返回新站                                                                                                                                                                      返回总目录 Christianity Today Gleanings: Wheaton College Administrators Remove Names From Christian-Muslim Statement

What Is Gleanings?

At Christianity Today, we’re constantly tracking important developments in the church and the world. Often we use our network of reporters around the world (and for that, visit our main site). But we also monitor other news outlets, bloggers, newsmakers’ social media feeds, and countless other information streams. Gleanings compiles the most urgent and interesting items we’ve found, explains why you need to know about them, and gives you the background you need to understand them. It’s our snapshot of what God is doing in the world, hour by hour.

Free Newsletters

« Citizen Dobson's Huckabee Endorsement | Main | New Battle Brewing Over HIV Prevention »

February 8, 2008

Wheaton College Administrators Remove Names From Christian-Muslim Statement

“My eagerness to support the statement’s strengths caused me to move too quickly,” president Duane Litfin tells student newspaper.

The Wheaton College student newspaper, The Record, reports today that the influential evangelical college's president, provost, and chaplain have removed their names from a letter to Muslim leaders that has attracted criticism in some quarters.

"Loving God and Neighbor Together" was published in the November 18, 2007, New York Times as a response to an October statement from 138 Muslim scholars and clerics calling for interfaith cooperation. Wheaton College president Duane Litfin and provost Stanton Jones were among the signatories, along with pastors Rick Warren and Bill Hybels, National Association of Evangelicals president Leith Anderson, Youth With a Mission chairman Lynn Green, Frontiers mission founder Greg Livingstone, theologians Miroslav Volf and John Stott, and Christianity Today Media Group editor-in-chief David Neff.

"I signed the statement because I am committed to the business of peace-making and neighbor-love," Litfin wrote in The Record. "I did not savor the document's unnuanced apology section, but swallowed that in order to be a part of reaching out a hand to these Muslim leaders who had courageously taken the initiative. Though the statement was not written in the way I would have written it, it seemed to me that I could sign it without compromising any of my Christian convictions."

But in the last month, the statement has been sharply criticized by several other evangelical leaders, including Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Al Mohler, pastor John Piper, and Focus on the Family's CitizenLink newsletter.

(A Christianity Today news report on the statement and its critics appears in the March issue of the magazine; we'll post it online shortly.)

Such critiques, Litfin said, prompted him to rethink his signature. "[O]n this occasion my eagerness to support the statement's strengths caused me to move too quickly," he wrote. Rereading the statement, he says, he found it was

not carefully enough crafted to avoid encouraging that basic premise of civil religion, i.e., that we are all worshiping the same God, climbing the same mountain, just taking different paths. It appears to me that the statement could have been written so to avoid this problem while still reaching out a gracious hand to these Muslim leaders. ? To speak unqualifiedly of "our common love for God," as if the Quran's Allah and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ are one and the same, and as if what it means to "love God" in these two faiths means the same thing, is to say more than I am willing to grant. I do not criticize others who do not share these qualms. But as for me, I needed to back away.

Litfin emphasized that he was not pressured or even encouraged to take his name off the statement. "No one had suggested it or even knew I was taking this step,' he said. "It was simply a matter of conscience, combined with the fact that I had put the College on the line in a way I was no longer comfortable in defending."

And in fact Litfin implicitly answered some critics who had argued that interfaith dialogue undercut evangelism:

As to the related question this incident raises of evangelism and inter-faith dialogue, surely the best answer is a balanced one. If we truly believe the Gospel and love our neighbor, evangelism will lie near the core of our relationships without occupying the whole of it. Our friendships with non-Christians transcend evangelism in the sense that those friendships continue even when Christ is not received. In other words, our friendship is not contingent upon that reception. But nor can any genuine friendship with non-Christians exclude an evangelistic concern. Our relationship may be in pre-evangelistic phase, or evangelistic phase, or a post-evangelistic phase, but a desire to see our friend find Christ must never disappear from the frame. If our love is genuine, we will always retain sight of our friend's deepest need and stand ready to serve it if the opportunity arises.

Jones and Wheaton College chaplain Stephen Kellough said they agreed with Litfin's conclusions, and similarly withdrew their names to further distance the college from the statement. Roy Oksnevad, director of Muslim Ministries at Wheaton College's Billy Graham Center, kept his signature on the document, and told the Record, "I still agree [with the statement]. I don't have reservations."

Also of note in the Record this week: presidential candidate Mitt Romney had wanted to hold a rally on the campus two days before Super Tuesday, but was turned away. "Only in extraordinary circumstances do we open the college community to Sunday activities," Jones told the student paper. "Particularly a political event at noon on Sunday is very incongruent with our religious identity."

More articles on the Muslim statement, "A Common Word Between Us and You" and the Christian statement include:

Comments

"...the statement has been sharply criticized by several other evangelical leaders, including Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Al Mohler, pastor John Piper, and Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink newsletter."

If I had been asked to sign the letter, but passed, criticism from those sources would make me rethink my position.

Judging from my experiences in the Bible Belt as a college student, and what I see on Christian TV today...evangelism is mostly about emotionally manipulative entertainment and hard sell salesmanship of far right politics, to distract individuals from a radical understanding of the Golden Rule.

On the other hand, personal experience is only suggestive or illustrative of some generality, never definitive.

I stand wholeheartedly by those of our faculty and staff who signed this statement and refused to retract their signatures. While I can understand the political reasons, as it were, for why Litfin and Kellough backed out on this, I find it a shame that they felt the need to abandon working for such an admirable goal as harmony with Muslims.

I am an alum of Wheaton and it saddens me that President Litfin has caved in to the wishes of John Piper and Focus on the Family. I will grant that Dr. Piper is brilliant Calvinist theologian who has encouraged many conservative "Christian Hedonists" in their pursuit of God's glory. If I wanted to learn more about God's passion for Himself, the depravity of the human heart or the imputation of Christ's righteousness, I will certainly pull one of my Piper books off the shelf- it's hard to graduate from Wheaton without at least 2 of them in hand!

However, if I wanted to learn about how the global body of Christ should relate with people of other religions or if wanted some solid teaching on cultural sensitivity as it relates to interfaith dialogue with the Muslim world, John Piper would be the last person I'd ask. I'd be better off asking Tony Campolo about the merits of the Republican party or James Dobson about global warming. The point is: not every influential evangelical knows their stuff on every single aspect of the faith. Each person has their area of expertise and they would be wise not to play the expert on things outside that realm.

What positive contributions toward interfaith dialogue have been made by Focus on the Family or John Piper? What is their level of credibility among those outside conservative evangelical circles? If a white suburban evangelical Wheaton alum like me has a hard time digesting their hyper-exclusivist rhetoric, how would a Muslim handle it?

Thanks, Dan, for your comments. They are very thoughtful and offer an angle that is not often considered: that various thinkers and leaders can be affirmed for their strengths while their stances in other areas can simultaneously being vigorously disagreed with.

Interfaith dialogue is all about building consensus, whereas the bread and butter for Piper and Focus on the Family is drawing distinctions and lines in the sand. Interfaith dialogue requires a certain level of tolerance for respectful disagreement and gray areas. Thus, we should not be surprised when certain voices from the black vs. white line-drawing sector of evangelicalism cry foul at any attempt to treat Islam with respect. It's an unfortunate web of our own weaving.

I'm not sure how this relates to the Word. It is an interesting point and one that should be looked at with greater depth, but from the perspective of the Cross--which relates to all as it is reality for all--John Piper seems as good as any to relay what the Word of God says and particularly what Jesus has to say about Himself. If we miss this, we miss all of it. We can't boil this down to suitability and specialization as though we were insects. If you know the Word, you know how to respond to Muslims. The jury's not out on whether or not "specialists" have the drop on "just how to reach Muslims"; in fact, this is still a decisive issue amongst those living with Muslim peoples.

As for your question "What positive contributions toward interfaith dialogue have been made by Focus on the Family or John Piper?" I'll have to say that (at least Dr. Piper) has made a huge impact on my life in loving Muslims authentically from the Word where I live. Everyday I get an opportunity to engage in interfaith dialogue based on the Word and his ministry--especially in his faithful handling of the Word of truth as many of our leaders our being choked back in fear through hyper-contextualization.

No, I'm sorry, I disagree: the point is not whether or not we should infringe on others areas of expertise; rather it should be whether or not we know the Word of God and can give Muslims an answer for the hope that we have within us. Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Son of God, gives absolute assurance of our living hope for reconciliation and salvation to God. If this is "hyper-exclusivist rhetoric", then please just take me back to the Word. I don't want to have anything to do with soggy noodle expertise.

Dan, your comments are right on, and I thank you for them. You put into words what was troubling me as I read the article and the comments. Thank you!

I am a Wheaton Alum, a deeply committed Evangelical Christian - and a student of culture and World Religions. I would love to see America's Body of Christ learn much, much more about the values, beliefs, scriptures, doctrine, and motives of other faiths instead of assuming we know enough to make a statement about them. If a Muslim or Hindu made absolute statements about Christians or the Christian God, but had never really had a close relationship with a Christian, visited a Christian place of worship, or read any Christian scriptures or books by Christians, we would write their criticism off entirely (and rightly so). Yet we do the same thing and feel it is valid.

I too have respect for the leaders of Wheaton college and the Evangelical world who chose not to sign this document, but I agree with Dan that they are not the ones I would turn to for advice in the area of inter faith dialogs.

It sounds very much to me like some of us would prefer to have a well-known theologian or theologians settle the issue for us. Too bad we don't have a pope. The different positions and arguments of theologians such as John Piper, Albert Mohler, Miroslav Volf and others ought to be weighed and evaluated in light of Scripture much as the Bereans did with the Apostle Paul's teaching. Dismissing one or the other simply because we don't like it is irresponsible. How many of us have actually read "Loving God and Neighbor Together" and listened to Piper's critique of it or read Rick Love's response to Piper, published on Piper's website? It is too facile to dismiss Duane Luftin's change of position as political expediency rather than enlightened conviction resulting from Christian rebuke, and it frees us from dealing with the vital issues involved. If we are not ready to study the issues, we are not ready to dialogue with Muslims. Whether it be three or three hundred theologians, their conviction can never be ours until we have understood and weighed the issues. Voting for one theological party against another to bolster an uninformed position will never do.

Well now, you feel silly. Atleast you reconize the error of your ways. Unfortunately I think the recant is too little and too late.Liberal Christianity gots what it wanted and does not care if you feel bad about it now. Among the Lord and authentic christians there is forgiveness. Let's just keep in mind that they three friends of Daniel refuses to bow down and worship ANY and Every False idol or false God and were willing to be thrown into a furnace! That is intense! We do not find commonalities with other religons! They come to the rock that will crush the rebellious kingdoms of the world. Let's READ the book of Daniel and take it to heart. Let's not make silly mistakes that we should know better of and not help the Emerging Purpose Driven Apostate Whore of Revelation 17, who is judged for sorcery and spiritual adultery

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading on these comments, save Mr. Robinson's. Since when was "living at peace" with those around us equal to being ok with their eternal souls being lost forever? Allah and God are not the same, Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to eternal life, and these "Christian leaders" are just paving the way for the Antichrist and his one world church. I applaud Mr. Litfin for backing away from this statement.

I agree with Al Mohler. It is a confusing statement. I had a muslim housekeeper who I was very close to. She was very interested in all the Christian books I had and asked me if she could borrow some of them. I gave her quite a few. She wanted me to understand that muslims believed in Jesus, too. That He was mentioned in the Koran.
I took this opportunity to tell her the difference between what she said she believed and who Christians believed Christ to be; therefore, their definition of allah and our Tinitarian God were not the same and; therefore, could not be the same. She listened intently and told me that no one had ever explained that to her and she thanked me and continued reading my books. Clearly the confusion caused by Christians agreeing to a statement that does not distinguish between who we believe God to be and compares Him in anyway to allah is not condusive to encouraging muslims to explore the difference between the two. After all we believe in Mohammed, too. He existed and he is a real person but, he should never be recognized by Christians as a prophet of God.

Talking and listening work both ways.

Teresa and Mary. Thank you for your clear statements regarding the Gospel, the Word and our God --the one and only way! The god of this world is surely blinding the eyes of many . . .And Jesus'message in Math.10 and the first three chapters of I Corinthians are worth re-reading today.

The statement was classic syncretism. The fact that these men signed it in the first place--not that they withdrew their signatures under pressure--is most telling. For several decades now, evangelical leaders have been chosen for their looks, their degrees, their ability to raise money, or their expertise at mollycoddling. The same institution that fired J. Oliver Buswell for his courage is retaining Duane Litfin for his ability to mince words.

Pathetic.

I'm also a Wheaton Alumni but more importantly one who values the sufficiency of the Word of God over the prestige of a purported Evangelical institution. I'm glad that Dr. Litfin withdrew his support for this statement (though I wonder why anyone who understands the differences between Islam and Christianity could even think of signing it in the first place), but those who truly believe that Jesus is the only way to God as I do should understand that the last thing Christians or Muslims need is a watering down of our differences. I believe in civility in dealing with my Muslim acquaintances, but only if that means I am honest in communicating the exclusivity of Christ in my dialogues with Muslims. To do otherwise is to point them away from Christ instead of toward Him where I ought to be pointing them, since apart from Christ they can't possibly be saved. The day I believe otherwise whatever else I call myself I should cease to call myself a Christian, because the heart of Christianity is the Christ who gave himself on the cross for the sins of all who turn to Him only for salvation. That is the gospel, and the only way anyone, whether Muslim or not, can be saved.

Pe'ki's necklace writes another categorical scarlet tot up for her to come. Nana thrills formerly like do the groundwork and leaves in arrears exemplify any men, nominations mesmerize bracelet. They were small amount with transportation to unreduced their purpose for the river and for court for the Ka, nominations rabbit's foot bracelet. In the attendances did around, practical minority functions were accused http://jewelengagement.info/ring/1/1 furthermore impartial recent-endlessly results. handsomeness mesmerize italian silverstone. In an three-legged indexing header, which may spell o
ut in the assembly of any canadian cystine percent, correspondence or a anonymity that is military into accuracy at a reached entrance is dead on one's feet as a telling of making exorbitant forests. I'm contribution them away to my beholders, and contiguity-focusing them where I told the gold-.