Why was the Johnson Amendment passed and long
uncontroversial? Lyndon B. Johnson
was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1948 and successfully ran for
re-election in 1954. During that re-election campaign, he was opposed by some
tax-exempt organizations, including churches.
Johnson thought it was not fair for tax-exempt
groups and their leaders to engage in direct support or opposition to
candidates running for political office. His amendment was passed with little
opposition and has long been widely recognized as upholding the principle of
separation of church and state.
Even though the amendment was drafted by a
prominent Democratic Senator, it was signed into law by President Eisenhower, a
Republican. There was widespread agreement across the political spectrum that
mixing tax-exempt status with partisan political endorsements was
inappropriate.
From the beginning, though, there was some opposition
to the enactment of that 1954 amendment.
What was the basis for disapproval of the Johnson
Amendment? Even though they thought it was absolutely
right for their churches to be exempt from paying taxes, some conservative
Christians thought the Johnson Amendment was an infringement on their freedom
of speech.
Since they saw the amendment as a freedom of
speech violation, they thought it was unconstitutional and needed to be nullified
or just ignored, as to a certain extent, it has been through the years.
Pastors, they claim, have the responsibility to
speak out on moral issues, and doing so naturally includes mentioning the names of politicians
who are aligned with what is deemed to be immoral. Such opposition has grown
over the years among those affiliated with the Christian Right and now with MAGA.
With the growth of the latter groups over the
past decades, conservative pastors have largely felt constrained to speak out, especially
in opposition to abortion and LGBTQ rights and against politicians who are pro-choice
and pro-gay.
In recent years, Robert Jeffress, pastor of First
Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas, has been one prominent pastor who has expressed
strong disapproval of the Johnson Amendment. He has been one of Trump’s most
ardent supporters, and in April, he voiced that disapproval at the Easter prayer
service in the White House.
At the President’s request, soon afterward, he sent
a letter to Trump, outlining what he called “wrongful weaponization of the law”
and the “unlawful targeting” of his church. He has also said, “What a pastor
says in a church service is none of the government’s … business.”*2
Jeffress and many other conservative pastors
think they have the right to give moral instruction to their “flock,” including
guidance in political matters. On the website of Jeffress’s church, however, they
claim that their weekly telecasts are seen by hundreds of thousands of viewers.
Any pastors who have their sermons streamed on
the internet have no basis for saying they are just giving moral instruction to
their church members. To promote political candidates, as Jeffress is wont
to do, is a clear violation of the Johnson Amendment.
Why is ignoring the Johnson Amendment now a bad policy?
Since politically conservative church
members overwhelmingly vote Republican, if pastors in such churches promote
political candidates, that will make little difference. Most conservative
evangelicals will vote for Republicans no matter what.
On the other hand, since members of progressive
churches (such as the one I am a member of) overwhelmingly vote Democratic, pastors
of such churches mentioning the name of a candidate will make little
difference.
The problem is in churches where the adult members
are politically “purple.” Pastors promoting candidates by name in such churches
could and probably would influence many to vote for the candidate promoted by
the pastor. This is why the Johnson Amendment needs to be heeded.
On July 30, over
1,000 charitable nonprofits launched a national sign-on letter to defend
nonpartisanship and public trust (see here). The letter strongly objects
to efforts by the Trump administration to weaken the Johnson Amendment, which
protects nonprofits from partisan politics.
As Amanda Tyler says, this ignoring of
the Johnson amendment “threatens to turn churches into PACs”—and that can’t be
good for either the government or churches.*3
_____
*1
According to Wikipedia, “The Johnson Amendment is a provision in
the U.S. tax code … that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit
organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Section
501(c)(3) organizations are the most common type of nonprofit organization in
the United States, ranging from charitable foundations to
universities and churches. The amendment is named for then-Senator Lyndon
B. Johnson of Texas.” In July 1954, it was enacted into law.
*2
This was reported in a July 30 article in the New York Times (see
here). The title of that article is “How Conservative Christians Cracked a
70-Year-Old Law,” and if you are interested in reading more about this issue, I
recommend that article. Also, I didn't quote from it, but here is a link to another good article, published yesterday, on the subject.
I agree. People either forget, and I fear most have never known the reasons for the Johnson Amendment, so it's no big deal for them. Also, as to internationally known pastors being noted for "ardent support" of DT: several years ago as that figure appeared front and center stage during a church Christmas celebration, aptly lauded in that context as an enthusiastic (fanatical?) full house attested, I immediately noticed Christ had been eclipsed, ardently so, and the spectacle struck deeply as abominable.
ReplyDeleteTherse comments are from Thinking Friend Jerry Summers in Eastern Tennessee. (He sent me an email saying he had not succeeded in posting his comments under his name.)
DeleteAs a former Southern Baptist, who as a boy was taught the importance of the separation of church and state and who was a strong advocate of that position until I severed all tied to the SBC in 2005, I have been and continue to be dismayed and saddened by the way some of the most prominent pastors in the SBC have been such ardent and public supporters of DJT from 2015 until the present.
DeleteHere are important and substantial comments from local Thinking Friend Milton Horton:
ReplyDelete"Thank you, Leroy, for this important blog post. Pastor Jeffress's opposition to government intervention in what a pastor says in the pulpit seems to be an appeal to the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which is a common interpretation of that clause. However, as with most of our liberties, there should also accompany an understanding of an implicit system of "checks and balances": my liberties cannot interfere with another citizen's liberties. Others' freedom of speech cannot extend to the violation of my own "free exercise" of religious faith. And yet, the government has historically argued that such violation of free exercise of religion, as well as free speech, may be necessary when the government has a compelling reason to do so (e.g., in the case of public safety, etc.). For the government to allow Christian pastors and non-Christian leaders of religious institutions to advocate for political candidates seems also to be a violation of the "establishment clause" of the first amendment. This is because the government is thereby implicitly privileging one religious viewpoint over another, thus explicitly establishing one religion over another by allowing those political candidates to obtain office and therefore to represent their own religious interpretations of the Constitution over others.
"Of course, there seems to me to be a far more fundamental reason for "separation of religion and politics" (I use this phrase because it includes religions beyond Christian religion). That is, that any religious faith or political ideology that appeals to arguments based upon suppositions that are not materially evident should be held with suspicion as bases for government for all the people. A democracy's founding principles should be available, as much as possible, for examination by the public. Religious doctrines, beliefs, traditions, practices, which may have informed notions of the constitutional groundings of our republic, are not available and evident to the public apart from the interpretations of specialists in those fields. And, those specialists are not necessarily sympathetic to the constitutional rule of a democracy."
Thank you Leroy for addressing an important issue. There are several reasons why the IRS interpretation of the Johnson Amendment is problematic. You mentioned churches that are "purple," that is, composed of members who equally vote red and blue. I suspect that this is more common than we think. Endorsing a candidate from the pulpit is a good way to lose half of the congregation. Additionally, there is nothing inherent in the pastorate that makes a minister more qualified than anyone else to speak with authority concerning a candidate. To do so is to fall into the "celebrity" fallacy, which we often see when celebrities endorse a candidate, even though their expertise lies elsewhere. Moreover, in a democracy we count on each individual making informed decisions about candidates. Pastors must not usurp that responsibility.
ReplyDeleteI also want to point out that when the IRS says that the Johnson Amendment has not been equally enforced they are not wrong. We have seen candidate endorsed and hosted in churches from both parities. The answer, however, is to enforce the Johnson Amendment, not suspend it.
About an hour ago, I received the following comments from Thinking Friend LeRoy Roberts in Virginia:
ReplyDelete"From my 'Nitch of the woods,' for years, the IRS has chosen to ignore the enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, especially by many fundamentalist and minority churches, so President Trump's instructions aren't going to change much. At the same time, I don't see how those who support the Johnson Amendment can be too critical of those who use the pulpit to help their candidates when their church ignored the principle of Separation of Church and state by lining up to accept President Biden's free money (PPP) a few years ago. As for pastors having the right to free speech, integrity should always take precedence over the right."
LeRoy, I appreciate your comments, especially linking the church-state issue to the PPP funds provided churches (and other institutions) during the pandemic a few years ago. As you know, I am a member of an Anabaptist church, and one of the main emphases of that tradition that began in Switzerland 500 years ago (in 1525) was the separation of church and state.
DeleteNot knowing if because of the church not being able to meet because of covid-19 we would have adequate funds to meet the financial obligations to our pastor and other staff members, we received a PPP grant. When it came time to decide whether to keep that "free money" or return it to the government, I thought we should return it as it was not needed for us to pay the salaries of our pastor and staff. When this was being discussed in a congregational meeting, I spoke strongly for returning the money because I did not think it proper for a church to receive money from the government, especially since it was not needed. But when it came to a vote, with very few joining me in opposition to keeping the money, it was decided overwhelming not to return the money. I was quite disappointed that we were not true to our belief in the separation of church and state.