Can I Sign This "Affirmation of Faith" at a Non-Catholic College?

[EphusPitch]

I’m considering applying for a job at Bethel University in Minnesota. Like a lot of Christian colleges, BU has an “Affirmation of Faith” that, in the event that I were to be offered the job, I would probably have to sign or consent to somehow.

I’m Catholic, and BU’s Baptist. I wouldn’t mind being a Catholic duck in a Baptist pond, but I don’t want to commit any heresies by affirming something that goes against Catholic teaching. The trouble is that I’m not sure whether anything in BU’s Affirmation of Faith does that.

(The Affirmation of Faith starts on page 5 of the BU Faculty Handbook. I can’t include a link in this post, but if you Google “Bethel University Faculty Handbook” it comes up as a top result.)

Can I sign off on this statement without betraying Catholic doctrine?

(Thanks in advance for your help!)

 

[on_the_hill]

Well…maybe an expert will reply. But I do see a problem with the Statement’s statement that the Bible is the supreme authority on matters of faith and conduct. It cuts out the Magesterium.

 

[Mtatum1958]

Some of it depends on how generous your interpretations of their code are.

They profess two ordinances, we have seven.
Baptismal regeneration is common, but not believed exactly in the same manner.
Baptism by immersion, yes but we also believe in sprinkling and pouring.
The Eucharist (Lord’s Supper) is a commemoration, but so much more.

Some may consider it hairsplitting, but, depending on your position and duties, they may be more important. Are they aware of your Faith? Personally, I would want to be as forthcoming as needed for the position in question.

 

[Wesrock]

Well…maybe an expert will reply. But I do see a problem with the Statement’s statement that the Bible is the supreme authority on matters of faith and conduct. It cuts out the Magesterium.

Some other things I noticed:

• Substitionary atonement
• Only two “ordinances”
• Their idea of religious liberty and church cooperation
• Perhaps implicitly denying Baptism as regenerating
• Perhaps premillenialism is suggested here, with Christ returning to a fallen earth to rule for a literal thousand years in a worldly kingdom rather than the heaven and earth being remade at his return.

Some of these were more explicit. I may have read between the lines on some of them, perhaps too much.

 

[Wesrock]

I’d make an appointment to discuss it with your priest.

 

[Crocus]

Presuming you are applying for a non-exempt position. Affirmation of Faith is required as

part of his/her employment agreement, except in the case of the College of Arts & Sciences and the College of Adult & Professional Studies and the Graduate School in those details dealing with the ordinances where divergent viewpoints have been previously agreed upon.

The college also requires participation in religious life of the community including active attendance at a local Baptist church while you are there.

You may not get an interview, but if you do, you have some questions to ask (and answer) concerning how you may fit in.

 

[EphusPitch]

Thanks folks!

Given all of this, I’ll probably pass on the application. Too many red flags I didn’t pick up on in my first cursory read.

 

[LilyM]

Presuming you are applying for a non-exempt position. Affirmation of Faith is required as

part of his/her employment agreement, except in the case of the College of Arts & Sciences and the College of Adult & Professional Studies and the Graduate School in those details dealing with the ordinances where divergent viewpoints have been previously agreed upon.

I’d be worried about this in particular - especially if “active attendance” means you are required to receive Communion or the like.

It may be worth asking what if any accommodations they might make for a non-Baptist.

 

[ZMystiCat]

For context on my background: I was never officially Baptist, but I was raised Protestant, including a Baptist curriculum throughout much of my schooling.

That said:

Word of God

This is essentially a very watered-down Sola Scriptura. While it does remove some of the elements of Sola Scriptura that Catholics would take issue with, it is still essentially making Christianity a, as the Catechism puts it, “religion of the book”. This is taught against in CCC 108. Ultimately, it is a way of saying that Tradition and Church don’t really hold binding authority in these matters. (Granted, we would agree that the Church is a servant of Scripture, but Baptists would take that much further.)

The Trinity…God the Father…Jesus Christ…The Holy Spirit

There’s no explicit problem with these parts, but this is an area where Catholics and Protestants generally agree on all important matters. Some may take issue with their use of the term “substitutionary atonement”, but Church doesn’t reject all forms of substitutionary atonement, just penal substitutionary atonement. With that said, penal substitutionary atonement is very popular in Protestantism, so clarification is needed.

Regeneration

There might be hints of Total Depravity in this section. Clarification is needed.

The Church…Religious Liberty…Church Cooperation

These sections contain some of the most obvious red flags. There’s a very clear rejection of any ecclesiology resembling Catholicism under “Religious Liberty”, and that goes up to and including the Papacy, even if they don’t mention the Pope explicitly. Hints of the same can be found in the other sections. There’s also usual rejections of physical unity, only requiring spiritual community.

This is unsurprising, though. Ecclesiology is, perhaps expectedly, one of the major ways that Protestants disagree with the Church.

Christian Conduct

No real problem with the content.

The Ordinances

Lots of stuff in this section:

1. Their use of the term “ordinance” rather than “sacrament” is telling. Often, it means that they don’t believe grace is conferred.
2. There’s only two instead of seven, which a dividing point between Catholics and most Protestants.
3. They enforce immersion baptism, which is not required by Catholics and might imply an invalid baptism for many, many Catholics.
4. Baptism is limited to “believers”, which means infants aren’t included, which again excludes many Catholics.

On the plus side, there’s no explicit denial of the Real Presence. They certainly don’t believe in it, but they at least don’t deny the existence of it.

Religious Liberty…Church Cooperation

All the complaints I have against their description of the Church come back up here, except they’re much more explicit about what the Church would take issue with.