Why This Christian Thinks the “March for Science” is Not Such a Good Idea
Animals entering Noah’s ark, by Dutch painter Jacob Savery II (photo credit: Getty Images, Bridgeman Art Library). Celebrating God’s Creation is a really good idea. But do we need a “March for Science” to celebrate? Let me share with you my opinion.
While I am at it, another fairly short editorial blog post….
I recently received an email encouraging me, as a Christian, to participate in the “March for Science,” to be held in Washington, D.C., on Earth Day, April 22, 2017, as written about in this Christianity Today magazine article. The email encouraged me to participate “as an act of worship of the One who makes science possible.”
I have mixed thoughts about this. On the one hand, the email rightly affirmed my belief “in Jesus Christ, the Living Word of God for, through, and in whom all things were made, sustained, and held together by His power (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16).”
Classic, historical Christian faith has consistently taught that there are “two books” of God’s revelation. First, we begin with the “book” of Scripture, that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, useful for teaching, rebuking, correction, and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16). That same Bible also affirms the “book” of nature, as the invisible attributes of God, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. People are without excuse… whether they have access to a Bible or not (Romans 1:20).
As a computer engineer, with a keen interest in science, and a Christian, I have wrestled with the relationship between the Bible and science for years. But the conclusion is clear. The evidence in Scripture and outside of Scripture both point in the same direction. Both the study of the Bible and the study of science act as independent witnesses that to speak to the same truth of God in Christ.
Sadly, we live in an age when many people, including more than a few Christians, are confused about this. In a culture enamored with supposedly “scientific” claims, many make assertions in the name of “science,’ but such “science” has not been sufficiently peer reviewed, nor properly fact checked. As a result, many say we live in a “post truth” culture, where “alternative facts” win out over genuine facts.
I fully support the concept of making more people aware of the value of genuine science, and building communities of people, particularly in our churches, who care about the pursuit of truth found in God’s Creation. However, I am also concerned that a “March for Science” might send the wrong signal. It might suggest that science is yet just another partisan voice in an already too divided, politicized world. Much of the same can be said about the message of the Bible, and how the Gospel has at times been too closely identified with a political movement.
Christians should be known as people who value truth, above all else. You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free (John 8:32). Science is a friend of the Gospel, and not an enemy. We do no favors by politicizing either.
“Bible Answer Man’s” Critics Follow-Up: Mormonism More “Thoroughly Biblical” Than Eastern Orthodoxy?
Hank Hanegraaff, the “Bible Answer Man” on many Christian radio stations, has sparked a debate among evangelicals as to what being a “biblical” and “orthodox” Christian really means.
I want to add a short editorial comment, following a curious development involving Hank Hanegraaff, “The Bible Answer Man,” and his recent admission into Eastern Orthodoxy, that I blogged about recently.
The Bott Radio Network is apparently a popular source of syndicated Christian radio, though not available in my state of Virginia. Upon hearing the news of Hanegraaff’s “crossing of the Bosphorus,” Bott Radio Network decided to drop “The Bible Answer Man” from their radio programming, a show that they have hosted since the 1980s. In a news report, the president of the Bott Radio Network, made this statement:
We want to make sure that our listeners know that the programming that we have on Bott Radio Network is thoroughly biblical.
Neither I, nor my Eastern Orthodox friends, are surprised by this. But that is not the whole story. To replace “The Bible Answer Man,” Bott Radio plans to accommodate a new lineup, featuring the teachings of other personalities, including David Barton, of WallBuilders. Presumably, Bott Radio believes that David Barton’s teachings are more “thoroughly biblical” than Hank Hanegraaff’s.
Pause for a moment.
David Barton, a controversial history popularizer, is a frequent guest on a show hosted by TV personality Glenn Beck, a well-known Mormon.
The irony here is that in 2011, a Moody Radio affiliate dropped David Barton from their playlist, when Barton claimed that fellow political conservative, Glenn Beck, another popular radio and TV personality, and an outspoken Mormon, was in fact an orthodox-believing Christian.Three years ago, we explored Glenn Beck’s association between Mormonism and evangelical Christianity, here on Veracity. According to various news reports, including this one, David Barton heard Glenn Beck say that he accepted “the Lord Jesus Christ [as] my Savior and my Redeemer.” Here is an endorsement by Barton, standing by Glenn Beck’s conversion to Christianity, on Moody Radio:
Glenn says he’s Mormon. Ok, that’s fine. Based on what you heard, if you heard a Baptist say that or if you heard a Methodist say that…what would you say?….Why is it not a real conversion because of the label he wears?…I don’t care what label Beck wears. I don’t care what Glenn thinks Mormon means.
So, is the Bott Radio Network claiming now that Mormonism is more “thoroughly biblical” than Eastern Orthodoxy?
Seriously?
The Eastern Orthodox are not Protestant. Yes, that is true. But they are far more orthodox in their theology than the Mormons are. The Eastern Orthodox accept the Triune nature of God. Mormonism’s track record on the Trinity is highly suspect. The Eastern Orthodox have not added “newer” books to their canon of Scripture. The Mormons have added newer books. The Eastern Orthodox understanding of how believers become more Christ-like, otherwise known as the doctrine of theosis, is way-way-way different from the classic Mormon idea propagated by the late 19th century Mormon president Lorenzo Snow, “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.”
Mormonism pales in comparison to Eastern Orthodoxy, concerning doctrinal truth, even if a Protestant ultimately finds many others beliefs of Eastern Orthodoxy unacceptable.
We live in strange times indeed.
It is apparent that the good folks at the Bott Radio Network do not know much about Eastern Orthodoxy, or Mormonism, or perhaps both. Sam Storms, a blogger with The Gospel Coalition, has a good summary of Eastern Orthodoxy belief, geared towards educating Protestants.
“The Bible Answer Man” Becomes Eastern Orthodox
Hank Hanegraaff, the “Bible Answer Man” on many Christian radio stations, has many evangelicals stunned and bewildered by his attraction to the “smells and bells” of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Hank Hanegraaff, otherwise known as the radio personality, “The Bible Answer Man,” recently converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. After two years of personal inquiry, Hanegraaff and his wife were chrismated and received into the Greek Orthodox Church, near their home in Charlotte, North Carolina, on Palm Sunday.
In the American evangelical sub culture, Hank Hanegraaff has been one of those influential personalities, known for possessing an encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible, where radio listeners have asked Bible questions from umpteen different directions, and Hanegraaff has had the ability to field them all live on talk radio. Absolutely amazing.
A number of evangelicals view Hanegraaff’s move to Orthodoxy as a type of betrayal, suggesting that he is no longer a true Christian. Others are confused, not knowing much about what is “Eastern Orthodoxy,” and why people are attracted to this ancient approach to Christian faith. Even the Christian satire site, the Babylon Bee, is poking fun at Hanegraaff, calling him “The Apostolic Tradition Man.”
Hanegraaff responds to criticism by saying, “People are posting this notion that somehow or other I’ve walked away from the faith and am no longer a Christian. Look, my views have been codified in 20 books, and my views have not changed,” according to an article in Christianity Today, the main source for this blog post. Hanegraaff recently posted a letter to ministry supporters reassuring them of his love for Jesus.
What does one make of all this? Continue reading
The Case for Christ: Easter for Believers and Skeptics
Leslie and Lee Strobel, 1972, back when they dismissed the Resurrection as a fraudulent delusion.
“He is Risen!” Historical event or fraudulent delusion?
If you are the type of person who has had questions about the veracity of the Christian faith, then go see this movie. Better yet, take an open skeptic with you.
The Case for Christ is based on the true story of an atheistic journalist, whose life is turned upside down when his wife becomes a follower of Jesus. Lee Strobel, an accomplished reporter for the Chicago Tribune, a “just the facts, ma’am,” type of guy, is desperately afraid of losing his marriage and family, so he begins a long journey to try to disprove Christianity in order to “save” his wife from the error of her ways.
The Case for Christ is a major, major step up from movies like God’s Not Dead, that ambitiously relies on the composite characterizing of atheists, unnecessarily fueling the fires of culture war rhetoric. Furthermore, unlike other recent film offerings, The Case for Christ does not get distracted by the logic of false dichotomies either. Instead, The Case for Christ, focuses on two themes: (1) making the case for the Resurrection of Jesus, based on the minimal facts argument, built on the consensus of evidence found in secular, historical scholarship, and (2) exploring how human prejudices interplay with the tension between faith and reason.
The Case for Christ is not for everyone, and I can think of two, very different types of people who fit within this category. First, if you are a skeptic, and you are completely opposed to considering the evidence for the Resurrection, The Case for Christ will absolutely frustrate you. But you probably will not like any other Christian-themed movies either.
Secondly, The Case for Christ will underwhelm the Christian who feels like they already have all of the answers, and who never wrestles with doubts. The film simply leaves open the question of why the different Gospel accounts are not 100% agreed upon the discrete events surrounding the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus. Many a Christian evidentialist would reason that the existence of discrepancies between the Gospels enhances their historical credibility, instead of taking away from it, an argument that makes good sense to historians, but that will unsettle the most strict, biblical inerrantist. The evidence from textual criticism, that upholds the reliability of first century New Testament documents, will annoy the Christian who merely believes that the English Bible in their hand simply dropped straight down right out of heaven. But for believers and non-believers who are willing to ask penetrating questions, The Case for Christ is right for them.
The Case for Christ is not perfect, by any means. For example, as this Forbes magazine reviewer observes, the discussion about the Shroud of Turin was not very convincing. Plus, there is only so much you can do in a two-hour movie, as this review at The Gospel Coalition points out (check out these “The Case for Easter” resources). Because of the limitations of the medium, the events surrounding Lee Strobel’s journey towards faith and overcoming skepticism have been tightly compressed in the film, and this might confuse some. Strobel’s interviews with experts happened after his conversion to Christian faith, and not before, as depicted in the movie.
But overall, The Case for Christ does a very good job with making an apologetic argument for the Christian faith, based on evidences, within the context of a believable narrative, without getting too bogged down with the details. Get the book that the movie is based on, if you want to go to that level. If I had to recommend one movie that you can take a non-believing friend to see, without embarrassment, The Case for Christ would be it.
Feel free to share our book…
Join the Conversation
The Russian Revoluti… on The First Thousand Years, by R… Clarke Morledge on On David Bentley Hart’s… 
Recovering from Deli… on The Churching of Women? Tazria-Metzora (Lev.… on The Churching of Women? Clarke Morledge on Paul’s Early Visits to J… Childbirth in the ea… on The Churching of Women? Clarke Morledge on Paul’s Early Visits to J… Gary Beaty on Daniel’s Seventy Weeks… Our Father Prayer -… on Why Different Christians Recit… Clarke Morledge on The Council of Nicaea Demythol… Clarke Morledge on From Genesis to Junia: An Hone… Clarke Morledge on From Genesis to Junia: An Hone… Clarke Morledge on From Genesis to Junia: An Hone… Clarke Morledge on From Genesis to Junia: An Hone… Clarke Morledge on From Genesis to Junia: An Hone…
Veracity 