Scripture, faith, race, politics: Mississippi Today on the story behind the state's new flag

Every newsroom in which I worked kept a large hardback Bible in the copy desk’s collection of reference books (this was pre-Internet, of course).

I often wondered why this was true, since almost every time I used long quotes in a news story or column in which believers talked about the specifics of their beliefs — because the material was directly linked to crucial facts or their motivations — most newsroom pros rolled their eyes. Those quotes tended to get shortened and, sometimes, edited out. This was especially true when politicians talked about their religious beliefs, for whatever reason.

I thought of this recently when I read a strong Mississippi Today feature — part one of a five-story series — about the role that Speaker of the House Philip Gunn played in changing that state’s controversial flag.

This was a story that centered on a public action, as seen in the headline: “Why Philip Gunn became the first prominent Republican to call for changing the state flag.”

Yes, the word “Republican” is important. But the key word there is “why.” Here is block of material early on that begins to link the political action with the beliefs behind it.

Less than a week before in South Carolina, a young white man walked into a Black church in Charleston and brutally murdered nine worshippers. Because the gunman had publicly documented his obsession with the Confederate battle emblem, the murders inspired debate across the country about the government-sanctioned use of the Confederate symbol.
The TV reporter asked Gunn about the Mississippi state flag, which was the last in the nation containing the Confederate battle emblem. While the camera rolled, Gunn advocated for a new flag.
As soon as Gunn left the fundraiser, he called Nathan Wells, his then-chief of staff and longtime top political adviser. The two had been privately talking for years about their shared disdain of the state flag and how they could work to change it.
“He said, ‘Nathan, uh, I think we need to release a statement,’ ” Wells recounted to Mississippi Today in an interview earlier this year.

That official statement in 2015 said:

New podcast: New York Times says 'Christian nationalism' tied to white 'evangelical power'

At the 2016 Southern Baptist Convention, messengers from churches across the nation approved a resolution calling for Americans to “discontinue the display of the Confederate battle flag as a sign of solidarity of the whole Body of Christ.”

The speaker of the Mississippi House of Representatives, Philip Gunn, was there (full Baptist Press report here) as chair of the Southern Baptist Seminary board of trustees. He went home determined to help do something about his state’s flag. Mississippi’s new flag dropped the Confederate symbolism of the old, replaced by a magnolia blossom and the phrase “In God We Trust.”

This is clearly an example of a major evangelical institution using its clout — “power,” if you will.

This brings us — using a back door, I will admit — to this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to listen to that), which focuses on the waves of coverage about Christians symbols and banners among participants in both the “Save America March” backing Donald Trump and the deadly riot outside and inside the U.S. Capitol. How did some F-bomb screaming rioters end up chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” while others nearby played loud Contemporary Christian Music?

The hook for this rather complicated podcast discussion with host Todd Wilken was one of those voice-from-on-high, magisterial New York Times passages — with zero attribution to sources — that speaks for the Acela Zone ruling elites. The double-decker headline proclaimed:

How White Evangelical Christians Fused With Trump Extremism
A potent mix of grievance and religious fervor has turbocharged the support among Trump loyalists, many of whom describe themselves as participants in a kind of holy war.

Are we talking about ALL Trump loyalists? Or is it simply MANY of them? Hold that thought, because we will return to it shortly.

But here is the key passage that needs to be read carefully, more than once:

The blend of cultural references, and the people who brought them, made clear a phenomenon that has been brewing for years now: that the most extreme corners of support for Mr. Trump have become inextricable from some parts of white evangelical power in America. Rather than completely separate strands of support, these groups have become increasingly blended together.