Vital reporting, fascinating features, and thoughtful book and music reviews characterized what Christianity Today was about. One of the most important things about the magazine was that it mostly remained apolitical yet theologically mainstream.
Rarely did the magazine get explicitly political — except when it came to presidential scandals. In 1974, the magazine stopped short of calling on Richard Nixon to step down. A 1998 editorial criticizing Bill Clinton after his impeachment called him “morally unable to lead,” while in 2019, editor-in-chief Mark Galli, who later dealt with a harassment scandal at the magazine — he said he may have “crossed lines” — wrote that Congress should remove Donald Trump from office after his impeachment.
But over the years, I started to notice a leftward drift at Christianity Today. From articles about “creation care” that weren’t much different from the rhetoric of the believers in another environmental phrase that contains two words that start with the letter C to heavily featuring and advocating for women in pastoral roles (ignoring millions of complementarian Christians across the world), Christianity Today started to sound more politically and theologically liberal.
Galli’s dumping on Trump was enough for me to cancel my subscription, but a podcast by the magazine about another scandal was more problematic. “The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill” told the story of Seattle’s Mars Hill Church and the troubling leadership of its pastor, Mark Driscoll. The story was fascinating and heartrending, and the production values made it even more compelling. The problem with the podcast came in the analysis, which relied on anti-male feminism and got in multiple digs at Trump and conservatives in general.
Recommended: Most Pastors Preach the Gospel — Not This Guy
Two articles from over the summer make me question what direction Christianity Today is heading. One piece from August takes on Oliver Anthony’s hit song “Rich Men North of Richmond,” which has struck a chord with people across the nation. Author Hannah Anderson admitted that she had high hopes the first time she heard the tune.
“I was excited for a song in the tradition of Johnny Cash, Pete Seeger, and Woody Guthrie—music that names the inherent dignity of the poor, lodges a protest against establishment excess, and echoes Old Testament calls for justice, like God’s condemnation in Jeremiah 5:28 of those who ‘have grown fat and sleek’ yet ‘do not promote the case of the fatherless’ or ‘defend the just cause of the poor,’” Anderson writes.
As both a Christian and a fan of good music, I totally understand hoping for a Johnny Cash-type song — and I would welcome that. But Pete Seeger or Woody Guthrie? Sorry, but no one outside of the far left would welcome a song like that these days.
What’s Anderson’s problem with the song? She says it “doesn’t love its neighbors” because Anthony takes on those who abuse welfare. The author cites these lyrics:
Lord, we got folks in the street, ain’t got nothin’ to eat
And the obese milkin’ welfare
Well, God, if you’re 5-foot-3 and you’re 300 pounds
Taxes ought not to pay for your bags of fudge rounds
She then goes on to relate the time she was on food stamps and how undignified it was. Later, she lectures readers that “protest against wealthy elites and government corruption, no matter how justified, cannot ride on the backs of others who are also suffering. The price of accessing food through SNAP or a church food pantry must not be the poor’s dignity and self-worth.”
But the truth is that even Christians should have a problem with people abusing the system. Yes, it’s nice that we have a safety net for people, but the Bible doesn’t call for government welfare programs to be the primary solution to society’s problems. Anderson does laud churches and other Christian organizations for helping people in need, but it’s wrong for her to say that calling out those who abuse the system robs people of their “dignity and self-worth.”
Seeing Christian authors lose their minds to progressivism isn’t all that uncommon these days, but another article, also from August, might blow your mind. Author Beth Felker Jones compares the crowds flocking to see Taylor Swift, Beyonce, and the “Barbie” movie to church communities. Jones expresses her delight with the “theological themes” in “Barbie” and makes a cheap shot at conservative Christians when she points out that “Swift has expressed public frustration with ways American Christianity has been attached to partisan politics.” (I can only imagine that Swift doesn’t have any problems with progressive Christians.)
“The kids want communal meaning,” Jones concludes. “So I’m going to keep hoping—hoping that, maybe, what they want is the body of Christ.”
Instead of hoping, why not try to lead these kids to faith in Christ? Instead of taking potshots at Christians whose politics Taylor Swift might not agree with and lauding a movie that alienates half of those kids who need Jesus — boys and men — by saying that they all mistreat women, why not show them what a truly vibrant Christian community looks like?
I wish I knew what happened to Christianity Today. It’s reminiscent of what we’ve seen in so many large Christian organizations. John Cooper of the band Skillet, himself a committed and outspoken Christian, says that larger Christian organizations wind up “leaning left and punching right,” meaning that they’re so afraid of being labeled “evil conservatives” that they’ll take left-leaning positions and attack conservatives to avoid criticism. I have a feeling that’s what has happened to Christianity Today, and it makes me angry and sad.