Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Imperative for Faith-Informed Response

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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

President Donald Trump speaks during a rally at Macomb Community College on April 29, 2025 at Warren, Michigan.

President Donald Trump speaks during a rally at Macomb Community College on April 29, 2025 at Warren, Michigan.

Getty Images, Scott Olson

​​The American Schism in 2025: Understanding the Other Side

In distilling lessons from my research onAmerican Schism, I often refer to a secret sauce or magic formula that U.S. citizens deployed at times during our history to productively bridge major societal divisions. To be clear, in these periods, the rifts endured but relying on the formula’s specific ingredients led us to better outcomes as compared to other eras when this formula was abandoned. In the former moments, we often forged new policy solutions — in the latter, we often experienced violent episodes.

One of the three key elements of this magic formula is what I label deep empathetic listening (stay tuned to this series for future discussion of the other two elements). Sounding simple but too often forsaken today, this form of listening is not easy work. It is analogous to a routine practice from high school debate club: first, through research and critical thinking, one constructs a rational argument for a particular point of view supported by data and carefully vetted sources. Then, perhaps a week later, one is assigned the same but from the opposing point of view. It is perhaps not surprising that our civic discourse has collapsed today — with current communication methods and platforms such as social media, critically researched data is sparse while sanctimonious outrage is omnipresent.

Keep ReadingShow less
Crowd Surfing Through Revolution
silhouette photo of man jumped off on top of people inside party hall
Photo by Zach Lucero on Unsplash

Crowd Surfing Through Revolution

Picture this: A person launches themselves into a crowd at a concert, and for a moment, everything hangs in the balance. Will they fall? Will they float? It all depends on countless hands moving in coordination, strangers united in a common purpose. Some push up while others stabilize, creating a dynamic, living system that defies gravity.

At this moment, we are all suspended between falling and flying, carried by a wave of global resistance that nobody controls but all can help shape. Think about what makes crowd surfing work. It's not just about the individual being carried – it's about the collective choreography happening beneath. With too much force in one direction, you fall. Not enough support in another, you crash. The magic happens in the balance.

Keep ReadingShow less
Threat Minimizes Compassion
Polarization and the politics of love
Polarization and the politics of love

Threat Minimizes Compassion

Threat minimizes compassion. This connection helps to explain two seemingly unrelated questions: Why do those who voted for President Trump seem not to publicly express much concern for the thousands of government workers fired since Inauguration Day? And why do liberals often seem not to talk as much about drug deaths as other issues like gun deaths?

The answers are multi-faceted, of course. This article will focus on one of many reasons: the potential victims of these actions and situations (government workers and drug users) are often directly or indirectly seen as threats by the other side, and it is hard to feel the pain of those who seem to threaten us. Institutions can also be threatening, based on the actions taken by people within those institutions.

Keep ReadingShow less