That was the evaluation for an upcoming Franklin Graham “Revival Festival” in Norway. The opinion was offered by Norwegian evangelical leader Stefan Fisher-Hoyrem, professor of history, philosophy and Christian apologetics.
Fisher-Hoyrem pointed out that several Norwegian evangelical leaders, Christian members of Parliament and even the head of Norway’s largest Christian think tank who share Graham’s core theological convictions no longer want to be associated with the Christian evangelist. Only five people participated in the first informational session for churches interested in attending the upcoming Nov. 11–12 festival, according to a report in The Christian Post.
This is the third time in recent months some evangelical leaders, including some Baptist leaders, have distanced themselves from Graham and his ministry. Baptists in Puerto Rico and in Vancouver, Canada, took similar actions.
Political identity
The reason for this reversal in Graham’s popularity is politics. Specifically Graham’s close association with the election of President Donald Trump.
While Graham did not endorse President Trump, he did post on Facebook that it was “the hand of God” on election day that intervened to elect Trump as president of the United States. That close political identity with President Trump evidently is costing Graham ministry opportunities.
Whether one agrees with Graham or not, his situation is a real-life example of a potential threat to the ministries of churches and houses of worship across the United States.
That threat is the possible repeal of the Johnson Amendment which President Trump has promised to “totally destroy.”
The Johnson Amendment, named for then Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson, does two things. It recognizes the right of faith leaders to speak prophetically about social, economic and justice issues without fearing reprisals from government or politicians. Churches and other nonprofit organizations can critique government policy, campaign for ballot issues, sponsor voter registration drives and engage in other type activity as long as they continue their primary purpose for which they are tax exempt.
What the Johnson Amendment prohibits is “directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.” In other words, tax-deductible money donated to churches or other nonprofits cannot be used for partisan purposes such as electioneering or the endorsement or opposition of a political candidate.
As individuals, pastors and other nonprofit leaders can endorse or oppose anyone they choose but the tax-exempt organization (the Church) cannot endorse or oppose a political candidate nor can the pastor or nonprofit leader in their role as leader of the nonprofit.
Growing opposition
In recent years a growing number of pastors, mostly evangelical pastors, have charged the Johnson Amendment is a violation of their freedom of speech, an attempt to control what is said from the pulpit. An increasing number of pastors have openly violated the prohibition against tax-exempt groups endorsing political candidates and dared the Internal Revenue Service to come after them.
A leader of this movement recently said, “Pastors must be free to say what they believe in and why, including politics. Censoring the pulpit is not in the country’s best interest.”
Growing opposition to the Johnson Amendment convinced President Trump that white evangelical Christians — a group that overwhelmingly supported him for president — wanted the Johnson Amendment repealed.
But do they?
A 2015 study by LifeWay Christian Resources found that 79 percent of Americans believe clergy should not endorse candidates during worship services.
In March the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) released a study showing evangelical leaders do not want to mix religion and partisan politics. When asked “should pastors endorse politicians from the pulpit” 89 percent answered “no.”
NAE President Leith Anderson summarized, “Evangelicals emphasize evangelism and pastors often avoid controversies that might take priority over the gospel message.” He continued, “Most pastors I know don’t want to endorse politicians. They want to focus on teaching the Bible.”
Teaching the Bible is about salvation, Christian discipleship and prayer. It also is about caring for the hungry, the displaced and the poor. It is about ethics in the public square as well as about individual ethics. Teaching the Bible is about justice, compassion and accountability.
There is no way of teaching the Bible without touching on political topics. Teaching what God’s Word says about public issues is part of what the Bible means by the admonition for the Church to be salt and light in the world (Matt. 5:13). Hopefully Alabama Baptists will be bold in helping believers understand the implications of biblical teaching concerning moral and ethical issues.
Biblical guidance
There is nothing in the Johnson Amendment that restricts pastors from offering biblical guidance on contemporary issues.
When one moves from what the Bible says about an issue to the personal preferences of endorsing a particular candidate, one has entered a completely new field. God does not belong to any particular political party or to any particular candidate within a party.
As a denomination Southern Baptists are still wrestling with the fallout when some in the denomination concluded a Southern Baptist Convention entity leader was fighting against the presidential candidate they preferred. Imagine the division that scenario would cause in a local church if the pastor endorsed a candidate from the pulpit that some in the church opposed?
Magnified in the church
The problems Graham is experiencing because of his close association with President Trump would be magnified in a church, and the ministry of that church or its pastor may “never be more than a shell of what it could have been.”
With or without the Johnson Amendment one must ask about the wisdom of introducing unnecessary division into a congregation and about politicizing the church by officially endorsing political candidates.
From a governmental standpoint it seems common sense to ensure that tax-exempt groups such as churches and other nonprofits not be transformed into partisan political organizations.
The Johnson Amendment seems to promote good policy for government and good practice for the Church. We see no reason for its repeal.
Share with others: