I suggested a month ago that the theological question was secondary rather than primary. I believed that what got the ball rolling was that a highly vislble, politically progressive, theologically evangelical, African-American female professor had run afoul of the conservative Wheaton political culture multiple times — this last time because she expressed visible, physical solidarity with Muslims at a most inopportune moment in the American and evangelical political context. Nothing I have heard since has changed my view.
Eventually, at least, it was about the forces lining up on either side of Professor Hawkins. It was about what they think not just Wheaton, but evangelical Christianity as a whole, ought to be. Does the best future for American evangelical Christianity look more like Professor Larycia Hawkins — both her person and her convictions — or more like those who wanted her gone?
The actual outcome at Wheaton, stripped of the nice words today, is that those who wanted Professor Hawkins gone did in fact prevail. She is leaving. That does say something about who currently has the upper hand in defining American evangelicalism. Unlike in the Dreyfus case, the conservative side won.
Which is yet another really good reason for me to say this: I personally renounce any identification with that side of American evangelical Christianity that arrayed itself against Larycia Hawkins. I will fight, alongside many others, for a better version of Christian faith than the one you offer.
Does this mean that American Christians have finally stopped subsidizing and funding and praising those who hate their culture and history, despise their politics, and have contempt for their theology?
Does this mean that the classic race hustle is finally losing its power?
Does this mean that believers have finally decided to cast the unclean thing away from them?
Is there hope that faithful Christian churches will finally get together, and as one body excommunicate their enemies (with a shared database say)- you know, the way Compassionate People (in both political parties) are careful to cut Christians off from making any actual changes in the law of the land?
(That’s not too hard: just enforce the Nicene Creed; uphold God as our only Creator, Saviour, and Judge; insist that God is the final authority, not the State or the People; recognize the Bible as the greatest and fundamental guide to law, history and doctrine; and toss out of the Church anyone who violate these edicts.)
Will there finally be an end to Christian crawling and begging and licking of boots?