By Andrew L. Williams, LCC International University

In the current political climate, we struggle to understand how family, friends, colleagues, and neighbors can vote for Trump, support abortion, reject equity and inclusion, or embrace censorship. Whatever the particular pain points for each of us, division reigns, and few signs suggest a more constructive politics anytime soon. Surely, bringing attention to the religious dimensions of our political moment will only increase the hostility! The prospects for an amicable, let alone joyful, Thanksgiving table–that proverbial marker of civic health or dysfunction–seem even bleaker now. Can congregations and their leaders provide an avenue toward greater mutual understanding and healthier civic discourse?

My forthcoming research in Politics & Religion, coauthored with David King and Brad Fulton, probes the logic religious leaders utilize in deciding whether to address political topics in their preaching. Interviews with 94 congregational leaders from the National Study of Congregations’ Economic Practices (NSCEP) reveal three noteworthy commonalities across American religious traditions: (a) many religious leaders carefully consider whether to preach about controversial political and social issues, (b) clergy from widely divergent religious traditions use similar reasoning to arrive at contrasting decisions about politics and preaching, and (c) the same rationale can lead some religious elites to address and others to avoid controversial political issues in sermons.

In other words, clergy from a wide range of religious traditions may not be as different as one might think. In addition, the NSCEP interviews suggest a two-by-two framework to understand clergy decisions about engaging politics in their preaching (see Table 1): (a) the use of either theological or pragmatic reasoning and (b) the decision to preach or avoid preaching about political issues.

Table 1. Clergy Reasoning for Addressing or Avoiding Political Issues in Sermons

	Address Political Issues	Avoid Political Issues
Theological Reasoning	Quadrant 1: Theology Religious Tradition	Quadrant 2: Theology Pastoral care Desire for unity
Pragmatic Reasoning	Quadrant 3: Resource independence Structural freedom	Quadrant 4: Resource dependence Interpersonal relationships Effective communication

Illustrating the first quadrant of our framework, an evangelical pastor spoke of a “theological mandate” and the importance of being “faithful to God’s word.” As such, she directly addresses items such as “socio-economic oppression,…justice, and economic justice” in sermons. Quadrant 1 also includes religious tradition. For example, a rabbi succinctly commented that avoiding controversial political topics “does not comport with Jewish values.”

Yet, other religious leaders use theological reasoning to avoid political topics (Quadrant 2). A PCUSA pastor noted that “lots of things in our world” are worthy of discussion, but he aspires to talk “more about the Gospel than about those things.” An evangelical minister described his theologically motivated avoidance of politics in preaching as follows: “Nope. I don’t address political issues. I address moral issues. I don’t address party issues…So, I’ve always taught we are citizens of heaven first, and my moral obligations and passions need to reflect that. So, your political party, we’re not the whipping boy of the Republican; we’re not to be Republican or Democrat. Christ first.”

In addition to these general theological justifications, clergy avoid controversial political issues for reasons of pastoral concern and the desire for unity. Regarding the former, a Catholic priest stated unequivocally: “No, I don’t talk about abortion…. I have a guess that probably at least a quarter of the women in the congregation have probably had an abortion. They don’t need to be told that they’re going to hell. They have their own guilt with that, whatever reason, the one they chose. I know it’s not something that they chose because it was fun. It’s not a fun sin.” Concerning the latter reason, a Congregational pastor remarked, “No. I wouldn’t talk about a controversial subject if it became political, which would… It would be my concern that people felt like they were isolated from the fellowship.”

On the pragmatic side (Quadrants 3 and 4), financial concerns are a common factor in decision-making. For instance, a PCUSA pastor remarked about their decision to affirm gay marriage, saying, “Our single biggest giver left over our decision to do gay marriage…Luckily, we’re big enough we can absorb it.” Additionally, a rabbi observed that some congregants give specifically because of their explicit commitment to social justice. By contrast, some clergy avoid controversial political issues for fear of financial risk. A UMC minister noted, “I probably would not preach on a controversial topic during a stewardship campaign,” and an evangelical pastor reflected, “Maybe I haven’t pushed as hard as I want” on some issues, including race, for fear of the impact on giving. On a related note, a Unity leader lamented a “financial crisis” in their congregation due to several Republican congregants, who were major donors, leaving for political reasons.

Another pragmatic support for political preaching is structural freedom—the liberty clergy have due to larger denominational structures and norms. For example, greater freedom to address controversial issues exists in Catholicism because their congregations do not directly employ clergy. Similarly, clergy in African American religious traditions have greater latitude in preaching about controversial socio-political topics due to long institutional histories of addressing such issues. A congregational minister also observed that their loose denominational structure, more an association than a hierarchy, provides freedom. He said, “I own the pulpit.”

Two other pragmatic reasons for avoiding political topics are interpersonal relationships and efficacy in communication. Exemplifying the former, a UMC pastor stated, “I don’t enjoy conflict, and so I don’t naturally go to those things.” Illustrating the latter, a Lutheran pastor said she attempts to hold her convictions “loosely enough that people can still listen to what I have to say.”

At times, interviewees articulated reasoning from multiple quadrants. One rabbi expressed pragmatic reasoning to avoid and principled reasoning to address political issues, saying, “I have a strong aversion to saying things which will get me fired,” but also, “I have a strong aversion to saying things that I don’t believe.” Likewise, an Assemblies of God pastor justified avoiding political sermon discourse, remarking, “It will affect the bottom line. But more importantly to me is, it affects people’s hearts.”

These findings are welcome and hopeful amidst the profound polarization in contemporary political life. The common concern among clergy over urgent political issues and similarities in reasoning about whether to preach on such matters across religious traditions suggests pathways exist for greater mutual understanding. Religious leaders and congregations may be a source, unexpected in some corners, of greater civic unity and collaboration on the political and social challenges of the twenty-first century.

Andrew L. Williams is the Director of the Institute for Philanthropy and an assistant professor of development and civil society at LCC International University. He is also the co-executive editor of a new academic journal, Philanthropia, that publishes leading research on philanthropy and civil society from the perspectives of the humanities and normative theory.