Christianity Today?

Ironically, the magazine, Christianity Today started out as an apologetics and evangelistic focus for Evangelical concerns and was the brainchild of a Reformed theologian named Carl F.H. Henry. However, these days, Christianity Today is headed down the slippery slope of theological pluralism. If the article I am referring to is any indication it seems that tolerance and pluralism is more important than theological precision and divine revelation as opposed to man made religion.

If you doubt my concerns then check out "Attack Dogs of Christianity" at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/august/23.52.html. While I might agree with the author that some fundamentalists go overboard with their attacks against others, he seems to ignore the fact that some of their concerns are also shared by conservative evangelicals. I suppose the author has never heard of the Protestant Reformation, since he seems to be ignorant of the fact that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is still the hot button issue that divides Protestants from both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox "christians."

And who would not be concerned with the departure of Robert Schuller from Evangelical and Protestant doctrines like total depravity and the sinful nature? I suppose citing Charisma magazine as endorsing oneness pentecostalism is not a legitimate concern either? I suppose the trinity is no longer an essential to catholic/universal Christian doctrine? Throw out the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed.

Just what does Christianity Today stand for? Apparently, the "emerging church" movement really isn't headed to liberalism and liberal theology? I suppose that denying the sovereignty of God and making God more human isn't that much of a concern either? After all, God doesn't know the future according to the Openness of God movement. Let's not forget that Clark Pinnock has decided there's a wideness to God's mercy that makes the Gospel irrelevant.

Ironically, the very people who are proposing tolerance are also selling Evangelicalism down the river of liberalism. I'm most certainly not a fundamentalist but those who dare to speak out against doctrinal deviation, heresy and heterodoxy are labeled by Christianity Today as "attack dogs."

I for one would rather be unpopular than to sell out to the seduction of "belonging" to a shallow evangelicalism that no longer knows where it stands on any issue. Jesus and Paul both died for the sake of the Gospel. I suppose they were "attack dogs" as well? And what about all those Christians who are being martyred all over the world because they are willing to stand up for the "doctrines" taught by Jesus Christ and His apostles? I guess attack dogs deserve what they get? David Aikman and Christianity Today need to get a clue.

The sad thing is that the majority of the people who read Christianity Today are ignorant of the issues and they remain ignorant precisely because Christianity Today wants to muddy the waters and seduce naive laymen into thinking that works righteousness is not so bad after all? And those silly Mormons? Maybe they're not really a cult after all? Right?

It's disturbing to see what used to be a solid Evangelical magazine going down the path of liberalism. It's only a matter of time before we see Christianity Today printing the same sorts of articles that one might see in Christian Century. Call me a prophet.

God have mercy!