![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
The Wilkerson Debate, Part 2
The other day I posted about an interesting conversation which had developed over on Pastor Rob Wilkerson’s blog about emergent Christianity. Wilkerson generally seemed to be condemning the practice of questioning and examining one’s faith as a sure-fire path away from God. My perspective is that this is actually a path towards God, but it’s one that requires greater trust and flexibility on the part of pastors and other religious leaders.
To summarize the crux of my argument:
If an individual can be spiritually mature enough to respond to the Word of God and take Jesus into their heart, what prohibits them from being mature enough to study and make other spiritual decisions on their own?
If it’s only a lack of training, then let’s train them. But this means that we’re going to have to be open and trusting and allow people to make decisions on their own, and possibly even some mistakes. For some people, this is all a necessary part of the learning process.
I also suggested that somebody else (likely many people) was willing to help Pastor Wilkerson get to the place of spiritual maturity that he is in today. And this again required great trust in order to allow it to happen. Why can’t we extend such trust to individuals in a Christian community who need room to explore?
In any event, Wilkerson was kind enough to post a link to my article on his site, not without some trepidation however. Pastor Wilkerson writes:
I’m not quite sure what to think about this one, folks. This is not exactly the type of link a Christian blogger raves about, you know what I mean?
I was also originally worried that Wilkerson would see the word “occult” on my site, and like most ardent Christians, run for the hills. He promises that he has not done so:
By the way Tim, I haven’t ‘written off’ the arguments you left on my previous post. I just figure, what can I do or say? We’re arguing from two totally different planes of spiritual-consciousness here, man.
What can you do or say? Respond in a heartfelt manner. Explain your side of the case, and answer the points that I raised. I feel like you’re getting hung up on the usage of the word “occult” on my site in such a way that allows you to discredit or ignore the very valid points I raised. As I understand it, a conversation always consists of people who are looking from two different perspectives. If we had exactly the same views on everything, what would we have to talk about or learn from one another?
June 24th, 2005 at 7:16 pm
[…] ’ll see not only a vastly different and superior faith, but also a world. Also see Part 2 of my discussion of this
Read Similar Article […]
June 24th, 2005 at 7:16 pm
I’m glad that Wilkerson has responded in a respectful manner. I retract my statement about ripping him a new orifice. I’m hypersensitive to Christian attacks (often delivered in a passive-aggressive manner sprinkled with generous helpings of the word ‘love’), but I’ll take responsibility for jumping the gun this time.
However, I don’t know that I have a lot to say to Wilkerson. I started out in life as a Roman Catholic, moved onto the Episcopal Church for awhile before giving up on Christianity entirely. I have no problem with Jesus’ message, or Jesus himself for that matter. What I have a problem with is His followers.
If Christianity were truly superior to other available religions, then I would expect that on average Christian states and civilizations would behave “better” than those spawned by Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists. After 2000 years of Christianity in the West, it is clear that Christians are no better than non-Christians, and there may be some indication that (historically) Christians have behaved much worse than non-Christians. I realize that we live in an imperfect world, so we cannot expect perfection, even from the One True Faith. However, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that, averaged over the long-term, Christians would behave perceptively more ethically than their non-Christian counterparts. Not true historically, and certainly not true today. (One might quibble about Muslim fundamentalists, and I’m willing to concede that one).
My little personal rant about Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with the open-source question. But there is a larger issue that touches on the issue being discussed. Any spiritual or religious principle, or collection of principles (including an entire religion) should have to withstand scrutiny over general moral or ethical principles. There should be empirical tests, administered by the community of “open-source theologians”, upon any religious or theological idea. Obviously this gets complex because different people(s) have different values, but there should at least be some internal consistency. In my view, conventional (non-Gnostic) Christianity fails to live up even to its own ideals.
June 24th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
I agree for the most part. And anybody who knows me or my site knows that I am equally hard on scrutinizing all religious beliefs and traditions.
June 24th, 2005 at 7:32 pm
I’ll add that while I’m hostile to Christianity and some of its ugliest practicioners, I have no desire to take it away from people.
In fact, I’m willing to work with Christians on issues of common interest, i.e. the right of the individual to control the space inside his own skull. (I also believe in the right of the individual to control the rest of his body, but I don’t think I’ll get general buy-in from Christians on that one.) Of course, some Christians believe that the right to freedom-of-thought extends only to Christians and not to non-Christians, so the value of any such alliance would be somewhat questionable.
June 24th, 2005 at 7:34 pm
Tim, yes I know. Your blog is very thoughtful and thought provoking, which is why I take the time to read it every day.
June 25th, 2005 at 12:15 am
“different spiritual planes” = “you’re going to hell”
June 25th, 2005 at 9:04 am
I can’t imagine any place worse than some corners of this reality. So perhaps Christians believe in reincarnation after all!
June 25th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
regarding open source theology.obviously,the dogmatic christians want thier faith to be the only one but despite thier efforts,stamping of feet,gnashing of teeth,talking louder and louder,etc all faiths become open source.christianity is no different.just exactly how many revisions and translations and ommisions have been performed on the bible in 1700 years?opinion naturally revises it`sself over time.an 1700 years is a lot of that.
i think the narrow view that people like wilkerson take,including the patronising tut,tutting that he shares,is what irks me most about christianity(s).he just comes off like a dick with that stance.
June 25th, 2005 at 7:07 pm
Wow guys! I think I did have a new oriface of some kind ripped here! But I can take it. I’ve taken alot worse! If I’m useful for anything, at least its more fodder for the fires of hatred sparked by inauthentic Christianity! I feel the pain some of you seem to reflect.
Yes, I’m narrow-minded and that really seems to put a lot of people out. But that’s okay, right? If tolerance is a value we hold dearly, can you tolerate me? You’ll find no “stamping of feet, talking louder and louder,” with me, that’s a promise. It may feel like I come across like that sometimes, but just know that’s not my ‘pastoral’ style. For me, the truth of Christ and His gospel in the Scriptures is strong enough to stand under the greatest criticisms without my silly antics. THanks for the interchange.
June 25th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
i ,personally,have no interest in your excretory organs.the pain i do reflect is in the light of the fiercely dogmatic judgement the scripturalists have made apon anyone who asks questions,gnostic or otherwise.bible study has been the cloistered domain of indoctrination for generations and has left a scar of spiritual bancruptcy upon the land.a mere human could not make any interpretation of the words contained within the bible,according to you.even the law,based as it is on the word of god,is open to interpretation and challenge.it is democracy.the nuts and bolts of the material world.all other abstractions,art,science,business….all show benifit from dialog and grow as a result.
what makes your bit so special?
preaching to the choir is a bit like masturbation.i`m glad you turned around.just keep your pants zipped and we can have a discussion.
June 25th, 2005 at 7:30 pm
Rob: While I do appreciate your involvement, that hardly clarifies for me your reactions to my original points. If you’d like me to summarize them for you again, I certainly could.
Further:
If that’s the case, then why criticize people who are authentically trying to understand that truth? I also don’t understand what you mean when you suggest that we should tolerate your narrow-mindedness, but you’re free to write others off at will for seemingly small doctrinal differences.
I regret if you’ve received any harsh treatment from other commenters on my site. Their statements do not reflect my original intentions.
June 25th, 2005 at 10:29 pm
sorry,i`ll try to behave from now on.
June 26th, 2005 at 12:42 am
It’s not any one person in particular, Alistair. I’m just putting myself in Rob’s shoes, and imagining how little I would want to debate a dozen different people who seemed to hate me without even knowing me. I was hoping to have an actual dialogue about this, but it seems very difficult because of the high emotions on all sides and the largely stereotypical images we all have of one another.
June 26th, 2005 at 6:08 am
nonetheless,i do still apologise.this is about dialog.there has to be some comfort in an environment for a person to be able to converse.the ad hominem content of my posting wasn`t going to help.
the strength of my training comes from not stereotyping.i want to know how the person i`m talking with creates thier reality.the more precisely i understand that then the more clearly i can see thier point of view.
high emotion allowed me to forget my training and indulge my cynicism.and the learyesque giggle factor.and the fact that i have dosed myself with bill hicks routines recently.
June 26th, 2005 at 7:43 am
Arguing about whose approach to religion is the best is, to me, akin to arguing about which color is best. Neither person should be able to convince the other that they are right.
“If an individual can be spiritually mature enough to respond to the Word of God and take Jesus into their heart, what prohibits them from being mature enough to study and make other spiritual decisions on their own?”
I think that making the “respond to the Word of God and take Jesus into their heart” decision is one that makes a lot of other decisions for you or will at least influence future decisions. In the same way that wearing pink glasses might influnce your favorite color (as others perceive it), wearing a religion can influence many different kinds of decisions, as many as the religion decides to help it’s host with.
Spiritually mature? My mind goes blank.
“If it’s only a lack of training, then let’s train them. But this means that we’re going to have to be open and trusting and allow people to make decisions on their own, and possibly even some mistakes. For some people, this is all a necessary part of the learning process.”
You imply that we are not being open and trusting and that we are not allowing people to make decisions on their own, welcome to the human race
Please excuse the sarcasm but this behaviour does not seem to me emergent upon contact with religion or even much exacerbated by it.
We will be seen by some to try to control things “in our environment”, like every other organism and there is no euclidian dividing line between in-me and out-of-me, or between me and you that is not a model, so my environment is everything from what goes on in my mind/spirit/body/being to what I experience with my senses. From my perspective it’s ALL me!
You can’t escape the silliness in preaching to preachers about not preaching what they preach because it’s ruining what you preach but then to silly is human.
On a more cynical note, I think if you are going to stop doing your religion find another way to deal with your loneliness first. Getting rid of your friends will definately stop them from dragging you down but you’ll be alone. Imagine you are in a religion (in the sense of the word gang) and you decide that it isn’t what god wants. Do you try to get the gang to convert you again? Do you throw away your gang? Do you start another one and get them to come with you? Or do you weigh up the pros and cons as they affect you and **** what you reckon, or the book says, god wants? I think most people go for that last option and personally I’m glad
June 26th, 2005 at 8:31 am
Well, I should also apologize for beginning the dialogue with a defensive, ready-to-attack position. So, I’m sorry about that.
However, I stand by my statements about Christianity. Of course they don’t really help the dialogue about open-source Christianity. I don’t have much of an opinion about that. Personally, I feel that whatever Christians want to do with their religion is up to them, as long as their decisions don’t affect me and my life.
June 26th, 2005 at 1:49 pm
my tension comes from growing up with a parent who questioned my position of spiritual certainty outside of church.getting with god was his approach to life.i have a baptist friend,who while in business is astute,supportive and has been a mentor of mine for years,leaves me shocked,at times,with his ruthless comments about my evil intent………new age demon talk and out and out deception in my work.
it leaves me scratching my head.he is almost like two different people.one kind ,compassionate leader who wants only the best for me and another fierce dogmatist who is hell bent on proving that what i do is really demons speaking through me,at my clients.how freaky is that shit?
so,yeah,when i have the opportunity to post with a baptist minister i jump in.