Cameron (00:00)
Hello and welcome to Thinking Out Loud. I'm your co-host, Cameron McAllister.
Nathan (00:05)
And I'm your co host, Nathan Rittenhouse.
Cameron (00:07)
More turmoil, more turnover, more terror. No, more turmoil at at Christianity today. So an article just appeared in the York in the New York Times by Ruth Graham looking at some of the layoffs that have taken place at CT, some of the rapid leadership changes, and
What's significant about this, I think, Nathan, is it is reflective of the broader media landscape, the broader Christian media landscape as well. There are a number of different elements in that article that we can talk about, but one that stood out immediately was that what's that?
Nathan (00:49)
Wait, hang on. Can you before
before you do this, can you give me can you give us a a two minute history of the importance of C T and then Yeah, and a little bit of that history that you're referring to. I think mo a lot of us might be up to speed, but just take us all along for the ride. So C T.
Cameron (01:06)
Yeah, so C T is founded by Carl F. H. Henry, who is a very important figure in the the event evangelical movement in North America. He's not a household name as much. He was, at one point, a very significant writer and thinker. And CT, I would say, emerged as the this was the the terminology used about I mean this was the description that
arose eventually. It's the flagship evangelical publication for for many for many years. And it's important to r I'll just make a few passing remarks here and maybe you you add Nathan if I leave anything out. But evangelicalism in North America, you can get lost in the weeds here on the history of evangelicalism. It that really begins in the UK and there's a lot. Yeah. But on North American shores,
Evangelicalism comes about in the wake of the fund what's what's called the fundamentalist movement. Now that that word is used pejoratively a lot. I'm not using it pejoratively here. I'm simply using it descriptively. The fundamentalist movement. Evangelicalism emerges as a kind of middle way that, yeah, it wants to. So on the one hand, an an evangelical is going to say, yes, we affirm all the essential.
doctrines, you know, we affirm the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the Trinity. These are non-negotiables. But on the cultural engagement side, it's a little bit more willing to engage, less less isolationist.
Nathan (02:49)
It's a it's a Billy Graham it's a Billy
Graham Orthodox Christian theology, but taken
Cameron (02:55)
Yes.
Nathan (02:55)
into the world.
Cameron (02:57)
Yes. So the the joking, the kind of jesting definition that the great historian George Marsden gave of of what is an you know, what is an evangelical? It's one of those famous questions. My favorite definition is an evangelical is somebody who argues passionately about what it means to be an evangelical. But Marsden's answer was an evangelical is somebody who likes Billy Graham.
Because it used to be that Billy Graham was it's this sounds hilarious in our moment right now, but it that used to be the case that there were there were large swaths of people who deeply felt that Billy Graham was a liberal.
Nathan (03:35)
Mm. Yeah, okay. So but here's why I I wanted you to go back because I wonder if some of the things that we're going to end up talking about where CT is today is the direct byproduct of its uneasy fit always in
Cameron (03:48)
Yes.
Nathan (03:48)
the broader Christian landscape.
Cameron (03:50)
It's always an uneasy fit. It's always one of real tension because what evangelicalism is trying to do is tow the doctrinal line and model fidelity to Orthodox Christianity, the authority of Scripture.
Nathan (04:11)
With accessibility to the masses.
Cameron (04:13)
With accessibility to the masses. That's really well said. And also perhaps a willingness to even engage certain so we we've come so far we miss how radical it was, for instance, when Francis Schaeffer talked about Ingmar Bergman movies or something like that. Because many, many people simply were taught, hey, movies are profane, cinema is bad.
And if you if you go to the movies, you're committing a sin. So Christians don't darken the doorway of a movie theater. We've come a long way since then, but that's that's a picture of the a willingness to engage the wider culture, but still try to remain salt and light. So I guess another way of saying it, Nathan, would be how how do you remain in the world but not of the world? And so ev
Nathan (05:08)
Well, let's see.
Cameron (05:09)
evangelicalism was was.
a concerted has been a concerted effort and occasionally contentious conversation since its inception about how one does that.
Nathan (05:24)
Okay,
so so that's great. Let's let's so fast forward a little bit. Christianity today be bopping along. and then Trump subscribed so so Christianity Today was never huge. I mean, it's Christianity today. They had what, eighty thousand subscribers at some point in the past. there they distinguished themselves in the more conservative evangelical space by publishing
articles back in whenever it all started that were not glowing endorsements of Trump, let's say, and some of them outright questioning what in the world the rest of Christians were thinking. So that that lost them a that that was sort of the maybe the initial kneecapping of the race that it was running at some point. And so I think they're down thirty thousand subscribers. and there's been a a bit of a bleed ever since they haven't been on board with
total political agenda of maybe broader evangelicalism. So that's that's the context out of which we're now seeing descriptions of C T in the New York Times.
Cameron (06:35)
Yeah, and when I don't remember the precise I don't remember the year it may have been I'm gonna I wanna say twenty fifteen when they published an editorial it's pretty short and sweet, but basically condemning Donald Trump. And that was
Nathan (06:57)
And you had
Russell Moore as a leading figure it i i
Cameron (07:01)
Well they do now. This was pre Russell Moore. This was
this was a j a gentleman who was on his way out at the time and his name's Mark Galley. His his name's escaping me.
Nathan (07:11)
Mark Gowley. Yeah.
Cameron (07:13)
And then he so he he left in in you know, he basically unleashed that thing, then left, and then converted Catholicism.
Nathan (07:20)
Okay.
Cameron (07:21)
But then the next man in in leadership who has since stepped down, they've had a lot of turnover and you know
CEOs, editors, and chiefs. Timothy Dahlrymple then also wrote a longer, very thoughtful piece that was highly critical of of Donald Trump as well. So I think it was the the double whammy of those. They
Nathan (07:44)
Mm-hmm.
Cameron (07:44)
yeah, they lost 30,000 subscribers. And ever since then, Nathan, CT has had, I think, a bit of an identity crisis. Let me spell that out a little bit and then have you weigh in.
I mean an identity crisis in the sense that you've got a s a group of stellar reporters who are doing independent journalism. So also I don't think that this is not I think this is also related, Nathan. They published important exposes of major Christian scandals, one one of which kind of affected us a little bit. Yeah, so
Nathan (08:24)
We we we knew a thing or two about one of their investigations,
yeah.
Cameron (08:28)
Yeah, pr pr I mean, one of I think one of their their most read and hard hitting pieces of recent journalism was Daniel Silliman's article on Ravi Zacharias. Well, that so I think so that's that's very important journalism. But it also led a lot of people to think, well, is this is this is this magazine all about I mean, why is this magazine so critical of fellow Christians? This is our magazine. Now
That's very much a reflection of our moment, isn't it? This is we all we talk about identity politics and we all we're always pointing the finger at somebody else. But the fact is, this is the air we breathe and we all absorb a little bit of that. And there was, I think there is a kind of sense that no, CT is a publication for evangelicalisms, for evangelical, for evangelicals, by evangelicals. So why is it trashing evangelicals? I'm not saying that that line of thinking is correct.
I'm not saying it's usually spelled out. I think it's kind of a default for people, but I do think that's a salient factor here. I think a lot of people basically looked at that and they thought, CT is it's now turning on its own. This is, you know, why are we paying for a subscription to a magazine that's going to attack fellow evangelicals? Look at what this is a civilizational moment. We need to band together. I I really don't think this is a straw man. I'm paying I think this is kind of
the the basic line of thinking that animates many people. So this is, I think,
Nathan (09:59)
Well s so one of the questions
Cameron (10:01)
behind if somebody says CT's gone woke.
Does that mean that, okay, is is C T promulgating gender ideology and is it is it, you know, embracing critical theory and highly progressive a highly progressive political agenda? No, not at all. In fact, absolutely the opposite. It's it's if you were to take a dyed in the wool highly progressive person and put CT before them, they would say
my goodness, this is as repressive and conservative and stuffy as it gets.
Nathan (10:35)
It would look like fundamentalism.
Cameron (10:37)
Yeah.
Nathan (10:38)
Yeah. One of the things can so so we can we can do an analysis of the interior leadership structure, the changing landscape, but one of the things is like where where do you where where in life do you pay people to tell you things that you don't want to hear other than the doctor?
Cameron (10:57)
Everything around us militates against doing that. I think let's say as recently as fifty years ago, maybe I'm being naive, people recognize not only were people willing to pay to hear what they didn't want to hear to somebody other than a doctor, as you say, but they recognize that that's that's a good thing to do. Not necessarily because you want to experience all sorts of cognitive dissonance, but because
Well, you want to you want to test what you know and you wanna think carefully about it, and also you want to have a balance to your thought. So no ideological diversity is a bad thing. But we're in a moment now when if you don't like what you've heard, you can just go get another opinion from somebody else.
Nathan (11:51)
well hang on. All right. But let me throw another wrinkle in here. Here comes Nathan the pessimist. I think behind CT's overall problem is the fact that by and large, people don't read more than 400 words at a time. So it's it's not just that I can go get another opinion, it's that I can go watch a forty-five second video of somebody saying exactly what I want to hear.
And that's way easier than doing the work of reading an article that is challenging some of my observations and presuppositions about what I think to be true. So it's and that's that's not just true of Christians, that's that's the world that we live in. so if you're if you're trying to do long form journalism that is at times trying to walk a middle path between extremes, I think economically you're in trouble.
Cameron (12:52)
And that puts in
Nathan (12:53)
The end.
Cameron (12:53)
Yeah. I mean it's it's very hard for me to argue with that. That makes me think of I think this is Ruth Graham talks about this in the article, how they're they the staff were gathered by leadership and basically we're told, All right, hard times are coming. And, you know, some very somber prophetic passages were read from scripture about rejoicing even in the midst of darkness. And so everybody's very it's very ominous.
And then one of the comments that was made by leadership was, yeah, think about the TikTok model. And I guess certain journal some some of these, you know, workers were leaving in tears and all of that. But the TikTok comment was very, very revealing, I think.
Nathan (13:36)
We didn't
Cameron (13:37)
Cause they were just saying largely what you were l what you just said, Nathan. Well, the media landscape has changed drastically and the attention span has really diminished. And so if you can't beat join them.
Kinda di that's not what you said, but
Nathan (13:51)
Yeah
well no but I mean it's they're not wrong. So that
Cameron (13:54)
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (13:54)
that's the and also let's point out the massive irony of the fact that we do a podcast that essentially is in the exact same vein. So yeah. Like, share and subscribe. you know,
Cameron (14:01)
Hi, YouTube. Yep. Right. Mm-hmm.
Nathan (14:05)
this is your but it's a yeah, it's a sign of the time. I so I d so I think there probably will come to light things that are done that were unwise, perhaps immoral or but were still good business, but not
within the ethos of what it is that's at the heart of Christianity today, or we just say that the heart of what Christianity today always has been is no longer relevant to the moment in which we live. That being said, here's where I think I bet I that there are people listening to this podcast who used to subscribe to Christianity Today who no longer do and it didn't have anything to do with politics. And this is where I I I Cameron I read the New York Times article
And then I sat and thought, like, why don't I read the New York Times? I I mean, why don't I read Christianity Today? I used to have a subscription to Christianity Today. Let that slide. I used to look at their website more often. Don't really. I I can't put my finger on why. So so
Cameron (15:08)
I wonder
Nathan (15:09)
so I don't think I I don't think it's fair to say, well, it's just they took a different political stance than some people. and and it's not that I don't
read long form things or enjoy alternative perspectives, I don't know what happened.
Cameron (15:25)
I wonder, I have an idea here. And this
Nathan (15:27)
Help me.
Cameron (15:28)
is not original to me. Kind of, you stimulated this when I was talking with you earlier on the phone. We I think I used the phrase, you know, you don't you don't necessarily feel you need you know, you you re you have a very, I would say, balanced publication diet. You ta you you read you read stuff that's left of center, you le read stuff that's right of center, and you tend to read the best.
in both of those categories, the best on the left, the best on the right. And so then the question emerged, why would I now need to turn to C T to kind of hold my hand through all of this? And I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but let me just think out loud on this for a second. It seems to me, Nathan, that in the not so distant past, Christians, evangelicals, needed a lot of help in the cultural engagement department.
Nathan (16:21)
Mm, mm-hmm.
Cameron (16:21)
e evangelicals were in danger of burying their heads in the proverbial sand. And even in, you know, as as recently as the nineties, there were still a lot of evangelicals who lived in a kind of Christian subculture, you know, and they they they wouldn't listen they would you know all of the the different Christian alternatives, they would wear the, you know, the God Bucks T shirts or Jesus is my homeboy and certainly, yeah.
You know, all of that. It's easy to but it was a subculture. It was a kind of haven. But now, I would say generally speaking, Nathan, most of your average people and evangelicals are very culturally savvy. They know how to navigate the media landscape really well. Not necessarily maybe discern as discerning. I mean, discernment is is is a gift and it's cultivated through wisdom, but I'm just saying they know how to navigate it well.
They understand it generally pretty well. They watch movies, they watch shows, they listen to the music, they're not just lost in a subculture. So when everybody is culturally savvy, when everybody's engaging culture pretty well, what is left for a publication like C T or others like it that here's how yeah.
Nathan (17:40)
Well, there there's there's
a parallel here where you're talking about like when w when we talked about horror and you're like when everything is maximally gruesome all the time, how do you scare anybody? It's like when everything is is maximally presented to you instantaneously with plenty of opinions attached,
Cameron (18:01)
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (18:01)
how do you distinguish yourself as and I think too, let's be honest, that there has been a shift in the degree to which we see the church
I'm using the broad definition of church there, as a practical solution to the problems of the world compared to the political expediency that can come by just getting excited about the right things. So Christianity today may have had a stronger influence at a time in which Christians saw the church as a bigger cultural force. So you have a and James Davidson Hunter's idea of this of saying.
Really, for the the percentage and the energy and the money that was invested, the church never had a proportionate cultural influence. It was at the times in which in fact you had some of the the the highest percentages of quote unquote evangelical identification. You had the more conservative leaders when definitions of the changes of marriage and abortion laws were changed all. So there there hasn't historically been a good I think Christianity was telling a story.
Of a church in involved and engaged in the world that was making meaningful change. And
Cameron (19:12)
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (19:13)
we're we've lived in a last five years that has called that bluff of saying, No, if you really want to get something done, that's not going to happen through the church. That's going to happen through the state. And so I think some of the just the energy and the direction of the intention and focus perhaps has shifted in the Christian mind. that isn't helpful to a publication either.
Cameron (19:33)
And also, okay, maybe this isn't fair. I think that was a really important point you just made. But Nathan, when I when I think of a phrase like hard hitting journalism, I I don't go to Christian publications. This is one of those instances when it's and may f whether f whether rightly or wrongly, but this seems to me not too dissimilar from the church that tr now, not that we shouldn't have hard
hard hitting journalism, but that it's a point of real distinction for a Christian publication. But it it feels a little bit like the church that tries to mimic the culture around it and has, you know, produces some media stuff.
Nathan (20:14)
Yeah, but hang on.
On the other hand, though, the Ravi story didn't break in the Wall Street Journal. And I think Bonnie Christian's idea
Cameron (20:22)
That's true.
Nathan (20:22)
in defense of evangelicalism is that evangelicalism does police itself and is continuously shaping and reforming by its own standards in order to grow. So I think that is the value that something like Christianity Today provides. Is it was actually doing the work that we would want Christian journalism to be doing.
Cameron (20:42)
Good in house work.
Nathan (20:43)
Good in good good in house, yeah. Organization a
Cameron (20:46)
Yeah, I would agree.
Nathan (20:46)
and and work. so anyway.
Cameron (20:50)
I can tell you what would bring me back as a reader.
Nathan (20:53)
this I would like to hear.
Cameron (20:54)
Yeah, so I'm not sure whether this would be the solution. I in fact I'm confident it wouldn't be the solution to all of CT's problems, but I actually think it could do some good. I think it could help. I want CT to get more theological. In a word. I would I would definitely and this is reflective of the overall change in scenery. We we mentioned several episodes ago when when
we were talking about the Jesus movement and Larry Norman and those who were cultural outsiders, that now that movement won, and now we have cultural oversaturation. And the outsiders are kind of often in in charge and and now it people today seekers are going to Catholic and Orthodox and Anglican churches and they want the smells and the bells because that's the difference. Well, so this is, I think, reflective of that. I'm very much a person of my time.
I would love it if CT became much more theologically crunchy. And you had now they do have some theologians writing for them, but there's there's a very and I've I've written in a very small capacity. I wrote some film reviews for CT years and years ago. They do have a kind of style guide that that sort of, you know, does does I don't it doesn't water down, but it it's very, it's, you know, very much.
trying to cater to a very, very general audience. I think if it got a little bit more theological, if it got a little bit more
Christian centric in the way that a a little fledgling but great publication like Mere Orthodoxy is, I think that actually would make CT relevant in a new way, tapped in to some some of the real significance, not necessarily massive cultural influence, but significance of the church today as something that challenges the prevailing secular culture.
Nathan (22:51)
I
I wonder if here's an interesting thought.
Who who are the people who look at CT and think this magazine is for me? I read CT as a way of like an outsider kind of looking in at something.
Cameron (23:09)
Sure.
Nathan (23:11)
where I think maybe your first things, your plow, your front porch republic, your mirror orthodoxies, have a little bit more of a f an of a target audience. I I'm I'm struggling to articulate this question, but I'm thinking, does C.
CT is so broad that it almost can't do what you said.
Cameron (23:29)
Yes. So
brought yeah. So like you, Nathan, if I read CT, I'm doing some outside research. If I read but Front Porch Republic Plough, Mirror Orthodoxy, those are events for me when those when there are new issues
Nathan (23:46)
Mm, mm-hmm.
Cameron (23:47)
or new books. I'm excited because it because I I know that there's a consistent quality in in the writers and in the thought. And so that's why I mean
Why do we read it?
Nathan (23:59)
Yeah, but I'm not saying there
isn't a consistent th theology and thoughtfulness and quality in Christianity today's publication. I'm saying I'm not sure who it's for.
Cameron (24:08)
No, I think your your broad comment was really important. I'm not and also that goes to the the question of the that I introduced at the beginning of the podcast, and this this was I don't remember whether it was Ruth Graham who asserted it in her piece or whether somebody else she interviewed did, but that we live in a time of the vanishing middle politically, certainly. And so if if we are inhabiting this really polarized
moment, which we all know, it's just I I I want to roll my eyes as I say that polarized. It's yes, it's w it's been said to death, but with when a time when there is no real middle ground, there is no centrist kind of position, what to do with publications that were that occupied that space? Is there still a home for them right now? That's the one of the open questions, I think, of the piece.
Nathan (25:01)
Yeah, but that's not unique
to Christianity Day. We had somebody five years tell us that about thinking out loud. It was as a marketing guy who's like thinking out loud will never be a big podcast. It doesn't traffic in the appropriate levels of what do you say, fear and what was the other one? Yeah. Outrage and fear. Yeah.
Cameron (25:16)
Outr well, grumpiness, outrage, fear. Yep. Mm-hmm.
Nathan (25:20)
and so we you and I consciously made a decision of like, okay, we're going to pursue the project because we think it's the right thing to do, not because we think that it'll ever be a massive
Cameron (25:30)
Right. Media juggernaut.
Nathan (25:31)
cultural shaping force.
Yeah. And so we're we're not
We aren't trying to be all things to all people. We recognize it's a very nuanced and niche type of person who likes to listen to ramblings and then delights in post event processing their own thoughts and finds the value in their own thoughts that are stimulated by kind of bouncing off the ideas that you and I are flinging out there. So yeah, it's a it's a very, very small project, but that doesn't mean that it's a a bad one or that it's so
Yeah, I I think we're we're setting aside the the economic and cultural efficiency and productivity question for a and so that's why I would be bummed to see CT say, Well, we need more the TikTokification is the direction of the future, because that isn't a mission, vision, proposition. That's a market response adaptation.
Cameron (26:28)
Like you, I've been a bit fickle as a reader of C T, but also, I think like you, I'd be really sad if it closed its doors. I don't want it to go away. I think Christianity today is valuable as an institution. And I want to affirm that. I know that some hard decisions have to be made either way, and maybe the operation, if you know, a lot of their
their funding now comes through apparently through grants and less through submissions. So they they're they don't have their sources of revenue have dried up a little bit. So maybe it it shrinks a bit, gets smaller. These are all really hard things. But I think the mission of of Christianity today to be a major publication of the evangelical world, and part of that involving self-policing and
the continued reforming. I think those are all extremely valuable things. Yeah, sure. I mean, everybody has their opinion on how you could improve, you know, make it more theological or make it less political, make it more political. But I don't want it to go away. And I hope it doesn't go away. And I but I also hope it doesn't cater to what I would take to be some of the lesser impulses of our moment. Like you just said, Nathan, I dwindling ten attention spans, I have basically
carried out my entire career in defiance of that. For everybody
Nathan (28:00)
Yeah.
Cameron (28:01)
who told me to, well, simplify this, simplify this, simplify this. Actually, I'm going to just go ahead and tell you, dumb it down. I have resolutely refused. And here I am today saying this on an obscure podcast that I I don't regret doing that. I hope we don't lose Christianity today. It's valuable. Fight the good fight. Stick it out. And
Hang in there. That's that would be my word.
Nathan (28:27)
Yeah. A
and and I think to our listeners it i it's in it's incumbent upon us, Cameron, to
So how d how do we support the things that don't economically make sense or support the things that that that's that's too simplistic of a way of putting it. I think that's one of the the the cool one yeah, all all all charity or theology or public work is is very rarely going to generate the market value that sustains it.
And so I want to be thoughtful about it's not like, everybody should go out and get a subscription to the Christianity to keep them afloat. I'm not saying that, but I do want to be more intentional about supporting things that I see that are good.
Cameron (29:20)
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (29:23)
and that I that I appreciate that are there. We yeah, so it it it would be it would be a loss. We we recently had a local hardware store close and everything is everybody's super bummed about it.
And everybody else is like, yeah, but we do get most of our stuff off Amazon. So y you can't have it both ways. Right. and so I think you're you're gonna see more of this is a a the dwindling of the of the general store,
Cameron (29:49)
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (29:50)
so to speak, where I'm like, I'd be I'd be bummed if it went away, but I still don't use it, so it can't justify its existence. but so I what's what's the what's the theological and missional equivalent of shopping local?
Cameron (30:05)
Hmm.
Nathan (30:06)
I I have no idea what that is. but for some people they do know what that is because they support thinking out loud. And for those of you who have made it to this point, we want to say the sincerest thanks for keeping us going in a way in which we can go and do stuff in the world even when it doesn't have to pencil out perfectly on the math side of things. really, really support really really appreciate the support that you guys give us in in a lot of ways on that. So thank you.
I I yeah, I I I think it would be misplaced to say, look at what's happening in Christianity today. There are a lot of parallels to sort of our posture and the work that we're trying to do. Also, we're not really doing journalism, but we're trying to float ideas out there for people to munch on. And v we we live in a world in which you don't have to pay or you don't have to support the work of having ideas thrown at you. those are fast and cheap and easy. But for those of you who do choose to pitch into kind of
put a little bit of wind in our sails to keep us going on this endeavor. Really, really do thank you for that. So I'm not where that sure where the where the future of all of this broader conversation goes about public ministry, about how it's supported, how it's funded. there's a lot to think about. What are the healthy models, what's the real need. But yeah, I've enjoyed thinking about this. I I I don't think we came to anything definitive, classic thinking out loud, but it's
It's churned up some things that I think will be parameters and foundations for us in some of our future conversations.
Cameron (31:39)
In case you missed it, you've been listening to Thinking Out Loud, a podcast where we think out loud about current events and Christian hope. Like, share, and subscribe. And if you'd like to support us financially, you can do that by going to www.toltogether.com.