Summary of Should Progressive Organizers Lean More on the Church?

Overview of The Political Scene — "Should Progressive Organizers Lean More on the Church?"

This episode of The Political Scene (host Tyler Foggett) features an interview with Jay Caspian King (staff writer, The New Yorker) about recent anti‑ICE protests in Minneapolis, a confrontation at a St. Paul church, and whether American churches can — or should — play a larger, sustaining role in progressive protest movements. King lays out historical examples (sanctuary movement, civil rights), contrasts mass social‑media–driven protest with neighborhood organizing, and argues that churches provide moral language and logistical scaffolding that most modern digital protest lacks.

Episode context and participants

• Host: Tyler Foggett (senior editor, The New Yorker)
• Guest: Jay Caspian King, staff writer at The New Yorker (author of the column “Can American Churches Lead a Protest Movement Under Trump?”)
• News hook: Killing of Renee (Renee) Good by an ICE agent (Jan 9) → anti‑ICE protests in Minneapolis/St. Paul; protesters interrupted a church service in St. Paul demanding accountability from a pastor allegedly working as an ICE field director. DOJ is reviewing possible FACE Act violations.

What’s happening in Minneapolis (the immediate story)

• Anti‑ICE actions are concentrated in Minneapolis (same general area as George Floyd and Philando Castile incidents).
• Current organizing is more localized and neighborhood‑based than the big, unified marches of 2020:
  • Organizing via encrypted messaging apps (Signal), neighborhood crews that "blow whistles" and block ICE activity.
  • This local focus creates clearer, tangible goals (preventing neighbors’ deportations), making participation accessible to many residents and potentially more durable.
• A recent disruption: protesters entered a church service in St. Paul, chanting “ICE out” and Renee Good’s name; confrontation ensued. The DOJ is assessing whether this could violate the FACE Act (1994), which criminalizes interference with religious exercise at places of worship.

Historical context: churches and protest movements

• Sanctuary movement (early 1980s): grassroots faith communities (e.g., Berkeley churches) sheltered Central American refugees when federal asylum was denied. Jim Corbett is mentioned as an early organizer. Sanctuary work evolved into sanctuary‑city politics.
• Other successful movements with church involvement:
  • Anti‑abortion movement: grew from small Catholic organizers to a national political force influencing policy and courts.
  • Gay‑marriage movement: clergy who supported same‑sex marriage and religious institutions that officiated marriages helped normalize the change.
  • Civil Rights movement: (implicit reference) historically relied on church infrastructure and clergy leadership.

What churches uniquely provide (King’s argument)

• Moral language and resonance: religious framing (“love thy neighbor,” “every person is a child of God”) can feel more elemental and moving than secular formulations like “basic human rights.”
• Infrastructure and “scaffolding”: physical space for meetings, food, social networks, hierarchy and moral authority (clergy, bishops) that can mobilize people.
• A visual and rhetorical leverage in protests: clergy being targeted (e.g., tear‑gassed or threatened) elicits stronger public response and can expose state excesses.
• Legitimacy for reaching religious or ambivalent audiences: clergy statements can persuade people who otherwise default to religious or culturally conservative norms.

Limits, tensions, and risks

• Secularization and institutional caution:
  • Many churches retreated from explicit politics due to declining attendance and fear of alienating congregants.
  • Some clergy prefer a support role, letting youth lead while offering sanctuary and resources.
• Christian nationalism’s dominance: public perception often equates organized religion with right‑wing politics; left‑leaning churches must work to “reclaim” religious space from Christian nationalism.
• Tactical risks:
  • Disruptive tactics (e.g., storming a church service) can be counterproductive — damaging public sympathy and inviting legal consequences under laws like the FACE Act.
  • Social‑media driven outrage is often fleeting; viral visibility does not guarantee long‑term policy wins.
• King’s skepticism of “mass digital protest”: he doubts social‑media–first protest yields durable political change beyond short‑term awareness, citing global examples (Arab Spring, Hong Kong) and the ephemeral outcomes after 2020.

Notable examples and anecdotes

• Philando Castile aftermath: organizers used churches for meetings and sustaining efforts — example of church scaffolding.
• Bishop in New Hampshire: viral call urging clergy to prepare wills and “stand between the powers of this world and the most vulnerable” — an example of clergy using moral language and risking public attention.
• Wayne Sheng (quoted via King): churches provide “scaffolding” for activism.

Recommendations and practical takeaways

• For progressive organizers:
  • Prioritize local, community‑centered campaigns with clear, tangible objectives (e.g., protecting neighbors from deportation) to build durable engagement.
  • Partner with faith communities as logistical and moral allies — not merely symbolic props. Let congregations support or host organizing while respecting leadership dynamics (youth vs. clergy roles).
  • Avoid tactics that target worship services directly; such actions risk public backlash and legal exposure (FACE Act).
• For churches/clergy:
  • Consider publicly reclaiming faith language from Christian nationalism to show alternative religious political commitments (immigrant defense, sanctuary work, social services).
  • Use institutional resources (space, networks, moral authority) to support community organizing and sustain grassroots efforts beyond viral moments.
• For media and organizers: amplify clergy voices when they act in support roles — they can translate moral claims into broader public credibility.

Key takeaways

• Churches historically provided both the moral vocabulary and the logistical infrastructure that powered long‑lasting U.S. movements; progressives have largely ceded that terrain in recent decades.
• Localized, neighborhood organizing (as seen in Minneapolis anti‑ICE actions) can be more durable and personally consequential than mass, social‑media‑driven protest.
• Religious authority carries persuasive power that secular messaging often lacks, but partnering with faith institutions requires care around leadership balance and public perception.
• Disruptive spectacles (e.g., storming worship services) may generate headlines but can undermine long‑term strategy and invite legal risks.

Notable quotes from the episode

• “I do not believe that there can be any abiding movement for social change in this country without leadership and support from the church.” — Jay Caspian King (from his column, discussed in the episode)
• On clergy and protest visibility: clergy “are there as the person who is assaulted, who should not be assaulted, that shows the excesses of the state.”
• On organizing tactics: “The less abstract you can make it, the more community‑based you can make it, and the more important that you can make an individual… the more success you’re going to have.”

Where to read more

• Jay Caspian King’s column: “Can American Churches Lead a Protest Movement Under Trump?” — newyorker.com (referenced in the episode)

Summary: King urges progressives to rethink how they employ religious institutions — not as nostalgic relics but as living infrastructure and moral translators — while warning that social‑media spectacle without local roots and clear goals is unlikely to produce lasting political change.