Set your mind on things above (Col. 3:2). Anchor your hope in that coming world where righteousness dwells (2 Pet. 3:13). Keep fighting by faith for that crown that neither fades nor rusts (2 Tim. 4:8), and run for that inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading (1 Pet. 1:4). Christ has won for us an eternal weight of glory (2 Cor. 4:17).

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man…’ (Revelation 21:1–3)
Without a doubt, the closing chapters of the book of Revelation are among the most beautiful and enchanting ever penned. Here every hope of the human soul is brought finally to fulfilment: every ache for restoration satisfied, every desire for redemption accomplished, every hope of reconciliation achieved, and every voracious longing for love brought finally to rest. Here, at the culmination of history, the warring, devouring, and backbiting of humanity has become a trinket of a bygone age and unity at last prevails over fragmentation, reconciliation triumphs over estrangement.
This panorama of wonder is so foreign to our present experience it feels almost dreamlike; yet the reason for this paradisal state is made plain in the text: the Lamb was slain for sinners and the presence of God now dwells with man again (cf. Rev. 4:9–10).
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Lawrence M. Krauss |
Tuesday, November 9, 2021
Only by speaking out…can we try and dismantle the current strangle-hold that DEI [Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion] bureaucracies have on researchers and students alike and restore academic freedom and excellence as the hallmarks of science and education.

A couple of weeks ago I published an article in the Wall Street Journal describing the tyranny that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) bureaucracies are imposing on universities and scientific institutions. This includes excluding talented scientists who are not effective enough in displaying their DEI allegiance, enforcing ideological adherence among faculty and students, and suppressing debate on the topics of merit, quotas, free speech, and a range of gender and race issues.
In that article, I gave a piece of partial evidence of the gulag-like environment currently existing in higher education. Numerous faculty responded to an earlier Wall Street Journal piece by me about ideological corruption in science, through emails in which they indicated they were writing under pseudonym accounts out of fear that colleagues or university officials might find out that they supported my concerns.
Happily, in response to my most recent piece, no respondents suggested they were shielding their identities, although a number indicated they were writing from their “non-university” email addresses—just in case—or felt comforted by now being retired and free to write. What they present, in summary, is a chilling perspective of the pervasive and divisive atmosphere that is continuing to develop in educational and scientific institutions. I felt it worth sharing a number of these perspectives, after having consulted the individuals involved. Unless otherwise directed, I have worked to ensure the anonymity of my correspondents.
Numerous correspondents wrote to me concerned about their specific areas of scholarship. Particularly worrying were emails from those in the medical and legal professions.
Here’s one from a professor at a very prominent US medical school:
Dear Dr Krauss,Your op-ed in WSJ barely touched the problem of DEI in American biomedical science and clinical practice. The societies (e.g., Amer Society of Cell Biology) and the journals (esp Elsevier) are rife with DEImania. This is affecting clinical medicine. It is the death spiral of American medicine, with unintended consequences for the very groups it is supposed to help.What can one do?
While this is concerned in more general terms with possible impacts on the field, a very poignant email from another professor in a biomedical field illustrates the personal impact that this environment of fear and suppression is taking on the psyche of scientific researchers:
I feel like the turtle in the picture with the neck out and about to get chopped … It is strange to me that this is happening because I am a Hispanic woman with Spanish, North African, Chinese, and Native American ancestry that speaks four languages and has lived everywhere in the world, so I should be the pinnacle of what DEI is aspiring for. Nevertheless, I am experiencing the tyranny of DEI because it is not about diversity of race or sex but more about a loyalty test. This will not last forever, but the question is how much damage this will do … This year has been an authoritarian year full of tyrannical mandates and intolerance. I have never experienced having moral (mandatory DEI trainings that forces me to affirm things that go against my conscience), medical, or religious tests in order to work before this year. Innovation and intellectual greatness come as a result of freedom. Suppression of speech and ideas will result in a reduction of greatness and innovation. Freedom of speech can only be real freedom if speech that we do not agree with is allowed. Let’s include diversity of thought and ideology in what you want to protect.
Beyond academia, I wrote about the growing inhibitory impact of DEI mandates in scientific institutions, including private ones like the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. In this regard, I received the following email from an HHMI employee that sent shivers down my spine:
Dr. Krauss, I am a HHMI employee and I am grateful to you for your WSJ piece. The lowest point for me was February 8th this year, when all employees were expected to read Mediocre: The Dangerous Legacy of White Male America by Ijeoma Oluo. Ms. Oluo led a virtual talk that day for all HHMI employees. I trust that you know that the core motivation for HHMI’s DEI effort is to preempt any liability or negative press for two major discrimination lawsuits against HHMI by female Asian scientists. The journal Science covered these two lawsuits on 12/18/2019. Thank you again.
When it came to law schools and DEI, I received several emails from law school professors saying that the piece resonated with their own experience. I received two other legal-related responses that are of particular interest.
The first was from a student at a California law school. Several cases of law professors who have been caught up in unwarranted DEI adjudications of racism are well known and have been written about, including by me. However, the impact on their students is not so well known. Here is the email I received:
After reading your WSJ piece on “Diversity” as tyranny, I wanted to thank you for writing it. I know that took courage, especially in this political environment. Your discussion of “monomania” hit close to home. I’m a law student at [law school name omitted], and this week a brilliant torts professor has come under fire for baseless claims of racism. I wrote a letter to our DEI office defending him, though I doubt it will help.
Read More

Written by Terry L. Johnson |
Thursday, July 7, 2022
We all know that process can be manipulated. The Pharisees were masters of external conformity combined with internal corruption. Somehow the work of the SJC must take into account the destruction that can be wrought in the life of a church by a determined minority circularizing the congregation with defamatory information while misusing and manipulating the judicial process.

In reviewing the Standing Judicial Commission’s (SJC) handling of case 2021-13, Dudt v. Northwest Georgia Presbytery, I was dismayed with the way the SJC handled the case. In its decision, the SJC reversed the unanimous decision of Northwest Georgia Presbytery which had rejected all forty allegations of error in the complaint, and behind that a majority decision of the Session of Midway Presbyterian Church. To its credit, the SJC did deny twenty-six of the forty alleged errors, but failed to deny all forty. I have carefully read the SJC decision and my dismay has deepened. My disappointment falls into four categories.
First, I wonder if the SJC is capable of recognizing the larger context within which this complaint was made. The SJC decision seems to have been made in a contextual vacuum. Was the SJC aware of how long the contentious minority that had filed the complaint had been battling with the will of the majority? Was the SJC aware of the damage that has been done to the ministry of the church as the majority must contend with the public attacks of the minority? What may seem like a premature decision by the majority seems to have been preceded by destructive behavior by the minority with whom the said elder is associated, patiently tolerated by the majority for months. Not every detail may be found in the ROC requiring that the SJC pay more attention by further investigation to the larger context.
Second, the SJC made important appeals to the lack of evidence in the Record of the Case (ROC) (e.g., p. 2169, line 6, line 8, line 30). Arguments from silence are indulged in specifications 4, 5, 6, 14, and 24. As with the previous point, additional investigation should follow when the majority affirms that which the SJC thinks it ought to see in the ROC. The benefit of the doubt, or shall we say, the presumption of innocence, should be given to the majority in the local lower courts.
Third, technical errors of process (specifications 23, 25, 30, 31, 33, 34) should not be given undue weight, particularly in light of the larger context. The “weightier matters” of church unity and peace trump minor details of process.
Fourth, the SJC failed to deal adequately with the problem of officers and members circularizing the congregation. The concurring decision recognizes this problem and explicitly raises it twice:
It would be unfortunate for anyone to conclude, that because this Appeal was sustained, it is appropriate for a Session member to email his congregation expressing disagreement with a Session decision. Such conduct would rarely be wise or appropriate (p. 2182, lines 16-18). There are few things that disturb the peace and unity of a church more than individual elders bringing to public attention their disagreements with Session decisions (p. 2182, lines 46-47).
This is the heart of the issue. The church has a process by which minority opinions can be voiced. An elder has the right to submit a minority report from the session to the congregation. He does not have the right to send private communication without the knowledge of the session, especially one which contradicts, and in the contradiction denigrates the session. I fear that the SJC has unleased the furies of division and conflict throughout the PCA by its failure to deal with the bigger picture of the factionalism and schism that appeared to be on the Midway session.
Moreover, the SJC decision has seriously injured the ministry of a veteran, faithful and devout minister. He has sustained constant, false, and destructive attacks, from an organized and determined minority. At the foundation of their bitter opposition was an orderly process whereby the session voted to nominate assistant minsters to serve as associate ministers, and the congregation voted to concur with the recommendation to call the assistant ministers as associates. The minority did not like the decisions or the processes, though both were in order. They simply refused to submit to the majority. Among this hostile minority are those who have published online “The Midway Guardian,” continually attacking the minister, session, and members of Midway.
We all know that process can be manipulated. The Pharisees were masters of external conformity combined with internal corruption. Somehow the work of the SJC must take into account the destruction that can be wrought in the life of a church by a determined minority circularizing the congregation with defamatory information while misusing and manipulating the judicial process.
Terry Johnson is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Independent Presbyterian Church in Savannah, Ga.
Related Posts: