The Internal Revenue Service has issued new guidelines allowing churches and houses of worship to essentially endorse political candidates, reversing a ban on such practices by tax-exempt entities that has stood for decades.
A federal lawsuit was filed against the IRS by two churches in Texas and a Christian broadcasting organization back in 2024, seeking to create a broader tax exemption for churches that discuss political candidates with their congregations.
The IRS commissioner joined the groups in a court filing meant to settle the matter, which was released on Monday.
The filing explained how the Johnson Amendment to the U.S. tax code from 1954 “may cause certain otherwise tax-exempt organizations to lose their § 501(c)(3) status if they ‘participate in, or intervene in… any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.’”
The filing further stated, however, that “when a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither ‘participate[s]’ nor ‘intervene[s]’ in a ‘political campaign.’”
Therefore, church leaders may address political issues, candidates, and platforms from the podium without risking their tax-exempt status, which many religious leaders have been terrified of doing for decades.
“Bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services, do neither of those things, any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates,” the filing added.
“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.”
This outcome can be good or bad, yet it will likely accomplish some positive ends.
Should churches be tax-exempt regardless of their political activism?
First, making clear that churches can speak freely is a huge win, especially as the divide between Christian and non-Christian candidates grows wider.
Another positive aspect will be finding out which church leaders are brave enough to take stands on tough issues. For centuries, Western society has relied on priests, pastors, and preachers to serve as their moral consciences and to guide them through all levels of life.
If the governing bodies of each denomination take issue with what some leaders say — or feel they have somehow violated their pact with the congregation — internal action can be taken.
There should not be a sword of Damocles hanging over every religious institution’s tax status each time they want to address the civil landscape. On the other hand, there will be cries of an illegal mixture of church and state resulting in legal challenges, perhaps culminating in a blockbuster court ruling.
We may also see far-left churches with anti-American pastors assume they can preach fringe talking points or endorse woke candidates. But just like in the marketplace, people will be given options, ultimately choosing which ones are best suited to them and their families.
Generally speaking, local church leaders should be able to express their opinion and issue guidance if they see fit.
Pope Francis gave his political opinions frequently, sometimes causing controversy among American conservatives. Yet there were no calls to make Roman Catholic churches begin paying taxes. If it’s good enough for the higher-ups, why not for the soldiers on the ground?
It should cut both ways. America’s clergy, however, should wade carefully into these waters and procced with extreme caution.
They are supposed to be shepherds, with their first calling being a spiritual one. Man’s ways are never God’s ways. Therefore, homilies and sermons have historically steered clear of direct political endorsements.
It’s hard to ignore that there is a deepening divide in today’s religious community — specifically within American Christianity — as political elements often dictate how the gospel is spread.
In any case, by taking away the threat of monetary punishment, the laity will likely hear very different homilies from the left and right as we attempt to navigate this new system together.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
