Political Polarization and Christian Nationalism in Our Pews

Abstract

Congregational leaders in the US must navigate a political landscape marked by increasing political polarization and a notable rise in support for ideas aligned with Christian nationalism. While gender, race, ethnicity, and religious affiliation have long shaped political lines, the US population has steadily become more entrenched in partisan political divides. Recent research shows the relationship between religious identity and willingness to use violence to support political and religious ideologies. These trends profoundly affect faith communities, challenging theological perspectives, social dynamics, and civic engagement. This paper examines how political polarization and Christian nationalist impulses within mainline Christian congregations impact congregational leadership. This study identifies key factors driving these changes through qualitative analysis of case studies and quantitative research. It explores their implications for community cohesion and the broader societal fabric. The findings suggest that while some communities experience heightened internal conflict and fragmentation, others adapt by engaging in dialogue, story-sharing, and education. The paper concludes with recommendations to counter political polarization and ideological extremism through increased understanding, nuanced theological reflection, and political awareness. This research contributes to the ongoing discourse on congregational leadership and political engagement, highlighting the need for nuanced strategies to address the challenges of political polarization and Christian nationalism in the US today.

1. Introduction

As a community speaker on religion and politics, I frequently hear from local pastors navigating political discontent within their congregations. Recently, a pastor approached me for advice. One of her congregants had posted a political statement on Facebook, which the pastor disagreed with. At the end of the post, the congregant instructed anyone who disagreed to “unfriend” him. The pastor wasn’t sure what to do. Should she approach the congregant or bracket the situation as “political noise?” According to the data, this pastor is not alone. The US population is incredibly divided on politics. According to Pew Research, the US population has steadily become more entrenched in partisan political divides (Pew Research Center 2024). Furthermore, recent research by the Public Religion Research Institute on Christian nationalism and support for authoritarian governments shows the relationship between religious identity and willingness to use violence to support political and religious ideologies (Public Religion Research Institute 2024). These trends profoundly affect faith communities, challenging theological perspectives, social dynamics, and civic engagement. This paper examines how political polarization and Christian nationalist impulses within mainline Christian churches impact congregational leadership, shaping community cohesion and the broader societal fabric. Facing fraught political contexts, some communities experience heightened internal conflict and fragmentation, while others adapt by engaging in dialogue, story-sharing, and education. Drawing upon case studies from various projects addressing political polarization in the US, this paper introduces recommendations to further community cohesion, understanding across differences, nuanced theological reflection, and political awareness. This research contributes to the ongoing discourse on congregational leadership and political engagement, highlighting the need for nuanced strategies to address the challenges of political polarization and Christian nationalism in the US today.

2. Politics in the Pews

Pew Research Center surveys show a marked increase in partisan hostility between 1994 and 2022. In 1994, 17% of Democrats surveyed had very unfavorable views of Republicans, and 21% of Republicans had very unfavorable views of Democrats (Pew Research Center 2023). By 2022, majorities of registered voters who identified with a major party (54% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans) viewed the other party very unfavorably. Partisans do not simply hold unfavorable views of the other party as a political organization; they also have negative opinions of members of the opposing party on various traits. For example, more than eight of ten (82%) Democrats said Republicans are more closed-minded than other Americans, and 72% of Republicans said Democrats were more dishonest and more immoral than other Americans (Pew Research Center 2024). The sentiment among Americans regarding the political system is notably bleak. According to a Pew survey, only 2% of participants described their feelings about politics positively, while a staggering 79% used negative descriptors, with “divisive” and “corrupt” frequently cited (Pew Research Center 2024). For many, political identities are no longer just viewpoints but integral facets of their self-concept. Voters not only hold differing political views but increasingly harbor animosity toward those of the opposing party (Black 2023, p. 38). Voters show increasing rigidity, or calcification, in their political loyalties, often intertwining their political affiliations with their racial, ethnic, or religious identities. Increasing political polarization increases the risk of extremist views and ideologies taking hold in the American public (Kleinfeld 2021).

Of particular concern is rising support for Christian nationalism and acceptance of the option of political violence. Christian nationalism, defined as a modern political movement that idealizes and advocates a fusion of Christianity with American civic and political life, breaks from US constitutional precedent, upholding the US as a plural democracy. According to the Public Religion Research Institute’s (PRRI) 2023 American Values Atlas research, roughly three in ten Americans qualify as what they classify as Christian Nationalism Adherents or Sympathizers, meaning respondents affirm statements aligning Christian values with US laws and culture (Public Religion Research Institute 2024). Put in relationship with the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWAS), PRRI showed that those who hold Christian nationalist and Right-Wing Authoritarian views are approximately twice as likely as the public to support political violence (Public Religion Research Institute 2024). Examples of political violence in the US can be seen most clearly in the attacks on the US Capitol on 6 October 2021, and in the assassination attempts on presidential candidate Donald Trump in the summer of 2024. One third of Christian nationalism Adherents and Sympathizers (33%) agree that “true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save our country”, as do 28% of Americans who score high on the RWAS (Public Religion Research Institute 2024). This research shows a pattern of amplifying ethno-religious identities, positioning itself against perceived secularism and a more pluralistic society. As Samuel L. Perry posits, this reinforces and complicates America’s partisan and ethnocultural divides at multiple levels of analysis—from macro structures such as laws and policies to micro-level everyday interactions (Perry 2022, p. 89).

Political divisions intersect with several other social and political factors facing congregations. Faith communities operate in an environment of heightened uncertainty and accelerated changes in global culture, economy, and geopolitics. Despite recent reports of plateauing numbers, religious affiliation has rapidly declined over the past several decades (Pew Research Center 2025). The average American in the pews of Christian churches is significantly older than the average American across the entire population, creating compounding stress for congregational sustainability. While some cite the politicization of religion and the rise of the Religious Right for declining participation and affiliation, other studies show political engagement fueling individual congregational growth. Using data from the National Congregations Study, a representative sample of American congregations, Andre P. Audette and Christopher L. Weaver examined the impact of politicization on church membership rates at the congregational level (Audette and Weaver 2016, p. 246). They showed that more politically active congregations were more likely to see growth in membership over time. Using data from the General Social Survey, they offered evidence that partisans on both ends of the political spectrum are more likely to engage in religious switching than independents, suggesting that those joining new congregations may be politically motivated (Audette and Weaver 2016, p. 247). These data show that congregational demographics are transforming, marked by increased sorting based on political beliefs. As the landscape shifts, the traditional model of “purple churches”, or those that blend liberal and conservative congregants, is becoming increasingly rare. Instead, more “red” (conservative) and “blue” (liberal) churches are emerging, resulting in fewer opportunities for dialogue across political lines (Audette and Weaver 2016, p. 249).

Clergy are in an increasingly precarious situation as they navigate congregation sustainability and increasingly partisan congregations where some seek expanded political participation, and others avoid political entanglement. Clergy stress is further exacerbated if their political views differ from most congregation members. Data from the National Survey of Religious Leaders reveals that clergy in more liberal denominations, such as some Catholic or white mainline Protestant churches, tend to diverge politically from their congregants, complicating their pastoral role (Chaves 2023). In contrast, clergy in Black Protestant and predominantly white Evangelical churches generally align politically with their congregations, reinforcing the idea that political beliefs significantly shape theological dialogues (Chaves 2023). Consequently, congregational leaders face the challenge of helping their communities engage across political divides in ways aligned with their core beliefs. This stress creates a desire for some clergy to leave ministry roles. According to a March 2022 study by the Barna Group, “current political divides” in congregations were among the top 3 reasons clergy leave full-time ministry (Barna Group 2022). PRRI’s 2022–2023 Mainline Protestant Clergy Survey showed that serving a congregation that does not accept their political differences can affect clergy well-being (Public Religion Research Institute 2023). Among clergy who say their congregants are slightly or not accepting of their political differences, 50% report feeling emotionally drained from work every day or at least once a week, compared to 28% of clergy whose congregants are moderately or very accepting of their political differences (Public Religion Research Institute 2023). Moreover, among those clergy who say their congregants are slightly or not at all accepting of their political differences, 47% report feeling frustrated with their job every day or at least once a week, compared with 21% of clergy whose congregations are more accepting of their political differences (Public Religion Research Institute 2023).

Political polarization contributes to significant challenges not only to democratic processes but also to mental health, interpersonal relationships, and community cohesion. As the ideological gap between political parties widens, legislative gridlock becomes more prevalent, stalling crucial policy development and governance. We can see this in School Board meetings that become hostile or City Council meetings that become overrun with protests (Mueller 2023). This divisiveness extends into social relationships, fostering hostility and mistrust among individuals with opposing political views, which strains familial and community bonds. Recent studies have shown that such a polarized atmosphere can elevate stress levels and anxiety, contributing to a decline in mental health for many (American Psychological Association 2024). Social media and news outlets, often acting as echo chambers, exacerbate these issues by perpetuating misinformation and reinforcing partisan biases, further entrenching divisions. As a result, individuals find it increasingly difficult to engage in civil discourse, leading to fractured relationships and a diminished sense of social cohesion. The rise in Christian nationalism and acceptance of violence creates a particular threat exacerbated by right-wing media and conspiracy theories that can quickly spread within congregation contexts. While religion is too often cited as a source of division, religious communities have long been a foundation for fostering connection and social cohesion (Cavendish 2023). In this moment of heightened political tension, congregations have a critical role in countering political polarization in the US.

3. Flipping the Script

After a decade of intense political fights and media-reinforcing divides, some in the US have resigned to silos based on political affiliation. Many clergy and congregations avoid topics seen as “political” out of fear of conflict. However, some data challenges the depth of these assumed divisions and creates pathways for congregations to embark on the vital work of addressing polarization. While Americans are indeed divided and increasingly so, as noted in the research above, they are not divided in every regard. According to recent research, much of the talk about cultural wars and polarization has been exaggerated (Baldassarri and Park 2020). Americans are consistently liberalizing and trending toward convergence on several important moral and social issues, including women’s rights, racial equality, and expanded acceptance of same-gender marriage (Rieder and Steinlight 2004). Core values for most Americans remain rooted in human connection, belonging, and community thriving. The primary strategy shown to soften hardened political positions is proximity to a person or experience that challenges assumptions. Personal relationships and stories are the primary vehicle for countering stereotypes and breaking down barriers. Religious congregations can provide opportunities for transformative relationships, dialogue, and education that bring complexity to issues perceived as binary. Research highlights the potential of initiatives where structured discussions bring individuals from diverse political backgrounds together to engage in meaningful dialogue (Burgess et al. 2022). Educational programs emphasizing critical thinking and media literacy can equip citizens with the skills to analyze information objectively, reducing the impact of misinformation and biased media narratives (Tommasi et al. 2023). Congregations can collaborate to strengthen civic education and reinforce democratic principles and intergroup understanding. For example, three congregations came together in Denver, Colorado, to engage in an educational series to learn about the history of racism and its impacts on churches in the United States (https://www.montview.org/montviews-anti-racism-trust-team/, accessed on 25 March 2025). Upon completion, participants reported increased understanding and increased likelihood to support work to counter systemic racism. By implementing these strategies, congregations can bridge political divides and promote a more constructive political environment. The imperative to engage in the work of education, relationship-building, and community engagement is equally strong when congregations themselves become more politically uniform. Without intentional engagement, congregations in a polarized America risk becoming yet another siloed echo chamber.

In the second half of this paper, I will explore three primary scenarios for congregations navigating the current rise in political volatility with a commitment to faithfulness to their core tenants and a shared interest in furthering a common good. While this is not a prescriptive project, I approach the research with a foundational rejection of violence and a position that sees the current move toward Christian nationalism as both an aberration of a Christian religious commitment and a breach of pluralist democracy in the United States. From this ground, I explore current tools for navigating internal political divides, utilizing resources to counter political polarization, and moving beyond the siloed congregation. While this paper primarily focuses on the impacts of polarization and Christian nationalism on Christian congregations in the US, examples from diverse religious traditions provide insights and tools to counter division. To do this, I will draw upon recent case studies developed by the More in Common Project, the Rebuilding Democracy Project, Essential Partners, the One America Movement, and the Mustard Seed Project.

4. Navigating Internal Political Divides

The opposite of polarization is not uniformity; disagreement and difference are positive practices to nurture and support. Journalist Amanda Ripley makes the distinction between “healthy conflict and high conflict—healthy conflict involves serious and intense friction but avoids collapsing into patterns of dehumanization” (Ripley 2021, pp. 6–7). In contrast, high conflict is characterized by all-consuming contempt and disgust, thus creating an “us-versus-them” mentality in which everyone ends up worse off. For congregations navigating polarization, an essential first step is to embrace the reality that people inherently hold divergent beliefs and have diverse experiences that shape political perspectives. The work of the More in Common Project shows that congregational leaders can help congregants become more comfortable with discomfort by developing skills for engagement, honest dialogue, and welcoming differences. Their research shows that most people feel their communities are far less divided than the country as a whole. Only around one in ten people across most faith groups say that their churches, synagogues, mosques, wards, and other places of worship are politically divided, perhaps reflecting the power of proximity in breaking down perceived divisions (Xu et al. 2024). When national debates over policy and social issues seep into local communities, congregations can be locations where people share their experiences and deeply held values. By creating the capacity and skills to engage across differences, congregations can foster baseline care for one another and acknowledgment of shared humanity.

Case studies developed by the More in Common Project showed that various religious communities, from Black Protestant to white Evangelical, to Muslim and Church of Jesus Christ LDS, experience internal conflicts that can be addressed through practices of story-sharing and listening (Xu et al. 2024). Many Americans look to their faith for guidance on social issues and to help define right and wrong. At the same time, Americans have different views on whether specific stances on social issues indicate being a good community member. For example, More in Common’s research found that 65% of Evangelicals and 51% of Catholics believe that “being a good Christian/Catholic” means opposing abortion. Forty-six percent of Jews agree that “being a good Jew” means supporting the government of Israel, whereas 28% disagree (Xu et al. 2024). Disagreements are inevitable but become harmful when stances on these issues are used to exclude members of their community. When congregations create space for discord and dialogue without dehumanization, opportunities are fostered to practice faith tenants, further ideals as a democratic society, and prevent violence.

For example, the Rebuilding Democracy Project was formed during the 2016 election year when the Northern Virginia Hebrew Congregation (NVHC) found its congregational culture had been infected by the toxic politics of the election cycle (Aspen Institute Inclusive America Project 2021). Community leaders stopped trusting each other, and they avoided situations where disagreements would have to be hashed out in public. The politically purple congregation was facing an institutional crisis of governance (Aspen Institute Inclusive America Project 2021). Rather than isolating into political silos or sweeping the discontent under the run, the congregation leaned into their traditions and teachings to find creative and connecting paths forward. The congregation developed a process that included regular convening, consistent reflection, and pauses for prayer and study. Through this effort, they named “10 Faith Habits for Effective Citizenship”, which include Sacred Space and Time, Sacred Leadership, Convening, Text, Repentance, Prayer, Music, Acts of Loving-Kindness, Affiliation, Intergenerational Interaction, and Governance (Aspen Institute Inclusive America Project 2021). The congregation survived the institutional crisis by weaving elements of these habits into their deliberations. It gained insight into how to use their religious habits and traditions to shape their congregational response to the most divisive problems. They now use the insights gained to teach other communities how to lean into their teachings to address internal political divides through the Rebuilding Democracy Project.

5. Utilizing Resources to Counter Political Polarization

While the primary outlet for community engagement continues to be charitable donations or service, more expect their congregation to engage in systemic change or political advocacy (Public Religion Research Institute 2023). Addressing polarization and extremism is essential to engaging in systems change. Congregational leaders can provide tools to counter polarization and model how to engage politically in ways rooted in core congregational values and traditions without fueling toxic polarization. When advocates see “bridge building” as succumbing to complacency in the face of injustice, binary political fervor can become disconnected from everyday people’s complex and contradictory experiences. By learning, reflecting, and developing skills to communicate core values, congregants can move beyond essentializing claims that eliminate opportunities for listening and de-escalation and discover how to build relationships across differences without sacrificing values (Cavendish 2023). Sociologist James Cavendish documents how religion can be a resource to counter political polarization, drawing on research that shows how religious teachings and texts, religious organizations and small groups, and community networks can be agents of ideological depolarization across numerous issue areas (Cavendish 2023). Cavendish provides examples from Catholic and Protestant scriptures and traditions, which can be called upon to develop practices of caring for one’s neighbors, listening to those in need, and actively engaging in one’s community of care. These practices decrease polarization and increase a sense of community belonging.

Interfaith America, One America, and Essential Partners are three of many organizations that provide tools to congregations to counter polarization. They offer digital resources, training, mentorship, and program templates to support dialogue about potentially explosive issues (Stand Together 2025). Primary strategies include developing listening skills and curiosity, first practicing within a community, and then expanding to partner communities. Participants learn how to reflect on and share their stories and core values, identifying the sources of their deeply held beliefs. Personal reflection and storytelling expand to relationships rooted in mutual understanding, trust, and curiosity (www.interfaithamerica.org, accessed on 22 March 2025). Scholars with Essential Partners have extensively researched the impact of Reflective Structured Dialogue (RSD), a method of dialogue distinguished from more traditional forms of dialogue by its focus on process rather than outcome (Barthold 2020). While traditional dialogue might be designed to help people with opposing views find common ground or compromise, transformative dialogue is focused on improving communications and other interactions between the two sides, encouraging the increased awareness and understanding of multiple perspectives and differently constructed realities. Through synthesizing the current research on RSD and analyzing outcomes and findings using qualitative thematic analysis, Essential Partners found that practicing RSD resulted in notable shifts in embracing multiple perspectives, understanding positions of power, developing more positive connections, better communication, and expanding personal growth or self-reflection (Barthold 2020). Utilizing available tools to build relationships shows congregations can counter polarization and strengthen belonging and social cohesion within and beyond its walls.

6. Moving Beyond the Siloed Congregation

As congregations become less politically “purple” and more divided into “red” and “blue”, intentional efforts to reach beyond congregation walls become more vital. Twenty years ago, people might have encountered someone with radially different political ideas in a Sunday School class; today, Americans have self-selected into identity-affirming bubbles (Perry 2022, p. 91). While there are benefits based on shared identity and belonging, taken to extremes, uniformity and homogeneity can lead to deep divides, isolation, and violence. This is specifically true for people who are marginalized and often outside of relationships with dominant populations. As our country grapples with extreme polarization, hate crimes against marginalized communities continue to rise (Piazza 2023). To challenge stereotypes and assumptions that can lead to polarization and even violence, congregational leaders can take intentional action to lead communities in building relationships outside their silos.

For example, the group Essential Partners began as an effort to break through highly divisive debates about abortion in the greater Boston area. Out of a series of dialogues, the founders developed and field-tested a model for reducing polarization, building trust and mutual understanding across deep divides, and making new relationships possible without sacrificing deeply held values. The talks brought together advocates (including faith leaders) from both “pro-choice” and “pro-life” commitments without the expectation that the two groups would come to the same opinion, but rather to foster understanding and to see the humanity of those with whom they disagreed (https://whatisessential.org/history, accessed on 22 March 2025). Over the years, practitioners helped people have richer conversations about abortion and issues like partisan polarization, race, gender, sexuality, the environment, and interfaith conflict. Essential Partners says their approach “engenders trust without compromising values, builds connections that make communities resilient, and fosters a deep sense of belonging for all” (https://whatisessential.org/history, accessed on 22 March 2025). Congregations can foster skills to counter polarization while advocating on issues they are most passionate about in ways aligned with their tradition’s teachings. The More in Common Project found through their case studies that faith leaders are among the most trusted figures in local communities and are, therefore, uniquely positioned to bridge divides and mitigate toxic polarization. Faith leaders can draw from the scripture, values, and practices central to their traditions as they lead their congregations through political division. By emphasizing core values like self-reflection, kindness, humility, and respect for others, faith leaders can foster unity and help build stronger, more connected communities.

The Mustard Seed Project is another example. Formed in 1988, The Mustard Seed Project was founded to promote and strengthen American pluralism by increasing understanding and improving policies that impact American Muslims while also addressing issues related to civil rights, religious freedom, political engagement, and media representation (Muslim Public Affairs Council 2025). The group quickly realized that building relationships with Evangelical Christians would be key to challenging stereotypes and assumptions that too often led to exclusion and even violence toward Muslim people in the United States. With this commitment, they began a series of conversations, events, and partnerships that planted the seeds for healthy community relationships. The organization, One America, works with faith leaders to support them in building local relationships across differences carried to their congregation (https://oneamericamovement.org/mission/, accessed on 22 March 2025). With team members across the US, they build multi-faith and cross-partisan networks of local leaders willing to work together toward solutions for their community’s shared challenges. They strategically work in small-to-medium-sized cities where current or historical events make the pressures of polarization incredibly potent. Using a neuroscience-based approach, the organization reduces toxic polarization by providing tools and programs for faith-based communities committed to working across divides to solve common societal issues (One America Movement 2025). Over five years of work, 84% of One America Movement participants have said they feel the organization helped them see past their “bubble.” Participants report an improved perception of others by 16.5% after engaging in One America Movement programs. While numerous programs support congregational efforts to move beyond silos, countless other congregations take the initiative to meet their neighboring communities grounded in a sense of curiosity, compassion, and shared commitment to the common good.

7. Conclusions

In conclusion, the increase in political polarization and the rise of Christian nationalism presents a profound challenge for congregations across the United States and beyond. While polarization and Christian nationalism in the US are particular in form, they are not unique globally. Lessons from congregational responses to political polarization can provide insights to communities facing similar phenomena worldwide. As faith communities navigate these tumultuous waters, embracing a framework that strengthens internal education, nuanced theological reflection, and skill building to navigate conflict is essential. Moving outside the silo of a congregation and developing relationships with diverse surrounding communities, and engaging with one another in meaningful dialogue rooted in the core tenets of faith traditions can unravel the divisions that threaten communal cohesion. Building relationships across differences is not a path to a bland or complicit unity; instead, it invites individuals to deepen ethical commitments while remaining connected to a shared humanity. Congregations are uniquely positioned to counteract the divisiveness of contemporary political landscapes, drawing on their historical roles as spaces for community building and connection. By fostering a mindset that encourages continuous learning and relationship-building across differences, faith leaders can model inclusive practices that reflect the values of compassion and understanding inherent in their traditions. Recognizing the shared humanity in each individual, regardless of political affiliation, can foster a deeper appreciation for diverse perspectives within congregational life.

Programming and research by organizations such as Essential Partners and One America show that intentional dialogue and skill development within congregations not only promote democratic principles but also enrich the spiritual lives of congregants. Ultimately, the call to action for congregations is clear: rather than retreating into silos of shared political belief, they must lean into the complexities of diverse viewpoints, creating spaces for rich, restorative dialogue that acknowledges and respects the lived experiences of all. Through these efforts, congregations can reclaim their vital role in fostering personal reflection, relational commitment, and democratic engagement.