About 40 years ago, Paul Rees spoke at our denomination’s Michigan Annual Conference. He was an elder Christian statesman—pastor, author, denominational exec, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, leader at Billy Graham crusades, and much more. Dr. Rees lived that week in a humble trailer on the Carson City campground, and it was there that I interviewed him one scorching hot summer afternoon.
Among my lame questions was, “What do you read?” It’s something I always want to know about most anybody. Rees began with the usual suspects, like Eternity and Christianity Today. Then he mentioned The Christian Century, the flagship for “liberal” mainline Christians. Dr. Rees noticed me raise my eyebrows. He responded, “I don’t agree with some of what they say, but I want to know what they are saying.”
I’m sure The Christian Century published many articles which caused short-fused readers to indignantly cancel their subscriptions. But Rees was above that. To him, the people at The Christian Century were fellow Christians, and he sincerely valued what they had to say, even if he disagreed with them.
Dr. Rees’s attitude created a life-long principle for me, which I follow more often than not. I don’t climb aboard the impulsive bandwagons of boycotts, canceling memberships, protesting against speakers, burning Nikes, and general shunning. I just don’t. Nor does something in the news suddenly prompt me to buy stuff from Hobby Lobby or Chik-fil-A. If that’s your thing, fine. It’s not mine. I’m certainly not going to stop watching NFL games just to make a political point.
I was thinking of this regarding that controversial Christianity Today editorial by Mark Galli, titled “Trump Should be Removed from Office,” and the uproar from people who furiously react to any criticism of President Trump. Some people are now cancelling subscriptions, while others are starting subscriptions. It’s a game we play. It’s been two weeks since the editorial appeared, and media obsessions have moved on. But I continue musing about it, and thought I’d add a postscript.
For several years, I’ve subscribed to The Galli Report, a free email which comes every Friday. Each edition references 3 or 4 things Mark Galli has read or stumbled across. Galli’s intellectual curiosity is broad and enviable, and he writes with a delightful, sly sense of humor. Recent editions have included links about learning styles, aging, the true cost of free parking, climate change (“a level-headed response to some of the hysteria”), silence, parenting, “racial absurdities,” boarding planes, astrology, and “laughing with God.” It’s eclectic, sometimes quirky, and brief. I often click on his links and learn interesting stuff.
Galli does occasionally stray into politics, but never in a pushy way. He prefers to offer links to opposing views on the same subject, and he freely admits his own ambiguities. His intent, it seems, is to challenge readers as they form their own opinions. It’s what I like to do.
I was surprised, yet not, by Galli’s editorial. It was thoughtful, presented his case well, and threw some deserved barbs at people on the left. I’m not sure I agree with removing President Trump from office through impeachment, and it would have been prudent for Galli to not reference Billy Graham (though he was entirely accurate). But millions of American evangelicals, like me, are NOT Trump enthusiasts, yet their voices are not being heard. We hear constantly from Trump’s evangelical cheerleaders—Jeffress, Graham, White, Reed, Dobson, Falwell, Perkins, and others. It’s time we exited the echo chamber to hear, and permit, a significant voice from a different Christian perspective. The CT editorial in no way balanced the total voice volume—not even close—but I’m glad it got noticed above the din.
Christianity Today has been an outstanding publication, and company, for many decades. From my teen years reading Campus Life, into adulthood with CT and Leadership Journal and other Christianity Today Incorporated publications that have come and gone, I’ve been a beneficiary. Sure, they’ve made mistakes and bad decisions, which critics are now dredging up and citing with indignant glee. But their total track record speaks for itself. They’ve been good for evangelicalism.
I subscribe to the Christian Post’s emails, and generally find them fair-minded. But they apparently decided to go all-out in criticizing Christianity Today, with many articles on the subject. Some are over-zealous; an editorial accused CT of having a “disdainful, dismissive, elitist posture.” Other articles (let me recommend Michael Brown’s excellent piece on “Evangelical Elites Versus Evangelical Deplorables: An Attempt at Mediation”) are more balanced and shed good light. But every article on The Christian Post gives a net-negative portrayal of CT. That disappoints me.
Then you’ve got all the usual Trump defenders—Ralph Reed, Franklin Graham, Tony Perkins, and others—appearing on FoxNews and writing for this and that to excoriate CT. Two hundred Christian leaders signed a harsh letter about Galli’s editorial (you can find 200 people to sign most anything). When CT deigned to voice criticism of President Trump, his supporters came out with all guns blazing. Mount your horses, draw your swords; do it in the name of heaven. It was clearly overkill. Trump is known as a counter-puncher, and white evangelicals have apparently suspended the “turn the other cheek” principle for the duration of the Trump presidency. The Christian Post and the White House faith council advisers seem to enjoy punching, and punching hard. I don’t find it attractive. I doubt that a watching world does, either.
Meanwhile, at the Christianity Today website, you’ll find exactly two articles on the subject: Galli’s editorial, and a response from CT Inc. president Timothy Dalrymple. Just two. Nothing more. They said what they had to say, and let it ride.
CT has never endorsed a presidential candidate…but they’ve now published articles condemning the immoral behavior of two presidents facing impeachment. As Galli pointed out, the same statements they made about Bill Clinton’s moral leadership apply to Donald Trump.
I find Christianity Today’s consistency refreshing, and rare. There are many examples (like James Dobson) of Christian leaders and politicians who strongly advocated impeaching Bill Clinton, but are outraged at the idea of impeaching Donald Trump. And vice versa (Democrats who decried impeaching Clinton, but favor going after Trump). Many Christians talk about Donald Trump as God’s anointed and chosen one, and use Scripture to support that view—yet they never said anything like that about Barack Obama, a president who happened to be a Democrat. The hypocrisy runs deep. It’s obvious. It lacks integrity. And to a watching world, it smells like rotting fish. The Bride of Christ smells like rotting fish.
God’s Word doesn’t change. There is not one set of moral mandates for Republicans, and another set for Democrats. If it was immoral for Bill Clinton, it is immoral for Donald Trump. People of biblical integrity acknowledge it. I have never seen this partisan dichotomy in Christianity Today. They have remained rooted in the Bible and, more specifically, in the evangelical tradition. They have not changed their tune depending on which party is in power. And they decided, after a prolonged silence, to speak out.
Donald Trump called Christianity Today a “far left” magazine, which is ridiculous (as if he’s EVER read anything in CT). Franklin Graham, James Dobson, and others who serve in the Trump court have echoed those sentiments, smearing Christianity Today as leftist and elitist. I’ve seen critics refer to CT as Socialist Today. That CT echoes a liberal agenda. That the editorial was a ploy to gain subscribers. Rubbish.
Over the years, CT has upheld the banner of biblical orthodoxy, and provided a forum for discussing important issues of theology, religious practice, and occasionally, public policy. CT has always been uncompromisingly theologically conservative, Bible first, pro-life, pro-family. Elizabeth Warren is not in danger of getting their endorsement. I’ve known, for decades, the chairman of their board of directors—a man of impeccable evangelical credentials and with an impassioned commitment to biblical authority. CT doesn’t court political influence, and therefore has no need to compromise beliefs to keep such influence. They have now published one lonely editorial which states the views of millions of evangelicals. That does not make them “leftist.”
Christianity Today makes no claim to speak for all evangelicals. Franklin Graham’s magazine, Decision, arrogantly proclaims on every cover, “The Evangelical Voice for Today,” and then fills the opening pages with articles which support the Republican agenda. You’ll find nothing like that in CT. They know what they believe, and they know their mission. Publisher Timothy Dalrymple wrote:
“As an institution, Christianity Today has no interest in partisan politics….We are far more committed to the glory of God, the witness of the church, and the life of the world than we care about the fortunes of any party. Political parties come and go, but the witness of the church is the hope of the world, and the integrity of that witness is paramount.”
It’s a publication which makes me proud, year after year. Sure, I take issue with a few things in this one editorial—legitimate quibbles and areas of disagreement. But that’s okay, and no reason to beat them into submission.
I think CT has earned the right to speak about the Trump presidency. More than earned it. And I wish more of my fellow evangelicals would take Paul Rees’s respectful attitude: I don’t have to agree with them, but they are fellow Christians, and I want to know what they have to say.
(Disclaimer: in the distant past, Christianity Today Inc. published two of my articles, both of them silly humor pieces. Most significantly, I was Eutychus for one glorious issue.)
