8
federal aid to students in religious institutions or
magnify governmental regulation of the Christian higher
educational enterprise.
9
To respond more effectively to
these challenges and to defend its interests in Washington,
the Christian college movement required more clout than
could be generated by the then fourteen members of the
Christian College Consortium. Further, as Bethel
(Minnesota) president George Brushaber observed, the
Consortium had not really spelled out its objectives with a
public policy role in mind.
10
Thus, in terms of both size
and mission, the Consortium was not disposed to assume
significant lobbying activities in the nation's capital.
Both the desire to stay small and the threat factor
motivated the Consortium to consider launching a larger,
subsidiary association to be known as the Christian College
Coalition. According to a plan put forth by Consortium
president Gordon Werkema, the Coalition's agenda would
include a heavy emphasis on preserving "the freedom of
9
David L. McKenna, telephone interview by author, 1
March 2000. See also David K. Winter, "Rendering unto
Caesar: The Dilemma of College-Government Relations," in
Making Higher Education Christian: The History and Mission
of Evangelical Colleges in America, eds. Joel A. Carpenter
and Kenneth W. Shipps (Grand Rapids: Christian University
Press/Eerdmans, 1987), 244-56.
10
George K. Brushaber, interview by author, 1 February
2000, Washington, D.C.