From Christianity Today to Christianity Astray?

Co-founded by evangelist Billy Graham, Christianity Today (CT) has long been regarded as the voice of mainstream evangelical Christianity in America. But in recent years, its status as a paragon of evangelicalism has become increasingly suspect. So much so that theologian Bill Roach now dubs the publication “Christianity Astray.”

The latest hit on CT’s reputation among traditional evangelicals took place during Holy Week in April when the magazine published an article by Daniel Silliman. Titled “Was Jesus Crucified with Nails?,” the article cast doubt on the traditional Christian teaching that Jesus was nailed to a cross. The beginning of the article was emphatic: “The Bible doesn’t say Jesus was nailed to a cross.”

Late in the article, the author admits that the Gospel of John does refer to the “marks of the nails” on Jesus (20:25). But the Gospel’s statement was basically dismissed. Why? “Many scholars think John was written later—perhaps after crucifixion with nails had become more common, Garcia said.”

In other words, the Gospel of John was wrong—apparently based not on eyewitness testimony but on erroneous third-hand information from a later period.

On one level, the CT article might not seem to be such a big deal. After all, few (if any) Christians would claim that someone’s salvation is in jeopardy simply because they think Jesus was tied to a cross rather than nailed to it.

On a deeper level, however, I think the CT article is quite definitely a big deal. It’s an example of something I’ve described in a new book as “Stockholm Syndrome Christianity.” Stockholm Syndrome Christianity is when Christians—especially Christian leaders—embrace the assumptions and worldview of the secular elites surrounding them. Stockholm Syndrome Christians are often personally sincere in their faith. Nevertheless, they advance the views of those hostile to Christianity.

Stockholm Syndrome Christianity seems to be at the heat of the recent dust-up with CT.

Throughout history, faithful Christians have believed that the Bible is true in all it teaches. Even many modern evangelical Christians who don’t subscribe to a formal doctrine of “inerrancy” tend to have a high level of trust in the truth and accuracy of the Bible, especially the New Testament. By contrast, many members of secular elites see the Bible as a fallible collection of human fables and myths.

Intentionally or not, the CT article basically reflected the view of the secular elites. CT is a media outlet, and there is nothing wrong with it covering differing views. The problem is how CT covered the story. Only the scholar who questioned the traditional Christian view was featured. No scholar who upheld the traditional view was given the opportunity to articulate the evidence in favor of that view. The underlying message communicated? Scholars with heterodox views are the “real” scholars. Those who affirm the traditional view aren’t worth hearing from.

After days of CT being pummeled in social media by traditional evangelicals, the author of the article apologized and tacked on a new ending to his article that did what he should have done in the first place: Report the evidence for the traditional view. A CT editor then chimed in with an apology.

Problem fixed. Right?

Not really. Unfortunately, the original CT article was far from an outlier. It was part of a pattern. As another example, consider the lengthy, approving, and uncritical review CT published last year of Jesus, Contradicted by New Testament scholar Michael Licona.

As I document in Stockholm Syndrome Christianity, Licona compares the gospels to Hollywood movies that are “based on true events” but use “artistic license” to change the facts to better present the story they want to tell. In Jesus Contradicted and earlier books, Licona argues that gospel writers felt similarly free to alter facts, fabricate unhistorical stories, alter the location and context of historical events, and even dramatically change what Jesus said to make their theological points.

For instance, Licona suggests that John took Matthew and Mark’s account of Jesus saying on the cross “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” and transformed it into the statement “I thirst!” Licona similarly claims that Jesus’s words “it is finished” in John 19:30 are not historical. He suggests they are a creative adaptation of Jesus saying “Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit” in Luke 23:46. To be clear, Licona is not just claiming that gospel writers didn’t have tape recorders and so sometimes had to paraphrase what Jesus said; everyone understands that. Licona goes way beyond this to assert that gospel writers radically refashioned what Jesus actually said for their own purposes. Note that he is offering this interpretation for statements attributed to Jesus that don’t contradict each other in any way. You don’t have to choose between “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” and “I thirst.” Jesus said both.

Licona calls his new view of the Bible “flexible inerrancy.” Whatever you call it, it’s incompatible with the traditional Christian view that the Bible is completely true in all it reports and affirms. Licona is a major figure in evangelical circles, and so CT was perfectly justified in reviewing his book. But the book review uncritically promoted Licona rather than examine the tough questions raised about his work.

Even an uncritical review might have been justifiable if CT had run other articles last year featuring scholars who have challenged Licona’s claims. But it didn’t. It was the same pattern as the Holy Week article: Only the views of the heterodox scholar were important enough to be featured. Those who support the traditional evangelical view weren’t worth covering. CT evangelized for the heterodox view by default. CT was apparently proud of its one-sided coverage of Licona, highlighting its supportive article in an online newsletter.

CT’s track record of suppressing the theological views of more traditional evangelicals goes back a long way. As I also discuss in my book, in 2011 CT published a largely uncritical article promoting the idea that genetics had disproven the traditional Christian teaching that the human race began with a single ancestral couple. The article mostly ignored Christian scientists who were skeptical of this new claim, preferring to side with theistic evolutionists like Francis Collins who promoted it. It later turned out that the main scientific claims of the article were wrong.

CT’s bias against traditional evangelical views can also be found in its coverage of some social issues. In 2022, Congress enacted a law called the Respect for Marriage Act. The law was controversial among many Christians because it falsely equated same-sex marriages with interracial marriages, enshrined legal protections of same-sex marriage in federal law, and failed to protect the religious liberty concerns of Christian small business owners conscripted to participate in same-sex weddings.

So how did CT cover this controversial bill? It published a single article in the fall of 2022. That article supported the bill.

True, CT included a disclaimer that the article did not necessary represent the views of the magazine. But no contrary article was published at the time. Indeed, the article supporting the bill was titled “Everything You Need to Know about the Respect for Marriage Act.” “Everything You Need to Know”? The clear message was that there was nothing evangelicals needed to know from fellow Christians who opposed the law. Accentuating the point, the following year CT ran a new article that extolled the Respect for Marriage Act as a wonderful example of “religious-liberty bipartisanship.”

The list of one-sided CT articles goes on and on. Its article celebrating the late President Jimmy Carter bordered on hagiography. And its one-sided remembrance of apostate theologian Richard Hays was even worse, as theologian Robert Gagnon has pointed out. (Interestingly, the remembrance was written by Daniel Silliman, the same person who wrote the story questioning that Jesus was nailed to a cross.)

CT doesn’t simply discriminate against traditional evangelical views in its own articles. It does the same in what it allows to be advertised on its platform. As I’ve previously disclosed, CT earlier this year turned down advertising for my book Stockholm Syndrome Christianity. They worried that the book “may be politically or theologically divisive.” CT is a private platform and can do what it likes. But what is telling is what they don’t find too controversial to advertise: A book promoting the idea that everyone is eventually saved by God (universalism), and a contentious political curriculum written by Never Trumpers called The After Party funded by secular progressive foundations. (If you want more about the latter book, read Megan Basham and Natasha Crain.) So according to CT, a defense of traditional evangelical views must be suppressed as “divisive,” while a call for universalism and a political curriculum that veers left are just fine.

I intentionally have shied away in this article from the evangelical wars over Trump and hot-button political issues like immigration. If you follow me on X, you know I express my views on a wide variety of political and social topics. Yet I understand that there are many secondary issues where faithful Christians can disagree with each other in good conscience. But here is another problem with CT. When it comes to genuinely debatable issues among orthodox Christians—like the particular immigration policies America should enforce—CT’s coverage veers into the propagandistic.

The bottom line? CT increasingly echoes the views of secular elites in its reporting and commentary. Instead of evangelizing secular culture for Christ, CT sadly seems to be evangelizing Christians for secular culture.

Maybe you think I’m being unfair. If so, I’d encourage you to read an eye-opening essay from 2021 by former CT Editor in Chief Mark Galli. The essay is worth reading in full. But here is a selection that exposes the mindset prevalent at CT:

“Elite evangelicals are… a people striving for acceptance.

I saw this often when I was at CT. For the longest time, a thrill went through the office when Christianity Today or evangelicalism in general was mentioned in a positive vein by The New York Times or The Atlantic or other such leading, mainstream publications. The feeling in the air was, “We made it. We’re respected” …

This tendency has only gotten worse, as now the mark of a successful evangelical writer is to get published regularly in the Times, Atlantic, and so forth. What’s interesting about such pieces is that (a) such writers make a point that affirms the view of the secular publication (on topics like environmental care, racial injustice, sexual abuse, etc.) and (b) they preach in such pieces that evangelicals should take the same point of view… Rarely if ever will you see an evangelical by-line in such outlets that argues to protect life in womb or affirms traditional marriage.

We see an ancient dynamic here: When you seek to win the favor of the powerful, you will likely be used by them to enhance their own status. And along the way, many of your convictions will be sidelined. We’ve seen this happen on the religious right in the political nightmare of the last few years. But it happens on the left just as often.

I saw this accommodation dynamic as CT managing editor and then editor in chief… one reason [staffers]… found themselves at CT and comfortable there was because the magazine was in sync with mainstream media regarding many social issues.”

I believe there are still some theologically solid people at Christianity Today. Even now, I hope CT will reform itself from within. In case anyone from CT is reading this article, here are a few steps CT could take if it really wanted to address the problems raised here:

• Create an advisory board filled with theologically conservative evangelicals of good conscience who disagree with CT’s current approach. Be willing to actually listen to these critics.
• Hire more writers—and editors—who are reflective of the views of conservative evangelicals on biblical authority, science, evolution, sex and gender, race and poverty, and politics.
• Take a hard look at the issues CT is covering—and failing to cover. I just did a search at the CT site, and although one will find there endless articles critical of the Trump administration, I couldn’t turn up even one piece about the current battle over the draconian bill in Colorado that would eviscerate parental rights when it comes to gender-confused kids. The Colorado battle has been raging for weeks, and it’s a big deal for many Christians around the nation. But you wouldn’t know it from the silence at CT.

The good news is that evangelical Christians no longer need rely on straying institutions like Christianity Today for their news and information. There are better options, and faithful Christians need to use them.

Perhaps CT’s most obvious heir apparent is WORLD, a Christian outlet that provides reporting and commentary on a host of topics. Solid on theological essentials, WORLD puts CT to shame when covering non-essential issues where Christians disagree. Compare this balanced WORLD story about immigration to most of what CT is publishing on the topic, and you will see the stark difference. WORLD is actually seeking to inform rather than propagandize.

Another great option for news and analysis from a Christian perspective is The Christian Post. Kudos in particular to the Post’s reporter Brandon Showalter, who courageously covered the transgender issue when many Christians were either afraid or muddled on the topic.

Although I’ve spent this essay focusing on Christianity Today, that media outlet is far from the only evangelical institution to have gone astray. The same drift can be seen among leading pastors, Christian colleges, and parachurch groups. You’ll find more examples—and practical ideas about solutions—in my book Stockholm Syndrome Christianity.