Families are on the move–but not for the reasons you might think.
People have always moved, of course, and there are many reasons we still do so today: we move to be closer to family, we move for jobs, we move for climate or health reasons, we move for preferences in activities and amenities.
However, there is another reason people are on the move these days, and it both stems from, and is exacerbating, the deep political divides in our country. This New York Times article [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/07/us/politics/politics-states-moving.html?campaign_id=2&emc=edit_th_20231008&instance_id=104707&nl=todaysheadlines®i_id=60300063&segment_id=146807&user_id=9a36fc5cd8849e98271ae73896ba1277] tells the story of two families whose moves, roughly one month apart, show just how contentious the political climate in the United States has become: “The Nobles of Iowa moved to blue Minnesota. The Huckinses of Oregon moved to red Missouri. Their separate journeys, five weeks apart, illustrate the fracturing of America.”
To be clear, these moves are not just motivated by discomfort with yard signs, the dominate news channel, or the tenor of discourse at dinner parties [although that is certainly part of it]. People are moving to access health care for their transgender children, either toward or away from restrictive abortion laws, and to ensure their family’s “safety”–and that means different things to different people.
Here is another quote from the article:
Americans are increasingly fracturing as a people, and some are taking the extraordinary step of moving to escape a political or social climate they abhor. Democrats have left Iowa, Texas and other red states as Republicans have moved out of California, Oregon and other blue states, often over their views on issues like abortion, transgender rights, school curriculums, guns, race and a host of other matters. While there is no precise count of how many Americans have relocated because of politics and social issues, interviews with demographers and people who have moved or are considering moving, as well as a review of social-media postings and polling, show the phenomenon is real.
No judgment is intended on people who make the decision to move, especially in situations where their health and safety genuinely are at stake. However, I can’t help but be concerned about this trend, and about what it means for the overall flourishing of this country. The retreat into like-minded corners, where one is exposed only to views that buttress and reinforce one’s own opinions is no way to grow and learn, no way to gain new experiences and fresh perspectives, and no way to bind together a country that was founded on being a “melting pot.”
Now, I get it–the United States has never been a fully-inclusive, equally-welcoming place; not all immigrant populations have been treated equally, and the treatment of Native Americans and African Americans continues to perpetuate historical marginalizations and exploitations. However, I think it is fair to say that we aspired [do we still aspire?] to be such a society where “the tired, the poor, the homeless, and the tempest-tost [sic]” of the world’s shores can find a home–again, even recognizing the imperfect ways in which we have always lived that out. But that aspiration seems to be weakening–and, if the Times article is true, the places where that aspiration is concretized in real life are dwindling. This is good for no one.
The more our political differences solidify into visible geographic boundaries, the more politicians are motivated to support a very narrow agenda, the more neighbors are prone to intolerance of someone “different” who moves in next door, and the more likely it is that we hand over to our children a country that doesn’t “work” on so many levels.
As someone whose call is to raise up new leaders for the church, I continue to fervently hope that churches [especially mainline denominations, which are the most likely to be “purple”]–including my own Lutheran Church–can be places that actively work against this fragmentation, and continue to bring people together based on a foundational shared identity as beloved children in the family of God. I believe churches can be places where people disagree–even deeply–but still regard each other with care and love. I believe churches can be places where people can listen to each other respectfully, even when the differences are painful. And I believe this, not because Christians are inherently wonderful, tolerant people [we aren’t!], but because I believe in the power of Spirit to move in and among us, cracking open our hearts and minds, and weaving us together as one body.
At least, this is my hope.
At the end of the Times article, one of the family members says the following:
“It’s like we’re one country on paper,” Julien said. “But we’re not really.”
Churches have a role to play in repairing this breach, and creating the kind of country–neighborhood, town, city, state–that we all can live in together: in love, not fear; in trust, not suspicion; in unity, not uniformity.
Happy Lutheran 