In 1962, the Swiss theologian Karl Barth came to George Washington University for a question and answer session with American religious leaders. Carl F.H. Henry, the editor of Christianity Today magazine, was one of these leaders. Here is how he described the meeting in his memoir, Confessions of a Theologian:
The university invited 200 religious leaders to a luncheon honoring Barth at which guests were invited to stand, identify themselves and pose a question. A Jesuit scholar from either Catholic University or Georgetown voiced the first question. Aware that the initial queries often set the mood for all subsequent discussion, I asked the next question. Identifying myself as “Carl Henry, editor of Christianity Today,” I continued: “The question, Dr. Barth, concerns the historical factuality of the resurrection of Jesus.” I pointed to the press table and noted the presence of leading religion editors or reporters representing United Press, Religious News Service, Washington Post, Washington Star and other media. If these journalists had their present duties in the time of Jesus, I asked, was the resurrection of such a nature that covering some aspect of it would have fallen into their area of responsibility? “Was is news,” I asked, “in the sense that the man in the street understands news?”
Barth became angry. Pointing at me, and recalling my identification, he asked, “Did you say Christianity Today or Christianity Yesterday?” The audience–largely nonevangelical professors and clergy–roared with delight. When countered unexpectedly in this way, one often reaches for a Scripture verse. So I replied, assuredly out of biblical context, ‘Yesterday, today, and forever.” When further laughter subsided, Barth took up the challenge…
I thought about this encounter when I heard that court evangelical Ralph Reed recently called Christianity Today magazine “Christianity Yesterday” in an interview with Laura Ingraham of Fox News.
Here is a taste of a Fox News story about the interview:
“Ingraham Angle” host Laura Ingraham told Reed he was making his publication “irrelevant,” adding that the magazine has been gradually taking on a leftward bent since it was founded by the late evangelist Billy Graham in the 1950s. Earlier Friday, Graham’s son Franklin responded to Galli by saying his father proudly supported and voted for Trump in 2016, and by telling CBN that Billy Graham would be “disappointed” to hear what Galli said.
Reed somewhat echoed those sentiments, saying Galli may want to change the magazine’s name to “Christianity Yesterday.”
“You cannot imagine a publication more out of step with the faith community that it once represented,” he said.
“President Trump received 81% of the votes of evangelicals four years ago — the highest ever recorded. His job approval according to a recent poll by my organization — the Faith and Freedom Coalition — among U.S. Evangelical stands at 83%. That is a historic high.”
Read the rest here.
A few comments on Reed’s interview:
- Ralph Reed is no Karl Barth. It is important to establish this up front.
- The folks at Christianity Today should take Reed’s comment about “Christianity Yesterday” as a compliment. Christianity Today represents the historic Christian faith. The court evangelicals and other members of the Christian Right seem to believe that Christianity began when Jerry Falwell Sr. founded the Moral Majority in 1979.
- Reed and the rest of the court evangelicals are scared to death that Mark Galli’s editorial at Christianity Today might peel evangelical votes away from Trump in 2020. Remember, Reed is a politico. His job is to spin the news to make sure his evangelical base is in line.
- I am continually struck by how court evangelicals justify their political choices with poll numbers rather than deep Christian thinking about political engagement. Reed seems to be saying that if a significant majority of American evangelicals voted for Trump, think he is a good president, and believe he does not deserve impeachment, then he must be good for the country and the church. God must be on his side. It seems to never cross Reed’s mind that 81% of American evangelicals might be wrong. Let’s remember, for example, that the the majority of American evangelicals in the South thought slavery was a good idea. My point here is not to compare Trump evangelicals to slaveholders, but to show that there is nothing sacred about an appeal to the majority. Didn’t Jesus say something about the “narrow gate” (Mt. 7:13)? Wasn’t he out of step with the larger faith community of his day?
- If you follow the link to the actual interview you will hear Ralph Reed say “I don’t know this editor” in relation to Christianity Today editor Mark Galli. The fact that Reed has never heard of Galli, and cannot even bring himself to call him by name, speaks volumes about the current divide within American evangelicalism.