A Test of Faith [WSJ article on Wheaton after firing a professor who converted to Catholicism]

No, that's not correct. If they had said that you have to belong to a specified set of denominations, you would be right. It is true that a Catholic parish can specify that only Catholics can be hired and a Presbyterian denomination can specify only Presbyterians. Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries in Elkhart, Indiana, used to insist that even Baptists be willing to join the Mennonites as a condition of employment--they may have changed that by now. North Park University has a requirement that its president either be Evangelical Covenant or willing to become one. This is perfectly legal and fine by me. But that's not what Wheaton did.

Wheaton does not specify denominations. It can't--it's an endless task because their constituency is so varied and some of Wheaton's constituents (Plymouth Brethren) would be offended by specifying denominations at all--it would exclude them. So Wheaton chose the route of using a doctrinal statement instead of church membership as the criterion. But Evangelicals disagree about so many aspects of doctrine that the statement had to be left vague.

Now, in practice, they have added as a gloss to their doctrinal statement a negative-denominational criterion: one may not be a Catholic even if one can sign the doctrinal statement in good conscience. Most of their constituency will think this negative-denominational criterion reasonable and that's why they added it. But I doubt that it was spelled out contractually--perhaps there was a clause like that in contract boilerplate.

This is exactly right. And I can empathize with it. I once faced a similar situation--just as I decided to become an Episcopalian (20 years ago), I received inquiries about filling a long-term position at the strongly denominational school I was teaching temporarily at. I said I'd be interested in the position but that they needed to know I was joining the Anglicans and that that probably would be too much for their constituents to swallow--I wanted to create room for them to withdraw the tentative expression of interest. I understood that there were certain lines they could not cross.

The influx of so many Wheaton faculty into the Episcopal Church has not been well received by the same portions of Wheaton's constituency that would object to a Catholic teaching there. There's long been grumbling about so many Episcopalians. That's the direct background for excluding a Catholic--it would be a straw breaking constituent camel backs. They backed themselves into this corner when they didn't nip the Anglicanphile movement in the bud 25 years ago. It's too late to do anything about that, but they darn sure can do something abou this one.

From my experience with Protestants, most do not hold to reading Scriptures through the lenses of Tradition, but their own private interpretation. I suppose the tension at Wheaton between the professor converting and the other Christians would have been too much on such issues.

Interesting comment. It illustrates the fault lines within Evangelicalism and between Evangelical Protestantism and confessional Protestants (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians). Private interpretation is characteristic of low-church/free-church Evangelicals but not of confessional Protestants--an endangered species today. Confessional Protestants read Scripture through the lens of the Augsburg Confession, the Westminster Confession, the Synod of Dort etc. There aren't too many real confessional Protestants left but it still colors their denominations when compared to Baptists (some Baptists are pretty confessional--Free Will Baptists, for instance, or the Northern Baptists used to be) and Bible Churchers and Pentecostals.

To be a Lutheran used to be to be committed to your synod's interpretation of the Augsburg Confession's interpretation of Scripture over against the 39 Articles' interpretation of Scripture or the Helvetic Confession's interpretation of Scripture. Among Lutherans there were disagreements over how to interpret the AC, so you got splinter groups but they all at least would have said they identifed with the AC and not the WC. Much of that's gone now, but still, the "higher-church" end of the spectrum, delivers some of Wheaton's students and faculty and backers, so they can't simply write a Bible Church private interpretation doctrinal statement that excludes the great Protestant Confessions as "human inventions falsely glossing Scripture" but neither can they specify one or several of the great Protestant Confessions because that would exclude the Plymouth Brethren and Independent Baptists. So the statement is silent.

But "private interpretation" is a sliding scale. Compared to the Catholic magisterium, the AC or WC is a form of "private interpretation" but compared to Pastor Billy Bob's Magisterium down at Bible Thumpers Glory Barn, the AC or WC is anything but private interpretation.

Certainly Campbell's hermeneutics is flawed. Much of Protestant hermeneutics anymore consist of reading a verse and then asking yourself how does it make you feel. If that sounds harsh I have been in a number of Sunday School and Bible classes (at least for one day) where we have done that. (e.g. I remember in one class someone took some obscured passage in Amos and asked us each to apply it to our life.)

That being said, Catholic/Orthodox belief that a bunch of people getting together to talk over the scriptures and come to some conclusion as a "scholarly" approach is equally as flawed. There is no greater evidence of this than the Pharisees who, no doubt, thought good intentions was all that was needed. God must enlighten the heart and give us understanding. When men think they can simply take the scriptures and sit down and reason them out they are very much mistaken. This gives the appearance of intellectualism but that's all. With all due respect for our Catholic friends history has shown that errors have been made from the chair of Peter regardless of the countless arguments I can here coming my way. This was what Luther recognized. Their "intellectualism" has led to such false doctrines (IMHO) as purgatory, indulgences, the veneration and praying to Mary and saints, and others. None of which is in scripture.

John Calvin, Luther, Wycliffe, Huss didn't work in some kind of vacuum. They built upon the scholarly applications of the early church fathers but they relied upon the word of God for being the benchmark of all truth. They had the right hermeneutics that few apply today.

I think Mr. Hochschild looks at the scholastic endeavors of Protestantism today which is based upon "feelings" finds them to be extremely poor. I would agree. But running to the Church that has built their foundation upon graduated unchangable errors is not a good substitute. Both are flawed approaches.

Do a google search for Hochschild. He was teaching at Mount St. Mary's in 2004. The guy is obviously brilliant. A Yale undergraduate of whom W. F. Buckley took note already ten years ago, his 2001 dissertation at Notre Dame was on analogy in Cajetan (applying medieval philosophical principles to Cajetan's Thomism. He's a Chestertonian, writes poetry, has been active in Institute for Collegiate Studies publications, has published in major journals. Wheaton was stoooooooooopid. I know, I know, the loss to the school in terms of real scholarship is more than offset by the bucks that will flow from the purist Reformation fat cats.

But the really dumb thing about it all is that the Wheaton statement of doctrine does truly exclude some people--liberal Protestants could not sign that statement because of what it says about the authority of Scripture, of atonement by the blood of Christ etc. That's who it was designed to exclude and has excluded since the 1920s Fundametantalist controversies. What intelligent Evangelicals have long realized (hence, Evangelicals and Catholics Together) is that compared to liberal Protestants who deny the very essence of Christian soteriology, Catholics and Evangelicals are on the same page. Their disagreements are over the nature of the church (including sacraments) but in those areas, Evangelicals don't all agree. Hence any doctrinal statement that could be signed by a wide range of Evangelicals can also be signed by traditional Catechism of the Catholic Church Catholics and could not be signed by liberal cafeteria Catholics or liberal Protestants.

The Hochschild case starkly illustrates the point many have been making for at least 10 years now: traditional Evangelicals who believe Jesus Christ is God Incarnate and died to save us from our sins have more in common than either does with liberal Protestants or liberal Catholics CINOS.

But Wheaton is too stupid to get the point. Quite frankly, the "strict-constructionist sixteenth-century Protestantism revivalists" are too small in number and already had it in for Wheaton (their big name pastors just found their own colleges anyway, where they can run the show) that I can't really see that their "big bucks" would have mattered. Had Wheaton taken leadership on this issue to show that Catholics and Evangelicals are on the same side in the culture wars and the big issues, it might have given Wheaton a real "distinctive" among Evangelical schools.

No, I'm increasingly convinced that the real reason they could not employ Hochschild is not loss of donations by fat cats stuck in the 16th-Century Reformation but that too many students might actually start exploring Catholicism with open minds and convert. And THAT we wouldn't want to happen.

Correction to # 105: "traditional Evangelicals who believe Jesus Christ is God Incarnate and died to save us from our sins have more in common than either does with liberal Protestants or liberal Catholics CINOS."

" should have read: "Evangelicals . . . . have more in common with JPII/CCC Catholics than either does with Liberal Protestants or CINOS."

Had Wheaton taken leadership on this issue to show that Catholics and Evangelicals are on the same side in the culture wars and the big issues...

Perhaps "the cultural wars" are not the "big issues" Wheaton is most concerned with.

purist Reformation fat cats

That's at least the second time you've used that phrase in this thread.

Thank you, God, for all purist Reformers, led by God's word alone, be they chubby or buff.

To study the Bible and obey is to become Christian.

Not necessarily. Lots of non-Christian people, atheists and agnostics read and can quote the Bible. To understand how to put Biblical Teaching into Practice, one reads the Early Church Fathers.

If your statement was true, then reading the koran would make me a muslim.

And that isn't going to happen.

Interesting your "wink-wink, nod-nod" attitude to a statement of faith that is to be taken without reservation. Your undisclosed additions and interpretations to a classic Evangelical statement is reason enough to fire the man. He is in a position of authority, (in loco parentis) to students who have been entrusted the the college for their education because of its Evangelical Protestant position. In philosophy classes, especially when studying Aquinas and the medievals, questions that directly bear on the statement of faith where you have pointed out the Roman Catholic reservations will have to be discussed. Here you have a charismatic authority figure, teaching in the very area in question, who has "converted". I would expect the college to do exactly what they did in order to keep faith with the parents and churches who send their kids for study without the cynical references to donations.

If as you say the Evangelicals and the Roman Catholics are so close in belief, why the necessity for "conversion"? Convert to what?

There's nothing wink wink or nod nod about my attitude. That you think there is only shows your unspoken and unthought-through assumptions about Catholics.

I can subscribe to that statement without reservation whatsoever and I stated exactly that. Not only have you not read the doctrinal statement carefully, you have not read carefully what I wrote. Where in what I wrote did I wink or nod? I said "no qualms" and "absolutely." That's not wink wink or nod nod.

That you and others may think that the statement excludes Catholics and that any Catholic who says he can sign it is disingenous and hypocritical and dishonest is something you read into the statement. The statement itself includes nothing that excludes Catholics. It could have been written in such as way as to exclude Catholics. It could have required signers to abjure the authority of the bishop of Rome or to deny baptismal regeneration or a dozen other things. It does none of these because in most cases Evangelicals don't agree on these matters.

I purchased a copy of Saturday's WSJ today. I read the article. If the reporter's account is accurate, Dr. Litfin essentially told Hochschild what you and Petronius Maximus have told me: As an Evangelical Protestant, I, Duane Litfin, tell you, Joshua Hochschild that you cannot in good faith sign this statement because it says the Bible is the final authority and you Catholics have another final authority. Hochschild corrected Litfin's arrogant claim to tell Catholics what they believe about the authority of the Bible and of the Church. He pointed out that we do give final authority to the Bible and turn to the magisterium to resolve disputes, which is exactly, exactly what Litfin was doing and exactly what Presbyterian synods, congregational councils, pastors of congregations, Episcopal conventions, Lutheran synods, Southern Baptist state and national conventions do all the time. "Final" authority in the statement cannot mean that no body ever can pass judgment on the interpretation of a passage of scripture because all of Wheaton's constituent Christian groups do that all the time. And Duane Litfin himself was doing exactly that. So whatever "final" means here, it cannot mean that it excludes any official teaching authority to interpret Scripture. The question is which sorts of official teaching authority are acceptable. Wheaton has no trouble with the Southern Baptist Convention as resolving disputes about the meaning of the Scriptures or with the official board of an independent Baptist Church doing so.

Now, please pay close attention: if "final authority" meant no body ever can legitimately adjudicate disputes about the meaning of Scripture, then what in the world does the Wheaton statement of faith do? This doctrinal statement is itself a passing of judgment on the meaning of Scriptures. It is saying that this interpretation of passages X, Y, and Z of the scriptures is acceptable and any interpretation of the same passages that contradicts the one given here is not acceptable. The Wheaton College Board of Trustees, in setting this doctrinal statement, has acted as the magisterium for Wheaton College students and faculty.

Moreover, since there was now a dispute over how to properly interpret the Board of Trustees' magisterial interpretation of Scripture for Wheaton College--namely the dispute between Joshua Hochschild, who believes a Catholic can legitimately sign it and Duane Litfin, who believes a Catholic cannot, Litfin was acting as a the pope of Wheaton College in exercising a second level of magisterial authority, adding a "not" clause to the Wheaton Statement of Faith, namely, interpreting its clause about "scripture final authority" so as to exclude Catholics. The words of the statement by themselves are silent, just as the US Constitution was silent about judicial review.

If the article is accurate, Litfin did not seek the authoritative interpretation of the college faculty in this dispute over how to interpret the college doctrinal statement nor the board of trustees but acted as the arbiter. Read the article. The chair of the philosophy department himself interpreted the Wheaton doctrinal statement as signable by a Catholic and pleaded with Litfin to retain Hochschild. I would bet that a number of other faculty agreed with the chair of the philosophy department. Hochschild was considered an outstanding young teacher. His colleagues wanted to retain him. Litfin acted as pope here.

I imagine that, as chief executive, Litfin was within his rights to interpret for his side of the dispute what the statement meant, though one can ask whether the issue should not have been discussed more broadly with faculty and the board of trustees (with whom he discussed it behind the scenes, of course, we don't know).

But neither Litfin nor you can rightly tell us Catholics that we are dishonest in signing a statement like this unless you have evidence we signed in bad faith. Litfin may be authorized by the board to do the papal interpretation of this doctrinal statement for the Christian community known as Wheaton College, but what gives him the right to tell Catholics that they are disingenous if they say that they affirm that the Bible is the final authority?

And for you to tell me that I took a wink wink mental reservation approach to this when I told you exactly the opposite is an insult.

Your prejudices are showing.

Either Wheaton accepts anyone who signs the statement as signing in good faith (unless Wheaton has proof that he signed in bad faith) or Wheaton modifies to statement to make it impossible for a Catholic to sign it. But for Litfin to add an interpretive gloss to the board-approved statement that excludes people not because of what they themselves say they believe but because they adhere to a Christian tradition that Litfin believes cannot sign in good faith is unjust. Wheaton has not denominational tests for anyone else, only for Catholics. If they want to admit or exclude people on the basis of denominational adherence, then write that into their policies.

But if they claim to employ a doctrinal statement as the sole criterion, then either they have to write the statement so as to make clear that certain beliefs are excluded or they have to accept anyone who signs in good faith unless they can prove that the person did not.

The fundamental point is that on the basic points included in this doctrinal statement, Catholics and Evangelicals do in fact agree. Their differences lie elsewhere. If Wheaton does not want Catholics teaching there, then they better include the genuine disagreement issues in their doctrinal statement. To claim that unspecified, hidden meanings govern the interpretation of the text without spelling them out in writing makes a mockery of any doctrinal statement.

Please retract your accusation that I acted in bad faith with a wink and a nod when I said that I could in good conscience as a Catholic sign that doctrinal statement.

Evangelicalism has always had a thorny relationships with strict Protestantism, which is why the neo-Protestants like Sproul who want to repristinize the 16th century are so critical of the mainstream of Evangelicalism--it's not very Protestant but instead comes out of the 19th-century revivalist movements.

It seems like every 100 years or so, there are revival movements within particular Protestant branches to "return to the purified roots", such as the Methodist and then the Nazerenes.

There's a delicious irony in this...

You are certainly a good source of information on the question at hand. It does seem to me that exploring history is a threat to Protestantism. I would imagine that the board of directors are aware of this - but they also cannot appear as anti-intellectual, so must present some sort of class structure on Church History or the development of doctrine in Christianity. What really moved me towards Catholicism was seeing the continuity between the Scriptures and the first extant writings that we have outside of Scriptures, such as Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome. A person searching for the truth shouldn't care where it leads them. Otherwise, it is not a search for truth.

It is an exciting time to be Catholic, I think. Intellectually, I see many Protestant pastors exploring their roots - but going further beyond the 16th century - and finding that there is a continuity between the Apostles and the Catholic Church. I think what moves many Protestants is that Rome doesn't require that one drops EVERYTHING they had acquired in their Protestant walk. Scripture reading and such devotions are encouraged, not stiffled. We need these Protestants who are well versed in Greek or Hebrew, who really KNOW the Word of God. Once they see that the Church interprets Scripture through a living Tradition, I think it all begins to make sense.

Regards

Interesting comment. It illustrates the fault lines within Evangelicalism and between Evangelical Protestantism and confessional Protestants (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians). Private interpretation is characteristic of low-church/free-church Evangelicals but not of confessional Protestants--an endangered species today. Confessional Protestants read Scripture through the lens of the Augsburg Confession, the Westminster Confession, the Synod of Dort etc.

You are correct. Initially, private interpretation was the true Protestant battle cry on the subject. But many of the classic Protestant reformers began to see that private interpretation just wouldn't work. Thus, they substitued the Church's authority with their own - hence, the denominational creeds. Today, some maintain this substitution of authority, while others continue to maintain the "true" Protestant doctrine of private interpretation (which invariably doesn't work - hence the need for "renewal"). Thus, you correctly states that Protestants can be thus divided. What is interesting is on what basis Scripturally do either class of Protestants base this idea of abrogating Church authority on the issue?

Regards

If as you say the Evangelicals and the Roman Catholics are so close in belief, why the necessity for "conversion"? Convert to what?

I see that I failed to reply to your final question. It illustrates that you don't quite understand the issues at stake here. I am not arguing that Evangelical Protestants and Catholics agree on everything. I stated clearly that we do not agree. We disagree about the nature of the Church, priesthood, sacraments. But the Wheaton doctrinal statement totally ignores all of those issues, precisely because on those issues Evangelicals and Protestants also disagree among themselves.

Why convert? The word "convert" is a bad choice but it is used by everyone so I'll use it. What is involved here is a matter of historic schism. Protestants are in schism with Catholics, Catholics are in schism with Orthodox. Orthodox and Catholics believe nearly the same things about the Church and sacraments and priesthood but despite nearly identical beliefs, cannot share the Eucharist because they are not in ecclesial fellowship. They are in schism. Protestants and Catholics disagree about a lot of doctrine (but not about the doctrines specified in the Wheaton statement). In addition to doctrinal disagreement, they also are in ecclesial schism.

One could, as an Evangelical, change one's mind doctrinally and come to believe the various Catholic doctrines about the Church and sacraments. One would not yet be a Catholic because one would not have gone through the formal process of overcoming the schism. It would be possible to overcome the schism in groups if all Protestants or specific groups of Protestants could agree with Catholics to end the schism. That's not likely to happen because Protestants don't have authority structures that could formally enter into ecclesial reconciliation with Catholic authority structures. Individuals can, however, take the formal steps to be readmitted to full communion with the bishop of Rome (by means of being admitted to full communion with a local bishop who is in communion with the bishop of Rome). Anglican parishes have done this but my guess is that they were admitted more as a group of individuals than as an ecclesial unit. One of the continuing Anglican groups is now coming close to a full overcoming of schism and it will probably be admitted as a unit because it has its own leadership and leadership structures and the members understand themselves as under the authority of their bishop. (Under certain circumstances I suppose the bishop could be recognized as a Catholic bishop, perhaps only after (re)consecration. There are also groups that once were in fellowship with the bishop of Rome but went into schism or at least an irregular relationship--their schism or irregular situation has been overcome--the Campos prelature in Brazil, for example. But they started with Catholic authority structures which went out of fellowship and then were brought back into fellowship. Protestants as a matter of principle abandoned most of those kinds of authority structures, though the high church Protestant confessions like Lutherans and Episcopalians and even Presbyterians have authority structures closer to those of Catholics.

The individual process of overcoming the schism involves affirming that one does agree with all Catholic teaching (a formal profession of Catholic faith), receiving the sacrament of confession, being confirmed (unless one is a lapsed Catholic who was once confirmed, in which case, only sacramental confession would be needed), and then receiving Eucharist for the first time. If one had never been baptized one was not in schism and the word "conversion" would actually apply. But Christians baptized as non-Catholics are not rebaptized. They are Christians but out of fellowship; fellowship is restored when doctrinal agreement is affirmed and a formal reception in the Catholic church, into communion with the bishop, takes place.

I take the differences between Evangelicals and Catholics very seriously as does, I assume, Dr. Hochschild. I am not saying there are no differences. It's just that the Wheaton doctrinal statement does a lousy job of specifying Catholic/Evangelical differences and as a result, a Catholic can affirm it totally and without reservation.

Correction: it would perhaps be better to avoid the word "schism" with regard to the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox situation. But they are out of fellowship, lack full communion. The points I was making in #114 hold, but the term would best be avoided. In the case of Protestants and Catholics, we are in schism.

ditto to the lazy 8

"That said, Wheaten has got every right to fire the guy. I wish Boston College and Georgetown would fire the anit-Catholics at their schools. :

Amen

I would expect professors to know what they protest & label them, & me, protestants. What is left can have the capital P version Protestant. They are simply Protestant by tradition, or more simply not Catholics.

I would agree. But running to the Church that has built their foundation upon graduated unchangable errors is not a good substitute. Both are flawed approaches.

I could reword the following and provide the same conclusion

George Washington:

...Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of government be braced and held by a steady hand, and every violation of the constitution be reprehended: if defective let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence129. 129 is a reference to a letter from G.W. to Henry Lee regarding Shay's Rebellion, cited in: Douglas Southall Freeman, George Washington, Vol. 6, p72.

But the really dumb thing about it all is that the Wheaton statement of doctrine does truly exclude some people--liberal Protestants could not sign that statement because of what it says about the authority of Scripture, of atonement by the blood of Christ etc.,

Please, please consider me dumb & dumber