Follow Up

As I wrote about last month there is one of those internal Christendom sorts of disputes happening at Wheaton College.  As of today the board of the college is moving to dismiss Professor Hawkins for her statements about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob being a common thread between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which I believe is a rather obvious statement of biblical fact.  It is not, as I see it, an equivocation of the three religions, or a denial of the doctrine of the Trinity, or even a particularly controversial postulate.  It would have been controversial for her to say that Mohammed's revelation in the Koran somehow stood above the Gospel of Jesus Christ as authoritative Scripture, she didn't say that.  It would have been un-orthodox for her to proclaim that Jesus and Mohammed were simply equal prophets in revealing God to the world, but she didn't say that either.  By the way, that is what Muslims believe, and they venerate Mohammed because, by virtue of coming later, is able to include, incorporate and even further the teachings of Jesus (you might also note that Mormons essentially add Joseph Smith to the list, with his own special little book).
Despite being increasingly liberal on political issues, I still very much consider myself to be a proponent of orthodox Christian theology.  I particularly bound myself, in taking vows of ordination in the Presbyterian Church (USA), to that denominations Book of Confessions which includes:

• The Apostles Creed
• The Nicene Creed
• The Scots Confession
• The Heidelberg Catechism
• The Second Helvetic Confession
• The Westminster Confession of Faith
• The shorter and longer Catechisms
• The Theological Declaration of Barmen
• The Confession of 1967
• The Brief Statement of Faith
• and coming soon The Belhar Confession

In doing this I am fully aware of the fact that many of the statements contained in these creeds will be judged differently by people of different ages and cultures.  I am aware that some of the statements have become worn and outdated. What I love about them though is that certain things remain timeless. Take for instance this line in the Scots Confession: "We dare not receive or admit any interpretation which is contrary to any principal point of our faith, or to any plain text of Scripture, or to the rule of love."  Some might argue that the crucial phrase in that line is the "plain text of Scripture," but I would and do argue that it is the "rule of love." Others might disagree about what "principal points of faith" actually are. There certainly is room to debate, perhaps even what truly constitutes the "rule of love." However, as people who honor creeds and history, we must hold all three criteria dear to our hearts and minds as we seek to follow Jesus.  To reject any of them is to do violence to them all, and before we start kicking people out of our club, we ought to weigh whether we have met the burdens of living as people of good news.
If you read Ms. Hawkins letter to the board you will see written proof that she affirms statements that are wholly in line with Trinitarian orthodoxy as defined by the Nicene Creed.  In fact much of the very language Wheaton uses in their own Creed is lifted rather directly from the Nicene Creed.
History lesson: the Council of Nicea was convened in 325 CE in order to address the nature of Jesus Christ.  The primary disputants were Arius, a priest from Alexandria, and Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria, along with his assistant and successor Athanasius.  Arius had come up with the idea that Jesus had been created by God the Father at some point, and while he was totally amaze-balls was not essentially one with the father.  The council of Nicea wrangled rather strenuously over one little Greek letter: iota.  Ever hear the expression, "it doesn't even make an iota of difference"?  Well in this case an iota was the difference between orthodoxy and heresy.  The central argument was over whether to use the word homoousia or homoiousia. The prefix homo, as you probably know, denotes sameness: homogeneous, homosexual etc.  The word ousia means essence or substance.  The addition of the iota to the prefix changes "same" to "like."  Arius was okay saying that Jesus was similar to God, or like God, but he didn't want to go all the way to saying that Jesus was God incarnate.  In other words, Arius was not on board with the Trinity.
If you're a little bemused at this point, you need to know that this is pretty much day one of Christian theology, not everyone has a stomach for it.  But Larycia Hawkins, judging from her letter, has a pretty good grasp on it.  The development of Christian theology is an amazing thing.  You should know that even though Arius is now one of the most "famous" heretics of all time, he actually managed to become super special friends with Constantine, our first Christian Roman Emperor.  After being anathematized by the Council of Nicea, he actually went on to enjoy a rather comfortable career in the empire, while the "winners" of the debate actually failed rather miserably to shape the emerging Christendom into anything actually very Jesus-like.  The world has been the worse for that failure.
What is happening at Wheaton right now is a betrayal of the very best of our tradition.  It is not a rejection of heresy, it is a squelching of diverse opinions and voices within the stream of orthodoxy.  We are at our worst when we cannot hear other voices, because it should be clear that God has rather stubbornly chosen to speak through other people.  I would say we need to open our ears to hear on a  more regular basis, if you can't bring yourself to hear Jewish and Muslim voices, or even Hindu and Buddhist voices, at least try listening to some Christians who think a little differently than you.  Wheaton refers to itself as evangelical, which means they are about "good news," does anything about this seem like good news to you?