It was a simple, two-panel comic.

The first panel portrayed a caricature of President Obama at a microphone urging respect of all life, regardless of color, race, or religion.

The second panel depicted an unborn child in the womb, questioning “where’s the respect for my life.”

The pastor used the comic strip as an introduction into his appropriately themed sermon on Right to Life Sunday, an event born from the Roe v. Wade court case legalizing abortion nationwide. The sermon was complete with sound, Biblical theology inherent to the anti-abortion campaign and contrary to the pro-choice theology.

Regardless, for one family, it was too much.

Previously, the same pastor had stood in front of the same church and the same family and in passing, bemoaned an Iowa Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage. It contradicted scripture, and as such, the pastor disagreed.

The wife and mother of two, whose homosexual brother had previously committed suicide, was not receptive. She had witnessed firsthand how a society’s rejection of a person can impact their psyche, and even destroy it.  She begrudgingly accepted the pastor’s perspective, if not for any other reason because her husband and children enjoyed the church.

But when a few months later the pastor spent a sermon preaching about the sins of another political issue, the woman was done. She, and her family, would no longer be attending a church that openly criticized her political beliefs.

In full disclosure, the woman and her family were not “devoted” church members, even before the first sermon. So an argument could definitely be made they were simply looking for an excuse to leave.

An even sounder argument could be made they were trying to hide from the truth, and as such, from God.

However, that didn’t stop the pastor from questioning his methods. While the theology was sound, could it have been presented differently that would have kept this family in church?

Thursday, President Trump promised at a National Day of Prayer service he would “destroy” the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits non-profit organizations, including churches, from endorsing political opponents and specific ballot measures.

Fulfilling a campaign promise, Trump’s announcement has largely been met with support from prominent national church figures who want to see the 60-year-old restriction abolished, claiming it’s a violation of freedom of speech.

The amendment, passed in the 1950s by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed by a Republican President (Eisenhower), states any tax-exempt organization, whether it’s your local Rotary Club, baseball association, or church, from not only endorsing candidates, but donating to their campaigns as well.

Should they violate those provisions in any way, they risk losing their tax exempt status, which provides huge financial savings for the organization.

Essentially … the Johnson Amendment creates a contract between the organization and the government: keep your political opinions to yourself and you don’t have to pay taxes.

So yes, it is a restriction on freedom of speech, albeit one that comes with financial compensation.

Another important impact of the Amendment, though, is it prevents political contributions from being tax exempt. They aren’t now, but they would be as donations to churches, or the Kiwanis Club, or a school’s alumni association, are deductible.

As a result, if Trump succeeds in “destroying” the Johnson Amendment, massive donations can be siphoned through churches, resulting in significant financial gains for the donor along with a little convenience fee for the facilitator.

The possibility that kind of negotiation could occur within a churches’ walls should be terrifying.

While the Johnson Amendment may appear to hinder churches, it in fact is saving them from themselves.

The everyday workings of a church is littered with landmines that can fracture a congregation. I’ve seen an organist’s removal literally result in a 50 percent attendance decline. And any seasoned pastor can regale you with war stories of church members leaving over something as trivial as the appearance of a video screen, a change in service times, or integrating modern music into the weekly service.

Considering that, why would any church want to introduce political endorsements and their inherent debates into the environment?

And remember, this isn’t simply about who should be the next president. This covers all elections, including your local school board, city council, and county commission.

Again, what good could come of that?

Well, the unspoken truth and answer is money. It drives most actions, and this is no different.

If political donations are tax exempt, there is more dollars for the candidates. Our churches, and service clubs, schools, and every other charity, can morph into quasi political action committees (PACs).

That may not sound that important until you consider the fees you pay for your son to wrestle, or your donation to the United Way, or your local church, could be given to a political candidate.

Whether it’s charities, service organizations, or non-profits in general, they simply don’t need to be bedfellows with politicians.

That separation is even more important though for churches who would suffer most from this unholy alliance.

So literally, for God’s sake, let’s not “destroy” the Johnson Amendment.

——

Gregory Orear is the publisher of The Journal. His award-winning weekly column, What’s Going On, has been published in four newspapers in three states for more than 20 years. He can be contacted at gorear@nujournal.com.