Should Churches Endorse Political Candidates?

President Trump is expected to release an executive order tomorrow "that makes it easier for churches and other religious groups to actively participate in politics without risking their tax-exempt status." This order "would attempt to overcome [the Johnson Amendment which] prohibits...churches from directly opposing or supporting political candidates." "Some conservative leaders" said they had been expecting an executive order protecting religious liberty tomorrow, but the White House has not confirmed this. Either executive order would likely face a court challenge.

Some religious leaders do not welcome the news of the weakening of the Johnson Amendment. Michael Wear, who led religious outreach for President Obama's campaign, also says that he does not think churches should endorse candidates. He believes that this would "backfire on the church and pastors."

I believe this is a time when churches need to be particularly tuned in to political issues that affect them. Things can happen fast, as with this executive order. The President had campaigned on a promise to repeal the Johnson Amendment, and now comes this surprise executive order. Churches need to know how they are going to respond to something like this.

I think churches have two basic options open to them at this point should this order go through. One is to continue to not endorse or oppose specific candidates (assuming that they are following this law now). This policy would make it easier to say no when someone asks them to endorse or oppose a candidate. That way if someone attempts to retaliate against the church for following its own policy, it will be easier to back up a claim of discrimination. This policy will be most effective if the church generally stays away from politics, as my church has a policy of doing. Candidates and elected officials are not recognized from the pulpit. Voting guides are not distributed by the church. Preaching does not address politics except occasionally on major moral issues.

The alternative would be to have a well thought-through strategy of political engagement. The church may need to clearly, publicly, and frequently spell out what it is doing and why. For what offices does it endorse or oppose candidates? On what grounds does it make an endorsement or attack? What is the Scriptural teaching that guides the church's choices on this? How does the endorsement or censure of candidates fit into the church's overall approach to politics?

Such a strategy should not be rushed. It should be developed using the study of historical and systematic theology. Pastors and churches should engage in dialogue with each other on this subject if they feel that this is the direction they should take.

Church involvement in electoral politics may well be the flip side of the religious liberty cause. It is not an option I would encourage churches to rule out. There are Biblical and historical reasons to consider it, and it could make for greater efficiency of action on causes that are in the church's vital interest. However, timing is important. Churches should consider the role of the legislature in our government and the effectiveness of an executive order that could be ruled illegal by the courts.

My next post will be a paper on Augustine that I wrote back in 2011. I submit it for consideration by churches and Christians who are seeking insight on the approach they should take to politics.