Should Calvin University Separate from the CRC?

Thanks for sending this. Just one minute, literally, before the Dialogos piece arrived in my mail, I read these thoughts from Truth Exchange. https://truthxchange.com/the-malcontents-of-calvin-university-is-sex-not-a-salvation-issue/

Thank you for sending the original article by Professor Smith and the responses that followed. Professor Smith falsely claims that synod moved the “goal posts”. But who planted these “goal posts” in the first place? They were originally planted by the writers of Holy Scripture through whom God breathed out His own Word. The confessions to which the CRC gives wholehearted agreement are based upon the teaching of scripture. When Synod 2022 defined the meaning of the word “unchastity” in the Heidelberg Catechism, Q.A. 108, it did nothing new. It simply re-affirmed what the church has always understood to be the plain meaning of scripture’s teaching on human sexuality. Neither did synod add to the catechism and confession. It simply explained or clarified what the word “unchastity” has always meant. Throughout the centuries the whole church, not just the CRCNA has stood by this biblical teaching. Only recently some groups have tried to change the church’s position, but they have been unable to re-write history. Feelings and opinions change, but the fact remains that the present teaching of the CRC has always been the teaching of the holy catholic church. In recent years some in the CRC have attempted to knock down the goal posts by claiming a new interpretation of scripture. When that failed – because words and meanings do not change – a few in leadership positions tried to put up a fog machine that would obscure the goal posts, claiming various interpretations are possible. But wind blows fog away, and synod has been led by the Spirit through His written Word to point to those same goal posts still standing and has shown that these posts never moved at all. The only reason anyone would claim that the posts have moved is that they were ignoring them in the first place.
Professor Smith seems to believe that having goal posts at all is a hindrance to the work of a Christian university and its freedom to study and educate. But we do confess in the Belgic Confession (Article 2) that we see God’s created order in light of His written Word which our theologians have called “lenses” by which a believer sees more clearly. The “beautiful book” of creation can only be understood through God’s “holy and divine Word” by which he “makes himself known more openly”. All our scholarship and academic study serves the glory of God when we see “all creatures great and small … as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: his eternal power and divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20.” If the university is cut off from the guidance and direction of the church in order to escape the authority of God’s written Word, the church will no longer have any reason to have a Christian university, nor will God be glorified. The proposal that the university should divorce the church is a bad one that will destroy the purpose of the university. Let us instead be thankful for believing scholars who humbly serve their Lord and the church and who are a great blessing for the people of God and the world in which they serve.