Pulpits Unchained: Churches Defy the IRS and Reclaim the Right to Speak Truth
You’ve asked for a remix-rewrite and summary of the phenomenon growing among U.S. churches pushing back against the Johnson Amendment, how many congregations are converting tax statuses, the types of churches involved, the tensions around tax-deductions and political activity, and how religion and politics have always been intertwined (including the Founders’ use of Scripture), concluding with your stated opinion that you’re glad to see the churches are beginning to pull together and say enough already. Here goes:
A significant movement has emerged in recent years: an increasing number of churches are rejecting their traditional tax-exempt status and the policing that comes with it, choosing instead to reclaim — as they see it — their prophetic voice unfettered by federal restrictions. Many congregations believe the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and its enforcement (or selective non-enforcement) of the Johnson Amendment has been muzzling pastors and faith communities when moral and political issues demand bold public witness.
What is driving these churches? At its root, churches are objecting to the requirement: if you hold 501(c)(3) status and take tax-deductible donations, you must refrain from “participating in, or intervening in … any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” (Wikipedia) Many of those now rejecting that arrangement say the moral crises they perceive in public life — abortion, gender ideology, education, national identity, border policy — cannot be confronted if the pulpit remains silent or neutral. Some are filing dissolution of 501(c)(3) structures, reorganising as “faith-based associations” or other entities they believe give them freedom to act. The IRS accordingly has recently signalled a looser interpretation, stating that certain statements from houses of worship to their own congregations may not be viewed as “campaign intervention.” (The Chronicle of Philanthropy)
Which kinds of churches are doing this? The trend appears strongest among conservative evangelical, non-denominational, and independent Baptist-style congregations — especially in red-state America (Texas, Florida, Tennessee, etc.). Reports of churches explicitly endorsing candidates, or urging voters to align with “biblical values,” have come most often from evangelical megachurches or independent charismatic churches. (The Texas Tribune) Denominational mainline Protestant churches (e.g., historic Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopal) are less likely to join this kind of rebellion; they often remain within traditional tax-exempt structures and emphasise issue-advocacy rather than outright candidate endorsements. Nevertheless, the essence is that these churches believe the “spiritual gag order” inside the 501(c)(3) regime is inconsistent with their calling.
What are the core problems of being both tax-deductible and politically active?
- Credibility & mission drift: When a church accepts tax-deductible donations under 501(c)(3), it is legally bound to avoid campaign intervention. If it nonetheless engages in endorsements or heavy partisanship, it risks revocation of status. (IRS) The tension is real: do you keep the financial benefits (deductibility) and stay “silent” (or at least neutral) about candidates — or give up financial benefit and speak freely?
- Regulation and chilling effect: Because enforcement of the Johnson Amendment has been inconsistent (the IRS rarely acts), many churches self-censor, fearing audits or loss of status even if the risk is small. (Simms Showers LLP) This has the effect of dampening bold public stands on moral issues.
- Mixing religion and politics: Some argue that when a church becomes too openly partisan — for example, endorsing a candidate or using tax-deductible funds for campaign purposes — it becomes more a political machine than a place of worship. The risk is twofold: loss of public trust (since donors may give thinking they’re supporting ministry, not politics) and erosion of the church’s identity. (National Council of Nonprofits)
- Equity and fairness concerns: If churches use tax-deductible donations to push partisan campaigns, they gain unfair advantage relative to political action committees (PACs) or other political actors who do not receive such tax benefits. Critics warn this could morph into “churches as PACs” hidden inside nonprofit tax shelters. (Simms Showers LLP)
- Mission confusion: Religion at its heart is about spiritual transformation, worship, community, values. When a church becomes predominantly a vehicle for electoral politics, the boundary between ministry and campaign-machinery blurs and the message may shift from “faith” to “party.” On the other hand, advocates argue that moral and public policy issues are intrinsic to the faith.
Religion and politics have long been intertwined. The founding era of the United States provides a vivid illustration. Leading figures such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin drew extensively from Scripture and religious texts in preparing to craft the new republic. They brought biblical language, moral imperatives, and readings from the Torah and the Bible to Philadelphia to help shape the Constitution. In their worldview, public virtue, civic responsibility and religious conviction were not separate domains: the character of citizens and leaders derived from moral frames rooted in Judeo-Christian thought. In many ways, the pulpit and the polity were never completely separated — religion shaped the convictions that shaped political conduct.
Therefore, when modern pastors argue that “the world is our parish” and the pulpit must engage public life, they are tapping into a long-standing tradition of faith-based public witness. The tension arises because the modern tax-code regime (Johnson Amendment) was designed to create a buffer between tax-suppressed donors and overt partisan campaigning. But if the church sees its mandate as transcending simply charitable activity, then the buffer may feel like a restraint on mission rather than a protection.
Summary. In essence, many churches — particularly independent evangelical or non-denominational ones — believe that being constrained by 501(c)(3) tax-exemption rules and the Johnson Amendment has compromised their ability to speak boldly on moral and political issues. In response, they are shedding that constraint (or pressing for reform of it), asserting that the pulpit must not be silenced. They see the tax deduction/endorsement tension as a forced trade-off: give up your prophetic voice or relinquish your tax benefit. They also remind us that the relationship of religion and politics has always been intimate in America’s formation, so reclaiming that voice is less radical than it appears. My view is: I’m glad to see that the churches are beginning to pull together and say “enough already.” They’re refusing to be reduced to cautious, neutral entities when they believe the stakes are spiritual, moral, and national.
If you like, I can pull together recent case-studies of churches that have made this shift (with names, denominations, how they restructured), and map trends by region. Would that be helpful?