Introduction
In “The Idiot Culture” (1992), Carl Bernstein (of Woodward and Bernstein) expresses his concern with the decline of journalism to the “lowest common denominator.” His concern is that journalists no longer "serve our readers and viewers, we pander to them.” He goes on to note, “Good journalism is popular culture, but popular culture that stretches and informs its consumers rather than that which appeals to the ever descending lowest common denominator. If, by popular culture, we mean expressions of thought or feeling that require no work of those who consume them, then decent popular journalism is finished. What is happening today, unfortunately, is that the lowest form of popular culture—lack of information, misinformation, disinformation, and a contempt for the truth or the reality of most people’s lives—has overrun real journalism.”
To give a sense of how the context has changed since Bernstein wrote his article in 1992, consider the following:
- 24-hour cable news had been available on cable for more than a decade
- Berners Lee, widely recognized as the father of the internet, launched the World Wide Web browser in November of 1992. Only a handful of web servers were available.
- The first social media site (SixDegrees) was five years away from its 1997 release
- Broadband internet would not be available till the early 2000’s
- While various mobile access devices were available in the late 1990’s the iPhone wouldn’t be launched until 2007.
In essence, Bernstein is writing in a pre-internet age in which journalism was still being delivered from relatively centralized entities via television, radio, and newspapers. Yet, he still recognized that “speed and quantity substitute for thoroughness and quality, for accuracy and context.” In what we might call an analog age, Bernstein was still seeing that journalism was losing its way as journalism’s “commitment to the best and the most complex obtainable version of the truth” had waned in favor of “the spectacle, and the triumph, of the idiot culture.”
While digital technology may have accelerated the challenges Bernstein identified, it didn’t cause them. The challenges of an analog era came with us into a digital age. Unfortunately, Christian media is not immune to the challenges of journalism more broadly. As such, we must ask where and how Christian journalism has stopped serving its audience and begun pandering to it. Is Christian journalism set up to provide “the most complex obtainable version of the truth” or is it, like the rest of journalism, privileging “speed and quantity” instead of “thoroughness and quality, for accuracy and context”? Such questions are not intended to demonize Christian journalism, which, in my estimation, plays an important role in the church. However, the Christian fourth estate—like any other entity or structure—and Christian consumers—those who read, view, and support various publications or creators—need to be accountable.
Reporting on Christian Scandals
There are several Christian blogs and podcasts currently dedicated to unearthing scandals. I have no interest in drawing attention to such programs or writers, so I won’t mention them by name here. My concern with this form of journalism is, in part, its pace. Clearly, the wheels of justice within corrupt organizations run by Christian leaders actively involved in scandals move slow when they move at all. Those reporting on scandals tend to suggest that their reporting is a last resort intended to prompt organizations and leaders to address their misdeeds. When that works (i.e., when the scandal reported is true), I believe Christian journalism serves the kingdom well.
Abuses of authority should be brought to light. Ideally, abuses of authority would be dealt with through the accountability structures within a local congregation or ministry organization. Yet, those accountability structures often fail. As such, Christian whistleblowers often come forward with the help of Christian journalists to create public pressure that nudges the accountability structures within an organization forward. In broad strokes, this function of Christian journalism seems to be wholly good and, to some large degree, effective. Yet, I would argue, it can be hindered if there is not a commitment to “the best and most complex obtainable version of the truth.”
For instance, consider a situation in which unfounded and untrue allegations of doctrinal drift are levied against an organization. Imagine that this organization, while doctrinally sound, has other challenges in which leaders have been abusing their authority, reporting selectively to the governing board, enforcing policy unevenly so as to create injustices within the organization, and protecting low-performing employees who are a burden on the organization but tend to support certain leaders. When the report concerning doctrinal drift is released, the organization becomes embroiled in a public relations campaign concerning a problem that isn’t actually a problem. Once the organization and its leadership “solve” the doctrinal problem (which, again, was never a real problem), the journalists and their public begin looking for a new scandal.
I am not suggesting that there are not real scandals in Christian organizations. There are. I am also not suggesting that those who expose these scandals are demonic or anti-Christian. Instead, I am suggesting that without a commitment to “the best and most complex obtainable version of the truth” the power of the press can reinforce bad behavior just as easily as it can help correct it.
In The Matter With Things, Iain McGilchrist notes,
“We take the success we have in manipulating it as proof that we understand it. But that is a logical error: to exert power over something requires us only to know what happens when we pull the levers, press the button, or utter the spell…It is hardly surprising, therefore, that while we have succeeded in coercing the world to our will to an extent unimaginable even a few generations ago, we have at the same time wrought havoc on that world precisely because we have not understood it.”
Christian journalists have access to buttons and levers. Reporting on a story before that story is thoroughly understood creates the potential that one is mistaking manipulation for understanding. Christian journalists, then, must take care in the news they report. They cannot approach every rumor or complaint as proof because it fits the patterns they have seen in the past.
Accountability for Christian Journalism
In 1 Timothy 5:20, Paul tells Timothy to rebuke those who continue in sin “in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.” This advice, along with the admonition not to “admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses” (5:19) certainly speaks against the notion that the ongoing sin of leaders in the church should be hidden away from their congregations or the rest of the church. God’s people need to recognize that no one is exempt from judgment. No one gets to make their own rules.
As further support for the practice of alerting other members of Christ’s body of leaders who have gone astray—not those who have been accused of going astray—there are at least two instances in the New Testament that seem relevant. First, in 1 Timothy 1:19-20, Paul warns Timothy about Hymenaeus and Alexander whose blaspheme has prompted Paul to take action against them. Second, Paul also warns Timothy about Philetus who is promoting a false teaching about the resurrection (2 Tim 2:16-18). While it seems likely that 1 Timothy 5:19-20 is intended to have a more local application, it seems possible—if not probable—that as letters circulated from church to church findings of community deliberations would have been communicated.
However, while 1 Timothy 5:19-20 don’t reference them, one of the other biblical passages concerned with the administration of justice offers instruction regarding allegations that lack the support of multiple witnesses:
“If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So, you shall purge the evil from your midst. And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you” (Deut 19:16-20).
The “malicious witness” has ulterior motives for making an allegation. The goal is to use the judicial process to cause harm to the accused. Recognizing the possibility of this sort of perversion, Israelite law imposed strict penalties on those who accused another falsely. They would bear the penalty they sought to bring on the one they accused falsely.
While I do not wish to suggest that Christian journalists who uncover or report on scandals are “malicious witnesses,” Deuteronomy 19 underscores God’s interest in guarding against any perversion of justice. In the context of modern-day journalism, allegations—not proven behaviors—are often submitted to the “court of public opinion” in an attempt to remove those who have committed various abuses or, at the very least, to prompt investigations into allegations. By rough analogy, we may say that journalists take on the role of those representing the Lord (i.e., the priests and the judges). They “inquire diligently” and determine whether a set of allegations have sufficient merit to be submitted to the community as if those allegations are substitutes for the ongoing sin that is to be rebuked “in the presence of all” (1 Tim 5:20).
This analogy is, admittedly, loose. Yet, we should not dismiss the role mass media allows journalists to play in these matters. More to the point, we should not dismiss the role mass media allows journalists to play without sufficient accountability. Apart from some erosion of trust, journalists do not take on the consequences of those who are falsely accused. A journalist who “gets it wrong” may have to print a retraction, but those they get it wrong about may experience a downside to which the journalist is largely immune. While a given journalist or news organization may set up safeguards to guard against false stories, the pace of journalism, the interests of the public, and a variety of other factors seem more likely to contribute to the form of journalism “that leaps out ahead of the evidence, that is surer than it has reason to be sure, that pontificates, spouts, hazards guesses, or ‘tells’ when it is indeed ‘too soon to tell’” (Mitchell Stephens, Beyond News). This sort of journalism will, I am afraid, tend to offer stories with more sizzle than steak—highlighting the sensational rather than the substance.
What Can We Do?
“Fixing” Christian journalism will require us to look behind Christian journalism. To put it differently, Christian journalism is a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself. It will require us to recognize, as Bernstein does in “The Idiot Culture” that journalism and culture are connected. Journalism can either be that aspect of “popular culture that stretches and informs its consumers rather than that which appeals to the ever descending lowest common denominator” or that which stoops to the “lowest form of popular culture—lack of information, misinformation, disinformation, and a contempt for the truth or the reality of most people’s lives.” To put it bluntly, to fix journalism, we need to fix our culture. So where do we start?
First, we start by being more discerning. To return to 1 Timothy 5, we see that Paul tells Timothy not to “be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure” (5:22). Here, Paul is addressing the selection of elders in the church. Paul urges Timothy to take care in choosing leaders in the church—there must be a thorough examination of those given official influence within the body of Christ. Paul does not simply appeal to the importance of choosing those who will shepherd well the body of Christ, but to the share those who endorse such leaders have in their sins.
Managing the selection of elders in a relatively local context was sufficiently difficult in that context that Paul felt the need to instruct Timothy on such matters. Today, we continue to have local ministries that choose their leaders, but we also have mass media platforms (e.g., radio, television, podcasting, blogging, etc.) that allow local church leaders to lead beyond their local community. As such, all of us who listen, watch, read, or otherwise consume content by those we don’t really know and whose day-to-day behavior we can’t observe to be slow with our endorsement. While it is not unreasonable for us to trust those who install leaders at a local level, we need to recognize that we are often trusting blindly because we don't know the people who are selecting the elders we watch, listen to, or read on a daily basis.
Such discernment, in my estimation, wouldn’t preclude us from consuming content from those with public platforms; however, it should give us pause if we begin to devalue or diminish the role of local pastors and elders in our lives. Those speaking from a distance simply can’t know the specifics of a given situation with a congregation. As such, we need to ensure that our commitment to our local body is not overshadowed by our affinity for our favorite YouTube pastor or radio ministry.
This applies organizationally as well. There has been a fair amount of conversation about “big-Eva” or, as Carl Trueman describes as, “the network of large evangelical organizations and conferences that seeks to shape the thinking and strategy of the American evangelical churches.” As networks develop, those pulling them together need to ensure that they are attending to the potential endorsement they are giving organizations by giving them a platform within evangelicalism. If the “thinking and strategy of the American evangelical churches” doesn’t include being above reproach and exhibiting a character (individual and organizational) commensurate with the gospel, that “thinking and strategy” is doomed to fail.
Second, we need to be more discerning about the content we consume. Just because content doesn’t seem morally reprehensible doesn’t mean that it is good for us. Yet, as we consume content about, for instance, Christian scandals en masse, we communicate to those creating the content that such stories are of interest to us—that the stories are somehow edifying the body of Christ. To reiterate, I am not arguing against Christian journalism. I am, however, concerned that even the most truthfully written story on a substantive issue for a given congregation constitutes little more than gossip for many readers. There are some things I simply don’t need to know.
That isn’t because they are unimportant or trivial but because I have a finite ability to love. As Augustine notes, “All men are to be loved equally. But since you cannot do good to all, you are to pay special regard to those who, by the accidents of time, or place, or circumstance, are brought into closer connection with you.” While we can always pray for those involved in a given story, many times, we are not in a position to do anything else. As such, we need to be careful not to allow the latest scandal to distract us from loving those who are right in front of us.
To be clear, I do believe there are some journalists who, as Vervaeke, Mastropietro, and Miscevic suggest, write stories crafted “to direct your attention not to the truth or untruth of an idea, but to the catchiness of an idea.” Though it would be nice if journalists would avoid such stories, we, as those consuming the information, have to be more discerning about what we are consuming. We need to learn to recognize when we are engaging with a particular story from a place of morbid curiosity and not with a desire to build up the body of Christ.
Third, we all have to take accountability more seriously at the local level. We should not assume that the accountability structures in place in the local ministries at which we are involved are actually working. We need to be active participants in our local communities of faith. When we have concerns, we need to voice them. If we see our leaders acting immorally, we need to confront them. Accountability at the local level is, in my mind, the biggest single factor in reforming Christian journalism. If there are no scandals, there would be no scandals on which to report.
Finally, we need to consider how to hold those who make false allegations accountable. By extension, I believe we need to determine how to hold those who report on false allegations accountable. Creating a “fourth estate” that is largely, if not completely, immune to consequences is not a wise solution. Mistakes will no doubt be made in the course of reporting. I am sure that if I listen back to the various episodes of my podcast or read back through some of my old articles that there will be plenty to cringe about. Mistakes are understandable, yet if there is no thought given for how to avoid them, no rigor in one’s process, and no oversight, the likelihood of making a mistake that can do damage to the body of Christ becomes much higher. All of us need to be accountable. There need to be negative consequences that remind us of the seriousness of what we are doing and, as such, cause us to be more measured and deliberate.
Conclusion
My sense is that there is a great deal of value in Christian journalism. However, there are also Christian journalists whose practice of journalism seems to be based solely on breaking the next big evangelical scandal. Such a focus, in my mind, is concerning. It is not concerning because I don’t believe the sins of Christian leaders or organizations should be kept hidden. Nor is it concerning because I believe those reporting on Christian scandals are somehow doing damage to the body of Christ. Instead, I am concerned that even a good practice—the practice of reporting on the failings of Christian leaders and organizations so that others might not act in similar ways—can turn bad. Demonstrating to the community of faith that no one is immune to justice is, quite simply, too important to be diminished by irresponsible reporting.
We need an elevated form of journalism. To get it, however, we don’t need to purge the ranks of Christian journalism. Instead, we need to change ourselves and our organizations. We need consistent discipline in holding one another accountable and ensuring that leaders are acting appropriately. The short-lived outrage produced by reports of one scandal after another isn’t likely to bring about the sort of changes we really need because, as Malcom Gladwell notes, “Facebook [weak tie] activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice.”
