This article is important to pay attention to regarding the separation of church and state. Read the article, then, after the link is some commentary that might help clarify the background.

IRS says churches can endorse political candidates to congregations

I’m not a lawyer, so this isn’t legal advice. This piece comes from my understanding as someone who’s been a religious professional for more than 35 years. And, well, I’m a church geek.

The legal prohibition for worshipping communities speaking out to endorse a candidate is based on its status as a nonprofit, NOT as religious institution. In the recent past, a worshipping community’s endorsement of a candidate was prohibited IF a religious institution also wanted to retain its status as a nonprofit and all the benefits of being a nonprofit. Some churches decided not to retain that status, and others ignored the prohibition (I’m sometimes saying churches here vs a more general term, specifically, because it’s what I know the most about).

Just to be clear, once a candidate is elected into an office, the prohibition to speak against an elected official’s positions is no longer in play until they announce themselves as a candidate again. To add to this clarity, religious institutions were ALWAYS allowed to speak out on issues, whether or not they were up for a vote, even if the issue was perceived as partisan or candidate-related.

That said, in some churches, there were also cultural prohibitions against speaking to endorse a particular candidate and/or controversial issues. Keeping the church as a sanctuary from controversy or things that could be considered political was one way a church tried to keep the peace among members. Church conflict is the #1 reason many folks name for leaving a church.

Other churches, however, tried another approach. They sought to build a community where unity and power were built by equating one side or another of every debate as moral and the other side as immoral. They believed that losing some members was worth it to gain more like-minded members who were interested in building spiritual and political power.

This IRS change is intriguing. Although this allows a worshipping community to endorse a candidate to its members, it doesn’t seem to allow the church to do a public endorsement and retain its nonprofit status. For the most part, I’m guessing most churches will stick with the culture they had previously but this will make churches a different sort of “market” for candidates, too. It will also mean that the debates within a church to speak for one candidate or another will increase as members ask for time to speak on behalf of one candidate or pray for one.

It would be wise for worshipping communities to consider policies that match what they want to retain as a culture. In churches where “freedom of the pulpit” is part of bylaws and call agreements, a discussion about mutual covenants might help. With this prohibition removed, we will no longer have an external rule that helps determine what we can or cannot do.