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.
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.
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.
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...