Systemic electioneering from the evangelical pulpit: Evidence from a computational analysis
Clinical Snapshot
PICO Framework
| P — Population | Predominantly evangelical churches in the United States (n=88,546 sermons from 63,683 hours of Sunday services) |
| I — Intervention | Not applicable - observational study examining political advocacy patterns |
| C — Comparator | Election periods (2020, 2022, 2024) versus non-election control periods; swing states versus safe states |
| O — Outcomes | Prevalence of direct political advocacy and endorsements from pulpits; temporal patterns of electoral mobilization |
Bottom Line
This large-scale computational analysis of evangelical sermons provides unprecedented quantification of prohibited political advocacy from American pulpits, finding that nearly 15% of churches engaged in such activities during the 2024 election period. While methodologically innovative, the study's clinical relevance is minimal. The research demonstrates clear electoral patterns in religious political mobilization but lacks the methodological detail needed for full critical appraisal. The findings may have indirect implications for understanding how religious messaging influences health-related political attitudes, but direct application to Australian clinical practice is not applicable. Healthcare professionals should note this represents political science research rather than health services research, though it may inform understanding of social determinants affecting patient populations with strong religious affiliations.
Key Findings
P Value: Not reported in abstract
Effect Size: 14.7% of churches engaged in prohibited electoral speech during 2024 election period
Primary Outcome: Prevalence of direct political advocacy and endorsements from evangelical pulpits
Nnt Or Sensitivity: Peak mobilization of 3.5% of churches on Sunday before Election Day; no strategic targeting difference between swing and safe states
Confidence Interval: Not reported in abstract
Clinical Application
Not applicable to clinical practice Limited relevance to Australian healthcare. May have indirect implications for understanding religious influences on health policy attitudes, but operates under different legal and regulatory frameworks than US churches Not applicable - this is a political science study examining religious institutions
Abstract
Religious institutions' engagement in prohibited electoral advocacy is a growing concern for democratic governance. In the United States, such mobilization has been especially visible within the evangelical movement. We examine this phenomenon using a corpus of 88,546 sermons from predominantly evangelical churches, transcribed from 63,683 h of Sunday services spanning the 2020, 2022, and 2024 election cycles and a nonelection control period. Analysis of this corpus reveals that direct political advocacy and endorsements are widespread: 14.7% of churches engaged in this speech during the three months surrounding the 2024 election. This behavior follows a clear electoral rhythm, peaking on the Sunday before Election Day, when 3.5% of churches mobilized. Geographic analysis indicates that advocacy correlates with county partisan composition but lacks strategic targeting; rates in swing states are indistinguishable from those in safe states. Our results provide large-scale quantification of political speech from American pulpits that constitutes prohibited electioneering under current Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidelines, revealing a pattern of base mobilization driven by local partisan context rather than national electoral strategy.
References
- 1.Jacob, M. S., Lelkes, Y., Wolken, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2026). Systemic electioneering from the evangelical pulpit: Evidence from a computational analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 123. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2603911123
Related Research
JMIR formative research
Teaching Health Informatics in a Skills-First Era: A Curriculum Mapping Approach Aligned With Workforce Demand
31 July 2026
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Race-conscious admissions algorithms and the law.
28 July 2026
Journal of medical Internet research
Digital Transformation in Health Care: Are We on the Right Track?
22 July 2026
This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service