I've been reading Conservapedia for fun. For those of you who don't know, it's another user-edited online encyclopedia that hopes to dispel the "liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias" of Wikipedia. It's been in the news recently for attempting the first social media-based retranslation of the Bible (in order to remove non-conservative bias from the text), though previous publicity has been through criticisms in having significant error and bias in it's posts, and being inhospitable to any non-Conservative edits.
Many of the articles are written with a sort of commentary on theologically neutral ideas. An interesting case of this is it's article on diagonalization, a famous mathematical technique (that I just had to use in a homework) - the end of the article questions the validity of the argument because it seemingly disproves God ("diagonalization argues that no greatest idea can exist: quite bluntly, God is infinite, therefore He can be diagonalized to produce an even greater infinite. This seeming disproof of the existence of God has cast doubt on the validity of Cantor's diagonalization.")
Ignoring the fact that this argument is probably bogus, it's a bit worrisome to me to find this sort of commentary - not just that it's wrong or biased or presuppositional, but that it's an example of Christianity isolating itself from the outside world. There are links to other Christian-based website copies on the Conservapedia Wikipedia page. GodTube, MyChurch, QubeTV - each is a knockoff of a secular website. What was wrong with the original website to begin with? Why could we, as the church, not be a part of these? Didn't Jesus say he sent his disciples "into" the world in John 17?
I see a fair number of negative consequences to this trend of self-isolation: for example, the creation of religious subcultures, a very narrow view of God, and a deaf ear towards wisdom from other sources (and in this, an implicit assumption that wisdom from outside a specific church/religious circle is inferior). A concrete example might be faith healing movements against modern medicine - a subculture is created that demonizes non-faith-based healing, creating another way of boasting of works and of distinguishing oneself as being "holier than thou". A narrow view of God working results - I'm of the opinion that such "faith-healing only" movements deny that God would work indirectly (thru doctors, drugs, etc), which can be a severely limiting and damaging viewpoint in its own right. The result of denying outside wisdom from the medical and scientific community is both poorer health for such movement members, harsh criticism from the rest of society, and a lack of witness to the rest of the world as a result.
This might be a stretch, but the anti-dating subculture could stand as a similar example. My pastor mentioned this odd subculture last week, and I'm still digesting and thinking about it.
I haven't thought too much about the positive aspects to these; to be fair, I'm probably a little biased against these "Christianized" secular inventions (and welcome observations on what I might have missed). Overall, I do get the sense that good intentions went into these attempts to be "not of the world"; however, in the end, it seems to result in the creation of another religious clique or cult.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Yeah, I agree with what you've written. My pastor refers to it as a "Christian ghetto" - it's initially hard to identify the meaning, but it refers to Christians who close themselves off from the outside world. The idea is fear of the outside world and its possible corrupting influence, and an inability to deal with the gray that is the real world. In some ways, it seems easier to live if you have set rules about everything, if there's an easy "you vs. them" fight, and if you can think less about what should or shouldn't be done.
I'm being a little dismissive of this group, but we all do it to varying degrees. For us to really understand the complexity of this world and respond to it would make it very hard for us to do anything.
But any way you slice it, we're supposed to get down and dirty. We're supposed to immerse ourselves in other people and understanding and ministering to others - even as we preserve our beliefs and refine what we understand about God and the world through others' experiences as well as our own. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of those people who carry the "self isolation" belief have had a fairly homogenous set of experiences.
It's also sad that some Christians really believe that they aren't corrupted by outside influences. Okay, sure, some probably aren't corrupted. Most of us are.
I have my qualms about these trends as well, but I also try to maintain my optimism about them. There is certainly something wrong with completely isolating oneself from the secular world and failing to engage/change it for the better, but I don't think that creating "Christianized" versions necessarily entails isolation. I try to avoid programming, blogs, etc. that negatively influence my character, and yet I support laws and regulations that prevent all programming from becoming too extreme. When one takes into account children and how they are much more easily molded by being too "in" the world, the need for Christian versions (I think) becomes even more clear.
As for Conservapedia and such, I obviously am biased against it, but at the same time the trend cuts both ways. As certain groups try to increasingly isolate Christian faith from science, philosophy and other academic fields, others are emerging (as a response) to make better sense of how to integrate them. The BioLogos Foundation would be a good example. I actually see this as a silver-lining on the emergence of 'New Atheism' – that it might produce a backlash that actually strengthens Christianity in many ways.
Jose - as I finished the post, I read back and wasn't sure about whether the Christianized versions of those websites necessarily tied in well to the point I was trying to make. I think I imagined these copies as being poorer-quality versions of the original (like some Christian music is a blander version of more mainstream sounds), which prompted the thought that these Christian copies weren't useful.
I suppose such Christian versions do have their place, especially among children (which, for obvious reasons, you have probably thought of more than I have). I can see them working well as training grounds - the basic function of the site is there, but the content is regulated so as not to overwhelm anyone. A related point would be that these copies are meant more as "safe havens", but not permanent replacements for those mature enough.
"others are emerging (as a response) to make better sense of how to integrate them."
True, I do see that much more nowadays - Francis Collins was a good example, and there are also the Veritas forums, Boyle lectures, Faraday institute, etc. I guess it does go both ways.
"I actually see this as a silver-lining on the emergence of 'New Atheism' – that it might produce a backlash that actually strengthens Christianity in many ways."
A good point. A little resistance and antagonism is always a motivator for change, and as Christ might say to people getting too comfortable in their status quo, "change is good".
Hmm, true. A lot of such things are as you say - Christian "knockoffs" and attempts at isolation.
On the other hand, we need to be wary of the the assumption that can sometimes underlie such thoughts. In short, the assumption is that by exposing ourselves to more of the world and more viewpoints, we are "learning" and/or becoming better.
I currently use Google Reader to keep track of a number of RSS feeds - 67, to be exact, and this doesn't include doing things like reading the news. To be honest, after doing this for a while you realize that truth needs to be measured by quality, not quantity...because real truth/wisdom is timeless. And if we are looking to real truth, should we not be looking to Scripture? This essentially leads to the question - is Scripture truly sufficient for all of life? Reformed theologians call this doctrine "Sola Scriptura".
To make it concrete, I would pose this question - who is better off, the simple "fool" who reads nothing except their Bible, or the wise, well-read academic who has found so much wisdom in the world that he no longer regards the Bible as authoritative? Personally, I think that my answer shows me that I place too much stock in reading articles and not enough in Scripture and prayer...and over the past month, I think God has been giving me various experiences to tell me just that, so please know that I write this perhaps more to myself than to anyone else.
For fun, check this out: http://theresurgence.com/rc-sproul-on-the-internet.
henry -
that is a good point. sola scriptura is something I've wrestled with, and I'm not certain I've come to a conclusion. I think the answer may be "yes" to sola scriptura in theory, but "no" in practicality. Perhaps like the way James views faith and works - as being necessary for each other but not equivalent when it comes to salvation (I want to hear your view on faith and works sometime too).
My assumption is actually the negative of what you're saying - that isolation tends to make us worse. I'm not sure this implies that the opposite is true, though (exposing ourselves to the world more makes us better).
But, on further reflection, I can't say that my assumption is always true. Religious people throughout the centuries have withdrawn in order to meditate and reflect on the nature of God. They have also wrestled with issues in society and culture closely.
So, to conclude, I think both isolation or exposure to the world can have both good and bad consequences. What I posted on is only describing how they *might* manifest, not how they *will* manifest.
also, RC Sproul is a funny guy. I can't say I liked his book on Atheism too much, but he is pretty hilarious in this interview.
I didn't read the 'classical' argument for God referenced, but Cantor's diagonal argument ONLY works for enumerable sets. All this means is that God is not the smallest order of infinity. To me that's quite believable. Infinity is a strange thing and behaves in strange ways... strangely that's how I often experience God, too!
As for the above posts, I relate a lot with Henry's post. Lately I've been thinking much about the meaning of truth, and it amazes me how little people truly understands for something to be 'true'. Maybe it's modern times, but I doubt it. People have been ignoring truth since the beginning of time. Anyone can say and do all the silly things imaginable, but the truth still persists.
Post a Comment