Yup. More from their Statement of Faith & Educational Purpose:
While the school specializes in Liberal Arts, evolution is mentioned in the Biology curriculum.
The school seems an odd mix of elements. It’s not a dump like Bob Jones University.
Surely you can see why some Christians might consider the divinity of Christ to be more than an “attribute,” however. What does it mean to be Christian without Christ?
I don’t know what you mean. Christians consider the divinity of Christ to be an attribute. A very important attribute, but an attribute nonetheless.
Very little. No one is arguing that Muslims are Christian. They aren’t - they worship God and consider Jesus to be a prophet.
Regards,
Shodan
I read the Statement of Faith you’ve linked to before I made my post. And it says this is the text they have been using since 1924.
That is God’s Wil.
Would you say that a Catholic seminary should be required to keep teachers on staff that teach atheist belief or reject core Catholic theology? No one is required to work at a religiously affiliated organization, and they’re a small minority of employers. We as a people have decided such organizations can hold people to religious standards, within certain limitations. The Wheaton example is very dissimilar from your two anecdotes because those were essentially secular positions working for a religious organization, versus the Wheaton example was an inherently theological position working for a religious school.
Not sure about that. She’s a poli sci professor.
Whether the text has changed is not the same issue as the extent to which they have enforced adherence to the policy to the same extent throughout that entire period.
The problem is that the Christians tend to view themselves as worshipping the same god as the Jews. It is then rather odd for them to object to the notion that they, that is the Christians, worship the same god as the Muslims.
Or to put it this way: it makes perfect sense for someone to claim that the Christian god is different from the Jewish/Muslim god, or to claim that all three religions are different enough to in effect worship “different gods” (despite their common social-evolutionary history). However, it makes no sense to put the dividing line between the Jewish notion of god and the Christian notion on one side, and the Muslim notion on the other.
If logic had anything to do with the matter (and I admit it may not 
), if Christians claim they worship a different god than the Muslims, they ought at the same time claim they worship a different one than the Jews. Conversely, if Christians claim to worship the same god as the Jews (which I assume most do), they ought to also claim to worship the same one as the Muslims.
And it’s a liberal arts college, not a seminary.
It’s entirely possible to teach political science without a theological viewpoint at all. Heck, it’s possible to teach about the BIble without a theological viewpoint at all. My public secular high school had a whole upper level elective on the Bible as literature, in fact. And I can’t imagine teaching European or U.S. History without including some basic information about Christianity (I remember being quite confused by the doctrine of transubstantiation in my freshman high school European history class). Much of what I do know about Christianity has been learned from such sources, and by osmosis from being a Spanish major who had to read a lot of books that touched on issues of religion but were in no way theological works.
So yes, I do understand the basics of certain divisions of beliefs between Catholics and Protestants. But the degree of nitpickiness and refusal to accept opinions that diverge even slightly will never cease to amaze me. (Same goes for Judaism, which I don’t practice, but in which I have had at least some level of theological education.)
Ah, I think there’s only ONE core belief that all the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions/branches/sects/denominations can agree on. And that is…
"We are right and all you other guys are wrong!"
Yeah, I think the bottom line is that Wheaton screwed the pooch on this one. I also think “Evangelical” has taken on a much more aggressive attitude than they used to have.
No, I disagree.
Well, let me clearer: I agree that the college’s view of God is NOT the God of Abraham. But if I were to drink the evangelical Kool-Aid and believe as they do, THEN I would say: no, I disagree.
Kool-Aid Bricker would point out that the God of Abraham is the same God that was worshiped by the Jews in Jesus’ time. Where the Christian understanding diverges from the Jews’ understanding is in who Jesus was. Jesus was the Son of God, the Word made Flesh. Jesus WAS God, with a fully human and a fully divine nature. The Jewish understanding of God misses this point… but prior to the birth of Jesus, there was no such Trinity in human knowledge and so that means that the God worshiped by the Jews is the God worshiped today by Christians.
That God did not, however speak to Mohammad or select him as a prophet.
The guidance that Muslims believe arose from Mohammad’s selection as a Prophet could not have come from the same God. Therefore, based on that fundamental disconnect, not the same God.
Why is it an “attribute” instead of a fundamental shift in composition?
The problem with this logic is that it would make the Catholic god “not the same god” as well. The evangelicals surely do not believe that various Catholics have become “saints” who sit at the hand of god and can intercede on behalf of people, people have been spoken to by Mary, etc. The guidance so received would make their “god” fundamentally different.
If the Catholics can be “wrong” (in their view) about saints, Mary, etc. and still have the same god, why can’t Muslims be “wrong” about Mohammed and still have the same god?
Well, a shift in composition would be transsubstantiation. And evangelicals don’t believe in that. 
Wheaton College is a pretty fucked up place (IMO). I lived 1 and 2 towns away for 30 years. I think they just recently did away with “the Code” which all staff and students had to sign. Students wouldn’t fuck in front of open windows just in case someone saw them and thought they were dancing. Billy Graham Center and all. Just because they don’t talk with funny accents, don’t get the impression they are anywhere near enlightened.
But they get to decide what kinds of variances are minor disagreements and what kinds create fundamental differences. It’s not for you (or me) to decree that they must regard these differences as analogous – perhaps they see the Catholics as simply confused and the Muslims as fundamentally wrong.
Only a fundamental shift in the substance. A fundamental shift in the accidents wouldn’t.
Well, it might be; Wheaton receives federal funds. In unrelated news, it just occurred to me that this is the same school that piggybacked on the Little Sisters of the Poor SCOTUS decision about the contraception mandate.
Certainly. However, it is still relevant to point out that the choice lacks any internally consistent logic.