The controversy over statements made by Larycia Hawkins took on a life of its own. The philosophical debates regarding theories of reference are important in their own respect, but shouldn't be used to exegete her comments one way or another. The question is what she meant, and the underlying theology or ideology that informs her position. I'll comment on a few of her public statements, beginning with her initial Facebook post:
I stand in human solidarity with my Muslim neighbor because we are formed of the same primordial clay, descendants of the same cradle of humankind--a cave in Sterkfontein, South Africa that I had the privilege to descend into to plumb the depths of our common humanity in 2014.
Although this hasn't gotten much attention (that I'm aware of), she apparently subscribes to theistic evolution. If so, that contradicts Wheaton's statement of faith, that affirms the special creation of Adam and Eve:
WE BELIEVE that God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race; and that they were created in His own image, distinct from all other living creatures, and in a state of original righteousness.
She also said:
I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book. And as Pope Francis stated last week, we worship the same God.
Since Wheaton is a confessional evangelical college, appealing to the Pope is an illicit argument from authority.
Moving on to a later statement:
I am guided by evangelical theologians like Timothy George, John Stackhouse, Scot McKnight, and Miroslav Volf, as well as the post-Vatican II Roman Catholic tradition, as expressed in both encyclical form (e.g. Nostra Aetate 3.1) and Pontifical writings (e.g. John Paul II, "Crossing the Threshold of Hope").
i) Once again, the illicit appeal to Catholic authorities.
ii) Apropos (i), her syncretistic theology, in which she blends elements of evangelical theology with Catholic modernism. That's inconsistent with Wheaton's identity as a confessional evangelical institution. Ten years ago, Wheaton terminated a professor who converted to Catholicism:
There would, of course, be nothing wrong with her affirming elements of Roman Catholic theology that traditionally overlap elements of classic Protestant theology, but that's not what she's doing. Obviously, Catholics can say things we agree with, but she act as if quoting the pope or Vatican II gives her cover. But that has no cachet in Protestant though.
iii) By the same token, citing Volf is counterproductive inasmuch as Wheaton is supposed to be to the right of Yale Divinity school on the theological spectrum.
Finally, her appeal to John Stackhouse and Scot McKnight is ironic inasmuch as they disagree with her position:
Turning to a later statement.
We are Christians and Muslims and Jews and atheists who aver that all religions believe in justice.
But all religions don't believe in justice. That's another indication of her pluralistic outlook.
Wheaton College cannot scare me into walking away from the truth that all humans, Muslims, the vulnerable, the oppressed, are all my sisters and brothers.
Wheaton College cannot intimidate me into cowering in fear of the enemy of the month as defined by real estate moguls, Senators from Texas, Christians from this country, bigots, and fundamentalists of all stripes.
It’s striking to see how she divvies up the world between good guys and bad guys. On the one hand she talks about “all humans” as her “sisters and brothers.”
On the other hand, in the very next paragraph, she talks about “real estate moguls, senators from Texas, Christians from this country, bigots, and fundamentalists of all stripes.”
That’s the enemy. So her actual outlook is highly polarized rather than inclusive. She's ironically oblivious go her own visceral intolerance.
Wheaton College will never induce me to kowtow to their doublespeak concerning the Statement of Faith, so as to appease an imaginary constituency that clearly knows little about what academic freedom or Christian love mean; or to placate platinum donors to their coffers.
Notice the arrogant ingratitude. Where does she think the money comes to pay for her salary? To my knowledge, tuition isn't nearly enough to fund a college. It requires generous donors to make up the difference.
Looks more and more clear as time passes that Wheaton made the right call.
ReplyDeleteActually the Faculty Council unanimously wants her reinstated:
Deletehttp://time.com/4188788/wheaton-college-larycia-hawkins-faculty-council/
"Although this hasn't gotten much attention (that I'm aware of), she apparently subscribes to theistic evolution. If so, that contradicts Wheaton's statement of faith, that affirms the special creation of Adam and Eve."
ReplyDeleteIn her theological statement she does seem to accept this tenet, while clearly wanting to leave some room for difference of opinion regarding the "process" of that "historic, original creation." (p. 3) Theistic evolution is not necessarily incompatible with the direct creation of the first humans. I'm pretty sure that at least some biologists teaching at Wheaton would take an 'everything but humans' approach to the scope of evolution, and that this would be within the bounds of the Faith Statement.
"There would, of course, be nothing wrong with her affirming elements of Roman Catholic theology that traditionally overlap elements of classic Protestant theology, but that's not what she's doing."
Actually that 'does' seem to be what she's doing, given that she first cites evangelical theologians and then prefaces her reference to Catholic thought with "as well as".
"By the same token, citing Volf is counterproductive inasmuch as Wheaton is supposed to be to the right of Yale Divinity school on the theological spectrum. "
YDS as a whole may be to the left of Wheaton, but Volf himself is still an evangelical, as far as I know.
"Finally, her appeal to John Stackhouse and Scot McKnight is ironic inasmuch as they disagree with her position."
It seems to be a bit more complicated than that. She seems to accept their qualifications and concerns about saying that Christians and Muslims worship the same God: "I understand that Islam (and Judaism) denies the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and leaves no room for the Cross and the Resurrection, but my statement is not a statement on soteriology or trinitarian theology, but one of embodied piety."
Furthermore, the main issue is not whether McKnight, Stackhouse et al would fully endorse her position, but whether there is room for difference of opinion on the 'same God' within the parameters of the Faith Statement. Dr. Hawkins thinks that there is at least a foothold for her position in the reflections of theologians with unquestioned (at least so far) evangelical credentials. This is an issue which has not been clarified, as apparently the Wheaton Faculty Council wants to pose this question to the administration: "Does the College have a position on what can or cannot be said regarding the question: ‘Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?’”
http://time.com/4188788/wheaton-college-larycia-hawkins-faculty-council/
"Theistic evolution is not necessarily incompatible with the direct creation of the first humans."
DeleteIn the abstract, that's possible, although ad hoc. But that's a red herring. Her wording and her example strongly suggest human evolution.
"I'm pretty sure that at least some biologists teaching at Wheaton would take an 'everything but humans' approach to the scope of evolution, and that this would be within the bounds of the Faith Statement."
It wouldn't surprise me if some Wheaton biology profs. are full-bore theistic or deistic evolutionists, but carve out a rhetorical exception for humans to keep their jobs.
"Actually that 'does' seem to be what she's doing, given that she first cites evangelical theologians and then prefaces her reference to Catholic thought with 'as well as'."
Vatican II's religious pluralism and John-Paul II's hopeful universalism don't represent traditional Catholic doctrine, but a dramatic break with the past. Therefore, she's not "affirming elements of Roman Catholic theology that traditionally overlap elements of classic Protestant theology."
"Dr. Hawkins thinks that there is at least a foothold for her position in the reflections of theologians with unquestioned (at least so far) evangelical credentials."
The problem is not simply with her conclusion but the supporting arguments. The source of her theology is, in some measure, Catholic modernism. That's at variance with Wheaton's evangelical identity. That's both syncretistic as well as an illegitimate argument from authority.
However, it may also be the case that Wheaton needs to amend its statement of faith to address an issue that wasn't on play when its statement of faith was originally promulgated.
"Vatican II's religious pluralism and John-Paul II's hopeful universalism don't represent traditional Catholic doctrine, but a dramatic break with the past."
DeleteI'm fairly sure there's room for reasonable disagreement about that assessment. But since the main authority she appeals to is evangelical theologians, with an ancillary appeal to Catholic sources, if there's something objectionable in the Catholic sources then presumably there's something objectionable in these evangelical sources.
"The problem is not simply with her conclusion but the supporting arguments. The source of her theology is, in some measure, Catholic modernism."
Wheaton has never indicated that how she arrived at her theological statements was their main concern. They insist that it is her statements, and the potential implications of those statements, that are the real issue. And I have no idea how on Earth you would make a charge like "You think like a Catholic modernist" stick.
She didn't rank her sources. She didn't indicate that evangelical theologians are the main authority she appeals to while the invocation of Catholic sources is ancillary. Rather, her appeal was conspicuously ecumenical.
DeleteI didn't say she thinks like a Catholic modernist. Rather, I said "The source of her theology is, in some measure, Catholic modernism."
That's by her own admission. Mind you, she might not classify that as Catholic modernism, but that's what it is. Vatican II was ventriloquizing Rahner on world religion.
"Wheaton has never indicated that how she arrived at her theological statements was their main concern."
Most of this is behind-closed-doors. And I'm not stating what-all Wheaton administration found objectionable. I'm not privy to their executive session deliberations. Rather, I'm speaking for myself.
(Cont'd)
ReplyDelete"But all religions don't believe in justice. That's another indication of her pluralistic outlook."
I don't think her outlook is actually pluralistic. To say, even incorrectly, that all religions have at least some things in common is not to say that all religions are equally accurate about God, or sufficient for salvation.
Also, would we say that 'all religions don't believe in justice' or that 'all religions don't have the same understanding of what justice entails'? It seems pretty clear that all human societies have an innate sense of fairness.
"That’s the enemy. So her actual outlook is highly polarized rather than inclusive. She's ironically oblivious to her own visceral intolerance."
That's like saying police don't believe in peace because they use force to subdue people who disturb the peace. If one believes in genuine tolerance for people of different perspectives there will inevitably be a polarization between you and someone who does not. You won't tolerate 'that' kind of intolerance, but there's nothing incoherent about that perspective. Radical inclusiveness 'is' incoherent, and nothing Dr. Hawkins has said indicates that she advocates for it. Additionally, one can affirm the full humanity and dignity of bigots, corrupt politicians and unscrupulous big businesspeople while opposing their efforts to spread their bigotry and corruption. Nothing contradictory about that.
"Notice the arrogant ingratitude. Where does she think the money comes to pay for her salary? To my knowledge, tuition isn't nearly enough to fund a college. It requires generous donors to make up the difference."
So one's convictions and research outcomes as a scholar should be at the whim of donors? Truly Christian donors would want to support faculty that follow the evidence where it leads and help their students to think critically as well as Christianly about all academic subjects.
"I don't think her outlook is actually pluralistic. To say, even incorrectly, that all religions have at least some things in common is not to say that all religions are equally accurate about God, or sufficient for salvation."
DeleteShe simply imputes to all religions something she wants to be the case.
"Also, would we say that 'all religions don't believe in justice' or that 'all religions don't have the same understanding of what justice entails'? It seems pretty clear that all human societies have an innate sense of fairness."
i) Now you're doing a bait-n-switch. To begin with, even if all humans have an innate sense of fairness, it hardly follows that all human societies have an innate sense of fairness, for social mores can be dramatically unfair. Moreover, the question at issue isn't "all human societies" but "all religions." Even if humans have an innate sense of fairness, that hardly means all religions codify justice.
ii) And you can't dichotomize a sense of fairness from an understanding of what justice entails. The concept of justice is, for better or worse, inseparable from an understanding of what justice entails, and vice versa.
"Additionally, one can affirm the full humanity and dignity of bigots, corrupt politicians and unscrupulous big businesspeople while opposing their efforts to spread their bigotry and corruption. Nothing contradictory about that."
She doesn't refer to them as "sisters and brothers." She puts that in contrast to the "bigots, fundamentalists," et al.
Also, the fact that she lumps Cruz with Trump and bigots is very revealing about how narrow-minded her vision truly is.
"Truly Christian donors would want to support faculty that follow the evidence where it leads and help their students to think critically as well as Christianly about all academic subjects."
In context, evidence for what?
I've seen no indication that she's a critical thinker. To the contrary, she acts like a moral showboater. It's all faddish and superficial.
Muslims are the darlings of the liberal establishment. She snubs the real victims of Muslim oppression.
"She simply imputes to all religions something she wants to be the case."
DeleteSo? As I mentioned in my first comment, it doesn't really matter whether she's right or wrong about all religions having a common element. The only concern is whether she thinks those common elements imply that all religions are on an equal footing with regard to accuracy and salvific efficacy. So far there's no evidence that that is true.
"Now you're doing a bait-n-switch. To begin with, even if all humans have an innate sense of fairness, it hardly follows that all human societies have an innate sense of fairness, for social mores can be dramatically unfair."
Fair point. An innate sense of fairness in human beings by no means implies that whole societies will have fair or just mores and institutions.
"She doesn't refer to them as "sisters and brothers." She puts that in contrast to the "bigots, fundamentalists," et al."
Well to be sure she wouldn't have the same fondness and sense of solidarity with them as she does with those who share her vision of tolerance and charity, but if pressed she would probably agree that all people, even those who perpetrate injustices, bear the image of God.
"Muslims are the darlings of the liberal establishment. She snubs the real victims of Muslim oppression."
I think both harassment of Muslims in Western contexts and Muslim persecution are valid concerns. In some circles it takes courage to take a stand against the former, and in some circles it takes courage to take a stand against the latter. And if you consider people like Sam Harris and Bill Maher part of the 'liberal establishment', it wouldn't really hold up to say that Muslims are its darlings. There are plenty of liberal/skeptical pundits who go after Islam just as harshly as they do Christianity.
Harris and Maher are in the distinct minority of the liberal establishment when it comes to Islam, and they are regularly vilified by the liberal establishment for their positions in that regard.
DeleteIt's possible that Hawkins said some other things that were troubling or expressed her "same god" remarks in a pluralistic way *prior* to releasing her open letter against Wheaton. Perhaps, after making these statements, she read the defenses on her behalf (or was coached by those more well informed) by people like Beckwith and Feser and decided to spin her words in a benign way in order to save her job and cast the Wheaton administration as the irrational enemy.
ReplyDeleteOf course I have no idea whether my speculation is true or not. But such a scenario would explain why Wheaton's administration is unsatisfied with her public response and moved to terminate her despite it.
Instead of those on the outside with little information trying to come to her rescue (or Wheaton's), it's probably best to just allow her and the folks at Wheaton settle the issue without us acting as the ill-informed cheerleaders on behalf of Hawkins or Wheaton. But since Hawkins has been vocal in her stance against Wheaton it seems a bit foolish for Wheaton to remain tight lipped, lest they lose the trust of the public, not to mention their own faculty.