This article is an invited response to "Toward a Learning Environment That Supports Diversity and Difference: A Response to Dessel, Bolen, and Shepardson," by David R. Hodge ("Journal of Social Work Education," 47(2), pp. 235-251). The authors agree with a number of Hodge's recommendations. First, they support Hodge's recommendation to use common self-descriptors, avoid ideological modifiers, and promote strengths of various populations, as these are often part of the intergroup dialogue process that they recommend. In particular, they agree with the promotion of empathy. They also strongly concur with Hodge's suggestion to examine power differentials among different social identity groups. Intergroup dialogue seeks to engage participants in a critical examination of personal experiences, institutional and structural systems of power, relationship building, and the development of collective capacity for social justice. Heterosexism curriculum materials are but one content contribution, and readings from various perspectives are used in intergroup dialogue pedagogy. Intergroup dialogue pedagogy involves a balanced representation of participant identities, such that a dialogue on sexual orientation and religion (similar to one on religion, race/ethnicity, gender, etc.) would, for example, involve half of the group identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) and half the group identifying as heterosexual conservative Christian. The authors also agree with Hodge's suggestion about taking the perspective of another group. So, for example, just as it is important for social workers to consider how conservative Christians might feel when they are in the numerical minority, it is important for conservative Christians, or for that matter, any other social identity group, to consider how it might be for them were they prohibited from marrying, prohibited from employment, or encouraged to engage in interventions designed to change their social identities. In this article, the authors correct the misperception that by the use of "his own Christianity" (Dessel, Bolen, & Shepardson, 2011, p. 218) they were inferring that Hodge's statements regarding Christian beliefs were his own personal beliefs. They confirm that they have no knowledge of Hodge's personal beliefs. The use of this phrase was a way of referring to Hodge's representation of Christian views, as many others have done in previous papers. Furthermore, the authors want to reiterate the significant contribution Hodge has made to the literature on religion, spirituality, and culturally sensitive social work practice.