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.

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

Two speech bubbles overlapping each other.

Political outrage is rising—but dismissing the other side’s anger deepens division. Learn why taking outrage seriously can bridge America’s partisan divide.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

Taking Outrage Seriously: Understanding the Moral Signals Behind Political Anger

Over the last several weeks, the Trump administration has deployed the National Guard to the nation’s capital to crack down on crime. While those on the right have long been aghast by rioting and disorder in our cities, pressing for greater military intervention to curtail it, progressive residents of D.C. have tirelessly protested the recent militarization of the city.

This recent flashpoint is a microcosm of the reciprocal outrage at the heart of contemporary American public life. From social media posts to street protests to everyday conversations about "the other side," we're witnessing unprecedented levels of political outrage. And as polarization has increased, we’ve stopped even considering the other political party’s concerns, responding instead with amusement and delight. Schadenfreude, or pleasure at someone else’s pain, is now more common than solidarity or empathy across party lines.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two speech bubbles overlapping.

Recent data shows that Americans view members of the opposing political party overly negatively, leading people to avoid political discourse with those who hold different views.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

How To Motivate Americans’ Conversations Across Politics

Introduction

A large body of research shows that Americans hold overly negative distortions of those across the political spectrum. These misperceptions—often referred to as "Perception Gaps"—make civil discourse harder, since few Americans are eager to engage with people they believe are ideologically extreme, interpersonally hostile, or even threatening or inferior. When potential disagreement feels deeply uncomfortable or dangerous, conversations are unlikely to begin.

Correcting these distortions can help reduce barriers to productive dialogue, making Americans more open to political conversations.

Keep ReadingShow less
Divided American flag

Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson writes on the serious impacts of "othering" marginalized populations and how, together, we must push back to create a more inclusive and humane society.

Jorge Villalba/Getty Images

New Rules of the Game: Weaponization of Othering

By now, you have probably seen the viral video. Taylor Townsend—Black, bold, unbothered—walks off the court after a bruising match against her white European opponent, Jelena Ostapenko. The post-match glances were sharper than a backhand slice. Next came the unsportsmanlike commentary—about her body, her "attitude," and a not-so-veiled speculation about whether she belonged at this level. To understand America in the Trump Redux era, one only needs to study this exchange.

Ostapenko vs. Townsend is a microcosm of something much bigger: the way anti-democratic, vengeful politics—modeled from the White House on down—have bled into every corner of public life, including sports. Turning “othering” into the new national pastime. Divisive politics has a profound impact on marginalized groups. Neither Ostapenko nor Donald Trump invented this playbook, yet Trump and his sycophants are working to master it. Fueled by a sense of grievance, revenge, and an insatiable appetite for division, he—like Ostapenko—has normalized once somewhat closeted attitudes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand blocking someone speaking

The Third Way has recently released a memo stating that the “stampede away from the Democratic Party” is partly a result of the language and rhetoric it uses.

Westend61/Getty Images

To Protect Democracy, Democrats Should Pay Attention to the Third Way’s List of ‘Offensive’ Words

More than fifty years ago, comedian George Carlin delivered a monologue entitled Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.” It was a tribute to the legendary Lenny Bruce, whose “nine dirty words” performance led to his arrest and his banning from many places.

His seven words were “p—, f—, c—, c———, m———–, and t—.”

Keep ReadingShow less