I’m hiding in a different set of mountains this week, but it’s my understanding that important political stuff happened earlier this week. Was that the midterm elections or something like that?
I also understand — based on reading stories on my smartphone — that those nasty evangelical churches had a bad week, in terms of getting “their candidates” elected. I know that because I wrote a post about that topic earlier this week, right before I fired up the electric car and rushed off to hide in the hills. That headline: “Crazy political stuff happening in churches right now, but which events get the elite ink?”
We revisited that topic in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), as a way of dipping a toe into the churning midterm waters. The key to the discussion was trying to discern whether political-beat reporters — religion-beat pros tend to do much better work — understand what religious leaders are allowed to do when talking about “political” topics and politicos who are running for office.
This happens on the Religious Right and (#triggerwarning) even more on the Religious Left (click here for more on that from Baptist progressive Ryan Burge). But most of the political-beat coverage is built on scary passages like this one from a piece at The Guardian that ran with the headline, “He was chosen’: the rightwing Christian roadshow spreading the gospel of Trump.” The coverage focus on the ReAwaken rallies that blend lots of Donald Trumpian talk with nondenominational evangelical-speak. That sounds like this:
Mark Trudo, who runs his own swimming pool construction company near St Louis, is more optimistic, saying: “Right now I’m hopeful, I think things are going to turn around, a great awakening is taking place.”
Like most of his ReAwaken peers, he sees the current politics in apocalyptic terms: “The country is being taken away from us from within. This is good versus evil.”
Actual evil? As in satanic evil?
“Is God real, is Satan real? Yes, I believe they are,” he says.
Is Biden satanic?
“I don’t know he is actually satanic. He is compromised. He knows what the evil side, the satanic forces, that control him tell him to do.”
And Trump?
“As a believer, I believe God knows the future. Trump was chosen. Even though he didn’t look like a Christian figure – he was foul-mouthed and a playboy – it’s obvious God knew what he was doing and put him in.”
Wow. That language is as apocalyptic as what you’d hear at a “Vote to save democracy!” or global-warming rally.
In legal terms, however (there is that whole First Amendment thing), the question is whether clergy or leaders of nonprofit parachurch groups took part and endorsed or attacked specific politicians by name. I am also under the impression that most of these highly partisan rallies are being done, well, to raise money. Are these events nonprofit affairs? Are they run by political groups? Swimming pool professionals?
Journalists need to ask follow-the-money questions of this kind if they are actually interested in knowing whether religious leaders — left or right — are violating the Johnson Amendment (click here for specifics on that, or watch the video from a well-known progressive group at the top of this post).
What’s legal and what is illegal? Let’s flash back to my post earlier this week about coverage of the Johnson Amendment:
In my experience, we are talking about IRS officials — and maybe even a few journalists — making honest efforts to draw bright-red (or blue) lines between at least four kinds of behavior in religious congregations, as opposed to activist-group rallies (that may involve personnel from religious groups).
(1) Religious leaders stressing that decades or centuries of doctrines in their traditions have (hint, hint) strong implications for public debates on issues ranging from abortion to the environment, from economic justice to systematic racism. This happens a lot on left and right.
(2) Pastors invite political candidates to attend services and wave at the congregation, after noting that they invited the other candidate to attend, but they didn’t show up (hint, hint).
(3) Pastors inviting political candidates to speak to their congregations about why they need to get out and vote and, by the way, “We’re in this together” or words to this affect. Very similar: Clergy make remarks of this kind about a candidate — he or she is “one of us” — who is not present.
(4) Clergy openly endorsing candidates by name or attacking other candidates by name, in order to point the faithful in the opposite direction. This is the slam-dunk scenario.
Are there events that blur the lines between these four models? Of course there are.
Are there religious liberals who veer into this territory as well as religious conservatives of all kinds? Of course.
Also, it’s important to remember that famous Ronald Reagan moment that created a whole new brand of non-endorsement endorsement:
