So . . . ummm . . . a friend brought this to my attention. I'm curious what you guys think. I'll go out on a limb here and say what I think too.
Sites like this (and GodTube - I'm sure I could find other examples if I looked) frustrate me a bit . . . mostly for one reason. There seems to be a preoccupation in some Christian circles with creating a Christian subculture that acts as a parallel culture, where Christians can presumably feel safe and be themselves. Unfortunately, what usually occurs is that Christians become comfortable within this parallel culture and prefer to stay there. I'm not sure how this response fits with Jesus' admonition that Christians should be "salt and light" within society (see Matt 5:13-16).
My understanding of why Conservapedia was created comes from this article, in which the author says that wikipedia is "riddled with liberal bias." Therefore he felt the need to start a new version. I would suggest that perhaps a better approach, and one which takes Jesus' admonition into account, would be to work to add another perspective to wikipedia.
I would also, however, question the particular perspective offered by at least some of the articles on Conservapedia, which make claims that frankly would not be allowed on wikipedia (and with good reason). The site purports to be "the trustworthy encyclopedia," and one that "[has] certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts." However, some of the articles noted in the news article linked above are disturbing. Here are two examples for those who haven't read the article:
1. Femininity is the quality of being "soft spoken, childlike, gentle, pretty, willowy, submissive."
2. Hillary Clinton may suffer from "a psychological condition that would raise questions about her fitness for office" - "clinical narcissism."
It is worth noting that the creator of the site defends that article as "an objective, bias-free piece from a conservative perspective." I'm not sure what that means - there is nothing objective about those statements. They clearly come from a conservative perspective, and from a dangerous one at that - unsubstantiated claims of that sort could likely be considered slander. However, my main point is not to defend Hillary Clinton - it is to say that there seems to be a severe lack of self-awareness on the part of the site's creator, and the site itself. To claim objectivity for a site that obviously associates itself with a conservative political perspective is a problem - as would be claiming objectivity for a site from a liberal political perspective.
However, this is veering towards politics and that wasn't my intent with this post. My main point, and the question I pose to any readers, is this: Is the creation of this site the best course of action for someone who doesn't like wikipedia? Stated more broadly: Is the creation of a specifically Christian alternative the best response to something in society that does not meet Christian approval? I don't think so - I think the harder road is to work within society and culture to present a truly Christian perspective. The "I'll take my toys and go play in another sandbox" response benefits no one, and does not honor Jesus' admonition to be "salt and light."
2 comments:
Hey, man, its been a while since I've posted anything on your site or even my own. Thought I'd take a moment and give what I thought was a good revelation from reading your post.
My thought is this: rather than starting whole new sites to contend with places like YouTube and Wikipedia why not start subgroups with, yes, a site for organization but intended to keep open Christian dialog about the good points of, say, YouTube and how those points can be better brought to light as well as improve other aspects.
I was just thinking about how the whole point of wikipedia is a free exchange of information and most pages can be updated by anybody. Rather than start a whole new site it would make more sense to add comments and definitions to pre-existing text. This way you don't completely cut yourself off from the world and you can more effectively shine the light into the dark corners of the internet.
Just my two cents and I'm sure I made myself unclear enough that I'll have to post again to clarify. :)
God Bless!
Jake and I agree on many things, and this is one of them. The idea of an alternate reality for Christians is nothing new. Its called mainstream Protestantism. Its called youth group. Its the entire Christian culture that seems to want to stay safe inside church walls, shelter everyone from the boggy man outside, and hopefully wait out the second-coming within an artificially created bunker. I've given some thought to this mentality but can't seem to make logical sense of it... why keep Christians on earth at all? Only a few options make sense: (1) as a test to see who can stay faithful, making God the original Jeff Probst; (2) to be a people set apart as a foil for the sinful world and act as an emergency escape hatch for people who realize their condition and want to change; or (3) to be sent out to actually interact with people in the world and help introduce them to their Creator. While some might argue that 2 and 3 are the same, I would have to disagree. #2 is representative of the role of the Jewish people. Much of my family is Jewish and I can attest that seeking out converts is not part of the Jewish mentality. Neither is it a directive found for the Jewish people in the Torah. The idea of actively seeking people out is a distinctly Christian one and is, perhaps, one of the greatest differences between the mindset held by Jews and Christians (aside from Jesus as messiah, of course). Being Christian is therefore about approaching those who don't agree with you, not to badger them, but to engaging in meaningful relationships with them. Its part of our DNA.
Post a Comment