Ut unim sint
Let us talk, for a moment, in the abstract. A Protestant college has a statement of faith which must be affirmed by its faculty. Such a statement must be sufficiently broad as not to exclude any Christian they don’t have to exclude, yet sufficiently narrow that it can provide a basis of identity for the school and guide its academic and bureaucratic decisions.
A qualified, respected scholar in his/her field signs on with a school, is accepted by his/her colleagues at the school, but is just barely able to honestly sign the statement. Later, the scholar makes a religious/spiritual decision that places him/herself outside of the boundaries of the mandate. What should the school do?
If you’re Wheaton, an evangelical school, and your assistant professor of Medieval Theology converts to Catholicism, it seems you terminate employment.
My initial response would be to say that that’s a bad move, but I’m reconsidering after reading Joseph Bottum’s thoughts on the matter. Given First Things’ ecumenical interests, I think these observations are worth considering.
Here’s the basic gist:
principled stands are supposed to cost something; otherwise, they’re not stands but merely poses. In the end, Wheaton is, I think, to be applauded for trying to prevent the decline of religious identity James Burtchaell documented in his magisterial study The Dying of the Light: The Disengagement of Colleges and Universities from Their Christian Churches. (And see Terry Eastland’s report on Davidson College in the current issue of FIRST THINGS.)
Getting rid of a serious, principled, and popular medieval philosophy professor is a sad example of the cost of Christian divisions, against which we pray ut unim sint: that they may be one. But until those divisions are healed, the shared Catholic and Protestant struggle to maintain religious identity in a secularized culture will occasionally create such disturbing incidents.
In the end, I guess our abstract school has to ask itself the question: How much identity is it willing to sacrifice for the ecumenical cause? Of course we all want unity, but we can’t lie about who we are in order to achieve it. On the other hand, many differences – hopefully most differences – don’t need to end civil discourse, or even narrow job opportunities. Yet a school true to its vision will inevitably exclude some, and while the state of being that demands such exclusion is lamentable, given the fact of such a state, the particular exclusion need not be entirely negative.
We have one Catholic professor at Prov, but imagine if one of the BTS profs converted. What then? I think Prov’s identity is extremely muddled, probably due to the fact that there are several competing identities at work, with little understanding or overt communication between each other.
Tristan said,
Jan 10, 11:01 #
I should add that I personally would like to see a wider range of belief in the faculty here (a few Catholics, maybe an Orthodox theologian, maybe a Jew). But then this wouldn’t really be Prov would it? I have to admit that this has never been my first choice of schools; its purpose doesn’t neatly align with my personal educational pursuits, but it serves some quite well.
njero said,
Jan 11, 17:16 #
This is not merely an issue of identity, although I acknowledge that identity factors in strongly. To attempt to strike a balance on something as important as one’s (one here being in the corporate sense) religious beliefs for a reason as petty as sneaking in a good professor does not strike me as sound “religious policy.”
In other words it is all well and good to seek unity amongst believers, but that should be a solidly thought out process, well tempered by time. Rushing headlong into a such a great compromise (and the situation in question would have been a compromise of epic proportions) simply to continue the employment of an at least nominally replaceable member of faculty is not the answer.
In response to just your prelude, I would have said can his ass. After reading the rest of your post I still think terminating employment was the proper course of action.
Tristan said,
Jan 11, 21:17 #
In spite of the fact that he felt he could still sign the contract? And in spite of the fact that the president admitted that the contract might need to be rewritten to keep Catholics out?
njero said,
Jan 11, 23:08 #
Note that I said my response was based off of your post, I haven’t had an opportunity to read any of the original sources yet. I wrote that last bit as I was getting ready to head out for the evening.
Hmm, I started writing a further reply, but I really ought to read the other material first, never mind the fact that I should already be sleeping.
If I don’t reply tomorrow, get on my case.