Some Questions about Christian Journalism
Blog, Featured — By John Pattison on October 28, 2009 at 11:40 amWhen I was visiting my brother in West Palm Beach, Florida last year, we were driving to his apartment and we passed this megachurch, and my brother told me that this church had recently issued some new rules to its worship team. (My brother was serving as worship pastor at another megachurch in West Palm at the time, and had secondhand but completely reliable knowledge of what I am about to tell you.) One of the new rules was that everyone on the worship team had to wear black. Another rule was that none of the worship leaders could lift their hands, sway excessively, or dance on stage. These two directives were aimed, my brother assumed, at taking attention off the worship leaders and on to God. A third directive, though, was more horrible and, we both agreed, completely indefensible. According to the new rules, no overweight people were to be allowed on the worship team.
I flipped out. This was at a time when I was skeptical – if not outright cynical – about almost all institutional church. Hearing about the megachurch’s ugly and discriminatory policy stoked embers of old hatreds in my heart. I told my brother that I was going to write about the megachurch on this website. I said I was going to “expose” the church leadership. I think I even said I was going to “crush” them. My brother asked me to hold off, he had personal relationships with some of the pastors at the church, but I would not be moved. Writing angry is easy (though reading angry is not), and I started writing the article every time we passed the megachurch on the way to or from my brother’s apartment. I relented only when my brother brought in reinforcements – he called our mother.
I’m not proud of the way I acted. The anger was obviously appropriate, but not my plans to “expose” and publicly “crush” the pastors of that church. Writing an article on this site would have caused a rift with my brother and possibly hurt his relationship with his friends at the church, all of whom opposed the rules changes. It would have violated a trust with you, dear reader, that I, as a writer and editor, hold sacred when I am not crazy with rage.
I thought about this church in Florida yesterday when I was outlining an article that I hope to publish here in a couple weeks. The piece I have planned is about Christian journalism – what it is, who is doing it, and what is needed. Everything I write on this topic turns into a kind of manifesto, so I’m sure there will be some of that too.
But one thing I started thinking about was the potential conflict between investigative journalism and “binding and loosing” – confronting your brother or sister in private when they have sinned against you, so that reconciliation can happen and communion can be restored. (Binding and loosing is the first of the “five practices of Christian community before the watching world” in John Howard Yoder’s seminal work, “Body Politics.”) The article about the Florida megachurch is an imperfect example because the screed I started writing in my head would have fallen well short of the journalistic standards, as well as basic standards of common decency.
But it makes we wonder, is it always unbiblical for a Christian journalist to publish an exposé about another Christian? What about a Christian organization? What considerations does a Christian magazine engaged in journalism – or even a Christian website like this one, publishing mainly opinion and commentaries and essays – need to take into account beyond standard ethics of the profession?
To use another extreme example: The other day, I heard Bill O’Reilly, a Catholic, publicly criticize a fellow Catholic’s support for abortion rights. The guy whose Catholicism was being put on trial declined to appear on O’Reilly’s show and so the sentence was handed down in absentia. A couple million people were watching. Can a Christian media news outlet run any story – not just a hit piece; a profile, for example, that is 95% positive – that is at all critical of a Christian without talking to them in private about it first?
I’d love to hear your thoughts on these questions, as well as general insights into the state of Christian journalism. I plan to incorporate them into my upcoming essay.
16 Comments
Yeah, that’s tough, because my first instinct would be to lambast them and throw (literary) stones all in their faces.
I guess Biblically, you’d need to go to them first, and confront them on their sin (Matthew 18:15), and then if they didn’t think it was a problem, involve others, which in my opinion includes readers of this site or other Christian journalism. I think it’s important that we don’t allow sin by fellow Christians to just happen, ESPECIALLY when it could cause direct harm to others (like in this instance it definitley could.)
It’s one think to remove the log from your own eye and not be quick to judge, but it’s another entirely when you see a church doing something heinous that needs to stop before it harms others. If you confront them and they don’t repent, I say it’s fair game.
One of the many beautiful consequences of “confronting your brother in private” is that there is the opportunity for the accused to explain themselves more clearly (and thus the accused has the proverbial log removed from their own eye). In the above mentioned example one might find that it simply wasn’t true or that there was some well reasoned and compassionate rationale behind it (although I personally fail to imagine what that might be). Another wonderful consequence is that it allows for grace to enter the equation in the sense that if the other party changes their behavior then the negative consequences of publicly revealing the behavior need not come to pass. This is particularly important when pursuing a complaint that would affect a large number of people, in this case a large ministry that might be doing quite a bit of good. I applaud your decency in choosing to publish only that which you have first hand factual knowledge of.
I think too much dysfunction, abuse, and sin goes on in the Church precisely because we feel bound to confront issues privately. Though there are Biblical prescriptions for confronting your brother or sister privately in love, that’s not always the Biblical model. The prophets, the apostles, and Jesus didn’t hesitate to call out institutions and individuals. Though I think we need to exhibit humility about our own sin and go forward prayerfully, I think it’s way past time Christians started confronting our own publicly. I think this applies more to doctrinal issues, church policy, and church leadership than somebody’s private life. If a fellow Christian is doing something like committing adultery, for example, it’s much better to approach that person privately. But if you’re making stupid, prejudice rules about the worship team, I think it’s fair game for public debate and criticism.
The level of dysfunction is far worse in the church than most people realize. A lot of problems continue in in secret because serious, devout people feel compelled to address problem in private instead of public. Our leaders need more public accountability. Moreover, I think the world needs to know that Christians don’t tolerate this kind of nonsense. It’s not just about dealing with individual issues and people; it’s about the image we present.
Steve,
You bring up some compelling points, and I am inclined to agree. Is the major difference that the one sin (adultery) is essentially private, and the other sin (banning overweight people from the worship team) is public?
Not long after posting my article today I found an online text of a book called “Telling the Truth: How to Revitalize Christian Journalism” by World Magazine’s Marvin Olasky. I’ve been turned off by Olasky before, and paragraph 1 of Chapter 1 starts with a cheap shot at “liberal denominations” for “devaluing verbal theological precision” and the word “Christian.” But I think Olasky is somehow associated with our friends over at Patrol Magazine, and so I plan to give the book a chance. He may address this issue.
Come to think of it, maybe he already has addressed it by opening his book with a snipe against liberal denominations.
This is a tough one. I’ve had area pastors disagree with some past initiatives that I’ve taken and instead of confronting me went to the radio and newspaper. These were God-honoring, fundamentalists preachers who sincerely believed that I was acting in a spiritually reckless and corrosive manner. And they took public shots at my reputation. I would have had more respect for them a human beings had they come to be first.
On the other hand I remember the important work that Cornerstone Magazine did to expose the fraudulent “ministry” of Mike Warnke, comedian and supposed “ex-high priest of Satan.” Mike’s work did much damage. He stole funds from the ministry. He mis-characterized the pagan community to Evangelicals and reinforced some silly Hollywood stereotypes. when I was in children’s mental health I attended a training by the local police that used information on Satanism developed by Warnke– Mike’s fraud impacted police work. Christian journalism was needed to root out Mike’s works of darkness.
There is a place for Christian journalism. However, with it comes high ethical standards.
Larry,
I appreciate you bringing the pastor’s perspective to this discussion.
If I had come to you for advice on whether or not I should publish an article on the worship team rules at that Florida church (let’s pretend that the article I had planned was not going to be mean-spirited), would you have counseled me to approach them privately first?
John
John,
That might be a part of the ethics, John. To meet with them to first confirm that there was actually a policy, to see if it was in print, or if the Worship Leader “owned it.” There’s the possibility that there just happened to be no obese people on the team and that a rumor got started.
Fact checking would have been a definite first step.
I’m also not sure if one church having a bad policy would be on a large enough magnitude to call for journalism.
There is enough division between Christians as it is, and unbelievers are noticing. I think an attempt at private confrontation is always best.
Note: When I say “always” I am not talking about illegal activity, which should not be swept under the rug. Doesn’t apply in this case, though.
I’m fine with non-Christians noticing this kind of division. They need to know that we don’t all support something as stupid as a worship team weight restriction. If we don’t speak out against abuses, unbelievers might assume we all believe the same thing. For example, I take what some might consider a cheap shot at Benny Hinn in one of my books, but I almost consider it witnessing. Making it clear that we don’t all believe in nonsense can only help the cause of Christm, imho.
BTW, John, the insightful points and balanced tone of your writing makes me insecure about mine. Can you take more drastic positions and rant a little sometimes? At least split infinitives or do something to make me feel better. I’m fragile.
Taking a step back, though, consider the nature of good journalism. Good journalism is fair, unbiased, and impartial. Good journalism looks at both sides of the story, and presents the facts.
We can spend some time and debate the fact that good journalism has fallen victim to blog-reporting and infauxtainment, but never mind.
To properly report that story, the writer would have to go to the leaders to for quotes and responses. The process of good reporting itself covers all of the biblical bases.
To be honest, I hate the term “Christian Journalism.” Journalism has everything to do with whether or not there’s a story to be told, not the ones writing it.
Interesting points, Hillary.
I’m inclined to believe, though, that journalism through a Christian lens could be very interesting.
But if it’s coming through a lens, it’s not journalism as much as it’s opinion writing. There’s nothing wrong with opinion writing, and there’s certainly always been a place for it in media outlets, but it should never be confused with journalistic reporting.
Hillary,
I think that there is always a lens. Complete objectivity is impossible. Even a journalist’s choice of subjects will be made through a filter of worldview, cultural baggage, prejudices, etc. I think the challenge for journalists – Christian or otherwise – is to recognize the lens through which they are approaching their story (and every other aspect of life) and then do their best to present the fullest picture of their topic anyway.
Alex Jones writes about this in his interesting new book “Losing the News.” He says that modern standards of objective journalism were developed in the late 19th century at a time when American faith in the scientific method was “surging.” But even scientists begin their research with assumptions. Genuine objectivity, Jones says, “begins with the assumption that journalists have bias, and that their bias has to be tested and challenged by gathering facts and information that will either support it or knock it down.”
Jones also says that the evidence will sometimes lead to ambiguous results. Therefore, “journalistic objectivity is an effort to discern a practical truth, not an abstract, perfect truth. Reporters seeking genuine objectivity search out the best truth possible from the evidence that the reporter, in good faith, can find.”
It’s a little stunning to me how much, then, is left to the journalist’s good judgment. But, as Jones says, “to discredit objectivity because it is impossible to arrive at perfect truth is akin to dismissing trial by jury because it isn’t perfect in its judgments.”
I certainly wouldn’t argue that every journalist enters the field with his/her own bias. It’s every journalist’s responsibility to not allow personal beliefs to enter the newsroom and allow accuracy to slip, such as the case with Dan Rather. My feeling when it comes to “Christian Journalism” is that Christian writers may use it as a crutch to not strive for objectivity or accuracy.
Once the lens has been identified – whether it be Christian, black, Asian, Agnostic, gay, conservative, liberal, what have you, it pulls the reporter into the story more than the barely acceptable “this reporter” phrase.
In our increasingly ideologically divided culture, do we really want to add labels to our news? We’ve already seen the effects of news outlets who lean one way or the other – at this point, Fox News has as much industry street cred as Paris Hilton, and much of middle America won’t touch the NY Times with a ten-foot pole.
Over the last ten years, American news consumers have increasingly stopped believing in the accuracy and objectivity of newspapers and other news media outlets, contributing to the decline of the newspaper.
Journalism has historically acted as a watchdog to the government. These days, the next Woodward and Bernstein-esque expose would be dismissed by half the country as left wing/right wing reporting.
It seems like it’s easy to forget that there are more steps. Yes, we confront in private, in the hopes that the person repents and takes the appropriate steps, some of which may be public. But, if they don’t, we follow the next step, which is basically an intervention. Then, we take it public, and if there is still no repentence, we treat them as though they were an unbeliever.
It’s not an either/or. It’s a process. We try to make it an either/or because we generally fall into one of two extremes: wanting to avoid conflict entirely (private) or wanting to rip someone apart publicly (anger). We can’t forget that we are not allowed to confront privately and not follow through, and not allowed to confront publicly for any reason other than love and the pursuit of restoration.
Yes, people need to see that not all Christians agree and that we won’t stand for evil or lies in our midst. Also, they desperately need to see that they won’t be ousted or publicly humiliated the first time they do the wrong thing. They already live in a world without forgiveness that runs on politics, competition, and fear. The way we handle confrontation and conflict is one of the msot powerful ways we can show that we are a radically different community.