Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 01/07/2006 8:11:15 AM PST by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Ecumenism; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: catholicbashing; christianschools; highereducation; wheatoncollege
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-174 next last
To: jude24
Their legal right to dismiss him is not in doubt. The wisdom of the policy is however, highly debatable.
61 posted on 01/07/2006 2:24:03 PM PST by jecIIny (Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini. Qui fecit coelum et terram.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; Gamecock
The Schaeffers took Wheaton to task in the 80s for refusing to take a moral stance - as an institution or via their offered courses - on the issue of abortion.

That is surprising, and sad. IMO, it makes firing a Catholic philosophy prof to "maintain their distinctive evangelical character" look like so much tithing of mint, dill, and cumin.

62 posted on 01/07/2006 2:25:13 PM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jude24; Campion
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?

It's doubtful this instructor would promote Protestantism. The snip from the article states:

If Mr. Hochschild could not articulate this scholarly tradition (which he admits that he couldn't) why should he be teaching it? I would naturally disagree with Mr. Hochschild that Protestantism is based upon weak scholarly tradition. Personally I believe there is greater evidence of scholarly tradition in Protestantism if one wants to be true to 1) history and 2) scripture but then you will not find me teaching at any Catholic universities much to their delight I'm sure.

That being said I hope Wheaton exhibited some class (pardon the pun) and helped Mr. Hochschild find a new position suitable for his beliefs and his resume. Christians tend to just simply throw other Christians out on the street which I think is uncharitable.

63 posted on 01/07/2006 3:06:22 PM PST by HarleyD ("Command what you will and give what you command." - Augustine's Prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
He may have believed that Catholicism is "consonant with evngelical Christianity."
You wrote: "On that particular point it doesn't matter what HE believes, it matters what the school policy is. This is a man of no backbone."(My emphasis.)

You're right on that point, of course. I never disputed it. I only pointed out that if HE believes that his position was still evangelical and Christian, he was not acting in bad faith. (Nevertheless, the school can and should have the final word.)

"This is a man of no backbone." Do you know something about Joshua Hochschild that that rest of us don't know? I mean, not about differences of perspective, but more like actual perfidy? If not, your comment seems oddly over-the-top.

64 posted on 01/07/2006 3:12:14 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Credo in Unam, Sanctam, Catholicam et Apostolicam Ecclesiam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jude24; american colleen; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; ...


65 posted on 01/07/2006 3:12:33 PM PST by NYer (Discover the beauty of the Eastern Catholic Churches - freepmail me for more information.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Campion
I would naturally disagree with Mr. Hochschild that Protestantism is based upon weak scholarly tradition. Personally I believe there is greater evidence of scholarly tradition in Protestantism if one wants to be true to 1) history and 2) scripture

I sure haven't seen it. Evangelical Protestantism has given us anti-intellectualism - the flawed hermaneutic of Alexander Campbell et al.

66 posted on 01/07/2006 3:13:06 PM PST by jude24 ("Thy law is written on the hearts of men, which iniquity itself effaces not." - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: jude24

read later


67 posted on 01/07/2006 4:34:53 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jude24; GatorGirl; maryz; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; livius; goldenstategirl; ...

+


68 posted on 01/07/2006 5:03:35 PM PST by narses (St Thomas says “lex injusta non obligat”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jude24

Oh my goodness, a PROTESTANT College wants a PROTESTANT faculty!, and it turns out Roman Catholics are NOT the same as PROTESTANTS!

"The horror, the horror of it all."

Do you ever wonder what folks would stress about if they "had a life"?

This is series! A Moose bit my sister as she was cutting the cheese.


69 posted on 01/07/2006 5:59:11 PM PST by porkchops 4 mahound ("Si vis pacem, para bellum", If you wish peace, prepare for war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: porkchops 4 mahound

Don't patronize me.


70 posted on 01/07/2006 6:00:14 PM PST by jude24 ("Thy law is written on the hearts of men, which iniquity itself effaces not." - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: jude24

When did the WSJ start publishing on Saturday?


71 posted on 01/07/2006 6:08:03 PM PST by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Sometime in the past 6 months. I was a subscriber for only a few weeks when they had started.


72 posted on 01/07/2006 6:14:16 PM PST by jude24 ("Thy law is written on the hearts of men, which iniquity itself effaces not." - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: jude24; porkchops 4 mahound
Don't patronize me.

I suspect porkchops was simply patronizing (and ridiculing) the article.

I suspect that his sarcasm was directed to you and not at you.

Why did you take that post so personally, anyway?

73 posted on 01/07/2006 6:15:31 PM PST by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: jude24
What are you McDonald's?

This is a "tempest in a teacup", get over it.

Or don't.
74 posted on 01/07/2006 6:15:32 PM PST by porkchops 4 mahound ("Si vis pacem, para bellum", If you wish peace, prepare for war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Bingo !

That was my intention.


75 posted on 01/07/2006 6:18:02 PM PST by porkchops 4 mahound ("Si vis pacem, para bellum", If you wish peace, prepare for war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Wheee The People

I agree and I am Catholic.


76 posted on 01/07/2006 6:23:30 PM PST by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
You are making a false assumption about Wheaton's policy.

Wheaton requires its faculty to subscribe to a statement of faith and a pledge regarding various moral behaviors. As a Catholic (and a Wheaton graduate), I'm not sure I could subscribe to the statement today (I had my doubts about some clauses even as an undergraduate) but I could see how another Catholic could well subscribe in good conscience.

Contrary to what you seem to think and the article seems to have stated erroneously, Wheaton has no policy requiring that one be a Protestant. As long as one is willing to sign the two pledges, in theory, one is eligible.

Depending on how one reads certain clauses, the doctrinal statement is compatible with Catholic beliefs--it does not, of course, include a number of things that Catholics believe but as I recall does not include much that a Catholic could not sign, except perhaps for what it says about eschatology and even there I'm not sure. Now, most Protestants think that Catholics could not sign, for instance, its statements about the authority of Scripture etc., but, though I've not read it recently, I'm not sure that a traditional Catholic could not in fact interpret them in such a way that he could in good faith sign it. Which underscores the problem with the Protestant assumption that words have one and only one meaning.

It's funny but this snafu illustrates the way Protestants misunderstand Catholics. They think Catholics worship Mary and aren't biblical etc. so they think the phrases they use about scriptural authority etc. exclude Catholics. But in fact the Wheaton statement, for the most part, does not contain the really Catholic-excluding strict Calvinist or strict Reformation distinctives. It can't specify believe in double-predestination because not all evangelicals believe that and a lot of students and faculty would be excluded. It can't include a strict denial of free will because Evangelicals are divided on that. It can't make statements about excluding belief in sacraments or infant baptism etc. because Presbyterians and Episcopalians would be excluded. So the very mushiness that the Wheaton statement has to employ in order to satisfy its broad Evangelical constituency makes it impossible, really, to exclude Catholics if one reads certain clauses certain ways.

The doctrinal statement used to require premillennialism but I thought they modified it--certainly many faculty at Wheaton are not premillennialists--it was a big issue back in the 1970s when Gordon Fee left. Even then there were probably some faculty who did not really agree with everything in the statement (intra-Protestant disagreements) but signed because they were close enough and thought they had something to offer.

Of course Wheaton is legally within its rights. But after all these years of Evangelical-Catholic conversation and dozens of Wheaton faculty becoming various shades of Anglo-Catholics, it would have certainly benefited Wheaton to have kept him. Of course, the reason they didn't is that it would raise questions some Protestants don't want to have to confront: are not JPII Catholics today in fact fully evangelical? Can Evangelicals not benefit from interaction with evangelical Catholics without agreeing with them on everything.

Preserving Wheaton's "evangelical distinctives" is a crock--there are no such things because Evangelicals are all over the map. Mark Noll's book, Is the Reformation Over offers an alternative they could have pursued: while making it clear that Wheaton as a school does not agree with Catholic teachings (Noll makes clear in his book that he does not), Wheaton could employ a Catholic here or there, esp. to teach medieval subjects, and use it as an opportunity for Evangelicals better to explain why they don't agree with Catholics. One strengthens one's own beliefs precisely by engageing in honest conversation.

This will backfire in some ways. Those Wheaton studetns (and the broader Evangelical world) who don't have entirely closed minds will be even more curious about why Wheaton was so thin-skinned, so insecure, that they could not tolerate even one Catholic--a Catholic who said he could in good conscience sign the doctrinal statement and more Evangelicals will join those swimming the Tiber.

I premise this on the assumption that he was willing to sign the doctrinal statement. If instead he said he could not in good conscience sign it but was asking them to make an exception in his case, that would be different. While it would actually make good sense to make an exception for someone teaching an area where Catholic beliefs are an asset, Wheaton could never make an exception because there are probably other faculty who would like to avoid having to sign--e.g., the restrictions on alcohol. They could not make an exception for him without opening a can of worms within their own Protestant constituency which is all over the map on a number of clauses in the doctrinal statement and the statement of moral behavior.

This move exposes the weakness of the whole Wheaton pledge system, which has been fragile for a long time and has been under pressure because of all the faculty who are now Episcopalians (beginning with Bob Webber's move back in the late '70s). I can't imagine that there aren't a number of them who have private disagreements with the two required pledges but sign anyway.

Since I never contributed to alumni campaigns I guess I can't threaten to withhold my contributions :) I am very disappointed in my alma mater and I would be disappointed even if I had remained an Episcopalian or evangelical Protestant.

77 posted on 01/07/2006 6:52:03 PM PST by Dionysiusdecordealcis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jude24

I'm a Catholic, and I have a number of close friends at Wheaton. They once chose me to be on a committee evaluating one of their departments. It was odd in a way, because they trusted my judgment but couldn't hire me. Also, when we went out to dinner, they were perfectly comfortable with my having a beer, but they abstained, as Wheaton faculty solemnly vow to do.

I don't have a problem with the fact that they don't hire Catholics. I'm a little more uncomfortable with their firing someone for converting and, as he would no doubt put it, following where Christ leads him. But it's their right to do so, and I can understand their fear of the slippery slope that has destroyed so many other formerly Protestant colleges.

I had a student who went to Oral Roberts University. He was Evangelical, but had an interest in the middle ages. He said his tutor at Oral Roberts was a convert to Catholicism, and that Oral Roberts let several faculty who converted to Catholicism stay on, as long as they were willing to swear and live by the statement that "Jesus Christ is my personal savior." I believe any decent Catholic could swear to that with a clear conscience.

Interesting that Wheaton is more fearful of Catholics than Oral Roberts.


78 posted on 01/07/2006 6:52:14 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dionysiusdecordealcis

I read your reply after posting mine just below it. Interesting, thanks.


79 posted on 01/07/2006 6:57:18 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
This is a man of no backbone.

Considering he lost his job for his religious convictions rather than surrender to the institution -I would say this man has quite a bit of backbone -just not in the areas you feel important...

80 posted on 01/07/2006 7:03:40 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-174 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson