Charles C. Camosy on What It Means to ‘Get’ Religion in 2020

Photo by Beverly Lussier/Creative Commons

Following the 2016 presidential election, Dean Baquet, then executive editor of The New York Times, declared that one of his “big jobs” was to “really understand and explain the forces in America” that produced such a surprising result. Leading media organizations, he admirably admitted, simply do not “get religion.”

Baquet was right to be concerned. Otherwise sophisticated journalists and commentators regularly display minimal understanding of religion and how theological claims ought to function in public discourse. This not only hampers journalists’ ability to get to the heart of a story, it contributes much to the massive and growing distrust religious people tend to have of major media institutions.

Elizabeth Bruenig of The Washington Post recently took a major step in the right direction in a long-form article in which she genuinely and expertly listened to different kinds of evangelical Christians in a beautifully reported piece that earned accolades from readers from all over the political and religious spectrum.

Bruenig’s main insight was that, for many evangelicals, Trump is viewed as protector of their tenuous ability to freely exercise their religious faith in the face of a hostile secular culture that wants to radically curtail such freedom.

This is an important lens to keep in mind when thinking about the political motivations of many evangelicals, but there’s a deeper problem here: Those who control our public discourse have very little understanding of why they should take theological claims in public discourse seriously at all.

There are two main reasons to highlight this fundamental problem. The first is that Americans are still overwhelmingly religious. Ninety percent believe in God or some higher power, and 56% believe in God “as described in the Bible.”

Furthermore, religious beliefs are extremely important in the lives of African Americans, Latinos, immigrants, and those without a college education — especially when compared to the role religion plays in the lives of privileged whites. Covering Americans, especially those on the margins, means taking theological claims seriously.

Second, in an attitude I’ve seen dominate in many elite secular circles, religion is thought of as the “frosting” rather than the “cake” of a person or community. The real substance of a person’s values and needs lies, say, in economic concerns — not the superficial fact of where they go to church. This is one reason we so often hear a privileged secular person wonder with palpable exasperation, “Why do these people vote against their own interests?”

Asking this kind of question demonstrates that one just doesn’t get religion. Someone for whom religion is very important doesn’t think of it as something like their favorite flavor of ice cream. Their theological claims express things they believe to be objectively true. A particular kind of god exists. That god created the universe. That god made every human being in God’s image and likeness. That god commanded men and women to be fruitful and multiply. To give a preference to the poor and marginalized. To welcome the child and the stranger. And so on.

But for media members who take the “frosting” view of religion, those who push for particular public policies based on their religious commitments are acting quite strangely — akin to wanting to legislate chocolate ice cream’s superiority over vanilla.

This fundamentally misunderstands what theological claims are. They are not articulations of personal preference or taste. They are claims about what is objectively true based on a particular understanding of the good. They deserve precisely the same place in public discourse as similar kinds of secular claims.

A critic might argue that theological claims presume such a parochial understanding of the good that they are disqualified from public discourse. A secular person simply can’t make heads or tails of, say, the Christian claim that the indelible image and likeness of God in human beings precludes direct killing in the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia and more.

On this view, the Christian ought to either translate her faith into a common secular language — or, again, just stay on the margins.

Of course, that is the case with all fundamental disagreements about the nature of the good, whether theological or secular. There is no defensible reason to single out theological disagreement.

Click here to read more.
Source: Religion News Service