Posted on 05/06/2007 11:58:17 AM PDT by NYer
Most of the post centers on the tussle over ETS matters and leadership, (he has resigned from the presidency) but:
There is a conversation in ETS that must take place, a conversation about the relationship between Evangelicalism and what is called the “Great Tradition,” a tradition from which all Christians can trace their spiritual and ecclesiastical paternity. It is a conversation that I welcome, and it is one in which I hope to be a participant. But my presence as ETS president, I have concluded, diminishes the chances of this conversation occurring. It would merely exacerbate the disunity among Christians that needs to be remedied.
The past four months have moved quickly for me and my wife. As you probably know, my work in philosophy, ethics, and theology has always been Catholic friendly, but I would have never predicted that I would return to the Church, for there seemed to me too many theological and ecclesiastical issues that appeared insurmountable. However, in January, at the suggestion of a dear friend, I began reading the Early Church Fathers as well as some of the more sophisticated works on justification by Catholic authors. I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant and that the Catholic view of justification, correctly understood, is biblically and historically defensible. Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible, I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries. Moreover, much of what I have taken for granted as a Protestant—e.g., the catholic creeds, the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Christian understanding of man, and the canon of Scripture—is the result of a Church that made judgments about these matters and on which non-Catholics, including Evangelicals, have declared and grounded their Christian orthodoxy in a world hostile to it. Given these considerations, I thought it wise for me to err on the side of the Church with historical and theological continuity with the first generations of Christians that followed Christ’s Apostles.
(Comments are open over there, btw. Worth a visit to add your support, if you like!)
Francis J. Beckwith is Associate Professor of Church-State Studies (tenured) at Baylor University In June 2007 he will join Baylor's philosophy department where he will become Associate Professor of Philosophy. A Fellow and Faculty Affiliate in Baylor's Institute for Studies of Religion (ISR), he served as Associate Director of Baylor's Institute of Church-State Studies from July 2003 until January 2007.
Born in 1960 in New York City, Professor Beckwith grew up in Las Vegas, Nevada, the eldest of the four children of Harold ("Pat") and Elizabeth Beckwith. He graduated in 1974 from St. Viator's Elementary School and in 1978 from Bishop Gorman High School, where he was a three-sport letterman and a member of the 1978 Nevada State AAA Basketball Championship Team.
A 2002-03 Research Fellow in the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions in the Department of Politics at Princeton University, Professor Beckwith currently serves as a member of Princeton's James Madison Society. He has held full-time faculty appointments at Trinity International University (1997-2002), Whittier College (1996-97), and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (1989-96).
A graduate of Fordham University (Ph.D. and M.A. in philosophy), he also holds the Master of Juridical Studies (M.J.S.) degree from the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, where he won a CALI Award for Academic Excellence in Reproductive Control Seminar. His books include (w/ W. L. Craig, J. P. Moreland) To Every One An Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview (InterVarsity Press, 2004); Law, Darwinism, & Public Education: The Establishment Clause and the Challenge of Intelligent Design (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003); (w/ C. Mosser & P. Owen) The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement (HarperCollins/Zondervan, 2002), finalist for the 2003 Gold Medallion Award in theology and doctrine; Do the Right Thing: Readings in Applied Ethics and Social Philosophy, 2/e (Wadsworth, 2002); (w/ G. P. Koukl) Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air (Baker, 1998); (w/ L. P. Pojman) The Abortion Controversy 25 Years After Roe v. Wade: A Reader, 2/e (Wadsworth, 1998); (w/ T. Jones) Affirmative Action: Social Justice or Reverse Discrimination? (Prometheus, 1997); and Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Baker, 1993), winner of the 1994 Cornerstone Magazine ethics book of the year award.
His forthcoming books include Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (Cambridge University Press, 2007) and Is Statecraft Soulcraft?: Politics and Christianity (InterVarsity 2007)
His articles have been published in a number of academic journals including Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy; San Diego Law Review; International Philosophical Quarterly; Nevada Law Journal; Public Affairs Quarterly; Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy; Journal of Law & Religion; American Journal of Jurisprudence; Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly; Chapman Law Review; Journal of Medicine & Philosophy; Social Theory & Practice; Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics; Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society; Christian Bioethics; Ethics & Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics; Journal of Church & State; Human Life Review; Journal of Social Philosophy; Journal of Libertarian Studies; Journal of Medical Ethics; Logos; The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology; and Philosophia Christi.
Professor Beckwith has also contributed to a number of reference works including Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization (Blackwell, forthcoming2008);Encyclopedia of the First Amendment (Congressional Quarterly Press, forthcoming 2007); Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties (Routledge, forthcoming 2006); Encyclopedia of American Civil Rights & Liberties (Garland, forthcoming 2006); Baker Dictionary of Cults (Baker, forthcoming 2006); Religion: Past and Present, 4/e (English translation of Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart) (Brill Academic Publishers, forthcoming 2006); Dictionary of Contemporary Religion in the Western World (InterVarsity, 2002); Encyclopedia of Religion in American Politics (Oryx, 1999); and Encyclopedia of Biblical and Christian Ethics, 2/e (Thomas Nelson, 1992).
Among the books in which his articles appear as chapters are Darwin's Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement, ed. W. A. Dembski (InterVarsity Press, 2006); Bob Dylan & Philosophy, ed. Carl Porter and Peter Vernezze (Open Court, 2006); What's Wrong?: Applied Ethicists and Their Critics, ed. D. Boonin and G. Oddie (Oxford University Press, 2005); Guide to New Religious Movements 2/e, ed. R. Enroth (InterVarsity Press. 2005); The Rationality of Theism, ed. P. Copan and P. Moser (Routledge, 2003); Bioengagement: Making a Christian Difference Through Bioethics Today, ed. N. Cameron, S. E. Daniels, and B. J. White (Eerdmans, 2000); In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case For God's Action in History, ed. R. D. Geivett and G. Habermas (InterVarsity, 1997); Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, 3/e, ed. L. Pojman (Wadsworth, 1996); The Silent Subject: Reflections on the Unborn in American Culture, ed. Brad Stetson (Praeger, 1996); Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Political Issues, 9/e, ed. G. McKenna and S. Feingold (McGraw-Hill, 1995); and Faith in Theory and Practice: Essays on Justifying Religious Belief, ed. E. Radcliffe and C. J. White (Open Court, 1993).
Both colleagues and students have recognized him for teaching excellence. On April 25, 2006 he was awarded a certificate by Baylor's undergraduate journal (The Pulse) for his "outstanding contributions to undergraduate scholarship." In November 2004 he was recognized as a distinguished faculty member by Baylor University`s Mortar Board. The students of Trinity Graduate School (California campus) selected him Professor of the Year for the 1997-98 school year. During his seven years at UNLV he received a 1995 merit award (given by the Multicultural Student Affairs Office of UNLV), a professor of recognition award by the UNLV alumni association (1992), and was a finalist for university-wide and/or college-wide teaching awards in 1996, 1993, 1992, and 1991.
He has presented academic papers, chaired sessions, and offered commentaries at the conferences of a number of professional societies including the American Philosophical Association, the American Political Science Association, the Society of Christian Philosophers, the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the American Bar Association (Science & Technology Section), the Christian Legal Society, the Evangelical Theological Society, the American Academy of Religion, the Southwestern Political Science Association, the University Faculty for Life, and the Conference on Faith and History. He has served on the executive committees of both the Society of Christian Philosophers (1999-2002) and the Evangelical Philosophical Society (1998-2003) as well as on the national board of the University Faculty for Life (1999-present).
On November 17, 2006 Professor Beckwith became the President of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), a position that has a one-year term. He is the 57th president of ETS, an academic society that has over 4,100 members. In July 2005 he began a three-year term as a member of the American Philosophical Association's Committee on Philosophy and Law.
He and his wife, Frankie, live in Woodway, Texas.
In his explanation for a return to the Catholic Church, he cites the Early Church Fathers. For one so totally immersed in the Evangelical Church, this 'return' was not something even he anticipated. His summation, however, is worth repeating.
Given these considerations, I thought it wise for me to err on the side of the Church with historical and theological continuity with the first generations of Christians that followed Christ’s Apostles.
Simply translated, the Catholic Church is the only organization with a continuous line of succession dating back to its founder, Jesus Christ. There is no human organization or government that can rival this.
Every year, countless christians, searching for the "Truth", discover the Early Church Fathers. Not long ago, another Evangelical, Alex Jones, a minister, wanted to provide his flock with a service resembling the ones celebrated by the early christians. In researching this, he eventually turned to the Early Church Fathers. Parishioners began to comment that his 'service' resembled a Catholic Mass. After much soul searching, Alex Jones, his wife, children and a portion of his congregation were received into the Catholic Church. Like so many other Protestant ministers who come into the Catholic Church, he forfeited not only his ministry but his family's only source of income. And so it is with Dr. Beckwith. These are not decisions one makes on a whim.
If you have not yet noted it, the flow of Protestants into the Catholic Church is comprised of ministers, theologians, an Anglican Bishop and countless others who recognize the Church founded by Jesus Christ - the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I would challenge you to produce similar examples of Catholics into your Churches.
Mr. White,
"I won't speak for Kacy, but only for myself. And I am only writing this because you asked.
I think this statement attests to the idea that some might get that you imply that Dr. Beckwith traded in truth for a lie:
"I would imagine we will, in time, be provided a fairly full apologia of his decision. At that time it would be highly appropriate to once again provide a biblical response."
Of course, as it is your duty to defend the Reformed Baptist faith, you naturally believe that yours is the biblical response and (I would imagine) Dr. Beckwith is mistaken (at best). Right? Fair enough.
But I will say this, even when I agreed with most everything you wrote years ago: the general "air" of your writing comes across as arrogant and demeaning. It is not so much what you write, as the manner in which you write it (the spirit of the author). I think this has to do with the fact that you make your living arguing and are always ready to be defensive immediately after attacking.
I think the charity and humility required in a pastoral role is absent from your writing style, which turns a lot of people off to what you have to say. Compare your writing style to that of Fr. Stephen Freeman. Both of you are active in apologetics, yet there is a clear distinction in the presentation. The one, many people enjoy reading (even though they may greatly disagree), the other causes much strife and anger. There is a reason for that. I think a big difference between yourself and someone life Fr. Freeman is a general lack of humility in your writings.
I realize that what I wrote was very blunt and possibly even abrasive, and for that I apologize. It is just that I cannot think of another way to get you to see what others so obviously see and have a hard time describing; most have a hard time finding that "one" quotation or paragraph that you wrote that "did it." That again, has more to do with the perceived attitude of the author than with anything directly written. For example, try using more kinder adjectives, add in some compliments, be quick to see the good, always assume the best, be open and humble about your own failings, etc. In other words, try using kinder and "softer" speech when addressing a person (or about a person).
I am not saying this because I in any way am innocent of this myself. I think I am writing this to you because this is also something I struggle with and so I understand it.
Please also pray for me, a sinner."
Pray for them.
No. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Precisely. As he notes ...
There is a conversation in ETS that must take place, a conversation about the relationship between Evangelicalism and what is called the “Great Tradition,” a tradition from which all Christians can trace their spiritual and ecclesiastical paternity.
Emphasis mine.
Wow. Thanks for that. Very nice to read.
While that may be true, they lack the fullness of the Truth. That guardianship was entrusted to St. Peter and his successors; essentially, to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which has not erred in doctrine over the past 2000 years. No other organization or government has lasted that long, testimony to its Divine origin.
Wow. Thanks for that. Very nice to read.
Thank you for posting this!
Which is the Catholic Church's excuse for promoting evolution and higher criticism.
For the record, I do not believe in "sola scriptura," but neither do I listen to "smart folks" who say the Bible is full of myths.
So? The vast majority of Catholics merely invoke the clause "that truth which G-d, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures" and then say obviously when the Bible says the world was created in six days it doesn't actually mean that the world was created in six days; or that when the Bible says that Adam lived 930 years it doesn't really mean that he actually lived for 930 years; or that the story of Noah's Ark was not "confided to Sacred Scripture" to give us any factual information about Noah or the Ark. Oh no, these are inspired allegories and fables and it is only the non-factual "theological truth" behind them that is infallible. Furthermore, G-d used pagan mythologies to teach this truth.
Do you deny that this is the attitude of most Catholics and practically all the clergy?
im not sure where you get that from.
You must attend church in some alternate reality.
Here in this universe the Catholic Church is the number one publicizer and facilitator of higher Biblical criticism.
So, does this mean that this Beckwith fellow is now an evolutionist who believes the Bible is full of errors?
No. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Um . . . because he left an evangelical church for the Catholic Church? Surely he wouldn't do that if he intends to hold to the "inherently Protestant" teaching of total inerrancy?
Otherwise, how long do you suppose he'll last before he's asked to leave?
Did you even read what I said prior to my quotation of the Catechism?
If most dissenters aren't asked to leave, what makes think he'll eventually be asked to leave? This is projection on your part.
I was asked to leave, but then I believe in total innerancy. So long as he sells out total inerrancy he'll be fine (like I would have been).
Not any more.
Protestants seem to make faith a work which must be done properly, so that the Fides quae creditur must be correct if salvation is to be assured. I could be wrong about this, but that's what it looks like to me. But the RC Church places a lot of confidence in the mercy of Christ and while it tries to be clear about what orthodoxy is, it doesn't necessarily get the vapors if Mrs. MacIllicuddy has some pretty weird ideas about things. We trust God to straighten things out and are happy to entrust Mrs. MacIllicuddy to His forgiving and gentle care.
Yes, I know you don't believe me. But the point is that the belief of people in the pew and even of some clergy is not necessarily identical with the teaching of the Church.
How do you come to know what the attitude of "practically all the clergy" is? I know only a few priests. You know practically all of them around the world?
It doesn't? It doesn't matter that your "official" position is buried on some ancient yellowing parchment that most Catholics are embarrassed about and has been completely buried in the here and now by liberalism? Your "unaltered and unchanged and infallible" Church doesn't have the slightest responsibility to discipline people who deny these "unaltered" but embarrassing teachings?
You can say anything you like about the "official" teaching of the Church, but what good is it if no one knows waht it is or if the Pope (an evolutionist) doesn't believe it??? What good is such an "official position?"
When I consider the simplicity with which Fundamentalist Protestants adhere to total Biblical inerrancy, in the face of not only atheists and agnostics but also of carpers and critics from the "ancient, unaltered, apostolic" churches I wonder how any member of any of the ancient liturgical churches can look himself in the mirror.
The ancient churches are rotting from the top. The clergy are the most liberal members and while they do a great deal of bashing of "Protestantism," their attacks are limited to Fundamentalist Protestants and they have even been influenced by liberal Protestants (who get off scot-free from criticism).
If you can sit there knowing that the simplest mountain preacher says things every day regardless of the consequences that your Church hasn't said for a hundred years and not feel a bit humbled then there is no need communicating with you.
You were asked to leave the Catholic Church? Because of your belief in Scriptural innerrancy? That sounds at least interesting. How did they do it? Did they have a trial or what?
Full disclosure: I don't think all creation was accomplished in 144 hours give or take. I'm not arguing one way or the other on that.
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.