A recent proposed settlement in a federal court case out of Texas that would change how churches intersect with politics has become what supporters call restoring free speech rights and opponents call breaching the separation of church and state.

If the filing by the Internal Revenue Service stands in a 2024 lawsuit that several religious groups brought against the IRS, churches and other houses of worship would be allowed to endorse political candidates from the pulpit during religious services without danger of losing their tax-exempt status.

Reactions from pastors and politicians are mixed.

The Rev. Steve Holt, founder and senior pastor of The Road Church, a large nondenominational congregation in Colorado Springs, supports the idea and said he’s happy it’s making progress.

He doesn’t think he’ll invoke the practice, though.

“I never openly endorse candidates anyway,” Holt said, “but I always encourage people to vote and vote their biblical Christian values — and that’s not going to change.”

The reason is simple for Holt. As a pastor, picking and choosing political candidates has the potential to alienate congregants who have different views, he said. “It’s a fine line to walk for all churches.”

The Rev. Lee Ann Bryce, lead minister at First Congregational United Church of Christ, rejects relaxing the IRS tax rules for churches.

“Allowing clergy to endorse political candidates from the pulpit threatens both our democracy and the spiritual integrity of our religious communities,” she said.

Bryce believes Christianity is inherently political. “Jesus challenged the empire, stood with the poor, confronted systems of injustice and disrupted the status quo,” she said. “His message was deeply political, but not partisan.”

Colorado Springs Mayor Yemi Mobolade, who has a view from both the pulpit and city hall, doesn’t like the concept, either.

Having worked for most of his career as a pastor in Protestant denominations including churches in the Christian and Missionary Alliance and First Presbyterian Church, Mobolade said he’s “seen firsthand the importance of keeping the pulpit free from political endorsements.”

When politics enter the pulpit, the Christian teaching to love God and your neighbor becomes clouded, he said, which in turn can cloud the church’s witness to others.

“Even during my own campaign for mayor, my home church was intentional about not endorsing me or even mentioning my candidacy from the stage,” Mobolade said. “That discipline was not because faith should be absent from public life, but because the role of the church is to minister to all people, regardless of political affiliation.”

The Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, a worldwide evangelical Christian ministry that supports families and conservative values, has fought for several years for the Johnson Amendment to be lifted, becoming one of 14 organizations nationally to push for the modification.

“It finally levels the playing field that pastors do not lose their First Amendment rights by stepping into the pulpit,” said Paul Batura, vice president of communications for Focus on the Family.

Since 1954, the Johnson Amendment has held that all 501c(3) nonprofits could jeopardize their tax exemption if they participate in or intervene in “any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”

Some tax experts say the presented consent judgment in the Texas court signifies not an overturning of the law but rather a difference in enforcement. The scope and interpretation of what it would mean, should it be accepted by the parties involved in the lawsuit, are yet to be determined.

“We think pastors have a tremendous responsibility and opportunity to help their congregation discern the ties through which they’re living the words of God, and we hope this ruling will liberate them,” Batura said. “It’s inconceivable why a pastor would ignore what’s going on outside their church doors.”

President Donald Trump vowed in 2017 during his first term in the White House to remove the Johnson Amendment and “allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.”

Across the country, proponents argue that the caveat infringes on their rights under the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, regarding the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.

Opponents say the allowance would overstep the division between church and state and reduce religious services to partisan politics. 

Court documents challenging the Johnson Amendment show admission that the IRS generally has not enforced breaches of the existing rules against houses of worship.

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 participates nor intervenes in a political campaign,” the court filing states.

Rather, the IRS compared religious institutions’ endorsement of candidates to a “family discussion.”

Thus, if the settlement prevails, it “only solidifies what has already been occurring,” said Steph Vigil, a former Democratic state representative from Colorado Springs and interim director of Citizens Project.

The local nonprofit advocates for equal rights, diversity and the separation of church and state, and also produces voter guides and forums that reflect those values.

“Our organization opposes religious intrusion into the democratic process, and the resulting dominance of one religious identity over all others,” she said via email.

Batura said the argument over the separation of church and state “refers to a mystical, nonexistent wall.”

The unofficial doctrine references a letter President Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association. In his writing, Jefferson warned against establishing a “state religion” but also stated that government should not prohibit the free exercise of religion, Batura noted.

“There’s a big difference between establishing a state religion and welcoming or providing people of faith a platform,” he said. “But avowed secularists and advocates have run with it and ridden its wave — confusing, confounding and silencing plenty of people along the way.”

Pastors ought to be able to present their views through a lens of faith because moral values have been politicized in today’s landscape, Batura said.

“It’s important to draw the distinction between partisanship and issues that pastors often talk about,” he said. “Most pastors of most churches do not want to wave the flag of a particular party, but they do want to be able to talk about hot button issues their congregants are facing.”

Mobolade said the history of the nation and Christianity show “sobering examples of the harm done when faith institutions are entangled with partisan politics.” 

“In many ways, our nation was founded by those with a history of fleeing the oppression that came when religion and politics were intertwined,” Mobolade said.

“Faith can and should inspire how we lead, shaping our values, our compassion and our courage. My own leadership rests on the foundation of faith, guided by the values of courage, empathy and humility. But political campaigning belongs outside the sanctuary.”

Said First Congregational Church’s Bryce: “There’s a critical difference between proclaiming the moral imperatives of our faith and imagining that I, as a pastor, should tell people how to vote.

“That’s a dangerous overreach, and it reduces the Gospel to a political tool.”