The Johnson Amendment

[Joseph Patrick]

From Joseph Patrick...aka Gerry Milligan
I heard on NPR that today (Thursday the 2nd) at a prayer breakfast our president has vowed to end the Johnson amendment which prevents charities (spelled churches) from endorsing political candidates or lose their tax exempt status. Does anyone have an update?

[Jim]

I was watching and that's about what he said. It will be hard to do since the sensitivity-enhanced democrats will do everything to block it since, naturally, it's a creature of those racist republicans.

[KeithE]

Baptists have traditionally fought any merging of Church and State and shied away from endorsing/funding any candidate. James Dunn would roll over in his grave of he knew this was a possibility.

[Joseph Patrick]

[Rvaughn]

All I have heard is that Trump vowed to work toward abolishing the Johnson amendment.

My thought is that, biblically, churches should not endorse candidates, but that, legally, it is a matter of freedom of speech and freedom of religion should be nobody's business whether they do or not.

[Haruo]

I'm inclined to side with Mr. Vaughn on this one. Freedom of speech (including religious speech) ought to be as unfettered as possible. On the other hand, the tax exemption may have to go away for the freedom to work.

[Joseph Patrick]

[Sandy]

I see some inherent problems for churches that step outside a Biblical mission and purpose to endorse a political candidate.

[Rvaughn]

I have no problem with the exemption going away if that is what it takes to make free speech work in this case. Maybe there is some other angle to work on, though.

Correct if I am wrong, but before the Johnson amendment, weren't churches both free in their speech and tax exempt? It's not like the Johnson amendment first created the idea of tax exemption for churches, did it?

Inherent problems in what sense, Sandy? Related to the government, internal, both, or something else?

[Jim]

The First Amendment deals with the relationship between government and speech/religion. Individuals and non-government institutions can make their own rules, if any needed, about both. For instance, some words are prohibited in this Forum, but this is not affected by the First Amendment; however, the old “yelling 'fire' in the theater” matter can present some problems.

[William Thornton]

[Dave Roberts]

Trump is making a political show for the benefit of a narrow slice of the evangelical movement. What the church tends to lose in credibility and respect to me outweighs any gain in the freedom to endorse from the pulpit and give money to candidates. In every church where I have served as their pastor, there is generally a predominant political party, but there are always those of the opposite party and those who class themselves as independents. The endorsement of candidates kills ministry to those who would not agree with the endorsement.

It has been my privilege to pastor congregations that have had political candidates within them. The most interesting was having two members in the church running against each other. If we become endorsers of candidates, the church is the loser, not the winner. We need the high ground to address issues on moral and spiritual grounds, not to be subsumed into a political structure. By the way, it is called the Johnson Amendment because it was sponsored by then Senator Lyndon B. Johnson and heartily endorsed by President Eisenhower--how much more bipartisan could it have been.

[KeithE]

I believe groups of people (churches, businesses, unions) joined for some other purpose should not be allowed to contribute to political causes. The political opinions of the individuals within that group can easily be overwritten. And such groups should lose their tax exemption if they do (yes many corporations in effect are tax exempt and pay nothing.)

I'd say such groups can speak out on political causes and I wish the liberal churches would do so more forcefully. Christ was after all more aligned with modern liberalism than selfish and/or self-righteous conservatism. But leave contributions to individuals to safeguard democracy. Now as a practical natter to keep the peace, I would recommend pastors should not endorse candidates (as Dave points out above). But in balance I'd say they have the right to speak out as a person particularly out of the pulpit.

This means keep the , and reject .

[KeithE]

I'd also say Trump is only pushing this because he believes he will get the majority of the religious vote in 2020 (if he lasts that long). Let's prove him wrong.

[Sandy]

[Rvaughn]

I also believe that it is an internal issue for churches, and that the government should stay out of it. Seems to me that political and religious speech is just the kind of speech the first amendment is intended to protect, and that the government has not been beckoned to intercede when the lines of political and religious speech are blurred.

Let a church rather than the government determine who to endorse or whether to endorse. Let that church reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of its choice. If a church chooses to act in a way that kills its ministry, let it self-destruct.

[Dave Roberts]

[Rvaughn]

[Rvaughn]

[Shawn Koester]

As a proud third generation Baptist, this is outrageous. So many of our brother and sister Baptists faced persecution from establishment churches like Congregationalists to ensure church and state were separate. Separation benefits both the church and the state. When the state co-opts the church it loses its prophetic voice. Jesus is our Lord not Caesar. As preachers we can speak about the issues of the day and we can be prophetic but we cannot endorse or oppose candidates. I speak as an independent. The church is not just Democrats, or Republicans, it is for independents and non-affiliateds too. It is with freedom that Christ bought us. A free church in the free state and I will defend it to my death.

[Rvaughn]

[Shawn Koester]

[Shawn Koester]

[Rvaughn]

Thanks for clarifying. I figured that was what you meant, but wanted to be sure. To me a church having their own voice independent from the government's oversight -- whether I like that voice or not, and whether or not they use it wisely -- is more important than the tax issue. If they must be taxed for that to happen, let them be taxed.

The Wade Burleson quote was a general observation and not directly related to what you said. Here at BaptistLife the preponderance of members seem to be opposed to endorsing candidates in the pulpit/church (as am I). Dave Roberts stated above, "The endorsement of candidates kills ministry to those who would not agree with the endorsement." This is very likely true in most cases. Yet I find it interesting on the other hand that most BaptistLife members are also fairly vocal about politics and that the Politics Forum is one of the more popular. I don't think it is likely that, given the amount of social media most people are on, that our views are unknown to our churches and our friends and those to whom we minister. (I make it a habit to not talk about politics on Facebook, though I occasionally slip up. I have too many friends on different sides of issues. And I guess I'm too old to interested in Twittering and Sputtering and such like.)

Maybe most people will never find their way here to see what we write.

[Haruo]

Surely you're not as old as the President, and he certainly like Sputtering on Twitter!