A CALL TO ACTIVISM
America would be in worse shape than it is if religion journalists and scholars did not fulfill their basic journalistic and scholarly responsibilities in a season of general decline of print journalism. Those of us who value all forms of journalism and scholarship praise the resolve of journalists and scholars to research and expose sensitive truths about both politics and religion in the face of growing authoritarian efforts to suppress the independent press and public education about uncomfortable truths. It is right to say that Confronting Christian Nationalism would not exist in the absence of those efforts.

Up until these modern times of aggravated, right-wing political extremism perpetrated by Christian Nationalists, the responsibility of religion journalists and scholars has been to monitor and research current events in the world of religion and report on them in the context of the historical confluence of religion and politics. That is all well, good and necessary, but in the ominous season of Christian Nationalism, religion journalists and scholars are in a position where they need to reconsider the scope of their journalistic responsibilities.

Without diminishing the value of their historical efforts, there is a strong case to be made that these perilous times put demands on religion journalists and scholars to be more than reporters of events in the world of religion. There is a need for them to dig deep into the roots of Christian Nationalism and expose its faults and hypocrisies. Someone needs to expose the truth about the beliefs and doctrines that inform and inspire Judaism,  Christianity, and Christian Nationalism. No group is better equipped to do this than religious journalists and scholars. To better understand this argument, it is useful to review the history of clergy sex abuse.

There is no way to exaggerate the value of investigative reporting about sexual abuse in churches. It must be said, however, that reporting about abuse was deficient in the sense that it only reported factual evidence that the abuse occurred and efforts to cover it up. Reporting never went so far as to evaluate the origins of the religious beliefs and doctrines that created the religious environment that nurtured those policies and behaviors. To get to those origins would require deep dives into the bible and comparisons of actual scriptures with religious teachings. The religious backstory to sexual abuse was never reported. We dare not make the same mistake with Christian Nationalism.

Deep dives into the religious backstory of  clergy sex abuse and Christian Nationalism is not likely because there is a powerful, invisible, cultural respect for religious leaders and religious diversity that does not allow that kind of investigation or even imagine that it is necessary or appropriate for journalists and scholars to assume. Doctrine is historically the domain of theologians –not journalists. Theologians are not in the habit of challenging belief structures or the influence of those structures on society — even when phenomena like clergy sexual abuse and repressive Christian Nationalism policies invite critical, internal, self-analysis.

The reason for this “hands off” “live and let live” policy is that, for the most part, American religions have respectfully avoided public criticism of other religions. This policy also applies to reporting  about religious beliefs. Religions don’t want anyone poking into their business so they don’t poke into the business of other religions. Moreover, religions which are found guilty of abuse and oppression think in terms of individual bad apples rather than look at structural belief issues It is all about protecting the religious brand.

Notable exceptions to this “hands off” “live and let live” pattern can be found in Protestant attitudes about Catholics, universal distrust of Jews, and occasional interdenominational bickering, but such differences do not surface much in these modern times. Therefore, despite deep divisions in doctrine and religious practice, Christians do not generally speak ill about other religions — even though they believe in their hearts that the beliefs and practices of other religions are totally wrong. That is why religions never miss opportunities to steal sheep from other religions.

Because Americans have historically adopted the “live and let live” approach to keeping peace with other religions, liberals and conservatives of all religious stripes, and even non-religious people, discreetly avoid challenging religions about the origins of belief. For most people, it is unseemly to criticize other religions — even if you think they are wrong. Surprisingly or not, this “live and let live” attitude also resides in the realm of religious journalism and scholarship.