Tuesday, May 21, 2019

“God literally led us to this place”: Hero pastor tells how divine intervention helped him rescue eight-year-old girl who was kidnapped by predator


“God literally led us to this place”: Hero pastor tells how divine intervention helped him rescue eight-year-old girl who was kidnapped by predator

By Julio Severo
A hero pastor said divine intervention led him to discover the place where an abducted girl was being held captive in Fort Worth.
Pastor Jeff King
Jeff King, Pastor at Bear Creek Bible Church in Keller, helped track down 8-year-old Salem Sabatka after she was snatched while out walking with her mom in Fort Worth on Saturday.
A man, named as Michael Webb, 51, reportedly grabbed Salem and pushed her into his car at around 6.30pm.
Heart-wrenching surveillance video showed Salem’s mother jumping into the vehicle and desperately trying to save her daughter before the kidnapper shoved her out and drove off.
Abducted girl Salem Sabatka and predator Michael Webb
The car sped off and the mother immediately dialed 911, screaming: “Help me please, someone call the police, my daughter just got kidnapped.” Her call sparked a massive police operation to try and find the little girl.
After King, a childhood friend of Salem’s parents, heard about the shocking incident he and a friend started scouring the streets of Fort Worth searching for the suspect’s car.
“I was sitting at home with my wife when a friend texted and said that our friends’ daughter had been kidnapped. All I could think is what are we going to do to help?” King told NBC DFW.
He and the friend searched until after midnight when they got a tip from someone that they should check out a hotel in Forest Hill.
After searching the car park at the tip-off location they found no sign of the suspect’s car.
But, purely by chance, the pair then pulled into another hotel nearby, the Wood Springs Suites, and saw a car fitting the description.
“God literally led us to this place. It was not on my itinerary, I was not trying to go there, we just drove by. It was divine intervention, 100 per cent,” he said.
King called police and it was just a matter of time before they figured out Salem was inside of the hotel and they were able to rescue her.
Two hours earlier, police had already searched the motel room of the man suspected of kidnapping the girl but didn’t see the child there. Yet, after the pastor called the police, they found her in the same room after breaching the door.
“It was a crazy moment. I asked police, ‘Did I hear that right? Did they find her? Is she safe?’” he said. “Then finally one officer said, ‘Yes sir, they have her.’”
Police allowed King to be the one to call Salem’s parents and tell them the little girl had been found alive.
“I feel like God allowed me to be a tool,” the pastor said.
On Facebook, Bear Creek Bible Church celebrated the little girl’s rescue, writing: “The Lord is so faithful!”
Following the little girl’s rescue, King, who local media dubbed a hero, led a prayer at a press conference in her neighborhood.
“Thank you, Father, that she’s alive and she’s with us still and that she has a wonderful life to live ahead of her, Father,” he prayed. “I can’t thank You enough for the redemption and grace You show us all the time. I can’t thank You enough for the death of Your son on the cross as a substitutionary atonement in our place. Father, I can’t thank You enough for last night and being able to locate that vehicle. Thank you, Father, for guiding us every step of the way.”
Michael Webb has been arrested and booked on a charge of aggravated kidnapping. He a lengthy criminal history — including being charged with aggravated and sexual assault in April 2018.
With information from DailyMail and The Christian Post.
Recommended Reading:

Monday, May 20, 2019

Trump Supports Gay “Marriage” While His Conservative Christian Supporters Remain Silent


Trump Supports Gay “Marriage” While His Conservative Christian Supporters Remain Silent

By Julio Severo
President Donald Trump has repeatedly mocked South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, for being a Democrat seeking the Democratic nomination for the 2020 presidential election.
Pete Buttigieg, in his presidential campaign, kissing his homosexual husband Chasten
But Trump does not insult Buttigieg for his homosexuality and defense of homosexuality. Instead, he praised Buttigieg for campaigning with his homosexual husband, Chasten.
“I think it’s good,” Trump said.
During an interview with Trump, Fox News host Steve Hilton commented how he thinks it’s great to see Buttigieg on stage with his gay husband as the couple normalizes homosexual marriage amidst the media spotlight of a presidential campaign where the 2020 Democratic White House hopeful is openly homosexual, declares that he is a Christians and unabashedly shows his homosexual partner.
“I think it’s absolutely fine,” Trump replied. “I do.”
Hilton noted that it's “a sign of great progress in the country,” to which Trump interrupted and said “I think it’s great.”
About Buttigieg’s open homosexuality in a political campaign, Barack Hussein Obama in his presidential days would also have offered the same praise. In reaction, there would have been an inevitable outcry from conservative groups and leaders. In fact, they spent all the Obama administration fighting socialist efforts to advance gay “marriage,” which was legalized in 2015.
Yet, after Trump’s victory, U.S. conservatives went silent while Trump showed no support of conservative efforts to revert Obama’s efforts to advance gay “marriage.”
Perhaps Trump interpreted that such silence is a green light for him to make some praise of gay “marriage,” and he did just it regarding Buttigieg and his homosexual partner by saying that “it’s absolutely fine” to want to be the U.S. president as a homosexual actively involved in homosexual perversions.
So doesn’t Trump see any problem if an actively homosexual man becomes the president of the United States? God sees.
Does Trump see problems in the Democratic Party but no problem in homosexuality? What is the point to criticize the Democratic Party if the critic sees no problem in homosexuality?
If Trump were Obama, I am sure that there would be a massive outcry. But there has been no such reaction. No major Christian group and leader is condemning Trump’s stance praising gay “marriage.”
Conservatives are sparing Trump for stances they would never spare and never spared in Obama. Obama would never have gone unpunished for praising gay “marriage,” because he was a left-winger. Trump has gone unpunished for the same sin, because he is a right-winger.
So to praise sins in America, and be praised by conservatives, a president needs a right-wing, not left-wing, card.
Trump is conquering for the left and the Democratic Party a victory Obama never was able to achieve: To advance the normalization of fake marriage of homosexuals among conservatives. This is a big victory, but not for the well-being of America.
If conservative Christians only fight against social sins when a left-winger is in the White House, why elect right-wingers who support the same sins? If conservatives, especially evangelicals, voted for Trump to represent them at the White House, is it too much to ask him to condemn gay “marriage”?
Is it too much for conservatives who condemned Obama for supporting gay “marriage” to ask Trump not to imitate Obama?
Homosexuality is, without the social status of marriage, already an abomination, as revealed by God in the Bible. The Jewish tradition, according to Scott Lively in his book “The Pink Swastika,” states that homosexual “marriage” is the “final insult” to God.
The left has insulted God by advancing homosexual “marriage.”
Obama insulted God by advancing homosexual “marriage.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has insulted God by legalizing homosexual “marriage.”
And now Trump has insulted God by praising Buttigieg in his immoral homosexual lifestyle with his homosexual partner.
There can be hope for a nation when a left-wing president praises homosexual insults to God but there is conservative resistance.
Yet, how can there be hope when a president representing conservatives also praises homosexual insults to God?
With information from USAToday.
Recommended Reading:

Sunday, May 19, 2019

Trump suggests pro-lifers have gone too far in Alabama with near-total abortion ban as he says he is pro-life but believes in abortion for babies conceived in rape and incest


Trump suggests pro-lifers have gone too far in Alabama with near-total abortion ban as he says he is pro-life but believes in abortion for babies conceived in rape and incest

By Julio Severo
President Donald Trump has broken his silence about Alabama’s new law imposing a near-total ban on abortions, saying he is pro-life but believes there should be abortions for babies conceived in rape or incest.
“As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions — Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother — the same position taken by Ronald Reagan,” Trump tweeted late on Saturday from the White House.
Pro-life leader Rebecca Kiessling, who was conceived in rape, answered him on his Facebook,
“I did not deserve the death penalty for the crime of my biological father. Ask Rick Perry about his conversation with me and how my story pierced his heart he said and that he could not look me in the eyes and justify the rape exception any longer. I’m sure if you met any one of the 800 of us from Save The 1, you would also have a hard time looking us in the eyes and then telling us that we did not deserve equal protection.”
My answer to Trump was:
“Strongly pro-life? Mr. President, if you can kill an innocent baby who has no guilt for being conceived in rape and incest, why not kill all the others for other stupid reasons? God calls you to save victims of oppression, and such babies are such victims! Do you want someone killed? Target RAPISTS, not innocent babies!”
Health risk and abortion for babies conceived in rape and incest are the classical pretexts used by the left to legalize abortion for all babies. So if Trump wants help the left to allow abortion legal, these exceptional cases are enough.
Trump seems to have taken a more political than pro-life approach. He continued: “We have come very far in the last two years with 105 wonderful new Federal Judges (many more to come), two great new Supreme Court Justices, the Mexico City Policy, and a whole new & positive attitude about the Right to Life.”
The Mexico City policy blocks U.S. federal funding for non-governmental organizations that provide abortion counseling or referrals. It is applicable only to foreign nations, not to commercial abortion in the U.S., which continues strong, profitable and legal.
“The Radical Left, with late term abortion (and worse), is imploding on this issue. We must stick together and Win for Life in 2020,” Trump continued.
“If we are foolish and do not stay UNITED as one, all of our hard fought gains for Life can, and will, rapidly disappear!” he wrote.
Nevertheless, the Trump administration has had a very “modest” advance in the pro-life advance in the U.S. Planned Parenthood, the main abortion provider in the U.S., receives about 500 million dollars in federal grants, and last year Trump approved this massive amount to Planned Parenthood. Later, Trump cut 50 million dollars from the abortion provider, and many pro-life groups praised the 10-percent cut as a big victory. But the real victory was for Planned Parenthood receiving the other massive 90 percent, or 450 million dollars.
Yet, the first time Trump has directly weighed in on an abortion issue was when Alabama passed its law last week, which would ban abortion in all cases except with the mother’s health is threatened.
The law, set to take effect in six months, does not penalize women who receive abortions, but would threaten doctors who perform them with up to 99 years in prison.
Lawmakers in Indiana, Ohio, Louisiana and Missouri have also advanced laws to severely restrict abortion.
Pro-life leaders hope that such court challenges will make their way to the Supreme Court, and that the judiciary will overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 high court ruling that declared that to kill unborn babies is a Constitutional right.
Trump is not the only prominent pro-life voice to speak out saying that Alabama lawmakers went too far.
Christian televangelist Pat Robertson, a staunch abortion opponent, called the Alabama law “extreme,” in spite of the fact that his The 700 Club has already interviewed Rebecca Kiessling for two times to speak her story about how she was conceived in rape and God has used her powerfully to show the world that every baby has value in God’s eyes.
During the 2016 campaign, Trump secured support from evangelicals who had been initially hesitant to vote for the bombastic, twice-divorced billionaire by promising to appoint pro-life justices at the highest court in the U.S.
His stated position on abortion two decades ago was that he was pro-abortion.
“I’m very pro-choice,” Trump said in an interview with Tim Russert in 1999. “I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it. I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I listen to people debating the subject. But you still — I just believe in choice.”
However, by 2011 Trump said that he had changed his position and was opposed to abortion.
During the 2016 campaign, Trump explained in an interview that his position had changed after he had a heartfelt conversation with a friend who had contemplated abortion. So the logical conclusion is that if more pro-life leaders help him, he may abandon his pro-abortion stance for babies conceived in rape and incest and, hopefully, enact stronger laws against rapists, including capital punishment.
Yet, let us see how “extreme” is Alabama’s pro-life law. It allows abortion when “the mother’s health is threatened.”
In his pro-life encyclopedia “Facts of Life,” Dr. Brian Clowes said,
Why Pro-Lifers Must Oppose "Health of the Mother" Exceptions. At first glance, it may seem heartless for anyone to oppose abortions committed in order to preserve the physical or mental health of women. However, we must remember that abortionists will interpret any loophole — even a “life of the mother” exception — to mean abortion on demand.
Abortionists all over the world use the definition of “maternal health” set by the World Health Organization (WHO): “A state of complete physical, mental, and social well being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” The U.S. Supreme Court defined maternal health to include “mental health” in its United States v. Vuitch decision (402 U.S. 62, 71-72 (1971)), and expanded this to say that virtually all factors of any type are relevant to the mother’s health, including “physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age” (Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192 [1973]).
Some pro-abortion judges have gone to even more ridiculous extremes in their mad rush to prop up the abortion ‘right.’ Perhaps the most absurd example was provided by Judge John F. Dooling when he overturned the Hyde Amendment. Dooling asserted on page 309 of his opinion that “Poverty is a medical condition.” Most abortionists take these definitions at face value, because they cover all possible excuses for abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy.
Finally, abortionist Jane Hodgson testified under oath,
In my medical judgment, every pregnancy that is not wanted by the patient, I feel there is a medical indication to abort a pregnancy where it is not wanted. In good faith, I would recommend on a medical basis, you understand, that, and it would be 100%… I think they are all medically necessary…
Hodgson also stated the general pro-abortion attitude towards abortion when she said “A medically necessary abortion is any abortion a woman asks for.”
About the case of pregnancy of rape, Clowes said,
From an ethical and logical standpoint, the number of pregnancies from rape and incest in most countries is simply irrelevant to the moral case against these exceptions. A baby conceived through violence is as blameless and innocent as one conceived in marriage, and is therefore deserving of the same protection. Either all preborn babies are worth saving, or none of them are.
Pregnancy of rape or health’s risks were the main strategies to legalize abortion in the United States, and the result was, according Facts of Life: From 1980 to 2005, there was an annual median number of 1,455,281 abortions. Mother’s life or health cases were just 0.36%. For rape and incest, just 0.09%.
The way I see it: You have no guilt if someone abandons a baby in your doorstep. But what are you going to do? Just leave the child at the doorstep? No, you are going to take any necessary measure to secure the well-being of the baby.
A woman raped and impregnated has no guilt, and she is as victim and innocent as her baby is. What to do? To take any necessary measure to secure the well-being of the baby and later adopt him or her or make him or her available for adoption. There are thousands of couples who would love to adopt a baby.
As far as abortion is concerned, only rapists deserve capital punishment, not innocent babies.
With information from DailyMail.
Recommended Reading:

Thursday, May 16, 2019

Conservative televangelist Pat Robertson says Alabama “has gone too far” in its “extreme” anti-abortion law because it does not include capital punishment for babies conceived in rape and incest


Conservative televangelist Pat Robertson says Alabama “has gone too far” in its “extreme” anti-abortion law because it does not include capital punishment for babies conceived in rape and incest

By Julio Severo
Christian televangelist Pat Robertson has said that he believes Alabama “has gone too far” in its “extreme” law of near total ban on abortions.
Pat Robertson
Robertson, who is a prominent pro-life evangelical leader and hopes to overturn legal abortion in the United States, made the remarks on Wednesday on The 700 Club, hours before Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed the new law.
The Alabama law contains an exception for when the pregnancy creates a health or mental risk for the woman, but no exception for rape or incest. The law, which would not punish women seeking to kill her babies, would punish doctors who perform abortions with up to life in prison.
“I think Alabama has gone too far,” remarked the 89-year-old Robertson. “It’s an extreme law.”
Robertson used his The 700 Club, which is an evangelical TV show, to express his view that abortion should be legal in case of rape and incest. In answer, pro-life leader Rebecca Kiessling, who was conceived in rape and was interviewed on The 700 Club on two occasions, said,
“Pat Robertson @700club, I deserved equal protection. Child sacrifice is an abomination. The child shall not be punished for the sins of the father! You're wrong to say Alabama's abortion ban was too extreme for not having a rape exception. You had me on The 700 Club twice, including airing my story. So you values my faith testimony, just not my life?!”
The Alabama law is not extreme, because by allowing abortion for health or mental risk basically allows any woman who says that she is not psychologically prepared to have a baby to have an abortion.
And if abortion is murder and a physician can be jailed, why exempt a woman using a physician to kill her baby?
Robertson, who has been an outspoken opponent of abortion, drew condemnation from the mainstream media when he implied in 2005 that Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans was God’s punishment for America’s abortion laws. So in his interpretation, would God punish America for abortion, but excuse Americans killing babies conceived in rape and incest?
If God thought as Robertson does, Rebecca Kiessling would not be alive today to tell her story. If Robertson were a lawmaker, she would not be alive to appear two times on The 700 Club to tell her story about how God preserved her life conceived in rape.
Has Robertson forgotten her story?
If it is very controversial for him, as an evangelical minister, to defend abortion in case of rape and incest, equally controversial was for him to have defended that the Trump administration should not impose any sanction on the Islamic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia because, according him, by buying many heavy and costly arms from the U.S., the Saudis make the U.S. prosper.
Robertson has already interviewed Kiessling, but he forgot. Could he have already have interviewed also some persecuted Christians from the Middle East and forgotten? Most persecution against Christians in the Middle East are led by Sunni Muslims backed by Saudi Arabia.
Pat Robertson should see babies conceived in rape and Christians persecuted by Saudi-backed Sunni Muslims just as God sees them.
With information from DailyMail.
Recommended Reading on Pat Robertson:

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

Antagonizing Trump? Uninvited, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro Visits Former U.S. President George W. Bush, Not a Trump Fan


Antagonizing Trump? Uninvited, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro Visits Former U.S. President George W. Bush, Not a Trump Fan

By Julio Severo
George W. Bush received an unexpected visit on May 15, 2019. Visiting Dallas, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro wanted to talk to the former U.S. president, even though no official invitation was extended to the Brazilian president.
Jair Bolsonaro and George W. Bush
The U.S. mainstream media did not cover the event. BBC covered it, but only in its Portuguese version. BBC confirmed that Bush did not invite Bolsonaro. Nevertheless, Bush said that by courtesy he welcomes visits from foreign high officials.
Bush has been a Trump critic. In fact, all the Bush family has been hostile to Trump — so hostile that even Russian President Vladimir Putin has already defended Trump against Bush.
Such hostility comes from the fact that Trump condemned the Bush-led Iraq War and said that Bush lied. Bush never forgave Trump for this, and the Bush family made it very clear that they did not vote for Trump.
Why, then, would Bolsonaro burst into the middle of a conflict between Bush and Trump? Bush belongs to the neocon wing, who loves wars for every and any reason. So it is no wonder that when prominent neocon John McCain died last year, Trump was not invited, but Bush and Barack Hussein Obama were guests of honor.
So neocons love Bush and Obama, but they are suspicious of Trump. Why then does Bolsonaro want access to neocons through Bush? Does he want a new version of the Iraq War in South America?
Not only Bush had a good relationship with McCain and neocons, but also with left-wingers. In 2014 Bush said famously that former U.S. President Bill Clinton, a left-winger, was his brother. If Bush was conservative, why call pro-abortion and pro-sodomy Clinton a brother?
If in a trip to Brazil Trump visited former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, a left-winger, it would be a bad choice, because Lula and Bolsonaro are not friends. In fact, the BBC report said that Bush had so a good relationship with Lula that the former Brazilian president visited Camp David, a privilege that U.S. presidents give to very few foreign presidents. It is no wonder, considering that Bush has an excellent relationship with left-wingers Obama and Clinton.
One of the reasons for the meeting with Bush was probably that Bolsonaro is surrounded by poor advisers. It is a bad decision to try, even minimally, to antagonize Trump.
If Bolsonaro met Bush because he thought he has not gotten everything with Trump, it’s all his fault. Shortly before meeting Trump in March, Bolsonaro gave at the Brazilian Embassy in Washington a dinner in honor of Steve Bannon, whom Trump called an opportunist and expelled from the White House. Bolsonaro’s poor advisers have not helped him very much.
Antagonizing Trump is a bad step for Bolsonaro. Trying access to neocons is another bad step.
Recommended Reading:

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Forbes’s Unprofessional Behavior: Six Years After Publishing Misinformation on Brazilian Televangelist Silas Malafaia Before Its U.S. and International Audience, Forbes Retracts — Only Before Its Brazilian Audience


Forbes’s Unprofessional Behavior: Six Years After Publishing Misinformation on Brazilian Televangelist Silas Malafaia Before Its U.S. and International Audience, Forbes Retracts — Only Before Its Brazilian Audience

By Julio Severo
Through its largest outlet, which reaches a massive U.S. and international audience, Forbes misrepresented a Brazilian televangelist in 2013. Then, 6 years later, realizing that its information on the minister was exaggerated and unfair, Forbes used its smaller Brazilian outlet, far away from the U.S. and international audiences, to apologize.
Silas Malafaia
The victim was Pastor Silas Malafaia.
Forbes’s small apology, translated by me from Portuguese, was:
CLARIFICATION NOTE
May 3, 2019
On January 18, 2013 a report was published on our website entitled “Bishop Edir Macedo is the richest pastor in Brazil with a fortune of $ 950 million — Leader of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God is ahead of Valdomiro Santiago and Silas Malafaia.”
The mentioned report contained information that Pastor Silas Malafaia had estimated assets of US$ 150 million.
Thus, in the face of allegation that the publication of the report at the time would have caused displeasure in Pastor Silas Malafaia, since his patrimony in fact, according to him, allegedly corresponds to only 3% of the amount quoted in the article, according to official documents that he has allegedly voluntarily made available, FORBES, historically committed to ascertaining the truth of facts, regrets what happened and seizes the opportunity to offer excuses to Pastor Silas Malafaia.
Forbes’s apology referred to its Portuguese report and forgot mentioning that Forbes’s main misrepresentation was in English, in a 2013 report titled “The Richest Pastors In Brazil,” which said:
Religion has always been a profitable business. And if you happen to be a Brazilian evangelical preacher, chances of hitting a heavenly jackpot are actually pretty high these days. Even though Brazil remains the world’s largest Catholic country, with about 123.2 million of its population of approximately 191 million defining themselves as followers of the Vatican-based church, the latest census figures pointed to a strong decline among the ranks of Roman Catholics, who now account for 64.6% of the country’s population–down from 92% in 1970.
Meanwhile, the number of Protestant evangelicals has soared from 15.4% of Brazil’s population just a decade ago to 22.2%, or 42.3 million people. It’s likely that the downward trend for Catholicism will continue and it’s estimated that by 2030, Catholics will represent less than 50% of Brazilian churchgoers.
So why are evangelicals taking over Brazil’s religious scene?
One of the evangelicals’ most appealing qualities is their belief that material progress results from God’s favor. While Catholicism still preaches a very conservative look to an afterlife instead of earthly riches, evangelicals–especially the ‘neo-Pentecostal’ ones–are taught that it’s all right to be prosperous. This doctrine, known as ‘Prosperity Theology,’ is in the foundation of the most successful evangelical churches in Brazil.
The value of material progress in Brazil’s evangelicalism is explicit and actively promoted…
Then there’s Silas Malafaia, the former leader of the Brazilian arm of the Assembly of God, Brazil’s biggest Pentecostal church. The most outspoken of his colleagues, Malafaia parted ways with the institution in the late 1990s to start his own spin-off denomination, the Assembly of God-Victory In Christ Church. Malafaia is constantly involved in controversies related to the gay community in Brazil, of which he proudly declares himself to be the biggest nemesis. The supporter of a law that could classify homosexualism as a disease in Brazil, Malafaia is also a prominent figure on Twitter, where he is followed by more than 440,000 users. In 2011, Malafaia–who’s worth an estimated $150 million according to several Brazilian business publications–launched a campaign called “The One Million Souls Club,” that aims to raise $500 million (R$ 1 billion) for his church in order to create a global television network that would be broadcast in 137 countries. Those interested in contributing to the campaign can donate sums starting at $500 (R$ 1,000), that can be paid in installments. In exchange, donors will receive a book. Malafaia also owns one of the four biggest record companies in Brazil’s gospel segment, according to Billboard Brasil, and the country’s second largest gospel publishing company, Central Gospel, with sales of a reported $25 million (R$ 50 million) per year.
Forbes inaccurately published information that Malafaia had a fortune of about $150 million, when actually he has just 3% of that amount.
Only after many years Forbes accepted the truth, because according to Malafaia’s website Vitória em Cristo, “With official documents, Pr. Silas Malafaia proved, in court, that the value of his patrimony corresponds to 3% of the amount quoted in the article.” So it was judicially proven that Malafaia had just 3%. It is proven truth.
The problem is that Forbes apologized only in regard to its report in Portuguese, which had a smaller audience, not to its original English report, which had a massive audience.
For example, Christianity Today, in a 2013 report titled List of Richest Pastors in Brazil Prompts White House Petition,” mentioned Malafaia according to Forbers’s misinformation. Christianity Today, which is one of the leading Protestant magazines in the U.S., has never apologized to Malafaia and, considering that there is no English apology of Forbes available, it will be unlikely to apologize.
In Brazil, the consequence of the misinformation was also devastating. Coincidentally or not, the Brazilian version of Christianity Today, Cristianismo Hoje, targeted Malafaia in a long 2013 report titled “Malafaia: A quem ele representa?” (Malafaia: Whom does he represent?) immediately after the Forbes report, according to GospelMais, one of the most prominent Protestant websites in Brazil, in its 2013 report “Malafaia não me representa” (Malafaia Does Not Represent Me).
Brazilian Calvinist outlets exploited the Forbes report to increase their attacks on Malafaia. Calvinist Facebook page Bereanos launched a campaign that Malafaia does not represent Brazilian evangelicals.
Calvinist minister Renato Vargens, interviewed by Cristianismo Hoje on Malafaia, seized the opportunity to note: “This has contributed to an unnecessary belligerence between civil society and the Church. So his errors, unfortunately, eventually affect all evangelicals.” He meant Malafaia’s conservative activism, which includes open stances against abortion and the homosexual agenda. Malafaia has been the more forthright evangelical voice in Brazil defending pro-family and pro-life values, even in prominent TV shows.
Vargens and other Brazilian Calvinists consider Malafaia’s message “heretical.” In fact, Vargens said clearly in Cristianismo Hoje that Malafaia’s teaching is “heretical.”
Now that Forbes published an apology in Portuguese to Malafaia, will the Brazilian version of Christianity Today produce an equal long report apologizing to him?
Will Calvinists leaders and outlets that exploited the Forbes report to attack Malafaia publish their apologies?
Yet, Forbes should now publish an apology in English too, because its original report was in English.
After Forbes publishes its apology in English, will Christianity Today publish an apology in English too?
Forbes was unprofessional by publishing inaccurate information that eventually strengthened left-wing and Protestant voices that hate Malafaia’s message, values and stances. For a publication as Christianity Today, to redistribute such misinformation is not only unprofessional. It is unchristian too.
A retraction from the original source and its secular and Protestant redistributors is long overdue.
Recommended Reading on Silas Malafaia: