The candidates were called forward inside a Tennessee church. The congregation watched. Then came the words that transformed an ordinary Sunday appearance into a potentially serious legal controversy.
“We can vouch for them.”
That public declaration by Adam Calabrese, leader of the civics and culture ministry at Calvary Chapel Chattanooga, is now at the center of a growing dispute over whether the tax-exempt church unlawfully intervened in the 2026 elections.
Calabrese reportedly invited several Republican candidates onto the stage during last Sunday’s service and explicitly encouraged those present to support them, according to the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
To critics, the moment was not subtle political messaging or a carefully worded discussion of public policy. It was a direct display of partisan support by representatives of an organization receiving the powerful financial benefits of federal tax exemption.
Samuel D. Brunson, a federal income-tax expert and associate dean at Loyola University Chicago, called the episode “pretty blatant.”
“This is as explicit a violation as you could design,” Brunson told the newspaper, arguing that the church’s actions appeared to cross virtually every boundary established under the federal restriction commonly known as the Johnson Amendment.
No public IRS ruling against the church has been announced, and an expert’s conclusion is not the same as a formal government determination. Calvary Chapel also reportedly did not answer the newspaper’s questions, leaving the church’s explanation of the event unknown.
But federal guidance makes the basic prohibition remarkably clear.
Organizations operating under Section 501(c)(3)—including churches—are barred from directly or indirectly participating in political campaigns for or against candidates seeking public office. The restriction applies to federal, state and local elections, according to the Internal Revenue Service.
Churches are not prohibited from discussing elections entirely. They can speak about major public issues, conduct nonpartisan voter-registration efforts and host candidate forums under carefully balanced conditions.
Religious leaders also remain free to express political opinions as private citizens. But when they speak during an official church function, use church resources or appear to speak for the institution, the legal analysis changes.
The IRS specifically warns that public statements favoring or opposing candidates can constitute prohibited campaign intervention. Candidate appearances may be permissible when an organization remains neutral and provides competing candidates with equivalent opportunities.
That is why Calabrese’s reported statement—combined with the presentation of Republican candidates from several races—has drawn such alarm. The controversy is not simply that politicians appeared inside a church. It is that a ministry leader allegedly used the church’s stage to assure worshippers that the candidates deserved their support.
The stakes extend far beyond one congregation in Chattanooga.
Tax-exempt status allows qualifying religious institutions to avoid federal income taxes while enabling donors, under applicable rules, to claim deductions for contributions. In exchange, those organizations must comply with restrictions intended to prevent tax-subsidized charities and churches from becoming campaign operations.
Violations can potentially result in financial penalties or the loss of tax-exempt status, although enforcement against churches has historically been uncommon.
That limited enforcement is precisely what worries the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based secular advocacy organization that reacted angrily to the reported event.
“Expect much more of this in the coming election cycle,” the organization warned, arguing that when restrictions against partisan campaigning from the pulpit are not enforced, violations risk becoming routine.
The controversy arrives as churches and political campaigns prepare for an intensely contested midterm election. Across the country, religious communities remain influential organizing centers, capable of reaching large numbers of voters through trusted local leaders.
That influence makes the legal boundary especially important.
A pastor can discuss abortion, immigration, taxation or any other public-policy question. A church can encourage every eligible member to vote. But telling a congregation that the institution can “vouch for” a selected group of partisan candidates may be interpreted very differently under federal law.
The unanswered question is what happens next.
The IRS could receive a complaint and review the event, though such a process may remain confidential. Church officials could also explain the circumstances, dispute the description or argue that Calabrese was speaking personally rather than institutionally.
For now, however, the most damaging evidence may be the simplicity of the message delivered from the stage.
There were candidates. They represented one political party. And a church ministry leader reportedly encouraged the congregation to trust them.
In a sanctuary built for faith, critics say a political line was crossed—and the silence from church leaders is only making the controversy louder.
