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.

[Uri’el-2012]

I see NOTHING WRONG here, particularly as I attended a Catholic university which had Marxists and Queer Theorists on its faculty.

19 posted on 01/07/2006 10:12:21 AM MST by Clemenza

I agree with you; the other night,
I watched the head of the Media dept
at Fordham on the BOR show.
He was a committed Pagan.

Somehow, I think there is a falling away!

b'shem Y'shua

[P-Marlowe]

Since he had a contract that requried him to be a practicing protestant, he broke the contract by converting to Catholicism.

He should have tendered his resignation. I'm sure it would have been accepted and there would not have been any controversy. That would have been the honorable thing to do. He had a legal and moral obligation to resign.

Wheaton was not only within their rights to fire him, but since he went public with this issue in an apparent attempt to embarrass the college, I would suggest that they should sue him for breach of contract.

[Clemenza]

Take a guess which "Catholic" University I attended for my undergrad? ;-)

[Uri’el-2012]

Two guesses and one don't count.

Fordham!

I was being aimed there by my prep school Jebbies

At least at NYU I understood what I was getting.

b'shem Y'shua

[Salvation]

Persecution of the Catholic Church?

[Salvation]

I think they were wrong in firing him -- grounds of religion, race, color, etc.

[Balding_Eagle]

He may have believed that Catholicism is "consonant with evngelical Christianity."

On that particular point it doesn't matter what HE believes, it matters what the school policy is.

He's been disingenuous at best. Not a great way to illustrate the convictions of ones beliefs. This is a man of no backbone.

[Kolokotronis]

I agree with Gamecock, odd as that may sound! Personally, I think the school may have made a mistake here, but it is their college and their rules.

[Kolokotronis]

I agree with everything you wrote except this:

"Wheaton was not only within their rights to fire him, but since he went public with this issue in an apparent attempt to embarrass the college, I would suggest that they should sue him for breach of contract."

That really would depend on the terms of the contract and I doubt that constitutionally any institution could maintain an action for breach of contract over a refusal of an employee to maintain certain religious beliefs, but I suppose its possible, say in the event that the professor had received some value beyond simply the agreed value of his services, like a signing bonus or some such benefit which hadn't been fully "amortized".

[jude24]

Personally, I think the school may have made a mistake here, but it is their college and their rules.

I fully agree.

[sassbox]

I wish Boston College and Georgetown would fire the anit-Catholics at their schools. (Personally, I would be happy to have Evangelicals at BC and GU, it's the CINOs we need to expunge).

I agree that CINOs are a much bigger problem. I went to Notre Dame where the theology department was dominated by folks who were quite hostile to traditional Catholic and Christian beliefs. Meanwhile the philosophy department attracted many fine orthodox Catholic professors as well as many excellent Protestant professors. I had no problem with committed Protestants teaching philosophy at a Catholic school. People often joked that the Protestants in the philosophy department were more Catholic than the "Catholics" in the theology department, and frankly it was true.

It's a real shame that Wheaton chose to take this step. I had no idea that they were this exclusivist, but it is their right. I think it will hurt them a lot in the long run - it certainly doesn't do much to downplay the notion that evangelicals are anti-intellectual.

[jude24]

I'm less interested in the legal question of whether Wheaton can fire him (that is assumed; no one has argued otherwise). I'm more interested in the question of whether Wheaton should have fired him because he is not an Evangelical Christian, but rather a Catholic Christian. Personally, I think it was a huge mistake for a school that wants the reputation of the "Evangelical Harvard."

[jude24]

I doubt that constitutionally any institution could maintain an action for breach of contract over a refusal of an employee to maintain certain religious beliefs,

If I were the the employee's counsel, I would argue that this contractual requirement was contrary to public policy and therefore unenforceable by the court. I'd probably win, too.

[old and tired]

a committed Catholic could/would teach Aquinas differently than a somewhat objective Evangelical Protestant. No?

I don't think I'd call an Evangelical Protestant somewhat objective. Also, I think ideally, Hinduism should be taught by a Hindu, Islam taught by a Muslim, etc. That's the way Cardinal John Henry Newman defined the Idea of the University. It's a Catholic thing. (Of course it's also the same reasoning the Jesuits abuse so they can hire every commie pagan under the sun to teach in their colleges).

[HarleyD]

I would agree with the general consensus that they should be allowed to fire the professor. I would also think (and hope) the professor would feel a bit uncomfortable anyway in that environment. Maybe we'll see him on the next Catholic post of those who have swam the Tiber.

[old and tired]

it certainly doesn't do much to downplay the notion that evangelicals are anti-intellectual.

Good point.

[sassbox]

Actually when it comes to the philosophy department, a professor's religious background isn't quite as important as it would be for a theology department at an orthodox school. The issues that divide Catholics and Protestants like soteriology, the role of Scripture, the role of Mary, and such are not the kind of things that are studied in philosophy departments.

There is a popular and growing area of philosophy which is specifically focused on philosophy of religion. However the issues discussed here are more along the lines of God's omnipotence, the problem of evil, providence, etc. Very basic questions about the nature of God and how He interacts with the world. I've studied this area a lot myself and I've found that anyone who seriously believes in God and is also very smart can be quite an asset to these discussions. I've seen Catholics, mainline Protestants, Evangelicals, Mormons, and Jews come together to work on questions like how God can be all powerful and all good but still create a world where there is evil. Whatever theological differences separate us were pretty much irrelevant for these larger discussions. Philosophy of religion is not about Catholic vs Protestant but rather Judeo-Christian theism vs materialistic atheism.

[jude24]

I would also think (and hope) the professor would feel a bit uncomfortable anyway in that environment.

Why should an evangelically-friendly Catholic (Campion, correct me if I am wrong, but is there not a discernible strand of orthodox Catholicism that is evangelically-minded?) be uncomfortable at a serious Evangelical university?

For instance, when the professor signed on to teach at Wheaton, when the issue of inerrency came up, he agreed with it, but taught "that the Bible should be read in light of 'authoritative traditions,' an example of which would be church councils. " This is my own position too - that the Early Church Fathers, the Councils, and particularly the early creeds are the lens through which the New Testament is to be interpreted. I would have thought myself comfortable at Wheaton - at least until this article.

[Gamecock]

***I agree with Gamecock, odd as that may sound!****

It's just a matter of time. Come over to the dark side....

[siunevada]

My interest in this is reflected in this part of the article:

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....

I have encountered in the Evangelical church a rampant anti-intellectual bias, to the point that some claim that even a theological education is a hinderence to true ministry.

It seems inherent that Evangelicals will never have a central "authority" that everyone can trust to state what an Evangelical believes. In my own little town, I've seen Evangelical groups split more than once. And they all teach the Bible as the sole rule of faith. They just have some slight differences with one another's beliefs about the meaning of what God is telling them through the Bible, but apparently serious enough that they can't maintain fellowship.