Religious conservatives were predictably delighted by Donald Trump’s pledge at the national prayer breakfast to repeal the Johnson amendment, which prohibits pastors and other religious leaders from endorsing candidates from the pulpit. And the most recent news of his “religious liberty” executive order to relax tax rules on churches will undoubtedly excite politically engaged evangelicals.



However, this executive order could have an unintended effect: helping to elect progressive officeholders. What if progressive congregations and leaders embrace this odd political moment to amplify their voices?



Trump signs order giving religious groups greater political freedom Read more

Empowering pastors to endorse candidates is not solely for the religious right – progressives can do the same. It is time for the churches that usually stay relatively muted on social issues and specifically candidates to stop hiding behind the veil provided so conveniently by the Johnson amendment.

Trump’s plans for this executive order are certainly not intended to emancipate leaders who preside over left-leaning, progressive, or mainline churches from separation of church and state concerns.



He is giving a conspicuous nod to conservative religious leaders like Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham, and Robert Jeffress, Trump’s “religious advisers” who condemn same-sex marriage or women who exercise control over their bodies. He is thinking of prosperity gospel preachers, like Paula White and Wayne Jackson (also Trump supporters), whose voices echo through airwaves reaching nearly every part of the globe.

Where are the progressive Christian voices who understand the opportunity that this executive order world could give? They are sitting on the sidelines, continually ceding ownership of morality in public life to the Religious Right.

Progressives make moral claims on the basis of reason, simply, often at the exclusion of a religious ethic that might have secular implications. Progressive candidates can cultivate champions for issues they support within the congregational halls of churches around the country.



Issues championed by Jesus Christ included feeding and housing the poor, clothing the naked, and helping the needy, and these are saliently represented by candidates during elections.

Trump’s prayer breakfast promise to repeal the Johnson amendment drew the backlash of over 90 religious groups. But what if that backlash could be followed by clearly naming and then endorsing candidates who align with their views? And what if they could organize their millions of congregants to advocate for those candidates? What if the Presbyterian Church of America that ordains LGBT ministers empowered those same ministers to decry candidates who seek to limit those rights?



In a 2016 Pew Research study, only 22% of white mainline churchgoers reported having been encouraged to vote in primaries. In that same study, only 4% percent of white evangelicals and 2% of white mainline Protestants reported having been encouraged to support a candidate.

Dangers of repealing the Johnson amendment and signing this executive order do abound. Repealing it does spell disaster for the longstanding concept of separation between church and state. Churches and other not-for-profit groups are not necessarily resilient enough to endure the impacts of the tithes and donations that might depart with members who disagree with a clergy’s decision to endorse a candidate.



Parishioners and taxpayers alike will rightfully worry about whether tax-free donations will eventually subsidize the pursuits of political candidates.

But in this climate, with all that is at stake for this country, mainline and progressive churches must at bare minimum figure out if this executive order and potential repeal of the Johnson amendment spells a potential boon for both the right as well as the left.



Reactions have too narrowly focused on Trump’s perverse political incentives to give the religious right a win. Instead, it is time for progressive religious leaders to embrace the potential undoing of the Johnson amendment and the signing of this executive order as an opportunity to speak more clearly about what a more diverse moral ethic can mean for the country.

