By Raquel Joy Gonzalez

Guest Writer

I know a pastor who moved to a border town where over 90 percent of the population was Hispanic and spoke Spanish. After over a decade, this pastor continues to speak only English, making his ministry toward this target population less effective. I know a missionary's son who spent most of his life in a different land and claimed to love the area and people as his own, but when the time came for him to marry, he searched in his own ``neighborhood'' to find his racially similar wife. Often this is a matter of preference, but then again, what would explain his other four brothers' and sisters' similar choice and all the other missionary children who do likewise?

I know a missionary couple that defended their adopted country's differences, yet when it came to their children, they made sure to send them to a white, private Christian school and church where their children would be ``safe'' in a homelike atmosphere, even though the education system was not inferior to that of the U.S. This made their ministry less effective because the nationals resented their separation and visible monetary privileges, causing them to feel as if they had been unacceptable to the missionaries' standards.

I know about a faculty member who works for Calvin College and has a separate ministry in his neighborhood. Much like missionaries, they sold their house and moved to a culturally different and unfamiliar place in order to better minister to the people there. They showed so much devotion to their ministry that the local CRC church appointed the wife to a ministry and she founded a local Christian Community Development Organization. Meanwhile, the husband participated in many multicultural and antiracism events and was a member of the college's Multicultural Affairs Committee. He advised those who had were facing cultural issues and volunteered his services for multicultural programs such as Entrada. His wife reached out to her neighbors, and their children interacted with others in spite of the neighborhood's high crime rate. She became head of an effort to save the local public school from closing. After all, this was the neighborhood school, where kids had no other choice but to attend. She tried to improve the school and dedicated herself to her mission.

However, the time came when the couple felt a strong spiritual calling to take a step further and integrate their children into this local public school. They felt that they could not minister in good conscience to the community and yet promote a particular type of segregation. The couple needed to be blameless in their work and truly believed in full integration. Calvin could have made an exception to the policy and allowed their children to attend the school. After 16 years of service to Calvin, however, the staff member had little choice; he had to choose between a righteous ministry before the Lord or his career at Calvin.

By not allowing him to send his children to a public school, knowing that they have had this ministry with outreach, Calvin has violated at least four principles touching on basic issues of race and prejudice. First, a racial ideology of equality. There are professors of color who have also claimed to have a ministry, and their appeals were not turned down. Is Calvin saying that one must be of color in order for their appeal to be validated? Another professor was exempted from this policy because her spouse had a career involved with public schools. Does this mean that his career had more pull than the ministry? This one-handed decision could eventually lead to intra-staff quarrels and claims that certain staff members have different privileges in regards to their family.

Second, the college claims to support true outreach to less fortunate areas. This is seen in the Project Neighborhood houses where Calvin students interact and serve the community. Do they believe that you can only have a legitimate outreach ministry if it is for college credit or to promote the school's commitment to service? Maybe Calvin should be reminded that the staff member sold his house and gave up his previous lifestyle because he believed in his mission.

Third, Calvin is not being true to what they claim regarding racial healing. John Perkins of the Christian Community Development Association states that part of racial healing begins with the three R's: Relocation, Reconciliation and Redistribution. Calvin wants to promote healing and encourage American minorities to attend Calvin. Why then penalize this person for following those principles?

Finally, Calvin is not giving a positive testimony of its mission to overcome racism by increasing minority attendance. It is disappointing that minorities will find out that that Calvin fired a faculty member because he had a ministry with outreach and decided that he wanted his kids to go to ``their'' school. I doubt that the number of admissions applications will increase.

The pastor who never learned Spanish never bothered to fully integrate and hurt the cause of Christ. Many Hispanic members of the congregation resent that fact. The missionary's children that chose to only marry within their own race not because of preference but rather a feeling of superiority, also exhibited internal separation from the culture. The missionaries who sent their children only to schools that they found culturally superior caused apprehension in those they were serving and maybe even indirectly taught their children that their system was superior as well as a form of segregation.

I lived in an area where I witnessed this often as missionaries, people on spring break missions and families on long missions stopped by our church. Often I wished that someone would truly commit to border outreach and integrate with the society. It saddens me that Calvin is punishing someone who is.