Before we dive into the history and current state of the Johnson Amendment, we need a quick review of our founding fathers’ understanding of the separation of church and state. As our 13 original colonies transitioned from a confederation of states loosely governed by the Articles of Confederation toward our current constitutional republic, our founders, who were not all Christian but who were all influenced by biblical principles, saw the need for the separation of church and state.
Hunter Baker, provost of North Greenville University, documents the influence of Baptist thought in the process in his book Postliberal Protestants: Baptists Between Obergefell and Christian Nationalism. Baker writes, “Baptists sought to protect the church from the corrupting influence of politics. They also tried to make spiritual commitment voluntary to ensure the integrity of conversions and church membership.” Baptists, led by men like Roger Williams and John Leland, have a long and robust history of defending religious liberty and presenting a right understanding of the separation of church and state.
In the mid-1950s, Cold War tension and the rise of anti-communist sentiment intensely polarized the political climate in the United States. Lyndon Johnson, then a senator from Texas, proposed the Johnson Amendment, and the Senate voted it into the Internal Revenue Code without debate or discussion. The amendment says in part that tax-exempt non-profits “may not participate in or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”
Sen. Johnson was motivated by politics and pragmatism. Two prominent non-profits backed his opponents in 1954, using their tax-exempt status to raise money for his opposition, angering Sen. Johnson and leading to his offering of the amendment. The amendment was not controversial at the time. However, people have hotly debated the merits and constitutionality of the amendment over the seven decades since its passage.
Although the IRS has successfully prosecuted only one church (Branch Ministries in Binghamton, N.Y.), that resulted in the loss of its tax-exempt status, the amendment has been used to threaten churches, creating a chilling environment for free speech and silencing a number of pastors through intimidation. Organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom have trumpeted the unconstitutional nature of the amendment, encouraging pastors to speak boldly about social and political issues and send recordings or transcripts of their messages to the IRS, daring them to take action.
In August 2024, a lawsuit was filed against the IRS by the National Religious Broadcasters and two churches in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiffs accused the IRS of violating their First Amendment rights, free speech, and religious exercise. The parties reached a proposed judgment agreement on July 7 (the court hasn’t approved it), under which the two churches could endorse or oppose political candidates from the pulpit without risking loss of tax-exempt status.
In part of the judgment agreement, the IRS said it would no longer consider statements regarding the “character or qualifications” of a political candidate — or direct or indirect comments that may be understood as endorsements made as part of religious services, provided they are tied to “good faith” religious beliefs — as a violation of the amendment. Multiple legal organizations have released statements emphasizing that the proposed settlement is technically binding only on the IRS regarding the plaintiff organizations. However, since the IRS also referenced President Trump’s 2017 executive order, directing them not to pursue penalties against religious organizations engaged in political speech and commented on the “long-standing pattern of selective enforcement,” it is clear they have no intention of enforcing the amendment while President Trump occupies the Oval Office.
Churches and 501(c)(3) organizations are now free to talk about politics and endorse candidates to their congregations if they choose to do so. But should they? Much thought, prayer, and consideration will need to be given to the question of endorsements. The church should always address the so-called moral political issues, which are biblical issues, in the pulpit, the marketplace, the workplace, and the home. The only change is, we can now follow this call without worrying about a knock on the church door from the IRS.