Featured Editorial in Christianity Today says: "Trump Should Be Removed from Office"

https://www.christianitytoday.com/c...SxpQpd0nIRx1BAQ4XSnEvgXVoForVZdVt8ga7vKeDcrvE

For those unaware I am a Canadian, although I did spent a good chunk of my younger years growing up in the United States up to the age of 12. I do not have American or dual national status however, so I cannot vote in any U.S. election.

Regardless I am a keen political observer (keener than some, not as keen as others) and I do keep an eye on what's happening in the United States. Why? Because American power and influence touches every corner of the globe and the U.S. is Canada's biggest trading partner. Canada is America's number two trading partner after China. So obviously whoever occupies the White House has an impact up here, as one Canadian Prime Minister once quipped: "When America sneezes Canada catches a cold".

With that being said I do think an article like this has the potential to move the needle, if not in a Senate vote, then possibly come November 2020 when Americans go to the polls. Had this editorial appeared on CNN's website, or any other MSM outlet I'd just say "meh....no big deal". But an lead editorial in a publication that lists Billy Graham as a founder, that's something completely different. Their website says their movement reaches over 5 million Christian leaders each month, and I assume that a large chunk of that is in the United States if not most of it.

According to polling data over 80% of white voters who identify themselves as Evangelicals support Donald Trump. And given the razor thin victory the President achieved in 2016 even a small move of the needle could have a major impact in my view. Yes Trump won the Electoral College vote handily, but I would submit that his 304 to 227 Electoral College victory was due to swing states all falling in line. I'm talking about Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan....had Trump lost Florida and just one of those others, Hillary Clinton would be the one running for re-election right now.

I don't think Trump is at risk of losing solidly red states like Texas or the Carolinas for example...but the swing states of which I've counted 6 here, if Florida and just one other goes to the Democrats, then that would make a huge difference.

I'm curious to see what others have to say after reading this Editorial. And as a gentle reminder, that goes for myself as well, let's remember that this is a Christian forum and that we're all image bearers. That's something I sometimes forget when I vehemently disagree with someone's point of view. I will strive to treat others in the manner in which I like to be treated, with kindness love and respect.

And now its Christianity Today that's being attacked. Christians eating their own?

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/4...Ggrzmk_TppV0AQd6aIcAKORFvNYNQtpqUn3_K_9-mjbXE

No, it is not a matter of eating our own. It is a matter of rebuking Left wing politics entering into Christianity Today to slur our President who is not actually guilty of any of the false charges levied against him in this sham of an impeachment hearing.
There's contention now because according to the rules, some say, until the articles are forwarded to the Senate, which is the next step in such a proceeding, Trump hasn't actually been Impeached.
Who's holding those articles up from that sending to the Senate? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Franklin Graham: My Father 'Would Be Very Disappointed' in Christianity Today

Given that CT is avowedly Pro-Life on abortion, and opposes gay marriage and the whole lbgqtxyzmonp agenda....I have a problem viewing this as a Liberal publication....in my eyes CT is decidedly Conservative with a big Capital C.

What specifically about what they wrote do you think is inaccurate?

I like Whispered too much to let politics divide us. Denom. already does.

First it should be pointed out as you have also admitted, that you are not an American.
This then is not a matter of your president facing impeachment.

What's inaccurate? If one reads the article it is impossible to miss the left wing bias of its author is anti-Trump. And it is regurgitating falsehoods in order to make thinly veiled points against Trump and for his impeachment without any actual proofs.
Example. Just one, as that should be enough. The opinion piece sends a warning to Christians that with this editor in place, CT is going Left.

"...But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral."
No details, no names. Just allusions to what's alleged against Trump, while closing with a personal judgment of the man based on what? Innuendo.
Then he gets worse. This is December 2019. If this person had details and actual facts as a bone of contention concerning valid charges of impeachment he would cite them. None of what he goes on about below are impeachable offenses. They're his personal opinion and if you read closely you'll notice these are also keywords you've likely read the Liberal media issue against Trump a time or two.

"...The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused."

That isn't an opinion piece on the particulars of the case at hand;Impeachment.
It's a personal screed against the Christian president of the United States of America, that the editor in chief of CT demonstrates by his own example that he has judged without exercising righteous judgment about the issue at hand. Namely, impeachment.

Why he thinks Trump should be removed from office is because Mark Galli doesn't like Trump. That's what all that type face was actually communicating.

Trump is no longer facing impeachment, that ship already sailed. The next step is the trial in the Senate, which....I can't see even a .00001% chance of conviction. As for the writer being "anti Trump", on that I agree with you 100%. But I don't think being anti-Trump automatically makes someone a left winger all of a sudden. Not someone who supports protecting the unborn and opposing abortion, or upholding traditional marriage as this writer and CT do. If that's what Liberals support I know some people who are going to want to change party affiliation up here...

Ultimately I think for the writer it came down to the same reasons CT called for Bill Clinton's removal as well....

I know some believe God puts world leaders like Bill Clinton and Donald Trump in place for His purpose. I don't personally believe that...but I do believe that even when we there are mistakes made (assuming that electing one or both of Clinton/Trump was a mistake)....that God will still fulfill His plan.

In Canada we have Justin Trudeau and please don't tell me that God willed that...ugh.

I think we can have differing opinions without it leading to division....even if one disagrees with this writer. Maybe God is using him too?

I don’t find it accurate to say that CT is left leaning because the article is criticizing Trump. The critics of Trump are far from just being left leaning politicians and other left leaning people. A significant amount of criticism is coming from the conservatives, and the message is clear: Trump is not living up to the moral standards expected from an American president.

This has, however, nothing to do with him being competent or not. Clearly he is competent in some areas, and less competent in other areas, pretty much like his predecessors.

The problem is his behavior.

That is absolutely correct. Firstly Christianity Today had no business making such comments and entering into a coup attempt on a legally elected President. Secondly, if they are supporting the impeachment of Trump, they are supporting liars and traitors. Which means that they have abandoned all Christian standards and become another Leftist propaganda tool (just like the MSM). So perhaps they should re-label themselves "PRAVDA FOR GULLIBLE CHRISTIANS".

I think the EiC of CT demonstrated Liberal bias when in their opinion piece they regurgitated the Left's rhetoric against Trump and cited that as cause for his being removed from office.
Dislike of a sitting president isn't cause for removal of a sitting president. He can have his chance to vote, if he votes, come 2020. One wonders where he was in 2016 on that issue; voting.

And no, that ship (impeachment) hasn't sailed.

And do people know why? Because they are UTTER GARBAGE. The Democrats have made a laughingstock of themselves, firstly with a bogus Mueller Witch Hunt and then with a Sham Impeachment Conspiracy. It is high time someone began prosecuting these evildoers.

What I find ironic is that a lot of what I'm hearing in defense of Trump is very similar to what was said when Clinton was impeached....the only thing you have to do is replace the word left with right.

You may be right about that.

That is simply ridiculous. Trump has been under attack even while he was running for office and plans for impeachment were already under way when he had done absolutely nothing.. There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between a Criminal Conspiracy to perpetrate a COUP against a sitting President, and the impeachment of a man who was caught red-handed in sexual shenanigans at the White House.

If Christians are unable to discern between lies and truth, then God help us all.

Except that president Bill Clinton did perjure himself and he did obstruct justice. And while Impeached by the House, he was acquitted on both charges, perjury and obstruction of justice, by the Senate.
Not at all similar to the witch hunt against Donald Trump. One that began even when he was running for the office.

His behavior? Compared to what? Hillary R. Clinton's as his adversary for highest office? Or all those Democrats on display vying for highest office come 2020 in the debates? Or the behavior of the last CiC, who was clearly an enemy of this country.

Perhaps one can see his behavior as strategy given the base he is appealing to, and also, the character of the politicians he's contending against.
We have to remember that Trump has changed party affiliation a number of times over the years prior to running as a Republican presidential candidate.
And also, that he admittedly rubbed shoulders with the politicians now at odds with him in D.C..

I'll take his "behavior" over that of the alternative; HRC.
What I think should matter to the American people is all the good Trump has done since he's been in office.

Isn't that the very thing that we do here everyday, discuss/debate the truth as we understand it

Granted, it's NEVER supposed to get ugly, unfortunately however, it often does As Christians, doing what we can to get at the truth is (obviously) important, and that in every arena of life, it's just that we are also, as Christians, commanded to approach it differently than the world does (please take note of the various verses and passages in my signature line below, for instance ).

That said, my problem with Mark's (mostly) well-written/well-argued editorial isn't that his overall opinion of Trump's presidency is different than mine is, rather, it's the fact that he thought it necessary to go beyond that and call out all of his brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with him (and that, in a particularly offensive manner .. see below).


The sad thing is, while I believe that his editorial (apart from the paragraph above) made several important points, he decided to attack the very Christians who he appeared to be trying to reach, effectively ending any good that might have come from his editorial. While Mark's intention ~should~ have been to stimulate and elevate the conversation, especially among those of us with a different mindset than his, he ended up doing just the opposite I'm afraid

~Deut

Makes me wish I had a subscription to that magazine...…… So I could cancel it.

Yes, the middle of your bolded line @Deade I actually had a laugh slip out. That sounds very much like a personal attack on some.

I do think the Franklin Graham rebuttal is requisite reading for any discussion on the topic since they capitalized on his father's name.


I find that particular element repulsive, since it has nothing to do with the article itself, but lended false credibility to the article.


Anyone that would be casually scanning on an already heated topic, torn between two extremes, might likely only partially process that just because someone founded an organization, does not mean they align with everything that is said. Perhaps that was intentional...or an oversight. I'll let the reader decide that.



Otherwise the article would be a good stimulus for discussion by itself, depending on how interested/well-versed one is with the particular publication.