another Doc Hawk / “one god” Wheaton controversy round-up

Awhile back I provided links to some good, thought provoking commentary by Christian philosophers. Now, some other excellent pieces I’ve read, by philosophers and not. I think Christian philosopher Dr. Kelly James Clark hits the nail on the head:

…many Christians mistakenly assume that two people worship the same God only if they have identical or nearly identical descriptions of God. This assumption, which may seem obviously true, is deeply flawed both philosophically and spiritually.

Two people can worship the same God with incomplete, incompatible and even false descriptions of God.

…Relating to a person requires only that one be acquainted with that person, either directly or indirectly (through a chain of testimony that traces back to someone who was directly acquainted with that person). This is a good thing because our descriptions of people are often mistaken and contradictory.

Back to God. Muslims and Christians worship the same God if one or both are either directly acquainted with God (perhaps through a religious experience) or if both are part of a chain of testimony that traces back to someone who was directly acquainted with God (say, Abraham). Worshipping the same God does not require either person to get their description of God just right (or even right at all).

So does author/blogger Benjamin Corey:

In ancient times there was a man named Abraham who is revered in three of the world’s great religions. Abraham, of course, is considered the father of the Jewish people as well as Arabs and then Muslims. Essentially, Abraham somewhat founded a religion that went into three different streams: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Here’s the important part: all three of these religions are Abrahamic religions, trying to worship Abraham’s God.

And this is where we can say all three religions do in fact worship the same God, as all three religions are pointing to, offering worship, and attempting to describe, the same object.

…Affirming the basic fact that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are three religions attempting to worship and describe the same God (Abraham’s God, whatever one calls him), doesn’t mean we’re saying all three religions are the same, equally valid, correct, or anything else. We’re simply pointing to the fact that we’re attempting to describe the same entity.

About the controversy itself, rather than the interesting theological issues discussed in it, Dr. David Gushee argues that the situation at bottom political. Wheaton is not only evangelical, but also overwhelmingly politically conservative. And the problem is that

A doctrinal statement cannot protect a school from accidentally hiring someone who will sometimes offend a 95% politically conservative constituency. Such troublesome faculty — I was once one of them — repeatedly force administrators to have to explain to trustees and donors that academic freedom protects professors who offer unwelcome political views, as long as they do not violate the school’s doctrinal statement.

… Recall that what first caught everyone’s attention at Wheaton was Dr. Hawkins’ decision to wear a hijab on campus in solidarity with Muslims. Sources at Wheaton tell me it was not the first time that she had irritated the Wheaton administration by taking public, politically uncomfortable positions. But in this political climate, I am sure that protests from key people in the Wheaton constituency went through the roof. So then, all of a sudden, there was a problem with the professor’s adherence to the doctrinal statement.

…So Wheaton is essentially saying this: Tenure will not protect you if you too visibly offend the conservative political views of our constituency. Whatever conservative politics looks like right now, that also is mandatory for faculty. The same is true in many other evangelical universities.

Sadly, I think this must be correct. In overwhelmingly, overconfidently and self-righteously liberal secular academia, a professor might well be fired, or never hired, or not tenured, because of his or her conservative activism – or even just by not being orthodox enough by contemporary progressive standards. But at conservative evangelical places like Wheaton, it is the liberals/progressives who must tread lightly. And she didn’t.

I think this is most unfortunate. Loyalty to the gospel is one thing, and loyalty to some political philosophy or ideology is another. Yes, a lot of the Christians now pointing out the political subject of this dispute are on the left side of the American political spectrum – I assume, actually, that everyone I’ve linked on this post typically votes Democrat. But conservatives too should insist on this point vehemently, even when so doing requires us to be annoyed by our colleagues. We should give the tolerance we expect to receive from our liberal friends, colleagues, and fellow Christians.

What we are seeing at Wheaton right now is that the things we say we believe on paper are actually just placeholders for a sociologically defined in-group. When someone says something that sounds out of step with what “We” should say, we scurry to find some reason why what was just said is a contradiction to what one MUST deduce from the words on the page.

Of course, Christianity is a distinct in-group. But who’s in should be defined by the essentials of the apostolic gospel, not by adherence to or denial of controversial theories of any sort, be they theological, philosophical, or political. If Wheaton College wants to also demand a statement of political loyalty, it is free to do so; but as of now, it hypocritically says that only evangelical theological beliefs are required. Better to make it explicit, or to eliminate the conservative political requirement. As it defines itself as a Christian institution, I think they should go the second route.

Finally, some excellent reporting by Time’s reporter (and Wheaton alumna) Elizabeth Dias, filled with lots of dirty details. Among them,

[Provost Stan Jones, to another Wheaton prof] Larycia Hawkins also meant something similarly innocuous, but her theological comments are being taken up as an endorsement of Islam and a clear and emphatic statement that Islam and Christianity are approximately the same.

Rather, mistaken for. Wheaton should have defended her and taken the opportunity to teach the public the difference between controversial theories of religious pluralism and the innocuous and true claim that Christians and Muslims both aim to serve (of course in different ways, and with different theologies) the same creator. And from the same story, Dr. Hawkins herself comments,

The administration, particularly Provost Stan Jones, insists that my Facebook post is a theological statement rather than an act of human solidarity emanating out of my faith commitment, that strikes me a drawing a line in the evangelical sand, and my body happens to be in the middle of that.

And sounds, contrary to what I speculated before, like Dr. Jones is the chief inquisitor.

Jones will prosecute Hawkins at a hearing of nine tenured faculty members in the coming weeks. They will then submit a recommendation to Wheaton’s president Philip Ryken, who will submit a recommendation to the Board of Trustees, who will issue a final decision about her future at the college.

Will they do the right thing?