I'm not sure I'm following you. Your three points are definitely highly relevant in divisions in evangelicalism -- are you saying that Wheaton is institutionally moving to the "left" on those three points, while the community that supports it self-consciously identifies with the "right"? What does that have to do with Vought?
My read on this kerfuffle was that Wheaton's constituents, being primarily affluent, college-educated Whites, hold the typical affluent, college-educated white opinion of the Trump administration (they dislike it), but Wheaton, as an institution, was following a more traditional playbook where alumnus appointed to high-ranking government service = high status, influence, and prestige.
There's truth to what you're saying there. But I don't really care about the Donald Trump context that much. I recommended using the "tmatt trio" questions because the tensions on that campus, and others, are much older than Orange Man Bad. The important divisions are moral and doctrinal. Thus, my questions.
It seems that in recent years American Evangelicalism is becoming .ord like the useless liberal protestant mainline. Watch, like the awful Pope, they will start weakening on homosexuality.
The question really is, how do Christians relate their faith to the outside world? It’s a question as old as the faith itself, and a question that Niebuhr discusses in Christ and Culture.
I find it fascinating that Sanders engaged in this topic with Vought. Usually he talks about economic inequalities, but he’s more well-versed than people credit him with.
There’s an interesting documentary called “Same God” that goes in-depth about the controversy cited in your post. Have you seen it?
I think we are interested in different issues here. How a college relates to the outside world is a matter of the academic community applying it's defined worldview to that topic. A conservative Catholic college defending the Catechism would STILL be relating it's faith to the outside world. Niebuhr would, in some cases, call that Christ against culture, but not in others. At Wheaton, the issue is whether THE FACULTY gets to oppose the worldview of the college -- that their covenant requires them to defend. Right?
17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Jesus looked up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.”[a]
I could be all alone, on this, but weren’t the three curses God placed upon the serpent, woman and man - in Genesis 3 - the Condemnation? And, Biblically, isn’t it officially “lifted” in the following passage: Revelation 22:3 “And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.” The “curse” is not specifically “lifted” between Genesis 3 and Revelation 22:3 (not withstanding Christ’s atonement).
I'm not sure I'm following you. Your three points are definitely highly relevant in divisions in evangelicalism -- are you saying that Wheaton is institutionally moving to the "left" on those three points, while the community that supports it self-consciously identifies with the "right"? What does that have to do with Vought?
My read on this kerfuffle was that Wheaton's constituents, being primarily affluent, college-educated Whites, hold the typical affluent, college-educated white opinion of the Trump administration (they dislike it), but Wheaton, as an institution, was following a more traditional playbook where alumnus appointed to high-ranking government service = high status, influence, and prestige.
There's truth to what you're saying there. But I don't really care about the Donald Trump context that much. I recommended using the "tmatt trio" questions because the tensions on that campus, and others, are much older than Orange Man Bad. The important divisions are moral and doctrinal. Thus, my questions.
This is why the conservative alumni asked trustees to start asking covenant questions.
It seems that in recent years American Evangelicalism is becoming .ord like the useless liberal protestant mainline. Watch, like the awful Pope, they will start weakening on homosexuality.
The question really is, how do Christians relate their faith to the outside world? It’s a question as old as the faith itself, and a question that Niebuhr discusses in Christ and Culture.
I find it fascinating that Sanders engaged in this topic with Vought. Usually he talks about economic inequalities, but he’s more well-versed than people credit him with.
There’s an interesting documentary called “Same God” that goes in-depth about the controversy cited in your post. Have you seen it?
I think we are interested in different issues here. How a college relates to the outside world is a matter of the academic community applying it's defined worldview to that topic. A conservative Catholic college defending the Catechism would STILL be relating it's faith to the outside world. Niebuhr would, in some cases, call that Christ against culture, but not in others. At Wheaton, the issue is whether THE FACULTY gets to oppose the worldview of the college -- that their covenant requires them to defend. Right?
Ugh. After watching the "Friendly atheist" video I feel like I need a bath and a purification ritual.
What's "friendly" about pompous, self-righteous snark with misinformation thrown in as a bonus?
On the topic of Condemnation:
Jesus at John 3:17 & 18
17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Also relevant:
John 8:10-12 Revised Standard Version
Jesus looked up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.”[a]
I could be all alone, on this, but weren’t the three curses God placed upon the serpent, woman and man - in Genesis 3 - the Condemnation? And, Biblically, isn’t it officially “lifted” in the following passage: Revelation 22:3 “And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.” The “curse” is not specifically “lifted” between Genesis 3 and Revelation 22:3 (not withstanding Christ’s atonement).