Note: You are seeing this message because the browser you are using is out-of-date and/or non-CSS2 compliant. To see this Web site as it is intended to be seen, please upgrade your browser or use another more current browser.
Home » Issues » The Rule of Law »

As the World Turns?
WORLD Magazine digs itself in, deeper and deeper

by Douglas W. Phillips, Esq., October 31, 2003

Editor’s Note: The following article was written in September, but not posted until October. Before posting this article, I called WORLD Magazine publisher Joel Belz to personally explain the profound concerns shared by so many over the unprofessional journalism, and the irresponsible editorial practices, of WORLD toward Chief Justice Roy Moore. As a Christian brother and friend, I also believed it important to share the following article with WORLD, prior to publication, and to give them opportunity to respond. We enjoyed a very brotherly dialogue over the period of several days. I have made a few minor factual corrections to the article based on his comments, and added a postscript to account for recent events.

Background

Those of you who know the work of Vision Forum know that we have faithfully advertised with WORLD Magazine for six years. We have appreciated the work of WORLD and have tried to show our support for them by spending more than $70,000 in advertising revenues over those years. It is our joy to co-labor with those works of God that share a similar passion to see the Christian family restored and the foundations of freedom repaired. It is not necessary for us to agree with an advertiser on every point to still appreciate them and want to do business with them. I am pleased to report that, from time to time, WORLD has distinguished itself by taking heroic though unpopular stands for Christ, as it did on the TNIV controversy. To God be the glory.

But, like the little girl with the curl (when she was good, she was very, very good, and when she was bad — well, you know the rest), WORLD Magazine is currently demonstrating bad behavior concerning what many of us believe to be the most foundational battle of the century for freedom-loving Christians.

The battle concerns the ability of the state to acknowledge God, and the champion of the battle is the highest elected judicial officer of a state, a Christian and a man of impeccable character, Alabama State Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore. WORLD Magazine has publicly and repeatedly sullied the cause of the Chief Justice. The September 13 puff piece cover story, painting Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor (the man tasked with prosecuting the Chief Justice) as a defender of law and order, was a new nadir for the magazine that is drawing well-deserved and widespread criticism beyond Vision Forum. The WORLD editorial team is digging themselves and the magazine into a dangerous pit with each successive issue, a pit from which it will not be easy to escape, apart from a heavy dose of humility.

Regrettably, instead of responding with humility to the concerns of many, WORLD continues to cast doubts on the legitimacy of Chief Justice Moore’s stand in one breath, and, in another, to shift the debate away from the actions of WORLD to the response of the people who are upset with the magazine. In other words, now that they have had their days to damage the Chief Justice, they are calling for civility from those of us who are grieved by the damage they have done and continue to do.

True friends of WORLD will not allow them to duck the issue of their editorial stance or to erect straw men designed to shield them from the criticisms that they justly deserve. True friends of WORLD will, with Christian love, friendship, and manly confrontation, call a spade a spade, and appeal to WORLD to reverse engines.

For my own part, I hope that WORLD will not dismiss our concerns as uncivil diatribe. I believe the men at WORLD are brothers of the highest Christian integrity and are acting consistently with their consciences. But I believe they are dead wrong, that some of their comments have been downright shameful, and that they have caused actual harm to a righteous cause. They have misrepresented the actions and opinions of a Christian hero, they have urged others not to support him, they have promoted those who seek to persecute the Chief Justice for his stands, and they have offered a confusing array of commentary which has muddied the real issues which must be addressed. I further believe that WORLD is at a philosophical crossroads: they need to decide whether they will rise as the Christian newsmagazine for conservative Christians, or offer thinking Christians nothing truly distinguishable from that which we can already read in Christianity Today.

Reviewing the Recent Track Record

  1. In the June 21 edition of WORLD, editor in chief Marvin Olasky argued that the Bible should be understood as a pragmatic book and America as a pluralistic nation (i.e., based on many faiths, not just Christianity). Mr. Olasky further argued that when Christians living in a pluralistic society are speaking to public policy, they should not argue that an issue is right or wrong because “God says so,” but because of pragmatic considerations.[1] Mr. Olasky’s comments set the stage for a philosophical capitulation that would take full bloom in his opposition to Chief Justice Moore’s unabashed, public advocacy of Christianity and the position that America is a distinctively Christian nation with a court system founded on biblical presuppositions. (Ironically, Olasky’s pragmatism article ran opposite a Vision Forum ad entitled “Truth Matters.”)

  2. On August 8, during the showdown in Alabama over the Ten Commandments, Mr. Olasky criticized Chief Justice Moore on national television, arguing that Moore was fighting on “bad ground.”[2]

  3. In the August 30 edition of WORLD, Mr. Olasky officially asked the Christian community in America to withhold their support for the cause of Chief Justice Moore.[3]

  4. In the September 6 edition of WORLD, Mr. Olasky published perhaps the most specious and damaging article to date entitled, “Reasoning Together: Good Christians Will Continue to Disagree About Roy Moore’s Stand,” in which he:

    • Implies that God’s law is not always the standard we should uphold when we seek to influence public policy, for after all, Olasky writes, “there is no record of the Ten Commandments being exhibited [in Babylon].” (Comment: If God’s law is not the standard for law and public policy, then what is? Even if we concede that our nation has drifted from its Christian heritage, do we fault Justice Moore for calling us back to these roots? To what ethical standard did Jonah call the people of Nineveh? Olasky appears to be throwing another bone to pragmatism: do whatever works, whatever’s convenient, given the political climate you find yourself in.)

    • Implies that by refusing to obey the unlawful edict of the federal courts, Chief Justice Moore is standing in judgment over the teachings of the Apostles and the actions of certain heroes of the faith. He writes, “We’re on thin ice if we say that Esther in Persia was wrong to obey an order to join the king’s harem, or that it was wrong for Paul to tell Christians in Rome and Peter to tell exiles in other parts of the Roman Empire that they should obey ungodly rulers...” (Comment: Kudos to Mr. Olasky for appealing to God’s Word for direction; however, the comparisons he draws are strained. Rather than thumbing his nose at biblical precedent, Chief Justice Moore understands that the real question at stake is who has lawful jurisdiction in his case; and like the Apostle Paul, Moore does not accept as binding the word of an inferior magistrate. In this case, the Chief Justice is the highest elected judicial officer empowered with defending the state constitution. The federal judge lacked the jurisdiction to tell the Chief Justice that the state may not acknowledge God. Moore is the one obeying Romans 13. The failure of WORLD to acknowledge or represent the Chief Justice’s actual position on the rule of law and the doctrine of interposition is so glaring that one is left to conclude either that (a) they wrote and reached conclusions before getting the facts; (b) they made no effort to get the facts; or (c) they are simply choosing to ignore the Chief Justice’s claims and arguments.[4]

    • Implies that Chief Justice Roy Moore is doing more to fundraise for the ACLU than advance the cause of freedom. (Comment: First, has Mr. Olasky’s pragmatism really reached the point where he advocates that men should be silent if the enemies of Christ are going to rally their troops? Second, it is Mr. Olasky, not the Chief Justice, who is responsible for giving aide and comfort to the enemy. I cite as one example the fact that the anti-Moore criticisms from Christians have been quoted directly by Alan Colmes of Hannity and Colmes to show division and lack of support for the cause.)

    • Implies that the Chief Justice’s case to fight for the right to publicly acknowledge God could incite a civil war. He writes, “We should ask political questions: Do we want a civil war? Are we declaring the federal judiciary’s authority to be illegitimate... is it right to act on our own?” (Comment: It is simply irresponsible to imply that enforcing the law and standing for God is to promote a civil war. Moore is appealing to the rule of law, not promoting a lawless insurrection. Moore is upholding his oath, not “acting on his own” beyond his jurisdiction. Moreover, to imply that the Chief Justice has declared the federal judiciary to be illegitimate is either profoundly ignorant or dishonest. He has declared this specific act to be illegitimate, but not the court system as a whole. This is a shameful comment and implication that should have never gone to press. An apology is in order.)

  5. In the September 13 edition of WORLD, just two weeks after telling Christians to sit on the fence in the Justice Moore controversy, WORLD ran the cover story “Pryor Commitment,” featuring a smiling Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor holding the Ten Commandments. The story, which can only be described as a puff piece, was based on an interview with the Attorney General in which he was allowed to erect, unchallenged, a gigantic straw man, namely, that Bill Pryor is for the rule of law and Chief Justice Moore is not. This falsehood was reinforced by the editorial comments of the reporter interviewing Pryor.[5] (Comment: The problem here is that the Chief Justice, his legal team, and primary defenders have made it clear that the decision to disregard the unlawful order of the federal courts was not an act of civil disobedience at all, but the strict following of the rule of law based on principles of jurisdiction, constitutionality, and interposition.[6] There was not even a whimper of an attempt in the piece to allow the Chief Justice to explain and characterize his own actions. WORLD was very happy to accept Bill Pryor’s characterization. By pitting one man as a law enforcer and the other as a civil disobedient, WORLD perpetuates the confusion and misinformation against the Chief Justice. Again, an apology is in order.)

  6. Also in the September 13 edition, perhaps in response to letters of concern pouring into their offices, WORLD CEO and publisher Joel Belz ran an article citing an outrageous letter of criticism they had received as proof of a spirit of incivility toward them and others. (Comment: There is nothing civil about WORLD’s role in painting a picture of a law-abiding man as a lawbreaker. WORLD is the pot calling the kettle black. Rather than shifting the debate to others, why not in humility fess up to the harm caused?)

  7. While Mr. Belz was calling for civility,, an unnamed editorialist in the previous edition of WORLD published an article on yours truly in which he claims: “For Vision Forum’s Doug Phillips, (visionforum.com) the opinions of unbelievers are irrelevant.” Now, this is a silly and irresponsible statement from those who desire civility.

So What is the Core Problem?

At the heart of the problem with WORLD’s current editorial approach is a budding philosophical crisis. The issue is not merely about strategy, but about theological and historical presuppositions in conflict. WORLD appears to be advancing the view that (1) as Mr. Olasky has argued, America should be treated as a “pluralistic” nation, rather than one founded and chartered on Christianity; and, consequently, that (2) Christians are not wise to require public policy to explicitly conform to God’s Word; and (3) Whatever Christians do, they should not risk offending the pluralistic masses and losing influence by taking uncompromising and principled stands.

The Sad Story of Surgeon General Koop

Years ago, Francis Schaeffer challenged many to stand for Christ in the culture by advancing a biblical worldview. One of his primary disciples, Dr. C. Everett Koop, joined him in this crusade and even co-authored a book on the subject with Schaeffer. However, after the great prophet died, Dr. Koop was given the opportunity of a lifetime: He was appointed by President Reagan to be the Surgeon General. Sodomites and feminists railed and complained at the choice. They argued that America would become a theocracy. But by the time he left his office, the same sodomites and feminists were praising Dr. Koop as a fair and balanced man who had faithfully executed his office.

What happened? The answer is summarized in one word: “pluralism.” Once in office, Dr. Koop began handing out condoms to minors and embracing a host of practices that are anathema to Christians. The Christian community was shocked at the Surgeon General’s actions, and said so. What could have been a bright and shining legacy turned into an exercise in irrelevancy. Worse, many were disheartened to see a leader of his caliber compromise and then justify the compromise based on pluralism.

My Sincere Appeal

Back to WORLD: This fine magazine has an opportunity to make a difference for our nation. But they will never reach their potential unless they cease to be double-minded and thus unstable in all of their ways. On the one hand, they appear to want to influence the political process for good by facilitating an informed citizenry; but on the other hand, they run articles indicating that it is not “pragmatic” to overtly pronounce Christianity in the public square.

At this precise point in history, WORLD Magazine is not on the right side of the battle for freedom in this country. What they describe as a strategic difference is much more — it is a fundamental philosophical capitulation. Frankly, it is hard to get excited about a publication that asks believers to sit on the fence on one of the defining battles of our age. My sincere appeal, not just as an advertiser, but as a friend and admirer of WORLD, is that now would be a good time for the brothers on the editorial staff to admit in humility that they were wrong to urge Christians not to actively support the Chief Justice, wrong to lead people to believe that the Chief Justice favors civil disobedience and not the rule of law, and wrong to miss out on the opportunity to stand for truth when presented with one of the most historic and exciting events for Christians of the last century: the day that the highest elected judicial officer of a state stood on the Constitution, upheld his oath, and publicly acknowledged that our law system was based on the God of Christianity.

The following is not a prophecy or a declaration, just an opinion: Absent a change of heart and editorial policy, WORLD

will miss its opportunity for relevance when relevance is so desperately needed. With a change of heart, the magazine will soar to new heights and inspire a generation of subscribers who desperately want to see a real magazine with guts.

Postscript:

Since my formal communication with the leadership at WORLD, some minimal damage control has been attempted by the magazine in the form of an October 11 edition article on the Ten Commandments case and the Lemon Test, in which author Bob Jones IV conducts a fair interview with two of the Chief Justice’s attorneys and reports on their efforts to have his case heard before the United States Supreme Court. However, it must be stressed that to this date, WORLD has not fessed up for its bad behavior. To this date, they have never even asked to interview the Chief Justice personally about his case, his persecution by Bill Pryor, or any of the events that occurred in Montgomery. WORLD has not covered any of the stunning revelations of wrongdoing by Bill Pryor and those who want to lynch the Chief Justice for keeping his oath. WORLD

has not apologized for its inaccurate, sloppy, and highly prejudicial reporting of the events or the cause of the Chief Justice. Most importantly, they have not apologized to their readers and all lovers of liberty for asking the Christian community not to support God’s man of the hour, the Chief Justice, in his moment of need.

Next month, WORLD’s poster boy, Bill Pryor, will conduct his kangaroo court to attempt removal of the Chief Justice. Despite numerous blatant conflicts of interest on his part and despite his own outrageous hypocrisy on the subject, Bill Pryor will try to punish the Chief Justice for keeping his oath. It is one of the most historic trials in history (one of the only, if not the only, recorded case of a Supreme Court Justice being tried on ethics), and in an unprecedented act designed to protect them from public scrutiny, Pryor and the justices he selected (yes, he issued opinions approving two of the non-attorney judges to sit on this case even though their terms had expired) are disallowing all cameras and recording devices, and placing huge barriers on access to the courtroom by the public. Will WORLD even cover the story? How will they do it?

1. Olasky writes: “Biblical pragmatism should underlie our responses to this month’s ‘gay marriage’ onslaught. In a pluralistic society, the reason government should support marriage is not because God says so but because the historical record shows that promoting marriage is part of promoting the general welfare.” Marvin Olasky, June 21, 2003, “Growing Old Together: The Historical Record Supports Biblical Pragmatism.”

2. The 700 Club television broadcast, August 18, 2003.

4. “Christian activists, for their part, should not rush either to support or scorn [Chief Justice Moore], but should think through whether this is the issue on which they want to concentrate their attention.” WORLD Magazine, “Push Has Come to Shove,” August 30, 2003.

4. In Acts 22:24-29, Paul renders invalid the words of his captors, and as a Roman citizen, he demands a proper court of appeal. Paul’s words in this passage are every bit as “blunt” as those of Peter’s, which Olasky notes.

5. Bob Jones IV writes: “That principle [the rule of law], however, has become anathema to many conservatives fed up with what they see as a steadily encroaching secularism encouraged by the federal courts.” My question is: Who are the conservatives fed up with the rule of law? Certainly not the Chief Justice or his legal team.

6. Dr. John Eidsmoe has written a brilliant article on the doctrine of interposition and its relation to the history of Western freedom. It is entitled, “A Call to Stand with Judge Moore,” and it can be viewed in its entirety at the following link. A Call to Stand with Chief Justice Moore

About the Author

Doug Phillips is the director of Vision Forum Ministries, a discipleship and training ministry that emphasizes Christian apologetics, worldview training, multi-generational faithfulness, and creative solutions whereby fathers can play a maximum role in family discipleship

“The issue is not merely about strategy, but about theological and historical presuppositions in conflict.”

Issues

Related Articles