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:

“We must always remember our past, but that does not mean we must let it define us. … As a Christian, I believe our state’s flag has become a point of offense that needs to be removed. We need to begin having conversations about changing Mississippi’s flag.”

If you followed local and regional news about the Mississippi debates — especially coverage in religious news sources — you knew that religious believers played major roles in pushing for these changes. Take, for example, the public stands taken by Southern Baptist leaders in the state (as seen in this previous GetReligion podcast and post on the topic).

But this new story by Adam Ganucheau didn’t veer around the religious content in this story. Instead, it dug into it — deep.

Right after quoting the original statement that opened a new chapter in the debates, this Mississippi Today story offered the following:

A former deacon of his Baptist church in Clinton and trustee of one of the nation’s top Southern Baptist seminaries, Gunn frequently cites his faith as he takes public positions on political and social issues. In interviews with Mississippi Today, Gunn opened up about how difficult it became for him to square his perception of the state-sanctioned Confederate battle emblem with his view of Christianity.

“My conviction was borne out of my religion, out of my understanding of scripture,” Gunn said. “I believe the number one charge of anyone who professes to be a Christian is to love God first and love your neighbor second. We are also charged to be witnesses for the gospel to share our faith and to encourage others to follow God. And so as I began to think about that and the flag, it just seemed to me that the continued use of the Confederate emblem was an obstacle we had to overcome.”

Gunn continued: “It would be very difficult for me to go into an African American neighborhood, say, with a Confederate battle emblem on my T-shirt and say, ‘Let me tell you about how I love you and Jesus loves you.’ To me, that would immediately raise suspicion because of how that image has been used to represent the hatred that some had in their hearts.”

The first time I read that passage, I immediately thought to myself: What scripture passage is he talking about? Anything specific?

As it turns out, that material ended up in this passage a few paragraphs later. The “image” reference is to the Confederate battle emblem.

“That image had become co-opted to represent things that I don’t think Mississippians stand for, for something I don’t think represents my Christian faith,” he said. “You know, there are other scriptures in the Bible, like when Paul says, ‘If I eat meat and it offends my brother, then I don’t eat meat.’ I don’t, for the sake of the gospel, do certain things that drive away people or prevent me having the opportunity to share the gospel or lead people effectively. So all that was, first and foremost, the nature of my conviction about changing the flag.”

With that material as the overture, this series — as it should — focused on the political drama that followed and some of the personal implications for Gunn.

But here is the key: From Gunn’s perspective, the faith issues were the foundation of his actions in this case. The references to scripture and his beliefs are the “why” content here. Thus, they were given prime real estate in this massive journalism project.

To which I would say, for journalism reasons, “Amen.”