Chrisitianity Today: Whither Goest Thou?
About ten years ago when I was attending a large Presbyterian church in our city, one of the editors from Christianity Today spoke on a recent book of his about William Carey. As an amateur historian, I had to go, but I had another reason. I was going to get to meet one of the editors of the magazine that had sustained my faith.
I approached him afterward and told him how much CT had meant to me. He laughed and said that he more often hears angry comments, so he appreciated it. I was very sincere and let him know I was very sincere.
Why was I sincere? Because at a time when I was entrenched in a branch of the church that was stifling, emotionally and intellectually, reading CT allowed me to know that other people thought like me and there was hope for thinking persons of faith. That's the short version.
When CT went online, I stopped getting it in the mail and started my daily trek to its website to read its articles. It still sustains me in many ways, and I often post links to it from this blog. However, I have recently noticed a weatherchange in some of its articles that puzzle me.
Specifically, it is in the Hermeneutics page, which I still generally find enlightening. But recently the page has had a fascination with body image and movie stars. Cases in point.
An editorial defending Seth McFarlane's song at the Oscars ceremony, "We saw your boobs." OK, it was funny, but was an editorial about it in the flagship evangelical Christian publication necessary? Seth McFarlane is one of the crudest people on the planet who has no time for the things of God. Why give him any time?
A piece defending Lena Dunham (actually more than one), a really insecure actress and writer who parades naked on her television show, sees sexual promiscuity (I typed promiscruity, which is a good combination) as a form of self discovery, and also hates the things of the church? Who compared voting for Obama to the first sexual experience? Why waste time on her?
An article comparing Jennifer Lawrence to Anne Hathaway and why we like one and don't like the other. Hello? Do we know either of these women beyond their celluloid image?
Fortunately, the bulk of CT's articles are still about doctrine, theology, book reviews, and humanitarian efforts of the church (I am staying away from the word social justice because it has so many connotations). But one has to wonder about their editorial choices.
I approached him afterward and told him how much CT had meant to me. He laughed and said that he more often hears angry comments, so he appreciated it. I was very sincere and let him know I was very sincere.
Why was I sincere? Because at a time when I was entrenched in a branch of the church that was stifling, emotionally and intellectually, reading CT allowed me to know that other people thought like me and there was hope for thinking persons of faith. That's the short version.
When CT went online, I stopped getting it in the mail and started my daily trek to its website to read its articles. It still sustains me in many ways, and I often post links to it from this blog. However, I have recently noticed a weatherchange in some of its articles that puzzle me.
Specifically, it is in the Hermeneutics page, which I still generally find enlightening. But recently the page has had a fascination with body image and movie stars. Cases in point.
An editorial defending Seth McFarlane's song at the Oscars ceremony, "We saw your boobs." OK, it was funny, but was an editorial about it in the flagship evangelical Christian publication necessary? Seth McFarlane is one of the crudest people on the planet who has no time for the things of God. Why give him any time?
A piece defending Lena Dunham (actually more than one), a really insecure actress and writer who parades naked on her television show, sees sexual promiscuity (I typed promiscruity, which is a good combination) as a form of self discovery, and also hates the things of the church? Who compared voting for Obama to the first sexual experience? Why waste time on her?
An article comparing Jennifer Lawrence to Anne Hathaway and why we like one and don't like the other. Hello? Do we know either of these women beyond their celluloid image?
Fortunately, the bulk of CT's articles are still about doctrine, theology, book reviews, and humanitarian efforts of the church (I am staying away from the word social justice because it has so many connotations). But one has to wonder about their editorial choices.
Comments