The Pulpit Wasn't Made for This
This is not to say that churches should remain altogether silent on politics. I was raised in the southern Black church tradition, which did not have the luxury of separating spiritual and political matters. Our churches came into existence when slavery was the law of the land. My ancestors were forced to answer the question: Were the laws of enslavement what God intended for our people? I am grateful for those who said that God willed abolition and liberation, for those who took a political question—how to understand slavery—and answered it theologically. 'The Church should concern itself solely with spiritual matters' can be uttered only by those whose ancestors never felt the sting of the whip and the chain.
Bearing witness against unjust laws is essential. Endorsing candidates, however, is likely to be destructive. Over the past two decades, I have served in churches on three continents and weighed in on political issues in print and from the pulpit. But I have never felt that making direct affirmations of political candidates was necessary to serve my congregations well. I don't want my members to believe that being faithful to God entails voting in exactly the same way as their pastor.
The difference between making moral judgments and endorsing candidates may seem slight, but it respects the conscience and liberty of laypeople. Very few candidates tick all the moral boxes of any religious tradition. Voting involves considering the office to which a person is elected and the types of influence that they could have on a given issue. Christians of goodwill can weigh these matters and come to divergent conclusions. Believers may decide to refrain from voting or choose a third party because, in their view, neither majority candidate is acceptable. To believe that churches can direct the laity on how to vote, whether for members of the school board or for the president of the country, is to deny the Christian teaching that all humans are made in the image of God and can understand and follow his will themselves.
The IRS justified its change by saying that pastoral endorsements are 'like a family discussion concerning candidates.' Although the Church often describes itself as a family, the analogy does not hold when it comes to endorsements. Many churches livestream their services on platforms such as YouTube and Facebook. The only families that broadcast their dinners to thousands of people are on reality TV. If a large, influential church endorses candidates, it will not be a family matter; it will be national news. This in turn could put pressure on other churches to issue counter-endorsements. Remaining neutral might be seen as a stance in itself. Pastors of churches large and small run the risk of being drawn into endorsement wars.
Pastoral endorsements heighten American political divisions. Studies have long shown that Democrats and Republicans tend to get their information from separate media outlets and to run in different social circles. Churches are among the few places attempting to gather people from across the political spectrum. Endorsements, however, may lead congregants to attend churches that support their favored candidates, turning a previously neutral gathering space into a politically charged one.
David Brooks: What happened to American conservatism?
Because of these risks, some Christian denominations resist making political endorsements regardless of what the government allows. The Catholic Church, for example, teaches that the Church, 'because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community.' To keep that distinction clear, Catholic clergy are usually prohibited from running for political office. Nonetheless, priests and other church officials are free to make 'moral judgments' on political matters.
Endorsing candidates would be not an expansion of the Church's work, but a reduction. When the Catholic saint Thomas More was martyred for running afoul of King Henry VIII, he was credited with saying, 'I die the King's good servant and God's first.' The point being, the Church is most useful to the state when it reminds the government of the limits of its authority.
I do not believe that Donald Trump's IRS, with its regulation change, was motivated by a desire to help the Church serve God and love our neighbors well. Instead, I believe that the government thinks the new policy will be politically useful, even if it weakens relationships and threatens the health of our communities. The change is an attempt to get pastors to use the pulpit for ends for which it was never intended—a temptation we would do better to resist.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Court Lets Trump Block Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid
(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration can cut billions of dollars in foreign assistance funds approved by Congress for this year, a US appeals court ruled. Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets In a 2-1 decision on Wednesday, the appellate panel reversed a Washington federal judge who found that US officials were violating the Constitution's separation of powers principles by failing to authorize the money to be paid in line with what the legislative branch directed. The ruling is a significant win for President Donald Trump's efforts to dissolve the US Agency for International Development and broadly withhold funding from programs that have fallen out of favor with his administration, regardless of how Congress exercised its authority over spending. Trump's critics have assailed what they've described as a far-reaching power grab by the executive branch. The nonprofits and business that sued could ask all of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reconsider the three-member panel's decision. If the panel's decision stands, it wasn't immediately clear how much it would affect other lawsuits contesting a range of Trump administration funding freezes and cuts besides foreign aid. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the majority opinion that the challengers lacked valid legal grounds to sue over the Trump administration's decision to withhold the funds, also known as impoundment. The US Comptroller General — who leads an accountability arm of Congress — could sue under a specific law related to impoundment decisions, Henderson wrote, but the challengers couldn't bring a 'freestanding' constitutional claim or claim violations of a different law related to agency actions. Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, was joined by Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee. The court didn't reach the core question of whether the administration's unilateral decision to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress is constitutional. Judge Florence Pan, nominated by former President Joe Biden, dissented, writing that her colleagues had turned 'a blind eye to the 'serious implications' of this case for the rule of law and the very structure of our government.' White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement that the appeals court 'has affirmed what we already knew – President Trump has the executive authority to execute his own foreign policy, which includes ensuring that all foreign assistance aligns with the America First agenda.' A lead attorney for the grant recipients did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The two consolidated cases before the appeals court only deal with money that Congress approved for the 2024 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Grantees are poised to lose access to funds if they haven't yet been approved to be spent by federal officials — a precursor to actual payouts — or unless a court order is in place. The administration lost one of its few battles before the US Supreme Court earlier this year in the foreign aid fight. In March, a majority of justices refused to immediately stop US District Judge Amir Ali's injunction taking effect while the legal fight went forward. Since then, however, the challengers have filed complaints with Ali that the administration is failing to obligate or pay out the funds. They've rebuffed the government's position that the delay is part of a legitimate effort to 'evaluate the appropriate next steps' and accused officials of angling to use a novel tactic to go around Congress in order to cut appropriated money. The Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the US government's humanitarian work overseas, slashing spending and personnel and merging the USAID into the State Department. The challengers say the foreign aid freeze has created a global crisis, and that the money is critical for malaria prevention, to address child malnutrition and provide postnatal care for newborns. The groups argued that the president and agency leaders couldn't defy Congress' spending mandates and didn't have discretion to decide that only some, let alone none, of the money appropriated by lawmakers should be paid. The president can ask Congress to withdraw appropriations but can't do it on his own, the challengers argued. The Justice Department argued Ali's order was an 'improper judicial intrusion into matters left to the political branches' and that the judge wrongly interfered in the 'particularly sensitive area of foreign relations.' The government also said that the Impoundment Control Act, which restricts the president from overruling Congress' spending decisions, wasn't a law that the nonprofits and business could sue to enforce. The challengers countered that Ali's order blocking the funding freeze was rooted in their constitutional separation-of-powers claim, not the impoundment law. The cases are Global Health Council v. Trump, 25-5097, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. US Department of State, 25-5098, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. (Updated with White House comment.) Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash The Social Media Trend Machine Is Spitting Out Weirder and Weirder Results Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
San Francisco Chronicle
3 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
A $200 million endowment focused on Black Americans is taking shape
Started in 2020 as a five-year initiative inspired by the racial justice outcry following the police murder of George Floyd, the California Black Freedom Fund plans to expand to a $200 million endowment. The move is both rare in the world of philanthropy and politically bold, given the Trump administration's efforts to eliminate race-based grant making. Originally a designated fund of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, the fund spun off on July 1, renaming itself the Black Freedom Fund, to indicate its new national scope. Over the past five years, it has drawn more than $97 million in donations. Of that, it has directed $45 million to 206 nonprofits in California, largely working to increase the sway of nonprofits that serve Black people, with a portion of the remainder being reserved to start the endowment. Marc Philpart, the fund's executive director, said the endowment will let the fund make grants of $10 million a year without cutting into its asset base, assuming historical rates of return on investments. By establishing a durable institution with a sizable reservoir of cash, the fund can serve as a lasting beacon to smaller organizations serving Black communities in California, Philpart said. 'When a crisis occurs in the Black community, philanthropy parachutes in, there's a wave of support, and then as soon as the news cameras turn away, the support recedes,' he said. 'We need enduring institutions that are led by and committed to the Black community in ways that have a lasting impact.' DEI targeted Philpart's fundraising for the endowment comes as the Trump administration has characterized diversity, equity, and inclusion programs as illegal and has called for investigations of large foundations that support diversity programs. Under Philpart's leadership, the California Black Freedom Fund started the Legal Education, Advocacy, and Defense for Racial Justice Initiative, which provides pro bono legal consulting and training for nonprofits. The program operates on the premise that there isn't anything illegal about racial justice funding. But the 2023 Supreme Court ruling against considering race in college admissions, in a pair of cases brought by Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, was viewed by some as an indication that private philanthropies could not legally engage in race-based grant making — and the issue is far from settled. While Philpart's fundraising pitch might resonate with some donors, others are sure to be nervous, given the scrutiny placed on race-based grant making by the White House, said Dan Morenoff, executive director of the American Civil Rights Project, a litigation and advocacy nonprofit that has challenged affirmative action programs. The White House has directed the Department of Justice to root out instances of race-based grantmaking, which it considers discriminatory. 'You don't want to be on their radar because they are fervently looking for people to make examples of at this point,' Morenoff said. While some corporations and philanthropies, including the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, an early supporter of the California Black Freedom Fund, have retreated from supporting racial justice, Philpart is counting on securing support from donors who want to stay with the cause even as the issue is argued in various court cases stemming from Trump's anti-DEI executive orders. The attacks from the administration, Philpart said, have been a 'clarifying moment' for many donors and have generated interest in the fund. 'People have rallied to us and really doubled down on their commitments to support Black freedom and Black power,' he said. 'That is the most telling thing coming out of this moment — that there is a critical mass of leaders throughout the country who care very deeply about the community.' 70 financial supporters One grantmaker that has doubled down is the California Wellness Foundation. The foundation made an initial grant of $500,000 when the fund was first launched, then made a $200,000 commitment to a separate fund created by the California Black Freedom Fund in response to the January Los Angeles fires, and recently added $500,000 to support the spin-off. Richard Tate, president of the California Wellness Fund, said the new fund is 'needed now more than ever' because of attempts by the administration to roll back equity efforts. 'The fact that we are talking about a Black Freedom Fund is an acknowledgment that not everyone has equal standing in the culture,' he said. 'Whatever headwinds that may exist because of this political moment, now is the time for us to continue to be explicit about our intentions of supporting a community.' Philanthropy needs to act quickly by unleashing more money in grants to support areas like litigation, public advocacy, and the replacement of lost federal funds, said Glenn Harris, president of Race Forward, a nonprofit racial justice advocacy group. But, he said, lasting institutions that can respond to future challenges are also needed. 'There's a balancing act,' Harris said. 'It's really clear that struggles for liberation and justice are going to be with us for a minute.' Among the two dozen grant makers that chipped in to start the fund are the Akonadi, Conrad Hilton and San Francisco foundations as well as the Emerson Collective, Crankstart, the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. The total of institutional funders to the effort since 2020 now exceeds 70. Why endowments Among the groups the fund has supported are the East Bay Permanent Real Estate Cooperative, a community-owned cooperative that 'removes land and housing from the speculative market and places it into permanent community stewardship,' according to the fund. A late 2023 survey of nearly 300 foundations conducted by the Center for Effective Philanthropy found that more than two thirds of grantmakers did not offer endowment grants. Half of those that did so made them to arts organizations and museums. Nonprofits led by Black people receive endowment grants even more rarely, according to a 2022 analysis of social change organizations by the Bridgespan Group, a philanthropy consultancy, which found that nonprofits led by Black people had endowments that were only a fourth as big as those led by white people. Since then, some grant makers have stepped forward to support endowments at organizations serving members of Black communities, said Darren Isom, a partner at Bridgespan. For instance, in 2022 the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation made grants of $5 million each to three racial justice organizations led by people of color: UnidosUS, the NAACP, and Faith in Action. 'Endowments are transfer of power from philanthropic organizations to the organizations that are closest to the work,' he said. 'From an impact perspective, the work is more high impact, more beneficial, and more durable if it's owned by and led by those that are the closest to issues and closest to the communities.' Philpart is confident that despite the blow-back against diversity and racial justice, the fund can raise enough money to meet its goal. 'We're drawing people out who want to prove we are greater than divisiveness, we are greater than bigotry, and we are a greater than racism,' he said. 'We are better than all the things that pull us apart and don't fundamentally improve anyone's well-being.'
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Leaving a top Trump administration post? The president may have an ambassadorship for you
WASHINGTON — Diplomacy may be soft power, but in President Trump's administration, it's also lately a soft landing. National security adviser Mike Waltz was nominated as United Nations ambassador after he mistakenly added a journalist to a Signal chat discussing military plans. Trump tapped IRS Commissioner Billy Long to be his ambassador to Iceland after Long contradicted the administration's messaging in his less than two months in the job. And Trump last weekend named State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce as deputy representative to the U.N. after she struggled to gel with Secretary of State Marco Rubio's close-knit team. The new appointments can be viewed as consolation prizes for leaving a high-profile post in the Trump administration following rocky tenures. But they also reflect the degree to which Trump is trying to keep his loyalists close, even if their earlier placements in the administration were ill-fitting. Breaking with the reality TV show that helped make Trump a household name, the Republican president is not telling his top appointees 'You're fired!' but instead offering them another way to stay in his administration. 'It's not like 'The Apprentice,'' said John Bolton, another former Trump national security adviser, who has since become a Trump critic. During his first White House tenure, Trump was new to politics, made many staffing picks based on others' recommendations and saw heavy staff turnover. Trump has stocked his second administration with proven boosters, which has meant fewer high-profile departures. Still, those leaving often are the subject of effusive praise and kept in Trump's political orbit, potentially preventing them from becoming critics who can criticize him on TV — something that didn't happen to a long list of former first-term officials. Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president, and Trump can nominate anyone he likes, though many ultimately require Senate confirmation. Typically, top ambassadorships are rewards for large donors. 'It is a tremendous honor to represent the United States as an ambassador — which is why these positions are highly coveted and reserved for the president's most loyal supporters,' said White House spokesperson Anna Kelly. 'Mike Waltz, Billy Long and Tammy Bruce are great patriots who believe strongly in the America First agenda, and the President trusts them fully to advance his foreign policy goals.' Waltz's days appeared numbered after The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg revealed in March that Waltz had added him to a private text chain on an encrypted messaging app that was used to discuss planning for a military operation against Houthi militants in Yemen. Trump initially expressed support for Waltz, downplaying the incident as 'a glitch.' Roughly five weeks later, the president announced Waltz would be leaving — but not for good. He portrayed the job change as a cause for celebration. 'From his time in uniform on the battlefield, in Congress and, as my National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our Nation's Interests first,' Trump posted in announcing Waltz's move on May 1. 'I know he will do the same in his new role.' Vice President JD Vance also pushed back on insinuations that Waltz had been ousted. 'The media wants to frame this as a firing. Donald Trump has fired a lot of people,' Vance said in an interview with Bret Baier of Fox News Channel. 'He doesn't give them Senate-confirmed appointments afterwards.' Bolton, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush before becoming Trump's national security adviser in 2018, called it 'a promotion to go in the other direction' — but not the way Waltz went. 'The lesson is, sometimes you do more good for yourself looking nice,' Bolton said of Trump's reassignments. Ironically, Bruce learned of Waltz's ouster from a reporter's question while she was conducting a press briefing. A former Fox News Channel contributor, Bruce is friendly with Trump and was a forceful advocate for his foreign policy. Over the course of her roughly six months as spokesperson, she reduced the frequency of State Department briefings with reporters from four or five days a week to two. But Bruce had also begun to frequently decline to respond to queries on the effectiveness, substantiveness or consistency of the administration's approaches to the Middle East, Russia's war in Ukraine and other global hotspots. She told reporters that special envoy Steve Witkoff 'is heading to the region now — to the Gaza area' but then had to concede that she'd not been told exactly where in the Middle East he was going. Trump nonetheless posted Saturday that Bruce did a 'fantastic job' at the State Department and would 'represent our Country brilliantly at the United Nations.' Former U.S. deputy U.N. ambassador Robert Wood, who served as deputy State Department spokesman during President George W. Bush's term and as acting spokesman during President Obama's term, voiced skepticism that Bruce's new position was a move up. Wood later became the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Conference on Disarmament through the rest of the Obama's tenure and all of the first Trump administration. 'Given the disdain in MAGA world for anything U.N., it's hard to imagine Tammy Bruce's nomination as U.S. Deputy Representative to the U.N. being seen as a promotion,' referring to Trump's 'Make America Great Again' movement. During her final State Department briefing on Tuesday, Bruce said Trump's announcing that he wanted her in a new role 'was a surprise,' but called the decision 'especially moving as it allows me to continue serving the State Department, to which I'm now quite attached.' Then there's Long, a former Republican Missouri congressman, who was the shortest-tenured IRS commissioner confirmed by the Senate since the position was created in 1862. He contradicted administration messaging on several occasions. Long said last month that the IRS' Direct File program would be eliminated. An IRS spokesperson later indicated that it wouldn't be, noting requirements in the tax and spending law Trump has championed. The Washington Post also reported that Long's IRS disagreed with the White House about sharing taxpayer data with immigration officials to help locate people in the U.S. illegally. After learning that Trump wanted him in Reykjavik, Long posted, 'Exciting times ahead!' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt declined to say Tuesday why Long was removed as IRS chief and being deployed to Iceland. 'The president loves Billy Long, and he thinks he can serve the administration well in this position,' she said. The soft landings aren't always heralded by Trump. Former television commentator Morgan Ortagus, who was a State Department spokesperson during Trump's first term, is now a special adviser to the United Nations after serving as deputy envoy to the Middle East under Witkoff. Trump foresaw that Ortagus might not be a good fit. He posted in January, while announcing her as Witkoff's deputy, that 'Morgan fought me for three years, but hopefully has learned her lesson.' 'These things usually don't work out, but she has strong Republican support, and I'm not doing this for me, I'm doing it for them,' Trump added. 'Let's see what happens.' Ortagus lasted less than six months in the role. Weissert and Price write for the Associated Press. AP writers Matthew Lee and Fatima Hussein in Washington contributed to this report.
