Tag: history

On February 23rd, Calvary Chapel Chattanooga offered a Political Activism Workshop as part of their Civics + Culture series. This workshop was designed for individuals resonating with a ‘Nehemiah’ burden, focusing on how to engage civically to bring about necessary change in the community. As a proponent for the Separation of Church and State, I believe it’s important to examine how this workshop framed political engagement within a religious context.

While churches have historically influenced social movements, the Johnson Amendment, enacted in 1954, restricts 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. However, these tax-exempt organizations can still engage in voter education, issue advocacy, and civic participation, provided they remain neutral and do not explicitly support or oppose any candidate or party.

Simply put, whether Calvary Chapel Chattanooga’s Political Activism Workshop violates the Johnson Amendment depends on what was taught and encouraged:

• If the workshop focused on general civic engagement—like voter registration, understanding government processes, or engaging in issue-based advocacy—it would likely not violate the Johnson Amendment.
• If the workshop explicitly promoted specific candidates, parties, or election outcomes, it could violate the amendment and risk their tax-exempt status.

The Johnson Amendment is being widely discussed again because of its potential impact on the 2024 election, growing concerns over church involvement in politics, and recent political efforts to challenge, or weaken it. Many conservative churches openly endorse candidates despite the law, as the IRS rarely enforces it. Some proponents of the amendment believe it restricts religious freedom, while groups like Patriot Church and Turning Point Faith mobilize congregations for elections. As Christian nationalism gains traction, some pastors see political endorsements as a duty. Meanwhile, Democrats and watchdog groups are calling for stricter enforcement, raising the possibility of legal battles and IRS crackdowns.

So, is Calvary Church Chattanooga in violation of the Johnson Amendment? Today’s post takes a closer look at what was said at the Political Activism Workshop on February 23rd. (This isn’t about broad assumptions or speculation.) It’s about what was actually said in that room on that day and whether it crossed the legal boundaries that separate permissible civic engagement from partisan political activity—a distinction that’s crucial for any 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization.

The workshop began with the review of a worksheet and the explanation of “why should Christian Republicans get involved” in local politics. What followed was an explanation of the Hamilton County voter turn-out in the 2020 and 2024 elections, specifically the decrease in voter turnout in the past two Presidential elections. The leader of the workshop voiced a notable frustration with the local Republican Party: “You would have hoped that there was more messaging from the Republican Party to capture Democrats and give them a true understanding of what was happening and why voting Democrat was not helpful for America.”

Beyond potential legal concerns, making such statements in a church setting can alienate members of the congregation who may hold different political beliefs. A church should ideally foster unity, inclusivity, and a focus on faith rather than partisan politics. Encouraging civic engagement in a nonpartisan way—such as promoting voting, discussing moral and ethical issues, or providing balanced information—would be more appropriate.

About 10 minutes into the workshop, when referencing the upcoming election for Hamilton County GOP leadership, she also said the following: “It is crucial to have us as normal, healthy Christians that think critically in the GOP because they do not. That is what I’ve learned. They are, many of them, are in it for the wrong reasons.”

This statement is problematic for many reasons. The phrase “normal, healthy Christians” implies that those outside this viewpoint—or those who were in GOP leadership—are abnormal or unhealthy, creating a divisive tone rather than fostering dialogue. Additionally, sweeping generalizations like “they do not” think critically and “many of them are in it for the wrong reasons” assume bad intentions without evidence, dismissing potential allies and alienating others. By conflating religious belief with political ideology, it suggests that being a certain type of Christian is necessary to participate in or improve the GOP, which risks excluding believers with different perspectives and contradicting the idea that faith should transcend party lines.

As the workshop transitioned into its primary focus, the leader outlined three key ways congregants were expected to get involved. The first was recruiting individuals to monitor local government meetings—specifically county commission and school board meetings—take notes, and upload reports to a shared Google folder. Notably, she emphasized a particular need for people to watch school board meetings and mentioned that a Moms for Liberty group regularly attends. It’s worth pointing out that this group is known for more than just passive observation; having personally witnessed their presence at a school board meeting, their engagement, at this particular meeting, went beyond note-taking.

So, why does this matter? In her own words: “We have people on the board that say they’re conservative, and we need to hold them accountable to how they’re voting and how they’re not voting.” This statement, again, reveals a concerning ideological framework—one that prioritizes political allegiance over thoughtful governance. Rather than encouraging congregants to engage in civic processes with an open mind or a focus on community well-being, the expectation is to pressure elected officials into aligning with a specific conservative agenda. This approach not only risks reducing complex policy decisions to partisan loyalty tests but also reinforces an exclusionary mindset, where faith and governance become tools for enforcing ideological conformity rather than fostering informed, independent decision-making.

The second call to action was centered around education. They encouraged people to start book clubs, and watch documentaries. The speaker even gave an example of someone sending her a documentary on Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement that led her to hours of “reading and studying about some of the truth of that” that “changes American history if all this is true.”

This statement is problematic because it subtly casts doubt on well-documented historical events, particularly Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement, by suggesting that newly discovered “truths” might change American history if they are true. The vague wording implies skepticism toward established history without clarifying what is being questioned. While encouraging book clubs and documentaries is valuable, framing education as uncovering hidden truths rather than engaging with well-researched scholarship raises concerns about ideological bias. Given the broader context of the workshop, this could be seen as an attempt to reframe or diminish the significance of the Civil Rights Movement, aligning with revisionist narratives that downplay racial justice efforts.

Also, problematic was her charge: “Once you’re educated, you’re ready to fight.” It frames education not as a means of understanding, growth, or informed civic engagement, but as a prerequisite for combat. The phrase “you’re ready to fight” suggests a confrontational, adversarial approach rather than one focused on collaboration, discourse, or meaningful community involvement. It implies that learning should lead directly to action rooted in opposition rather than fostering critical thinking, dialogue, or solutions-oriented participation. In a church setting, where unity and compassion are often emphasized, this language can encourage division and an “us vs. them” mentality rather than constructive engagement.

For the record, I’m only 16:21 into my voice recording with 48:31 to go. (She also brought up her food truck again saying “I’m not going to lay down while the leftist community attacks us.” Again saying that they “slaughtered us.” Don’t want to beat a dead horse, so to speak, but the repeated references to persecution over a business dispute continue to paint a narrative of victimhood that fuels division rather than dialogue. This rhetoric not only exaggerates opposition but also frames any criticism or pushback as an outright attack, reinforcing an “us vs. them” mentality. If the goal is civic engagement and constructive change, this kind of language does more to entrench polarization than encourage meaningful participation. And remember—I’m still only 16 minutes in, with nearly 50 minutes left to unpack.

The final call to action centered on voting, where the most blatant violations of the Johnson Amendment occurred. The speaker expressed clear frustration with the current leadership of the Hamilton County GOP and emphasized the need to replace them with candidates who align with conservative Christian values. She then proceeded to introduce all the candidates running to unseat them, specifically highlighting three who are members of Calvary Chapel Chattanooga under the leadership of Pastor Frank. (For the purposes of this post, I will not name those individuals HERE, but you can read about them here because all five candidates won their election in early March.)

What was most disconcerting was the speaker’s request for those attending the workshop to vote for these five candidates, a clear violation of the Johnson Amendment… and they know it.

I quote: “I’m gonna just say it, I can cut this out of the recording, we’d love your vote.”

Equally disturbing was her assertion of what this election would mean. And, again, I quote: “We would like to have a seat at the table. If we win we get a huge seat at the table. As a church, just being honest with you, that’s huge for us.”

At this point, I still have 32 minutes left in the recording, and dissecting every statement would be an exhaustive and repetitive exercise. However, the overarching themes of the workshop are already clear—there was a deliberate effort to merge faith with political activism, a strong push for specific ideological engagement, and repeated rhetoric that blurred the lines between religious guidance and direct political endorsement. However, there is one thing I want to draw attention to in those last 30 minutes.

The speaker invited a member of their congregation to come to the stage and share some of her thoughts and experiences. During this time, she openly praised Charlie Kirk, idolizing him as a pivotal voice in the conservative movement, a deeply troubling reflection of the growing Christian Nationalist ideology taking root in our country. Her admiration underscored a broader shift, where political allegiance and faith are increasingly intertwined in ways that blur the lines between religious conviction and partisan loyalty. She also misrepresented the Reproductive Health Act signed by Andrew Cuomo in 2019. Citing it as the tipping point that propelled her into political activism, she underscored the insipid dangers on social media propaganda.

I believe these two points deserve more attention, which is why I’ll be taking a closer look at both in the part five.