In this morning's newspaper (selected paragraphs for brevity):

Most of us live at the intersection of so many different boundaries — geographical, sexual, political, linguistic, racial. These intersecting identities offer us the opportunity to connect with each other on many different levels. Diversity forces us to move out of our comfort zone. The more you interact across different cultural platforms, disabilities, and social and sexual groups, the more you are forced to see things differently.

We must see people beyond labels; otherwise, we fall prey to what Nigerian writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie calls the “danger of a single story.”

Edouard Glissant, a writer from Martinique, said: “Thought of the other is sterile without the other of the Thought.” In other words, merely accepting that differences exist is not enough to generate deep change in our thinking. He calls for “aesthetics of turbulence,” which breaks assumptions and forces people to think differently, where each is changed and changes the other. The process is not easy, but through the process of adjustment and readjustment, we create a new hybrid culture.

Perspective taking, or looking at the world through the eyes of another person, and advocating for others are a few of the important tools to we can use to step up for each other.

Accepting and embracing diversity means paying attention to the lone voice that disagrees with the rest. As the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

So Athos and you will now be embracing white evangelicals and the MAGA groups in the cause of diversity?

I used to ask the pro-abortion "escorts" at the abortion clinic (Now closed, thank God!) if they would allow us to speak to the ladies entering the facility in the cause of allowing diverse opinions to be heard. They were not open to the idea. It seems that diversity is generally only called for when it involves conservative views being questioned.

So Athos and you will now be embracing white evangelicals and the MAGA groups?
I'm a registered Republican and a member of an evangelical Protestant denomination.

How will you accept and embrace diversity?

You haven't attended that church, according to your past statements, in twenty five or so years because you didn't like what they were preaching, and I'm pretty sure you haven't voted republican in the last thirty or forty years, so I kind of think you are much less than serious in your commitment to "diversity".

In my case, I worked in minority schools for about half of my career in education, was administrator of the year at one of them, and participated in that school achieving the highest academic level in the state. I also attended and worked on staff at the first multi-racial church in our city for twenty five years. How's that for participating in diversity???

But to be clear, I'm all for calm, rational discussions between differing groups. That seems to occur but rarely.

You haven't attended that church, according to your past statements, in twenty five or so years because you didn't like what they were preaching
I haven't attended since 2005 because I'm in a wheelchair now and homebound. I was getting visits from the previous pastor until covid changed life as we know it. The current pastor was one of my students, and he is busy searching for normalcy. I also stay in touch with my home church in western NY.

I'm pretty sure you haven't voted republican in the last thirty or forty years, so I kind of think you are much less than serious in your commitment to "diversity".
I voted for people in both parties in the midterms. I researched each candidate as to strengths and weaknesses, and voted for the person, not the party.

In my case, I worked in minority schools for about half of my career in education, was administrator of the year at one of them, and participated in that school achieving the highest academic level in the state. I also attended and worked on staff at the first multi-racial church in our city for twenty five years. How's that for participating in diversity???
Didn't help a bit apparently.

But to be clear, I'm all for calm, rational discussions between differing groups. That seems to occur but rarely.
It works in my neck of the woods.

Might want to check out the link below, and then rethink this answer. "I haven't attended since 2005 because I'm in a wheelchair now and homebound. I was getting visits from the previous pastor until covid changed life as we know it. The current pastor was one of my students, and he is busy searching for normalcy. I also stay in touch with my home church in western NY."

The manefestation of a bigger problem - Page 17 (askmehelpdesk.com) (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=847492&page=17&p=3854183#post3854183)

"The declining membership is because it's too literal and conservative, stuck in its ways, and outdated in its approach to younger people. For those reasons and more, I long ago left it."

The search feature on this site is pretty good.

I had left but returned (this congregation had originally been established with the help of my paternal great-grandfather, so I feel a connection) when a sane, open-minded pastor who wasn't divisive was called to serve.

I feel a connection) when a sane, open-minded pastor who wasn't divisive was called to serve.If you really believed in diversity, you would have stayed with the old pastor with whom you had differences. You didn't return until you got a pastor who agreed with you, and so uniformity triumphed over diversity. You could have followed the advice of your article.


He calls for “aesthetics of turbulence,” which breaks assumptions and forces people to think differently, where each is changed and changes the other. The process is not easy, but through the process of adjustment and readjustment, we create a new hybrid culture.

So much for the "aesthetics of turbulence".

If you really believed in diversity, you would have stayed with the old pastor with whom you had differences. You didn't return until you got a pastor who agreed with you, and so uniformity triumphed over diversity. You could have followed the advice of your article.
The old pastor was divisive because he was querulous, crabby, quite boring, and should have retired. He wasn't doctrinially divisive.

Evangelism has to do with spreading the Gospel. It is too often done incorrectly.

This is what you said two years ago.
too literal and conservative, stuck in its ways, and outdated in its approach to younger people.Now you say it wasn't doctrinal. I don't believe that. You just don't value diversity. The ole "aesthetics of turbulence" only seems appealing when read in an article. Living it? Different story.

Don't feel bad. It's true for all of us. It's why I don't belong to a Catholic church or a Mormon church. They are too far off into the weeds.

This is what you said two years ago. Now you say it wasn't doctrinal.
It was HIS doctrine, his version, when it came right down to it.

https://scontent-ord5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/334934818_574122471315473_3570181503850076694_n.jp g?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=NjeOEM0-RUUAX_giPoP&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-1.xx&oh=00_AfBK7tAW4Wx-lg20q84utP1FwrMdCuB4FEvPNJ_rTOcCrA&oe=640E5EF0

To reiterate: Most of us live at the intersection of so many different boundaries — geographical, sexual, political, linguistic, racial. These intersecting identities offer us the opportunity to connect with each other on many different levels. Diversity forces us to move out of our comfort zone. The more you interact across different cultural platforms, disabilities, and social and sexual groups, the more you are forced to see things differently.

Perhaps your old pastor, that you refused to practice diversification with, was preaching from the Bible rather than using WG's ideas. This that you posted and claim, I suppose, to believe is exactly what you refused to do with your old pastor. In fact, you just got mad and left. Is that the diversity you claim to support???


Diversity forces us to move out of our comfort zone. The more you interact across different cultural platforms, disabilities, and social and sexual groups, the more you are forced to see things differently.

Perhaps your old pastor, that you refused to practice diversification with, was preaching from the Bible rather than using WG's ideas. This that you posted and claim, I suppose, to believe is exactly what you refused to do with your old pastor. In fact, you just got mad and left. Is that the diversity you claim to support???
I had no idea what LGBTQ+ meant and neither did he.

Id love to know what you think are WG's ideas, and how are they unbiblical. But that's not the reason for this site.

I had no idea what LGBTQ+ meant and neither did he.Then why did you bring it up here?

We must see people beyond labels; otherwise, we fall prey to what Nigerian writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie calls the “danger of a single story.”
I was just thinking about this. Seems now, more than ever, people are wanting to identify.

Where are the Christians and to whom do they identify with? Then we have the rest of the World. We have the "single (Bible) story" and then we have all the other books...consider yourself a book...there are no other books!
We either Identify with Jesus or we identify with everything that is not in Jesus.

Watching the two of you go on as you do, makes me wonder about you...It is not Biblical.

Teachers, Intellectuals who read the "single story" only read it with the desire to teach...you are teaching (through your actions, here) your own story, how you see it, and what you have learned...write a book, then you will not be in Danger of the "single story." Identify with your intellect...missing the Heart. Saving faith comes out of the Heart, not the mind.

Walter, I gotta tell ya. Sometimes you don't make sense, and this is one of those times. There are no other books. Really? There are MILLIONS of other books.

Write a book, pick a book, and identify with it...any book.

If you choose the Bible, there is no need for any other book. Oh, but I need to read this one to give me a clearer picture of what it is I'm looking at. No! Look at Jesus. Keep your eyes on the Cross. You can not know life through somebody else's eyes.

It's like allowing Science to dictate your understanding of the Bible. "The Bible needs to line up with science" (right)...wrong!
I don't know how the early Christians did it, having no other books influencing them...there are no other books...you don't need them.

I'd rather have an "out of the Mouth of Babes" experience than read 57 books. You would know what I'm talking about if you have ever experienced one of those moments.

I have to wonder why the bunch of you go on as you do. He wore a brown robe - no it was red - no It says it was brown - know it said it was Red - no, I think it might have turned red because it had blood on it - no I'm pretty sure that was spilled wine...on and on it goes...Your intellectual minds are exasperating. Allegory, parable, literal. It is all parables, allagories...Let the Bible live to you (literally).

OK. This is the SECOND one of those times. What in the world are you talking about?

having no other books influencing themThe early church had books aside from the NT that they felt were profitable to read but not authoritative. The Shepherd of Hermas was one, but there were several others.

Walter, do you ever listen to sermons? Do you realize that listening to a sermon basically amounts to reading (listening to) words outside of the Bible?


You would know what I'm talking about if you have ever experienced one of those moments.I've had that experience many times so, for this case at least, I do know what you are talking about. I've also experienced that while listening to preaching or while reading Christian books. I suspect you have as well. The Holy Spirit speaks in many ways. Don't believe that? How do you explain the call to Ananias to go and baptize Paul? He didn't read that in the Bible. How about preachers being called to preach? Their individual call was also not in the Bible.

I think you are imagining a problem here that actually does not exist. The Bible stands completely in a class of it's own. All other books, sermons, articles, etc. are subject to it competely.

calls the “danger of a single story.”What do you think this means?

Wait, is this guy crazy? Just a single story, pfft!! There are millions of Stories.
These intersecting identities (aka stories)offer us the opportunity to connect with each other on many different levels.
Yes, and our identity is in Christ Jesus...the one and only [story] that spells danger, for those who stand alienated.

"We must see people beyond labels; otherwise, we fall prey [to] the “danger of a single story.” Identify with whom you will. Just know; there are only the two to choose from. The devel has many, Christ Jesus is one...the Greatest story ever told. the one and only story that goes beyond time and matter.
I think you are imagining a problem here that actually does not exist.Don't you see it? We are on a fast track to Hell. The entire country is willing and able to Identify with whatever blows their way. And here we have the Church identifying itself with???? What do you think brought this on? (hint: Education)

You can identify as a pig and be accepted. Identify with Jesus and you are a fool! If you are a Christian you should not identify with this world or anything of this world...that includes political affiliates.

Don't you see it? We are on a fast track to Hell. The entire country is willing and able to Identify with whatever blows their way

Meanwhile 'Jesus Revolution ' eclipsed $30 million dollars in box office sales . Many many fools .

Tom, my wife and I scarcely ever go to a movie, but we plan on seeing that one. We lived through that period of time. There was a lot of error, but also a lot of excitement and faith.

I remember it well . My parents became involved in a 1970s Catholic charismatic movement . I attended some of their gatherings . Too intense for me . As to the discussion .I don't know how faith can grow unless someone has a broad life experience to weigh it with .

Therefore we should come with boldness to the throneIn which way are we to come; Boldly in speech? Boldly in mind?? Maybe, speech and mind???

You can identify as a pig and be excepted. Identify with Jesus and you are a fool!
I don't understand. Excepted means left out. Do you mean accepted, that is, welcomed?

I don't understand. Excepted means left out. Do you mean accepted, that is, welcomed?Thanks for the note. corrected.
Although I believe you knew what was being said.

In which way are we to come; Boldly in speech? Boldly in mind?? Maybe, speech and mind???
Hebrews 4:16 -- Let us then approach God's throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

AMP:
Therefore let us [with privilege] approach the throne of grace [that is, the throne of God’s gracious favor] with confidence and without fear, so that we may receive mercy [for our failures] and find [His amazing] grace to help in time of need [an appropriate blessing, coming just at the right moment].

How do we obtain, and why do we have, that confidence, that boldness?

The preceeding verses supply the answer.

11 Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience. 12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. 14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.

In his new book, If God Is Love, Don't Be a Jerk, John Pavlovich muses: "I often envision an exasperated Jesus coming back, and the first words out of his mouth to his followers as his feet hit the pavement being “You had one job: Love.1 So, what happened?” I wonder what massive wave of excuses and rationalizations would come flooding from the mouths of the faithful multitude in front of him, how they might justify their mistreatment of the assailed humanity in their care, the verbal and theological gymnastics they’d attempt to avoid culpability for their own cruelty. Would they stridently recite him a verse from Leviticus? Would they blame the Liberal Media for morally corrupting America? Would they talk about people’s wicked lifestyle choices? Would they argue that they were loving the sinners in their midst but simply hating their sin? Would they frantically offer up the same platitudes and parrot back the same partisan talking points they’d gotten used to brandishing on social media and proffering in Sunday school classes? And, if all else failed to convince him—would they quote Jesus to himself in a desperate Hail Mary effort to pass the buck to him for what they did or failed to do while supposedly standing in for him?

Written by Elisheva Shimrit Thoreen (https://www.facebook.com/liz.thoreen?__cft__[0]=AZWMg8ULADBcn2ltJo85I6Ld5Anh3aIzpiCLVvF_aZM62KJIY VdkEP4Z6f26sfRKymrh7DS6h_GN3ZUImGSHkZQUCFLW8KufBJo pviEt-PeFdA8ks8tQhPC1O1QX7nl2fx7_E-p0Jg3CQeUKOdq0F_z4&__tn__=%2Cd-UC%2CP-R)
PhD Candidate/Researcher at Walden University (https://www.facebook.com/waldenu/?__cft__[0]=AZWMg8ULADBcn2ltJo85I6Ld5Anh3aIzpiCLVvF_aZM62KJIY VdkEP4Z6f26sfRKymrh7DS6h_GN3ZUImGSHkZQUCFLW8KufBJo pviEt-PeFdA8ks8tQhPC1O1QX7nl2fx7_E-p0Jg3CQeUKOdq0F_z4&__tn__=%2Cd-UC%2CP-R)
Studied Public Policy at Walden University (https://www.facebook.com/waldenu/?__cft__[0]=AZWMg8ULADBcn2ltJo85I6Ld5Anh3aIzpiCLVvF_aZM62KJIY VdkEP4Z6f26sfRKymrh7DS6h_GN3ZUImGSHkZQUCFLW8KufBJo pviEt-PeFdA8ks8tQhPC1O1QX7nl2fx7_E-p0Jg3CQeUKOdq0F_z4&__tn__=%2Cd-UC%2CP-R)

Let's clear this genital issue up right here and now. If a soldier has an IED blowup and they lose their testicles and penis, are they now considered women? NO!!!

Are women born with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser (MRKH) syndrome is a disorder that occurs in females and mainly affects the reproductive system. This condition causes the vagina and uterus to be underdeveloped or absent, are they really men?

You want to go to DNA? Is a man who was born with chromosomes XX but has female DNA and Male sexual characteristics who is able to reproduce and knows they are Male, are they really women?

Woman who was born with chromosomes XY but has male DNA and female sexual characteristics who is able to reproduce and knows they are female, are they men?

Your next argument is God doesn't make mistakes. So then I ask you: What about people born intersex. These are people that are born with reproductive organs of both. They are born with two sets of DNA. How do you know what gender they are? Listen to the doctors when they are born? They get this wrong a staggering 89% of the time? Listen to the bible? The bible states the a women is someone that bears children. What about the millions upon millions that are unable to bear children? Are they also men?

All I have to say is the evidence is clear. The evidence is overwhelming. Study after study is providing Clear and direct evidence contradicting your beliefs.

Gender comes from your brain. Gender is a sense of who you are. It's a sense that does not change. It's not between your legs, its between your ears.

Is a man who was born with chromosomes XX but has female DNA and Male sexual characteristics who is able to reproduce and knows they are MaleThere is no such thing as "female DNA". (correction) A man born with XX chromosomes is a genetic abnormality and is extraordinarily rare.


Woman who was born with chromosomes XY but has male DNA and female sexual characteristics who is able to reproduce and knows they are female, are they men?There is no such thing as "male DNA". (correction) A woman born with XY chromosomes is likewise due to a genetic defect and is even more rare. Appealing to cases such as those does nothing to change the fact that maleness and femaleness are, in very nearly all cases, genetically determined at conception.


What about people born intersex. These are people that are born with reproductive organs of both. They are born with two sets of DNA.They are typically NOT born with two sets of DNA. The cause of the intersex condition is, at this time, poorly understood. It has no impact at all on the transgender debate. It is a completely different condition.

All of the above is just a false comparison. It's like saying that a person born with only one arm (or who loses an arm in war) shows that humans don't normally have two, or that a person born blind shows that humans don't normally have eyesight.

When I read the excerpt from the book by John Pavlovich, one thought kept coming to mind. Why is he being such a "jerk" and being so hateful? Is he somehow exempt from his own rules?

In an open letter, the man who was critical of, "love the sinner, but hate the sin," said this. "I love you, but as a Christian I simply can’t support the sin of your homophobic and transphobic lifestyle." How is that different from loving the people but hating their sin? Seems to be pretty hypocritical, yes? And how do you separate homophobic/transphobic lifestyles from simply being a person who accepts the teaching of the Bible? Funny that no one accuses us of adultererophobia, murdererophobia, racistophobia, or thiefophobia. It just suspiciously sounds like a man with an agenda.

Also noticed that in the excerpt above and in the letter, at no time did he ever refer to specific passages from the Bible. Wonder why? Does he consider that to be unnecessary?