According to Daily Wire, "between 2015 and 2022, nine Christianity Today employees made 73 political donations. All of them went to Democrats." Granted, nine is a fairly small percentage of the 400 or so employees at CT. But that number includes some in leadership, including President and CEO Timothy Dalrymple who – according to Daily Wire – made two separate donations to a pro-abortion candidate for the Georgia Senate.
Other CT contributors to Democratic candidates reportedly include Natalie Lederhouse, VP of advertising and partnerships (2020 Joe Biden Victory Fund); and news editor Daniel Silliman (pro-abortion, pro-LGBTQ candidates – including Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren's presidential campaign).
Christian apologist Dr. Alex McFarland says these discoveries might explain the political leanings of the magazine in the last few years. "It doesn't surprise me that staff of Christianity Today financially support Democrat candidates and causes," he tells AFN, "because Christianity Today has been left-of-center for years – and occasionally left-of-left."
McFarland contends the leftward drift picked up speed when CT hired as editor-in-chief Dr. Russell Moore, a Trump critic and former president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC). But Daily Wire points out Moore stopped all political donations from CT staff when he got there – because, according to Dalrymple, Moore doesn't believe reporters should make political donations.
Daily Wire raises this concern: Are CT's staffers using their media positions to try to shift the opinions of other evangelicals? Similarly, McFarland is concerned that supposed "thought leaders" in the evangelical movement lack evangelical principles.
"It's very unfortunate that many professed Christians – and even some who publish magazines like Christianity Today – have really not done the heavy lifting of thinking through voting and the stewardship of citizenship and having the courage to take stands that may not be popular but are moral and righteous," he argues.
The magazine, McFarland concludes, "has not been relevant" for years – and simply is reaping what it is sowing.