The essence of the story was that David Jang appeared to have been involved with Sun Myung Moon\u2019s Unification Church \u2014 but claimed to have taught at Sun Moon University, for instance, only in order to confer orthodox theology to members of the Unification Church \u2014 and may have taken over a rather distinctive Moonie tenet: that he is the Christ of the Second Coming. \u00a0At least, some former members of the movement David Jang leads claim that they were led to confess that he was \u201cthe Second Coming Christ.\u201d \u00a0It\u2019s possible that Jang himself never taught this, and that his lieutenants presently no longer teach it. \u00a0Jang has been investigated several times for heresy, but has largely been acquitted, albeit amidst allegations (from some) of influence-peddling and threats and intimidation from Jang followers. \u00a0The net result of the article is to depict the Olivet Movement as (quite possibly) having some vaguely cultish elements: an extraordinarily high view of the exalted status of its founder, a tendency to give secret teachings that are proffered to the chosen within the fold but publicly denied, and a practice of ostracizing anyone who leaves the movement and attacking anyone who criticizes it.<\/p>\n It all makes for a fascinating story, and certainly one that falls in the \u201cimportant, if true\u201d category. \u00a0I have to confess that I don\u2019t know the truth of the matter. \u00a0It\u2019s theoretically possible that there has been an elaborate conspiracy to bring down Jang and his affiliated enterprises.<\/p>\n But the rest of this post really has nothing to do with Jang and the \u201cSecond Coming Christ\u201d allegation. \u00a0It has to do with journalism, and specifically journalism within the Christian fold.<\/p>\n Christianity Today<\/em>\u00a0is famously careful. \u00a0When you work at the helm of a magazine with a legacy like theirs, you always have people pressing you to write one story or another, to attack one group or another, and the leadership at Christianity Today<\/em> has always been circumspect. \u00a0They went through an extensive deliberation process before publishing the piece, sought an interview with Jang but were refused, submitted versions of the story and received lengthy counterarguments from Jang associates and\u00a0The Christian Post<\/em>, and published the story even against legal threats. \u00a0All of this is reflected in the piece itself. \u00a0After telling the whole story, Olsen and Smith essentially present the evidence against<\/em> their story and indicate where any of their sources have credibility questions. \u00a0You can practically hear them saying to one another, \u201cMaybe we should put this in, so we can quote it to the judge after they sue us.\u201d<\/p>\n What amazed me was what happened after Christianity Today<\/em> published the article. \u00a0Literally. \u00a0I found it nothing short of astonishing. \u00a0Regrettably \u2014 and I do mean that, because I like the few people I\u2019ve come to know there \u2014 I think\u00a0The Christian Post<\/em>\u00a0has done more harm to itself through its response<\/em> to the article than the article could have done by itself.<\/p>\n The Christian Post<\/em>\u00a0was founded, at least largely (presumably there were older mentors and encouragers), by students from Olivet University and Cal-Berkeley. \u00a0I expected a defense along these lines: \u201cWe disagree with the thrust of Christianity Today<\/em>\u2018s article, but more importantly\u00a0The Christian Post<\/em>\u00a0really has very little to do with David Jang. \u00a0We have complete editorial independence and we are no mouthpiece for David Jang or the movement he has inspired.\u201d \u00a0Instead, what they issued was a full-throated defense of David Jang and an even more rip-roaring excoriation of Christianity Today<\/em> and every person who criticized Jang within the piece. \u00a0They issued, in other words, a performative affirmation that they are, in fact, David Jang\u2019s mouthpiece.<\/p>\n The\u00a0purpose<\/em>\u00a0of the response was to defend David Jang. \u00a0If possible, however, the nature<\/em>\u00a0of the response was even worse \u2014 presented as journalism, it was actually a no-qualifications, no-holds-barred defense.\u00a0\u00a0There was not a single criticism of Jang that possessed any merit whatsoever, and none of the figures cited in Christianity Today<\/em>\u2018s article were anything but complete and utter liars. \u00a0Meanwhile, the people who defend Jang and who attack his critics, even if they themselves work for Jang-affiliated companies, possess unquestioned authority and good will. \u00a0This is not journalism; it\u2019s public relations. \u00a0It\u2019s not reporting, but spin.<\/p>\n I think you\u2019ll see what I mean. \u00a0The article<\/a> in The Christian Post<\/em> begins thus: \u201cU.S. and Korean evangelical leaders are rallying around Olivet University and its founder Dr. David Jang in the wake of an article published by Christianity Today (CT) which attempts to rekindle in the U.S. a decade-old Asian controversy over alleged \u201cSecond Coming Christ\u201d beliefs regarding Jang. All of the allegations against Jang have been dismissed as false.\u201d<\/p>\n Who are these U.S. and Korean evangelical leaders? \u00a0Well, it turns out they are the president and chancellor of Olivet University, a faculty member of Olivet University, and the head of the World Evangelical Alliance, which is thoroughly interrelated with Olivet and comes under scrutiny in Christianity Today<\/em>\u2018s article. \u00a0The only leader most of my readers will recognize is Richard Land, but he does not defend Jang so much as he says that the people he\u2019s known at The Christian Post<\/em> seem to be \u201cearnest\u201d and \u201csincere\u201d believers. \u00a0This is not \u201cU.S. and Korean evangelical leaders rallying around\u201d Olivet and David Jang. \u00a0This is Olivet-affiliated individuals defending their guy, and Richard Land defending his association with\u00a0The Christian Post\u00a0<\/em>(he\u2019s listed as \u201cexecutive editor\u201d for CP, though I\u2019m not sure what that means on a practical level).<\/p>\n In Christianity Today<\/em>, you found statements like these: \u201cNo one CT talked to for this story claimed that the \u2018history lessons\u2019 that allegedly encourage the belief that Jang is the \u2018Second Coming Christ\u2019 were ever taught in Olivet classrooms, or that Apostolos or Young Disciples members have encouraged the belief among its members in recent years.\u201d \u00a0Clearly, Christianity Today<\/em> is issuing qualifications and trying to be fair. \u00a0Compare the Christian Post<\/em>: \u201cIn East Asia, all of the sources who have come out publicly in the past have been discredited.\u201d \u00a0Or take the subtitles: \u201cSources Cited by Christianity Today Widely Discredited in Asia,\u201d \u201c\u2018Everything She Testified was a Lie,'\u201d \u201cYamaya Makoto: \u2018Cyber-Terrorist\u2019 Blogger,\u201d and \u201cSam Kyung Chae: \u2018Cult Fabricator\u2019 and \u2018Heretic.'\u201d \u00a0Immediately after the subtitle referencing Makoto, the article states:<\/p>\n As part of the story, Christianity Today also interviewed Yamaya Makoto, who works for the Salvation Army in Tokyo and runs a blog critical of Jang and Christian Today in Japan. Hokuto Ide, a reporter for Christian Today in Japan, has stated in his blog that Yamaya is notoriously known as a \u201ccyber-terrorist\u201d for using blogs to criticize not only Jang but also foreign missionaries in Japan.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So, the article references \u2014 and never questions or indicating that anyone might want to question \u2014 what a reporter for Christian Today (one of the media entities under Jang\u2019s umbrella) says in a blog, that Yamaya is \u201cnotoriously known as a \u2018cyber-terrorist.'\u201d \u00a0No evidence, no counterclaims, no consideration of the reliability and independence of the source.<\/p>\n Similarly, one of the named sources in the Christianity Today<\/em> article is Ma Li. \u00a0To refute her, the article in the Christian Post references a spokesperson for Young Disciples \u2014 another ministry founded by David Jang \u2014 named Rachel Cheung: \u201cAccording to Cheung, Ma was coaxed into testifying against YD by Tze Chung Yeung, a former key member of a cult group in China called Zion Church, whose members drink hydrogen peroxide as a way to cleanse their sins.\u201d \u00a0Whatever Ma Li said is, of course, an \u201coutright lie.\u201d \u00a0Again, no evidence, just an allegation from an obviously interested source, with a heaping dose of guilt by association.<\/p>\n I asked Ted Olsen whether Christianity Today<\/em> would publish a counter-rebuttal, and he said no, since they felt the piece spoke for itself. \u00a0Also, they wanted it clear that this was not a fight between Christianity Today<\/em> and The Christian Post<\/em>; this was just about investigating a story and telling it fairly. \u00a0His co-author, Ken Smith, did respond<\/a> to one or two points on his personal blog, defending Ma Li\u2019s account, but also, importantly, defending himself. \u00a0Because\u00a0The Christian Post<\/em>\u00a0had taken to attacking Ken Smith, and they would up the ante considerably in a followup article the next day.<\/p>\n Come back later today for Part 2. \u00a0This is too detailed and too important to be crammed into a single blog post. \u00a0But it was with the attack on Ken Smith \u2014 someone I have never met and have no personal interest in defending \u2014 that\u00a0The Christian Post<\/em>\u00a0went even further beyond the pale.<\/p>\n Again, to be clear: this is not about David Jang and the specific accusations made against him. \u00a0I have no information beyond what Christianity Today<\/em> and The Christian Post<\/em> has already published (and Christianity Today<\/em> did recently publish accounts<\/a> from some sources who came forward publicly). \u00a0This is about encouraging a venture in Christian journalism to be more Christian and more journalistic.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/46\/2012\/09\/newspaper-photo-300x173.jpeg\" "\\"newspaper-photo\\"")
<\/a>The piece in Christianity Today<\/em>\u00a0is meticulously researched and finely calibrated, going to great length (it\u2019s eleven pages) to consider the many sides of this complex story and to consider what can be fully substantiated and to clarify what cannot. \u00a0It was written by\u00a0Christianity Today<\/em>\u2018s managing editor, Ted Olsen, and by Ken Smith, an independent writer who attended Bethany University in California, which went under, and began to investigate Olivet University and the organization behind it after it took over Bethany\u2019s campus in some ways he found ethically suspect. \u00a0Smith clearly has devoted a great deal of time to untangling the relationships between Jang and the many organizations under his umbrella, but it is Ted Olsen\u2019s considerable credibility, and his obvious influence in producing such a carefully modulated story, that gives it real heft.<\/p>\n