The Congregation as Civics Lab
One more look at the argument
I was prepared to move on from the conversation I began last week in Colorado Springs. But, as often happens, a number of things came through my inbox that seemed to suggest it was worth another look.
Yesterday in his Message Box, Dan Pfeiffer wrote about research done by Navigator Research. It’s worth reading, but the upshot is that swing voters and new Trump voters got their news from social media.
What’s even more surprising is that swing and new Trump voters are most likely to get their news from social media. Very few of them are getting news from legacy media. Only 16% of swing voters watch MSNBC and only 15% get their news from national newspapers. Think of all of the time spent fretting about New York Times headlines and stories — none of the voters who were on the fence ever saw them. It was just an internal conversation among people who decided to vote against Donald Trump years ago.
When you add in the impact of podcasts and YouTube repeats or clips, it suggests that the ability of the Mainstream Media to influence civic discourse is shrinking to irrelevance. A story in yesterday’s New York Times describing a focus group conducted with Trump voters underscores the point.
The idea of America moving on from politics and being more united than it seems was a core idea for many in the group. They said they were tired of being criticized for holding conservative or contrary opinions and thought a lot of other Americans were, too. What may unite us in the end? “Eventually, everybody’s going to get tired of nitpicking,” said Julie, a 65-year-old Republican from Maryland.
If you read the (depressing) details of their comments, you find that they are happy with the election outcome and feel like everybody should just embrace the new reality. They don’t want to be criticized and be free to believe whatever they think without pushback.
In our increasingly segmented society, where might they learn to engage with other perspectives? I’m suggesting that one ideal place for this to happen is the local congregation. I have long argued that the beating heart of our religious identity is found within the walls of the local congregation. As fascinating as survey data can be — and I’ve relied on a huge share of it — the congregation is the place where life, faith, and relationships connect.
That’s why a story in Religion News Service this week caught my attention. Headlined “Most congregations avoid discussing politics, new study shows”, it describes a new report from Hartford Seminary as part of their Faith Communities Today project. One of their questions seems particular relevant.
The report documents that only 23% consider themselves politically active and only 16% of congregations discuss politics. Only 10% reported having experienced conflict over politics.
Nearly half of congregations seem to avoid discussing politics even though there seems so a healthy measure of diversity present. While 29% of churches report their congregation is politically homogeneous, another 45% say that’s not the case.
In the face of the anonymity of social media and celebrity influencers, the local congregation could potentially be an ideal laboratory for folks to learn how do manage differing perspectives and policy ideas. Grounded in a sense of community, they have a vested interest in working through differences. As those skills of civil discourse are honed, there will potentially be a spillover effect with family, friends, and neighbors.
This isn’t easy. Too many pastors have become conflict averse or see spiritual and civic ideas as non-overlapping. They will require not only permission to pursue my laboratory idea but significant training. Groups like the American Values Coalition is doing good work as is Christians Against Christian Nationalism. But we need much more.
This morning, introducing another book in his SubStack, Scot McKnight opened with the following.
The evangelical church in the 20th Century failed to form political discipleship. By that I mean, evangelicals have become a populist movement; evangelicals intuit themselves through elections; evangelicals do not think themselves through candidates; evangelicals listen to their gurus on for whom to vote. Evangelicals, in other words, do not have a well-thought-out theory of economics, of power, of race, of international relations, of toleration and difference, or of engagement.
Kristin DuMez shared her own summary today of the Notre Dame event I referenced in Monday’s post. She closed her SubStack with this:
In concluding, I have to say that I think that most theological responses to public life in the US have failed. They have real strengths, but they’re not meeting the moment we are in. One of the most prominent responses has been an idea from Stanley Hauerwas and others that the church should have its own internal “politics” and model for the rest of world how to live and die well, rather than trying to gain political power. That’s a nice idea, but, among other things, I’m not sure that the leaders and members of most churches in the US have been particularly virtuous in a way that even should inspire others to imitate how they live. There have also been a variety of liberation theologies focusing on the social and material conditions of particular groups of oppressed people, such as those who are poor, Black, or disabled. These theologies have impacted the views of a lot of people, but, as theologian and Senator Raphael Warnock has pointed out, there are real gaps between most of these academic theologies and where most church people are at in their own theologies—let alone what can be implemented in national politics. I don’t mean that theologies of liberation are unimportant; they’re just not enough to deal with our current challenges. If cannot figure out broadly inclusive, truthful, attractive, and accessible ways to talk about both what is most true and sacred and how to live together as a society, we won’t have a democratic society anymore. We’re not there right now.
Scripture gives us examples of Joseph working for the civic good of Egypt or Daniel administering in Babylon. We’d rather tell stories about their resistance, and that’s real, but what they did for social good is evident. For all those who like proof-texting, you can always cite Micah 6:8 or Jeremiah 29:7.
I’m not saying it would be easy. Just that it is essential at this point in our society.