Reflections on Larycia Hawkins, PhD

When I first read Dr. Hawkins’ manifesto, I immediately wrote a congratulatory note to a friend – a Wheaton alum.

“Wow, what an amazing story. A tenured Wheaton professor, an African American woman, standing in solidarity with Muslim women around the world who suffer every imaginable indignity. Not the least among them – the hate speech of the political right now oozing its way into the Presidential debates. Common applause lines explode in the heady pursuit of the Republican nomination.” These were my thoughts, not all expressed in that brief comment. That would come later.

The following day, there were sharp reprimands published all over the Internet,  incensed that Professor Hawkins had, in her Facebook post, quoted Pope Francis. The Pontiff indicated somewhere that Christians and Muslims worship the “same God.” The actual quote, I discovered, came in 2013, when the newly selected Vicar of Christ asserted that Muslims “worship the one living and merciful God, and call upon him in prayer.” Apparently, he had in mind a Catholic proclamation back in 1964 that “the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”[1]

By those comments, the Pope triggered a firestorm of controversy within his own church. Many hold the conviction that Islam is more than an offshoot of Christianity; more than a remake of the hodgepodge of theological ideas and controversies swirling somewhere around the six and seventh centuries C.E. To them, Islam is nothing less than a heretical rival to the True Church. This opinion is as potently embraced in the Roman Catholic Church as it is in American Evangelicalism. Folks sympathetic with the Pope call his sentiments pastoral rather than theological. But for the partisan crowd ready to dismiss Islam as a “Satanic perversion of the truth” and an “ominous threat to Christian democracy,” any legitimizing of Islam’s Allah would be anathema. So far, the Pope’s popularity has kept his critics from dominating the conversation. They fear that Francis is giving away the store. Yes, Francis affirms pluralism, to the world’s joyful relief.

But not so for conservative American evangelicals. Islam is a sworn enemy; pluralism a liberal conspiracy to destroy Christian America, right in there with secularism. To suggest that the Allah of Islam is the same as the YHWH of Christianity is a major violation. Syncretism and universalism, all evangelicals know, are deadly sins.

Many observers considered Professor Hawkins’ words to be incendiary, and tantamount to a direct attack on Wheaton College’s raison d’etre. As a conservative Christian institution guided by a long standing orthodox statement of faith, any threat to the purity of the standards and distinctives of the school must be met with swift and effective recrimination. There will be consequence.

A storm of alumni and supporters formed a vigilante movement within days. Calls for the dismissal of the mutinous professor rolled in like a tidal wave over the administration’s offices. Resist the forces of political correctness! Stand strong in the face of religious persecution! In the name of righteousness, banish the perversions of heresy from our midst! Hold on tight to the conservative ground! Excise the cancer of liberalism before it metastasizes!

The professor, summarily demonized, had little recourse. Reminiscent of the Salem trials of old, Larycia Hawkins was served, charged, tried and condemned before she had a chance to explain herself. Wheaton issued a public statement assuring the world that this had nothing to do with gender or race or the pursuit of justice or the concern for mercy or kindness. It had everything to do with doctrinal purity.

Many of us were left to wonder about all that.

Students of American evangelicalism are hard pressed to miss the paternalism, the concern for racial purity, the ready, enthusiastic identification with the well entrenched religious right – all in the name of obedience to Biblical authority. As financial and political pressures mount, Christian Colleges and Universities face daunting challenges. A new millennial generation has little interest in the non-negotiable agenda of political conservatism. But at the same time, enormous pressure comes from wealthy supporters to maintain old school politics – its resistance to diversity, its anti-government posture, its resistance to planet preservation, its hostility towards non-traditional marriage, its anti-immigration obsession and add to that a naïve American exceptionalism. With all those competing forces and more you have a recipe for the early demise of the institution itself.

The sad case of Dr. Larycia Hawkins v. Wheaton College brings all of this into focus.

The powers that be concluded early on: “By her assertions, Professor Hawkins presented the College with no other alternative than to part ways.”

I disagree.

Wheaton College was given the opportunity to show much more to a watching world. For starters, they could have differentiated themselves from the petty, opportunistic rhetoric that is splitting our country in two. They could have acknowledged the complexities of real theology; the history and development of theological ideas have evolved over time. Reconciliation requires dialogue, mutual understanding and mutual respect. Common ground. They could have affirmed the plight of Islamic women who have been castigated, misunderstood and spurned by the spokesmen of evangelical institutions (e.g., Franklin Graham) along with their political counterparts. They could have engaged the professor’s cause, recognizing that Jesus taught love for enemy, care for the oppressed, justice for the abused, hope for the world.

Professors and students alike argued for such a response, but their concerns were drowned out by that wave of demands coming from conservative alumni, theological purists and wealthy supporters, threatening withdrawal of support.

Who knows the private negotiation that led to an “amicable parting of ways”? That, for now at least, remains the contents of a sealed envelope. The price of severance? The threat of some embarrassing disclosure Wheaton was prepared to reveal that would embarrass the professor? The prospect of a months’/years’ long “trial” (inquisition, investigation, inquiry)? We are only left to speculate.

But we all know this much: the first tenured African American woman to serve with distinction at the evangelical College was pressured to leave. It is not at all clear (as some have argued) that her statement violated the college’s statement of faith. Political views are not a cause of dismissal – or so the college claims. One assumes that professors have academic freedom in this regard.

Those of us who have studied the dynamics of race and gender in American life know some of the basic principles and themes. The myth of white privilege is alive and well. The history of evangelicalism and race is abysmal. The claim that America, with a two-term African-American President, has entered an era of racial harmony, making discrimination a thing of the past is, well, patently false. (“Post-racial America” does not exist.) While many of our colleges and universities have taken initiative in the development of cultural diversity and view it as a promising start, there is much to learn about what diversity, equal opportunity and equal access really mean. Resistance to progress remains strong – ask anyone who has been assigned to oversee these initiatives.

Along with many other interested observers, I expected more from “The Harvard of Evangelicalism.” This sorry episode will certainly result in a “Big Chill” that will cover the evangelical institutions of higher learning like a cold front sweeping from the Arctic regions. Professors will modify their lectures, put boundaries around their discussions; books will remain unpublished; students will be taught to conform rather than to think for themselves. Diversity initiatives will have less impact. The caricature of evangelicalism as theological justification for the excesses of the religious right will only be solidified.

There is disappointment – and more, a sadness over the whole affair.

Someday, I would like to have a long conversation with Dr. Hawkins about her journey – and her plans to leverage this unexpected notoriety into something transformational. I think she knows that she is not alone. That there are many of us who celebrate her courage and compassion. We believe she has a powerful platform to carry a message of redemption, reconciliation and hope.

She may never be called a Rosa Parks*, but in my mind, she’s pretty close.