[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.

[jo kus]

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.

I think yours is a more Catholic idea. Catholics interpret Scripture through the lenses of the Fathers, the Councils, and the Creeds (Tradition). 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.

Regards

[HarleyD]

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:

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.

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.