Wheaton and Evangelical Trends
I admit I’m disappointed in Wheaton College’s choice of Philip Ryken as their new President, but I guess I am not really surprised. I was one of the alumni that were encouraging the college to move forward as an institution with academic integrity in our increasingly globalized world by choosing a woman or a minority to head the college during these turbulent times. To remain a prophetic and respected voice within the Christian community, in my opinion the college needed the specific qualifications of those who have lived on the margins of power and privilege within the religious world. These voices are no longer minority voices and can no longer be silenced and ignored within the Christian community. Wheaton would have benefited from proactively and symbolically embracing the realities of our changing world. Instead they chose a leader to navigate them into this future who actively resists listening to minority voices and insists on women having no voice in the church. It is disappointing, and I feel that Wheaton cannot remain the “Harvard of the evangelical world” in choosing such a path. But, like I said, it isn’t surprising.
Philip Ryken fit a role. The college wanted someone conservative and Reformed and he fit that part. What I find interesting is that a majority of the Twitter responses I am reading about his selection are along the lines of “Praise God! Wheaton will remain faithful to orthodox Christian truth!” I find it most interesting because when I mentioned the selection of Ryken to my conservative evangelical family and friends, their response was “why is Wheaton abandoning biblical truth in this way?”
I live in Texas where Dispensationalism is still in favor. Fifteen years ago when I chose to attend Wheaton one of the main reasons I chose the college was because with dispensational Duane Litfin at the helm, I (and my parents) were sure the college would uphold “orthodox biblical Christianity.” As we saw it, Christianity as interpreted by Ryrie, Scofield, and Moody was the one true way it had always been forever and ever amen. And at the time, just a few years after Litfin’s appointment, so did most of the evangelical world. In the 1980’s and 90’s Dispensationalism was the trendy pet theology of evangelicals (although we referred to it simply as “Absolute Unchanging Truth”). The time was ripe for Wheaton – the voice of the evangelical world – to choose a dispensationalist to lead them (and for science fiction books about the end times (presented as biblical truth of course) to become nationwide bestsellers).
But a lot changes in fifteen years. Dispensationalism is no longer the precious darling of the evangelical church. Absolute Unchanging Truth has shifted and a different faction is now in favor. No longer are our views of the end times and the Holy Spirit the litmus tests of our faith, but instead whether or not we sign the dotted line in agreement with Calvin and penal substitutionary atonement. Not that Reformed theology is necessarily anything new, it just has never been so popular to be young, restless, dogmatic, opposed to women, and reformed. The shift to following this trend is so pervasive, that apart from my Texas dispensationalist friends who are horrified at Ryken's appointment, most evangelicals are praising God that “orthodox Christian truth” will be upheld at Wheaton. If I had stopped to think about these popular trends in evangelicalism, I should have expected the appointment of someone like Ryken. (actually I did briefly consider it, but thought they would go with a different alum and Reformed celebrity – John Piper. But I quickly suppressed thinking about that possibility).
The thing is, Wheaton is no stranger to riding the shifting waves of “orthodox Christianity.” The college was founded as a Wesleyan institution, and became Wheaton College in 1860 when abolitionist Jonathan Blanchard in his postmillennial social gospel passion dedicated the college “For Christ and His Kingdom.” The purpose of the college was to work for the kingdom of God here on earth – to right the wrong of slavery and establish on earth as it is in heaven. But of course that particular theological perspective fell into disfavor after the First World War. The college even changed its Statement of Faith to then support premillennial eschatology. When I attended, I was told that the school motto “For Christ and his Kingdom” referred strictly to heaven, since the Kingdom of God could never actually be among us. So I really should not be surprised that the college once again is changing its theology by affirming the reigning popular theory of the day (which of course will always be designated “historic orthodox Christianity”).
I’m personally no longer Dispensational, and I’ve never been Reformed, so those are not my orthodoxies – which perhaps helps me have a bit of perspective on this event. So like I said – I’m not really surprised, but I am disappointed.
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
Julie –
I cringe when anyone uses the phrase "Biblical Christianity" or "orthodox historical Christianity." Well, maybe not anyone. Maybe just those who claim to be "evangelicals" in America.
I enjoyed reading your perspective on this appointment. Too bad Wheaton missed an opportunity…
I suppose we should only hope that Wheaton will continue, under this reactionary leadership selection, will continue to, counterintuitively, churn out outsider voices such as yourself and Philip Yancey of several years ago.
Sometimes it takes conservative evangelicals (like I was when I went to college) looking at themselves in the mirror of all their classmates to realize how empty and shallow their faith has become.
Grinnell College, founded in 1846 by the "Iowa 9" (nine Congregationalist pastors), announced their newest president this week. From the video on Grinnell's home page, http://www.grinnell.edu, it sounds like "Raynard S. Kington, M.D, Ph.D., M.B.A., deputy director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and a leading scientific researcher on the role of social factors as determinants of health" could not be more different from Philip Ryken. Alumni/ae often have strong emotional ties to their school, even at a distance. I'm proud Grinnell is my alma mater.
Julie, thanks for explaining where Wheaton has been and where it could have chosen to go.
BTW — Grinnellians have often thought of Harvard as the Grinnell of the East
Funny. When I hear someone talk about “orthodox historical Christianity", my first thought is that they want to discuss St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Athanasius the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Isaac the Syrian, or similar figures. I suppose my perspective of "historical" in a 2,000 year old faith uses a bit of longer lens.
I don't have any particular knowledge, personal history, or experience of Wheaton, so I don't have much reaction to their selection. From what you wrote, it does sound like they do a good job of staying on top of evangelical trends, which probably makes good business sense for keeping up both their enrollment numbers and donations/benefactors. Both of those are pretty important for a private college.
Interesting history. I guess I'm a bit surprised at Wheaton's roots. I always viewed it in the same vein as any other evangelical group in that section of Illinois. Although my only memories of Wheaton were from when I was a student at Moody all those years ago. My vague memory was that it was "less" of a serious biblical/theological institution. That seems like such a long time ago now.
tough week for wheaton and baylor.
pretty wild.
we were pretty sad late last night when we read the news.
i was hoping for someone more moderate and broad in theology– central on true orthodoxies, but allowing for diversity on less central issues. and more conversational regarding the roles & equality of women.
for me, and i realize there's a bias here (but i don't mean to sound crude or arrogant), it's hard for me to reconcile stellar academia with the neo-reformed, based on logical consistency issues and comprehensive thought. so, in that vein, i am sad for wheaton and the world.
it will be interesting to be at the wheaton theology conference next month and see if there is any insight registered by anyone through that weekend.
it's a weird, weird world these days in america.
wow.
As a current Wheaton senior, I'm embarrassed to be attending here right now. Not only because of the choice of president, but because of the selection process: its utter lack of transparency (the sudden Annunciation of the selected candidate from On High with no prior notice of who the candidates even were, versus other schools where the entire process is publicized), its lack of concern for the constituents other than alumni, i.e. those actually currently involved in the proceedings of the institution (especially the faculty, who had no input whatsoever in selecting their own President, although the Board of Trustees blessed them with a faculty representative this time around…not to mention that there is only one person with academic credentials on the Board, and the selection clearly ignores the desires of the vast majority of faculty), and its insular nature (only even truly considering two candidates from the beginning who were preselected to be MORE conservative than Litfin as their top credential, with experience in academic institutional leadership clearly taking a back seat if any seat at all). If Wheaton wants to become an insular reactionary Bible college, fine–there are plenty of other willing young higher-education institutions with Christian commitments to take the helm as evangelical Harvard. It's just sad to see Wheaton's run coming to a close with two consecutive disappointing choices. That said, I've certainly received great blessings from the Wheaton community and wouldn't be who I am without the experience…I hope I can go into the world and bear the true Wheaton legacy of Christ and His Kingdom with integrity–it's just sad that, whatever's happening in ten or fifteen years in national news regarding Wheaton's insularity, my generation will have to apologetically bear the then-embarrassment of affiliation with Wheaton.
Well to be fair, when Bethel University went through their process, the students had no idea who the candidates were, so that is a bit of a generalization.
As a Wheaton alum like Julie, I too was not surprised by their choice of a theologically conservative white male. This is pretty standard fare for evangelical colleges and I would have been shocked (albeit happily) had a woman or minority been selected.
Even so, this still doesn't mean the Board of Trustees had to:
a) keep everyone completely in the dark regarding who the other candidates were (even one other name would have been nice)
b) choose a strict complementarian Calvinist from a PCA background (which hardly reflects the theological diversity of Wheaton's students, faculty and alumni)
c) choose someone without prior administrative experience in higher education.
Thanks for this. As a Wheaton alum ingorant of much of its history, I especially appreciated the past history of Wheaton trends. I am not really a member of either camp, but I have always been much more favorably inclined toward Reformed theology than Dispensational theology. And I would like to point out that, although Ryken does not represent them, large numbers of people in the Reformed theology camp support and promote full voices for women and minorities in leadership of churches and Christian institutions. Many of the pioneers of Christian feminism and the egalitarian movement have held to Reformed theology.
I graduated a few years ago from "Wheaton-by-the-cornfields", Taylor University. When I first visited the school during my junior and senior years of high school, the campus pastor was an African American preacher who was passionate and brought a different perspective to the rural, very white campus. Hearing him in chapel was one of the things I was looking forward to as I started college. I was very disappointed when I showed up for orientation freshman year and was introduced to a new campus pastor- ironically, from the Wheaton area. My whole stay at Taylor, I struggled to agree with the new pastor every time he spoke, as he framed the world in us-vs-them, black-and-white terms. I also was disappointed in much the same way you have described- the opportunity for diversity was lost.
For those of you who believe that a member of the PCA cannot represent the diversity at Wheaton, how would someone from, say, the PCUSA, Southern Baptist Convention, Dallas Theological Seminary (like Litfin), Episcopal church, or another background be any more personally diverse? Even an African American or Hispanic woman from a pentacostal church would be rooted in her own personal background.
KT – We are all rooted in our personal traditions. The issue arises when that personal tradition doesn't make room for other traditions to have a voice. To assume that other traditions are not just different expressions of our multifaceted faith, but are misguided or wrong isn't helpful at a diverse institution like Wheaton. What I am seeing from the many in the Reformed camp are statements like "Arminian pastors should be excommunicated" or "you cannot be saved unless you believe in penal substitutionary atonement" or "complimentarians should not associate with egalitarians unless they be corrupted" or "reformed liturgy is the only God ordained way to do church". I hope Ryken is above such petty division, but I've heard too many Reformed leaders recently condemn anyone who doesn't think exactly like them to be comfortable. We al have our traditions and they should be celebrated – but not used as weapons or as substitutes for the gospel.
Julie, a great post here, and one that so sums up my opinions as well.
I also am not surprised. There is a definite trend to see a particular version of Reformed theology as equivalent to historic, orthodox Christianity, but the reality is that this brand of Reformed isn't even equivalent to broader Reformed theology (such as I've been encouraged by seeing roundabout here at Fuller Seminary as helmed by Richard Mouw), nor is it equivalent to Evangelicalism.
I am certainly disappointed because as another commenter pointed out elsewhere it's not so much the difference in theology that worries me, it's the impression this sends about openness to diversity and conversation.
I'm not exactly hopeful, but I'm not despairing quite yet. I think it is we alumni who give a better testimony about Wheaton than whoever is the president. The days of Jonathan Blanchard defining the school are over. They trained us, inspired us, pushed us to be leaders in the church and in society, so even if Wheaton chooses itself to retreat into an unimpressive enclave, we're still out here in the world pushing in our circles the holistic and diverse meaning of Christ and his Kingdom.
I owe a great deal to my Wheaton education, so I'll continue to pray for the school that the indications as they are in this present choice will not be the case. I'll also be a public voice, not attacking, but offering constructive alternatives that reflect what I see as the Wheaton legacy. And I suspect the present and future students, as they are confronted with God and with the whole testimony of Scripture, will likewise refuse to settle into a tight, constricted dogmatic box. I still have hope for Wheaton because of them and because of so many alumni out there truly pressing on in the ways of the Spirit.
KT, adding a bit to Julie's point, everyone does bring their own tradition and background, the important bit for me is if that is an insular tradition which too much reflects and already over-represented view in a non-denom, broadly Evangelical setting. A Pentecostal would bring Pentecostal baggage, but I think it would be pretty easy to see how a Pentecostal would really add a distinct voice to Wheaton leadership and suggest that Wheaton is not just trying to be neo-Calvin College.
Daniel, I'd love to hear more about the student reaction and if you have any links or posts relating to this.
I'm very disappointed that Wheaton has chosen an outspoken (PSA) Calvinist as their new president –
I too, would like the reactions from students attending Wheaton and their church affiliation.
Wow I guess a canidate who made gross caricatures and crippling assumptions about those they disagreed with would have been better?!
Its insulting to label people you disagree with theologically as "opposing women," "silencing minority Christians, and those on the margins." Man for a blogger who seems to promote dialogue and constant conversation, you sure can be quite uncharitable to those you disagree with.
Patrick – I sit here wearing my Wheaton sweatshirt. It's my school and although I have issues with it, I still have ties and wish the best for it. As with the church, I do want it to be a force for good in the world and pray that it will follow that path.
Ted – when a person's stance is that women cannot have a voice in church and that theological positions other than his own are incorrect and therefore not worthy of consideration, I don't see how my words are too far off the mark. Yes, it is disagreement – but his positions still hurt others.
But that's just it Julie, its a gross caricature to say that Ryken does not believe women can have a voice in the church. Also, don't you believe his theological positions to be incorrect? And that Ryken's theological positions are unwilling of consideration? BTW, strange that you would know Ryken so well to say he does not even consider other theological positions.
I only think you are guilty of the same things your accusing Ryken of being, which makes this more a case of sour grapes in that he does not hold to the same theological positions and think the one's you think to be incorrect also.
Hi all,
Julie, I appreciate your thoughts on this because they are pretty much the exact opposite of mine.
I'm not a graduate of Wheaton or anything, but I try to keep my ears to the street regarding important religious institutions in America, I'm also a member of a PCA church, and have been for about 3 years now.
I'm familiar with the Ryken's works, and of course they (Father, and son) are reformed, in the presbyterian tradition. All I have heard from my own pastor's and seen commendations from other evangelical leaders is about their integrity, and hard work with their exegesis of the scriptures (The Literary Study Bible for example). No doubt they hold to a different view that I'd guess the majority of Wheaton students don't hold to. While the doctrines of grace are increasingly popular, the majority of folks within evangelicalism strongly disagree, ie, the majority of the SBC and even the top leaders of Calvary Chapel. Just search youtube to see folks smack talk calvinism (unfortunately, you can also see folks smack-talk the emergent movement there too).
I guess what I'm getting at is the sort of diversity Wheaton needs is a leader who differs from the majority of their students, specifically, one who can allow discussion (which Ryken will) and one who is able to challenge his students, not just fit to whatever they want him to be. It's not like Ryken will shun them for disagreeing, there won't be some strict addition to a test about agreeing with Ryken or something. I'm confident that Wheaton made a good decision because Ryken is one of the most in-depth reformed theologians out there right now, and he has shown up in a time where the reformed world has made thrusts to be more public in their views, and always inviting discussions about them. Numerous reformed leaders are begging for those who oppose their view to discuss it.
Dr. Piper had a woman speak (Helen Rosevere, legendary missionary to the Congo) at one of his conferences, so you may want to get some clarification on their particular view of women speaking in church. I'm guessing you are familiar, but if not the debate is over whether a woman could be a Pastor over the church, and spiritually lead/teach the congregants. So to merely say Ryken "doesn't allow women to speak in church" would be an over-simplification of the view, and outright mis-representation.
Also, I don't understand what race/gender has to do with academic integrity. The 2 are not connected in my mind. If anything, it seems that a university would not show academic integrity if they singled out white males as candidates because of their race/gender.
I do think that process should've been more public, has the process ever been public at Wheaton? Perhaps that could shed light on that issue.
Finally, the willingness of Ryken to take on the task of the Wheaton students (like yourself) should help him earn some respect, he's not just restricting himself to Presbyterian ivory towers like so many other minds out there.
Well, sorry if that's a little rant'ish, just had to put my thoughts on here.
Respectfully,
Devin
The process of selecting a president should have been more public… the question is, WHY WASN'T IT? A surprise for all concerned, perhaps that was the objective, …. once chosen, no other option, no debate over the outcome, that is troubling!
I am a Wheatie, class of '89. First off, I have no problem with the Trustees installing a minority or a woman as President of the college. I do have a problem with them installing a President because they are a minority or a woman, which is the apparent opinion of those like you Julie. Second, I abhore falsely broadbrushing anyone with stereotypes based on their associations, in this case Dr. Ryken's affiliation with the Reformed tradition. I assume you would prefer people refrain from making presumptions about you based on your being from Texas? Do likewise. Finally, Phil was a Philosophy major at Wheaton. I have a great deal of difficulty imagining a product of Dr.s. Holmes, Woods and Fletcher being dogmatic and closed-minded about academia. I am optimistic about this appointment, but think the only reasonable position is to wait and see before making a judgment.
Here is CT's interview with Dr. Ryken in which he clearly refutes some of the assumptions Julie was quick to impose upon him. But then again, lets not let a blog post cluttered with our own theological basis be concerned with facts or being charitable.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/februaryweb-only/18-21.0.html?start=2
What broad brush Kevin? Dr. Ryken's positions on various issues can be found in the articles/sermons easily accessible from his church's website. His views on women and Reformed theology are all laid out there.
The broad brush of what his church's website says about its beliefs, versus what he says himself. Read the interview linked to above. He says he will properly not going to impose Reformed theology onto an Evangelical institution that values Arminian, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, etc. traditions as much as Reformed.
I wasn't just talking about his church's statements. There are plenty of other articles there specifically written by him on a wide variety of issues, many of which I find disappointing.
At any rate I'm glad to hear him say what he did in that CT interview, though the "Reformed theology" bit is only one part of my concern about him (and of course it'll be impossible for Ryken's theology not to influence his administration of the school, no matter what he says here. Litfin's certainly did.) Nor does it address Julie's larger concern about Wheaton continuing to be trendy rather than trailblazing, especially when it comes to racial, theological, and gender diversity.
Ok, so the main concern is that he believes women shouldn't be pastors?
No the main concern is that he is a white, male with conservative theology. In other words, he is not the race or gender we would like, and does not believe like me.
You're right Ted. My main concern is that he is a "white male with conservative theology." However, I find it immensely condescending of you to suggest that this concern of is merely one of personal "preference." If you can't see why issues of race, gender, and theology are of significant importance in the selection of a college president, and ones that we are rightly concerned about, well, then I don't suppose there is much else I could say to explain it to you.
I remember going to a dinner party in 1991 and being told by the hostess how sorry she felt for me. "Why?" I asked. "Because you were born white and male" she answered. I applaud my Alma Mater for not giving in to political correctness and finding the best qualified candidate. I would have applauded equally if that candidate had been a woman or a minority. But they rightly did not consider race or gender, but rather only character, as Martin Luther King dreamed. Discrimination is discrimination regardless of which direction it faces.
Making a deliberate effort to include and empower voices that have historically been excluded and marginalized is neither about "political correctness" nor about "discrimination." It is about recognizing our own blindspots and deficiencies and humbly seeking to correct them.
Sure it is Mike when you cheat your Church, ministry, or College out of the best qualified person whom God has called to serve, because they do not have the right gender or race. This is simply walking with greater earnestness to a certain ideology, rather than with the Spirit.
What in the world does "best qualified" mean? How do you measure "best"? Is it not the case that there are probably dozens of potential candidates who are equally qualified for a position like that? What makes Ryken "the best"?
And was he called by God or by the Trustees? Or are those two synonymous for you?
And of course there are many of us who believe that "walking with the Spirit" does in fact mean empowering those who have been previously marginalized. What you dismiss as "ideology" I call working with and towards the Kingdom of God.
Bottom line is that we both have theological and "ideological" beliefs that guide what we were hoping to see in the next president of Wheaton. Your ideals won out. Mine did not. Is it so shocking then that I am disappointed in the selection? Mock and condescend all you want, but the reality is you would be saying the exact same kind of things if your ideals hadn't been represented by the selection.
Well Mike the "best qualified" and one called by God is whom the Board of Directors chooses. God has placed them in leadership over Wheaton to lead and select a President. My point still stands that should that Board be limited in who the Spirit is leading them to choose because some people due to ideological commitments want that person to be a specific gender or race? I would hope not.
"Bottom line is that we both have theological and “ideological” beliefs that guide what we were hoping to see in the next president of Wheaton."
Right, and if Julie had simply stated that at the outset, this would be a discussion. What she said, rather, was the Wheaton has opted not to move forward as an institution with academic integrity. You both have a very precise definition of what that means, and what it means is that you wish the institution had hired someone who agrees with you, and who can check certain race/gender boxes.
You are entitled to your opinion, but it appears the college had a different compliment of criteria.
Let me ask a question. Would you have been upset if a black female Muslim had been selected? Why or why not?
Precisely. Isn't that what I just said?
Yes, of course they did. That's my whole point. I don't like their criteria and I think they should have used different ones.
Honestly, I'm failing to see why you and Ted both seem to think that merely pointing out that people have personal convictions which drive their opinions in situations like this somehow scores you rhetorical points. Doesn't this just go without saying? What does the fact that my convictions are in fact my convictions have to do with actually addressing the content of them?
Huh?
"What does the fact that my convictions are in fact my convictions have to do with actually addressing the content of them?"
Because the original post accuses Wheaton of failing to move forward with academic integrity. When you call into question an institution's integrity, you should have more than just a narrow set of personal convictions on your side. Otherwise all you are really saying is that you wish they would have only considered blacks and females because that would scratch your itch.
"Huh?"
I fail to see how my question could have been any more clear. If, instead of choosing Philip Rypken, Wheaton had chosen a black female Muslim, would that upset you?
It wasn't my post, so you'll have to ask my wife about that. We don't speak for each other. I can only speak to my own comments, which may or may not reflect my wife's views on the matter.
I fail to see what your question has to do with anything. Wheaton is a Christian institution. Why would I expect or want them to chose a Muslim?
I wonder if this same argument would happen if schaeffer were alive today, and appointed to be the president of the college. His theology is that of Ryken's but it seems he's more accepted by folks who differ from reformed theology.
(I know, random out of place comment)
-Devin
"Why would I expect or want them to chose a Muslim?"
I didn't ask if you expected or wanted them to do so. I am asking if you would be upset if they did.
"Dr. Piper had a woman speak (Helen Rosevere, legendary missionary to the Congo) at one of his conferences… “doesn’t allow women to speak in church” would be an over-simplification of the view, and outright mis-representation."
That is specious.
Piper is famously anti-feminist and strong too in his conviction that a woman may never be in a position of spiritual authority over a man. A woman may give announcements in church, speak at a conference in some capacity, be a professor, teach boys in Sunday School, sing with men present, but a woman may never have magisterial authority or hold the office of elder/overseer/pastor.
So yes, a woman may speak, but in a clearly diminished and delimited fashion.
Yeah, I suppose I would. (Though not because of the black or woman part of course.) But again, what's your point?
As said by others several days ago, I'm more disturbed by the trustees' choice of another pastor instead of an experienced college administrator. Were there really no qualified, experienced administrators interested or nominated for the job? I'm certain there were. I'm an alum, my husband is a college administrator and I have a daughter entering as a freshman at Wheaton this fall. Why, when she could go to the college where my husband works for free, would we choose to allow her to go to Wheaton at a cost of almost 40K/year? Because it's still the single best place to go if you want to be surrounded by highly intelligent, thinking Christians.
I'm disappointed, frustrated, and concerned for the future of Wheaton, but not nearly so much over it's theological standing as over it's educational standard of excellence, it's administrative practices (which seem to still be somewhere in the early 20th century), and the fact that for some reason, Wheaton is not in the forefront in the development of higher education best practices. Why does it so often seem that progressive innovation isn't lead by Christians?
As an alum and soon-to-be Wheaton parent, my wish for Wheaton is that it would join the 21st century in more than just it's view of women and minorities. The lack of timely thinking in other areas seems far more insidious to me. I would love to see Wheaton be out in front of most secular institutions in innovation, practices, etc. With the choice of a pastor as the president, I won't be holding my breath for that any time soon. That said, I hold to my belief that the choice of Ryken as president was not a surprise to God and it wasn't outside of His ability to affect that outcome if it were outside His plan for an institution that has faithfully striven to serve Him and His Kingdom for 150 years. Hopefully, Phil will be smart enough to surround himself with others who possess the experience he lacks.
One last thought… I see the advantage of choosing from one of their own, but I wish Wheaton would drop their habit of promoting from within, as if someone having put in their time there makes them deserving of, or the best choice for, promotion. Inbreeding doesn't usually produce good results.
I am a former pastor and not a graduate of Wheaton, but Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. This bantering back and forth, is why I am strongly considering leaving the organized church. Different groups are more concerned with upholding their positions, rather than being a witness for Christ and leading others to salvation.
I have read the article and comments regarding the new President at Wheaton and this one.
I have read a common thread through the comments. The writers don't care for absolutes and boxes. They proclaim there are no absolutes and boxes. They are probably hoping and praying there are no absolutes, all in the name of open mindedness and free thinking.
I know it hurts. I know how painful it can be. But, I'm sorry. There are abosolutes. Water freezing at 32 degrees F. is an absolute. The boiling point of water being 212 degrees F. is an absolute.
Jesus saying "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me", is an absolute.
Some things are absolutes.
It is not free thinking that sets you free. Any thinking by the human mind will be limited and affected by sin and personal biases. That's why we were given the mind of Christ.
1 Cor. 2:9 states, "ear hasn't heard, eye hasn't seen nor has it entered the heart those things God has prepared for those who earnestly seek Him. They are revealed to us by His Spirit. For the Spirit searches the deep things of God".
Where is the Holy Spirit in all of these comments? You will never be set free by free thinking using human reasoning. Fundamentalists attemp to put people in a box by restricting them. So called Free thinkers put people in boxes by saying others don't think free like they do, so the others have to be restricting.
Free thinking won't set you free and doctrinal dogma won't set you free. Only by abiding (living, camping) in the word combined with revelation from the Holy Spirit, can one be truly set free. Transformation occurs through the mind being renewed as well.
We Christians have been commissioned to reach the world. Yet, we continue to bicker among ourselves, therefore acting no different from the world.
It is very tiring. It is no wonder to me, that the church continually is losing influence in our culture. It is losing influence within its' own walls.
David, well said! I am a Wheaton graduate and I too have become weary with these arguments. I am often reminded of a favorite hymn of Dr. Hudson Armerding (president during my years at Wheaton) — May the Mind of Christ My Savior. We sang it each time Dr. Armerding addressed the students during chapel. It still brings tears to my eyes. This is my prayer for Dr. Ryken as he begins his tenure at Wheaton, for the faculty, staff and students.
May the mind of Christ, my Savior,
Live in me from day to day,
By His love and power controlling
All I do and say.
May the Word of God dwell richly
In my heart from hour to hour,
So that all may see I triumph
Only through His power.
May the peace of God my Father
Rule my life in everything,
That I may be calm to comfort
Sick and sorrowing.
May the love of Jesus fill me
As the waters fill the sea;
Him exalting, self abasing,
This is victory.
May I run the race before me,
Strong and brave to face the foe,
Looking only unto Jesus
As I onward go.
May His beauty rest upon me,
As I seek the lost to win,
And may they forget the channel,
Seeing only Him.
Were you getting tired at the end of your article? It sure ended weakly. All you did was repeat what you said at the beginning. You may not have progressed in your thinking as much as you imagine. Are you trying to impress us with your historical knowledge of Wheaton. It did not land well.
reading science fiction books is the stuff that i am always into. science fiction really widens my imagination "',