Pastors Endorsing Politicians

Photo by Lukas (Pexels)

Since 1954, when then Senator Lyndon Johnson proposed and successfully passed legislation prohibiting nonprofits from either opposing or endorsing a candidate – after being opposed himself by a nonprofit organization – churches have not been able to directly endorse or oppose a political candidate. 

The key word is “directly.”

No church could officially say, “We endorse John Doe” or “We oppose Jane Doe.” Not only that, but a pastor could not send out a personal written endorsement on church letterhead. Political signs could not be displayed on church property. 

The only participation in the political process that was allowed was “indirect.”

Here is what that meant:

As a pastor, I could not personally endorse a candidate. I could tell you who I liked in the church parking lot or the grocery store aisle in the context of a normal conversation. I just couldn’t do it directly from the podium. 

As a pastor, I could personally work for a candidate and contribute financially to their campaign, but the church itself could not contribute financially with church funds even if approved by the membership. 

As a pastor, I could endorse a candidate in print and use my title and the church I am affiliated with. I was free to speak and teach on moral and social issues that may be integral to the political debate, such as abortion, gay marriage, and economic matters—even if, by implication, it threw support toward one candidate and critiqued another. 

As a church, we could also take official positions on such issues, as long as we didn’t directly endorse or oppose a candidate in the process. 

As a church, we could organize voter registrations and drives as long as they were directed at all eligible voters and not toward just one political party. 

As a church, we could hold forums where candidates were invited to address the issues. If a candidate was to visit our church, they could be publicly recognized and introduced. We could even host candidates to speak from our stage, as long as that candidate was not directly endorsed or urged the church to vote for them. 

As a church, we could distribute non-partisan voter guides giving information on where each candidate stood on the issues. 

And, of course, as a church we could offer our campus as a voting station.

This is what a church, and its leadership, has been allowed to do. 

Until now.

The key part of the ban, known as the Johnson Amendment, has largely been nullified. The Internal Revenue Service recently said that churches can endorse candidates from the pulpit. My response? Good! Any church or church leader should be able to say what they want. 

Yet...

… you still won’t find me endorsing a candidate.

At Meck, we steer clear of anything politically overt for the simple reason that we are passionate about reaching the unchurched, and being “associated” with politics provides an unnecessary and avoidable barrier to presenting the gospel. And in our culture, even the most innocent of associations or appearances can make this association. 

Do I speak openly about cultural issues? Yes, very openly; but no one who would hear me speak on, say, gay marriage or abortion, gender identity or racial reconciliation, would feel the talk was in any way meant to be overtly political. 

And in truth, such talks never are. It’s just teaching and applying the Bible to all of life and culture. Let the political chips fall where they may—I’m a Bible guy, and that’s what I’m going to teach. If such teaching informs the political involvement of the Christ follower, then so be it—and good if it does, for that matter. But that’s not the primary purpose.

When it comes to politics and the pulpit, the truth is that there are stands that one or both parties may take on a specific issue that reflect the Kingdom of God or do not; issues about the sanctity of human life, the definition of marriage and family, how the poor are treated, and whether those who are victimized are protected. Based on your reading of the Bible, you may find that one party gets one set of issues right, say on sexual morality, and another party gets another set of issues right, say on economic morality.

And to add to the complexity, on some of these issues, thoughtful Christians disagree about how best to flesh out the principles of the Bible in addressing various matters, such as with immigration or welfare, when a war is just and when it is not, or how best to care for the environment.

No, I won’t be endorsing a candidate or a party anytime soon. What I will be advocating is a biblically informed view of the issues, coupled with an admonition to vote. Christians should dig deep into the issues, even deeper into the Scriptures, and emerge with a resolve to care deeply and work passionately within the civic circle of affairs.

So thank you, I.R.S., for taking off the muzzle. It’s the right thing to do. But not everything we are free to do is necessarily the most strategic.

James Emery White

Sources

On what a pastor or church can “do” politically (as outlined above), see “Politics from the Pulpit,” posted January 7, 2008, on the “Out of Ur” blog as compiled by Allen R. Bevere, online here. 

Elizabeth Dias and David A. Fahrenthold, “How Conservative Christians Cracked a 70-Year-Old Law,” The New York Times, July 30, 2025, read online.