Bernie Sanders’s Liberty University speech, annotated

[KD Merrill]

Greg Long wrote:

My answer was simply in kind to your original sarcastic posts.

LOL. No. No, it really wasn’t. There’s a big difference between the two. One of them directly addressed the argument put forth by some within this thread, while the other invented a straw man to conveniently ignore the counterpoint. One of them is grounded in Biblical precedent, the other in pragmatism.

Greg Long wrote:

Are you saying that you are certain that Sanders speech was not evaluated by professors at liberty in classes, helping students think through what he said from a biblical worldview?

No. Did you see that at all in my posts? I’m saying that Sanders shouldn’t have been invited there to spew forth his humanistic dogma.

“OK, everyone, lay down your spears and shovels. Please give Sanballat and Tobiah your rapt attention and afterward, your elders will help point out the flaws in their speech,” said Nehemiah never.

You’re the one who said, and I quote (using quote marks now):

“Of course, Christians need to be ready to give an answer for the reason of the hope that lies within us. They need to be so acquainted with the truth that they can spot a counterfeit a mile away. They need to have the dangers of other false religions/worldviews pointed out by mature, experienced Godly believers so that they can avoid being caught up by them (as Paul did with the Galatians, as John did with his audience). Do you argue that as the Biblical model?”

Since you argued that Christians should have “the dangers of other false religions worldviews pointed out by mature, experienced Godly believers” (quoting again), I simply asked if you were certain that that exact very thing wasn’t happening at Liberty, as mature, experienced, godly professors point out the dangers of Sanders’ worldview in class? When I was a student at Faith Baptist Bible College, if a chapel speaker said something controversial, usually it would be discussed in a class later that morning. Are you assuming that doesn’t happen at Liberty?

And no, I’m actually not defending pragmatism. That has nothing to do with my defense of Sanders speech. You can keep throwing it out there as a trump card, but it’s really not even relevant to this discussion

But I’m getting dragged too far down in this discussion. Aaron made a much better defense of allowing Sanders to speak in an earlier post, so I will defer to him. :)

When can our youth be allowed to exercise some discernment of their own; to become responsible for some of their own choices and decisions? If, as some in these comments appear to be saying, we must attempt to shield even our college-age youth from any exposure to humanistic philosophies, then the age is apparently at least 22. Guess what? By then, it’s far too late. By age 22, everyone (Christian & unbeliever alike) has been exposed in countless ways to non-Christian worldviews. If we pretend that’s not happening, and refuse to even deal with it, then we foster needless dissonance when they first-hand encounter opposing worldviews colliding.

One of the best books I’ve read in recent years is by a Christian psychologist (yes, shockingly there is such a thing–I know some might be dumbfounded!) who in some detail discusses the spiritual dangers (while frequently citing Scripture) of raising kids in a needlessly long-term “Christian bubble.” He doesn’t put it in these terms, but I’m thinking that the older a bubble gets, the more fragile it becomes. Not if, but when, that bubble bursts, what then? If we haven’t equipped our youth for life in a bubble-free world, we’ve done them a great disservice.

Since we’re talking about principles and examples from the Bible here, let’s think about being an 18 - 22 year old in first-century biblical times . Then, if male, you were likely married, and probably a father. If female, you were likely married, and probably a mother. You bore much personal responsibility. Today, fundamentalism often seems to think that childhood lasts until 22 (if even then), before the “bubble” can start to be peeled off.

[jimcarwest]

The Bible is quite plain about our giving audience to evil thinkers.

The verses you quoted from 2 Corinthians do NOT say that we should not give audience to evil thinkers. Paul is telling the Corinthian belivers that they should not join unbelievers in idolatrous worship. Context means something. He certainly wasn’t saying don’t converse with them or listen to what they say because even Paul in Acts sought to understand the beliefs of those to whom he was trying to reach…you see this in his epistles as well.

[jimcarwest]

Our Christian youth don’t need to be subjected to the falsehood and nonsense of ungodly, liberal thinking men and women. Evil thinking has a certain appeal that those weak in the faith do not easily detect. They can find out all they need to know by reading and researching.

Yes, they can find out what they need to know by reading and researching, and they are already hearing about Sanders on tv and the internet. Isn’t it better to find out all they need to know under the guidance of Christian teachers?? Is it better to leave them to themselves or to help guide them?

[jimcarwest]

Accreditation was the god of Liberty along with many other schools, and they wanted to be recognized by the secular world on a par with other universities. This will be their eventual undoing, I fear.

Ok!

[jimcarwest]

Accreditation was the god of Liberty along with many other schools, and they wanted to be recognized by the secular world on a par with other universities. This will be their eventual undoing, I fear.

So what does this say about Christian colleges & Bible colleges that for years have been regionally accredited, such as Maranatha Baptist University or Faith Baptist Bible College; or about schools that have begun the process of becoming regionally accredited, such as Bob Jones University?

[Greg Long]

Are you saying that you are certain that Sanders speech was not evaluated by professors at liberty in classes, helping students think through what he said from a biblical worldview?

No. Did you see that at all in my posts? I’m saying that Sanders shouldn’t have been invited there to spew forth his humanistic dogma.

Well, if you’re allowed to be sarcastic and I’m not, that’s fine. But if you can’t see how my posts are related to your response, let me point it out.

When I was a student at Faith Baptist Bible College, if a chapel speaker said something controversial, usually it would be discussed in a class later that morning. Are you assuming that doesn’t happen at Liberty?

Wow. As I said previously: “No. Did you see that at all in my posts? I’m saying that Sanders shouldn’t have been invited there to spew forth his humanistic dogma.”

Can you give me one Biblical example, command or principle that supports your position? I’ve given you several to support mine. You’ve ignored them all. You’ve created straw men. You’ve argued from experience. You’ve argued that it works (yes, indeed, I’ll say it again - pragmatism). In fact, in all the posts that support Liberty’s position, none of them have come even remotely close to arguing a Biblical position on why it’s the right thing to do (which is the Biblical model - aren’t we supposed to be able to prove things that are acceptable to the Lord?)

Perhaps there is no Biblical support for that position? I would hope that might cause some to rethink where they stand. Frankly - and unfortunately - I doubt it would.

that tells a Christian university in a secular country with a Democratic Republic form of government how to deal with listening to presidential candidates?

President, does that mean no Christians should ever listen to him talk?

1. “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,” (1 Peter 3:15 ESV)

Being a good apologist (which is contextually what this verse is admonishing) entails at least a basic familiarity with your hearer’s worldviews, viewpoints, beliefs, and their potential objections.

2. “And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds.” (Acts 7:22 ESV)

Being knowledgeable about his “opposition” (if you will) made Moses a more effective leader of the Israelites, and I would argue was part of God’s sovereign plan to utilize him.

3. “Then the king commanded Ashpenaz, his chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility, 4 youths without blemish, of good appearance and skillful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning, and competent to stand in the king’s palace, and to teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans. 5 The king assigned them a daily portion of the food that the king ate, and of the wine that he drank. They were to be educated for three years, and at the end of that time they were to stand before the king.” (Daniel 1:3 - 5 ESV)

Here, immersion in Babylonian secular education (and its inherent worldview) I would argue was again part of God’s sovereign plan for Daniel and his companions, to prepare them.

- - - - - - - - -

I can think offhand of several other examples from the Bible where exposure to non-Christian worldviews actually sharpened/strengthened individuals and prepared them to be better witnesses for the Truth. (Someone else above already mentioned how Paul was either familiar, or became familiar, with the views/beliefs of the pagans, to in turn make him a better proclaimer of the gospel, as another example.)

I personally don’t believe that sheltered ignorance of opposing worldviews makes one a better Christian. I think instead that it can actually backfire, and make one more susceptible to falling into snares.

Your point was that Christians shouldn’t listen to false teaching without that teaching being evaluated and exposed by godly mature believers. I answered that this argument rests on the assumption that this is NOT happening at Liberty, which you have not proven.

I will leave it up to others to evaluate the merits of each of our positions.

Re: pragmatism.

If Liberty invited Sanders to speak for some rationale like: “Hey if we invite Bernie Sanders, we’ll get a lot more media exposure and become more well known and get more students!”, that WOULD be pragmatism.

What if their rationale was instead, “We have an open invitation to all presidential candidates to speak in order to expose our students to a variety of worldviews, so that we can help them evaluate those views through a Christian and biblical worldview.” That would definitely NOT be pragmatism, that would actually be biblical (I’m really surprised that I have to give you a biblical rationale for this point. Others have done so, but I would just point out the simple fact that Paul himself was quite familiar with other religious and secular worldviews.)

You must prove that the first rationale is indeed the true one for your charge of pragmatism to stick.

Instead of allowing a proponent of false ideas to simply broadcast his heretical views and hoping that those ideas will be refuted ably in the classrooms afterwards, Christian forums should only allow such speakers to appear in a public debate, which has been the usual way we have done it in the past. That way, the truth can be presented in the same context, and falsehood can be shown to be inconsistent with truth and sound reason. Had Liberty followed this practice, we probably would not be having this discussion now.

As for exposing Christian youth to the world’s fallacious thinking so they will be informed, probably nothing Sanders said was not already known by the students. They have not been living in a vacuum before coming to Liberty. However, false teachers can transform themselves into “angels of light,” and impressionable youth may easily fall for the deception. You don’t expect the counterfeiters to teach others how to detect their deception. You count on faithful teachers to point out the deceptions, and they always use truth to expose error.

[Mark_Smith]

that tells a Christian university in a secular country with a Democratic Republic form of government how to deal with listening to presidential candidates?

Nothing in the question has any biblical significance as it is stated. Like so many other questions, one has to attempt to apply biblical principles, which a good number of people have been trying to do.

The question is: “Should Christians use their money to provide a platform for anti-biblical views to be espoused?”

Are Christians to be taught world views by those who espouse them? Well, maybe, provided there is someone present to rebut the error. Applauding the false teacher may just allow the false teacher to assume that he has scored points.