Search News


Browse Archives

News

Tests of Faith

January 12, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

How Christian should someone be to teach at a Christian college? That's the question raised by policies at two colleges that are receiving public scrutiny this week, although the rules themselves are not new.

Wheaton College in Illinois last year dismissed a philosophy professor who was in otherwise great standing at the institution after he converted to become a Roman Catholic. While Wheaton is non-denominational, its beliefs are codified in a statement of faith that reflects Protestant evangelical theology. The fired professor believed he could continue to sign and abide by the statement, but college officials thought otherwise. Since the professor's dismissal was included in an article Saturday in The Wall Street Journal, many professors and Catholics have been debating the college's stance.

At Oklahoma Christian University this week, meanwhile, the topic of discussion is a draft policy that would formally state that professors could be fired for getting a divorce. Officials say that the policy is only a written version of what has been the university's approach for years, but it has nonetheless upset some on the campus.

The scrutiny for the two institutions comes at a time that applications and enrollments are booming at Christian colleges.

Firing a Catholic at Wheaton

In the Wheaton case, there is no dispute about the right of the college to limit employment to faculty members who share certain religious beliefs. Federal anti-bias laws generally give religious institutions broad leeway to enforce doctrinal requirements, provided that the rules are clear and are enforced consistently. And Joshua Hochschild, the professor who lost his job at Wheaton, is adamant that he does not want his story to be used to question religious colleges' rights in this area.

"I want to affirm the right of religious institutions to set boundaries to exclude people for their faith affiliation," he said. "I don't take issue with the legal or moral right of an institution like Wheaton to exclude."

But Hochschild and many others do object to Wheaton's choice to exclude him. Like all faculty members at the college, he agreed to abide by Wheaton's statement of faith when he started there five years ago. The statement doesn't bar membership in certain religious groups, but rather states certain beliefs it requires employees to hold: that the Old and New Testaments are "fully trustworthy and of supreme and final authority," the virgin birth of Jesus, the existence of Satan, etc.

Hochschild said that he was (and is) willing to abide by the statement of faith, but Wheaton officials argued that his conversion to Catholicism (he had been Episcopalian) violated the college's belief that Scripture alone -- not Scripture as interpreted by the pope and the Vatican -- defines God's goals for humanity.

Duane Litfin, president of Wheaton, said that the college's decision to enforce its statement of faith stems from the kind of religious institution it is. Many religious institutions think of themselves as "umbrella institutions" where the sponsoring faith may play a particularly visible role, but where all faiths (and people without faith) are welcome in many positions. In contrast, Litfin said, Wheaton believes in the "systemic model where the sponsoring religious tradition is systemic through the whole institution."

"This is a matter of preserving our heritage," he said.

In 13 years as president, Litfin said, Hochschild was the first professor to lose his job because the college determined he couldn't sign the statement of faith. Litfin said that he realizes that most academics couldn't sign the statement, but that a process of "self selection" means that most people would learn about Wheaton's religious requirements before deciding to apply to work there, and only those comfortable with the faith would seek out employment at the college.

"This is voluntary. You can't straitjacket the people who make up this community," he said. "These are their convictions. They came to Wheaton because this is what they believe."

Litfin acknowledged that there are "strengths and weaknesses" to both the umbrella and systemic approaches to religious education. But he said that every measure -- applications, enrollments, measures of student success -- suggests that Wheaton's model is working well. "Why change the DNA of the institution?" he asked.

Hochschild said he understands why Litfin would want to be certain that the statement of faith had real meaning. This history of American higher education is one of religious institutions "moving toward secularization," he said. "You have to be vigilant."

But he added that having someone who is a committed Catholic stay on at Wheaton would not have pushed the college toward secular life. Wheaton's statement of faith "excludes certain watered down versions of the Christian faith," he said, but shouldn't exclude Catholics.

Hochschild is now teaching at Mount St. Mary's University, a Catholic institution in Maryland. While he has landed professionally, Wheaton's position has taken something of a theological beating on Catholic Web sites, where many people have said that the college is too exclusionary -- although others have defended it. All the controversy has prompted the college to repost on its Web site some past statements about why Catholic people cannot be hired there.

Investigating Divorce at Oklahoma Christian

Oklahoma Christian University, which is affiliated with the Churches of Christ, also has a statement of faith. Oklahoma Christian's statement covers both belief and conduct, including references to dressing modestly and restricting sex to marriage.

Faculty members at the university were recently notified that the university planned to formally state a policy with regard to marriage. A draft of the policy states that divorce or separation without plans for reconciliation would be "grounds for a review of and possible termination of employment." People who were already divorced when hired are exempt provided that they disclosed the divorce.

When a marriage ends, the decision on continuing employment would be based on whether there were "scriptural grounds" for the divorce. If the administration decides to fire someone for a divorce, the employee would be allowed to appeal to the university's Board of Trustees, which would designate three trustees to hear the appeal and issue a final decision.

In explaining the rationale for the policy, the draft says that the Bible defines marriage as "a relationship created by God and not to be broken except in extremely rare circumstances." A "very important" role for faculty members, the draft says, is to "model strong Christian marriages."

Ron Frost, a spokesman for Oklahoma Christian, stressed that the policy was not new, and said that "one or two people" had been fired "in the recent past" for getting divorces. But he said that the policy was being formalized.

While there has not been formal opposition to the draft policy, an anonymous married faculty member told The Oklahoman that the new rules would create additional difficulties for anyone going through a divorce. "It's not related to job performance," the professor said.

Ronald P. Mahurin, vice president for professional development and research at the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, said it was important to remember that Christian colleges have a range of policies, and that there is no one single approach to handling the kinds of issues in the news at Wheaton and Oklahoma Christian.

But he said it was common for Christian colleges to have policies that deal with issues that many other institutions might not address in their faculty handbooks.

"It really goes to broader questions of the nature of the kind of academic community and a fidelity with that community," he said. "For some faculty members teaching at state institutions, these would be seen as strictures or giving up a particular freedom to be bounded by a particular set of religious or theological beliefs, but for those people coming into a community, our campuses generally speaking are up front about both the faith commitment that is expected as well as what many would frame as community life expectations."

These rules are important to colleges, he said, "not simply because we are trying to proscribe behavior," but to promote "a deeper understanding of what it means to be a person of faith, living within a particular community of faith."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Tests of Faith

  • Faith By Assent
  • Posted by Tom McCool on January 12, 2006 at 8:15am EST
  • These are unfortunate examples of what being a Christian means today. To someone who does not profess to be a Christian, it must seem that being a Christian is simply about what you believe, or faith by assent. It has too much to do with the head and not enough to do with the heart. While faith by assent is certainly a part of faith, it is only a part. Faith must include trust in God, love for God and all He has created, and a desire to live a life devoted to God. Simply agreeing to a "statement of faith" does not make one a Christian, for if that is all that is required, then being a Christian is only about good works, and not transformation of the heart. I suppose it is easier for one to determine another's faith by their assent to certain tenets and doctrines, but not even Christians can agree on that!

  • Exclusion
  • Posted by Les on January 12, 2006 at 9:12am EST
  • Why do so many "Christians" work so hard to exclude people? Is it that the more people you exclude from your group makes you a better Christian? This is a sorry couple of colleges.

  • So much for "liberal bias"
  • Posted by huntly on January 12, 2006 at 9:48am EST
  • Despite the rantings of Horowitz and his conservative hordes, it looks like "liberal bias" isn't the only bias present in academia. Apparently, there are plenty of conservative strongholds in academia that not only wouldn't, but couldn't sign the ABOR and still fulfill their school's mission. Strangely, it seems that faculty and students of a similar political bent tend to "flock together" at certain institutions, in order to preserve their philosophical traditions and/or to serve as a corrective to what they perceive as a cultural bias against them in the larger community. Christians do it, Jews do it, Muslims do it, conservatives do it. I wonder if liberals can do it too? Or is that somehow being unfair to conservative scholars who just want a chance to be heard and respected? Where O where can such scholars go to be treated fairly? It sounds like Wheaton has an opening...

  • Why Christians exclude
  • Posted by LogicGuru on January 12, 2006 at 10:14am EST
  • The motive for excluding non-religious people from the faculty of Christian colleges is that Academia is pervasively, even aggressively, secular and we want a space where we, and our students, aren't made to feel like freaks or morons.

    Religion as you well know is a class issue and "our kind of people" are largely non-religious and contemptuous of Christianity in particular. Even if the Real World is largely religious, in our small world we Christians are a minority and religious belief is disreputable.

    Maybe the rationale for Christian colleges is something like the Zionist rationale for maintaining the state of Israel as a majority Jewish nation. We are a minority, we aren't fully accepted in most other parts of the academic world (at least insofar as our religious convictions are visible), we want Christian enclaves where we don't have to be on the defensive and where students can live in a world where Christianity is normal and socially acceptable--rather than the norm for academia where students get the message early on that religious belief is just naive, Christianity is declasse and church-going is simply not done.

  • Posted by Shan Ray on January 12, 2006 at 10:42am EST
  • Since when are Catholics no longer considered Christians? As a Catholic, I don't understand the above statements regarding Christianity. We Catholics see ourselves as Christians, but obviously many others don't. Quite eye opening...and disturbing!

    A Catholic Christian

  • Faith and Academe
  • Posted by Rich Godfrey on January 12, 2006 at 10:43am EST
  • Both colleges are private and entitled to hire and fire as they wish.

    I'm an alumnus of Abilene Christian, one of OK Christian's sister institutions, and also UT Austin which isn't.

    Given the effects of each institution on my life overall I'll take Abilene. What UT was retailing proved destructive.

    As I see it, Wheaton may be overreaching a bit (not to question their authority to fire whoever they desire to for any or no reason). The question apparently is who has the authority to interpret Scripture, rather than the beliefs of the person concerned.

    For the uninitiated, the Protestant position affirms the individual's right to follow Scripture as "they" see it. Roman Catholics forfeit that, instead following the Church's teachings or "doctrine." The locus of the decision is different; to the Protestant mind, the Catholic has sold out. To the Catholic mind, "no Scripture is of private interpretation."

    The ex-faculty evidently thought the Roman Catholic teachings accorded with the Wheaton Confession and reaffirmed it. Wheaton is requiring more in the way of affirmation than they said they required.

  • christian exclusion
  • Posted by drdon on January 12, 2006 at 11:05am EST
  • Doesn't exclusion pretty much go against what Jesus would have done?

    For Wheaton to say that they have a problem with Catholocism because of the notion of vatican interpretation completely avoids the fact that protestants do the same thing.

    This is not the way to raise healthy Christians.

  • Posted by Disappointed on January 12, 2006 at 11:51am EST
  • Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk.

    Scripture does not interpret itself, by the way. Books are animated by readers. "Sola scriptura" may be a cry that levels the interpretive playing field, but without someone to read (and, one hopes, attempt to understand), "sola scriptura" seems to mean a book that is never taken off the shelf.

  • Tax dollars for sectarian schools
  • Posted by Adelaide H. Steely , former believer in magical thinking on January 12, 2006 at 12:38pm EST
  • This is why the USA is such a failure, so many people require that you believe their version of the way things got to be as they are. Too bad most religious nuts never took a biology or microbiology class. We are our genes and they have more likness to the dirt that your bible claims we were fashioned from than anyone wants to admit...sort of sounds like we came from the chemicals of the earth to me.

    Now why do we continually deny taxes to help the poor but demand it for the scum of rich churches that rant and rave in public about their sanctity??? Someone in that bible said that such weren't going where they think they deserve.

  • What would JC Say?
  • Posted by Catholic College Dean on January 12, 2006 at 12:38pm EST
  • I find it sad and hypocritical that a so-callled "Christian" college like Wheaton preaches and practices exclusivity and gets away with it. Imagine what the public outcry would be if my institution, a Catholic college, made their employees sign a "statement of faith." Wheaton also promotes elitism by, in effect, considering Catholics "non-Christian." Catholicism is by no means perfect, but instituions like mine promote inclusivity and diversity, which accounts for the large enrollment of students who are Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, and other non-Christian religions. We even allow Protestant students to attend and Protestant employees to work here.

    I am left wondering how Wheaton prepares its students for the "real world" when it promotes such a narrow-minded philosophy.

  • Faith
  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on January 12, 2006 at 1:24pm EST
  • Some people like to live in a bubble. Let them. I see no reason if people wish to learn in an envirnment where others share their beliefs they should not be able to do so - though I question what type of person would wish to be a student at such a school.

    As to the Catholic comment, as someone who was raised Catholic, I can still see where the evangelicals are coming from. David Koresh could be called a "Christian" in that he also claimed to be the second coming of Christ and interpreted the bible.

  • Posted by Former Wheaton Prof on January 12, 2006 at 1:45pm EST
  • Perhaps the most striking thing about the Wheaton case is that President Litfin imagined himself able to look inside the heart and mind of Professor Hochschild and to know better than Hochschild himself about whether he could, in good conscience, sign the Statement. Do not look for a change at Wheaton any time soon; what with robust applications and a healthy endowment, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is the order of the day.

  • Wheaton's Violation of Academic Freedom
  • Posted by John K. Wilson on January 12, 2006 at 1:45pm EST
  • It's sad to see Wheaton College misinterpreting its own policies to endorse anti-Catholic bigotry. But Wheaton's policies are a clear violation of academic freedom, which the AAUP since 1970 has declared does not include a special exception for religious colleges. Wheaton forces all faculty not only to be Christians but also to believe in Creationism and Biblical inerrancy. In addition to the Statement of Faith, Wheaton also seemingly requires faculty to obey a "Community Covenant" (http://www.wheaton.edu/welcome/cov/comcov.html)
    which bans homosexuality, adultery, and even watching "immodest, sinfully erotic, or harmfully violent" movies off campus.

  • Misstatements of faith
  • Posted by John Martin on January 12, 2006 at 1:45pm EST
  • Christians are not a "minority" in any school in America--religious or secular. They are not a minority among scholars, or even among liberals. And Christianity hasn't been under serious threat from any political or cultural institution since the Roman Empire. Where are people getting these outrageous claims? The existence of narrowly-defined religious colleges is more a statement of voluntary parochialism than of any cultural pressure or threat.

    I have to assume that what some of the above writers mean is that Protestant "fundamentalism"/biblical literalism is a minority viewpoint--which, in fact, it is, and always has been. Even the Puritans weren't strict literalists, and put as much faith in individual experience as in textual authority. The insistence that there's no room for "interpretation" is just disingenuous. Textual interpretation is as much a part of fundamentalist doctrine as the most creative readings in my freshman poetry class. And the Protestant tradition owes as much as the rest of academia to Catholic scholarship and hermeneutics. To dismiss Catholicism as somehow "incompatible" with any Christian tradition begins to border on fanaticism.

    If these schools define themselves so narrowly, then that should be made clear in their hiring and admissions policies. But most "statements of faith" that such schools require don't distinquish between the various denominations of Christianity or specify the doctrines that faculty and students must adhere to. In fact, they tend to use very general statements of the basic tenets of Christianity that almost anyone who self-identifies as a Christian might agree with. While I acknowledge the right of a private school to define its philosophical mission however it chooses to, Wheaton would be wise to carefully consider what kind of ideological corner they're voluntarily backing themselves into.

  • intellectual diversity in American higher ed.
  • Posted by Alan Jacobs at Wheaton College on January 12, 2006 at 1:45pm EST
  • Catholic College Dean seems to imply that all Catholic schools have the kind of policy his does, but in fact there are many Catholic colleges that do indeed ask faculty and other employees to sign a kind of statement of faith: Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio, for instance, where employees must affirm their obedience to the Magisterium of the Church. It all depends on what *kind* of religious college you want to be.

    In contrast to some commenters on this thread, who seem to think that it is a sin against God or Diversity or something to exclude anyone for reasons of belief, I don't believe that it is necessary for every religious college to have the same policies in these matters. There are justifiable reasons to have a denominationally specific college, or one that (like Wheaton) has a statement of faith -- just as there are reasons to have women's colleges, or colleges focusing on the arts, or schools of engineering and technology. "Everybody come on in" need not be the motto of every college or university.

    Also, it's important to emphasize that in excluding Catholics Wheaton is not in any way saying that Catholics are not Christians, or are somehow "less" Christian.

    That said, I think it is time for Wheaton to undertake a very serious rethinking of its policy on this matter -- and I say that not just because Josh Hochschild was a colleague whom I valued and a friend whom I miss. There are far larger issues at stake.

  • My Logical Conundrum
  • Posted by RWH on January 12, 2006 at 1:46pm EST
  • At first I thought I was on Wheaton’s side all the way. It’s not that they did the right thing ... it’s just that it’s their right to do the wrong thing. Let’s face it, Professor Hochschild does not meet Wheaton’s standards for Christian purity.

    I was inclined to fault the College for its failure to practice the tenets of tolerance as stated by the Apostle Paul in Romans 14:

    “13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.
    14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean in itself: but to him thar esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
    15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not with him thy meat for whom Christ died.
    16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
    17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
    18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.”

    Now it turns out that my son, a recent National Merit Scholar, was inclined to attend Wheaton. I asked him to consider the fact that Wheaton was intolerant of Professor Hochschild’s Christian purity, and I gave him the scripture from Romans to read.

    He responded that I was intolerant of Wheaton for not living up to my standards for Christian purity because Wheaton was intolerant of Professor Hochschild for not living up to their standards of Christian purity. He concluded that if he decide to go to Wheaton it would demonstrate that he was intolerant of me because I was intolerant of them because they were intolerant of Professor Hochschild ... and, my goodness, in the face of the Holy Bible’s apparent endorsement of tolerance, I just don’t know what a devout Christian should do?

    My son and I discussed this over a beer – although he is underage – and he decided to accept his offer from UC – Berkley.

  • Posted by LogicGuru on January 12, 2006 at 4:05pm EST
  • Christians are not a “minority” in any school in America—religious or secular. They are not a minority among scholars, or even among liberals. And Christianity hasn’t been under serious threat from any political or cultural institution since the Roman Empire. Where are people getting these outrageous claims?

    b.s.!!! According to the surveys I've read only 40% of scientists are theists and the figure goes to 10% for members of the National Academy for Sciences. Figures for academics in other disciplines are lower. At my own place, which is Catholic, I don't think more than 15% of faculty are theists. Christians are most certainly in the minority amongst academics and I don't mean fundamentalist Christians but Christians of any sort. You find me data to counter that.

    I don't agree with the Wheaton decision to fire this guy for joining the Catholic Church and, more broadly, I don't care for the sort of loyalty oaths that Wheaton and some other religiously-affiliated colleges exact from faculty. But I do agree with the motivation, viz. to create what another poster has called a "bubble" in which Christian faculty, and more importantly students, can teach and learn without having to deal with the dismissive and contemptuous attitudes toward religious belief that are embedded in the culture of Academia and the elite generally. As Peter Berger says, we're a nation of Indians run by the Swedes.

    Creating the "bubble" isn't a matter of shielding students from competing views. At Wheaton and every other Christian college worth its salt students engage with competing views. The bubble is a place where Christianity is socially acceptable. The current cultural norm is that students drop out of the church when they go to college--and most don't come back. We flatter ourselves if we imagine that this is because they've learnt critical thinking. It's because in secular Academia students are enculturated to take their place in the upper middle class and part of that enculturation is learning that Christianity is not acceptable in polite company.

    Creating these bubbles in which religion is social acceptable isn't a matter of exclusiveness--it's a matter of comfort, and survival. We are a minority and have our backs to the wall. If we don't want to see a society where Christianity is nothing more than a hobby for the proles, like Nascar racing, we have got to have colleges where it's socially acceptable.

  • When was the last time a Christian was thrown to a lion?
  • Posted by John Martin on January 12, 2006 at 6:10pm EST
  • The degree of political paranoia on the part of some conservative Christians here is puzzling. I've attended or worked at four different major universities, and at all of them there was a large, active, and welcome Christian presence among the students, faculty, and staff. Certainly, it was well beyond "culturally acceptable." In fact, as I said earlier, I've never been at a school where Christians weren't in the majority. Among my colleagues, I'd say at least 1/2-2/3 claim some religious affiliation, and again, most of those are Protestant Christian, though I've also known a good number of Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim academics as well (as well as several Buddhist monks that I remember fondly). The notion that only 15% of academics are theists is untenable.

    Again, I think those who make such claims should be honest about what they're saying: that most schools, indeed most Americans, don't share their fundamentalist ideology, and don't seek to institutionalize Christianity or any other religion as the "cultural norm," which is true. There are, in fact, more moderate and liberal Christians at most schools than there are conservative ones. There's also more religious diversity and tolerance at non-religiously-affiliated schools. And the sciences, of course, tend to attract more students and scholars who prefer empirical evidence and naturalistic explanations of the world to theological ones. But none of this makes it "culturally unacceptable" to be a conservative or even fundamentalist Christian. I've never heard a student, colleague, or any member of my academic communities suggest that such perspectives were unwelcome or inappropriate in a place devoted to learning and exchange.

    On the other hand, schools like those mentioned above have explicitly demonstrated that they don't welcome students, faculty, or ideas that depart from a very narrow ideological spectrum. It is they, not the general world of academia, that labels the beliefs of others as "unacceptable," and seeks to coerce its members into an all-or-none acceptance of fundamentalist doctrine. As far as I'm concerned, they're welcome to do so--but don't claim that it's been forced upon them by a hostile and biased culture. It's simply not true.

  • Posted by Wheaton Alum on January 12, 2006 at 8:48pm EST
  • This is a very unfortunate turn of events, but not one that recent alumni like myself can pretend to be surprised by. Wheaton college is run by a narrow and homogenious board of trustees (self-perpetuating, of course) that reflect the state of American evangelicalism as it was about forty years ago. (Remember back when Billy Graham was campaigning against a Kennedy presidency.) Litfin was brought in as president, precisely in order to make these kinds of decisions and, unsurprisingly, he has. But this is not the direction that evangelicalism is moving today. Just evidence that Wheaton is no longer the great institution it once was.

  • Christians not a minority
  • Posted by Tom McCool on January 13, 2006 at 8:15am EST
  • According to Barna Research, who have done numerous and extensive studies on many aspects of religious belief for many years, has found 85% of Americans self-identify as Christians. 69% believe in God when described as the all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect creator of the universe who rules the world today. Only 7% classify (not self-identified) as evangelicals, and 33% as born-again, but not evangelical.

  • Christians ARE being thrown to the lions
  • Posted by LogicGuru on January 13, 2006 at 11:28am EST
  • Agreed 85% of Americans in the aggregate self-identify as Christians but there are big discrepancies when you break that down by region, class and occupation. I would like a reference to the data showing that "1/2 to 2/3" of academics claim a religious affiliation because it clearly ain't so. In the survey I remember the 40% religious belief for scientists was high for academia--figures were lower for other disciplines.

    I'm not by any stretch conservative, religiously or otherwise and I'm not talking about official doctrinal commitments or the free exchange of ideas but the ethos and social conventions of Academia. It is at best culturally anomalous to be a Christian of any kind in most universities--just not the done thing. And the further up the food chain the more anomalous it is.

    I don't have any sympathy with fundamentalists or with the kind of thing happening at Wheaton but I can easily understand why they're getting defensive and hunkering down. Whether in academia, journalism, book publishing there is a cultural elite that is dismissive or contemptuous of Christianity. It isn't a matter of any thought out objections to theological claims--which are certainly deserve critical scrutiny--put pure social snobbery. Christianity is for those rednecks who smoke, eat junk food and have bad accents--not for our kind: we do spirituality

  • For heaven's sake....
  • Posted by Jim Ahrens on January 13, 2006 at 4:47pm EST
  • Part of the issue here is defining what is meant by "Christian." I notice several of the posters making blanket statements about "Christians." That's about as sensible as making blanket statements about anything else -- i.e. "All Americans are imperialists," or "All Germans are Fascists," or even the cruder generaliztions that are made about ethnic groups.

    Christianity covers a wide range of beliefs. I consider myself to be a Christian, but I certainly wouldn't meet the Wheaton test. Part of the problem is that I am more than willing to allow them to consider themselves Christians...but I think they'd have a big problem agreeing that I was one. If nothing else, I regularly watch immodest movies.

    Judge not, lest ye be judged....

  • Posted by LogicGuru on January 13, 2006 at 8:39pm EST
  • By "Christian" I mean someone who self-identifies as such, makes the noises and goes through the motions. Generally this involves at least occasional church-going (at least for rites of passage or children's rites of passage), being somewhat familiar with Biblical myths, church history and religious practices and responding "yes" if asked, "Do you believe in God?" I mean Christianity as minimal theism, or at least agnosticism, and culture-religion.

    That's the kind of Christian I am and I certainly wouldn't pass the Wheaten test.

    But, I repeat even in this minimal sense, in my experience, Christianity is not socially acceptable in Academia--particularly now since, with culture wars in full swing, anyone who is Christian in even fairly this minimal sense is suspected of being a rabid fundamentalist and holding a variety of conservative ethical, social and political views.

  • Martyr complex
  • Posted by huntly on January 14, 2006 at 10:53am EST
  • "Christianity is not socially acceptable in Academia—particularly now since, with culture wars in full swing, anyone who is Christian in even fairly this minimal sense is suspected of being a rabid fundamentalist and holding a variety of conservative ethical, social and political views."

    We call this the "martyr complex," which is just another form of narcissism and paranoia--an irrational belief that they're being persecuted by the establishment, despite the fact that they ARE the establishment! It's that paranoia that people find disturbing about today's Christian activists, and the institutions that employ these political tactics. In fact, the only Christians "suspected" of being rabid fundamentalists or conservative extremists are those who openly espouse those ideas and put them into practice. The problem is, they don't acknowledge their beliefs as such, and reject all moderate or liberal Christians (not to mention other religions) as somehow lacking in faith or moral compass. Self-righteousness is the hallmark of these martyrs, and discrimination is their tool.

    So let's be clear: biblical literalism is a fundamentalist viewpoint that ignores hundreds of years of Christian theology and practice; the exclusion of Catholicism or any other Christian denomination as incompatible with Christian doctrine is, in fact, "rabid" in its extremism; and the enforcement of lifestyle agreements and statements of faith by any church, school, or other institution is a form of reactionary conservatism that is incompatible with American civic values. It suggests that teaching and "sharing the faith" isn't enough--policing and coercion are necessary to their mission. They have the right to DO it in their own homes and churches and schools (that IS an American value), but they don't have any room to complain about unfair treatment, cultural bias, or marginalization. They've marginalized themselves through their own actions and beliefs.

    Christianity is "socially acceptable" and welcome everywhere in America, including academia. Fundamentalism, conservative extremism, and moral dogmatism will, hopefully, remain in the margins where it belongs.

  • Posted by Jim Ahrens on January 14, 2006 at 1:26pm EST
  • There is a point here -- the martyr complex and absolutism of fundamentalists makes all Christians suspect to some -- hence my comment regarding the ridiculousness of blanket statements about "Christians."

    Here's the thing I don't understand -- as a private institution, Wheaton has the right to try and construct a collegiate society that reflects their avowed beliefs. But how can you reconcile the narrow fundamentalist view of the Bible as the sole source of truth with intellectual rigor or free academic inquiry? I imagine this would be a particular difficulty in pure science and social science. How can you examine the mechanics of life or modern physics if you are bound to the Genesis myth? How do you plumb the depths of the human mind or society if your only framework is a dichotomy of sin or salvation?

    I confess I have trouble imagining how someone could sign the Wheaton Compact and maintain the degree of intellectual independence necessary to be a good academic -- at least, not without some major league mental contortions and what used to be known as "Jesuitical Reasoning."

    Anyone care to enlighten me?

  • Technical
  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on January 19, 2006 at 5:43pm EST
  • Under the "true academic" perspective, Wheaton could be called a "technical" school, in that it prepares people more for careers as missionaries, clergy, church staff etc. than for academic pursuits. The instructors, though professors, are preparing them for those paths, which the students have already decided on by coming to Wheaton, rather than seeing their job as presenting varying points of view.

  • In light of recent events
  • Posted by dk on February 10, 2006 at 2:10pm EST
  • The earlier comments here about anti-Christian or anti-conservative/conservative religion sentiment in the academy seem rather clarified by recent events in the media regarding those Danish cartoons featuring Mohammed. See Andrew Sullivan's site and the other links here: http://www.getreligion.org/?p=1391

    The MSM and particularly the Times are a pretty good extension of the academic-intellectual establishment ethos in this and other respects.

    Of course a lot of those earlier comments were rather self-refuting with so many non-Christian or differently religious people jumping in to tell Wheaton and other schools how they should conform to some outsider's presumptively authoritative ideology--how people at Wheaton must define and practice their faith, what they must do to be good citizens, etc.

  • Theological gymnastics poorly executed
  • Posted by Michael Smith on February 19, 2006 at 5:45am EST
  • I should reveal that I am an alumnus of Wheaton, I currently teach in Christian higher education, and I am Episcopalian as Hochschild was before converting.

    I think the previous comments of Alan Jacobs (a former professor of mine for whom I have great respect) are right on. He seems to have expressed the position that Wheaton's president expressed. And along with Jacobs, I agree that Wheaton needs to reconsider if this is the best practice or course to take.

    However, I disagree with Dr. Jacobs when he writes, "that in excluding Catholics Wheaton is not in any way saying that Catholics are not Christians, or are somehow “less” Christian." Or I should say, I doubt that to be true given my own experience at Wheaton and the poor rationale President Litfin used to back up the decision. I think that Wheaton's rationale is indicative of a bigotry towards Catholics because Wheaton does not apply this rationale to all of its faculty equally.

    First, it is important to understand that the best Christian colleges do not see themselves as trade schools for missionaries and pastors. Rather, they are liberal arts colleges that transform lives through education for people who plan to pursue a wide variety of vocations. They do so, however, by relating their various disciplines to the whole person, including the spiritual self. The pursuit of truth and academic rigor should be no less than at a secular institution.

    I think Jim Ahrens has made a good point here too: "I confess I have trouble imagining how someone could sign the Wheaton Compact and maintain the degree of intellectual independence necessary to be a good academic." This is the problem with Wheaton's Statement of Faith. It is too narrow to allow for academic rigor and an open pursuit of truth in the spiritual or any other realm.

    President Litfin has said Wheaton chose to fire Hochschild because as a Catholic he could not truly affirm that scripture (The Bible) is a sufficient authority in theological matters. Litfin goes on to describe the Catholic faith as believing that "Scripture and Tradition" make for the final authority in theological matters. Tradition here refers to scripture being interpreted by the Pope. Litfin says that by contrast, Wheaton is squarely in the Protestant tradition best described by Luther who said "Scripture and plain reason" are sufficient authority in theology. This means that individuals using their own rational processes do not need the Pope to interpret scripture, otherwise known as the principle of Sola Scriptura.

    Litfin believes that it is not possible to believe in both systems of theology (Scripture and Tradition, AND Scripture and Reason). He says to believe in both would make Wheaton a house divided against itself which cannot stand. This, despite the fact that Hochschild said he could affirm Wheaton's Statement of Faith AND be a Catholic.

    Having spent four years at Wheaton regularly hearing Catholic bashing on campus and even from the chapel pulpit, I think a bias against Catholics is at work here. Hochschild was Episcopalian before converting to Catholicism. Episcopalians fall within the Anglican tradition. Anglican theology actually says that authority in theology is derived from a balance of Scripture, Reason, and Tradition. This sounds exactly like the "house divided against itself" that Litfin described. But in reality, this was known as the great Elizabethan Settlement which strived to hold Catholics and Protestants together.

    So now Wheaton has some questions to answer. If Hochschild was a member of a church (Episcopal) which held that theological authority is a balance of Scripture, Reason, and Tradition, why didn't they kick him out for not asserting the principle of Sola Scriptura then? Why did it wait to kick him out after he became Catholic?

    When I was at Wheaton I attended an Episcopal church which many Wheaton faculty attended. I suspect many still do. Considering the fact that those faculty have not been fired for being members of a church which does not assert the principle of Sola Scriptura, I think there is ample evidence that Wheaton's real reason for firing a Catholic has little to do with theology and a lot more to do with bigotry. It fits Wheaton's regrettable fundamentalist influences.

    I love my alma mater and in many ways I think it is a great school. But I also care about it enough to want to see it improve. This bias and outright bigotry against Catholics has to end. Wheaton will be a stronger school if it chooses to be inclusive rather than exclusive of a variety of believers. At the very least, the college needs to apply its narrow policy fairly if it wants to be taken seriously in its argument. Even then, if the principle of Sola Scriptura is so important, Wheaton will have to fire many more good professors, and it will become a shell of the school it is.

  • TRADE SCHOOL?
  • Posted by Wes Mesko on March 20, 2006 at 4:20am EST
  • As a Wheaton Grad, I am one of a host of physicians that received excellent training at the College. (my son, also a Wheaton grad is currently in medical school) I admit I take mission trips ever 2-3 years abroad, and more frequently deal with indigent folk's medical needs here in the US. The social responsibity Wheaton instilled within me in my college years was monumental. Having said this, I am disturbed by the blindness the evangelical church has toward historical tradition in the formation of our faith and what relevance it has in our faith today. The dismissed professor was doing a fine job filling this void at Wheaton, according to my daughter in law who sat in his classes and was a major in his department at the time of his dismissal. As the WSJ article correctly concluded, who is doing this now? I add strong support to Dr Jacobs and Michael Smith's comments re the need to revisit the issues this situation presents, and trust the College will put this discussion on a fast track, like they did with the old "pledge".

  • Wheaton's policy toward Catholics
  • Posted by Catholic Wheaton Grad on April 9, 2006 at 3:50pm EDT
  • As a Catholic student at Wheaton who grew up with a variety of ecumenical experiences, I was shocked by the anti-catholicism I experienced at Wheaton from other students and from the board of trustees in particular. I must say it was extremely rare from professors. I am very grateful for the support I received from Dr. Jacobs, Dr. Noll, and Dr. Woodiwiss.

    There is one point that I have not seen brought up in any of the dialogue that I have read. Wheaton College does not prohibit, or did not 14 years ago, Catholics from attending the school. When I found out during my student years that Wheaton would not hire Catholic professors or allow a Catholic to speak in chapel, I was greived. But when I asked Dr. Litfin why they then accepted Catholic students, I do not recall that he gave me a direct answer. If he does not believe a Catholic professor can faithfully sign the Statement of Faith, then a Catholic student cannot either. I am not arguing for further exclusion, rather for consistency and a reevaluation of the real reason Dr. Roschild was dismissed.

    I pray that fruit will be borne from this difficult situation and continually pray for the unity of the church.