Insight to Incite dragged the Israeli church targeting scandal into the light before anyone else was willing to touch it. Once the filings were exposed and the evidence spread across the evangelical landscape, the story could no longer be ignored. That pressure is what forced Christianity Today to step in with its own carefully managed version of events. CT did not break the story. They tried to contain it. This piece explains how Insight to Incite set the agenda, how CT validated the reporting they hoped to neutralize, and why Israel’s influence apparatus towers over anything its rivals could attempt inside the American church.
Christianity Today has now wandered into the story I told you about months ago. They ran a feature-length article titled something like “Investigating the PR Campaigns Following the Israel Hamas War,” written as a straight news report. It did not appear on some opinion blog or in an obscure corner. It went out under the Christianity Today banner as the respectable, establishment take on what Israel has been doing in the American information space. The article claims to examine “public relations” work by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its contractors inside the United States, especially after the attack of October 7 and the war in Gaza that followed.
You would never know, from CT’s tone, how explosive the underlying facts really are. The piece calmly acknowledges that Israel has hired multiple firms to shape opinion of evangelicals in America. It mentions Show Faith By Works, a U.S. company that filed under the Foreign Agents Registration Act and admitted it was hired by Israel’s foreign ministry to reach churches and Christian colleges. It admits that this firm’s original filing described building digital fences around church properties and Christian schools so phones inside those boundaries could be identified and targeted later with pro Israel content. It notes a mobile “October 7” exhibit that would be hauled into parking lots and onto campuses, plus “educational resources” for pastors. In other words, CT quietly admits that almost every core fact I reported is real.
Then Christianity Today shifts into explanation mode. The article spends a great deal of time explaining why Israel feels the need to do this. It cites polling that shows older evangelicals still largely support Israel, but younger evangelicals are drifting away. One survey says barely three in ten evangelicals under thirty five still say Jews are God’s chosen people. Another survey of voters under twenty five finds a strong tilt toward sympathy with Hamas and a widespread belief that Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza. The CT article presents these numbers as evidence that young Americans have been captured by anti Israel narratives in universities, social media, and protest movements.
To reinforce that frame, CT brings in its own chosen experts. Jeff Myers of Summit Ministries is quoted as a kind of narrator explaining that Israeli officials were shocked to learn how little support they had among young American Christians. Sean McDowell comments that universities lean heavily against Israel and shape entire generations of students. A lawyer named Alan Gover is brought in to reassure readers that Show Faith By Works did nothing illegal, that the entire point of FARA is disclosure, and that filing these documents is actually a sign of transparency. The overall message is that this is normal public diplomacy and that Christians should mostly be grateful that someone is finally investing in “education” to counter the other side.
The most important part of the CT article comes when they hand the microphone to Chad Schnitger, the man behind Show Faith By Works. Schnitger is allowed to say that the original geofencing plan has been “changed” and that his firm has “made significant adjustments” to the campaign. He tells CT that they have scrapped the geofencing component because of privacy concerns and that the lawyers told him to describe all potential tactics in the original filing even if they were never used. He expresses regret over the wording and promises that new filings will clarify what the firm is actually doing. CT prints this almost without challenge, as if the whole scandal can be cured by blaming the language on cautious attorneys and promising a kinder, gentler influence campaign.
By the time the reader finishes the Christianity Today piece, they have been walked through the existence of Israeli funded PR campaigns, introduced to one of the contractors, told that geofencing was only a draft idea that has now been abandoned, and reassured that the real goal is to “help Christians think critically” and to fight antisemitism. The CT reader is given just enough of the truth to feel informed, but every sharp edge has been sanded down and wrapped in layers of sympathy. That is the article we are talking about.
HOW CT SPINS A FOREIGN INFLUENCE OPERATION
Once you know what CT actually printed, the spin is obvious. Start with the headline. They call this a look at “PR campaigns,” not a foreign influence operation that targets the American church. They emphasize that it follows the Israel Hamas war, so the whole thing is framed as a response to trauma and violence rather than as part of a longstanding hasbara machine that predates this conflict by decades. You are nudged to see Israel as reacting, never as initiating.
Then watch the order of the story. CT does not lead with the most offensive detail, which is that a foreign ministry hired a U.S. contractor to map churches, fence the properties digitally, capture phones during worship, and follow those believers around with customized ads. Instead they lead with Israel’s fear of losing younger Christians, the emotional shock of polling data, and the perspective of sympathetic Christian leaders who want to help our “ally” communicate better. Only after that groundwork has been laid do they mention what Show Faith By Works actually filed with the Department of Justice, and even there the language is softened with qualifiers and caveats about plans that may have changed.
The profile of Schnitger is handled the same way. The CT writer does not sit across from him as an adversary. He is treated almost as a misunderstood brother in Christ who tried to help Israel and misstepped on the paperwork. He is allowed to portray geofencing as an idea that never really left the brainstorming stage. He is allowed to imply that the lawyers forced a level of disclosure that made the plan sound more invasive than it would have been in practice. He is allowed to redefine the campaign as a series of educational events, resources, and exhibits meant to inform Christians about the horror of October 7 and the need to stand with Israel. CT does not press him with the obvious question, which is why his firm described the largest Christian geofencing campaign in American history if it was never actually intended to be used.
Notice also what CT chooses to emphasize about the opposition. The article spends significant time on foreign propaganda from the other side. It talks about Qatar and Al Jazeera, Iranian backed misinformation, and anti Israel ads and slogans in American cities. It mentions student groups, street protests, and agitprop online. By the time they are done, a casual reader could be forgiven for thinking that Israel is a small player in a propaganda ocean dominated by its enemies, bravely fighting to get its side of the story heard. That framing is completely inverted from reality, where Israel enjoys massive institutional support in Washington, deep integration with Christian media, and a foreign ministry budget for hasbara that dwarfs anything Qatar is spending to influence the evangelical pew.
In short, CT takes a set of facts that should provoke outrage and turns them into a story about responsible public relations, well meaning Christians, and a victimized ally doing its best in a hostile world. The scandal is defanged. The outrage is redirected toward radical students and foreign adversaries. The actual churches being targeted are never named. The actual media structures being used are never examined. The reader walks away thinking that nothing terribly unusual has happened.
WHY THIS IS DAMAGE CONTROL, NOT JOURNALISM
When you line up the dates, the pattern looks less like reporting and more like narrative triage. Independent outlets, including this one, had already published detailed breakdowns of Show Faith By Works, Clock Tower X, and Bridges Partners. We had made public the wording of the filings, the lists of churches and ministries targeted, the promise of the “largest Christian geofencing campaign in U.S. history,” and the connection to Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Critics responded the way they always do. They called it conspiratorial. They insisted that Israel would never run psy ops in churches. They accused anyone who connected the dots of paranoia. Then Christianity Today quietly dropped in and admitted that the basic outline was true.
If CT were acting like a watchdog, this would be the moment they sank their teeth into the story. This would be when they demanded to know which pastors took money, which ministries accepted materials, which churches allowed their parking lots to become staging grounds for foreign war exhibits, and which Christian broadcasters allowed foreign crafted narratives to slide into their programming. Instead, CT functions like a shock absorber. It takes the blow, cushions it, and passes a weaker wave along to the average evangelical. The basic facts are acknowledged only so they can be wrapped in the language of balance and maturity.
That is what damage control looks like in an institutional ecosystem. The first line of defense is denial. When that fails, the second line is confession with excuses. The Christianity Today piece sits squarely in that second trench. It is an admission wrapped in anesthesia. It tells the reader that yes, this is happening, but no, you do not have to be alarmed, because the motives are pure, the methods have been corrected, and the real villains are radical students on TikTok and shady regimes in Doha and Tehran. CT is doing what it exists to do, which is to hold the hand of evangelical respectability and walk it gently away from any serious reckoning with its own compromise.
I do not need CT to confirm my reporting. The documents already did that. What I need CT to do, and what it refused to do, is tell the truth in a way that matches the gravity of the offense. A foreign ministry mapped America’s churches, seeded influence campaigns through Christian media, and treated the pulpit as one more delivery system for war propaganda. CT could have called that what it is. Instead, it showed up with a fire extinguisher, not to put out Israel’s campaign, but to cool down the outrage of the saints who are just now learning how thoroughly their trust has been bought and sold.
WHEN THE “CONSPIRACY THEORY” BECOMES THE ESTABLISHMENT NARRATIVE
For weeks I listened to the same tired chorus. I was told that the filings I exposed were exaggerated. I was accused of connecting dots that did not belong together. I was accused of sensationalism for describing a foreign influence campaign aimed at American churches. I was mocked for saying that Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs had commissioned a multi-firm operation intended to shape the consciences of Christian believers. I was told it was hysterical to believe that churches had been geofenced, that worshippers had been digitally tracked, and that pastors and influencers were being groomed as distribution channels for foreign messaging. Then Christianity Today finally stepped onto the stage with its own article and validated nearly every claim I made. They did not admit it with my tone or my clarity, but they admitted it all the same. The establishment version of my reporting is still my reporting. It is simply delivered without urgency so no one realizes how serious it is.
Christianity Today confirmed that the story I uncovered was not a creation of imagination. It was a matter of record. CT acknowledged that Israel hired American firms to reach into churches and Christian colleges. They acknowledged that one of these firms filed a document with the federal government describing geofencing, digital tracking, targeted advertising, and pastoral outreach. They acknowledged that these tactics were specifically designed to shape the attitudes of Christians toward the modern State of Israel. They even acknowledged that this was part of a much larger communications effort running across several companies. They whispered what I said out loud. The facts that once sounded like conspiracy have now been absorbed into the polite vocabulary of evangelical journalism.
WHY CT’S “CORRECTIONS” ARE CONFESSIONS
The most revealing part of the Christianity Today article is the section where they allow the architect of the church-focused campaign to revise his own story. The contractor behind Show Faith By Works is given a platform to say that geofencing was merely an idea, that it was changed, that lawyers caused the wording, and that the whole thing has been misunderstood. CT presents this as a significant clarification. In reality it confirms the opposite. The only way to walk back a filing is to acknowledge that the filing exists and that it said exactly what it said. If the language were harmless or routine there would be no need to downplay it. CT would simply quote it and move on. Instead they treat the filing like a hot stove that must be touched only with thick gloves.
My central claim was that the filing described the largest Christian geofencing plan in American history. Christianity Today does not dispute that the filing contained this claim. They only repeat the contractor’s regret that the wording sounded too aggressive. My critics told me that Israel would never target churches in this way. CT proved that Israel did exactly that, at least on paper, and then scrambled to soften the consequences. The establishment is not contradicting me. The establishment is confirming the accuracy of the language while trying to cushion the blow. That is not a rebuttal. That is a confession delivered in slow motion.
Another part of my reporting involved the connection between multiple firms. I described the three company structure that emerged almost simultaneously. I showed how Clock Tower X handled the digital and AI side. I showed how Bridges Partners handled the influencer and social media network. I showed how Show Faith By Works handled the church and campus outreach. Critics ridiculed this. They said I was weaving separate strands into an imaginary rope. Then CT gently admitted that Israel had hired multiple firms for an extensive public relations push aimed specifically at the American public and especially at Christian audiences. CT avoided the names, but they did not deny the structure. They did not say Israel only hired one outfit. They did not say the filings were unrelated. They simply omitted the details to protect the sensibilities of their audience. Once again their omissions validate the fundamental point. The campaign was coordinated. The companies were connected by the same foreign principal. The filings sit beside each other in the federal system for a reason.
I also reported that Israel’s operation targeted high profile churches and well known Christian figures. I listed the megachurches. I listed the colleges. I listed the pastors and celebrity influencers proposed as spokespeople. These details came from the exhibits themselves. Critics insisted I had stretched the evidence. Christianity Today then admitted that churches and Christian colleges were indeed the focus of the outreach. They avoided giving the list.
WHY THE ESTABLISHMENT IS BACKING INTO THE TRUTH
What makes Christianity Today’s piece so important is not the new information it provides. It provides none. What makes it important is that it proves the establishment is now forced to acknowledge what it would never have admitted on its own. CT is the magazine that speaks on behalf of respectable evangelicalism. It is the voice that pastors quote when they want to sound informed but not controversial. When CT tells its audience that Israel has been running PR campaigns aimed at Christians, it does so only because the truth has already become too public to ignore.
Christianity Today confirms the architecture of the operation but removes the sense of invasion. It confirms the tactics but removes the urgency. It confirms the strategies but removes the implications. It confirms the motives but removes the theological stakes. It produces a softened replica of my reporting and presents it as measured journalism. I report the fire. CT reports the smoke and asks readers not to panic.
This is why the charge of conspiracy has collapsed. The people who accused me of overstating the case are now confronted with the fact that the very magazine they trust has walked right up to the line and traced my outline paragraph by paragraph. They have not refuted my work. They have canonized it in the most establishment friendly form possible.
What was once a warning has now become a matter of public record. The only difference is that I refuse to pretend it is normal. CT refuses to admit that it is a historic breach of trust. I refuse to pretend the sanctuary deserves this. CT refuses to name the culprits. I refuse to apologize for exposing them. Christianity Today has confirmed my story. They simply lack the courage to say what it means.
WHY CT’S “EVERYONE DOES PROPAGANDA” EXCUSE COLLAPSES UNDER REAL WEIGHT
Christianity Today devoted a large portion of its article to what amounts to a theological version of “whataboutism.” After quietly confirming that Israel’s foreign ministry hired American firms to target churches, track worshippers, and shape Christian consciences, CT tries to blunt the outrage by pointing to Qatar, Iran, and “anti Israel campaigns” in the West. In their framing, Israel is simply one actor among many. Everyone does propaganda. Everyone pushes narratives. Everyone influences someone. The implication is that Christians should not overreact because this is just the world we live in.
That argument collapses the moment you look at scale, structure, and proximity. Qatar runs media outlets, not megachurch outreach programs. Iran funds protests, not geofencing campaigns inside American sanctuaries. None of Israel’s adversaries are hiring American evangelical strategists to reshape Christian theology so it aligns with their geopolitical interests. None of them are pulling lists of Saddleback, Harvest, Scottsdale Bible, New Life Colorado Springs, Gateway, Prestonwood, or Village Church and treating them as target markets. None of them are using October 7 themed exhibits to tour the American Bible Belt. None of them are deploying payrolls to pastors, influencers, and Christian celebrities to bend the pulpit toward a foreign nation.
Only one state has built an influence machine that integrates foreign intelligence, American political consultants, Christian media networks, and doctrinal pressure points into a single pipeline. Only one state places American churches into marketing decks. Only one state treats Christian consciences as strategic terrain. That is why CT must dilute the story by dragging in foreign adversaries. Without that distraction the reader would be forced to confront the uniqueness of the offense. CT’s job is to make the Israeli operation look normal by surrounding it with foreign examples that have nothing in common with the campaign in question.
THE SCALE OF ISRAEL’S INFLUENCE DWARFS ANY RIVAL
Christianity Today presents Israel’s campaign as though it is merely responding to student protests and social media trends. The truth is that Israel spends more on public diplomacy in a single fiscal year than most of its adversaries spend on entire foreign media ecosystems. Israel’s communications budget is in the hundreds of millions of shekels. Its hasbara apparatus includes local contractors, global agencies, military units, digital monitoring teams, and public relations firms operating on multiple continents. This is not a scrappy reaction to campus agitators. It is a sovereign state with a multi tiered propaganda machine that predates October 7 and predates the current generation of American evangelicals.
Then consider the Christian machinery available to Israel. There is no Qatar equivalent to Christian media empires with national reach. There is no Iranian equivalent to churches with tens of thousands of weekly attendees. There is no Palestinian equivalent to a celebrity pastor echo chamber that spans radio, conferences, YouTube, podcasts, and Sunday morning pulpits. There is no rival to Christian Zionist tour companies, Bible prophecy conferences, or the vast network of ministries that have spent decades building eschatology around the modern State of Israel. When Israel taps into the world of American Christianity, it plugs into an infrastructure that is already designed to amplify its message. No other nation has that access. No other nation could even imagine replicating it.
This is why Israel’s propaganda does not merely compete with the messaging of Qatar or Iran. It overwhelms them by orders of magnitude. It uses theological symbols, biblical narratives, and eschatological expectations that no Muslim power can exploit. It leverages pastors who hold unrivaled moral authority among millions of believers. It rides on the back of decades of dispensational conditioning that trained American Christians to view the modern State of Israel as a sacred object rather than a political actor. This is not a fair fight. It is not even the same category of influence. It is the difference between a firecracker and a missile silo.
CT’s attempt to make this look like a symmetrical propaganda field is dishonest because it ignores all the asymmetry that defines the reality. Israel’s effort is larger, older, richer, more sophisticated, more integrated, and more specifically targeted at Christians than anything its adversaries have ever attempted. That is why the FARA filings matter. They show the machinery in action. They show how far the operation has advanced. They show that the ministry of information in a foreign country feels entitled to treat American sanctuaries like algorithmic funnels. They show that Israel believes it can shape the beliefs of Christians as easily as it shapes the beliefs of political donors. CT did not refute that. They only disguised it.
WHY CT’S DEFENSE PROVES THE PROSECUTION
What Christianity Today attempted in its article is familiar to anyone who has watched evangelical institutions defend the status quo. They acknowledged the facts only so they could smother the implications. They confirmed the story only so they could bury the shock. They spoke the truth only in hushed tones, surrounded by excuses, distractions, and appeals to balance. Their tactic was not to deny the influence campaign but to normalize it. Their aim was not to protect Christians but to protect the legitimacy of the institutions that let this happen in the first place.
But the moment CT admitted the core facts, the argument shifted. The question is no longer whether Israel targeted churches. Christianity Today admits that it did. The question is no longer whether a foreign ministry hired American firms to track phones, build outreach pipelines, and shape Christian convictions. Christianity Today admits that it did. The question is no longer whether the campaign was coordinated across several vendors. Christianity Today admits that it was. The question is no longer whether young Christians are being targeted because Israel fears losing its evangelical base. Christianity Today admits that they are.
The only question that remains is the one CT refuses to ask. What does it mean for the American church that a foreign state views the sanctuary as strategic real estate?
So let us end where CT refuses to begin. A foreign government built a psychological and digital influence campaign aimed at American Christians. It built it with intentionality, with money, with contractors, with pastors, with influencers, with media networks, and with theological leverage. Insight to Incite exposed it. CT confirmed it. The only difference is that I refuse to pretend it is normal. The truth is not calm. The truth is not soft. The truth is not polite. The truth is that the sanctuary has been treated like a battleground, and only one side seems bothered by that fact.
If you appreciate my work, grab a paid subscription to access exclusive content. And there’s lots of it.
