for unordained and ordained persons applying for campus ministry positions will be developed. Sites for interns will be identified and qualified applicants sought for those positions. Potential campus ministers will be identified and recruited. A centralized file of these names will be kept in the denominational agency responsible for campus ministry and with the advocate for campus ministry. Recruitment will be less of a problem once a structure is in place for enabling and promoting campus ministry in the CRCNA.[39]
            b. Training—Standards and programs for promoting the ongoing spiritual formation and professional capabilities of campus ministers will be established. The resources of Calvin Theological Seminary will play a key role in this effort.
            c. Placement—Standards for contractual agreements will be developed relative to the staffing and funding of campus ministries. These agreements will include all the partners involved in any given campus ministry and will spell out responsibility and accountability in detail.
            d. Supervision—Supervisory responsibility, reporting formats and procedures, along with accountability, are to be defined for each ministry in terms of the contractual agreements made for that particular campus ministry.
e. Nurture—Ongoing attention to the welfare and morale of campus ministers shall be one of the principal assignments of the advocate for campus ministry. As one means of ensuring opportunities for nurture, persons engaged in CRCNA campus ministries would be encouraged to join the CR‑CMA, participate in its annual conferences, and enter into a "partnership" relationship with some other CR‑CMA member.

2. Strategic locations for campus ministries
So as to put the resources of the CRCNA to the best use, it will be necessary to develop criteria for selecting new campus ministry fields and recruiting personnel to staff them. Such criteria will include attention to the following:

a. The strategic importance of the university in question.

b. The nature and extent to which Christian ministry is already present at the university in question.

c. The willingness of faculty, students, and local churches to be partners in the proposed ministry.

3. Criteria for campus ministry
If CRCNA campus ministries are to be contextual, it is understood that they will exhibit considerable variety and emphases in their "lead programs." For example, in some locations the IVCF chapter could be the focus of activities; in another it might be the teaching and counseling of the campus minister; in yet another location it could be the activities of a worshipping group/congregation that "lead" the ministry; perhaps one campus ministry is directed mainly toward students whereas another is directed toward faculty and/or staff.
On the other hand, there seems to be general agreement that faithful CRCNA campus ministry would exhibit some common goals and objectives. It has been difficult to formulate a satisfactory list of common features and how they might be identified in reporting formats. Needless to say, the supervision, the funding, and the evaluation of ministries require some agreement as to the goals and objectives expected of any particular campus ministry. Generally, local campus ministries have been expected to develop their own goals, objectives, and evaluative procedures. But that approach is complicated by the fact that funding from other sources has usually been accompanied with specified or implied expectations of the ministry.
Promotion and support for CRCNA campus ministry in the future will demand greater clarity and consensus on at least the "basics" of campus ministry. Campus ministries need an administrative structure which holds them accountable to the church at large and, at the same time, enables and enhances their ministry. It is hoped that the recommendations of this report will help make that possible.
Campus ministries themselves have been the first to seek clarity on criteria for faithful ministry. Their conversations have returned again and again to some very "basic" ministry concerns. The list below is representative of those concerns.

a.   Job descriptions for campus ministry personnel, committees, etc.

b.   The place of prayer and worship, including the Word and the Sacraments, in campus ministry.

c.   Liturgical vehicles for renewal and/or reaffirmation of faith commitments.

Evangelizing and discipling, on campus with integrity.

Exploration of the integration of faith and learning.

Promoting Christian community and mutual care in academic settings.

Being faithful to the prophetic dimensions of the Gospel in the arena of higher education.

Finding opportunities for developing the skills of leadership and service in higher education, the church and the world.

Finding creative ways to promote, fund and interpret campus ministry to its wider constituency.

4. Institutional relationships for campus ministries
Campus ministers have a difficult time maintaining confidence and morale when they are perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be marginal to the life of the denomination. It is therefore essential to find a secure and honored place for campus ministry within the denomination's institutional structure. This is the first step the denomination must take toward a new day for its campus ministries. Dr. Peter Borgdorff, executive director of ministries for the CRCNA, solicited this report and will introduce it appropriately to the rest of the church. Perhaps this report will, in some form, make its way into the agenda of the CRCNA synod and/or its classes. That should lead to the secure and honored place that campus ministries need.
The CRCNA and IVCF have worked together in campus ministry since the early 1960s. Those cooperative ministry arrangements have been mutually beneficial. There is every reason to believe this will continue to be the case for the future of campus ministry in the CRCNA. To that end, mutually agreeable means for strengthening those ties and for their periodic review must be found.
Generally, the chaplains of the colleges associated with the CRCNA have not been included in listings of its campus ministries, nor have CRCNA persons engaged in non‑CRCNA ministries in higher education been included. The implications (and complications) of institutional connections may account for this. These persons also need to be integrated into the collegial fellowship and concerns of CRCNA campus ministries. Membership in the CR‑CMA provides one means to that end.

5. Policies and means of funding for campus ministries
Adequate funding for CRCNA campus ministry will depend upon a number of factors, some of which do not now exist but all of which must be implemented if campus ministry is to enjoy a new future in the CRCNA.
a. Inclusion of campus ministry in the list of the funding priorities of the governing bodies in the denomination.
b. The existence of supportive partnerships for campus ministry that entail both participation in the ministry as well as financial support.
c. Compelling interpretation and promotion of campus ministry in the total life of the church.
CRHM has been the primary source of synodical funds for campus ministry. Administrative restructuring of CRHM has led to the more decentralized funding policies associated with "grant funding." Those policies may be appropriate to strategies for church development, but they have not worked well for campus ministries. They have made the funding of existing fields more tenuous. They have made it difficult, if not impossible, to open new campus ministry fields in strategic locations.[40] The future we prefer for campus ministry requires access to funds from a more central place in the denominational structure. The denomination will have to make some institutional adjustments in order to obtain the staff and office for such a central place.
Of course, other sources besides denominational agencies fund campus ministries. These sources include congregations, classes, personal donations, endowments, and so forth. If the desired future for campus ministry is to be realized, all of these possibilities will also have to be pursued, and reliable partnerships will need to be formed to support the campus ministry efforts in the CRCNA.

6. Lines of accountability for campus ministries
      The term accountability, as used in this report, refers to more than fiscal responsibility. Rather, it points to the common interests and the shared hopes of those whose commitments call them into a common future. The lines that connect campus ministry to the rest of the church need better definition in the CRCNA. Criteria for faithful campus ministry are still not universally accepted. The "white waters" of ministry in higher education never stand still. Ministry partners will have to be more deliberate in their strategies for keeping in touch with each other. It cannot be assumed that everyone has today the same assignments and responsibilities they had yesterday. Understandings and perceptions change, and therefore they need to be reviewed constantly.
      Clear, detailed contractual arrangements will help to identify the lines of accountability and will help to keep them intact. Clearly stated agreements will help ministry partners avoid misunderstandings and may head off unnecessary conflicts. The future for campus ministry in the CRCNA, therefore, ought to include criteria and models for such contractual agreements. Some campus ministries already have them.[41]

B. Institutional structures for denominational ministry in higher education
The task force will recommend that a denominational office for campus ministry be established. Below are five possible structures for such an office. The first four would definitely give campus ministry a place in the institutional structure of the denomination.

A synodical board for campus ministry.

A department within CRHM.

A new division within Pastoral Ministries.

A caucus within the Chaplain Committee.

A coalition for ministry in higher education funded by a "free‑standing" foundation (such as the Barnabas Foundation).

The task force spent a considerable amount of time exploring the implications and relative merits of these several alternatives. Its observations are summarized below.

1. A synodical board for campus ministry
     This alternative might be ideal from campus ministry's point of view. Most of the larger
Protestant denominations have agencies devoted specifically to promotion and supervision of ministry in higher education. A relatively small denomination, the Presbyterian Church (US), has adopted something similar to this for promoting its campus ministries.[42] It is unlikely that the CRCNA would adopt such a move, given the twin trends toward administrative consolidation and decentralization in the denomination.

2. A department within CRHM
For this alternative to work, CRHM would have to revitalize its historic commitment to campus ministry and reshape its administrative structures so as to make room for a department for ministry in higher education. There are two distinct advantages to this alternative: (1) a historic continuity would be maintained, and (2) campus ministry would be linked to a major missions agency already having existing personnel and resources. Disadvantages are that (1) inclusion of campus ministry concerns might deflect CRHM from its focus on Gathering, (2)campus ministry, as envisioned in this report, would not easily "fit" the focus CRHM has assigned to Gathering and church‑growth projects, and (3) current CRHM policies for funding campus ministry would have to be changed.

3. A new division within Pastoral Ministries
Several independent ministry agencies of the CRCNA are currently being clustered together as divisions in a new agency called Pastoral Ministries. A division devoted to ministry in higher education could be formed and placed there with the other ministries. This alternative has some appeal: (1) Pastoral Ministries is just now under development and could therefore still be shaped to accommodate a campus ministry division as envisioned in this report, and (2) the parallels with chaplaincies provide some existing personnel and supervisory models for campus ministry. Disadvantages are that (1) divisions in the cluster lack experience and expertise in the funding and supervising of ministries, (2) completely new policies for staff and funding would be required, and (3) campus ministry includes a number of components which take it beyond the boundaries assumed by the other divisions in the cluster (e.g., the missiological component of campus ministry).

4. A caucus within the Chaplain Committee
Compelling reasons to move funding and supervision of campus ministry to this committee have not appeared. Historically, the Chaplain Committee has neither funded nor supervised chaplains, and it is unclear how it could supervise and fund a campus ministry caucus. Task‑force conversations with the director of chaplains have pointed toward some cooperative and supportive relationships that could be arranged between campus ministers and chaplains.

5. A coalition for ministry in higher education
      A new ministry agency similar to Christian Schools International or United Calvinist Youth could be created with overlapping and contractual relations to the official CRCNA ecclesiastical structures and the campus ministries. This alternative would provide campus ministries the freedom to develop a coherent approach to ministry in higher education without being co-opted by the different and/or expensive ‑ agendas of the larger CRCNA agencies. Disadvantages readily appear: (1) it would be difficult to promote the sense of community among campus ministries and to integrate campus ministry into the life of the denomination, and therefore increasing marginalization of campus ministry in the CRCNA might occur; (2) it is not clear that campus ministry has the necessary human resources for organizing a supportive constituency, dependable funding sources, and a competent staff for a "free‑standing” agency.

C. Task‑force recommendations
       After this report has been reviewed by the members of the CR‑CMA at their June 1995 conference, it will be referred to the executive director of ministries for the CRCNA. He will introduce it to the Ministries Coordinating Council (MCC) and relay appropriate feedback to the CR‑CMA. Then the report will be forwarded to the denomination's Board of Trustees, who may, after receiving appropriate feedback from the CR‑CMA and the MCC, forward the report to synod. The integrity of that process required of the CR‑CMA task force that it recommend what it considered to be the best‑case scenario for the future of campus ministry in the CRCNAwithout giving primary consideration to whether or not the recommendation would be politically acceptable. The appropriate denominational agencies, not the CR‑CMA, would have to determine whether that recommendation could be implemented.
The task force has reached a strong consensus that the desired future for CRCNA campus ministry requires the establishment of a distinct office for campus ministry. That office would require staff and resources for enabling and nurturing campus ministry in the life of the CRCNA in terms of the vision that is spelled out in this report. The attention of the task force was directed to the first three alternatives cited above (synodical agency, department of CRHM, and division within Pastoral Ministries). Conceivably, any one of the three was a possibility. The question then became which would be the best for campus ministry and the CRCNA?
The first alternative—separate synodical agency—was discarded as being unrealistic. In the context of restructuring the denomination's ministries, the task force was advised that implementation of this alternative would be most unlikely. The task‑force recommendation, therefore, had to be between CRHM and Pastoral Ministries.

1. Considerations
A number of considerations have led the task force to recommend CRHM as the better of the two alternatives. Some have already been mentioned in this report (p. 22). The principal considerations are reiterated below:

a. The Mission Statement (p. 15 of this report) intends to affirm that the CRCNA campus ministry is basically missiological in character. CRHM is the mission agency of the CRCNA. The missiological priority of campus ministry therefore identifies it more closely with CRHM than with the other alternatives.

b. The vision for campus ministry in the CRCNA, as outlined in this report, will be more clearly understood by people in the CRCNA and is more likely to be supported if campus ministry is framed unambiguously in missiological terms. That will be easier to do in the context of CRHM than in Pastoral Ministries.

c. The choice of CRHM is predicated on the assumption that a campus ministry department would be expected to articulate standards for administration and pursuit of CRCNA campus ministry in harmony with the Vision for Campus Ministry statement and the mission statement contained in this report.

2. Recommendations
The task force therefore recommends:
a. That a distinct denominational office be established for ministry in higher education and that it be established as a distinct department within CRHM.
b. That a transition team be appointed to effect the formation of the new office, define its initial policies, goals, and objectives in terms of the contents of this report, and schedule the priorities and time lines for achieving those objectives.
c. That the transition team and the CR‑CMA executive committee work cooperatively with each other, having spelled out clearly their lines of mutual accountability.
d. That the efforts of the CR‑CMA be coordinated in mutually acceptable ways with the new denominational office so as to provide CRCNA persons in ministries of higher education with the resources and services they need to do their work well.

previous page...next page