Recently the IRS decided that it was okay, after all, for churches and their leaders to endorse particular candidates for political office. This goes against the so-called “Johnson Amendment,” which ruled out ecclesiastical endorsement of political candidates lest they risk their tax-exempt status. Trump has inveighed against the Johnson Amendment. You could also wonder if the shrunken IRS simply doesn’t have the manpower to check on violations.
In a brief but excellent article at the Atlantic Elizabeth Bruenig points out the risks of such a departure. She terms it a “Faustian bargain.” She remarks, “Churches can now openly involve themselves in elections, but in doing so, they risk becoming de facto political organizations.”
I would say that a lot of churches have already made the move to become “de facto political organizations.” Increasingly churches tend to hew to the same polarization as the country, being red or blue, progressive or conservative. That is a great loss — one more place/space that people of different views might rub shoulders gone. Yes, there are some that manage purple, or simply avoid, political issues altogether.
As a preacher I don’t think it is entirely possible, or even desirable, to avoid political issues. Christian faith addresses all of life. That said, a preacher, and a church, can address the issues without being partisans for one party or candidate. That would be my own preferred stance.
Churches cannot — should not — ignore the moral and theological issues at stake in politics. But their teaching should be directed toward what light their faith and tradition shed on issues, not on telling people what to think or whom to vote for. In the Catholic tradition, this is referred to as “the formation of conscience.” Drawing on the resources of faith and community, namely listening to one another, to examine the issues so that people reach their own decision on a candidate or policy.
When churches go all Democratic or all Republican the real loss is not their tax-exempt status, which is for the moment off the table thanks to the IRS ruling, but their integrity. As Karl Barth argued in the 1934 Barmen Declaration directed against the Nazis’ (largely successful) efforts to co-opt the churches, the Christian Church has one Lord, one Leader, Jesus Christ. “Listen to him,” thundered Barth.
Bruenig points out further complications and risks in the move to allow endorsement of candidates: “Providing political endorsements makes churches susceptible to powerful campaign tactics: PACs, for example, will have incentives to fund churches that reflect their agendas, meaning that pastors’ livelihoods could come to depend on contorting their religious beliefs to suit political interests. Politically active congregants will also have good reason to lobby their pastors for certain endorsements, another source of pressure for church leaders to say that supporting a particular candidate is the will of God.
“And the practice of offering endorsements prioritizes accepting specific instructions from church leaders over cultivating Christian values and methods of reasoning that allow the faithful to determine which candidates to support for themselves. (Indeed, the Christian religion itself seeks to cultivate those very things for that very reason, rather than providing an itemized list of every behavior to perform and every behavior to avoid.)”
In recent times it has been Trump’s supporting parts of Evangelical Christianity that have become the most politicized. But there was a time, in the 1960s, when at least some liberal Christians became political partisans, with an eventual cost in terms of membership and participation. People didn’t want their church to simply be a place to rehearse the hot issues and latest headlines, and be told what to think.
My guess is that this will prove true, in fact already is, for Evangelicals who anoint Trump as their Savior and the Republican Party as God’s chosen vehicle. Thoughtful people of faith come to church to know God not to be told how to vote.
Discover more from Post Alley
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I agree. It dilutes their moral authority and duty.
This change could well trigger a change in how people decide to keep or drop their memberships. Some will be disappointed that their house of worship doesn’t endorse, and others will hate it if they do.
I’ve always had so much respect for Seattle First Baptist, which has been a strong progressive and moral leader for more than a century. They do this with their work and the examples they set over time, not with explicit endorsements.
This church housed the Japanese Baptist church before they could build their own building, supported WWII interned Japanese at Mindoka in every way possible, and launched efforts to help them return to their lives afterward. They have have a history of leading efforts in civil rights, peace, and community equity regardless of the prevailing popular views.
If they, or any house of worship, had endorsed specific candidates, all of whom have significant human flaws, could they still hold this moral high ground?