Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight."
At the heart of Xian nationalism is a hopeless contradiction. This is what we saw yesterday. Guns, violence and force under the banner "Jesus Saves
So here is the contradiction- does Jesus save? Or are we saved by law? It is the same old problem that Paul dealt with in Galatians
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight."
But it isn't the kingdom of God, and it won't save us.
Thus the contradiction of carrying a "Jesus saves" flag on a violent coup in the Capitol
You can believe in Christianity or Christian nationalism, but you cannot believe both.
The kingdom of Christ is more powerful. It goes to the heart and removes sin and brings with it peace nd a new nature -love, rather than hate.
You May Also Like
"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".
