The Western Christian church has a long history of legislating morality in society. For many of the things proposed by Project 2025, like restricting LGBTQ rights or how to treat sexually explicit materials, there are many Christians who might say some version of “If Project 2025 wants to clamp down on those sinful things, I’m all for it. We should be doing that.” 

This final thought concerns legislating morality and is my perspective on the matter. Feel free to disagree with it; there’s nothing wrong with that.

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

Selective Morality: What Sins Are We Truly Addressing?

But, if we were to be honest with ourselves, shouldn’t we admit that we legislate the morality of some things we don’t like while ignoring the sins we happen to like? Those who were raised in the evangelical church know that sexual morality is a big deal. A young evangelical Christian man might tearfully confess to another friend that they sinned by watching porn. But how many Christians would tearfully confess to trusted fellow church members that they “shared a rumor on Facebook that they knew wasn’t true”? That’s defined as slander, and the Christian scriptures talk about how God hates slander. Yet, some sins (sexual immorality and pornography) are considered serious enough to be tearful about, while other sins (slander and dishonesty) are merely brushed off. 

Project 2025 and the Christian Agenda

The conservatives behind Project 2025 promote government policies or proposals that many believe will disenfranchise or remove protections for certain groups of people, like those in the LGBTQ community. Conservatives rationalize these efforts under the guise of being “necessary” to accomplish a greater good, like making the traditional family the center of American life. 

But that rationale seems problematic, almost like saying you must break a few eggs to make an omelet. “We want to restore traditional values to society, and if we have to discriminate against gays and lesbians to do that, it’s worth it.” Unfortunately, that same logic hasn’t worked out well in other situations in the past. 

The Debate Within the Church: Enforcing Morality or Spreading the Gospel?

This also speaks to the ongoing debate within the Christian church about how far it should go in legislating morality for the world around it. 

All Christians know that Jesus Christ called them to make disciples of the world, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit according to the Bible’s well-known Great Commission. 

What’s in question is what else we should do. There are plenty of Christians who support, in whole or in part, the idea that Christians are charged by God with taking control of key areas in society to refashion it into whatever version of a “righteous” society they think applies. See Lance Wallnau’s Seven Mountains Mandate, for example.

This view necessarily entails using the power of the government to outlaw sinful things like sexually immoral materials. 

Legislating Righteousness: Can We Enforce True Morality?

I fall into the camp that recognizes that the church is not commissioned to legislate morality for the world outside of the church. Christians are called to make disciples of Jesus Christ; that is clear. It’s not at all clear that we are called to take control of levers of power and use the power of the law to “force people to be righteous.”  

I think it’s fair to question whether it’s the best thing for the Christian church to get behind political or social policies that target groups the church thinks are in sin. History shows us that, from a Christian point of view, sin is a heart issue most effectively dealt with by appealing to the heart. It appears to people like me that many of the things in Project 2025 that some Christians think are good things to do to “help make America Christian again” are not the right things to do.

A final illustration to wrap this point up looks again at the Project’s proposals for enforcement of The Comstock Act. Applied, the Act outlaws the shipment of “immoral materials” through the mail, though it hasn’t been enforced for many years. Conservatives behind Project 2025 want to revive enforcement of it as a mechanism for outlawing the shipment of abortion materials through the mail. It also covers other things deemed “immoral,” like pornography.  Many Christians might say, “Pornography is immoral, so we can use the Comstock Act to outlaw it and make our society more moral.” 

The Changing Definition of Morality: A Slippery Slope

Many of us have some big problems with the line of thinking that would lead anyone to try to make society more moral—three of them come to mind. 

• The definition of “moral” changes over time. Many of us would look curiously at folks from the early 20th century who wanted to use the force of law to ban Walt Whitman’s poetry. 
• Is it really the Christian’s calling to legislate how the “unsaved world” ought to live? Christians who view Project 2025 as an avenue to address these moral issues might be making a mistake. There’s an elephant in the legislating of morality room—what sins should be outlawed?
• Is this approach really about making society more moral? If we, as Christians, think pornography should be illegal, then okay. But we must admit to ourselves that, deep down, it’s not actually about making society moral by outlawing sin. If it were, there would be many other things we would need to take similar steps to outlaw. The people who are enthusiastic about outlawing sins like sexual immorality do not appear to consider extending that force of law to concepts that Jesus Christ himself was far more explicit in linking to true righteousness – forgiveness and repentance from sin. If we’re intent on engaging in the unwinnable endeavor of using the law and political power to enact policy to “outlaw sin,” we must also think of how we will make it unlawful not to forgive people and how we will use the law to enforce repentance from sin.

These things sound strange and unrealistic because they are, not to mention unbiblical. Making new laws and political policies won’t make us righteous, nor will they make American society “Christian.” They will only make it harder for Christians to do what they are told to do for the rest of the world—present the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Road Ahead

Project 2025 presents a detailed blueprint for the next conservative administration, but its potential impact on American society cannot be understated. If implemented, the proposals within this Project would fundamentally alter the structure of government, erode democratic norms, increase social inequality, and destabilize domestic and international security. These changes would not just be theoretical. The policies would have profound consequences for the daily lives of average Americans, affecting everything from workers’ rights and basic healthcare access to environmental protections and civil liberties.

For those who believe that checks and balances would prevent such sweeping changes, it’s important to recognize the unique context in which these proposals could be enacted. If Donald Trump were to win the presidency again and had a Republican-controlled Congress that aligns with his agenda, many of these policies could be implemented rapidly and with minimal resistance. The return of “Schedule F” would further tip the scales in his favor by allowing the replacement of career civil servants with individuals who are loyal to his administration, effectively eliminating much of the internal resistance that typically serves as a check on executive overreach. And let’s remember, any president can effect drastic changes simply by altering how rules are interpreted and implemented by government agencies.

This setup would grant Trump unprecedented control over the federal government, enabling him to push through significant changes that could reshape the nation’s governance and rip the social fabric. The concentration of power in the executive branch, combined with a supportive legislature and a politicized civil service, would make it much easier for these proposals to become reality.

As we look to the future, it’s critical for all Americans—regardless of political affiliation—to consider the potential risks and implications of such sweeping changes. The choices made in the coming years will shape the nation’s trajectory for good or ill for decades to come.

Whether or not Project 2025 becomes a reality, the discussions it has sparked are a reminder of the importance of vigilance in protecting the Constitution and its democratic principles, rights, and freedoms that form the bedrock of American society.

The road ahead may be uncertain, but by understanding the potential outcomes of these proposals and the conditions that could make them possible, we can better navigate the challenges to come and work toward a future that upholds our nation’s Constitutional values of justice, equality, and representative democracy.

May be led with wisdom in these last few weeks of the 2024 election, and may God bless the United States of America.

Image: Pamela Reynoso

About Post Author