By Paul A. Bauer, Jr.
America was founded on the belief that moral conviction and civic responsibility go hand in hand. People of faith—pastors, ministers, rabbis, and lay leaders alike—have long shaped our communities through service, education, and compassion. But when a pastor or faith leader decides to campaign for elected office, it raises a question as old as democracy itself: Should those called to spiritual leadership also seek political authority?
The answer is not simple, but it is deeply important. A person of faith should not be disqualified from leadership simply because they hold strong religious convictions. Our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. People of faith are citizens, taxpayers, and neighbors—each with the same right, and perhaps even the same duty, to serve their community in public office.
When Faith Strengthens Leadership
A pastor or faith-driven candidate brings more than sermons; they bring compassion, moral grounding, and a servant’s heart. These are qualities sorely missing in politics today. Their leadership is guided not by polls or profit, but by principles—truth, integrity, and justice. When a faith leader enters public service humbly, without exploiting their pulpit or congregation, they can elevate the tone of debate and restore trust in institutions. “The measure of a leader is not how much power they hold, but how much truth they stand for.”
From local assemblies to the U.S. Congress, our nation has been blessed by men and women whose faith gave them courage to challenge corruption and defend freedom. Faith-based leadership can unite rather than divide, if rooted in service rather than self-interest.
When Politics Can Harm the Ministry
Yet there are also real risks. A pastor’s spiritual mission—to shepherd all souls—can clash with the divisive nature of political life. Campaigning often demands partisanship, while ministry calls for compassion without condition. Once a pastor becomes a political candidate, the congregation may split along party lines, eroding unity within the church.
There is also the danger of public perception: using faith as a political tool can diminish both the sanctity of religion and the integrity of governance. For this reason, any pastor who runs for office must draw clear lines—stepping aside from active ministry, ensuring no church
funds or property are used for campaigning, and maintaining humility and transparency in all dealings.
The Balance of Calling and Citizenship
Ultimately, whether a pastor should run for office depends on the individual’s calling and capacity. If their motivation is to serve and to stand for truth, not for ambition or vanity, their candidacy can be a moral force for good. But if their entrance into politics blurs the line between gospel and government, the cost may be too high.
In every generation, faith and freedom must coexist—not as rivals, but as partners in the American experiment. The challenge for people of faith is not to dominate the political world, but to redeem it through example, humility, and unwavering integrity.
Closing Thought
Politics needs more truth-tellers, not fewer. It needs leaders who see public service as a sacred duty, not a career ladder. If pastors or faith-driven citizens can enter that arena with clean hands and courageous hearts, they should. But they must always remember: their first allegiance is not to a party, but to the truth that made them who they are.
Paul A. Bauer Jr. is the Founder of Protec Public Integrity Strategies, a U.S. Army Veteran and UAA Alum.
Seriously???
Seriously what?
Seriously, indeed! Oh, the sexual abuse that occurs among the “faithful!”
I’m just saying, but from what I read they even infiltrated the Roman Catholic Church too. Not all of them. They had a mission. To weaken Christianity from the inside, create confusion and division, etc.
Just thought that I would point this out.
aside from pedocrats … thankfully it’s rare and diminishing
This world has gone to hell since taking the bible and religious studies out of schools already. This might be a good move in bringing some decency back into politics as well as our united states.
Decades of silence preceded a painful reckoning for a Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation on the Kenai Peninsula
State prosecutors say Aaron Scott Merritt sexually abused at least four girls in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Some of the victims say the abuse was well known by congregation leaders for years.
Good point, leave the pederasty to the sexually deviant leftist communities – they are the experts.
PMI. Donald Trump is NOT a leftist.
Just say, “yes” as that word is the ultimate of “faith.”
Anyone that can administer, legislate, or judge to conform to the Alaska Constitution should be able to serve. If the person cannot separate religeous beliefs from the Constitution, they should not serve.
Succinctly put Frank. The question that has always flummoxed me is HOW it is possible to shift from faith-based conclusions to evidence-based conclusions. I don’t see how the two can be reconciled.
It seems that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how separation of church and state was intended to work.
Or maybe not.
Morals and ethics are the lens by which any document is read or an experience is understood.
That is precisely why both the US Constitution and the Alaska Constitution are fairly objective in language but very subjective in interpretation.
The problem is, and I’m not saying that you’re this person, the absence of faith (strict secularism) is as much a religious belief as being a Conservative Jew or fundamentalist Muslims or Baptist or Hindu.
Essentially, that a strict secular lens is as dangerous, if not more, than a strict conventional spiritually religious one.
As a Believer, the onus to prove that your God exists is on you. As an Atheist, I’m under no obligation to prove that he doesn’t.
Wow, Hans. Riveting thought there.
Meaningless though, but it sounds really deep and important. The irrelevance of your comment is only matched by its lack of any logical or rational foundation.
.
It really sounds good, but no one, regardless of religion, has any onus at all to prove God exists in any way. Perhaps you do not know what the word ‘faith’ means? A faithful religious person will spend zero effort trying to prove God exists. They know God exists, end of story. An ‘onus’ to prove it? That is literally the opposite of faith.
.
Now, how exactly is your comment to Repeal relevant in any way? Still not seeing it.
Keep your onus to yourself
Then believers in Climate Change should be disqualified, Frank. Its as much religion as it is ” science ” relying on faith inmodels created by an anointed clergy class, who’s beliefs Re beyond question, on pain of excommunication
Alert! Our constitution – both state and federal, are ultimately based on Biblical principals.
Alert! The Bible is full of fairy tales.
Perplexity responds to your statement:
“the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions embody moral and philosophical principles that align with biblical values such as justice, human dignity, and governance tempered by human imperfection. However, they ultimately do so in a secular framework designed to uphold freedom of religion and accommodate diverse beliefs. The Constitution is not explicitly based on the Bible but draws indirectly on some biblical influences integrated through broader philosophical and legal traditions.“
“One nation under God.” Christianity built this country. If not we wouldn’t be any better than the third world countries . Or maybe that’s what you want.
The US Constitution was written in 1789, “One Nation Under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegience in 1954. The original United States was mostly built by slave labor and indentured servants under the supervision of christians.
Ouch!
The Heritage Foundation will be contacting you shortly for reeducation
“The original United States was mostly built by slave labor and indentured servants under the supervision of christians.”
Got a supportable source for that statement?
And, Howard Zinn does not count.
Aside from the generalization and prevaicative construct of your assertions, I offer the following: The word “Christian” is always to be capitalized.
The constitution is based on religious beliefs frank.So there should not be much to separate.
Perhaps you should refresh the definition of what a constitution is…but your blindness leaves you and all other atheists like any house without a foundation.
Oh “Frank”…
everytime you hit bottom, you break out a shovel
The Establishment Clause of Amendment 1 of the US Constitution precludes the Congress from making a Law that either establishes or inhibits religious activities, places of worship and faith based civic organizations. In no way does this Clause make illegal or prohibit individuals from using their morals and beliefs to inform their actions. If you went to a traditional not woke school, you might be aware of this obvious self-evident set of facts.
Most politicians today are selfish and only interested in sel gain. They lack faith and our nation suffers because of it. PS: not all but most.
Sad but true.
Let me rephrase that
Should only those with no faith to be allowed to run?? Yea …. It’s as stupid as it sounds.
Everyone leaves something.
Let me rephrase that
Should only those with no faith to be allowed to run?? Yea …. It’s as stupid as it sounds.
Everyone believes in something.
Sure. Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist. If they have good ideas, are competent, and KEEP THEIR RELIGION OUT OF POLITICS, why not?
The Establishment Clause of Amendment 1 of the US Constitution precludes the Congress from making a Law that either establishes or inhibits religious activities, places of worship and faith based civic organizations. In no way does this Clause make illegal or prohibit individuals from using their morals and beliefs to inform their actions. If you went to a traditional not woke school, you might be aware of this obvious self-evident set of facts.
Yeah, those Muslims are so great at leaving their religion out of politics, In fact, doing so is in completeopposition to their foundational principles
We desperately need more well ground Christians running for public office. Your closing paragraph sums it up well.
Yes, if they can honestly separate their religious beliefs from the general good of ALL Alaskans.
Make sure to apply that unconstitutional and pointless demand upon the molochites and animists in the environmental cult with the same vigor and vitriol.
How can a government ban a person from running for office simply because they are a person of Faith???
People need to grow the hell up and stop acting like a bunch of bullies on a playground!!!
If a plumber wants to become a politician does he have to stop being a plumber? Why would pastors be any different?
PLEASE stop referring to politicians as our “leaders”. Please just stop. I’ve never once ever voted to be led anywhere by anyone. These people are elected to represent us and run government operations. Period. No leaders. Just representatives.
Freedom you clearly don’t know what the word represent means, I would suggest looking it up..
Freedom, I am with you 100%.
The elected officials are our representatives. They represent the people in their districts, states, or municipalities. I abhor hearing them called leaders.
People of faith are citizens with all the rights and responsibilities therein.
So of course if they want to, they should run for office.
I’m not sure I agree with the author 100%, but overall this editorial is well-written and thought-provoking.
Doesn’t the reality of politics (and politicians) in the state of Utah answer this question.
[non-Mormons can be elected, but around 88-90% of elected officials are Mormon, a number that exceeds the percentage of Mormons in the general population. This strongly indicates that LDS membership plays a significant role in voter choice in Utah.]
We live in a Constitutional Republic which is based upon the rule of law. That rule of law goes back to the Ten Commandments, which is prominently displayed at the U.S. Supreme Court. The foundation of this great country is based upon Christian principles.
Q: Should people of faith run for public office?
A: Depends on the faith.
.
Not all faiths are equivalent. Not all faiths are compatible with the US and the various State Constitutions. Some faiths call for/advocate actions thar are in direct conflict with established law.
Interesting, I’d love to hear some examples. The Mormons managed to rein in polygamy. Heaven’s Gate, well, they don’t exist anymore.
AkGeezer:
Sorry, I did provide several examples, but at least one of them mentioned the “religion of peace” by name, and not in a good light. So… it got zotzed.
.
Anyway, at least one religion has no problem with taking human rights, and even human life, if you are not a member of the religion. It is perfectly ok in their belief system. And, that is contrary to the founding documents of this nation, as well as criminal law.
.
And, let’s see if this comment actually makes it through moderation.
Hello CBMTTek, thank you for engaging with our content! Your comment submitted 11/26 at 6:53 pm was deleted because it exceeded our 200-word limit for comments. It was not deleted because of its content.
Hi Natalie:
Sorry, I did not realize there was a 200 word limit on comments. There was not one in the past, but times change I guess.
.
I will say that I disagree with that policy. It will dampen any discussion in the comments on this site and drive readers away. One of the reasons I like MRAK as much as I do is the lively comments and debate (and the occasional trolls.)
.
I do agree there should be some limit. No one wants to read a tome in the comment section, but 200 words seems arbitrary and unfriendly. Then again, it is your site, and if you are OK with losing readers who need to exceed the limit on occasion, that is up to you.
Then again, it is your site, and
Thank you for the feedback. We invite readers who wish to write more than 200 words to submit an op-ed to be considered for publication. This is a great way to continue the conversation and express your ideas while also maintaining an appropriate editorial process.
Yeah, I didn’t know that there was a 200 word limit as well. Now I know! Haha
No wonder one comment didn’t got approved under Suzanne, I think.
“A conservative Republican, Cox governs a state whose voters have sometimes been willing to tolerate criticism of President Trump. He describes his faith as “core” to how he approaches politics.”
A religious leader should remain being a religious leader pastoring his group of believers. Religion and politics do not mix. Let Caesar be Caesar. You tend to the spiritual needs of your flock.
Very well written article. If you study real history of our early American history. You will find the shepherds of the flock, known as the black coats, that led a lot of the American war efforts in fighting old England. They put their “money where their mouth is”. They were some of the most influential leaders of the war.