Defenders of Wheaton Must Face the Facts
Professor Tim Larsen writes in defense of Wheaton College, his employer, “My simple plea is that you don’t just cherry-pick the evidence that fits a decline narrative, but take an honest look at what Wheaton as a whole is like today.” He describes aptly the distinctive nature of a Christian education in recalling “reading Marx, rather than merely denouncing him.”
“Reading ‘The Communist Manifesto’ confirmed me in my lifelong opposition to Marxism,” Larsen says.
I had a similar – even more “liberal” – experience during my time as a student at Wheaton. Mine was thanks to a professor of economics named Norm Ewert. He was a man who cared deeply about the poor. He was a fierce critic of capitalism, a system to which he attributed the plight of millions around the world. Ewert challenged my beliefs about markets, forcing me to reckon with certain facts, but he also respected my dubiousness. In so doing, he sharpened my defense of my opinions and prepared me to adapt more deftly to the populist critique of conservatism driving our current political moment.
This was not a problem; this was an education. One for which I am thankful.
I had another experience as an undergraduate. We were nearing the end of class when the professor walked over and closed the door to the classroom. She then played a short film extolling the virtues of gay adoption. I am choosing to withhold the name of that professor because she later engaged in an extramarital affair with another member of the department, divorced her husband, and married the lover. (They no longer work at Wheaton.)
One of these examples represents an education; the other is propaganda. Closing the door to knowingly and willfully promote ideas that directly contradict the Statement of Faith is guerrilla warfare. This act typifies the sort of problem that has driven more than 1,200 alumni plus more than 500 parents, grandparents, and other friends of Wheaton to write an open letter to the members of the board of trustees.
Larsen fails to reckon with examples like this. “Of course, there will always be things that happen at Wheaton that you would wish were not so,” Larsen says. “People will always be able to point and explain in outrage, “They assign ‘The Communist Manifesto!’” or “[Former President Duane] Litfin gave in to political correctness and got rid of the Crusaders,” or the like.” Well, I and many others do think that changing the school’s mascot, which was a clever play on words invoking Billy Graham’s crusades, was a silly and unnecessary capitulation to the spirit of a certain age (cancel culture is over, in case you haven’t noticed), but if that was the sum of evidence there would be no need for the effort we have undertaken.
It may very well be that if students at Wheaton only ever took classes with Timothy Larsen, Daniel Treier, or John Dickson all would be well. That’s not how college works. These gentlemen have zero control over what happens in behind closed doors in others’ classrooms, student affairs meetings, conferences, chapels, or any of the other means through which students are influenced while on campus. It is obvious to anyone who has ears to hear and eyes to see that a cancer is present. Has it metastasized to every aspect of the college? Clearly not. Thank God! But anyone who knows anything about cancer knows you ought to kill it before it gets to that point.
Perhaps Larsen and others who have taken to Wheaton’s defense can put aside the straw men and grapple with the tough questions.
For example, recently Wheaton, specifically Mark Yarhouse, found it appropriate to give David Bennet the honor of giving the Inaugural SGI Lecture on Christianity, Sexuality, and Gender on October 8, 2024, on the theme, “Gay Celibate Ascetism: An Exploration of Eros and Desire in the Theologies of Augustine and Contemporary Anglicanism.” In his lecture, Bennet expounds on the themes of his thesis, “Queering the Queer: A Theological Ethics of Same-Sex Desire and Gay Celibacy in Contemporary Anglican thought.”
Bennet affirms gay orientation as “part of our good humanity.” He claims
In gay celibacy, then, is a well-ordered reformulation of desire, a vision of love which goes beyond marriage and yet is reflected in it. Gay celibates radically privilege what is signified by marriage over the sign of marriage itself. Gay celibacy represents in this way a radically opportunity for a renewal not just of our understanding of desire, or human nature, or sexuality, but of God himself.
He goes on, “Gay celibacy, as I define it, is a deeply queer phenomenon…my research emerges from the notion that to be gay and non-repressively celibate is queerer than both the often quite lackluster and idolatrous alternative positionalities that fight over the good of marriage. Although, us gay people we did take the idol of marriage pretty fabulously off the heterosexuals.”
I have no problem with students at Wheaton being asked to read this garbage alongside Marx. Quite the contrary. Leaders of the church ought to be exposed to lies like these coming from alleged Christan voices and taught to evaluate them against the timeless, infallible, inerrant Word of God. The problem is that these ideas are not presented to students for critical evaluation under the tutelage of a shepherd. No, they are promulgated unquestioningly and therefore sanctioned as orthodox by authorities that students trust. This is Wheaton College, after all.
Larsen accuses us of cherry-picking. I would encourage him and anyone else with questions to visit the Our Voices section of the For Wheaton website. Here you will find dozens of testimonies, some going back decades, others from current students. Or you can read Mason Laney’s (’22) op-ed describing his experience on campus. Or Edie Guy (’19) and Gabriela Szostak’s (’21) stories. Or the examples documented by Laurie Higgins.
None of us has an ax to grind. We love Wheaton College. Last summer, I walked my oldest daughters around campus and shared memories with them. I long to be able to encourage them to consider attending Wheaton. It breaks my heart that I can’t. We act out of love for Wheaton College and a genuine desire to see it become the “Same old Wheaton, only better.”
Image: Blanchard Hall at Wheaton College. Wikimedia Commons.
Pardon, but the use of the ‘cancer’ analogy is ambiguously deployed. WHAT or WHO is it that the writer wants to ‘kill’? The writers has a duty of intellectual honesty, ethical responsibility and moral clarity to say. Please do.
Pardon, but the use of the ‘cancer’ analogy is ambiguously deployed. WHAT or WHO is it that the writer wants to ‘kill’? The writers has a duty of intellectual honesty, ethical responsibility and moral clarity to say. Please do.
Pardon, but the use of the cancer analogy is ambiguously deployed. WHAT or WHO is it that the writer wants to ‘kill’? The writers has duties of of intellectual honesty, ethical responsibility, and moral clarity to say. Furthermore, since he uses that analogy it is important that the writer clarify means of killing since different cancer treatments have different mechanisms, means, and aims. Throwing around ‘killing’ – metaphorically, we hope – without clarity is unsound intellectually, ethically or morally.