Please feel free to leave comments on the Story behind the Story below. Comments on the Story itself can be left at the Soma Review.
Leave a Reply
Related Posts Elsewhere
- Whither Wheaton? Further insights into Wheaton College (from Wheaton's archives and special collections)
- wither (All Things Hold)
- There will always be orthodoxies…Wheaton, free inquiry, etc. (clavi non defixi)
- Andrew Chignell's "Whither Wheaton?" article, and a response (nobody but the baby)
- The evangelical flagship at a crossroads (The Immanent Frame)
- Academic and Publishing Freedom (Insidehighered)
- Wheaton (Beliefnet-Jesus Creed)
- Books and Culture and the Power of the Evangelical Vatican (The Way of Improvement)
- Whither Wheaton? Debating the Flagship's next Captain (mere orthodoxy)
- Whither Wheaton? (millinerd)
- Where do you stand on the so-called hominid theory? (Edge of the American West)
- "Academic and Publishing Freedom"? (Targuman)
- Author of Ex-gay Study, Stanton Jones, in Wheaton College Controversy (ex-gay watch)
- Radio interview with Paul Edwards–approximately 3/4 of the way into this webaudio (godandculture.com)
- Whither Wheaton? examines Litfin era (Wheaton College Record, January 29th)
- Criticizing America's Christian College (Washington Monthly)
- Whither Wheaton Reflections part 1 (College group @ College Church)
- Banned in Wheaton (getreligion.org)
- “Whither Wheaton?” A Critique (First Things)
- Whither Wheaton? (Old Life: reformed faith and practice)
- Evolution at Wheaton (scienceblogs): see especially the comments thread
- Evolution and Faith: Communicating Compatibility in Christian Higher Education (Biologos)
- Defending Wheaton, Defending Civility (the way of improvement)
- Filling Key Presidency in Christian Higher Ed (insidehighered)
- Two Cheers for Prexy Ryken (Common places)
Andrew: that backstory is really bizarre… though I’d venture much more of this goes on behind the scenes of public messaging and address than is acknowledged. This article seemed (to me) an intelligent ‘gadfly’ (to borrow from an early 90’s Wheaton band name) to important and timely discourse. I appreciate those who want to respect / honor / treat with dignity the service of an outgoing president. I’m actually very thankful for the comparative state of health of institutions like Wheaton & Calvin, whose leadership (for the past decade or two) seems to have borne some uncanny parallels in both strengths & weaknesses. But, even though it’s quite clear that you endorse more theological ‘wiggle room’ for faculty and student discourse and engagement, this discussion didn’t seem overly condemning or disrespectful to me. It’s always been my contention that Christian colleges & universities (in particular) stay healthiest when there is a rotation of pastoral, academic and fiscal/administrative strengths in leadership. It would be pretty rare to find a candidate that ’shines’ in all of these areas.
Very nice article. Well done. I love to read criticism written out of goodwill instead of bitterness or fear.
Hi Andrew. Hi Emily. Hi Ken. Boy, we have a lot of classmates coming together! I was unaware of a lot of the backstage goings on, both in terms of the publication of this article as well as within the article, the goings on within the faculty. I do think it is a sad thing that the faculty apparently felt stifled. And yet I’m of two minds – I have tremendous respect for Dr. Litfin, and having read his book _Conceiving the Christian College_, I agree that Wheaton needs to hold the line doctrinally, lest it go the way of so many institutions – for example, Harvard, Yale, Moravian, et. – that started out with an explicitly Christian mandate, but ended as completely secular institutions somewhat embarrassed at their roots. This slide is always one way. And yet, given that backdrop, is there wiggle room? Can the next president of Wheaton provide wiggle room while keeping Wheaton doctrinally sound? A lot of us alumni will be watching the events of the next few months very carefully.
Andrew, you express something I’ve been mulling over: Wheaton’s imprint on me. Foremost is coherence; the intellectual roads of every Wheaton class joined up and ran in the same direction. Only when I left Wheaton and encountered graduates of other, less magisterially unified institutions did I realized the rarity of such a coherent college education.
How Wheaton’s next president maintains that coherence–or doesn’t–is hugely important. I hope, as you do, that he or (improbably) she recognizes that coherence doesn’t require papal vestmentage.
I hope everyone who loves Wheaton reads this. Wonderfully done.
Spot on, Andrew. You give articulate voice to what I had merely felt to be the case.
And here’s to Arthur Holmes, too: always the voice of reason, always the clear-eyed sage. Can any of us imagine where Wheaton *would have been* without his early and unparalleled leadership? Would that he were twenty years younger and in the running for prez…but Mark Noll, perhaps? What are the rumor mills spinning?
This is incredibly diligent, balanced (if not sympathetic in places) work, which is not an easy task with this many wonky components.
Andrew, I appreciate your thoughtful overview of Wheaton recent administrative history. Despite being at Wheaton from ‘91-’95, I was unaware of many of these issues. It is interesting that Calvin College, where I currently work, is in constant discussion of many of these same questions. How do we maintain our identity as a Christian (and in Calvin’s case, more specifically Reformed) institution without gradually losing the value of our “faith and learning” integration? And how do we as faculty/staff fight to maintain academic freedom in response to a president who appears to be abusing his power in the service of his interpretation of Biblical truth?
I had a wonderful experience at Wheaton, and found that it impacted me intellectually, relationally, and spiritually in ways that I continue to appreciate. I sincerely hope that this crossroads of the college administration will serve as a growth point to ensure that the institution can be a place for truth-seekers who want open, honest discussion about the real world within the context of a Christian worldview (which is not, of course, unquestionably synonymous with a conservative evangelical worldview). And I agree with Sabrina–Mark Noll could be just the right guy for the job!
Well done! This was a delightful read. Having been at Wheaton in the early 90s, just after Clinton was elected and at the end of the Chase era, I follow the presidential search with great interest. I appreciate this contextualization. Thank you for persisting in bringing the work to publication, despite some disturbing and mysterious hurdles.
I found this interesting write-up about “Whither Wheaton” on the Immanent Frame, a blog that charts issues concerning “secularism, religion, and public sphere”. Here’s the link: http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2010/01/15/the-evangelical-flagship-at-a-crossroads.
The only drawback is that the title of the post includes an absurd mixed metaphor: that of an ocean-faring vessel coming to a crossroads. Or perhaps the error is mine, and the author happens to have this particular vessel in mind:
http://www.girlsquadx.com/life/burning/2000/boatmobile.jpeg
Great article! You certainly have hit most of my issues. Ironically the other major issue for me under Litfin is what I perceive as a lessening of focus on missions as a teaching point. CSC and the summer programs seems to be much weaker (although I have not kept close track in the last few years as my direct ties to Wheaton are fewer). I think one of the reasons that Litfin was brought in was to be more pastorally focused on training Christians for Christian service.
Halteman is absolutely right about the mixed metaphors. Didn’t even think of the metaphorical content of the word “flagship.”
A friend of a friend has a rock band called “Boat Car.” Seems like that would also get rid of the mixed metaphor problem.
Your article is an informed distillation of opinions of those of us who attended Wheaton in the ’90’s. The institution is, like those of us who pursue Christianity, straddled squarely between the Sacred and Profane. There seems to be an unfortunate tendency among much of the previous generation of American evangelicals to whitewash that chasm – or to pretend it does not exist. Hence the dubious squelching of your article which, though you are gracious in your characterization, I would classify as craven and cowardly.
It is exactly that kind of “Mayberry-ization” that does great damage to the evangelical mission. Two front-page articles in the Tribune in the past 10 years: the repeal of the no-dancing policy & the shameful report on the firing of Kent Gramm because he refused to reveal the personal details of his divorce to the administration. In that case, it seems that while acting as Christians, the administration neglected to act as human beings which in the eyes of the secular world made them more human than ever!
Though Wheaton’s warts are many, I also loved my time there and continue to enjoy the benefits of the community of the exceptional people I met at school (you among them!). Perhaps the article in digital form is a blessing in disguise & might propagate to more readers via links, emails, Facebook, etc.
I certainly hope those on the college search committee are made aware of it & take the time to read it. If American evangelical institutions wish to remain relevant in the coming century, there needs to be a sea change in their approach to leadership. The doctrinal “Führerprinzip” of the previous generation ain’t gonna fly.
I disagree with much of the piece, and especially the very negative assessment of the current administration. I also resist the “Wheaton is the best” and the “flagship” mentality. But it’s a good snapshot of the dynamics of the school right now. You can also read between the lines and see how the current administration has tried to hold the line, alternately bearing down and splitting the difference. The central question of the article comes at the end:
“How much wiggle-room for reasonable, charitable differences in interpretation can be allowed while still preserving a school’s distinctive confessional character?”
My own answer would be: Despite great efforts over the past few decades to preserve its confessional character the school has not clung to traditional orthodox evangelical positions and as a result may have passed the point of no return. There is, in fact, less and less ‘wiggle-room for reasonable, charitable differences’ but not in the way that Chignell describes. It is precisely those at the college- some administrators included- who do hold forth on traditional orthodox evangelical positions in the face of rising inclusive and post-biblical tides in the evangelical community, who find that their reasonable, charitable “holding the line” is increasingly sidelined and discounted, sometimes accompanied by hurtful personal attacks.
Granted, I’m speaking from my own perspective in the Bible department. But I think we need to pray for the school as it hits the 150 year mark, re-assesses its mission and hires a new president…
Interesting and thoughtful article. I’m a Wheaton alumnus (‘95) and it is fun seeing names of old friends here (including the author). The fact is that American evangelicalism is a big tent, broad, and diverse movement. Wheaton College has decided to adopt a narrower interpretation of Christianity than the movement as a whole. And, while I do not agree fully with that interpretation (I’m now an Eastern Orthodox Christian) and would not encourage my children to attend Wheaton, I respect the trustees and administration’s need to hold onto such a view. There are plenty of broad-positioned evangelical schools out there if that’s what you want. Let narrow and “magisterial” Wheaton be what it is!
It is interesting that there are no other categories at play in this conversation except liberal or conservative- as if the pendulum swings in only those directions, with evangelicalism attempting to hold some kind of center. And yet I just graduated from Duke Divinity School–home of theologian Stanley Hauerwas, of “Resident Aliens” fame (ah, Theology of Culture in the early 90s!)–where the faculty’s theological and political views swing in directions for which my earlier education at Wheaton had no categories. Indeed, many on the DDS faculty are called “post-liberal,” holding a high view of scripture and ecclesiology despite much flack from the liberal establishment, but taking stances on issues of social justice that give a smack-down to evangelicalism. But it isn’t just postliberals who are drawn to Duke Divinity: many Wheatonites migrate there annually, to our collective astonishment (“What are YOU doing here?”; “What are you doing HERE?”). Call us post-evangelical, but we are not post-biblical–otherwise we wouldn’t take Jesus so seriously when he calls us to serve the least of these. Anyway, I wonder if it’s possible for an institution to become “post” without becoming apostate, or if Duke Divinity is only possible because universities like Yale went so far left that they troubled postliberalism into existence (Hauerwas is a Yale grad). The question is whether Wheaton can nudge the pendulum off its deep groove of conservative-or-liberal and explore a track that allows its faculty more honesty and its young alumns less sadness.
Just as every generation thinks they invented sex it seems that each new generation of evangelicals are convinced that they and only they have discovered the golden key that will unlock authentic Christianity within the Church and other Christian institutions. For those with a longer view the results of such a posture are typically more comical than concerning. The usual unexamined platitudes are trotted out, the traditional straw men struck down, and old errors founded on half truths are recapitulated. Then, we hope, the purveyors of this year’s revolutionary discovery grow up and older sturdier truths prevail.
In “Whither Wheaton?” we get a deluge of unexamined platitudes right up front. The “lance-toting Crusader mascot” retirement if obviously “much deserved”; rules against drinking and dancing are “infamous” and anyone who thinks different is clearly “some deep-pocket older alumni.” And how do we know this is true? Because the cool kids say so, that’s why.
Of course Mr. Chignell assures us that he is exercising no “spirit of smug judgment”; it’s just that every right thinking person knows that heightened student focus on “social justice issues” like same sex marriage is a good thing, and that “Wealthy older alumni” are pitiable creatures much akin to the residents of small towns in Pennsylvania clinging to their guns, their antiquated religion and their antipathy to people who aren’t like them.
“Whither Wheaton” is a slightly more sophisticated version of the sanctimonious posing that that has long been the default position of those desperate for a hipper Wheaton. In this view tradition is always suspect and “defenders of orthodoxy” are subjected to very smug disapprobation. One is reminded of nothing so much as a petulant adolescent temper tantrum. But if we are lucky the decision regarding Wheaton’s next President will be made by grownups. And if we are luckier still they will take the advice of a wise Roman Catholic who once noted that, “Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom, tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.” Chesterton
“But if we are lucky the decision regarding Wheaton’s next President will be made by grownups.”
You raise the spectre of smugness and yet freely participate in the behavior yourself. The added touch of paternalism would make the previous Wheaton administration proud. Your comment, if anything, demonstrates to me that Andrew’s words are long overdue.
Users of Firefox will find it impossible to view the Story behind the Story. Yet another example of a belief that one world view (in this case Microsoft’s) is the only one that should be supported. Sort of sad.
Hi Frank,
This is site was not designed for Microsoft and it works just fine on new versions of Firefox on Windows. You can view the Story Behind the Story here: http://whitherwheaton.org/the-story-behind-the-story.
Tim
Tim,
Thanks for the comment. When I use Firefox to open a link I usually open it in a new tab (this saves my original browsing state so I can continue from there after looking at the other site). The link on the page does not work correctly when this is done. When I use IE I do not open a new tab – probably because I have been educated not to do so because tabs were so late being implemented in IE.
You are right, everything works “correctly” in both browsers – IF the user recognizes that the link is one that should not be “right-clicked.” Unfortunately, the user interface gives no visual cue that this is the case. The result is that the user can be frustrated (as I was).
Andrew, thank you for pushing through and getting your article out. Much of my thinking on these matters has been expressed in the excellent comments made by fellow early 90s alumni (and former roommates). I would second Sarah’s comments concerning the binary, liberal/conservative framework within which these conversations often take place. While it’s certainly ‘easier’ to assign labels and shoehorn people into predefined categories, I would venture that few of us fall into any neat and tidy description. Overall, I am struck by how these questions/debates surrounding the “in the world/of the world/apart from the world/whose world” that were taking place in Wheaton dorms, apartments and houses nearly 20 years ago, are still as fresh and immediate as they were then.
Daniel
I agree with Mr. Kinzer that unexamined platitudes are often the enemy of
truth. One such platitude that his comments bring to light, albeit perhaps
indirectly, is that attempting to short-circuit constructive dialogue among
Christians by infantilizing one’s ideological opponents and employing
incendiary rhetoric to misrepresent the tenor and complexity of their views is
a *grownup* way to approach disagreement with fellow Christians. One is
reminded of nothing so much as a politician seeking re-election. (Google Mr. Kinzer if you are in doubt).
But if we are lucky, the decision regarding Wheaton’s next President will be made by grownups. And if we are luckier still, they will take the advice of a wise
Roman Catholic who once noted that, “[w]hat embitters the world is not excess
of criticism, but an absence of self-criticism.” Chesterton
Mr. Dipindican: Ah, I see when Mr. Chingnell (and you I presume) blithely dismiss any who disagree with them on the grounds that they must be old and rich (or hold elective office) we are to treat it as a helpful part of an open dialogue. When he founds his argument on unexamined assumptions we are to praise him for the honest way in which he has brought such important issues before the Wheaton community. And when he takes a posture of reflexive suspicion if not outright dismissal of those in positions of authority we are to thank him for the respectful manner in which he has brought to the forefront a long overdue discussion.
It is only when he is called on such things, using a tenor that mirrors the subtext of his own, that we see evidence of a lack of sufficient openness to self criticism. Thank you for the clarification.
Mr. Kinzer’s personal attacks aside, this article has stimulated a great discussion and one that clearly needed to happen. Congratulations to the Wheaton community for being able to conduct an honest self-evaluation.
Oh Lance… Ok, now this is really bringing me back.
Note: I posted this as a “Comment” to the “Whither Wheaton” article by Christopher Benson on the First Things blog early in the morning of Sunday, February 14. It was not accepted for inclusion. No explanation has been given.
Sunday, February 14.
OK, first some hello’s
Hi Paul: Glad you’re getting to know a bit about Wheaton. As somebody who is interested in music you might like to know that Jerry Blackstone (Grammy winning chair of the conducting program at the University of Michigan), Doug Yeo (principal bass trombone at the Boston Symphony), Wendy White (mezzo soprano at the Metropolitan Opera, she sang Hoffman and Rosenkavalier this season), and Sylvia McNair (who is now on the voice faculty at Indiana U after an international operatic career), are all from Wheaton’s Conservatory, having graduated within a few years of each other. I don’t know if Wheaton gets great talent or Protestants who really work hard, probably more of the second. But unless you actually know Andrew Chignell (as well as Wheaton), aren’t you a little out of line diagnosing his writing as a hatchet job done by someone with a bias? Am I chiding you a bit? You bet. You’re a Lutheran minister in a confession that actually believes the Bible. Andrew needs our love and the rest of us need courageous and loving leadership from pastors like you in the denominations that still count, like the Missouri Synod. You might want to write him and apologize a bit, just a bit. He’s a nice guy. And he writes completely opaque essays on Kant.
And Joe: Howdy from a bumpkin in Tennessee
Glad you’re laughing. You’re a professor of what? Ethics perhaps? Or Masks? Must be Masks. Ok, it’s Mardi Gras, maybe you can keep the mask on, but before you mock Ms Van Dyke’s tears put your name on your post so we can blog about your life too.
Hi Christopher: Good luck on the job hunt. Been there, it’s tough. Don’t get discouraged; yep easier said than done.
Ok, now to the business at hand.
That’s a very thoughtful response to Andrew’s piece. I’m glad it’s getting some discussion. My wife and I graduated from Wheaton in ’74, my brother and sister-in-law a couple of years later, and I have a niece who graduated last year. What success I have had in life comes largely from what I learned at Wheaton and, of course, from the woman who I fell in love with there. Our Wheaton friends remain our closest, the professional kindnesses I have received from Wheaton faculty the most generous, and the teaching I received the most treasured in my memory. I owe the college a lot. So does the rest of my family. And so do all of my students in my over thirty years of college teaching.
Oh, and Christopher, I’m very much a fundy—bing, put me in that pigeon hole, I’m a bit round but you can squeeze me in.
Wheaton isn’t as much a flagship as a lightening rood. “Marlene” was one of the original responders to Chignell’s essay on another web page. She called Stanton Jones a “twit” and characterized evangelicals as fascists. I e-mailed her, introduced myself, and suggested that it might be more civil not to call Stanton a twit and asked her if she was a Wheaton grad. She quickly and generously wrote back. She has never been to Wheaton. She is an atheist and she wrote that she was civil when the situation called for it. She is a radio talk show host on a program that deals with issues of the transgender community. And she was perfectly civil to me and I expect is charming in person. But she loathes Wheaton.
There you have it. I doubt that Marlene would care much about what goes on at Grove City or Northwestern College in St. Paul, where I once taught. But Wheaton is the school that Billy Graham graduated from and because of him it sticks up on the American horizion—lighting rood like. And so things like policy changes, faculty firings, and presidential searches interest—and influence–a community far wider than college merits.
Well that’s just the way it is, and because of Wheaton’s prominence that sign out on front campus, “For Christ and His Kingdom” is seen a lot further than Pepperdine’s big cross or Oral Robert’s Prayer Chapel. Wheaton needs to take it seriously, real seriously. Folks expect Wheaton to mean it. Folks like Marlene.
And Wheaton does. But it can do better. And it’s that “better” that both Andrew and Christopher are talking about. For Christ and His Kingdom. Well, here’s my two cents.
A lot of the buzz is about Duane Litfin. I’ll start there.
My model for a great college president is Bart Giamatti who was President of Yale when I was there. He was a magnificent scholar, taught a class every semester, had a real open door policy to his students, and nurtured warm relations with alumni, some of whom he had taught. I was disappointed when I learned of Litfin’s appointment to Wheaton. The trustees chose a man who, as far as I could tell, showed no real love of learning apart from chasing degrees, had never taught in a university, and who was known in Memphis to have had a rather autocratic administrative style. When Duane became president, the president’s home, which was across the street from the college, was converted to other uses and Duane was provided with a home several miles from campus. Bad move. The main advantage of the president’s home was its immediate proximity to campus which meant that students should have been regularly invited to dinner (no, I’m not being sarcastic, there were a number of professors when I was at Wheaton who regularly had students in their homes for dinner, and it was those dinners that changed my life, and the lives of my wife and friends). By moving to a larger home miles from campus Duane showed to Wheaton that Hudson Armerding’s old home wasn’t grand enough for the president of a college For Christ And His Kingdom and students shouldn’t be able to come up and ring the door bell, at least without walking a long way (yeah I know, through five feet of snow, barefoot).
When the Men’s Glee Club had their centennial concert several years ago, I looked forward to going and seeing old friends and the several hundred other alumni who had come to Wheaton from as far away as China. There was a reception and a banquet and I also looked forward to meeting Duane. He didn’t show up, for the banquet or for the reception. One of the main jobs of a college president is to raise money and one of the most important ways you raise money is by being kind to possible donors and showing interest in what they’re doing (of course you pray about it too—and about donors: you’re kind to everybody because you really don’t know who the real donors are). Looking around the room at these events I saw alumni who had been greatly blessed with worldly goods. It wouldn’t have been too hard to have started relationships with men there that would have resulted in several million dollars of contributions. But Duane didn’t show up. The alumni all noticed it and at the end of the celebratory luncheon I pulled David Gieser aside (David was a senior when I was a freshman; he’s on the board of trustees and has been personally very generous to a number of causes, including Wheaton) and told him that if I were on the board Duane would be fired by that evening, at least that was my opinion of how well he was fulfilling one part of his duties. I’m not on the board of trustees. Duane wasn’t fired. He’s retiring. Folks can argue that all three of those things are good. My model for a great president is Bart Giamatti. I wish Wheaton could come even close to that standard.
About Stanton Jones: I know Stanton and while I think he’s made administrative mistakes he’s a deeply pastoral man and personally generous. Employment law lets an employee, or ex-employee, talk a blue streak to just about anybody he or she wants to but the employer pretty much has to be mute. In a higher ed employment termination cases, you almost never get both sides of a story unless it comes to trial. In one Wheaton case I know well a faculty member very much needed to be fired and Stanton sacked him. What does sacking a faculty member have to do with “For Christ and His Kingdom?” Basic ethics. You have an obligation to students to provide them with the quality of education you’re advertising and when you don’t do that you’re committing fraud. Fraud – like Enron. And Madoff. Not to point fingers, but we have enough problems with fraud in Evangelicaldom. Would that church boards had made some firings. We need to be thankful to Stanton for doing what he did. I know many faculty are. And remember, firing somebody is very difficult to do and takes an emotional toil on the person who fires the employee as well as on the person fired. No dean has ever been sued for promoting a professor. But the litigation you risk denying tenure or terminating a tenured faculty is significant. In my over thirty years of experience in secular private, evangelical, and state institutions, the provosts who have terminated professors have been men and women deeply committed to student welfare and were willing to run the gauntlet of litigation to provide students with the best education they could.
Oh, and about Stanton Jones and Wheaton being narrow minded: As it happened, Soul Force made its Wheaton Stop one weekend when I was visiting campus. There wasn’t name calling, no police were needed; instead the group was invited to a public discussion of Christianity and homosexuality. I might be wrong here, but I even think that Stanton made sure they were given dinner. It was perfectly civil and very well attended. “For Christ and His Kingdom” Sure, you bet.
About Joshua Hochschild: I think that Wheaton would be well served if folks from all confessions, Churches, and denominations could be on the payroll if they in clear conscience could sign the college’s statement of faith. I’m a Protestant by conviction (remember I’m a fundy) and am at a loss to understand conversions to Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism, but it’s a big world and I’m obviously not God. So, Joshua converts. After a lot of talk Wheaton gives him a year to find a different job. OK. What wasn’t OK in my opinion–not sinful, not wicked–just not OK–was the way Joshua is said to have shopped around for a way to release his story. I think that The Wall Street Journal printed it for two reasons. It was a legitimate story and it was the kind of story that potentially embarrassed a subculture much of the readership of the Wall Street Journal enjoys ridiculing: Billy Graham’s alma mater and fundies. Again, in my opinion, appearances suggest that Joshua wanted to embarrass Wheaton and worked fairly hard to do so (and I have reliable sources not associated with Wheaton that I’m remembering here). To me, that’s a NOT OK. Also NOT OK, again at least in my opinion, was Kent Gramm posing for the photographer of the Chicago Tribune in Blanchard Hall. I’m sorry Kent’s marriage failed. I’m sorry that he did not allow the administration to minister to him during the process (at least that’s what I’ve been told) and I’m very sorry that, again Kent had his picture taken in Blanchard instead of at home on his sofa. But the picture in Blanchard Hall sells better, and embarrasses better. I don’t think the Wheaton administration had any wish to embarrass Kent. That picture made it look like Kent wanted to embarrass Wheaton. Again, in my opinion, that’s a NOT OK.
And there are areas where Wheaton herself really doesn’t live up to For Christ and His Kingdom. But none of them have to do with particular persons. They have to do with a culture of faith.
Why does Wheaton surrender its admissions data to US News and World Report so that the magazine can boost its circulation? Shouldn’t modesty be a characteristic of a Christian college? And if Wheaton comes out high in the rankings, why does Wheaton care? Are the criteria that the bean counters over at magazine are counting the ones Jesus is interested in? And why are you laughing? Isn’t Wheaton supposed to be about Him and His Kingdom? A little odd here, perhaps? St. Johns College in Annapolis refuses to participate in the surveys believing that a college education is about education, not the “We’re not quite as good as Princeton but we’re better than you” game. Is Wheaton proud that it comes out ahead of Bethel? Ah, proud, isn’t that a problem? Is St. Johns more Christian in this way than Wheaton? Well in this way, yes it is.
And are Wheaton students proud to go to Wheaton? Is Wheaton looking for proud students? Are there students who go to Wheaton but who wouldn’t be caught dead on the campus of BIOLA? Yep. Do Wheaton students have a tendency to be a bit arrogant? And are there Wheaton alumni who in their sixties are still listing on their vitae that they graduated magna cum laude—were they taught that Jesus cares what their grade point averages were? Isn’t it possibly a bit comical for somebody in their 60’s to still care about the grades he got when he was 19? How does this fit with “For Christ and His Kingdom”? How well is Wheaton teaching her students about humility? Not well.
Why would a Wheaton professor, when asked about the presidential search, say “I’m not hopeful that a woman or a person of color will land in the final interview pool, [and] of that I am saddened.” Woman or person of color? I might expect that from someone at UCLA, or Madison. But wouldn’t it be plausible to expect a Wheaton prof to say something simple, like, “I pray that the Trustees will have the wisdom to find the Lord’s candidate”? That “woman or person of color” sentence suggests that the speaker doesn’t even know how a person of faith talks. The prof sounds like an anthropologist who’s lived with a tribe for a long time but hasn’t quite mastered the nuances of the language.
Are Wheaton profs really like that?
Why are the trustees all, or mostly, so rich? Why isn’t there one poor alumnus, or alumna, on the board? Does wealth only reflect Christ and His kingdom? And why aren’t the faculty deeply involved in the search for the new president? It’s the faculty who set the tone of the college, not the administration (did anybody ever go to a college because of an administrator?). Don’t the trustees love the faculty? Don’t they want to share with the people they love the important process of seeking a new president? Doesn’t the way things are done on campus reflect the world of materialism and business, of bosses and laborers more than Christ and His Kingdom? Funny, in that vineyard in the Bible there are only laborers working together, and a Master who will return–to judge.
And the Bible is important at Wheaton. Well, it’s supposed to be. And it really is. Just remember it.
To the conservatory: Why are you so much like Juilliard? You train students to mostly play concerts. And you have really good ensembles that give concerts where people at the end go clappy clappy and the happier they are with the way you played the louder the clappy clappy gets. Yeah, just like Juilliard. But isn’t that odd? Why would a school For Christ and His Kingdom sound just like Juilliard? Don’t you want to worship Christ? And isn’t the greatest calling in your lives to use your talent when you worship Him? And aren’t there chapel services at Wheaton? Doesn’t Wheaton worship? So why does your choir work really hard so they can sing a couple of concerts for people who go clappy clappy instead of singing ever week in chapel with the students and staff and faculty who you love in worship of the Lord who will someday welcome you in his arms with Well done thou faithful servant? And to the composers at the conservatory: why are you not writing hymns? When your friends die, what hymns have your written for them that they can sing and memorize and in that time of distress call to mind so that they might not fear their passing across that dark river that you and they and I must cross? Do you think that your—or my–string quartets really matter? Is it perhaps because you don’t get Guggenheim’s for hymns? Yeah, remember that sign.
To the faculty: there’s no commandment in the Scriptures to be smart. We’re told to work really hard, and to study, but smartness? Hunger and thirst after righteousness, pure in heart, peace makers, you bet. But being smart? Nope, not there. Not even a hint.
Maybe you should look into Zoroastrianism, very keen on smartness there. So lighten up. Stop wishing you taught at Harvard. Yeah, cool Harvard whose endowment basically pillaged Russia and has a law school that was the first to offer a course in “strategic truth management” (i.e. lying). And it’s no complement to be called the “evangelical Harvard.” One of Harvard’s deans made a pretty good case that the Harvard B.A. was pretty much a waste of time. I think he might have been giving places like Wheaton a clue. Take it.
And try to be more engaging to the folks at large, I think it’s called being “Christian.” I once e-mailed a well known member of the faculty who writes frequently for a journal I occasionally contribute to. I was coming on campus and admired his work and very much wanted to meet him if only for a cup of coffee. He wrote back, saying that he really didn’t like to meet people and he was very busy. Good thing I was already a Christian because if I hadn’t been that wouldn’t have encouraged me in the faith much. Oh, and answer your e-mails. Wheaton profs have a reputation for being e-mail impaired. Change it. It makes folks think that you don’t love them. But you do. That big sign out front says you do.
My wife arrived on campus with a prospective student just as the admissions office was closing. The staff said sorry, they were about to close, here’s a map and pointed to Blanchard. Treat people like you love them. Remember that sign. That really, really big sign. Everybody’s looking at it, and especially folks like Marlene who needs you to show her love and in that love Christ and His Kingdom.
Oh, and at the end, it’s pronounced Whea’en. Stop making such a fuss about the T and pretending to be C. S. Lewis. Remember Lewis was a kid from Northern Ireland, the boonies, kinda like Whea’on; had such a miserable childhood he dreamed of living in a closet. Blanchard didn’t want Wheaton to be a closet for Christians. He made that building to look like a light house. Yep, that’s called a hint.
The next decade or so is going to be very difficult for colleges. By the end of May Yale has to cut about 150 million dollars from its operating budget. There’s a private college in Nashville that is rumored to be loosing 50% of its student body. And one of the country’s oldest colleges might not make it through the next three years; faculty are being paid with IOU’s, applications are plummeting and financial assistance has evaporated.
Like GM dealerships, colleges are going to close. Wheaton could be on that list. But the purpose of Wheaton isn’t to simply maintain Blanchard’s light house, it’s the tending of that light. And if at light goes out, well, why bother with the house at all? Who can even see it?
–Mike Linton
Wednesday, February 17 — addition
Hi Duane: Wow, you’ve written a book. A book. It’s about “who Duane Litfin is.” It’s also about “what makes Wheaton tick.” Sheezam. That’s gotta be one amazing book. Because “it’s all there. Not part of it, not just a particular view point, but all of it. John, when he wrote a book about the Lord, with the help of the Holy Spirit, couldn’t get it all in just one book. But you got it all in one book. Maybe you should have retired years ago; at faculty meetings; at sessions with the board everybody could have just had coffee and passed around THE BOOK. Have a question? It’s in THE BOOK. Well, as you said, “It’s all there.” You’re kinda redundant. You could have been in Bora Bora enjoying the fresh pineapples and sun.
But not only is everything about Duane Litfin in the book, but also everything about Wheaton. Guess Wheaton doesn’t need any kids to teach now. Just send them THE BOOK because what makes a Wheaton degree unique to Wheaton, is in THE BOOK. Hey, that’s an idea. Just have kids enroll for classes on line at the University of Phoenix, and send them THE BOOK. Then pop them a quiz to take on line over the contents of THE BOOK and then ship off a diploma to them, with the Gold Seal on the bottom left corner, and the picture of the tower at Blanchard above it. Well, they read THE BOOK.
And it’s all there. Everything about Wheaton. Everything. And can’t forget that there’s everything about you too. Hey, I guess that maybe you and Wheaton are interchangeable? You’re Wheaton? Wow. Double Sheezam. Nope, make that a triple.
But you’re right. You are the subject of a lot of this, as you say, “silliness.” Are you silly? Gosh. I don’t know. I’ll have to check THE BOOK
Mike, I think your comment wasn’t accepted by the website just because it’s, you know, really freaking long.
And hey Sarah: thanks for the new terminology. I find that I am, as you say, a post-liberal, post-evangelical, but not post-biblical believer.
I found the SoMA article through comment #14 at EvolutionBlog, http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2010/02/evolution_at_wheaton.php. Read the post too, it’s interesting.
I thought you’d like to know President Litfin (presumably) has responded on the First Things blog post about your article. Comment #30, February 14.
I really liked your article and seemed very fair to me. BTW, this white text on grey background comment box is murder on the eyes. (Mac Safari)