In a move that may be considered more symbolic than anything else, the IRS has agreed that churches are free to discuss politics without fear that their tax-exempt status could be jeopardized. National Religious Broadcasters, Intercessors for America, Sand Springs Church, and First Baptist Church Waskom had filed a complaint against IRS Commissioner Billy Long and the agency over the application of the Johnson Amendment in the consent judgment filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The Johnson Amendment prohibits churches from participating in or intervening in political campaigns to maintain their tax-exempt status.

The plaintiffs in the case argued that the Johnson Amendment could violate the First and Fifth Amendment rights and imperil their right to due process under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In the judgment, the IRS noted:

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,” within the ordinary meaning of those words. To “participate” in a political campaign is “to take part” in the political campaign, and to “intervene” in a political campaign is “to interfere with the outcome or course” of the political campaign. See Participate, Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary (2025); Intervene, Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary(2025). 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. 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.

Again, this is mostly symbolic since the IRS has not enforced the act against churches or other places of worship when it comes to elections and politics. 

Reaction from the Right was positive:

Again, this could be seen as mostly symbolic since the IRS has reportedly not enforced the act against churches or other places of worship when it comes to elections and politics. That said, there is no guarantee that when the Left once again takes the reins of power, the Johnson Amendment would not be used with vigor.

Some saw this as a bad omen for churches, and some invoked the separation of church and state, while continuing to remain oblivious to the fact that the original intent of that statement was that the church should be protected from the government, not the other way around. Some even opined that the move could hurt the credibility of churches:

It has been a spell since I was a member of an Evangelical church, and when I was, many conservatives were angry about Obama. Still, the national situation was not nearly as ugly as it is now. Back then, every pastor I met had an almost pathological avoidance of discussing politics, as did most members, at least on Sundays. The ante has been significantly upped over the last nine years in terms of political and social discourse.

While the possibility of a pastor or priest using the pulpit as a vehicle for his personal political beliefs merits discussion, there is no reason to deny the fact that one’s faith can and should play a role in one’s political and overall worldview. Those are conversations that communities of faith need to have. Like it or not, one’s spirituality informs one’s politics. 

It may well be that the concern from the Left is that allowing conservative churches to integrate politics into sermons, Bible studies or discussion groups will fuel the rise of Christian nationalism, which, if left unchecked will result in the enslavement and exploitation of minorities and leave women bereft of shoes and forever consigned to a life of alternately producing babies and pot roasts. But they will have those snazzy Handmaid’s Tale outfits, so there’s that. 

Conversely, free speech cuts both ways. Older readers may recall Rev. Jeremiah Wright bellowing “God d**n America!” from his pulpit, and projects like The After Party have sought to introduce progressive ideology into evangelical churches. Mainline Protestant denominations fly rainbow flags and actively support abortion rights and open borders. 

I remember talking with Chris Queen about a piece he was working on, and in the course of that discussion, I looked at the webpage of the Episcopal church in which I was raised and watched a video of a service. Yes, the number of attendees was small enough that they could have held a Rollerball match without bothering anyone. That’s not what I found interesting. At the end of the service, a very earnest and sincere woman stood up and invited the congregation to join her in the church parlor to discuss possible DEI efforts for the coming months. If that isn’t politics from a pulpit, I don’t know what is.

Wright should be free to say “God d**n America” from the pulpit and offer his theological framework for it. If that young woman feels that God has called her to lead her church in social activism, so be it. The Monday judgment protects them as well. But churches should also be free to advocate for he sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and borders. And they should be free to offer their theological reasons for those things.

Politics and the pulpit have been, and always will be, intertwined. People of faith cannot and should not shy away from honestly wrestling with the intersection of the two. While the judgment may be symbolic to a degree, it also asserts that the government cannot favor one brand of faith over another, and that it has no business regulating thought, speech, or faith.