Weekly Opinion Editorial
POLITICS OR PIETY?
by Steve Fair
In 1953, future U.S. president Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) was serving in
the U.S. Senate from Texas. LBJ faced criticism
from conservative tax-exempt organizations in his home state of Texas- two of
which were Facts Forum and the Committee for Constitutional Government. They pointed out LBJ’s liberal views to Texas
voters in his 1948 campaign for Senate, and Johnson vowed to shut them down. LBJ believed their accusations of his liberalism
would harm his political standing in the conservative Lone Star state. He sought to neutralize their influence on
legislation and political campaigns by stopping donations to those 501(c)3
groups by removing their tax-exempt status.
The ‘Johnson Amendment’ banned any tax-exempt organizations, including
churches, from political activism and endorsing of candidates. Long time critics of the amendment say it is
selectively enforced. According to the
Free Speech Center, religious organizations are the target of the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) more often than secular groups.
Historically, the IRS has rarely enforced the Johnson Amendment against
churches. The only known instance of a church losing its tax-exempt status over
the amendment involved newspaper ads being run on behalf of a candidate. But that will likely be changing.
Last week, the IRS entered a consent decree stating the ‘Johnson amendment’
does not prevent a "house of worship" from speaking to its
congregation, through customary channels of communication on matters of faith
in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed
through the lens of religious faith.
The action came after two Texas churches sued the IRS, asserting the ‘Johnson
Amendment’ violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and exercise
of religion. Three observations:
First, the Johnson Amendment is unconstitutional, but remains the law of
the land. In regard to the Johnson Amendment,
the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has ruled in the past tax benefits given to 501(c)3
nonprofits are a “form of subsidy administered through the tax system.” Two federal Courts of Appeals have ruled the
Johnson Amendment constitutional, but until the U.S. Supreme Court formally
rules on the Johnson Amendment as how it applies to religious organizations,
this is not over. The IRS compromise
reached this week may stop enforcement, but it doesn’t remove the Johnson Amendment
from the statutes.
Second, this deal will change campaign finance. If donors can contribute to a church or any
other 501 (c)3 group, receive an IRS approved tax deduction, and the donation
be funneled to a candidate, ‘following the money’ becomes next to
impossible. Will churches and candidates
be required to report campaign contributions from 501(c)3s like secular
organizations have to? Will the 501(c)3s
need to disclose the giver? If not, then
this new position by the IRS could dramatically increase the number of ‘dark
money’ groups involved in the political arena.
"Dark money" in politics refers to political spending by
organizations that do not disclose their donors. This lack of transparency
allows special interests to influence elections without public accountability.
Third, the policy could change the mission of churches. Preaching repentance and faith may be put
aside for proclaiming liberty and freedom-the doxology replaced with God Bless
the USA. Sermons may be on patriotism instead
of peacemaking. Fundraisers will replace
fellowships. Worship will focus on
reforming the USA through activism. Studying
the Constitution instead of the Sermon on the Mount.
The mission of the Lord’s church is to preach the Gospel. Jesus gave the Great Commission to His church in Matthew 28:19. A church who veers or deviates from that commission- no matter their motive- is in danger of losing their candlestick. Does a church have a right to get political? Sure, but any church who puts politics over piety have lost their way. They have sacrificed reverence for relevance. America’s reformation will be God initiated, done in His timing and by His methods.
1 comment:
"First, the Johnson Amendment is unconstitutional, but remains the law of the land." You go on to say that it *is* the law of the land, but some presumed ambiguity exists because it hasn't hit the highest court in the land yet. Your argument is basically you putting your fingers in your ears and pretending that lower federal courts have no power.
"Dark money" is a good use of politically charged buzzwords to generate a sense of fear, which is paramount to the strategy of the Republican Party. You were saying?
"This lack of transparency allows special interests to influence elections without public accountability." I'd take it one step further and preach to my audience to repeal the Citizens United decision if I were you, Steve.
"Third, the policy could change the mission of churches. Preaching repentance and faith may be put aside for proclaiming liberty and freedom-the doxology replaced with God Bless the USA. Sermons may be on patriotism instead of peacemaking. Fundraisers will replace fellowships. Worship will focus on reforming the USA through activism. Studying the Constitution instead of the Sermon on the Mount." God does not exist, Steve. I don't know if you know this, but there is no global majority devoted to one faith. That means that, according to your beliefs, most people will go to Hell. I do not want my children to grow up indoctrinated in a faith that teaches them that set of beliefs.
"The mission of the Lord’s church [and so forth]." You have the right to your faith, and that I will not contest. There are billions of people who disagree with you. Will you preach to them all?
Post a Comment