Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Imperative for Faith-Informed Response

Opinion

The Imperative for Faith-Informed Response

Someone reading a sermon.

Pexels, Pavel Danilyuk

In the early days of this second Trump presidency, I'm reminded that religious leaders often speak of hope, but now we must do so with urgency and clarity. What we're witnessing isn't just political transition—it's moral regression dressed in the garments of restoration.

When a president speaks of a "golden age" on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, we must name the idolatry in such rhetoric. Golden ages, historically, have always been golden for some at the expense of many. Dr. King didn't dream of a return to any past era; he envisioned a future yet unrealized.


Recently, I've consulted with leaders across the religious spectrum. All voiced similar concerns about their respective constituencies' growing sense of unease. Lamenting their faithful who have begun concealing outward symbols of their faith, while others report feeling increasingly isolated from the broader community. These shared experiences of anxiety and disconnection point to deeper tensions within our democratic fabric.

Trump’s executive orders aren't mere policy shifts; they're moral earthquakes that shake the very foundation of our interfaith commitment to human dignity. When government policies separate families, marginalize minorities, and dismiss environmental stewardship as optional, they don't just challenge our political preferences—they assault our core religious convictions.

Faith leaders often misread their role in moments like these. We're not called to be chaplains to an empire, nor cheerleaders for any political party. We're called to be truth-tellers in the tradition of Amos, who understood that genuine faith always carries political implications. When Amos spoke of justice rolling down like waters, he wasn't suggesting gentle reform—he was demanding systemic transformation.

When policies target any religious community, they threaten the religious freedom of all communities. The Muslim ban of the first term wasn't just an assault on Islam; it was an assault on the First Amendment itself. Its threatened revival in this second term isn't just a migrant or political refugee issue—it's an American crisis. Our current moment demands more than dialogue; it requires collective action and "prophetic citizenship”.

What does prophetic citizenship look like in practice? First, it is transforming houses of worship from comfortable areas of convening into centers of moral action. Prayer and protest aren't opposing activities—they're different expressions of the same faithful witness.

Second, it requires reflection on what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called the “cost of grace,” which is the willingness to put something at risk for the sake of justice. When religious individuals speak of unity without addressing injustice, we offer cheap grace that heals wounds lightly, crying "peace, peace" where there is no peace.

Third, we must engage in "holy disruption"—strategic, principled opposition to policies that violate our shared moral values. This isn't about partisan politics; it's about moral consistency. The same religious convictions that lead us to feed the hungry must compel us to ask why hunger persists in the world's wealthiest nation.

To those in power who might dismiss this as mere religious rhetoric: Our resistance stems not from political calculation but from moral obligation. When you dismantle environmental protections, our sacred texts that command us to be stewards of creation require us to speak. When you demonize immigrants, our scriptures that repeatedly command us to "welcome the stranger," compel us to act.

To my fellow clerics who counsel patience: Patience in the face of injustice isn't a virtue—it's complicity. Every major religious tradition speaks of human dignity as divinely-given, not government-granted. When policies assault that dignity, our response must be immediate and unequivocal.

To those feeling overwhelmed by the scope of our challenge, take heart. Your faith is suited for long struggles. The same God who heard enslaved people's cries in Egypt hears the prayers of the marginalized today. The same Spirit that sustained the civil rights movement still moves among us. The same divine love that has carried countless generations through dark nights still lights our path.

We were created not to simply survive this moment but to transform it. Our civic responsibility isn't merely to resist what is wrong but to build what is right. In the words of Isaiah, we are to be "repairers of the breach, restorers of streets to dwell in." This isn't just poetic language—it's a practical mandate for concrete action. Our work continues, and our faith inspires us.

Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, and scholar-practitioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.

Read More

High School Civic Innovators Bridging America’s Divide

At just 17 years of age, Sophie Kim was motivated to start her organization, Bipartisan Bridges, to bring together people from both ends of the political spectrum. What started as just an idea during her freshman year of high school took off after Sophie placed in the Civics Unplugged pitch contest, hosted for alumni in Spring 2024. Since then, Sophie has continued to expand Bipartisan Bridges' impact, creating spaces that foster civil dialogue and facilitate meaningful connections across party lines.

Sophie, a graduate of the Spring 2024 Civic Innovators Fellowship and the Summer 2025 Civic Innovation Academy at UCLA, serves as the founder and executive director of Bipartisan Bridges. In this role, Sophie has forged a partnership with the organization Braver Angels to host depolarization workshops and has led the coordination and capture of conversations on climate change, abortion, gun control, foreign aid, and the 100 Men vs. a Gorilla debate. In addition, this year, Sophie planned and oversaw Bipartisan Bridges’ flagship Politics and Polarization Fellowship, an eight-week, in-person program involving youth from Tustin, Irvine, Costa Mesa, and Huntington Beach, California. A recent Bipartisan Bridges session featuring youth from both Los Angeles and Orange County will be featured in Bridging the Gap, an upcoming documentary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two speech bubbles overlapping each other.

Democrats can reclaim America’s founding principles, rebuild the rural economy, and restore democracy by redefining the political battle Trump began.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

Defining the Democrat v. Republican Battle

Winning elections is, in large part, a question of which Party is able to define the battle and define the actors. Trump has so far defined the battle and effectively defined Democrats for his supporters as the enemy of making America great again.

For Democrats to win the 2026 midterm and 2028 presidential elections, they must take the offensive and show just the opposite–that it is they who are true to core American principles and they who will make America great again, while Trump is the Founders' nightmare come alive.

Keep ReadingShow less
Mirror, Mirror On the Wall, Who's the Most Patriotic of All?

Trump and the MAGA movement have twisted the meaning of patriotism. It’s time we collectively reclaim America’s founding ideals and the Pledge’s promise.

Getty Images, LeoPatrizi

Mirror, Mirror On the Wall, Who's the Most Patriotic of All?

Republicans have always claimed to be the patriotic party, the party of "America, right or wrong," the party willing to use force to protect American national interests abroad, the party of a strong military. In response, Democrats have not really contested this perspective since Vietnam, basically ceding the patriotic badge to the Republicans.

But with the advent of Donald Trump, the Republican claim to patriotism has gotten broader and more troubling. Republicans now claim to be the party that is true to our founding principles. And it is not just the politicians; they have support from far-right scholars at the Heritage Foundation, such as Matthew Spalding. The Democratic Party has done nothing to counter these claims.

Keep ReadingShow less
Communication concept with multi colored abstract people icons.

Research shows that emotional, cognitive, and social mechanisms drive both direct and indirect contact, offering scalable ways to reduce political polarization.

Getty Images, Eoneren

“Direct” and “Indirect” Contact Methods Likely Work in Similar Ways, so They Should Both Be Effective

In a previous article, we argued that efforts to improve the political environment should reach Americans as media consumers, in addition to seeking public participation. Reaching Americans as media consumers uses media like film, TV, and social media to change what Americans see and hear about fellow Americans across the political spectrum. Participant-based efforts include dialogues and community-based activities that require active involvement.

In this article, we show that the mechanisms underlying each type of approach are quite similar. The categories of mechanisms we cover are emotional, cognitive, relational, and repetitive. We use the terms from the academic literature, “direct” and “indirect” contact, which are fairly similar to participant and media consumer approaches, respectively.

Keep ReadingShow less