An open letter to Eric Teetsel, the original signer of “For Wheaton”
Dear Eric,
I was encouraged more than you would imagine that you took the time to read my article, to write your own article in response to it and, most of all, that you kindly reached out to me directly. You mention that you are not an official spokesman for “For Wheaton,” and please also note that I am not an official spokesman for Wheaton College. I put a request to you (An open letter to the signers of the “For Wheaton” letter), and in your article in reply (Closing the Door to the Classroom – American Reformer) you, in turn, put one to me: “Perhaps Larsen and others who have taken to Wheaton’s defense can put aside the straw men and grapple with the tough questions.”
I will make a good faith effort to do so in this letter. Before I do, however, I hope you can pardon an occupational hazard of my being a scholar, as I cannot resist making a pedantic point. There were no straw men in my article. I am a historian, and my article was an attempt to set the current situation in historical perspective. I surmise that by a straw man you mean that I was pretending that “For Wheaton” signers have no concerns beyond the Crusaders mascot and matters of that ilk. I did not intend to communicate that. That mascot change happened a quarter of a century ago! I was using it as a historical example. Go, Thunder!
I also need to explain two reasons why I feel hesitant about taking up your request, before I nevertheless attempt to do so. My first reason is that it might make it seem I believe that none of the issues being raised are legitimate concerns. That is not at all what I think. My plea is not that nothing wrong or unwise ever happens at Wheaton, but only that you keep a sense of proportion regarding what Wheaton College is currently like. I earnestly hope that the administration and the trustees will listen carefully to every concern that is raised and take action as needed. In God’s providence, this might be a moment in which Wheaton reaffirms, renews, and deepens its Christian mission for the times in which we live.
My second cause for reluctance is that I could easily be drawn into an endless game of whack-a-mole. (And again, for the record, I agree that some moles are worth whacking.) Nevertheless, here we go. You asked me to read the “Our Voice” section on the “For Wheaton” website and face the facts that are presented there. I read every single contribution. The vast majority were along the lines of “in the past, members of my family went to Wheaton, but I don’t trust Wheaton anymore.” These comments fit the genre of what they are being asked to do, so I don’t mean to imply that they are evasive. I am simply pointing out that it is hard to appeal a verdict when all you are given is the decision and not the evidence upon which it is based.
One Voice that is a little less vague is Bryan Park, who writes: “And the decisions made by the college always swing in the same direction.” That is simply not true. During Ryken’s presidency, Wheaton repeatedly made national news because the college sued the Obama administration regarding the Affordable Care Act. Does that some like a long time ago now? The large and zealous Wheaton College contingent led the March for Life this year. Less than a month ago, Wheaton put into the student, faculty, and employee handbooks a mandatory, conservative policy on the use of pronouns.
I read in these Voices and in your X posts and elsewhere, concerns about one or more faculty members saying that God is both “mother and father” or the like. As it happens, that phrase resonated with me in a specific way because the father of a conservative evangelical friend of mine died a few weeks ago. His mother had died years earlier, and at the funeral my friend testified that his father had been “both mother and father to me.” I, however, respect members of the Wheaton community who believe that no such thing should ever be said about God or that, even if it is not inherently wrong, it could lead in a dangerous direction. All I’m asking is for a sense of proportion. Every single faculty member at Wheaton College believes that God is Triune and names the persons of the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Every single faculty member at Wheaton College worships Almighty God by name as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; every single faculty member at Wheaton College baptizes in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Two Voices say that they are boycotting Wheaton because it fired the former chaplain, Timothy Blackmon. I got along well with Chaplain Blackmon and, as I was not a part of any process where all the evidence was presented and challenged, I am in no position to judge whether or not his case was adjudicated aright. What is generally known, however, is that he is black and that his accuser was white, so—in direct contrast to the concern raised in the “For Wheaton” letter—should that not be strong evidence that Wheaton is not making unjust decisions because its reasoning is clouded by a DEI agenda?
In your own article, Eric, you provide two pieces of evidence. The second one is a lecture on campus by David Bennet. Guest speakers are guest speakers. Wheaton does not have a requirement that they even have to be Christians. Sometimes a guest speaker is not what the person invited expected or hoped for. Sometimes they should have known better and seen in advance that it would be an imprudent invitation. I fully concede that sometimes guests have been invited to speak on campus that it would have been wiser not to have invited.
The first piece of evidence you offer is your main one. It even gives your article its title: Closing the Door to the Classroom. Yet far from proving that Wheaton currently has a faculty that is riddled with unfaithfulness, it is about someone who is no longer a faculty member at Wheaton College. And, it would seem, either she was fired, or she resigned because she was about to be fired. You seem to believe that this anecdote is illustrative of the faculty more widely, but that is not my experience. I spend an entire academic year together in the Faith and Learning seminar with every faculty member that Wheaton hires. I am inspired by their personal faith, humbled by their practice of spiritual disciplines (what you really find behind closed doors at Wheaton College are prayer warriors), and spurred on to love and good deeds by their commitment to personal holiness, evangelism, service, and missions.
As to my request that “For Wheaton” signers treat Christian colleges consistently—or, again, at least with some sense of proportion—you shrug off my raising Hillsdale as an example by arguing that it is pursuing a “touchstone” model for a Christian college rather than a “biosphere” one. To state matters plainly, here is what it means to say that Hillsdale takes a “touchstone” approach: it means that you might have a professor who is an atheist or who believes that Jesus was a deluded fantastic; it means that you might have a professor in a same-sex relationship who has adopted children; it means your professor might choose to have an abortion or to pay for one.
You seem confident that prospective parents know that Hillsdale is following this very different, “touchstone” model, but that is not at all what I hear. I hear directly, in person, from people that Hillsdale is a truly Christian college, while Wheaton no longer is one. That is the executive summary of “For Wheaton” that is getting spread abroad far and wide. The prominent evangelical voice Eric Metaxas even tweeted to his 235,500 followers that you should boycott Wheaton and instead send your children to a “solid Christian school” such as Hilldale.
Fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, I appeal to you earnestly. Is that just? Is that fair? Again, I have no quarrel with anyone who decides that they would rather send their children and money to Hillsdale than Wheaton. (Jennifer Anderson announces that she has decided to do this in the Our Voices section.) Those are perfectly honorable, legitimate choices. But to extend to Hillsdale the right hand of Christian fellowship, while pronouncing that Wheaton has so departed from the Christian faith that it is currently under excommunication, is that a reasonable, fair, proportionate response? These too are facts that you need to face and not evade.
May God bless you and be with you.
In Christian love and fellowship,
Tim Larsen, class of 1989, MA ’90
McManis Professor of Christian Thought
Wheaton College
I have read four of Tim’s books and interviewed him on a few of those, so I may be biased. Then again, these things may offer some light.
Tim is a careful scholar who gladly confesses his faith in Christ.
Perhaps the complexity that a good historian like Tim presents clarifies how much there is to pay attention to with matters of controversy. Obfuscation is a perennial problem but underscoring how many truths there are to keep in mind is a hallmark of thinking Christianly.