LGBTQ Agenda: Many faith leaders are unswayed by IRS change on endorsing politicians

Faith leaders across the spectrum of belief say they’re not changing policy after the Trump administration stated it would exempt houses of worship from a part of the tax code prohibiting nonprofits from endorsing political candidates. The Internal Revenue Service change was made in a July 7 court filing.

The filing indicates that houses of worship can endorse political candidates to their congregations without losing their tax-exempt status, a change to a decades-old ban. Houses of worship could already endorse ballot measures, which was seen in 2008 during the fight over Proposition 8, California’s same-sex marriage ban. (Voters approved it, but Prop 8 was later ruled unconstitutional and same-sex marriages resumed in the Golden State in 2013.)

There is a long history, however, of churches not endorsing candidates themselves. The Johnson Amendment, named for then-senator Lyndon B. Johnson (D-Texas) was passed in 1954. Uncontroversial at the time, it prohibits 501(c)(3) organizations from making political endorsements lest they lose their tax-exempt status. (Johnson went on to serve as vice president and became president in 1963 following the assassination of John F. Kennedy.)

Throughout his political career, President Donald Trump has spoken out against the amendment, which some conservatives hold is an unconstitutional prohibition on freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Trump’s IRS now agrees the Johnson Amendment would raise constitutional issues if enforced against houses of worship. After the federal government was sued by National Religious Broadcasters, a group of evangelical Christian commentators, the IRS stated in a court filing that, “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,” likening religious services to family discussions about who to vote for, and saying those shouldn’t be construed as participation in a political campaign.

“The doctrine of constitutional avoidance counsels in favor of interpreting the Johnson Amendment so that it does not reach communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith,” the filing continues. It adds that in the past “the IRS generally has not enforced the Johnson Amendment against houses of worship for speech concerning electoral politics in the context of worship services.”

Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons, a gay man who’s the vice president of programs and strategy at Interfaith Alliance, disagrees with the reasoning given, and told the Bay Area Reporter in a phone interview that the IRS’ decision is meant to further cement the alliance between conservative Christians and Trump.

“Trump made it a mission to destroy the Johnson Amendment as part of the tax code,” Graves-Fitzsimmons said. “The IRS … likened what’s happening in a house of worship to a family conversation, but as we know, houses of worship livestream content.”

Graves-Fitzsimmons continued, “The politicization of houses of worship will open the door to so much harm in our politics, and will inevitably hurt LGBTQ people in particular. The way we’ve had separation of church and state has been critical for LGBTQ rights to flourish.”

Faith leaders react
But the IRS’ decision doesn’t mean leaders of churches and synagogues will be changing their policies any time soon. The B.A.R. reached out to several, all of which either stated they’d stay out of explicit candidate endorsements, or that they hadn’t come to a decision just yet.

Reached for comment, a representative of San Francisco Roman Catholic Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone – who has personally endorsed measures like Prop 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California in 2008, but who has not explicitly endorsed candidates running for office – said he agrees with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Catholic Church is the country’s largest Christian denomination.

“The IRS was addressing a specific case, and it doesn’t change how the Catholic Church engages in public debate,” stated Chieko Noguchi, executive director of public affairs for the bishops’ conference. “The church seeks to help Catholics form their conscience in the gospel so they might discern which candidates and policies would advance the common good. The Catholic Church maintains its stance of not endorsing or opposing political candidates.”

Eva Slavitt, canon director of marketing and communications at San Francisco’s Grace Cathedral, which is the seat of the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of California, stated, “We have no plans to make any changes based on this decision. We will continue to stay close with the diocese on this matter.”

Jewish synagogues were also troubled by the IRS determination.

Rabbi Mychal Copeland, a lesbian who is at Congregation Sha’ar Zahav, an LGBTQ-friendly synagogue in San Francisco, stated, “I am a strong advocate for church-state separation, so this decision is deeply concerning. Especially at a time when certain religious perspectives are playing an outsized role in our nation’s politics, allowing religious institutions to endorse particular candidates is taking us down a dangerous road.”

LGBTQ faith organizations, such as Metropolitan Community Churches, are assessing the new rule.

The Reverend James Hartman, who is gay, speaking for the Metropolitan Community Churches, an LGBTQ Protestant denomination, stated, “Having just completed our triennial global conference, our leadership hasn't yet had time to discuss this development and make any policy decisions.”

“Anecdotally, reactions from our clergy and other leadership have been mixed,” Hartman added. “I'm confident our elected church leaders will visit the issue in-depth, and soon, but for now we're still assessing the potential impacts and ramifications, in addition to how we will proceed.”

Hartman, pastor of MCC-Baton Rouge in Louisiana, stated, speaking on behalf of himself, that, “As a pastor for some years now, I have always made sure I don't bring politics into the pulpit. As pastor for an ideologically diverse congregation, that is especially true – or should be, in my opinion. I have colleagues who are diehard Trumpers, but keep that out of their ministry. I have colleagues who are vocal anti-Trumpers and speak freely” about their opposition to the president.

Hartman continued that the church should not be seen as a political institution.

“In my pastoral opinion – a church should resist being branded as a ‘left-wing’ or ‘right-wing’” presence, he stated. “That's not what churches are for, whether we serve LGBTQ populations or anyone else.”

The Reverend Jim Mitulski, a gay man who is pastor at the Congregational Church of the Peninsula in Belmont, part of the United Church of Christ, agreed, stating, “As a pastor, I think it’s unwise to use sermons as a means to endorse particular candidates. I make every effort to talk about policies, and not persons. It obscures our individual and collective responsibility to embody positive moral values that lead advocacy for the poor and the oppressed.”

Mitulski, who was senior pastor at MCC-San Francisco years ago when it was located in the Castro LGBTQ neighborhood, stated that, to give an example, Trump “is problematic, but he is not the problem,” saying that “our immoral policies regarding immigration and transgender inclusion” is the issue.

“As a preacher, it’s not my job, even if I’m tempted to, to tell people what to do or what the right thing to do, but it is to teach and also to live in such a way that encourages them to make their own moral and ethical decisions,” Mitulski said. “I grew up in a church that told us how to vote. I remember sitting in church in high school, listening to the priest tell us about the evils of Roe v. Wade and how Catholics were morally obligated to vote what they were calling a pro-life ticket at the time and I knew it was wrong. How much better it would’ve been to have used that platform to educate us about women’s rights, health care, and equity rather than deprive us of our ability to make our own informed decisions.”

Mitulski continued on his point that “healthy faith doesn’t need to tell people what to do.”

“I also hope this leads to a dialogue about the ways in which tax exemption erodes the church’s voice and important social and political issues,” he concluded. “Our silence cannot be bought. And tax exemption as a privilege doesn’t make sense in 2025. It makes us vulnerable to compromising our voice in order to preserve the financial advantages.”

LGBTQ Agenda is an online column that appears weekly. Got a tip on queer news? Contact John Ferrannini at [email protected].