By Dr. Mark Waters

I’m concerned about the new IRS ruling that allows houses of worship to endorse political candidates. Endorsing candidates from the pulpit is packed with dangerous risks. A hidden risk that could have unintended consequences is that, unlike secular 501(c)(3) nonprofits, churches and affiliated organizations are not required to file IRS form 990. This publicly available form discloses financial and operational information, thereby increasing transparency. Religious organizations are not subject to this level of public transparency.

The recent IRS ruling, combined with exemption from filing the 990, opens a nontransparent loophole to donate tax-exempt money to endorse political candidates through religious organizations. For example, “Pastor, I’ll double my pledge if you will consistently endorse my favored political candidate throughout this election cycle.” This loophole may seem minimal when thinking of small, local congregations. But imagine the political impact of large numbers of doners in mega-churches across the country choosing this hidden, tax-exempt route to support candidates. No doubt, people with more creative minds than I could find other ways to use the lack of 990-transparency, entangled with the now free option to endorse candidates, to manipulate political donations through houses of worship for nefarious reasons. 

Another risk of the religious endorsement of candidates is the proliferation of the idolatry of Christian Nationalism. Project 2025, the Seven Mountains Mandate, and the New Apostolic Reformation all support and actively work for the dismantling of the separation of church and state. Allowing political endorsements in houses of worship is a relatively small, but very real, dimension of this broader strategy to transform our democracy into a theocracy. 

Everything described above is dangerous to our religious freedom and to our democracy. But the opposite extreme—the claim that religion is a private matter and should not address political/public concerns—is also unwise and ill-informed. It is, frankly, bad theology. This is the case because Christianity is inherently political as are most other religious traditions. 

For religions to be faithful to their core values, they/we have to address socio-political concerns like immigration, human dignity, poverty, living cooperatively and peacefully with others, the use and misuse of power, war, and more. These political concerns are also religious concerns. Individual Christians and communities of faith can address these issues through hands-on ministries and through activism that influences public policy. 

If non-Nationalistic people of faith conflate separation of church and state with “keeping religion private,” then we abdicate our moral obligation (1) to support and advocate for oppressed and marginalized people and (2) to resist the Christian Nationalist movement, a movement that says empathy is a sin and Jesus’ teachings are too soft. A recent opinion piece in Religion News Service said it well, “the separation of church and state does not mean there should be a separation of church and society. Faith has always inserted itself into the American public square — sometimes malevolently, but often for good.”

(The claims in this article are mine. They do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.)

Mark Waters is professor of religion at McMurry University and chair of the Division of Humanities, Religion, and Social Sciences