Earlier this month, the Internal Revenue Service revised a long-standing prohibition on political engagement by faith-based organizations, referred to as the Johnson Amendment, now permitting churches and other places of worship to support political candidates. The agency created this exemption — which excluded non-religious nonprofits — to settle a lawsuit brought by two Texas churches and an alliance of Christian broadcasters.

While the agreement is being hailed as a success for Christian conservatives, Mark Valeri, a historian of religion at Washington University in St. Louis, cautions that it will be catastrophic for churches.

It also paves the way for the U.S. government to favor religious organizations that support specific politicians in a partisan manner, an aspect the founders sought to guard against in the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, he stated.

“Even in an era where breaking precedents is commonplace, this was astonishing news,” remarked Valeri, the Reverend Priscilla Wood Neaves Distinguished Professor of Religion and Politics and vice director of the John C. Danforth Center on Religion and Politics at WashU.

“The Johnson Amendment of 1954 stipulated that direct political advocacy, such as fundraising for or endorsing candidates, breached the charitable social service ‘contract’ qualifying these entities for tax-exempt status.

“In practical terms, this meant that religious leaders — pastors, ministers, rabbis, imams, priests — could not openly champion specific political candidates in a way that coerced or imposed religious pressure to vote in a certain direction. They couldn’t threaten to excommunicate congregants who chose not to support a specific candidate, for instance.

“Nonetheless, advocacy for moral issues intertwined with political topics was permissible. The Catholic Church, for instance, has consistently asserted that abortion is wrong. There existed a boundary between imparting moral teachings that had political ramifications and directly using the church as a mechanism for partisan political backing,” he articulated.

Although that distinction between political advocacy and partisan politics wasn’t officially established until 1954, it is one that churches have predominantly respected since the colonial era, Valeri clarified.

“When the initial colonial constitutions were drafted during the American Revolution, it was presumed that churches would remain untaxed. This precedent was rooted in medieval history. Still, in this period prior to the emergence of political parties, most churches refrained from aligning with specific political leaders as representatives of any party.”

“Churches have always supported political causes, however. Pastors on both sides were vocal during the Civil War, for example. Additionally, Black churches were pivotal in the Civil Rights Movement,” Valeri noted.

Even so, this regulation was not thoroughly enforced, Valeri mentioned. Religious leaders were taught in seminary that one should not stand at the pulpit and dictate how to vote. Most understood this and adhered to it as a matter of integrity.

Partisan politics fracture churches

When the Johnson Amendment was enacted in 1954, amid the Cold War, organized religions were experiencing a revival and growing prominence in American society. Religious affiliation peaked during the 1950s and ’60s as churches thrived partly due to the perception that belief in God countered the atheist, communist worldview.

‘If churches become associated with specific partisan political figures and parties, it will create division and disharmony within congregations and will drive many Americans away from religious institutions even more.’

Mark Valeri

“In the 1950s, churches were involved politically, but not overtly in a partisan way,” Valeri explained. “Churches were aligned along pro-democracy, liberal capitalism lines as opposed to the communist regime.”

Given the significant influence churches wielded in the 1950s and a general political consensus against communism, it made sense for political leaders to impose restrictions against political partisanship and conflict within that consensus, Valeri stated.

“The Johnson Amendment didn’t imply that you couldn’t have a Sunday school or a book discussion group in a synagogue. You could still engage in political discourse and even be pro-civil rights or, in some situations, anti-civil rights. You could maintain strong moral stances. However, the belief was that overt division into partisan politics would fracture this American democratic alliance,” Valeri said.

American perceptions of religion have transformed dramatically over the past 70 years. While three out of four Americans still identify with a faith today, less than half assert that religion is incredibly significant, and only 32% of Americans attend church regularly, according to Gallup polling.

Perhaps of greater concern to religious leaders: Nearly 60% of Americans believe churches are excessively focused on money and power, and 54% concur that they are too engaged in politics, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted earlier this year.

Valeri worries that lifting the ban on partisan advocacy will encourage religious institutions to align with a particular political party, which would have dire implications for most churches, he asserted.

“If churches become identified with specific partisan political figures and parties, it will generate division and discord within congregations and will alienate many Americans from religious institutions even further,” Valeri expressed. “That would pose significant challenges for churches.”

A perilous path

Those advocating for the repeal of the Johnson Amendment have claimed that the regulation infringed upon their First Amendment rights to free speech, as well as the Free Exercise Clause, which prevents the federal government from restricting the free practice of religion.

However, Valeri indicated that there is another clause in the First Amendment that has been overlooked in this discussion: the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the federal government from establishing state-sanctioned churches.

“Individuals concerned about the Free Exercise Clause are more comfortable with this, posing the question, ‘Why shouldn’t people be allowed to preach whatever they wish, including supporting candidate X, Y, or Z?’” Valeri explained. “Yet from the standpoint of the Establishment Clause, this situation is extremely troubling.”

The Trump administration has fulfilled many of its commitments to religious conservatives, as religious conservatism has distinctly supported Republican, right-wing politics, Valeri noted. This trend is not confined to the United States; Viktor Orban’s Hungary exemplifies how conservative traditionalist religious perspectives have become intertwined with authoritarian governments, he added.

“This recent action is fostering a form of Christian nationalism that aligns with the Republican Party and the president,” Valeri said. “This is something the founders did not foresee, and it should alarm Americans who value the separation of church and state.”

The post Red and blue churches? Repealing Johnson Amendment would have disastrous effect appeared first on The Source.