Updated 04:40 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

Society|Fri, Aug. 22 2008 08:46 AM EDT

Young Evangelical Backs Out of Convention Prayer

By Eric Gorski|Associated Press Writer

DENVER - It was a coup for Democrats: An emerging young evangelical voice, a registered Republican no less, accepted their invitation to deliver a prayer at next week's Democratic National Convention.

  • Obama
    (Photo: AP Images / Steve Helber)
    Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks during a town hall meeting at the E.C. Glass High School in Lynchburg, Va., Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2008.

But Cameron Strang, the 32-year-old editor of edgy and hip Relevant Magazine, had second thoughts and pulled out of delivering the benediction on the convention's first night, Monday. Citing fears that his bridge-building gesture would be wrongly construed as an endorsement, Strang said he instead hopes to take a lower-profile role, participating in a convention caucus meeting on religion later in the week.

"Through Relevant, I reach a demographic that has strong faith, morals and passion, but disagreements politically," Strang wrote on his blog. "It wouldn't be wise for me to be seen as picking a political side when I've consistently said both sides are right in some areas and wrong in some areas."

Little known to outsiders, the Strang name carries weight with evangelicals, especially in the fast-growing charismatic and Pentecostal branches. Cameron's father, Steven, who like his son is based in the Orlando, Fla., area, founded a magazine, Charisma, that spawned a publishing empire. The elder Strang has endorsed Republican Sen. John McCain.

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign has aggressively courted the young evangelical vote, and the younger Strang has been part of it. He was on the guest list when religious leaders met with Obama in June in Chicago, consulted the campaign on Christian issues and interviewed Obama for his magazine, which claims a print circulation of 80,000 and 450,000 unique Web site visitors per month.

Yet Strang's reticence to play such a high-profile role shows such relationships are a work in progress: While Democratic leaders are reaching out to more diverse religious groups, many younger evangelicals are striving for political independence and common ground without compromising on core issues like abortion.

The convention's schedule is studded with faith-themed events, including the first interfaith gathering to open a Democratic convention. Those delivering invocations and benedictions during the four-night convention include a Greek Orthodox archbishop, a Catholic nun, a rabbi from Judaism's Reform tradition and Joel Hunter, a Republican and Florida megachurch pastor who has made the environment a signature issue.

In his blog post, Strang wrote that he initially accepted the benediction invitation, in part, so he could pray in a forum where faith isn't typically emphasized. He also wanted to provide tangible evidence that "this generation of values voters doesn't necessarily need to draw political battle lines the way previous generations have, and that we can work through areas of disagreement toward common goals."

Those goals range from fighting poverty, torture and genocide to protecting the environment and reducing the number of abortions, he wrote. Strang calls himself a pro-life Republican.

Learning later that he was to speak on the main stage on opening night gave him "serious pause." Strang said Obama representatives understood his decision, and he wants to keep his good relationship with them.

Asked whether he got any pressure to reduce his role, Strang said Thursday he got a few e-mails, but it was a personal decision.

Obama campaign and convention committee officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Democratic officials have emphasized their faith outreach work is meant to recognize the nation's religious diversity and unite the religious and nonreligious around shared values.

Strang found a different young evangelical to take his place delivering the closing prayer on Monday night: Donald Miller, author of the popular spiritual memoir "Blue Like Jazz."

Strang's soul-searching prompted one other change: He switched his political affiliation to independent this week.

As for his presidential preference, Strang said he still hasn't decided.

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
  • Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    moe,
    Since we all know that you don't really "want advice". You're trying your own carnalistic way of condoning homosexuality.
    When speaking of homosexuality as a sin, I don't need to go any further than the New Testament. It is very clear about it being a sin.

  • Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You "God Hates F..." people have probably seen this before but I want your response.


    Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

    When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

    I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

    I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

    A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

    Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

    Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

    I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

    James: I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

  • Fri Aug 29, 2008 4:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Let me clarify before someone goes ape over my comment. God created the person who is homosexual, but He did not make them a homosexual.

  • Fri Aug 29, 2008 4:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    God made homosexuals. Wow. Personally, I would be afraid of crediting God for those in sin. But, then again, I have a deep respect for God that some don't.
    If you want to say that God made homosexuals, you would be wise to also add many mass-murderers, mentally deranged, rapists, etc...of which there are many that were born with some kind of mental or chemical imbalance that made them that way.

  • Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:07 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ltn, considering the military has a don't ask don't tell policy with regards to a person being homosexual, how would you possibly know that. And please don't share that you read it in some pro-homosexual propaganda magazine or website. And please don't base it on the idea that 10% of people are homosexual since the more accurate figure is right around 2%.

  • Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    SLOPEZ:
    PRO 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; Your following the Christian Right Extremists in your way of thinking. If God didn't make Homosexuals then there wouldn't be any. You want to lump every decent Democrat into killing babies, stem cell (which they don't use anymore) and gay marriage which is a civil rights problem for gay Americans. Yes even those 60,000 who are serving their country in the Military. Yes 60,000 that's not a mistype.

  • Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Thank you. The Democrats are better for us on the economy.

  • Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    moe, do you really think a democrat in the White House would make much difference. The real issue is not about political parties, but greed and selfishness and unfortunately there is plenty of that to go around in both parties.

  • Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ok, I've got you now. I would have said "PDI's" to be more clear. I never said anything about democrats or republicans working in pregnancy crisis centers. I am struggling to get my point across obviously. I applaud you for working there. I will send you a donation. That is the way you make a change. My point again: You won't get it by voting Republican. The Republicans have suckered religious people into voting for them by talking about abortion and homosexuality or whatever when they have no intention of doing anything about them. Then poor religious people like me (if I were a sucker) vote for people whose main goal is making sure the rich get richer. George Bush doesn't even go to church. He and Karl Rove laugh about how they got all the stupid Christian wackos to vote for them while their buddies at Haliburton et al laugh their way to the bank . (The term "stupid Christian wackos" is used satirically as was "poor dumb idiots")

  • Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    moe, read the last sentence of your 1:55 post right after the word poor and you will see what "dis" stands for. So are you saying that only democrats work in Crisis Pregnancy Centers. Chances are many if not most are conservative evangelicals, that being the case I would imagine politically speaking many of them are more closely aligned with the republican party platform than the democrats party platform. Now if that's all it takes to make someone a republican then I guess most volunteers at Crisis Pregnancy Centers are republicans and trust me they don't simply say to women go ahead and have that baby and once you do get out of our sight.

  • Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I'm not sure what "dis" are but I think I am one too. I am not in favor of abortion. I also think you miss my point. I'm saying that most Republicans I know are not very interested in poor children. All they do is say, "Have your baby, Have your baby" The woman says, "Ok, now what." And they say, "Now take your baby back to the ghetto so I never have to look at you again."
    I say the Republican policies are more about greed than helping people. As Jesus says in Mark chapter 7 quoting Isaiah " This people pays me lip service but their heart is far from me."

  • Wed Aug 27, 2008 4:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    moe, I happen to be married to one of those "dis". My wife was born and raised in Appalachia to a relatively poor family who insisted she get a good education and allowed her the opportunity to attend college which she did and graduated with high honors. And to think if her "di" mother would have chosen to abort her the world would have lost a woman that God has greatly used to minister to both children and women alike with the love of Christ. She has also been a great partner in ministry as well as a great wife and mom. And that is why we are concerned about these "dis" having abortions and why I serve on the board of our local Crisis Pregnancy Center. The reason I used "dis" is because this site told me I was using offensive language and wouldn't let it through with those words spelled out. Plus, as I think about it, it is pretty degrading to call poor people that.

  • Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I would have to research what kind of free prenatal care each state has before I could give you a sufficient answer. In Ohio, there are some free and reduced charge clinics that could give a woman prenatal care but they are mostly in the larger cities. People in rural areas like me have little access to them. For whatever reason, studies have shown that poor women are less likely to get adequate prenatal care than wealthier women. Their children are then less healthy. The Republicans around me would say that its their own dumb fault that their children suffer. I will put the question to you, believer, that I put to them. What do you care if these same poor dumb idiots have abortions or not then?

  • Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    moe, please tell me of a state where poor women cannot get free prenatal healthcare if they so choose?

  • Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate, as stated in the Constitution. The names of potential nominees often are recommended by senators or sometimes members of the House who are of the President's political party.
    After 1973, American abortion law is substantially controlled by the Supreme Court of the United States. As some states pass new laws they are usually subjected to review by the Court, which decides whether they comport with the federal Constitution or not.
    In brief, current Supreme Court rulings allow the individual states to regulate abortion in the following ways:
    Banning elective abortions after viability;
    Requiring parental consent or notice before a minor can obtain an abortion, although usually a "judicial bypass" option must be made available;

    Requiring waiting periods before an abortion may be performed. (Usually 24-48 hours.);

    Requiring informed consent or counseling be obtained before an abortion. (States often mandate what information must be presented.);
    Requiring certain kinds of record keeping

    It is my opinion, which I am entitled to in this country, that Republicans do not want any kind of stoppage of abortion because, again, all they have to do is say they are opposed to it and most religious people can't wait to vote for them. We do not require that they do anything. We just go along with their scam of blaming democrats. In my belief, a national health care system where poor women can get the prenatal care that they currently do not get, would do more to help children than electing men who keep saying "I'm pro-life" over and over again.

  • Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    moe, the abortion problem has little to do with who is in the majority, but rather who is in control of the courts. These are the people who are overturning laws that are designed to decrease the number of abortions being done. And thanks to the Democrats in many cases moves to place judges who would uphold the will of the people are not being allowed to move forward. Plus not only do we need to consider who is in the majority at the national level, but also who is in the majority at the state level, since it is at the state levels where many of these laws to protect the unborn need to be passed.

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Slopez
    This comes from the CDC: A total of 839,226 legal induced abortions were reported in the United States for 2004 from 47 states, DC, and NYC. In this report, the abortion rate for the United States was higher than rates reported for Canada and Western European countries and lower than rates reported for China, Cuba, the majority of Eastern European countries, and certain Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union (23--25).
    Also this: In France, abortion after 12 weeks is allowed only if two doctors say a woman's health is endangered or the fetus has a serious abnormality.
    In the United States, no such 12 week laws exist. For up to 26 weeks, states can ban an abortion only if it threatens the woman's health. Only in the last third of pregnancy are U.S. states allowed to make legislation that protects the unborn child. This was made law in 1973. In those 35 years, 22 of them have seen a Republican in the White House. Since 1994, Republicans generally controlled Congress until 2006. Yet we have more liberal abortion laws and a higher rate of abortion than Western European countries like France who are supposed to be so godless. I find it rather childish that you have to call me names like disgruntled or mock me by calling me "Oh wise one" just because you aren't aware of the facts and so assume that I'm stupid.

    The CDC abortion survey on abortion which I quoted: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:24 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    moethesleaze, where do you get your facts in the statement "Why do we have such a higher rate of abortions than countries like France when Republicans have been in charge of the presidency and congress in the US for so many of the last 30 years?" Go do your homework than comeback and rant. Until then, you sound like a disgruntled democrat/liberal who has nothing else better to say and nothing to support your hasty generalization. You have to have a better answer and comeback than "Because all of you Republican voters only demand that your leaders talk about how they hate abortion rather than demanding they do something about it." Think before you speak "Oh wise one".

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:04 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    How long are "Christians" going to vote Republican because Republicans say they are pro-life? On what other issue could a group of politicians get elected over and over again for saying they are against something and never doing anything about. Wow, George Bush really put a stop to abortion in this country. God Bless him. And don't bring up the partial birth abortion law. All that does is outlaw a method of abortion. It doesn't stop late term abortions. That's like saying its bad to stab someone in the head but go ahead and chop them up with a chain saw. Why do we have such a higher rate of abortions than countries like France when Republicans have been in charge of the presidency and congress in the US for so many of the last 30 years? Answer: Because all of you Republican voters only demand that your leaders talk about how they hate abortion rather than demanding they do something about it. You would get closer to having children taken care of by having a national health care system in this country than by voting for posers.

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:26 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    LoveThyNeighbor, you stated "As an ordained minister I feel deep in my heart that Obama is the person who will lead our country to better days." Wow, deep in your heart huh? As an ordained minister you may also know that Scripture tells us in Jeremiah 17:9 that the "heart is deceitful". Be careful as to what your heart is telling you. Because as an ordained minister, I am sure you do not support abortion, right? Or same sex marriage? It would be a contradiction of your spiritual divine calling from God to agree with one who supports such genocides and sins, and thus oppose Scriptural mandate as for us to live. Especially ordained ministers. God Bless!

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:21 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    There are some questions/comments that are not worthy of a response. However, Stan seems as if he is trying to make a point, attempting to say the the Old Testament is not relevant, or he actually wants to know Scripture so that he can grow spiritually. I will take the third case, (he wanting to know Scripture). So here it is Stan. If you notice there are several O.T. Scriptures as well as N.T. ones. May we recognize that the O.T. still speaks to us today. As a matter of fact, we cannot understand the N.T. without the O.T. God bless and let's learn together! ABORTION/STEM CELL/PARTIAL: Gen 1:27; 4:1, Exodus 20:13; Amos 1:13; Psalm 8:5-7; 22:10-11; 51:7; 127:3; 139:13-15; Jeremiah 1:4-5. HOMOSEXUALITY: Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:24; 6:19; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; 1 Thessalonians 2:3; 4:7; Ephesians 4:19; 5:3-5; Colossians 3:5. Thought this is enough for now. There is more if you would like some. I just didn't want to overwhelm you with so much Scripture. Thanks!

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:13 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Stan
    Please cite as many verses from the Gospels? What does that mean? So we only read and obey what is written in the Gospels? How about the epistles? What about the OT? Do these have no bearing?

    Surely, you concede that the 'red words' (those quotes of Jesus) found in the Gospels only cover a fraction of what Jesus taught and said during His earthly ministry. John tells us as much when he says that if everything Jesus did and said were written, the number of books would fill the whole world (hyperbole, but the point is definitely made). We don't NEED Jesus personal pronouncement about these moral issues per se because he came 'not to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill the law'. If you want to know what Jesus thought about these issues, read the first five books of the Bible. He explicitly said, more than once, that He in no way came to set the moral law of God aside or make it null and void. Rather, He confronted the way the religious authorities abused the law, concentrating on the minutiae while ignoring the 'big stuff' (straining on a gnat while swallowing a camel, so to speak).

    Furthermore, the majority of Jesus' earthly ministry was concentrated on Israel, not the Gentile nations surrounding them. Therefore, much of His teaching is directed towards religious hypocrisy and calling God's elect to repentance and faith in His chosen Messiah. That is what the Gospel narratives concentrate on.

    Do you believe that we are only to heed the Gospels? If not, then why the bizarre challenge?

  • Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:41 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    As an ordained minister I feel deep in my heart that Obama is the person who will lead our country to better days. McCain and Bush have had many falsehoods and if you talk with a forked tongue then you have no business running America.

  • Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:23 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    stan, how about for abortion, partial birth abortion, and embryonic stem cell research, thou shalt not kill.

  • Sun Aug 24, 2008 1:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    Slopez wrote
    "My personal conviction is to stay biblically directed and vote on the moral issues (ie: abortion, partial birth abortion, stem cell research, same sex marriage,etc)." Please cite as many verses in the Gospels that address these issues. You are substituting the Republican gospel for Christ's Gospel. You don't work backwards when using morality as a guide. That is, you don't start off with your version and then make scripture fit in with your idea of morality. For instance, you can say that Christ dedicates more verses of scripture to denouncing greed(idol worship) than to killing of any kind. You can also say that Christ speaks more about lust and adultery than homosexuality, In fact, Christ doesn't denounce it once. That doesn't disqaulify it, but it does make me question your motives.

  • Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    great post SLopez!

  • Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    jire, I can agree with you to a point, if it walks like a Republican, talks like a Republican, thinks like a Republican, then it must be a Republican. My only concern is there are a number of elected Republicans who don't walk, talk, and think like a Republican. Sen. Jeffords from Vermont is an excellent example, but at least he did finally declare himself an independent and I can see your point here that he probably should have declared himself a Democrat. So it may be that some if not many in your peer group don't want to officially affliate with a party because they see many elected party officials who aren't true representatives of their party with the way they talk and vote on matters.

  • Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    JVelez and believer,
    My point is more that people my age tend to be disingenuous about their views in favor of not appearing like they're just cookie cutter republicans. I'm no cookie cutter republican either, and yes, I'm independent on how I vote as well. I would say I'm conservative, which is a nice way of saying republican. Maybe it's just semantics, but I feel like the broad category of those who believe in small government, pro-life, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, and a strong defense are essentially republican. I understand why people would distance themselves from the term as it has been applied to people who have been socially permissive and fiscally conservative. There's all sorts of gradations politically. I just wish people would be honest.

  • Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:18 pm Agree: 10   Disagree: 0

    The 4 major issues in today's political culture are: 1.) War 2.) Financial Deficit 3.) Health Care 4.) Oil (not necessarily in that order) However, the issue for evangelicals is how we should vote. Do we vote on the basis of cultural/society issues? Or do we as evangelicals-whether proclaimed Republican, Democrat or Independant, vote solely on the moral issues? My personal conviction is to stay biblically directed and vote on the moral issues (ie: abortion, partial birth abortion, stem cell research, same sex marriage, etc). You may ask why not vote on domestic and cultural issues? As for the war, why vote against it or for it when Matthew 24 says that "war" is inevitable? In other words, whether it was Bush, Gore, Kerry or Omama/McCain in office, war is going to happen regardless because of what Scripture tells us. Secondly, why not vote in the area of finances whether we should raise or lower taxes? Because as Christians we don't live or depend on Uncle Sam and the government, we depend on Jehova Jireh our provider. The Lord provides for those who are His. Why not vote on health care and other health situations? Because our Healer and protector is the Lord. Do you see where I am getting at? Yes, we live in America and votes and amendments and rules and leaders do effect us as believers, but we do not trust in man or his government, for our hope is in Christ and His Kingdom. Therefore, if we as evangelicals vote on morality, we vote as Christians should.

  • Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:48 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    jire, I totally disagree with you because Republican does not always equate to the views of conservative evangelicals, while Democrat may indeed equate to the views of conservative evangelicals. The only reason I am a registered Republican is so I can vote in primary elections, but to be honest, nearly all Democrats who run at the local and state level from southeast Kentucky share the same views as conservative evangelicals. Before I vote for anyone I look at their voting record and where they stand on the issues that are important to me as a conservative evangelical and then I vote for who I believe to be the best candidate regardless of their party affiliation.

  • Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:12 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    to jirehdesign,

    I think I fall under that category. Im not ashamed to say Im conservative, but I am an independent voter. But I have to say just because I am conservative does not or should not make me a republican. Republicans abused their power while in control of congress with their spending, so I didnt vote for them to stay in power. Im not going to vote for Obama, and Im not really interested in McCain as of now.

  • Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:32 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    My issue is that there is a strong emphasis on societal woes, but little emphasis on the cause of those woes: the lack of Christ and lack of discipleship.

    People are recognizing the symptoms and ignoring the causes.

  • Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:02 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

    There's something that has really been bugging me about younger evangelicals today. They basically hold to conservitave values and Christian views on stewardship, morality, and family values, yet they feel the need to call themselves "independent." It seems pretty ingenuous to me. Independent can mean just about anything. I think it's because they fear that people will laugh at their "outdated views." You don't have to be a know-it-all and overbearing like Rush Limbaugh, but come let's be honest with ourselves. Just be honest dude, you're a republican.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links