We cannot understand polarization in the United States without understanding the influence of Christianity in American life. From the decline in church attendance and religious affiliation, to the emergence of anti-democratic movements, and to the increase of religious and racial identities trying more closely to align with party affiliation, powerful movements among the Christian population—and the responses to those movements—play a key role in the fraying of our civic bonds. This also means that American Christians have an important role to play in the efforts to heal our nation.
"THERE IS PERHAPS NO ACTION THAT CHRISTIANS COULD TAKE TO HEAL OUR PUBLIC LIFE MORE THAN JOYFULLY ENGAGING WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE DIFFERENT FROM US—EVEN THOSE WE WOULD CONSIDER OUR ENEMIES."
At the Center for Christianity and Public Life, we believe that the crises in our civic life are largely driven by a crisis of spiritual formation among American Christians. The answer to our current problems is not to check our faith at the door as we enter the public square but to find the ways that the gospel can inspire our public participation in healthy ways. We believe that our challenges are great, but our God is greater. It is not a sincere and grounded Christian faith that is the problem but a faith that has been weaponized and co-opted. When Christianity serves as merely a political wedge or a simple driver of destructive identity group politics, it obviously contributes to polarization. This is true for many sources of meaning that also have the capacity to be weaponized. We believe, with history and the lives of many Christians today as our proof, that the Christian faith has the capacity and even tendency to make us better citizens and more effective at building consensus and meeting the challenges facing our country.
A better form of Christian engagement in our politics can help to bring people together across differences in a variety of ways. Here, I’d like to outline three particular ones:
-
Engaging across differences must be understood as an inherent part of what it means to be a Christian in public life, not an optional component to be used opportunistically.
-
We need to actually want to build community when we work with people who are different from us, not just treat them as a means to an end.
-
We need to reject business models that serve to drive us apart rather than bring us together.
Engaging across differences must be understood as an inherent part of what it means to be a Christian in public life, not an optional component to be used opportunistically.
For the past decade, many Christian thinkers have proposed a stepping back from public life for American Christians. They promote a sense that Christians are under siege and must retreat to safe, familiar ground and hunker down. Others have promoted a Christian approach to politics that ties Christian identity to a specific political party and defends the indefensible in exchange for safe harbor under that party’s banner.
"PERHAPS MOST HARMFUL, WE ASK OTHERS TO LEAVE CERTAIN PARTS OF THEMSELVES AT THE DOOR BEFORE WE ALLOW THEM A SEAT AT THE TABLE."
These are misguided approaches that have little root in biblical teaching. It is almost cliché to note that Jesus frequently dined with sinners, converted tax collectors, and preached in a way that sought to break down barriers between communities that were at odds. When challenged on what he meant by “love your neighbor,” Jesus took the most expansive view.
As if loving our neighbors was not hard enough, Jesus calls on us to love our enemies. He challenges us by saying if we stop short of loving our neighbors, we are not at all different from pagans or anyone else. Yet, how often do we actually see an example of loving one’s enemy in our public life today?
There is perhaps no action that Christians could take to heal our public life more than joyfully engaging with people who are different from us—even those who we would consider our enemies.
We need to actually want to build community when we work with people who are different from us, not just treat them as a means to an end.
One of the biggest challenges to working across differences is that we must resist the temptation to see people as a means rather than an end. Too often, when we say we want to build a bridge, we are hoping that the bridge will help people come over to our side. Other times, we see the power wielded by others and want to see it applied to our own priorities. And perhaps most harmful, we ask others to leave certain parts of themselves at the door before we allow them a seat at the table.
"IT IS MUCH EASIER TO SCARE DONORS AND THE PUBLIC INTO FUNDING PROJECTS THAT WORK AGAINST A POWERFUL ENEMY THAN IT IS TO INSPIRE THEM TO FUND PROJECTS OR ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE FOCUSED ON FINDING COMMON GROUND AND WORKING TOGETHER ACROSS DIFFERENCES."
Throughout my own time working both in and outside of the bridge-building space, I have seen the ways that barriers to community are put up. I have seen conservative Christians who are immediately dismissive of people who have even sent a subtle signal that they do not agree with Christian orthodoxy. I have been one of those Christians at times. I have seen progressives who will refuse to work alongside conservative Christians because of their orthodox Christian beliefs or who they supported in a previous election. I confess, I’ve been one of those Christians, too! If we truly want to build a shared community and find ways to come together across differences, we have to learn to meet people where they are and to value them and their point of view. Of course, this requires the same respect be afforded in return; no one should be expected to sit down at a table with someone who demands to be heard but refuses to listen.
We need to reject business models that serve to drive us apart rather than bring us together.
There is a scarcity mindset for organizations who work at the intersection of faith and public life, especially for organizations who are interested in bridging our divides rather than furthering them. It is much easier to scare donors and the public into funding projects that work against a powerful enemy than it is to inspire them to fund projects or organizations that are focused on finding common ground and working together across differences.
The current narratives around White Christian nationalism provide an example of this challenge. On the one hand, there really are Christians who embrace the “siege” mentality and are embracing authoritarianism as a means to their political ends. They raise tons of money and build power by scaring their followers about a powerful “other” who wants to oppress them. They deserve our opposition. On the other hand, too many responses to this anti-democratic movement serve to frame this group as larger than it is and try to attach this label to as broad a group of their political opponents as possible. This empowers the worst actors rather than marginalizes them.
Instead, Christians have a responsibility to root themselves in the gospel and to speak out in favor of a pluralistic public square—and to make clear that authoritarian Christians distort our faith for political power. We should not empower them by suggesting their problem is that they take faith too seriously; we should powerfully assert that they are misapplying or misunderstanding the mandates Christ gives us in the gospel.
--
Chris Crawford is a pro-life and pro-democracy activist who lives in Silver Spring, Maryland. He is a founding board member of the Center for Christianity and Public Life.