Professor at CHristian college suspended for her outspoken support of Muslims

[Chief_Pedant]

@Johanna

I’m unpersuaded by your argument because it’s seriously incoherent. It’s so far removed from the actual question that it isn’t even wrong. What you dismiss as “a local tale in Ethiopia” has far-reaching major significance, as it is the starting point for the entirety of Muslim-Christian relations. It shows that from the beginning Christians accepted that Muslims worship the same Godhead and shared similar beliefs. In Islam, Jesus is the Messiah and the Word. You haven’t begun to address these facts. If doctrinal or theological differences produce different “Gods,” then the 40,000 different Christian sects are worshiping up to 40,000 different “Gods,” which is why your argument can’t hold any water.

This sort of thing is why I quickly weary of theological debates. It all crumbles into incoherence in the absence of primary agreement on certain shared premises. Without first agreeing to share any premises, the different arguments cannot even engage one another in any significant way.

Let’s start with this premise: Do Muslims consider Jesus to be “true God”? That’s how Wheaton’s statement of faith puts it.

You seem to want to argue points about “Muslim-Christian relations” and whether Muslims share the the same Godhead.

You also seem to advance think that some Muslims in Ethiopa advancing “Jesus as the Messiah” or “Jesus as the Word” has something to do with this.

You are incorrect.

What is at issue here is Wheaton’s statement of faith; not a general history of Christianity nor what other groups have thought through the years.

Wheaton’s statement of faith is clear: God is a triune God, and Jesus is true God as part of the Trinity.

Muslim teaching is equally clear: Jesus is a prophet, but not true God. In Islam there is only one true God, and the Trinity is blasphemy.
*“In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is a single being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a communion of three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Within Islam, however, such a concept of plurality within God is a denial of monotheism and foreign to the revelation found in Muslim scripture. Shirk, the act of ascribing partners to God – whether they be sons, daughters, or other partners – is considered to be blasphemous in Islam.”
*
It is completely irrelevant what someone said somewhere about Christianity, since Wheaton’s statement of faith is very specific and Wheaton’s hiring policy requires faculty to sign that exact verbiage.

As to whether or not Islam thinks Jesus is true God, I think you’ll need more than some fleeing Meccans to suggest that the average Islamic position is that Jesus is true God.

You can see my comments earlier about why the Jewish and Christian Yahweh is similar to the Islamic Allah. I mean, when you are making up stuff you can define anything as anything, and steal the other guy’s God as you please.

But Wheaton is stuck on differentiating those who accept the deity of Jesus from those who do not, and it is this point that for them makes it unacceptable–particularly for a faculty member who signed the statement of faith–to proclaim that Muslims and Christians worship the same God.

It is not the case that the average Muslim consider Jesus to be true God, but it is the case that Wheaton’s statement of faith requires accepting that as a condition to be faculty.

[Chief_Pedant]

يٰۤـاَهۡلَ الۡكِتٰبِ لَا تَغۡلُوۡا فِىۡ دِيۡـنِكُمۡوَلَا تَقُوۡلُوۡا عَلَى اللّٰهِ اِلَّا الۡحَـقَّ​ ؕ اِنَّمَا الۡمَسِيۡحُ عِيۡسَى ابۡنُ مَرۡيَمَ رَسُوۡلُاللّٰهِ وَكَلِمَتُهٗ​ ۚ اَ لۡقٰٮهَاۤ اِلٰى مَرۡيَمَ وَرُوۡحٌ مِّنۡهُ​ فَاٰمِنُوۡا بِاللّٰهِ وَرُسُلِهٖ​ ​ۚ وَلَا تَقُوۡلُوۡا ثَلٰثَةٌ​ ؕ اِنْتَهُوۡا خَيۡرًا لَّـكُمۡ​ ؕ اِنَّمَا اللّٰهُ اِلٰـهٌ وَّاحِدٌ​ ؕ سُبۡحٰنَهٗۤ اَنۡ يَّكُوۡنَ لَهٗ وَلَدٌ​ ۘ لَهٗ مَا فِى السَّمٰوٰتِ وَمَا فِى الۡاَرۡضِ​ؕ وَكَفٰى بِاللّٰهِ وَكِيۡلًا

(Qur’an 4:171) People of the Book! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, and attribute to Allah nothing except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of Allah, and His command that He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him (which led to Mary’s conception). So believe in Allah and in His Messengers, and do not say: (Allah is a) trinity. Give up this assertion; it would be better for you. Allah is indeed just one God. Far be it from His glory that He should have a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth. Allah is sufficient for a guardian.

[foolsguinea]

The Christian Trinity is a goofy idea, but it is ostensibly a variation on a singular Abrahamic God, and it is meant to be singular in some sense.

If God is real, and singular (in some sense), then what is the Christian Trinity, and what is Mohammed’s Allah? Some possibilities (not an exhaustive list):[ul]
[li]There is one true god, and none of the Abrahamic religions are particularly close to describing him; one may as well worship Shiva.[/li][li]There is one true God, the God of Abraham and of Moses, the god of the Samaritans and the Jews, but not of those innovators the Mandaeans, Christians, or Mohammedans.[/li][li]There is one true God, but the Jews got him wrong. Only [some gnostic tradition] gets him right.[/li][li]There is one true God, who exists and is misunderstood by Samaritans, Jews, Gnostics, Christians, Muslims, and Baha’i. He has occasionally tried to speak to most of these groups with limited success.[/li][li]There is one true God, and the Muslims worship him in their way. The Christians, however, are pagans deceived that their tradition is even Abrahamic, let alone divine.[/li][li]There is one true God, but Mohammed was deceived by a lying angel who lied, and his tradition is counter to God.[/li][li]There is one true God, but his self-proclaimed prophets are an unreliable bunch in general, and Mohammed was unreliable in particular.[/li][/ul]
But we can simplify this to the following five combinations:
A: Christians mostly have the true God, Muslims mostly don’t.
B: Christians and Muslims both mostly have the true God.
C: Muslims mostly have the true God, Christians mostly don’t.
D1: Christians and Muslims are both mostly wrong about God, but are largely consistent in the (false) God they have.
D2: Christians and Muslims are both mostly wrong about God, and are also mostly inconsistent with each other.

So, here’s where we are:
Prof. Hawkins is asserting or assuming either B or D1.
Chief Pedant is flat-out asserting or assuming the inverse set: Anything but B or D1.
Have I got that right?

If either D1 or D2, this is a tempest in a teacup, an argument over a distinction of perhaps only small theological relevancy. You can be consoled that Christians agree or that they disagree with Muslims, but they’re still both wrong.

If A, B, or C, then that means somebody’s kind of right about something, however imperfectly. If the Trinity is One True Godhead of Unified Gods, then it’s still pretty close to Muslim monotheism.

And then it’s like C. S. Lewis said in “The Case for Christianity”: The fact that both sides believe in One God makes them closer than if one side believes in One God and the other in No Gods, or in Multiple Non-Unified Gods. Does it matter if their idea of God is imperfect? Whose is perfect?

Even if Jesus was a Devil, or Mohammed was misled by a lying angel, the worshippers are trying to pray to the One True God. To quote Lewis again (*The Last Battle *this time): “All the service thou hast done to Tash, I accept as service done to me.”

Whoever sent Jesus, whatever angel Mohammed did or did not speak with, the heirs of their traditions traditionally understand themselves to be seeking to follow the God of Abraham, Moses, Elijah, and so on. It seems strange to insist that really they’re praying to different gods even though they are trying to pray to the same one.

[foolsguinea]

Now, imagine henotheistic realism: Imagine that God is not God, but a label claimed by small*-g* gods. Imagine no One True God, just liars (liar gods, liar spirits, liar prophets, liar Sufficiently Advanced E.T.'s) in God pants.

In such a world, Christians can be worshipping Gee-zuss, who pretends to be the One True God, Jews can be worshipping JahWay, who pretends to be the One True God, and Muslims can be worshipping, um, Noneym-givunn, who pretends to be the One True God. Each of these nonGod-gods answers to “God,” “El-Shaddai,” “Lord,” “Allah,” or “Heavenly Father” in appropriate context, out from the mouth of a worshipper appropriately baptized, ritually scarred, or otherwise initiated into that god’s religion. The bookkeeping on this is amazing! But maybe those rituals of initiation serve a purpose in such a world. (Or maybe gods really don’t pay that much attention to prayers anyway; which now I think of it, seems true, actually.)

On the other hand, each of those gods (Gee, Jah, and NoName) is also lying about being the One, and a confusion on the part of followers who swallow that particular line is to be expected.

[Chief_Pedant]

@foolsguinea

The Christian Trinity is a goofy idea, but it is ostensibly a variation on a singular Abrahamic God, and it is meant to be singular in some sense.

If God is real, and singular (in some sense), then what is the Christian Trinity, and what is Mohammed’s Allah? Some possibilities (not an exhaustive list):[ul]
[li]There is one true god, and none of the Abrahamic religions are particularly close to describing him; one may as well worship Shiva.[/li][li]There is one true God, the God of Abraham and of Moses, the god of the Samaritans and the Jews, but not of those innovators the Mandaeans, Christians, or Mohammedans.[/li][li]There is one true God, but the Jews got him wrong. Only [some gnostic tradition] gets him right.[/li][li]There is one true God, who exists and is misunderstood by Samaritans, Jews, Gnostics, Christians, Muslims, and Baha’i. He has occasionally tried to speak to most of these groups with limited success.[/li][li]There is one true God, and the Muslims worship him in their way. The Christians, however, are pagans deceived that their tradition is even Abrahamic, let alone divine.[/li][li]There is one true God, but Mohammed was deceived by a lying angel who lied, and his tradition is counter to God.[/li][li]There is one true God, but his self-proclaimed prophets are an unreliable bunch in general, and Mohammed was unreliable in particular.[/li][/ul]
But we can simplify this to the following five combinations:
A: Christians mostly have the true God, Muslims mostly don’t.
B: Christians and Muslims both mostly have the true God.
C: Muslims mostly have the true God, Christians mostly don’t.
D1: Christians and Muslims are both mostly wrong about God, but are largely consistent in the (false) God they have.
D2: Christians and Muslims are both mostly wrong about God, and are also mostly inconsistent with each other.

So, here’s where we are:
Prof. Hawkins is asserting or assuming either B or D1.
Chief Pedant is flat-out asserting or assuming the inverse set: Anything but B or D1.
Have I got that right?

If either D1 or D2, this is a tempest in a teacup, an argument over a distinction of perhaps only small theological relevancy. You can be consoled that Christians agree or that they disagree with Muslims, but they’re still both wrong.

If A, B, or C, then that means somebody’s kind of right about something, however imperfectly. If the Trinity is One True Godhead of Unified Gods, then it’s still pretty close to Muslim monotheism.

And then it’s like C. S. Lewis said in “The Case for Christianity”: The fact that both sides believe in One God makes them closer than if one side believes in One God and the other in No Gods, or in Multiple Non-Unified Gods. Does it matter if their idea of God is imperfect? Whose is perfect?

Even if Jesus was a Devil, or Mohammed was misled by a lying angel, the worshippers are trying to pray to the One True God. To quote Lewis again (*The Last Battle *this time): “All the service thou hast done to Tash, I accept as service done to me.”

Whoever sent Jesus, whatever angel Mohammed did or did not speak with, the heirs of their traditions traditionally understand themselves to be seeking to follow the God of Abraham, Moses, Elijah, and so on. It seems strange to insist that really they’re praying to different gods even though they are trying to pray to the same one.

I think that, in general, believers of all monotheistic faiths believe they are praying to the “one true God.” This is exactly why defenders of a particular variation put down the specific requisite for belief in Their Particular Guy.

As to the Pedant:

My assertions are around what Wheaton thinks, and says, in its statement of faith.
I assert that Wheaton insists on a triune God, while Islam insists on denying a triune God, and that for Wheaton, this denial means Islam worships a different God.

Wheaton believes Jesus is true God, and it also believes that a concept of God which dismisses the holy spirit and Jesus from being true God is inconsistent with Wheaton beliefs. Indeed, a denial of Jesus and the holy spirit from the “one true triune God” is apostasy.

(There are other reasons by which Wheaton would dismiss other monotheistic versions of God as well, but this particular one–solo Godhead versus triune God (the trinity)–is foundational to Wheaton’s faith structure. It is specifically called out in the statement of faith for that reason.)

It’s kind of pointless to argue about who is worshipping what. We have a long history of making up what we want God to be and affirming this or that. I could take your God, add some features, and affirm I’ve got the same guy. You might or might not take issue with me. On and on.

To keep Wheaton happy, Professor Hawkins would need to re-affirm pretty bluntly and publicly is that she believes Jesus is true God. She would also need to affirm with equal bluntness that any belief system–including Islam–which denies the Trinity is denying the God outlined in the Wheaton statement of faith. Wheaton intends to keep its faith distinct from Islam and will vigorously defend against efforts extending ecumenism to Islam.

I doubt Dr. Hawkins will make many more public defenses, especially at this point. Wheaton will buy her out because of the practical ramifications of a public fight over one of their minority professors. She’ll take the money and run.

[lance_strongarm]

@Chief_Pedant

Are you sure you are not lance Orwell?

???

[Chief_Pedant]

@lance_strongarm

???

Originally Posted by lance strongarm:
“In any event, it still doesn’t matter - two (or three) religions can worship the same God but not have the same beliefs about that God.”

See Orwell’s 1984 and doublethink.
“Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory opinions at the same time without noticing the contradiction.”

Worshiping the same God is not possible when the God being worshiped is defined by mutually contradictory tenets.

To the case at hand: If Wheaton creates a triune God for their statement of faith and Muslims create a God in their Qur’an which specifically rejects a triune God (see the relevant Qur’an quote above), then by definition each entity is worshiping a different God, since the definitions mutually exclude one another for a foundational element of what the God is.

[Bricker]

Perhaps it’s more useful to consider the comparative “the same” as a matter of degree and not a Boolean value.

By way of analogy, suppose I told you about my (fictional) sister, who has married three times, each time, says I, to a man with the same occupation.

My sister corrects me: “That’s nonsense. My first husband was a city police officer. My second husband was a deputy sheriff with the county, and you know that Tom is a DEA agent.”

She’s right: those are three different occupations.

But I’m right: those are all law enforcement officers.

I might argue that she never was married to a plumber or an architect – she always marries guys with badges; they’re the same jobs. She points out that her first husband drove a patrol car and responded to radio calls; her second husband was in charge of jail inmate transport and serving summons; and her current spouse sits at a desk 8 hours a day devising drug enforcement policy: all very different.

Which of us is correct?

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Chief_Pedant

Worshiping the same God is not possible when the God being worshiped is defined by mutually contradictory tenets.

To the case at hand: If Wheaton creates a triune God for their statement of faith and Muslims create a God in their Qur’an which specifically rejects a triune God (see the relevant Qur’an quote above), then by definition each entity is worshiping a different God, since the definitions mutually exclude one another for a foundational element of what the God is.

Here’s your problem: you’re talking about a different God than the one worshipped by Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

Their God is not one that is created by human beings and their definitions. Their God is the Creator, who is real. Any definitions or creedal statements don’t determine who or what God is; they’re just attempts to understand the pre-existing God who “defined” himself as “I AM.”

[Bricker]

Of interest to this topic:

“As Muslim women, we actually ask you not to wear the hijab in the name of interfaith solidarity:”

Last week, three female religious leaders — a Jewish rabbi, an Episcopal vicar and a Unitarian reverend — and a male imam, or Muslim prayer leader, walked into the sacred space in front of the ornately-tiled minbar, or pulpit, at the Khadeeja Islamic Center in West Valley City, Utah. The women were smiling widely, their hair covered with swaths of bright scarves, to support “Wear a Hijab” day.

The Salt Lake Tribune published a photo of fresh-faced teenage girls, who were not Muslim, in the audience at the mosque, their hair covered with long scarves. KSL TV later reported: “The hijab — or headscarf — is a symbol of modesty and dignity. When Muslim women wear headscarves, they are readily identified as followers of Islam.”

For us, as mainstream Muslim women, born in Egypt and India, the spectacle at the mosque was a painful reminder of the well-financed effort by conservative Muslims to dominate modern Muslim societies. This modern-day movement spreads an ideology of political Islam, called “Islamism,” enlisting well-intentioned interfaith do-gooders and the media into promoting the idea that “hijab” is a virtual “sixth pillar” of Islam, after the traditional “five pillars” of the shahada (or proclamation of faith), prayer, fasting, charity and pilgrimage.

We reject this interpretation that the “hijab” is merely a symbol of modesty and dignity adopted by faithful female followers of Islam.
.
.
.
To us, the “hijab”is a symbol of an interpretation of Islam we reject that believes that women are a sexual distraction to men, who are weak, and thus must not be tempted by the sight of our hair. We don’t buy it. This ideology promotes a social attitude that absolves men of sexually harassing women and puts the onus on the victim to protect herself by covering up.

[Peremensoe]

That’s better (and been) addressed in the hijab thread.

[lance_strongarm]

@Nelson_Pike

I agree, with the understanding that “revere” does not mean worship in the sense that a god is worshiped. Has anyone in this thread disagreed?

No, not in this thread I guess. At Wheaton College someone did.

[lance_strongarm]

@Chief_Pedant

Worshiping the same God is not possible when the God being worshiped is defined by mutually contradictory tenets.

False.

To the case at hand: If Wheaton creates a triune God for their statement of faith and Muslims create a God in their Qur’an which specifically rejects a triune God (see the relevant Qur’an quote above), then by definition each entity is worshiping a different God, since the definitions mutually exclude one another for a foundational element of what the God is.

But they both think it’s the same God they are worshipping, and the other side is wrong about the nature of that god, that’s all. You, as a neutral observer, might think they’re worshipping different gods, but you’re not them so it doesn’t matter what you think.

[Monty]

@lance_strongarm

But they both think it’s the same God they are worshipping, and the other side is wrong about the nature of that god, that’s all. You, as a neutral observer, might think they’re worshipping different gods, but you’re not them so it doesn’t matter what you think.

Well, more to the point: the Muslims believe they’re worshiping the same deity as the Christians are and that the Christians are mistaken about certain aspects of that deity’s nature; however, the Christians (in this case, I’m restricting the issue to the PTB the college in question) believe that the Muslims are not worshiping the same deity as the Christians.

[Johanna]

@Thudlow_Boink

Here’s your problem: you’re talking about a different God than the one worshipped by Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

Their God is not one that is created by human beings and their definitions. Their God is the Creator, who is real. Any definitions or creedal statements don’t determine who or what God is; they’re just attempts to understand the pre-existing God who “defined” himself as “I AM.”

Mic: Dropped.
Thread: Won.
::applause::

[foolsguinea]

@Chief_Pedant

Originally Posted by lance strongarm:
“In any event, it still doesn’t matter - two (or three) religions can worship the same God but not have the same beliefs about that God.”

See Orwell’s 1984 and doublethink.
“Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory opinions at the same time without noticing the contradiction.”

Worshiping the same God is not possible when the God being worshiped is defined by mutually contradictory tenets.

To the case at hand: If Wheaton creates a triune God for their statement of faith and Muslims create a God in their Qur’an which specifically rejects a triune God (see the relevant Qur’an quote above), then by definition each entity is worshiping a different God, since the definitions mutually exclude one another for a foundational element of what the God is.

Ah! Here’s your problem: You think men “create a God” by defining attributes, as if “God” were a term describing a set of rules. But many religious persons are theological realists who believe in a personal God, who exists regardless of our opinions about him. That’s why we’re talking past each other.

I wonder if Wheaton’s donors see God as a set of defined conventions the way you seem to be doing.

[foolsguinea]

(Yes, I posted without reading down to Thudlow Boink’s post. I’m amused that we both said, “Here’s your problem:”.)

[lance_strongarm]

@Monty

Well, more to the point: the Muslims believe they’re worshiping the same deity as the Christians are and that the Christians are mistaken about certain aspects of that deity’s nature; however, the Christians (in this case, I’m restricting the issue to the PTB the college in question) believe that the Muslims are not worshiping the same deity as the Christians.

Some might believe the others aren’t worshipping the same god, yes. Doesn’t really matter in the end.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@foolsguinea

(Yes, I posted without reading down to Thudlow Boink’s post. I’m amused that we both said, “Here’s your problem:”.)

[Chief_Pedant]

@lance_strongarm

False.
But they both think it’s the same God they are worshipping, and the other side is wrong about the nature of that god, that’s all. You, as a neutral observer, might think they’re worshipping different gods, but you’re not them so it doesn’t matter what you think.

I assure you that Wheaton, as they state absolutely in their statement of faith, is not worshiping the Islamic God. The God of Islam specifically denies the Trinity, and the triune God is specifically called out in the Wheaton statement of faith.