The Johnson Amendment was adopted by congress in 1954 and signed into law by President Eisenhower. So, just what is it? It is a provision in the United States tax code that prohibits 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations from participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. It was introduced by then Senator Lyndon B. Johnson. The law applies to all 501(c)(3) charities, foundations, and religious organizations, but has been especially opposed by certain pastors and churches.
Over the years, many religious leaders have railed against that law as they believed it was unconstitutional – that freedom of speech should not be abridged in that way. And from time to time, there have been some pastors who have deliberately, and blatantly, defied it. Some simply ignored it, and there were others who defied it for the express purpose of making the IRS take them to court in the hopes of having it overturned.
However, the IRS never took anyone to court over it. Many think the reason they never brought suit was because they suspected it would be overturned, and there was a political interest by certain bureaucrats and politicians for it to remain on the books.
Recently, however, under the leadership of the new Trump administration, the IRS has reinterpreted the law in a way that allows churches to endorse political candidates if they want to. As of this writing, a final decision is still awaiting a judge’s approval, but if it is overturned pastors will be able to endorse political candidates if they want to.
But is this really a good idea? Personally, I’m a bit torn on this one. On the one hand, I don’t think that the speech rights of pastors should be abridged. I don’t like the idea of the government telling churches, or even people in general, what they can and cannot say. On the other hand, I struggle with the idea of pastors endorsing political candidates.
As it relates to the Johnson Amendment, there is a danger for pastors who take the route of endorsing political candidates. As I see it, pastors and churches are setting themselves up for problems when they endorse particular individuals. How many times have we seen where some politician stumbled morally, even one who is a faithful Christian, and ended up being disgraced or coming across as a hypocrite for promoting Christian values while acting in a way that disparages the faith? If a church has tied itself to the wagon of one of those people, the reputation of the church slides with the politician. It is great for Christians to get behind politicians who advocate for Christian values, but the support should be focused on the values, not specifically the politician.
After all, the purpose of the church is to promote Jesus, not play politics. Our primary goal should always be to lead people to Christ. When a person truly comes to Christ, God changes their very inner being and the person begins living a life that does the right thing as a means of pleasing God, not simply as a matter of promoting a political end. A smoothly operating society is certainly the desire of Christians, but never their ultimate goal. It is, rather, the natural byproduct of changed lives.
There actually is a reason, though, for Christians to promote Christian values in society, even if that is not our primary goal. That is because the policies that shape the societal landscape profoundly affect Christians’ ability to express their faith freely in society. When the rule of law is not honored, when immorality is allowed to rule the day, or when slothfulness is tolerated and industriousness disincentivized, society goes into the tank. And when society goes into the tank, everyone’s lives are worse, and the ability of Christians to freely express their faith is curtailed.
The thing to keep in mind, though, is that the purpose for supporting biblical values in society is not simply to support biblical values. There are plenty of people who do that legalistically, even some who are not Christians. They work toward the right goal, but for the wrong reasons. And it is the “reason” in people’s hearts that determines how things ultimately turn out – whether there is an actual relationship with God that causes organic change, or merely a legalistic policy.
When a politicians ultimate goal is political, policy becomes more important than people’s souls. That is not what the Bible promotes. A focus only on good policies without God being at the center of it results in taking a good thing and abusing it. That is not a legitimate Christian worldview perspective.