Many will know that Wheaton College fired one of its professors these last few weeks because he converted to Catholicism. He was a professor in medieval history (surprise) and originally Episcopalian. Wheaton made a determination that one could not be a Roman Catholic and consider the Scriptures the "highest and final authority," chiefly because a Roman Catholic must (or so Wheaton says) view the Pope as an equal authority to the Bible.
I remain conflicted over this decision. I want to be (and am) angry at Wheaton. On the other hand, I recognize the right of private institutions to set boundaries for its faculty. I suppose it's far easier simply to say, "Catholics are out" than to come up with some reliable measure for biblical compatibility.
I suspect the standards for hiring at IWU are much stricter in some regards than Wheaton's, and for the most part I affirm IWU's hiring standards. But I wonder whether you can just say, "if you belong to group x, you are automatically disqualified." I'm sure this would be true at IWU of a Mormon or Jehovah's witness--such people do not believe in the Trinity. I suspect I would similarly resist hiring a "Jesus only" Pentecostal to teach at IWU.
But here's the rub for me. I don't think you can assume that a Roman Catholic is "outside" in the way these others are simply because such a person is Roman Catholic. I suspect there are as many Roman Catholics in the world who have a personal relationship with Christ as there are Protestants. And I suspect that a very significant number of Roman Catholics believe the Bible to be as or more authoritative than the Pope.
I suspect that orthodox Roman Catholic theology views the Bible as more authoritative than the Pope when the Pope is not speaking "from the chair," and when was the last time a Pope did that... over a hundred years ago. And even if the Pope did speak "ex cathedra," would the RC church drive a wedge between Pope and Bible or simply claim that the Pope was giving the right interpretation of the Bible.
This last point leads to the Wheaton rub. No one, not even Wheaton professors, really use the Bible as the "supreme and final authority" on any issue. I've already gone into this matter in detail. Because we as interpreters have to join the individual teachings of biblical books together and then jump the river of time from their time to our time, the interpreter is always the final authority on what the Bible actually teaches. And for evangelicals, this authority is heavily a function of evangelical theology and tradition.
So the substance of Wheaton's explanation amounts to "we cannot hire this person because we cannot guarantee that his interpretations of Scripture will be the same as ours any more." So tell us what those interpretations are, that will help us out. I imagine they probably could if they approached it in this way. What are the elements of Roman Catholic theology that this person has embraced that are incapatible with the limits of evangelical theology allowed at Wheaton? Show me the money.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Schencker,
1. I just watch Jerry McGuire, good ending.
2. Do you think the firing was more from the higher up administration or from the religion department?
3. I appreciated the like-mindedness of my undergrad, but I also apprciate the diversity at my seminary.
4. finally, remember that time you made a crack about talking about Jesus' siblings and you said "or if your Catholic, then I mean his cousins"? And there was a Catholic girl in class! You recovered well, as usual. I laughed so hard I almost wet my pants. ahhh, the good ol' days.
I have been reading on this firing the last few days. Two things that astonish me most out of what I have read: (1) The professor indicated that he WOULD sign the document that all professors need to sign that basically says they agree with Wheaton's doctrine and their evangelical heritage. Meaning, He believes the Bible to be the Word of God, and the final authority for life. Whoever decided to fire him, is in essence, calling him a liar.
(2) The man was hired, as you pointed out, to teach subjects so inner-linked with Catholic theology and philosophy. In fact, he was doing a huge project on Aquinas at the time. And Wheaton was ok with it. What they were not ok with, is that he actually enjoyed and grabbed on to what he determined as the truth in what he was teaching. Shame shame
My question is whether or not the federal government can deny funding to Wheaton (via financial aide) because it has acted in a discriminating fashion. Next up, can IWU lose financial aid because it won't hire practicing homosexuals or Catholics to teach in its religion department?
The funding thing is one I haven't completely wrapped my head around. On the one hand, I think that the non-establishment clause fits great with funding all kinds of religious institutions. It's not about stamping out religion but about letting all kinds of religions flourish.
But I wouldn't want public funding going to a Nazi training school that only taught the "theory" of exterminating Jews and people of color. So where does the line get drawn? I think if Wheaton or IWU are completely consistent in their criteria, then it's no problem with regard to belief. I don't think it should be a problem with regard to homosexuality either. We are not advocating hatred of homosexuals or violence toward them. The problem with Wheaton I think is if the person could truly sign the faith statement as it stands.
"The problem with Wheaton I think is if the person could truly sign the faith statement as it stands."
I think that is the pivotal issue of this type of decision. The issues surrounding homosexuality (or another ethical debate), while perhaps may be related as it pertains to funding, are wholly different than a decision such as this.
To accept something that is considered ethically contrary to Christian living would be asking a Christian institution to infringe upon such characteristics which define what the New Testament authors would view as the purity ethos of the Church. Concepts of what constituted purity and pollution are heavily present within the New Testament writings. While the Church is inclusive in that there "is no Jew or Greek," there certainly are certain "boundaries" that define the Church polity.
One of the problems with this decision from Wheaton is that it implies that Roman Catholicism is outside of boundaries of the larger Church community. Not only does this show contempt for the historical orthodoxy within Roman Catholicism, but it creates a dichotomy which is (as Dr. Schenck discussed) based on prejudice rather than a true concern for biblical truth. I can understand wanting like-minded faculty but, as it has been pointed out, this professor agreed to signing the proper documents. So what is Wheaton afraid of?
Interesting post, Ken.
Fundamental to the issue is whether someone can join the fellowship of one entity (the Catholic church, for instance) and "contientiously object" to portions of what they believe, and then join the fellowship of another entity with opposing views that align with the first group.
I, for one, like to walk that line. In fact, I am a covenant member of the Wesleyan Church and I disagree with portions of our own Discipline. However, though I object to them I submit to them and I'm actually on the ministerial development board for our district. So while I submit I am also working to change.
Could not someone do this within the Catholic Church? Could not someone do this within Wheaton or IWU?
Submit but work for change.
I prefer the approach to "membership" that you have, Dave, although I'm sure that many in groupies would disagree. In other words, it seems to me that many innies would consider it dishonest to assent to group membership unless you truly embraced all its beliefs and, of course, submitted to its ethos as well.
I personally believe it is far more healthy and realisitc to submit and work for change.
So is it possible that this professor converted to Catholicism because he believed it was most correct while still disagreeing with those aspects of Roman Catholicism that might of necessity disassociate him from Wheaton's ethos?
Greetings. I’m new to the conversation (and about a week late). I found your blog through a mutual friend, Kevin Wright.
My question, in response to Dave’s comment is this, when do we draw the line between submit and work for change and choosing to exit and begin a new work. Wesley clearly opted for the submit and work for change approach for as long as it was possible. His exit and creation of new work was a decision made for him by the Anglican Church, yet that move generated one of the most powerful revivals England has known.
I currently practice the submit and work method. I’ve been a Wesleyan all my life and I too am on my District Board of Ministerial Development. I’d like to see some changes within our denomination, a denomination that I love. But when do my efforts to create change begin to undermine the integrity of what the Wesleyan Church is? Where is the point of departure when it is best for all involved to allow the institution to be what it is and for me to begin a fresh journey? This is something I wrestle with frequently, I’d appreciate any insight.
Post a Comment