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

The Wall St. Journal, page A1 ^ | Jan. 7, 2006 | Daniel Golden

[jude24]

Wheaton College was delighted to have assistant professor Joshua Hochschild teach students about medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas, one of Roman Catholicism's foremost thinkers.

But when the popular teacher converted to Catholicism, the prestigious evangelical college reacted differently. It fired him.

Wheaton, like many evangelical colleges, requires full-time faculty members to be Protestants and sign a statement of belief in "biblical doctrine that is consonant with evangelical Christianity." In a letter notifying Mr. Hochschild of the college's decision, Wheaton's president said his "personal desire" to retain "a gifted brother in Christ" was outweighed by his duty to employ "faculty who embody the institution's evangelical Protestant convictions."

[snip]

In a 2004 book titled "Conceiving the Christian College," Mr. Litfin argued that hiring Catholics would start Wheaton down a slippery slope. Wouldn't having Catholic faculty, he asked rhetorically, "lead to a gradual sacrificing of Wheaton's distinctives?"

In an interview, [Wheaton President] Mr. Litfin acknowledges that a ban on Catholic faculty "narrows the pool that you can draw from." But he says that the school's niche is also a key to its success. "If you look at the caliber of our faculty, this is an amazing place. It's thriving."

[snip]
Yet a question nagged Mr. Hochschild: Why am I not a Catholic? As he saw it, evangelical Protestantism was vaguely defined and had a weak scholarly tradition, which sharpened his admiration for Catholicism's self-assurance and intellectual history. "I even had students who asked me why I wasn't Catholic," he says. "I didn't have a decent answer."

His wife, Paige, said her husband's distaste for the "evangelical suspicion of philosophy" at the school might have contributed to his ultimate conversion. The Hochschilds say some evangelicals worry that learning about philosophy undermines students' religious convictions.

[blue-duncan]

"Well, Wheaton should make that argument in front of the judge and see if he buys it. If this goes that far."

Court won't intefere in interpreting doctrine, especially two traditions.

[Zionist Conspirator]

His wife, Paige, said her husband's distaste for the "evangelical suspicion of philosophy" at the school might have contributed to his ultimate conversion. The Hochschilds say some evangelicals worry that learning about philosophy undermines students' religious convictions.

"What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?"

Catholicism is strange. They like to tout their history and philosophy, but that doesn't keep them from bashing the "pridefulness" of the Pharisees and boasting about the simplicity of the twelve humble apostles. Then it's back to Plato's Academy. I believe it was Pascal who said that the "gxd" of Roman Catholicism is the "gxd" of the philosophers, not the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Like I say, Wheaton's a private school run by Evangelicals to educate Evangelicals. My main concern with a professor converting to Catholicism is if he would then necessarily jettison Biblical literalism and creationism in order to be in line with mainstream Catholicism.

[Veto!]

As he saw it, evangelical Protestantism was vaguely defined and had a weak scholarly tradition, which sharpened his admiration for Catholicism's self-assurance and intellectual history.

I agree. As a former Catholic, I've tried Protestantism in its many forms, including the evangelicals, and the more I dabble, the more I realize that I have a Jesuit-shaped mind.

[Bohemund]

Court won't intefere in interpreting doctrine, especially two traditions.

You may be right. I don't think the statement constituted an employment contract anyway, which would render the argument moor. But if this comes down to a breach of contract case in a court of law, Hochschild can be expected to argue that the contract was ambiguous. If he does, then the court may be forced to examine the terms of the contract, regardless of whether they are "doctrine" or not.

[AlbionGirl]

Hi ZC, Happy New Year!

In my area, a very liberal Catholic and Protestant town, there is a sizeable Evangelical presence, and I have attended their services, and have had sustained contact with a few Evangelicals at work.

It does seem to me that Evangelicals distrust the study of Church history and such, which I think is a big mistake. I don't think they should change the way they witness, because Jesus is everything to them, and they're quick to show mercy to a troubled soul. That's huge, IMO, in terms of being able to bring people to Christ. Arcania is no match for simple, unconditional Mercy. Arcania was not Christ's standard, Mercy was. So the consistency there hits people where they live.

But to discount the past, as if it is irrelevant to who they are, is limiting, I think.

[Flavius Josephus]

But......Wheaton has a right to hire whomever they want. They hang themselves out as an Evangelical School, they have a right to have an Evangelical Faculty.

If they require a homodoxy of faith, and fire a professor because he (gasp) starts to believe that which he is teaching, I would say it makes this college a joke. Right up there with Oral Roberts University. Evangelical Harvard my eye.

[Flavius Josephus]

Wait a minute... I recall this bunch. I don't think they are what they hold themselves out to be. They may not want Catholics, but they don't have a problem with the following:

Women's Studies Women's Studies is an interdisciplinary course of study that places women and their experiences at its center. Women's Studies aims to introduce students to the broad range of topics that comprise Women's Studies and to foster critical thinking about the diverse issues and perspectives raised by Women's Studies scholarship. Course objectives include introducing students to feminism and theories of oppression and privilege, raising awareness of and appreciation for the diversity of identities among women, exploring institutions that have shaped women's lives historically and today, and celebrating the efforts of women and men to confront oppression and create a gender-just society. Our central focus for the semester will be the lives and experiences of women in the United States, but whenever possible we will examine connections between women in the U.S. and women internationally.

[Bohemund]

And by "moor" I mean "moot."

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

You missed my point. Wheaton (and presumably you) claim to be sola scriptura, Bible-alone folks. Yet when push-comes-to-shove, to distinguish one reading of the Wheaton statement (our Catholic one) from another (your Catholic-excluding one) you and the preamble rely on the "evangelical tradition" to gloss the plain words of the text.

You are doing exactly what you accuse us Catholics of doing and what we admit to doing. We think it is not only a good thing to do but impossible not to do. You claim it is possible not to do it and tell us that we cannot in good faith sign the "final authority of Scripture clause" because we have a tradition to guide our interpretation of Scripture, yet right here you employ a tradition to guide your interpretation of the Wheaton statement of doctrine, which itself is already a guide to the interpretation of scripture. So you have employed a double-layered "tradition" or "glossing interpretation of Scripture in order to tell us that we are wrong when we employ a guide to interpretation of Scripture, namely our magisterium which consists of the apostles and their successors, the bishops meeting in council.

And you cannot even see how you undercut your own argument as you make your argument.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

It's a private Evangelical school, isn't it? What's the big deal?

Because they were inconsistent in applying their own stated terms for deciding eligibility for employment. They did not define Evangelical in clearly Protestant terms--indeed, deliberately left out the word Protestant and any and all distinctively Protestant content, yet when a Catholic affirms that he believes the content, he is told that simply because he is not a Protestant he can't be an Evangelical. If they mean by "Evangelical" actually "Protestant and non-Catholic Evangelical" then they have to specify that and they did not specify that.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

However, it is my understanding . . . that and that official Catholic tradition holds equal authority with Scripture.

No you are incorrect. Your statement reflects a common accusation against Catholics but if you actually look at the presentation of this in either the Catechism of the Catholic Church (widely available on the Web) or in Dei Verbum, the Vatican II document on Scripture and tradition, you will see that Scripture is the authority for Catholics. We also claim that Scripture has to be interpreted. The NT writers themselves assume this--Paul, John etc. are by Jesus' own authority interpreting his teaching to their followers, Jesus' followers. They are also interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures in the light of Christ, an interpretive process that Jesus himself began on the road to Emmaeus (and even in his preaching during his ministry).

And, as I have argued in the exchange with Blue-Duncan and others on this thread, Wheaton College itself, in its doctrinal statement and many other ways, is engaged in interpreting Scripture. All Evangelical Protestants in fact have some authority to whom they look for interpreting Scripture: the pastor of a congregation, for congregationalists and Baptists; the synod for Lutherans, the presbytery or consistery or synod for Presbyterians and so forth. Even independent Bible Churches usually have some prominent figure or group of figures (John McArthur, R. C. Sproul, D. James Kennedy etc.) to whom they turn to resolve controverted interpretations of Scripture.

Now, they would immediately protest, "but we don't really treat these guys or our pastor or synod as authoritative"--we go directly to Scripture. In fact they don't do that. All over FR threads we have "Bible only" posters insisting that the Bible does not teach free will against other Protestant-"arminian" posters who do think the Bible teaches free will. Some appeal to the Westminster Confession for clarity etc.

Now, pay close attention. There is a difference between Catholics and Protestants on this issue. But it is not that the one follows an extra-scriptural authority and the other does "scripture alone." Their difference is in exactly how they understand the extra-scripture authority to be constituted and whether unity is important. We Catholics believe that we need to follow the authority Christ himself gave us (bishops meeting in council with the successor of Peter at their head) for the sake of unity (Jn 17). Protestants interpret Jn 17 differently! They believe unity is a nice thing but not as important. So they have given up, here on earth, on having any means to resolve disputes over Scripture interpretation. They try to resolve them as best they can but in the end, if two sides can't be persuaded to agree, they go their separate ways and start two sets of authorities.

But that's the difference. And when the Wheaton statement says "final authority" is Scripture, it cannot mean that no extra-biblical means of interpretation can legitimately be employed because the Wheaton statement itself is an extra-scriptural means of interpretation and it claims authority to adjudicate disputes over biblical interpration for the Wheaton College community.

Yes, we Catholics have an extra-scriptural authority but it is not equal to Scripture nor is it at odds with Scripture. It is "extra" only in a secondary sense. Our magisterium is not, obviously, identical with the words of Scripture, but it is not "outside" (extra) in a real sense but in and with Scripture. We have one source of authority, the Bible, but part of understanding the Bible as our authority involves interpreting the Bible to resolve disputes.

And that's exactly, exactly, exactly what Wheaton College and Duane Litfin did in this case. They didn't think that's what they were doing, but in fact that what they were doing.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

I think you have accessed Wheaton Collge in Massachusetts, not Wheaton College in Illinois. Please include your source when posting something like this. I've taken Wheaton to task on this thread quite a bit, but this boilerplate feminism does not at all fit with Wheaton College in Illinois. The Massachusetts school is a typical secular liberal arts college like Williams or Bryn Mawr or Amherst, where this sort of feminism is common. It is not characteristic of Wheaton in Illinois.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

It's a private Evangelical school, isn't it? What's the big deal?

From Hochschild's perspective, presumably, adding a single Catholic faculty member would not dilute the Evangelical Protestant character of the school. Indeed, I would expect (because I would think this way myself if I, as a Catholic, were making a case for permitting a Catholic here or there to teach) that as a Catholic I would wish for Wheaton to stay Evangelical Protestant. I would not see my being employed as a means to convert the school to Catholicism. In the first place, that's not going to happen and in the second place it would not be necessary. Let Catholic schools be really Catholic and Evangelical Protestant schools be really Evangelical Protestant.

But none of that requires that absolutely every faculty member be either, respectively, Catholic or Evangelical Protestant. Especially in the area of medieval scholastic philosophy, Wheaton's Evangelical Protestant character not only would not be harmed but actually might be enriched by having a believing Catholic teaching that area--provided, of course, he can in good faith sign the doctrinal statement.

If Wheaton's doctrinal statement truly is supposed to be the center around which its identity is formed, then Wheaton's most basic identity is evangelical Christian, because the statement expresses only a generic Christian evangelicalism, not a specifically Protestant Evangelicalism. That's simply prima facie what the statement says. Anyone who argues otherwise has to employ a set of glosses, as various posters on this thread have tried.

And the bottom line issue is whether Catholics can be truly evangelical. Dr. Litfin says no, Hochschild says yes--Catholics can be evangelical Christian; no, of course, Catholics cannot be Evangelical Protestants. If Wheaton means "evangelical Protestant" when it writes "evangelical Christian" in its statement, then it ought to have written what it meant instead of what it wrote.

And this interpretation of the document's "true intent" appears to have rested not on policy codified elsewhere but on the president's claim to possess the authority to interpret the document on behalf of the rest of the Wheaton community.

It's terribly ironic: by employing uncodified Wheaton tradition the president of the school interpreted its actual written (scripted) doctrinal statement magisterially. Not even the pope of Rome would arbitrarily exercise his magisterial office this way--he would appeal to previous codified interpretations to justify his present interpretation. The president of Wheaton College acted more papistically than the Bishop of Rome would ever dream of doing. Obviously at least some faculty interpreted the same scripted words differently but "Triticiensis locutus est, causa finita est," if I may be permitted a variation on the proverb: Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your thorough reply, but truly I am not making any accusations against the Catholic religion - only exploring the differences which may have bearing on the actions of Wheaton.

The first time I saw the term Vicar of Christ was in the San Fernando Cathedral in San Antonio. Naturally I was curious and asked my relatives what was meant by that term.

Likewise I asked them what "tradition" meant in Catholic theology and was given the short form explanation which I offered to you. The explanation from the Catholic Encyclopedia comports with my understanding: Tradition and Living Magesterium

As I have said before, half of my family is Catholic and thus an offense against Catholics per se would be an offense to my family and therefore to me. They would feel the same about me.

Naturally, each member of the family has his own Spiritual understanding. But then again, Peter was not like John who was not like Thomas who was not like Paul, etc. and (at least in my family) we accept those differences.

[Flavius Josephus]

OK, Gotcha.

[Campion]

The Catholic Encyclopedia article you link -- unless my hasty reading missed something -- does not say that Catholics view tradition and Scripture as equal, only that some extra-scriptural tradition is also authoritative.

[N3WBI3]

can evangelical Christian colleges such as Wheaton seriously claim to be teaching philosophy and history, for instance, if they fire admitted believers who simply adhere to another faith-tradition? Especially in the arenas of philosophy and Christian history, there can be no serious scholarship without interacting with Catholic scholarship.

You're ignoring the fact there are serious doctrinal issues that exist between Evangelical Protestants and Catholics! This is not a matter of faith-tradition this is a matter of doctrine.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply! The section II of the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Tradition and Living Magesterium is titled "The relation of Scripture to the living magisterium, and of the living magisterium to Scripture."

What I gathered from that section is that whereas (of course) Scripture is the high authority, nevertheless there is only the one authentic interpretation of it in Catholic theology. Thus they are equivalent (cannot be taken separately) - which is the way it was explained to me.

(One could argue the same holds true of those who are fully committed to a certain theologian's interpretation of Scripture whether Calvin, Arminius, etc.)

There is a logical fallacy called "coincidental correlation" or post hoc ergo propter hoc which means "after this therefore because of this". One might assume that since Church tradition follows the existence of Scripture that there is a causal relationship and hierarchy, i.e. Scripture>tradition. But as the third paragraph of section II indicates there are Catholic traditions "imposed" on Scripture, so the correct relationship of authority wrt Catholic theology, IMHO, is (Scripture+tradition).

Then again, belaboring the construction may also a logical fallacy called "distinction without a difference". LOL!

[Bohemund]

Why not look it up in the Catechism?:

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."[40] Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".[41]

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."[42]

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."[43]

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."[44]

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for the excerpt, Bohemund!