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.
Something similar happened in May 2019 when the President of Taylor University in Indiana invited Mike Pence to deliver the commencement address. For obvious reasons, he was viewed as a representative of the very un-Christian Trump administration. Many faculty and students protested the decision. Pence was not disinvited, he came and gave his speech. Dozens of student in the audience quietly stood up and left the auditorium before he spoke. The following summer, the President resigned.
To his credit, when push came to shove, Pence demonstrated his integrity and allegiance to the Constitution. — I was at college in the early 70s when there really was an evangelical left focused on compassion and justice. That seemed to dissipate by the time Reagan was elected in 1980. Christians have always been divided on the message of Jesus — those eager to condemn any who disagree and those who lean toward the position That All Shall Be Saved (the title of a recent spirited book by David Bentley Hart that I highly recommend).
500+ years of Protestants "agreeing on the essentials" except that list dwindles as time goes on eventually as the Anglican and European state Lutheran bodies found out in the 20th century belief in the divinity of Christ and the resurrection becomes optional. American Bapticostalist Evangelicalism is going to find this out the hard way in the 21st century. There will be syncretic yoga churches, syncretic mosque-churches, etc. The x-files ecclesiological cope will continue as it has that some where is "the church."
For the complaints of some apologists, I won't name names, that to preach One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is "exclusivist" this is where non "exclusivism" with zero ecclesial discipline lead (is American Evangeliclaism even capable of ecclesial discipline?) The future of evangelicalism in this country is institutional capture by all the worst people and it will be the types of perrenialist ecumenism that 20th century Orthodox saints warned.
I'm lost. Help me. This seems like a political post more than a religious post, and in the subtitle you said the opposite that these fights were about doctrine. Help me see.
Jesus Christ fulfilled the law and reduced it to love your neighbor.
He did not die to release us from our sins or our sin. He died so that he might know our lives and death and after death completely so that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit might understand.
I am Presbyterian.
I have been guilty of focus on law. No more. Law creates order so that we are free in Jesus Christ to Love Each Other. Beyond that, it has no role.
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?
The question is whether faculty have the right to attack or undercut doctrines in a covenant they signed. Voight’s actions in public life are fair game. He asked the senators if they had complaints about his actions towards others in public work. They had none.
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?
Right, we may be on different wavelengths, but I think we're both in agreement that the tensions have been going on for decades rather than a new phenomenon. The present times may have exacerbated some tensions.
On the one hand, I was more or less referencing the fact that the Sanders-Vought conversations references the documentary, which does deal with how faculty handles disagreements with the college's worldview. This was honestly a side note to my main point.
My main point was to discuss how do Christians handle the interactions between their beliefs and the broader culture. I think some alumni, and Sanders, are concerned Vought would use his beliefs to discriminate against people in the public sphere who believe differently than him. The alumni, and perhaps Sanders implied it, are arguing for "Christian charity" or working for the good of all people in public spheres.
I would argue the clashes you mention are more related to how people see the role of Christian faith in public spheres, rather than doctrine in general. One group might believe the Christian faith as a faith practice first, and believers bring their virtue into the public sphere for the betterment of all. In Neibuhr's terms, perhaps this is Christ above culture, or Christ of culture. Another group might believe in using rule of law to push culture/politics/people towards a Christian worldview. Perhaps this is Christ against culture or Christ and culture in paradox. I think the dueling alumni letters reflect this clash of relating faith to culture. One could argue both outlooks follow the Christ transforms culture view as well, but through different approaches.
One can be a theological conservative, yet have different views of how to relate their faith to the public sphere, which includes, among other things, culture and politics.
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.
Something similar happened in May 2019 when the President of Taylor University in Indiana invited Mike Pence to deliver the commencement address. For obvious reasons, he was viewed as a representative of the very un-Christian Trump administration. Many faculty and students protested the decision. Pence was not disinvited, he came and gave his speech. Dozens of student in the audience quietly stood up and left the auditorium before he spoke. The following summer, the President resigned.
To his credit, when push came to shove, Pence demonstrated his integrity and allegiance to the Constitution. — I was at college in the early 70s when there really was an evangelical left focused on compassion and justice. That seemed to dissipate by the time Reagan was elected in 1980. Christians have always been divided on the message of Jesus — those eager to condemn any who disagree and those who lean toward the position That All Shall Be Saved (the title of a recent spirited book by David Bentley Hart that I highly recommend).
500+ years of Protestants "agreeing on the essentials" except that list dwindles as time goes on eventually as the Anglican and European state Lutheran bodies found out in the 20th century belief in the divinity of Christ and the resurrection becomes optional. American Bapticostalist Evangelicalism is going to find this out the hard way in the 21st century. There will be syncretic yoga churches, syncretic mosque-churches, etc. The x-files ecclesiological cope will continue as it has that some where is "the church."
For the complaints of some apologists, I won't name names, that to preach One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is "exclusivist" this is where non "exclusivism" with zero ecclesial discipline lead (is American Evangeliclaism even capable of ecclesial discipline?) The future of evangelicalism in this country is institutional capture by all the worst people and it will be the types of perrenialist ecumenism that 20th century Orthodox saints warned.
Here here! Proof of agreement from my alumnus self: https://open.substack.com/pub/whitneylanewiley/p/first-things-first?r=3oyeot&utm_medium=ios
I'm lost. Help me. This seems like a political post more than a religious post, and in the subtitle you said the opposite that these fights were about doctrine. Help me see.
I stand by the post as written. The doctrinal battles on some campuses have been going on for decades -- far before the current political framework.
Jesus Christ fulfilled the law and reduced it to love your neighbor.
He did not die to release us from our sins or our sin. He died so that he might know our lives and death and after death completely so that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit might understand.
I am Presbyterian.
I have been guilty of focus on law. No more. Law creates order so that we are free in Jesus Christ to Love Each Other. Beyond that, it has no role.
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?
The question is whether faculty have the right to attack or undercut doctrines in a covenant they signed. Voight’s actions in public life are fair game. He asked the senators if they had complaints about his actions towards others in public work. They had none.
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?
Right, we may be on different wavelengths, but I think we're both in agreement that the tensions have been going on for decades rather than a new phenomenon. The present times may have exacerbated some tensions.
On the one hand, I was more or less referencing the fact that the Sanders-Vought conversations references the documentary, which does deal with how faculty handles disagreements with the college's worldview. This was honestly a side note to my main point.
My main point was to discuss how do Christians handle the interactions between their beliefs and the broader culture. I think some alumni, and Sanders, are concerned Vought would use his beliefs to discriminate against people in the public sphere who believe differently than him. The alumni, and perhaps Sanders implied it, are arguing for "Christian charity" or working for the good of all people in public spheres.
I would argue the clashes you mention are more related to how people see the role of Christian faith in public spheres, rather than doctrine in general. One group might believe the Christian faith as a faith practice first, and believers bring their virtue into the public sphere for the betterment of all. In Neibuhr's terms, perhaps this is Christ above culture, or Christ of culture. Another group might believe in using rule of law to push culture/politics/people towards a Christian worldview. Perhaps this is Christ against culture or Christ and culture in paradox. I think the dueling alumni letters reflect this clash of relating faith to culture. One could argue both outlooks follow the Christ transforms culture view as well, but through different approaches.
One can be a theological conservative, yet have different views of how to relate their faith to the public sphere, which includes, among other things, culture and politics.
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).