What about Pastors Promoting Politicians?

Last month, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service stated that churches and/or pastors could endorse candidates running for political office, despite the Johnson Amendment of 1954.*¹ Should we now think it is acceptable for pastors to promote voting for politicians by name? 

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. 

*³ Tyler is the executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee [BJC] for Religious Liberty. The BJC’s roots go back to 1936 when the Southern Baptist Convention [SBC] established an organization that grew into what became the BJC. The SBC ceased funding the BJC in 1991

Do MAGA Christians Support Trump Because of Malice or Stupidity—or Something Else?

Recently I learned about the adage called Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

The author of an article who cited those words wrote that he knows “lots of MAGA Christians but his efforts to understand ‘why’ they honor Trump have been futile. Since he has failed to find other reasons, he thinks that perhaps it must, indeed, be either because of malice or stupidity.

However, I don’t agree that it must be one or the other of those two choices. 

As most of you know well, I am not a MAGA Republican supporter. But I think that to attribute the reason that many Christians do support Trump and the MAGA movement as being due either to malice or stupidity is too harsh and inaccurate.

What can we say, then, about why there are so many MAGA Christians who do support Trump? That was an issue that Thinking Friend Jerry Jumper wrote/asked about in an email I received from him last month, and many others of you likely puzzle over that same question.

What could it be other than malice or stupidity? Several other reasons are feasible. and I think that the percentage of people who vote for Trump because of malice or stupidity is markedly smaller than those who did and will vote for Trump for other reasons.

Here are five reasons that might explain why many self-identified Christians have voted for Trump and are likely to do so again this fall, and this list is not exhaustive:

◈ Nostalgia. Many people who remember the 1950s—and still live in rural communities that fondly recall then as the “good old days” with an esteemed Republican President—wish that the U.S. could be like it was then. Thus, they are drawn to the Make America Great Again slogan.

◈ Fear. Closely related to the above is the fear of things changing for the worse. Nostalgic people often fear the loss of cherished values of the past. There is a close connection between religious and political conservatism, and one subsection of my book on fundamentalism is titled “The Fear Factor.”*¹

◈ Consistency. Some voters say they’ve always been (or ever since Reagan have been) a Republican, so naturally they vote for the Republican candidate. This was the sort of response June got from close relatives when she asked why they voted for Trump in 2016.

◈ Disinformation. Many people get misleading/erroneous information from “news” sources such as Fox News, “talk radio,” and publications such as Epoch Times.*² Last week I listened to the former some each evening—and was amazed at how their “news” differed from the “mainstream” media.*³

◈ Misinterpretation. Influential conservative evangelical Christians such as Pastor Robert Jeffress (First Baptist Church, Dallas), Ralph Reed (Faith and Freedom Coalition), and Franklin Graham (Samaritan’s Purse), among many others, have fostered misinterpretation of what the Bible says, or doesn’t say, about abortion, gay rights, etc.

Many people who support Trump for the above reasons may, indeed, lack sufficient understanding and/or information. But that doesn’t mean they are stupid. And while such reasons may trigger malicious actions by some, surely those who are MAGA supporters because of malice are few.

So, we who are steadfast opponents of Trump and MAGA Republicans need to beware of fostering arrogant, condescending, and/or belittling attitudes toward people we disagree with politically. Neighbor-love must be extended to them also, and that includes not labeling them as being either malicious or stupid.

Even the leaders of the Christian Right who for decades have sought to change this country into a theocracy, as vividly portrayed in Bad Faith, the new (2024) documentary about “Christian nationalism,” were certainly not stupid nor acting out of malice from their (mistaken) point of view.*⁴

But make no mistake about it: seeking to understand and being friendly toward MAGA Christians definitely doesn’t mean agreeing with their misguided views or minimizing the danger lurking under their unwise support of a wholly unworthy candidate for President.  

_____

*¹ Fed Up with Fundamentalism: A Historical, Theological, and Personal Appraisal of Christian Fundamentalism (2007, 2020), pp. 100~103.

*² Here is the link to an informative, and rather long, article about The Epoch Times.

*³ One evening last week, the top story at 8 p.m. was the campus unrest at Columbia University and elsewhere. Repeatedly they were referred to as “pro-Hamas” activities. The next morning the mainstream websites invariably called that unrest “pro-Palestinian.” That is a marked difference.

*⁴ This film traces the development of the Christian Right in the U.S. from the early 1970s to the present. June and I rented it from Amazon Prime and watched it last Friday evening. We thought it was a helpful film, fairly done but clear in showing the ongoing threat of Christian nationalism that seeks to overthrow USAmerican democracy. I highly recommend the viewing of, and sharing information about, that fine documentary.

 

 

The Bible is Like a Rorschach Test

Long before I read Brian Zahnd’s new book Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God I had made a note to use the above title for a future blog article. Thus, I was surprised when I read this in BZ’s book: “Sometimes the Bible is like a Rorschach test: our interpretation of the text reveals more about ourselves than about God” (p. 14). Quite true!

Literal and Metaphorical Rorschach Tests

Rorschach inkblot #10

The story of the background and development of the Rorschach test is thoroughly told in a book by Damion Searls published earlier this year under the title The Inkblots: Hermann Rorschach, His iconic Test, and the Power of Seeing. (I have only scanned the book, but here is the link to Thinking Friend Clif Hostetler’s review of it.)  

Rorschach created the inkblots test for the purpose of psychological analysis and evaluation. But the popularity of those tests has resulted in their metaphorical use also.

In his book, Searls reports that in 1993 Hillary Clinton said to an Esquire reporter, “I’m a Rorschach test” (p. 263). And then in 2008 Barack Obama said to a New York Times reporter, with a somewhat different meaning, “I am like a Rorschach test” (p. 309).

Truly, as the Rorschach test amply illustrates, people look at the same thing, or same person, and come to widely different conclusions about the nature and significance of those things or persons.

That is true for the Bible also.

The Bible as a Rorschach Test

How people read and interpret the Bible varies greatly. For example, the Bible as seen by fundamentalist Christians is different in multifarious ways from how it is seen by those of us who are not fundamentalists.

The passages of the Bible a person chooses for evaluating current issues tells us a lot about that person. Their use of the Bible is, truly, like a Rorschach test.

For a case in point, consider Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas. Last month (here) I quoted Jeffress saying that God has given Pres. Trump the authority to “take out” Kim Jong-un. That dangerous assertion is based on his selection and interpretation of “God’s Word” as found in Romans 13.

Then on Sept. 11, in commenting on the immigration issue and the “Dreamers,” Jeffress told Fox News (see here) that “God is not necessarily an open borders guy.”

According to the Dallas pastor, the Bible teaches that God has established borders and instituted the government to protect its citizens. Thus, he says, those Christians who emphasize compassion based on Gen. 1:27 are telling only one side of the story.

It seems quite clear than when Jeffress looks at the Bible, he sees a book that supports the current President of the U.S. and the bulk of the Republican Party. That doesn’t tell us much about the Bible, but it tells us a lot about Jeffress and the “evangelicals” who agree with him.

The Proper Criterion

In his book mentioned above, Zahnd emphasizes that all of the Bible should be read from the viewpoint of Jesus. That is, the Old Testament, the letters of Paul, and all other parts of the Bible must be interpreted in light of the life and teachings of Jesus.

Baptists used to have it right: the 1963 version of the Baptist Faith and Message clearly and importantly stated: “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.”

Thus, when Jesus is the basis for interpreting the Bible, we find a perspective considerably different from that of Pastor Jeffress.

What does your interpretation of the Bible say about you?

One War Ended 72 Years Ago; Is Another War about to Start?

It was 72 years ago today (on Aug. 15, 1945) that the Japanese Emperor made the announcement that brought World War II to an end. Two years ago (see this link) I wrote about that (and a few other matters) in an article titled “The Significance of August 15.” But now the looming question is this: is another war in East Asia about to begin?

The President’s Frightening Statement

Just a week ago (on Aug. 8) DJT publicly declared that if North Korea makes any more threats to the United States, “They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.”

And then as if once wasn’t enough, he reiterated, “He [Kim Jong-un] has been very threatening beyond a normal state, and as I said, they will be met with fire and fury, and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before.”

The next day, NoKo (as some people are now calling North Korea) announced that (non-nuclear) missiles may be fired to within 18 to 25 miles from Guam by this week (mid-August).

Then on Aug. 10 DJT told reporters, “If anything, maybe that statement [about "fire and fury"] wasn’t tough enough."

Frightening words from the head of the nation with the world’s largest nuclear arsenal!

The President’s fear-provoking statement was made two days after Hiroshima Day and the day before Nagasaki Day, the somber days on which the death and destruction caused by the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 is remembered.

So what does DJT possibly mean by threatening “fire and fury . . . the likes of which this world has never seen before”?

Even before DJT’s Aug. 8 statement, the Aug. 5-11 issue of The Economist had this provocative image on its cover: 

The Religious Support for War

On August 8, the same day DJT made his inflammatory statement, Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church, Dallas, made this supportive statement to the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN).

Jeffress said (in part): “In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong-Un.”

This prominent pastor went on to assert, “When President Trump draws a red line, he will not erase it, move it, or back away from it. Thank God for a President who is serious about protecting our country.”

 (Click here for the full statement Jeffress made to CBN’s “The Brody File.”)

It can be safely assumed that a large percentage of the evangelical Christians who voted for DJT agree with Jeffress—although, thankfully, some do not (for example, see here).

The Religious Opposition to War

In stark contrast, the World Council of Churches (WCC; see the third paragraph of this 8/9 statement) along with many other moderate/liberal church groups and individual Christians came out in strong opposition to the President’s statement.

While Jeffress based his support of DJT’s bellicosity on Romans 13, the WCC (in another statement) stressed Romans 14:10: “Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.”

Then two days ago Fox News published “North Korea nuclear acceleration prompts church intervention,” an article largely about the Catholic Church's opposition to war with North Korea.

Individual Christian leaders have also made strong statements in opposition to the Jeffress’s reckless rhetoric. Here is just one example, an Aug. 8 tweet by UCC minister and university chaplain Chuck Currie:

You promote a dangerous theology of war that goes against Prince of Peace who preached just peace. I see nothing Christian in your remarks.

Truly, on this commemorative day marking the end of WWII, let us staunchly oppose war and war talk, actively pursuing what makes for peace.