But Jews also do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and it would be nonsense to say that Jews don’t worship the same God as Christians–the most casual reading of the New Testament makes this clear. Muslims worship the same god as the Jews, so…
Wheaton College in Massachusetts is now taking a lot of guff from folks who don’t realize that there are two Wheaton Colleges. MA’s Wheaton’s college is a coed LAC that was founded by Mary Lyons, who also founded Mount Holyoke as well. Wheaton (MA) was once a women’s college, while MHC still is.
^
@latichever I never used the word, “just”. You did, and then ran with it.
Theories can be revised when additional data is known.
@Hunt wrote: “But Jews also do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and it would be nonsense to say that Jews don’t worship the same God as Christians–the most casual reading of the New Testament makes this clear. Muslims worship the same god as the Jews, so…”
(sorry, don’t know how to do that copy thing that everyone else knows!)
Right. Because Jesus is supposed to be the fulfillment of promises by the Jewish god. So Jews, to them, are worshiping the same god but will not be saved. In contrast, Muslims, to evangelicals, may THINK they’re worshiping the same god, but it’s a perversion or a heresy, probably created by the devil to ensnare them, and hence isn’t “really” the same god. Same with Mormonism, I assume. Based on the same books but not “the same god” because it’s “untrue,” vs being a fulfillment of a true but superceded law.
It’s as if there are two ways of looking at the divine: many people (including many Christians but definitely not right-wing evangelicals) see people of other faiths as worshiping the same god by other names and in other ways; others say, “no, there Is Only One Way.” And really, the twain just doesn’t meet. You can’t argue with them about it from logic or history, any more than you can argue about what we really know about a historical Jesus, the development of Christianity, evolution, the big bang, etc. They just do not go there. Of course many Christians do – mainstream theological seminaries, say, or the pope, who I’m sure is pretty up on all that stuff – but right-wing fundamentalists even consider many mainstream Christians to be “not really Christians.” (I suppose they give the pope a pass since he presumably believes in the literal son-ship of Jesus.)
It’s funny, but contemporary evangelicals actually seem to be a lot less tolerant in that way than some Christians during the Crusade era. Check out Nicolas de Cusa. I bet they’d consider him “not a Christian.”
You may be right that this is the thinking, but it’s a nonsensical distinction. To me, the sensible way of looking at this is that all three of these religions are worshipping the same God, but each believes that the other two are doing it wrong. Again, to bring this back to Wheaton, I would have assumed that the people running that college would understand this, since they’re supposed to be the Harvard of Christian colleges and all.
@MomOnALaptop @hunt I think at the heart of the issue is the doctrine of the Trinity. In many Christian traditions (including Wheaton’s), God is viewed as Trinitarian, one God three parts. This is a PROFOUND tenent/religious belief in the evangelical Protestant tradition. By contrast, Muslims don’t view God as Trinitarian (In Islam, God is one Allah). This is why some Christian traditions don’t view Islam and Christianity as sharing the same God. It has nothing to do with malice towards Islam (or other traditions that don’t share this view), it’s purely theological.
And the same presumably applies to Jews, for whom God is also “one” (as the most common prayer has it)?
I know that many orthodox Jews suspect Christians of polytheism because of the doctrine of the Trinity, but I never heard that evangelical Christians believed the God of the Old Testament, who is certainly the only God worshiped by Jews, was not their God. Most evangelicals seem to acknowledge that they worship the same God as the Jews, although they clearly fault Jews for failing to recognize that God’s embodiment in Christ. What makes Muslims different in this respect?
The only thing I can think of is that they use a different name for God, although it is clearly the God of the Jewish scriptures. The argument that it is a different God is illogical; even theology has to make some kind of sense. Again, what perplexes me is why Wheaton would invite bad PR over such an arcane point.
Hunt, I’m not sure you are correct in assuming this is “bad PR” for Wheaton. We have distant relatives who are strict evangelicals, and who like bright lines. Something is either right, or it is wrong. They are uncomfortable with an intellectual discussion of the middle ground. Not all evangelicals are like this but my relatives certainly are, and they have close ties to Wheaton.
By suspending the professor, Wheaton is following the DT playbook, which calls for suspending immigration/entry for a class of people until we “find out what’s going on” (whatever that means). I think Wheaton is doing essentially the same thing, which will greatly appeal to their own base, a base which overlaps with that of DT to a certain extent. They may actually see donations and applicatiins increase over this, as sad as that would be.
Well, it’s bad PR if Wheaton wants to retain its “Harvard of the Christian schools” rep. Maybe they don’t care about that.
I agree completely with @MidwestDad3’s take.
@Hunt, I think you underestimate this particular class of people (highly-educated, very successful, EXTREMELY conservative, both politically and in terms of their evangelical faith). Being the “Harvard of Christian schools” has to do with the quality of their applicants and their success post-graduation. They would likely wear any fallout from this decision as a badge of honor in the culture wars.
Not really. “Allah”, which is generally thought to be a contraction of al-ilah (or “the God”) is very close to one version of the same term in biblical Hebrew, ha-El or ha-Eloah (Eloha or Elaha in Aramaic, probably the spoken language o). The consonants correspond (including aleph/alif, the silent consonant that begins the Hebrew and Arabic alphabets), even if the vowel sounds are slightly different. Many other names given to God are very close cognates in Arabic and Hebrew. I understand that Arabic-speaking Christians in the pre-Muslim era used “Allah” as the term for God.
Thanks, JHS. I was even more right than I thought.
Arguing solely on logic and NOT theology, I don’t think you are necessarily correct, Hunt. Just because a religion springs from a common antecedent does not mean that the God that is being worshipped in the present day incarnation of the religions is the “same” in any metaphysical sense. You’d have to analyze the tenets of the religion in its present form to determine whether the “God” at issue in each religion shares any common attributes in the present day understanding of the religion.
Consider an extreme, counterfactual hypothetical that is unrelated to any of the world’s major religions, but is being posited here to make a LOGICAL point. Imagine a new religion springs up that adopts the Old Testament in toto, but professes that Charles Manson is the Messiah and son of God, and further professes that everything that comes out of Charles Manson’s mouth is the word of God. Assume further that the whole present day understanding of who this “God” is is what comes out of Charles Manson’s mouth, and the Old Testament scriptures are interpreted to conform to his rantings.
That conception of “God” would be so far afield from any conception of God in any other Abrahamic tradition that it would be utterly meaningless to say that the “God” at issue in that religion is the “same God” of Judaism, Catholicism, or Islam. They may share some antecedents but they are not the same. The “God” in that hypothetical religion would have departed so acutely from the historical antecedents that the word “same” is not useful.
So, I don’t think your argument flies as simply a matter of logic. You may be right as a matter of theology, but surely there can be disagreements there. My point is that to determine whether we are talking about “the same God,” we would have to examine the specific tenets of the religions in question, not just the historical antecedents.
I think what the school is doing is ridiculous, but the metaphysical questions cannot be resolved with a simple syllogism.
Well, the logic that I’m thinking of is that it’s clear that Christians and Jews worship the same God, and that Jews and Muslims worship the same God. Ergo, Christians and Muslims worship the same God. They disagree about a lot of important things, of course. Note: I suspect that there are some fundamentalist Christians who don’t think they worship the same God as Roman Catholics do. But they do. Another note: what a religion says about itself and what an observer can say about it may not be the same.
@MidwestDad3 “Hunt, I’m not sure you are correct in assuming this is “bad PR” for Wheaton. We have distant relatives who are strict evangelicals, and who like bright lines. Something is either right, or it is wrong. They are uncomfortable with an intellectual discussion of the middle ground. Not all evangelicals are like this but my relatives certainly are, and they have close ties to Wheaton.”
Exactly. In their minds, they are the oppressed minority, hounded by the godless liberal media. There are no gray areas.
@Hunt “Well, the logic that I’m thinking of is that it’s clear that Christians and Jews worship the same God, and that Jews and Muslims worship the same God. Ergo, Christians and Muslims worship the same God. They disagree about a lot of important things, of course. Note: I suspect that there are some fundamentalist Christians who don’t think they worship the same God as Roman Catholics do. But they do. Another note: what a religion says about itself and what an observer can say about it may not be the same.”
The position that they worship the same God implies that God’s existence is known. The only thing an objective observer can say is that there is no evidence for any of it. Not by scientific standards in the natural world, anyway. Logically, can it be determined that two things are the same even if it can’t be determined that they exist? I don’t think so.
@nottelling “Just because a religion springs from a common antecedent does not mean that the God that is being worshipped in the present day incarnation of the religions is the “same” in any metaphysical sense. You’d have to analyze the tenets of the religion in its present form to determine whether the “God” at issue in each religion shares any common attributes in the present day understanding of the religion.”
I agree. To me this is just religious evolution, and it works just like natural evolution. In evolution, all parents and offspring are the same species. However, over millions of years, it may become clear that the current species has changed enough to no longer be the same species that started out. The fact that humans evolved from single-celled animals does not mean we are the same species as single-celled animals. Similarly, two religions may have a common Genesis (lol), but may still not be the same religion.
What a bunch of hypocritical twisting in the wind.
Hawkins has ended up creating a wonderful self-promoting media event for herself. Odds are that this gets flipped into a better teaching position elsewhere now that she’s being portrayed as an “academic martyr”.
The intense reaction of many of you armchair theologians and academic elites provide ample evidence for the intolerant attitudes the tiny number of “traditional evangelical” colleges have to endure when trying to maintain their religious identity by the terms that they choose.
Many of the opinions here are devoid of even an attempt at any evenhanded analysis.
This demonstration indicates the bigger problem of a continued assault on pluralism in our educational system and in society at large.
The fact that I wouldn’t send my son to Wheaton or might disagree with some of their policies does negate their right to maintain the purity of their stated beliefs.
Who said that Wheaton isn’t entitled to maintain the “purity of its beliefs” as they see it? I don’t think anyone was advocating for government seizure of their assets or anything. They are entitled to do what they did, we are entitled to comment on it, think it’s disappointing and bad PR, and they are free to care or not-care about what the secular world thinks.
@Ultrahumanite “What a bunch of hypocritical twisting in the wind.”
Ad hominem vagary. Can you be specific?
@Ultrahumanite “Hawkins has ended up creating a wonderful self-promoting media event for herself. Odds are that this gets flipped into a better teaching position elsewhere now that she’s being portrayed as an “academic martyr”.”
Personally, I don’t like what she did. I appreciate that her intent is to be sympathetic to the oppression of any religion. However, I see the head covering as oppressive to women because in many countries, women are forced to wear it. It is like branding a cow. In my mind it says, this person has no individual identity, but is property to be controlled, and without free will.
@Ultrahumanite “The intense reaction of many of you armchair theologians and academic elites provide ample evidence for the intolerant attitudes the tiny number of “traditional evangelical” colleges have to endure when trying to maintain their religious identity by the terms that they choose.”
Another attempt at an ad hominem without any support, followed by a vague assertion that Wheaton is the victim and not the aggressor. Ironically, the vast majority of people posting here are incredibly tolerant. They are tying themselves in knots trying to find ways to accommodate every person’s beliefs. It is quite the opposite of your claim. I have not seen a single post claiming that Wheaton should not have the authority to do what it did. The only intolerance shown has been by Wheaton, and even then posters are not saying that they do not have the right to do it.
@Ultrahumanite “Many of the opinions here are devoid of even an attempt at any evenhanded analysis.”
Continuing to insult with vague statements and no support. The opinions on this board are largely attempting to find a way to maintain a society where people of all religions, or no religion, are willing to live together and treat one another with respect. That is about as even-handed as you can get. Even-handed does not mean that all opinions are considered equally. It means that people are treated equally.
@Ultrahumanite “This demonstration indicates the bigger problem of a continued assault on pluralism in our educational system and in society at large.”
This is just silly. Posters are largely opposed to intolerance, and support pluralism. The religious right wants to have the right to be intolerant of other religions with impunity, while expecting their rights to be protected from any hint intolerance that may be directed toward them. That is the problem. As was demonstrated here, they will not tolerate pluralism. They do not show respect for this woman’s views. However, they cry foul if anyone even expresses dismay at their intolerance. lol
@Ultrahumanite “The fact that I wouldn’t send my son to Wheaton or might disagree with some of their policies does negate their right to maintain the purity of their stated beliefs.”
No one here is claiming that they do not have the right to “maintain the purity of their stated beliefs.” This statement is an attempt to position schools like Wheaton as an oppressed minority who is being treated unfairly by the secular humanists. The reality is that they are being given additional rights as an accommodation so that they can maintain their “purity.”
If Wheaton believed in one God and Jesus’s love for all of God’s creations then this wouldn’t even be an issue. If you talk about my my god is better than your god then that only imply that you follow gods, not God. If you object to head covering than you are disrespecting Mary. You have to pick between being a bigot or a Christian, there is no such thing as a Bigot Christian, that’s an oxymoron.