Recent weeks have seen a flood of misinformation about ministries and their funding sources. We consider it sound journalistic hygiene to help readers understand our sources of funding and how we protect editorial independence.
First, the misinformation. Last week, rumor spread on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, that Christianity Today had received government funding in 2023. News influencers who have long been critical of us amplified these claims. In its extreme form, they claimed we had received $9 million in grants from USAID and were therefore “on the Biden payroll.”
The hysteria around USAID is having catastrophic consequences not only for Christian ministries doing lifesaving work around the world but more importantly for the poor and vulnerable people they serve. A careful conversation around whether and when ministries should partner with government agencies, and where corruption might be weeded out, is wise. Throwing those ministries and people into the flames and dancing around the bonfire is not.
But to state what should have been obvious, we have never received funds from USAID.
We applied in 2023 for an Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERC), a program signed into law by President Trump in 2020 to assist organizations impacted by COVID-19 shutdowns. Accountants enter the ERC into a standard line in tax forms for government “grants” even though it is a credit against payroll taxes. We have still not actually received the credit, but we keep our books on an accrual basis and were encouraged by our auditors to book the amount as a receivable in 2023.
So our critics are wrong on the facts. They’re not wrong, of course, that sources of funding can be sources of temptation.
This tension is native to the journalistic enterprise. It is not particular to philanthropic revenue. Publications face temptations to publish something false, or refrain from publishing something true, to please shareholders, directors, partners, donors, advertisers, or subscribers, and thus improve their financial position. Nor is this temptation limited to the right or left, or only to organizations. Conflict entrepreneurs on social media may perform for their audiences to increase their income.
The difference at a solid journalistic institution is that standards and practices protect the impartiality of the editorial voice. These are imperfect, subject to scrutiny, and fiercely defended. At a journalistic organization like Christianity Today, they intertwine with our sense of calling. We would fall short of our vocation as Christian journalists if we did not hold each story accountable to the truth and each opinion accountable to Scripture, without fear or favor.
This is why we separate the editorial and business sides of the house. Board members superintend the mission and values of the ministry but do not intervene in editorial process. Operations staff members understand they cannot pressure editorial to gain or retain favor with sources of revenue. Editorial staffers understand they are free to follow their consciences without concern for business consequences. We communicate with foundations, advertisers, and partners that we protect editorial independence because it’s critical to reader trust, and we only work with those who respect that commitment.
Readers are welcome to review our journalistic code of ethics here. Our finances are scrutinized by our board, independently audited each year, and public in our 990s. We have top marks for transparency and accountability from Charity Navigator and MinistryWatch.
Some of our critics might be surprised to learn (though they should not be) that we declined to publish a piece by then-president Joe Biden in 2021 because we found it too political. We also declined to conduct an interview with President Biden amid the 2024 campaign because it would have felt imbalanced to do so for one candidate and not another. These are not the actions of an organization beholden to the Biden administration.
We publish articles that reflect poorly on institutions dear to our board members when we believe they are true. We report stories of pastoral misconduct that we know will cost us subscribers when it’s important for the health of the church. We might publish a piece that will frustrate a left-leaning foundation on Monday, and a right-leaning foundation on Thursday. This would make for a typical week.
Our views on social and moral issues—the sanctity of life, religious liberties, the Christian ethic of marriage and sexuality, God’s passion for justice, the Christian call to care for the vulnerable, environmental stewardship, and even the importance of democracy and free markets for human flourishing—have remained substantially the same for decades. This makes it difficult to sustain the argument that we adopted those positions to please recent sources of revenue.
We understand it’s frustrating to some that Christianity Today does not fall neatly into their political agenda. We consider it a strength. Billy Graham liked to say he was not for the left wing or right wing but “the whole bird.” We are for the whole bird of the church. That bothers those who would conscript us for one party. Yet it makes us indispensable for anyone who wishes to examine all parties according to Scripture.
If you yearn for good Christian sense in a sea of nonsense, you should subscribe. We will be glad for your company and hope you hold us accountable to our vision.
Timothy Dalrymple is president and CEO of Christianity Today.
The post Christianity Today Has Not Received USAID Funds appeared first on Christianity Today.