Pulpits in Early America

Long before the Constitution was in place, America had its pulpits. These were spaces where ministers educated the public on authority, responsibility, and the limits of government power. The clergy involved with what is known as the “Black Robed Regiment” believed it essential to bring biblical truths into the public sphere. They tackled societal issues, convinced that theology impacted every aspect of life, and held that pastors should aim to shape a biblical worldview among their congregants rather than merely offering comfort.

Critics often claim that pastors politicize biblical issues. However, in many instances, it’s the politicians who make these topics partisan.

Throughout most of American history, ministers felt free to engage in discussions about moral and political challenges without needing state approval. They preached on issues like slavery, war, and religious liberty, fully aware that they were accountable to God first and foremost.

Reviving a Historical Right

The contemporary expectation for pastors to keep biblical teachings separate from politics would likely astonish many within the American church that helped forge the nation.

This historical context matters, particularly since the debate surrounding the Johnson Amendment is often portrayed as churches seeking new political privileges. In reality, churches aren’t asking for more rights; they are pushing back against old restrictions.

The origins of the Johnson Amendment shed light on this issue. In 1954, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson was worried about a primary challenge from Dudley Dougherty, a wealthy Texas politician tapping into anti-communist sentiments that were rising with support for Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Dougherty, while not a strong challenger—Johnson defeated him by over 40 points—had backing from influential conservative groups like the Committee for Constitutional Government and the Facts Forum, which was established by Texas oil magnate H.L. Hunt.

Johnson was concerned about the Committee for Constitutional Government, which had circulated materials favorable to Dougherty. He requested his staff to look into whether their activities violated election laws or endangered their tax-exempt status. The findings showed no violation, but Johnson remained undeterred.

Rather than using existing laws against his opponents, he decided to change the law altogether. In July of that year, he introduced an amendment to the federal tax code that prohibited tax-exempt charities, including churches, from engaging in political campaigns. This amendment passed quietly, impacting churches that had no role in Johnson’s political conflicts.

Unshackling the Pulpit

No major national dialogue took place on whether churches were corrupting elections. There weren’t extensive discussions about the potential partisanship of the American pulpit. While Johnson claimed to be targeting communist nonprofits, churches had emerged as significant political adversaries. The law’s broad wording meant that churches fell under its purview, and they soon began receiving communications from the IRS regarding the matter. The impact of this restriction echoes through generations.

Currently, the Johnson Amendment prevents 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates.

This provision is central to the ongoing legal battle initiated by the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB). Although churches can still address public policy, including contentious issues, there are limitations when their discussions cross into political endorsements. The NRB aims to protect the ability of churches and their pastors to speak freely from the pulpit without risking their tax-exempt status.

The larger issue concerns the pervasive culture of self-censorship that has developed in churches over the years due to uncertainty, fear, and legal caution.

Biblical or Political?

While critics often claim pastors inject politics into biblical discussions, it’s often the politicians who take biblical issues, such as abortion and marriage, and turn them into partisan arguments.

These topics had biblical foundations long before they became political talking points.

Moral questions do not belong exclusively to the political arena simply because politicians choose to debate them. The Bible addresses issues like government, justice, and human dignity well before political parties were established. The church shouldn’t shy away from discussing these matters even when they appear on ballots.

Perhaps pastors would face fewer accusations about bringing politics into the pulpit if politicians stopped interjecting biblical questions into political discourse.

That said, churches should not transform their pulpits into campaign headquarters. They must not become mere extensions of political parties. When Scripture is manipulated to serve political agendas, its authority diminishes.

However, there’s also the risk of using “nonpartisanship” as a justification for silence on politically sensitive topics that Scripture addresses.

Pastors ought to feel free to preach biblical truths without reservations, addressing real-world issues that their congregations face. If Scripture calls the left to account on matters like abortion or family, then it should be spoken. And if it challenges the right, that must also be said. The measure should not be political expediency, but fidelity to Scripture.

This is the rationale behind the NRB’s fight against the Johnson Amendment.

The district court dismissed the case based on its jurisdiction, rather than addressing the constitutional matters raised. Currently, it’s under appeal. The NRB is committed to continuing this fight because the government should not stand in the way of a pastor fulfilling their duty to God.

Courage Needed

Nonetheless, the legal struggle has its limits.

While the First Amendment may safeguard a pastor’s freedom, it doesn’t instill courage. A court can remove restrictions but cannot restore confidence in Scripture’s authority within a church. The NRB can advocate for a freer pulpit, but it’s ultimately up to pastors to decide how they will use that freedom.

This question is becoming increasingly pressing, especially as Christians are shaped daily by institutions unreservedly preaching their own worldviews. Social media, universities, corporations, and other influencers are continually teaching Americans about morality.

If churches dodge these topics because they have political ramifications, they don’t create a neutral zone. They merely pass the formative work onto others.

America certainly doesn’t need a more divided pulpit; rather, it requires one that is both freer and bolder.

The fight is to reclaim an enduring right: the right for pastors to open their Bibles, preach complete truth, and engage with national life without having to seek government permission first.