Thinking about the foolishness of God’s love vs the wisdom of humans.
“For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength.” (1 Corinthians 1:25)
In the Bible we find many books including Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon.
Other human wisdom include mainstream “-isms.”
We call these healthy boundaries.
Jesus is our best example as He is a human.
He appears to us first as a helpless baby, dependent on his parents. He loves selflessly, to the point of his own humiliation among his peers.
Jesus’ love is the revelation and model of God’s love.
Not as an institution or government or set of principles or self preservative boundaries or RELIGION itself, but simply in response to Christ, who is revealed AS LOVE, as FOOLISH LOVE in everyday ordinary life.
My struggle is every humans’ struggle, not wisdom, but love.
My struggle is responding to hate and condemnation and humiliation by foolishly loving my abuser, my oppressor and my enemy.
Love is patient and kind.
Wisdom builds boundaries of self-preservation.
Love is not self-seeking and keeps no record of wrongs.
Wisdom is faith in the world.
Love is faith in the divine.
More from Life
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
