If you spend any time on social media, you undoubtedly have heard about the Washington Post's front-page story Sunday on a rural Alabama congregation whose members support President Donald Trump.
A lot of people — particularly those who still can't believe that Hillary Clinton lost and that 81 percent of evangelicals voted for someone with Trump's moral character — loved the long, long piece.
"It's magnificently crafted, beautifully told, riveting and suspenseful," said one of the writer's Washington Post colleagues.
An investigative reporter at the rival New York Times called it "a suspenseful, transporting tale."
Even Ed Stetzer, a leading evangelical voice, praised the piece: "We need more long-form religion reporting like this. It seeks to understand, points out the tension, and does not shy away from the problems."
Others had different takes.
"Everybody quoted in this article sounds like a moron," one reader said.
Yep, pretty much.
The question: Is that because they really are morons or because that's how the Post chose to frame the story?
Another reader suggested: "WaPo paints these people as rural rubes, supporting a guy who flaunts immorality, when of course they're all just as sophisticated as the reporters, probably more, and have made a very simple calculation about who will deliver their policy preferences."
I'll admit that I'm still trying to digest the piece. I know this much: I didn't love it.
Why didn't I love it? I'm still trying to figure out precisely what rubbed me the wrong way. I'll offer a few thoughts that perhaps hit at my journalistic concerns.
But first, the basics on the story: It ran with the headline "Judgment Days" and this subhead:
In a small Alabama town, an evangelical congregation reckons with God, Trump and morality
The lede: