# Christianity Today --- apostate, betraying or truthful, godly?



## Ken S. (Jan 7, 2006)

what do you think of Christianity Today.Com and its magazine? Is it just another biased self-proclaimed "Christian media" against the traditional, historic and conservative faith and church?
Did it has any record of favouring the liberals or neo-evangelicals in the past?
i'm a Hong Konger, i don't know much about it and wanna to know more. It appears to me that all the powerful welknown christian medias worldwide are biased against historic faith, favour liberalism, neo-envagelism and ecumenical movement. I just read in Christianity Today,Com a news about Palau Pulls' rediculous idea that Chinese house churches should register with government(Palau Pulls Back). Yet I also remember a pastor mentioned in a book that Christianity Today is one of the organizations that support the ecumenical movement. i wonder if Christianity Today is really truthful as it seemed to be from _Palau Pulls Back_ .

thank you very much for your comment


----------



## non dignus (Jan 7, 2006)

Hi,

I just started taking it for my daughter's school fundraising; I don't have a full assessment yet. However, my second delivery (this month) had such an ugly front cover I immediately ripped it off and threw it away so I wouldn't have it laying around the house. 

I hate to think they too are succumbing to a 'shock and awe' voyeuristic media format.

_"....whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." _

It used to be a very good theological journal, I understand.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 7, 2006)

In Iain Murray's _Evangelicalism Divided_ he makes the point that _Christianity Today_ was an organ for Billy Graham and the NAE right from the beginning. Therefore it was certainly, from the beginning, a part of "new-evangelicalism".


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 7, 2006)

What was so ugly about the cover that you trashed it?


I cancelled my subscription 2 years ago when the cover story was whether there was a real hell. Some things don'tneed tobe discussed - they should be held by all.

For news and "descriptive" reporting, they are very good. For reviews and "prescriptive" articles, they are poor.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 7, 2006)

My magazine reading list has gone from _Christianity Today_ to _Reformation Today_ to _World_ to _Modern Reformation_ to _Christian History_ to reading news items that are 100+ years old in the _Southern Presbyterian Review_.

I find more profit for today in reading about _Christianity Yesterday_.

More good magazines for today (with an emphasis on yesteryear):

_The Presbyterian Reformed Magazine_
_RP Witness_
_Banner of Truth_
_The Christian Statesman_
_Free Presbyterian Magazine_


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 7, 2006)

_Christianity Yesterday_


----------



## non dignus (Jan 7, 2006)

Trevor,

It was a close up of a young man's face looking at you;
center of frame was a really nasty big scar. 
He looked like a victum of war, I would assume.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> In Iain Murray's _Evangelicalism Divided_ he makes the point that _Christianity Today_ was an organ for Billy Graham and the NAE right from the beginning. Therefore it was certainly, from the beginning, a part of "new-evangelicalism".



 It was a project of Graham, Carl F.H. Henry, Harold John Ockenga, etc. as was Fuller Theological Seminary. The main idea was maintaining Biblical orthodoxy while working within the "mainline" denominations and attempting to influence the culture instead of separating from the denominations and the wider culture as the fundamentalists did. (Many professors at Fuller have been in the PCUSA in particular over the years.) As you say, Murray does a good job surveying the results of this strategy over the last 50+ years on both sides of the Atlantic. ECT is also one of the results of this strategy on the part of New Evangelicals. 

As with the rest of New Evangelicalism (Graham's career, as well as the history of Fuller Theological Seminary) _CT_ was much more solid in the beginning. The late Edmund Clowney of WTS was a contributor for the first several years, and I think there may have even been a handful of articles by CVT and/or maybe John Murray or other WTS faculty very early on.


[Edited on 1-8-2006 by Pilgrim]

[Edited on 1-8-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## Ken S. (Jan 11, 2006)

any more comments from the rest members?


----------

