Home » The Servant Reader » media

Tag: media

christian blogs accepting guest posts

Over 70 Christian Blogs Accepting Guest Posts

Christian blogs. One of the most powerful weapons in the Christian arsenal for expanding the Kingdom on earth is the printed word. Whether you’re looking to write for a Christian blog just to share ideas or simply praying for a great backlink and a little exposure for your own Christian blog, guest posting should become a regular practice.

To help you with that effort, here are the guest post submission guidelines for over 70 Christian blogs. (No kidding.)

Did we miss you? Submit the form at the bottom of this post and–if it fits–we’ll add your blog to the list.

  1. (in)courage
  2. A Diligent Heart
  3. A Rising Generation
  4. AimeeBeau
  5. Alyssa J Howard
  6. Arabah Joy
  7. Becoming Press
  8. Before the Cross
  9. Better Than Newlyweds
  10. Bible Jar
  11. Bible Way Magazine
  12. Boundless
    http://www.boundless.org/blog/ (the Boundless blog)
    http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about/policies/privacy-policy#posting (Focus on Family’s guest posting guidelines)
  13. Brad Andres
  14. Broken Beautiful Bold
  15. BronLea
  16. Cancer Prayer Network
  17. Charisma Magazine
  18. Christian Courier
  19. Christian Devotions
  20. Christian Mommy Blogger
  21. Christian Stress Management
  22. Christianity Today
  23. Church Mag
  24. Citizen Magazine
    https://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/citizen-magazine (the Citizen Magazine blog)
    http://media.focusonthefamily.com/topicinfo/citizen-mag-writers-guidelines.pdf (the actual guest posting guidelines)
  25. Converge Magazine
  26. Crosswalk
  27. Devotional Diva
  28. Devozine
  29. Diana Leagh Matthews
  30. Faithful Bloggers
  31. Gene Whitehead
  32. Girl Defined
    https://www.girldefined.com/contact (the Girl Defined blog)
    http://www.girldefined.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Girl-Defined-Guest-Post-Guidelines-PDF.pdf (the actual guest posting guidelines)
  33. God-Sized Dreams
  34. Gospel Blog
  35. Grace Love Life
  36. Grace Table
  37. Guideposts
  38. I Choose My Best Life
  39. I Love Devotionals
  40. Inspirational Christians for Today
  41. Intervarsity
  42. Just Between Us Magazine
  43. Marc Alan Schelske
  44. Money Saving Mom
  45. OCF.net
  46. Our Church
  47. Patty Tower
  48. Paul Sohn
  49. Proverbs 31 Woman
  50. Radical Christian Woman
  51. Redeeming God
  52. ReThinkNow
  53. RevTrev
  54. Rosann Cunningham
  55. Satisfaction Through Christ
  56. She Loves Magazine
  57. SiggiBlog
  58. Sojourners
  59. Speak the Words
  60. Start Marriage Right
  61. The Christian Century
  62. Theology of Work
  63. The Life
  64. The Mudroom
  65. The Servant Reader
  66. The Speckled Goat
  67. Thriving Family
    http://www.thrivingfamily.com/ (the Thriving Family magazine)
    http://www.thrivingfamily.com/~/media/Thriving/1-articles/PDFs/TF-Writers-Guidelines.pdf (the actual guest posting guidelines)
  68. To Love, Honor, & Vacuum
  69. Uniquely Yours Ministries
  70. Unveiled Wife
  71. Velvet Ashes
  72. What So Ever is Lovely Living
  73. Whole Magazine
  74. Love Lines From God
  75. 2Me from Him
  76. Zachary Pierpont

Didn’t see your Christian blog in this list?

Use this form to have your blog considered. All fields are required.

Yes definitelyNo thank you

Please follow and like us:
bible on audio book

Get the Bible on Audio Book

I was driving the other day, heading over to the west side of Lansing, when I realized I was done listening to my Christian rock station. I wanted some discussion. I wanted some teaching on God’s Word, God’s path—just God’s will.

That’s when I realized how poor I was in that material. I didn’t have anything in the car. Nothing. I have just recently switched cars, so I was really under-equipped with study material while I was on the road.

I thought to myself, “Man. Why do I not have the Bible on audio disk, on CD? Why do I not have this?”

I was heading towards a Barnes and Noble, maybe Schuler’s, something like that—but a local book chain. I said, “You know what? I’m on this side of town. I’m gonna stop and take a look, and see if they have any audio book versions of the Bible. They must, right?”

I got to the bookstore and started looking around. I thought, “Man, it’d be perfect if I could have James Earl Jones reading me the Bible while I drive. It’d be fantastic, but that’s hoping too much.”

That was too much. Obviously, I’m not going to get James Earl Jones.

If you’re studying with audio books or doing any kind of work with audio books, you know that not all voices are created equal. You know this. Certain voices you have to get past in order to get to the material. Other voices draw you in. James Earl Jones would be one great example of that. Yeah.

The bookstore didn’t have anything in with the rest of the Bibles (the religious section.) I kept looking, and sure enough, I end up having to go to the music/CD section. I asked around, and they said, “Well, look right over there on that shelf.”

Sure enough, there’s one copy of the King James Bible on audio disc (I keep calling it audio disc. CD.) Here it is. I got it.

bible on audio book

It was super cheap. It was $45 (something like that.)

$45 for the Bible? Yeah. That’s gold.

It was the only one. It was sitting there on a single shelf, all on its own, unmarked. I said, “All right. Here we go.”

As I’m walking back to the register to pay for it, I look at the label and who’s reading on it?

James Earl Jones.

I found that to be fantastic.

Truly, it’s been a blessing, and I’m going through the book of Genesis right now; about to leave Genesis and move into Exodus. I just wanted to share, because I thought that was very interesting.

I want to encourage you. If you don’t have the Bible on CD, or you can’t listen to it while you’re in your car, what are you listening to instead?

Is it speaking life into your life, or is it speaking death?

Please follow and like us:
pleasantville movie review

Pleasantville – A Christian Movie Review

Some of you may not believe this—some of you may not care—but I just saw the movie, “Pleasantville,” for the first time today. It’s here in the year 2015; this thing came out in 1998. I had never seen it before. My wife said, “Oh, I know a show you’ll like,” and so she put it on.

It was well-told as a story. It had Tobey Maguire, Jeff Daniels, Joan Allen, William Macy, Reese Witherspoon, J.T. Walsh… directed by Gary Ross (as if any of this matters.)

Wow! As we started to get into it, I realized very quickly they were mirroring some of the book of Genesis where they talk about the Garden of Eden and the Fall. I realized they were making references or bringing allegories back from the book of Genesis but things were… off.

Really, this whole movie is a batch of mixed messages about good and evil where good is evil and evil is good. It very much plays on the book of Genesis. It spends time in the Garden of Eden, which is Pleasantville, which has been made static and dulled, it’s made black and white. The residents there are automatons who don’t know how to do anything for themselves. They are unenlightened.

The brother and sister who are transported back, they’re fighting over a remote control back in our colored reality and the remote control breaks. Barney Fife walks in as the TV repairman just unannounced. He just shows up once the remote breaks. He gives them a new remote, a space age remote that takes them into Pleasantville, which is a TV show that the son—or the Adam in this case—he really loved this show.

He and his sister are transported back into Pleasantville, back in time. This nods to the movie, Back to the Future. As they start their butterfly effect of messing up this alternative universe, they bring to the universe sin. This is the charge towards sin as led by the wayward sister, in this case, Reese Witherspoon. She deflowers the innocent captain of the basketball team in Pleasantville. He tells his buddies, and then the word starts getting out. As this happens, the world, Eden, starts to come into full Technicolor. Color or richness, visual richness, visual beauty is brought on by sin in this case. It just downward spirals from there.

Obviously, in this analogy, the TV repairman is God. The remote control is the key into Eden, the key into the Garden. It’s not so pleasant to be in the Garden as it is because you’re just an automaton, you’re mindless. You’re just wondering around in bliss, thinking it’s bliss, and not knowing any better. You don’t have the knowledge to know it’s supposed to be more colorful, it’s supposed to be more rich. The characters, most of them, fall into sin, usually adultery or some sexual sin. Really, it’s amazing to see the erosion game that Hollywood is playing with us. And this happened back in 1998! This is seven years ago!

The characters all start to fall, one at a time. For Bud’s mother, in this case, the Adam character, Tobey Maguire. His character’s name is Bud in Pleasantville. His mother, for her, she turns to color, from black and white to color, by pleasuring herself. She was taught how to do this by the daughter. The daughter tells her, “This is what you can do,” and so she gains her color that way.

For Bud, it comes from hitting another boy in defense of his mother.

For one of the other characters, the restaurant owner turned artist, it’s in seducing Bud’s mother.

For Mary Sue, the sister—the Eve in this story—it comes from actually rejecting her wanton ways because she enters Eden full of sin, full of sexual sin. She actually rejects that here. There’s a little bit of confusion that they just decided to sprinkle in. For her, it’s gleaning towards knowledge so she finds, as far as we can tell, a fictional classic. That’s where she dives into. She actually rejects one of the overtures from the captain of the basketball team, turns him away because she’s finally found the book. She’s got to study. She’s got to get to her classes. That was interesting.

Bud’s father finally gains his color. He’s one of the holdouts along with many of the men in town. For Bud’s father, it’s finally expressing his love for his wife; that changes his color.

Then, the mayor, in this case, the mayor of the town who actually turns out to be the judge as well in the final scenes. He’s obviously the Christ-figure who’s trying to maintain the status quo. He’s trying to maintain or trying to save his town from falling into sin, from falling into Technicolor. Bud, the Adam, inflames him so much, antagonizes him so much. While he’s trying to pass judgment over the townspeople, over Adam in this case, that he turns colors. He finds his color there, just out of rage, which totally breaks the symbolic mechanism that they were trying to work with everybody else.

All in all, this movie is fairly treacherous. There’s teen sex, adultery, profanity, all with a dash of racist segregation and one well-placed punch to the jaw. Traditional values are painted as being dull and boring and colorless.

It’s just more of the Hollywood erosion game, really. This is what it boils down to.

Again, it was well-construed as a story. It had all sorts of holes. They even got down to a place where right in the middle of the movie, one of the girls who had changed color (because she found herself in some way) brings an apple to the Adam character (Bud). Really overt, in your face. Yeah, we’re definitely nodding back to the book of Genesis.

I regret seeing it. My wife, I won’t tell her that I regret seeing it. She’ll have to watch this video to find out I regret seeing it. But, it gave me some material for this, right? I got to talk to you as a result, so I don’t regret seeing it. I’m a little wiser as a result of it. But, I wouldn’t recommend seeing it. Not at all.

Anyways, there’s my report. Hope you guys are doing well. This is Matt Schoenherr signing off.

Please follow and like us:
pro-choice bias in media

Are You Sure That’s FAIR? Calling Out Pro-Choice Bias in Media

“While news is important, news interpretation is far more important” – H. V. Kaltenborn

The article titled, “Abortion Coverage Leaves Women out of the Picture” by Tiffany Devitt (Special Issue on Women, 1992) asserts that the news industry repeatedly neglects to focus the abortion issue on women, instead turning the debate into an issue that is often political in nature. The author believes that the media has tended to discuss the abortion issue from a distance; a distance much too far away to involve themselves in determining the feelings and view points of those immediately impacted by the issue – women (and arguably, unborn children).

“..as is the case with other social policy issues such as civil rights or welfare, abortion is more often covered not from the perspective of those most affected by the issue, but from the standpoint of Washington politics. According to the National Newspaper Index of major dailies, there were more articles on how the issue of abortion has affected various political candidacies, races and parties than there were articles on how women with unwanted pregnancies are affected by growing restrictions on funding and counseling.” (Devitt, 1992)

Devitt makes a number of poignant arguments throughout the article. She states that one article in the Los Angeles Times debated whether women reporters could objectively write about abortion and points out that the article never even asked the same question about men. Devitt also shows how there have been a number of incidents where abortion legislation has been passed and interviews with the women who will be affected by the legislation have been non-existent. At one point, she even makes the assertion that “stories regularly [carry] the soundbites of abortion-rights representatives and anti-abortion spokespersons” but fail to glean the other side’s perspective. She does not, however, back the latter up with any examples.

This last point is especially timely for me, as I recently received a call from a distraught friend over the same phenomenon. This friend works as a legislative representative for the state Right to Life office and, as part of her duties, occasionally goes on radio and television interviews. This one radio debate, in particular, left her feeling railroaded. She knew from the opening comments between the interviewer and the third person on the line that the interviewer was already very pro-choice. As the debate progressed, it became more and more apparent that she was there merely to help portray the image that the radio station was conducting impartial forums on controversial issues. Not only was she cut off in mid-sentence during the few chances she attempted to break into the conversation, but she was also forcefully excluded from the conversation until the end when she was simply asked if she had any closing remarks. It appears, then, that the tendency to illicit supporting views at the expense of objectivity is universal.

As was the case with this article.

There were a few items that I found interesting about Devitt’s article. First, it is hosted on a website for an organization called FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting). “As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.” (FAIR, 2003) They go on to further describe themselves as being an “anti-censorship organization” and their mission as being one of fostering “greater diversity in the press”. For a group that calls themselves “Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting”, I saw little of it in their limited collection of abortion papers. What I saw was a collection of articles that supported one point of view; the very antithesis of what FAIR says they stand for. While Devitt was attacking the news media for a pro-life slant, she was stomping her biased feet to support the pro-choice camp. Not once did she attempt to illustrate a slant from the opposing side.

Finally, one might also notice that FAIR offers links to NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) and Planned Parenthood from their website, but they stop there. One would think that if an organization were trying to build a name for themselves as being forthcoming and accurate with the facts, they would make sure their readers had full access to all points of view.

After all, wouldn’t that be the FAIR thing to do?



Webster’s Book of Quotations. (1992). New York, NY: Pamco Publishing Co., Inc.

Devitt, T. (1992). Abortion Coverage Leaves Women out of the Picture. Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting. Retrieved April 2, 2003 from the World Wide Web:

Cohen, J. (2003). What’s FAIR?. Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting. Retrieved April 2, 2003 from the World Wide Web:

Bucher, R. (2000). Diversity Consciousness: Opening Our Minds to People, Cultures, and
Opportunities. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Special Issue on Women 1992

This graphic depicts the abortion debate as two hands tugging at a rag doll– suggesting that the debate is about an “unborn child” rather than about women’s rights (Los Angeles Times, 7/22/90).

Abortion Coverage Leaves Women out of the Picture

By Tiffany Devitt

As a background graphic for reports on abortion, TV has sometimes used a depiction of a late-term fetus hanging in space, with no connection to a pregnant woman. The “floating fetus” logo is in sync with the media’s tendency to push women out of the public’s mental picture of the abortion issue.

In recent years, national media have heavily covered the issue of abortion. In 1989 and 1990, close to 1500 articles on abortion appeared in major dailies; the weeklies — Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report — have featured stories on abortion more regularly than any other social policy issue.

However, as is the case with other social policy issues such as civil rights or welfare, abortion is more often covered not from the perspective of those most affected by the issue, but from the standpoint of Washington politics. According to the National Newspaper Index of major dailies, there were more articles on how the issue of abortion has affected various political candidacies, races and parties than there were articles on how women with unwanted pregnancies are affected by growing restrictions on funding and counseling.

Though former Gov. Bob Martinez of Florida will never have an abortion, a Washington Post headline declared (8/1/89): “Governor at Risk on Abortion Issue.” While it is individual women, not political parties, who confront the choice to terminate a pregnancy, a Wall Street Journal headline stated(10/20/89): “Abortion Debate Proves Painful for Republicans.”

National news outlets have occasionally shown themselves willing to deal with the painful reality of abortion for women and the tragedy of unwanted children — but usually only when discussing abortion policies of foreign governments, in particular the policies of Eastern European countries under Communism. For example, Newsweek published an article titled “When Abortion Is Denied: What of the ‘Unwanted’?” (8/22/88), discussing the consequences of Czechoslovakia’s ban on abortions. And the Washington Post ran a poignant article (6/17/90) on restricted access to abortion in Romania under Ceausescu. But the human consequences of restricting access to abortion in the U.S. have seldom made news.

What is striking in the coverage of abortion in mainstream media is the lack of opportunities that U.S. women have to speak for themselves and articulate their concerns. Although stories regularly carried the soundbites of abortion-rights representatives and anti-abortion spokespersons, the women affected by specific restrictions were rarely cited as sources in abortion stories.

For example, the Supreme Court decision that enabled states to require women under the age of 18 to get parental consent before getting an abortion was widely covered. However, while more than 1 million teenagers become pregnant each year, and thousands of them are affected by state legislation requiring parental consent, reporters almost never sought their reaction, covering the legal change without consulting anyone in the group that it impacts.

Articles on the recent cuts in Medicaid funding for abortion, and on President Bush’s veto of a provision that would have granted an exception in cases of rape or incest, similarly failed to quote the women who would be affected — poor women, largely women of color, and rape and incest victims. Rather, the story was played as a political skirmish, with members of Congress and administration officials, mostly male, squaring off against each other and trying to appear principled.

One recent challenge to abortion rights has been in the realm of abortion referrals and counseling. In September 1990, the Supreme Court was asked by the Bush administration to uphold federal regulations that prevent doctors, nurses and counselors at federally funded family-planning clinics from discussing the option of abortion or referring patients to abortion providers. An exceptional front-page article in the Washington Post (10/30/90) interviewed women who count on the services of these clinics and contemplated what it would mean if they closed. But most stories on the issue merely reported that the “U.S. Files Narrow Defense on Abortion Counseling” (New York Times, 9/9/90) and were relegated to the back pages.

Not only have women been undercited as a source in abortion stories, but much space has been devoted to questioning their capacity to speak on the subject altogether. (See Extra!, 7-8/90.) The Los Angeles Times (6/3/90)devoted 28 column inches to exploring the question, “Can Woman Reporters Write Objectively on Abortion?” — without pondering whether male reporters can.

Please follow and like us: