Aug
25
2010
Beckwith and Trueman on D’Souza, Catholicism, and King’s College
A couple of thoughtful reflections here on the appointment of a non-practicing Catholic (Dinesh D’Souza) as the President of a college in the evangelical-Protestant tradition (The King’s College in Manhattan).
Roman Catholic Frank Beckwith:
Yes, D’Souza is correct that the word “Protestant” does not appear in this document [King's State of Faith that the President must affirm]. But just from what I’ve reproduced above, it is clear that The King’s College is committed to Reformed Protestantism, and not as one side in a “mere squabble,” but as an identifiable cluster of doctrines that the institution believes is in fact true. The college is so committed to it that it requires its faculty to sign it “without mental reservation.” It is the sort of ecclesial confession that takes theology seriously, that actually asserts that this community of believers in fact believes that its theology is part of a knowledge tradition for which its members may offer reasons that they find plausible and compelling. You have to respect that, even if you disagree with some of it, as I do. For that reason, I cannot call my differences with my Protestant friends a “mere squabble,” though I continue to love and appreciate these brethren, from whom I have learned, and continue to learn, so much.
Beckwith also shows that C.S. Lewis himself would have disagreed with D’Souza’s mere-Christianity explanation of significant theological differences as “mere squabbles.” Read the whole thing.
Reformed church historian Carl Trueman, responding to the idea that he has confused The King’s College with a seminary:
Nothing could be further from the truth. My problem, rather, is twofold: first, what does it mean when an institution has a doctrinal statement, which must be subscribed by all faculty and which presumably forms at least part of the basis for fundraising and student recruitment, and which then appears to be sidelined in a key hire? I doubt that the institution wrote the document when, in a moment of madness, it confused itself with a seminary. Still, I have said all that I want to say on that.
Second (and this was really the underlying burden of my original post): in what does a Christian world and life view (and the various synonymous terms) consist? If a liberal arts college says that it teaches such a thing, then doctrine is surely important. All world and life views are doctrinal, after all; and a Christian one is presumably constituted by Christian doctrine in some basic way. Further, as the very term indicates total comprehensiveness, the teaching of such a thing does not seem to me to require any less clarity on doctrine at a foundational level than the curriculum at a seminary would so do (albeit the curricula at the two types of institution might be markedly very different). For example, does my view of God’s personal being affect my view of the world? Does my view of God’s sovereignty affect my view of the world? Does my view of scripture affect my view of the world? Does my view of justification affect my view of the world? Does my view of eschatology affect my view of the world? In every case the answer is surely ‘Of course. Is that a question?’
You can read the whole thing here.