The ‘right’ definition
What would Jesus wiki?
March 21, 2007
Jolene Hildebrand
The recent launch of a wiki-based encyclopedia, called Conservapedia, is claiming to offer the “true” account of history and knowledge according to a conservative Christian worldview. Although this website has already drawn the attention of much critical scorn and mockery, it has continued to propagate its own spin by offering “concise, clean answers” free of “political correctness.”
In the article entitled “What Would Jesus Wiki?” posted on Wired News, the project leader of Conservapedia, Andy Schlafly, asserts that because Wikipedia does not poll the beliefs and views of its editors, “they make no effort to retain balance. It ends up having all the neutrality of a lynch mob.”
In contrast, Conservapedia openly asserts its conservative Christian bias. Clearly defining their stance in opposition to Wikipedia, Conservapedia contains a link on the main page accusing liberal biases found in Wikipedia.
A basic fact in media is that every media outlet is biased, and Conservapedia openly declares its allegiance to conservative Christianity. As a result, their attempt to balance the scales of pervasive liberalism masquerading as neutrality is laudable. The intent to posit a stance of opposition to these views in accordance with a conviction of moral and faith-based integrity deserves to be recognized as at least as creditable as many liberal media outlets. However, an aggressive stance against the perceived threat of liberalism will serve to increase cultural hostility to Christianity, and the contributors to Conservapedia stubbornly hold their ground against this antagonism.
Yet the expectation that real “truth” can only be found on a conservative evangelical website that claims to uphold the interests of American citizens is certainly an issue of integrity. It reflects the unfortunate belief that real knowledge is to be found exclusively, not only in the evangelical Christian domain, but the American evangelical Christian domain. The lack of clarity, quality, and scholarship reveal just as much disrespect for the intended opposition of liberal ideas as for the traditions that have provided the foundation of conservative Christianity.
This also reveals the misguided attempt to freeze knowledge and truth within the parameter of a specific framework. Such a worldview tends to abandon the possibilities of change and growth, trading edification for comfortable placidity. The problem is that truth stagnates in this stubborn acceptance, and without the possibility of renewal it becomes legalism and fundamentalism.
Stating ownership over the realm of knowledge reveals a misguided intent to alienate the greater community of Christians who possess varying doctrinal, intellectual, and spiritual views, as well as annexing the vast majority of human beings because they are not enlightened by the “truth” of Christianity. Is there any room for common grace within a worldview that denounces all other forms of knowledge and wisdom as distorted and deceptive?
As a purveyor of knowledge, shouldn’t the Christian community embrace various sources of knowledge as indicative of the fertility of God’s truth, and for the possibilities of redemption? Or does the failure to engage with our culture encourage the shut down of dialogue between varying ideologies and allegiances – further isolating the cult-like tendencies of fundamentalism?
Being members of our culture, it should be our responsibility to acknowledge our bias as an inextricable part of our beliefs, and as a useful platform for engagement. Rather than shut down opposing convictions, we need to embrace the diversity of knowledge and wisdom, showing honour and respect for our fellow human beings in light of common grace.
Now you go...
One Response to “The ‘right’ definition”
Got something to say?
Conservapedia is the most bigoted sites I have ever seen.