Other Christian Trump supporters follow their leader in going after the Christian group that has disassociated itself from Donald Trump and wants him gone from office…
Two prominent evangelical leaders are slamming the flagship evangelical magazine “Christianity Today” after it called for President Trump to be removed from office in an editorial.
“Less than 20% of evangelicals supported @HillaryClinton in 2016 but now @CTmagazine has removed any doubt that they are part of the same 17% or so of liberal evangelicals who have preached social gospel for decades! CT unmasked!” wrote Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of evangelical Liberty University.
“It’s obvious that Christianity Today has moved to the left and is representing the elitist liberal wing of evangelicalism,” wrote Franklin Graham, CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse, an evangelical relief organization. Graham accused the magazine of being “used by the left for their political agenda.”
President Trump is still tweeting about the Evangelical magazine calling for his removal from office.
Said Trump: “I guess the magazine, Christianity Today, is looking for Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or those of the socialist/communist bent, to guard their religion. How about Sleepy Joe? The fact is, no President has ever done what I have done for Evangelicals, or religion itself!”
Politicalwire…
More than any other president?
Yes, if he (together with many Evangelical, Pentecostal and fundamentalist leaders) has done more to discredit Evangelical Protestantism than Jimmy Carter did to elevate it.
Trump himself has done little to discredit Christianity. When he talks about two Corinthians and eating his cracker, it is obvious that he not only is not part of that community, but he knows nothing about it.
What has discredited Christianity is that such a large percent of its leaders and voters openly support this guy. In what possible way does Trump promote the teachings of Jesus Christ? The biblical writings of Jesus does not condemn abortion (which was common during his life) or homosexuality (which was also relatively common), but Jesus did talk s lot about helping the poor.
This reaction is pretty much what I expected and talked about yesterday for those who my comments( excepting James of course who went on some irrelevant rant that had nothing to do with what I was saying).
CT has not been associated ,in recent years at least, with what many of us recognize as the “ Christian Right.”While sharing many of the same theological views,CT rarely ventured into politics ,while the Christian Right as personified by the Falwell , Pat Robertson and of late Graham has always been identified as a major part of the Republican coalition.
My point was that these types are not going to be influenced politically in the least by the CT editorial.Whether individual readers of CT will,remains to be seen.My guess is that Trump will retain overwhelming support from Evangelicals not only the political Christian Right but the non political segment of that class as well.
Nice Try Jack…..
Conservative …..
Period….
Nice try?
No, just explaining the differences within the Evangelical community.
I don’t expect you to understand.
And,as usual, your response was irrelevant to the post.
What did Jack say that deserved your sarcasm?
I understood Jack’s point, but I have no idea what you are trying to say. But then, that is often the case and I know you don’t care.
There has always been part of the Evangelical community which essentially eschewed politics.Indeed, this view was prevalent until the late seventies and early eighties with the advent of the Moral Majority and later the Christian Coalition.
Still, many Evangelicals kept a measured distance from the political world.So, while they shared an essential conservative theological view (and likely voted for conservative candidates),they refrained from active participation ,beyond casing ballots ,in politics.
CT is more of less part of this segment of Evangicalism.So, while the Christian Right types may read CT and find its theological policy agreeable , they are unlikely to be swayed by an unusual foray into the political world by CT.
Still, and as I observed yesterday, CTs stand is noteworthy but the growing attacks from the Christian Right are to be expected.
What Jack says is quite true: there has always been a part of Protestantism, and especially Evangelical Protestantism (often called Quietism) that accepts whatever be the secular status quo that surrounds its believers — partly because things of this world will matter little after Christ’s second coming.
In a monarchy or autocracy, this means living with, rather than resisiting, the current government. In a multipartisan society, it means avoiding (at least as a church or congregation) supporting one party, or faction, over another.
The most striking example are the Amish, who try to separate themselves as much as possible from this world, including its politics. But the founder of Christianity Today and Franklin Graham’s father, Billy Graham, also tried to disclaim any partisan leaning, and counselled Presidents of both parties. (Graham’s personal politics are another matter.)
In general (considering Graham’s global crusade) this meant avoiding local political controversies or differences. In the particular, practical case of the U.S., Billy Graham drew support from Southern Democrats as much as from Midwestern Republicans.
But Roe v. Wade changed all that, since opposition to abortion (seen as the protection of life) united not only most Protestants but also the bulk of Roman Catholics; hence the Christian Coalition and (after conservative and Orthodox Jews joined in) the Moral Majority. Overturning Roe v. Wade required a change in the U.S. Supreme Court, Appeals courts and District courts, an effort that continues to this day.
Two biblical passages are often cited when discussing secular involvement. In the Gospel of St Luke. chapter 22 (echoed in Mark 22 and Matthew 12):
24 Show me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar’s.
25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s
And the oft-cited 13th chapter of St Paul’s letter to the Romans begins:
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil….
Most of them ARE conservative’s NOW…
Period…..
My description stands….
Thanks everybody for the history …
In DID list same in a link in the comments string…
What “description?”
Of course most Evangelicals are “conservative.”Who said they weren’t.?
Another juvenile attempt to pretend that “I was right!!!!Whoo Hooo!Look at me!,,”
How dumb.
Just shows that you are totally clueless as to what we were talking about.
And it’s is especially ironic coming from one who is frequently “lecturing” ( although I’ve never understood why) all here that “people can be more than one thing.”
Z?
We’re good with each other. ….
We do this ALL the time…
The Jehovah Witnesses openly discourage political involvement
Now ,with the clownish irrelevancies courtesy of James out of the way, we return to the original topic,
Will the CT editorial have any demonstrable effect on Evangelical voter?
Attacks have already come from the leadership of the “Christian Right” and so far ,to my knowledge, no prominent Evangelical leader has risen to agree with CT.
Perhaps it will at least stimulate some discussion in those circles..