Thursday, December 22, 2005

"Can We Live Without God?": A Prime-Time Special Worth Watching?

I caught a brief promo this morning of a Fox News special that will air Christmas night at 9:00 ET. Titled, "Can We Live Without God," the special is hosted by morning news update anchor Lauren Green. The promo showed clips of Green interviewing an atheist and Ravi Zacharias. A year ago I would have been confident that Zacharias would be more loyal to his convictions than Ted Haggard. Anymore, I don't hold my breath.

What makes this worth watching to me, though, is not the guests, but the host. As Green chatted with the other morning hosts about the special, she commented that the conclusion is inescapable that both the theist and the atheist positions demand faith. I found that comment pleasantly surprising and insightful coming from a news anchor.

7 comments:

Pittsley said...

What do you think she meant by faith? It doesn't seem to be a very pleasant thing at all that she would say that theism is just as dubitable as atheism. Theism is inescapably clear; atheism is blithering idiocy.

Ben said...

It was an abbreviated discussion, so I'm not reading too much into it. I took it simply as Green's observation that both the theist and the atheist believe in things they cannot see. Everyone says this about the theists, but many are deluded into thinking that atheism is more scientific because it is alleged (incorrectly) to rely merely on what is observable.

Or to put it another way, Green sounded like a presuppositionalist. But that's really reading too much into the brief comments.

John Rush said...

What have you seen that makes you less confident in Ravi Z.?

Just curious.

JRush

anoninva said...

Many Christian leaders when put before a mic seem to be afraid to really speak the truth of the gospel. "I don't know" is often the reply to pointed questions such as those about the reality of hell and judgment. So many of us hold our breaths when we see yet another leader attempting to speak about our faith. One notable exception to this is John MacArthur, Jr. who has clearly spoken in defense of the gospel on many occasions. Also, Ravi Zacharias spoke at the Mormon Temple with other Christian leaders, one of which apologized for past Christian treatment of the Mormons (evangelism). Believe it or not, this was Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Seminary. Ravi's comments during the evening left alot unsaid that should have been said, but he couldn't risk offending the Mormons who had just been apologized to.

You can read his defense of having spoken at the tabernacle here:
http://www.rzim.org/faqs/newstext.php?id=64

anoninva said...

Here is an article from Christianity Today on the Mouw/Zacharias meeting with the Mormons:

www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/146/11.0.html

Scroll down where it says that Ravi Z might be the next CS Lewis, whose writings are appreciated by Mormons!!!!

Ben said...

Thanks, anoninva. Zacharias' appearance at the Mormon tabernacle was what I had in mind. I hadn't read the whole story, but what I had heard was enough to make raise a red flag.

I will concur with your thoughts on MacArthur. Maybe you all can help me out. Are there ANY other evangelicals besides him who appear fairly frequently on these types of programs who give a consistent, clear defense of the gospel? Bob Jones III and Al Mohler are the only others that enter my mind, but their appearances seem less frequent.

John Rush said...

Thanks for the responses.

I'll look at the url you mentioned.

Wow.

JRush