Joining the Club?

“Trey” may think that Carl Trueman puts it more graciously than we have, but the Lord Protector of Westminster Seminary has another stellar post about the significance of The King’s College’s new president, a Roman Catholic, Dinesh D’Souza. Trueman writes (but the entire post is worth reading):

OK. So evangelicalism writ large verges on the theologically incoherent and indifferent. That’s not news. But why pick D’Souza? What is it he offers that is so distinctive? Could it be his commitment to conservative economic and social policies? Is that the essence of the really important world view at the King’s College, compared to which disagreements over the Pope and justification are mere sideshows? If so, we can see this appointment as a certain strand of evangelicalism definitively coming clean: it is not the theological issues listed above that are considered critical; it is rather the conservative political and social vision of thinkers such as Marvin Olasky. Again, just to clarify — this is not in itself to criticise such a position (though my critical views of such are surely no secret); but to point to the skewed priorities of `the Christian worldview.’

Just to clarify, this post is intended positively. After all, the critiques of Rome and evangelicalism are in such short supply among Protestants that we adherents of Reformed Protestantism need to stick together.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Joining the Club?

  1. Thanks for posting on this.

    I have long wondered how the World Magazine crowd can, in good conscience, remain separated from Rome. For a number of years, Olasky, Belz, and their apparent acolytes (such as the Baylys) have been promoting a “Christian worldview”–a worldview that sadly seems to be more characterized by advocacy for state-enforced social conservatism and neoconservative foreign policy than by the saving work of Jesus Christ.

    If the doctrinal differences that separate us from the Papists indeed are insignificant, as the D’Souza’s appointment suggests, then it seems fair to ask why the “Christian worldview” crowd isn’t sitting in RCIA classes on Sunday mornings.

    Like

  2. When he says,

    “what is the one thing needful in evangelicalism and her future leaders? Is it for many, perchance, not so much a good understanding of the Reformation but rather a commitment to right wing economic policies?”

    I take it as more evidence that makes me think Trueman’s use of the term “radical” at the end of his recent book discussion on Reformed Forum (see my comments on dgh’s “Reformed Militant of the Week” post earlier) may have been a slip of the tongue.

    One can hope, at least.

    Like

  3. Hmm — Seems to me that something like the presidency of a college would be entirely in the common sphere, not the church. Why can’t a Romanist administer college? Any objection based on his religion seems way too 1K to me. May be the college is just seeing the error of its way, and correcting the confusion of a 1K “Christian” world-view or a much more correct 2K world-view.

    Like

  4. Andrew, you really are trying to hard. Even Kuyper would not have approved a Roman Catholic heading the Free University.

    Like

  5. The piece to the puzzle, Andrew, is that worldviewism understands education to be a calling of the church. If that’s the case, what sense does it make to have a Catholic at the healm?

    Like

  6. I can say that I’ve heard D’Souza debate Hitchens on the simple topic of theism, and do quite well. I have noticed evangelicals debate each other on the finer points of doctrine or dogma, but one “scandal of the evangelical mind” seems to be an inability to defend God as a reality without resorting to fideism.

    In the very least, the D’Souza regime might teach the more vocal among a certain brand of evangelicals how to express their beliefs coherently and stop making Christians and Christianity look like idiots and idiocy respectively.

    Like

  7. Any Christian arguing for the simple topic of theism is making Christians and Christianity look like idiots and idiocy respectively.

    Like

  8. I once heard Dinesh D’Souza speaking out for theistic evolution as a tactic against the naturalist attack on theism. Strange…

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s