It must be frankly declared that sometimes the antithesis is
lost altogether. There's a real danger the synthesis sought for (in order to
function vis-à-vis the world) in fact loses its Christian distinctiveness.
Christian 'worldview' can all too easily succumb to being a form of sanctified
worldliness.
The story of Wheaton and much of Evangelicalism is one of
compromise. The rise of the Evangelical 'movement' if it can be called that in
the post-war period was in many ways a response to Fundamentalism. It attempted
to retain the doctrinal foundations of Fundamentalism but also engage the
culture and put on a more friendly and marketable face. It sought respect and
access to social institutions and in particular academia.
Even those who believe the notion was well intentioned must
question its outcome. Others, like Iain Murray have (in my opinion) rightly read
the attempt and resulting situation as something akin to a disaster. The
movement has failed in its objectives and actually proved quite destructive in
terms of the Church at large. It has compromised the Christian witness both
within and without and has earned no respect in the public square.
This
teacher, a theologically liberal Christian woman, who of course being a
theological liberal is in fact not really a Christian at all, is right to be
fired from her position. She should have never been hired in the first place.
The hijab business was well intentioned if perhaps a bit foolish, but her
comments regarding the 'same god' are clearly out of bounds and expose her
deeper theological commitments and confusion. She may be a nice person and in
some respects a good teacher but if the school is looking for Christian
teachers, then she fails the test.
Wheaton of course has lost all credibility (in my book) due
to its associations with a host of villains from Billy Graham to Dennis Hastert
and Michael Gerson. It is one of the established faces of Evangelicalism and
while many believed the installment of Calvinist Philip Ryken would boost its
standing, Wheaton has continued to be a disappointment to many conservatives.
Wheaton, Illinois serves as one of the Evangelical 'hubs' in
the United States. Before Colorado Springs, there was Wheaton. It's the home of
the college, the NAE, Crossway publishing etc...
These organisations and the theology behind them represent
the accommodation and shift in emphasis present in Evangelicalism as opposed to
the earlier Fundamentalism. While there's much to criticise in Fundamentalism
and in particular the direction it took, the Evangelical response has been one
of compromise and corruption.
Wheaton's dilemma regarding this teacher represents the
present culmination of these events. It's no great surprise. They opened the
door to this long ago and now the 'shutting' of the door will prove ugly,
costly and harm the reputation of the movement. The right stand Wheaton is
making will not appear to be related to the gospel but to the right-wing political
and social agenda advocated by Evangelicalism. Of course to be fair,
Evangelicals view the social agenda as part of the gospel mission. What was
once social conservatism and patriotism has morphed and has been greatly
influenced by the age old heresy of Dominionism.
It is noteworthy that among Fundamentalists such questions as
'accreditation' were answered in a different way. The antithesis was far more
important than social respect or access. Many of the Christians I met in Europe
understood this long ago. In my opinion many of them have grasped the
'antithesis' in a way Americans have not. They don't have a political voice and
in many countries to embrace Biblical Christianity is to some degree 'break'
with society. Respect is not something they seek. The university system and
seminaries are often viewed with suspicion, especially if they comply with
social norms and accreditation.
Evangelicalism
in seeking respect embraced and augmented the earlier compromises in the realm
of Biblical and textual scholarship. Crossway is perhaps best known as the
publisher of the ESV and the overlap between the producers of the ESV and
Wheaton are striking and no accident. The ESV was but another example of
Evangelicals embracing secular 'scholarship' in the realm of Biblical text
studies and a rejection of historical Scriptural infallibility vs. the
pseudo-scientific attempts to 'rediscover' the inerrant text. The modern
doctrine of inerrancy does not believe our Bibles to be inerrant, or rather
believes them to be inerrant only insofar as they align with the ever changing
academic views regarding the original text. The Evangelical embrace of the
Critical Text which began in the 19th century represents a desire to
earn academic respect. It has failed in this regard and has left much of the
Church with a Bible it can no longer fully trust.
Evangelicalism also opened the door to psychology entering
the Church. Once again, seeking the respect of the world and fearing to appear
less than modern and scientific the Church opened the door to a system of
thinking completely antithetical to Biblical Anthropology. The presuppositions
of psychology are rooted in materialist concepts regarding what it is to be
human and a host of other notions that categorically reject the teaching of
Scripture with regard to the state of man, what motivates him and what helps
him to find meaning, peace and reconciliation.
The Christian counseling movements have sought to various
degrees to reconcile and modify secular psychology with Scriptural doctrine.
Nouthetic Counseling has attempted to remedy this defection but the movement
has largely been compromised and even now there are many who claim to embrace
it but in fact do not. In seeking respect and standing, the Evangelical
movement has sowed confusion and chaos.
We could continue raising and listing off various corollary
issues but to conclude the one that is perhaps most striking is the embrace of
soft-feminism. The fact that Wheaton embraces the notion that Christian girls,
wives and mothers will venture out into the world as 'career women' and even
end up teaching at a Christian institution exposes the very spirit of
compromise represented by Evangelicalism. It is admitted that there are certain
ambiguities in the New Testament with regard to women working outside the home
etc., but it can be easily demonstrated the idea of Christian career women and
in particular Christian women in authority over Christian men is highly
problematic. I know some will argue the realm of authority is only extended
within the context of the Church and I will agree that all women are certainly
not required to submit to all men. Yet, it is clear the role of teaching and in
particular 'Christian' teaching is limited to men.
Christian colleges and the whole notion of Christian higher
education have generated confusion. Worldview teaching demands that all fields
of study are essentially doctrinal in nature and must be integrated into the
larger theological whole. At this point, if that's what they truly believe, to
embrace women professors in Christian colleges is to reject the imperatives of
office in the New Testament. They have with some degree of confusion
'sacralised' the whole of education and turned all instruction into religious
instruction and worship. But then in order to be at peace with the world and
earn its respect it softly embraces the ideas of the world with regard to
gender roles and escapes the Scriptural teaching through sociological and
bureaucratic sleight-of –hand. We see the same thing occurring when it comes to
Sunday School and other extra-Scriptural creations which though well
intentioned once again demonstrate a lack of trust with regard to the
Sufficiency of Scripture.
Sadly these arguments have been picked up by others of the Dominionist
school who employ them out of different motivations and while also well
intentioned often distort them by casting them within a specific Sacralist and
Transformationalist framework. Their motivations are not that of antithesis for
which I am arguing, but of transformation and conquest, the attempt to take
over and transform the whole of society.