Latest / Thinking Christian: Bible, Theology, and Culture / Johnson Amendment Lawsuit: Can Pastors Endorse Candidates? (Troy Miller)

Transcript

Johnson Amendment Lawsuit: Can Pastors Endorse Candidates? (Troy Miller) · Thinking Christian: Bible, Theology, and Culture

0:00
Speaker 1: Hey, everyone. Welcome to this episode of Thinking Christian. I'm Dr.
0:03
Speaker 2: James Spencer, and I'm joined again today by Troy Miller.
0:05
Speaker 2: He is the president and CEO of National Religious Broadcasters.
0:10
Speaker 2: And today, we're going to be talking a little bit
0:11
Speaker 2: about the Johnson Amendment and more specifically about some legal
0:17
Speaker 2: happenings in relation to the Johnson Amendment that have been
0:21
Speaker 2: keeping you busy, Troy.
0:22
Speaker 1: So....
0:24
Speaker 2: Welcome back to the show. And I'm actually looking forward
0:26
Speaker 2: to having the conversation. So why don't we start? Just
0:30
Speaker 2: give us a little background on how everything you're dealing
0:33
Speaker 2: with came about.
0:35
Speaker 1: Sure.
0:36
Speaker 3: And it's great to be.
0:37
Speaker 1: With you again.
0:38
Speaker 3: So, yeah, exciting times we live in. No shortage of
0:41
Speaker 3: work and things to do. So, you know, back in 1954. So,
0:45
Speaker 3: you know, it's interesting that let me start back a
0:47
Speaker 3: little bit. We're celebrating the 250th anniversary of our country
0:50
Speaker 3: right this year. So we had all of those things
0:52
Speaker 3: going through. So we're about 170 years of this country.
0:57
Speaker 3: pastors were some of the most influential people in the
1:02
Speaker 3: culture today and even in politics. So we could go
1:05
Speaker 3: all the way back to the Black Robe Regiment during
1:08
Speaker 3: the Revolution. It was their preaching, often recognized by the
1:12
Speaker 3: British as the source of the Revolution itself. So we
1:16
Speaker 3: have that there. And then for 170 years, pastors spoke
1:20
Speaker 3: up about religious issues, issues of faith, issues of conscience,
1:26
Speaker 3: that they felt that God was calling them to shepherd
1:30
Speaker 3: their congregants about, including candidates for political office. Well, 1954,
1:35
Speaker 3: along comes then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson. He has a very tough,
1:42
Speaker 3: contentious Senate race in Texas. He's opposed by a number
1:46
Speaker 3: of nonprofit organizations and a number of churches. as well.
1:52
Speaker 3: So he gets into the Senate, he wins that election,
1:54
Speaker 3: he gets into the Senate, and he attaches this bill,
1:59
Speaker 3: which we now call the Johnson Amendment, to the tax code.
2:02
Speaker 3: And what this does is three things. First, it limits
2:06
Speaker 3: the amount of, well, sorry, it prohibits any contributions by
2:13
Speaker 3: 501c3s directly to political campaigns. then it prohibits the endorsement
2:19
Speaker 3: or the opposition by 501c3s to political campaigns or candidates.
2:25
Speaker 3: And then it limits the amount of lobbying that an
2:28
Speaker 3: organization can do on a bill that runs through Congress.
2:32
Speaker 3: So as you can imagine, this passed. It never went
2:36
Speaker 3: up to a vote in the Senate. It was an amendment,
2:39
Speaker 3: went through the technical process and became law. Well, So
2:44
Speaker 3: since it's had a very chilling effect on our pulpits
2:49
Speaker 3: across this country. So we, in 2024, decided we're going
2:53
Speaker 3: to write this wrong. And we're not asking for a
2:56
Speaker 3: new right for our pastors. We're asking them to restore
2:59
Speaker 3: a right they had for 170 years.
3:02
Speaker 2: So what was the impetus then in 2024 for this?
3:06
Speaker 2: Was there some sort of incident that sort of really
3:09
Speaker 2: made this raise to the top of the priority list,
3:12
Speaker 2: so to speak?
3:13
Speaker 3: Well, it's really been building, I'd say, over the last
3:16
Speaker 3: kind of two decades, because what we've seen is the
3:19
Speaker 3: IRS kind of unequally apply the pressure using this ruling.
3:24
Speaker 3: So if you go back all the way back to
3:27
Speaker 3: the Obama campaign, we had then-candidate Barack Obama go to
3:33
Speaker 3: several churches where he stood in pulpits next to pastors
3:37
Speaker 3: who flat out endorsed him. But at the same time,
3:41
Speaker 3: the Republican candidates... went to churches, were simply prayed for,
3:47
Speaker 3: and they received an IRS letter. So this happened during
3:50
Speaker 3: the Obama candidacies. This happened again during Hillary Clinton's time.
3:55
Speaker 3: It happened with Joe Biden and, of course, we just
3:58
Speaker 3: saw it in the last election with Kamala Harris. And
4:01
Speaker 3: every time there were letters that were sent out to conservative, quote,
4:05
Speaker 3: churches who may have had a candidate at their church,
4:10
Speaker 3: and by the way, we didn't have a single incidence
4:12
Speaker 3: of where a pastor actually endorsed the candidate. Just, it
4:15
Speaker 3: was enough for the IRS to send a letter, just
4:17
Speaker 3: to have the candidate at their church. Uh, and so
4:20
Speaker 3: we said enough is enough. It's time to get this
4:22
Speaker 3: to wrong this right. And we took the, uh, IRS
4:26
Speaker 3: and the, and the Biden administration in 2024 to court.
4:30
Speaker 2: So there's a, it's the unevenness in the enforcement and, um,
4:35
Speaker 2: seeking of balancing the scales on this issue. So initially,
4:40
Speaker 2: your lawsuit was seeking to repeal the amendment.
4:44
Speaker 1: Is that correct?
4:45
Speaker 3: Yeah, we were initially seeking for a total repeal of
4:49
Speaker 3: the amendment there. And by the way, we think those
4:52
Speaker 3: churches is equal as conservative churches. We think all churches
4:56
Speaker 3: have the right to speak up on the conscience that
4:59
Speaker 3: God has given them this. But we were seeking, initially
5:02
Speaker 3: looking to have this repealed because we think it's a
5:07
Speaker 3: First Amendment violation on the freedom of speech. But even
5:11
Speaker 3: deeper into it, it's for pastors. It's also a violation
5:14
Speaker 3: on their free exercise there of religion.
5:18
Speaker 2: So just to give everybody clarity on what this amendment precludes,
5:24
Speaker 2: It is supposed to be, at least, relatively narrow, correct?
5:29
Speaker 2: So the things you referenced, like giving money to a
5:31
Speaker 2: political campaign, endorsing of specific political candidate, but not necessarily
5:37
Speaker 2: speaking out on the issues in a more general biblical
5:42
Speaker 2: and theological manner.
5:43
Speaker 1: Is that fair, or what would you add?
5:47
Speaker 3: It is fair. I mean, when you look at the
5:49
Speaker 3: Johnson Amendment itself, it talks about specifically endorsing or opposing candidates.
5:56
Speaker 3: But look, there's a bit of interpretation there for the IRS,
6:00
Speaker 3: especially since the McCain-Feingold Act went into place in 2007,
6:06
Speaker 3: because that one limited organizations from speaking on what they
6:10
Speaker 3: call political issues to as they related to a candidate.
6:15
Speaker 3: And that act directly references the Johnson Amendment when it
6:21
Speaker 3: came to nonprofit organizations. They said, hey, nonprofits aren't supposed
6:26
Speaker 3: to do this because of the Johnson Amendment. So therefore,
6:31
Speaker 3: that applies for them. So The IRS could interpret you
6:34
Speaker 3: by saying, look, if a pastor did a pro-life sermon
6:38
Speaker 3: and then happened to say candidate A is pro-life and
6:41
Speaker 3: candidate B is not, that could be interpreted as an
6:47
Speaker 3: endorsement and an opposition.
6:49
Speaker 2: Yeah, as opposed to a description that could be entailed
6:53
Speaker 2: as an endorsement in the.
6:56
Speaker 1: That's interesting.
6:58
Speaker 2: I think that's an important wrinkle to bring out here
7:01
Speaker 2: is that these are constantly issues that are being navigated
7:05
Speaker 2: by various churches and organizations such as NRB. And so
7:09
Speaker 2: this isn't coming out of nowhere. But I think for
7:12
Speaker 2: a lot of people when they first, I know when
7:14
Speaker 2: I first heard about it, I was just kind of
7:16
Speaker 2: sitting back like, I wonder why this is coming up
7:18
Speaker 2: now and what the real implications of this are, given
7:23
Speaker 2: what I understood initially about what was precluded speech for
7:28
Speaker 2: a nonprofit organization.
7:29
Speaker 1: So that's a really helpful reframing.
7:33
Speaker 3: Yeah, look, there are several things like organizations can put
7:37
Speaker 3: out voters guides that are equal and those sort of things.
7:41
Speaker 3: But for the pastor to actually speak about it from
7:44
Speaker 3: the pulpit and then, you know, in today's world, through
7:47
Speaker 3: the media that those pastors have, if they do a
7:51
Speaker 3: direct endorsement or opposition, you're probably going to get a
7:55
Speaker 3: letter from the IRS. And let me be clear here.
7:58
Speaker 3: We didn't ask the IRS. We agree that the first
8:01
Speaker 3: one churches shouldn't be giving to campaigns, 501c3s. We didn't
8:05
Speaker 3: ask for a change of that. We didn't ask in
8:07
Speaker 3: the lobby. Those two we get, we understand. It's that
8:11
Speaker 3: middle one. in that middle, that that restriction comes, as
8:15
Speaker 3: we believe, in a conflict with our First Amendment right.
8:20
Speaker 2: Yeah, so not a deeper fiscal, we might say, or
8:26
Speaker 2: even physical activation of politics within the church. So what
8:32
Speaker 2: I mean by that is the activation of that lobbying
8:35
Speaker 2: aspect or the distribution of funds to a candidate. That's
8:40
Speaker 2: not really what you're seeking. It's really at what point
8:44
Speaker 2: does the preaching of the word of God have to
8:48
Speaker 2: be given pride of place, even if in the course
8:54
Speaker 2: of that preaching, you end up endorsing one candidate over another.
9:00
Speaker 2: And if a pastor can't do that, then there is
9:04
Speaker 2: a limitation on religious speech that you want to protect.
9:09
Speaker 1: That's right. That's a fair statement of that issue.
9:13
Speaker 3: That's a fair statement. You said it very well. And look,
9:17
Speaker 3: we see that our country is founded on the basics
9:21
Speaker 3: of freedom. And one of the key freedoms, the whole
9:24
Speaker 3: idea behind the First Amendment, the whole idea of the
9:28
Speaker 3: freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof, was that
9:32
Speaker 3: the founding fathers saw that it was not the government's
9:37
Speaker 3: role to step in to be the conscience for any
9:40
Speaker 3: religious leader. That was between that leader and God and
9:45
Speaker 3: their faith, and that was not the government's role. As
9:48
Speaker 3: a matter of fact, that's the original meaning of the
9:51
Speaker 3: intent of the separation of church and state, is the
9:55
Speaker 3: state was to stay out of the matters of the church.
9:59
Speaker 3: And you saw, again, as I said this, we could
10:02
Speaker 3: look at history, and pastors have constantly and consistently spoken
10:08
Speaker 3: up on what we would call cultural issues, issues that
10:12
Speaker 3: are political issues that have become political, but really at
10:16
Speaker 3: their core, they're spiritual faith issues, moral issues. that congregants
10:21
Speaker 3: want to hear their pastor speak about, including pastors, as
10:25
Speaker 3: I said, during Johnson's own run for the Senate, there
10:29
Speaker 3: were multiple churches who directly opposed his candidacy.
10:34
Speaker 1: Yeah. No, it's interesting.
10:37
Speaker 2: I think that as I thought about this issue, just
10:40
Speaker 2: in preparation for the interview and reading all the different
10:43
Speaker 2: things that I had, I mean, I had A couple
10:46
Speaker 2: of concerns I was sort of balancing, which is, number one, obviously,
10:49
Speaker 2: I think free speech is a really important aspect of
10:52
Speaker 2: what we have in this country, and it should be respected,
10:54
Speaker 2: particularly religious speech. And so, you know, as Christians, we're
10:58
Speaker 2: always prepared to pay the consequences for exercising the freedom
11:01
Speaker 2: that we have in Christ.
11:03
Speaker 1: That's a given.
11:05
Speaker 2: At the same time, we would sure like government protections
11:08
Speaker 2: to be what they are and for the government to
11:10
Speaker 2: work through what it's promised to give us. And so
11:12
Speaker 2: I think that this sort of navigation is really crucial.
11:16
Speaker 2: The other side of it is just my gut reaction
11:21
Speaker 2: to it was, man– it really seems like I would
11:25
Speaker 2: really hope that certain pastors I could see, I wouldn't
11:29
Speaker 2: really want speaking out on politics. And you have that
11:33
Speaker 2: double-edged sword. Whenever we have these sort of issues of
11:36
Speaker 2: freedom of speech, we ultimately allow speech that we disagree
11:40
Speaker 2: with or that might even be damaging to the cause
11:43
Speaker 2: of Christ to get out. How do you think through
11:47
Speaker 2: some of those issues? Maybe not from a legal perspective.
11:50
Speaker 2: I think that's fairly clear cut, but just from a
11:54
Speaker 2: biblical and theological perspective, given the scope of organizations you
11:59
Speaker 2: represent at NRB?
12:01
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you're right.
12:02
Speaker 3: We do sit down and think through these issues, and
12:05
Speaker 3: both from a legal aspect, because sometimes that's the environment
12:10
Speaker 3: we're dealing in here. But really, when you step back
12:15
Speaker 3: and think about it from just a scriptural and a
12:19
Speaker 3: moral kind of view, and we look at the scriptures,
12:22
Speaker 3: and one of the things that we understand about Christianity
12:25
Speaker 3: is Christianity has always been on the move, right? It's
12:29
Speaker 3: always on the go. It's always going. It's never meant
12:33
Speaker 3: to be stagnant or stand still. As a matter of fact,
12:35
Speaker 3: Scripture tells us that the gospel is so powerful that
12:39
Speaker 3: even the gates of hell can't stand against us. And
12:42
Speaker 3: so we kind of come back and look and say, look,
12:46
Speaker 3: I have enough confidence in the gospel and have confidence
12:50
Speaker 3: in God that the gospel can stand not just toe
12:54
Speaker 3: to toe, but stand on top of any other worldview
12:58
Speaker 3: that's out there. And so we know that when we
13:02
Speaker 3: look at the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion,
13:06
Speaker 3: oftentimes that means that us as looking at this, we're
13:10
Speaker 3: going to allow, as you said, voices that we would
13:14
Speaker 3: definitely oppose and not agree with. We're going to allow
13:17
Speaker 3: those voices to be in the public sector as well.
13:20
Speaker 3: as well but i i really think that the it
13:23
Speaker 3: really comes back to how much trust and and we
13:26
Speaker 3: have in the gospel itself and and in christ and
13:29
Speaker 3: in god.
13:30
Speaker 2: Yeah helpful so where is this at right now i
13:34
Speaker 2: i know that there was a consent agreement um that
13:40
Speaker 2: was put in place that was um I think a
13:44
Speaker 2: district court denied that consent agreement between the parties in
13:49
Speaker 2: the lawsuit. Can you kind of narrate through where we're
13:53
Speaker 2: at in the process and maybe what's coming next?
13:57
Speaker 3: Yeah. So we brought this case in 2024 when the
14:01
Speaker 3: Biden administration was in and the Justice Department there really
14:08
Speaker 3: actually had a couple of different motions to dismiss the
14:11
Speaker 3: case based on some grounds. And the judge said, allowed
14:14
Speaker 3: the case to go forward and wanted to hear or
14:17
Speaker 3: at least see the merits of the case. So that
14:19
Speaker 3: went through 24. And then, of course, Trump won in 25.
14:23
Speaker 3: And we had a new Justice Department. And so when
14:27
Speaker 3: they started to go through and look at their cases,
14:29
Speaker 3: they asked to sit down and we sat down with them.
14:32
Speaker 3: And we came, as you said, to this consent decree.
14:35
Speaker 3: And what that means is we both came to the
14:40
Speaker 3: point where they said, look, we agree with what you're
14:43
Speaker 3: saying in regards to pastors, okay? So you're looking at
14:48
Speaker 3: all 501c3s and getting this thrown out. We're looking at
14:52
Speaker 3: an exception in the rule that says that pastors would
14:57
Speaker 3: be an exemption out of this, and their preaching and
15:03
Speaker 3: what they're messaging and what they do in the pulpit
15:05
Speaker 3: and what they do through the mediums is going to
15:09
Speaker 3: be looked at as an okay, right? And so we
15:13
Speaker 3: came to that. We got through the whole legal process
15:17
Speaker 3: with a number of things. And then the judge at
15:19
Speaker 3: the end came back with this kind of what we
15:22
Speaker 3: call more of a technical ruling. There's what's called the
15:25
Speaker 3: Anti-Injunction Act. Congress limited the courts on what they can
15:29
Speaker 3: do as regarded to tax law. So the IRS has
15:33
Speaker 3: a really broad kind of spectrum that they could do
15:37
Speaker 3: when it comes to taxes in Congress. And so the
15:39
Speaker 3: judge said, based on the Anti-Injunction Act, I can't rule
15:44
Speaker 3: on this. Therefore, I'm dismissing the case. And so that's
15:48
Speaker 3: what we've now appealed in that district to the 5th
15:52
Speaker 3: District Court of Appeals. We've appealed that the judge is
15:56
Speaker 3: ruling to dismiss the case. And so that setting now
16:00
Speaker 3: with the 5th Circuit Our brief has been filed. The
16:04
Speaker 3: government's brief has been filed. Nothing has changed from the
16:08
Speaker 3: consent decree where we're at in the district court. This
16:12
Speaker 3: is now about whether the judge actually can rule on this.
16:16
Speaker 3: Both ours and the government think that there are exceptions
16:21
Speaker 3: that allows the court to rule on this, especially with
16:24
Speaker 3: the conflict of a First Amendment conflict here. And so
16:28
Speaker 3: we're in this period where other briefs can be filed
16:31
Speaker 3: and then we hope to hear either a ruling from
16:35
Speaker 3: the Fifth Circuit or they'll set up a hearing and
16:38
Speaker 3: we'll argue the case in front of them.
16:42
Speaker 2: And so there's been a brief submitted that talks a
16:47
Speaker 2: little bit about a narrow aspect of the case, which
16:51
Speaker 2: seems to get at that notion that you just mentioned.
16:55
Speaker 2: It's not about broadly 501c3 organizations. It's about pastors and
16:59
Speaker 2: their congregations. And what would it ever look like for
17:02
Speaker 2: the government to come in and say, no, a pastor
17:05
Speaker 2: can't say that to their congregation? These things really do,
17:11
Speaker 2: on some level, if I'm being generous, they can be
17:15
Speaker 2: viewed as safeguards. right, you could see a certain logic
17:20
Speaker 2: of guarding against a 501c3 organization, getting into politics, endorsing candidates,
17:27
Speaker 2: all those other kinds of things. But then this is
17:30
Speaker 2: rubbing right against sort of the religious freedom of speech
17:34
Speaker 2: and the religious freedoms that we have in churches. And
17:38
Speaker 2: so is that what this new brief is really about?
17:41
Speaker 2: It's about sort of setting into this Fifth Appellate Court
17:45
Speaker 2: and saying, look, there's this very narrow space here that
17:49
Speaker 2: really seems like could be given judgment.
17:53
Speaker 1: Am I understanding all that correctly?
17:55
Speaker 3: Yeah, for the most part, that's correct. I mean, the
17:58
Speaker 3: consent decree is that very narrowing of the case, the
18:04
Speaker 3: very narrowing of what we've come to an agreement with
18:07
Speaker 3: the government on. So we've narrowed that from the broader
18:12
Speaker 3: you know, 501c3s in general down to, you know, pastors
18:16
Speaker 3: in pulpits, leading churches, leading congregations.
18:20
Speaker 1: And so that.
18:21
Speaker 3: So the appeal is really about this Anti-Injunction Act, this
18:27
Speaker 3: technicality that the judge has that he feels like he
18:31
Speaker 3: really can't even look at the merits of the consent
18:34
Speaker 3: degree itself because this Anti-Injunction Act. So look, it's good
18:38
Speaker 3: on the judge's part because if we clear this hurdle,
18:42
Speaker 3: then there's really no process for appeal after this. And
18:47
Speaker 3: so clearing this hurdle is a big step getting the
18:50
Speaker 3: case moving forward.
18:52
Speaker 2: So getting through the appellate court, then it just moves
18:55
Speaker 2: through and you can actually get a real judgment on
18:58
Speaker 2: this and figure it out. Are are you still seeking
19:01
Speaker 2: that repeal of the Johnson Amendment or would you sort
19:04
Speaker 2: of readjust and go toward the consent decree?
19:08
Speaker 3: No, we readjusted toward the consent decree. So that's all
19:13
Speaker 3: where we're at right now.
19:15
Speaker 1: Very good. Very good.
19:18
Speaker 2: It's a really interesting problem in question. I mean, it
19:23
Speaker 2: gets down to something just as simple like who gets
19:26
Speaker 2: to decide– the boundaries of religious speech, which right now,
19:32
Speaker 2: and I think what your case is representing is that
19:36
Speaker 2: the government shouldn't police those boundaries.
19:40
Speaker 1: The difficulty is.
19:42
Speaker 2: As Protestants, we don't have anybody police the boundaries. You know,
19:47
Speaker 2: I remember I was just over in Switzerland for a
19:50
Speaker 2: Reformation tour, but I've done Germany as well. And You know,
19:54
Speaker 2: poor Luther, he goes through the Reformation and there is
19:57
Speaker 2: a peasants revolt. He tries to speak into this and say, no,
19:59
Speaker 2: this isn't what we should be doing. And they go,
20:01
Speaker 2: who are you to tell us what to do? We're
20:03
Speaker 2: living according to our conscience. And so you have, you know,
20:07
Speaker 2: you sort of take the good with the bad when
20:08
Speaker 2: it comes to the Protestant Reformation and the autonomy.
20:11
Speaker 1: Of churches that we have today.
20:13
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, even Luther himself, right, at the trial at
20:17
Speaker 3: the Nile of Worms, right? He's on a religious trial
20:21
Speaker 3: with the court, and what does he come down to?
20:23
Speaker 3: The statement, you know? He said, unless you can convince,
20:28
Speaker 3: I'm paraphrasing here, convince me from God's word, I have
20:32
Speaker 3: to stand my ground because it's neither good nor right
20:37
Speaker 3: to violate your conscience, especially your faith conscience, your spiritual conscience.
20:43
Speaker 3: And he was saying that the church couldn't do that.
20:46
Speaker 3: And the founding fathers understood that. The pilgrims came over.
20:50
Speaker 3: the early pilgrims, they were looking for that kind of
20:53
Speaker 3: religious freedom. They didn't want to be under the thumb
20:55
Speaker 3: of the Church of England or the Church of Holland
20:58
Speaker 3: or the Netherlands or the various churches or the Catholic Church.
21:03
Speaker 3: And so they were looking for that. Even when the
21:06
Speaker 3: Danbury Baptists wrote their letter asking Thomas Jefferson, and he
21:10
Speaker 3: writes back, you know, there is a wall of separation,
21:14
Speaker 3: the most propagandized statement and misunderstood. He was actually talking
21:19
Speaker 3: about the very fact that the government was not going
21:23
Speaker 3: to establish a national religion. We weren't going to have
21:27
Speaker 3: a Church of America like they had a Church of England.
21:30
Speaker 3: And nor was the government going to interfere in church
21:35
Speaker 3: matters because government is not equipped to do that. And
21:39
Speaker 3: they can't make those theological. But let me give you
21:41
Speaker 3: an example of some things that the courts already decided
21:44
Speaker 3: on that are kind of parallel to this. There have
21:46
Speaker 3: been over the last two decades a number of cases
21:49
Speaker 3: that have made it all the way to the Supreme
21:51
Speaker 3: Court on religious organizations and their hiring of employees. So
21:56
Speaker 3: they can hire. Do they have to follow the same
22:02
Speaker 3: laws that a secular organization has to follow? Do they
22:07
Speaker 3: have the same EEOC rules or the same Labor Department
22:10
Speaker 3: rules and recently the same DEI rules and those? And
22:14
Speaker 3: the courts have consistently said, no, no, the religious organizations
22:20
Speaker 3: have the right to hire people who adhere to their faith,
22:25
Speaker 3: their doctrines, and their beliefs. And the government has no
22:29
Speaker 3: say into that. And most of those Supreme Court rulings
22:32
Speaker 3: were 9-0 or 8-1. It wasn't even like a divided court.
22:37
Speaker 3: The court has just blanket said this. And this is
22:41
Speaker 3: really the same thing.
22:42
Speaker 1: If the government.
22:43
Speaker 3: continues to weaponize, and this is what we're looking at,
22:46
Speaker 3: and stepping in in these areas, then we're going to
22:50
Speaker 3: end up like our friends in Canada who have to
22:52
Speaker 3: send programs to government regulators to review before they can
22:57
Speaker 3: air and broadcast in Canada. And of course, we've seen
23:00
Speaker 3: what's going on with free speech across Europe. And so
23:04
Speaker 3: there's a point where you have to step in and
23:06
Speaker 3: protect those rights. Otherwise, they're just going to continue to
23:10
Speaker 3: be trampled on.
23:12
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I did see something.
23:14
Speaker 2: I think it was Barker or Baker was the judge
23:18
Speaker 2: in the case, if I'm recalling correctly. And he also
23:21
Speaker 2: mentioned something about the timing at which the suit was brought,
23:25
Speaker 2: that there hadn't been any violation of the Johnson Amendment
23:28
Speaker 2: because no 501c3 status had been pulled. There was no
23:33
Speaker 2: pending action against any specific church. No taxes had been levied,
23:39
Speaker 2: those kind of things. And so he said, because there
23:43
Speaker 2: was no violation, this is really an odd time to
23:45
Speaker 2: bring the suit. As I thought through that, and I'll
23:50
Speaker 2: see if I'm reading you right, there is still an
23:53
Speaker 2: irritant here. There's other ways to violate the Johnson Amendment,
23:59
Speaker 2: in other words, which would involve sort of poking and
24:03
Speaker 2: prodding into churches in ways that cost those churches money.
24:10
Speaker 2: money for legal fees, irritants for having to spend time
24:14
Speaker 2: to justify what it is that they're saying to the
24:16
Speaker 2: IRS to ensure that there is some compliance.
24:19
Speaker 1: And so.
24:22
Speaker 2: I'm getting the sense that that's really more where we're
24:25
Speaker 2: at in that irritant phase. You mentioned the uneven enforcement earlier,
24:31
Speaker 2: but that irritant phase is really more where we are.
24:34
Speaker 2: It's this poking and prodding into the various churches and
24:38
Speaker 2: ministries in an investigative manner that would not otherwise be
24:44
Speaker 2: done if this Johnson Amendment weren't in place.
24:48
Speaker 1: Is that a fair way to frame it?
24:51
Speaker 3: That's a fair statement, and you're exactly right. It's the
24:55
Speaker 3: amendment itself, while maybe has not been enforced all the
25:00
Speaker 3: way through, multiple churches, and it's been reported, have received,
25:07
Speaker 3: as I said, these letters from And the broader chilling
25:11
Speaker 3: effect that that's had on churches, you know, worried about
25:16
Speaker 3: their ability to speak. And also, we just don't like
25:21
Speaker 3: to operate in these gray areas. You know, is the
25:24
Speaker 3: IRS going to go and not go? But I think
25:27
Speaker 3: our legal team said, look, there's not. And the judge,
25:30
Speaker 3: that was one of the reasons to original reasons for
25:33
Speaker 3: the case to be dismissed. But there's also legal presidencies.
25:38
Speaker 3: You don't necessarily have to, especially on these kinds of issues.
25:42
Speaker 3: It's kind of like saying you have to break the
25:44
Speaker 3: law before you can bring the case. But that's that's
25:47
Speaker 3: not here. You can actually, you know, defend your rights because,
25:52
Speaker 3: as you said, the chilling effect it has already on
25:57
Speaker 3: the church today.
25:59
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, you have something here. you can envision
26:03
Speaker 2: something similar as if, you know, every citizen had to
26:06
Speaker 2: prove that, you know, they were a resident of a
26:11
Speaker 2: particular state, you know, in order to not pay a
26:15
Speaker 2: particular tax or something like that.
26:17
Speaker 1: It's an irritant.
26:19
Speaker 2: It creates an expenditure from a citizen that isn't necessary
26:22
Speaker 2: because the government is doing something that's probably overreaching.
26:25
Speaker 1: And so there's a.
26:26
Speaker 2: Sense in which I can understand that that's sort of
26:29
Speaker 2: irritant for churches to How widespread do you get the
26:32
Speaker 2: sense this is? And then I have sort of a
26:34
Speaker 2: follow-up question for how this relates to broadcasting more particularly.
26:38
Speaker 2: But you've teamed up with two other churches here in
26:41
Speaker 2: this lawsuit. Do you get the sense that this is
26:44
Speaker 2: a much broader issue?
26:46
Speaker 3: Oh, it's definitely a much broader issue. I mean, I've
26:50
Speaker 3: been in ministry for 25 years now, and this has
26:53
Speaker 3: constantly come up. It's talked about amongst churches, pastors, leaders, denominations.
27:00
Speaker 3: It's It's always there and it comes up every election cycle.
27:04
Speaker 3: We didn't particularly, our timing wasn't brought up to affect
27:08
Speaker 3: any election cycle. We knew this was a long haul
27:11
Speaker 3: as these cases are. They're never, you know, short fixes.
27:16
Speaker 3: And so we knew this was going to take time,
27:19
Speaker 3: but we just knew it had to be addressed. It
27:21
Speaker 3: just can't set out there in this kind of vague position.
27:25
Speaker 3: any longer. So that was kind of our reasoning behind it.
27:29
Speaker 3: But yeah, I bet you there's probably not a major
27:35
Speaker 3: church in this country that doesn't know the term Johnson Amendment.
27:41
Speaker 1: Interesting. Okay.
27:42
Speaker 2: So then my question about the broader broadcasting world, given
27:46
Speaker 2: how this is narrowed to pastors and churches, how does
27:50
Speaker 2: that influence folks like me.
27:52
Speaker 1: I'm not a pastor. I'm not representing a church.
27:56
Speaker 2: But as a podcaster, if I wanted to, I suppose
28:02
Speaker 2: I could endorse a political candidate. It's not really my disposition.
28:05
Speaker 2: But with the way you're pursuing the lawsuit now, does
28:13
Speaker 2: it preclude folks like me, or does it include folks
28:17
Speaker 2: like me?
28:18
Speaker 3: No, right now, it would preclude folks like you Because, again,
28:23
Speaker 3: it's narrowly focused on churches, pastors who are serving those churches.
28:29
Speaker 3: And one of the things we looked at that was, too,
28:33
Speaker 3: because we live in the media world today, most churches,
28:38
Speaker 3: even small churches, have a broadcast even if they're just streaming.
28:45
Speaker 3: But we know there's a heavy radio ministry in that area.
28:49
Speaker 3: But remember, I don't know about your organization, but this
28:52
Speaker 3: is only for 501c3 nonprofits under the IRS tax code.
28:58
Speaker 3: So if you're a 501c3 nonprofit and you're not an
29:02
Speaker 3: active pastor pulpit in your church, this act, this ruling,
29:09
Speaker 3: this consent decree is not going to protect you moving forward.
29:13
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. No, I just wanted to clarify that.
29:15
Speaker 2: Like I said, it's not like I'm aching to endorse
29:17
Speaker 2: a political candidate anyway, but I do think, I do
29:22
Speaker 2: find it interesting that I just wanted to define how
29:25
Speaker 2: fine that line actually was. And so a pastor with
29:29
Speaker 2: a radio ministry could technically endorse the political candidate as
29:33
Speaker 2: part of that sermon that's ultimately going to be broadcast
29:36
Speaker 2: and put out more broadly. But a radio host on
29:41
Speaker 2: a religious broadcasting network of which you represent many wouldn't
29:46
Speaker 2: necessarily be able to do the same thing.
29:49
Speaker 3: Correct.
29:50
Speaker 1: That's correct. Really interesting. Interesting. I mean, I think it's important.
29:54
Speaker 2: I think it's good and helpful that it's because I
30:00
Speaker 2: could see, you know, certain instances where a pastor in
30:03
Speaker 2: a church would want to steer the congregation or endorse
30:07
Speaker 2: a candidate in one way or another. And but and
30:13
Speaker 2: I like the idea of it sitting under that, you know,
30:15
Speaker 2: sort of authority of the elders at the very least.
30:19
Speaker 3: Right. And that's the way we look at it, too,
30:21
Speaker 3: is that, look, churches, most churches, most pastors are under
30:25
Speaker 3: the authority of the elders within the church. So, you know,
30:29
Speaker 3: this idea that, oh, this is going to create all
30:31
Speaker 3: of this, you know, church electioneering and it's going to create,
30:35
Speaker 3: you know, these these work between candidates are going to
30:39
Speaker 3: pour money into churches that we don't that's not going
30:43
Speaker 3: to happen. It's certainly not on a broad scale. Pastors
30:48
Speaker 3: just generally don't want to be political, and that's good.
30:51
Speaker 3: They're not called to and not called to be partisan.
30:54
Speaker 3: But if a pastor feels compelled to speak up about
30:56
Speaker 3: a biblical issue, let's just say pro-life, or let's just
31:00
Speaker 3: say a gender issue, and wants to say, hey, we're
31:04
Speaker 3: coming up to an election cycle, and I want you
31:07
Speaker 3: to know that candidate A supports this and candidate B
31:13
Speaker 3: opposes this, You know, and here's our biblical worldview on this.
31:19
Speaker 3: You know, that pastor, if the conscience of that pastor
31:23
Speaker 3: is calling them to speak up, then they should have
31:27
Speaker 3: the freedom to do that based on their relationship with
31:31
Speaker 3: their faith and with God and not the government's saying
31:35
Speaker 3: this is right or wrong.
31:37
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think interestingly, I appreciate that framing. As
31:41
Speaker 2: I thought through this, just preparing for the conversation, the
31:44
Speaker 2: other thing I thought was this really, for local churches,
31:48
Speaker 2: could probably connect more strongly with local politics. Things that
31:52
Speaker 2: are actually going on in a given locale that a pastor...
31:58
Speaker 2: and their congregants are going to be far more intimately
32:01
Speaker 2: impacted by in a given, you know, just space, something
32:05
Speaker 2: that's happening with a local school board, for instance, or
32:07
Speaker 2: a community development of some sort.
32:10
Speaker 1: And, and to feel muzzled.
32:14
Speaker 2: And I, I would, I would say that that's probably
32:17
Speaker 2: the right way to put it to feel muzzled, um,
32:19
Speaker 2: and not want to go through all the rigmarole that
32:21
Speaker 2: you guys have gone through in, in sort of navigating
32:24
Speaker 2: these issues. Um, seems like it would be a real temptation, right?
32:32
Speaker 2: To just stay silent and not speak on the issue
32:35
Speaker 2: versus really being able to stand up and say, Hey,
32:38
Speaker 2: this is an important one. We need to have this conversation.
32:41
Speaker 2: We need to speak to this public happening that's going on.
32:43
Speaker 2: And I want to at least give you guidance and
32:45
Speaker 2: framework from God's word to think through these matters. So yeah,
32:51
Speaker 2: that local aspect to me was really compelling.
32:55
Speaker 1: Right.
32:55
Speaker 3: And that's where we really think, as you said, that's
32:58
Speaker 3: really where it's going to come into play. We often
33:01
Speaker 3: sort of look at this and we raise it all
33:03
Speaker 3: up to the national level and usually to the office
33:07
Speaker 3: of the presidency. But it really is the local level
33:10
Speaker 3: that I think the pastors are really wanting to have
33:13
Speaker 3: and can have a much greater impact. Yeah.
33:18
Speaker 2: So do you see this as just fundamentally a freedom
33:21
Speaker 2: of speech movement? religious liberty sort of issue, and particularly
33:28
Speaker 2: with churches. And I guess that would be my real question.
33:36
Speaker 2: We're defining a religious liberty at this point narrowly within churches,
33:42
Speaker 2: not outside of a specific 501c3 authority structure that would
33:48
Speaker 2: be labeled a church. that would have that sort of
33:51
Speaker 2: elder oversight of some sort. Is that the fundamental crux
33:56
Speaker 2: of what you all are fighting for here?
33:59
Speaker 3: Yeah, we look, we think churches had this right, you know,
34:03
Speaker 3: like I said, for 170 plus years. And then, you know,
34:07
Speaker 3: even if Johnson was trying to you know, keep nonprofits
34:13
Speaker 3: that were receiving, you know, a government benefit, even if
34:16
Speaker 3: he was trying to keep them out of the political
34:19
Speaker 3: process and being used for that. The sweeping effect of that,
34:23
Speaker 3: because the IRS looks at a church as a 501c3,
34:28
Speaker 3: they fall under that same regulation guideline. Even though churches
34:33
Speaker 3: don't need to apply for 501c3 status, They fall under that.
34:41
Speaker 3: We think it's time to get that corrected and, as
34:44
Speaker 3: you said, restore that fundamental right that pastors had to
34:49
Speaker 3: really follow their conscience and take all of this gray
34:53
Speaker 3: area out, take this kind of chilling effect that it's had,
34:57
Speaker 3: this self-censoring effect it's had, And let's restore that freedom
35:05
Speaker 3: of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of free exercise
35:09
Speaker 3: thereof to the pastors of this country.
35:13
Speaker 2: It is interesting to me to look at some of
35:15
Speaker 2: the sort of back and forth on this online. There
35:18
Speaker 2: are some groups, nonprofit groups, some Christian groups who would
35:23
Speaker 2: stand against this and say, no, we want to keep
35:25
Speaker 2: the Johnson Amendment. And then there's the other side that say, well, no,
35:28
Speaker 2: we would like to repeal the Johnson Amendment and even
35:31
Speaker 2: go further, maybe.
35:33
Speaker 1: Then the lawsuit.
35:33
Speaker 2: And so you've got all voices coming into this. But
35:37
Speaker 2: what I find sort of fascinating is there are legitimate
35:42
Speaker 2: concerns that I think are right and really aren't effectively
35:47
Speaker 2: addressed by this particular amendment. For instance— You've mentioned, you know,
35:51
Speaker 2: you don't want churches to become lobbying groups. And so
35:53
Speaker 2: that's not really part of what you all are addressing.
35:56
Speaker 2: You don't want nonprofits giving the government or political candidates money.
36:00
Speaker 2: And so that's not part of this. I think those
36:03
Speaker 2: are appropriate spaces to have a conversation about the way
36:09
Speaker 2: that nonprofits use the money that's given to them and
36:12
Speaker 2: the appropriate allocation of those funds toward a given mission.
36:17
Speaker 2: What's almost never talked about is how this hits the
36:20
Speaker 2: for-profit sector and the very similar dynamics that you see
36:26
Speaker 2: in lobbying and for-profit corporations doing this exact same stuff
36:32
Speaker 2: with zero guidelines and policy really precluding them from supporting
36:39
Speaker 2: political candidates, endorsing political candidates. and doing all of these
36:43
Speaker 2: sort of machinations that seem so abhorrent when we look
36:48
Speaker 2: at it from a 501c3 perspective.
36:51
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's an interesting irony, isn't it? On one side,
36:57
Speaker 3: you know, and look, and the interesting thing is there's
37:01
Speaker 3: all kinds of tax breaks under the law that apply
37:04
Speaker 3: to corporations, you know, and that's the way Johnson framed
37:10
Speaker 3: this was that, you know, These organizations were getting a benefit,
37:15
Speaker 3: and that benefit came with strengths. But like I said,
37:21
Speaker 3: the McCain-Feingold Act tried to address some of that. John
37:27
Speaker 3: McCain and Russ Feingold tried to address some of that.
37:30
Speaker 3: And interesting enough, when that went to court, the court
37:33
Speaker 3: threw out most of the major provisions. tossed them on
37:37
Speaker 3: the grounds of free speech that you can't limit, you know,
37:41
Speaker 3: people or corporations, entities from those free speech rights. And so, yeah,
37:49
Speaker 3: that's always the kind of interesting side of it is
37:52
Speaker 3: that why are 501c3s being treated so differently?
37:57
Speaker 2: As you've gotten, and I assume you've gotten some pushback,
38:00
Speaker 2: not just from the defendant, but from other sectors. But
38:03
Speaker 2: as you've gotten that pushback, it Do you get the
38:07
Speaker 2: sense that people view 501c3 organizations and that nonprofit work
38:12
Speaker 2: as sort of oddly sacred and they want to make
38:16
Speaker 2: sure that it's not adulterated by the political processes in
38:20
Speaker 2: the way that some of the, you know, maybe the
38:22
Speaker 2: for-profit entities have gone?
38:26
Speaker 3: You know, no, not really. OK, that's the interesting thing
38:31
Speaker 3: about this. All the pushback has really come even in
38:35
Speaker 3: the religious side of it has come from these. I'll
38:42
Speaker 3: say on the religious side, it's come from the more
38:44
Speaker 3: left progressive side. religious organizations that want to say church
38:50
Speaker 3: and stay out of these politics. The same organizations that
38:54
Speaker 3: fly rainbow flags from outside their churches and do some
38:58
Speaker 3: of that are saying stay out of politics. So that's interesting.
39:02
Speaker 3: But the other thing is really the pushback is just
39:06
Speaker 3: keeping religion out of the public sector. That's more what
39:09
Speaker 3: we're hearing. It's the idea that that's your religion. You
39:14
Speaker 3: should stay and keep that in your house or in
39:18
Speaker 3: your church. And so you have the freedom of worship,
39:22
Speaker 3: you know, but you don't have the free exercise of
39:25
Speaker 3: religion to do what God's been called. And you and
39:28
Speaker 3: I know the interesting thing to that is that the
39:32
Speaker 3: government is not neutral. There's no neutrality there. This idea
39:39
Speaker 3: that this was going to create a neutrality in there,
39:43
Speaker 3: but the government's not neutral. As a matter of fact,
39:47
Speaker 3: I think the reason that this has become such a
39:49
Speaker 3: greater issue today is because over the last 40, 50
39:53
Speaker 3: years 60 years, we've seen the government become more and
39:58
Speaker 3: more involved in religious issues, not the other way around.
40:02
Speaker 3: The government has tried to legislate things that we as
40:07
Speaker 3: people of faith see as moral issues or ethical issues
40:11
Speaker 3: or freedom of religion issues, everything from marriage to gender
40:18
Speaker 3: to pro-life. And it's not necessarily been that the church
40:22
Speaker 3: has really pushed into into governance, but that the government
40:26
Speaker 3: has pushed into religious issues.
40:30
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's, I wrote a piece a long time ago.
40:33
Speaker 2: I want to say it was in the 2022 era
40:36
Speaker 2: where I talked a little bit about the, the difficulties of, um,
40:42
Speaker 2: allowing for free speech, allowing for freedom of religion, advocating
40:48
Speaker 2: for church and state when you have ideological groups that
40:52
Speaker 2: would never call themselves churches or religions. But functionally and dynamically,
40:57
Speaker 2: they're doing the exact same thing. They're carrying a story
41:00
Speaker 2: with them and seeking to legislate that story into the government.
41:05
Speaker 2: And so part of what we're dealing with, I think,
41:07
Speaker 2: nowadays is just a fragmented, understanding of what the good
41:12
Speaker 2: the true and the beautiful actually are and as christians
41:16
Speaker 2: sort of advocate for some of that we get pinned
41:19
Speaker 2: as you know religious nuts and uh and but the
41:24
Speaker 2: reality is that all of these different groups that are
41:28
Speaker 2: advocating for this in the public space are bringing the
41:31
Speaker 2: same sort of presuppositions and convictions about these areas that
41:36
Speaker 2: we are. The difference being, of course, that we believe
41:40
Speaker 2: all this has been self-disclosed by God. And so we
41:43
Speaker 2: have a different angle on it than most of them.
41:45
Speaker 2: But it does seem to me to be that fragmentation
41:48
Speaker 2: is really a difficult part of what we're dealing with
41:51
Speaker 2: right now.
41:51
Speaker 1: There's no consensus.
41:53
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, there's been a time where there's really
41:58
Speaker 3: been Like you said, no consensus, but it's this, I think,
42:01
Speaker 3: misunderstanding that somehow because there's religion, there's a faith, there's
42:09
Speaker 3: a Bible, there's scripture behind what certain people believe in that.
42:14
Speaker 3: Somehow that is more limiting now. than somebody else's general
42:19
Speaker 3: belief that they got off of some philosopher or some
42:25
Speaker 3: leader at some point who wrote about this, that, or
42:28
Speaker 3: the other thing. And I think there's this misunderstanding, again,
42:33
Speaker 3: that if we keep religion out, then everything else is
42:38
Speaker 3: going to be neutral. But again, somebody's worldview is going
42:43
Speaker 3: to guide the laws, the way money is spent, the
42:48
Speaker 3: regulatory framework, the judicial framework. Somebody's worldview is going to
42:53
Speaker 3: guide that. And what we're saying is that if you're religious,
42:57
Speaker 3: your worldview has to set on the sideline. If your
43:00
Speaker 3: worldview is based on a faith, on a religious faith,
43:04
Speaker 3: that sets on the sidelines, while ours runs rampant over
43:09
Speaker 3: the top of you.
43:10
Speaker 1: Yeah.
43:11
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, We're in a government of the people,
43:15
Speaker 2: by the people and for the people. It's difficult to
43:17
Speaker 2: separate the people from the faith that they hold, whatever
43:20
Speaker 2: it is. And I think that to some degree, as
43:24
Speaker 2: we look at what you all are doing, trying to
43:28
Speaker 2: give people guidance on what their faith entails, you know,
43:34
Speaker 2: the claims that their faith actually makes on them and
43:37
Speaker 2: how that might relate to voting is certainly within the
43:42
Speaker 2: the scope of what a pastor of a church is
43:45
Speaker 2: called to do. This is the equipping of the saints.
43:48
Speaker 2: This is the, the call to culturally engage, right. And
43:54
Speaker 2: make sure that, that folks have a good understanding and
43:58
Speaker 2: that their, their conscience is not only clear when they
44:01
Speaker 2: do something like vote for a candidate, but that it's
44:04
Speaker 2: also informed. And I think that's a really crucial thing
44:07
Speaker 2: that they need to do.
44:09
Speaker 1: Yeah. Very good.
44:10
Speaker 2: Well, Closing remarks, Troy. I mean, you know, where do
44:13
Speaker 2: you guys take this next? What do you I don't
44:16
Speaker 2: know whether you want to say what you're expecting, but
44:19
Speaker 2: you know what's coming next.
44:21
Speaker 1: What's your hope in all this, I guess?
44:23
Speaker 3: Well, look, I think we came to the understanding with
44:27
Speaker 3: the Justice Department. So the consent, the Justice Department sees
44:32
Speaker 3: this as a violation of those rights and wants to
44:35
Speaker 3: correct this. So our hope is that now that the
44:39
Speaker 3: court will see this as well. and the Fifth Circuit will,
44:43
Speaker 3: you know, look at this and look at the exceptions
44:47
Speaker 3: that have been made to the Anti-Injunction Act and push
44:51
Speaker 3: this back to the judge who then can review it
44:54
Speaker 3: and the two parties can move on. That's our hope,
44:57
Speaker 3: and that's the hope is to, again, remove this, you know,
45:02
Speaker 3: kind of threat. It's really, as you said right now,
45:04
Speaker 3: this threat and bring clarity to pastors. We don't expect,
45:10
Speaker 3: if let's just say we prevail in this case, we
45:13
Speaker 3: don't expect that that's going to cause some big political wave,
45:16
Speaker 3: you know, immediately, but it is going to allow pastors
45:21
Speaker 3: to now understand as they feel called and led along
45:26
Speaker 3: with their elders, their congregation, and their own, you know,
45:30
Speaker 3: conscience before God. They don't have to worry about the
45:33
Speaker 3: government coming in and, you know, taking the, you know,
45:37
Speaker 3: economic security from their religion or from their church or
45:41
Speaker 3: whatever away from them. And they just have a clear
45:44
Speaker 3: path to do what God's called them to do.
45:47
Speaker 2: And with that, just sort of last couple of questions,
45:50
Speaker 2: just to clarify a couple of pieces. Would the consent
45:53
Speaker 2: decree be binding going forward, like there would have to
45:56
Speaker 2: be legal action to reverse it? It's not something that
45:58
Speaker 2: would change from administration to administration like guidance would.
46:03
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, my understanding from our legal team is this.
46:07
Speaker 3: Once it's signed off, it can't be undone. But also,
46:11
Speaker 3: let me be clear, because this is the way court
46:13
Speaker 3: cases work in that. But the consent decree will set
46:18
Speaker 3: a precedent for the IRS and the Justice Department. It
46:22
Speaker 3: narrowly applies to the participants, to the plaintiffs here in
46:30
Speaker 3: the case. But the court, you know, looks at these
46:32
Speaker 3: and says, well, if it applies there in the Justice Department,
46:35
Speaker 3: then it's probably going to be broadly applied across the board.
46:40
Speaker 2: Yeah, you could see other people coming in and saying, hey,
46:43
Speaker 2: we'd like the same thing.
46:45
Speaker 1: And see how that goes. Really helpful, Troy.
46:48
Speaker 2: I appreciate you coming on and talking through these issues
46:50
Speaker 2: with us. Appreciate you all spearheading these ideas and fighting
46:55
Speaker 2: for the religious rights of pastors and free speech of pastors.
46:59
Speaker 2: And so just thanks for the conversation and thanks for
47:02
Speaker 2: the effort.
47:04
Speaker 1: Really, I think good stuff.
47:06
Speaker 3: Well, thanks for having me today and for allowing us
47:08
Speaker 3: to talk about this. NRB has existed for 82 years
47:13
Speaker 3: now and our primary mission is is to just ensure
47:16
Speaker 3: that the gospel has its place in the public sector.
47:21
Speaker 1: Yeah, very good. Well, great conversation. Thanks for being here. Thanks, everybody,
47:27
Speaker 1: for listening.
47:28
Speaker 2: And we'll catch you on the next episode of Thinking Christian.
47:30
Speaker 1: Take care, everybody.