IRS: Churches Should Be Permitted to Endorse Political Candidates

[Everlasting Life]

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said Monday in court documents that churches should be permitted to endorse political candidates.

The move creates an exemption linked to a ban on political activity when it comes to nonprofits, the New York Times reported.

The ban, known as the Johnson Amendment, got its name from former President Lyndon B. Johnson....

....The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution protects the ability of churches–including pastors and lay Christians–and adherents of other faiths–to freely live out their faith through participating in the political process. And the Supreme Court has made it clear for more than a century–most recently in 2010 in Citizens United v. FEC, that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment guarantees that citizens can speak as freely through a corporate entity (such as a church) as they can individually about political and social issues.....

IRS: Churches Should Be Permitted to Endorse Political Candidates

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said Monday in court documents that churches should be permitted to endorse political candidates.

www.breitbart.com

 

[Hol]

I’m praying for my little church to take up this burden. It would help!

 

[Ghoti Ichthus]

Wonder if this has anything to do with mosques and religion and government being inseparable in islam
After the Rapture, the faith office could end up being the sharia, halal, persecution, etc. advisors office/national imam, etc.

 

[Tall Timbers]

I'm not sure what to think about this idea. If a Church is a non-profit, which pretty much all probably are, in theory they get tax free status, a benefit from the govmint that isn't enjoyed by all.

Since every American can give tax free gifts, I'd prefer that Churches not be non-profits but the giving of everyone in the congregation shouldn't be taxed until it exceeds the amount allowed everyone to give each year that is tax free. In 2025 that amount is $19000 per person. I should be able to give up to that amount to an organization that isn't a non-profit and since it is a gift from me it shouldn't be taxed in the first place.

If a Church isn't a non-profit, and doesn't receive govmint benefits, then there is no question that the Church is free to endorse or not endorse, regardless of what the IRS currently says.

 

[Margery]

In Canada gifts to churches, and other "charitable institutions" are tax free deductions but you will trigger an audit if you give more than 4% or so. G and I learned that the hard way. So we didn't claim anything over that.

 

[Andiamo]

I don’t trust this at all. They are up to something.

 

[Tall Timbers]

I received permission from ChristianChat member CS1 to share a post of his here on the topic of this thread:


"The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) says churches enjoy more latitude when it comes to endorsing or opposing political candidates—a surprising development after decades of debate and uncertainty regarding what is and isn’t allowed for tax-exempt organizations under a controversial Internal Revenue Code provision best known as the “Johnson Amendment.”
A recent IRS settlement signals greater freedom for churches to speak on political candidates—yet murky boundaries and tax-code risks still require caution.

Matthew Branaugh, Attorney and Editor



CS1 response to this: and to the District Council of his Fellowship:

I wanted to send this to you, not that you are unaware, but it has been on my mind for the past two days. Below is what I prayed about, and I believe the Lord has shown me this will be an issue very soon:

The recent news regarding the potential removal of restrictions that would allow churches to speak freely on political matters from the pulpit has stirred much reflection and prayer in my heart. While this may seem like a gain for religious liberty on the surface, I believe the Holy Spirit has offered a word of caution.

As the Apostle Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians 10:23 (NKJV), "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify." The New Living Translation puts it even more plainly: “You say, ‘I am allowed to do anything’—but not everything is good for you. You say, ‘I am allowed to do anything’—but not everything is beneficial.” Just because we can say something doesn’t mean it’s always wise or edifying, especially from the pulpit.

Over the past few years, political discourse has deeply divided not just the nation, but the Church. During the COVID-19 crisis, many of us saw how quickly the focus shifted from prayer and repentance to debate and division. I personally never supported the closing of churches, but I also grieve how we often spoke more than we sought the Lord.

Now, we face a new potential shift—where the pulpit may become a lightning rod for political opinions. I fear this may distract from the central message that must never be compromised: the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The pulpit is not a platform for political gain; it is a sacred space for the declaration of truth, repentance, and the hope we have in Christ.

We must not allow political speech to take priority over the prophetic voice of God in these last days. As Jeremiah 8:20 mournfully states, “The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved!” Let us not miss the urgency of the hour.

Regardless of where we stand politically, the current leadership across the spectrum has shown a troubling lack of reverence for God. Perversion and lawlessness are being normalized in governance, yet our response should not be to match political fervor with equal intensity from the pulpit—but to call the nation to repentance, to return to the Lord, and to seek His face.

Let us guard our hearts and minds in Christ Jesus (Philippians 4:7), recognizing that divide and conquer has always been the enemy’s strategy—and sadly, it is still working. May we as believers resist this tactic and remain unified in Spirit, rooted in truth, and bold in love.

Respectfully,

CS1

 

[Hol]

I'd like to hear more from my church's pulpit about abortion and homosexuality (in loving words of truth).

 

[Kem]

I'd like to hear more from my church's pulpit about abortion and homosexuality (in loving words of truth).

Our pastor addresses it anyway at least occasionally. Our pastor up north did also.
The problem with a church not being a non profit is that the church would then have to pay taxes on their income and it would really cut into the church budget.

 

[Ghoti Ichthus]

I'd like to hear more from my church's pulpit about abortion and homosexuality (in loving words of truth).

My denomination hasn't pulled any punches about the moral or Biblical aspects of either and some other stuff, but has carefully toed the line re the political aspects. Districts and denomination have resources to help Pastors if/when questions or issues arise.

Sin, yes. Unforgivable sin, no. Possibly ongoing unrepentant sin, which could/would incur church discipline, yes. Opportunity for forgiveness and grace, yes. Most importantly, God, the Church, and believers' love, always.

 

[Cheeky200386]

I'd like to hear more from my church's pulpit about abortion and homosexuality (in loving words of truth).

My Pastor has addressed both multiple times. It was and is refreshing to hear a bold sermon against all of this evil. The Pastor in FL and the one in MA did also.

We attend Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches and all 3 have not held back any punches.

When I was deceived in a Charismatic Assemblies of God church, I attended for 18 months and never heard about LGBT or Abortion. Not once. I was scolded by church leaders for bringing up abortion once. One of the many nails in the coffin to cement my decision to leave.

 

[Batman]

I've always seen the reason(s) behind the position historically and still like it and feel the framers and/or whichever era figured this was best to deny knew what they were doing!

 

[StephanMerm]

Idk , is this a double edged sword??
On the one hand , if a biblically rooted church does so , that could of course be beneficial in “ holding back evil “.
However , many churches are not so doctrinally sound and with the increase of a more progressive , “ woke”, mindset , this could be concerning.
The other issue is , what exactly
encapsulates “ church “ since the term church no longer is the once typical Christian meaning … This would be more of an eventual push for that dreaded
“ inclusion” defense for any religion/ organization to push candidates.

Of course , it would be “ fair” because of accusations of discrimination would likely occur , but given percentages of the various religions in this country , the world’s melting pot as they say , voters ( which would quite possibly NOT be composed of a supposed Christian majority) could turn up en mass pushing the election for a follower of Islam , an enemy of Israel ( or of just basic Christianity itself) , or for a far left radical with disastrous results…. Basically , something that seems like a win for conservatives and/ conservative Christians, but could actually backfire.

Personally , sitting on the fence with this one

 

[Margery]

I think what might be safe under Trump who IS solidly for the protection of Christians and Jews, it could backfire a bit under a different President who might push churches to endorse him or lose tax status. In Germany under Hitler, churches were forced to endorse Hitler.

That goes for a lot of things- under a good leader, some borderline policies are safe enough, but let a bad leader in, and everything can be turned on the very people it was supposed to help.

The hate speech laws in Canada were supposedly brought in during a wave of anti semitism. So far so good. But that quickly was shown to be just a ruse to protect the Muslims from the backlash of their antisemitic hate speech.

So now rather than protecting Jews in Canada from neo Nazis and Muslims it is protecting the attackers from being singled out as having a problem set of beliefs.