The IRS Says Churches Can Endorse Political Candidates
Here’s why that’s a problem for church-state separation and prophetic witness
Just four percent of my readers are paid subscribers. If this analysis that weaves together faith, history, and justice is helpful, become a paid supporter today.
Big news in the world of church and state separation.
In a legal filing on July 7, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that churches may now endorse political candidates during religious services—without losing their tax-exempt status.
The IRS issued this statement as part of a court case brought by the National Religious Broadcasters and several Texas churches.
The plaintiffs argued that the Johnson Amendment—a 1954 law barring nonprofits with tax exempt status from endorsing political candidates—violated their constitutional rights.
The ruling stated:
Bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services, do neither [“participates” nor “intervenes” in “political campaign”], any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates. Thus, communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted.
The IRS ruling compared a church endorsing a candidate to a private family discussion.
Nevermind the fact that many churches now livestream their services and upload sermons to YouTube and podcast platforms where anyone—congregation member or not—can hear what was said.
What is recorded an uploaded to the internet cannot reasonably be considered a “family discussion.”
What Is the Johnson Amendment?
The Johnson Amendment—after then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson—is a section of the U.S. tax code (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3)) that says tax-exempt organizations—including churches—cannot:
“Participate in, or intervene in… any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”
Tax exemption is a public subsidy. The Johnson Amendment puts a boundary on what the public subsidizes.
Churches are free to speak to policies and issues at stake in elections, but if they directly endorse candidates, they cross a line: from ministry to partisan machinery.
It Was Already Happening
To be fair, the ruling does not permit a new activity. Churches were already endorsing candidates.
For example: Pastors have hosted political candidates from one party but not the other in the pulpit, they’ve given endorsements during sermons, and churches have distributed voter guides masquerading as “nonpartisan.”
Prior to this ruling, the IRS simply chose not to enforce the Johnson Amendment in most cases.
You can have any law you want on the books, but it means nothing if it is not enforced.
Yet this ruling legitimizes and further shields partisan political behavior in churches
Now they can do it legally—and with our tax dollars footing the bill.
Churches Become Political Action Committees
The IRS ruling that permits churches to endorse candidates opens the door for churches to function like unregulated political action committees (PACs).
According to the tax code:
A tax-exempt organization is generally not required to disclose publicly the names or addresses of its contributors set forth on its annual return…The regulations specifically exclude the name and address of any contributor to the organization from the definition of disclosable documents.
Churches can now spend money, mobilize voters, and influence elections—all without the transparency and disclosure requirements of formal political groups.
This creates a pipeline for anonymous political donations to flow through religious institutions, evading campaign finance laws.
Churches could now become one of the largest unregulated political influence networks in the United States.
And because they remain tax-exempt, taxpayers are now subsidizing this political activity.
Supercharging White Christian Nationalism
The IRS ruling supercharges white Christian nationalism.
Since at least the rise of the Religious Right and the Moral Majority, conservative faith and conservative politics have entered into an unholy alliance.
Church leaders use the Bible and the language of spirituality to sanctify their choice of political candidates.
They claim a particular candidate is God’s chosen person for the role or is upholding “biblical” values. They thereby align their congregation with a political party and its candidate as holy and righteous.
This kind of political activity is a demonstration of white Christian nationalism—an ideology that uses the Christian religion as a permission structure for the acquisition of political power.
While it is true liberal churches may do the same, only one of the two major political parties portrays itself as “God’s Own Party.”
When churches endorse political candidates, faith becomes a tool to bless nationalism or party ideology rather than challenge it.
This Limits True Religious Freedom
Paradoxically, the IRS statement ultimately reduces religious freedom because it erodes the boundary between church and state.
It paves the way for future administrations to regulate religious speech more harshly.
Right now, the administration is counting on conservative churches to endorse conservative candidates.
But what happens when large numbers of churches mobilize behind a candidate who is not a MAGA loyalist?
What if liberal churches coalesce behind a Democratic candidate who surges in the polls and threatens the regime in office?
If the church becomes too politically powerful in a way that displeases the state, then the state will eventually intervene to regulate it.
What about Other Religions?
Conservative Christian churches filed the complaint that led to the IRS ruling.
White Christian nationalists currently populate this regime.
Ostensibly the entire conversation revolves around Christian churches.
What about mosques, synagogues, or temples?
What happens to them, especially when they endorse candidates that aren’t conservative or right wing?
They will not likely have the same allowances, considerations, or privileges as certain kinds of Christian churches.
Don’t Take the Bait
1 Corinthians 10:23-24 offers wisdom concerning how churches should respond to the IRS statement.
“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.
Though it is now permissible for churches to endorse candidates, that does not mean it is wise.
The guiding principle should be “What is good for others?”
Churches should talk about politics.
They should talk about policies and issues affecting the congregation and that are at stake in elections.
They can even host candidate forums (as long as candidates from across parties are invited) and be hubs of information about relevant political issues.
Being political is not the same as being partisan.
You don’t have to endorse a candidate to speak the truth about injustice.
Just because it is legal does not mean it is edifying.
Martin Luther King, Jr. said
“The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.”
Martin Luther King, Jr., “A Knock at Midnight”, 1967
If churches—liberal or conservative—allow themselves to become partisan political tools, they forfeit their moral voice.
The church must maintain a prophetic distance to give it the necessary perspective to be the conscience of the state
What Do We Do?
Pastors and church leaders should resist the temptation to endorse particular political candidates.
Instead, they should teach their congregations how to think wisely and lovingly about the uses of political power, the call to public justice, and the pursuit of the common good.
Congregation members have a responsibility, too.
Members of faith communities should pay careful attention to partisanship in the pulpit. They need to be prepared to ask pointed questions about the stance of their leaders on matters of conscience like choosing who to vote for.
And they should be prepared challenge their leaders, or even leave, if the faith community becomes a tool of partisan players.
All faith communities should speak the truth in love to political leaders about the way power is being deployed in our nation.
But when the church aligns itself with political power—endorsing candidates, seeking influence, anointing political “kings”—it abandons the self-sacrificial, justice seeking, truth-telling witness modeled by Jesus.
A church that crowns candidates cannot carry a cross.
Well, if we can openly endorse, then we can criticize. Of course, that will be the real test. DJT and enablers like to dish it out, but can they take it?
As a pastor, I will continue to encourage Christ followers to be doers of the Word:
"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them." (Ephesians 5:11)
As my grandfather used to preach "You got what you wanted but lost what you had."
Some of us are going to continue to call out all that Christian nationalism nonsense and idolatry.
As a follower of Jesus Christ, I cannot express this in a big enough font.
no. NO. NO!!!!!!