• “Trump’s IRS hands churches more tax-free political power. What’s next? Watch Handmaid’s Tale!”

• “Religion and state and military have now merged. It is the end.”

• “The supreme court has been compromised. We are in free fall.”

• “The takeover of Christian fascism is now complete.”

• “This is full on Christo-Fascism. There is no pretense anymore. Capitalism and Christianity have joined forces once more to do unimaginable harm to EVERYBODY. This is fascism, add Western Chauvinism and you have got the trifecta of EVIL that WILL DESTROY HUMANITY IF WE CANNOT DEFEAT THEM!”

• “Full-blown Christian theocracy!”

So what finally turned us into Gilead? A new ruling allowing churches to endorse political candidates without losing their tax-exempt status.

But the church itself would do well to avoid endorsing any humans, for a myriad of reasons.

Technically, prior to Monday’s ruling, churches could not make endorsements due to the Johnson Amendment, which took effect in 1954 and barred tax-exempt nonprofit organizations from political speech.

I say technically, because left-leaning churches have never let that stop them, as journalist Megan Basham noted in response to a tweet decrying the new rule.

Quite a few on the left are also making evidence-free accusations that “right-wing” churches have been endorsing candidates for years. That’s definitely the pot calling the kettle black, since even Pew Research showed where the politicizing of church is happening. And this is all without fear of the IRS cracking down, apparently.

That’s why this rule, practically speaking, isn’t really changing much.

While conservative-leaning churches did speak out in 2024 about the evils being advanced by the Democrat ticket, in general, they are not nearly as likely to be involved in electioneering as liberal churches. So Megan Basham is likely on point in diagnosing leftist outrage as all about the newly leveled playing field.

What church is supposed to be

Having spent plenty of decades attending Bible-following Christian churches that were likely pretty Republican, I can personally attest that I’ve never heard a sermon that endorsed a candidate or even endorsed a particular political viewpoint.

I have heard sermons that addressed issues in the context of the biblical passage being preached, as they should.

If your pastor is teaching from Psalm 139, for example, and gets to verses 13-16, he better point out that this passage helps us understand how to think about abortion. (Here’s the passage if you’re not familiar.)

So here’s what should stay the same. Solid Christian churches should teach the Bible. Sunday sermons should work their way through scripture, helping us understand what it tells us about God, what it tells us about how to think about life, what it tells us about ourselves.

If, as in the example above, the scripture in question addresses a political issue, the pastor should absolutely be free to say so.

If, using the same example, there’s actually a current ballot issue for or against abortion, the pastor should absolutely be free to encourage his flock to vote with God’s Word — and the new rule should remove any fear of doing that last part.

I cannot conceive, however, of any instances where the focus of a sermon should move away from God’s Word and into which individuals to endorse.

Even in situations where a church member might be the one running for office, this kind of discussion from the pulpit would take the focus off the One we are there to worship.

I hope no pastors will do that.

There already is nothing preventing groups of church members from discussing who to vote for in a non-worship service setting, of course. Let’s keep doing that.

But the church itself would do well to avoid endorsing any humans, for a myriad of reasons — including the fact that tying the church’s name to a politician is far more likely to end up sullying the church’s name (and God’s) than the politician’s name.

RELATED: Patriotic heresy: 4 examples of tangling faith with the flag

Tom Williams/Getty Images

It’s all about the money, or not

A lot of the left-wing angst over this issue seems to revolve around this idea, expressed by the American Humanist Association (unsurprisingly).

Theoretically a billionaire is limited in how much he/she can donate to a politician, but not to a church. So yeah, someone could give a boatload of money to a church.

But they could have done that before this rule change! And I think it’s highly likely that wealthy leftists have supported the kind of churches where people have been rallied to vote for Democrats. I recall photos of Tyler Perry doing a get-out-the-vote event for Barack Obama in a lovely church with stained glass windows.

So what the left is really afraid of is that conservative billionaires will somehow “buy” influence at conservative churches. Give them enough money, and the pastor will have to endorse Trump (or JD Vance, or whoever).

And there may be a few churches where that would work. It might appeal to the small, pathetic, and power-hungry Christian nationalists (the only “Christians” actually advocating some Gilead-like ideas).

Their goal is to take over America anyway. But they don’t have enough power or influence to draw big money, with their revolting takes on women, Jews, and a host of other issues.

As for most conservative-oriented Christian churches — why would our elusive right-wing billionaire spend money getting them to vote for someone they’ll probably already vote for? And that applies on the left, too, despite the political emphases in left-leaning churches. If a group of people is already in your pocket, you don’t need to buy them.

So I don’t think the humanists have a case for this being any more of a problem than it always was. But that doesn’t mean there’s no room for caution here.

Resist the temptation

Some conservative churches have flown a little too close to the political fire, conflating faith with patriotism. I think those churches might be a bit more at risk of taking their focus off the Lord and succumbing to this new temptation to delve into the political.

But as mentioned, church exists for us to worship God and learn how to follow Him. Anything that takes away from that does not glorify Him. Churches — and perhaps especially pastors — should resist the urge to share opinions that are not relevant to whatever they’re teaching.

Make no mistake — philosophically, this is a free-speech victory. But just because we can — does not mean we should. And pastors/churches should not be endorsing candidates from the pulpit or in an official church capacity.

Our proceeding with restraint in this area might also provide a counter to the left’s call, now, to remove tax-exempt status from churches entirely. I would hate to see this status revoked; I don’t think churches should be taxed at all.

Let’s get real

For the most part, we’ve usually known who our pastor might be voting for, because a church is a family of people who live life together and talk about important things. But if he had endorsed someone from the pulpit or in some official capacity, that would have been bringing things into church that distract from worship of a holy God. And that would be a shame. And a sin.

Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire. – Hebrews 12:28-29