The Silencing of the Church in America

THE NEFARIOUS JOHNSON AMENDMENT

How the Government Bought the Silence of the Church in America

There’s a provision of the Internal Revenue Code that has effectively bought the silence of the church in America. By that we mean that the law in question is responsible for closing the mouths of pastors and church leaders who would otherwise speak out against improper government actions, especially those that directly contradict moral principles long held by a broad majority of Americans and set forth in the Christian Bible.

We refer to the so-called “Johnson Amendment,” which, in 1954, added specific language to Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) regarding political campaigns and candidates for public office. The amendment was proposed and pushed by then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, later the 36^th president. It relates directly to section 501(c)(3) organizations, the long list of which includes churches, and educational and charitable organizations.

The specific language of subsection (c)(3) provides that in order to retain their federal tax exempt status, exempt organizations cannot participate in, or intervene in, campaigns for public office, and more specifically, they must not endorse or oppose individual political candidates. The clause reads,

…no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation…and which does 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.

This has long been construed to mean that in order to retain tax-exempt status churches have to keep their mouths shut when it comes to endorsing or opposing specific candidates or specific political issues.

This gag-order has imposed silence on American churches when it comes to the critical social issues of the day. Despite the fact that critical social issues have both religious and political implications, churches have historically balked at speaking out against troublesome social trends for fear of losing their exempt status. For example, the question of abortion has both political and religious implications, as do the questions of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and gender issues (more on this below). And despite the fact that some church bodies have been teaching on such matters for just shy of 2,000 years, modern American churches have largely chosen silence on these matters rather than risk their tax-exempt status.

That’s about to change.

In August 2024, two churches and two publishing companies sued the IRS for an injunction and declaratory relief over the Johnson Amendment. The plaintiffs argued that the statute’s prohibition against tax-exempt organizations engaging in political speech is unconstitutional, and that it conflicts with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. The case is National Religious Broadcasters, et al, v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, 6:24-cv-00311-JCB (E.D. Tex.).

On July 7, 2025, the IRS conceded the case.

The parties filed a “joint motion for entry of consent judgment,” wherein the IRS agrees “that the Johnson Amendment unconstitutionally prohibits section 501(c)(3) organizations from engaging in political speech.” The agency agrees to “injunctive relief to prohibit enforcement of the Johnson Amendment insofar as it operates to prohibit political speech.” Id., docket #35 at para. 4.

The proposed consent judgment states:

When a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither “participate[s]” nor “intervene[s]” in a “political campaign,” within the ordinary meaning of those words. … Bona fide  communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services, do neither of those things, any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates. Thus, communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted. Dkt 35 at para. 7.

And again, just in case it was not clear:

For these reasons, the Johnson Amendment does not reach speech by a house of worship to its congregation, in connection with religious services through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith. Dkt 35 at para 10.

In exchange for this concession by the IRS, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss all other claims.

If this consent judgment is accepted by the court, the impact on free speech will be massively important. As of this writing the court has not ruled on the motion to adopt the consent judgment.

A wrinkle in the case is created by the organization known as “Americans United for Separation of Church and State.” It filed a third-party intervenor Answer, essentially defending the position of the IRS, and objecting to the proposed consent order, claiming that the IRS should continue to enforce the Johnson Amendment against churches. Americans United is an activist organization (ironically, formed under section 501(c)(3)), which has, among other things, challenged praying at the opening of town meetings, opposed the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, campaigned for abortion, and joined in lawsuits to ensure gender transition surgery is performed on children. The court has not ruled on the intervention of Americans United, so it remains to be seen what influence their voice might have on the court.

The suit challenging the Johnson Amendment claims that the law violates (1) the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and (2) the free-exercise clause, (3) the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection clause and, (4) due process clause, and finally, (5) the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, found at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1, which provides that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”

Regarding the First Amendment claim, one should note that when he was inventing and advocating Communism, Karl Marx demonstrated that a person’s theology is intimately tied to and inseparable from what he believes about nine other subjects: law, politics, economics, ethics, sociology, biology, psychology, philosophy, and history. That means that law, politics, and theology — the subjects at issue in this lawsuit — cannot be separated from one another. After Marx proved this true as to Communism, it was likewise demonstrated with respect to Islam, Humanism, New Age, and the religion of the plaintiffs here, Christianity. And indeed, that is precisely what the plaintiffs pled in their amended complaint. Consider the following excerpts from that complaint:

This [bona fide religious conviction] includes the spiritual duty to teach about issues of life that may arise in the public arena. Issues such as religious freedom, the right to life, racism, and the duties of parents to their children have obvious moral and spiritual implications, and each of these topics is also a current political topic that is treated in different manners by different political candidates. First Amended Complaint, Dkt 20 at para 125.

And:

Plaintiffs cannot fulfill their spiritual duties to teach the full counsel of the Word of God if they fail to address such issues and to inform their listeners how the views of various political candidates compare to the Bible’s position on such matters. However, if they do both things, that is, teach what the Bible says and inform the public what a candidate believes on such an issue, the IRS insists that such teaching violates the Johnson Amendment. Any such violation comes with the prospect of substantial penalties, including the loss of tax-exempt status for the organization. Dkt 20 at para 126, 140.

And:

Plaintiffs have a bona fide religious conviction that they must teach and preach about all areas of life. No area of life is exempt from the reach of Scripture. And teaching is not limited to generalized principles. Proper teaching includes a precise application of scriptural principles to every area of life. Dkt 20 at para 138.

Per the language of the consent judgment, the IRS conceded that theology is inseparable from law, politics, economics, et cetera.

Regarding the Equal Protection claim, plaintiffs gave examples of 25 different publications that overtly took political stances, including endorsing specific Democrat political candidates, with no penalty from the government. Plaintiffs gave nine examples of specific churches hosting Democrat candidates and speakers (e.g., Hilary Clinton, Barak Obama, Joe Biden) and endorsing Democrat candidates for political office, with no penalty from the government. Plaintiffs then gave specific examples of a church and a media company endorsing Donald Trump for office, and endorsing politically-right positions, and being penalized by the IRS for purportedly violating the Johnson Amendment.

The fact is that the Johnson Amendment is, and has long been used as, a sword by government to attack political enemies, and not as a shield to purportedly protect the concept of the separation of church and state. We maintain that the remarkable inroads that Marxist ideas have made in American culture in the past 20 years can be attributed to two main causes: (1) the failure of higher education (and now primary education) to teach the principles of liberty as embraced by the Founders, and (2) the failure of the church to teach the Creator’s truths as espoused in Scripture as they relate to law, politics, economics, etc. And it is simply inarguable that the churches’ silence is directly attributable to the Johnson Amendment.

In Dan’s book, Salt and Light: The Secret to Restoring America’s Christian Culture, he discusses Alexis de Tocqueville of France. De Tocqueville was a French jurist, political philosopher, and sociologist. Be­ginning in April 1831, he spent ten months traveling throughout Ameri­ca. His purpose was to study our legal and penal system with an eye toward understanding how it was that America became such a great nation in just the few short decades since the adoption of its Constitution in 1789. De Tocqueville’s findings were published in 1840 in his book De­mocracy in America.

There, De Tocqueville discussed at length America’s Christian culture. He noted that Christianity, more than any other factor, shaped the political views of Americans. It defined their views on liberty, govern­ment, and the power of law. It formed the foundations of their personal lives, their marriages, and their families. It dictated their public manners and moral code. He even referred to Christianity as the “foremost of the political institutions” in America because “it facilitates the free use of in­stitutions.”Salt and Light, p. 62.

De Tocqueville noted that America’s incredible rise to prominence on the world stage was due to its universal Christian faith. He is credited with this poignant and poetic observation:

I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commo­dious harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there; in her fertile fields and boundless prairies, and it was not there; in her rich mines and her vast world commerce, and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. Salt and Light, p. 64.

Regardless of whether one thinks churches and other non-profits should be granted a statutory exemption from taxation when endorsing Biden, Trump, or anyone else, this settlement — assuming the court accepts it — will go down in legal history as a watershed moment.

That said, it is important to note that the consent judgment in this case – even if accepted by the court – does not repeal the Johnson Amendment. Only Congress can do that. Nor does it otherwise strike down the provision as unconstitutional across the board. The agreement merely (and importantly) allows 501(c)(3) organizations to express their opinions on political issues and candidates as they relate to the religious views held by such organization.

We predict that this will be a turning point in American culture.

Want to read the other articles in this newsletter?

PTT subscribers get the entire version of these articles (including links) and more
when they download their issue of Pilla Talks Taxes. 

Looking for a single issue?  Contact our office for pricing.  

___________________________

SUBSCRIBE NOW!