Faith or Fundraising? Defending the Johnson Amendment with Amanda Tyler

We're breaking from our usual Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday release schedule to address a topic making headlines: the Johnson Amendment.

What is the Johnson Amendment—and why are some Christian leaders eager to repeal it? Enacted in 1954, the law prohibits churches and other nonprofits from endorsing or opposing political candidates. While critics argue it silences pastors, Amanda Tyler, Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, says it actually protects the integrity of both church and state.

In this episode, Tyler explains how repealing the Johnson Amendment could politicize the pulpit, erode sacred trust, and compromise true religious freedom. With legal expertise and deep Baptist roots, she offers a compelling defense of why churches should stay out of electoral politics.
If you've ever wondered whether pastors should endorse candidates from the pulpit, this conversation offers both moral clarity and constitutional insight.

Editor’s Note:
In this episode, there is a brief misstatement regarding the Texas lawsuit and litigation strategy. Amanda mistakenly stated that Texas sued the Department of Justice, when in fact it was the DOJ that sued Texas. A White House press release confirms this. While the procedural detail was misstated, the broader point being made remains unchanged.

Guest Bio

Amanda Tyler is Executive Director of BJC (Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty), a constitutional lawyer, and a leading voice in the fight against Christian nationalism. Under her leadership, BJC has mobilized faith communities to protect religious liberty for all, including through initiatives like Christians Against Christian Nationalism. She is the author of How to End Christian Nationalism.

🔗 Resource Links

How to End Christian Nationalism by Amanda Tyler: https://bookshop.org/a/112456/9781506498287
BJC – Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty: https://bjconline.org/
Christ

Transcript

0:17

Hey, welcome back, faithful politics listeners and watchers. I am your political host and your faithful host, Pastor Josh Bertram. He's off doing past during things as one does when you're in ministry. um But that's OK, because today we have someone that is way smarter than Josh. I can say that confidently because I don't think that he actually uh like. like makes a habit to, or we'll have time to listen to this podcast on this trip. So, um, this would just be between us, just, just between us. but I'm here with Amanda Tyler. Welcome back, Amanda. Good to have you. Yeah, we always love having you. And we unfortunately asked to have you back to talk about a, a recent court. I don't know if you call it. or a filing or a consent something. It gets really technical and that's why we asked you to come on. maybe you can kind of just, we'll start there. Like ah I was gonna ask you, why did we bring you on? But that would be a really weird question to ask, but why are you here? Talk to us about the Johnson Amendment and why we are having this conversation. Yeah, and I think we've actually talked before about the Johnson Amendment because so let's just set the table. Johnson Amendment is shorthand for a piece of the tax code. It's been part of the tax code since 1954. And that is when Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was then the Senate minority leader, was the author of a particular provision. And it has to do with 501 C3 nonprofit organizations. and all 501c3 nonprofit organizations in exchange for kind of this most preferred tax status, this ability not just um to not be uh taxed on your income, but also that donations to the 501c3 nonprofit are tax deductible for the donors, uh that in addition to having a charitable purpose of some kind, uh that one requirement for that tax status is that the organization not participate or intervene in campaigns for candidates for political office. uh And so that provision, which really is kind of a nonpartisanship provision, uh goes by the shorthand of the Johnson Amendment. And for most of its history, it really has been pretty non-controversial. And that's because most people like it, right? That there's this sense of the integrity of the nonprofit it. uh sector is part of it is because it is agreed to be nonpartisan. em And again, I want to there's a lot of table setting. I want to really say there's a difference between being partisan and being political. Right. You you will are the political host of this of this podcast. um And I kind of when I think about being political, I think about caring about the life of our community, being engaged in what matters to the people in the community and working for justice. to bring justice to those people. um And so that's one idea of what it means to be political. Partisan is another thing. It means to be tied to a particular party or candidate. um And so the nonpartisanship pledge that nonprofits take, that isn't a pledge to be nonpolitical. Right? That in fact, a lot of these organizations are deeply engaged and involved in the life of their community. But when we talked about the first time, it was because there was a push to change the law. And that push came from then President Trump. I say then President Trump because it was during his first term in 2017. And there was a legislative push to get rid of it. And that legislative push failed in large part because, again, the nonprofit community wanted this uh pledge and wanted this nonpartisanship to be part of what it meant to be a nonprofit. And um so here we are today. Why am I on today? It's because we've had an unexpected development in this area. There has been a court case pending in a federal district court in the Eastern District of Texas. uh And in that case, the IRS, which was the defendant in that case, uh made a filing. uh last week and basically said that going forward and in this case that they were going to consider any kind of partisan speech in uh in a congregation and a house of worship to be a quote-unquote family conversation that this would be considered private speech um and that they would not enforce any kind of endorsement of candidates as a violation of the Johnson Amendment. And so when this filing happened and uh reporters got a hold of it and said, look at this, the IRS is really changing the Johnson Amendment. And so um I think we can talk about what this filing signals, what it is, what it's not, because I think that there's quite a bit of confusion out there right now, um rightfully so, about what this means. Yeah, yeah, I love maybe for you to kind of break, break it down, maybe kind of just both legally like what it is, what it isn't. ah And we can get into kind of the implications of it uh later, but, but I've been reading a lot of uh different news articles about it. one article saying, oh, the Johnson amendment is gone. Another another articles like, you know, it's gone for just these churches. Can you kind of like talk about like, what is it exactly? Like, what is the current status of the Johnson amendment? Yeah, the Johnson Amendment is still law. It is still good law. The only way that you can change the tax code is by an act of Congress. And Congress has not acted in this situation. So we'll put that out right now. And then I think the question is, how is the law being enforced? um And for a long time, I mean, I think it would just kind of, you know, be very candid about this. For a long time, the IRS has really not fully enforced this nonpartisanship particularly when it comes to houses of worship. And a lot of people have pointed to that as a reason for changing the law. Well, if they're not going to enforce it, why do we even have this law on the books? And I think there's good reason, right, for the law to be on the books. whether or not the IRS is going to fully enforce it. And we'll talk about some of the reasons maybe the IRS hasn't been fully enforcing it, even under other administrations. And part of it is a lack of resources, right? The IRS is pretty underfunded and under-resourced, and their primary responsibility is collecting tax revenue for the country. going into churches and investigating churches and repealing churches 501c3 status, probably pretty low on their priority list. um Second, there are some concerns with the IRS digging into the records of houses of worship. There's something we call the separation of church and state and part of those ideas is that we don't have the government unnecessarily intruding into religious affairs. And so I think in order to steer clear of government intrusion or involvement into houses of worship, there probably has been under enforcement in the past. And so. it kind of gets us to like this case. So I've already said, you know, Johnson Amendment is still good law. um Does this filing in this one court case signal a real change in IRS policy? And the answer is I really don't know, right? I think that this certainly is IRS policy as it applies to the particular plaintiffs in this particular lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas. But whether and how the IRS would enforce that understanding against other churches remains unclear. And usually, you know, what we would expect is if the IRS actually had a change in policy or in interpretation of a federal law that they would go through a rulemaking process. And then at the end of that rulemaking process, and the IRS does this all the time, they publish guidance. Right, the IRS has thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of guidance that's available on their website. And they've had guidance for a long time for nonprofits about how to understand uh this uh nonpartisanship part of the tax law. and how to comply with it. And importantly, there's been no update to that guidance. And so I don't see an official change in IRS policy at this time. And so for that reason, among many, um this should not be interpreted as a signal from the IRS churches, go out and endorse all the candidates you want and there'll be no problem. Like that shouldn't, this should not be interpreted that way um from a legal standpoint. but it also shouldn't be interpreted that way uh from a a common sense standpoint. ah There are good reasons besides the tax law for us not uh for churches and other houses worship not to be endorsing candidates. I read, and I can't remember where, that one tact that many on the religious right might take is to start suing on the same premise that this particular case was grounded in. Is that a strategy that you predict will likely happen until it makes its way to the Supreme Court or something? Um, that I'm, that other parties might bring similar suits to the IR? Yeah. given that the IRS has changed, I think that's probably the right word, um the language specific to the plaintiffs in this particular case. Yeah, I don't know if there's like a long-term legal or litigation strategy here. I think this is more of a uh communication strategy, right? You know, that they put out this uh statement in the form of a legal uh briefing and that that signals to everyone who might read that briefing or see the reporting about it or listen to a podcast about it or hear anything about this issue. the IRS has a new policy when it comes to what counts as partisan speech. um therefore I can go out and, I mean, this could be one response. I can go out and intervene and participate in campaigns and endorse candidates if I'm a house of worship and not worry about it. think that um to me, it's more of a way to signal a change, not really a let's go all the way to the Supreme Court. Because again, there's been no change in the law. uh And we have in the past granted agencies pretty broad discretion to interpret the law. And that's what the IRS has done, you know, over all these years in a more usual process of issuing guidance. So I'm not saying there won't be litigation, but I think that using this uh filing more as a communication strategy is a much more efficient way, if indeed that's what the IRS was trying to do, of getting signaling their message to churches that might be listening. Got it. So I have a quote here from Mike Pence. said, we'll continue to free up the pulpits of this country by repealing the Johnson Amendment because freedom shouldn't stop at the doors of our churches, synagogues, or places of worship. And he made that comment at the National Religious Broadcasters um Summit. I don't know what it's called. But in the National Religious Broadcasters are one of the plaintiffs. um Can you tell us a little bit more about like who they are, like who are the plaintiffs in this case? uh Can I, can we, I know we're recording, but this is not, yeah, that's not something that I'm really all that familiar with the particular plaintiffs. Can we cut that question? Is that okay? Although you can, we can talk about Pence's quote if you want. yeah. Let's let's let's let's do that. So I just finished telling you the quote. um What what can you tell me about this quote? So this is a common line that we'll hear from those who are wanting a change in the law here. uh They're couching the idea in terms of freedom, uh often free speech. In fact, the piece of legislation that was introduced in prior Congresses to repeal the Johnson Amendment was actually called the Free Speech Fairness Act. uh So who can be against— free speech and who can be against fairness. Certainly not me, but I don't think that those terms really apply to this policy, to this piece of the tax law. And that's because uh this particular uh law does not address free speech at all. It really just addresses uh who qualifies for a tax exemption. And again, just one of the requirements to... qualify as a 501c3 tax uh exempt organization, again, for the donors to your organization to get uh a tax deduction off their taxes, um that is that you're nonpartisan, right? And so there's all kind of speech and often, you know, it's couched in, pastors can't preach what they need to preach, you know? And so, you know, we've always said there are so many ways for a church to be engaged in the political process that are nonpartisan. And some of those ways are, you know, just voter education, uh helping voters to vote, volunteering your congregation as a polling place. These are ways, uh in nonpartisan ways, that you can engage. And for pastors and preaching, can preach on all kinds of issues, right? Political issues from the pulpit without running a foul. of this very, I think, narrow but important prohibition, and that is participating or intervening in campaigns for candidates for public office. And so I've always said, you know, look, if your faith, you know, requires you to endorse a candidate for public office, then you can do that. And you can, you know, give up your 501c3 tax exemption and, and endorse candidates and engage yourself in campaigns as much as you want. There's no prohibition on that activity. You're just not allowed to do it um using this most preferred tax status. And that's because to make these what would essentially be campaign donations tax deductible would um really change campaign finance law or I'm sorry, campaign finance structures and um dramatically. And when these particular provisions were scored by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation back when there were legislative proposals to get rid of it in 2017 and 2018, the um Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that billions of dollars of campaign donations would flow through houses of worship and other nonprofits um just to get a tax exemption. So this is really about the funding of political campaigns. It's not about free speech. ah But those who are pushing it use the language of freedom in order to draw support for their cause. And they need to draw support for their cause because the vast majority of nonprofits, including houses of worship, support this provision for nonpartisanship. Hmm. I can't hear you all of a sudden. Okay. m When I was doing research on the Johnson Amendment and trying to just educate myself about the history, I went to some websites to learn more about it. Now, two of those websites was The Wall Builders and Alliance Defending Freedom. And I'm saying this somewhat tongue in cheek, but they do. I learned or was told that uh There was a time in American history where churches were politically active until the Johnson Amendment was passed. since it's, you know, since the Johnson Amendment was passed as a part of the tax code provision, it's muzzled uh pastors, faith leaders, and whatnot to speak out again. So uh how true is that? uh You've already touched a little bit on it, uh but I don't know a whole lot about like, you know, what was life like before the Johnson Amendment uh or you know, what or like what cases can we point to where churches actually have their tax exempt status revoked? Yeah, well, mean, remember this nonpartisan provision of the tax code has been part of our tax code since 1954. So any history you're looking at, um really old history, particularly when it comes to political campaigning. m And look, I'm not a historian. I'm not an expert on everything that happened and how churches engaged. um prior to 1954 in campaigns. But what I do know is campaigns looked a lot different. There was a lot less money involved in campaigning before that time. you know, to try to draw up old history and to apply it to our current context when it comes to political campaigning is completely inappropriate. even if, and I'm not gonna accept the history that they put forward because they're is other kind of revisionist and cherry-picked history that they put forward in other cases, including, for instance, in continuing the mythology of America as a Christian nation. So I don't trust their historical analysis uh in general. But even if I were to take their history at face value, I think it is inappropriate to apply that to our current uh system of political campaigning because of the immense amount of dollars that are involved, not to mention technology, right? other piece of the IRS's filing in this case to say that these endorsements or other campaign activity is just a family conversation ignores the fact that most houses of worship now live stream their services broadcast and record their worship services that it is as much sometimes online as it is in person. That certainly wasn't true prior to 1954 and So that particular history, think, is irrelevant to the current context and conversation. Yeah. Can you give us some examples of what political speech looks like? uh mean, me, just as a bystander, I see Biden or I see Trump behind the lectern of a church giving essentially a political speech. ah And it's like on the news and you're like, what? I thought they weren't allowed to do that. But then you hear pastors talk about Trump and I'm thinking specifically like Robert Jeffress, know, who are I don't think he's ever said vote for Trump, but but it seems like he's gotten pretty darn close to to saying that. So it's like, what what are examples of what a pastor can and can't do from the pulpit? Yeah, so I mean you mentioned political candidates and you know part of and this is guidance that the IRS has put out is that one thing that churches can do is they can invite candidates to speak at their church. Now, best practice is to invite both candidates to come, right, in order to maintain that nonpartisanship. And you just have to invite, they don't both have to accept. But there are ways, uh even that the guidance from the IRS has acknowledged that houses of worship are often community gathering points, that uh there is a role for... the nonprofit sector, including churches to play and voter education. And so um now whether it's a good idea, right? So I think we always have to have both sides of this conversation. We need to talk both about what is considered uh permissible under the tax code and how the IRS is interpreted and what's a good idea for your church. Right. And so when I often when I see these candidates going and uh speaking or preaching in churches, I think that they're really using the church for their political ends and their partisan ends. And I don't like to see the church used in that way. I think it distracts the church from their mission. um It co-ops uh their voice, their moral voice, and it threatens their independence because no church, um church's values should be 100 % aligned with any party or any candidate. If so, then I would challenge that they're really not uh following a religion and that their religion has become a party or a candidate instead of being true to their religious values. So that's like candidates coming and actually speaking. And then what about religious leaders, including pastors and how they engage? Well, in what role are they in? Are they in a private role? Right. You know, I mean, because they're not 100 % of the time preaching from their pulpit and nor are they 100 % of the time just the pastor of the church, right? And so there the IRS has also said that um pastors can in their personal capacity endorse candidates. Pastors can have a political sign in their yard, right? Pastors um can say, I'm here in my personal capacity and I'm gonna join the steering committee for this candidate, just like non-profit leaders can do the same thing. Now they need to be clear that they're doing it in their personal capacity and not in their capacity as actually the organization endorsing or the endorsing a particular candidate or party, um but they need to be clear that they're in their personal capacity. um And again, they're gonna have to make a call about whether that's a good idea and what signal does that send to their congregants? Is that likely to be a divisive thing in their community? And that's a personal choice for them. But it's a different choice and it's um to actually be in the pulpit and to preach and to... um to endorsing either for or against a candidate. And remember, this is not just for national office. This is for every race up and down the ballot. To endorse a candidate or to involve the congregation or to help get out the vote for a particular candidate or a party, oh that's a very different uh kind of... uh activity that has again up until this ruling has been consistently from the IRS perspective that that would run afoul of the non-partisanship provision of the tax code m and that if uh a church did that that they could risk the loss of their 501c3 status. Is the Johnson amendment just limited to churches? No, not at all. so that's why I keep now this particular. So it's the entire 501 C3 sector. Right? So all charitable organizations. And so that's not just religious organizations, but educational or those that are serving their communities in other ways. Scientific organizations, lots of different organizations under this large umbrella of 501c3s. And one of the partners that Baptist Joint Committee has worked with consistently over several years is the National Council of Nonprofits. um That is one of the leading organizations representing the interests of nonprofits and has been a really strong voice on this issue for many years. Now this particular filing in this court case does appear to be limited to congregations, to houses of worship, uh and not for the broader 501c3 community. That's interesting. But is there a scenario where this case could be a springboard into the Clinton Foundation being able to make political donations? Yeah, I mean, if this provision, well, again, nothing's changed in the law. So if this was a springboard for, you know, another attempt to change the law, then the law could be changed, however Congress decides to. Now, I don't think that that is going to be a successful legislative move because, again, this is a very popular provision of the tax code. uh Most nonprofits... um like it, most churches like it, most Americans like it when polling has been done on this issue. And so um it would be an unpopular move for Congress to try to change the law in this way. And not to mention, as I alluded to earlier, it would mean billions of dollars less revenue for the United States because we'd see uh we'd see donations to nonprofits skyrocket, but they'd really be campaign donations, ah not for the mission of the organizations that would be accepting those funds. Wow, that's, um, that is pretty well. And like the, the donations that would come, mean, just, I'm just trying to think about this, like outside of a, Citizens United, like, like lens, but I mean, cause right now Citizens United and correct me if I'm wrong, it's like super PACs donate all those, all this money, as much money as you have. And then political campaigns or not political campaigns. Politically adjacent campaigns can spend the money kind of however they want but like in a church setting um If we'll say, know, Josh, we're here uh somebody decided to make a you know, huge contribution to to Josh's church and in exchange for Josh to start talking favorably about candidate X Like like is that is that one scenario that that could play out or and and what are some other? permutations of what could happen should the Johnson Amendment ever go away. Yes, so the provision again is participating or intervening in a campaign for candidates for public office. So, uh you know, it could be endorsements, but it could also be your uh congregation list being turned over, you know, for voter files, you know, kind of, you know, advertising being done out, just basically turning the church into a political action committee, distracting the church from its mission. Because my guess is that these dollars that the donors would be donating, they're doing it not just to get their tax exemption, right? But also they want something from it. So they're going to start wanting to control the activities at the church, pulling the church. further and further away from its core mission and turning it into an arm of a party or a particular candidate. uh So really, I think pulling down the integrity of that church, distracting the church from its mission. uh What if not all your congregants agree with that endorsement? uh Again, then you're going to really divide the church over uh party lines or lines over candidates. um Keep in mind this also applies not just in the general election but in the primary elections as well. And so you're going to have different um candidates in a particular primary coming and jockeying for your endorsement. um I think, you know, I'm kind of putting out all these scenarios because we don't really know what will happen. You know, we don't really understand, I think, the full ramifications. But we see, you know, we're not in a national election year right now. But we just were. we not remember kind of how that took over our lives? Especially if you live in a a swing state of some kind and like that's all you hear all the time. Many people find church and or a house of worship one of the few places that one can go and not have that ranker rank partisanship all the time. um And if this provision of the tax code were taken away, We don't really know how much pressure would start coming from candidates and parties to involve these houses of worship in their campaigns. Is the overturning of the Johnson Amendment something that's on the radar of Christian nationalists? And if so, like, where would you place it among, you know, the laundry list of Bibles in classrooms and public prayers and whatnot? Yeah, mean, so I do work quite a bit on helping people understand Christian nationalism. And some of the focus that I've been drawing people to is a real concerted strategy on what's happening in the public schools. And so until this filing last week, I hadn't really talked or read much about the Johnson Amendment in a while. um And I also really haven't heard it much. from those who are pushing Christian nationalism. And I don't know why that is. I don't know if part of the reason was they suffered a legislative defeat when they tried to do this back in 2017 and they just kind of had moved on. um But I do think if this law were to be repealed, um that we would see people from all parties uh looking to take advantage of it. And again, I don't... just focus on president or congressional races, think about all the school board races that are out there and how people might get more engaged and involved. So if there's been a concerted effort to focus on public schools from those who are pushing Christian nationalism, then I do think they'd start looking at local school boards or state boards of education or other policymakers and uh deciders who they would want to install in their positions uh of power in order to push their agenda. So it's not something I think that has been part of the larger strategy, but if this tool were given, you know, again, to all parties, then I think that uh we'd see it be integrated into some of these other strategies. What about the court? So the court that they took this to, the Eastern District of Texas, um I've heard it been said that the Eastern District of Texas is like Mecca for a lot of like religious rite uh activities. Is that a true assessment? Or how would you describe the Eastern District of Texas court? think what's unique about this case is the way that the IRS did their filing, they basically took out the controversy of this case, right? By their filing, there's no longer something for the judge to decide, right? That it's just like, oh, the parties have basically come to an agreement that have resolved the case. And so nothing to see here. So if the IRS is going to engage in a case like that, then it really doesn't matter what court this got filed in. Often when people are coming up with a litigation strategy, they'll look to a friendly, what they consider to be a friendly district in order to file their case. They certainly chose the Eastern District of Texas here. um And of course that district feeds into the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which uh is, has quite a losing record in some cases, in a lot of cases, even when cases go up to the Supreme Court, they've issued some pretty extreme decisions. But again, here by doing this filing, the IRS is really trying to resolve this case by basically saying, know, kind of consenting to the activity that the plaintiffs here want to engage in. So what would you say to m a pastor who is feeling uh pressured to just become more politically outspoken? Because they heard on the news the IRS is getting rid of the Johnson Amendment, uh albeit falsely. But uh they just kind of take it at face value. And now they're like, great. I've been a pastor in a very Trumpy county. my congregants have asked me to actually start talking about Trump in more positive ways. Like, what would you tell that person? I'd start from the, you know, just starting from the legal, I would just remind them that the Johnson amendment has not been repealed, that from a legal perspective, they really don't have a firm footing to start engaging and that that should be an argument they could tell to whoever's putting the pressure on them. Look, I'm not going to risk, you know, our church's 501c3 designation on one court filing in a court in Texas. And I'm not a party to that case and I shouldn't rely on that. um So that's just kind of the entry point. But then again, from a common sense and mission oriented position, um I would really encourage that person to say, I'm gonna keep preaching the gospel. I'm going to keep tending to the people in our congregation and to our community. I don't want to be distracted or pulled by any candidate. um That is the kind of speech that people get all the time outside of the walls of this church. And that's not what we're going to do here at church. We're going to tend to people's uh souls and religious life and make them, uh you know, more committed people in our community and that's my role to play. I didn't go into ministry to be a political candidate and I'm not gonna change that view now just because the IRS has filed in a particular court case. um And that would be my encouragement to that person. I'm not saying that this isn't easy time to be involved in or engaged in ministry at all. But I think staying true to one's calling um and if one is feeling called to partisan politics, then they can run for office, right? You know, they can become engaged in that kind of work in a different way. But if you've been called to ministry, um and you know, they're of course by vocational people, right? They're people who both pastor and serve in public office, right? People in Congress right now who have that bifocational ministry, not to mention all the different places. So that's a possibility too, but we again need to think about our callings as distinct. um And the words of Jesus are always a good place to go. Jesus's teaching about render under Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's. And. Jesus there was answering a question about a tax obligation. So it seems particularly appropriate in the context of the Johnson Amendment um to go to the words of Jesus and to be inspired um by Jesus's reminder not to mix up our obligations to government and our obligations to God and never to put uh government or partisan politics over God. Yeah, um can I have you riff a little bit about um all of the uh challenges to religious freedom ah in this country and Trump's second term? For a moment, I was sitting here listening to you and I'm just like, I want to ask Amanda because I know you follow this stuff closely. I don't know how you all at BJC do it. Maybe you have like a support group to just talk through, like when you guys are just wanting to pull your hair out. But can you just talk a little bit about, you know, sort of religious freedom, religious liberty in the second Trump term, kind of what's different, you know, in your mind? And I apologize. didn't send you this question ahead of time, so I apologize for just kind of throwing a curve ball. But yeah, I just love just kind of hear your thoughts on. on things as tactful and politically as you like to express them. Yeah, so many causes for concern for those who care about religious freedom in this country. em And one is a complete em kind of funhouse mirror. image of religious freedom that's coming. know, the Trump administration has set up a religious freedom commission and most of what they're saying is not anything I would recognize as religious freedom. It's religious privilege, it's Christian nationalism, but it's not religious freedom for everyone. And how we secure religious freedom for everyone in a pluralistic democracy is to ensure the separation of church and state. ah That's not the separation of religion from public life or religious people from political action, as we've been talking about here today. uh But it is a separation between the institutions and the roles of government and religion. uh It means that... The government doesn't try to do the job of the church and the church doesn't try to do the job of the government that we think about them as separate realms and separate with separate responsibilities. em And, you know, some of the things that we've already seen uh that I see as incursions on religious freedom came right at the beginning of the term. um One of the first things that President Trump did was uh rescind a policy that had been in effect for over 30 years that said that I would not engage in immigration enforcement in what are called sensitive locations that include schools and hospitals, but it also includes houses of worship. So now uh we have, uh you know, the possibility, and in some cases this has happened and is happening, of ICE agents going onto church property to make arrests. And uh that to me is a huge incursion on religious freedom for the churches, for the people who are going there to worship uh and in a real concern. actually litigation pending um under you know the group that churches and other groups of churches have brought lawsuits under the religious freedom restoration act challenging that policy. We also had the Trump administration set up something called uh a commission to eradicate anti-christian bias. um Biased Task Force. Yes. so, I mean, that, you know, first, I just have to say it, there is not rampant anti-Christian bias in this Christian majority country. And so to kind of perpetuate that idea, both I think really denigrates the very real Christian bias and persecution that's happening around the world today in different countries, but also much, much higher levels of anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim bias and other kinds of anti-religious bias that are happening right here in this country. uh And so my real fear with that particular task force is that it will be enforcing a certain kind of Christianity and looking to fared out activity um from groups, including other Christian groups um that don't agree with a particular interpretation of the Bible or a particular aspect of Christianity. And it's just not the government's job to be enforcing a particular theology. But that seems to be something. that this administration is really focused on. uh Some of the other concerns are concerns of rhetoric, and rhetoric has meaning, right? And so, again, right at the beginning of uh this administration, you know, on the second day in office, President Trump went to the National Cathedral um and heard a sermon from Bishop Mary Budde of the Washington Diocese of the Episcopal Church. And she, at the end of her sermon, spoke directly to Trump out of her tradition. And he really lashed back at her um and called her a so-called bishop. um And then immediately after there was a resolution filed in Congress um calling on Congress uh to publicly, you call out her sermon as not religious in nature, that it was a political statement, right? This actually is very relevant to what we're talking about for most of this podcast today. um She was using her pulpit to speak out of her religious tradition to the issues of the day. She was speaking on a political issue, but not in a partisan way. Right. She wasn't intervening. She wasn't endorsing a candidate. She wasn't telling people not to vote for a candidate. She was actually doing speech that the IRS has long said is permissible speech. And she was called out for it. And some, mean, there was one member of Congress who suggested she should be deported for her speech. So this is the same group that is claiming that they're all about free speech from the pulpit, but it's a particular kind of speech. that they want to protect um and that it's not every person's speech. And so I think that we should take some of those attacks on religious freedom as a warning in this context that we're talking about. There's nothing to say that this IRS won't selectively enforce the Johnson Amendment, that it won't say, you know, for these kinds of endorsements, you won't lose your 501c3 status, but if you endorse the other candidate, we'll go after you, right? So um I think that should also be a cautionary tale to any pastor who might be feeling pressure or might be tempted to intervene in campaigns in this way, that there's no assurance because the And the law has not changed that there wouldn't be selective enforcement, particularly by this administration that has already shown its hypocrisy in just some of these few examples that I've already talked about here today. Has the legal strategy that you're seeing deployed changed at all? Because it seems like this, I don't know if you call it a consent judgment or whatever, but it seemed like it kind of gave these plaintiffs like a safe harbor. And it's a little bit different than some of the other bigger court cases, guess, on religious liberty. Is there a different tact that you're seeing? yeah, I think this is unusual. I think we, we saw a similar situation in Texas actually, where, um, the state government went and sued the federal government. and then the federal government kind of came in and gave a statement again, this using litigation as a communication strategy, right? Made a uh statement about, um, what they, uh, this, this had to do with, whether undocumented students could receive in-state tuition. And so ah basically the state government went in through the avenue of litigation, got a statement from the federal government that then they used to change policy and circumvent actually passing a law. And so I do, so this is now the second time that it feels like that. Usually in a lawsuit, the two parties are on different sides. They have different outcomes. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a lawsuit. And so this is another case where the two sides end up on the same side and seem to be using their court filings um as press releases or communication tools to get a broader message out. while avoiding federal rulemaking, while avoiding Congress or lawmaking, uh and trying to change policy uh through an unusual situation. Yeah, it seems like um with this new administration or this repeat administration, they are definitely doing things that are making it harder for people to recognize what they're doing. I know that there is something I read where they're going to reduce the amount of time proposed bills are like on the Federal Register ah and all kinds of other things that are just going to make it more difficult for. for folks like myself and you to like really understand what the government's up to. But yeah, it's pretty wild. But you know what? I do want to give you some kudos if I can. You and BJC, you all run a great organization out there. I love reading like the stuff you all are doing. You guys are out there. You're in the mud. I don't really know what that's right metaphor, but you're in it. and we need more people like you and we need more people like the Christians against Christian nationalism. I see you got a sign over in your corner. Can you talk about who they are? Who are the Christians against Christian nationalism? I will say you all have a great Facebook uh where there's lots of engagement, a lot of talking, other people that are just like-minded. I get the little, uh I don't know, messages from Facebook and it's... And it's just like, there's just conversations happening about people like, don't know what to do, know, like, go here, go there, you know, listen to Faithful Politics, whatever, you know. So like, ah can you talk to us a little bit more about what BJC is doing and maybe what Christians against Christian nationalism are doing? Yeah, well, I really appreciate those kind words and we have an incredible team at BJC. BJC, we've been around now for 89 years and our mission has always been focused on religious freedom for all people from the Baptist perspective. And six years ago, just recognizing the growing concern and threat of Christian nationalism is when we launched Christians Against Christian Nationalism as an initiative that BJC hosts. And that initiative has really morphed and changed over the last six years as the threat has changed. mean, think about all that's happened in the last six years when it comes to Christian nationalism. And we've had chances to talk on the podcast about that previously. But now, you know, the initiative has really shifted more towards how do we involve more people in the cause? uh That was kind of the number one question that I would get when I would talk on this issue was, what can I do? It's what prompted me to write the book that I came out last year, How to End Christian Nationalism. um And part of what we've encouraged people to do is to connect and organize in their local communities. So we have now local groups going in about 20 different places around the country. um And another way to engage is online. um And so we do have the Facebook community group, Christians Against Christian Nationalism, and it's a place where I see people posting and sharing and asking questions and seeking support and this is what's going on in my community. How can you help? so I think that really pulling together and finding community including in online spaces is a really important part of working to dismantle Christian nationalism. And my encouragement is for those who are organizing online, how do we take that organize offline? How do we find people who, you know, we're posting in this nationwide group, but they're going to be people in your local community who are also engaged? And how do we then funnel that into local organizing groups that are focused on making a difference in their location? Because Christian nationalism looks different. in different parts of the country and it's being pushed in different ways. And we've talked a lot here and often do about national politics. But we really have a much bigger opportunity to make a difference engaging on the local level. uh we need to know what's happening nationally. But particularly with a lot of our democratic institutions really being threatened right now, there's frankly less and less that we can do to control what's happening in Washington. um Yes, we need to contact our elected representatives there, um but we saw just recently with the passage of the budget reconciliation bill that even though that was deeply unpopular, Congress passed it anyway. So what do we do now that those impacts will be felt by our neighbors in our communities? What do we do to organize um for their safety, their security, their flourishing? um these policies are really going um to be uh potentially disastrous for our communities. And so that's the kind of work that we're really hoping that Christians Against Christian Nationalism, BJC, can help connect people with other groups and organizations and churches and individuals that are doing this work already. um Yeah, you know, I know you're not here necessarily to push books, but never pass up an opportunity to do it. So I'm going to do it for you. your book is really, really good. ah And I read a lot of these kinds of books. And if somebody were to ask me, you know, how can I learn more about Christian nationalism and what can I do about it? Like, I've been recommending your book because it's written for, I think, just like the lay congregant. that is like looking at the news, looking at what their pastor's saying and be like, I have no idea what's going on. And it's very accessible. So I recommend to everybody that if you are just getting into sort of this world of Christian nationalism, don't know what it is, want like a great place to start, like Amanda's book is the way to go for sure. thanks. And I'm remembering that I do have a short section in there on the Johnson Amendment. there's a little bit on a lot of different topics. And my hope is that it's a way for people um just to have some concrete ideas on what they can do and how they can engage. Absolutely. Well, thanks so much for coming by again, Amanda. Really glad to talk to you again, as always. You're just so amazing. And BJC is amazing. And we support you all. um So yeah, thanks so much for coming by again. Thanks. I love coming on the podcast. You have such thoughtful questions and a great audience. So thanks so much. Thank you and to our audience. Yeah, thanks for stopping by again And as always keep your conversations not right or left but up and we'll see you next time. Take care