Apparently, the authors of GotQuestions.org seriously think that BioLogos denies the possibility of miracles… Also they think that BioLogos says things like “science > God” and that BioLogos depends on archeology instead of the Bible to understand sin.
Maybe they got these ideas by reading the comments of some posters on the BioLogos Forum?
I get the impression that the author even didn’t read actual material of BioLogos or the page that describes what BioLogos folks believe? It could be that this is self-protection, maybe he or she doesn’t want to poison his or her mind with such “blasphemy”?
This kind of articles are building false images of BioLogos in the minds of Christians. Perhaps somebody could try to send them an elaborate and polite, yet corrective email explaining why their article does not represent the beliefs of BioLogos? Or maybe somebody already tried to do so? Do you think GotQuestions.org would be so responsive as to adjust the article accordingly?
If you look at the resources that are recommended at the end of almost any topic, you will see that the writers do not represent a spectrum of Evangelical beliefs, but a certain Neo-Puritan contingent with a specific agenda. John MacArthur, for example, is very vocal in his criticism of BioLogos. I find them seriously mistaken on any number of topics.
I laughed when I looked at what it says about being a godly wife: What does it mean to be a godly wife? | GotQuestions.org I don’t plan on taking advice on how to be a godly woman from a man whose megachurch fell apart and who was relieved of his ministry position for repeatedly covering up abuse by child predators. (CJ Mahaney)
I looked up some more articles on less controversial topics and the resources recommended were slightly more varied, so I thought I’d put that out there to be fair. I bet their team of writers ranges from very conservative Evangelical to slightly less conservative Evangelical. (Notice that Catholics are not Christians, the environmental movement is not God’s plan, and although for tax purposes they can’t tell you straight out that Christians vote Republican, they do recommend Wayne Grudem’s book Politics According to the Bible, which was basically commissioned by Republican lobbyists and tells you why the NRA and the funding of the F-22 Raptor are godly and biblical, but the government giving money to the poor is not.)
The organization is run by Michael Houdmann, who also oversees all content. He has a BA and an MA from Calvary Bible College in MO, which is on this list of colleges and seminaries that teach a literal six day, young earth creation. So, I seriously doubt that they would have much interest in adjusting their article to make BioLogos sound better. But you can always ask if you feel inclined…
I believe you are completely correct. However, this website GotQuestions receives a large amount of web traffic. Within America it receives 30 times more traffic (1800k unique visitors per month) than, for example, BioLogos. Therefore, it is likely that their readership does represent a broader spectrum of evangelicals. That means it would be pretty useful for the mission of BioLogos to be sharp on this kind of misrepresentations…
Actually my concern is not really to make BioLogos “sound better”, but just that their statements about Biologos denying miracles are simply incorrect. I would be content if they could just write a similarly antagonistic article where they argue against a correct representation of the position of Biologos.
I remember using the website GotQuestions.org a few years ago for retrieving small amounts of information about, e.g., specific sects. However, now I am seriously doubting the trustworthiness of that information. If they treat everyone with whom they disagree with such inaccuracy, I am wondering how they maintain such a large readership.
I suspect that this might have been written several years ago, before BioLogos had a clear statement of belief on our site. The writer then probably just watched some BioLogos videos on Youtube and filled in the blanks based on their perceptions of what was being said. The tone of BioLogos writers was also a bit—shall we say—sharper back then, which fed into these sorts of extreme reactions from conservatives.
All this aside, the article has a ridiculous lack of nuance, and recycles the same horrible “science changes all the time and exaggerates its rightness” stuff seem a million times elsewhere. For people with this perspective, it sometimes seems like it’s more important to be Right than correct.