Red Letter Christians on Campus: Do We Have a Responsibility to Shut our Siblings Up?

Home / Red Letter Christians on Campus: Do We Have a Responsibility to Shut our Siblings Up?

Red Letter Christians on Campus: Do We Have a Responsibility to Shut our Siblings Up?

Posted Aug 22 2012 by Joshua D. Ambrosius with 127 Comments

Welcome to Red Letter Christians! If you're new here, subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on the RLC Movement and/or sign up for the RLC newsletter!

An Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Central Florida, Dr. Charles Negy, has struck a nerve by sending an email to his unanaesthetized “Cross-Cultural Psychology” students challenging the expression of “religious bigotry” in his course while they were addressing the topic of…wait for it: religious bigotry! His message was of course screen captured and posted online for all to enjoy (not sure if the original poster loved or hated this arse-whooping). Part of his viral letter reads:

“Students in my class who openly proclaimed that Christianity is the most valid religion, as some of you did last class, portrayed precisely what religious bigotry is. Bigots—racial bigot[s] or religious bigots—never question their prejudices and bigotry. They are convinced their beliefs are correct. For the Christians in my class who argued the validity of Christianity last week, I suppose I should thank you for demonstrating to the rest of the class what religious arrogance and bigotry looks like. It seems to have not even occurred to you (I’m directing this comment to those students who manifested such bigotry), as I tried to point out in class tonight, how such bigotry is perceived and experienced by the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the non-believers, and so on, in class, to have to sit and endure the tyranny of the masses (the dominant group, that is, which in this case, are Christians).”

The rest is mostly motherly advice for behaving oneself in civilized society. Dr. Negy goes on to recount examples of actual [Christian] students’ outbursts. One challenged the validity of discussing religion in a class on “culture”—these topics of course have nothing to do with one another! Another encouraged his fellow Christians to “not participate” and, in the words of the instructor, to “just put our fingers in our ears so we will not hear what we disagree with.” We all remember these types of students from our college days, past or present. Or, just maybe, you or I WAS that guy or gal.

As Dr. Negy challenges his own students, let us deconstruct this behavior and ask some pertinent questions. Why do we as believers feel this overwhelming need to disrupt the world around us whenever we feel our faith is challenged?

Is it because we are trained by parents, youth groups, and campus crusaders that it is the only appropriate response when under attack? (I am thinking back on my own teenage days for memories of trainings like this. I’ve also heard countless megachurch pastors praise from the pulpit college students for doing just this. This tactic reminds me of chopping an ear off to save Jesus!) Is it so we get some high-fives from fellow Christians when leaving the classroom? (As we brag to ourselves about our secret knowledge of the world that our professor and classmates reject or just don’t know about.) Is it because we feel condemned if we don’t “speak up” and defend the truth? Is it because we genuinely think this tactic will pay dividends in souls for heaven? Maybe we just don’t think—particularly about the fact that we might be wrong. I was raised in a practice that certainly praised spiritual revelation and condemned any philosophy or intellectualism as “traditions of man” (and Satan) and thus anti-scriptural.

I’m not sure what motivates each of us to act this way—I would think it is combinations of these forces molding our young minds to only accept select information that doesn’t threaten our “worldview” (or Weltanschauung, to avoid this horrible cliché that we have embraced to set apart our own ideas from our rivals’). Ordinarily this is called “indoctrination”—but only cults do that. We are just training our children in the way that they should go, right?

I think it also has something to do with politics (of course, I am a political science professor after all). The blending of Evangelical Christianity with the political right wing and the Republican Party has created a cosmic battle of “us vs. them.” One can feel guilty, and even be condemned by others including spiritual mentors, for taking the wrong position on a policy issue or even a campaign for election. And God forbid if our views evolve as we grow in our faith! Apparently everything we were told as new believers was the end all, be all of understanding.

I love the simplicity of getting back to the message of Christ crucified and risen, but shouldn’t that constantly change us closer and closer to the image of God? Shouldn’t our views evolve outside of that early box as we move on past spiritual milk and pre-chewed food? So long as Christ is our example and we are moving closer to His ideal, amen! But it sure can seem that as we give up infantile behavior our fellow friends and believers lose faith in our faith as if we have rejected the core truths of Christianity. No, far from it. We just begin to understand that the religio-political message preached from most pulpits in America is the real “tradition of man.”

It does seem that there might be scriptural basis for chastising one’s classmates. Jesus, Paul, and the other Apostles all preached unashamedly in the synagogues and town squares—similar venues to the university context today. But look at Jesus’ style. He often spoke in parables, stories that seem simple and self-evident to us (with our Sunday School degrees and easily-accessible internet commentaries), but often indecipherable to the masses of the time. Occasionally the learned few—Pharisees, Sadducees, and the like; the religious—said to themselves, “Wait, he’s talking about us!” So who did He challenge? The unbelievers? The sinners? Nope, it was the pious—those from His own tradition who thought they had all the right answers.

So how should we, as Red Letter Christians, respond to “religious bigotry” in the classroom? I would suggest by taking your brothers and sisters aside, as the New Testament orders, and speaking to them privately and reasonably. In some cases you may be labeled a heretic for challenging their God-given tactics, but hopefully once in a while—if you talk from a position of love—you may be able to help them avoid a public rebuke from the professor and, in the process, learn how to operate in society. (Remember, in some of our cases we’ve been there!) You may also wish to make a tasteful comment in class—you know, one that disarms both sides by revealing a simple truth. Such as, “We may have different beliefs, and we all think we’re right, but we’re all in this game of life together; hopefully all trying to make this world a better place.” That kind of thing certainly might go over better than covering your eyes and ears and acting Chimp-like. It might also help your grade…

What of my experience in the classroom? I have had the privilege of teaching “Politics and Religion in America” at a small state college. While I was warned by colleagues that any class with “religion” in the title usually attracts students with “fundamentalist” penchants for argument and disruption, I actually didn’t encounter that. In fact, most students rose to the occasion and discussed the topics and issues with passion but also with respect for one another. It was in basic American Government 101 that I got more of the religious rhetoric—but it was usually restricted to essays because most freshman (even 30-year-old nontraditional ones) are either shy or too tired for a fight at 9 am. I’ve read all sorts of fun essays on the Christian nature of our republic, Thomas Jefferson’s closet biblicism, and the church’s teachings on “the gays.” For once I wish they would speak up so I could go all Negy on them! Maybe I’ll have more luck at the private Catholic institution to which I’ve just moved. While classes have yet to begin this academic year, I have already found it refreshing that we opened faculty orientation with a prayer—a Catholic invocation. And guess what—I didn’t cover my ears and actually joined in and learned something! I’m glad I discovered years ago that none of us have a monopoly on the Creator God (or else my tenure here may have ended before orientation was over!).

—
Joshua D. Ambrosius, Ph.D., is an urbanist, religionist political scientist who is completing a book manuscript titled A Politics of Selflessness, a rethinking of Christian political theory and action. Holding graduate degrees in public policy from the Johns Hopkins University and the University of Louisville, he is currently an assistant professor at the University of Dayton, a Catholic Marianist institution in Dayton, Ohio. His latest research on religion and politics appears in the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, downloadable for free here.

Readers who viewed this page, also viewed:

Christianity: Philosophy or Religion?

Brian McLaren: What’s Wrong With Our Message?

Religion and Good Intentions: Embarrassed by Jesus

Christian Rhetoric in Understanding Racism

Emergent Christian Cliches to Avoid

Popular Posts

Mike Ward

Having read the whole letter, I believe that Prof. Negy would concider most of the contributors to RLC religious bigots.
His comments about religion being a part of culture delt with a seperate issue.
His charges of bigotry were directed at those “who openly proclaimed that Christianity is the most valid religion.” I think this describes most if not all evangelicals–even the evangelical left.
- Anonymous
  
  I’m challenging the tactics of those who made this response possible…not defending Negy. I disagree strongly with his characterization of actual Christianity as constituting “religious bigotry” just because we preach Christ as THE way. BUT I do think many of our brothers and sisters get too defensive in public (i.e., the whole Chik-Fil-A debacle). We can share the message of Christ-crucified in a tasteful and respectful way to the world, particularly through our actions. Interjecting strong, or even offensive or ignorant, comments in a college lecture with a diverse audience may score points in one’s mind (or a slap on the back at church) but doesn’t contribute a lot to kingdom building.
  - Mike Ward
    
    ” I disagree strongly with his characterization of actual Christianity as constituting ‘religious bigotry’ just because we preach Christ as THE way.”
    That statement right there is being very defensive in public.
    Make that statement to Prof. Negy in his class when called upon to give your opinion on the matter, and you’d probably be lumped into his email too.
    What would you do? Refuse to tell him what our really beleived in the class and then go post your true opinions to RLC?
    Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure you are always very tactful whenever you “preach Christ as THE way.” But neither of us was in that class. For all we know most of the students were polite. We don’t know because Negy does not deal with their tactics, but rather their opinion which you share.
    - Anonymous
      
      Negy addresses both opinions AND tactics: “HOW some of you have conducted yourself,” for example. Point 3 says a male student stood up in class and directed other students to “not participate” in the discussion of religion. Do you think this is constructive? I’m not sure how the student said it or what was being discussed that provoked the student’s order (perhaps Negy was a poor facilitator or was preaching a sort of reverse bigotry–I would think the class should be taught from a social science perspective that doesn’t take sides on theological questions myself). But my job, and your job, is to reflect on our own behavior and how we can react in similar settings to further the kingdom. I’m not clear on what you are arguing Mike–how do you think we should respond in public?
      - Mike Ward
        
        But he does not explain how they conducted themselves beyond expressing an opinion that you share. If you had expressed that opinion in his class he might have objected to how you conducted yourself.
        As for the student who told others not to participate that is only one student so it tells us nothing about the majority. Also, Negy does not site that as an example of the bigotry which was bullet item (2). That student’s statement was the third of three issues.
        And you are not reflecting on your behavior or how you would react.You are reflecting on others people’s behavior when you have very little knowledge of how they in fact reacted.
        As soon as the conversation actually turns to you and your reaction, you become defensive.
      - Anonymous
        
        The Negy anecdote is simply a springboard to greater reflection on our public behavior as believers–you have to look past the details Mike. It is like you are reading one of Jesus’ parables and questioning the details or what he left out rather than looking at the larger point. See the Negy letter as a parable! My point is once we get past our own desire for public defensiveness bred into us as new believers, we can learn how to constructively react in these settings; and to reflect on how we can encourage our brothers and sisters who think disruption is constructive. I thought I did indicate in the post that I was once there myself as a teenager and indicated how I would respond in this situation today. Sorry this wasn’t clear enough. FYI, I don’t think Negy was asking the students for their opinions directly; and I am not advocating public denial of one’s faith in any way. And BTW, I am just going to assume that you are advocating public “boldness” in the mold of Negy’s students even though you are not being explicit…
      - Mike Ward
        
        As a “springboard” the story does not take the reader in the direction you say you wished to go. The comments on this article are exaclty what you should have expected with such on opening.
        I cannot comment on whether or not any of these students were too defensive, too disuptive nor too bold because I don’t know how many of them where any of these things nor to what degree they may have been if they were.
        I am not an “advocate” as you say for public boldness in particular. There are times to be bold, times not to be, and many times when it is a matter of an individual’s own personal approach, and I won’t question either approach in those instances were I don’t see that a makes any difference at all beyond personal preference.
        I don’t know the case here because I have too little to go on. The letter tells me more about Negy since it comes directly from him than it does about the students who I only know second hand through him.
        The student reviews also tell me a lot about Negy. Even though they too are second hand, they come from a huge number of sources and provide a much larger ammount of information. But about the students Negy rebukes, I actually know very little.
        I certainly cannot comment on the best way to correct these students when I don’t have any way to even know what they did wrong if they did anything wrong.
        I cannot comment in general because I don’t know if there is a unversival answer in general beyond broad truths like “treat others the way you want to be treated” which leaves lots of room for interpretation in specific applications.
  - guest
    
    “Christ as THE way.”
    Some people, like the professor, will view that as a bigoted statement. At some point the Gospel does offend because of its message.
    If the professor’s depiction of the student’s behavior is a fair one, then it’s unfortunate that the student acted as he did, and hopefully he won’t do so in the future.
    However, I’m with Drew’s response below, I would like to see both sides of the story. There are too many other examples of professorial hypocrisy when they encourage engagement with different belief systems, but have a special scorn towards Christianity. I say this not as a Christian, but as an intellectually curious person.
    - Mike Ward
      
      There are some student reviews from the past here:
      http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=64909
      “He tries to push his beliefs and ideals down people’s throats, and then says he hates christians bc they want to push their beliefs onto others. How ironic!”
      “It is true what people say, he is an Atheist, so if you believe in ANY religion, he will criticize heavily and directly. Opinionated. But this I actually liked !!”
      These comments were one the first page from students who liked him!
      - tarl_hutch
        
        I don’t think the author of this post is trying to defend the, obviously, biased professor. As Joshua states, it is more to bring the focus around to how we act and respond to others. I think we are getting side tracked by focusing on the professor, he has his beliefs and right to challenge others, we should instead examine what our part is in inspiring such disdain from non Christians. What is it about how we are sharing our beliefs that brings out such emotion from others? True, some will always feel judged or want to stay in their current framrwork, but why are people so offended by us?
      - Frank
        
        The disdain from those against Christianity comes from Jesus’ claims, not obnoxious students.
      - tarl_hutch
        
        You know, I am not sure that explains the bulk of it or at least not the initial blowback. Most of the discussions I have had with non Christians, and the barna group surveys back this up, their main objections were with the approach and hypocrisy of believers. Most of Christ’s general ideas are well received among non Christians, notable sticking points with the only way claims and words against greed, but for most the Jesus they are rejecting is the Jesus image presented by the biased witness, not actually the true Jesus. Unfortunately, we are the only Jesus they are going to see, and when we use guilt and condemnation, instead of peace, love, and hope, they get a myopic presentation of Christ that usually mirrors the believers prejudices and not the complex Christ. This is why we need to focus so heavily on how we present Jesus to others and in what attitude we speak from. Some will always take offense, out of defense, buy through a thoughtful and graceful presentation many more will see the good news at work.
      - Frank
        
        Well everyone is a hypocrite in some way so I never understood that as a criticism. In fact the reality that Christians can be hypocrites strengthens the gospel message. Can Christians be obnoxious like every other group can be? Sure but once again is fails as an argument against.
        
        We present Jesus as Jesus presented Himself. The only way, the door, the gate. the Son of Man, the Christ. Broken for the spiritually poor and spiritually oppressed, not for the material poor or groups that claim oppression.
      - tarl_hutch
        
        Would you mind fleshing out the comment, “not for the material poor or groups claiming oppression,”. I imagine you mean Jesus is for all, but that statement confuses me a bit, so I wonder if you would unpack it a bit?
      - Frank
        
        Sure. When Jesus talk about the poor it is mostly the spiritually poor (For instance in the Beatitudes). He was far more concerned about the spiritually poor and the spiritually oppressed than the materially poor or the societally oppressed. I am not saying that He and we should not care for and provide for them but Jesus’ focus was not on eliminating material poverty or societal oppression His focus was on those separated from God. He came to be the only way of reconciliation.
      - tarl_hutch
        
        I think to have a holistic view of Jesus you can’t divorce the two. All of us tend to get stuck on one side or the other and that is why we end up misrepresenting Jesus to others. We also have to consider the psychological and sociological concerns related to being ready to know Jesus. Physical needs must be met before many will be able to believe spiritually. One reason Christ’s Miracles were important supplements to his teaching.
      - Frank
        
        I agree its both and you cannot have one without the other. I disagree that meeting a physical need divorced from a sharing of the Gospel will open up anyone spiritually. They will only think “a nice person came to help me out” instead of “so you care for me because God cares for me? Maybe I need to find this God”.
        
        Yes its overly simplistic I know but simple is always better.
        
        Jesus’ miracles came about through acts of faith not because Jesus was meeting a physical need. And they were only miracles because only God could accomplish them.
      - tarl_hutch
        
        If no faith was had by particular people, did that mean Jesus could not perform a miracle?
        
        Also, I did not mean to imply that one should divorce ones good works from sharing your faith if asked. Just that it is a psychological fact that people are more receptive spiritually and mentally when their physical needs are met.
      - Frank
        
        I am pretty sure that all of Jesus’ miracles were in response to faith or to show why they should have faith. In other words they were all all spiritually motivated not physical need motivated.
        
        And yes it’s true that people are more receptive after heir needs are met. And shame on anyone for not taking the opportunity to share the Gospel.
      - tarl_hutch
        
        What about the two feedings in the gospels? These had spiritual undertones, but were primarily to feed a crowd of hungry people and show them Jesus will meet your physical, as well as spiritual needs.
        
        I ask if faith was necessary for miracles, because there is an interesting debate about whether Jesus could only do miracles where faith was open for them and could not work where peoples hearts were closed. There is at least one verse that supports that possibility, referring i believe to Nazareth when Jesus visited and was not well received. This is a topic in the Process, as well as open, theology camps. Pretty intriguing…puts the pressure back on us when it comes to the workings of God. Wondered how that fit with you, since your statement was aimed in that direction.
      - frankfr
        
        What’s interesting about the feeding miracles is they were in response to a lack of faith shown by his disciples. Jesus seemed completely unconcerned with the crowds need for food.
        
        Also the crowd had just spent time witnessing the healing miracles so they experienced the spiritual first before they were eventually fed.
      - tarl_hutch
        
        Your reading might be correct with the 5,000, (though I would think Jesus would have planned this to teach too), but for the 4,000 he specifically says he wants to feed them out of his compassion for them. True, they had teaching first, but they also had food until the third day.
        
        I have to say it amazes me that we are even hqving a discussion on whether Jesus wanted to take care of physical needs, in addition to spiritual ones. All miracles arr geared towards showing God’s desire for the care of his creations. The spiritual is a huge part, but should not be seen as separate from the physical. To do that would be an error of dualism, which is unbiblical.
      - Frank
        
        If you read my earlier posts I agree that we are to care for the poor and marginalized. We just cant do it effectively without tying it to Jesus. So the spiritual is more important than the physical which is my point.
      - tarl_hutch
        
        No, I got that. I just think it is an error to draw that line between the two. What is good spiritually is also good physically and what is good physically is almost always good spiritually. Westernized Christianity has bought into a dualistic worldview in which the spiritual must be seperate from the physical, or at the least on a higher tier, but this was the same mistake as the gnostics. Now we just engage in a more watered down version. The bible is full of examples of how they tie together in synthesis, Jesus being number one, but even in speaking of the land and our duties as christians. The physical and the spiritual are forever intertwined, perfect example being our faith and good works, cant have one without the other.
      - Frank
        
        We agree completely it seems! Now if only everyone else would come on board with this truth.
        
        Thanks for the discussion!
      - tarl_hutch
        
        Your reading might be correct with the 5,000, (though I would think Jesus would have planned this to teach too), but for the 4,000 he specifically says he wants to feed them out of his compassion for them. True, they had teaching first, but they also had food until the third day.
        
        I have to say it amazes me that we are even hqving a discussion on whether Jesus wanted to take care of physical needs, in addition to spiritual ones. All miracles arr geared towards showing God’s desire for the care of his creations. The spiritual is a huge part, but should not be seen as separate from the physical. To do that would be an error of dualism, which is unbiblical.
      - Frank
        
        Well everyone is a hypocrite in some way so I never understood that as a criticism. In fact the reality that Christians can be hypocrites strengthens the gospel message. Can Christians be obnoxious like every other group can be? Sure but once again is fails as an argument against.
        
        We present Jesus as Jesus presented Himself. The only way, the door, the gate. the Son of Man, the Christ. Broken for the spiritually poor and spiritually oppressed, not for the material poor or groups that claim oppression.
      - guest
        
        Without walking back my earlier point, I have to also comment that Christians can & often are obnoxious – which hinders the gospel being proclaimed. When going out to tell the good news – our actions should be like the fruits of the Holy Spirit.
      - Frank
        
        I agree but the Gospel is automatically offensive to those that reject God.
      - Drew
        
        Tarl,
        
        Crack open your Bible young man – “The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.”
        
        That is what we are trying to discern Tarl – was the professor upset because the students were out of line, or because the message of the cross is foolishness to him? I agree with the professor that the young man was out of line, but he did not demonstrate that the other students were out of line. We also are only getting one side of the story… I’d be interested to hear from the students.
      - tarl_hutch
        
        I get that, but it kind of misses the point of this particular post. This should call us to introspection, not necessarily who was right or wrong in this instance.
        
        Also, I hope you are using the term “young man” jokingly, because I believe we are about the same age.
        
        The cross being foolish doesn’t mean it is also offensive. There are many foolish things that I don’t find offensive, so that may explain disbelief, but not outright revulsion at the actions of Christians.
      - Mike Ward
        
        I can’t even tell if that student was out of line. All we know is that he told the other students not to participate. Since the students who did participate and were honest about their beliefs were called out in an email from the professor if those beliefs offended him then perhaps not participating was not such a bad idea. Of course he got called out anyway so I guess it’s damned if you do damned if you don’t.
      - Drew
        
        Tarl,
        
        Crack open your Bible young man – “The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.”
        
        That is what we are trying to discern Tarl – was the professor upset because the students were out of line, or because the message of the cross is foolishness to him? I agree with the professor that the young man was out of line, but he did not demonstrate that the other students were out of line. We also are only getting one side of the story… I’d be interested to hear from the students.
      - Anonymous
        
        Exactly…someone gets it!
- Anonymous
  
  You’re making sense to me Mike.
Anonymous

Jesus, who was profoundly knowledgeable in scriptures, did not engage in frothing-at-the-mouth condemnations of Zoroaster or Pan or some other world religion. Jesus was instead frequently at odds with the dominant Religious Elite of his own community and was quite outspoken about spiritual corruption, lying, hypocrisy, divorce, and judging others.
- Medical Evangelist
  
  True, but Jesus did not largely interact with Zoroastrians or pagans. Those he did interact with (hypocritical Pharisees, unbelieving Sadduccees, and off-base Samaritans) were always pointed to the truth. Examples of interactions with the larger religious world are seen in the actions of Jesus’ apostles.
  - tarl_hutch
    
    One thing I find interesting is how Jesus interacts with the Roman soldier and samaritan woman, especially with the Roman, he did not seem to be interested in making sure he had the right belief in him. The soldier believed, but in the fact Jesus could heal his servant, but it is not stated that he believed him to be the savior. What do you think about this, as I am asking a sincere question? I sometimes wonder myself, if what we say is that important or if it is more about showing a difference with your life. Also, it should be added that the culture of the Romans encouraged public discourse in public settings to be debated by listeners. This partially explains the tactics used by early Christians to witness. They were using the existing system to present their beliefs. Todays culture may require different tqctics to achieve the desired results. What do you think?
    - Drew
      
      Tarl,
      
      In Matthew 8:8 the centurion refers to Jesus as “kyrie” which means Lord or master. He also says “I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me.”
      
      In other words, the centurion did realize that Jesus was his master or Lord and that he had all authority; that Jesus only needed to say “He is healed” and the servant would be healed. This was greater faith than anybody else, who constantly wanted or demanded signs from Jesus before they believed. Jesus was not interested in making sure he had the right belief, because he already had the right belief… he recognized Jesus as sovereign Lord.
      - tarl_hutch
        
        My one question to that would be, as a polytheistic Roman, would he recognise Jesus as ultimate lord or one of many?
      - Drew
        
        The word “kyrie” is used by the disciples to refer to Jesus as Lord, and is the same word we see used by the centurion. Matthew would have used a different word if the centurion did not recognize Jesus as Lord and as sovereign Lord. I can say “sovereign” because the centurion said Jesus had authority like he had, to say things and have them happen… except the centurion only had control over people underneath him, while Jesus had control over all creation underneath him.
      - Drew
        
        The word “kyrie” is used by the disciples to refer to Jesus as Lord, and is the same word we see used by the centurion. Matthew would have used a different word if the centurion did not recognize Jesus as Lord and as sovereign Lord. I can say “sovereign” because the centurion said Jesus had authority like he had, to say things and have them happen… except the centurion only had control over people underneath him, while Jesus had control over all creation underneath him.
      - tarl_hutch
        
        Kyrie was also used as a sign of respect as well, not saying your read is wrong just making room for questions. I really would like to know whether this centurion was a member of the early church, guess we will never know. I think we do a lot of assuming in verses like this, not that it is wrong, but we should entertain other possible readings and weigh them. I am currently rereading the gospels with a focus on Jesus’s interactions, so this interests me.
      - Drew
        
        He believed that Jesus had the authority to speak miracles into existence, and he had no doubts or concerns whatsoever. So when he called Jesus master or Lord, I would think it was more than the same respect you would give to an ordinary person. Also, since he is a centurion, would it not be unusual to call someone besides his commanding officer or king his “master” or Lord?
      - tarl_hutch
        
        I agree with what you are saying, but there is the possibility that a polytheistic Roman may believe Jesus was a lord among lords. If an idiot like me can come to that question, I wonder why it was not addressed. But then again your case is believable, but not air tight. Jesus was open about who he was, but did not use it oppressively. That is where the true nature of this debate lies.
      - Frank
        
        I guess that would depend on you define oppressive. He certainly never held back and ha some very harsh words to say to people at times.
      - tarl_hutch
        
        But the harsh words were typically for the religious elite, not the average listener. That still applied today.
      - Frank
        
        True and I would never have the discussions that I have here, in the way I have them here, with non Christians.
      - Mike Ward
        
        I’m sure some non-Christians read this and may even comment.
      - tarl_hutch
        
        Excellent point Mike, and that is why some of the arguments we have make me so disappointed. In the past, when name calling and anger pop up, it hurts our witness and our church. I have heard from many non believing friends what a turn off that is and how it only serves to underline their beliefs. We should always be conscious of how we interact, stand up for your beliefs, but humbly and gracefully.
      - Mike Ward
        
        I agree with this whole heartedly: “We should always be conscious of how we interact, stand up for your beliefs, but humbly and gracefully.”
        But I also think that sometimes people will take offense no matter what.
        And I while I don’t justify bad behavior if someone becomes a Christian because we tricked them into thinking we are always nice to each other, they are in for disappointment
      - Anonymous
        
        You *do* know that not all of us are Christian, right?
        
        Wiccan ex-Christian here. Nice to meet you!
  - Anonymous
    
    Medical Evangelist: I accept the words of Jesus as my point of origin, not the imagined debates apostles may or may not have had about Zoroaster and Pan.
    - Medical Evangelist
      
      Do you really assign little value to the words of Peter and Paul?
      - Anonymous
        
        Jesus is literally, The Word. Other people like Simon Peter or Paul of Tarsus are not. I value and prioritize the words of Jesus over imaginary debates about Zoroaster and Pan.
      - frank
        
        Considering it was His followers that recorded His words it makes very little sense to believe the red letters and not everything else.
      - Anonymous
        
        I’ll make this easier for you Frank. Here are all the biblical passages featuring debates about Zoroaster and Pan:
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
      - guest
        
        Red herring alert. No one’s talking about Zoroaster & Pan anymore.
      - Frank
        
        I never was talking about Zoraster or Pan.
      - Medical Evangelist
        
        Wow. Thank you for your honesty. Just a friendly warning here. Elevating one element of the Scripture to the exclusion of another was the fallacy of the Saduccees and it led them into heresy. I know the site is called Red Letter Christians , but we should seek value in the whole counsel of God. After all Jesus very identification as the Word comes from the black letters of John.
      - Anonymous
        
        Jesus is literally The Word. Your imaginary debates about Zoroaster and Pan are not. I’m sorry you are having a problem with this.
      - Medical Evangelist
        
        Please forgive my confusion, but I thought your reference to Zoroaster and Pan were specific stand-ins for the larger religious environment of the Roman Empire. Hence your reference to them “or some other world religion.” It is precisely that environment in which the apostles established the church. So why would their experience with it not be relevant?
      - Medical Evangelist
        
        Please forgive my confusion, but I thought your reference to Zoroaster and Pan were specific stand-ins for the larger religious environment of the Roman Empire. Hence your reference to them “or some other world religion.” It is precisely that environment in which the apostles established the church. So why would their experience with it not be relevant?
      - guest
        
        I think otrotierra claims to know Jesus, but pretty much rejects the rest of the New Testament. My limited knowledge of apologetics doesn’t give me the answers to engage with someone with that worldview. I am curious if you have any knowledge or comments about that.
        i.e. other than the general defense for the whole Bible being the inspired Word of God.
      - Medical Evangelist
        
        Well if that is otrotierra’s view, my response would be based upon the rationale for rejecting the authority of the New Testament. Is the objection based on history? If so I would note that the New Testament references people, places, and events that are quite confirmable. Is the objection textual? Then I would point out how multiple manuscripts of the New Testament dating from the 2nd century appear in geographically diverse locations indicating wide and early acceptance. Is the rationale based upon higher criticism? If so I would have to demonstrate how a historico-literary approach to the text shows great internal consistency and harmony amongst the various authors. Finally, is the refusal to accept the New Testament based upon the belief that since Jesus is the Son only his words matter? In that case I would have to point out the inconsistency of that belief. Jesus himself did not leave any writings. The only knowledge we have of his words comes from the New Testament authors. Do we accept the sayings of Jesus, but reject the rest of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Do we accept the Gospels. but lay aside the rest of the New Testament? If so we are putting ourselves in the position of accepting John’s Gospel, but rejecting his epistles and Revelation. Do we accept the apostolic writings of Matthew and John, but reject those of Peter? If so, why? Do we accept Luke’s Gospel, but refuse Acts? On what basis? If we accept Acts, do we then somehow reject the epistles of Paul who plays such a major role in that book? Schweitzer once noted that most of the advocates of the historical Jesus ended up only seeing their own reflection. There is a danger in putting ourselves in the position of judging the Bible rather than allowing it to judge us. We may end up trading the truth of God for the deceit of our own hearts.
      - guest
        
        Great points! However, based on her most recent replies – she seems to now be all over the place – and stuck on discussing Zoroaster & Pan. Maybe I asked the wrong question. She might actually be talking to herself…
      - Medical Evangelist
        
        It is hard to determine exactly where a person is coming from based on just a few posts. At this point, otrotierra may be feeling ganged up on. If that is the case, that is not my intention.
      - Anonymous
        
        Apologetics are, by definition, a set of talking points designed to make everyone view Christianity in the exact same way. I find it very sad and pitiable that you value such memorized talking points over actually engaging with your God.
      - Anonymous
        
        He said IMAGINED debates. We can speculate until the cows come home about what somebody 2000 years ago MIGHT have said that isn’t written down anywhere.
- Drew
  
  No need to engage in hyperbole; nobody stood up with “frothing-at-the-mouth” condemnations of other religions, if you actually read the letter.
  - Ryan Masters
    
    In the comment section of another article I read today, I saw you engage in frothing-at-the-mouth condemnation of other religions. In fact, you even damned to hell an ordained Christian pastor because you couldn’t force him to say that all religions other than Christianity are themselves damned to hell.
    
    The author queries: “So who did He [Jesus] challenge?
    The unbelievers? The sinners? Nope, it was the pious those from His own tradition who thought they had all the right answers.”
    
    Sounds a little like you, Drew.
    
    As Dr. Ambrosius says, “I’m glad I discovered years ago that none of us have a monopoly on the Creator God.”
    - Drew
      
      Another ad hominem. Do you have anything to actually discuss?
- Anonymous
  
  Who was frothing at the mouth?
- guest
  
  Just curious, can you come up with any examples of frothing-at-the-mouth condemnations? And they would have to be instances that anyone can come to that conclusion, i.e. not a matter of opinion or perception.
Frank

And why do we care what one professor thinks?
- Ryan Masters
  
  For that matter, then, why should we care about what you think?
  - Drew
    
    Another ad hominem… do you have anything to discuss sir?
  - Frank
    
    That’s your choice but you obviously care as you and your “list” keep responding. It’s probably time to change your alias again.
    - Ryan Masters
      
      What “list” are you referring to? And what do you mean by alias? You asked “why do we care what one professor thinks”? Who exactly is included in the “we” you’re referring to? And why do you imply that what the professor has to say is any less important than what you, Frank, have to say, or anybody else who’s commenting here? You were flippant, and I returned a flippant phrase to you, so you could see how it feels.
      - Framk
        
        Yes I could care less what an antichristian atheist professor says.
        
        You never seem to care quite a bit what I say. Good yous house. Maybe you will learn something.
      - Frankf
        
        Wow compete spellcheck fail but I bet you can figure it out.
      - guest
        
        Dude…you’re creepy. Seriously.
      - guest
        
        As to the accusation of being creepy—looks like I’m in a whole brood of creeps.
      - guest
        
        P.S. I was responding to the name-calling against Ryan Masters. I’m sorry, but it looked like he may have had a valid point.
      - guest
        
        Maybe, but it’s lost when he’s cyberstalking some of the people on different threads on this forum. That’s what’s creepy.
Drew

Joshua,

I appreciate the article, but in my experience, I would be more cautious and try to get both sides of the story. There are many professors that are hostile to Christianity. It remains unclear to me (with the exception of the young man, who was clearly out of line) whether or not the students were justified in their actions or not. Like you said yourself, there are generally few disruptions in a religion/philosophy class, since most are too shy to voice a strong opinion. If there is a disruption, there is at least the possibility it was brought on by the professor. It also seems that the good professor doesn’t understand the meaning of “bigot” and is using it quite liberally against his own students.
- Anonymous
  
  I agree…this wasn’t meant necessarily as a critique of those students in particular. The published email just got me thinking about how I once was and how I see many other Christians behaving in public. PS: As a teenager in a speech class, I once gave a 45-minute speech on the flaws of evolution and virtues of creation. I angered the atheists, and even fellow believers who had no qualms with science, to the point of heated argument (not to mention the teacher since it was meant to be a 15-min speech!). Did my display lead one person to consider Christ? Nope. It probably turned off more than it turned on. Of course I was very zealous at that point and shared this story (to much support and applause) at church and youth group. Now I share it with embarrassment–particularly since I have come to understand science as not being at odds with my faith. We can’t do anything to change the professor in this case, short of conversion–and arguing in a classroom sure isn’t going to do the trick. But we can repent for some of the things we’ve done in the name of the Gospel that were counterproductive.
  - Drew
    
    I actually like your story better than the example you used. Both stories are relatively harmless, though, as compared to the more extreme examples. However, point taken on the “big picture”the article was trying to represent.
  - Frank
    
    First of all you don’t know if your efforts eventually lead someone to Christ or not. Just because it didn’t happen immediately or in your presence does not means it didn’t happen.
    - Anonymous
      
      We can only hope! As Shane Claiborne wrote, “For those of you who are on a sincere spiritual journey, I hope that you do not reject Christ because of Christians. We have always been a messed-up bunch, and somehow God has survived the embarrassing things we do in His name.”
      - Frank
        
        Amen but isn’t that the point of the Gospel? That we do not have to be perfect and in many ways after we become Christians life gets harder so we will fail more often. It is our failure that is hope giving.
      - Anonymous
        
        For sure…but we should also grow in our faith and, as we are molded more and more into the image of Christ, actions–particularly in front of the world.
      - Frank
        
        Yes of course. We just make new mistakes when that happens.
Anonymous

The best response to this professor I’ve read today is actually by an atheist who commented on the First Things blog.

Here’s the link: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/08/21/religion-bigotry-and-higher-education/

He writes:

As a very militant atheist, I cannot imagine someone believing anything, if they did not believe that it’s the most valid belief system. Why would I be an atheist, if I believed that Christianity and Islam were equally valid, or more valid?

The “bigots” in the class are even more moderate than I am. They believe only that Christianity is the “most valid” belief system. In other words, other religions may have some validity, but none so much as Christianity. If you asked me, only atheism is valid. So I’m an ultra-bigot, apparently.

While some Christians spend an awful lot of time making spurious claims that they are “persecuted”, in this case, the professor is very clearly in the wrong. And shame on him, and on the enforcers of political correctness.
William Sider

Most of the articles posted on the RLC blogsite are a breath of fresh air– that is, until you start reading the comments. Apparently RLC has
attracted a permanent coterie of right wingers who devote themselves to endless squabbling about meaningless minutiae that has very little redemptive relevance to the sufferings of this world. They also string together Bible verses, and post mindless, repetitive slogans to rebut anything that challenges their narrow belief system. [Expect to see sarcastic replies, and lots of votes against this.]

Moderate and progressive evangelical authors are mocked and labeled “liberal” or “postmodern” (and these terms are used as code words and favorite whipping posts for all that’s wrong with Christianity with our wider society).

The poor and oppressed of this good earth need our firsthand presence and solidarity; they need holistic ministry grounded in the Good News announced by Jesus in Luke 4:18-19—not time misspent in self-righteous rants.

My advice to readers: if you appreciate an article, don’t ruin your day by looking at the pathetic comments. Move on. The Holy Spirit is calling us to places we’d prefer not to go.
Abraham Davis

The author asks: “Do We Have a Responsibility to Shut our Siblings Up?”

If they are false prophets—that is, if they are from a religion other than Christianity (and if they are false prophets within Christianity itself)—unequivocally the answer is yes!! We must stop letting false teachers say whatever they want.
- guest
  
  What is the best way to accomplish this responsibility?
guest

The article doesn’t say whether or not Professor Negy is a Christian. Had a group of Muslim students gone into a rant about their religion being the one and only valid religion, then it’s my guess that Negy would have similarly called them out on it. Given how pluralistic our society has become, all religions are going to have to figure out how to give each other due respect and regard; otherwise, the hostility will become so great, our society will implode on itself.

I teach in a denominationally-affiliated university, and our chapel worship is explicitly Christian. However, we have diverse student ministries and chaplains on campus—including Muslim. It would be unfair and inappropriate for a professor to allow any single religious group to hold forth in a classroom about how superior they are to all other religions. In those circumstances, it’s best to foster interfaith dialogue.

If diverse religions spend their time in hostile combat with one another as to who has the best grasp on ultimate Truth, then how will they have time or be in a position to teach the warring nations how to beat their swords into plowshares? It’s going to take interfaith cooperation to achieve world peace.
another guest

Somebody named Frank (see below) wrote: “…I could care less what an ANTI-CHRISTIAN
ATHEIST professor says.” I find it interesting (and disturbing) that simply
because Professor Negy critiques one religious group for declaring to their
classmates that they are “the most valid religion” and that their beliefs are
the only correct ones, he’s thereby adjudged and condemned as both atheist, and
anti-Christian. The article does not give
us direct information about Professor Negy’s religious identity.

Higher education provides a space for critical inquiry into and
testing of one’s own present knowledge and belief system. If the faith of any religious believer—whether
Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or otherwise—cannot withstand such inquiry and
testing, then perhaps it was built on shifting sands in the first place, and
needs to be rethought, and regrounded.
- drew
  
  Thank you for these comments. This perspective, along with the input from the guest below, is profoundly important to the very future of our Earth Home. If we stoke interfaith hostility, such as that which prompts wars and terrorism in the Middle East, we eventually will blow up our planet, and there will be no more evangelizing on the part of any religion.
  
  Our confession of faith in Jesus as the Christ should lead us not to draw lines in the sand that declare who’s in and and who’s out, but rather to cross borders, as Jesus himself did, and share table fellowship with the least and last, and embrace the immigrant, the sojourner, and the stranger whose beliefs and way of life may be utterly different from our own. This was the radical example of Jesus; we are able to love and embrace diverse others in this radical way only through the power of the love and grace of the triune God.
  - Frank
    
    Jesus embraced people so they would put their faith in Him and Him alone. He did not want anyone separated from God. We should want the same. So while we must cross the lines, the purpose is to lead people into putting their faith in Jesus.
    - Drew
      
      (Note: I typed my
      response, then cut and pasted it; I hope the spacing turns out right, and
      apologize if it doesn’t).
      
      You’re so right, Frank: “He
      did not want anyone separated from God. We should want the same.” We should also want all the other biblically recorded things that Jesus wants, including the things by which the nations will be
      judged at the End times, as per the red letter words of Jesus in Matt. 23,
      
      “Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you
      that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the
      foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty
      and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in
      prison and you visited me’”.
      
      Considering Christian doctrine that every single human being is created
      by God and in the image and likeness of God and deserves to be treated as such, we are to practice the things commanded by Jesus regardless of the religious
      identity of those who are hungry, thirsty, naked, sick, imprisoned, or a stranger (including immigrants and sojourners), and we are to cross borders and
      persist in fellowship and solidarity with those who suffer, even if they decline our invitation to follow Jesus—for this commandment of Jesus is
      without a series of qualifications and footnotes.
      
      In Matthew 23 Jesus makes it very clear that the purpose of
      crossing borders is not to be limited to inviting a confession of faith in him
      (it will include this, in one way or another)—but also to make sure that hungry
      people have adequate food; thirsty people have clean water; strangers,
      sojourners, and immigrants receive hospitality (for the Hebrews themselves were
      once sojourners in foreign land); sick people receive adequate healthcare; imprisoned people not be discarded and forgotten.
      You cannot get much more red-letter and literal than this. We are to do these things, and keep doing
      these things, whether or not they result in a confession of faith in Jesus—simply
      because Jesus explicitly told us to do these things.
      
      Also, we Christians need to keep the
      following in mind. If we truly try to
      keep the commandments of Jesus in Matthew 23 then our efforts at discipleship will
      not be limited to one-on-one settings of private charity wherein a direct,
      personal invitation or witness about Jesus is possible. We’re also obligated as Christians to work at
      the level of changing public policies in regard to matters such as healthcare, prisons, clean water, welcoming
      the stranger, and other things explicitly named by Jesus in Matthew 23 and other portions of scripture. We can
      make it clear that we’re entering the public square in efforts to keep faith
      with the commandment of Jesus, but our efforts, if successful, will benefit
      many families, not just Christians.
      - Frank
        
        The question is whether we trust the government with those things. I do not.
        
        And we also need to communicate boldly and unapologeticcally the following red letters too:
        John 3:16New International Version (NIV)16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
        John 11:25–26 (ESV)25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”Matthew 7:13 (ESV)13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
        John 17:3 (ESV)3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.John 14:6 (ESV)6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.John 6:35 (ESV)35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.John 10:9 (ESV)9 I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.John 3:36 (ESV)36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
        Matthew 28 (ESV) 18 And Jesus came and said to them, (V)“All authority (W)in heaven and on earth has been given to me.19 (X)Go therefore and (Y)make disciples of (Z)all nations, (AA)baptizing them (AB)in[b] (AC)the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them (AD)to observe all that (AE)I have commanded you. And behold, (AF)I am with you always, to (AG)the end of the age.”
      - Drew
        
        Frank, you’re not reading Matthew 25 as carefully (and literally!) as it
        deserves to be read. This text quite
        plainly and literally says that “nations” (i.e. government)– not individuals
        qua individuals–will be judged for how they treat the hungry, the thirsty, the
        poor, the naked, the imprisoned in their midst. “All the nations will be gathered….” Please realize that when you read scripture
        in completely individualist terms, you’re not reading biblically. The individual qua individual is a modern
        construct.
        
        The majority of leading evangelical theologians and biblical scholars today
        assert that government has at least some role to play in addressing the
        material, economic needs of the least and last.
        Whether or not you, Frank, personally trust government is ultimately beside the point, in terms of
        scriptural obedience. Your lack of trust
        in government doesn’t invalidate our scriptural call to hold our government
        leaders accountable to the policies they generate that make life unduly hard on
        our nation’s most vulnerable families. I can refer you to a series of evangelical documents
        that affirm this scriptural call, such as those produced by Evangelicals for
        Social Action—an organization which includes many conservatives such as
        yourself. They base their documents on biblical
        obedience. Tony Campolo and Ron Sider and many leading
        evangelicals make a similar affirmation (meaning that you can’t write this off
        as merely a “liberal or pomo” idea).
        
        I suspect that someday (if not already) you’ll be drawing on what we used
        to call “old age pension” (social security).
        Evangelical Christians were among the ones responsible for getting this
        government program started. If you
        really don’t trust government to help the poor, or to help any citizen, then in
        order for you to maintain your integrity (be consistent, and not hypocritical
        in what you say), you’d have to refuse social security, and you’d have to
        refuse any of the other benefits you now receive (or will in the future
        receive) from the government, from tax dollars that I and others pay into the
        system.
        
        Do you know how many elderly, retired people would live in abject poverty
        were it not for the government? Churches
        and private charities couldn’t possibly keep up with the need. People would be dying right and left for lack
        of basic human necessities.
        
        Further, I don’t know what you’re intending to say with your barrage of
        scripture quotes. Please remember that
        if there was space, I could post 2,000 scripture verses about our call to
        address issues of poverty—and many of these texts would implicate the positive
        role of government.
      - Frank
        
        My point is a simple one. Providing for the material and physical the needs of the needy without addressing their spiritual state and their need for Christ is not Christian mercy or justice. The government does not provide the spiritual which is THE most important part. So I am not against the government getting involved but supporting government programs is not Christian mercy and justice.
        
        The other problem I have is the inefficiency of our government. If every tax dollar went directly to those that needed help I would be fine. The problem is the government taxes and then controls how its spent.
        
        So no I do not trust the government and the government is not the solution to provide Christian mercy and justice. We are as individuals and as churches and parachurch organizations responsible but it must always come with a sharing of faith, not necessarily right away but it must come and be an integral part of us caring for the poor and needy.
      - Drew
        
        Frank, for some odd reason that I do not know, you have distorted and twisted what I’ve said. I didn’t claim that government “is THE solution to provide Christian mercy and justice.” Do you plan to accept government-funded social security when the time comes? Would you be willing to depend on charities and congregations alone when the time comes for you to retire? In times of economic downturns churches and nonprofit faith-based charities often don’t have enough funds to keep up with needs of poor families and elderly people. We need BOTH a basic federal safety net AND the work of churches. We don’t have to be forced into a silly EITHER-OR position. Recall that in biblical times there were quasi-legal protections and legislations that addressed the needs of the poor; it wasn’t left to individuals alone. We are called to follow the biblical example. According to scripture, Jesus will judge the nations (and their governments). I take scripture every bit as seriously as you do. Again I say, all the scripture passages you quoted to me do not contradict and do not invalidate what I am saying. We are bound to be obedient to all the red letters, not just the ones we want to pick and choose that support some sort of pre-existing ideology (such as: government is not to be trusted).
      - Frank
        
        I am not saying the government does not have a role. I expect to collect Social Security because I have been paying into the system all my life. If I didn’t I wouldn’t expect or feel entitled to it.
        
        For the record my belief that government should not be trusted is practical. They waste money, they are inefficient and there is very little accountability in spending. If there were a government program that addressed those issue I would support it.
      - Drew
        
        Frank, in addiiton to what I just said, I agree with your statement: [our help with the poor and needy] “must always come with a sharing of faith, not necessarily right away but it must come and be an integral part of us caring for the poor and needy.”
        Some groups want to over-rely on the government safety net; some people want to get rid of it all together. I advocate a centrist position, and I do so in light of scripture. ALL social entities (government, business, congregations, individuals) are called to seek the welfare of the common good, especially the least and last.
      - Frank
        
        And translating the word nations to mean countries/governments as we have created them is faulty. Much like the nation of Israel includes all Jews not just those that live within the boarders.
        
        The words the nations (ta ethnē) should be translated “the Gentiles.” These are all people, other than Jews, who have lived through the Tribulation period
        So no Jesus is not talking about our secular government
      - Drew
        
        Aside fromhow one understands this particular passage (in Matt. 25), in some of your other comments you seem to acknowledge that there is, in fact, some role for government in addressing the needs of poor people, even if only a limited role. Is that correct?
      - Frank
        
        Yes of course the issue is what and how.
- Frank
  
  If you read all the comments you will see a link to his students complaining about him so i didn’t just manufacture those accusations.
  - another guest
    
    Frank, it’s important to keep in mind that even first-year seminary students (who are older and ostensibly more mature than college freshmen) sometimes accuse their deeply committed Christian professors (many of whom are also ordained pastors) as being atheistic and anti-Christ or anti-Christian, simply because they push students to examine the belief system they acquired in Sunday school classes (often under the teaching of sincere and dedicated, yet uninformed, biblically illiterate volunteer Sunday school teachers). (Most of these students later laugh at themselves for having at first accused their professor of such horrible things.)
    
    Remember, Professor Negy is dealing with young people between the ages of 18 and 22 who, when they leave their familiar nest and go away to college, often experience a shock upon encountering difference and diversity. Just because they get upset and accuse a professor of being “atheist” or “anti-Christian” does not mean that this is the actual, literal truth. If a young person called their parent “mean-spirited” because the parent insisted that the child treat their siblings with respect, would you thereby take that young person’s claim at face value, and yourself go around saying that the parent is “mean-spirited”? There’s a parallel here.
    - Frank
      
      True but that does not seem to be the case here.
      - Drew
        
        The positive comments about Professor Negy outweigh the negative ones by a landslide.
      - Frank
        
        So what? He is an atheist and apparently anti-Christian. Who cares if 99% of the people whom we don’t know what they believe say?
      - Drew
        
        Frank, can you explain on what concrete evidence you make the claim that Professor Negy is an atheist? Can you explain and point to concrete evidence as to why you accuse Professor negy of being “anti-Christian”?
      - Frank
        
        I only have his actions and the words of some of his students. If you know what faith the professor is please tell us and if I am wrong I will take responsibility for being wrong.
      - Drew
        
        Frank, I may actually get in touch with Negy; if so, I’ll let you know.
      - Frank
        
        Ok. But you do realize that the professor is not the issue. The point is that our responsibility to share our faith with others is not religious bigotry. Its following our Lord. Christians did not say Jesus is the only way to heaven. Jesus did. And then He told us to go and tell others. We are not going to do it perfectly, sometimes we will do it badly but we must do it and keep doing it and trust God in the process.
      - Drew
        
        Frank, I so agree with you that we have a responsibility to share our faith in Jesus Christ. I so agree with your statement that “we are not going to do it perfectly, sometimes we wil do it badly, but we must do it and keep doing it and trust God in the process.” But let’s keep in mind the predicament of what started this discussion: a professor in a state university in Central Florida. Professor Negy is not in a Christian-related university, but rather a publicly funded university, which is not in a position to privilege one religion over another. If we’re going to respect the separation of church and state, then we have to accept his predicament. As a professor in a state university, he can’t appear to privilege one religion over another. This doesn’t mean he’s atheist or anti-Christian. He’s following the rules we’ve set up!
      - Frank
        
        Read again what the professor wrote and come back and tell me again that what he said is true and appropriate. And the read the blog entry and tell me that the writer is focusing on the right issue.
        
        The only reason to try and shut a brother or sister up is if they are spreading lies and false gospels.
      - Drew
        
        I’m not sure what you’re saying here. In your last sentence are you saying we should “shut a brother or sister up” if we Christians perceive their religion to be a “lie” or a “false gospel”?
      - Frank
        
        I was just playing off of the title of this article. The only reason to challenge another Christian in how they share their faith is if they are teaching a false gospel or teaching lies. It didn’t sound like that’s what the students in this case are doing so no we don’t need to censure them.
      - Anonymous
        
        With all due respect:
        All faiths have a story. I believe I speak for many non-Christian Americans when I say that we have been inundated with Bible references from our earliest youth. I’ve been to dozens of VBS’s, 12 years of CCD, 10 years of private Christian schools, and 24 solid years of weekly church services. And that ignores the dozens of annual Easter and Christmas specials on TV, or the Nativity scenes and blatantly Christian carols that are in stores from October to New Year’s.
        
        To say that Americans don’t know the basic tenets of Christianity, or that your religion’s story is worth knowing but ours are not, is absurd.
Drew

This is addressed to Frank and others who accused Professor
Negy of being “atheist” and “ani-Christian”
based on comments found at the Rate My Professor website. Evidently you hand-picked the most negative comments
you could find, in order simply to discredit this professor. On the balance, his ratings are very
positive. The average rating where he
teaches, the University of Central Florida (Orlando) is 3.72. Professor Negy’s average rating is 3.8. This means that, on average, his students
deem him a bit superior as a classroom professor than they deem many of his colleagues. Since we don’t know the denominational or
religious affiliation of the students who posted comments (either negative or
positive)—simply on the basis of statistical probability we’d have to assume
that at least some of the positive comments and ratings (and not all of the
negative ones) come from evangelical students.
We have no basis on which to accuse Professor Negy of being “atheist” or
“anti-Christian” (as Frank, in particular, charges that he is).

Let’s compare Professor Negy’s overall rating (3.78) to the
overall rating of professors at randomly selected Christian schools: Azusa
Pacific University (at Azusa, CA) (3.76): Azusa Pacific University (at San
Diego site) (2.0); Assemblies of God Theological Seminary (3.44); Biola
University (3.91); Evangel University (3.96); Ashland University (3.73); Wheaton
College (3.99).

As we can see, Professor Negy compares quite favorably across
the board, and this cross-college comparison puts him in a rather positive
light.

At any of the Christian universities, if you wanted to, you
could find negative student comments that could be selectively used to depict a
particular professor as “atheist” or “anti-Christian.” Sometimes students rate a professor negatively
because the professor pushes students to practice critical, analytical
thinking, to critically examine and test their belief system, and to respect
belief systems brought into the classroom by diverse students from around the
globe. Many disgruntled students rate a professor
negatively, and then later in life realize how much that professor contributed
to their life after all.
Zach R

Yeah.. Jesus wouldn’t have wanted us to speak about our faith.. He never spoke to others and proclaimed the truth.. oh, wait..