Virginia Tech is strongly committed to diversity. It is not “academics honoring diversity” precisely because VTech has place diversity on the very top rung of values, below which all other values must fall, whatever protestations of academic ambition may by made.
Virginia Tech Reasserts ‘Diversity’ Folly
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University—better known as Virginia Tech—is in the midst of an extraordinary campaign to impose a comprehensive regime focusedon “diversity.” Reading through Virginia Tech’s official documents since March is something like watching a colonial power laying out a plan to force its language, culture, laws, religion, and ideals on a subject people. The put-upon natives in this case are, first of all, the faculty of the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences. But the imperial power, of course, doesn’t mean to stop with subordinating the faculty chiefs to the Empire. The rule of Diversity must ultimately extend to every student and every employee.
Diversity? It must surely strike most readers that the ideological campaign for diversity on campus is by this point rather old-fashioned. Diversity as a rallying cry for the campus left took its initial impulse from Justice Lewis Powell’s opinion in the Supreme Court’s decision in the 1978 case, Bakke v. The Regents of the University of California. Powell’s remarks weren’t supported by any other justice and did not have the force of law, but they nonetheless suggested a rationale for using racial preferences in college admissions. A racially diverse college classroom, in Powell’s opinion, was bound to be a more pedagogically enriching one, since it stood to reason that people of different races would learn from each other.
……………………….
We draw attention to this university once again, however, not as a case study in vapid strategizing. Rather, it serves as a bookend to the whole diversity movement. Marx’s famous remark that great events and personalities in world history repeat themselves, “the first time as tragedy, the second as farce,” seems apt. Virginia Tech, a large regional university known more for its football program and a series of horrific killings, has chosen to play out a spent ideology to its final dregs. That it is does so in the delusion that it is somehow on the cutting edge of academic innovation is what makes this farce.
Farces are not without their victims. Virginia Tech is an institution of modest academic standing that seems intent on winning a certain kind of race to the bottom. Faculty members there have privately reassured us that the administrators aren’t as crazy as they sound. They are just playing the cards that they think they need to. It’s an excuse I don’t buy. The administrators have wrapped themselves in such fervent diversity rhetoric that we have to take them at their word. They may have started off as cynical players, but they are now totally invested in this folly and are surrounded with minions who are clearly true believers.
So the Virginia Tech story does seem worth yet another look. A large state university is spiraling downward into an anti-intellectual orthodoxy, and as it plummets it is busy praising its ability to take flight.
This is the beginning and ending of an article that is well worth reading in its entirety, if you want to understand the origins of the modern diversity movement.
December 31st, 2009 1:21 pm
If I am understanding this correctly, the goal is to have as diverse a population within the system as attainable. Does this mean we should have uneducated as well as educated professors? Should we discriminate against those who no longer possess life? Why should we only allow those who specialize in a field be the only ones allowed to teach that field – shouldn’t we have Phys Ed professors teaching Medicine? And, why do our teachers need a degree – if they all do, that isn’t very diverse. Why are we only allowing those who are competent to pay the school bill be the only ones who attend? Shouldn’t we force those who don’t want to attend school to be in class as well as those who do? Aren’t we limiting ourselves by only allowing humans? If we really push this idea of diversity we will no longer have UNIVERSITY (unity under diversity), but we will have ENTROPY. Congratulations – you don’t get a degree though – if everyone got a degree, we wouldn’t be diverse! And, if EVERY college were diverse – that wouldn’t be diverse either!! Sorry, this whole topic drives me crazy. I always thought it was to help our best and brightest prepare to move our society forward.
December 31st, 2009 1:48 pm
“Diversity” was and is simply a smoke screen for old fashioned racial quotas that haven’t passed muster in the public mind, whether called “affirmative action” or “multiculturalism” or “diversity.”
The proof: ask any fan of “diversity” this simple question.
If the “diversity” fan is half-smart, they will say something like “when the instution ‘looks like’ the rest of the or or in racial makeup.” If the “diversity” fan is really smart, they’ll realize that such a response is simply a quota, which is “bad,” and you can be entertained by watching them try to say the same thing without exactly saying it.
Because there is no way to measure “diversity” short of counting faces and races.
December 31st, 2009 2:42 pm
As I understand it – the point of diversity is to bring about as many different ideas from a variety of worldviews in order to achieve the most well rounded education possible. The problem – this assumes truth from everywhere. Additionally, who decides the “classes” of diversity that we should try to attain (age, sex, religion, color, education, political affiliation, nationality, hair color, gender dressing preference, musical ability, number of siblings, number of parents, days spent in prison, etc.)? Each of these could be considered a factor in forming our “knowledge” that we could share with the institution. Who decides how much emphesis should be applied to each category? The whole thing becomes rediculous. And I don’t believe this “diversity” achieves what is desired. You still have those that speak and those that don’t in each class – so a portion of the diversity becomes overheard while others underheard.
December 31st, 2009 3:28 pm
One must separate the PR of diversity from the actual outcome that is desired.
The PR, starting with Justice Powell in the Bakke case (see the article linked above, and the book “Diversity” mentioned in it), was that “diversity” is an intrinsic good because it brings in different viewpoints and cultural perspectives whose mere presence is presumed to somehow enrich the experience of everyone. Of course, no mention is ever made of the cost of doing this, as if it is something that can be done which allows us to keep every good thing we already had, and merely add this unproved but presumed “enrichment” to the mix.
The fact of “diversity” is something else. It is about race, gender and sexuality, period. White, heterosexual, male Eastern Europeans with minimal English skills and poor cultural backgrounds do not qualify as “diverse,” but middle-class American blacks do. GLBT (or LGBT, or GBTL, or BTLG, or bacon, lettuce, tomato and garnish) applicants also qualify. Shoot, if you can find an upper-middle class lesbian black woman, you’ve hit the mother lode, because she can let you check off all kinds of boxes at once, in comparison to a poor white male of mediocre gifts or poor educational history, who is presumed to benefit from “white privilege” and so not to need our help, despite his very poor prospects.
December 31st, 2009 3:33 pm
In any case, the shibboleth of cultural, social, or philosophical diversity is getting pretty threadbare. Virtually every “diversity” activist is from the political and social left, and to the extent that they are Christian, they are likely to be from the Christian Left as well.
For a real experience in *non-diversity*, sometime you should attend a week long series of workshops planned by self-styled diversity activists. It is the most non-diverse experience imaginable, with virtually all leftist perspectives on virtually every issue, top to bottom.
December 31st, 2009 3:37 pm
There is, of course, a new trend of “Christian diversity” in many Christian universities, colleges, and other para-church organizations. This normally takes on the form of the exact aping of all diversity perspectives of the secular left EXCEPT on the issue of sexuality, concerning which a determined silence is maintained, a sort of academically elite Christian version of the Clintonian policy, “don’t ask, don’t tell, and don’t get caught.”
January 2nd, 2010 7:47 am
There is only one hope for ‘Christian’ universities to reverse this trend. Of course, they will not take it because the lack of it for years and years is the reason this trend exists to begin with. That hope is the preaching of the Biblical path of repentance from sin and receiving of forgivness through the blood of Jesus Christ, followed by a commitment to obedience to solid Biblical directives (other than fuzzy attempts to stretch scripture to Leftir politics). As long as they send out their music groups to churches and say the things that the folks with big pocketbooks wish to hear (even though those things are no longer true) they will fool most Christians into believing that they are really great Christian institutions.
January 5th, 2010 10:23 am
I have a question to you, Melody(as I have read where Mr. Harmonicminer’s view on this issue, but not yours).
I agree with the 1st half of your comment(about redemption through Jesus Christ), but am curious about your definition of “solid Biblical directives”. Surely you wouldn’t mean that there isn’t room for theological diversity within Christianity? On iusses like evolution, alchohol, woman’s ordination, end time, and yes, on social issues like poverty and war, Christians have continuously disagreed. On issues “not essential” to salvation, shouldn’t Christian campuses recognize different interpretations of Bible can occur?
I want to hear your views.
P.S. We on the “left” complain that people with “big pocketbook” promote prosperity gospel among many chuches and campuses, but I will not bring our “grievances” into this discussion.
January 5th, 2010 11:25 am
Jong Eun… for my part, I consider the “prosperity gospel” to be heresy… right along with the social gospel, both of which are obsessed with worldly outcomes instead of spiritual condition.
January 5th, 2010 2:51 pm
So Jon Eung Lee, you saying that you wish to have a Biblical discussion on:
1. Evolution
2. Alcohol
3. Woman’s ordination
4. End times
5. Poverty
6. War
7. Different interpretations of the Bible
How much time do you have? I think the Bible is pretty solid on all of these issues, but one sentence is unlikely to satisfy.
January 5th, 2010 3:46 pm
Mrs. Enharmonic…hmmm..you think so on “all those” issues has clear answers? hmm…
I would love to heard your Biblical interpretations on those divisive topics, but as I wait for Melody’s response, I will for now stay silent.
January 5th, 2010 5:51 pm
There are an infinite possible number of “Biblical interpretations”. But there are also those of us who believe it is possible to ascertain the true meaning and intent of scripture on any given subject. As far the topics being “divisive”, that is purely your own subjectivity entering the discussion. I would put to you that “divisive” is in the eye of the beholder and those topics you may wish to categorize as such have changed over time. (e.g. once upon a time the issues of women speaking in church and men having more than one wife were undoubtedly “divisive”) The problem with claiming an issue is divisive is that it seems to open the door to acceptance of widely disparate “interpretations” as if in fear that an absolute Biblical truth might not be P.C. or might offend someone (which very well might happen). So we muddy the waters of scriptural truth with “interpretations” if we find the topic to be “divisive”. And It really does not matter how Mrs. Enharmonic or anyone else “interprets” the Bible. What matters is seeking the truth and believing the truth can be known.
January 5th, 2010 9:50 pm
I think (my opinion) is there is but 1 truth. The Bible speaks Truth. It is for us to understand what that truth is. On the topics that Jong Eun Lee has listed, the bible does speak on. I believe that the reason we have different interpretations is that we don’t fully comprehend the truth. Jesus used the phrase “for those with eyes to see and ears to hear”, because Truth is not open to everyone immediately. God will allow us to understand in His time, and with our study. The fact that there are so many “factions” claiming their interpretation is truth only points how far man is from understanding Truth and the Nature of God.
January 6th, 2010 6:41 am
JEL, I’m uncertain what you mean by ‘theological diversity’. Let’s take ‘evolution’. The Bible doesn’t seem to have much to say about evolution within a species except to say that “… evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.” (2Tim. 3:13) So I’m going to assume that you are referring to “cross-species” evolution? I have yet to hear of any hard scientific evidence of such a thing. I believe they are still searching for the missing link. I don’t think there is any theological diversity here, is there? Maybe you are referring to the literal ‘7-days’ of creation. I know that the secular scientific community is adamant that the earth couldn’t have been created in 7 literal days and that there are many ‘Christians’ who are embarassed by the notion that God actually could create the earth in 7 days. According to the Genesis account of creation (who wrote that anyway?) darkness and light; evening and morning; were created before the sun, moon and stars. If that is actually true, then the notion of ‘man-made’ global warming takes on a whole new dimention; (but I digress). No secular scientist would believe that, would they? Of course, the whole notion that God created the earth in 7 days is simply unverifiable in science. And thus the “Big Bang Theory” makes pefect sense. Did God create the ‘bang’? How long did the ‘bang’ take? What did the scientists in Moses day think? How could the writer of Genesis know enough to write about creation anyway?
January 6th, 2010 7:00 am
As to alcohol, the first miracle that Jesus did was to turn water into wine at a wedding feast. This would imnply that Jesus wasn’t against the drinking of wine. We are also told that John the Baptist did not drink wine or strong drink, that we are not to be drunk with wine and that we are not to consume anything (including wine) that would cause a brother to stumble. The fact that some churches at various points in time have made the consumption of alcohol seem like the unpardonable sin does not change what the Bible has to say on the matter. To imply that there is some sort of ‘theological diversity’ on the subject would appear to ignore what the Bible actually says. Any disagreement on this issue is not based on theology but more on personal experience. And that is a very big point. I believe that the evangelical church became tee-totalers during prohibition because many families were destroyed during that time because of drunkenness and because the culture was trying to figure out what to do about it. If you will recall, the charge against alcohol was not led by the church but by women (Women’s Christian Temperance Union or ‘sufferagettes’). These were the same women who are held up today as the pioneers for women’s rights. Hmmm…….
January 6th, 2010 7:20 am
JEL, as I re-read my own comments here I am struck by the fact that on the two issues I’ve already addressed, the Bible is exceedingly clear. Where the ‘divisiveness’ comes in is when folks decide what they wish to believe is true, and then try to force some scripture to support their claim. We all can read and we all have the 66 books in front of us daily. Have you read all 66? If not, why not? How much study of these books have you actually done? This is not just a question for you, JEL, but is a larger question for anyone who would presume to preach or teach, write about – or even discuss, what is contained therein. Apallingly, I (who am just a nobody) seem to know more of what is actually contained in the book than many of the pastors and theology professors (not to mention authors) I’ve known. Why is that? It’s not like I don’t have other things to do with my time. The Bible says, “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.” 2Tim. 2:15. EUL, can you honestly say that this is what you do on a regular basis? Is this what those you spend time with do?
January 6th, 2010 12:06 pm
Thank you for your response, Melody.
Let’s see, I have read all 66 books in the Bible (In fact 8 times). Of course I study Bible regularly, it’s what Christian are supposse to do. I agree with you in the authority of the Bible, and believe in the fundemental essence of Christianity, but just like Bill said, we don’t fully comprehend the truth. Neither me, neither Billy Graham, neither Melody. That is why what you said is “Biblically clear” may not be so to the rest of us and we may have to disagree with you on certain matters.
Like evolution, just one issue. I am not sure whether reading your post whether you support literal creationism, but I don’t and so do many other Christians. Henceforth, we don’t take Genesis Chapter 1 literally. Some Christians do.(Have you heard of this group, Reaons to Believe? These group suppot old-earth creationism). While one side may be more right than other, we wouldn’t know for sure until in heaven, so shouldn’t Christians continue to discuss this issues in church, and campuses?
All all seek Biblical truth, Melody. but we Christians can disagree and these disagreements may persists for long, long time. If so, we should recognize the different views within the church, right? That’s what I meant be diversity.
January 6th, 2010 12:11 pm
Mr. Bill, I agree with you at there is one truth. I also agree that it’s unfortunate there are are many factions in the church because they don’t fully comprehend the Biblical truth. But it will be wrong to say one faction is right over the other, right (predestination vs. free will, for an instance may be both are right, both are somewhat inaccurate).
That is why whther than one person saying, “I know more Bible than you, so listen to me!” I want Chrisitan campuses to discuss this issues in loving, brotherly manner.
“In Essentials,Unity, In Non-Essentials, Diversity, In All things Charity.”
January 6th, 2010 1:22 pm
JEL, your first sentence contradicts the rest. It assumes there IS such a thing as “biblical truth”. I agree with that, by the way.
But that means that people who believe they understand what that is can do no other than to strongly make the case for it. Some people will take “strongly making the case for biblical truth” to be divisive.
So be it. Jesus brought a sword, to set brother against brother. He meant in the cause of truth and Godly values, of course.
January 6th, 2010 3:43 pm
JEL, what exactly is “the fundamental essence of Christianity”? You can’t have it both ways. I ‘fully comprehend the truth’. If you have read the entire Bible 8 times and still don’t ‘fully comprehend truth’ then you suffer from unbelief rather than a lack of information. I don’t understand fully they mysteries of God but He did not try to confuse us with His account of creation. If you can’t take that part literally, then which part can you? I realize that the commands in the New Testament are to love each other and to care for the poor, but surely those are really metaphors for simply having good intentions. One needn’t actually DO anything about it. Furthermore, how do we know that Jesus actually lived on this earth? Maybe the accounts we read are really just the conjurings of a small group of people. And maybe he wasn’t really God but just some sort of prophet like Mohammed. Who’s to say? By the way, how do you decide what things are “essentials”?
January 6th, 2010 7:03 pm
JEL – First of all, congratulations on becoming a form of an acrostic! We have agreement that there is but one truth. I cannot agree that we should accept opposing viewpoints on Biblical priciples. I do agree with you that we should bring these things out in the open – to study the scriptures TOGETHER and try to learn what God is telling us about the issue in His word. A University in a very good location (among others) to discuss these things. I don’t think we should say “I’m right and your wrong” – but I do think we can say, I believe I am right and here is the scripture that takes me to this point. We are then in the Word – looking for Truth where it is given to us.
January 6th, 2010 7:51 pm
The best way to approach the Bible is to try to understand what it meant to the writers, and the people to whom they were writing. From that starting point, we have a much better idea of what God is trying to tell us today.
That involves not just studying “the Bible” (which canon?), but also the history and culture that provide essential context.
I’ve lost count, for example, of how many times I’ve heard people who should know better conflating “the rich” in the Bible with “the rich” of modern, relatively free nations. There is little comparison between “the poor” of the Bible and “the poor” in any modern, relatively free nation. Similarly, those “in prison” in Biblical times were mostly political prisoners. They were not thieves and murderers, who were mostly executed rather quickly, if they were not immediately enslaved. Failure to understand context is one of the central flaws of the ahistorical approach taken by many on the left, and is why so much bad biblical interpretation is used to “support” socialism and leftist politics in general.
So I applaud Bible study. But it is critical that it be done in historical and cultural context, so that we understand what it is and is not saying, and in particular so we can defend ourselves from attempts to make it mean things it cannot possibly have meant to the writers or readers of the day, things which we should not be trying to make it mean today, unless we have VERY good reason to believe that God is trying to tell us something in the scripture that was not understood by either its writers or first readers…. possibly true on very rare occasions, but very far from the norm.
January 7th, 2010 9:52 am
Mr. Bill I agree with you on honest discussions of Biblical teachings. Through our discussions and fellowships we may grwo together in faith. Yet, it is also possible that after years of fellowship, we still have disagreements. In such cases, I propose we still accept each other as fellow Christians “inspite of our continued theolgoical disagrements.”
Melody, I beleive in the central tenets of Christian faith written in the Apostle’s Creed. Yet, in theology there are fundemental elements(say divinity in Jesus) that requires unity of the church, but also minor elements where disagreement will happen. By essentials I mean the beleifs essential to salvation, for an instance recognition of person’s sinful nature and Christ’s universal atonement. (surely you are not saying by rejecting literal creationism, by salvation is jeopardized?). While I have my views on Bible that seems so clear to me, I continue to have discussions with other christians to further deepen my understanding(for an instance, I too once supported literal creationism but not any more), and realize my Christian brothers may not always agree with me on some theolgoical issues. Wouldn’t you also extend such courtesy to your fellow Christian brothers and sisters as well.
For an instance, suppose you oppose infant baptism theologically and your church decides to adopt the ritual. Would you leave the church in protest?
Mr. Harmonicminer, I have lot to say to you, but since my question was to Melody cheifly, I will respectfully ignore you in this particular discussion.
January 7th, 2010 10:47 am
JEL, for me, it would depend on whether infant baptism was just a sort of “christening” or “dedication” in the mind of the participants, or whether the church taught that it was actual some part of the “salvation experience” for the infant, something that actually helped to “save” the infant.
If the former, no big deal, just a little odd, to my taste. If the latter, it means that particular church has some concept of salvation that involves church authority and ritual instead of choice by a knowing moral agent acting in faith. That’s simply not Biblical, and belief in it undermines a person’s ability to understand God’s plan for salvation.
The point: what may seem trivial to you may not be trivial. It just depends.
January 7th, 2010 5:17 pm
So JEL, lets keep going with the creation thing. I have given some specifics on why I have no problem with a literal rendering of the creation account of Genesis 1. You say you used to believe the same yet have changed your mind. What happened? What new scriptural insight did you acquire to lead you to a different belief?
January 8th, 2010 9:17 am
Melody I have changed my views on literal creationism, but wait, so are you in agreement with me that Christians can “disagree” on some theoligcal matters, and therefore there is room for debates and diversity within the church? Do you agree with my seperation of essentail faith matters, and non-essential faith matters(like infant baptism)?
I need to know your answers first, so I can know what framework we are discussing creationism, a matter of “differed theolgical interpretation”, or a matter of “absolute right vs. wrong”(meaning if one side is wrong, that side will be condmened by God as heretics, just like Jeohovah’s Witness).
Before I give my testimony, I will first wait for your resposne.
January 8th, 2010 3:04 pm
JEL, I have come to the conclusion after re-reading everything you have written on this thread vs everything I have written here (as well as harmonicminer himself) that you have absolutely no intention of ever stating what you actually believe about the issues you tossed out as being discussable theologically. I have addressed evolution (and alcohol) and now you want to play a word game rather than give any reasons for your disagreement with my position. This is typical of liberalism. I believe that if you had any real ability to discuss the creation issue – which you brought to the table – you would just jump right in with it. When I read your words in the above comment “…so are you in agreement with me that Christians can “disagree” on some theological matters…” you are requiring me to agree with you, something you say that you abhor. How silly is that? JEL, you never give any concrete reasons for being on the political left. You constantly try to change the subject when you are put on the spot. The only framework you seem interested in is one of continuous deflection from the true subject at hand. I have placed my beliefs on the table for everyone to see. I have given reasons for my belief. If you want to attempt to knock them down, please feel free to do so, but if you try to change the discussion again you will be talking to yourself.
January 8th, 2010 3:35 pm
JEL – Christian can certainly disagree on things. That doesn’t mean that both or either is right. There is, and I think we agree on this – only one truth – from one perspective (God). Our disagreement are due to our myopic understanding of that truth. So, when you say “Is there room for diversity” in the Church – you are walking a fine line between those that are truely continually striving to find absolute truth (or as Francis Schaeffer put it – the True Truth) and those that will accept different interpretations and leave it at that (just accept everyones interpretation – who are you to judge). If there is a difference of opinion, that shouldn’t be just accepted as diversity, but as a call for further study. As Harmonicminer pointed out, that study may include cultural settings, original language, etc. Accepting more that one truth is unacceptable.
I don’t think that the discussions between “different sides” of any debate should be nasty, rude or dogmatic. But I also believe that we cannot accept that “both” truths are acceptable as there is only one. If the views are mutually exclusive one or both are wrong.
January 8th, 2010 6:56 pm
Mr. Bill I agree with most of what you wrote. Just because we disagee on matters doesn’t mean there is a right answer, the Truth. And we Christians should continuosuly discuss the Bible to come closer to Truth, using tools such as cultual settings, original languages, etc.
But may I slightly tweak your framework twice? A. This discussions may take long, long time. For an instance, evolution(the issue that I WILL NOT GO INTO FURTHER) Christians have discussed since………1920s, and we have not yet reached an agreement. Assuming that we are in for another 50,80 years of disucssions on this one issue, I think churches should allow every Christians to think about it, pray about it, and keep disucssing this issue. (But certainly after return of Christ, WE WILL KNOW FOR SURE WHO IS RIGHT).
B. There is one truth, but perhaps there can be different aspects to the Biblical Truth that churches may emphasize? Like for an instance, Pentecotals emphsizes the spiriutal blessings like healing, speaking in tongues. Presbytarians are more traditional in worship. Like in Corinthians, some Christians may occassionally drink alchol but others may decry it as setting wrong example before others(and runing your body the Temple of God). In such cases, couldn’t the problem be that one church simply is intolerant of the worship style and decisions of other church?
I will gravely take your advice on walking a fine line of diversity(after all I recognize there are hereises, like Jehovah’s Witness for an instance). But I also think there is a fine line on conviction in one’s faith and quick judgments on fellow Christians.
January 8th, 2010 7:09 pm
Melody, I wasn’t deliberately ignoring your views on evolution and other theolgical matters. I am not interested in theolgically defeating(?) you, for now at least.
My interest was assuming hyptohetically that we did discuss on evolution, for days, for months, for years,(I did with my Christians friends, and I am sure you did as well), and hyptohetically we couldn’t reach an agreement because of our firm commitment to our beliefs. Then, what? Evolution, predestination, etc. in many issues I or any Christian can argue with you and very likely, we will not convince each other. That is my chief concern, when theolgical agreement can not be reached after discussions.
Should we then assume something is terribly wrong with other’s theology and ask him for repentance? Or perhaps realize I, he, or perhaps both of us need to go back to scripture and study again His Word, so perhaps next time we meet we might find the Truth? That is why, going back to reason I asked you the 1st question in the first place, I strongly believe Christian campuses should allow Christians of different Biblical interpretations to make their cases heard and debated.
To what extent your personal Biblical interpretation differs from mine was not my interest of discussion, only on “how Christians in general should respond to other Christians when they debate”
January 9th, 2010 12:02 am
Jong Eun Lee – Perhaps we are getting closer in agreement here. However, one statement made “Just because we disagee on matters doesn’t mean there is a right answer, the Truth.” I have to take issue with. There is one Truth, otherwise it wouldn’t be defined as Truth – but opinion. I will agree that we may not grasp all of it, or even at times a portion of it – but Truth is correct and singular. We must recognize that when we don’t agree – at least one of us (or perhaps both of us) is wrong. In recognizing that we are wrong on a principle, we need to continue to research to gain a better understanding of Truth. Agreed – this may take many lifetimes – but do we really have anything better to do than to study what God has layed out for us?
As for your discussion on Church emphesis – I see that many different churches emphasize various aspects of worship and gifts. I do not find this at all in conflict. In fact, I believe that it allows for our various gifts to be utilized in the most effective ways.
In your discussion on Corinthians “Like in Corinthians, some Christians may occassionally drink alchol but others may decry it as setting wrong example before others(and runing your body the Temple of God).” I believe Paul discussed not causing your brother to stumble. This was written to many who were immature in their freedom within Christ. He declared a priority – our Brother’s security in Christ over our Freedom in Him. Our freedom to be allowed when not causing our brothers to stumble. In this case I don’t think it was intolerance as much as immaturity and lack of full understanding of Grace.
I also agree on “quick judgements” of others. I hope you don’t feel that I was judging you as I have no right to do so – it is not my place. I have been actually enjoying our discussions.
January 9th, 2010 9:32 am
Mr. Bill, Thank You. I am very touched by your conciliatory tones.
I totally agree with you on the matter of searching for Turth, yes, it could take many lifetimes but we Christians should continue to search for God’s Truth, together. So long as you recognize and have patience with this sometimes challenging process, I am more than willing as a Christian brother to continue to talk to you on theolgical matters so through you and others, I can come closer to God’s wisdom.
I also agree with you on the different variations of Christian church worship. Or on not making quick judgments. Or on disciplining our immaturity in our freedom within Christ.
In fact, for the 1st time I ever came to this blog I think I am in 99% agreement with some one!! So long you and I are committed to faciliating “peace and respect” among different Christians who disagree but are still trying to search God’s Truth, I am in agreement with all your views!!
Thank You for your patience and understanding, Mr. Bill. I am joyful that I actually reached a common agreement with a more conservative-leaning brother in Christ. (Why can’t more conservative christians be like you?). God bless you for dedication to God’s truth and compassion for your fellow brothers. I too have enjoyed our disucssions very much and give me hope that in spite of some harsh words, miscommunication, and hurt feelings, we Christians can grow together in Christ our Lord.