suggestion: stop promoting CT on home page

I've seen a few promotions of Christianity Today on my homepage in Logos. Each time I've followed the link, I've noticed that the publication is really just leftist, activist propaganda.

I'm not sure that a publication that promotes the worldly "Gender Identity activism", feminism and reverse-racism can be called a "Christian" publication. Faithlife Corp may argue that point, but should at least respect that many (if not a majority) of Christians have the same sentiments as I do (that promoting the world's agenda is not the same as living for Christ).

Sorry - I'm considering getting a refund for my recent upgrade because I can't conscientiously support you if you support that agenda.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

NB.Mick

Brian,

Faithlife is aggregating a number of Christian News sources for your homepage. You can choose whether you look at the homepage at all (some users don't), whether you have a News feed at all on the homepage (use the gear-wheel to get to the customizing options) and even, which sources to be part of that newsfeed - go to http://news.faithlife.com and then "About / Channels".

MJ. Smith

I've seen a few promotions of Christianity Today on my homepage in Logos. Each time I've followed the link, I've noticed that the publication is really just leftist, activist propaganda.

I'm not sure that a publication that promotes the worldly "Gender Identity activism", feminism and reverse-racism can be called a "Christian" publication. Faithlife Corp may argue that point, but should at least respect that many (if not a majority) of Christians have the same sentiments as I do (that promoting the world's agenda is not the same as living for Christ).

Sorry - I'm considering getting a refund for my recent upgrade because I can't conscientiously support you if you support that agenda.

if there are Christian views that are incompatible with your own, you may turn them off or ask politely if there is a way to do so. See http://community.logos.com/forums/t/127583.aspx or

turn off the news feed via the gear box on the home page
go to news.faithlife.com ==> about ==> channels and turn the specific feed source off

Brian

Thanks for the tips.

Yasmin Stephen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/831762#Comment_831762

go to news.faithlife.com ==> about ==> channels and turn the specific feed source off

Thanks. I didn't know about this option.

Carmen Gauvin-O'Donnell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/831776#Comment_831776

You know, stuff like this raises my blood pressure as well, but on the other hand, I think it's important for us as Christians to know what the thinking is out there, even by those with whom we'd disagree... if nothing else I find it sends me back to the Scriptures to see why I believe what I believe! [H]

Just my two cents!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/831777#Comment_831777

You know, stuff like this raises my blood pressure as well,

Whereas it is people griping about it that raises mine [:D] I was raised in a community where because of the distances involved it was far more important to get along with your neighbor than to agree with them.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/831863#Comment_831863

it was far more important to get along with your neighbor than to agree with them.

?? [^o)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/831870#Comment_831870

it was far more important to get along with your neighbor than to agree with them.

??

You never knew when you might need them to pull you out of the ditch, feed your animals, cooperate on pest control ... I was nine or ten before I knew I had an uncle who wasn't Republican [;)]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/831873#Comment_831873

I was nine or ten before I knew I had an uncle who wasn't Republican

Absolutely scandalous !!!!!!!!!!

Brian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/831863#Comment_831863

The irony here is awesome!

As a conservative Christian, I'm accustomed to people thinking that my voice is the one that should not be heard, and that freedom to enter into public discourse (and to put my money where my heart is) is somehow 'scandalous'. That's okay! I'm used to it.

Putting 'agreement' and 'getting along' at odds with one another creates a false dilemma. 'Helping someone out of a ditch' doesn't equate to agreeing with all that they do or supporting them in those activities with which we disagree.

What you may see as "griping" comes from your own head, not mine.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/831927#Comment_831927

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/831927#Comment_831927

Sorry, Brian ... you're to the left of me and others. Search 'trumpet' in the harmonies. Or brass in the Paulines.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/831927#Comment_831927

Putting 'agreement' and 'getting along' at odds with one another creates a false dilemma.

MJ did not put "agreement" and "getting along" at odds with each other. Rather, MJ distinguished between them, which is quite a different thing.

'Helping someone out of a ditch' doesn't equate to agreeing with all that they do or supporting them in those activities with which we disagree.

In this very next sentence, you distinguish between "agreement" and "getting along" too, and your point is the same as hers: getting along with people (enough to help them out of a ditch) does not entail agreeing with their worldviews.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/832035#Comment_832035

Putting 'agreement' and 'getting along' at odds with one another creates a false dilemma.

MJ did not put "agreement" and "getting along" at odds with each other. Rather, MJ distinguished between them, which is quite a different thing.

'Helping someone out of a ditch' doesn't equate to agreeing with all that they do or supporting them in those activities with which we disagree.

In this very next sentence, you distinguish between "agreement" and "getting along" too, and your point is the same as hers: getting along with people (enough to help them out of a ditch) does not entail agreeing with their worldviews.

It seems to me that the point of disagreement lies somewhere else. The original poster suggests that the editorial views of Christianity Today are inconsistent with his understanding of a traditional Christian worldview. Because of that, he seems to be arguing that it is inconsistent for an avowedly Christian business to be promoting that publication - and by extension, those editorial views - on his home page. M.J., admittedly good-naturedly, suggested that raising this as a concern annoys her.

You know, stuff like this raises my blood pressure as well,

Whereas it is people griping about it that raises mine I was raised in a community where because of the distances involved it was far more important to get along with your neighbor than to agree with them.

I like M.J., and find her to be both level-headed and a voice of reason. But it's not surprising that someone would read her statement as at least strongly implying that "getting along" means that you should at a minimum not express any disagreement in instances like this. I suspect that may not have been what she meant to say, but it certainly could be read that way.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/832044#Comment_832044

I suspect that may not have been what she meant to say, but it certainly could be read that way.

You are correct. What annoys me is for people to expect Faithlife to express precisely the interpretation of Bible and ethics that they individually believe. It's fine to say that there are things in the world (and on the Home Page) that you find offensive. It is quite another to expect the world to change rather than (a) exploring the issue to see if there is legitimately more than one view or if yours was a knee-jerk rather than considered reaction (b) or looking for a way to avoid seeing them - like turning them off or skimming past them (c) or recognizing that Faithlife carrying or displaying something does not mean they promote it, only that they see there is a market it serves.

I don't know about you, but I am friends on Facebook with two people in particular with whom I disagree very strongly on political matters. One reposts articles that are in fact interesting because they genuinely represent the rural experience. The other, although a professor, reposts articles that are inaccurate, inflammatory garbage - not that I have an opinion on them or anything. I need only to look at their name and the post topic to move past the garbage or read/skim the rural. But I don't unfriend them because I genuinely care about the families and what to know "what's up" ... and besides they sometimes find truly interesting articles on religion that I would otherwise not see. I see the newsfeed as analogous to Facebook - unfriend (turn off) any source you find no value in.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/832061#Comment_832061

I suspect that may not have been what she meant to say, but it certainly could be read that way.

You are correct. What annoys me is for people to expect Faithlife to express precisely the interpretation of Bible and ethics that they individually believe. It's fine to say that there are things in the world (and on the Home Page) that you find offensive. It is quite another to expect the world to change rather than (a) exploring the issue to see if there is legitimately more than one view or if yours was a knee-jerk rather than considered reaction (b) or looking for a way to avoid seeing them - like turning them off or skimming past them (c) or recognizing that Faithlife carrying or displaying something does not mean they promote it, only that they see there is a market it serves.

I don't know about you, but I am friends on Facebook with two people in particular with whom I disagree very strongly on political matters. One reposts articles that are in fact interesting because they genuinely represent the rural experience. The other, although a professor, reposts articles that are inaccurate, inflammatory garbage - not that I have an opinion on them or anything. I need only to look at their name and the post topic to move past the garbage or read/skim the rural. But I don't unfriend them because I genuinely care about the families and what to know "what's up" ... and besides they sometimes find truly interesting articles on religion that I would otherwise not see. I see the newsfeed as analogous to Facebook - unfriend (turn off) any source you find no value in.

Oh, absolutely - if I wasn't willing to be friends with people who disagree with me, I'd likely have no friends at all! (And my life would be a lot less interesting.)

I do understand both sides, though. When a business creates a "values" connection with its customers, whether it be a Christian retailer, an organic grocery store, or a progressive magazine, it creates certain expectations (which may or may not be reasonable). However those expectations are formed - and whether or not they're consistent with what the business intended to promise - you get a reaction when customers don't think those expectations are being met. I suspect you'd see similar reactions if a vegetarian restaurant posted a flyer for the local community barbecue festival, or the Huffington Post started accepting advertisements from coal companies. (I'm not trying to equate the situations - these are just dumb illustrations of expectations not being met.)

Anyway, thanks for the gracious response. On the surface of it, it seems reasonable to me for a Christian publisher to link to Christianity Today. I just understand how someone else might react differently based on the content.

JAL

For more CT, Christianity Today (2006–2015) (113 Issues) currently $99.99.

http://www.christianitytoday.org/ministry/history/

http://www.christianitytoday.org/ministry/mission/

http://www.christianitytoday.org/ministry/whatwebelieve/

Statement of Faith:

The sixty-six canonical books of the Bible as originally written were inspired of God, hence free from error. They constitute the only infallible guide in faith and practice.
There is one God, the Creator and Preserver of all things, infinite in being and perfection. He exists eternally in three Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who are of one substance and equal in power and glory.
God created Adam and Eve in his own image. By disobedience, they fell from their sinless state through the temptation by Satan. This fall plunged humanity into a state of sin and spiritual death, and brought upon the entire race the sentence of eternal death. From this condition we can be saved only by the grace of God, through faith, on the basis of the work of Christ, and by the agency of the Holy Spirit.
The eternally pre-existent Son became incarnate without human father, by being born of the Virgin Mary. Thus, in the Lord Jesus Christ, divine and human natures were united in one Person, both natures being whole, perfect, and distinct. To effect salvation, he lived a sinless life and died on the cross as the sinner's substitute, shedding his blood for the remission of sins. On the third day he rose from the dead in the body which had been laid in the tomb. He ascended to the right hand of the Father, where he performs the ministry of intercession. He shall come again, personally and visibly, to complete his saving work and to consummate the eternal plan of God.
The Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Triune God. He applies to man the work of Christ. By justification and adoption we are given a right standing before God; by regeneration, sanctification, and glorification our nature is renewed.
When we have turned to God in penitent faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, we are accountable to God for living a life separated from sin and characterized by the fruit of the Spirit. It is our responsibility to contribute by word and deed to the universal spread of the Gospel.
At the end of the age, the bodies of the dead shall be raised. The righteous shall enter into full possession of eternal bliss in the presence of God, and the wicked shall be condemned to eternal death.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/help/about-us/what-is-christianity-today.html

JAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/832112#Comment_832112

http://www.beautifulorthodoxy.com

THE NEED

Sharp and hurtful words jump off your screens. Unloving conversations are becoming the norm.

When you take a look at the world today, you see a turn toward ugly orthodoxy and attractive heresy—truth spoken in shrill and unloving ways, falsehood spoken in winsome and compelling fashion.

And you're discouraged by the direction of the cultural conversations from both outside and inside the church.

All of the negativity has left the world in desperate need of truth, goodness, and beauty. In need of hope.

Christianity Today is taking the lead to reverse the trend by communicating the breadth of the true, good, and beautiful gospel. We call it Beautiful Orthodoxy.

With today's most important issues, we present a vision for the world that reflects Christ's love, redemption, and restoration.

But, this is not Christianity Today's cause alone. Many Christian leaders have committed to Beautiful Orthodoxy. You'll hear from some of them below.

Will you join this cause? What conveys the true, good, and beautiful gospel to you? How will you reflect Christ's love and truth in your ministry, job, or community?

JAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/832118#Comment_832118

A Vision for Christianity Today

Download this digital booklet, A Vision for Christianity Today, that walks you through the ministry’s rich history, celebrates how God is using it to influence the church and the culture, and shares plans for the ministry’s future.Download now.

Mattillo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/832112#Comment_832112

I don't know much about Christianity Today but this has been an interesting thread to read (with a few chuckles here and there). I looked at their statement of faith but it seems short to me. I wonder what their stances are on more hot button topics like: Eternal hell vs annihiliation, abortion, homosexuality, etc

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/832159#Comment_832159

I wonder what their stances are on more hot button topics like: Eternal hell vs annihiliation, abortion, homosexuality, etc

Luckily, most statements of faith are short and stick to the basics ... not to current hot buttons ... otherwise I wouldn't read and collect them ... or wish that Pellikan's collection was in Logos.

Mattillo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/832212#Comment_832212

You and I differ there but I can understand how you arrive at that point. Hot Button may have been the wrong term but when looking at a church, I like to see where they sit on certain things. The EFCA's SoF would be something I would look for as it is a good outline of where they place themselves but to each person their own I guess.

Mattillo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/832247#Comment_832247

To clarify, yes I know the EFCA doesn't mention abortion/homosexuality. I'm not sure what I was thinking of when I wrote that. Maybe I'm losing my mind today which is possible [:)]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/832247#Comment_832247

You and I differ there but I can understand how you arrive at that point. Hot Button may have been the wrong term but when looking at a church, I like to see where they sit on certain things. The EFCA's SoF would be something I would look for as it is a good outline of where they place themselves but to each person their own I guess.

If you can't tell where they stand by reading what they have to say, it's probably not something they deal with.

Jan Krohn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/832159#Comment_832159

The Apostolic Creed sets the standard for statements of faith.

How to deal with various kinds of sin does not belong in there. Why include homosexuality and abortion, and leave out greed, pride, lust and other things that do a lot more harm to the body of believers?

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/832212#Comment_832212

Luckily, most statements of faith are short and stick to the basics ... not to current hot buttons ... otherwise I wouldn't read and collect them ... or wish that Pellikan's collection was in Logos.

In my mind, "short" and "basics" are both good qualities in any creed, confession or statement of faith. Not that the details don't matter. But I believe that one of the downsides of these formal statements is that they can fossilize and preserve little pieces of church disputes long past the time when they are no longer truly relevant.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/832259#Comment_832259

The Apostolic Creed sets the standard for statements of faith.

How to deal with various kinds of sin does not belong in there. Why include homosexuality and abortion, and leave out greed, pride, lust and other things that do a lot more harm to the body of believers?

I agree. I think we should stick to the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed rather than have every church and organization construct its own.

Virgil Buttram

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/832262#Comment_832262

I agree. I think we should stick to the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed rather than have every church and organization construct its own.

I also agree. However, while the Nicene is more broadly accepted than the Apostles', the issue of the filioque remains divisive between the West and the East.* Even so, the rest of that creed remains the closest we have to a universal Christian statement of faith.

*I think MJ prefers "Byzantine", if I am remembering correctly.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/832275#Comment_832275

I agree. I think we should stick to the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed rather than have every church and organization construct its own.

I also agree. However, while the Nicene is more broadly accepted than the Apostles', the issue of the filioque remains divisive between the West and the East.* Even so, the rest of that creed remains the closest we have to a universal Christian statement of faith.

*I think MJ prefers "Byzantine", if I am remembering correctly.

The filioque clause was a later addition. When I was "Back home again in Indiana" we had a member of the church who was from an Orthodox background. He simply omitted it.

Virgil Buttram

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/832282#Comment_832282

The filioque clause was a later addition. When I was "Back home again in Indiana" we had a member of the church who was from an Orthodox background. He simply omitted it.

Quite so. But once added, the West gave it sufficient weight that one of the myriad of cross-accusations in 1054 was the West accusing the East of omitting it, an historical fact that the East has not forgotten.

Brian

I want to offer my apology.

After a few days, I've reconsidered my word choices and my attitude, and wish I could both reword my message and represent Christ differently. Partly the problem is that what I wrote can be interpreted in a way in which I didn't mean it. For example, the first word in my subject is "Stop", so right out of the gate it seems harsh. But the other part of my problem is that I'm passionate about truth. That, in itself, I believe is honorable and good, but as another participant in this thread intimated, truth without love is a 'clanging gong'.

Through God's kindness, mercy and love in Christ, I am drawn to him to offer my life -- thoughts, words and actions -- in obedience to the faith of Christ. I believe that God draws all people the same way. My original post didn't reflect that.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/832356#Comment_832356

Apology accepted ...unfortunately needing to apologize seems to be part of the human condition.

Brian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/832446#Comment_832446

agreed!

Jacob Walsh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/832262#Comment_832262

The Apostolic Creed sets the standard for statements of faith.

How to deal with various kinds of sin does not belong in there. Why include homosexuality and abortion, and leave out greed, pride, lust and other things that do a lot more harm to the body of believers?

I agree. I think we should stick to the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed rather than have every church and organization construct its own.

If you're interested, CT recently published a cover story on "how to define heresy", and referenced the Nicene Creed as an ideal starting point. Here's the editor's note and cover story:

Editor's Note on Orthodoxy

Cover Story on Defining Heresy

Full disclosure: I work for CT

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/848329#Comment_848329

Lordy. I'll stick with CT's prophesies about the iPhone.

Myke Harbuck

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/832159#Comment_832159

I don't know much about Christianity Today but this has been an interesting thread to read (with a few chuckles here and there). I looked at their statement of faith but it seems short to me. I wonder what their stances are on more hot button topics like: Eternal hell vs annihiliation, abortion, homosexuality, etc

The funny thing is that Christianity today is much more conservative than their competitors, the Christian Post. The Christian Post has a tendency to be for more liberal and all inclusive (tolerant). But they weren't even mentioned here. Lol

Robert M. Warren

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/848452#Comment_848452

Sort of like comparing NPR to BBC?