Public media is often at its best when it takes a breath and looks at the "why" behind the headlines. Recently, I sat down with my colleague, Indiana Pubic Media journalist Clayton Baumgarth, to discuss the making of our station’s latest multi-part series, Red, White, and Righteous, a deep dive into Christian nationalism. We wanted to share the "how" of this project, from the initial spark in Indiana to the challenges of reporting on a topic that often feels difficult to navigate.
Ethan Sandweiss: You recently completed Red, White, and Righteous. What goes into making a multi-part series like this?
Clayton Baumgarth: It was a massive effort involving a team of editors and researchers. We decided to take this project on once we saw Micah Beckwith take office as Lieutenant Governor. There was so much talk about his beliefs and what they would mean for Indiana. We realized this could be larger than local feature, as Christian nationalism is a nationwide belief system impacting our politics and culture. It needed more space than a standard news segment could provide.
As far as what went into it, we actively worked on this production from June to its release in October of 2025. I read a lot of different news pieces, books, and research about Christian nationalism. I ended up reaching out and interviewing about two dozen sources.
And then on October 22nd, as I was editing the third episode, my wife went into labor. Luckily I had all the scripts written and our colleague George Hale took over the final edits on episodes three and four. It was truly a race to the finish towards the end!
Ethan Sandweiss: You spoke to many people whose beliefs look like Christian nationalism, but who don’t necessarily use that label. How do you study something so divisive?
Clayton Baumgarth: The most important thing was getting the definition right. There is a version of "Christian nationalism" you hear in online echo chambers from both sides that isn't quite accurate.
Researchers define it as a desire for a specific version of Christian ideology to speak to the fabric of our laws and culture. That is different from wanting the country to be exclusively Christian, which is how someone like Micah Beckwith might interpret the term. Once we established a clear, researched definition, it became easier to talk to people on both sides. People are more willing to have a conversation when they feel you aren't just calling them radicals.
Ethan Sandweiss: How did you figure out how to structure the series?
Clayton Baumgarth: We knew we had to start with the "what" and the "who".
Episode 1: "One Nation Under God" is about establishing a shared definition and introducing the major researchers like Andre Gagne and players like Beckwith. That was really important to hit first so listeners had a baseline understanding of the broader topic.
Episode 2: The Belief System is about the New Apostolic Reformation and the underlying biblical texts people are referencing. I wanted to show listeners exactly where these ideas come from within and outside of their religious beliefs.
Episode 3: "No Preference Shall Ever Be Given" is where we tied everything back to Indiana and how it relates to the everyday lives of our listeners. This is probably the most important part as far as ‘news’ goes, but to have started here would have left out a lot of context that’s key to understanding Christian nationalism.
Ethan Sandweiss: The series ended up being four episodes instead of three. What changed?
Clayton Baumgarth: We were finishing the third episode when we got the news that Charlie Kirk had been assassinated. It was a crazy moment that brought everything we had been discussing into a national spotlight. The producers and editors of the podcast realized we couldn't ignore it; it had to be the fourth episode. It ended up being the strongest part of the series in my opinion because it moved the conversation from a regional level to the national stage.
Ethan Sandweiss: Why was it important to tell this story?
Clayton Baumgarth: Reporting on religion and politics is rarely easy, but it’s essential for public media. We live in a time of extreme polarization where most people only talk to those who already agree with them. This project was our attempt to find a middle ground where a real conversation could happen, even with people we might disagree with.
