Federal law forbids tax-exempt organizations, including churches, to “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” [26 U.S.C. §501(c)(3)]. This prohibition is popularly known as the “Johnson Amendment” because then-Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson led the effort for its passage in 1954.

While the Johnson Amendment applies to churches whose pastor makes public statements from the pulpit or in church publications in favor of or in opposition to political candidates, the IRS says that it does not apply to political statements by pastors off of church property and not in official church publications so long as they are accompanied by a statement that the comments are strictly personal and not intended to represent the church.

The Johnson Amendment only applies to intervention in political campaigns. It does not apply to efforts to influence legislation. Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code bars exempt organizations from engaging in “substantial” efforts to influence legislation. But unlike the complete bar to campaign intervention, the ban on attempts to influence legislation only pertains to substantial efforts.

Exempt organizations, including churches, that violate these limitations risk losing their tax-exempt status as well as the ability of donors to make tax-deductible donations to them [26 U.S.C. §170(c)(2)].

In recent years, many evangelical pastors have called for the repeal of the Johnson Amendment. This issue of Perspectives explores two sides of that debate. The first column argues that it should be repealed. The second argues that whether to repeal is the wrong question.

Note: The General Council of the Assemblies of God advises all AG churches to abide by federal law. The purpose of this issue of Perspectives is merely to inform AG ministers about the contours of a current debate.

Yes

The Johnson Amendment should be repealed for at least five reasons:

First, the fundamental confession of the Christian faith is, “Jesus is Lord” (Romans 10:9). This is a personal confession with public consequences. Jesus’ lordship extends to every area of life, after all, including politics. Our politics — the candidates and issues we vote for — should be guided by our faith.

Second, pastors are the Church’s primary teachers. They have a duty to speak prophetically about the cultural issues facing their churches. In 2 Timothy 4:2, Paul wrote Timothy: “Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage — with great patience and careful instruction.” Pastors who fail to show the relevance of the Word of God to the controversies of the day are failing to do what Scripture commands them to do.

Third, for most of American history, Christian pastors did precisely that. They preached election day sermons, showed what Scripture taught about current events, and even endorsed candidates for office. Politically engaged pastors are not, in other words, a recent phenomenon.

Fourth, the origin of the Johnson Amendment was nakedly partisan. In 1954, Dudley T. Dougherty challenged then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson in the Texas Democratic primary. Two conservative nonprofits — Facts Forum and the Committee for Constitutional Government — supported Dougherty against Johnson, whom they considered insufficiently anticommunist. When Johnson learned from the Internal Revenue Service that existing law didn’t prohibit nonprofits from endorsing candidates, he introduced an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 making the prohibition explicit.

Jesus Christ is Lord and His lordship does have immense public consequences.

Fifth, the Johnson Amendment violates the First Amendment. Columbia Law School professor Philip Hamburger makes this argument in his excellent new book, Liberal Suppression (University of Chicago Press, 2018). According to him,

section 501(c)(3) gives churches and other idealistic associations a choice between two constraints — between limits on their political speech and paying a tax to speak out. If section 501(c)(3) had actually offered cash for silence, its speech restrictions would be unconstitutional, but at least the affected organizations would have a real choice to speak without being taxed for their speech. The placement of the conditions on a mere exemption from tax, however, makes it abundantly clear that idealistic organizations have no choice except between different types of coercion. ... They can pay in order to speak or can save their money by shutting up.

No church or any other nonprofit should have to make this choice. Forcing them to do so violates their ministerial duty, American custom, and constitutional law.

No

Jesus Christ is Lord and His lordship does have immense public consequences. That doesn’t mean pastors should tell church members which candidates for public office to vote for, however. Here are four reasons why pastors shouldn’t use their pulpits to endorse candidates:

First, it is outside the scope of their authority. The Great Commission is to “make disciples of all nations.” The primary way pastors do that is by “baptizing” converts and “teaching ” them what Jesus commanded (Matthew 28:19-20).

Pastors can and should teach church members biblical principles about contemporary issues — whether in politics, business or marriage. But they should leave the specific application of those principles to church members. Just as pastors wouldn’t use their pulpits to tell church members who to marry or who to hire, they shouldn’t tell church members who to vote for.

Second, using the pulpit to endorse candidates for public office undermines pastoral authority. To see this, consider a thought experiment: One Sunday you visit a church where the pastor formally endorses a candidate for the U.S. Senate during the course of his or her sermon. You disagree with the pastor.

When pastors preach, you reason, they are supposed to proclaim the Word of God, not their personal opinion. But in this instance, you believe the pastor either has wrongly interpreted the Word of God or has elevated personal opinion to the level of biblical principle. Either way, that pastor’s authority takes a hit in your eyes. He or she has said “Thus saith the Lord” when the Lord hasn’t thus-saith-ed.

Now, pastor, consider that your pulpit endorsement of a political candidate might strike some of your church members the very same way. Do you see what this does to your authority in their eyes?

Third, a political pulpit divides the congregation needlessly. America is polarized enough already. Local churches don’t need to polarize it further on matters that aren’t related to their mission of evangelism and discipleship.

Fourth, endorsing candidates for public office is counterproductive. In the past 25 years, the number of Americans claiming no religious affiliation has risen precipitously, and one of their biggest reasons is the perceived politics of the Church. Using the pulpit to formally endorse candidates simply doubles down on a practice that is already driving people away.

So, should the Johnson Amendment be repealed? That’s an interesting legal question, but the wrong question from a missional point of view. The right question is whether pastors should endorse candidates from the pulpit in the first place. The answer is no. In an election year especially, doing so is a temptation to resist.

This article originally appeared in the September/October 2018 edition of Influence magazine.