Reaction to Christianity Today following its partisan attack on president Donald Trump. Christianity Today editor says his publication is for ‘moderates.’ We all know what moderate really means.

Franklin Graham calls Christianity Today a tool of the Left and Democratic Party. Franklin reveals that Billy Graham voted for Donald Trump.

Ethical lapses cloud Christianity Today’s reputation.

Christianity Today called for the removal of President Donald Trump from office in a partisan editorial it published Thursday. The editorial drew strong reaction around conservative evangelicalism.

Franklin Graham blasted Christianity Today as a tool of the Left and the Democratic Party’s partisan attack on the President. Here’s a statement he posted on his official Facebook Page:

“Christianity Today released an editorial stating that President Trump should be removed from office—and they invoked my father’s name (I suppose to try to bring legitimacy to their statements), so I feel it is important for me to respond. Yes, my father Billy Graham founded Christianity Today; but no, he would not agree with their opinion piece. In fact, he would be very disappointed. I have not previously shared who my father voted for in the past election, but because of this article, I feel it is necessary to share it now. My father knew Donald Trump, he believed in Donald Trump, and he voted for Donald Trump. He believed that Donald J. Trump was the man for this hour in history for our nation.

For Christianity Today to side with the Democrat Party in a totally partisan attack on the President of the United States is unfathomable. Christianity Today failed to acknowledge that not one single Republican voted with the Democrats to impeach the President. I know a number of Republicans in Congress, and many of them are strong Christians. If the President were guilty of what the Democrats claimed, these Republicans would have joined with the Democrats to impeach him. But the Democrats were not even unanimous—two voted against impeachment and one voted present. This impeachment was politically motivated, 100% partisan. Why would Christianity Today choose to take the side of the Democrat left whose only goal is to discredit and smear the name of a sitting president? They want readers to believe the Democrat leadership rather than believe the President of the United States…

Christianity Today said it’s time to call a spade a spade. The spade is this—Christianity Today has been used by the left for their political agenda. It’s obvious that Christianity Today has moved to the left and is representing the elitist liberal wing of evangelicalism.

Is President Trump guilty of sin? Of course he is, as were all past presidents and as each one of us are, including myself. Therefore, let’s pray for the President as he continues to lead the affairs of our nation.

Of course, this isn’t shocking. Even the editor of Christianity Today admits it is a liberal publication with no real readership among conservative evangelicals. CT editor Mark Galli told The Atlantic:

“At least as long as I’ve been editor in chief, I’ve never imagined that we at Christianity Today speak for all evangelicals. We speak for moderate, center-right, and center-left evangelicals. The far right—they don’t read us. They don’t care what we think. They think we’ve been co-opted by liberalism. So I understand that we do not represent the entire movement. And anyone who thinks that CT does, that’s just not the case.”

Yeah. You’ve been co-opted. We know this because serious Christian’s can’t be on the political left. A serious Christian must reject as sinful key tenets of liberalism today, namely, socialism, LGBTQ issues and abortion. If you have a biblically informed worldview, then you can’t be a liberal—at least at everyone understands the term today.

But it is instructive to see who is the core audience of Christianity Today—moderates.

We Southern Baptists know what moderate means.

Let me quote W.A. Criswell about moderates: “May I speak on The Curse of Liberalism?  Because of the opprobrious epithet ‘liberal,’ today they call themselves ‘moderates.’  A skunk by any other name still stinks!”

And Christianity Today and its editor stink.

There are serious ethical problems at Christianity Today. Julie Roys reported on the conflict of interest at CT. Read the report. The CT editor tried to ignore the stain on his institution by giving a platform to James MacDonald to attack critics. As Roys reported, “CT’s unusual coverage of the Harvest scandal doesn’t necessarily show collusion between Stetzer, MacDonald, and CT. But it certainly raises questions, especially in light of the gifted car.”

Big Evangelicalism (Big Eva) is corrupt.

Big Eva has betrayed the people it should serve.

The Christianity Today partisan attack on President Trump tells you all you need to know.

10 thoughts on “Christianity Today stinks”

  1. Not just our churches, but, our society, country, and, above all, the governments (both federal state level) ‘stink’ today, because we are, as a whole, a greedy, self & pleasure obsessed people, 53% of which start their days out with psychtropic pills, and then come home to pot, pills, booze, and online porn’.

    As institutions are built from people, the institutions stink, too.

    It does not help that the United States’ government has waged a 6 decade war on the smalltown and rural man, this by reordering his society with unconstitutional court decisions, all the while shipping out his entire manufacturing, so that, in order to survive, his children must move away – leaving schools, churches, neighbourhood, and family structures to fall apart.

    It’s long been time to fight, but, we seem unable to pull ourselves away from our satellite TVs and microwave pizza.

  2. Do take note that: ‘…not one single Republican [PARTISAN] voted with the Democrats’ is evidence of: ‘Partisanship’! That you disagree with the CT editorial solely by agreeing with everyone you agree with -that ‘you-all-agree, therefore-it-must-be-true!’ has got to be one of the worst ‘dumb-as-a-stump’ lazy-assed stoooopid abracadabra arguments to have fallen-off a barstool this whole weekend. ’Know your history, bub. Richard Nixon had the support of an election landslide behind him -and m-o-s-t of his political colleagues around the country, until he suddenly didn’t. He at least had the decency’ to resign BEFORE he was disgraced by IMPEACHMENT.
    Before you go off -a ‘fake trial’ in the Senate will confirm 2 things: Partisan Collusion, and the willingness of Law Makers to kiss ass. The evidence is clear. There was no counter-argument to the evidence presented. The president withheld evidence and prevented witnesses from testifying. Just how far are you willing to compromise ‘The Greatest Constitution In History’ for the sake of a cheat?

    1. Trump isn’t disgraced by impeachment because everyone who is intellectually honest knows the Democrats don’t have any evidence. Ukraine’s president and other officials repeatedly have told the press including liberal Time Magazine that they did not feel pressured. So, without pressure, you’ve got no case against the president.

      The president didn’t withold any evidence. Nice lie though. If Congress ever wants evidence, it can go to court to get it. They didn’t. Why? Because they had no case their either. They said it was super pressing they impeach the guy. Then they impeach him and now they won’t even send the articles over to the Senate in some lame attempt to grandstand.

      Yeah, we all know who and what the Democratic Party is and anyone who supports them.

      1. Sir ~ Greetings, I am very happy that you’ve taken the time to respond to my remarks. The president has been Impeached. Whether or not he will be removed from office remains a question. I believe we can both agree that the next phase should be fair.
        Ukraine president Zelensky was not a witness to the impeachment inquiry. An interview is not a deposition subject to ‘cross-examination’. Nevertheless, the interview was entered into the record, President Trump’s televised denials were entered into the record [both of which seem reasonable to me] given that Impeachment is -for-all-intents-and-purposes, an almost entirely political matter.
        Before there was an Impeachment Committee, President Trump released a ‘rough draft’ (not verbatim) of the phone call between himself and President Zalensky, which included the phrase “I would like you to do us a favor though” The phrase corroborated the whistle-blowers disclosure, later supported by a string of witnesses who were listening-in on the conversation (before you pounce, it wasn’t necessary to disclose the name of the whistleblower. There have been death threats. If the senate wishes to they can subpoena that person, but I don’t see what purpose that would serve). The phrase quoted above provides insight into President Trump’s motives for seeking information on Joe Biden’s son and refers to Attorney General Barr and President Trump’s personal, unofficial envoy Rudi Giuliani as contacts.
        The president was invited to appear before The House Judiciary Committee. He said he would -on television and in print. He did not. His representatives provided no ‘evidence’ -witnesses or documents, either in the closed-door phase or in the public, televised portion, which -IMHO, would have been a simple solution for the president’s lawyers to have finished the whole thing. So [to paraphrase you] without evidence (subject to cross-examination), you’ve got a pretty thin argument to favour the president.
        I am glad that you can agree that -televised interviews from President Zalensky, statements from President Trump, a rough draft of THE conversation provided by president Trump (the reason behind the House Intelligence Committee’s enquiries), are considered to be ‘evidence’ -in the traditional (political) sense.
        Depositions from sworn witnesses WERE presented to the enquiry. You may dislike the contents of the depositions and you can call the witnesses ‘liars’ but it was ‘evidence’ that likely would be acceptable in Criminal or Civil Courts. So far -no witness has been charged with ‘lying to congress’ [a criminal offence I might add, which is why Bill Clinton was Impeached and why he lost his licence to practice law] You and I can agree that, had any of the witnesses been charged, it would have been a most delightful way of destroying the careers of many many ‘Dems’.
        Documents and recordings that may have supported the President were requested by the Intelligence Committee. The information could have been kept secret -the Intelligence Committee does this all the time concerning extremely sensitive topics, like ‘Military Intelligence’. Witnesses from the president’s staff were requested by The Committee. The President ordered them to ignore the subpoenas and refused to release any further documents or recordings [it seems odd that, prior to any of this nonsense the recordings were placed on a Top-Secret computer hard-drive, given that the conversation was deemed ‘a perfect conversation’ by president Trump and that a rough draft had already been disclosed]
        You and I can disagree whether or not a president is required to disclose evidence to The Congress, but -speaking for myself, I believe that is a subject best handled by the lawyers outside ‘the-court-of-public-opinion’. Nevertheless, the difference of opinion became the 2nd Article Of Impeachment.
        So, now comes the next phase -the (political) trial and I hope we all agree that ALL the witnesses, documents and recordings be submitted as ‘evidence’ -win, lose or draw. All of us want to see the Senate do their duty as described in the US Constitution, to set aside personal feelings and political affiliations -‘to be fair and impartial’. Here, I have major concerns. Mitch McConnell -presumably one of the jurors in the trial, has clearly stated that he is ‘coordinating with the president and his lawyers’. Collusion -conspiracy to cheat or deceive others, has far far greater consequences than the sulphurous, steamy stench left by a departing stranger as the elevator door closes. Here sir, I should inform you that I am former law enforcement -sworn, badged and armable. The oath I swore 40 years ago is still in effect. I have provided expert evidence in criminal trials (child sexual abuse) and answered to subpoenas in capital cases -including the murder of a young women by a multiple, serial killer. I have been blessed with the wherewithal and the curiosity to have put myself through college and university with no outside supports. I have been blessed with the drive and intellect to have had 3 entirely separate careers. The last in the finance industry, providing expert advice to ‘serve and protect’ good people and their hard earned money from cheats. And -I have ‘blown the whistle’ more than once including the ‘cheating’ of a deceptive friend and colleague of 25 years. I would hope that YOU would do the same despite familial or political affiliations. After reading your comments, I have p serious doubts that you would answer to the call of duty even in a trivial matter -a difference of opinion. The ‘evidence’ you provide is clear -you refer to evidence that was included in the record of Impeachment enquiries (President Zalensky’s televised interviews), then deny there was evidence! I have heard hundreds and hundreds of denials and as yet -I have never heard of a judge or jury accepting ‘denial’ as exculpatory evidence. So -I am not at all surprised surprised that you deem the president’s denials as evidence ‘good enough for you’ -given that you lack the intellect and the sensibilities to detect your own utterly void argument. I’ll leave your insulting remarks alone. They have no merit, as does your credibility.
        Your last point concerning the delivery of the articles of impeachment. The rules -time limits, procedures, presentation of evidence and subpoenas for additional evidence -should it be necessary, have to be worked out first. We don’t want a rigged jury here or in any court, do we? Otherwise, the senate could simply shut the whole thing down. No trial, no evidence -no determination of Impeachable or acquittal equals no Justice for the President. That would most definitely leave more than a stink -it would confirm that any president -no matter what political party, would be above the law. Remember that -it would apply to your hated ‘Dem’ President as well.
        Let’s hear ALL the evidence quickly -without courtroom drama and shady, behind-the-scenes shenanigans. It is important that the whole picture be seen as soon as possible. Win, lose or draw -fair is fair, right? Justice is for the accused and the accused alone, and President Trump deserves a fair hearing. Accept or deny the evidence if you wish, but at the very least grant yourself the decency to hear ALL the evidence (We should know before then the contents of the president’s income tax records, they are central to a criminal matter where the legal definitions of evidence will be in full view) You can express your better informed political opinion as a result at the ballot box next year. Who knows -Mike Pence might be your guy. All the best.
        PS -FYI, a quote.. a ‘wise wisdom’ from the past: ‘The mind is like a parachute. It does not function unless it is open”. -Charlie Chan.

    2. It’s been three years now since Hillary the Sociopath lost and you’re still crying about it. What kind of a man are you?

      And by the way, Trump will not be removed from office, and he will win reelection. Your tears will be music to my ears.

      1. Greetings Gleimhart Mantooso ~ I hope you’re not referring to me! I made no mention of Hillary Clinton. Why are you rerunning an historical event? Please stick the topic. By the way -I was on the debating team. This isn’t a debate -no moderator and no firm rules. I’ll let your pithy comment re: ‘Manhood’ pass, unless you provide evidence of your gender(s). Do note that I have provided background information to politely rebuke the unsigned, un-reasoned ‘opinion’ above. The moderator appears to have comprehension problems. Fortunately -Im not having to respond to ghosts and spirits, as did the accused ‘witches’ in the Salem witch-hunt trials [you know what I’m talking about, don’t you?) What I’m reading are unsigned flippant remarks written by errand boys.
        Why not speak to a previous author who notes that ‘the guv has waged a six decade war on rural and small town America, shipping jobs off-shore, etc.’ That is irrefutable information, right? Since 1961 Kennedy, Johnson (Dems) 8yrs. Nixon, Ford (Rep) 8yrs. Carter (Dem) 4yrs.Reagan, Bush (Rep) 12yrs. Clinton (8yrs) Bush (Rep) 8yrs. Obama (Dem) 8yrs. Although Republican presidents were in office an extra 4 years, I’m going to say that it’s irrelevant! ‘who’ was in an oval office or their party affiliations has little to do with ‘cause’, but they certainly do have a hand in how government reacts. So far -I think that the majority (including yourselves) would agree that they’ve done a piss-poor job. Nothing has tricked down, yet the conveyor belt of cash is flowing upstream at an ever-increasing rate. Look at the numbers for heaven’s sake! I believe the 2 parties represent 2 wings of the same bird. Look at their ranks -aging males, mostly white, and mostly well-to-do. Just as the gentleman who feels he is not represented, I feel the same way and for the most part -for the same or similar reasons. Some jobs have been off-shored -but for the most part, the jobs -ie. ‘manpower’, have been replaced with ‘dumb’ robotics. The jobs that WILL be replaced won’t be confined to ‘just’ manufacturing -warehousing, fast-food workers, truck driving jobs, taxi drivers, nurses and hospital workers, construction jobs, agricultural jobs are all about to go AWOL. I’ll leave you folks and this silly disagreement about an incompetent, vain and corrupt president who doesn’t give a crap about you or your jobs. Had you noticed -you would have seen he has ridden a wave that began when the last sap was lucky enough to have gained co-operation from the previous administration, the financial industry, the levers of power in Washington and governments world-wide to dodge the collapse of the world financial system. Together -they made ‘credit’ available again. This president had nothing to do with it. He was a television character then. He is a typical New York Realestate developer and showboater. Under his watch -an artificial, contrived argument with China has harmed American manufacturers AND the agricultural sector. Ask your brother farmers in Iowa. Watch what happens -he’s going to claim he’s resolved the problem which he created, the solution will look pretty much like things were before he caused the problem. Guarantee that some of you will be fooled He’s talked up coal jobs, in the meantime coal mines are closing and the few jobs that remain are continuing to disappear! Same with the despute with Canada and Mexico. A completely artificial argument -some fat lot of good the prez did. The Congress was quite happy to get what they wanted -better protections for the American worker by equalizing wages with Mexico, better enforcement of ‘regulations’ and a dispute mechanism. They had been negotiated BEFORE the prez interfered. If you ‘believe’ that the prez is on your side -congrats! You’ve been duped. He’ll write you off in a heartbeat -as he has amply demonstrated. His vaunted tax cuts didn’t trickle down to you -the savings went to ‘investors’, Why do you think the markets celebrated? Because YOU got an extra 80 bucks a month? Hold up your hands if you rushed-out and bought $80 worth of stock that day.
        I’m beginning to suspect that I’m addressing undergraduate students working on their PhD’s in GED playing pranks -name calling, off topic, introducing your sex problems… . What next? ‘my mother wears army boots?’ -she’s dead. And she was in the Navy. Heard it all before.

        1. You’re not really thinking I’m going to take the time to read your article-length post are you? It was clear to me by reading your first post that you are as dishonest, high on your own fumes, and overall insufferable.

          I’ve seen your kind many times before. People like you cherry-pick your facts, and even those facts are oftentimes either incorrect or else re-contextualized for convenience. Straw-men, gaslighting, and non sequiturs are your crutches. You’re verbose, and you enjoy throwing up walls of text. You’re obsessive and sperg-ish. You fancy yourself the teacher of others although you yourself are without wisdom. You’re unfocused, hopscotching from one thing to the next, even within the same paragraph. And lastly, like every obnoxious blowhard I’ve ever come across, you think yourself to be a cut above those with the unmitigated temerity to deviate from your view of the issue.

          Now go back and reread your self-important rant and throw out every sentence that confirms my assertions. Then post whatever is left. (Pro tip: there won’t be anything left.)

          1. I am ‘not really thinking that you would reread the the first post’. True.
            There is nothing to indicate that you read the post in its entirety to begin with.
            You provide no reason, fact or statement to support your claims that I have been dishonest. You present ‘no error of fact’, and nothing informative to support a claim of error within my brief letter. That you have difficulty reading the content is not surprising, given that it appears you reject ‘the facts’ as presented -out of hand. Again, I invite you to add substance to your ‘assertions’. I might suggest that you ask an acquaintance to glance over your missive to point out one or two conventional ‘facts’ that I may have missed
            I have no reason to believe that you are honest -or otherwise. ‘Liar liar’ is the boundary of the information you present and -unfortunately, the limit of your opinion. I am surprised by the animosity you express. I might add that from personal experience i have never read nor heard the frequency of hateful words and anger you’ve expressed littering the pages of any Christian literature whatsoever. Additionally, it’s baffling that you claim ‘intellect’ and an unspecified professional status(!), when it appears that you are consumed by irrational emotions -the antithesis Of Reason. The only comparison consistent with your ‘voice’ is from having heard similar expressions (attitudes) from juvenile and adult offenders and usually delivered with flying spit. They at least have an understandable excuse. That aside -I have no concern for your personal quacks. They are Your-Personal-Feelings, not conventional facts relevant to the conversation. I am sorry you feel angry and brittle (as you appear), but -that is entirely your responsibility. If that’s what you wish to project you have been unremarkably successful (IMHO). Is there anything else you wish to add?
            *[Do note that assertion is ‘a confident statement of opinion or beliefs’. Definition of belief: ‘Knowledge without evidence’. All the best.

Comments are closed.