09/21/2026
Connector Highlights
In case you missed it in last week's Connector, David Cramer shared important information about the polarization of churches in the Midwest and how Mennonite Churches compare.
CDC Churches Offer Unified Witness in a Polarized State
By David Cramer
Researching Indiana congregations in the months leading up to the 2024 election, the Congregations and Polarization Project (CAP)—a research initiative of the Center for the Study of Religion & American Culture at Indiana University Indianapolis—found that, while churchgoers across Indiana are every bit as polarized as the general U.S. public, pastors have sought ways to promote internal unity by minimizing political divisions.
Funded by the Lilly Endowment, CAP is “an effort to learn how congregations in Indiana are dealing with the current climate of cultural and political division” by “looking at the ways religious congregations approach many difficult topics such as racism, immigration, abortion, gender identity, gun ownership, and economic inequality.”
An early report describes how many churches seek to keep the peace internally by maintaining a politically neutral or “purposely purple” stance publicly.
“Most evangelical congregations will insist that their primary mission is individual salvation, not social change,” the report finds, while “even Catholic parishes with strong pro-life stances are unlikely to speak, publicly, on social and political issues.” Even as “some congregations actively seek to practice peace,” only a “few see it as their mission to actively seek this peace in the wider communities they serve.”
One small but significant outlier is found in the CDC.
In September 2024, CAP director Art Farnsley met with a dozen Elkhart-area CDC and IN-MI Mennonite pastors at AMBS. This was the first stop on a listening tour of 10 sites across Indiana. Along the way, Farnsley provided summaries of what the researchers were gleaning.
“We ask all the pastors on our listening tour which issue most energizes or alarms the members of their congregations,” he writes in his summary of the AMBS meeting. “For these Mennonite pastors, that issue is America’s role in supporting Israel in its war in Gaza.”
In other stops on the tour, “Israel/Gaza/Palestine was only mentioned one other time, only in passing,” Farnsley notes, causing him to conclude that the AMBS meeting “provided a reminder of the incredible diversity among religious values and priorities. What Mennonites see as crucial to a Christian witness is not necessarily what other Christians see at all.”
CAP is now turning its attention to issues that highlight polarization, starting with immigration.
In a recent report, CAP team member Lauren Palmer describes how many pastors feel “tension between what they understand to be central to the gospel—caring for each other and strangers alike—and what their congregations believe to be politically or culturally necessary.”
“This is a delicate balancing act,” Palmer writes. “Say too much and you risk alienating members, sparking conflict, or even driving people away. Say too little and you risk failing to speak to an issue that most pastors believe has clear moral and theological implications.”
Not only is there tension between pastors and their congregants; many churches experience “competing views among members.” To navigate this tension, many pastors opt for “a kind of cautious silence, or a reliance on indirect approaches such as speaking about love, neighborliness, and compassion without explicitly naming immigration.”
Palmer observes that this “is a strategy that preserves unity, but it can also leave underlying tensions unresolved.” For many pastors, immigration exposes broader questions about the nature of their leadership: “What does it mean to guide a community when persuasion feels unlikely? What does faithfulness look like when clarity risks division?”
Here again, a counterexample is found in the CDC. As a pastoral consultant for CAP, I invited Farnsley to meet with congregants at Keller Park Church in South Bend to hear their story of the congregation’s decision to house an undocumented mother and her infant in the church’s community house—a story I shared in an Anabaptist World article.
Last October, Farnsley met with 10 congregants in the community house following a Sunday morning service (see accompanying photo). Drawing on a transcript of that meeting, I wrote a summary report, Unity Through Solidarity. In the write-up, I describe how the example of the congregation’s response to a woman in need “offers a different approach to unity that centers on solidarity with those who are most marginalized within society.”
“Neither aggressively neutral nor purposely purple,” I observe, “the congregation has been able to forge unity amid difference not by ignoring or downplaying hot-button political issues but by addressing them on a human level, asking how those most vulnerable are impacted by federal, state, and local policies and how the church is called to respond.”
“The emphasis on prioritizing the needs of the vulnerable and marginalized,” I continue, “is based not on a particular shared political ideology, in other words, but on deeply rooted theological and biblical convictions about the dignity of each human being and what is sometimes called God’s ‘preferential option’ for the vulnerable.”
As one congregant shared in the meeting, “caring for the marginalized and oppressed isn’t just about handing out a food box. It’s the theological conviction behind all the other things we do.” Another congregant noted that “the fact that the board could say ‘yes’ confidently, knowing the congregation would back them up, goes back to the environment we’ve built.” Yet another reflected, “Today, there’s no question. If ICE agents came to our building, we know exactly who we would be standing in front of to protect.”
In his reflection on our meeting and my report, Farnsley describes how the witness of Keller Park Church defies the patterns CAP finds across the state.
“In my typology, Keller Park Church (KPC) would be ‘Warriors’,” he writes. “They engage culture head-on, speaking and acting with a unified theological and ethical voice. (I’m sure there are disagreements, but on big issues, they have found their shared groove.) David argues persuasively that they are in fact seeking unity—not within culture, but with the poor and vulnerable. They are not purposely seeking division with the dominant culture, but if their unity with the poor leads to such division, that is a cost they are willing to bear. Or, to be honest, it is a cost they embrace.”
Typically writing with the objective neutrality of a religious studies scholar, Farnsley allows himself a moment of editorializing: “Their actions here—helping a poor, vulnerable mother and her infant in an emergency—strike me as Christian to their core. What Would Jesus Do? It’s not really for me to say, but surely this is what Jesus would have done.”
To learn more about CAP and the center’s other projects, visit raac.indianapolis.iu.edu/.
Photo caption: Meeting with congregants of Keller Park Church for the CAP project.