Christianity Today Editor Gives Political View About Trump

[Lamb]

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html
"Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments."


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ristianity-today-for-demanding-trumps-removal
"Evangelist Franklin Graham tore into the magazine his father founded after the flagship evangelical publication called for President Trump to be removed from office.

"For Christianity Today to side with the Democrat Party in a totally partisan attack on the President of the United States is unfathomable," Graham continued. He pointed to the lopsided vote in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, in which no Republican voted in favor of impeachment. "I know a number of Republicans in Congress, and many of them are strong Christians," said Graham. "If the President were guilty of what the Democrats claimed, these Republicans would have joined with the Democrats to impeach him.""


I don't think that an Editor should be pushing his political views like that and it would be like the owner of Christianity Haven pushing his political views on the site...as if he spoke for all of us.

What do you think about the editor of a Christian magazine making a political stance like this? And isn't it curious that the founder's son is critical of such a written piece?

 

[Josiah]

Trumps' morality was WELL KNOWN (it's been all over the tabloids for YEARS) when he was elected in 2016 (and when Billy Graham voted for him and endorsed him - as did many if not most "Evangelicals."). I still have posts up from then when I wondered why so many Evanglicals were supporting Trump given his morality, but, um.... During these 3+ years, I think he's been better behaved than say Bill Clinton....,


In 2020, Christians will be given a viable choice of 2 candidates. NEITHER will be saints, BOTH will be sinners (and the campaign is likely to bring out the sins of both, it's how campaigns roll these days). Just like we did in 2016. It's how it works in a democracy where we never have any holy candidates to choose from.


HERE'S MY TAKE. There are about 700,000 innocent, defenseless babies murdered in the USA every year. 1,900 per day. 80 per hour. Nearly as many in one week as are killed by guns in a whole year. More children murdered in the past 4 years than there were slaves in the US at its peak. The biggest moral crisis of our country and time is this mass murder of innocent, defenseless people - sometimes because of their gender but in over 90% of the cases, no reason is given at all. And most are paid for by the government. IMO, the gross immorality belongs to those political leaders who actively support and condone this.... for any or no reason at all, right up to the moment the last cell of the toe exists the birth canal. Horribly painful murders. THOSE are especially the horribly immoral politicians. THOSE are the politicans "Evangelicals" should be calling immoral and writing about how they support violating the Ten Commandments and should be removed from office.





.

 

[Lamb]

What do you think about this: What do you think about the editor of a Christian magazine making a political stance like this? And isn't it curious that the founder's son is critical of such a written piece?

 

[psalms 91]

I think like any publication they are entiotled to publish political opinions and anything else they deem relevant. I doubt anything would have been said if it supported Trump. I am glad to see them take a stance against someone who basically embraces all the values that as Christians we denounce.

 

[tango]

I find it very curious. I don't see an issue with a media outlet expressing a political leaning - it's not as if CNN or Fox News are politically impartial so there's no reason to assume a magazine should be impartial either.

I do find it curious that a magazine that is presumably aimed at Christians should take a stance so hostile to an elected leader unless they are also going to remind their readers of the call to pray for our leaders. It is also curious that they should be so concerned about the morality of one man while apparently not showing concern about the moral issues plaguing the most obvious alternative (abortion, repression of minorities etc at a party level, and obvious questions about morals and ethics relating to at least some Democrat candidates). It's also odd that they should take a stance that is likely to set them on a collision course with many of their readers, although perhaps they are hoping any resulting downturn in sales and subscriptions can be described as "being persecuted for the sake of the Gospel" or some such.

If political matters really were as simple as "Democrats good, Republicans evil" then it might make some sense. But, as with most things, it's nowhere near that simple. I would have hoped a magazine discussing Christian matters would focus more on what we as Christians can do regardless of who is in the White House than in changing the occupant of the White House. After all, Jesus told us to love each other and gave us the example of the Good Samaritan. Nothing in Scripture tells us to vote for a government that will compel Someone Else to do the things that Jesus told us to do.

 

[Albion]

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html
"Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments."


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ristianity-today-for-demanding-trumps-removal
"Evangelist Franklin Graham tore into the magazine his father founded after the flagship evangelical publication called for President Trump to be removed from office.

"For Christianity Today to side with the Democrat Party in a totally partisan attack on the President of the United States is unfathomable," Graham continued. He pointed to the lopsided vote in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, in which no Republican voted in favor of impeachment. "I know a number of Republicans in Congress, and many of them are strong Christians," said Graham. "If the President were guilty of what the Democrats claimed, these Republicans would have joined with the Democrats to impeach him.""


I don't think that an Editor should be pushing his political views like that and it would be like the owner of Christianity Haven pushing his political views on the site...as if he spoke for all of us.

What do you think about the editor of a Christian magazine making a political stance like this? And isn't it curious that the founder's son is critical of such a written piece?

Franklin Graham's reaction is quite reasonable. Christianity Today was once a respected religious publication...and a conservative one, if that matters. To have it turn itself into a partisan political editorial page is at least an unfortunate development.

And the idea expressed in CT that God Almighty is partial to a fair election being overthrown in some sort of palace revolution is just grotesquely unscriptural. No one here should make a mistake about that. It is not that Christianity Today opposes some of the President's policies; it IS that the magazine endorses the idea of nullifying a free and fair election in 2016.

 

[NewCreation435]

I think the editor should address the issues and not Trump personally.

 

[Particular]

I would personally welcome Mike Pence as President.
I have no issue with Christians calling out others who claim to be Christian, but don't live as claimed.
In my opinion, President Trump shows no evidence of being a Christian. His behavior is not Christ like in any fashion. I could not vote for him in 2016 and I cannot vote for him in 2020.
That being said, the candidates being offered by the Democratic Party fall at an even lower level of reprobate behavior as they promote the murder of infants. I cannot support their platform in the least.
Thus, I come to the conclusion that God is handing over the United States to incompetence and collapse due to a nation that has whitewashed its walls while it rots internally.
Christianity Today has written honestly. It may suffer for its truth telling, but it has shown integrity in speaking up.
May God have mercy upon the USA.

 

[Lamb]

I think like any publication they are entiotled to publish political opinions and anything else they deem relevant. I doubt anything would have been said if it supported Trump. I am glad to see them take a stance against someone who basically embraces all the values that as Christians we denounce.

If there was something positive supporting the President then the media wouldn't have even mentioned it and we never would have known about it. I don't read Christianity Today.

 

[Andrew]

I would personally welcome Mike Pence as President.
I have no issue with Christians calling out others who claim to be Christian, but don't live as claimed.
In my opinion, President Trump shows no evidence of being a Christian. His behavior is not Christ like in any fashion. I could not vote for him in 2016 and I cannot vote for him in 2020.
That being said, the candidates being offered by the Democratic Party fall at an even lower level of reprobate behavior as they promote the murder of infants. I cannot support their platform in the least.
Thus, I come to the conclusion that God is handing over the United States to incompetence and collapse due to a nation that has whitewashed its walls while it rots internally.
Christianity Today has written honestly. It may suffer for its truth telling, but it has shown integrity in speaking up.
May God have mercy upon the USA.

Only if Trump were an attendee at your local congregation, and you and others confront him and he still acted foolish then he could be outed and become Anathema right? Kanye wrote some very unholy songs but has supposably changed, but because I know him not personally I can't really judge him.. am I correct from a scriptural perspective? Has any members of his congregation consulted him personally on his behavior? We have no idea, not even sure what he does on Sunday mornings, I do know he holds prayers in his office, and we should never expect a pope like figure in office anyway.. If God puts our leaders in charge as told in the bible we should pray for them, if Hillary were in office I would respect her as president and pray for her and would refrain from constant slander especially through magazine distributions.

 

[tango]

Only if Trump were an attendee at your local congregation, and you and others confront him and he still acted foolish then he could be outed and become Anathema right? Kanye wrote some very unholy songs but has supposably changed, but because I know him not personally I can't really judge him.. am I correct from a scriptural perspective? Has any members of his congregation consulted him personally on his behavior? We have no idea, not even sure what he does on Sunday mornings, I do know he holds prayers in his office, and we should never expect a pope like figure in office anyway.. If God puts our leaders in charge as told in the bible we should pray for them, if Hillary were in office I would respect her as president and pray for her and would refrain from constant slander especially through magazine distributions.

I think we need to be careful with this idea that we can only confront someone if they are a member of our congregation. That kind of thinking allows all sorts of false teachers to prey upon the flock without being called out. Someone who teaches in public can be called out on their teachings in public even if we don't know them personally. We can't judge their lives but clearly can judge their teachings, and if their teaching stinks they need to be called out. Otherwise you end up with a situation where someone is pushing toxic theology while nobody counters it because they are busy trying to send a private email to see if the person will respond.

We cannot judge the heart of another but we can judge their words and their deeds. Jesus said we would know false prophets by their fruits. We don't need to attend someone's church regularly if we can see from a couple of meetings with them that they are full of lust and wrath. If, theoretically speaking, someone were to literally walk down Fifth Avenue shooting people, does anyone seriously think that only regular members of that person's congregation were permitted to point out that their behavior was at odds with their professed Christian faith?

My concern with the whole concept of whether the president (or indeed any political figure) lives up to Christian ideals is more about what they claimed in their election promises. The US seems to have a curious situation where any presidential candidate is all but required to profess Christianity, even in a nation that is increasingly hostile to the Christian faith, then lambasted if they fail to live up to the expectations they created when they claimed to be Christian.

I wonder how long it will be before presidential candidates aren't expected to pay lip service to any particular faith, or indeed how long it will be before presidential candidates who profess allegiance to a faith other than Christianity will be taken seriously. Chances are that sooner or later there will be a presidential candidate, if not a president, who is a self-professed atheist, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, or whatever else.

 

[hedrick]

I just looked at their web page. They have one or two editorials per month. So this isn't unusual.

 

[Andrew]

I think we need to be careful with this idea that we can only confront someone if they are a member of our congregation. That kind of thinking allows all sorts of false teachers to prey upon the flock without being called out. Someone who teaches in public can be called out on their teachings in public even if we don't know them personally. We can't judge their lives but clearly can judge their teachings, and if their teaching stinks they need to be called out. Otherwise you end up with a situation where someone is pushing toxic theology while nobody counters it because they are busy trying to send a private email to see if the person will respond.

We cannot judge the heart of another but we can judge their words and their deeds. Jesus said we would know false prophets by their fruits. We don't need to attend someone's church regularly if we can see from a couple of meetings with them that they are full of lust and wrath. If, theoretically speaking, someone were to literally walk down Fifth Avenue shooting people, does anyone seriously think that only regular members of that person's congregation were permitted to point out that their behavior was at odds with their professed Christian faith?

My concern with the whole concept of whether the president (or indeed any political figure) lives up to Christian ideals is more about what they claimed in their election promises. The US seems to have a curious situation where any presidential candidate is all but required to profess Christianity, even in a nation that is increasingly hostile to the Christian faith, then lambasted if they fail to live up to the expectations they created when they claimed to be Christian.

I wonder how long it will be before presidential candidates aren't expected to pay lip service to any particular faith, or indeed how long it will be before presidential candidates who profess allegiance to a faith other than Christianity will be taken seriously. Chances are that sooner or later there will be a presidential candidate, if not a president, who is a self-professed atheist, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, or whatever else.

I can agree with that, Trump is not a prophet nor does he preach of Jesus but he openly confessed his belief and yes he is still a sinner, I personally don't see it but maybe through a few tweets where I am embarrassed to have read them, but other than that I see a very calm headed, sober, and a punctual business man who donates his income to charities and since he is unorthodox because he doesn't use a teleprompter when he speaks, his honesty in unfiltered but for many it's unflattering..
I believe he is misunderstood and has already done so many great things for our country in 3 years that if he were impeached out of office he would still get a standing ovation for accomplishing so much.. that's my own opinion.. Not all Christians are perfect, they slip up daily, and in the public it's more known.. I pray his past ways are over, he seems to have finally made his fortune do great things instead of whatever he did with it in the past, hooking up with loose women and socialising with Epstein, but he left that long ago when he found out what kind of person he was.
I honestly do not see the monster in him that others see... like at all.. I pray he matures in his faith and doesn't do what Clinton did in office, or what the Bush administration did when lying about WMDs to justify a war against a country that had nothing to do with 911... My opinion