I admit I don't know much about Jacob Roloff. I only knew he was on a
show called "Little People, Big World" on TLC, and that he is the
youngest child of Mathew and Amy Roloff. At 21 he's all grown up and
has been doing quite a bit of blogging recently. My initial impression of Jacob is that
he's obviously very intelligence, and seems to a have a proclivity for
writing. The reason I mention him at all is that I ran across a blog he
wrote entitled "What Religion Are You?"
I'm not going to re-post the entire thing as it's somewhat lengthy.
However, his comments on Christianity are what peeked my attention, and which I felt compelled to respond.
In his writings he talks about his Christian faith, or lack thereof. These days Jacob seems to have turned away from Christianity. His writings include a mix of philosophy, new age, eastern religion, with a decidedly anti-Christian bent. Ironically enough Jacob grew up in a Christian household, but now seems to have turned his back on it. His current relationship with his family seems tenuous at best, could his current anti-Christian beliefs be at the root of it? In essence, he gives three primary reasons why he is no longer a Christian:
Firstly, he believes that Christians have a "damaging sense of superiority over other religions, and that this supremacy mindset has pitted them against the rest of the world and their neighbors. The essence of Jacob's criticism here is that Christianity is too exclusive, and should be more inclusive. Christianity should then be more accepting of other religious beliefs and gods, a la interfaithism. He goes on to say that Christians are hypocritical, because they are also imperfect and fallible. They pretend to ignore their own natural tendencies (i.e. the sin nature), by turning their attention to those who are not sly about hiding it. I am rephrasing here.
Of course, all of this is based on his anti-Christian assumptions. When one starts from that supposition, naturally there is an automatic bias against. So let's examine his statements. Firstly, it should come as no surprise that Christianity is at odds with the world. This is nothing new, but goes all the way back to the beginning. The New Testament iterates over and over that Christians are in the world, but not of the world and and the spiritual principalities controlling it. Jesus himself said:
As to his statements on hypocrisy, Christians have never claimed to be perfect. In fact, the whole gospel message is that we are all born sinful creatures, which is why we need a redeemer. That one becomes a Christian does not make them infallible, though a true conversion should reduce the desire and frequency to sin. He seems to think we should embrace our human nature, or "rascality" as he calls it. I wonder if that includes such things as murder, deceit, and theft. There may be some Christians who pretend to be overly pious, but to try and generalize all Christians in this regard is disingenuous. Any legitimate Christian will tell you they are far from perfect, and that only Christ is perfect.
His second issue is that Christians take the Bible too literally, and that we should be more like Hinduism, which tends to spiritualize everything. He goes on to say that if God is (literally) telling us how to behave and the truth about the universe, then we are no longer thinking for ourselves and free will would be an act of rebellion.
The problem with spiritualizing or allegorizing everything is that it can mean anything to anyone, and thus ends up meaning nothing. There can't be any sort of absolute truth with this sort of thinking, because truth is whatever you make it. Without absolution truth, how could anything be wrong? What do we base morality by then? If morality is based on public consensus or what is socially acceptable, well that can change from day to day. What is wrong today, may not have been wrong tomorrow, or vice versa, and if that's the case we can't condemn the Nazi's for genocide, as an example. In reality the universe is filled with absolutes, from mathematics to physics and so on, why then would we expect there to be no absolutes when it comes to truth or morality? This in not a violation of free will. With free will comes consequences. It's true in the natural realm, and it's true in the spiritual realm.
Lastly, his issue is that Christians elevate Jesus, whom he calls a mystic, above all. In his mind Jesus should be on par with all the other mystics such as Mohammad, Chrisna, and Budda. I suppose this goes hand in hand with his first criticism. This offense is levied solely against Christianity, but no other religion. He doesn't condemn Islam, for example, for elevating Muhammad over Jesus. The target is Christianity. He ends by saying, "The real good news is that Jesus was divine and knew it; and you are too." That's a very New Age concept.
I was curious to know who influenced Jacob's current thinking. One name that turns up several times in his writings is a man by the name of Alan Watts (1915 - 1973). Watts is largely responsible for introducing the West to Zen Buddhism. He also experimented with psychedelic drugs for mystical insight. Wikipedia describes Watts' worldview as a mixture of "Hinduism, Chinese philosophy, pantheism or panentheism, and modern science". In a nutshell, he was a New Ager who was against Christianity.
So there you have it. The writings of Watts seem to have a profound impact on Jacob, and played a part in turning him away from his Christian heritage. Jacob may believe he's onto the truth, but all he really has found is a philosophy, nothing more nothing less. As Solomon said:
In his writings he talks about his Christian faith, or lack thereof. These days Jacob seems to have turned away from Christianity. His writings include a mix of philosophy, new age, eastern religion, with a decidedly anti-Christian bent. Ironically enough Jacob grew up in a Christian household, but now seems to have turned his back on it. His current relationship with his family seems tenuous at best, could his current anti-Christian beliefs be at the root of it? In essence, he gives three primary reasons why he is no longer a Christian:
Firstly, he believes that Christians have a "damaging sense of superiority over other religions, and that this supremacy mindset has pitted them against the rest of the world and their neighbors. The essence of Jacob's criticism here is that Christianity is too exclusive, and should be more inclusive. Christianity should then be more accepting of other religious beliefs and gods, a la interfaithism. He goes on to say that Christians are hypocritical, because they are also imperfect and fallible. They pretend to ignore their own natural tendencies (i.e. the sin nature), by turning their attention to those who are not sly about hiding it. I am rephrasing here.
Of course, all of this is based on his anti-Christian assumptions. When one starts from that supposition, naturally there is an automatic bias against. So let's examine his statements. Firstly, it should come as no surprise that Christianity is at odds with the world. This is nothing new, but goes all the way back to the beginning. The New Testament iterates over and over that Christians are in the world, but not of the world and and the spiritual principalities controlling it. Jesus himself said:
Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.Jacob misconstrues Christianity's belief in the gospel truth with egotism and supremacy, when in actuality it is no different from any other religion in that respect. What religion doesn't espouse it's belief system as absolute truth over all other belief systems? Why would you follow something you didn't believe is the truth? The irony is Jacob is doing the same thing by espousing the superiority of his beliefs over Christianity.
For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’;
and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’
As to his statements on hypocrisy, Christians have never claimed to be perfect. In fact, the whole gospel message is that we are all born sinful creatures, which is why we need a redeemer. That one becomes a Christian does not make them infallible, though a true conversion should reduce the desire and frequency to sin. He seems to think we should embrace our human nature, or "rascality" as he calls it. I wonder if that includes such things as murder, deceit, and theft. There may be some Christians who pretend to be overly pious, but to try and generalize all Christians in this regard is disingenuous. Any legitimate Christian will tell you they are far from perfect, and that only Christ is perfect.
His second issue is that Christians take the Bible too literally, and that we should be more like Hinduism, which tends to spiritualize everything. He goes on to say that if God is (literally) telling us how to behave and the truth about the universe, then we are no longer thinking for ourselves and free will would be an act of rebellion.
The problem with spiritualizing or allegorizing everything is that it can mean anything to anyone, and thus ends up meaning nothing. There can't be any sort of absolute truth with this sort of thinking, because truth is whatever you make it. Without absolution truth, how could anything be wrong? What do we base morality by then? If morality is based on public consensus or what is socially acceptable, well that can change from day to day. What is wrong today, may not have been wrong tomorrow, or vice versa, and if that's the case we can't condemn the Nazi's for genocide, as an example. In reality the universe is filled with absolutes, from mathematics to physics and so on, why then would we expect there to be no absolutes when it comes to truth or morality? This in not a violation of free will. With free will comes consequences. It's true in the natural realm, and it's true in the spiritual realm.
Lastly, his issue is that Christians elevate Jesus, whom he calls a mystic, above all. In his mind Jesus should be on par with all the other mystics such as Mohammad, Chrisna, and Budda. I suppose this goes hand in hand with his first criticism. This offense is levied solely against Christianity, but no other religion. He doesn't condemn Islam, for example, for elevating Muhammad over Jesus. The target is Christianity. He ends by saying, "The real good news is that Jesus was divine and knew it; and you are too." That's a very New Age concept.
I was curious to know who influenced Jacob's current thinking. One name that turns up several times in his writings is a man by the name of Alan Watts (1915 - 1973). Watts is largely responsible for introducing the West to Zen Buddhism. He also experimented with psychedelic drugs for mystical insight. Wikipedia describes Watts' worldview as a mixture of "Hinduism, Chinese philosophy, pantheism or panentheism, and modern science". In a nutshell, he was a New Ager who was against Christianity.
So there you have it. The writings of Watts seem to have a profound impact on Jacob, and played a part in turning him away from his Christian heritage. Jacob may believe he's onto the truth, but all he really has found is a philosophy, nothing more nothing less. As Solomon said:
"There is a way which seems right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."I wish no ill-will toward Jacob, but only hope he comes to the realization that the truth he is looking for was right under his nose all along. He seems to be legitimately be seeking the truth, but he's looking in all the wrong places.
