Why Holy Ground is Better than Wikipedia

In this article, we are going to show how our humble little educational resource here at Holy Ground is actually far more life-giving than the massive deluge of information that is Wikipedia. We are going to show this by revealing that Wikipedia is, from its very first word, committed to what it calls a "neutral point of view" towards writing, and that this neutrality means it has limited ability to speak the truth of what really matters. We'll show that neutrality is somewhat usable for purely objective knowledge. For example, there is no such thing as Buddhist or Christian math. But in regard to anything truly important or meaningful, such as the meaning of life, Wikipedia is hamstrung from its very first keystroke. Holy Ground, on the other hand, has no such disability.

Let's start by declaring that Holy Ground is dedicated to faithful Christian theology. This sort of statement can sometimes be received by churches with some suspicion. And for good reason! Christians have often damaged their faith in God, their very foundation, as a result of formal academic training. Passionate faithful young people sometimes enter colleges and seminaries to become pastors and theologians. Years later they graduate with a degree, but the bonfire faith of their youth has been reduced to a humble flame. Why does this happen? Sometimes it is because their "faith" was quite naive; if so, the humility is warranted. But sometimes their faith is damaged because the academic institutions that they enter are committed to the objectivity and "neutrality of academia" that exists in the secular world.

Only the LXX says Jesus will be born of a virgin

Let's give an example. The writers of the Gospels (eg: Matthew 1:18-25) quote the Book of Isaiah's prophesy that Christ was to be born of a virgin:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Isaiah 7:14

But Isaiah does not actually use the word "virgin" in the Hebrew. It uses the word almah (עַלְמָה), which usually translates into "young woman". For example, when Moses is left in the reeds of the Nile River as a baby, and his sister Miriam is tasked to watch over him, the Hebrew word used for Miriam is almah. The emphasis is on Moses' sister's youth, not her lack of sexual activity (she was probably 7 years old). In contrast, the word for "virgin" is a different Hebrew word: betulah (בְּתוּלָה). Why does Isaiah 7:14 use almah and not betulah?

Interestingly, Isaiah 7:14 in the Septuagint, the LXX, the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by the New Testament writers, does have the word virgin (παρθένος). So do we trust the Greek or the Hebrew Old Testament? Ah, what a confusing question! The fresh student of the Bible, upon encountering this text, suddenly feels the foundation of their faith as built upon shakier ground than they realized.

For this issue, it is helpful to remember that our copies of the Septuagint are actually far older than the Hebrew manuscripts. Furthermore, if the New Testament writers used it to write scripture, we can be confident that it is the inspired words of God. So yes, the scriptures say Jesus was born of a virgin. But our aim in bringing up this issue in Isaiah 7 is not to resolve the subtle disagreements between the Hebrew and Greek Old Testaments. Our aim in bringing up this issue is to show that faith that depends on objective facts, on a view from no where, is impossible. It is sinking sand.

We believe Christ was born of a virgin, but not because of an endless and circular analysis of the intricacies in Hebrew versus Greek word definitions. This is to start off on the wrong foot. First and foremost we believe Christ was born of a virgin because the faithful and trustworthy New Testament writers, our forefathers, plainly believed this. Because our faith in the living Lord Christ is the same faith as the authors of the Gospels! It is the view-from-somewhere, not no where, that defines our faith. The text of the Bible flows from the mouth of the Living God; the Living God does not exist because of the Bible's text. This is a crucial difference that has sent people to Paradise and to Hell.

What is the math equation for a good fiancé?

This is getting a bit complicated, so let's give an easier example: say you are trying to figure out if you should marry someone. Say you have been exploring marriage with this person for a long time, and the time has come to make a choice. This is a big decision, so how might you decide? Is there a mathematical equation that exists, where you could plug in 50 of the person's variables (height, eye color, favorite food) and it would spit out an answer as to whether or not you should make this person your husband or wife? Of course not. Every major decision is only made by involving yourself. You may ask: Do I sense them to be lovable? Do I sense them to be trustworthy? In my real experience of them, does this prospective spouse live the sort of Christian life that makes for a good lifelong partner?

There is no mathematical equation for trust. There is no scientific formula for real love or marriage. In short, there are no such thing as ultimate facts, but there is an Ultimate God. Lots of facts are true through God, but all facts lose their foundation when separated from Him. Trying to determine what the Bible really says "on its own" is a endlessly circular task that results in exhaustion and despair. But trying to read the Bible as a Christian, as one who worships the God who spoke the scriptures into existence, that is wonderful and life-giving.

Wikipedia is weak because it is committed to facts without God

Let's go back to Wikipedia. Like most scholarship today, Wikipedia champions a neutral point of view as one of its foundational pillars. Here is how they describe their policy:

Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.

There are a lot of problems with the above paragraph. For example:

• Wikipedia says they do not engage disputes. But how, then, do they decide whether or not a fact they give about a dispute is describing it versus engaging it?

• Editors are encouraged to not involve their own opinions in their editing. But isn't having "no opinion" itself an opinion? And is writing better or worse when the author has no opinion on things, like on articles about terrible tragedies?

• Wikipedia says they include all points of view that have "sufficient due weight", and then defines weight as views that are "popularly held or supported". But who determines if a view is widely supported, and thus worthy of being included?

The point here is that Wikipedia is living in a modern fantasy called "neutrality" and "objectivity". Their editors think that it is possible to write and educate from a neutral point of view, but it is actually impossible. First, every piece of writing on earth has an implicit faith foundation, a bias. Second, embracing "neutrality" and avoiding faith always results in weak and sad conclusions.

Let's show this with an even simpler example than the fiancé question: does the modern world believe the sky is blue?

The modern world struggles to believe the sky is blue

The answer is confusing, as the modern world struggles to believe that blue skies are real things. According to Wikipedia, a sky is simply a point of view, and the color blue is only a perception. The sky isn't actually blue. According to Wikipedia's authors, a blue sky is simply a relativistic experience. It has no actual existence, no reality nor concreteness.

Believing in things as simple as blue skies requires actually involving yourself, like choosing a fiancé. Healthy life requires religious foundation and belief, something ancient people instinctively knew. You cannot say "the sky is blue" without believing in the reality and existence of life. Life's reality and existence is not obvious and trivial. It needs to have a foundation. Thus, writing well about the world requires taking a stand.

The mission of Holy Ground: real food

This is the difference between Holy Ground and modern, fundamentally emaciated scholarship like Wikipedia. In its commitment to a "neutral" perspective, Wikipedia will never be able to deeply engage the questions of life, because such questions would require it to take a stand on things like religion and faith. And Wikipedia cannot take this stand because it has a foundational pillar of "neutrality".

This would not be a problem, except that Wikipedia is the main place where people are learning online. So, in short, the main place where people are getting educated on the internet is devoid of any real substantial education. Thus, people are hungry for answers to the big questions of life (eg: What is real?), but the modern world has no ability to satisfy them with anything of substance. The modern man and woman is crying out for solidity, crying out for real food: Living Water and the Bread of Life. All they often find online is this thin soup of tasteless facts that perpetually fails to satisfy their hearts.

This is what we are trying to address at Holy Ground. We are doing theology as scholars of faith, people who hold their main identity and being in Christ as Lord, people who believe in a view-from-Someone, namely God. Our hope is that some fraction of the modern world finds soulful satisfaction through this new patient and intentional work.