The Johnson Amendment and a Diverse Church Life

Share

Yesterday at a National Day of Prayer ceremony, President Trump signed an executive order directing the government to "honor and enforce" protections for religious liberty. He also said this order would make it easier for churches and pastors to engage in politics so their free speech would not be "bullied" or "punished." These comments were in line with others Trump has made in the past about discarding the Johnson Amendment and telling the IRS to use "maximum discretion" before penalizing churches that get involved in political campaigns.

Trump signing his "religious freedom" executive order on May 4, 2017. (Evan Vucci / Associated Press)

Admittedly, the actual text of the executive order does not actually change the application of the Johnson Amendment, but nonetheless, the general trajectory of this administration does seem to be to minimize or do away with it. And it's not too much of a stretch to think that Congress may act on this issue as well between the urging of Trump and the voices of some swooning conservative religious leaders. As such, Christians need to think intentionally about what such moves might actually mean for their congregations.

First, Christians need to recognize that the Johnson Amendment really does not pose a serious threat to their churches. The IRS has only investigated a few church violations of the Johnson Amendments in its history. There have been even fewer negative results as only 1 church has ever lost its tax-exempt status. One main reason for this is because the Johnson Amendment does NOT prohibit political speech from the pulpit or for pastors and ordinary Christians as Trump has often characterized it as doing. Rather, the Johnson Amendment simply prohibits any registered, tax-exempt non-profit (which many churches are) from endorsing a political candidate or participating in political campaigns of candidates (activities like donating church money to a political campaign). However, pastors and Christians are more than free to discuss political issues and positions. You can take positions on abortion, same-sex marriage, war, taxes, and other political issues from the pulpit all day long. You just can't say "this candidate is horrible" or "I endorse this candidate" or give congregants' tithe money to a campaign.

It's also important for Christians to note that the few investigations that have occurred have been opened against both conservative and liberal churches. So, when you hear Republicans like Trump depict the amendment as an attack on conservative religious values, please remember that this is simply not true. In fact, the original intent of the law was to target supposed communist funds flowing from non-profits into the campaign of Lyndon B Johnson's campaign rival.

The Johnson Amendment was proposed by then Texas Sen. Lyndon Johnson

In short, churches have little to fear from this amendment. It's unlikely an actual violation will even get investigated (especially if you don't attend a megachurch with a famous pastor), and even if your church or pastor got investigated, it's even less likely that anything will come of it. But if it did, Christians would do well to remember that this would really only impact their tax-exempt status, not their ability to gather, worship, teach, preach, evangelize, or anything else.

All that aside, Christians need to think about this from another angle, namely the role of politics from the pulpit. After all, that's really what this debate is about.

Personally, even if Trump succeeds in repealing the Johnson Amendment, I strongly believe churches should still abide by its restrictions. Here's why:

When we allow pastors to start going beyond teaching general Christian principles or worldviews and let them begin advocating for specific candidates, parties, and policies, we run the risk of doing incredible damage to the health of that congregation. Let me give you an example.

A few months ago, I visited a church where the pastor decried "liberalism" as evil and as a sin in the middle of his sermon. This immediately turned me off for several reasons. First, his usage of "liberalism" was really nothing more than a scare word as the word "liberalism" is incredibly vague. What do you mean by "liberalism"? Are we talking theological liberalism, political liberalism, economic liberalism? Each of those are very different concepts and don't always go hand in hand. The use of that phrase was not substantive but simply a way to energize the rest of the congregation, who by-and-large held to conservative theological and political views, which leads to my second concern.

My second concern with the pastor's denouncement of "liberalism" is that it only served to further the uniformity and lack of diversity within his congregation. I don't personally consider myself a "liberal" or "progressive," but I tend to be a moderate who does happen to share a number of perspectives with liberals on some issues. As I listened to that sermon, I immediately felt excluded because the sermon's assumption (at least what seemed to be communicated) was that any liberal ideas (including political ones) were sinful. As such, I was to be viewed as an outsider to faith.

Now, if I felt that way, imagine how any number of my sincere, Bible-believing, Jesus-loving, Christian friends who are much more liberal than myself would have felt sitting through that sermon. That pastor might as well have said, "Your faith is wrong and invalid. You don't really love Jesus or believe the Bible. You're not welcome here unless you repent."

Take that another step further. If we start having pastors condemn or praise specific candidates or politicians (haha, I said "start," when in reality I've sat through too many such sermons already), how is that good pastoral care or good church practice when a healthy church will hopefully have members who sit on both sides of the political aisle and who will vote for different candidates. Those members with different opinions will feel uncomfortable or maybe even be driven away from the congregation.

Even worse, what if a church donated tithed money to a political campaign. If there are members of the congregation who plan on voting for an opposing candidate, do you think they want the money they gave to the church to be used for a candidate they don't support?

At this point, I can hear some Christians say, "Well, if they want to believe differently they should just find a more liberal/conservative church to attend." But this is not how it ought to be! As we look at the book of Revelation, we see a picture of the people of God united together from every tongue, tribe, people, and nation. The Kingdom of God is diverse. A few years ago, I heard a saying that aptly describes what the Church should look like: "Unity without uniformity; diversity without division."

Thankfully, many Christians agree with me that pastors should avoid becoming too political. According to Kimberly Winston of the Religious News Service, "A 2016 LifeWay poll found that only 19 percent of Americans agree with the statement 'it is appropriate for pastors to publicly endorse political candidates during a church service,' and a 2013 Pew Research Center survey that found two-thirds of Americans think clergy should not endorse political candidates." Nonetheless, according to research done by the Barna Group presented in the book UnChristian 10 years ago, one of the top perceptions of churches by those outside the church was that churches are "too political." Given the intensification and polarization of the political arena recently, I suspect that perception has not changed much in the past 10 years. It may be even worse now.

But this goes so much beyond the Johnson Amendment and politics. A few days ago, I blogged about how our lack of a corporate theology in the act of baptism reinforces homogeneous churches and potentially feeds racism in the midst of the Church. We so desperately need more diversity in our congregations!

Sadly, much of the way we teach and preach in churches is both the cause and symptom of this lack of diversity. Pastors and teachers within a church make polarizing, one-sided statements because there is no differing opinions within the congregation to put a check on them or to help those leaders think about different perspectives. At the same time, when such statements are made from positions of leadership, it also drives away any diversity that might happen to come through the door for a visit. It's an endless cycle of confirming uniformity, and this creates an echo-chamber of group-think.

So, if you are a pastor, teacher, or church leader (or even just a congregation member), please think abut your public speech within the church. How would your comments be interpreted or accepted by a Christian of a different political viewpoint, or a different race, or a different social class or country? Too much of what gets confidently declared as "truth" is actually more influenced by the micro-cultures we create within our congregation and community than it is by the Bible or God. So, whatever happens to the Johnson Amendment, let's be careful in our words and find way to increase cross-cultural dialogue and diversity within our congregations.

Share

A Few Florist Thoughts

Share

One of the news stories that broke this past week was that the Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously against a florist who decided not to offer her services to a same-sex couple for their wedding. This case has ignited much furor in both the LGBT and evangelical worlds because it seems to place the debate as a battle between civil liberties and religious liberty. I have only slightly followed this case, but as this discussion will soon (and already has) become heated, here are a few thoughts I have to hopefully bring some nuance to this case that addresses both sides:

• If you hear conservative Christians saying this story was "buried" this week in some attempt to secretly take away religious liberty, don't believe the hype. Mainstream media did in fact cover the story (how else do you think people became aware of it?) Furthermore, if this story did not rise to the level of prominence many conservatives felt it deserved, it was likely the result of the current chaos in the Trump administration, not because of some conspiracy theory.
• It seems pretty obvious that Barronelle Stutzman (the florist) was in violation of the law. Our current laws clearly state that same-sex unions enjoy the same privileges and rights as heterosexual marriages. Furthermore, it is a crime to discriminate against a person based on either gender or sexual orientation. A business refusing to provide a service because of a person's sexual orientation is a crime. Under the eyes of the law, it is really no different from refusing to provide a person a service because of their race or ethnicity. This is why the Washington Supreme Court was unanimous--it's pretty cut and dry.

Conservative Christians at this point will say this infringes on Stutzman's religious liberty. But here are a few things to consider:

• One's religious liberty is not unlimited. The law only grants religious liberty so long as that liberty does not infringe upon the well-being of society (this is how all rights work). For instance, I cannot kill my child even if I followed a religion that said this was acceptable. In this current case, the laws and perception of our society state that such discrimination is detrimental to society. Thus, the court ruled that the practice of her religious conscience in a place of business was problematic.
• What all does religious liberty actually cover? I am not a constitutional scholar, so I'll largely leave this question open. However, it is good to note that the State is not forcing Stutzman to change her beliefs, per se. She can still worship as she pleases, she can still speak out against gay marriage, she can refuse to attend gay weeddings, etc. The court simply said that, if she is going to operate a place of business in the public sphere, then she must treat all citizens equally.
• Which leads to this last point on religious liberty. I'm not sure religious liberty extends to a business. An individual can be a "Christian," and a church congregation can be "Christian," but I'm not convinced a business can be "Christian." The reality is that when you open a business, you agree to abide by the laws and regulations affecting businesses. This include anti-discrimination statues. If you are not willing to serve certain customers because of demographics that fall under those statutes, then you probably shouldn't run that business or you should be willing to face the consequences of breaking the law. It may even be right to defy a law you see as unjust, but be truthful and don't whine or complain when you get in trouble for breaking that law. Ironically, I've seen a number of conservatives this past week say, "You're free to express your beliefs, but you're not free from the consequences of those expressions" in response to employees getting fired for taking off work on the "Day without Immigrants." Shouldn't we say the same about Stutzman? She was free to express her beliefs, but she's not free from the legal consequences of those actions.

But before my more liberal friends get to excited, I do have a few thoughts for that side as well.

• This court case has often been characterized in terms of "civil liberties." As noted above, I won't argue with the legal realities here, but there is one aspect of the LGBT movement that's never set quite well with me, and that's the comparison between LGBT rights and the racial civil rights movement. In this particular case Stutzman's actions have been compared to refusing to serve a customer because she is black. While legally speaking this is true, I think we'd be amiss if we didn't acknowledge some substantial differences. The main difference I see is that most educated Christians who don't approve of same-sex unions take issue with the ACTS of homosexuality, not the impulses or orientation itself. This is quite different from discrimination based on race which is a trait you are born with and can't escape. There is no way to not act out on being your color. Your race race remains the same regardless of your actions. Regarding being gay, even if sexual orientation is genetic, a person still has a decision about whether or not to act out on those impulses, which makes it somewhat different than racial discrimination.
• Bring this point onto the Stutzman case. What if a man who identifies as gay but chooses not to act out on those impulses (perhaps because of a religious conviction or some other reason) decided to buy flowers from Ms. Stutzman, perhaps for his mom. And let's say the florist sells him flowers and she knows he identifies as gay. But, at the same time, she refuses to offer services for a gay wedding. Is this truly discrimination against a person for being gay, or is it discrimination against the actions of homosexuality? It may be a fine line, but I think it's worth at least acknowledging.
• Additionally, I think it's easy for LGBT advocates to get overly militaristic at times (just as evangelicals often do). From some of what I have read, it seems Stutzman did attempt to offer the gay couple a referral for another florist. So, it does not seem like she is some evil lady trying to hate on "the gays." Rather, she is a person of conscience (like a significant minority of Americans) who are not comfortable with gay marriage and who view homosexuality as a sin. For many of us, we strive to love our LGBT brothers and sisters, but the liberal narratives of being anti-gay marriage as equivalent to being hateful or bigoted or uneducated are simply not fair. Those who are pro-LGBT rights would do well to remember that it has only been very recently that a majority (and only a slim majority) of Americans back their cause. Triumphalism and shouting down the opposition does nothing to draw us toward unity or truth. Not all who oppose gay marriage are hateful. Many of us continue to wrestle with the issue.
• Finally, pro-gay rights individuals should remember that (for Christians) this is a debate about sin. Is homosexuality a sin or not? This is no small question and the Church remains incredibly divided on this issue. So, for Christians who have become convicted that gay marriage is acceptable because it is something different than what the Bible addresses, be patient with the other half. Don't get angry or judgmental just because you are passionate about what you see as an issue of "justice." Remember you are asking your brothers and sisters to change their minds about sin. For any Christian, this is not a matter to be taken lightly as getting the answer wrong (in either direction) could amount to an offense against God. So, be filled with grace (both sides).

So there are my thoughts. In summary, the law seems pretty clear, but the underlying issue is not. I don't think Christians can really argue that Stutzman wasn't breaking the law (I think she probably was), but what remains open is whether those laws themselves are unjust or how people on both sides of the debate choose to relate to and characterize each other going forward.

Religious Freedom and Civil Liberties

The news has been abuzz the past few weeks with debate over what entails "religious freedom." The spark for this discussion has been Indiana's passing of a "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" (RFRA) bill, but was also fueled by Arkansas' governor signing a similar bill into law. These laws would allow their states to protect the preferences and liberties of religious individuals and entities. In short, they say the government cannot force a person or group to contradict its religious beliefs.

However, the focus on these bills (as with other similar efforts) has been on the expansion of these religious rights to companies and businesses. The go-to example seems to be Christian bakers. Under these laws, if a baker who happens to be a Christian is asked by a gay couple to cater their wedding, the baker would have the right to refuse service if he felt catering the wedding would violate his conviction that homosexuality is wrong.
This has sparked outrage on the part of gay-rights groups who insist the law invites and legalizes discrimination. Proponents of the law claim that the focus is not on the gay community and that it will not be used to discriminate. Instead, they say, the law is intended to protect from big government.

Now, I am not an attorney or legal expert, so I cannot weigh in very much on the legality or implications of these laws. However, I have observed one issue in the back-and-forth that must be brought to the surface.

As I've listened to both sides, I can agree that each has some valid points. However, neither side is likely going to see eye to eye for one simple reason--they hold competing values. In particular, conservatives are prioritizing "religious liberty" while their opponents are prizing "civil liberties."

Of course, we in America like to believe that our laws and justice system can bring us peace, prosperity, and unity (which honestly looks a lot like idolatry at times to me). We also want to believe that our Constitution can solve any social problem we encounter. As such, we want to believe that religious liberty and civil liberties (both great American values) can coexist in harmony. But ultimately, this is not the case.  When push comes to shove, you most often will have to choose either religious liberty or civil liberty, or you will have to redefine what one of those values looks like.

Recently, Rick Santorum, a Republican presidential hopeful, came to the defense of RFRA laws by trying to point out the "two-way street" that exists. He asked why it would be wrong to allow a Christian to refuse service to a gay couple based on religious beliefs but not be wrong for a pro-gay print shop to refuse service to Westboro Baptist, who famously promote the slogan "God hates fags."

However, these kinds of remarks illustrate the tunnel vision that creeps into such public debates. Comments like Santorum's completely ignore the other side's point that the LGBTQ community is entitled to civil rights, and therefore any such discrimination is wrong. I can just imagine a gay-rights activist responding to Santorum's illustration by saying, "It's wrong for the Christian to discriminate, AND ok for the print shop to refuse service because discrimination against gays is wrong in both scenarios."

This conflict between religious liberty and civil rights (and our different priorities) means that we are really just talking past each other. We will never find common ground or see eye-to-eye as long as we are operating by different paradigms. For instance, our definitions of "civil rights" conflict. For some conservative Christians, civil rights includes race, ethnicity, and gender, but should not include "sinful" behaviors like alternate sexual orientations or gender identities. Meanwhile, others feel sexual orientation should be a protected category. As long as we cannot agree on these terms, there will be no resolution to the public debate. Beyond this simple fact, we also place different values on religious and civil liberties, and this is important because religious and civil liberties inevitably stand in tension with each other.

The bottom line is that if we value religious freedom as the highest priority, then we are going to admit that all kinds of religiously motivated beliefs are acceptable. But how far do we take this? Is it ok for white supremacist groups who use the Bible as justification for their actions to hate or even harm blacks and Jews? Is it ok for certain cults to employ suicide or human sacrifice? Most of us would say that these actions cannot be prohibited in a civil society, but this is what you will get if you prize religious freedom without adding any qualifications or redefinitions.

And most often, the way we place a check on unbridled religious freedom (or any other freedom, like freedom of speech) is to fall back on civil liberties. It's ok to utilize your freedoms unless it infringes upon the freedom or well-being of others around you. This is the very argument being used with RFRA laws. It's fine to believe that homosexuality is wrong, but the moment that belief drives you to treat others differently or to discriminate, that is a problem.

And the truth is that, by-and-large, sexual orientation is considered a civil liberty now. We have a variety of laws that explicitly prohibit discrimination against those in the LGBTQ community in certain contexts. More and more cities are passing non-discrimination ordinances (my college hangout town of Springfield, MO is set to vote on one such ordinance today). And, as I said in an earlier post, regardless of your beliefs regarding homosexuality, you need to come to terms with the fact that society has accepted it as a legitimate lifestyle (more than half of Americans support legalized gay marriage). So, if defenders of religious liberty want to protect the civil liberties of other races and genders, they are going to have to start protecting the rights of the gay community as well.

But, at the same time, we would do well to hear conservative concerns that valuing civil liberties as the highest value can pose problems as well. For instance, should a pastor be forced to offer his church building for a lesbian couple's wedding ceremony even if it violates his conscience or his church's teaching? What if civil rights keep expanding and begin to offer protections for more and more specific groups? This increases the likelihood that there will be conflict between civil and religious liberties. So, it's not good enough to simply place civil liberties on a pedestal either.

One thing I hope Christians see from this conversation is the futility of placing our hope in government or laws. Yes we need good government and just laws, but these things cannot save us. They will always be imperfect. So maybe it's time we stop putting so much emphasis on these American values, and instead turn our attention to the values of God's Kingdom, the place where our allegiance is supposed to be anyways.

In God's Kingdom, we value rights, but we don't die for them. Instead, we die for the well-being of others, even for our enemies. In God's Kingdom, we are called to practice radical love, grace, and hospitality. In God's Kingdom, we confess that all are made in the image of God, but also that all have fallen short of the glory of God. It is only as we begin to set our eyes on our heaven-on-earthly calling that we will be able to navigate the tricky areas between religious liberty and civil rights. Looking to laws and our Constitution won't bring opponents together, heal the pain in someone who has experienced discrimination, or bring about a society that respects faith. Quoting the Constitution or appealing to the "weight of history" won't change the lens your opponent is using that prevents meaningful dialogue. Only the Way of Jesus can do this. So perhaps it's about time that we start looking at the words and life of Jesus as the starting point of how to decide whether or not to bake that wedding cake.

------------------------------
Other random observations as additional food for thought and discussion:

• It's helpful to note that the current RFRA bills tend to extend religious protections to businesses. For Christians, we need to really think about whether this accurately reflects reality. A business may have Christians in it, but does that make the company "Christian"? This might be easier to believe with small businesses and those who are self-employed, but what about bigger corporations like Chic-fil-a or Hobby Lobby? Certainly not every employee of these companies is a Christian. While we may want to say the company has a right to religious protections, who is protecting the religious beliefs of individual employees? If Chic-fil-a were to decide it can't cater to gay-rights events or at gay weddings, are non-Christian employees obligated to carry out the same practices, even if it goes against their religious conscience?
• We Christians do a poor job of thinking about the precedents we set. One of the interesting developments in the news has been that the governor of Indiana ended up signing a clause to prevent the RFRA law from interfering with non-discrimination laws, while Arkansas has specifically avoided creating any exemptions for non-discrimination laws. In fact, Arkansas even passed a bill that prevents cities from enacting any non-discrimination ordinances not already in state law (by the way, there are no non-discrimination laws in Arkansas protecting gays or lesbians). However, at the end of the day, the motivation for pushing back against such ordinances is the conviction that homosexuality is a sin (there really is no commercial or legal reason). However, with these and other efforts, are we setting a double standard? Are we saying it's ok to discriminate on the basis of the sin of homosexuality, but not on the sins of lust, greed, adultery, or lying? Do Christian bakers ever feel compelled to refuse to cater weddings that celebrate excess, drunkenness, and wealth? Probably not (they probably get excited about selling twice as much). Once again I wonder if are trying to legislate morality, but are ending up looking like hypocritical fools.