Sloppy Religious Reporting From The Intercept

https://theintercept.com/2019/03/30/domestic-terrorism-donald-trump/

The Intercept has at times produced praiseworthy work but overall the news magazine continues to exhibit would I would consider a downward slide. What was once insightful and somewhat adversarial journalism has (with a few exceptions) slipped into the mainstream of the American Left and at times all but echoes the narratives of the less-than-left wing Democratic Party.

This story irritated me because of its sloppiness. Clearly the author wants to tie in religious extremism with the forces behind Donald Trump but in doing so the author is guilty of a gross misrepresentation of Anabaptism. As is so often the case the various factions in our society talk past one another, fail to understand the other side, let alone grasp nuances or that a spectrum of ideas even exists.

Even those who know fairly little about the Anabaptists know they are not a people given to violence or even politics for that matter. The Intercept author briefly grants this point in an otherwise fairly long article. But he doesn't miss a beat and is keen to argue that separatism as leads to extremism.

If extremism is defined as fringe-forms of Christianity then yes, separatism can at times fall into that trap. If he means extremism in terms of political action and violence, then his argument is guilty of non sequitir. It can and sometimes does lead to such expressions but there are many more cases of separatism that lead to the exact opposite, quietism and withdrawal. Anabaptist separatism is geared toward disengagement, the very opposite of what this violent man was all about.

The journalists might have picked up on the fact that one of the reasons this guy was so restless and could not find a 'niche' among these groups is because... he wasn't really one of them. He didn't fit in because his energies were geared toward areas his Anabaptist neighbours were neither interested in nor prepared to entertain. An arrival at primitivism can come from different directions. There are Agrarian narratives to be found in some Christian circles that are woven in with a larger narrative about race, the Civil War, industrialisation etc... narratives that have nothing to do with Anabaptist cultural interpretations or paradigms. The Intercept utterly missed these connections.

As for Hari himself, I'm left a little baffled as to his continued connections with Anabaptist groups. I can with little difficulty think of various Fundamentalist and Calvinistic groups he would have found to be more inviting. It might have been the issue of technology, something a bit more peculiar to the Anabaptists, however his own practice seems divided on that point, even schizophrenic at times.

There is a story here. There are some interesting and highly worrying aspects to this man's descent into violence. The Intercept wanted to run a big exposé but didn't take the time to properly understand the issues nor   the premise of their argument. It's a case of sloppy reporting and derelict editing and does a disservice to its readership. I was surprised to find The Intercept also guilty of what I would call exposé snobbery in their criticism of Hari's poverty and way of living... things that would have been cast in a very different light had Hari been part of the gender fluid, feminist vanguard The Intercept seems to celebrate. This is nothing new. Whenever someone is painted as an extremist the journalists usually focus on any aspect of non middle-class normative lifestyle. I must say it's pretty hypocritical and at one time I would have expected better from The Intercept.

The Trump era has undoubtedly spawned violent extremism and has poured fuel on fires that were already raging from the Obama and Clinton years. But the leaps made by The Intercept from Anabaptist 'extremism' to the views of Hari, to the other acts of violence committed by people that have nothing to do with Christianity forces the narrative and strains credulity. Are they simply trying to suggest that figures like Hari are more susceptible to conspiracy theories? Maybe so. And yet I have also engaged in some unbelievable conversations with folks on the Left who have embraced some rather incredible conspiracies about Trump, not to mention their blind acceptance of subjective sociological 'science' that is radically transforming society. Are these folks exhibiting violent extremism? It depends who you talk to and how these questions are understood. At the very least many of them are quite keen to utilise the violent powers of the state to pursue their goals. If these means are taken away from them... what then?

The Left also has a history of violence. I may agree with some of the most extreme criticisms of the Vietnam War and I believe there were conspiracies and great crimes committed, both legal and moral. From a Christian standpoint the war must be repudiated and its veterans are not to be celebrated. I believe the United States was behaving in a way that could be described as fascistic and even genocidal. That said, I cannot condone the actions of groups like the Weather Underground or the SLA. There are nuances to people's views but The Intercept in this case wants to paint with a very broad brush. The Trump Era is morally deplorable. I question the wisdom of anyone who tries to read it in a different way. That said, The Intercept's narrative and in this case agenda is both slippery and wanting.

In the end Hari's real heresy is that he has put another religion far above any conception he has of Christianity. That religion, that idol is nationalism. It is a religion that rivals the claims of Christ's Kingdom and clearly the American Church has been invaded and more or less overcome by the proponents of this grievous soul destroying error. It's a thousand headed hydra as the derelict doctrine has produced endless variants and permutations. What is perhaps the most disturbing is that this well watered ground remains fertile and if society takes a few more twists and turns, the end result could prove both disastrous for the Church and for those who profess Christ and yet repudiate this dangerous heresy. The lost world and its bestial agents will make no distinction. It will be guilt by association.