President Trump told reporters last Thursday that multiple pastors who gathered for a White House Easter service this week had complained about being investigated by the IRS over the past four years.

“They said, ‘Sir, I was targeted by the IRS, and the FBI came in, sir, and I’ve been going through Hell for years,’” Trump said in a discussion in the Oval Office about his threat to revoke the tax exempt status of Harvard University.

Media reached out to the pastors who attended the service to corroborate Trump’s account. Most did not immediately respond, but Pastor Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas, confirmed in an email that he told Trump at the event that he had been investigated by the IRS.

“I told the President that our church was the subject of an IRS investigation launched under the Biden administration that spanned several years and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars due to complaints from the Freedom From Religion Foundation,” Jeffress wrote. “The case was ultimately resolved in our favor.”

For years, advocates for the separation of church and state have urged the Internal Revenue Service to hold churches that endorse political candidates accountable, saying that such endorsements violate a provision of the U.S. tax code, known as the Johnson amendment, that bars nonprofits from taking sides in electoral campaigns. Little has come of those concerns, as the IRS has long been reluctant to investigate churches.

Your tax-deductible gift supports our mission of reporting the truth and restoring the church. Donate $50 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you can elect to receive “Not So Sorry: Abusers, False Apologies, and the Limits of Forgiveness” by Kaya Oakes, click here.

Asked for documentation proving that the investigation occurred, Jeffress said his church is turning all of the documentation regarding the investigation over to the White House, adding that “any release of that information will come from them.”

The White House did not immediately provide documentation when asked by media, saying they were looking into the matter.

Verifying the investigation without documentation may prove difficult. Asked about the alleged investigation, a representative for the IRS said federal employees are barred from disclosing tax return information, “including whether the agency has or has not investigated a particular entity.”

According to the FFRF, the group filed a complaint about First Baptist in July 2020, before the election and while Trump was still president. It focused on a visit by then-Vice President Mike Pence made to First Baptist for a “Celebrate Freedom Sunday.” Jeffress said he was praying that Pence would have a second term as vice president and then be elected president.

“Mr. Vice President, I know I probably should not say this, (but) my congregation knows that has never stopped me before,” said Jeffress, according to a recording of the service posted on First Baptist’s YouTube channel. He added: “We are praying that when you finish your term in 2024, we don’t want you moving out of the West Wing, we just want you moving down the hall a few doors and continue to build on the legacy of the most faith-friendly president in history.”

The FFRF argued Jeffress’ remarks amounted to an endorsement.

Only one congregation in recent history has lost its exemption for electioneering — namely, an upstate New York church that took out anti-Bill Clinton ads in several large newspapers in 1992. It has not been for lack of trying. For years, secular advocacy groups have complained about events such as “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” a campaign involving thousands of pastors in which they endorse candidates from the pulpit and send recordings of their sermons to the IRS, hoping to produce a test case to overturn the Johnson amendment.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group, organized the Pulpit Freedom campaign for years but eventually gave up.

Madeline Ziegler, a staff attorney for FFRF, said the organization files about 30 complaints about alleged violations of the Johnson amendment. Each time, Zielger said, the organization receives a form letter in response. “They always explain they cannot disclose whether they have started an investigation or the status of any investigation,” Ziegler said.

Ziegler shared a letter from the IRS, dated August 29, 2020, acknowledging receipt of the FFRF complaint. “The IRS has an ongoing audit program to ensure compliance with the Internal Revenue Code (IRC),” the letter read. “We’ll consider the information you submitted in this program.”

Such letters may not be as rare as prosecutions. Attorneys for New Way Church in Palm Coast, Florida, claimed earlier this month that the IRS had launched an investigation against the church after a local school board candidate spoke at the church in 2022 and explained why she was running for office. The church’s pastor prayed for the candidate, New Way attorneys claimed in a statement.

“We have some questions about your tax-exempt status as a church under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 501 (a) and/or your liability for tax,” read a 2024 letter from the IRS. “Our concerns are based on information we are in possession of indicating you may have conducted political campaign activities which are prohibited under IRC Section 501 (c) (3).”

The letter instructed the church to fill out a “Church Tax Inquiry Questions” form.

Lawyers from the First Liberty Institute say the investigation was later closed.

“We are pleased that the IRS not only closed its investigation, but affirmed that this church’s activities of praying for political candidates during its church service do not threaten its tax-exempt status,” Jeremy Dys, senior counsel for First Liberty Institute, said in a statement.

Earlier this year, the National Religious Broadcasters filed a federal lawsuit to overturn the Johnson Amendment. That lawsuit claimed that nonprofit newspapers are allowed to endorse candidates, but churches are not.

Bob Smietana and Jack Jenkins are national reporters for Religion News Service.

DALLAS (RNS)—President Donald Trump told reporters on April 17 multiple pastors who gathered for a White House Easter service had complained about being investigated by the IRS over the past four years.

“They said, ‘Sir, I was targeted by the IRS, and the FBI came in, sir, and I’ve been going through hell for years,’” Trump said in a discussion in the Oval Office about his threat to revoke the tax-exempt status of Harvard University.

Religion News Service reached out to the pastors who attended the service to corroborate Trump’s account. Most did not immediately respond, but Pastor Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, confirmed in an email he told Trump at the event his church had been investigated by the IRS.

“I told the President that our church was the subject of an IRS investigation launched under the Biden administration that spanned several years and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars due to complaints from the Freedom From Religion Foundation,” Jeffress wrote. “The case was ultimately resolved in our favor.”

For years, advocates for the separation of church and state have urged the Internal Revenue Service to hold churches that endorse political candidates accountable. They insist such endorsements violate a provision of the U.S. tax code, known as the Johnson Amendment, that bars nonprofits from taking sides in electoral campaigns.

Little has come of those concerns, as the IRS has long been reluctant to investigate churches.

Asked for documentation proving the investigation occurred, Jeffress said his church is turning all of the documentation regarding the investigation over to the White House, adding, “Any release of that information will come from them.”

The White House did not immediately provide documentation when asked by RNS, saying they were looking into the matter.

Verifying the investigation without documentation may prove difficult. Asked about the alleged investigation, a representative for the IRS said federal employees are barred from disclosing tax return information, “including whether the agency has or has not investigated a particular entity.”

Focused on ‘Celebrate Freedom Sunday’ remarks

According to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the group filed a complaint about First Baptist in July 2020, before the election and while Trump was still president.

It focused on a visit by then-Vice President Mike Pence made to First Baptist for a “Celebrate Freedom Sunday.” Jeffress said he was praying Pence would have a second term as vice president and then be elected president.

“Mr. Vice President, I know I probably should not say this, but my congregation knows that has never stopped me before,” said Jeffress, according to a recording of the service posted on First Baptist’s YouTube channel.

“We are praying that when you finish your term in 2024, we don’t want you moving out of the West Wing. We just want you moving down the hall a few doors and continue to build on the legacy of the most faith-friendly president in history.”

The Freedom From Religion Foundation asserted Jeffress’ remarks amounted to an endorsement.

Repeated attempts to produce a test case

Only one congregation in recent history has lost its exemption for electioneering—an upstate New York church that took out anti-Bill Clinton ads in several large newspapers in 1992.

It has not been for lack of trying. For years, secular advocacy groups have complained about events such as “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” a campaign involving thousands of pastors in which they endorse candidates from the pulpit and send recordings of their sermons to the IRS, hoping to produce a test case to overturn the Johnson Amendment.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group, organized the Pulpit Freedom campaign for years but eventually gave up.

Madeline Ziegler, a staff attorney for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said the organization filed about 30 complaints about alleged violations of the Johnson Amendment. Each time, Zielger said, the organization received a form letter in response.

“They always explain they cannot disclose whether they have started an investigation or the status of any investigation,” Ziegler said.

Ziegler shared a letter from the IRS, dated August 29, 2020, acknowledging receipt of the Freedom From Religion Foundation complaint.

“The IRS has an ongoing audit program to ensure compliance with the Internal Revenue Code,” the letter read. “We’ll consider the information you submitted in this program.”

Such letters may not be as rare as prosecutions. Attorneys for New Way Church in Palm Coast, Fla., claimed earlier this month the IRS had launched an investigation against the church after a local school board candidate spoke at the church in 2022 and explained why she was running for office. The church’s pastor prayed for the candidate, New Way attorneys claimed in a statement.

“We have some questions about your tax-exempt status as a church under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 501 (a) and/or your liability for tax,” read a 2024 letter from the IRS. “Our concerns are based on information we are in possession of indicating you may have conducted political campaign activities which are prohibited under IRC Section 501 (c) (3).”

The letter instructed the church to fill out a “Church Tax Inquiry Questions” form.

Lawyers from the First Liberty Institute say the investigation later was closed.

“We are pleased that the IRS not only closed its investigation, but affirmed that this church’s activities of praying for political candidates during its church service do not threaten its tax-exempt status,” Jeremy Dys, senior counsel for First Liberty Institute, said.

Earlier this year, the National Religious Broadcasters filed a federal lawsuit to overturn the Johnson Amendment. That lawsuit claimed nonprofit newspapers are allowed to endorse candidates, but churches are not.

If Harvard was a conservative church instead of a university, Trump would defend its tax-exempt status to the death. Photo: Sophie Park/The New York Times/Redux

The second Trump administration has launched an audacious assault on federal funding for universities. Under the very thin cover of a presidential executive order and wielding threats to freeze or terminate all federal dollars, a multi-agency “Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism” has been terrorizing selected high-profile outposts of American higher education, beginning with private Ivy League universities, as The Wall Street Journal reported this week:

[T]he group’s stated goal is to “root out antisemitic harassment in schools and on college campuses,” a mission that emerged from pro-Palestinian protests that disrupted campuses last year. But along the way, the task force is taking on university culture more broadly in ways that echo the MAGA dreams for remaking higher education—including ending racial preferences in admissions and hiring.

The task force, with the president himself cheering it on and White House policy director Stephen Miller reportedly identifying targets, is bent on intimidating universities into a virtual Trump administration takeover of key policy decisions, as the New York Times reported:

The White House scored an early win with Columbia’s capitulationlast month to a list of demands that included tightening disciplinary policies and installing new oversight of the university’s Middle Eastern, South Asian and African studies department.

Since then, the Trump administration expanded its focus to six more of the nation’s most exclusive universities, including Harvard.

But Harvard has interrupted the intended MAGA march through higher education with a refusal to seek or reach an agreement with the administration to call off the hounds. Right away, the U.S. Department of Education froze $2.2 billion in federal grants and $60 million in federal contracts. But then Trump himself upped the ante with a new threat that goes far beyond cancellation of federal grants (per a Truth Social post):

Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting “Sickness?” Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!

To be clear, the president does not have the power to revoke anyone’s tax-exempt status unilaterally, but obviously his appointees at the IRS could give any target of the president’s ire problems. And there has also been Republican legislation percolating in Congress that would give the Treasury Department the power to strip tax-exempt status for any organization it chooses to deem “terrorist-supporting.”

In any event, Trump is reviving an ancient right-wing complaint about tax subsidies for “liberal” institutions; the renowned racist presidential candidate George Wallace talked a lot about big nonprofit foundations (many of which backed civil-rights causes) that could dodge federal as well as state taxes. But there’s a bit of a consistency problem with Trump railing against private nonprofits that in his estimation get “political” on the public’s dime. Trump himself, like many allies of the Christian right, has called for the repeal of existing laws banning nonprofit politicking.

The principal safeguard, the so-called Johnson Administration (named after LBJ, who sponsored it as a U.S. senator back in 1954), provides that tax-exempt nonprofit organizations, including churches, “are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.” Conservative clergy have regularly denounced the Johnson Amendment as an abrogation of their right to practice their religion “in the public square.” And on the 2016 campaign trail Trump promised to secure its repeal, a pledge that helped seal his support from previously skeptical Evangelical leaders. Very soon after taking office, moreover, Trump pledged to “get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.” Later on Trump claimed to have indeed “gotten rid of” the Johnson Amendment by executive order, but he clearly did not have the power to do anything more than relax its enforcement. So it remains on the table as a potential favor to the conservative Christian leaders who are now a MAGA bastion.

Trump’s threat against Harvard, though, goes in the opposite direction. If he believes churches should be able to endorse candidates from the pulpit and even contribute to political candidacies (which full repeal of the Johnson Amendment might well facilitate), how can he defend stripping other nonprofit organizations of their tax exemptions simply for “promoting” political points of view, far short of any campaign activity? The only coherent answer, if you want to call it that, is that it’s the nature of the political involvement that Trump would make crucial to maintaining or losing tax-exempt status. If it’s on his behalf, that’s fine. Otherwise, you’d better start paying taxes pronto.

Churches and Taxes Should Churches (and Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt? Ask the Chatbot a Question Ask the Chatbot a Question

Table of Contents

Table of Contents Ask the Chatbot

Origins of Tax Exemption for Churches The tax exemption for churches can be traced back to the Roman Empire, when Constantine, emperor of Rome from 306–337, granted the Christian church a complete exemption from all forms of taxation following his supposed conversion to Christianity circa 312. Church property used for religious purposes was tax-exempt in medieval England, based on the rationale that the church relieved the state of some governmental functions, and therefore deserved a benefit in return. The English Statute of Charitable Uses of 1601, which included churches along with all other charitable institutions, formed the basis of America’s modern tax exemption for charities.[2][3][4][45]

501(c)(3) Charitable Organizations and the Parsonage Exemption The U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) classifies churches as 501(c)(3) nonprofit charitable organizations, which are exempt from federal income tax and are able to accept tax-deductible donations. Unlike secular charities, however, churches are automatically considered to be 501(c)(3) organizations, and, while they may do so voluntarily, they are not required by law to submit an application for exemption or pay the application fee. According to the IRS, the fees are $275 for form 1023-EZ and $600 for Form 1023 as of Jan. 20, 2023.[1][67][68] In addition, using a benefit known as the “parsonage exemption” (or “parish exemption”), “licensed, commissioned, or ordained” ministers of religion may deduct most of the money they spend on housing from their federal income tax, and these properties are often exempt from state property taxes. The exemption has existed since 1921, and no equivalent tax break is available to leaders of secular nonprofit charities. A legal battle has ensued to determine whether the exemption can apply to multiple homes used by a single pastor. In Mar. 2011, a U.S. Tax Court ruled that Phil Driscoll, an ordained minister and Grammy Award–winning trumpeter imprisoned for tax evasion, was exempt from federal income tax on $408,638 used to purchase a second home near Cleveland, TN. The court determined that the word “home” used in the tax code is equivalent to “homes.” However, on Feb. 8, 2012 the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta overturned the earlier decision in a 3–0 ruling, stating that “Congress intended for the parsonage allowance exclusion to apply to only one home.”[41][43][44][62][65]

The Johnson Amendment and Political Campaigning A ban on church intervention in political campaigns became law in 1954 with the passage of then-Senator Lyndon Johnson’s amendment to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(3), which covers tax-exempt charitable organizations in general. The amendment was passed with no recorded input from churches or any other charitable groups. Under the amended IRC, churches and all other 501(c)(3) charities are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office” if they are to remain tax-exempt. [IRC 8] Contributions to political campaign funds in support or opposition to candidates are also prohibited, but pastors may campaign as individuals without the imprimatur of the church, and churches may speak out on public issues so long as they don’t “devote a substantial part of their activities to attempting to influence legislation.”[1][7][52] In practice, however, the IRS rarely investigates churches for violating the political campaign ban. The IRS has successfully used the Johnson Amendment to revoke the tax-exempt status of only one church since the law was enacted in 1954: the Church at Pierce Creek in Binghamton, NY. The church placed a full-page advertisement in USA Today and the Washington Times four days prior to the 1992 presidential election, listing some of Bill Clinton’s views on abortion, homosexuality, and the distribution of condoms to teenagers in public schools, and compared the views unfavorably with the Ten Commandments. The ad went on to ask, “How then can we vote for Bill Clinton?” and specified, in fine print at the bottom of the page: “This advertisement was co-sponsored by The Church at Pierce Creek…Tax-deductible donations for this advertisement gladly accepted.”[6][7][35] Over the years, there have been several attempts to revoke the Johnson Amendment, though none have been successful.[69][70] President Donald Trump signed an executive order on May 4, 2017, titled “Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty,” which he says “directs the IRS not to unfairly target churches and religious organizations for political speech.” Trump stated, “No one should be censoring sermons or targeting pastors.” The executive order limits enforcement of the 1954 Johnson Amendment, which prohibits churches from campaigning for or against political candidates, but it does not yet “totally destroy” it as Trump had promised during his presidential campaign. According to the National Law Review, “It has been widely reported that the Johnson Amendment is not currently being enforced. In this light, the executive order is unlikely to have any practical effect.”[66]

U.S. Supreme Court Cases on Church Taxation On May 4, 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld property tax exemptions for churches, declaring them to be in accordance with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In the majority 8–1 opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the Court stated that the exemptions did not equate with “the ‘establishment’ of a religion [that] connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity,” all of which are prohibited. The Court also defended the tax benefit on the basis that churches “foster [the community’s] ‘moral or mental improvement.’” Furthermore, the court warned that taxing churches would be a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which bars government interference in religious affairs.[5][53] The 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington upheld the 1954 Johnson Amendment barring churches (and other nonprofit charities) from receiving tax exemptions if they intervene in political campaigns. Then–Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist, on behalf of the unanimous Court, argued that the IRS is under no obligation to grant a tax benefit to lobbying organizations, and that the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment do not have to be sponsored by the federal government in the form of a tax break.[27]

Scientology, the Mormon Church, and Challenge to Tax Exemption The Church of Scientology battled the IRS for 25 years to regain its tax exemption after the IRS withdrew it 1967, claiming the organization was a commercial enterprise rather than a church. The IRS decision was upheld by numerous courts, despite Scientology and its members bringing 2,200 lawsuits against the IRS and its officials over the course of the dispute. The New York Times revealed in Mar. 1997 that during Scientology’s campaign against the IRS, the organization’s lawyers had “hired private investigators to dig into the private lives of IRS officials and to conduct surveillance operations to uncover potential vulnerabilities.”[30][54] In 1991, Scientology’s ecclesiastical leader David Miscavige met with then–IRS Commissioner Fred T. Goldberg Jr. and offered to call off the group’s lawsuits in exchange for regaining its tax-exempt status. The New York Times argued that in agreeing to Miscavige’s proposal, Goldberg “created a special committee to negotiate a settlement with Scientology outside normal agency procedures” and that IRS “tax analysts were ordered to ignore the substantive issues in reviewing the decision,” according to IRS files. In order to receive the exemption, Scientology agreed to pay the IRS $12.5 million and “agreed to more Federal Government intrusion than perhaps any religious organization has ever allowed.”[30][54] In Nov. 2008, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also called the Mormon Church) was accused of violating its tax-exempt status by supporting the passage of California’s Proposition 8, a ballot initiative outlawing civil marriages for same-sex couples. However, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) Executive Director Barry W. Lynn explained that the Mormons “almost certainly have not violated their tax exemption. While the tax code has a zero tolerance for endorsements of candidates, the tax code gives wide latitude for churches to engage in discussions of policy matters and moral questions, including when posed as initiatives.”[55][56] On Oct. 12, 2011, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) wrote to the IRS to report Pastor Robert Jeffress, who had posted a video of himself endorsing Texas Gov. Rick Perry on the First Baptist Church of Dallas website. The IRS did not respond.[57]

John Oliver and Last Week Tonight Revive the Debate In the Aug. 17, 2015, episode of Last Week Tonight, comedian John Oliver lampooned the ease with which one can obtain IRS tax-exempt status for a religious organization. Following stories in Time Magazine by Mark Oppenheimer and in The Federalist by Denny Burk, Oliver amped up the debate by establishing his own “church,” Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption, registering the church with the IRS, and receiving tax-exempt status. Oliver asked his viewers for donations to the church, which he then donated to Doctors without Borders. He shut down the church on Sept. 13, 2015.[71]

Pros and Cons at a Glance PROS CONS Pro 1: Exempting churches from taxation is constitutional and maintains a long American tradition. Read More. Con 1: Exempting churches from taxation is unconstitutional. Read More. Pro 2: Exempting churches from taxation contributes to the public good. Read More. Con 2: Exempting churches from taxation forces taxpayers to subsidize religion, while costing the government billions in tax revenue. Read More. Pro 3: Most churches follow the rules and would struggle to exist without the tax exemption. The IRS should enforce the rules rather than eliminating the tax exemption wholesale. Read More. Con 3: Too many churches have taken advantage of the tax exemption by being politically active, being “sham” religions, or using the tax exemption to line the pockets of extravagantly wealthy faith leaders. Read More.

Pro Arguments (Go to Con Arguments) Pro 1: Exempting churches from taxation is constitutional and maintains a long American tradition. Exempting churches from taxation upholds the separation of church and state embodied by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the May 4, 1970 majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, stated: “The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.” [5] Requiring churches to pay taxes would endanger the free expression of religion and violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By taxing churches, the government would be empowered to penalize them if they default on their tax payments. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this potential in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) when it stated: “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.” [12][13] Further, a tax exemption for churches is not a subsidy to religion, and is therefore constitutional. As explained by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, “The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put employees ‘on the public payroll.’ There is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion.” [5] The only constitutionally valid way of taxing churches would be to tax all nonprofits, which would place undue financial pressure on the public charities that aid and enrich society domestically and abroad. If only churches were taxed, government would be treating churches differently, purely because of their religious nature. [20][21] Besides, American churches have been tax-exempt for over 200 years, yet there are no signs that America has become a theocracy. If the tax exemption were a serious threat to the separation of church and state, the US government would have succumbed to religious rule long ago. As the Supreme Court ruled in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, “freedom from taxation for two centuries has not led to an established church or religion, and, on the contrary, has helped to guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief.” [18] Pro 2: Exempting churches from taxation contributes to the public good. Churches earn their tax exemption by contributing to the public good through offering numerous social services to people in need, including soup kitchens, homeless shelters, after-school programs for poor families, and assistance to victims of domestic violence. These efforts relieve government of doing work it would otherwise be obliged to undertake. [14][15] Thus, poor and disadvantaged people relying on assistance from their local churches would suffer if churches were to lose their tax-exempt status. According to Vincent Becker, Monsignor of the Immaculate Conception Church in Wellsville, NY, the food and clothing programs his church offers would be threatened by a tax burden: “All of a sudden, we would be hit with something we haven’t had to face in the past….We base all the things that we do on the fact that we do not have to pay taxes on the buildings.” Crucial services would either be eliminated or relegated to cash-strapped local governments if churches were to lose their tax exemptions. [17] Samuel Spector, Rabbi at Salt Lake City’s Congregation Kol Ami, speaks to the controversy about a few churches that are incredibly wealthy and considered to be taking advantage of their tax-exempt status to get richer. He explains, “I completely support it [tax-exempt status]….If another synagogue somewhere else gets a $20 million donation, that’s wonderful. But that doesn’t have any impact on us whatsoever. Without that tax-exemption status, we would be unable to provide those services [food banks, shelter, etc.] because as it is, we have to struggle to survive. More power to Latter-day Saints and other faith groups that are right now doing financially very well, but that is not the situation of your average rural church or your average synagogue.” [73] Pro 3: Most churches follow the rules and would struggle to exist without the tax exemption. The IRS should enforce the rules rather than eliminating the tax exemption wholesale. Small churches, already struggling to survive, would be further endangered by a new tax burden. A 2020 survey by the Hartford Institute for Religion Research found that the median income for churches was $120,000, down from $150,000 in 2010. However, 46% of churches have annual revenues of $100,000 or less. If these churches were obliged to pay taxes, their existence would be threatened and government would thus be impeding religious expression. [75] Withdrawing the “parsonage exemption” on ministers’ housing would cost American clergy members $2.3 billion over five years, which would be a major blow to modestly paid people who dedicate their lives to helping people in need. According to the National Association of Church Business Administration (NACBA), the average American pastor with a congregation of 300 people earns less than $28,000 per year. The NACBA also states that one in five pastors takes on a second job to earn extra income, and that only 5% of pastors earn more than $50,000. D. August Boto, executive vice president and general counsel of the executive committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, explains, “the housing allowance is critically important for making ends meet—it is not a luxury.” [59][60][62] Plus, the vast majority of churches refrain from political campaigning and should not be punished for the actions of the few that are political. The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) gives churches the freedom to either accept a tax benefit and refrain from political campaigning like all other nonprofit charities, or reject the exemption and speak freely about political candidates. There are 450,000 churches in the US, yet only 500 pastors made political statements as part of Pulpit Freedom Sunday on Oct. 2, 2011. The tax exemption should remain in place to benefit the vast majority of churches, while the IRS should enforce the Johnson Amendment so churches not following the rules are no longer tax-exempt. [1][23][35][58]

Pro Quotes Samuel Spector, Rabbi at Salt Lake City’s Congregation Kol Ami, stated “I completely support it [tax exempt status]….If another synagogue somewhere else gets a $20 million donation, that’s wonderful. But that doesn’t have any impact on us whatsoever. Without that tax-exemption status, we would be unable to provide those services [food banks, shelter, etc.] because as it is, we have to struggle to survive. More power to Latter-day Saints and other faith groups that are right now doing financially very well, but that is not the situation of your average rural church or your average synagogue.” —Tony Semerad, “LDS Wealth Spurs Question: Should Churches Be Tax-Exempt?,” sltrib.com, Apr. 17, 2022 Reece Barker, JD candidate at J. Reuben Clark Law School, stated: “Religious organizations’ tax-exempt status is a constitutional right rooted in the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. The principles at the core of the Religion Clauses—as declared by James Madison in his Memorial and Remonstrance and supported by case law, statutory law, and historical practice—forbid federal, state, and local governments from levying income and property tax against religious organizations’ non-commercial income and property. This avoids intermingling of church and state, threatening free exercise, disadvantaging poor religions, America’s image as a land of religious liberty, and increasing disruptions and divisions in society. Recognition of this constitutional right avoids taxation, but it also calls for adjustments to some current tax-exempt law, specifically, narrowing the Johnson Amendment and the Bob Jones public policy standard. Further questions remain and will need to be addressed in this complicated and sensitive area. For instance, the definition and breadth of religious, non-commercial income and property need further clarification. This further clarification may expand or shrink the current tax benefits religious organizations receive, but the constitutional right to tax exemption dismisses once and for all the threat to tax the non-commercial property and income of religious groups.” —Reece Barker, “A Memorial and Remonstrance against Taxation of Churches,” digitalcommons.law.byu.edu, Spring 2022 Steve Aeschbacher, interim pastor at First Presbyterian Church in Salt Lake City, stated “[There is] incredible value to society from having healthy churches, including church buildings that are available…. All of those things [outreach to the community] wouldn’t be possible if we were taxed out of existence….I can’t imagine what our property taxes would be here. If we had to pay them, it might shut us down, which seems to raise some interesting constitutional problems. If effectively you’re stopping religion by taxing it, does that mean you’re infringing on freedom of religion?” —Tony Semerad, “LDS Wealth Spurs Question: Should Churches Be Tax-Exempt?,” sltrib.com, Apr. 17, 2022

Let me say at the outset: Many of my colleagues are upset/concerned/dismayed about the election results. Many other of my colleagues are satisfied/happy/sanguine about the election results.

The following remarks are aimed primarily at those in the first category, who are wondering: What should I say from the pulpit about what is happening in America?

Let’s talk about what it means to preach “politically.”

By “politically,” I do not mean a statement from the pulpit in which the preacher endorses a particular candidate who is running for office or urging people to vote for a particular party. That ship has sailed.

Besides, according to the IRS, such statements during a political campaign are inappropriate. In the IRS’ words:

All IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.

Prohibiting political campaign activity within these tax-exempt organizations is not intended to restrict free speech on political matters for individuals. Religious leaders can speak their mind and endorse candidates as long as they aren’t doing it as an official representative of the church (i.e. church publications or at official church functions). When speaking/writing their opinions on political issues outside of the church, church leaders are urged to indicate that these are their personal viewpoints and not the views of the religious organization they represent.

So, no. No partisan political endorsements during election season.

Examples from the past

The word “politics” comes from the Greek word “polis,” meaning the public place (which also gives us such words as police, polite and metropolitan and cosmopolitan). Translate “political” as “relevant to public and communal life,” and preaching about what is going on in the public place, in society itself, is not only a good thing to do, it also might be the necessary thing to do.

This will not make everyone happy. It never has. The late Protestant writer Frederick Buechner quipped that there is no record of anyone inviting a prophet home for dinner more than once. Once you start channeling Amos or Isaiah, someone’s nose is going to get out of joint. When people say they don’t want to hear political sermons from the pulpit, it’s often a shorthand way of saying, “Please don’t say anything with which I might disagree.”

Contemporary preachers stand on the shoulders of generations of religious leaders who spoke their truths.

Yes, the prophets.

Also: Rabbi Joachim Prinz, who criticized Hitler and the Nazis from his pulpit in Germany in the 1930s. Also Rabbi Leo Baeck, the undisputed leader of the Jewish community in Germany in the 1930s and during the Holocaust. Their sermons were intended to inspire, uplift, comfort — and yes, criticize the inhuman forces that surrounded them. These preachers faced far worse adversaries — lethal adversaries, actually — than angry board members.

Also: Rabbis during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, who preached against segregation — in some cases, at serious cost to their livelihoods, and even lives.

That would be a very short list. You are free to add your own examples and exemplars.

What about sermons aimed at American presidents? My colleagues have preached about Lyndon Johnson, because of Vietnam; Richard Nixon, because of Watergate (and also Vietnam); Ronald Reagan, because of his visit to the German military cemetery at Bitburg; Bill Clinton, whose personal failures had public implications; Barack Obama, over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which limited Iran’s capability to build a nuclear weapon; Donald Trump, for numerous reasons.

Tips for navigating the Trump tenure

A few things that I have figured out over the years about political preaching:

It is going to be a long four years. Pace yourself. If you are part of the opposition, there will be many opportunities for outrage. Your mental, spiritual and physical health will not allow you to be perpetually apoplectic. Choose your issues carefully. My personal preference would be to limit my energies to those things that you can link to clear Jewish ideas. (To those who expect to support the new administration’s policies, preach your truth as well. Praising political figures when they do the right thing is also a Jewish value.)

Use Jewish sources. Your people come to synagogue looking for engagement with Jewish ideas and texts. Offer them that, preferably from the Torah portion of the week (and when you are preaching prophetically, include the haftarah). Let your ruminations about the public square flow from the text. Avoid texts and ideas that have become cliches, like tikkun olam, repairing the world; “justice, justice shall you pursue”; “made in God’s image”; “love the stranger.”

Actually, about that last one: “love the stranger.” Let me not make light of it — it is repeated, reportedly, 36 times in the Torah, making it the most oft-cited mitzvah.

Granted: The immigration system is broken and in need of serious repair.

If the Trump administration follows through on its draconian efforts, if Americans are compelled to turn against one another and report immigrants lacking permanent legal status (a sweep that will most likely include legal immigrants as well); if families are broken apart; if there are detainment camps — all possible outcomes (please read Timothy Snyder, the world’s great authority on fascism): then, yes, that biblical text will land on many ears, and its application will require — dare I say it? — civil disobedience.

If you’re going to get political, get even more pastoral. The late William Sloane Coffin made pulpit activism an art. He once mused that those preachers who lost their jobs for preaching against the Vietnam War probably weren’t visiting the sick enough. There was great wisdom in that observation. It is almost a mathematical equation: The more (even potentially) controversial your sermons are going to be, the more you have to lean in on interpersonal relations, visiting the sick, tending to the bereaved, etc.Let them say about you: “I don’t always appreciate everything she says from the pulpit, but when my father died, she was right there.”

Give your people something to do. A Protestant colleague of mine told how he had preached a particularly vociferous sermon about some political matter. He went all Jonathan Edwards fire and brimstone on it. At coffee hour, a woman came over to him and said, “Reverend, I do hope that you feel better soon.” He realized he had simply vented his spleen, to no end. All of which means: We need to give people hope, and hope entails action. Give them a cause to donate to; somewhere to volunteer their time; a project that will capture the imagination of the community.

Young people, in particular, need and want this. It’s what they’ll remember of you. Through the years, former students — now adults — have sought me out to remind me about the sermon I preached about one issue or another. I had forgotten those sermons. They hadn’t. You might say something that will change a young person’s life.

And not just young people — anyone. There will be that person in the pew whom you do not know very well, or at all. That person will sidle next to you over a piece of Danish, and she will tell you: “Thank you. That was precisely what I needed to hear this evening.”

Those moments are where heaven and Earth touch. Treasure them. Create them. Nurture them.

And, like I said, pace yourself. If you deem yourself to be part of the opposition, you will have much to say over the next four years.

Get ready.

(The views expressed in this opinion piece do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)