Political Polarization and Christian Nationalism in Our Pews

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an original, clearly and objectively written study of the impact of political polarisation on churches in the United States. The author presents statistical data to support his thesis that religious leaders face challenges due to polarisation, such as:

“Political polarization contributes to significant challenges not only to democratic processes but also 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 150 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 U.S”. (pdf. P. 3-4).

As an extension of the framework presented by the author, I would also like to highlight the growing connection between a polarised political discourse and the use of violence, which, as the article shows, has created a hostile climate in many communities. In the second part of the article, after making clear his exclusion of religious nationalism and any use of violence in the political sphere, the author reflects on the strategies used, primarily through educational programmes, to break down the barriers created by polarisation.

Because of the data presented, the way it has been analysed and the suggestions the author makes to break the cycle of violence created by political polarisation in North American society. It is worth mentioning that, although it is a reflection on the context of the United States, several aspects can be extrapolated to take into account contexts in Latin America, for example, which makes the article even more relevant.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes/
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: [Paste the full reviewer comment here.] This is an original, clearly and objectively written study of the impact of political polarisation on churches in the United States. The author presents statistical data to support his thesis that religious leaders face challenges due to polarisation, such as: “Political polarization contributes to significant challenges not only to democratic processes but also 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 150 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 U.S”. (pdf. P. 3-4). As an extension of the framework presented by the author, I would also like to highlight the growing connection between a polarised political discourse and the use of violence, which, as the article shows, has created a hostile climate in many communities. In the second part of the article, after making clear his exclusion of religious nationalism and any use of violence in the political sphere, the author reflects on the strategies used, primarily through educational programmes, to break down the barriers created by polarisation. Because of the data presented, the way it has been analysed and the suggestions the author makes to break the cycle of violence created by political polarisation in North American society. It is worth mentioning that, although it is a reflection on the context of the United States, several aspects can be extrapolated to take into account contexts in Latin America, for example, which makes the article even more relevant.
Response 1: Thank you for this feedback. I appreciate the fact that you highlight the connection between polarization and violence, and that you cite the effort to provide examples of programs seeking to counter polarization. Thank you again for the time and expertise in reviewing this article. I specifically appreciate your insight that the findings are applicable outside of the U.S. context focused on in the project, specifically in Latin America.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper touches on an interesting topic of political divisions in the USA, with particular emphasis on faith communities. Not only it descibes the isuue of political polarization there, but it proposes certain directions of solutions that may help in mutual understanding and acceptance without compromising the core values particular communities or persons are committed to. Generally, the paper is well-written and well-supported with arguments. 

However, some points seem to require clarification to increase the quality of the article.

1.Firstly, the connection between Christian nationalism and political polarization does not  seem evident in the paper. Perhaps it would help if Christian nationalism would be defined a bit more lenghty, as the definition " affirm statements aligning Christian values with U.S. laws and culture" (v. 79) does not seem to be directly connected with polarization. Also, it should be noted, that nationalism is generally quite broad term, that might have slightly different meanings in different cultures or countries, and also different conotations (positive / neutral / negative). The Authors apparently connect nationalism with negative social consequences, putting it together with Right-Wing Authoritarian views (v. 82), but such a connection would certainly not be evident for non-American readers of the paper (for example French nationalism has become a unifying factor for post-revolutionary society building), and therefore the term and its conotation requires more detailes explaination. The describtion of the research that Christian nationalist sympathizers are more likely to accept political violence to save the country does this work partly, but is not fully convincing as to divisive character of the Christian nationalism.

2. Also, It would be good if "political violence" could be defined slighly more, to  illustrate better and increase the strenght of Authors' argument mentioned above.

3. Non-American reader certainly would be content to have some more describtion about the nature of the projects mentioned in lines 197-198. What kind of projects are these? 

4. For some Churches, including Catholic Church, the issue of abortion does not seem to be a social issue, but rather a legal or core issue. Catholic Church's teaching on abortion is not part of her social teaching, but can be found in the codex of canonical law, where automatical excomunication is made for its members performing abortion. Therefore an exclusion from the community is made here by Church's laws. While it is understandable the text is about social and political attitudes, the Authors might be slightly more sensitivie that treating abortion as social issue  (v. 224) would be inadequate for some Churches as the issue seems to be belonging to their core ideas.

5. " 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). " This issue should be developped more as it seems to be particularly interesting and relevant for the paper. What are examples of actions Cavendish has in mind?

Improving these points would make the paper a very-well written piece of scientific research.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	Could be improved
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?   Is the research design appropriate?	Could be improved     Yes
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: [Paste the full reviewer comment here.]

The paper touches on an interesting topic of political divisions in the USA, with particular emphasis on faith communities. Not only it descibes the isuue of political polarization there, but it proposes certain directions of solutions that may help in mutual understanding and acceptance without compromising the core values particular communities or persons are committed to. Generally, the paper is well-written and well-supported with arguments. 

However, some points seem to require clarification to increase the quality of the article.

1.Firstly, the connection between Christian nationalism and political polarization does not  seem evident in the paper. Perhaps it would help if Christian nationalism would be defined a bit more lenghty, as the definition " affirm statements aligning Christian values with U.S. laws and culture" (v. 79) does not seem to be directly connected with polarization. Also, it should be noted, that nationalism is generally quite broad term, that might have slightly different meanings in different cultures or countries, and also different conotations (positive / neutral / negative). The Authors apparently connect nationalism with negative social consequences, putting it together with Right-Wing Authoritarian views (v. 82), but such a connection would certainly not be evident for non-American readers of the paper (for example French nationalism has become a unifying factor for post-revolutionary society building), and therefore the term and its conotation requires more detailes explaination. The describtion of the research that Christian nationalist sympathizers are more likely to accept political violence to save the country does this work partly, but is not fully convincing as to divisive character of the Christian nationalism.

2. Also, It would be good if "political violence" could be defined slighly more, to  illustrate better and increase the strenght of Authors' argument mentioned above.
3. Non-American reader certainly would be content to have some more describtion about the nature of the projects mentioned in lines 197-198. What kind of projects are these? 
4. For some Churches, including Catholic Church, the issue of abortion does not seem to be a social issue, but rather a legal or core issue. Catholic Church's teaching on abortion is not part of her social teaching, but can be found in the codex of canonical law, where automatical excomunication is made for its members performing abortion. Therefore an exclusion from the community is made here by Church's laws. While it is understandable the text is about social and political attitudes, the Authors might be slightly more sensitivie that treating abortion as social issue  (v. 224) would be inadequate for some Churches as the issue seems to be belonging to their core ideas.
5. " 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). " This issue should be developped more as it seems to be particularly interesting and relevant for the paper. What are examples of actions Cavendish has in mind?

Improving these points would make the paper a very-well written piece of scientific research.

Response 1: Thank you for this feedback and helpful insights. I appreciate the encouragement to add more detailed descriptions and examples, specifically to make the work more accessible to readers outside the U.S. I appreciate hearing that Christian Nationalism should be better defined and nuanced as a toxic force in U.S. political contexts to better differentiate from how nationalism might be experienced outside the U.S. I have gone through the article and added more clarity on my definitions of Christian Nationalism and violence. I have strengthened the connection from research on affirmation with Christian Nationalist views and willingness to engage in violence more clearly. Please see the updated article to track the noted changes. Thank you again for your time and expertise in reviewing this article.

 

In response, the following edits were made:

1. connection between Christian nationalism and political polarization

Line 84-88: “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 U.S. constitutional precedent, upholding the U.S. as a plural democracy. “

2. define political violence:

lines 92-98: “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 U.S. can be seen most clearly in the attacks on the U.S. Capitol on October 6, 2021, and in the assassination attempts on presidential candidate Donald Trump in the summer of 2024.”

3. Nature of projects in lines 197-198:

Lines 200-204: “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/). Upon completion, participants reported increased understanding and increased likelihood to support work to counter systemic racism.”

4. Nuance requested on catholic views on abortion:

While I appreciate the nuance in Catholic perspectives on if abortion is a canonical or a social issue, this nuance is beyond the scope of the article, since citations are regarding results from specific polls on attitudes toward abortion in the U.S. Nuance is not made by those performing the survey, or in the references to programs engaging in dialogue regarding abortion policy.

5. More details regarding Cavendish research.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I feel that the study presented in this paper is excellent and, above very much timely, considering the present situation. It is a study which is due in order to help to reflect on phenomena which are affecting not only USA but also other countries in the world. In this connection many political observers can benefit a great deal from this examination. I just suggest a review of the text as, it seems to me there some minor spelling mistakes.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes/
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: [Paste the full reviewer comment here.] I feel that the study presented in this paper is excellent and, above very much timely, considering the present situation. It is a study which is due in order to help to reflect on phenomena which are affecting not only USA but also other countries in the world. In this connection many political observers can benefit a great deal from this examination. I just suggest a review of the text as, it seems to me there some minor spelling mistakes.
Response 1: Thank you for this feedback and the helpful insight that the findings are applicable outside of the U.S. context focused on in the project. I also appreciate the note to perform a full review of the text to ensure there are no typos or misspellings. I have performed another full review to ensure accuracy and clarity. Thank you again for the time and expertise in reviewing this article.