The IRS, under direction from President Trump, recently revised its interpretation of a provision in the tax code (the Johnson Amendment) that prohibited religious institutions that have tax-exempt status from endorsing political candidates.
The Act has been violated for years. See the annual pilgrimage to various "black" churches by Democrats to plead their agenda and seek the endorsement of "black church" leadership. Democrats in fact, have used the strong networks within the "black church" communities to drive their "get out the vote" strategy. This has gone unprosecuted as a violation of law, but then who was going to say anything? That said, legalizing the practice won't, in my view, lead to a widespread expansion of endorsement among other church communities - precisely because as you say, it is unseemly. I've already asked my own pastor about this, and he won't have anything to do with politics from the pulpit. Period. Full stop.
As many conservative Christians flocked to Trump, the importance of politics grew in many churches. It's gotten to the point where it's divided churches and turned the term "evangelical" into a synonym for Trumper. C.S. Lewis made the point that members of the church hierarchy should avoid politics because it's not their area of expertise. I see little good coming from this IRS decision in terms of churches themselves as it will make more churches into affiliates of political parties. It will especially encourage the Christian Nationalist movement.
It acted as somewhat of a brake on the politicization of churches. Now, katy bar the door! Of course, if you are going to enter the political arena then why should you receive tax exemptions?
As you have already said, the rule wasn't enforced and that encouraged the growth of harnessing the churches for political purposes such as Falwell's Moral Majority.
As a Roman Catholic I was pleased to hear that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops offered this statement: “The Catholic Church maintains its stance of not endorsing or opposing political candidates” in response to the recent interpretation of the Johnson Amendment. That is not the purview of the church, the Gospel is. While I have often felt a great many "Cafeteria Catholics" would benefit from hearing where the Church stands relative to what their preferred political party pursues, politics has no place at the ambo.
The Act has been violated for years. See the annual pilgrimage to various "black" churches by Democrats to plead their agenda and seek the endorsement of "black church" leadership. Democrats in fact, have used the strong networks within the "black church" communities to drive their "get out the vote" strategy. This has gone unprosecuted as a violation of law, but then who was going to say anything? That said, legalizing the practice won't, in my view, lead to a widespread expansion of endorsement among other church communities - precisely because as you say, it is unseemly. I've already asked my own pastor about this, and he won't have anything to do with politics from the pulpit. Period. Full stop.
Sounds like a good pastor.
As many conservative Christians flocked to Trump, the importance of politics grew in many churches. It's gotten to the point where it's divided churches and turned the term "evangelical" into a synonym for Trumper. C.S. Lewis made the point that members of the church hierarchy should avoid politics because it's not their area of expertise. I see little good coming from this IRS decision in terms of churches themselves as it will make more churches into affiliates of political parties. It will especially encourage the Christian Nationalist movement.
As you note, it was happening anyway. So, what's the point of a law if it doesn't work?
It acted as somewhat of a brake on the politicization of churches. Now, katy bar the door! Of course, if you are going to enter the political arena then why should you receive tax exemptions?
Did it? Do you have evidence that it worked at all? As Jeff noted, it was never enforced.
I don't think churches should receive tax exemptions at all, but as I noted in the OP, that's not a fight for today.
AFAIC, get rid of the tax exemptions. Then you’re free to use your position of moral authority to promote your preferred politics all you want.
Well, it definitely helped speed up the conversion of white evangelicals to the GOP. https://www.americansurveycenter.org/short-reads/the-political-transformation-of-white-evangelical-protestants/
Hold on there. The rule was *just* changed, but the shift has already been happening. It's not even a correlation-causation fallacy.
As you have already said, the rule wasn't enforced and that encouraged the growth of harnessing the churches for political purposes such as Falwell's Moral Majority.
‘… just because you are free to say something doesn't always mean you should.’
As a Roman Catholic I was pleased to hear that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops offered this statement: “The Catholic Church maintains its stance of not endorsing or opposing political candidates” in response to the recent interpretation of the Johnson Amendment. That is not the purview of the church, the Gospel is. While I have often felt a great many "Cafeteria Catholics" would benefit from hearing where the Church stands relative to what their preferred political party pursues, politics has no place at the ambo.