What should we make of the media attention that surrounds viral videos, such as the wedding ceremony in St. Paul, Minnesota, where hip-hop music releases the Dionysiac energy of a bride and groom who groove down the church aisle? Trivia – in a word. What should we make of the buzz that surrounds viral essays, such as Andrew Chignell’s account of what went wrong during the Litfin presidency at Wheaton College? Drama – in a word.
Chignell is no outsider to Wheaton (Class of 1996). Nor am I (Class of 1998). His parents did graduate work at the school. His father taught in the chemistry department for 25 years. And his brothers are alumni. After graduating from the “evangelical Harvard” – an insult if you share Harry Lewis’ view that Harvard offers “excellence without a soul” – Chignell earned his doctorate at an Ivy League (Yale) and then secured a professorship at another one (Cornell). With experience in real and faux Ivy Leagues, he wrote “Whither Wheaton?” for Books & Culture, which was primed to wake up its evangelical readers when the CEO of Christianity Today International – the owner of the magazine – rejected the exposé. SoMa Review, an online journal with a Tillichian appetite for liberal Christianity, welcomed the airing of dirty laundry.
Dramatization was bound to happen when the author committed an entire website to the article with a “story behind the story,” detailing his Herculean fight against the specter of censorship. There is no intrigue here: politics often plays a role in whether an article is published or not published.
Most comments on Chignell’s article praise him for writing with a spirit of goodwill, as he says “not for the sake of settling scores, not in a spirit of smug judgment, but rather to provide one more important perspective as the college and its constituency look to the future.” His article has the appearance of even-handedness. Still, I cannot avoid the impression that a latitudinarian sensibility animates his critique of the president, Duane Litfin, and the provost, Stan Jones. At the beginning of the article, he calls them “definers and defenders of orthodoxy across the college.” By the end of the article, after sources have poisoned the well, he likens them to the pope and, presumably, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith – a comparison that may not sit easy with Catholics.
On the eve of a new presidency, Chignell prods his readers “to keep in mind that a college is not the church . . . Even at a systemic institution like Wheaton, there must be protected space—wiggle-room—for the creative thinking, loving disagreement, and emphatic debate—even about interpretation of the heritage—that set academic communities apart.” I contend that all Christian education is ecclesial education insofar as traditions influence an institution’s mission, creedal commitments, faculty selection, curriculum, pedagogy, and worship. So the real question here is not whether traditions are involved but which ones. It seems that Chignell would prefer the “wiggle room” of Episcopalianism to the cramped quarters of conservative and confessional Evangelicalism. What does this wiggling get Episcopalians? A church in ruins, if R. R. Reno’s lament is right. What would wiggling get Wheaties? Possibly established nonbelief, as George Marsden’s chronicle proves with other de-Christianized institutions.
To avoid being pigeonholed as a “fundy,” I will go on the record. I would like to see Wheaton open its Protestant-only hiring practice to Orthodox and Catholic scholars who are willing – in good conscience – to affirm the Statement of Faith and Community Covenant, although few could reconcile themselves to those documents. I would like to see Wheaton open its range of acceptable options on the origin of human species, permitting scientists to endorse any of the following:
(1) reject the idea that Adam and Eve were created from pre-existing human-like creatures, or hominids”; (2) are neutral or “unsure” on the hominid theory; (3) affirm that “God gave a human spirit to a pair of pre-existing human-like creatures, or hominids”; or (4) deny the historicity of Adam and Eve and think of Genesis as a wholly “theological document.”
When Litfin began his presidency, options (3) and (4) were “deemed inconsistent with ongoing employment. Those who affirmed (2) were given one year to change their view to (1), or else they too would be asked to seek employment elsewhere.” After protest from the faculty and board, “Litfin agreed to allow people to remain in camp (2) indefinitely.” Finally, I would like to see Wheaton adopt a more horizontal model of leadership, where the president serves as “first among equals,” regularly consulting with the various constituencies of the school: faculty, board, students, and alumni.
Beyond this, I will not speculate about the personality and leadership style of Litfin. The Bible contains a record of God appointing all sorts of governing authorities – introverted and extroverted, managerial and relational. The protracted chorus of boohoos over runner-up, Nathan Hatch, strikes me as melodramatic. We can be certain that Hatch would have been a different kind of president, but not necessarily a better president. “For everything there is a season” (Eccles 3:1). And lest we forget, we should pay “respect to whom respect is owed” (Rom 13:7), even if that is limited to respect for the office rather than the officeholder.
In addition, I will not speculate about the decision-making behind the faculty who were not hired and the faculty who were forced to resign during the Litfin years. Everyone has a story, and all sides must be voiced before weighing in.
On a personal note, I took a course in cultural anthropology from Alex Bolyanatz – one of the professors who was forced to resign because the administration perceived that he “failed to develop the necessary basic competence in the integration of Faith and Learning, particularly in the classroom setting.” My perception was different. Professor Bolyanatz modeled exemplary competence.
On a cautionary note, I would not victimize Christina Van Dyke as a “casualty of the magisterial approach.” The administration passed on her candidacy for the philosophy department when she amended the Community Covenant with “a clarification saying that ‘it isn’t clear to me that the Bible unambiguously condemns monogamous same-sex relationships.’” Enter the provost. Jones’ scientific research on homosexuality might be contestable, but this psychologist correctly insisted on the exegetical consensus of the church for over two millennia: the biblical writers clearly oppose homosexual behavior, and Wheaton chooses to uphold this consensus.
A veil of neutrality thinly hides Chignell’s approbation for the shift in Zeitgeist at Wheaton during the Liftin years. When America tacks to the left, Wheaton moves in the opposite direction. With the peril of Bill Clinton coming to the White House, the trustees found what Chignell seems to regard as a “hard-right” culture warrior who would keep the school from “going too liberal.” During the 1990s, Chignell implies the student population was beholden to the Religious Right, zealous to follow the mission – “For Christ and His Kingdom” – as activists, pastors and missionaries. With the promise of George W. Bush in the White House, the trustees could exhale with “one of their own” at the helm. During the first decade of the twenty-first century, the student population became increasingly apolitical, zealous to follow the mission as crusaders for “social and environmental justice.”
Chignell seems to welcome this “apparent drift towards the center,” overlooking how the center never holds – always slipping to the right or the left – and how one error is often exchanged for another. If the student population was beholden to the Religious Right, why should they be immune to the Religious Left? Note the irony: progressive evangelicals like Charles Marsh and Randall Balmer decry the political captivity of the gospel when Focus on the Family advocates on issues of abortion, family, and marriage, but no dissent is heard when Sojourners advocates on issues of climate change, war, health care, and poverty.
Now that Barack Obama occupies the White House, predicting who will become the next president of Wheaton is a crapshoot. If precedent holds, the trustees will react to the leftward drift after the 2008 presidential election and choose another hard-right culture warrior. Chignell and company would cringe.
All this attention to evangelicals and the body politic is an exercise in missing the point. Chignell says his goal was “to view Wheaton the way it views itself,” but the editorial bias and limited sources only reveal how one constituency views itself. Acknowledging the “diversity within the evangelical movement,” all friends of Wheaton – left or right, emergent or traditional – ought to focus on the mission, which gets slighted, even buried, in Chignell’s article. Bottom line: the future health of Wheaton depends on its passion “For Christ and His Kingdom.”
Here I recruit an unlikely ally: Carl Raschke, an equal-opportunity offender because he reminds evangelicals of their myopia: “The cross is the fulcrum of everything that matters in following Christ (i.e., ‘take up your cross’) because it signifies in the most radical fashion what God is all about. God so loved the world that he gave his only Son as a sacrificial love offering.” In Chignell’s story about Wheaton, we can visualize a donkey and an elephant, a stick and a carrot, but not a cross. Why? Raschke offers a convincing answer in his latest book:
Modernist critics of the latest youth-oriented “cooler than cool” sort of cultural postmodernism, which habitually calls itself the “new kind” of Christianity when it is no more than warmed-over 1960s-style social liberalism do have a point–everything else notwithstanding–that needs to be made. “Mere Christianity” can no more be identified with a simple antidogmatism, or antiauthoritarianism, or even a “generous orthodoxy,” than can genuine and passionate love be defined as a simple recoil against hatred or indifference. So much of the evangelical conversation has come to be framed in terms of how open-minded or nonjudgmental a Christian is supposed to be. This conversation, which often dissipates into nasty argument, represents little more than a form of internecine warfare among competing clans of the spiritually prideful. “Holier than thou” is thus postmodernized as “Less rigid than thou.” Jesus never made a case for or against tolerance. He called sinners to repentance and the proud to humility.
I am grateful that Chignell calls us “to honestly evaluate past administrations in the process of appointing new ones,” but honesty requires us to widen the scope of evaluation beyond the “internecine warfare among competing clans of the spiritually prideful.” In preparation for the next leader of Wheaton, all clans should overcome their “spirit of contrariness” and “passive-aggressive incredulity about what is lurking out there in the world at large,” asking the urgent questions that Raschke poses:
Can we commit ourselves to preaching the joyful inevitability of the coming GloboChrist, the GloboChrist who turns back the sword of Islam just as Pope Leo in the fifth century, according to the Christian legend, turned back Attila, the “Scourge of God,” at the River Po through the power of God and his miraculous signs in the heavens? Or is the “emerging” future of the new evangelicalism, as Mark Driscoll has savagely and sarcastically quipped, in the hands of a generation of “whiny idealists getting together in small groups to complain about megachurches and the religious right rather than doing something” that will hasten the eschaton itself?
February 10th, 2010 | 10:42 am | #1
This is such a wide-ranging critique… I found myself readily agreeing on some points and vigorously disagreeing on others.
Oh well. It’s still a worthy read.
February 10th, 2010 | 12:41 pm | #2
I was not a little disturbed by various commentators’ inability to see through the soft and pleasant veneer of “balance” in Chignell’s essay to the emotional manipulation that is offered in place, for the most part, of reasonable argument. His treatment of the dismissal of Dr. Van Dyke is but one example:
Was Van Dyke right to be agnostic about homosexual relationships? Chignell doesn’t say. But we do know that Van Dyke has degrees from a Christian college and an Ivy League university, and that the philosophy department supported her, so that must be what matters.
The unfortunate result is a carefully constructed undermining of a Christian man’s reputation through mere sentiment and pleasant guile. Sadly, that is enough to persuade many with itching ears.
February 10th, 2010 | 1:13 pm | #3
As one who has absolutely no knowledge, at all, about Wheaton, other than the fact that I’ve heard the name, I read this article out of curiosity, over my lunch today.
It is quite obvious, frankly, that the article’s goal is to blast the previous Wheaton administration for insisting that conservative Evangelicalism be the order of the day at a conservative Evangelical college.
The “smoking gun” agenda-driven/axe grinding intention of the article, though it is couched in a lot of sweetness-and-light, comes in the discussion of Van Dyke’s situation.
I mean, honestly, hello?
Why would Wheaton or any conservative Evangelical want a professor teaching who can not even affirm the Biblical doctrine of marriage?
We are supposed to feel some kind of sympathy for her or be impressed that she has an “Ivy League Ph.D.”?
The article is simply a typically post-modern passive-aggresive hatchet job on Wheaton, and the authors have plenty of bias on the subject.
“These are not embittered grumblers” . . . I chuckled at that line.
February 10th, 2010 | 10:17 pm | #4
Utterly laughable. As a professor at a school myself, I wonder why anyone falls prey to such victim scenarios as “They hired a bumpkin from Tennessee to supervise We-The-Educated!” Because having an MA or PhD guarantees what exactly? Witness the story about the professor who plays hurt because she refuses to concur with teaching on homosexuality shared by all communions for milennia. “I didn’t *deny* it,” she cries, “I simply couldn’t support it.” This from someone schooled in the canons of logic and tradition? Does she sound at all like any politicos we know, no to mention Episcopalians? Let’s face the fact we are in a head-on collision with relativism. How on earth is the Bible any clearer on pre-marital sex than homosexuality? But the Dept. Chair at Wheaton cried. Cried? Maybe we are worse off than we thought. Now she is at Calvin… and we know how healthy they are on the gay question. The Modernist controversies that hit Catholicism a century ago need our attention, before Wheaton and South Bend are both more similar to Harvard than each other.
February 10th, 2010 | 10:39 pm | #5
As a follow-up, the publication SoMa was named in honor of “a group of French scientists and intellectuals [who]…hoped to prove that the soul doesn’t exist.” How wildly appropriate. This from a self-proclaimed Son of Wheaton. St. Jim Elliot, pray for us!
February 11th, 2010 | 10:36 am | #6
Christopher Benson,
My interest in Wheaton is as a possible university for my young children to attend. Unfortunately, the bloom has fallen off this rose according to some reports. I’ve read that it’s become a hotbed of feminism (egalitarianism… led by Professor Gilbert B.) and that a number of Wheaton grads turn emergent or mush-brain mainline liberals like Episcopalians.
To provide a thorough critique of your post is more than I want to do.
I do thank you for posting it. And to the previous commenters for their review of Chignell’s commentary.
February 11th, 2010 | 3:00 pm | #7
Gilbert Bilezikian has retired.
February 11th, 2010 | 3:47 pm | #8
Hi Christopher Benson,
I don’t know if the empirical data you’re requesting exists (if it does, I’d like to look at it… just like climate scientists and lay people wanting to pore over empirical data for Global Warming), but I can refer you to anecdotal reports:
“Sadly, Wheaton still gets some good students, but the place is a union shop for feminism, as our daughter-in-law, Heidi Bayly (a recent Wheaton grad) reports. And if you’re going to pay for profs like that, why not pay state school prices?
Among Calvin and Wheaton and Taylor and Hillsdale and Grove City grads who move here for grad school, we get some Taylor and Hillsdale and Grove City grads, but Calvin and Wheaton grads go Emergent. They tremble in anticipation of how they’ll be received at IU, and carefully posture themselves for invisibility.”
February 11th, 2010 | 3:54 pm | #9
Christopher Benson: “Among the faculty and students, there are upholders of evangelical feminism and male complementarianism: both points of view should be represented in order to reflect the diversity within Evangelicalism.”
I respectfully, yet very firmly disagree.
Nuance:
(1) I readily agree with you that there is this egalitarianism/complementariansim diversity within Evangelicalism today, and I’m happy to stipulate to it.
(2) I prefer Christian universities/colleges to take a clear and firm stand on this theological issue.
(3) One observation may be that because Wheaton refused to take a stand for biblical patriarchy, ala (2) above, in crept theological liberalism.
And so on and so forth.
February 11th, 2010 | 4:02 pm | #10
I am really out of it, but I have had a great appreciation for Wheaton in the past. I am completely unfamiliar with the developments there over the past several years. Is there to be found anywhere an objective (balanced, informed, honest, whatever, …) account of what has transpired? Thanks.
February 11th, 2010 | 4:25 pm | #11
Christopher Benson, I appreciate your tempered criticism toward Chignell. I thought about exhibiting such a generosity, until I realized that personal damage is being done to Litfin’s reputation. In such a case, I think more harshness is warranted. I understand you might disagree.
In your terminology, I perceived not a latitudinarian sensibility per se, but a selective latitudinarian sensibility. Chignell was not so gracious toward the views he disagreed with, and I’d say that’s the most important kind of latitude to give.
February 11th, 2010 | 4:43 pm | #12
Christopher Benson,
I like my moniker. Lots of folks shorten it to TUAD or TUaD.
BTW, I used the word “stipulate”, not “stimulate”. Big difference.
Also, what you term “diversity” within Evangelicalism I actually think of as harmful leaven… when it comes to the practice and teaching of egalitarianism within Evangelicalism.
Egalitarianism: “Diversity” = “Leaven”
February 11th, 2010 | 4:48 pm | #13
Christopher Benson: but I do not think the other point of view should be silenced in the academy because this debate qualifies as a “non-essential,””
(1) What is “essential” and “non-essential”? And why should your definition be accepted?
(2) This is ridiculous. A complementarian university/professor can certainly have his/her students read and understand and critique egalitarian arguments and positions.
Just like a creationist university/professor can certainly have his/her students read and understand and critique evolution arguments and positions.
February 11th, 2010 | 6:16 pm | #14
Christopher Benson, Raschke’s observation, which I read in the post but neglected to mention, is piercingly accurate.
My interest in Wheaton College isn’t as an alumnus; I have a great interest, though, in higher education and education in general, so an evaluation of the evangelical “flagship” college drew my attention. I’d like to become a teacher, either in secondary or higher education, because I’ve come to believe education is the most important area that the Church needs to reclaim and redeem for the long-term glory of Christ and so is where God is calling us to. I think the inevitable secularization of the industrial public school system and a relative abdication of the pursuit of broad and deep wisdom in mid and late modernity has been disastrous for the Church, who has too long given her children over to her enemies. Strong words, but accurate as a generalization and plausible to anyone who has spent much time in contemporary public schools or knows who is Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar.”
I checked back to the Hosting the Holy One post and saw your kind words about my comments and your excellent distillation of the concerns of the various–well, two–viewpoints. Thank you for your compliments, and especially for raising important questions and issues in your posts!
February 12th, 2010 | 9:36 am | #15
I’m gonna try one more time and then I’ll shut up: Is there to be found anywhere an objective (balanced, informed, honest, whatever, …) account of what has transpired at Wheaton in the past several years? I just want to know. Thanks.
February 12th, 2010 | 5:42 pm | #16
Christopher Benson, could you contact me at asleep06 at gmail.com ?
February 12th, 2010 | 9:10 pm | #17
Thank you for the article, Mr. Benson.
A small point: I know this is ‘only’ the internet, and a blog at that, but it would strengthen your credibility if your spelling were more accurate. Is it Liftin or Litfin or Liftfin? All three appear in the essay.
February 13th, 2010 | 5:49 pm | #18
Frankly, I find much of this discussion silly (trying to find the “perfect” Christian college so your children don’t run to the emergent wolves? beyond ridiculous). But I will point interested readers like Bob Sacamento to David Malone’s excellent resource page providing information on scholarly research on Wheaton: http://recollections.liblog.wheaton.edu/2010/01/19/whither-wheaton-further-insights-into-wheaton-college/
Personally, I thought Chignell’s piece was very fine work, indeed.
February 14th, 2010 | 4:02 pm | #19
As the subject of much of this silliness, perhaps your readers may be interested in my response to the Chignell piece.
In large measure my response is a relaxed one. Andrew is a good man who loves Wheaton. He has a right to his views and has a right to express them. What’s more, his criticisms are not new. I have heard versions of this critique my whole time at Wheaton. This article is best seen as more of the same.
Immediately upon arriving at Wheaton it quickly became clear to me that the College family (students, faculty, staff, alumni, donors, friends, parents) represents a bell curve of opinion on almost any topic you can imagine. Far from walking in lockstep, this is a community of diverse views. It’s one of the things that make Wheaton such an interesting place. Professor Chignell’s key complaint is a good example of this diversity.
Andrew apparently thinks the stance of Wheaton College is too narrow, too tight. He focuses his complaint on the administration but that’s a bit of misdirection. His real objection is to some aspects of the historic stance of the College itself. Put simply, he would like to see Wheaton broaden out. The article focuses on my tenure only because for the past seventeen years I have been perceived as the prime obstacle to that agenda. But this focus only distracts the reader from the deeper and more important questions: Should Wheaton maintain its historic stance, or should it broaden itself? And if so, in what ways and to what degree?
The reason I say there is little new in Professor Chignell’s critique is that on this issue the Wheaton family has long represented our standard bell curve. Thus it has always been and thus it will always be. The bulk of Wheaton’s constituency stand in the middle, supporting approximately the stance Wheaton has long represented. But as you move out toward the wings of the curve you encounter more and more disagreement. Professor Chignell represents one of those wings in that while he genuinely cares for Wheaton, he would also like the College to jettison some of what has historically been a part of its understanding of itself. This would have the desired effect of widening the institution, making it more “inclusive.” But of course, on the other wing of our bell curve you have equally convinced critics who believe Wheaton is already too broad and too inclusive. In their view Wheaton is “going liberal” and needs to tighten up. So who’s right? The bulk in the middle? Those on either wing? And who decides? These are legitimate questions which need to be discussed. But they are not new.
That said, I should note that there is at least one aspect of this article I did find unique. In my experience the ad hominem tone of the piece was unusual for Wheaton. Most Wheaton critics keep try to keep their focus on the issues. Professor Chignell’s agenda seems to have been a more personal one. Never mind that his take on the historical anecdotes he cites cannot get any of those accounts right; there are too many dimensions of each of those stories of which Professor Chignell is simply unaware. It’s like reporting only one side of a debate and then assuming you have represented that debate fairly. But the more important point is this: Had the article kept its focus on the issues it might have done its readers better service. These are important matters and they deserve to be thoughtfully explored in public.
This was, in fact, why I wrote the book I did, Conceiving the Christian College (Eerdmans, 2004). In that book I discuss at length each of the deeper issues at work in this article: What it means to be a confessional institution; what it takes to remain one; how broadly or narrowly we should define ourselves; who decides; our understanding of how we fit into the larger academic community; what it means for any of us (staff, faculty, president, board member) to affirm the institution’s statement of faith; even Wheaton’s approach to the question of hiring Catholics. All of these topics and more are dealt with carefully, respectfully, and in detail, without any ad hominem distractions. For some reason Professor Chignell chose to ignore this discussion in favor of a different approach.
Before I accepted the position as Wheaton’s president, I spent a long afternoon with my predecessor, Richard Chase, exploring the question of what it’s really like to serve in this position. One of the first things Dick said to me that afternoon is pertinent here. He said, “Duane, if you’re the kind of person who must have everyone’s approval, you won’t enjoy this job.” Dick was acknowledging in that comment the above bell curve of opinion.
Over the years I‘ve come to understand what President Chase was saying: No matter what you do as president, some who stand elsewhere on the opinion curve will disapprove. You may be able to choose who you will disappoint, but you cannot choose not to disappoint anyone; that option is unavailable. You may receive floods of affirmation and support from the bulk of the College’s constituency, but elements of criticism and disapproval are also baked into the position. President Chase was telling me to get used to it, and his was good counsel. I have sought to follow his advice by developing a standard response to criticism, including the present instance: Remind yourself that you need to listen to your critics, try to give them a fair hearing, learn what you can, and then get on with things.
As to the question of whether we had anything to do with the canceling of Professor Chignell’s article over at Books and Culture, the answer is simple and direct: We did not. I knew Professor Chignell was writing something because he had raised a few questions with me by email. But I did not know what his deadline was, or that he had finished his piece, or what it contained, or where he intended to submit it for publication. Thus, whatever CTI’s reasons for rejecting the piece, influence from us was not one of them. There are parts of Professor Chignell’s piece I find unfortunate, as above, but none I find particularly threatening. And even if there were I would not have tried to stifle its publication. Despite the unflattering portrait painted in this article, we do not operate that way. In fact, I have a conscience against operating that way. And I would like to think that the folks over at CTI have enough journalistic integrity to resist us even had we attempted to do so.
The notion of Litfin as a right wing “culture warrior” is nonsense. In answer to Mr. Sacamento’s wise question, if you want to know what this whole brouhaha is about, or who Duane Litfin is, or what makes Wheaton College tick, read the book. It’s all there.
February 14th, 2010 | 4:35 pm | #20
Dr. Litfin, I appreciate the fact that you took the time to post a comment here. It was very evident to me, as someone who knows next to nothing about Wheaton that the article by Prof. Chignell was animated by something more than objective analysis. The sound of an axe being ground was loud and clear.
It would, in my opinion, be the death of Wheaton were it to try to “broaden” out to become something other than it is. There are plenty of bland quasi-Christian/Evangelical colleges and universities out there. There is certainly no need for Wheaton to become yet one more.
God bless your work.
February 14th, 2010 | 8:40 pm | #21
All of us who went to Wheaton care deeply about the place, whether we see it as an apostasy factory (see the “union shop feminism” thread above) or a model of intellectual conformity that might interest Kim Jong‐Il. In such a charged atmosphere, civility and graciousness are hard to maintain, and both Prof. Chignell and Dr. Litfin are commendable for doing so.
“Whither Wheaton?” was a courageous and heartfelt piece of journalism. Andrew told a story that had not really been told, at a time when it needed to be heard. And look at its fruits: a broad, spirited, and newly‐informed discussion about how rigidly Wheaton College should define itself going forward. Isn’t this a good thing?
I sympathize with much of Dr. Litfin’s response. Running a place like Wheaton must be incredibly taxing. I was relieved, also, to hear that the administration played no role in squashing Andrew’s story. All of this is welcome, as are the references to the broader philosophical arguments in Dr. Litfin’s book.
The response also contains some things I am simply not in a position to evaluate, e.g., an accusation that the reporting is missing crucial facts, and the identification of his own ideology with the college’s historical identity.
Finally, there is the charge of ad hominem.
Attending Wheaton in the twilight of the Chase era, I witnessed the regime change myself. One can take the “great purge” that followed Dr. Litfin’s appointment as cause for celebration or lamentation. (For me, it’s the latter.) But whatever you think about it, it did happen. There was a noticeable tightening of ideological boundaries, and that was not by coincidence. It was part of why Dr. Litfin was hired and part of the job he performed with great conviction.
At a moment when Wheaton faces a simultaneous choice of philosophy and personnel, I do not think it is “ad hominem” to point that out.
February 14th, 2010 | 8:44 pm | #22
Mr. Cross, do you believe Wheaton College should have faculty members who can not even affirm marriage is between one man and one woman?
February 15th, 2010 | 3:52 pm | #23
My son, a high school senior with great test scores, has been accepted at Wheaton and the Honors College at The Ohio State University. Ah, what is a dad to do?
February 15th, 2010 | 8:06 pm | #24
Dale:
Have you considered Baylor? If your son’s a National Merit Scholar, it’s free tuition for four years!
On the matter of Wheaton, I was there in September to engage in a public dialogue with Timothy George on Catholics and Evangelicals. Dr. Litfin was a marvelous and gracious host. I felt totally welcome and at home at Wheaton.
As for the article, I am not sure that terms “narrow” and “wide” can be applied in any informative sense in these debates. Take, for example, your typical secular university that has no explicit “statement of faith.” We all know that such an institution claims to be broad, but if you look at the religious and political composition of its faculty it is far less interesting than the faculty at a place like Wheaton (or Baylor).
I teach at Baylor, an institution that folks at Texas and Berkeley would call “conservative,” implying that we eschew liberty (in the sense of being illiberal). But such a description is a caricature. In my own department, for example, we have a wide range of views on classic philosophic questions and theological traditions. Some of us are Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, and Anglican. And yet we are committed to an understanding of faith and reason that allows us to have this diversity within unity. That is, without that unity our diversity becomes cacophony of intellectual solipsists preaching to the choir rather a real vibrant academic community.
Because we think of the university as more an organism than a cafeteria, we have much greater intellectual ferment and engagement than so-called liberal schools, where everyone practically thinks alike and where the differences are between different secular denominations whose common creed is on the left side of the culture war (e.g., radical feminists v. feminists, Kantian anti-realists v. Rortian anti-realists but no Thomistic realists).
A conservative Evangelical is an object of ridicule at places like Cornell. A secular atheist is a respected guest who is loved for the sake of Christ at places like Wheaton. That’s the difference. We’re comfortable in our own skin while folks at places like Cornell want to tattoo us.
February 16th, 2010 | 10:21 am | #25
Christopher: Yes, he has applied and been accepted at various institutions. His area of study will be math/physics…unlike his pastor dad! My choice for him would be Wheaton over them all.
Francis: Thank you for the ‘heads up’ on Baylor. I was not aware of that! He is, by the way, an addicted reader of “First Things”.
February 16th, 2010 | 5:27 pm | #26
Christopher,
Given this statement: ” I would like to see Wheaton open its range of acceptable options on the origin of human species.” Will you please explain how your position is substantively different from Chignell’s argument for more ‘wiggle room.’
Further, since you are concerned with identifying ‘which traditions’ will be represented (and it appears you have already dismissed ‘Episcopalianism’ in a little under two sentences), will you please explain which traditions tolerate anything resembling positions 2, 3 or 4?
Keep in mind, to be viable, they will need to pass muster with the administration and Wheaton’s demographic/commercial constituency.
February 16th, 2010 | 11:30 pm | #27
Mr. Cross,
ad hominem:
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
(Merriam-Webster)
It may be a matter of fact that some faculty were asked to leave. ascribing those reasons as Chignell did was, in fact, ad hominem. His accounts were incomplete, one-sided, and designed to appeal to the readers feelings (sympathy, outrage, etc.). Anyone who as been tasked with directing personnel can tell you that Chignell’s accounts are incomplete and unfair. Most of all, they are unfair to Dr. Litfin, because they do indeed feature ad hominem attacks, subtle though they may be.
February 17th, 2010 | 6:41 pm | #28
Jonathan,
Thanks for your post, but given the context and substance of the original piece, I believe you chose the wrong definition for ‘ad hominem.’ The term is best understood as an attempt to link an arguments’ validity to an irrelevant personal trait or belief held by the person making the argument. I do not see any instances where Dr. Chignell makes a point by redirecting attention to irrelevant personal characteristics.
Chignell does direct (rather mild) criticism at specific individuals, but his article discusses the merits/successes/shortcomings of the outgoing administration. I don’t see how it is possible to do this without discussing specific people within the administration or highlighting specific decisions they have made. Some of Chignell’s points might strike some readers as unpleasant, but dismissing the piece as ad hominem fails to grasp the nature of the discussion and the purpose of the essay.
Based on my read, I think Dr. Chignell made every effort to critique Wheaton’s administrators only insofar as they are administrators. As an alumnus (1999) who cares deeply about Wheaton’s future (and as someone who continues to receive requests to fund its initiatives) I think this topic is fair game. Further, based on my own experiences and conversations I have had over the years with Wheaton students, alumni, faculty, staff and trustees, I think Chignell’s account is fair, balanced and well-conceived.
In short, Wheaton’s leadership isn’t an abstract argument or philosophical position, and we don’t need to treat it as such. It is comprised of specific individuals who, within limits, may become appropriate subjects for discussion, critique, praise, etc. Further, those of us who are invested in Wheaton are, I believe, entitled to discuss and form opinions about how Wheaton is led and how its leadership might be improved. This discussion can get messy and emotional, but it should happen regardless.
February 20th, 2010 | 2:01 am | #29
Karl,
In that case, I find more ad hominem. For instance, he characterizes all of the decisions made as being “magisterial” or “not relational” or in order not to “unsettle the constituents.” These are just three characterizations of Litfin’s decisions that Litfin disputes, and they ascribe personal motivations that only Litfin can rightly reveal.
February 20th, 2010 | 2:10 am | #30
Andrew Chignell would no doubt be a proponent of the importance of critical review. At the center of his essay Whither Wheaton? is the firm belief that academic excellence should be pursued. With that in mind, I would like to take a close look at his essay before swallowing it whole.
I myself am not an “academic,” though I did graduate from Wheaton (1999) and am nearing the end of my seminary education at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. My interest in the essay (and surrounding discussion) is rooted in my appreciation for Wheaton’s conservative adherence to Christian orthodoxy and commitment. I also am fueled by an appreciation for a job well-done by the outgoing President. I suppose I feel the need to disclose my perspective up front, as upon reflection I believe Chignell should have done the same. Instead he seems to have attempted to disguise his own opinions under a cloak of objectivism and even-handedness.
He tips his hand early on however, when he states that the board of Wheaton “appointed a pastor from Memphis named Duane Litfin over candidates with widespread support and stronger academic credentials.” He does detail that Nathan Hatch was one such apparent candidate, which may be true – though Chignell fails to document this in any way. However, I digress. The questionable aspect of Chignell’s statement is the glaring lack of explanation of Dr. Litfin’s credentials. Indeed he was a “pastor from Memphis,” though that description leaves out some important details. It would have been helpful, if not fair, to include that he also holds a master’s degree in theology. In addition, his two doctorates are from Purdue University (Ph.D., Communication) and Oxford University (D.Phil., New Testament). Further, he was an Associate Professor at Dallas Theological Seminary for a decade. Certainly, many people appreciate the fact that Litfin was also a pastor of a vibrant church (a position which requires actual leadership capability in addition to knowledge), but I suspect that the incomplete picture provided by Chignell was not due to his great respect for Litfin’s church work in the Bible-belt. Rather than making any accusation outright, I’ll just ask: Why would Chignell not feel the need to include an accurate representation of Litfin’s qualifications?
It is my opinion that Litfin was uniquely qualified for the role. The scholarly credentials listed above are but one aspect of his rare combination of talents. Add to that his demonstrated ability to lead and his obvious concern for preserving and declaring God’s Word, and one might conclude that his skill set was quite impressive. Perhaps he was better-rounded than the other candidates for the job.
Chignell also sets up the premise of his essay by citing the “unusually pro-active roles that Litfin and his provost, Stanton Jones, have assumed as the definers and defenders of orthodoxy across the college.” At the risk of splitting hairs I would simply point out that orthodoxy, by definition, is not something a single person (or two people) would seek to define. It is there already. Perhaps some would challenge the validity of certain aspects of orthodoxy, but Duane Litfin and Stan Jones did not sit down and define Christian Orthodoxy. Now, apparently they did seek to defend what has been established as orthodox, and for that I thank them. Question: Does Chignell think it is coincidence that Wheaton is one of the very few remaining institutions of higher learning which holds to orthodoxy? Or might it be that Wheaton has done so precisely because great leaders such as Litfin have stood to defend the wise and true grounds of Christian Orthodoxy as established over generations of Christians?
It is cliché by now, but I’ll nonetheless state the obvious – such institutions as Harvard started to prepare pastors for Christian ministry. Perhaps they could have used a little more “Magisteriality” from their Presidents. When confronting this idea, Chignell flippantly labels it a “slippery-slope” accusation. This is both an inadequate response and unappreciative of the challenges of leadership.
Throughout Chignell’s essay, I found myself wondering how he knows what he knows. For instance, he states that the student body drifted toward the political center during the early part of Litfin’s tenure. He says this happened despite the Litfin being “charged with steering the college toward the right.” Further, Chignell states that “some members of the board of trustees were apparently alarmed in 1992 when the college newspaper reported that well over half the faculty was voting Democratic, and that membership in mainline Protestant denominations – especially the Episcopal Church – was on the rise.” “These trustees began to see the college as on a slippery slope towards Oberlin, with the professors supplying much of the lubrication.” This, then, was the backdrop for hiring Litfin. Questions: Did members of the board actually share their thinking with Chignell? If so, how many did so? If not, how does he know of their determination to steer the college to the right? I am in no position to dispute these claims, but I would think such an essay, if it is to be published by a credible publication such as Books and Culture would explain where such omniscience comes from.
Further, in explaining that Nathan Hatch was overlooked for the position of President, Chignell states that Hatch was reportedly being groomed by the outgoing president to be the successor. Again, this may or may not be true, but I would love some documentation of this. If Chignell can claim this was “reportedly” the case, I would assume he can explain the nature and origination of such reports. Facts aside, are we really to believe that outgoing Presidents enjoy the authority or reasonable expectation to select their own replacement? Chignell then states, “After the Litfin surprise, Hatch resigned from the board and later went on to become president of Wake Forest.” Is Chignell purposefully implying that Hatch resigned from the board because of this “surprise?” If so, a little documentation would go a long way. Instead, one is left to assume or wonder.
As further evidence of the heavy hands of Litfin and Jones, Chignell then presents the case of Dr. Alan Bolyanatz. Before getting into this, I should disclose that I personally love Dr. Bolyanatz, or “Booya,” as he was known to me and the other members of the baseball team. Dr. Bolyanatz was much beloved not only by the baseball team, but also by his students. I personally benefited from his selfless contributions and countless hours of his time. He even traveled with the baseball team on our Spring Break trips to Florida, where he spent time in my own house. He is a great person, and though I never took a class with him I can understand why students loved him. It is indeed sad that he was let go. However, as much as I love the man, I do remember being quite surprised by some of his beliefs. Honestly, I do not specifically recall all of the things that were took me aback, but I do recall taking note that I was surprised he had been given a position at Wheaton in the first place. I have not spoken to Bolyanatz about the current discourses taking place, and frankly I do not wish to have him revisit the unpleasant ordeal.
With all that said, Chignell raises two main issues – the merits of relieving Bolyanatz from his position and how it was carried out. I do know first hand that how it was carried out was a matter that has left Bolyanatz scratching his head (to say the least). Perhaps it could have been handled with more care, though that is a matter on which one would need to hear from more than one side to make a conclusive judgment. Unfortunately, Chignell was only able to report one side. Further, Chignell shows a stunning lack of curiosity when it comes to the merits of the decision itself. I would think an inquisitive approach would yield more information. We know Bolyanatz feels he was not given good explanation for his forced departure, but could he not share so much as some specific suspicions as to why the decision was made? Would a thorough report not at least seek to give the reader some inclination as to the nature of the college’s concerns? Simply “consulting” “40 or so” people for this essay is not all that impressive nor is it terribly useful if the hard work of sincere, rigorous digging for information is not done. What we are left with is statements like this: Bolyanatz was let go “despite the support of his department and the college-wide Faculty Personnel Committee…” What kind of support? Did any others in the department agree with the decision? Can we have a rough estimate of the percentages of agreement vs. disagreement? Finally, Chignell puts it to rest with, “lots of good things won’t seem to fit, of course, when there isn’t much wiggle-room.” Are we to simply conclude that there was no wiggle-room when we haven’t been provided with specific information? While Chignell might be satisfied to do so, it is a disservice to all if the rest of us follow blindly behind.
Then Chignell moves on to the Van Dyke issue. This seems a simple matter of what I started my response with – Litfin and Jones defending (as opposed to defining) orthodoxy. Unpopular as it may be in certain circles today, the Christian stance on homosexuality has in fact been of little debate for thousands of years. One may pick a fight with orthodoxy on this, but one should do just that – it is a fight with orthodoxy, not Duane Litfin or Stan Jones. Further, Chignell rightly raises the point that the issue is a matter of hermeneutics. In raising this, his implication is that Litfin and Jones simply rely on their own hermeneutics, while not taking into account that others may have a different interpretive approach on this (or perhaps any other) issue. I wonder whose hermeneutics should be used? Perhaps Nathan Hatch’s? Is this question not precisely the reason we do rely on orthodoxy? Is it not imperative that we humbly turn to the heritage of our Christian fathers rather than rely on any one particular individual? It seems to me that Van Dyke relied on her own hermeneutics while the “Magisterial” combination of Litfin and Jones relied not on their own interpretative authority, but on the grand heritage that has preserved our cherished beliefs for thousands of years.
Chignell jumps from these examples to a startling statement: “Some people fear that Wheaton’s tax exempt status may be taken away because of these hiring practices.” This is a confusing statement. I thought that for the very reasons Wheaton is tax-exempt they are also free to hire whomever they see fit. Similarly, I don’t think a Catholic or a Methodist could sue my Presbyterian church for not considering them for employment. Whatever the case, Chignell makes a fairly large statement here, again with no documentation or specificity. Who are the people with fears concerning Wheaton’s tax status? Are these fears based on any semblance of reality?
After building his entire essay to this point on the premise that the board of trustees was tacking to the right in the face of the leftward direction of society and government, Chignell then takes flimsy turn. Despite previously implying that Litfin and Jones rely own their own hermeneutics for the decisions in question, Chignell then quotes Professor Timothy Larsen in declaring that wealthy older alumni and not the government are the real concern in policy decisions. “Thou shalt not unsettle our constituency is the first principle around here,” says Larsen. I have no idea if Professor Larsen makes this assessment accurately, but either way it flies in the face of the case that Chignell is attempting to make. First, Chignell has already explained that in rejecting Van Dyke, Provost Jones had introduced a large collection of his own research on the topic. That, combined with a respect for Christian Orthodoxy would appear to be the grounds on which a decision was made. Did Provost Jones simply dedicate his career to researching psychology and homosexuality in an effort to keep “the constituency” smiling? Or can we give Jones an ounce of credit and say his research and his hiring standards are based on Christian conviction? Chignell criticizes Jones for relying on his own research while at the same time suggesting that his decisions were not made on research but to placate “the constituency.” Which is it?
Secondly, as Chignell also previously explained, it was on the watch of Litfin and Jones that the long-standing “pledge” was changed. I don’t know how many of “the constituency” was happy to see those changes, but I suspect it was “unsettling” to a good many.
Thirdly, Chignell explains that moving away from conservative stances would actually result in better fundraising (citing Larsen, who cites a “top fundraising administrator”). If this is true, are we to conclude that the Litfin administration is oblivious to this? If it is true, as Chignell maintains, then I would imagine this is not lost on Litfin, who has done a masterful job in his fundraising. And thus, if it is true that his conservatism is a net loss for Wheaton’s fundraising, then Litfin is in fact sticking to his guns in the very face of “the constituency.”
Chignell then returns to more criticism of personnel decisions. Specifically, he explains how an assistant professor, Joshua Hochschild, was asked to leave upon converting to Catholicism. Chignell takes issue with that decision. Unlike Chignell, I am in no way surprised or dismayed that Catholicism presented too many problems for continued employment at Wheaton College. However, what I find more troubling than Chignell’s disagreement with the decision is his questionable attachment of a side issue. Namely, he implies that Mark Noll left Wheaton at least in some part due to this Catholic/Personnel issue. Chignell reports that Noll “then decamped for Notre Dame,” and that:
When asked why he left after 27 years, Noll replied that it was more a matter of being drawn toward a new opportunity than of fleeing problems at Wheaton. But he also pointed to his comments in “The Future of Christian Learning: An Evangelical and Catholic Dialogue”—comments which clearly suggest that evangelical institutions would greatly assist their efforts by employing sympathetic Catholic faculty like Hochschild.
What is the reader to make of this? The only clear statement is that Noll did not leave out of protest. However, Chignell muddies this by including that Noll “pointed to his comments” in the book. However, we are not told what comments he pointed to. Rather than clearly explaining what comments Noll pointed to, Chignell simply declares that whatever the comments were, we are to take his word for it that the comments indicate his disagreement with the personnel decision. Perhaps Chignell is entirely accurate in this, but a fair and responsible essay would not have the reader rely on an unsubstantiated characterization by the author, but rather on the actual comments of Noll. In the absence of that, I must only consider what I know Noll actually said – that he left for a good opportunity elsewhere. Either Chignell is playing fast and loose with some important facts here, or he has not been very thorough in his writing. Either way, we are asked to make a great leap.
In an attempt to understand some of the questions I have raised above, I corresponded with Wheaton faculty and received information the board of Christianity Today (the body that was responsible for rejecting Chignell’s essay for Books and Culture.) Two troubling themes that emerged from these contacts were a lack of personal trust in Chignell and a lack of professionalism in his essay. I have already brought some of the professionalism issues to light. What is more troubling is the contention that Chignell has not been careful with the truth. For example, in his original essay, he claimed that the Philosophy Department was unanimous its opposition to both the Van Dyke decision and the Hochschild decision. Chignell also claims that the chair of the department was in tears over one of these decisions. All three of these claims are disputed by members of the department. I have also been told by faculty that there are more inaccuracies than the three I’ve listed. One stated to me, “Andrew’s ‘take’ on my position and the positions of some others in our department are much further from the truth than any of us have come out publicly to say.” However, there is a prevailing sense among faculty who take issue with the essay that they would rather disregard the situation rather than bringing more attention to it. To boot, one member stated that if there is a complaint to be made about the Litfin administration it is that he has not taken “strong enough stands for historic evangelical Protestantism.” Perhaps the fact that Litfin is receiving criticism from both sides of the spectrum is an indication of a well-balanced approach.
Toward the end of his essay, Chignell levels some broad characterizations of Dr. Litfin as being unilateral, not relational, iron fisted, legalistic, and intimidating. It is not unlike a great flurry at the end of a fireworks display. Amidst this flurry, Chignell states that faculty meetings often lack substance, as professors hesitate to speak up. In fact, we are told that they also hesitated to go on the record for his essay. One bold soul who bucked this trend was former professor Ashley Woodiwiss, who, informed of this faculty reticence – by Chignell I assume – responded, “The fact that at a liberal arts college tenured faculty are unwilling and/or uneasy to speak on the record…now that might be telling in its own right, no?” Perhaps. In fact, perhaps it is telling of some unease about the essay, which leads to my last question: Could some of the faculty simply have exercised wisdom in desiring to keep their name out of this essay?
I have not minced words here. At the same time, I hope I have not overstepped. My intention is not to personally attack Andrew Chignell, just as I suspect it was not his intention to attack Dr. Litfin or Dr. Jones. In my limited interaction with him concerning his essay, he has been very cordial and respectful. He has also indicated a deep respect for the truth. It is in that same spirit that I bring forth my questions. Perhaps he has some good answers to my questions, and if so I would be interested in him setting me straight. In the meantime, I would urge people to consider some of my questions before accepting Chignell’s essay uncritically. As we all wonder “Whither Wheaton?” I hope we do so with a full appreciation for the difficult and effective work done by our outgoing President. For seventeen years he has preserved the Christian ideals of Wheaton College, the likes of which are exceedingly rare. At the same time, Wheaton has maintained its outstanding academic reputation and performance. To have achieved both of these tasks demonstrates a job well done, and serves to commend the decision of the board in hiring President Litfin.
February 20th, 2010 | 9:47 pm | #31
[...] I reflected on the future of Wheaton College, I claimed that what matters for the future of Evangelicalism [...]
February 22nd, 2010 | 12:31 am | #32
“[A] community of diverse views”? You mean within evolution denial, anti-homosexuality, and Protestantism, right? On this point, I’m curious to know how racially diverse your faculty and student body is.
The issue is not where to fall on a bell curve of opinion, but on what is right and what isn’t. For instance, is it right to have certain positions on evolution prohibited? Btw, it is truly bizarre to have to tell the President of Wheaton College to avoid moral relativity.
Ad hominem? You must be joking. What personal quality of yours did Chignell attack? I read only about your actions. And you have no right to tell an author what are the issues he must restrict his focus to. This statement simply underlines the magisterial approach Chignell attributes to you. “For some reason Professor Chignell chose to ignore this discussion in favor of a different approach.” Yes, he favored his own approach. Obviously you are unused to dealing with such a thing.
February 22nd, 2010 | 6:54 am | #33
Dear Jonathan Rockness,
A most outstanding comment. Much, much thanks for writing it.
February 22nd, 2010 | 3:09 pm | #34
Regarding #42 above: Again, these are not ad hominem. You point out yourself that these are characterizations of decisions and leadership styles. Wheaton’s leadership is the subject at hand. Consequently, these topics are completely relevant, even if they involve individuals. [For ad hominem, think of invoking President Obama’s middle name to criticize his policies.] You may disagree with the characterization of Litfin’s leadership as “magisterial” and “not relational”, and you may take issue with how Chignell came to these conclusions, but these are no more ad hominem than are your own positive assessments in post #43.
Incidentally, while I have problems with post #43 (I think you’re largely avoiding the meat of the debate — i.e., ‘magisterial’ vs. ‘wiggle-room’ — by going after the journalistic attributes of Chignell’s piece), you made your points coherently and respectfully. Mr. Benson’s writing would benefit by following your example.
If I may, here is where I think we need to focus: Those of us who care about Wheaton’s future (and I certainly include you in that group), want to see the institution thrive. Some fear that the college is going the way of other de-spiritualized institutions (Harvard, Yale, etc.) I have the opposite fear — that it is sliding toward the academically myopic, hyper-spiritualized positions of Bob Jones and Liberty. Historically, Wheaton’s strength — academically and spiritually — comes from its willingness to struggle with disagreement within the church and among Christian academics. (This point was driven home again and again by the venerable Dr. Bob Webber in the classes I took with him.) Speaking personally, I’m not sure my faith would have survived college if Wheaton had not been such a place. If the administration seeks to tamp down such uncomfortable but vital disagreement at the behest of its constituency, I believe it runs the risk of becoming academically compromised and, I would argue, less hospitable to bright, young Christians who need to struggle honestly with their faith.
At this juncture, I agree with Dr. Chignell. Those of us who want to see Wheaton thrive need to broaden our capacity to disagree with each other — even on things that, up to this point, have been too hot to touch (e.g., evolution, homosexuality, Catholic vs. Protestant orthodoxy). Consider the fact that the college’s founders embraced vigorous debate on no-less controversial topics of the day. This is Wheaton’s legacy. It is a bold one, and I believe we need to work together to protect it.
February 22nd, 2010 | 3:14 pm | #35
TUaD, Andrew responded and had a dialogue with Jonathan at the Whither Wheaton facebook page. Check it out.
February 24th, 2010 | 3:02 pm | #36
Karl,
I appreciate the distinctions you make regarding ad hominem. They are helpful. I also appreciate the very sensible approach you take on the issue of Wheaton’s “willingness to struggle with disagreement.”
I wish Chignell had put forward a well-developed essay to that effect without blurring the lines between opinion, fact, historical events, innuendo, etc. etc. He could have made a case for more wiggle room without making unsubstantiated accusations.
He could have made a case for allowing wiggle room on evolution or homesexuality by discussing the merits of his position. Instead we got stories that, while they demonstrate the administration’s other view, did nothing to promote Chignell’s case. They simply cast a negative light on actions taken without a proper representation from all sides. It is an easy, unfair thing to do. The good leader, like Litfin, will not defend himself on those situations because it would be improper to discuss private personnel issues.
So in reality, I don’t think Chignell gets into the meat of his own argument. Nor do I… partly because he doesn’t, and partly because I agree with Litfin that it sets up a false premise.
February 24th, 2010 | 4:35 pm | #37
Jonathan,
I’m glad someone responded directly to Karl’s post (#47). The slide in the direction away from Harvard is at least as critical to many of us as the slide toward Harvard.
But I must disagree with your idea that Chignell’s essay would have made a better case for wiggle room if it had defended the merits of evolution, admitting homosexuals, etc. The point of Chignell’s essay was precisely not to argue these issues, but to suggest that these issues – and many others – ought not dominate decisions on academic freedom and employment at Wheaton. If I’m reading Chignell right, he’s saying that a current or prospective Wheaton professor must do two things to secure and maintain employment:
a) Sign the statement of faith (in good conscience, obviously)
b) Gain the support of his/her dept., which is uniquely suited to evaluating a candidate’s scholarly achievement in the particular field, as well to evaluating a candidate’s ability to communicate to students and to contribute to the life of the campus
Limiting requirements to those two (already quite strong) points should promote academic, scholarly, and spiritual freedom without sacrificing the confessional identity and character of the college.
In hopes of preserving and strengthening this confessional and otherwise intellectually free balancing act, Chignell’s article examines cases during Litfin’s tenure that seem to have been judged on grounds other than those above. Chignell seems to conclude that particularizing segments of a confessing Christian professor’s belief or disbelief, or—in Van Dyke’s case—agnosticism to a specific issue outside her realm of scholarship and personal concern, has cost the college some wonderful professors and has moved the college away from the non-denominational prism it could be.
Chignell’s essay is not a referendum on Dr. Litfin the man (which is another reason it avoids ad hominem strategy), it’s simply a call to reevaluate what the nature of scholastic freedom should be on campus. In a sense, when a thoughtful and high-achieving professor signs that statement and gains his or her department’s support, that is enough. More rigid demands on personal belief, while fine for certain communions, is not the Wheaton we came to love.
February 24th, 2010 | 11:33 pm | #38
Jeff, great points and well said.
February 25th, 2010 | 5:22 pm | #39
Jeff,
I appreciate your summary. However, I would point out two things:
1) Chignell didn’t offer a plan such as you stated. You may be correct in your assessment, but it would be helpful if he would have made such arguments himself rather than focusing almost entirely on his complaints about Litfin.
2) An approach like the one you describe leaves me uneasy. I appreciate some type of gatekeeper outside of the statement of faith and the department. As it pertains to the hiring of faculty, I personally could see weighing the departments’ support very heavily (if not exclusively) when it comes to academic side of the decision. But I also think at a uniquely Christian school such as Wheaton it is important for the academic side to conform with Christianity, and that is where I appreciate a theological/biblical outside voice and perspective to weigh in. I don’t think that an academic department necessarily manages both sides of the equation adequately. If not a President (or President/Provost), I could see some type of board that would make such decisions. Also in terms of hiring, it is too easy for someone to fudge on a written statement. Unfortunately, there are those who might seek a job at Wheaton with an agenda other than the integration of faith and learning. They might be willing to sacrifice their integrity to do so.
As for the retaining of faculty, I also appreciate a third party who has consideralble authority. I think if the decision left to the department, it is subject to relational pressures and the loyalty of friendship. And what if an entire department starts to drift off course? It just seems to me that such a model lends itself to the type of compromises that have clearly plagued so many once-Christian schools.
Thanks for putting forward this possible approach. I would actually like to hear Chignell’s opinion on it. Would he have the simple, two-part approach you’ve mentioned? As he does have both a heritage and personal experience in higher education, I think he might have some great insights to offer.
February 25th, 2010 | 6:20 pm | #40
Jonathan Rockness: “But I also think at a uniquely Christian school such as Wheaton it is important for the academic side to conform with Christianity.”
Historic, Biblical Christianity would be helpful.
Eg.
Inerrancy (CSBI). Profs could expose students to higher criticism if they want.
Complementarianism (Danvers). Profs could expose students to egalitarianism too.
Intelligent Design or Creationism. Profs are certainly welcome to teach evolution.
Same-sex behavior is sin. Profs are not welcome to teach that same-sex behavior is not sin.
Abortion is sin. Profs are not welcome to teach that abortion is not sin.
Doesn’t Wheaton have a Statement of Faith like Houston Baptist University? Just enforce the Statement of Faith.
February 26th, 2010 | 9:08 pm | #41
Anyone care to comment on this? http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11626836/
See Wheaton’s response here: http://www.wheaton.edu/education/overview/response.html
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact