A few years ago, I encountered a church called Westminster Fellowship in Phoenix, AZ. I was introduced to the church from one of my philosophy professors, Owen Anderson (a member of the church) who purported to prove God's existence (the God of Christian Theism, that is). At the time, the arguments seemed compelling. Along with a number of friends, I was drawn to the congregation as well as philosophy in general, partly because of this professor. I eventually became a member of the church and even an apologist of its doctrines. But at some point during my time there, the arguments that once had seemed so compelling and impeccable appeared to have serious flaws. I began asking questions that I simply had never considered before against the church's views. This happened for a couple of years and culminated with me writing an essay concerning a particularly serious problem I saw in one of Gangadean's arguments, which I sent to him, Anderson and at least two other members.
As a result, Ganagadean and I spoke via email, and by phone a handful of times. I continued to have questions and found his responses seriously wanting. Still, I was more than willing to continue discussing things with him for as long as it would take. I wanted him to have answers desperately. By the same token I was dedicated to settling for nothing less than the proof or the way to certainty that he claimed to have. His responses seemed vague, circular, and to exemplify the very same sorts of flaws that he often spoke out against in others. This prompted only more questions and left me with no answers. I also had a number of discussions with the friends that I had entered the church with. These were close friends who I had known for years before we started attending WF. They found that they were simply unable to address my questions and I watched them vacillate between finding my objections compelling and then finding Gangadean's rebuttal's compelling, depending on whoever had the last word. At one point Gangadean threatened me (via my friends) with ex-communication. At some point, I had crossed over to becoming something of an enemy, so it seems. This culminated in a meeting with "oversight" which included Gangadean and two elders. I was basically asked to affirm (with 100% certainty) some of the very basic teachings that I was raising questions about, and to which I feel no sufficient answers were ever provided. I couldn't with integrity agree even though it would mean having to leave the church that I had spent nearly 5 years at.
Shortly thereafter, conversations ceased between Gangadean and me. I was sent me an official church email stating that I was no longer allowed to attend the church until I had "basic things in place", which means that I no longer doubted his basic teachings (specifically, his view that we can have absolute certainty concerning basic things and that his method, "rational presuppositionalism" gets us there). Gangadean also instructed his congregation to stop talking to me save for my two friends and Owen Anderson. The trouble was, my two friends were simply not qualified to address my questions, nor did they have the time or energy to go through "much discussion" for various reasons. And Owen decided (for other personal reasons) that he wanted nothing to do with me. I was left alone. I was essentially in a spiritual crisis because the ministry that I had thought had answers to very difficult questions no longer appeared to have them and in fact was turning its back on me in my time of need (in fact, I would later learn that a lot of other people have had a similar experience). It's taken years to heal. I still can't fully trust any church or ministry as a result--which I'm beginning to actually think might be a healthy thing.
Which brings me to my point in having this blog. I use this as a platform to primarily express some of my philosophical concerns as it relates to the doctrines and teachings of Westminster Fellowship, Surrendra Gangadean, Owen Anderson and Kelly Fitzsimmons Burton. I want to provide information and a different perspective for those that may have encountered the church, its members, or its doctrines. In other words, this blog is a resource for those that may have encountered the teachings of Westminster Fellowship. I had a unique opportunity to learn a lot about the doctrines (from the inside). Moreover, I found them seriously wanting. Thus I take it that I have a duty to others to use this privileged access to dispel what I believe to be erroneous teachings. I also think the culture at WF is a serious worry and is the source of harm (since leaving, I've come to learn that my experience was not unique).
I believe Surrendra Gangadean, Owen Anderson, Kelly Fitzsimmons Burton, and those affiliated with Westminster Fellowship promulgate falsehoods that are based on bad arguments that may initially seem plausible particularly to those without a sufficient background in philosophy. Moreover, the false teachings prove needlessly divisive of the church at large. So whether you are seriously considering attending the church or whether you have encountered one of their classes at Arizona State West, Paradise Community College, Glendale Community College, Scottsdale Community College, Grand Canyon University, or Arizona Christian, or even if you know someone that has been influenced by Gangadean's ideas, it is my hope that you will take some time to carefully consider the content of my posts. I also welcome any and all current members or affiliates of WF to engage here. I don't pretend to be infallible and so I'd welcome any corrections, clarifications and objections. Finally, I realize that the posts will not be super accessible to all (though I've tried to make it less jargony) and so if there is some need for further explanation please feel free to leave me a comment or contact me via email: reasoniidoubt at gmail dot com .
Very sad to read this. While I've never been a member of WF, I've had others recount the same type of fall out in the past. I've read over other posts and appreciate you're detailing out some of the issues you take with Gangadean's approach to philosophy. I have many of the same one's myself. It's been difficult to find others who are familiar enough with RP to address what I think are it's limitations (percieved or otherwise); maybe because it is conceived of as a system which is either affirmed or denied, wholesale. I'm interested in reading on. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment! It's encouraging to learn of someone else sharing the same concerns. In fact, this seems to be happening more frequently as of late.
ReplyDeleteI understand what you say when you write, "It's been difficult to find others who are familiar enough with RP to address what I think are it's limitations". I think this is part of how they've managed to stay afloat for so long. Honestly, any trained philosophers worth their salt would find much of what I write to be almost too obvious to be worth writing about. On the other hand, Gangadean's followers seem simply incapable of evaluating things objectively perhaps due to bias and a lack of sufficient training. I don't mean this as a knock on them---I've spent quite a long time studying philosophy formally. It's really hard stuff. There are others who have been so hurt by the church that they just want to move on with their lives and thus have no interest in continuing to engage. Finally, most people not falling into any of the aforementioned groups simply don't understand the views enough to see the issues and the harm--which is what you are pointing out. So I really appreciate your engagement here!
J