More diversity

The problem with James' McGrath's post on diversity is that it moves from using diversity in one context to another without acknowledging it. Diversity in race is not the same thing as diversity in opinion. It is a case of, as Wittgenstein put it, moving from one language game to another. This loads the discussion morally. Diversity of race was unquestionably a good thing so other kids of diversity must me also.

Beyond that, it misses a fundamental point. A church is a voluntary association. If the church you are in does not accept diversity of views about some particular point—say the Trinity—you can always walk out the door. You can even join a church that does not accept the doctrine of the Trinity if you are so inclined.

So why the insistence on staying in this church but allow me to maintain my diverse opinions? To be blunt, because this church has membership and it's not at all clear that the diversity crowd is much of a crowd at all. The church of "diversity" is a very small group which, if you think about it is weird. (And churches that accept more "diversity"of the types that McGrath would have them accept have a disconcerting tendency to shrink.

Which leads to my final point and why I mentioned the woman I saw yesterday pressing pictures of her relatives against the statue of Saint Anthony. In practice, the diversity crowd tend to have only particular kinds of diversity in mind. Some kinds of diversity aren't welcome. Thus the repeated complaints that Christians of various sorts are a problem for biblical studies.

That is where I think Hector Avalos deserves some credit. By calling his book The End of Biblical Studies he acknowledges what many others in the field cannot: that his side is losing.