Mar 11 2010

The Left At Christian Universities, Part 19: Losing it?

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 8:49 am

The previous post in this series is here.

I’m posting this  without much comment.   Some of you may have seen it, and some not, but it speaks for itself.  Even if you allow for some percentage of hyperbole, if it’s even HALF true, Wheaton is in big trouble.  I suppose the logical question is this: is any of this going on at your Christian institution of higher education?

There’s hardly an evangelical who doesn’t know about Wheaton College. Alma Mater of the Reverend Billy Graham, Wheaton boasts a student body of superior intellect and an education rivaling much of the Ivy League. Wheaton College graduates can boast of presidential speech writers and Speakers of the United States House of Representatives along with doctors and executives and professors and missionaries and pastors across the globe.

But Wheaton is different. Founded by an anti-slavery father and son, Jonathan and Charles Blanchard, Wheaton was established as a chain in the Underground Railroad to help runaway slaves. Wheaton’s distinctive has always been to educate students not only with knowledge but with wisdom. All truth is God’s truth. The knowledge of God brings greater understanding, not less … the acknowledgement of Him brings order from chaos in science, mathematics and economic systems. To be a Christ follower can bring the highest of intellectual pursuits, not the Bible thumping ignorance Hollywood would portray.

So imagine the dismay of many to learn that, in an effort to educate its students, Wheaton has moved to the left, so much so that in a survey by the Wheaton Record, 60 percent of its faculty voted for President Barack Obama, the most pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda, spiritually confused president the nation has ever elected.

How can this be? Perhaps much of it can be attributed to a movement widely embraced by the campus known as “social justice.” In its truest form, justice is synonymous with Christian teaching. Why else would Christians through the ages have left the comfort of their home and culture to go to remote villages and treat the sick and preach the “good news” of a universal savior, Jesus Christ. Why would the William Wilberforces and the American abolitionists have sacrificed so much to eliminate the slave trade? Why would most hospitals trace their beginnings to founders compelled by their faith to treat the sick? Soup kitchens … homeless shelters … inner city missions the same? Why if not for the cause of justice?

But as is often the case for the Left, words are co-opted and meanings changed. To be “gay” is to be homosexual. To abort a baby is to exercise “choice” and to exercise “social justice” is to identify the oppressed and the oppressors and define all of history past and present as a series of injustices. Whites oppress blacks … even 6-year-old white children are intrinsically racist. Big business oppresses the working man…even business owners who are honest and generous. To be successful in business is to oppress and the score must be evened to obtain justice. Heterosexuals oppress homosexuals with no allowance for moral objection. According to this definition of “social justice,” the oppressor and the oppressed must be identified and actions taken accordingly.

In the current document known as the “conceptual framework” of the education department at Wheaton College which must be endorsed by each of its faculty, the thinkers cited include among others, the father of the social justice movement, Brazilian Marxist, Paulo Freire and former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Just a glimpse at Freire’s foundational treatise “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” will clearly display his sources: Marx, Lenin and revolutionary murderers Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro and Che Guevera (see, “Pedagogy of the Oppressor,” March 28, 2009, in National Review by Sol Stern).

Professor Bill Ayers, co-founder of the Weather Underground, wanted the violent overthrow of the United States Government. Now elevated as a teacher of teachers, Ayers publicly states he has no regrets for his violence and only wished he had done more. The overthrow of the capitalist society was the goal of all these men and violence was their method. Today’s radicals condense their rage into college curricula under the guise of “social justice.” The method is more cunning, but the goal no less sinister.

Why would Wheaton College embrace such a philosophy? “…these are people you can learn from because they’re going to teach us Christians that maybe we have some blind spots here, that we’ve been oblivious to certain areas of injustice,” said President Duane Litfin.

Dr. Jillian Lederhouse, chairman of the department of education defended the conceptual framework by saying “we don’t teach our students to be afraid on an ideology as long as we give them a critical perspective. We do not have a list of people we do not read. Our goal is to produce a thinking Christian teacher.” And that is as it should be in an institution of higher learning, except for one thing. Lederhouse went on to admit that the people who were foundational to Wheaton’s conceptual framework were all on the far left.

There is deep concern by Wheaton graduates over the current trajectory at Wheaton. They are lobbying the board and the administration to make the deep changes necessary to pull Wheaton back from academic fads that threaten its future and guide it back to its true foundations, the wisdom of the ages displayed beautifully at the entrance to the campus: “For Christ and His Kingdom.”

If you wish, discount the quotes by assuming they are “out of context.”  The author of the piece didn’t link to a source for the quotes.  Maybe she made up the president’s comments.  Maybe she did the same to Professor Lederhouse.  Maybe she lied about the faculty survey that said 60% voted for Obama.  (I’ve looked a bit, and can find no evidence that anyone from Wheaton is denying the quotes or data about Wheaton.)

The problem is that none of this is surprising in the modern upwardly mobile Christian institution, which craves high USNews and World Report ratings, and has to teach the dogma of the state education establishment in order to produce credentialed teachers.  Keeping in mind that Illinois is a pretty left-liberal state, the fact is that the education establishment of most states is quite far left of center, more or less by definition.  The revolving door, reverse handshake, and high five, shared by the NEA, state/federal education bureaucracies, and university education departments everywhere, is well documented.  It is quite simply impossible to GET an education credential, almost anywhere, without mouthing at least some proportion of liberal-left pieties, force fed to future teachers under the guise of “teaching how to teach.”

Stockholm Syndrome sets in after awhile, and many of these “teachers in teacher training” begin to believe it all, if they didn’t when they began.  It’s hard to “live a lie” when you’re under the academic inquisition.  It’s far easier to convince yourself that you’ve become a new convert, and hey, this can’t be heresy, because it just feels right.  And look around; doesn’t everyone else agree, too?

Christian university education departments ought to be providing future teachers (and current ones back for graduate degrees) with the tools to really think critically about the education establishment and its postulates.  There ought to be a class in “keeping your head and surviving the ideological indignities” of teaching in the public schools.  It could be called “Self-Possession 501.”  Graduate numbering, you know.  Instead, the “critical thinking” that is taught is mostly about how to criticize traditional assumptions about students, the nature of teaching and learning, the role of families and the church in education, and the development of moral values.  And make no mistake about it, the schools (and university education departments) are teaching moral values, though you may not recognize them as such.

There are many fine Christian education professors, in both secular and Christian universities.  The problem is that they are in the grip of a system (government and education establishment) that sometimes forces them to teach things that they suspect are lies, or forfeit their careers.  It’s a bitter choice, one they will not often acknowledge having made, particularly by the time they’ve climbed the ranks of the establishment.

An interesting side-note: I know of quite a few professors in Christian universities who are homeschooling their own children.  Some of them even teach in the Departments or Schools of Education.  Think about that.  And add to that the number of public school teachers who send their own kids to private schools….

But hey, Wheaton isn’t doing so bad, if only 60% of faculty voted for Obama.  At UCLA it’s probably more like 95%.

Unfortunately, Wheaton and too many other Christian institutions are busy trying to catch up.

The next post in this series is here.

23 Responses to “The Left At Christian Universities, Part 19: Losing it?”

  1. Mr. Music Lover says:

    Please excuse my ignorance, but in my very simplistic conservative veteran’s world, I was under the impression that higher education made one more intelligent. What is it about the modern university that makes the leftist agenda (I refuse to call it “progressive”) so acceptable?

    Other then the fact that most of the leftist professors are left over from the 60’s, “Haight/Ashbury” and mega doses of “weed”; I thought at some point one matured and grew out of that sort of thing.

  2. anthony says:

    Oh don’t even worry about calling it progressive. That is not a new word. It has always been an alternate for marxist. The difference is that one is revolutionary and the other is evolutionary. It is by no means new. An older example of progressives would be the early 20th century. They brought us WW1 and attempted to end soverienity with the league of nations. It is by no means a new thing, I would say that a progressive is a more communist form of a liberal.

  3. innermore says:

    …the schools (and university education departments) are teaching moral values, though you may not recognize them as such.

    It may be to your advantage to familiarize yourself with these false moral values; at least enough so that you know how to fight them. Since diversity is defined as “promoting the minority”, and you are now the minority, demand “social justice.” And make sure you use their channels. Call a press conference and the ACLU and protest. Produce a compelling, moving documentary or write a tell-all book. Go on Oprah and complain about how you are being oppressed by the “Establishment”. It’s not hard to speak their language. In the name of fairness, tolerance, and intellectual diversity, demand alternative “critical thinking” courses. No kidding; it would be a good idea to teach “Self-Possession 501” and 101, 201, and 301. Although you may need to give them more juicy names, such as courses in “Racism History”, “Bible Thumping 101”, “Ignorance Theory”, “Christian Wacko Conservative Thought.” I know this may sound ridiculous to you, but it may be the perfect answer to a ridiculous situation.

    Seriously, are students (especially conservative ones) aware, or are they made aware of this situation before they $pend all their parents’ money to go to these institutions? Are there any conservative, traditional institutions left? If not, shouldn’t some be established? Is there a demand for traditional thought, and a movement in support of this demand? If the professors cannot speak out, are enough students or parents demanding changes?

  4. Bob says:

    But as is often the case for the Left, words are co-opted and meanings changed. To be “gay” is to be homosexual. To abort a baby is to exercise “choice” and to exercise “social justice” is to identify the oppressed and the oppressors and define all of history past and present as a series of injustices. Whites oppress blacks … even 6-year-old white children are intrinsically racist. Big business oppresses the working man…even business owners who are honest and generous. To be successful in business is to oppress and the score must be evened to obtain justice. Heterosexuals oppress homosexuals with no allowance for moral objection. According to this definition of “social justice,” the oppressor and the oppressed must be identified and actions taken accordingly.

    Harmonicminer, I realize you did not write this, but I must take issue with this comment. I do agree that the above is a more or less fitting definition for SOME proponents of so-called “social justice” (which, by the way, is about 2 years away from being an unusable term). But, I do not think that the majority of those “social justice” types at Wheaton or other Christian universities would be comfortable with this description. In my observation, some who flock to the social justice banner are just flat out angry at the establishment, for various reasons. The above definition would probably be more or less accurate for them. But for many, social justice means TO THEM something more similar to this:

    In its truest form, justice is synonymous with Christian teaching. Why else would Christians through the ages have left the comfort of their home and culture to go to remote villages and treat the sick and preach the “good news” of a universal savior, Jesus Christ. Why would the William Wilberforces and the American abolitionists have sacrificed so much to eliminate the slave trade? Why would most hospitals trace their beginnings to founders compelled by their faith to treat the sick? Soup kitchens … homeless shelters … inner city missions the same? Why if not for the cause of justice?

    The author of the article builds her(his?) entire case on the assumption that the less favorable definition of social justice, which I agree has been co-opted by the Left, is the one that most at Christian institutions would adapt. My experience tells me that this is not the case, and that (aside from a minority of bitter and angry people) most would prefer the more favorable definition. It’s hard to buy the rest of the argument, since it is built on (what I believe to be) a faulty premise.

    I seem to remember a philosophy class I took in college where I was told that, while momentarily satisfying, defeating strawmen produces little in terms of good discussion.

  5. Mr. Music Lover says:

    This is the Letist agenda…

    Christian’s speech deemed ‘hateful propaganda’

    Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 3/9/2010 5:00:00 AM

    A Christian student in the Los Angeles Community College District is carrying his free-speech case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Jonathan Lopez had an assignment in a public speaking class and was required to give an informative speech on any topic. Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney David Hacker tells OneNewsNow that Lopez chose to speak about his Christian beliefs. “And during that speech, when he mentioned that marriage is between a man and a woman according to his Christian beliefs, the professor called him this horrible name, refused to let him finish the assignment, and told other students in the class, ‘If you’re offended, you can leave,'” Hacker explains.

    When no students left, the professor dismissed the class. Hacker adds that Lopez is an “A” student — “but the problem is he never got a grade on that informative speech, and in fact, the professor wrote on his evaluation form, ‘Ask God what your grade is.'”

    The ADF attorney argues that demonstrates the hostility towards religion on many college campuses. The lower court in Los Angeles issued a preliminary injunction against the school, saying its speech code — allowing administrators to punish Lopez’s “hateful propaganda” — is unconstitutional. That has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

  6. Bob says:

    That may certainly be an example of leftist agenda, Mr. Music Lover, but I would point out that this does not concern schools like Wheaton or other Christian universities. This example is, at best, tangential evidence to the point.

  7. Mr. Music Lover says:

    Sorry Bob, I disagree in that the example being “tangential evidence to the point” It is my opinion that the left feels the same way, even at Wheaton (and APU for that matter) they are just more constrained at this point.

  8. harmonicminer says:

    Bob, I’ll have to assert superior knowledge on this point. I simply have facts that you apparently don’t. If you saw a program of “justice week” or “unlearn week” at many Christian universities, you’d be hard pressed to say that the “soup kitchen” characterization is more accurate than “the angry left” characterization. As far as “social justice” becoming an outmoded term in two years, what makes you think that? I see no evidence at all that “social justice” as a term, and as an umbrella for the general leftist agenda, is anywhere near extinction.

    Let me suggest a couple of things:

    Go to google, and search for the phrase “justice week” and “university”. Do the same for “unlearn week” and “university”. Look at the speakers and the programs. You will find nothing about abortion, or unwed birth, the two biggest “justice” issues in America. You won’t see anything about anti-semitism. You won’t see much in terms of “non-left” speakers, if you check into their backgrounds. You won’t see criticixm of government funded incentives to bad behavior that affects children.

    You will see great concern about “human trafficking” (are Christian university students all keeping sex slaves in their dorm rooms or something?), “sustainability”, “climate change”, “white privilege”, just treatment of “undocumented workers” (meaning illegal aliens, of course, with “just treatment” being no penalties for breaking the law, and full access to all privileges of American citizens), and so on. There is much, much more. And it will all be at Christian colleges and universities.

    If you know anything about the history of the term “social justice” you know that it was invented by the secular progressive left.

    Oh, do I wish you were correct on this! But if you were, the national sin of abortion-on-demand, for any reason, at any time in the pregnancy, would be where the modern Wilberforces would be making their “social justice” stand.

    They are not. And I see nothing on the horizon that make s me think they will anytime soon.

    Very, very sadly.

  9. tonedeaf says:

    “Social Justice” cannot aknowlege sexual sin as even existing. Case in point:

    In the early 1970’s when I was an on campus student attending a Christian college that offered “everything from A to Z in the USA”, my roommate and I became distressed at the obvious sexual activities occuring in the room next to ours (paper thin walls, you know). The perpetrator was a men’s dorm Resident Assistent (RA). We went to see the assistent dean of students and were rebuked and told that it was okay because the girl in question had ‘sepcial sexual needs’. This was my first introduction into the “sexual revolution”. By my senior year (’75) we had an openly gay guy attending as a student. Think for a moment how long ago that was. Christian colleges have been repositories for sin for a very long time. Christians who are engaged in willful sinful behavior become tolerant of other sin. The longer this goes on, the more they will seek some form of righteousness to compensate. Enter, “social justice”. It fits perfectly. Claiming concern for the poor, diversity (something which really means tolerance of sinful behavior), greater sympathy for law breakers than for law abiders…all these things actually cost the ‘caring one’ nothing while giving him a sense of superiority over those who recognize and abhor the sin of abortion, non-marital sex, same sex sex, you name it. At some point God will give them over to a “reprobate” mind (“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind.” Romans 1:28) When you don’t want to give up your sin and live in obedience to God’s commands, you can still be spiritual by doing ‘good works’ (as defined by liberals).

  10. Bob says:

    Harmonicminer, not sure I follow you. I looked at a few programs of “Justice Week/Unlearn Week” at different colleges, and while I completely agree with you in that their focii tend to be on certain things (human trafficking, undocumented workers, etc) I see nowhere that indicates that these are divorced from a faith-based compulsion to help others. Now, I grant that this is probably not always the case, but I see nothing that makes me think that the majority of these are intended to highlight issues that might not otherwise be highlighted. The preponderance of American evangelical social engagement in the last quarter-century has been around the atrocities of abortion. Is it wrong for other atrocities to be highlighted? (note: You might not think things like illegal immigration are atrocities, but you have to agree that the human sex trade is.) So, perhaps this is a desire from the universities to provide perspectives that would not be available in other places? I’m not saying this is the gospel truth, but it occurs to me that most students at private Christian universities tend to be of the upper-middle-class-white variety. (Not that that’s a bad or good thing. Merely descriptive.) Perhaps they have heard alot about abortion already, and are being exposed to other areas of “injustice”?

    Those are more musings than anything, but I just think it’s interesting that you jump SO STRONGLY to question motive, when I would suggest that the evidence does not support an obvious “left-fueled” motive. In one I read from your university, it said there would be prayer times during the week because they did not want to divorce the “unlearning(?)” from faith. So, I guess we can assume they are lying, or assume that their motives are out of a desire to be faithful. Or, perhaps they are just really really sneaky.

    As far as “social justice” as a term, I actually do not see its extinction as a term in the near future…but if “social justice” (the term, mind you) ever met in a dark alley, I don’t know that it would survive. OK, that’s an overly strange way of saying that I’d love for it to die, because I think it’s just not a helpful term. No one really knows what it means, so it is an easy rallying point for people who think it sounds nice, and an easy target for those who think it sounds horrible. I vote we retire it and think of something better, but that’s just me.

    Finally note re:abortion on demand. I couldn’t agree more, it is a HUGE problem, an ethical crisis in America. Policies have got to change, hearts have got to change, everything has got to change. But is it really wrong for people to be concerned about other things? Would you denounce a body like World Vision or Samaritan’s Purse for the relief work it is doing in Haiti right now? I agree that abortion would definitely belong at a Christian university’s “Justice week”, but I don’t know that we should assume the worst because they choose to focus on other world evils.

  11. Bob says:

    To clarify, third paragraph should say, “if social justice *and I* ever met in a dark alley.” That’s what I get for trying to be cute.

  12. harmonicminer says:

    Bob, if it was a single year’s program only, I’d agree with you. Here’s the problem. Year after year, the “social justice left” hits the same issues. And ignores the ones I mentioned. Year after year, the speakers they bring in are from the left. Not just at my school… it seems that pretty much only the left uses the term “justice” in quite this way.

    Of course, human trafficking is wrong. But, despite your assumption that students at Christian colleges know all they need to know about abortion, or unwed birth leading to family disfunction, crime and poverty, etc., it just isn’t true. They don’t. I know… I’ve asked.

    WAY more of our college students will seek or pay for abortions this year than will keep sex slaves in the closet. And many of those who get abortions DON’T really know everything about what they’re doing, and what its effects have been on women, often years after getting the abortion. Many do NOT know the facts of fetal development.

    If it was only a single year of the pattern, I might agree with you that it was a fluke. But year after year, and at Christian school after Christian school, I see the same patterns happening. “Social justice” is a codeword for the leftist agenda. I wish it wasn’t so, because linguistically speaking it might have been a useful phrase, if it had retained its expected meaning. It just hasn’t.

    After a few years, one figures out that abortion will NEVER appear in “unlearn week” or “justice week” or “social justice week” or what have you… or, if it does, they’ll try to find a way to blame it on the political/social right (as in, people wouldn’t be getting so many abortions if you people weren’t so stingy), ignoring completely, of course, the abortion rates BEFORE both the great society programs AND Roe v. Wade, when there was far LESS public assistance available, AND far less abortion.

    It is the sheer magnitude of the abortion problem that should have it front and center on any Christian’s “justice” radar, everytime the topic of “justice” comes up. But, apparently, human trafficking is a bigger problem to the left…. maybe because it doesn’t make them uncomfortable to condemn it.

    They won’t mention that, of course.

    Or this:

  13. tonedeaf says:

    What exactly is ‘human sex trafficking’?

  14. harmonicminer says:

    Basically, human trafficking is modern slavery, buying and selling people, often for sexual purposes, getting people to the USA under false pretenses, maybe as illegal aliens who feel they have no other options, can’t go to police, etc. It’s an evil, evil thing. But no one says otherwise about it. It is utterly uncontroversial to condemn it, because everyone knows it’s wrong, and wouldn’t say otherwise. It takes no courage to condemn it. It isn’t “speaking truth to power” to condemn it.

    On the other hand, it would be an act of courage in the modern leftward-creeping Christian university to unequivocably condemn abortion (except where needed to save the mother’s life — incredibly rare), including the stances of politicians and “social service” organizations and labor unions (like the NEA!) and so on that support it. THAT would be “speaking truth to power”.

    It’s tempting to wonder if the obsession with “human trafficking” (a universally acknowledged evil), and the great passion with which it is pursued, is a way to feel good about one’s-self as a morally awake and aware person, while still voting for candidates and supporting policies that allow and encourage abortion-on-demand. (“See, I’m not a bad person even though I think it should be legal for you to kill your baby ‘just because’, and the proof is that I care about the plight of sex slaves.”)

  15. tonedeaf says:

    So what is the proposed solution to ‘sex trafficking’? I mean, we’re all against it and we say so to each other, but how does that help the victim?

  16. harmonicminer says:

    I’m not sure. I haven’t attended one of the events that discusses it. But I’ll say this: in the area of APU, several massage parlors have opened recently. If what I read in the news is correct, many of these are staffed by illegals who have little option (they think) but to do it for whoever owns the place, and them. I haven’t seen any APU students picketing them when I drive by….

    An interesting question: if it were known that some of the “workers” in these places were illegals who were being exploited, and someone wanted to picket the place and make it difficult or embarrassing to go in the door for “services,” would the same laws that protect abortion mills also protect massage parlors? Somehow I doubt it….

  17. tonedeaf says:

    Could you call that “selective righteousness”? Of course, if the nasty businesses are outed, then those poor illegals would have to return to the ‘even worse’ place that they came from, right? Or maybe the liberal APU professors could go to bat to keep them here and become their sponsors and take them into their homes?

  18. stwright says:

    Point me to a suspect massage parlor near APU and there could be students with signs outside it Monday morning. You’re right that we should probably talk about abortion in one of these themed weeks, but I honestly doubt that you’d find the results you seem to expect from the APU community, in terms of people supporting abortion. No one that I know wants abortions to happen. We could just as easily have a discussion on murder and how to deal with murderers. You’d run in to highly nuanced party politics. Would right more, but have to run…

  19. harmonicminer says:

    I’m glad you seem to equate abortion (except to SAVE the life of the mother… which I assume you accept as an exception) with murder. Maybe you didn’t mean to do that. You can withdraw the comparison, if you wish… though it will undercut your point if you do.

    But going with it, what would you think of someone who voted for candidates who thought it should be legal to commit murder? Leftist Christians want to have it both ways: they want to say they don’t agree with abortion, they don’t support it… but they vote for candidates who DO.

    We don’t NEED to have a discussion about how to deal with murderers, because presumably we both believe they shyould be in jail, at a minimum… but apparently we do need to have one about abortionists, and people who support the evil abortionists do as some kind of “civil right,” and people who vote for politicians who will protect that “right.” This isn’t “nuanced” party politics, because it is a fundamental moral issue: either the unborn deserve the protection of the law, or they don’t. There is no wiggle room here.

    If you think the unborn do not deserve legal protection, the discussion we need to have is why you believe that, and what scriptural, scientific, or philosophical basis you have for that position.

    I am NOT leaving the out for leftist Christians to feel all moral because THEY wouldn’t get an abortion. That’s like saying you wouldn’t murder someone, but you’re against making it illegal.

    Some issues are moral issues first, and “party politics” second. Abortion is one. So is murder. So is theft. So are many other things whose political implications are preceded by moral ones.

    The single biggest lie of the Christian Left is that abortion-on-demand is primarily a political issue. It is not. It is fundamentally a moral issue upon which no Christian should be in doubt. Failure to legally protect the unborn, including voting for candidates whose policies will increase legal protections for the unborn, is simply moral blindness.

  20. harmonicminer says:

    Here is a book with which you must engage if you want to take the position that Christians are not required to support politicians who will work for legal protections for the unborn.

    It is by an APU common day of learning speaker from a couple of years back.

  21. stwright says:

    But no candidate has all the answers, so it comes down to priorities. Supporting a candidate who is staunchly pro-life also has often meant supporting war, or at least an aggressive foreign policy. It is also often means supporting a candidate who has little regard for helping the situation of the poor (though, I know to you, supporting “free” market capitalism is the ultimate way to do that). It’s a “pick your poison” scenario. Which is why some decide to not vote, and to live out the kind of change they would like to see, as the Church rather than through the government. Are they still “Leftists” if they don’t vote?

  22. harmonicminer says:

    Stwright, I seem to have confused where I was leaving responses (on my own blog, yet), so some of my response at this link is really to what you said here. Sorry about that.

    I do hope you will read Francis Beckwith’s book that I referenced above.

  23. Julia Dedmon says:

    I totally agree that Christian Universities have been left-ized. I think what we really need is a great awakening of the spirit. If we had this, we would have the correct view of the justice and mercy of God.

    Um, also now UCSD students have openly explicit Jew-haters club called Muslim nazis…I am totally appalled and believe that the free speech (or rather hate speech) against Christians and Jews is corrupt and a sign of bad government/leadership in the education system. I guess I would expect nothing less because the college students of a nation reflect the spirit of the age. Since we have had no restraint put upon the violent ways of Muslim students yet have restricted Christian activity on campus, what more do we expect??

    I think Christian Universities need to WAKE up and realize that although we do need to be aware of social justice issues, we also need to bring in a solution for people to think through…a Christian worldview of how to deal with these issues…

    I think we need people who are doing radical works of love in Muslim countries such as Iris Ministries located in Africa to share how God’s love is practically touching the community and transforming whole culture.

    Let’s focus on how Christians are making a difference to affect culture in the US instead of just talk about the issues and side with leftist views.

Leave a Reply