Viral Experiment Sparks Debate on Taxing Churches and Nationalism

Nikalie Monroe, a TikTok user, has ignited a heated discussion about the role of churches in American society through a recent viral social experiment. Monroe reached out to various churches and at least one mosque, claiming to have lost her Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits due to a government shutdown. She asked for help in feeding her baby, despite having an eight-year-old child and no infant. In her assessment, Monroe reported that about a quarter of the churches contacted offered direct aid, while those that referred her to food banks were deemed unhelpful.

The response to Monroe’s experiment varied significantly. Some criticized her deceptive approach, arguing it was offensive, while others condemned the churches that did not provide assistance. One pastor, who immediately offered help, received widespread praise and prompted $95,000 in donations to his small independent church in Somerset, Kentucky. This incident reignited discussions among progressives advocating for the taxation of churches, questioning the validity of their tax-exempt status if they do not adequately serve their communities.

The argument for taxing churches has persisted since the presidency of Ronald Reagan, with many on the left believing it could undermine the influence of the Christian right. This belief has gained traction with recent conservative efforts to dismantle the Johnson Amendment, a law prohibiting tax-exempt organizations from engaging in political advocacy. Under former President Donald Trump, the Republican Party has increasingly aligned with Christian nationalism, evident in policies that have influenced key issues such as reproductive rights and LGBTQ+ legislation.

In June 2023, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) stated that churches could endorse political candidates to their congregations, reversing a long-standing prohibition. This shift has led to increased concern over the growing influence of Christian nationalism in American politics. For many progressives, taxing churches appears to be a viable strategy to counter this trend and ensure that religious institutions contribute to civic responsibilities.

However, advocates for taxation often overlook the complexities of the First Amendment’s establishment clause. Ending the tax-exempt status of religious organizations could inadvertently enhance the influence of more reactionary religious groups while jeopardizing those that provide essential community services, particularly in marginalized areas. Historically, both federal and state laws have exempted religious organizations from taxation to prevent government entanglement in religious affairs.

Taxing churches could create an uneven playing field in the religious marketplace, favoring wealthier churches that can afford the financial burden of taxation. Many religious organizations, particularly progressive mainline Protestant churches, Black evangelical congregations, and immigrant-majority communities, operate on tight budgets and lack the resources to navigate complex tax codes. This added financial strain could lead to the closure of these vital institutions, which often serve as community hubs and support systems.

While the anger behind the “tax the churches” movement is understandable, it fails to account for the crucial roles that many religious organizations play. For instance, Black churches have historically been central to the Civil Rights Movement, while immigrant congregations often provide legal aid and language support. The potential loss of these institutions could have devastating consequences for the communities they serve.

As Christian nationalism continues to rise, the presence of progressive congregations is essential for maintaining a moral counterbalance. Taxing churches could threaten this dynamic, leaving reactionary religious institutions as the dominant voices in American society.

The push to tax churches often arises from frustration with the current political climate, where religion seems to heavily influence public policy. However, it is important to recognize that such measures may not effectively address the underlying issues. As the landscape evolves, those who oppose a Christian nationalist takeover must consider alternative strategies that do not compromise the diverse and vital roles of religious organizations in society.