Idolatry of Neutrality
There are certain spaces in our common life where political speech is reasonably avoided. Elementary school classrooms, office breakrooms, and the holiday dinner table come to mind. In those places where we are compelled to show up and in which our participation is governed by inherently imbalanced relationships, political discourse cannot be free. Just as a second-grader cannot engage her teacher in meaningful dialogue about presidential politics, neither can a subordinate push back against his boss’ views, or a daughter-in-law go toe to toe with her husband’s father.
The pulpit is another space where preachers should be wary of weighing in on politics. In addition to IRS regulations, which prohibit all 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches, from participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office, clergy should recognize that political platforms are never a substitute for the gospel’s agenda. No candidate, ballot measure, or political party—regardless of how closely it seems to align with the views of a particular congregation or denomination—will bring the reign of God to the earth.
To suggest, however, that clergy and lay leaders should avoid taking a stand on issues that affect our common life because we should not mix religion and politics is to betray the way of Jesus in favor of the idolatrous and blasphemous worship of Neutrality. Jesus did not remain neutral on issues like the distribution of wealth, the minimum wage, abuses of judicial authority, the role of women in public life, and the behavior of political elites who act to maintain their power at the expense of others. Why would we expect his committed followers to remain silent when the same issues are at stake today?
Two years ago, I was invited to join a group of eight religious leaders who took turns contributing to the weekly “Faith Matters” column in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. I was flattered by the opportunity and enjoyed writing about things like what sabbath observance teaches us about our economic life, how the criminalization of mental illness stands in the way of Jesus’ ministry of deliverance, why community corrections programs provide an essential reminder of our humanity, and how local elected officials profane the divine name when they invoke it to justify their plans to expand the county detention center.
Almost none of my columns has been free of political speech. Some have been more pointed than others. Only once have I mentioned any political figures by name. Always I have written from the perspective of my faith as a follower of Jesus and a priest in The Episcopal Church.
My goal has not been to make political statements but to use my submissions to highlight what I think the way of Jesus has to say about issues in our common life. I believe my contributions have furthered public discourse in those places where religion and society intersect, but I must now resign from the column because the newspaper has decided it will no longer accept submissions that take a stand on political issues.
A few weeks ago, my friend and colleague Clint Schnekloth wrote a piece for the newspaper in which he decried the ways that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has targeted Lutheran Services, “one of the largest faith-based social service organizations in the country.” Despite offering a wide range of services, including nursing home care, Lutheran Services seems to have come under unfair scrutiny, Clint argued, because of its support of refugee resettlement. He went on to suggest that the administration’s decision to cut support of Lutheran Services while simultaneously establishing an Anti-Christian Task Force represented a hypocritical stance that prioritized one version of Christianity at the expense of another. The newspaper rejected his submission as being “far more political opinion than religious.”
I, for one, do not understand what that means. To suggest that something is more political than religious assumes that politics and religion are mutually exclusive. They are not. Some religious teachings have more concrete political implications, and some religious perspectives are articulated in more directly political ways, but to reject a pastor’s column that criticizes elected officials for making policy decisions that have a direct and negative impact on the practice of religion because his words are more political than religious is nonsensical. That editorial decision effectively amplifies the dominant religious view while silencing the voices of the disenfranchised in the idolatrous name of neutrality.
Clint and I do not agree on everything, but I stand beside him in refusing to accept that religious speech cannot or should not be political. Often religious speech is necessarily political in that it advocates for the poor and the disenfranchised while excoriating elected officials who oppose such efforts. I have not and will not advocate for any political candidate of any party or platform in my sermons, classes, submissions to the newspaper, or this newsletter, but I would not be faithful to God or to my vocation as a priest if I ignored or eschewed opportunities to engage issues in our common life from the perspective of the Christian faith.
When we proclaim Jesus as the “King of kings” or pray “thy kingdom come,” we are making political statements. We are declaring our allegiance to the rule of God in our lives and in this world. Thankfully, it is up to each one of us to decide how our allegiance to God’s reign will come to bear in our public life. My job is to help you think through that faithfully.
I will never tell you how I think you should vote. I will never abuse my position as a minister of the gospel and suggest that one particular party or candidate is closer to God’s heart than another. I find that thought repulsive both as an American and as a Christian. But I will not hesitate to point out the ways that the gospel compels us to advocate for the poor, welcome the immigrant, protect the vulnerable, love our enemies, respect women and their bodies, support the incarcerated, dismantle unjust societal structures, celebrate those with special needs, provide for people with chronic health issues, and honor the dignity of those whom society undervalues.
Call it what you will, but I struggle to imagine how the gospel of Jesus Christ could ever stay out of politics.
Yours faithfully,
Evan D. Garner
