Don't Degrade Church With Politics

Yahoo

19-07-2025

The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
In a court document filed earlier this month, the Internal Revenue Service quietly revealed a significant break with long-standing practice: Churches will no longer risk their nonprofit status if clergy endorse political candidates from the pulpit. The change stemmed from a lawsuit brought against the agency by evangelical groups that argued that the prior ban on church involvement in political campaigns infringed upon their First Amendment rights. Their victory, though, may turn out to be a Faustian bargain: Churches can now openly involve themselves in elections, but in doing so, they risk becoming de facto political organizations. What may appear to be a triumph over liberalism could in fact be a loss, the supersession of heavenly concerns by earthly ones.
Churches have long been divided over the proper role for religion in American politics. One approach has been to militate against the separation of church and state, insofar as that distinction limits what churches can do to exercise power in society. The IRS change, along with several others by the Trump administration, will soften that barrier, allowing churches to take on a much more pronounced role in electoral politics. Another approach has been to operate within the confines of that separation—which has produced some very noble results: a norm of discouraging churches from turning into mere organs of political parties, and an emphasis on forming the conscience of believers rather than providing direct instructions about political participation.
A conservative 30 years ago might have preferred that latter approach, or at least said so. Back then, members of the right complained that Black churches frequently gave political endorsements or raised funds for electoral campaigns, and that the IRS neglected to enforce its now-eliminated ban, known as the Johnson Amendment. Yet by 2016, that dynamic had reversed, leading Donald Trump, then still a presidential candidate, to court the coveted right-wing evangelical vote by vowing to destroy the amendment once in office. A number of religious leaders took the implications of that promise and ran with them—an investigation by The Texas Tribune and ProPublica published in 2022 found that plenty of evangelical churches were offering endorsement despite the rule. The hope in paring down the Johnson Amendment is apparently that church endorsements will influence the outcome of elections in the right's favor.
[Elizabeth Bruenig: Progressive Christianity's bleak future]
But there's little reason to believe that church endorsements will do much in the way of persuasion. American churches have already undergone so much liberal attrition that, in practice, many right-wing evangelical pastors will be instructing their congregations to vote for candidates most members already intend to vote for. To the degree that broadly conservative churches retain some liberal members, endorsing right-wing candidates seems like just the thing to alienate them, which is a loss for those congregations as well as for the faith as a whole. Church intervention in particular electoral races is an efficient polarization machine. For that and other reasons, this policy shift doesn't really offer any benefits to Christians qua Christians. 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.) This is apparently why the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement that Catholic clergy will still decline to make political endorsements. 'The Church seeks to help Catholics form their conscience in the Gospel,' the release read, 'so they might discern which candidates and policies would advance the common good.'
That is a much more logical way for church leaders to proceed. Dictating which candidates to vote for is at once presumptuous, assuming much more about God's judgment than can rightly be accounted for, and also nihilistic, assuming that churchgoers are so ill-formed in their faith that they can't be trusted to figure out the right answers to these earthly, prudential questions. Granting the imprimatur of the faith to ordinary charlatans—the most common breed of politician—is ill-begotten, and borders on sacrilegious.
Article originally published at The Atlantic