So, I came across a curious Christianity Today article because of a Not the Bee article that juxtaposed a CT article talking about how Taylor Swift and the Barbie movie were bringing us all together, and the next day they published this piece about Oliver Anthony. I would say you could read the comments section, yourself. But honestly, don’t read the comments section. Ever.
Now, I, unlike many of my conservative Christian brethren actually read the CT article by Hannah Anderson. And I’d like to lay out a few observations about the article and then move on to the main point.
The first thing I want to say is that her article makes several good points. She on at least 3 occasions seeks common ground with Anthony. She gives him the benefit of the doubt, assuming that he and she share core value concerns. The body of the article is not ungracious.
And as to the content of her concern, her concern that Christians often make assumptions about people on food subsidies, SNAP, food-stamps, welfare—call it what you will. Christians make the assumption that anyone on government food assistance is lazy and that it’s shameful. And that’s not always the case.
And let me let you in on a little secret. There are many, many, many pastors of small churches whose families are on government medical insurance like Medicare or Medicaid, and there are many pastors with young children whose wives receive WIC food benefits.
My point is that when Hannah talks about the assumptions that we make compared to the realities that exist Christians can and should be thoughtful in how we speak.
However, Hannah’s article has problems. And these problems are not small. In fact, these problems are so significant that it kinda invalidates the article, in my opinion.
Let me lay out why. And I AM paraphrasing her so read her full article to check up and make sure I’m not misrepresenting her arguments. But she says that she was excited about the song, being an Appalachian herself who likes folk music and cares about social justice. However, there are 4 lines that she finds morally objectionable.
And the reason she finds them objectionable is that stigmatizing welfare recipients causes them to feel shame. That’s her argument. She says that Christians not on welfare should extend the same freedom to choose what food to buy to people on welfare. Basically, her argument is that whatever your political theory on food subsidies, you shouldn’t criticize people buying fudge rounds if they’re on welfare, if you yourself reserve the right to buy fudge rounds.
Now, I don’t actually agree with her argument. I don’t at all. And the medical statistics would suggest that her argument is busted. The Poverty-Obesity Paradox is a well-documented sociological phenomenon. Poverty and obesity are especially correlated for women—interestingly, among men, the rates of obesity are relatively stable (about 1/3) and in fact men with higher incomes tend to have a slightly higher rate of obesity.
Statistically there are a lot of people at or below the poverty level who are obese and who also have other significant behavioral health issues. And when the government is giving out food, they ought not to give out fudge rounds and other unhealthy food. I’m certain that Oliver Anthony knows a LOT of people who are poor and who receive food assistance. I’m certain that he has friends and family who receive government assistance. I’m certain that he doesn’t hate people who are receiving assistance who genuinely need it, nor would he say that there isn’t a need for that assistance (I mean, maybe he would, but I don’t think so).
If you actually listen to his song he says MULTIPLE TIMES that what concerns him is the plight of poor people, and particularly issues prevalent among poor whites—despair, drug and alcohol abuse, and being forgotten by the rest of the nation. And since Anthony cares about the poor he neither wants to see them alcoholics nor chocoholics. Obesity kills more people than booze or even drugs and tobacco in this country. If he actually cares about the poor—which I think he does—then he ought to care about the fat poor. He doesn’t want to see people be 5’3” and 300 pounds because that will just put ‘em 6’ in the ground.
So, Mrs. Anderson’s point is a fair one—but it’s what we call in the logic business a non sequitur. It doesn’t follow. She admits that Anthony doesn’t hate poor people and actually cares about them and then she chooses to ignore the context of the song to attack one of the lyrics. Now, look, she can point to the lyrics about fudge rounds and say that is shames and humiliates the obese poor or those on welfare generally. And we can debate her political points, but she’s missing his point which is that people DO IN FACT abuse welfare and there are people who are poor and are killing themselves with junkfood.
I think she owes him the assumption of nuance commensurate with the good will she presumes for him. Or to put that another way, if she’s being careful to assume good intentions then why does she take a few lines out of the context of the song and then analyze them in a decontextualized fashion. That’s not nuance. Nuance, would be to say that her interpretation of those lines is a possible one, but then to list other possibilities. And, in fact, she doesn’t even have to go that far. She can admit that she’s taking a decontextualized look at the lyrics because she believes that those words reflect an ungenerous attitude among conservative Christians. But she has to admit that she’s decontextualizing to do that in good faith.
So either she’s deliberately decontextualizing his words because she just wants to make a point and she doesn’t care if it’s a non sequitur or not, OR she doesn’t realize that she’s decontextualizing because she A) believes that despite Anthony’s otherwise good intentions, he’s wrong on this issue OR B) because she’s not trying to say anything about Anthony but about an attitude that mirrors the lyrics in the song OR C) she just wasn’t paying all that close of attention. Of course there’s another option, and that is that I’m wrong and she’s entirely correctly interpreted Anthony and his song and she isn’t taking his lyrics out of context and I’m wrong.
But I do think that she’s wrong, that she’s taking him out of context, and is making a non sequitur argument.
But that brings us back to the biggest problem—the title. Now, I’ve said repeatedly that Mrs. Anderson has presumed good faith on Anthony’s part, and she, in fact, concludes her article with a statement that she thinks that Anthony agrees with her compassion and care for the poor. Well then why the title? Remember what she called it? “Oliver Anthony’s Viral Hit Doesn’t Love Its Neighbors ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ is disdainful towards people on welfare. Christians shouldn’t be.”
The funny thing is that I don’t read that in the lyrics of the song—especially in context, and oddly enough Mrs. Anderson doesn’t really believe that of the author, and she tells us as much. So why the title? Does she believe that despite Anthony’s being compassionate, his song came out as unloving and disdainful? I mean, she can make that argument—but she doesn’t really defend it or explain how that could be; she simply seems to presume it. And I’m afraid that for me that’s not good enough. If she had titled the article something like Does Oliver Anthony’s Viral Hit Love its Neighbors? ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ reflects unconscious attitudes that Christians need to reconsider—would be a perfectly reasonable title. It would reflect that there are unknowns about authorial intention and that there can be a gap between what we say and what we mean and that the way Anthony intends his words may differ from how people hear them. All that’s true—and that may indeed be what Mrs. Anderson meant. But that’s not what she said and, to me, the title writes a check that the content can’t cash—and kinda doesn’t even try. It comes off as clickbait. It makes a relatively thoughtful article come off as a hot take. Titles matter…they matter an awful lot. And Christianity Today which is all about nuance should know this.
But here’s the thing, and this is my main point for today. Nobody really is all that upset that somebody came out with a “Well, actually” criticism of Rich Men North of Richmond. Christians miss the point and pull that kind of crap all the time. Far too many Christians just don’t know how to take a win. And more’s the pity. The problem is that CT ran a pro Barbie article talking about how this extremely politically and religiously divisive film is bringing us together and how a song that’s a genuine bluegrass grassroots reflection of conservative and Christian feeling is divisive. The editorial point-missing and tone-deafness is so egregious one presupposes it’s on purpose.
And this is the general take about Christianity Today among normal evangelicals and especially conservative evangelicals. People hear that CT defends Barbie and attacks Rich Men North of Richmond and their response is, “of course they did.”
CT loves to stand on its tippy toes trying to be intellectual and nuanced and self-critical, but that all only goes one way. The CT default take is simultaneously, “ugh, gross, average conservative Christians like a thing—they’re stupid, let’s tell them it’s trash.” And “wow, average conservative Christians hate a thing—they’re stupid, let’s tell them it’s a blessing from the Lord.” It’s this smug, “well actually,” condescension that people hate. And the irony is that CT is defending a movie that is made by and for the smug, condescending, “well actually” crowd and attacking a song whose very intention is to unmask and vilify the smug, condescending, “well actually” crowd. Anthony Oliver is lamenting and protesting the power of those who gaslight you and lie to you and manipulate you and pat you on the head and tell you to shut up and eat your fudge-rounds fatty! Eat the bugs and wear your masks, Poors. That’s why RMNoR is a phenomenon—it’s tapped into the anger and despair and resentment. And it’s growing and it is dangerous. Anthony’s song protests the smuggery and corruption.
And Christianity Today has either missed the point and are too focused on trying to teach the foolish fundy rubes to be nuanced, or they got the point, and are just on the other side.
I’m not sure which is worse. I’m not saying RMNoR is the song of a generation that Christians need to make our anthem. What I am saying is that it’s a cultural bellwether. The times are coming and now are here when our society is going to be shaken and there may be a great realignment. And we will need good journalism to help sort out the hard questions. Journalists are in many ways preachers and prophets. We need good ones. We need godly ones. We should honor, respect, and listen carefully to those who are. But CT, if it ever was that voice in the wilderness, it no longer is. We need new voices. I pray to God we’ll find them.