This post will be up through the entire weekend, to give everyone a chance to dig in. I normally don't like to "steal" a topic from another blog, but United We Lay's most recent post stirred quite a lot of controversy and intrigued me greatly. (Feel free to read all the comments there to get a complete view, if you wish). Because we have a very different readership, I've decided to post the same question to you. Let me give you my substandard point of view (excerpted from UWL's recent comments). Please weigh in!
*I* am in favor of taxing church buildings and properties. The church itself is the congregation. It is up to the congregation to finally get involved and decide if their money is being wisely spent.
However, we see churches that, instead of giving money to the poor and helping the needy, pour the money into prettier and bigger buildings, with high-tech equipment, programs that would make the YMCA blush, and its all located on prime property.
The "church" has grown away from it's focus.
There should be taxation on property, with liberal reprievals when the church is actually spending generously to help others, instead of itself. It would also be scaled, dependant on the size of the building and property, of course.
This should apply to all charities, may I add.
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Matthew 6:19-21
But there are so many churches that completely disregard this command!
For years I have seethed over the massive treasures the Catholic Church has piled up. The Vatican sits on more acquired wealth than most rulers and museums! Yet, one of my friends has repeatedly contacted Catholic Charities to find out about his birth parents (he was adopted) and has been told for years that their funds are too limited and their personnel are too few to do an intensive search for him.
What a pity the Pope can't simply sell one of his diamond-encrusted, gilded mirrors (yes, I know of one that really exists). It would relieve the pressure on his charities. But, he wouldn't get to stare at that mirror every morning!
However, let me be clear that this doesn't apply to the Catholic Church only. It applies to any church that accumulates wealth and posessions.
Please remember, the earliest "churches" were simple gatherings of Christians. Jesus didn't come to raise the temple, and he never started a building fund. Jesus didn't hire artists, and he didn't hang out with poets. In fact, he preached complete simplicity.
I see very little that the chuches do in modern times. Some churches are better at it than others. Some have homeless outreach and soup kitchens, some help unwed mothers or widows. But most pour so much money into non-necessities that could be much better used to help the needy.
I recommend that every church scales back and becomes a truly Biblical church once more: a simplistic gathering of believers in humble circumstances, without all the fancy and expensive acoutrements, so that they can funnel their funds to where it can truly help others.
If the church really wants converts, the best way to get them is to show that they care. The church needs to put food in bellies instead of art on walls. Taxing churches would help them re-prioritize.
P.S. I already know one argument coming: "We have to look modern and enticing if we're going to have an effective outreach program". I ask you this contentious question: Is your message so poor that you must look like the rest of the world to transmit it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I like your last paragraph. I'll come back after I've given this a little thought. One thing, though: most of the the new modern megachurches launched massive, multi-year fundraising campaigns to accomplished their buildings. Doesn't really have anything to do with "giving, tithing."
Churches benefit from having police and fire protection and land use planning, so it seems logical they should be taxed for those.
YES YES YES! They should be taxed! "The Church" has become a business without fear of taxes!
Side Story:
I was at a Deli when a lady came in and ordered herself a sandwich. When she got up to pay for it, she said "Oh, and that's no tax I work at the Church" What the?
My church is pretty enticing even though the building is 100 years old... its a good thing, they don't build them that well anymore, and certainly not that pretty. However, its the dynamic of the membership that makes the difference. Not only are they big into outreach, but just the excitement there makes people dig deep and give generously. We could well afford to pay taxes. Render unto Caesar and all that, because yes, the church benefits from public works.
I think that simply being a church is not enough to avoid paying taxes. The same goes for a charity or any other non-profit. There must be standards and accountability to be sure that the money which is ostensibly "not profit" be used in ways that benefit the community at large. For it is that community that is paying to subsidize the organization through non taxation.
This could be viewed as an establishment clause issue (although the Supreme Court has already upheld this kind of "establishment"), but more directly, it is a matter of self-serving versus community. These organizations do not survive solely on what is donated, part of it is what they don't contribute, either voluntarily or through taxes.
There are numerous examples of churches and others that do a fine job of outreach, of providing services to all who need them. And I might add, they do it far more efficiently than our very own government (can anyone say "Katrina"). On the other side of that coin, there are far too many that spend money hand over fist for the purposes of patting themselves on the back. Their oppulance is a testimony of wealth, not good works. With proper oversight, those that owe would pay, and those that do not, wouldn't.
'nuff said.
~Mike
You have some very valid points, saur, for which I'm in agreement. But the power to tax can also be the power to destroy, to control - it has been used by the IRS in the past to actually tell churches what they can and cannot preach. That is wrong.
I say leave it up the Jesus Christ to discipline His Church. He is more than capable of handing the job.
Good post.
Saur,
The only fair tax is a use tax. I don’t see where taxing churches and charities would be beneficial.
As soon as you enact a tax the lobbyist will start pushing for exemptions and credits. This would be the best thing to happen to the accounting industry since Sarbox.
I read the tax code every night before I go to bed because it makes me sleepy rich.
I have to admit I would get a good chuckle out of Ernest Angely testifying in front of the IRS, “say baby Mr. Commissioner” or Jessie Jackson sayin “you be showin me disrespect”.
I need to clarify what I wrote earlier. What I meant to say is the threat of the loss of tax exempt status for churches has been used by the IRS to muzzle the Gospel in many instances. For that reason, maybe it's not such a bad idea for churches to lose tax exempt status.
As to the discipline of churches for frivolous spending, that's still best left to Jesus Himself.
I am in total agreement with you on this one, Saur... and for many reasons that would take up too much space to list here.
Thanks for giving me fodder for a post!
Hope you are having a good weekend!
When you get a moment to veer slightly off-topic, I'd be curious to read your thoughts on Crown Financial Ministries, the Christian financial advising "grassroots" effort with a super-glossy front. At least, that's my take on it. :)
Perhaps the amount of money that is actually used for charity should be looked at. Perhaps setting a certain percentage to be used for true charity be the benchmark. If a certain percentage isn't "properly" used as charity then the said church should lose tax exempt status.
I think that they should have to pay some taxes but I also enjoy the art in churches. I enjoy the music now that it's more modern. I think it is ok to have that stuff. I enjoy looking at the catholic stained glass windows....though I'm not catholic and have never sat through a 8 hour service....only a wedding....and a funeral....those were long enough.
I think that it's ok because everyone has as many different views as their are churches. Some are plain and old fashioned while some are modern and full of sculptures and paintings. I guess it depends. I definetly don't think it should be a requirement to force them to do anything.
I attended a Christian college where they had an annual Bible conference. They made a big deal about giving money to the offering all week, and all the money raised went to some new addition to the campus.
Once in an open forum, a guy stood up and raised the question to the vice president of the university, "Why don't we give that money to missionaries?!" The vice president replied, quite annoyed, "Those are pretty nice clothes you're wearing. Why don't you give those to the missionaries and buy yourself cheaper ones?!"
Blogger down! Blogger Down!
I guess they fixed the problem. I haven't been able to get to half of the sites I visit.
Our church is right now planning a new building to put on 6 acres next to our existing building.
I'm really not looking forward to it.
wonderful concept. The problems? Who decides and how do they decide?
And before any one asks, self aggrandizing churches have frosted me for years and is probably the prime reason I have drifted from organized religion
I don't know how I feel about the tax thing but I agree with your vent about the buildings and treasures 100%. My husband and I are now participating in and "acts church" We meet in a home with about 20 other like minded belivers and someone brings a word. we fellowship. we pray, we minister and we evanglize to the lost. It is so refreshing to fellowship with people who are not making idols out of things and following the 7 steps to make me great!!! and other such self esteem junk that is coming out of the mega churches today....
Thanks for speaking out on something that so needs to be addressed.
Holly
This is a hot topic on a lot of blogs. I don't see churches doing what they should as it relates to helping the poor and needy. The only people they help are their peachers and politicians, and of course competing with each other to see who can build the largest building. I believe this and I say it again here ... if a church can't prove that the majority of thier money goes to help the poor they should be taxed.
Also, any church that is playing in politic should immediately lose thier tax exempt status and be fined, and there should be no exceptions to this rule.
You are right, the church is the people, but the people sure don't act like they are the church --- there is so much hatred amoung folks calling theselves christians.
Everyone, sorry I didn't participate as much in this discussion. I would've liked to, but Blogger was down for a while. In addition, we've been sick here and resting. I'll answer more shortly.
i don't see the need to tax churches ... these are not-for-profit institutions whose existence is solely for the community. yes, there are certainly examples where funds could be better spent, but are you suggesting that the government indirectly determine where my tithes go? if i want my money to go toward overseas missions and that's not on the tax-exempt list, what then? like mallory said above, "who decides and how do they decide?"
I very much agree that some churches use money unwisely. I have nothing against creating a beautiful and long-lasting church building, but common sense should suggest where to draw the line. (Aside: art can be expensive, but doesn't have to be. It can add to the atmosphere of worship just as music does, but prints will do that just fine - no need for expensive originals.)
What I don't agree with is this: "The church needs to put food in bellies instead of art on walls. Taxing churches would help them re-prioritize."
I think churches will probably keep their priorities regardless, and the kind of church that favours finery over good works will simply cut their charitable programs in order to pay the taxes.
And in truth I think the government has no business telling churches what to do with their money (read the whole comment before you reply to that). Churches are tax-free because they are not-for-profit, not strictly because of charitable causes (though it is part of the thinking). A church could spend every cent it gets on missionary work and still be within its mandate, though no-one got a cookie out of it (not advocating that).
Also, as someone said before, who decides what constitutes appropriate use of the money? Can their programs focus on their own membership (eg youth program), or do they have to reach out to the community? Should help be physical, or do mental/emotional/social support services qualify? Traditionally, governments do not make these decisions wisely (health care systems anyone?)
My long-winded point is: change to the way churches do things should NOT come from the government, but from the church membership. Where the members seek to be charitable and giving, church programs will follow. Where they are selfish and worldly, no charitable programs will succeed, no matter how diligent the church leader/priest.
Members should hold their church accountable for their performance as 'beliefs in action'. Just like parents can't expect schools to teach their children moral truth, people can't wait around for the government (devoid of integrity as it is) to call their church to repentance. The tax system is not the right tool for this job. As long as a church fits the criteria of not-for-profit, it should not be taxed.
Post a Comment