Thank you, IRS! You’ve Just Unleashed Democracy’s Secret Weapon: Activist Clergy.
Progressive Clergy can now say the quiet stuff out loud. If only they can summon the courage to stand up to their lay leaders.
I was delighted to see that Bishop Mariann Budde is now on Substack. She’s the one who spoke moral truth to power in front of President Trump at the Washington National Cathedral on the day after the inauguration. She pleaded with him for mercy, on behalf of precisely those people Trump is oppressing now.
There are gay, lesbian, and transgender children in Democratic, Republican, and Independent families, some who fear for their lives.
The people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings, who labor in poultry farms and meat packing plants, who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants and work the night shifts in hospitals. They…may not be citizens or have the proper documentation. But the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes and are good neighbors. They are faithful members of our churches and mosques, synagogues, gurdwaras and temples.
She admits that her words, which enraged Trump, may have had the effect of amplifying the divisions that the prayer service for unity sought to address. It is a valid criticism, she adds, but “I attempted to speak with humility and respect when addressing the president. Yet if I had only said what our leaders wanted to hear, would that not have been a shirking of my responsibility?”
She then asserts, and I concur, “Speaking out on the issues at the center of national debate is moral leadership.”
When you put it that way, clergy have no choice but to speak out - and endorse.
And now we can do it without concern that Trump will send the IRS after us and threaten our congregations’ non-profit status. Why? Because, in a move designed to obliterate the line separating religion and state and assist conservative candidates in upcoming elections, the Trump administration has unwittingly unleashed arguably the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the resistance: moral leadership from authoritative, credible and compassionate progressive clergy.
To my progressive and moderate colleagues, I repeat: The “wink, wink” era is over! No more leaving it parishioners to “draw their own conclusions” about what you hope they will do. No more countering scorched-earth politics with “strongly worded statements,” filled with plausible deniability.
Here’s what has changed. The I.R.S., in a major policy shift, has stated that churches can endorse candidates from the pulpit.
Since the goal, so transparently, is to assist conservative candidates, as a progressive rabbi I suggest that this strategy could backfire bigly.
Right-wing pastors have been flouting pulpit partisanship bans for decades, ever since Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority helped elect Ronald Reagan to the White House and in doing so changed the face of American religion. His son, Jerry Falwell Jr., followed suit with an early endorsement of Donald Trump in 2016 and funneled millions into Trump-related causes from his post at non-profit Liberty University. And just read this 2024 electoral call to arms by the televangelist Jimmy Swaggart1, the defrocked and disgraced televangelist who died on July 1.
I must add that not all evangelicals are happy with politics on the pulpit. “The pulpit should be used in a prophetic manner, bringing the gospel to bear on today’s complex cultural issues,” said Walter Kim, president of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in a 2024 article by the National Associated of Evangelicals.
“Church leaders should inform, uplift and draw people into deeper discipleship that impacts how they engage in their communities, including how they vote. Endorsing a political candidate is rarely helpful and most often breeds division.”
But back in 2008, conservative groups declared Pulpit Freedom Sunday, a single day in October when pastors could defy the IRS ruling and endorse a candidate, and in 2012, 1,500 pastors did.
And a peek inside the White House these days shows that Christian nationalism is front-and-center; there isn’t even a pretense of obscuring Trump’s Christian Nationalist vision for America. Every norm has been upended, in red state legislatures and in Trump friendly courts, including the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, progressive clergy, with the notable exception of African American churches, have naively opted to follow the rules, skating by with guarded, subtle, values-based “wink, wink” messages, as Budde did. Her words were powerful, in part because they were based on shared moral principles that transcend politics, but she opened herself up to criticism, which she then received from Trump himself and the MAGA-Fox-osphere.
Now, thanks to the IRS, she won’t have to tiptoe anymore.
Until now, the Johnson Amendment, as the rule was called, had a chilling effect - but primarily only for one side. Now libs are liberated to say what we really think, and just in time for midterms that could decide the future of the American experiment.
That is, if our lay leaders and creaky institutions will allow us to.
Given that progressive congregation leaders tend to focus on membership and fundraising, and on not rocking the boat, this will be a challenge. It will require extraordinary courage from clergy to meet this moment and stand up to the timidity and apathy of their leaders, but if they can, it will help level the ecclesiastical playing field.
I believe this new policy will galvanize at least some mainline churches, communities of color and progressive synagogues. We can dream of large traffic jams of buses bringing "souls to the polls" next year - maybe interfaith caravans to match the fake migrant caravans of yore.
And come this Rosh Hashanah, perhaps more rabbis will summon their inner Raphael Warnock2 and finally be able to deliver honest, forceful messages from the pulpit that don’t end in some intellectualized, equivocating version of “wink, wink.”
So now the question is clear: Should we resist and challenge this blatant IRS attack on that precious “Wall of Separation”3 between religion and state? Or should we seize this opportunity and run with it?
Some mainstream organization leaders refuse to seize this moment, like Dov Pesner, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, who said in a statement: “This decision fails to recognize the realities of modern spiritual life and could expose clergy, including rabbis and cantors, to unjust scrutiny as they fulfill their sacred duty to teach, guide, and inspire.”
Pesner makes some key points and I recommend reading the full statement,4 but clergy are exposed to unjust scrutiny all the time, and their sacred duty is not merely to inspire, but to lead.
My friend and colleague Rabbi David Wolpe told the Forward:
“It is a terrible mistake to encourage religious institutions to become partisan outposts. The Bible is not a party manifesto and God is not a delegate. We are there to hear and succor souls. Can there not be one area of life where the messy, divisive and earthly inciting of politics does not prevail?”
In principle he’s right, although if you really want to see the messiness of politics, try going to a temple board meeting sometime. Politics happens everywhere people care about important issues and want to debate them. It’s not inherently dirty, though it is usually messy. In some cases, though not all, there is a clear and indisputable right side and wrong side. And now, it is incumbent upon those preaching the values of the right side to not mince their words, or waste a precious millisecond fighting the new rule when we should be gearing up for a more existential fight, because the other side is going to endorse, endorse, endorse, as it has been doing for decades.
Enough with the “wink wink.” The era of the strongly-worded letter has long since passed.
So I say, seize this opportunity and run with it.
And there is precedent to prove my point.
Until now, the Johnson Amendment, as the rule was called, had a chilling effect - but primarily only for one side. Now libs are liberated to say what we really think, and just in time for midterms that could decide the future of the American experiment.
In the 1980s, mainstream American Jewish groups fought like hell against the display of religious symbols on public property, including our own Hanukkah menorah, because many felt it would only encourage government-sponsored displays of Christian symbols, like crèches. Orthodox Jewish groups, in particular Chabad, were already using public menorah lightings as their rallying cry for Jewish pride, much to the consternation of federations and progressive rabbis.
But in 1989, the liberal Jews lost this battle, when the Supreme Court ruled, in County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, that while crèches were religious displays and could not be displayed on government property, menorahs and Christmas trees were secular and OK.
The irony here is that the menorah, the most ubiquitous and primal religious symbol in all of Judaism (older than a Torah scroll, more prominent than a mezuzah, less binding than matzah and less icky than a sliced foreskin), whose religious power the Orthodox harnessed, was considered by the Supreme Court to be a secular symbol, basically on par with a dreidel. And with that odd decision, public menorah lightings proliferated.
Who knew that one of the oldest and most potent religious symbols in all of Judaism, a symbol that burned brightly in the Temple itself until the Romans sacked the place and brought the sacred items back to Rome, would now be considered secular? It was a huge insult to the Jewish religion, but ultimately a big win for Jewish pride. Since this ruling came down, I’ve lit the menorah at my city’s government center numerous times, and played dreidel with the mayor. There have been multiple menorahs at the White House too - and yet the church-state wall has not crumbled.
See also my info packet: The Menorah - Judaism’s Ancient Symbol of Light5
The lesson here is that, while the separation of religion and state has made America a model for religious pluralism that we all cherish and must preserve, that precious separation line can shift from time to time.
And perhaps what the IRS is now allowing, which amounts to direct religious involvement in promoting moral voices in American politics, can be a good thing.
The history of the 1954 tax amendment, the source of the now overruled rule, is fascinating. It was offered by Senator Lyndon Johnson, and evidently without any connection to church-state issues or the Bill of Rights. It was a simple amendment to a bill and there was almost no discussion. It speaks to churches as institutions and references clergy only inasmuch as they endorse candidates from the pulpit itself. It’s hard to say what the original goal was, but it seems clear that it was not to preserve that precious Wall of Separation.
And now the rule is gone. But the Wall still remains.
To my progressive and moderate colleagues, I repeat: The “wink, wink” era is over! No more leaving it parishioners to “draw their own conclusions” about what you hope they will do. No more countering scorched-earth politics with “strongly worded statements,” filled with plausible deniability.
Tell ‘em what you really think!
There’s still plenty of room for nuance, subtlety and literary flourish in our messages, as long as we can clearly say the quiet part out loud:
The emperor has no clothes - and, oh yes, he’s putting innocent people into concentration camps - and they ARE concentration camps. And - here’s the kicker - the only way out of this is to get souls to the polls, and our bodies to the streets.
If you care about democracy in America and freedom throughout the world, nothing else matters more than defanging this malignant regime at the polls, while we still can.
Then, when the country has been saved, we can take another look tax-exemption policies - and the many other alarming attacks on the Wall of Separation that have occurred.
The stakes are enormously high, passions are at a fever pitch and the core issues of a campaign touch on those values that define our faith traditions. If clergy can’t speak out on some of the most important decisions their parishioners are going to make, what can they speak out on? If I can preach about such intimate decisions a person makes, from what to eat to whether to have a child, how could I not weigh in on a matter so important as which lever to pull in the voting booth?
To all those who would prefer their religious gatherings to be pristine, peaceful and politics-free, please understand that such a time has never existed - at least not in any Bible or history book I’ve ever read. The first amendment guarantees that a religion will neither be favored nor forced upon Americans. It does not say that I can’t tell people that a terrible person is in fact terrible, that a sinner is a sinner, and that said sinner is the single reason why the pews in Hispanic churches are half empty on Sundays.
See also: ICE agents wielding guns tried to intimidate my church. We will not bow in fear (Rev. Tanya Lopez, USA Today, 7/15).6
Innocent Hispanic parishioners are afraid to come to church because they are terrified of being abducted by ICE.
Innocent Jewish parishioners are afraid of attending synagogue because their synagogue may be firebombed, as happened last week in Melbourne. So where is the “free exercise of religion” in that?
See also: Congregation flees after arsonist sets fire to an Australian synagogue door (NBC, AP, July 5)
Yes, many people prefer their pastors to rise above partisanship. I do too. But I care about America more - and I know that the only path out of this moral morass is to speak clearly and carry a big, unfiltered oratorical stick.
The IRS just gave religious leaders license to do just that.
From Swaggart’s 2024 call to arms:
One more thing, we don’t believe that a person can call himself a Christian and still vote for candidates who are clearly anti-God and anti-Bible. Abortion and same-sex marriage are always the two issues of great concern. Again, these are not political issues, they are moral issues, and the Bible speaks clearly on each one, fully and completely—both are sins. If you don’t think these are sins, then you haven’t read your Bible. And if you have read your Bible on these subjects and still think they are not sins, then you are denying what the Bible teaches. Folks, the Word of God is truth, and the Lord knows how badly abortion and same-sex marriage destroys individuals and wrecks homes. If these sins go unchecked, not only will they keep destroying families and homes, but they will eventually destroy our country.
Ephesians 5:8 says, “For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light.” That means Christians are to promote, hold up, and proclaim holiness and righteousness. This passage goes on to say, “(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.” Is abortion acceptable to the Lord? No! Is same-sex marriage acceptable to the Lord? No! The Lord Himself performed the first wedding ceremony between a man and a woman. Reading on, Ephesians 5:11 is key: “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” So to all the Christians out there still clinging to the pro-choice party, why aren’t you obeying the Word of God?
Warnock, an active pulpit minister, does endorse candidates, incidentally.
In an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, then-president Thomas Jefferson highlighted the “wall of separation” metaphor previously utilized by Roger Williams, who had referred to the “wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world” (Carter 1992, 116).
Jefferson explained his understanding of the First Amendment’s religion clauses as reflecting the view of “the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall between church and State.”
The Supreme Court first quoted Jefferson’s reference in Reynolds v. United States (1879), a case in which the Court rejected the claim that the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty exempted members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from the prohibition of polygamy due to their religious belief (at that time, but no longer) in the duty of polygamy.
The full Reform Movement (RAC) statement:
“We are deeply alarmed by the IRS’s decision to allow houses of worship to endorse political candidates while maintaining their non-profit status. The clear implication is that church funds can now, for the first time, be used for such endorsements or opposition to candidates and parties. This decision further weakens campaign finance laws, raising the prospect of political donors contributing to houses of worship to support such partisan purposes and obtaining a tax deduction for such ‘contributions.’ This change in policy weakens the principle of church-state separation that has protected both government and religion, allowing diverse religious communities—including our own—to flourish.
Permitting synagogues and other houses of worship to endorse or oppose candidates undercuts the integrity and unity of these religious institutions, turning them into an extension of political candidates or parties. Because of the hyper-partisan quality of contemporary politics, this risks dividing congregations and alienating those supporting different parties or candidates, thereby threatening the congregation’s status as a place where all feel welcome, rooted in faith teachings and transcending partisanship.
We call on Congress to reverse this deeply misguided policy, which is not only dangerously divisive but also opens the door to significant abuse, undermining both the democratic process and the public’s trust in the integrity of our religious institutions. At a time when religious communities routinely livestream services and share sermons online, thereby offering a backdoor for spreading partisanship far beyond actual congregants, we reject the IRS’s claim that political endorsements by clergy are similar to ‘a family discussion concerning candidates.’ This decision fails to recognize the realities of modern spiritual life and could expose clergy, including rabbis and cantors, to unjust scrutiny as they fulfill their sacred duty to teach, guide, and inspire. During a time of intense political polarization, we continue to support our rabbis’ and cantors’ abilities to lead diverse congregations with moral courage.”
As a pastor, I consider the church not just a place of worship, but a sacred home − somewhere families gather to find comfort, courage and communion. For generations, our pews have held the laughter of children, the tears of grief and joy, and the prayers of the faithful.
Last month, the sanctity of our space was shattered.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents entered the parking lot of Downey Memorial Christian Church to take a man who was walking through our property. The agents were armed, masked and aggressive.
They tried to intimidate clergy and staff − people whose only armor is their faith and moral convictions. In that moment, our sacred space became a site of state-sanctioned fear and violence.
This is not isolated. It is part of a widening campaign.
Archbishop Alberto Rojas of San Bernardino, the spiritual shepherd of more than a million Catholics, recently excused parishioners from their obligation to attend Mass.
Why? Because fear of ICE raids has become so pervasive that even worship cannot feel safe.
These are not abstract fears. They are grounded in the reality our congregation and other houses of worship face.
Again and again, President Donald Trump's administration has traded compassion for cruelty and mercy for militarization.
With the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which increases funding for ICE and expands its power to conduct raids, the message is clear: no space is sacred.
Every morning, I walk my puppy to CPW, where we sit on the steps of the Spanish/Portuguese Temple
The last church I belonged to was a Unitarian Universalist church where speakers would talk about many subjects, including politics. I see nothing wrong with religious leaders discussing political policies that affect parishioners and the morality of these decisions and the moral qualities of those politicians, as long as they and their congregations are not contributing money to political campaigns from money that is donated to their congregations from the parishioners. The religious leaders should not have this power since in the US, money equals power!