I think that shows my point that it would be an incredibly controversial statement from a Christian point of view (and NOT something that was in their statements of beliefs).
To say Christian and Muslim (and Jewish) gods are different would require massive changes to traditional Christian belief systems that the vast majority of Christian churches (evangelical or otherwise) would disagree with, so they don’t say that! They just um and errr and talking vaguely about “distinctively evangelical Christian identity”.
Again where is this stated in Wheaton statements of beliefs, or anywhere in mainstream Christian doctrine? When you change the previous guys teachings, you become many things from the point of view of the previous guy: misguided, a false prophet, a heretic, etc. etc., but if you say you are worshiping the same god you are. No where in Christian teachings is there a basis for saying otherwise.
I find it simply incredible they can’t even bring themselves to outright state that they think Muslims and Christians worship different gods - despite the fact that they are allegedly firing someone for saying they worship the same god.
Oh for the love of God… ; for the last time it isn’t the Pedant’s strained logic. It’s Wheaton’s Evangelical strained logic.
How many times do I have to reiterate that theology makes no sense whatsoever, is not consistent, creates hypocrisy, and is all made up?
The entity which decides whether or not God A is the same as God B is the entity who made up God A if someone else redefines attributes to make a God B. Stray too far afield, and God A’s creators are going to decide God B is not the right guy. Wheaton’s statement of faith defines their God (A) as a triune God where the deity of Jesus is specifically called out. Islam denies that Trinity. While Islam and Joe Schmoe may affirm it’s the same God, Wheaton has no requirement to agree. And they don’t agree, obviously–for reasons of the Trinity and other reasons in their statement.
That’s the great thing about theology. There is no absolute standard, so whoever makes something up gets to define their izzack standard.
Calling Wheaton out for hypocrisy if they treat the God of the Jews differently is all well and good, but irrelevant.
In summary: Wheaton literally gets to define their exact definition, and their exact points of differences. Then they get to require people who work there to agree to those exact points. And when they think someone is not toeing the line, they get to fire them if that person doesn’t clarify that whatever they said was not in contradiction to the hiring requirement.
It’s really that simple. And for Dr Hawkins, it’s really that simple if she elects to stay.
As stated in the public discussions at least, she is being brought into the process to be fired because she will not speak further on the issue. Maybe she has lawyered up and that’s the advice she’s getting. Maybe she’s just pissed. Maybe she thinks this is the best strategy to get a good settlement.
Whatever. But the issue here is not whose theology is best, or whose logic is best or any other damn thing except absolute, unequivocal, public clarification that Dr Hawkins 100% supports whatever the God is who is called out in the Wheaton statement of faith, and rejects whatever differences that statement of faith has with Islamic tenets.
It’s not that hard, really, unless you decide it’s a theologic argument, or a fairness argument. It’s not.
Insofar as you’re defending them, I’m aiming this at you.
If that were your only point, I’d agree with you. But you go farther, and make explicit statements regarding the identity of fictional entities, and I believe you do so erroneously.
Is Wheaton arguing from a genuinely held theological belief, or are they playing on and perpetuating politically motivated negative attitudes toward Islam?
Is Wheaton damaging their reputation as a credible university?
Does Wheaton get to (redefine/clarify/whatever you want to call it) the statement of faith in such a way that a tenured professor who agreed with it at the time she was hired no longer agrees with it, and take adverse employment action against her because they changed the rules midstream?
But not after the fact! They are still an employer in the United States. Yeah sure they can sack someone who doesn’t confirm to their statement of beliefs (a dodgy assumption IMO, but it appears to be the case). But they can’t go back and add crazy ass modifications to their statements of beliefs after the fact in order to get someone fired.
Nothing in their statement of belief (and Mainstream Christian doctrine generally) was contradicted by what she said!
If your rodeo clown school has a very strict “don’t walk on the grass” policies, but you sack first female African-American tenured professor because she walked opposite the grass, on a Sunday (even though there are no signs banning that anywhere, and everyone in the rodeo clown community agrees it’s fine to walk opposite the grass on any day of the week unless you actually walk on it). People might suspect that the grass has nothing to do with it.
Er…um…YOUR issues, you mean? You can have whatever issues you want, on anything.
The issue in this thread, as stated in the OP: Dr. Larycia Hawkins, an associate professor of political science at Wheaton College, a small Christian college in the Chicago suburbs, has been suspended for professing support of Muslims.
Interestingly, the suspension is ostensibly not for wearing a hijab, but for stating that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, which is apparently in violation of the college’s "evangelical Statement of Faith."
As a courtesy, I’ve underlined the key issue for you to help you focus.
Of course if you are more interested in floofing off about the bigger picture, so to speak, enjoy.
Everyone likes a soapbox for their pet peeves, and I have already inferred from your questions what your answers to them are.
They just aren’t the issue at hand, which is whether or not Dr Hawkins is willing to clarify her position around Wheaton’s statement of faith and recent comments which have caused the college leaders concern.
I think the last paragraph is just about exactly what Dr Hawkins will likely allow to be argued on her behalf. I’m not clear about what she said or what she thinks, since all I have seen is what has been reported. It sort of sounds like the mid-December meeting was tense, and I think I remember reading that some kind of video or exchange or something was not released because Dr Hawkins would not sign off on its release.
It does not appear that my multiple efforts to argue that the God of Islam and the triune God are not the same God in the eyes of Wheaton have persuaded you their statement of faith does make a “same God as Islam” untenable for Wheaton. Never has been tenable for them. This is not some new position of theirs. The statement of faith has been about the same in recent years, and Wheaton is adamant about not letting their Evangelical position be ecumenized to include Islam’s God.
As to the fact that Dr Hawkins is black, I don’t read squat into that as a motivation for Wheaton to get rid of a professor. But perhaps you know something I don’t. It makes firing her more sensitive, and playing the race card (or allowing it to be played) should get her a better settlement. I don’t think they gave the professor who got kicked out for becoming Catholic jack shit.
I will be interested to see what happens if she continues to refuse to say anything at all further. If the procedure already in place establishes a proceeding during which the person at risk for being fired is offered a chance to defend, and no defense is offered, I wonder if the college would simply fire her without a settlement on the grounds she refused to abide by the established procedure.
But I’m betting she gets offered money on condition of shutting up, and that she takes the money and bails.
Many people have already stated in this thread, in various ways, that they don’t see how stating that Christians and Muslims worship the same God contradicts Wheaton’s Statement of Faith, and that many if not most Christians, even including other Evangelical Christians, would agree with that analysis. I also tend to agree with that position.
We may or may not ever see whether the Dept. of Labor and/or the court system agree. But I don’t know that that’s even the point. I just find it morally reprehensible that a principled stand in support of other human beings, even ones who don’t happen to worship in exactly the same way, may lose a qualified person her job. But then I’m not exactly in the market to hire a political science professor.
Why should she “clarify” her previous statements? Just to give Wheaton more rope to hang her with?
You posted this: “4. Does Wheaton get to (redefine/clarify/whatever you want to call it) the statement of faith in such a way that a tenured professor who agreed with it at the time she was hired no longer agrees with it, and take adverse employment action against her because they changed the rules midstream?”
So I’m wondering if you have even a shred of evidence that Wheaton has redefined or clarified its fundamental position that the God of Islam is not the God of Wheaton’s statement of faith. There may be billions of others who feel differently about the “same God” idea, but what you are asking is if Wheaton changed its position.
I see nothing that shows they changed their interpretation of their statement of faith post-event to get rid of a professor they did not like. Heck; they fired a guy for becoming Catholic, and supporting the tenets of the Catholic church is one heck of a smaller step away than claiming the statement of faith is consistent with the God of Islam.
If Dr Hawkins clarifies her position and that clarification gives Wheaton more rope with which to hang her, it means she is at odds with the statement of faith, which is in fact reason to fire her under the relatively straightforward agreement by which faculty are hired at a religious institution whose primary calling is to protect and promote its beliefs as outlined (among other places) in its statement of faith.
If Wheaton was an island in a bubble, a lawyerly dissection of the statement of faith might be an interesting exercise in a “how many angel can dance on the head of a pin” sense.
But that’s not why this is in the news. The US is working through a lot of questions right now-- what do we think about Islam? How mainstream is Christian fundamentalism? What are the limits of religious expression in the work place? Are universities becoming too political?
That’s what most people are discussing. It’s ridiculous to try to paint this as just a cut and dry contract issue.
There is lots of evidence that they did just that. In fact, they reference it themselves in their own FAQ.
The evidence falls into two categories:
(1) Wheaton has had lots of speakers who make the same claim without any controversy; and
(2) More damning, Wheaton has had lots of other staff members who have made the same claim without controversy until this incident!
Here’s Wheaton’s response to these two points:
[Emphasis added]
In summary - although it appears to be worded as if such “questioning” was a process that has been going on all the time, what appears to be the case is that, after this recent action, people combed over past statements made by other faculty members that had never been “questioned” before - and to no-one’s surprise, found plenty that were consistent with the ‘Muslims worship the same god’ position (not a surprise because it is mainstream Christianity).
Wheaton, to solve the problem of the fact that they have never before made it an issue, asked each such faculty member for some sort of “affirmation”. Needless to say, not wanting to lose their jobs, each faculty member then gave it.
This is all of a piece with an attempt to impose a retroactive (and highly suspect) interpretation of an alleged inconsistency between the “they worship the same god” and the statement of faith. The evidence is there for all to see: it was never an issue until now.
Which is odd, since the exact same issue was raised in 2008.
The “statement” included, according to Wheaton College president Duane Litfin, the notion:
However, not everyone at Wheaton removed their signature:
What’s up with that? Why does the Wheaton College president in 2008 say that while he personally won’t sign such a document, " I do not criticize others who do not share these qualms" - and, more significantly, not fire the very guy who is Wheaton’s head of “outreach” to Muslims for expressly keeping his signature on that document? Or even raising the notion that it is “not consistent” with the statement of faith? (notice he then said it was a “qualm” of his own, not something absolutely contrary to the faith!)
Evidently, such sentiments were not “against the Wheaton statement of faith” in 2008. Has the “faith” changed in the last eight years? Or has attitudes concerning Muslims hardened?
Of course those statements were considered to be at odds with the statement of faith–to the point where Litfin removed his name, for example.
I thought Oksnevad was a Director (for the Muslim Ministry Program) at the Billy Graham Center, and reports to their leadership; not Wheaton College’s. His only line to Phil Ryken would be in a marginal capacity as an “adjunct professor.” But perhaps you know more than I about whether the Wheaton College leadership can fire someone at the BGCE. Were he a tenured professor reporting directly to Ryken, I don’t think any less “clarification” would be required than for Dr Hawkins.
Wheaton has a lot of speakers, but they don’t sign the statement of faith, and I’m not sure what you mean by “no controversy.” Why would it be controversial to listen to alternate opinions that do not exactly jibe with the statement of faith?
I also have no idea (for the zillionth time) about what Dr Hawkins communicated to Wheaton’s leadership that apparently concerned them regarding her commitment to the statement of faith.
As a tenured professor, her obligation to toe the party line is going to be a lot more specific and her public-facing statements much more closely parsed. I don’t think that has a thing to do with her gender or race, though.
Here we have a guy who is actually a faculty member at Wheaton College, re-affirming a statement in 2008 identical to that which got another Wheaton faculty member “suspended” in 2015 - namely, that Muslims and Christians worship the same god.
Wheaton could hardly have not known about it, because the President (and several other members) made a big deal about removing their signatures. Yet they never once mentioned it was contrary to their “statement of faith” in 2008. On the contrary, in public statements the president expressly states that it is okay if others don’t share his “qualms”!
Sure, Mr. Oksnevad’s just an “adjunct faculty”. How on earth would that make it harder for Wheaton to sever their connection with him than with someone who is has tenure? The whole point of tenure is not to “make them toe the line”, but the opposite!
If Wheaton’s position held any water, Mr. Oksnevad would have been fired in 2008: as an adjunct faculty, and not a tenured one, he lacks protection and so it ought to have been a lot easier to fire him! Quite obviously, it wasn’t considered an offence worthy of termination in 2008, yet had become one in 2015.
Given that the religion hasn’t, presumably, changed, the inevitable conclusion is that the change relates to non-religious factors - presumably, an increased anti-Muslim public sentiment.
In my opinion this statement from Dr Hawkins should satisfy Wheaton College as a sufficient clarification that her views are not sufficiently at odds with their statement of faith to warrant dismissal.
I should have been more careful to look for it prior to any posts I made after 6 January (assuming it was online at that time), and for that carelessness I apologize.
; for the last time it isn’t the Pedant’s strained logic. It’s Wheaton’s Evangelical strained logic.