Faith Works 7-25-2025
Jeff Gill
Endorsements are a matter worth some ethical consideration
___
Recently there was a notice out of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) modifying their guidelines around political endorsements, or so some claimed.
I'm reading all this more cautiously; you don't want to hear the whole history of the Johnson Amendment, which goes back to when ol' Lyndon Baines Johnson was in the U.S. Senate, and in 1954 was part of an effort to limit how non-profits in general and churches in particular could endorse particular candidates.
It hasn't been used much, but the existence of this guideline was said to have a "chilling effect" on political speech by clergy in their pulpits.
What has changed is a court filing by the IRS, and an indication that they do not intend to apply the Johnson Amendment the same way, with the new understanding that when a preacher or church leader "in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith" this is a conversation within the family, and something that comes under free speech.
Hmmm. Lots of wiggle room there in multiple directions.
What I'd say as a preacher over many decades is that I've never endorsed a particular candidate, or electoral option, from the pulpit. Not because I was worried about the implications for our tax-exempt status, but because it feels like it's on the wrong side of an ethical issue for me.
Let's try a different angle. It's well known that there is a general exemption for clergy around "confessions" and what we can be forced to share about what's said when a parishioner confesses a sinful act to us in our ministerial role.
Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that; some religious traditions have a "seal of the confessional" as a principle of their faith, many of us do not. Legally, if you're in the latter camp, you can't claim immunity from interrogation on the basis of a religious restriction you don't have, though I suspect law enforcement or prosecutors would go a long way around to try and avoid requiring a minister to testify about something said to them in confidence in their official role.
Yet we are all mandatory reporters; if a minister becomes aware of abuse or neglect, under Ohio law we're expected to report it. If clergy-penitent privilege applies to you, there may still be an expectation of reporting what you've observed, even if you first learned about abuse or neglect through a confessional disclosure. At a certain point, you have to consider what your ethical obligation is, and do what is right. When two rights conflict (protecting the sanctity of confession versus protecting children or dependent adults) you need to have a solid ethical framework to reason from.
Which brings me back to politics. I don't see myself ever endorsing a candidate because it simply is too far over a line of subordinating the truth claims of my faith to placing my preaching role in service of a particular office seeker. As you may have heard, politicians can disappoint you as time goes by. You may agree with them on many things, then find out later you loaned your credibility and the stature of your witness to a bent reed, a broken bough.
I have political opinions. Lots of them. They're easy to find! But not in the pulpit. I'm going to step out of that place of privilege and responsibility before I tell you what I think about the race for dog catcher.
Ethically, not legally, that's what appears to me to be the right place to stand.
Jeff Gill is a writer, storyteller, and preacher in central Ohio; he has so many opinions they can trip him up sometimes. Tell him yours at knapsack77@gmail.com, or follow @Knapsack77 on Threads or Bluesky.
Jeff Gill
Endorsements are a matter worth some ethical consideration
___
Recently there was a notice out of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) modifying their guidelines around political endorsements, or so some claimed.
I'm reading all this more cautiously; you don't want to hear the whole history of the Johnson Amendment, which goes back to when ol' Lyndon Baines Johnson was in the U.S. Senate, and in 1954 was part of an effort to limit how non-profits in general and churches in particular could endorse particular candidates.
It hasn't been used much, but the existence of this guideline was said to have a "chilling effect" on political speech by clergy in their pulpits.
What has changed is a court filing by the IRS, and an indication that they do not intend to apply the Johnson Amendment the same way, with the new understanding that when a preacher or church leader "in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith" this is a conversation within the family, and something that comes under free speech.
Hmmm. Lots of wiggle room there in multiple directions.
What I'd say as a preacher over many decades is that I've never endorsed a particular candidate, or electoral option, from the pulpit. Not because I was worried about the implications for our tax-exempt status, but because it feels like it's on the wrong side of an ethical issue for me.
Let's try a different angle. It's well known that there is a general exemption for clergy around "confessions" and what we can be forced to share about what's said when a parishioner confesses a sinful act to us in our ministerial role.
Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that; some religious traditions have a "seal of the confessional" as a principle of their faith, many of us do not. Legally, if you're in the latter camp, you can't claim immunity from interrogation on the basis of a religious restriction you don't have, though I suspect law enforcement or prosecutors would go a long way around to try and avoid requiring a minister to testify about something said to them in confidence in their official role.
Yet we are all mandatory reporters; if a minister becomes aware of abuse or neglect, under Ohio law we're expected to report it. If clergy-penitent privilege applies to you, there may still be an expectation of reporting what you've observed, even if you first learned about abuse or neglect through a confessional disclosure. At a certain point, you have to consider what your ethical obligation is, and do what is right. When two rights conflict (protecting the sanctity of confession versus protecting children or dependent adults) you need to have a solid ethical framework to reason from.
Which brings me back to politics. I don't see myself ever endorsing a candidate because it simply is too far over a line of subordinating the truth claims of my faith to placing my preaching role in service of a particular office seeker. As you may have heard, politicians can disappoint you as time goes by. You may agree with them on many things, then find out later you loaned your credibility and the stature of your witness to a bent reed, a broken bough.
I have political opinions. Lots of them. They're easy to find! But not in the pulpit. I'm going to step out of that place of privilege and responsibility before I tell you what I think about the race for dog catcher.
Ethically, not legally, that's what appears to me to be the right place to stand.
Jeff Gill is a writer, storyteller, and preacher in central Ohio; he has so many opinions they can trip him up sometimes. Tell him yours at knapsack77@gmail.com, or follow @Knapsack77 on Threads or Bluesky.
No comments:
Post a Comment