Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Is canceling David French good for civic life?

David French

New York Times columnist David French was removed from the agenda of a faith-basd gathering because we was too "divisive."

Macmillan Publishers

Harwood is president and founder of The Harwood Institute. This is the latest entry in his series based on the "Enough. Time to Build.” campaign, which calls on community leaders and active citizens to step forward and build together.

On June 10-14, the Presbyterian Church in America held its annual denominational assembly in Richmond, Va. The PCA created considerable national buzz in the lead-up when it abruptly canceled a panel discussion featuring David French, the highly regarded author and New York Times columnist.

The panel carried the innocuous-sounding title, “How to Be Supportive of Your Pastor and Church Leaders in a Polarized Political Year.” The reason for canceling it? French, himself a long-time PCA member, was deemed too “divisive.” This despite being a well-known, self-identified “conservative” and PCA adherent. Ironically, the loudest and most divisive voices won the day.


Is this really what we need from our faith leaders at a time of such deep divides in our communities and in the nation? I pray not.

Much ink has been spilled decrying “cancel culture” and whether figures on the political left or political right suffer more from it. But far less attention is given to why individuals, groups and organizations feel canceling others is the only option available when faced with ideas and people we disagree with — or when the presence of those people results in backlash from those we see as allies, supporters or funders.

I’ve dedicated my 35-year career to transforming America’s hardest-hit communities and reconnecting institutions like schools, newsrooms and places of worship to society. Experience teaches me that we have another option besides surrendering to those who seek to cancel others and even shut down civic life altogether at signs of differing views or discomfort or dissonance.

In fact, I believe we especially need faith leaders today to exemplify an alternative approach to engaging in public and religious life — to be a voice informed by courage and humility and, yes, doubt.

In so many of the communities where I’ve worked over the years — from Flint, Mich., to Clark County, Ky. — faith leaders hold enormous influence. The faith community is critical to the civic culture in a community and the vibrancy of our wider shared society. But we face a particular challenge in America today. Too many faith leaders and religious groups are sowing difference and division.

Our urgent task is to shift the territory from difference and division to a focus on our shared aspirations for our lives and communities. In doing so, we must be clear: We are not asking anyone to give up their religious identity, doctrines or beliefs. As a person of faith myself, I know I would bristle at the notion that I need to somehow give up my beliefs when doing community work.

Instead, consider these questions. Can we hold onto our individual religious identity and beliefs while lifting up our heads for long enough to discover and work toward a shared purpose with others? Equally important, are we willing to do this with those we may even disagree with when it comes to our political views or specific religious doctrine?

When I pose those two questions to faith leaders, the answers I get are resoundingly positive. Every day I am heartened by the work being advanced by faith leaders in the communities where we’re working deeply. Places like Alamance County, N.C. —one of the most divided places in the country — and Reading, Pa., once named the poorest community in America. Faith leaders in those and many other communities are coming together to work on the shared aspirations of their communities and engender authentic hope among people. It is because they are willing to discern where they can work together for the betterment of their communities and get moving together on action that addresses what really matters to people.

They offer a lesson to groups that aim to live out a civic purpose in society. Canceling someone like David French does nothing for our shared civic — let alone religious — lives. It short-circuits our ability to come together to build stronger communities. And, in turn, a stronger country.

There are real differences in our country. We all know this. Let’s name it but let’s not use it as an excuse for inaction or continued separation. It’s high time we focused on what we can agree on and what shared actions we can take in order to move forward together.

Amid the decline in religious affiliation, I believe faith leaders have a necessary and vital role to play in our civic lives. In fact, they have much to teach us about what it means to hold — even restore — our faith in one another, which is in part the purpose of  my national civic campaign, “Enough. Time to Build.”

But that won’t happen if various religious groups and leaders choose to close down civic life just when we most need to open ourselves up and turn outward toward one another.

Read More

This Isn’t My Story. But It’s One I’ll Never Forget.

Children with American flags

This Isn’t My Story. But It’s One I’ll Never Forget.

My colleague, Meghan Monroe, a former teacher and trainer in the Dignity Index, went out to lunch with a friend on the 4th of July. Her friend was late and Meghan found herself waiting outside the restaurant where, to her surprise, a protest march approached. It wasn’t big and it wasn’t immediately clear what the protest was about. There were families and children marching—some flags, and some signs about America being free.

One group of children caught Meghan’s eye as they tugged at their mother while marching down the street. The mom paused and crouched down to speak to the children. Somehow, Meghan could read the situation and realized that the mom was explaining to the children about America—about what it is, about all the different people who make up America, about freedom, about dignity.

“I could just tell that the Mom wanted her children to understand something important, something big. I couldn’t tell anything about her politics. I could just tell that she wanted her children to understand what America can be. I could tell she wanted dignity for her children and for people in this country. It was beautiful.”

As Meghan told me this story, I realized something: that Mom at the protest is a role model for me. The 4th may be over now, but the need to explain to each other what we want for ourselves and our country isn’t.

My wife, Linda, and I celebrated America at the wedding of my godson, Alexander, and his new wife, Hannah. They want America to be a place of love. Dozens of my cousins, siblings, and children celebrated America on Cape Cod.

For them and our extended family, America is a place where families create an enduring link from one generation to the next despite loss and pain.

Thousands of Americans in central Texas confronted the most unimaginable horrors on July 4th. For them, I hope and pray America is a place where we hold on to each other in the face of unbearable pain and inexplicable loss.

Yes. It’s complicated. There were celebrations of all kinds on July 4th—celebrations of gratitude to our military, celebrations of gratitude for nature and her blessings, and sadly, celebrations of hatred too. There are a million more examples of our hopes and fears and visions, and they’re not all happy.

I bet that’s one of the lessons that mom was explaining to her children. I imagine her saying, “America is a place where everyone matters equally. No one’s dignity matters more than anyone else’s. Sometimes we get it wrong. But in our country, we always keep trying and we never give up.”

For the next 12 months as we lead up to the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we’re going to be hearing a lot about what we want America to be. But maybe the more important question is what we the people are willing to do to fulfill our vision of what we can be. The answer to that question is hiding in plain sight and is as old as the country itself: join with others and do your part, and no part is too small to matter.

At our best, our country is a country of people who serve one another. Some may say that’s out of fashion, but not me. Someone is waiting for each of us—to talk, to share, to join, to care, to lead, to love. And in our time, the superpower we need is the capacity to treat each other with dignity, even when we disagree. Differences of opinion aren’t the problem; in fact, they’re the solution. As we love to say, “There’s no America without democracy and there’s no democracy without healthy debate and there’s no healthy debate without dignity.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Party Lines
An illustration to symbolize two divided groups.
Getty Images / Andrii Yalanskyi

Beyond Party Lines

The American Experiment tested whether groups with diverse interests could unite under a declaration of common principles. In this moment, we face a critical juncture that tests whether distrust and political fervor could drive Americans to abandon or deny everything that unites us.

Henry Bolingbroke contends that party spirit inspires “Animosity and breeds Rancor.” Talking of his countrymen, he wrote, “We likewise derive, not our Privileges (for they were always ours) but a more full and explicit Declaration”; Whigs and Tories can unite on this alone. That Declaration of Ours was penned by Thomas Jefferson when his colonists repelled the redcoats at the Siege of Charleston and when Washington’s troops were awaiting battle in Manhattan. The American Declaration set out those principles, which united the diverse colonies. And the party system, as Bolingbroke said, brought animosity and weakened the Union. Critics disputed these claims. William Warburton attacked Bolingbroke as an evil-speaker with “dog-eloquence”—claimed his calls for party reform were an aristocratic conspiracy to cement the power of elites. An anonymous critic argued that the government is a union of unrelated people where laws supplant the natural bonds between families. Then, the government of the United States would not exist, or would not exist long.

Keep ReadingShow less
From Vision to Action: Remaking the World Through Social Entrepreneurship
assorted notepads

From Vision to Action: Remaking the World Through Social Entrepreneurship

Social entrepreneur John Marks developed a set of eleven working principles that have become his modus operandi and provide the basic framework for his new book, “From Vision to Action: Remaking the World Through Social Entrepreneurship," from which a series of three articles is adapted. While Marks applied these principles in nonprofit work, he says they are also applicable to social enterprisesand to life, in general.

PART TWO

PRINCIPLE #4: KEEP SHOWING UP. It has been said that 80 percent of success in life is showing up. For social entrepreneurs, this means continuing to stay engaged without dabbling or parachuting. Like a child’s toy windup truck that moves forward until it hits an obstacle and then backs off and finds another way forward, social entrepreneurs should be persistent—and adept at finding work-arounds. They must be willing to commit for the long term. I found that this was particularly important when working with Iranians, who tend to view the world in terms of centuries and millennia.

Keep ReadingShow less
Similarity Hub Shows >700 Instances of Cross-Partisan Common Ground

Two coloured pencils one red and one blue drawing a reef knot on a white paper background.

Getty Images, David Malan

Similarity Hub Shows >700 Instances of Cross-Partisan Common Ground

It is a common refrain to say that Americans need to find common ground across the political spectrum.

Over the past year, AllSides and More Like US found >700 instances of common ground on political topics, revealed in Similarity Hub. It highlights public opinion data from Gallup, Pew Research, YouGov, and many other reputable polling firms.

Keep ReadingShow less