By Jim May 08 2017 Duke Divinity School"Rod Dreher reports . . . of a brave professor at Duke Divinity School, Paul Griffiths, who is resisting a typically tendentious Maoist-style re-education camp. And naturally for this he is being branded a—wait for it!—racist, sexist, bigot." Duke Divinity Crisis: The Documents Are Out 2807 reads There are 5 Comments When a theological WallyMorris - Tue, 05/09/2017 - 7:59am When a theological institution abandons the inspiration of the Bible and the use of the Bible in any meaningful way, nothing is left except to debate cultural issues based on cultural opinions. The Bible is no longer worthy of serious study, which therefore leaves only cultural issues. I have no doubt that behind some of this, perhaps in subtle ways, is the agenda of some accrediting agencies or self-imposed practices such as "faculty training" in order to impress accrediting agencies. For my undergrad degree, I took 2 classes in communism. The use of re-education camps and group shaming was common and effective under Mao, Stalin, and Eastern European communist countries. Now such practices are common in America. Wally Morris Charity Baptist Church Huntington, IN amomentofcharity.blogspot.com Somewhat related. David R. Brumbelow - Tue, 05/09/2017 - 8:47am Somewhat related. “The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department.” -Thomas Sowell David R. Brumbelow Some almost random thoughts Bert Perry - Tue, 05/09/2017 - 9:12am I lived around Boulder for a dozen years, and my brother is a Berkeley and Harvard grad...suffice it to say that I know by observation that if you want a ton of examples of claimed bigotry, you can do little better than to visit a town with a politically correct campus. Quite frankly, they give Selma and Old Miss in the 1960s a run for their money in that regard. I also made a point of mocking diversity training when I was a TA at "Ski U", though not as publicly as this. And while Duke certainly fits in this area, and they are paying the price for it, there are two thoughts about the situation. First of all, who are we fundamentalists to point fingers at others squabbling over silly things? To put it gently, it's not the Ivy League schools and the "near Ivies" that are prohibiting rival schools from even recruiting on campus. It's "our" schools like Faith and Maranatha. Second of all, I know personally that there are people at Duke who are doing some fairly advanced work in the Scriptures, including out that one of the guys who led me to Christ, J. Ross Wagner. So it is something of an overstatement to say they don't think the Bible is worthy of serious study, though it would be correct to note that adherence to Sola Scriptura and the 1st Fundamental are not prerequisites of employment or enrollment there. Aspiring to be a stick in the mud. I don't think it's WallyMorris - Tue, 05/09/2017 - 9:20am I don't think it's overstatement at all. A small number of faculty who may believe the Bible does not make up for the overwhelming denial of the inspiration and authority of the Bible as a standard belief at Duke. By "serious study" I mean study based on belief, not academic study for purely secular reasons. Also: Just because Fundamentalists have problems to correct does not mean that we cannot point out the serious problems of unbelief at other institutions. If true, then we could never say anything critical about anything important. For someone so fond of logic, your logic fails you here. Wally Morris Charity Baptist Church Huntington, IN amomentofcharity.blogspot.com Yes, overstatement Bert Perry - Tue, 05/09/2017 - 10:17am You said, Wally, that at Duke, the Bible "was no longer worthy of serious study, which therefore leaves only cultural issues." I provided evidence that this is incorrect. Sorry, but that's an overstatement as you originally stated it. Even your restatement more or less assumes that staff at Duke are not studying the Scriptures based on belief--again, clear overstatement. I disagree with Ross' decision to migrate back to Methodism, and his work at Duke and Princeton training unbelieving clergy, but I do not question his faith. And yes, you could see my comment on "what about us?" as mere tu quoque, but really it's a test of your premiss. If you assume that the rancor at Duke is because of a low view of Scripture, then conversely one would assume that in places with a high view of Scripture, there would be less rancor. Since that's about the opposite of what we see, there are two possibilities, really. Either we as a movement don't have as high a view of Scripture as we think we do, or a high view of Scripture does not in itself protect us from squabbles. I think it's the former, and that ought to sober us. Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.