IRS Filing Opens Door for Alabama Churches to Endorse Political Candidates

The IRS recently formalized its long-standing practice of not enforcing the 1954 Johnson Amendment against churches, using a case involving two Texas churches as the vehicle for this policy clarification. Sand Springs Church and First Baptist Church Waskom had openly endorsed political candidates, actions that technically violated federal tax law. However, the IRS announced it would not revoke their tax-exempt status, effectively green-lighting similar political activity by churches nationwide.

At a White House Faith Office summit this week, former President Donald Trump, who has long opposed the Johnson Amendment, celebrated the filing as a victory. "God is once again welcomed back into our public square," Trump declared, framing the decision as a triumph for religious freedom and free speech.

Understanding the Johnson Amendment

For 70 years, the Johnson Amendment has prohibited all 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office. Named after then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, the amendment was designed to maintain a clear separation between tax-exempt charitable activities and partisan politics.

Under the amendment, churches could:

• Discuss political issues
• Conduct voter registration drives
• Host candidate forums (if all candidates were invited)
• Advocate for legislation
• Engage in limited lobbying

But they could not:

• Endorse or oppose specific candidates
• Make campaign contributions
• Coordinate with political campaigns
• Use church resources for partisan political activities

The new IRS position essentially removes these restrictions for churches, though not for other nonprofits.

Divided Reactions from Religious Leaders

The response from religious leaders has been sharply divided, revealing deep philosophical differences about the proper role of churches in partisan politics.

Supporters of the change argue:

Pastor Cary Gordon of Iowa views it as restoring free speech rights to religious leaders, allowing them to "speak more directly about political and moral issues that concern their congregations."

Rev. Robert Jeffress of Dallas called it a clear win for free speech, arguing that pastors should have the same political speech rights as any other citizen.

Pastor Jamal Bryant of Georgia has already indicated he would "absolutely" consider endorsing political candidates from the pulpit in future elections.

Critics express serious concerns:

Rev. Thomas Bowen, a former White House faith liaison, warned that churches could become "campaign surrogates," cautioning that moral authority "must never be sold for access."

Tax law expert Ellen Aprill from Loyola Marymount University raised alarm about potential abuse, warning that campaign money could be funneled through churches to avoid taxes and disclosure requirements.

Many religious leaders worry about the divisive effect political endorsements could have on congregations.

Alabama Church Leaders Weigh In

Within Alabama's religious community, opinions remain deeply divided about whether churches should exercise this newfound freedom.

Justin Spurgin, a minister from Rainsville, articulated the concerns of many who oppose political endorsements: "I don't think that churches should endorse political candidates as a matter of principle. The church's mission is to glorify God and preach the gospel, and not telling our church members how they should be voting."

However, Reverend Gary Don Kirk, also from Rainsville, sees it differently: "Why not allow churches to endorse political candidates? We are the government and have as much right as anyone. I do believe churches should be allowed to endorse candidates."

Unique Advantages and Risks for Churches

Churches occupy a special position in the tax code that makes this development particularly significant:

• Automatic Tax Exemption - Unlike other nonprofits, churches qualify automatically for tax-exempt status without filing Form 1023
• Limited Reporting - Churches face fewer reporting requirements than other nonprofits, with no requirement to file annual Form 990 returns
• Donor Privacy - Church donations remain completely private, with no disclosure requirements
• Audit Protection - The IRS faces high hurdles to audit churches due to religious freedom protections

These features mean political money flowing through churches would enjoy unprecedented secrecy and protection from scrutiny.

Potential Implications for Alabama Politics

In a state where churches play a central role in community life and where religious participation remains high, the ability to make political endorsements could significantly impact elections. Considerations include:

• Electoral Influence - With Alabama's strong church attendance, pastoral endorsements could sway close elections at all levels
• Voter Mobilization - Churches' existing organizational infrastructure could be leveraged for explicit partisan political mobilization
• Campaign Finance - The potential for undisclosed political contributions through church channels raises transparency concerns
• Community Division - Political endorsements could split congregations along partisan lines, damaging church unity

These features mean political money flowing through churches would enjoy unprecedented secrecy and protection from scrutiny.

Practical Considerations for Churches

Churches considering political activity should understand several important factors:

• No Obligation - The IRS filing permits but does not require political endorsements. Churches remain free to maintain political neutrality.
• Denominational Rules - Many denominations have internal rules against political activity that remain binding regardless of IRS policy.
• State Law - While federal barriers have fallen, state laws and local regulations may still apply.
• Congregational Unity - Churches must weigh whether political endorsements align with their mission and whether they might divide their congregation.
• Public Perception - Political activity could affect how churches are viewed in their communities and impact their evangelical mission.

These factors combine to create a potentially transformative moment in Alabama politics, where the traditional boundary between pulpit and polling place may effectively disappear.

The Broader Debate

This development occurs against the backdrop of increasing political polarization and ongoing debates about the role of religion in public life. Key questions include:

• Separation of Church and State - Critics argue this erodes a fundamental principle of American democracy, while supporters claim it restores religious freedom.
• Tax Policy Fairness - Should organizations that receive tax benefits and tax-deductible donations be permitted to engage in partisan politics?
• Political Influence - Will this create an unfair advantage for candidates who can mobilize church support?
• Religious Freedom - Does restricting church political speech violate the First Amendment, or does permitting it violate the Establishment Clause?

Understanding these considerations is crucial for religious leaders as they navigate this new freedom while maintaining their spiritual mission and congregational harmony.

Historical Context

Alabama churches have long played influential roles in political movements while staying within Johnson Amendment boundaries. From the civil rights movement to contemporary moral issues, churches have shaped public discourse without explicit candidate endorsements. This new freedom represents uncharted territory.

The state's religious landscape—dominated by Baptist, Methodist, and other Protestant denominations, along with growing Catholic and non-Christian populations—means different faith communities may approach this opportunity very differently.

Looking Forward

As churches across Alabama consider how to respond to this new reality, several factors will shape their decisions:

• Theological beliefs about the church's role in society
• Congregational demographics and political diversity
• Community relationships and evangelical priorities
• Denominational guidance and restrictions
• Legal and financial considerations

The 2026 midterm elections will likely serve as the first major test of how Alabama churches choose to exercise—or refrain from exercising—their newfound political freedom.

Preparing for Change

Churches should take several steps to prepare for this new landscape:

• Review Governance Documents - Ensure church constitutions and bylaws address political activity
• Develop Clear Policies - Establish guidelines for what political activities the church will or won't engage in
• Educate Leadership - Ensure pastors, staff, and board members understand both opportunities and risks
• Consider Congregation Input - Gauge member feelings about potential political involvement
• Seek Legal Counsel - Consult with attorneys specializing in nonprofit and religious organization law

Taking these proactive steps will help churches make informed decisions that protect both their legal status and their spiritual mission in this new era of expanded political freedom.

Conclusion

The IRS's formalization of non-enforcement represents a watershed moment for religious institutions. While some celebrate it as restoring free speech and religious liberty, others worry about the politicization of sacred spaces and potential for abuse.

For Alabama churches, this development presents both opportunities and challenges. Each congregation must carefully consider whether and how to engage in political activity, weighing their spiritual mission against the possibility of political influence.

As this new era begins, the decisions made by religious leaders across Alabama will shape not only their congregations but potentially the state's political landscape for years to come. The true impact of this change will only become clear as churches navigate these uncharted waters, balancing their prophetic voice with their pastoral calling.