Preaching Without Fear: Churches Win Back the Right to Speak on Politics
Big Change in IRS Rules on Politics and Religion
A Historic Shift in the Making
Acts 5:29 – “We must obey God rather than men.”
On July 7, 2025, the Internal Revenue Service took a landmark step toward restoring a long-denied constitutional freedom. In a consent decree filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the IRS officially acknowledged that houses of worship may endorse political candidates from the pulpit—without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.
This pivotal shift rights what many have called the unconstitutional overreach of the Johnson Amendment, which for decades restricted political speech by 501(c)(3) nonprofits. As reported by The New York Times, the IRS now affirms that when churches speak to their congregants about politics during services, such communication is not “campaigning” but instead a private expression—“a family discussion concerning candidates.”
The settlement, reached with two Texas churches - Sand Springs Church and First Baptist Church Waskom - and the National Religious Broadcasters, represents not just a policy clarification, but a restored freedom of speech and religious expression, long entangled in legal ambiguity.
Introduced by then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson in 1954, the Johnson Amendment bans political campaigning by 501(c)(3) nonprofits. The New York Times article by David A. Fahrenthold highlights the IRS’s updated stance: “The agency said that if a house of worship endorsed a candidate to its congregants, the IRS would view that not as campaigning but as a private matter, like ‘a family discussion concerning candidates.” In short, communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through customary channels on matters of faith will no longer be treated as violations.
“It basically tells churches of all denominations and sects that you’re free to support candidates from the pulpit,” said Notre Dame law professor Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer.
The Legal Battle: National Religious Broadcasters v. Werfel
Isaiah 1:17 – “Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.”
This breakthrough emerged from National Religious Broadcasters v. Werfel (Case No. 6:24-cv-00311), filed on August 28, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiffs—National Religious Broadcasters, Intercessors for America, Sand Springs Church, and First Baptist Church Waskom—challenged the Johnson Amendment and said it was unconstitutional (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3)), arguing that it infringed upon their First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise, their Fifth Amendment due process rights, and protections under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
Rather than pursue a drawn-out trial, the IRS and Commissioner Billy Long filed a joint motion for consent judgment on July 7, 2025. The court granted the decree, marking a decisive victory for religious speech.
The language of the ruling redefines key terms:
To “participate” in a campaign means to “take part”
To “intervene” means to “interfere with the outcome or course” of an election (Merriam-Webster, 2025)
The court made clear that communications from a house of worship to its congregation during religious services—using the church’s normal channels—on political matters expressed through a religious lens do not violate the Johnson Amendment. As such, the IRS is now legally barred from enforcing that amendment against the plaintiff churches for such speech.
All claims were dismissed with prejudice. Appeals were waived, and each party agreed to bear its own costs.
A Return to America’s Founding Traditions and the Black Robe Regiment
Ecclesiastes 3:7b – “A time to be silent and a time to speak.”
This ruling isn’t a radical innovation - it is a return and restoration of a founding American tradition, one that predates the republic itself.
In colonial America, it was common for pastors to deliver “election sermons,” using scripture to instruct their flocks on how to vote. The Black Robe Regiment, a term coined by the British for patriot pastors who rallied their congregants to revolution, embodied this blend of spiritual and civic leadership. One famous example: Rev. Peter Muhlenberg, who dramatically shed his clergy robes to reveal a Continental Army uniform beneath, urging his congregation to fight for liberty. Learn the history of the Black Robed Regiment from Pastor Dan Fisher at the video link below. Click here for Dan’s website.
Throughout American history, churches have been catalysts for political and moral transformation—from abolitionist movements in the 19th century to the Civil Rights movement of the 20th. Religious leaders such as Jonathan Mayhew and Samuel Cooper openly opposed tyranny, while others harbored escaped slaves in defiance of unjust laws.
That long tradition was interrupted in 1954, when Senator Lyndon B. Johnson added a last-minute provision to the tax code that would become known as the Johnson Amendment. The amendment created a chilling effect—not through rigorous enforcement, but through ambiguity and fear. The IRS rarely applied it against churches, but the threat alone kept many clergy silent on political matters.
Now, that silence is being lifted.
Misunderstood Boundaries: The True Meaning of Church and State
Matthew 22:21 – “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”
For decades, the phrase “separation of church and state” has been widely invoked—often as a justification to silence religious voices in public and political life. But the phrase itself does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. It originated in an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, in which he used it metaphorically to reassure Baptists that the federal government would not interfere with their religious practices.
Critically, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment—“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”—was not intended to protect the state from the church, but to protect the church from the state. It forbids the government from imposing a national religion or favoring one denomination over another, not from acknowledging faith’s role in civic life, nor from allowing churches to speak into moral and political matters.
Over time, misinterpretations and selectively applied rhetoric have recast this constitutional safeguard into a tool to limit religious expression in the public square. While terms like “propaganda” may be strong, it's fair to say that a coordinated narrative has emerged—often in media, academia, and government circles—that treats religious speech as inherently suspect when it intersects with politics. This distortion has discouraged pastors from engaging in political discourse, despite their historical and constitutional right to do so.
The recent IRS ruling corrects course. It restores a clearer reading of the First Amendment—one where religious institutions are free to speak to political issues from the pulpit, without fear of state reprisal. This is not the imposition of religion on government, but the removal of government interference from religion—a vital constitutional principle now reaffirmed.
The Black Robe Regiment’s Modern Echo
2 Timothy 1:7 – “For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.”
The spirit of the Black Robe Regiment lives on in this case. The plaintiffs in NRB v. Werfel did not just rely on legal arguments—they drew from the legacy of America’s founding ministers. By invoking the First Amendment and RFRA, they asserted that religious speech is not less protected simply because it touches politics.
Their victory echoes the intent of President Trump’s 2017 Executive Order 13798, which directed the Treasury Department to avoid punishing religious organizations for political speech.
A 2012 GAO report underscored how toothless the Johnson Amendment had become: in 70 years, only one church had ever lost its tax-exempt status for political endorsement. The amendment has thus functioned more as a threat than a law. This settlement confirms that reality. The freedom to speak from the pulpit has not just been tolerated—it has now been codified as protected as an active, judicially recognized right.
What Comes Next? Legal and Cultural Ripples
James 1:5 – “If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God… and it will be given to you.”
Though the ruling applies specifically to the plaintiff churches, it sets a powerful precedent. Legal observers believe other houses of worship may follow suit—either by invoking this case or by challenging the Johnson Amendment themselves.
Still, questions remain. As Professor Ellen P. Aprill of Loyola Law School noted:
“It’s not going to be limited to just their membership… Everybody has a webpage.”
If a sermon is live-streamed or posted online, does it still count as “internal communication”? Does a bulletin posted on a church website retain protected status? The consent decree doesn’t fully answer these questions, which means future litigation may be inevitable.
Nonetheless, the decree offers clarity where confusion once reigned. For now, churches can speak boldly from the pulpit without fear—a restored freedom for a historic voice.
Matthew 10:16 – “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.”
A New Chapter in Church-State Relations
As the United States prepares to celebrate its 250th birthday in 2026, this decision arrives not as a rupture with tradition but a reclamation of it. Figures like Attorney Mike Whitehead and others took to social media, celebrating with patriotic fervor—fireworks and all—portraying the ruling as a long-overdue constitutional correction.
Whether American churches embrace this liberty widely or continues to tread cautiously remains to be seen.
But one thing is now certain: the Johnson Amendment’s grip has weakened, and restored freedom has returned the pulpit to its voice. Now is not the time for silence. As Christians, we are called to step boldly into the public square—not with partisanship, but with conviction. This moment demands that we steward our influence with courage: to speak truth in love, uphold righteousness, and remind our nation that the Church is not a passive observer, but a prophetic witness. The doors are open—let the voice of the Church rise again.
Subscribe for more insights into the intersection of faith, law, education, elections and history.
