Tag: Faith

*By Adam Fefer
Time Period: 2019-2023
Location: Brazil, especially Rio de Janeiro
Main Actors: Brazilian Catholic Church, Brazilian Evangelical pastors (e.g., Henrique Vieira) and civil society groups (e.g., Novas)
Tactics: 
- Declarations by organizations and institutions
- Signed public statements
- Vigils

Brazil became less free and democratic during Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency (2019-2022). Bolsonaro’s campaign featured hate speech directed at racial and gender minorities, election disinformation, and nostalgia for Brazil’s military dictatorship (1964-85). While in office, journalists and civil society activists were harassed and faced violence while Bolsonaro threatened Supreme Court justices and denounced independent checks on his power. Brazil’s disastrous COVID-19 response was heightened by Bolsonaro’s antidemocratic efforts to suppress public data about cases and fatalities.

Bolsonaro won the 2018 election in large part because of support from Evangelicals (31% of the population), 70% of whom voted for him. Meanwhile, about half of Catholics (50% of the population) voted for him. (Bosonaro is Catholic but was re-baptized by an Evangelical pastor in Israel in 2016.) Brazilian society is conservative: large majorities of voters support the death penalty, laws prohibiting gay marriage and abortion, and life imprisonment for serious crimes. And Evangelicals are the most conservative segment of Brazilian society, often espousing fundamentalism and supporting far-right politicians, especially since 2014. Bolsonaro’s rhetoric --emphasizing patriarchy, Brazil’s infestation by Marxists, and impending apocalyptic battles between good and evil-- resonated with religious voters, many of whom were willing to overlook Bolsonaro’s authoritarianism.

Religious actors made statements and took actions that challenged Bolsonaro’s anti-democratic efforts. Because Evangelicals supported Bolsonaro in such large numbers, many pro-democracy efforts were undertaken by Catholics. Catholic involvement was both surprising and encouraging in light of norms enforced from the Vatican downward to Brazilian priests that discourage explicit politicking. In addition, perhaps half of Brazilian Catholics identify with the Catholic Charismatic renewal, which emphasizes other-worldly goods over worldly political involvement. What follows is an analysis of some salient parts of this campaign by religious actors. 

In July 2020, over 150 Brazilian Catholic bishops signed a “Letter to the People of God,” which denounced the Bolsonaro administration’s non-transparent handling of COVID-19 and its actions “approaching totalitarianism…encouraging acts against democracy…[and its] repugnance for…freedom of thought and the press.” The letter, which invoked biblical support for social and economic justice, provoked much backlash. This included pro-regime Brazilian bishops as well as conspiracy theorists like Olavo de Carvalho, who denounced the signees as “communists [and] satanists.”

In January 2021, over 375 Catholic and Evangelical leaders signed a statement calling for Bolsonaro’s impeachment. The statement denounced Bolsonaro’s constitutional violations (for example, of citizens’ right to health) and mishandling of COVID-19. It was presented to Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies, the legislature’s lower chamber. (Bolsonaro was not impeached although many such petitions --secular and religious-- were submitted.) And in October 2022, more than 15 religious groups signed a document criticizing Bolsonaro’s theocratic messaging as well as his demonization of women, Afro-Brazilians, LGBT+ people, and Indigenous communities. These documents may have persuaded some religious voters to abandon Bolsonaro ahead of the 2022 election.

Progressive Evangelicals, who are marginalized in Brazilian politics and society, have also taken actions in furtherance of democracy. Much of Brazilian popular news media, which is owned and controlled by conservatives, seeks to portray Evangelicalism as homogeneous. The progressive Baptist pastor Henrique Vieira worked during Bolsonaro’s presidency to contest this narrow portrayal. Vieira, who was a local politician in Rio de Janeiro between 2012-16, made statements denouncing Bolsonaro’s theocratic messaging and “genocidal” handling of COVID-19. And in 2022, he won a seat in Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies. Given the conservatism among many Brazilian (Evangelical) voters, however, pro-democracy candidates who lack Vierira’s influence likely face an uphill battle in running for office.

In another example of progressive Evangelical organizing, the group Novas Narrativas Evangélicas (New Evangelical Narratives) held a vigil in October 2022 in Rio. Novas, which formed in late 2021, denounced Bolsonaro’s racist and exclusionary rhetoric. However, the vigil was attended by just 30 people.

Finally, religion played a key role in the January 8, 2023 Brazilian Congress attack. Around 5,000 Brazilians attacked federal buildings in the capital, Brasília, to disrupt the transfer of power from Bolsonaro to President Lula da Silva. Much as in the US, Christian participation --both pastors and laity-- and symbolism were highly visible during the attack. The National Conference of Brazilian Bishops responded by condemning the “criminal attacks on the democratic rule of law.” It is unclear to what extent religious actors helped prevent the attack from morphing into a military coup, which many rioters expressed as their goals. But the Conference’s condemnation was clear and forceful.

Brazilian religious actors’ campaign against Bolsonaro’s backsliding was strengthened by the administration’s ineptness and growing unpopularity. Many Evangelicals gradually deserted Bolsonaro, owing to their frustration with his handling of COVID-19 and the economy. According to Statista, ahead of the first round of Brazil’s 2022 election, only 49% of Evangelicals and 27% of Catholics intended to vote for Bolsonaro. Although Bolsonaro consolidated more religious support ahead of the second round, Lula da Silva defeated Bolsonaro partly because he worked to mobilize religious voters, for example affirming the sacredness of life and freedom of religious expression. 

Democracy organizers in the US can learn much from the outspokenness of Brazilian religious leaders. In particular, Catholic bishops denounced Bolsonaro’s backsliding quite forcefully. In addition, pro-democracy priests and pastors in the US, especially those who eschew “worldly” affairs, can learn from the willingness of dissidents like Henrique Vieira who engage in formal politicking. Finally, the glaring parallels between the US’ January 6th attack and Brazil’s January 8th attack offer lessons for democracy organizers. Brazilian bishops were unequivocal in their condemnation of the attack as anti-democratic, especially in comparison with those US bishops who were silent or who merely condemned the violence.

Where to Learn More
- Alves, L. (2021). “Brazilian religious leaders want Bolsonaro impeached over COVID-19.” National Catholic Register. 
- Alves, L. (2022). “Catholic groups give Bolsonaro poor marks on Brazil social programs.” National Catholic Register.
- Alves, L. (2023). “Catholic leaders condemn attacks on Brazil's Congress, high court, presidential palace.” National Catholic Register. 
- Lima, E.C. (2020). “In openly criticizing Brazil's president, 152 bishops spur anger, controversy.” National Catholic Register. 
- Lima, E.C. (2023). “Christians represented significant faction of capital rioters in Brazil.” Religion News Service.
- Ionova, A. (2022). “Brazil’s Evangelical Leftist.” Americas Quarterly.
- Malleret, C. (2022). “Progressive Evangelicals Reject the Bolsonarization of Churches.” Nacla.
- Smith, A.E. (2018). “For Latin America’s Evangelicals, Bolsonaro Is Just the Start.” Americas Quarterly.

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

The Horizons Project Director for Race & Democracy, Jarvis Williams, has a conversation with Shun Tucker-Allen, Senior Faith Partnerships Coordinator at Fair Count about her work organizing with faith communities in the South. As more pro-democracy organizers and funders seek to engage more deeply with faith communities around the country, Shun shares her experience of fostering trusting relationships that are not transactional; being creative about building on the existing infrastructure and activities already happening within communities; not assuming that you need to go to the largest churches or directly to the pastors to have an impact; and, the importance of taking a long-term perspective to this work even in the face of urgent electoral cycles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT8crHo_WWg

*By Claire Trilling
Time Period: November 2020 - December 2021
Location: Delhi, India
Main Actors: Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee & other Sikh organizations
Tactics
- Protest camps, nonviolent occupation
- Declarations by organizations and institutions
- Material support

In September 2020, the Indian parliament, led by Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) passed three Farm Bills significantly cutting back government involvement in agriculture and removing protections for farmers. In response, farmers across India launched a protest movement to demand the bills’ repeal. For more detail on this movement as a whole, see our caselet on this movement here. 

The peak of this movement involved a mass nonviolent blockade of the four main highways going into New Delhi, India’s capital, by hundreds of thousands of farmers. The farmers ultimately remained in the protest camps for over a year, until the government finally caved to the movement’s demands and repealed the Farm Bills in December 2021. Throughout this period, the protest camps consistently held tens of thousands of protesters who organized rallies and music performances, set up educational centers, and created their own media outlets.

The endurance of the Delhi protest camps hinged on the consistent provision of meals, medical supplies, clothes, and other basic services to its inhabitants. While the farmers’ movement was characterized by high levels of religious and ethnic diversity, much of the material support for the camps came from the Sikh community. Most of the farmers came from the region of Punjab, known as India’s breadbasket. Punjab is also the homeland of the Sikh religion, with about 58% of its residents identifying as Sikh. In Sikhism, all places of worship, called gurdwaras, have a langar hall, a community kitchen that serves free food to all people, regardless of religion, caste, gender, or ethnicity. Gurdwaras also frequently provide medical and educational services. From the beginning of the protest movement, Sikh organizations, leaders, and participants established langars and provided various resources and services to the farmers.

Before the arrival of the farmers, the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (DSGMC), which oversees all gurdwaras in the capital, announced that they would provide whatever material support was needed for the farmers’ campaign. Upon the establishment of the camps, the DSGMC set up langars that provided food several times a day to the farmers, as well as to underprivileged residents of Delhi. In January 2021, they repurposed 30 buses from their school system to serve as night shelters and donated 1200 elevated beds to ensure that the protesters could endure the severe cold and heavy rainfalls of the season. The DSGMC also repeatedly made statements in support of the movement and denounced its critics. Other organized Sikh groups, including international organizations like Khalsa Aid and United Sikhs, assisted in establishing medical centers and providing hygienic goods.

In addition to the critical contributions by Sikh organizations, individual Sikh farmers also drew on their religious practices in the campaign. Sikh farmers began the march to Delhi prepared to set up langars on the way, and they were continuously resupplied by their home villages and towns. The tradition of running langars meant that Sikh farming communities were practiced in pooling resources and preparing mass meals, skills that they used to make the Delhi campaign sustainable for such a long period of time. In one case, a group of friends set up a pizza langar to support the farmers, while in another, an almond langar was organized with the support of one of the largest American almond producers. In Punjab, Muslim farmers also set up a langar to support the early protests in September 2020, a gesture of solidarity in response to prior Sikh support for Muslims who had protested Modi’s citizenship law in 2019.

The establishment of Sikh langars throughout the 2020-2021 Farmers’ Movement offers a model for how faith actors can support pro-democracy organizing. The langars exemplify how religious traditions and practices can be repurposed to support campaign needs. The government’s capitulation is, in part, contributable to the fact that participants were willing and able to maintain their presence in the capital in the face of repression, extreme weather, and COVID-19. The material resources provided by the Sikh langars were the foundation on which that durability rested. Furthermore, the mobilization of entire villages and towns on behalf of the protest camps was facilitated by their prior experience serving the langars in their own gurdwaras. Organizers in the US can think of what tactics might be tied to the pre-existing skills and practices in the religious communities they seek to mobilize. Finally, the Sikh langars demonstrate how religious actors can contribute to a diverse movement in a way that promotes religious tolerance and fosters pluralism. 

Where to Learn More
Outlook Web Desk. “How ‘Langars’ Became the Life Force of Farmers’ Protests.” Outlook, 19 November 2021.
Pasricha, Anjana. “Sikh Tradition of Community Kitchens Sustains India’s Farmers Protest.” Voice of America, 14 December 2020.
Raj, Suhasinin, Mujib Mashal, and Hari Kumar. “Sikh Separatism is a Nonissue in India, Except as a Political Boogeyman.” The New York Times, 28 September 2023.
Singh, Shivam Shankar and Anand Venkatanarayanan. “The Anatomy of a Successful Protest, or How the Farmers Won Their Fight.” The Wire, 23 November 2021.

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

*By Adam Fefer
Time Period: 2010-2019
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Main Actors: Hungarian Evangelical Fellowship (HEF), Pastor Gábor Iványi.
Tactics
- Declarations by organizations and institutions
- Selective social boycott
- Protective presence
- Signed public statements

Hungary has become markedly less free and democratic since Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party won the 2010 elections. Using its parliamentary super-majorities, Fidesz has gerrymandered new districts in its favor, created fake parties to overwhelm its opponents, and used its media control to cover only itself while slandering the opposition. Fidesz’s ideological vision is one of illiberal, Christian, Hungarian nationalism; it opposes so-called “Western” notions of unqualified human rights, multiculturalism, and respect for religious, ethnic, and sexual minorities. With Hungarian opposition parties marginalized, several civil society actors have stepped up and attempted to combat Hungary’s democratic erosion.

One such civil society actor is the Hungarian Evangelical Fellowship (HEF) church, specifically Pastor Gábor Iványi. Iványi is no stranger to anti-authoritarian organizing, having worked --at times with Orbán-- against the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party dictatorship in the 1970s and 80s. Iványi officiated Orbán’s wedding and baptized his two eldest children. 

Since 2010, Iványi has criticized Orbán’s autocracy, illiberalism, and Christian nationalism. Iványi has expressed these criticisms in interviews with domestic and international media outlets. After Fidesz’s 2010 election victory, Iványi refused to attend Orbán’s inauguration. Iványi’s actions arguably played a role in provoking Orbán to undermine religious institutions: in late 2011, Fidesz passed its ‘Act C’ law that stripped nearly 300 churches and religious groups --including HEF-- of official state recognition. Act C deprived these churches of access to state-funded programs and subsidies.

The Act C law provoked both international and domestic judicial action. In 2017, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Act C violated the European Convention on Human Rights; it ordered the Hungarian government to compensate the Evangelical Fellowship and other churches that lost access to state subsidies. In addition, Hungary's Constitutional Court twice ruled that Orbán's government violated the constitution in its dealings with HEF, e.g., by depriving the church of public education subsidies. Iványi’s activism likely played a role in raising awareness about the dire financial situation of HEF and other Hungarian religious institutions. However, Iványi alleges that the full amount owed to his church by Orbán's government has not yet been paid. Additionally, his rhetoric arguably provoked government backlash; for example, in March 2022, Orbán’s government sent tax officials to raid Iványi’s office, claiming the church owes about $7.2 million in payroll taxes.

HEF runs multiple Budapest shelters for homeless, refugee, and Roma communities. All three groups have been marginalized during Orbán’s tenure. During Hungary’s 2015 migrant crisis, HEF cooked 600-800 meals per day and provided shelter for nearly 200 refugees. This was in marked contrast to the Catholic Church of Hungary, which denounced refugee-sheltering as human trafficking. Despite these efforts, HEF’s actions did little to counter Orbán’s anti-refugee rhetoric and policies. Refugees in Hungary continue to face discrimination and are often prevented from entering the country by Hungarian border police and militias.

Finally, in 2019, Pastor Iványi and other religious leaders authored an “Advent Statement,” which responded to Orbán’s claim that Hungary was being governed in accordance with “Christian Liberty.” The authors denounced this concept as “a slogan for exclusionary, hate-filled and corrosive policy…that systematically threatens democracy and the rule of law.” The statement had nearly 300 signatories but did not provoke an explicit response from the government.

The campaign by Pastor Iványi and the Hungarian Evangelical Fellowship has done much to raise awareness of Hungary’s democratic backsliding. However, civil society actors have struggled to stand as a pillar of Hungarian democracy. In both speed and depth, Hungary’s democratic erosion is unique: Orbán’s Fidesz party managed to capture the legislature, executive, judiciary, and media within a couple of years of its 2010 election victory. Hungarian civil society has accordingly struggled to act, even while refraining from using confrontational tactics that tend to provoke authoritarian repression. Without consistent international pressure on Fidesz, civil society is at a further disadvantage. Still, democracy activists would do well to emulate Pastor Iványi and HEF’s consistent and multi-pronged organizing and activism.

Where to Learn More
- Advent Statement of the Hungarian Evangelical Fellowship. 2019.
- Barry, O. (2022). “This Pastor Officiated Orbán’s Wedding. Now He’s One of His Fiercest Critics.” The World.
- Bayer, L. (2016). “Orbán’s ‘War Of Attrition’ against Churches.” POLITICO. 
- Kornai, J. Hungary's U-turn: Retreating from Democracy. J. Democracy, 26, 34. 2015.
- Loustau, Marc Roscoe. “Hungary’s Progressive Christian Resistance.” The Christian Century, May 31, 2023.
- Silliman, D. (2022). “Hungarian Fellowship Raided amid Conflict with Viktor Orbán.” Christianity Today.
- Walker, S. (2019). “Orbán Deploys Christianity with a Twist to Tighten Grip in Hungary.” The Guardian.

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

*By Adam Fefer
Time Period: 2016-2023
Location: Poland, especially Warsaw
Main Actors: Polish Episcopal Conference
Tactics
- Declarations by organizations and institutions
- Public speeches
- Boycotts of social affairs

Poland became less free and democratic after the Law and Justice party (PiS) won its 2015 presidential and legislative elections. PiS’s anti-system, populist platform --for example, emphasizing threats posed by Muslim immigrants to the Polish nation-- appealed to older, rural, and religious voters, many of whom lost out from Poland’s economic reforms following the collapse of communism. During its post-2015 tenure, PiS --led by Jarosław Kaczyński-- tightened its grip on the executive branch, media, opposition leaders, and academics, among others. New anti-terror laws empowered the PiS government to monitor and detain foreigners without judicial approval, while hate crimes against Muslims soared.

Christianity played a key role in PiS’s rise. For one, its alliance with the Polish Catholic Church --and especially ‘nationalist’ bishops-- helped PiS win the 2015 elections. As Poland is a Catholic-majority country, PiS and many of its supporters converge on moral issues like opposition to abortion and gay marriage. Meanwhile, PiS has used Christian rhetoric and symbolism to legitimize its policy agenda, for example opposing Muslim immigration that “pollutes” Poland’s pure, Christian nation. PiS supporters have used the symbol of a Rosary with an added clenched fist at their rallies. 

Liberal and conservative Polish bishops have both made statements and taken actions to try and halt PiS’ anti-democratic agenda, an agenda that nationalist bishops have furthered. Many bishops have denounced PiS’ anti-refugee policies, which PiS justifies on populist, xenophobic grounds. For example, in May 2016, Polish Archbishop Stanislaw Gadecki proclaimed that such policies “lack the spirit of Christ.” And in April 2017, the Episcopal Conference released a document denouncing PiS’ Christian nationalism as incompatible with “loving thy [refugee] neighbors.” In both of these examples, bishops employed biblical language to challenge the convictions of PiS and its Catholic constituents. In January 2018, the Episcopal Conference publicly celebrated both Migrants Day and the Day of Judaism, presenting a document offering church support to migrants.

Bishops have also been vocal in opposing PiS’ more overtly anti-democratic efforts. For example, in June 2017, Archbishop Gadecki and others publicly warned PiS not to undermine Polish judges’ autonomy. These warnings ostensibly led President Andrzej Duda to veto two bills that would have done just that. In May 2018, during a mass celebrating Poland’s Saint Stanislaw, the bishops denounced President Duda’s proposal to change the constitution --in unclear and vague ways-- as “an offense to God.” There they affirmed the democratic, pluralistic nature of their ideal Polish state. In July 2018, arguably because of pressure from Polish bishops, President Duda vetoed a law that would raise the threshold for parties competing in European Parliament elections.

Finally, Polish bishops have resisted PiS’ attempts to utilize Christian imagery and holy days for anti-democratic ends. For example, in November 2017, the Episcopal Conference refused to celebrate Mass during Poland’s Independence Day rallies. In their justification, Episcopate leaders drew attention to PiS’ Islamophobia and “unChristian nationalism.” And in November 2018, the bishops refused to grant PiS protesters permission to hold Mass in front of the Parliament building. 

The bishops’ activism eventually bore fruit in 2023, when PiS was defeated in Poland’s 2023 parliamentary elections. It is unclear precisely what role religious mobilization played in this process. But in a Catholic-majority country like Poland, it is safe to assume that the actions of Archbishops and other prelates did not go unnoticed. 

US democracy organizers can learn much from the model set by Polish bishops. For one, religious actors may be most effective when utilizing religious rhetoric. These efforts may be especially effective when incumbents themselves use religious rhetoric to legitimate their rule. Polish bishops used Catholic arguments to challenge both PiS’ anti-democratic measures as well as PiS’ attempts to define itself as a Catholic party. As some Republican elites work to construct their own version of Christian, anti-democratic nationalism, US religious leaders can endorse democratic norms by drawing on the moral-theological ideas they know best.

A second lesson from the Polish case is that pro-democracy leaders, even if they are an ecclesial minority, can still succeed in countering dominant narratives. Although Polish nationalist bishops gained unprecedented access to power through their alliance with PiS, liberal and conservative bishops succeeded in drawing attention to PiS’ anti-democratic measures. In the US, liberal Catholic bishops are also a minority, owing to the limited number of appointments made by Pope Francis. However, they can still be effective in countering those bishops whose focus on the politics of abortion renders them more accepting of anti-democratic measures. Importantly, joint statements and actions by pro-democratic liberal and conservative Catholic faith leaders and parishioners would go a long way towards countering rising far-right authoritarianism in the US.

Where to Learn More
- Allen, J. L. (2016). With Pope’s cardinal picks, Bernardin’s ‘seamless garment’ is back. Crux.
- Benson, R. (2023). Poland’s Democratic Resurgence: From Backsliding to Beacon. Center for American Progress.
- Campbell, E. (2020). Poland's government is leading a Catholic revival. It has minorities and liberals worried. ABC News Australia. 
- Csaky, Z. (2021). Capturing Democratic Institutions: Lessons from Hungary and Poland. Freedom House. 
- de Oliviera, A.P. (2017). Of popes and politicians. Deutsche Welle. 
- Luxmoore, J. (2017). Eastern Europe's church leaders face growing criticism over refugees. National Catholic Reporter. 
- Meyer Resende, M., & Hennig, A. (2021). Polish catholic bishops, nationalism and liberal democracy. Religions, 12(2), 94.
- Pawlak, J. & Ptak, A. (2021). As Poland's Church embraces politics, Catholics depart. Reuters.

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

*By Lucianne Nelson
Time Period: Civil Rights Era, 1955-1970s
Location: United States
Main Actors: The Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC); affiliate churches; Civil Rights organizers
Tactics
- Protest–teach-ins to educate and encourage participation
- Mass action–sharing information and raising awareness
- Boycotts–refusal to purchase certain goods or utilize services

Following the success of the Montgomery bus boycotts, civil rights leader Bayard Rustin identified a need for a central organization to coordinate and support nonviolent direct action across the South. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., consulting with Rustin, invited other Black leaders and ministers to establish a coalition to leverage Black churches’ influential networks, independence, and influence as a force against segregation. Together, they established the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1957. The SCLC framed the (mis)treatment of “Negroes [as] a basic spiritual problem,” and the organization called on churches to “delve deeper into the struggle [for desegregation] and to do so with greater reliance on nonviolence and with greater unity, coordination, sharing and Christian understanding.” Unlike other umbrella groups that recruited individual members, the SCLC leveraged the collective impact of faith communities to fight segregation and advocate for voting rights. The SCLC’s work was critical to the Civil Rights movement.

The SCLC began its first major campaign, the Crusade for Citizenship, in late 1957. The crusade was developed in August 1957 in response to pending civil rights legislation in Congress. The main objective was to register thousands of Black voters - historically targeted with violence and disenfranchised - in time for the 1958 and 1960 elections. The Crusade raised awareness among Black Americans that “their chances for improvement rest on their ability to vote.” Funded by donations from local churches and other private donors, the SCLC established voter education clinics throughout the South. While the SCLC did not achieve its ambition of doubling the number of Black voters in the 1958 and 1960 elections, the Crusade did accomplish the SCLC’s overarching goal of consolidating churches and regional organizations into a movement.

SCLC campaigns that focused on the desegregation of individual cities were more successful. The SCLC joined local movements in Albany, GA, Birmingham, AL, and St. Augustine, FL to coordinate mass protests and nonviolent civil disobedience. In 1963, the SCLC’s Alabama affiliate wrote that the Birmingham campaign was “a moral witness to give our community a chance to survive.” SCLC members educated Black citizens about the philosophy and strategies of nonviolence and nonviolent action and appealed for volunteers. The SCLC relied on tactics such as mass meetings, direct actions, lunch counter sit-ins, marches on City Hall, and boycotts of local merchants. The desegregation campaigns expanded to include additional tactics like kneel-ins at churches, sit-ins at libraries, and marches to register voters. Because of these campaigns, the organization quickly moved to the forefront of the civil rights movement.

The SCLC reflected Dr. King’s belief that the Christian faith entailed a responsibility to reform unjust laws and policies. However, the SCLC’s position that churches had a spiritual imperative to be politically engaged—especially in pursuit of racial equality—was controversial. Even some Black religious leaders opposed SCLC’s overt call to activism because they considered segregation a “social” issue that fell outside the scope of the church’s mission. The SCLC largely failed to attract moderate white churches for similar reasons. While some Christian progressives challenged white supremacy, this support was often clustered at white seminaries, in denominational headquarters, and on the foreign mission field. Billy Graham, a highly visible white Christian evangelist, supported some measures of desegregation but kept his support for the SCLC private. Oral histories and contemporary documentation indicate that, even when white pastors did attempt to affiliate with the SCLC, their congregations rejected and undermined those efforts. As a result, very few white churches officially joined the SCLC. 

Though the SCLC did not convince many white churches to join its coalition, it was nevertheless successful in recruiting white Christians (and Jews) on an individual level. Reverend Hosea Williams, who had been joined by white college students for various short-term civil rights projects facilitated by local SCLC affiliates, developed an idea to connect teams of young, white volunteers with Black churches. This grew into the SCLC’s Summer Community Organization and Political Education (SCOPE) Project, a voter registration and civil rights initiative. The SCOPE project began in 1965 and deployed 500 white college volunteers (from nearly 100 universities) across six Southern states to areas where local Black leaders had requested aid from the SCLC. The Black church provided a network of homes for SCOPE volunteers to stay at while they registered voters and provided civic literacy classes. 

These white college students provided critical support that helped the SCLC and Black churches accomplish grassroots change. SCOPE volunteers reported violations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Based on this information, the Department of Justice conducted targeted investigations and sent additional support to counties that had denied Black peoples’ rights to vote. SCOPE alumni include activist Catholic priests, Jewish rabbis, and evangelical pastors. By inviting young, white people to act on their faith directly, the SCLC found a creative alternative to white churches’ resistance. In this way, the SCLC maximized the collective impact and influence of religion. The SCOPE Project offers an interesting model for re-routing individual “defectors” or dissidents toward changemaking initiatives and for supporting them in taking actions of courage beyond their religious communities. 

A vibrant pro-democracy movement can engage and deploy individuals to protest, boycott, and participate in mass action but these tactics are most powerful when there is well-resourced scaffolding backing up public action. The SCLC recognized that churches can provide crucial infrastructure and networks of support for coalition building. The work of preserving and revitalizing American democracy relies on both the responsiveness of individual activists and advocates and a more sustained response by formal organizations. This case demonstrates how faith communities can strengthen and reinforce pro-democracy movements. 

Where to Learn More
- SCLC History
- Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC)
- Carolyn Dupont, Mississippi Praying (2015)

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

*By Lucianne Nelson
Time Period: 2020-present
Location: United States
Main Actors: The Southern Baptist Convention; Russell Moore
Tactics
- Personal Statements
- Blogging or Online Article Writing
- Newspapers and Journals

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. This denomination is also among the more conservative evangelical faith communities. Since the early 2000s, the SBC has appointed increasingly right-leaning leaders who are determined to stop what they see as a concerning submission to progressive social positions around immigration, racial reconciliation, gender and sexuality, and women and families. As the SBC began to merge its American and Christian identities, linking traditional faith with America’s constitutional democracy, the internal denominational culture conditioned the rise of Christian nationalism (an ideology which seeks to merge Christian and American identities) among its members. That ideology was on prominent display during the January 6^th attack on the US Capitol. This caselet provides an overview of how the Southern Baptist Convention responded to the insurrection. It also addresses the SBC’s struggle to develop a unified front against subsequent attacks on American democracy. 

Unlike other religious traditions, the SBC is not governed by a top-down hierarchy; instead, it is made up of individual churches that voluntarily opt into participation by agreeing to a shared faith and practice. Churches are not required to seek or receive approval from a central authority prior to affiliation, and every church that joins the Convention has equal standing. All churches are completely independent of each other and, as such, fully autonomous. The SBC has an executive committee that manages the day-to-day operations of the denomination. The independent churches select members to that committee at regular intervals through a popular vote. This executive committee has the authority to represent the SBC’s public stance on various social issues, discipline churches who stray from the official theological pillars of the faith, and pursue any other actions delegated to them by the denomination as a whole. The SBC has also created other committees to support the Executive Committee in this work, including the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (which acts as the public policy arm of the SBC). 

In the early 2010s, divisions over ‘social’ issues related to race, politics, and gender began to take hold of the Southern Baptist Convention. Many self-identifying Baptists encouraged their churches and delegates to the SBC to push the Convention to adopt a more progressive stance on these issues while others insisted that the SBC maintain its conservative position. Russell Moore, who was president of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) from 2013 through early 2020, garnered national attention as a more measured voice within the Convention. He warned about the growth of Christian Nationalism and encouraged the SBC to distance itself from Donald Trump in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. Though Moore remained staunchly conservative on issues like abortion and LGBTQ-related policies, he nonetheless warned that sacrificing the church's moral values in the short term would result in a long-term acceptance of what he deemed immoral behavior.

After the January 6th storming of the United States Capitol, Moore used his personal blog to condemn it as “an insurrection of domestic terrorists, incited and fomented by the President of the United States.” Moore told his readers that, if he were a sitting member of the US Congress, he would have voted to remove Trump from office even if it cost him his seat.Moore immediately urged Christians to be truthful that democracy is under assault and called upon the church to be “people who are for integrity” under all circumstances by acknowledging that Joe Biden was elected president. The SBC Executive Committee assembled a task force to investigate Moore, ultimately issuing a report that reprimanded him for making these public comments in contradiction to official SBC positions. Moore resigned from leadership within the SBC and listed the “threats from white nationalists and white supremacists, including within [the] Convention” he received after condemning the insurrection among the reasons he was stepping down.

While many other evangelical leaders—within the SBC, as well as from other denominations—also issued statements condemning the violence of January 6^th, Moore directly connected that assault on democracy to a pattern of permissive silence within the American church more broadly. Since stepping down from the SBC, Moore has continued to speak out against the anti-democracy trend he sees gathering momentum within evangelicalism. Moore also continues to write to an evangelical audience about why democracy matters. He also regularly interviews with mainstream journalists and often makes guest appearances on podcasts to encourage evangelicals to bolster democracy. 

Moore is the most public and high-profile figure within the Baptist denomination to engage in this work but his resignation from the SBC functioned as a catalyst amongst affiliated churches as individual members and more local leaders also push back against the anti-democracy trend Moore identified. These efforts are relatively informal. While many members of the SBC are still figuring out what tactics will be the most impactful in the long-term, some recurring activities have included:

• Publicly posting on social media platforms to condemn the insurrection like Beth Moore (Founder of Living Proof ministries, not related to Russell Moore), Greg Laurie, and Rick Warren (pastors at two of the largest nondenominational megachurches in the US).
• Elevating a pro-democracy vision for “faithful citizenship” via externally-facing outlets such as op-eds (see here and here), news programming, and podcasts.
• Using trade-specific publications to inform, encourage, resource, and connect ministry leaders in pushing back against Christian nationalism and anti-democratic trends within conservative faith communities. 
• Joining with affiliated Baptist and Evangelical institutions to denounce the insurrection on January 6^th, condemn Christian Nationalism, and create resources to combat anti-democratic beliefs amongst the Christian Right.

The key takeaway, though, is that there is growing momentum within the SBC and other conservative Christian denominations to take on a campaign for protecting democracy here in the United States. Russell Moore, along with other prominent conservatives, launched a project called The After Party which is intended to help Christians work against any anti-democratic movement within the American Religious Right. Moore recently emphasized that the future of democracy requires him—and other evangelicals—to come alongside other pro-democracy groups in a trans-religious, multicultural coalition (or, to use Moore’s framing, “a cross-cutting friendship”). Other conservative evangelicals have also formed coalitions to combat the rise Christian Nationalism and anti-democratic trends within the American church. These include Vote Common Good (which aims to inspire, energize, and mobilize people of faith to make the common good their voting criteria) and Christians Against Christian Nationalism (who fight the ideology's violence from within the faith). Moore firmly believes that these kinds of pro-democracy projects “must be done for the sake of our country and our common humanity.”

Where to Learn More
- Southern Baptist Leaders Condemn Storming of US Capitol
- Christian nationalism & the January 6 attack on the Capitol
- What is Christian Nationalism?
- Southern Baptist Convention president, ‘White Evangelical Racism’ author, and Respecting Religion co-host discuss Christian nationalism

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

*By Lucianne Nelson
Time Period: 2020-present
Location: United States
Main Actors: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Tactics
- Public Statements

In the immediate lead-up to the inauguration of President Biden, the governing body of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints urged church members “to honor democratic institutions and processes, and to obey, honor, and sustain the law.” And, as early as October of 2020, high-profile members of the Church warned that they would oppose any post-election unrest. Dallin Oaks, First Counselor to the First Presidency, clarified in his sermon at the Church’s General Conference that “We [members of the Church] peacefully accept the results of elections. We will not participate in the violence threatened by those disappointed with the outcome.”

Despite these preemptive statements from church leadership, some Latter-day Saints did participate in the insurrection at the United States Capitol on January 6^th. Several of these individuals even incorporated sacred texts and imagery into banners and clothing during the attack. These conflicting views of democracy within the Church gesture at the layered challenges that members of the modern church are wrestling with, and this caselet provides an overview of how the Church is dealing with the aftermath of January 6^th. It also addresses the Church’s efforts to establish a more fortified front against subsequent attacks on American democracy. 

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints experienced periods of intense religious discrimination throughout US history, and episodes of violent persecution led the Latter-day Saints to develop a wariness towards the American government. Joseph Smith—the first prophet and founder of the Latter-day Saints faith—initially encouraged his followers to respect the United States Constitution as “a glorious standard” that “is founded in the wisdom of God.” 

The Church encountered mob violence as it grew, and the US government neglected to intervene or protect Latter-day Saints from attack. The Church migrated through different states in order to avoid conflict but continued to face extermination orders and violence that effectively amounted to religiously motivated genocide. Joseph Smith was eventually killed by a mob while in American custody. This event created a disenchantment with mainstream America, and the church fled to Utah territory (which was outside of US jurisdiction at that time). 

Even after they fled west, the Latter-day Saints continued to clash with the United States government. Nevertheless, they maintained a reverence for the Constitution and conceptualized themselves as true defenders of America’s founding principles. The Church adopted a bifurcated position in which they supported the US Constitution but defied American policy. Church leaders like Smith and Brigham Young (the second prophet who took over after Smith’s death) prophesied that the US would ultimately fail, and that Latter-day Saints would step into the ensuing chaos to preserve a collapsing system. As the Church’s theology and culture was refined over the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Latter-day Saints continued to maintain a level of distrust toward centralized government.

Church leadership eventually chose to integrate the Church into mainstream American society and the current Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aims to be a politically neutral body. But, given its complicated history with government in the United States, the Church retains traces of conservative libertarianism. Modern Church leaders often still articulate a religious vision where “America is a chosen land meant to be ruled by godly figures, divine truths, and libertarian values.” According to data from the Public Religion Research Institute, nearly forty-six percent of self-identifying Latter-day Saints believe the “Big Lie” that the 2020 election was rampant with voter fraud and the outcome was stolen. PRRI also found that the members of the Church are likelier than others to believe in disinformation that undermines American democracy. Even as official Church leadership encouraged the Church to support the 2020 electoral outcomes, they struggled to effectively overcome these modern iterations of a historical distrust. 

Utah Senators Mike Lee and Mitt Romney—and their vastly different responses to January 6^th—offer a study of contrasts that illustrates the tensions within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While Senator Lee enthusiastically supported, justified, and encouraged President Trump’s attempt to subvert the 2020 election, Senator Romney steadfastly opposed attempts to undermine American democracy. Romney was the first (and arguably most high-profile) Republican in the US Senate to vote to convict President Trump in the 2020 impeachment trial. Romney, a more establishment Republican, aligned with Church leadership in supporting democracy. Like the official Church, Senator Romney is conservative, but he embraces Church member integration into mainstream American politics. He voted to convict former President Trump in 2021 for inciting the January 6^th insurrection. Senator Lee, however, actively participated in efforts to block President Biden from taking office during the transition between administrations. He also endorsed the “fake electors” scheme prior to the attack on the Capitol. Senator Lee is a more populist politician, and his political behavior carries forward an anti-government distrust that lingers in Latter-day Saints culture.

Other Latter-day Saints also took courageous action in response to the crisis of January 6^th. Rusty Bowers, former Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, gained national recognition for his efforts to resist attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. A former statewide leader, Bowers is a staunch conservative, but he refused to cooperate with unconstitutional attempts to invalidate Arizona’s election results. Bowers publicly asserted that there was no evidence of election fraud, and also denied a bill in the Arizona House of Representatives that would have allowed the state legislature to reject the outcomes of the 2020 election. Bowers consistently emphasized his commitment to democracy, despite being threatened, doxed, and harassed for his position. In 2022, Bowers testified before the US House January 6^th Committee and detailed how his life became completely upended by anti-democratic actors. Bowers stated that his faith motivated him to uphold his oath of office and protect democracy.

The organization Mormon Women for Ethical Government—MWEG—also identifies their faith as foundational to their work of protecting a peaceful and democratic society. While MWEG is not endorsed by or officially affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the group is nonetheless guided by faith and “honors and sustains the Church’s doctrines and leaders.” Much of their work utilizes bridgebuilding tactics to engage its members and other citizens in the political process, support civic leaders in facing tough challenges, and promote peaceful discourse. During the period between Election Day 2020 and the January 6^th insurrection, MWEG issued a series of action calls that urged their members to request that members of Congress acknowledge and certify the 2020 election results. MWEG expressed concern about the attacks on American democracy and offered concrete actions that its members could take to demonstrate support for democratic norms. And, after the attack on the US Capitol, MWEG denounced the events of that day as violent and anti-democratic. MWEG published additional calls to action that encouraged its members (and all Americans) to offer robust support to leaders who take courageous action in defense of democracy.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is uniquely positioned to exercise spiritual authority to influence and mobilize the political behavior of its members. The Church features a centralized organizational structure and Church doctrine requires members to remain in faithful obedience to its leadership. In fact, individual members who wish to participate in Church life are required to affirm that they believe that (1) the president of the Church is the sole person authorized to speak for God and (2) that this Prophet is their primary authority over day-to-day life. Many activities that are central to Latter-day Saints’ religious life—such as teaching Sunday School, conducting home ministering visits, and religious outreach—channel community consciousness through the Church. Latter-day Saints’ congregations view civic engagement as an expression of faith and are thus primed to be part of efforts to fortify American democracy. 

Where to Learn More
- October 2020 General Conference
- Get Involved - MWEG
- Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol
- The “Big Lie”: Most Republicans Believe the 2020 Election was Stolen

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

*This article was written by Chief Organizer Maria J. Stephan and was first published on Sojourners, you can access the full article without a paywall here.

How Christians can defend and nurture democracy

IN 2012, I was a U.S. State Department officer deployed to Turkey to work with the Syrian opposition. It was an opportunity to support Syrian activists waging a remarkable popular struggle against an authoritarian government that had responded to peaceful protest with bullets and torture. For nearly a year, Syrian Sunnis, Christians, Kurds, Druze, Alawites, and others used demonstrations, sit-ins, resistance music, colorful graffiti, consumer boycotts, and dozens of other nonviolent tactics to challenge the Bashar al-Assad administration. But the nonviolent movement was unable to remain resilient in the face of brutality, external support for civil resistance was weak, and finally Syrians took up arms. This played into Assad’s hand. Death, displacement, and destruction skyrocketed. Extremists exploited the chaos. The Syrian nonviolent pro-democracy forces were inspired and courageous but lacked organization and adequate support to prepare them for the long haul. This haunts me to this day.

I’ve worked around the world with scholars, activists, policy makers, and faith communities to design effective support for nonviolent struggles to defend and advance freedom and dignity. I’ve been mentored by leaders of the U.S. civil rights movement, the greatest pro-democracy movement in our history, whose strategic campaigns to dismantle racial authoritarianism hold great relevance today.

As we head into the 2024 election, the risks to freedom and democracy are higher than they’ve been for decades. Religious communities who understand that democracy is the best modern governing system for protecting religious freedom and advancing shared values have a critical role to play as partisans for democracy.

A People’s Government

DEMOCRACY IS THE delicate balance of collective self-rule (majority rule) and civil liberties (minority rights). For a vibrant, multifaith democracy to thrive, we must reject attempts to concentrate government power in the hands of a few or with those who are not constitutionally accountable to the governed.

You can access the rest of the article without a paywall here.

*By former Research Assistant Sama Shah

Promoting Democracy, Protecting Faith

The importance of a robust democracy in safeguarding the rights and fostering the civic participation of the religious cannot be overstated. Throughout history, it has become evident that nations that veer off the democratic path, or that never developed strong democratic institutions, often exhibit the troubling dominance of a single faith community over marginalized others, or the systematic suppression of religious belief altogether. In India, for example, the erosion of democratic values under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been characterized by the oppression of religious minorities, particularly Muslims, who have been the subject of hijab bans, victims of vigilante violence, and scapegoated for the spread of COVID-19, in addition to having their very citizenship rights threatened following the passage of the 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act.

Meanwhile, in Europe, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has adopted the notion of “Christian democracy” as a cover for what has been a steady process of undermining civil liberties and weakening the country’s democratic institutions, including the formerly independent judiciary and free press. Stoking fears regarding the Islamization of Europe, Orbán erected a border fence amid the 2015 European migrant crisis to keep Syrians and other asylum seekers from entering the country. And, whereas Muslim refugees and migrants have been constructed as an external threat to Christian Hungary, internally, Orbán and his allies have appealed to bigoted notions of wealthy Jews conspiring to destroy Western Christian civilization to solidify Hungarian nationalism.

Taking a page from Orbán’s playbook, in Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has successfully portrayed the non-Muslim West as a foreign enemy and existential threat which seeks to “bring [Turkey] to heel.” Calling on the general public to be patient with respect to the government’s domestic failures, given this looming existential crisis, Erdoğan has steadily infused Turkish politics with ethnoreligious references and attempts to unify the country under a singular Turkish Muslim identity, consequently marginalizing and portraying non-Sunni Muslim and non-ethnically Turkish minorities as potential insider threats. In the end, Erdoğan’s unification of ethnic and Islamic nationalism has empowered Islamist and far-right parties to further erode Turkey’s democracy, resulting in a weakened parliament, limited press freedoms, and a society polarized along religious-conservative and progressive-secular lines.

In these cases, it becomes evident that the erosion of democracy often leads to the targeting of both minority faith communities and members of majoritarian faith communities who hold unorthodox or non-mainstream views, as in the case of progressive Christians in Hungary or non-Sunni and liberal Muslims in Turkey. However, this should not signal to religious groups that security lies in disengaging from the political or public sphere as a means of avoiding state attention; rather, for faith-based communities, strength lies in actively participating in and defending democratic life, which can ensure that protections for diverse and minority religious groups remain in place.

American Religious History

American religious communities have played a complex role in the formation of the country’s democracy, with the history of these communities also telling the history of both right- and left-wing social and political movements, the fight for civil rights, and the ever-evolving landscape of religious freedom. From the early days of Colonial America, when religious persecution in England led Puritans to seek refuge across the Atlantic, to the transformative accomplishments of the Civil Rights Era to the current challenges presented by a rising White Christian Nationalist movement, faith communities have emerged as powerful and controversial agents in shaping the trajectory of American democracy.

As early as its settlement by the English, America has struggled to remain steadfast to the very ideals of religious liberty that motivated the first Puritans to establish the Massachusetts Bay Colony. A theocratic state, Massachusetts Bay Colony and its Puritan government did not tolerate people of other faiths, persecuting and banishing religious outsiders who attempted to settle and worship in Puritan towns. In spite of the hostility with which religious others were met, members of the recently formed Religious Society of Friends, the Quakers, began arriving in Boston in 1656, demanding the right to live and practice their religion. Yet, despite the Puritans’ own experiences with religious persecution, they met the Quakers with severe violence, often imprisoning and beating them before forcing them onto ships leaving the colony.

Still, Quakers continued to arrive in Boston by ship and foot, becoming bolder in their protests against Puritan oppression. They began rising to speak following Puritan sermons and during the trials of other Quakers arrested for preaching and practicing their faith. They held unlawful meetings, published pamphlets, and spurned authorities by leaving fines unpaid and refusing to work in jails, even when punished with food deprivation. Ultimately, the years of torture, imprisonment, deportation, and execution, and the Quakers’ commitment to their faith despite it all, deeply impacted many in Puritan society, some of whom came to support their Quaker community members by bribing jailers into feeding starving Quaker inmates and even converting to Quakerism themselves. Eventually, by 1675, after two decades of protest, the arrival of diverse groups of settlers, and the intervention of King Charles II at the plea of a Quaker messenger, Quakers and other religious communities were freely living and practicing in Massachusetts.

That it was, from the very outset, a minority faith group that ultimately forced the Puritan government to extend the principle of religious liberty to all is a testament to the important role that religious actors play as checks on faith-based extremism, as well as the inaccuracy of characterizing the struggle for tolerant, open societies as exclusively at odds with the political and personal aims of the religious. However, even as ideas of community and belonging stretched to accommodate different groups of white Christian settlers, one group was consistently excluded not only in the realm of religious liberties, but all human rights – enslaved Africans.

Yet, even as they grounded their pro-slavery positions in readings of the Bible that ostensibly sanctioned the practice of slavery, American slaveholders ultimately and unintentionally introduced the very people they enslaved to what would become a powerful force in driving abolitionist movements. These slaveholders, who had correctly assumed that portions of the Bible may inspire slave rebellions, going as far as to print special “slave Bibles” with sections, including the Exodus story, removed, ultimately could not prevent early Black churches from raising and shaping preachers whose fight for freedom did not eschew scripture but rather embraced it. From Sojourner Truth to Federick Douglass to Harriet Tubman, many icons of the abolition era were raised within Black churches that, particularly in the North, offered a space free from the white gaze. In these churches, Black people not only found solace and meaning through worship, but also planned slave rebellions, supported the Underground Railroad, and nurtured their talents as future spokespeople of the abolitionist movement. In the end, it is these liberation-oriented re-readings that have achieved broad acceptance, with the notion of a Biblical justification for slavery relegated to America’s past.

Nearly a century later, during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, Black churches and faith leaders would again serve as pivotal institutions and actors in the fight against racial injustice. These churches not only served as spiritual safe havens for Black Americans, but also became centers of community organizing and empowerment. They provided spaces for activists to strategize, learn the tactics of nonviolent resistance, and coordinate grassroots movements. When school boards refused to desegregate, they opened their doors to Black and white students, running freedom schools that taught Black history and civil rights. They were responsible for the spiritual and moral training and often offered the first platforms and leadership positions held by iconic Black religious leaders and activists, including but not nearly limited to Martin Luther King Jr., Andrew Young, Fred Shuttlesworth, Joseph Lowery, Wyatt T. Walker, Jesse Jackson, and John Lewis.

Moreover, during a time in which women lacked positions of authority in religious institutions, they continued to take inspiration from church teachings to create leadership opportunities for themselves elsewhere. One such woman was Fannie Lou Hammer, a devout Baptist known for infusing her political rhetoric with spiritual hymns and Biblical references. One of the women leaders of the Civil Rights Movement, Hammer organized extensively with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, also co-founding the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party and the National Women’s Political Caucus, both organizations aimed at increasing Black and female voices in government, with Hammer herself running for Senate seat in 1964. Other faith-driven Black women during this time also leveraged their skills outside the church to support the movement for civil rights, like Mahalia Jackson, whose wealth and influence, a significant portion of which she used to back various civil rights causes, came from her highly successful career as a gospel singer.

Faith Communities and Right-wing Nationalism

Yet, despite the enduring ties between faith, democracy, and justice, present-day American religious communities, and specifically Christian communities, must also confront the lasting connection between faith and right-wing nationalism. While the term White Christian Nationalism (WCN) has seen an increase in use, particularly from the 2016 elections and onwards, the phenomenon itself is nothing new. According to sociologists Philip Gorski and Samuel Perry, authors of The Flag and the Cross: White Christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy, WCN in the U.S. can be traced back to the late 1600s, when the first American colonies, alongside their institutions and laws, were being shaped around Protestant ideals and calls to spread the faith among non-whites and non-Christians. Emerging in this era, according to Gorski and Perry, WCN would remain an important force in American politics, gaining influence in moments when white Christians feel threatened by forces outside their control, such as war, increased immigration, and economic depression.

Given that recent years have involved heated national and political debates on these very conditions, it is not surprising that WCN has once again emerged as an appealing answer to the various challenges of modernity, including the rising cost of living, rapid technological and societal change, and the increasing alienation many Americans feel from their communities. WCN, with its emphasis on a return to a past of triumphant Christianity, in which the term ‘Christianity’ denotes a particularly hierarchical and exclusive societal structure designed to benefit the present-day downtrodden white Christian family, then offers a solution reassuring to many white Christians who have experienced a loss of power due to America’s shifting demographics and decline in Church membership.

As witnessed in 2016, WCN is not a movement restricted to American churches; rather, as detailed in a recent report commissioned by the Kairos Center and MoveOn Education Fund, All of U.S.: Organizing to Counter White Christian Nationalism and Build a Pro-Democracy Society, white Christian nationalists have embarked on a “visionary, organized, well-funded, and multi-generational effort to secure white, Christian, minority rule.” Ultimately, this movement has successfully captured key political leaders; influential churches, including many evangelical and, increasingly, Catholic churches; and large voting bases within the Republican Party. This rightward shift among a faction of America’s religious institutions has inspired various acts of political violence and rollbacks of civil rights, making it critical that religious actors concerned about growing polarization within their communities work to target the roots of this fanaticism as first-responders.

Fortunately, to the benefit of the pro-democracy movement and to religious actors seeking ways to get involved in countering WCN in their communities, many religious groups have long identified the problems of polarization and democratic erosion in the U.S., searching for solutions that encourage the co-existence of healthy Christian identities and commitment to democracy. One such group is the American Values Coalition (AVC), which organizes small group courses, conferences, and other meetings to educate conservative Christian communities on the dangers of political polarization and consistent exposure to disinformation. What makes AVC’s programming so powerful is that their course instructors and event speakers are often other conservative Christians, particularly pastors, who are able to effectively challenge WCN using moral and theological frameworks familiar to their audiences. After successfully drawing away the communities they work with from extremist ideologies, participants in AVC programming are able to embody a more inclusive Christianity, forming communities that continue to provide a sense of belonging and purpose, while rejecting religious radicalism.

Similarly working to reduce polarization and, in particular, interreligious conflict, the organization Peace Catalyst International (PCI) trains Christian and other faith leaders in conflict resolution and peacebuilding strategies so they are better equipped to manage both intra and intercommunity conflicts. PCI and PCI-trained peacemakers have worked extensively with Muslim communities both in the U.S. and abroad, hosting social events, collaborating on service projects, and engaging in dialogues on a variety of political, social, and faith-related issues. From the U.S. to Bosnia, PCI’s work demonstrates the potential of faith groups to create understanding and mitigate conflicts via shared religious commitments.

Faith-based organizations have also played an important role in get-out-the-vote (GOTV) initiatives, particularly in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election. The Faithful Democracy coalition, for example, coordinated a multifaith GOTV campaign by providing religious organizations with GOTV messaging, resources, and social media strategies to increase political participation among the religious. Similarly, the groups Faith in Public Life and Bend the Arc have organized various faith organizations to support the Count Every Vote campaign, a nonpartisan effort that was aimed at protecting the integrity of the 2020 election. And, before the 2020 election results were announced, another faith organization, Faith Leaders United to Support Free and Fair Elections, released a statement encouraging acceptance of the election results and a peaceful transfer of power.

However, when calls for peace following the announcement of the election results were met with an attack on the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021, it was actually many faith leaders that took the lead in identifying and condemning the WCN ideology that motivated the attackers. In fact, following the insurrection, a group of Christian leaders, including the heads of major denominations, sent a letter to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, in which they specifically asked lawmakers to investigate WCN’s role as a motivator of the insurrection.

Following the turbulent 2020 election cycle, and in response to complaints lodged by members of low-income and communities of color around intimidation and violence at polling locations, faith communities acted to improve democratic norms and procedures during the 2022 midterm elections. One woman, Reverend Barbara Williams-Skinner of Faiths United to Save Democracy, recruited faith leaders across religious traditions to serve as a poll chaplains, whose roles were to keep the peace at polling locations frequented by marginalized communities. Ultimately, as prominent as ethno-religious and Christian nationalist language has been in far-right spaces, leaders within this same faith community have also been at the forefront of efforts to preserve democratic norms by working within and outside of their churches.

Call to Action

At their best, faith communities promote values of compassion, tolerance, and justice, which are essential to a flourishing democracy. Their contributions extend far beyond places of worship; they act as catalysts for positive change, building strong, happy communities and promoting civic engagement. Religious practice is also consistently the behavioral variable most associated with charitable giving, with the religious being more likely to give to religious and secular causes than the less or non-religious.

Religious communities often also embody diversity, embracing individuals from various backgrounds and beliefs, providing the physical space and spiritual guidance needed for both intra-faith and interfaith dialogue and understanding. In doing so, they are well-positioned to bridge divides and foster a shared commitment to democratic ideals. Conversely, the faltering of democracy often results in the loss of the rights and freedoms of people of faith, or the distortion of diverse religious traditions and scriptural interpretations in service of authoritarian agendas, making it all the more critical that faith communities are actively included in the work of protecting and promoting democracy.

However, the work of challenging WCN and other forms of faith-based radicalism and violence in service of broader pro-democracy goals cannot be the duty of religious actors and organizations alone. Many secular activists and organizations possess key resources, connections, and organizing experience from which religious groups may benefit when working within their communities. Concurrently, many religious leaders have a wealth of experience in spiritual (and general emotional) care, community building, deradicalization, and political organizing, all of which secular groups can learn from and leverage in broader pro-democracy activism.

Given the importance of building a broad-based movement to counter rising authoritarianism, which has always been integrally linked to racism and white supremacy in the United States, here are a few recommendations for advancing that goal.

Strengthen the connective tissue between faith organizations, democracy coalitions, and social justice movements: Faith leaders are powerful sources of moral guidance and have the ability to inspire their followers toward change. They can and have led movements within their congregations to promote positive civic engagement and deradicalize fringe members. By getting involved in the efforts of secular organizations to create democratic change, faith leaders can use their theological training, particularly in ethics, community care, and community building, to bring together diverse groups and contribute to shaping movements that reflect the principles of justice and human dignity.

However, secular activists should exercise some caution in their outreach to faith groups, particularly with regards to speaker requests and other event invitations. Referred to by some faith leaders as “rent-a-collar" requests – in which religious officials are asked to participate in actions to provide a moral cover for whatever position an activist group may hold – this form of outreach may be perceived as insincere. Rather, secular activists should remain open to learning from what faith leaders have already achieved within their congregations and take seriously the desire of the religious to translate their religious beliefs into action, including in volunteer, community organizing, and planning roles. Not only does this work grant faith actors a new level of investment and ownership of pro-democracy spaces and causes, but it also addresses the problems of alienation that lead many vulnerable communities toward religious and political radicalization.

Address the crisis of loneliness by creating spaces that allow both political organizing and human connection to flourish: As political philosophers have long posited, and recent scholarship has come to affirm, social exclusion and isolation are leading forces behind radicalization. A powerful strategy for preventing religious and political extremism from taking root in white Christian communities, then, is creating non-partisan, non-denominational forums through which people can gather and find community. Organizing in low-income small towns in Southern Indiana, a region under the influence of aggressive right-wing ideologies, the community organization Hoosier Action has already identified the power of this strategy in driving down allegiance to extremist and exclusionary political movements. By providing these communities a forum to connect around issues and activities that do not give into partisan ideologies, such as ritual prayers, gardening, sharing meals, physical movement, and storytelling, Hoosier Action members create social connections that they may have otherwise sought out in more exclusionary groups. In this way, the spiritual and social needs of participants are met without WCN being presented as an answer to the difficulties faced by white Christian communities. The group United Vision for Idaho uses a similar approach grounded in dialogue and deep listening to build community with those who are vulnerable to being recruited by white nationalist groups.

Taking lessons from this work, pro-democracy groups can similarly aim to move beyond strict political organizing to address deeper human needs, perhaps by incorporating multifaith prayers, spiritual writings, and/or discussion of potential faith-based motivators bringing people to organizing work. By being open to collaborating with faith-based groups and acknowledging the values of the religious as legitimate motivators for pro-democracy activism, and not simply nationalist bigotry, secular groups can begin the work of countering polarization within their own movements, as an example to broader society.

Strengthen intra-faith dialogue on religious extremism and democratic erosion: As demonstrated by the work of the American Values Coalition, white Christians have an important role to play in combatting polarization and authoritarianism. White Christian pastors and faith leaders often have direct experience and relationships with white Christians at the point of or on the journey toward radicalization. They also possess the theological sophistication necessary to help congregations distinguish between positive and reactionary manifestations of Christian identity. Here, pro-democracy groups are well-suited to support the work of priests, pastors, and other religious leaders in dismantling WCN as these secular coalitions can offer their organizing experience, technical assistance, and educational resources on authoritarianism. Going beyond the provision of resources, secular activists themselves can meet with faith leaders to learn the language and methods they use to pull their members away from far right and nationalist ideologies. In this way, secular activists can expose themselves to models of healthy Christian identities, ones that they may disagree with on certain foundational principles or on specific policy positions, but that still hold the belief that democracy and the freedoms it offers are in the interest of all to preserve.