I'm throwing out this question to see what kind of feedback I can generate on this topic. 25 years ago, the idea would have been all but unthinkable. But recently, with the reproachment between evangelicals and Catholics because of the culture wars (what one commentator called, "the ecumenism of the trenchs"), as well as such projects as ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together), the Joint Luthern-Catholic Statement on Justification, and numerous works of history and theology that explore the past divide and possibilities of future accord, it has become far more common for evangelical and conservative Catholic academics to see eye-to-eye on many things. (Plus, evangelical academics often teach at Catholic schools now. )
In a few years ago, Wheaton College chose not to renew Joshua Hochschild's contract when he converted to Rome, though he continued to self-identify as a "Catholic evangelical." Alan Jacobs, English professor at Wheaton, has an interesting piece on the issue in First Things, "To Be a Christian College."
Here, at DBU, we had our first Catholic Archbishop speak in chapel a few years ago, and we've quietly for some time now asked Catholic speakers to campus on various issues, but that is still far removed from even considering an adjunct or guest lecturer appointment.
What do you think? Is it even possible? What would be the pros and cons? if we ever did so, how shold we go about it? What might be the best approaches and/or cautions we need observe?
Catholic scholars (for some reason) tend to have a stronger feel for church history. Baptists can tell you little of papal history or Lateran councils. In this area, we can learn a great deal from catholic mentors about the importance of knowing our past. They also have a much more intelligent view of the "faith vs. religion" debate.
ReplyDeleteI do, however, often criticize their religious beliefs and, as a result, their mentorship has its limits. A mature Christian can listen to another Christian with whom they disagree and learn to glean the good things from their lecture and set aside the bad. If the Catholic teacher is responsible then they will avoid debatable issues in such a setting and create an environment where anyone could learn from them.
In short, I wouldn't ask a Catholic to give spiritual guidance to Baptists, but I would be glad to hear them speak on the more objective disciplines. (Such as church history, theological varieties, etc...) And, I wouldn't mind hearing their views on spirituality over coffee.
Given that most Protestants have been taught "what Catholics believe" from other Protestants (and for that very reason speak of Catholic faith and practice in such a way that most Catholics are unable to recognize themselves in such usually misinformed and/or caricatured speech), I think the corrective re-education that an actual Catholic might provide to students and faculty alike would be invaluable both in the general pursuit of truth and in seeking the Church's eventual reunification. It would be refreshing, for example, to hear a Protestant explain why they reject the doctrine of transubstantiation and, at the same time, actually know what they were talking about (for how many Protestant rejectors of transubstantiation really know anything about the metaphysics of substance and accidents, essential knowledge for an intelligent rejection of transubstantiation as such?) At any rate, though I can perceive numerous other benefits to having a Catholic on faculty, the corrective and redemptive ability to learn about Catholicism from a Catholic is nearest to my theologian's heart.
ReplyDeleteDialogue that contributes to clarity is healthy but scary. Some of the tension between Roman Catholics and Evangelicals is rooted in the different nuances we associate with our respective vocabulary terms. Even a term like "faith" means something different to a Catholic than it does to a Baptist. In fact,"faith" can mean two different things to two different Baptists. Are we talking about "assent", "affection", "knowledge", "confidence", "trust", "assurance", "a venture of interest" or "an appropriation of interest in the blood of Jesus", or "betting your life on God", etc.? In some cases, even regarding core doctrines, the actual diffences among various self-identified Evangelicals are as great as, or greater than, the rhetorical differences between Evangelicals and Catholics. Evangelicals have long lived under the delusion that we share the same beliefs because we use the same language. We have become "experts" at distinguishing "us" from "them" by tuning in to the jargon of our subculture. If anything postitive has come out of Postmodernism, it is the shattering of this myth. But I'm not giving up on language; I'm arguing for more--deeper, more probing. Let's talk. Should we hire Catholics? For the sake of the Catholics, not yet. Knowing Baptists, if we really start talking, we'll probably all fire each other before we hire any Catholics.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting and difficult question, though I think the answers depend on other concerns. For example: It seems unfair, in a Christian context, to ask a fellow Christian NOT to proseletize. I can't imagine telling someone, at a Christian institution, to keep their Christian convictions as private as possible. It seems unbalanced to me.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not this is acceptable seems to be a question best reserved for administration. What is the history of the institution? Who attends? Why do they attend? What is the vision for the future of the department/college/institution? To what degree will the extra diversity afforded by a Catholic professor serve to benefit students, or merely distract them?
Further, to what degree do the faculty and administration consider Catholicism to be not only false, but dangerously so? For example, I myself, knowing the difference between substance, essence, and accident, still consider transubstantiation false (shocking as that might appear). I don't consider the belief dangerously wrong, merely mistaken. However, excluding other Christians from the Lord's table, in essence breaking fellowship with the universal church, is a dangerously wrong belief. The practice of denying the body and blood to faithful Christians is scandalous, and continues to this day.
I also seek a reunification of the church - as soon as our Catholic brothers and sisters realize the truth of the priesthood of believers and the independence of the local church, the better. If we are to be re-unified, I sincerely hope it is in the proper direction. But then, everyone seeks unity under the banner they think right, which is little more than preaching to the choir.
All that aside, if the institution is willing to have dangerously false ideas about Christianity advocated by its professors, then so be it. Such a decision, I imagine, will be a good course to sail for some places, and not so for others. This, of course, applies in both directions. The Catholic institutions that have Protestant faculty (a friend of mine is just such a professor) have had to make peace with the possibility that their Protestant professors, being as winsome and dynamic as they are, will almost certainly lead some of the student body away from Catholicism.
Wonderful in my mind - a tragedy in theirs. Similarly, if I were an administrator, I would have to weigh the value of some of the students being inspired to break fellowship with each other. But this is an evaluation that I myself, feel unequal to make.
This is an interesting question, Philip. In my view (too simplistic, as always) the most important part of the answer has to do with the institution's ability (and right) to make decisions for itself, considering any consequences that the decision might bear among its constituents. An institution should certainly reserve the right to hire Catholic scholars, but it should NOT then shy away from consequences.
ReplyDeleteClearly, some of the constituencies may see such a move as almost inconsistent with Christianity (in their interpretation) while others will see this move as a timely broadening (and deepening) of the institution that has grown up with a narrow appeal.
So if I ran a Baptist University, the decision about hiring a Catholic faculty member to me would be largely a cost/benefit decision. Since I like conversation, I would not shy away from broader conversation on campus (which I would see as a benefit), but I would have to weigh this desire against the potential negative impact to the institution from the various Baptist bodies (a cost), or segments of student population that might resent such a move. Then I would carefully look at the institution's mission statement which I would have promised to help implement, and I would have to see whether the benefit toward furthering the institution toward its mission would outweigh the cost. In the case of the institution with which I am most familiar, the cost of hiring a Catholic faculty member would, I'm afraid, outweigh the benefit.