The Hochschild Affair

It may be that Wheaton College's termination of Joshua Hochschild as a professor of philosophy because of his conversion to Roman Catholicism will eventually be looked  upon as a terminus a quo in its departure not simply from Evangelicalism, but from Christianity altogether.  I know this may sound hyperbolic, but if I am right in my belief that the deracinate Evangelical intellectual has only two well-marked paths of forward thought-movement open to him, the catholicizing or the liberalizing, this action represents an understandable but nonetheless ominous choice of the latter, and so a path out into the void.

To be sure, the vicissitudes of history may be expected to complicate the exeunt stage-left.  Nor is it obvious on its face to the majority of the players in this drama that the action was symbolic of a deep and fatal ambiguity that links Evangelicalism with the fallen Protestant mainline, once evangelical itself.  It appears that President Litfin did the right thing--or at least the properly Evangelical thing, as First Thing’s Joseph Bottum and others have remarked--in identifying his school's statement of faith as Protestant and therefore as excluding Roman Catholic teachers.  On the bright surface of things the hard but defensible decision was made.  Dr. Hochschild was told to go his way not simply because his continued presence would offend a significant body of donors, but because Wheaton is a Protestant school and Dr. Litfin is a principled man.

A deeper problem for Wheaton, though, the problem of which the rejection is ultimately a symbol, is that in rejecting a Catholic in accordance with Evangelical principles, it has passively endorsed the continued tenure and influence of its liberalizing Evangelicals whose anti-Christianity Litfin and Wheaton, along with almost every major Evangelical institution, have admitted as fully  Evangelical.  The path to secularism--of which egalitarianism is the principal gate and adornment in our time, and successful resistance to which is our own day's peculiar test of fidelity to the Christian faith in this part of the world--is being kept wide open by the more respectable sections of the Evangelical academy. Wheaton may be devoted to the Bible, but its interpretation is, among Evangelicals, falling into much worse hands than those of the Catholics. In valiant, Protestant resistance to the authority of the pope, Wheaton, with high principle and courage, is solemnly submitting to that of the devil.

I would be surprised if Wheaton will be able to survive as a Christian institution by force of the shame it will allow itself to feel for the illiberality behind this act.  The ejection of a Catholic will provide yet another opportunity for liberals to express their contempt for conservative Christians, driving those Evangelical intellectuals who are petrified at the prospect of this disdain further than ever from their faith.  They will oppose the ejection, and actions like it, not because they have any particular sympathies with Catholicism in general or people like Joshua Hochschild in particular, but because these stand, among the company they wish to keep, for the fundamentalism they above all things despise, and with which the Evangelical intelligentsia will do almost anything to avoid being identified.   

The Evangelical progressives' deep and abiding fear of the charge of fundamentalism by their secular peers will support the rejection of anti-Catholicism for the same reason it supports their rejection of Christianity's patriarchalism.  To the degree they are able to gain power in the Evangelical institution, the old-style, anti-Catholic Protestantism represented by President Litfin will be replaced by the new-style religion of the Evangelical egalitarian, which will welcome Catholics (of a certain type) with chortles of joy and wide-spread ecumenical arms.  The problem with this is that the former, despite its strictures, is identifiably Christian while the latter, despite its emancipations, is not.

Comments

[MT]

You're right, it does sound hyperbolic.

[smh]

The more one knows about the history of the Christian college in the United States (I recommend George Marsden on the subject), the less hyperbolic I think it will sound.

[holmegm]

>You're right, it does sound hyperbolic.

But of course if it proves correct, you'll graciously acknowledge the prophetic wisdom ;)

[Doug]

If I were an Evangelical Protestant, I would not want to send my children to a "Protestant" school dominated by Catholics, Orthodox, or secularists (for fear that my impressionable 18 or 19 year old son/daughter would have their Protestant faith undermined). So, I understand that aspect of Wheaton's policy. However, a complete ban on orthodox Catholic and Orthodox faculty will do, I believe, exactly what SMH claims it will do. What a shame.

I emailed Dr. Litfin to express how odd it is that Wheaton has embraced prominent Catholic writers/thinkers, such as JRR Tolkein, GK Chesterton, Malcolm Muggerridge etc., via particular classes, archive holdings, exhibitions and conferences, yet would bar these very men from teaching at the school. Beyond odd, it is galling to me.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Well, if egalitarianism is the frontispiece to the secularist path, then unbridled (and unbridleable) private autonomy is the cold coffin at its end.

As usual, very well put Mr. Hutchens. Do you believe that the liberalizing proclivity is not inherent to Evangelicalism? Was Wheaton ever a well-rooted, i.e., "fundamentalist" college? And either way, doesn't Wheaton have members of its faculty, which tho' they be happily "Evangelical", represent a far greater threat to its "distinctiveness" than a principled and conscientious Catholic? Surely the powers that be at Wheaton are not so foolish as to think Catholicism represents the greatest threat to Christian orthodoxy... or for that matter its own "distinctives".

As others have suggested elsewhere in cyberspace, Notre Dame or Boston College or Georgetown would be truly blessed to accept a few Evangelicals who actually believed the Gospel in exchange for some dissident Catholics who do not.

[Rob]

Having graduated from Wheaton in 1981, and taught there from 2002-3, I was able to witness a significant power shift from "conservative" to "liberal". Like most secular schools I have taught at, liberals are anything but when they come to power. So the Hochschild affair is unfortunately very typical; I would consider myself and several other fired colleagues as standing in a long line of aggrieved conservatives. The fact of his dismissal is the least surprising part of the story. And from an administrative viewpoint, it was quite logical. The increasing arrogance of the liberal power block was alienating both alumni and supporters, so some act was needed that gave the appearance of traditional values. What better way to bump off a conservative and claim tradition? It was a twofer, and quite clever but for the WSJ coverage.

[smh]

Although I do not often set aside time to answer questions posed in these comments, even good ones like Mr. Nicoloso’s, I have some this evening, and will answer his here:

SN: Do you believe that the liberalizing proclivity is not inherent to Evangelicalism?

SMH: I believe it is, but only because the ideological Kirchenväter of Evangelicalism (Henry, Carnell, Ockenga, etc.) originally defined it (in part, but important part) in terms of antifundamentalism and attentiveness to learning—which in fact came to mean, early on, academic respectability. At first these impulses were fairly benign, for there was much to reject in fundamentalism, and much to learn among the Evangelicals. As time went on, however, the hunger for high degrees from important schools grew more acute and the important schools became more and more dominated by forces hostile to Christianity, the character of the Evangelical professor (ever desirous of acceptance among his academic peers), conformed to the secular prejudices of the university, particularly the feminist ones, and became less Christian. For a better understanding of the mindset involved in early Evangelicalism, read Marsden’s book on Fuller Seminary, or any of the various fundamentalist critiques of early “neo-Evangelicalism”—unpleasant reading, but more or less accurate on Evangelical minds and motives, I think. The writing of Charles Woodbridge, who taught among the Evangelicals at Fuller but returned in disgust to unapologetic fundamentalism, is particularly instructive on this account.

SN: Was Wheaton ever a well-rooted, i.e., "fundamentalist" college?

SMH: Wheaton predates the fundamentalist/Evangelical distinction by many years. It was founded in Wesleyan conviction (which we would recognize as generally “evangelical” today) in the 1850s, and preserved by strong leadership from succumbing to liberalizing tendencies thereafter. It was “fundamentalist” in the sense that it was identified as such by its liberal detractors, and that its faculty and administration was theologically conservative, retaining the old Wesleyan taboos on alcohol, tobacco, dancing, and so forth, which tended to emphasize the conservative nature of the school and discourage the experimentally inclined.

SN: And either way, doesn't Wheaton have members of its faculty, which tho' they be happily "Evangelical", represent a far greater threat to its "distinctiveness" than a principled and conscientious Catholic?

SMH: I can’t answer this question because there have been times when these distinctives, supplemented by strong leadership, have kept it within the faith, but now it appears that Wheaton’s leaders, while bravely throwing the Catholics off the distinctive deck, have let the egalitarians gnaw a gaping hole in the distinctive hull. When the hole becomes large enough, the ship will go to the bottom, as so many others of its kind have. This will happen because official Evangelicaldom has refused to recognize egalitarianism, to which it is quite fully committed by now, as a heresy, and treat it as such. A fatal mistake.

[craig]

Well-argued, SMH. The "liberalizing proclivity" is indeed inherent to evangelicalism, and I would add that it grows in strength as postmodern relativism takes hold. Christianity is based upon apostolic witness above all; where the reigning philosophy rejects outright the premise that truth exists apart from higher criticism and a posture of default suspicion, the academy is bound to see in itself a new magisterium. Or, as one wise German bishop put it, "where Holy Scripture is disjoined from the living voice of the Church, it falls prey to the disputes of experts". Submission to a magisterial voice is a taint on intellectual integrity, in the higher-critical mode of thinking, so that the writings even of non-Christians become privileged in scholarship above the writings of saints!

But since evangelical universities cannot maintain their distinctiveness nor satisfy the evangelical parent/student/alumni base without defending their Protestant bona fides, they can't help postulating that the combination of apostolic witness and magisterial teaching is fundamentally insufficient, even invalid. Thus they quietly succumb to liberal premises.

[Pauli]

To me this entire flap is due to Wheaton's hesitancy to put the phrase "scripture is the sole authority" in their statement of faith. If that was the case, Hochschild would not be able in good faith to sign it, his firing would be 100% justified and there would be no story. So why don't they? The reason I've heard and believe is that they don't want to upset the Episcopalians who aren't that sure they agree with sola scriptura. At least not on Tuesdays or Thursdays.

There's another solution for Wheaton. They could put language in like "We don't accept the Pope of Rome as a religious authority." But this is bad marketing, I guess. Makes them look too much like Bob Jones University or something of that nature. But that would keep the papists out without Luther's legendary latin.

That is my take on the crux of the matter. As a Catholic convert I think this is very interesting and I'm glad everyone is talking about it. I'm sorry that someone lost a job, but I'm more sorry that the folks at Wheaton seem to have to pick and choose to which of their convictions they should be true. They are stuck between the rock of implacability and the hard place of indifference. I believe there is a lot of good to be said for the institutions of evangelical protestants, but they themselves seem to be in the midst of an eternal identity crisis whenever confronted with the rock-solid reality of the Church of Rome.

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Once again we find S.M. Hutchens praised for not telling us anything, all the while clouding himself in the sort of hypocrisy that has become his calling card as of late.

There's nothing richer than a true Protestant to the core like Hutchens spitting indignation at an evangelical institution of "higher learning" because they chose to go the route of their own prejudices by expelling a Roman Catholic from their ranks. Whatever "orthodoxy" Hutchens embraces, it is and shall always be one of his own choosing, over and abvove any "church" that might tell him otherwise. It gives him the unique--but not unironic--ability to lash out at whomever he so chooses with the sort of convictional plasticity that might have been mistaken for pure cowardice in any other age.

All of the buzz words are present here of course. "Liberal" and "egalitarian" are tossed out so that rabid readers might too throw up their own indignation at a phenomena Hutchens has routinely demonstrated he doesn't even understand. With remarks such as: "The path to secularism--of which egalitarianism is the principal gate and adornment in our time, and successful resistance to which is our own day's peculiar test of fidelity to the Christian faith in this part of the world..." is next-to-meaningless absent an abiding definition of "secularism" itself. There may exist little doubt that "egalitarianism" or, rather, the fixation with it has been an enduring component of social-political gnosticism in our times (by the Voegelian understanding), but it is hardly as inextricably linked with "secularism" in the way Touchstone's own Chicken Little would have his fan following believe. Perhaps, in the end, the distinction will prove unimportant since they are all spiritually connected to a larger depravity; just the same, the viciousness of a Protestant towards his own ilk is hardly laudable given that he too is wedded--whether admittedly or not--to that same deprivation.

[David]

While Gabriel and I would likely disagree on much, I see we find common ground on Mr. Hutchens. While no group is immune from criticism, Mr. Hutchens’ comments have certainly earned him Gabriel's bestowment of the title of "Touchstone's own Chicken Little". In regards to the Wheaton incident, it seems to me that this would be a case of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't". If Wheaton had kept him on I can easily see a comment by Mr. Hutchens condemning Wheaton for ignoring their statement of faith and saying that it was emblematic of the wishy-washiness of Evangelicals, and that it put them firmly on the road to waffling on other theological issues.

I have two points I'd like to make:
1) Forgive the somewhat bizarre analogy (bizarre for Mere Comments anyways, but it is my field), but when a conducting material is exposed to an electrical potential, electrons will drift in a particular direction. Looking from afar it would appear as if all the electrons were moving in one direction, however this is not strictly true. If one were to follow the path of a singular electron you would see that it moves in every possible direction as it essentially bounces around inside the conductor. However, there is a net direction to the movement which is difficult to see when events are taken as singular incidents. The Evangelical world is diverse and looking at one particular case and saying "Oy! They switched direction, Evangelicals are doomed!" strikes me as extraordinarily shortsighted. I realize Mr. Hutchens references Marden and through him Evangelical universities as a group, however can one look at Catholic universities as representative of the state of Catholic theology?

2) My opinion is that the state of Christianity is reasonably well mirrored with the situation in Ireland. There are unionists who will never accept a united Ireland, and there are republicans who will never accept anything other than a united Ireland and hate those who split it. I was there a few years ago and was talking to our cabbie in Belfast about the situation. He said (and I paraphrase), "No one wants to go back to the way things were. No one wants the army on every corner, no one wants the checkpoints, no one wants the violence. It's not perfect, but things are moving forward. They must. What choice do we have?" While the analogy certainly isn't perfect, I believe that quote is valid for Christianity. "What choice do we have?" We are all together on this journey, in spite of our best efforts to cordon off our own distinctive areas to control. No one wants to go back to the days where Catholics and Protestant killed each other recklessly, passions fueled far less by theological distinctives than by political and ethnic reasons. However it is not easy and reconciliation takes time. There are people who will never make that leap. Most people on both sides don't even care enough to try.

On a more general note, I must note a distinct trend recently with regards to comments about Evangelicals. Again, I reiterate, no segment of Christianity is immune from criticism, and I have no problem with people criticizing Evangelicals. However, when such a large segment of Mere Comments seems to be devoted to telling Evangelicals what they're doing wrong, as an Evangelical it gets rather discouraging. Do Evangelicals (non-self-loathing ones) have a place here?

[David Gray]

>Whatever "orthodoxy" Hutchens embraces, it is and shall always be one of his own choosing, over and abvove any "church" that might tell him otherwise.

Perhaps if he accepted your definitions of "church" that might have merit. But then your past jeremiads against Protestant clergy and their failure to ordain women don't breed much confidence in the matter.

[smh]

To address several of the substantive comments above: David has apparently mistaken me for the former Wheaton professor who wrote in under the name of "Rob." Although I have been close to Wheaton College in a number of ways, I have never taught there. I doubt whether I could sign its Statement of Faith, for I know not only what it says, but what it means.

With regard to Evangelical-bashing I ask that my colleagues at Touchstone be exempted from the charge, and suggest that if I were removed from the scene (briefly changing the metaphor from Chicken Little to Jonah) the perceived problem would quickly disappear. One might apply to the Touchstonian admiralty to assign Hutchens to the deep and see what happens.

I am left by this exchange with the conundrum of whether (switching the maritime reference from Jonah to Popeye) I am what I am because of excessive self-regard, as Mr. Sanchez believes, or self-loathing, as David thinks.

There seem to be two possibilities here, either that we are dealing with a paradoxical situation where both are the case, or with two attitudes that sort of average out into the mind of a rather normal Christian. For my sins, I do consider the first from time to time, and, for my friends at least, I think the second holds pretty well.

Mr. Sanchez's continual railings seem predicated on thinking the very worst of me in every respect, beginning with his identification of a deliberate, animating perversity that would be remarkable even in a sane unbeliever. He may be right about all that, and his Shimei-like appearance in this place may be providential. He says nothing about me about which conscience doesn't also accuse, and which I am sure Satan brings up before the Lord, if he decides to take the trouble. (Actually, I suspect this job is not handled by the Prince of Darkness himself, but a middle-management demon. Why bother the Boss with Hutchens when he has bigger fish to fry?)

The reason I don't answer him much, or others who write as he does, is because it strikes me that their basic problem with me involves judgment where judgment does not belong to them. It is not just that they chide me for error, but error that arises from a deep wickedness in me which they profess competence to know. I have heard this voice many times before and learned not to answer it. That would do no good to them or to me.

[Steve Nicoloso]

David says:

In regards to the Wheaton incident, it seems to me that this would be a case of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't". If Wheaton had kept him on I can easily see a comment by Mr. Hutchens condemning Wheaton for ignoring their statement of faith and saying that it was emblematic of the wishy-washiness of Evangelicals, and that it put them firmly on the road to waffling on other theological issues.

More than a case of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't", I see it more as a case of institutional hypocrisy. Wheaton has long been on "the road to waffling on other theological issues" (as have many of the otherwise illustrious CCCU member colleges), in comparison to which the the doctrinal delta between a conscientious Episcopalian and a conscientious Roman Catholic seems vanishingly small. Tho' I cannot predict how Steve Hutchens would respond to the hypothetical non-firing of Prof. Hochschild, I think it safe to say it would simply have not been news (which itself might be telling).

Your electron analogy is a good one, David. But you inadvertently seem to make my point: large scale motion should not occur when the voltage is applied. And in my estimation, Statement of Faith and Mission is insufficient to prevent the large scale motion (which I think everyone admits, either with thunderous applause or grouchy consternation, is occuring). What would be sufficient is a magisterial statement that tightly and unambiguously excludes certain Christian "heresies" (by Evangelical reckoning). But Wheaton is not going to do this because it would make them (at least appear to be) anti-intellectual, i.e., fundamentalist, against which mainstream Evangelicalism is principally defined.

As to whether there actually exist Evangelicals of the non-self-loathing variety I cannot say, but would say if such an Evangelical exists, he is either 1) a fundamentalist and not an evangelical. in which case his ontological confusion is not life threatening; 2) happy to be part of a movement trending rapidly toward "liberal mainline Protestantism", which I don't think needs a definition; or 3) simply not paying attention. For each case it seems to me that Touchstone provides variously either an encouraging, instructive, or curative environment.

Furthermore I seriously doubt whether this "trend" in Merecomments is anything new. In 1998, I (as a content and party-line Evangelical) cancelled my subscription to Touchstone for what I perceived to be anti-Evangelical polemics (i.e., being "not nice"). Six or seven years later I came to realize that such polemics were profoundly prescient and edifying, and that one can only be so nice when telling someone they're either stupid or lying.

[David]

Are ad hominem comments made frequently on this website?

[David]

If you go to www.wheaton.edu, you can access Dr. Litfin's comments on this subject.

While I too have concerns about the potential for secular drift, I find Dr. Litfin's comments -- alongside the opinion expressed by Mr. Bottum -- to be more compelling.

[smh]

"Are ad hominem comments made frequently on this website?"

Most of those who post, we have found, have reasonable sensibilities in this area, and normally steer clear of personal attacks. At present Touchstone has no policy of deleting the comments of those who do not--although all posted comments remain at the personal discretion of the original blogger (almost always a Touchstone editor). We could erase what we don't like, but I know of no instance where this has been done except where someone has used profanity or inserted a link to a pornographic website. We've let some pretty unpleasant stuff appear, and I think for two reasons, first because it's to some degree instructive, and second because of the time and expense involved in editorial review of all comments.

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Steven,

Your pride never ceases getting the better of you and the color of your prose never ceases to bring a smile to my face. Just the same, one can only use the same rhetorical tricks to the same numbing end so many times before it all begins to fade away into banality.

My problem, Mr. Hutchens, is with your inability to judge in a coherent, meaningful fashion. You have an ironic self-importance about your posts which never ceases to catch my attention, though I hardly rank that up as one of the more salient features of your routine intellectual misfires. For all of your learning there is no subtlety or, more exactly, there is no evidence that you are capable of engaging in the sort of meaningful distinctions your subjects of ire demand. Rather, you paint in broad brush strucks with your tarring term "liberals" and your "egalitarian" feathers. In the end, no one is any more "aware" for your efforts and those of us who would rather understand the true pathology are left wondering about our ability to be taken seriously in an intellectual climate where the louded voices are near-blind reactionaries like yourself.

I don't believe you are wicked, Mr. Hutchens; just incompetent and self-contradictory when it comes to particular topics. There's no doubt in my mind that you are well educated and hold a very laudable vocabulary. Just the same, I'm not sure what justice you do to your own character by coming across as a half-set Donoso Cortes. Only, unlike that great Spanish reactionary, you have neither his depth nor his understanding of his times. What you do have is a very general target to kick up dust about.

You will forgive me won't you if I'm not impressed. And perhaps, in time, you might understand the heart of the criticisms against you as being more than "lefty" polemics. Until then, I'll return to my pasttimes of scouting the skies for pigs and checking Weather.com for snowfalls in Hell.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Hutchens writes:

It is not just that they chide me for error, but error that arises from a deep wickedness in me which they profess competence to know.

That reminds me of this bit from Lawrence Auster (doo-rag tip: Kevin Jones)...

Liberals don't believe in objective truth. They think that all opinions must be treated as equally valid, equally deserving of respect, and not to be judged. Therefore to treat a conservative opinion as an opinion among other opinions would be implicitly to validate it. It is difficult for a liberal simply to argue that an opinion is wrong, because liberals don't believe that there is a right and wrong. Therefore, if there is an opinion that the liberals strongly dislike and want to reject utterly, they have to deny that it is an opinion. They must treat it as an act of bad faith, a ploy, a hoax, an attempt to "divide America," or a symptom of pathology or prejudice.

Yeah, I know, I know... define liberal. Well, for the purposes of this discussion let it denote one who doesn't believe in absolute truth, and therefore posits specious environmental or genetic theories to explain the pathology of numbskulls refusing to agree with his or her particular views.

[David]

I first subscribed to Touchstone in 2003. My third issue was the theme issue entitled, "Christian Unity and the Divisions We Must Sustain." It was a good read, and I read it cover to cover.

It remains a good read for all of us. And the content is relevant to the Wheaton-Hochschild issue at hand.

As an aside, I do not recall that that issue contained any reference to self-loathing (or non-self-loathing) evangelicals.

[David]

About four years ago, I attended a Protestant-RCC "dialogue" conference at Wheaton College. I recall an exchange between an anonymous attendee and Fr. Neuhaus. The attendee was responding to Fr. Neuhaus' plea for unity. The attendee asked Fr. Neuhaus to comment on the large number of former Catholics who have left the RCC, converted, and joined an Evangelical congregation. Father Neuhaus responded that each year in the United States, an equal number (i.e., 200,000) leave Protestanism, convert, and join the RCC.

[Gabriel Sanchez]

David,

My remarks about Protestants not ordaining women were not answered. Instead, I was tarred and feathered with "liberal" because, apparently, I hold the damnable view that women can be just as good of teachers as men (which is all the leader of a Protestant community really is). I'm still pefectly open to hearing about why women can't be teachers or doctors or lawyers or any other professional, along with how not holding that view means one is "liberal" as opposed to, say, moronic.

All of the definitions of "liberal" that have been tossed around on Touchstone are, I believe, inadequate on the grounds they're so broadly applied to so many sectors of human thought and modern living as to almost be meaningless. To say a "liberal" is one who doesn't "believe in objective truth" encompasses no doubt a certain trend in the modern liberal mindset, but hardly the whole. It might be more adequate to discuss the frequent agnosticism in modern thought towards "truth" but that's not "liberal" per say either.

What gets so frequently blurred on here and on most other forums with similar P's and M's is that "conservativism" in modernity is just another offshoot of "liberalism." That is, it does not escape the horizon of liberalism itself, but becomes just another branch of it. Hutchens thought is riddled with this and it shines through in his "US v. THEM" polemics where the real dividing lines are never explored. However, that's not terribly unexpected from a man who is himself a true blooded Protestant and thus a true blooded liberal in the very meaningful, very encompassing definition of the term.

[David Gray]

>My remarks about Protestants not ordaining women were not answered.

Actually they were (explicitly and immediately) and one would have to be either intentionally or remarkably thick not to have followed the argument. In your case I think I'd opt for intentionally.

dave

[Bill Markley]

"All of the definitions of "liberal" that have been tossed around on Touchstone are, I believe, inadequate on the grounds they're so broadly applied to so many sectors of human thought and modern living as to almost be meaningless."
---Gabriel Sanchez

I think that if one accepts today's generally accepted usages of words such as "liberal," and if one gets out of the ivory tower at least occasionally, then Mr. Hutchens' meanings are quite clear. Mr. Nicoloso also defined it well. One doesn't need to know who such people as Donoso Cortes were in order to understand clearly Mr. Hutchens' argument.

[GL]

Well, this thread has gotten far afield. I hate to disappoint the mudslingers and name callers, but I would actually like to get back to the original post.

I believe Mr. Hutchens makes some good points, though he is more fatalistic than I am. Certainly, *if* Wheaton dismisses orthodox Catholics but retains apostate Protestants, then it is indeed headed for trouble and would be better off keeping orthodox Catholics and tossing the apostates out. I know little about Wheaton. Is there any evidence that this is the case? If not, then I must still agree with Bottum's observation which I quoted earlier, "'Good for Wheaton.' Or, rather, 'Good for Wheaton—given that the evil of Christian disunity exists.'"

Mr. Hutchen is correct about the general lamentable trend of once orthodox Protestant colleges and universities losing their way--as have many of the denominations out of which they found their origins. That is not, however, unique to once proud Protestant institutions; I could name a few Catholic colleges and universities which have gone down the same path. Perhaps Wheaton can and has learned from these examples and will avoid their fate. Only time will tell.

Finally, I see a relationship between Mr. Hutchen's original post and the earlier thread on Bishop Obare's expulsion from the Council of the Lutheran World Federation. In reading his remarks, I could not help but think that Luther himself would likely face expulsion from the council which bears his name, as would Calvin and Knox from the PCUSA. Wesley certainly would face harsh criticism from many Methodist leaders. Protestantism has faced a severe decline in orthodoxy in the past century and perhaps it is because of an inherent flaw due to the lack of a controlling magisterium. Let's recall, however, that Luther began the Reformation because the Catholic Church was full of what most orthodox Catholics today will admit were severe abuses. No structure guarantees fealty to orthodoxy in all eras and in all places.

[Gabriel Sanchez]

My remarks on Cortes were to compare an intelligent reactionary with an overbroad, overstating, and overhyped one (S.M. Hutchens). I agree though; knowing Cortes only makes Hutchens' polemics appear quite ghastly.

I must be thick in the head because I'm lost as far as what a "generally accepted" use of the word "liberal" even means. "Generally accepted" where? On Fox News? I'm glad when contemporary culture manhandles words and their meaning, the bar is automatically supposed to be lowered.

[Tony Esolen]

The liberal (NOT the leftist) tends to:

1. favor personal autonomy, at the expense of social norms, particularly those that descend from tradition
2. overrate the systematic "scientific" organization of knowledge, and underrate forms of wisdom that escape such organization
3. blur or obliterate distinctions among roles in the church and in society, favoring a radical egalitarianism over the hierarchy-informing-equality that characterizes Pauline teaching, e.g. on the Body of Christ
4. suspect the miraculous, and all portions of Scripture that seem, and I repeat "seem," to partake of mythology, particularly in the New Testament
5. trust in the perfectability of man, if not as an explicit doctrine, yet in a deep assumption that informs their social policies
6. lean towards Pelagianism against both Calvinism and Thomism
7. wish to break down all barriers that define communities and organizations as separate from one another, while not paying sufficient attention to the possibility that the barriers are necessary for the existence of communities in the first place
8. have at best a loose and thin belief in human nature, favoring instead the notion that social forces create most, if not all, of what we consider natural

We could, I guess, draw a comparison between what Steve says about Wheaton and a putative Catholic school. Call it Mother of all Schisms Seminary. At Mother of all Schisms, they study Rosemary Radford Ruether, Hans Kung, Elaine Pagels, Leonardo Boff, etc. -- not here and there, but as authorities, all the time. Then let's say that a Joshua Hochschild converts to Christianity (!) and becomes a Missouri Synod Lutheran. Mother of all Schisms lets him go right away -- because he's not Catholic anymore; when actually he's closer to Catholicism as an MSL than are many or most of the remaining faculty. Mother of all Schisms gets to parade herself as faithful, and Hochschild is out in the cold.... Again, I don't know enough about Wheaton to judge, personally. I'll take Steve's word for it.

[Scott Walker]

I do not know why Mr. Gabriel Sanchez has a burr under his saddle regarding Mr. S.M. Hutchens. Whenever Mr. Sanchez attempts to explain himself he seems to fall captive to his own estimable erudition, and neglects to actually make a point intelligible to the lay reader. I offer a suggestion. If you, Mr. Sanchez, do not enjoy reading Mr. Hutchens' posts, simply stop reading them. Allow Mr. Hutchens to perpetrate in peace whatever it is that you find so heinous. Let God sort it out. That way you shall be happier, and the rest of us won't have to wade through your unintelligible prose. Thank you.

[CPA]

This whole discussion points up a serious problem: while the Trinity-Christological issues of the 4th-5th centuries produced generally accepted dogmatic definitions, and the Reformation controversies produced generally accepted dogmatic definitions among Protestants, the sex-role-sexuality controversies of the 20th-21st centuries have produced remarkably few dogmatic defintions, despite the fact that the orthodox side is fairly unified on the main points (contraception being the only area of significant sexuality dispute and the significance of sacrifice to the male-only priesthood being the only area of significant sex-role dispute -- and even there, there is widespread agreement on what not to do, just not exactly why we should not do it.)

Could not at least Protestant denominations produce a generally accepted dogmatic formula anathemizing sexuality and sex-role heresies, that orthodox denominations and schools could adopt (or be pressured to adopt) as statements marking out where the sense of the orthodox churches are on this issue?

[David R.]

Mr. Nicoloso wrote:
Your electron analogy is a good one, David. But you inadvertently seem to make my point: large scale motion should not occur when the voltage is applied.
Actually, that's not true at all. Large scale motion will certainly occur (no electronic device would function if charge didn't rapidly move through a conductor), however my point is that looking at individual electrons will not give you a picture of that net flow. How this relates to the thread is that taking the Wheaton case and blowing it up to make a generic point is not very useful. Even if you believe Wheaton did the wrong thing (a point which is by no means agreed upon) you can't very well use that to define Evangelical theological drift in general.

Mr. Nicoloso wrote:
What would be sufficient is a magisterial statement that tightly and unambiguously excludes certain Christian "heresies" (by Evangelical reckoning).
You obviously place a huge emphasis on the RCC’s magisterial authority. In a previous thread you wrote:
The Catholic must believe, by faith, in the supernatural and infallible guidance of the Church by the Holy Spirit, taking John's gospel literally and seriously: He, the Spirit, will guide you in all truth. If it were to happen, I admit, I'd be in a quandary. If I am convinced that what the RCC teaches about itself is true, then I'd be forced to accept the new teaching would in fact be true.
How does this jibe with what you wrote recently:
Fortunately for Catholics, all of the really nasty popes were too busy being really nasty to have promulgated any infallible doctrines.... [Whew!] a weak but nevertheless poignant evidence of the Holy Spirit's eternal guidance.
If the RCC is guided supernaturally by the Holy Spirit, why would there be 'nasty popes' in the first place? That’s obviously a problem I (and many Protestants) have with the RCC. We look back and don’t see a history which can lead us to believe the RCC has been supernaturally guided by the Holy Spirit since the time of Christ. We simply don’t see any justification for your claim to magisterial authority. Or any church’s claim to supernatural magisterial authority, honestly.

Mr. Nicoloso wrote:
Six or seven years later I came to realize that such polemics were profoundly prescient and edifying, and that one can only be so nice when telling someone they're either stupid or lying.
While not particularly surprising, your arrogance here is quite impressive, kudos. You know as well as I that the questions that divide us are complex and there are very intelligent people on both sides who honestly seek to do God's will. A message board is a very poor place to make comprehensive arguments, and I am not the person to make those arguments, but to pretend there is no argument is intellectually dishonest.

My mind keeps going back to the question, "Do you see people who aren't Catholic as Christians?" If so, we are your family, and should you call your family "stupid or lying"? If not, what are you doing here at Touchstone?
I have a request of you. As an Evangelical, I obviously know other Evangelicals, and I know several former Catholics who have left the RCC to join Evangelical churches. I also have several Catholic friends who are quite happy to be Catholic. However, I don't know anyone who has left an Evangelical church to join the RCC, and I honestly would like to hear your story.

Mr. Hutchens wrote:
With regard to Evangelical-bashing I ask that my colleagues at Touchstone be exempted from the charge, and suggest that if I were removed from the scene (briefly changing the metaphor from Chicken Little to Jonah) the perceived problem would quickly disappear. One might apply to the Touchstonian admiralty to assign Hutchens to the deep and see what happens.

I remember reading somewhere that Touchstone wants Christians who stand up for what they believe. ie: if you are a Catholic, Touchstone wants you to be a fervent Catholic. If you are a Baptist, be a strong Baptist. If you are Orthodox, be Orthodox, etc. And there are editors from all parts of the spectrum, and they stand up for what they believe. Mr. Hutchens self identifies as an Evangelical, however he seems to have one foot (or maybe two feet?) out the door. If he is an Evangelical then he should be a Touchstone Evangelical! Mr. Hutchens, instead of in every post disrespecting the Evangelical theology, you should be defending it. If you're not an Evangelical, then perhaps you shouldn't be posting as one.

I apologize for the large post. I haven’t had time to check in here recently, so I have to try and catch up when I can. Regards.

[Steve Nicoloso]

David R.,

1) Wheaton is no mere electron. It is the intellectual capital and vanguard of Evangelicalism. Many influential Evangelicals currently teach there, and many, many more graduated from there. No, not every single electron (Evangelical) moves in its direction. But those are the exceptions which prove the rule. The voltage has been applied: on the negative side, Fundamentalism (that of Wheaton's own history and that of more recent, blue-collar, and anti-intellectual variety), and on the positive side, deracinating modernism. Large-scale movement has been toward the latter.

2) Infallibility and impeccability are two different things, at least when considering them in respect to the leadership of the church. Otherwise how could we hold writings of the (obviously not impeccable) Apostles (or worse writings even of unknown persons) to be infallible? This, however, is a common misconception (viz., how can you say the pope is infallible when you admit that there were really bad popes?), but please educate yourself at least a little bit on Catholic theology.

3) I was not calling anyone on this thread (or anyone ever at Touchstone as far as I can remember) "stupid or lying", nor suggesting that there aren't intelligent people on most sides of debate, but rather pointing out (a much less grandiose contention) that sometimes such reasoning is necessary in the course of argument... and that there is only so nice one can be when doing so. That you would perceive this as arrogant or dishonest on my part is unsurprising to me.

[dk]

Is Mr. Hutchens implying that evangelicals are fatally wedded to egalitarianism or the egophanic urge while differently protestant protestants are not? I am sympthatice to tthat view, but I think Mr. Esolen is also correct--these impulses ("protestantizing," "liberalizing," "secularizing," "rationalizing," "demystifying," "individualizing," "egalitarianizing") can be found in every church (and perhaps ever human organization) in every age. You can only discriminate between groups across time and in the present by considering the relative balance of these "centripetal" and "centrifugal" forces in them and by considering the effectiveness of their symbols of order (structures of individual and collective consciousness) and real-world political structures when it comes to maintaining balance.

This was pretty good:

"At first these impulses were fairly benign, for there was much to reject in fundamentalism, and much to learn among the Evangelicals. As time went on, however, the hunger for high degrees from important schools grew more acute and the important schools became more and more dominated by forces hostile to Christianity, the character of the Evangelical professor (ever desirous of acceptance among his academic peers), conformed to the secular prejudices of the university, particularly the feminist ones, and became less Christian."

Marsden has gotten a lot of positive mention here, but Marsden is more guilty of encouraging the "hunger" and a multi-culti victimist approach to evangelical participation in the liberal order. I think his work on the subject is disastrously naive. Additionally, no one saw fit to mention his role as a reformed/evangelical professor at a Catholic university which has also had its purges of various kinds. In that vein, I wonder how relevant the Baxter affair at ND is the the Hochschild affair at Wheaton.

Rob's conspiracy theory is interesting--is there any evidence to substantiate it?

"The increasing arrogance of the liberal power block was alienating both alumni and supporters, so some act was needed that gave the appearance of traditional values. What better way to bump off a conservative and claim tradition? It was a twofer, and quite clever but for the WSJ coverage."

[Gene Godbold]

Dear DK,
Rob is a friend of mine and I don't pretend to be objective, but I was corresponding with him during his time at Wheaton. His departmental colleagues were very supportive of him, while certain important elements of the administration were deeply suspicious of him. He did not conceal...actually, I've got to note here that the idea of Rob *not* telling anyone precisely what he thinks on any particular issue is quite comical...any of his views. In return he was lied about. Particular folks in the administration disliked him for reasons that are related to his orthodox positions on scripture. (Rob is a conservative Anglican.) Because rejecting his bid for a tenure-track position for these reasons was problematic with alumni as well as with (at least) a strong minority of the current faculty, they did not do so. Instead they made up stuff about him--including an utterly baseless charge that he only recently found out about--and conducted a whisper campaign. In terms of academic credentials and published stuff, Rob is more than qualified to teach there (We're both in science, though different disciplines. I met him while teaching at another university.)

[smh]

Several points of clarification: I do not identify myself as an Evangelical, nor can I ever recall doing so in the Touchstone context. Others have identified me this way, but that is a matter of their own assessment, not mine. I do call myself a Protestant, which seems reasonable, since I am a western Christian who is not a Roman Catholic. This designation, however, indicates very little about my actual beliefs. We were once Episcopalians, but now attend and participate in the life of an Evangelical church--one that would impress most Evangelicals these days as more than a bit atavistic: many have left it for the local megachurches they find so much more interesting.

One commentator said that he differed from me in my thinking that there was still hope for the Evangelical churches, indicating that in attempting to help catholicize them I was on a fool's errand (although he used kinder words than this).

My response would be that every church has a light and a dark face. Everything that pertains to light, which means everything that pertains to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, every excellent thing in Evangelicalism, as in all Protestantism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy, will be saved and glorified; everything that opposes this will be condemned and destroyed. To labor in the attempt to preserve and advance the light against the darkness is a matter not of destruction but refining and winnowing. If there is great good in Evangelicalism, which I believe there to be, then it is an act of kindness and favor to work against what would corrupt it.

How this work looks from outside depends on how one is placed. If what is being done looks like bashing, there is nothing at all wrong with that if one is bashing the right things. Accusing me or Touchstone of Evangelical (or anyone else)-bashing carries no weight at all, for we fully intend to bash where bashing is needed. To make a case against us one must show that we are bashing the wrong thing--not nearly as easy as accusing us of mere Bashing.

[Jack ONeill]

I think the issue to be addressed is brought up in GL's post, and not answered. Are they kicking out RCs at Wheaton, and tolerating apostate Protestants? If yes, then they are indeed on the road to hell. If no, then we should not be critical. My definition of a apostate is someone who doesn't agree with the three creeds and the inerrancy of the Bible, a wide-but-not-very-deep orthodoxy, which is sufficient for me.

[craig]

"If the RCC is guided supernaturally by the Holy Spirit, why would there be 'nasty popes' in the first place? ... We simply don’t see any justification for... any church’s claim to supernatural magisterial authority, honestly. ...I don't know anyone who has left an Evangelical church to join the RCC, and I honestly would like to hear your story."

1. The argument from nasty popes is merely negative -- that while the Holy Spirit obviously has not ensured that the Church choose the best bishops nor that these act wisely, the fact that those among her who might repudiate gospel teaching, haven't, is the "dog that did not bark" type of evidence on her behalf. Rome has had many centuries to do so, and yet her affirmations of the creedal articles only gets more emphatic, in contrast to the slope of Protestant history. (By analogy, I am reminded of the joke that fascism is always descending upon America, and yet always manages to land in Europe.)

2. To reject supernatural magisterial authority in principle is to reject the idea of apostolicity and replace it with scholarship. Evangelicalism is based in two axioms: that revelation is perspicacious, and that what constitutes revelation is equally perspicacious. Unless these are both true, the foundation is sand.

3. My story (raised Baptist, went to Presbyterian school, baptized Episcopalian) is one of assimilating the two points above. In essence, I relearned the gospel bit by bit, but this time infused with a grasp of natural law, sacramentality, and design that made it far more beautiful -- simultaneously sensible and grand -- than the arbitrary, divine-command gospel taught in my youth.

[DK]

Thanks Gene. If true, that's too bad. I had a professor in the 90s who claimed to have been tossed from Wheaton in the 80s because his dept. was taken over by feminists and he was a pretty staunch conservative, more fundamentalist than evangelical. He was the sort to idolize Rush Limbaugh, and he believed there was a link between feminism and witchcraft. Although he was not a forward personality by any means, he was more frank than politic, so I took his testimony with a grain of salt; he may have gladly served up his own head on a platter.

[Christopher]

Mr. Sanchez says:

"It gives him the unique--but not unironic--ability to lash out at whomever he so chooses with the sort of convictional plasticity..."

"the viciousness of a Protestant towards his own ilk is hardly laudable given that he too is wedded--whether admittedly or not--to that same deprivation..."

"Once again we find S.M. Hutchens praised for not telling us anything, all the while clouding himself in the sort of hypocrisy that has become his calling card ..."

Mr. Sanchez apparently forgot to take his medicine again. I find Touchstone's editorial policy here at Mere Comments very gracious and perhaps tolerant to a fault. I would have deleted the above nonsense without hesitation. Oh well, perhaps such comments ARE instructive. I believe Mr. Sanchez has a solid future writing hyperbole for Iranian mullahs, or maybe those late night "infomercials" ;)

[Gene Godbold]

Dear Christopher,
I believe Mr. Sanchez is a new convert to Orthodoxy. He is also young (under 30) and, I think, in law school. He may also be a recovering liberal. All of these may be sufficient to explain the impetuosity evident in his postings and his scattershot rhetoric (which shows some potential). With some discipline, maturity, and increased charity he might be dangerous to the enemies of the Faith. :-)

[GJ]

Has Mr. Hutchens changed in his thinking considerably since he wrote about Joseph Pearce's book on C. S. Lewis for Books & Culture? (My former remarks on it: http://japery.newpantagruel.com/2004/12/02/what_would_jack_do.php)

[Patrick]

I'm wondering if there could also be a post about Fuller Seminary. Thus far Mere Comments has succesfully attacked everything which has made up my own Christian experience thus far, and I'd like to complete the survey.

Thanks be to God, however, I'm still faithful despite my apparently destructive influences (though my faithful bit may be argued by some).

Personally I don't worry about Wheaton. It's stood up for the Faith during the decades when other colleges actively threw out their religious influence, including many colleges of the Catholic persuasion. Now, it's trendy to have actual religious colleges again, with many schools trying to reclaim their heritage.

Wheaton has long been assaulted from the left and the right for its stances, yet somehow walks the line and produces men and women leaders who echo around the world. It will continue to do so, despite the naysaying. Tradition, as often said here, is a powerful guide. And Wheaton has a tradition.

It's not really worth arguing about, or trying to make a point in contrast to the post. I would like to quibble with the suggestion Dr. Litfin represents anti-Catholic Protestantism. Rather, he represents Protestantism, in its Evangelical form, which isn't anti-Catholic as much as just different than Catholic. Dr. Litfin is charged with a very great responsibility, as the latest of the relatively small number of College Presidents he is the keeper of the tradition, and was hired specifically to keep Wheaton well within the fold of its religious and cultural conservatism.

Though well educated, he did not come from an academic background, but a pastoral background, and so his approach will not have the same sort of mistakes the typical academic may make, which often leads to a liberal tendency.

His concern is for the Spiritual quality and for the conservative tradition which Wheaton has exemplified. For Wheaton to become a liberal institution he would have to be let go, and the Trustees would have to substantially change emphasis.

Another quibble I have is this quote, "if I am right in my belief that the deracinate Evangelical intellectual has only two well-marked paths of forward thought-movement open to him, the catholicizing or the liberalizing"

The amount of quality faithful Evangelical scholars suggests you are not right. Which is maybe why, ultimately, a place like Wheaton can be so infuriating to some. There are those among us who can think, have been educated, and yet do not buy into the argument that the only path to faith is through Rome. Odd thing that. But who is to say how or where the Spirit will blow?

A curious analogy came to mind with this? Could the expulsion of this professor be analogous to how the RCC has treated Hans Kung? He is a brilliant man, a wonderful teacher, but he's not allowed to teach in a Catholic institution because, frankly, he's not Catholic anymore in his theology.

At the end of this, I guess I'm still not worried, either about the opinions expressed here, or about Wheaton's future as a premier Evangelical institution. I guess I would also suggest that those who are not Evangelicals might want to consider the log in their own eyes, and have at the greater number of entirely less faithful Catholic schools who do a great deal more in watering down the historic faith.

[Christopher]

Mr. Godbold,

I'm not so sure. A more likely future is "True Orthodoxy", then "Synod in Resistance", then of course "the True Traditional Orthodox Synod in Exile and True Old Calendar Church of the Holy Confessors", and finally Mr. Sanchez declaring himself "Archbishop of Springfield and all of Jefferson County".

Still, I wonder if your sympathies extend to taking the prodigy out back and giving him the spanking he well deserves? ;)

[Luthien]

"My definition of a apostate is someone who doesn't agree with the three creeds and the inerrancy of the Bible"

So by this definition are the Orthodox apostates because we say the creed without the filioque?

[Gene Godbold]

Dear Luthien,
Young lady, you are obviously trying to stir up trouble! For my part, and for what it's worth, as an irenic Anglican with an Orthodox brother, I pronounce you fully in communion with the rest of us AND with Jesus. I hope you feel better--if you had any real worries on that score and weren't merely trying to impishly stoke a 1000 year-old fire. :-)

[Gene Godbold]

Dear Christopher,
Does that sort of thing happen in Orthodoxy? I had thought it limited to my neck of the (continuing) Anglican woods! I was recently directed to the web site of a "new, authentic" Catholic Anglican Church. It was started this past year by an RC priest who had run off and got married in the 1990s. He became Anglican and, after several years of hopping around decided that he was darn qualified to be a bishop and found some bishop "in apostolic succession" who laid the holy mojo on him. He now "governs" a loose confederation of a handful of churches spread from Idaho to Argentina from his base in the Disney World area. (I'm not making this up.)

And no, I don't want to spank Mr. Sanchez. He's way past the time that sort of thing was effective and his offenses are minor in any case.