Guest / Limited Access /

Nobody enjoys being slandered. A besmirched reputation, no less than a black eye, arouses the urge to fight back. However, thirsting for vengeance is dangerous, even when the grievance is just. A healthy desire to restore your good name can be easily ...

Read More

Displaying 1–20 of 30 comments.

1 2 next page   Show All

Claire Guest

October 27, 2012  2:45am

Medical Dangers of Marijuana Use: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html

Report Abuse

Claire Guest

October 12, 2012  9:56pm

Marc, I wholeheartedly agree with you that the real question is "What did Jesus do?" What DID He do about the woman caught in adultery? First, we know the Pharisees violated God's Word in bringing her alone -- the law stipulated that BOTH the man and woman were to be punished for adultery. Second, we know that Jesus did indeed forgive the repentant woman. Third, we know that He did NOT excuse her sin in any way -- instead, He cautioned her by saying, "Go and sin no more." It seems that last sentence is often overlooked. Yes, Christ Jesus extended compassion and grace to her and ALL others who were repentant of sin -- He still does that today. At the same time, He did NOT excuse her sin -- and He does not do that today either. It is very important that we keep a balanced view of His life and ministry, the example He set, and, yes, to realize that He still acts today just as He did then, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit who is still active in His obedient people today.

Report Abuse

Marc dewease

October 12, 2012  12:58pm

Reading this editorial brought to mind the cliche, "What would Jesus do?" I do not think it is a matter to ask what Jesus would do so much as "What did Jesus do?" He didn't have groups like the FRC and SPLC but He did have the Romans, Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, Zealots, scribes, apostles and disciples that made life unique in His day. In looking at the woman caught in adultery, He didn't wave the law over her head, but rather, asked those who were testing Him to do what the law required, that the person to cast the first stone was the one who was without sin. It narrowed the field down in a hurry. We should remember how he responded when James and John wanted to call fire from heaven to destroy a Samaritan village that did not receive him, and how He admonished Peter for severing the ear of the high priest servant. When it gets right down to it, Jesus was harshest on those who abused the law rather on those who broke it. We should do what He did: show compassion and give grace.

Report Abuse

Claire Guest

October 12, 2012  4:15am

Adam, the MSM has become a propaganda machine, sad to say. They openly, blatantly, unashamedly puffed Obama throughout the 2008 campaign, utilizing such blasphemous statements as "the new messiah", saying that his speeches "made chills run up their legs", etc, etc, etc. They simply abandoned all semblance of journalistic integrity/lack of bias and also withheld important background info about Obama which Americans deserve(d) to know. Unfortunately, this has not changed. Obama has indeed made negative, disparaging comments about Christians. He has also blasphemed the Scriptures in his support for re-defining marriage. As I said below, Tony Perkins was not the only person who made statements at those links. There may have been some hyperbole there, but certainly not any more (and in my opinion, undoubtedly less) than what is employed by our MSM on a daily basis.

Report Abuse

Adam Shields

October 09, 2012  12:54pm

Clare I did read them. Even some of the FRC's own stories did not embrace their headlines. For instance the beastality story said that it was unlikely that there was any intention in the removal of the language to encourage beastiality, in spite of the FRC headline. So is it a fact that the military encouraged beastiality? No, it is a headline to gain readers. The same with banning bibles. The rule was written badly (too broadly) and was quickly changed. It was to prevent unwanted proselytizing. It was never enforced and the writers of the article knew it. So again, is it a fact? Yes it happened, no it was not intentionally about hating Christianity and the rule was fixed quickly. As to "does the Obama administration hate Christianity", it is pretty hard to claim when many of the administration are Christians themselves. One sided presentation of the facts, ignoring counter evidence is not being truthful. That is the point of the editorial. FRC is a propaganda machine.

Report Abuse

Claire Guest

October 08, 2012  11:58pm

Adam, did you read those underlined links? There are many statements, by people other than Tony Perkins too. This is not only about him, or any other Christian. I stand by what I said below.

Report Abuse

Adam Shields

October 08, 2012  12:59pm

Claire Guest, I am pretty sure that by definition those are all opinions. They are based on evidence but to move from evidence to fact you have to have something more than Tony Perkins' claim. There are many other pieces of evidence that Tony Perkins is ignoring that counter his claims.

Report Abuse

David Van Lant

October 07, 2012  1:06am

And you have the right to give advice here because...

Report Abuse

Claire Guest

October 05, 2012  11:54pm

Re: (Among FRC president Tony Perkins's claims: President Obama hates Christianity; his administration excludes Christians; and the military, under his command, bans Bibles and embraces bestiality.) Did other readers click on the underlined links in this sentence? I did. Those statements are indeed based on actual FACTS, not supposition or falsehoods. So Perkins' claims are NOT an unfounded "attack", as the article's author would like us to think. Based on this, I agree with an earlier poster that CT is itself "abusing [its] microphone". What's simply amazing to me is that so many professed Christians do not already realize Obama's aversion and even hostility to Bible-believing Christians and the faith which our Savior died to impart to us. This is astounding in itself.

Report Abuse

Claire Guest

October 05, 2012  11:51pm

John S said, "I have seen no hate-related actions from SPLC." I have. I heard an SPLC spokesman address this situation on TV shortly after the incident at FRC's HQ, and his language was charged with hate and hostility. Yes, this sort of thing can indeed cause similarly hate-filled individuals to feel they have a license to take violent action, as Floyd Corkins did. The more professed Christians publicly deny God's Word about same-sex relationships, the worse it will get for Bible-believing Christians who seek to stand strong with integrity in the faith. Our Savior died that we might receive and abide in Him. Christians not only need to stand together, but even more importantly we need to stand with God's Word. Christ Jesus said His Word IS truth (John 17). There is no other.

Report Abuse

CHRISTY HEMPHILL

October 03, 2012  3:55pm

I appreciate this article. The author made lots of good points. I think it is totally appropriate for an Evangelical publication to publically call out Christians who have taken on very public, political roles as spokespersons for Evangelical views when they are being uncharitable and deceptive. That is not being unloving and judgmental, it's accountability in the public square, which there is not nearly enough of these days. Bearing false witness (which is also called "politics," evidently) is still a sin, even if you are a conservative Evangelical Republican.

Report Abuse

Wayne Duffield

October 02, 2012  12:53pm

We all should be standing with the Family Research Council. Articles like this is why I no longer subscribe to Christianity Today@

Report Abuse

Steve Skeete

October 02, 2012  12:52pm

'Abusing the microphone' sounds a bit pejorative to me and not at all the way one wants to speak publicly to a 'brother in Christ' whom one is accusing of publicly engaging in 'caustic rhetoric' with an adversary. This sounds like the kind of article one writes when one has tried chastisement privately and it did not work, so now one is trying to justify oneself. Either that, or CT is trying to demonstrate what the high ground means but failing woefully at it. Why did CT feel the need to accuse FRC of trafficking in 'flatly untrue statements', and then draw attention to these statements (without providing any context) if it is really only trying to speak the truth in love to another brother? This article damns but pretends that its purpose is to praise, it puts down a 'brother' and comes out strongly on the side of a group that from all appearances is quite capable of mounting its own defence. If this editorial speaks for CT then there really is no love lost between it and FRC. Pity!

Report Abuse

John Sucke

October 02, 2012  1:02am

Claims that SPLC is an activist group are wrong. It takes no action. It reports what groups do. It has reported that FRC has engaged in anti-homosexual actions. That is a mere fact. This is not a pep rally where we each cheer our teams no matter what. When one team engages in hate-related actions, it needs to be pointed out. I have seen no hate-related actions from SPLC. FRC, on the other hand, ....

Report Abuse

J Thomas

October 01, 2012  11:00pm

I disagree, Tim. CT is essentially relieving SPLC for any blame regarding the influence it has had on the far left radicals, one of which charged into FRC's office and shot the building manager in attempted murder. That is irresponsible. I'm beginning to wonder who foots the bill for Christianity Today, because just about everything they publish seems to question Christianity and promote secularism.

Report Abuse

Tim Brady

October 01, 2012  10:47pm

I really appreciate the spirit and the words used in this article. I believe it reflected the words in Romans 12:14-21 that we are to be salt and light to all people. Your advice to Christian organizations is both sound Biblical teaching and a witness to the world. Great job editorial people!

Report Abuse

Wayne Froese

October 01, 2012  10:15pm

If you are reading this, it's for you. Christianity Today is not going to publish items that don't reflect the views of its readers OR the views that its readers love to hate. What do we learn about ourselves from the recent topics in CT? We love to judge and correct each other. We love our righteous anger over others wrong thinking. What is the gospel we preach? It looks like "right thinking". And that's just the stuff on the top of the page. The bottom 1/2 of these pages tell an even scarier story.

Report Abuse

Vijay Mathias

October 01, 2012  10:08pm

I don't see why Perkins is wrong when he says President Obama hates Christianity. Perhaps that is a bit too harsh, but are we not to judge a man by his actions and not simply his words? For example, if Obama were a Christian, wouldn't he at least show some concern for all those ministers and Christians who are pleading they not be forced to obey a bill against their consciences? Would he have blatantly defied the Catholic bishops at their request that abortion not be included in the health care bill? Would he tout a fake war on women, turning them against their own families? Would he not at least consider the reasons behind the concerns of many well-meaning Christians regarding marriage, instead of defiantly scorning them on the issue? Least of all any Christian would be concerned about peace and harmony among Christians, not pitting them against each other. Well God alone knows the heart, but Jesus did tell us a man shall be known by his fruit. I therefore see Perkin's point.

Report Abuse

J Thomas

October 01, 2012  9:07pm

Southern Policy Law Center is nothing but an activist group for the democratic party, and it won't take long for any Christian group to be defined there, under their specious guidelines, as terrorists. Hooray for Tony Perkins and the FRC for standing up to their bullying. Wake up, Christians, for you are next on the SPLC target list.

Report Abuse

Dee McDonald

October 01, 2012  8:09pm

Good point Marc Schiler. You fit right with those whom the article's message is addressed. You don't hear what is being said; instead, you just malign your opponent without even engaging in real dialogue. Good job! We all know that CT has no business claiming that Perkins should tone down his rhetoric; for he has never said anything foolish (just in case, that was sarcasm). For sure what Perkins says about certain things are justified, but there is no need for him to make up lies to get his point across. The means don't justify the end. That is what CT is doing in this editorial, not taking swipes at conservatives.

Report Abuse

Displaying 1–20 of 30 comments.

1 2 next page   Show All