I had a conversation with a friend about this recently, so it's on my mind.
In America churches are almost exclusively tied into the whole "501(c)(3)" thing. You know ... "If we agree not to talk about politics from the pulpit, you agree not to tax us on our income." Right? Okay, it goes a step farther than that. With that 501(c)(3) connection they can also entice people to give more to them because the givers will receive a tax break, too. There is that. But should it be?
The whole 501(c)(3) thing was actually started by Lyndon Johnson. (Yes, that LBJ.) We've pretty much forgotten it by now, but from the beginning churches were tax exempt. Why? Well, the government (you know, that one "of the people") actually believed that the government must not interfere with the free exercise of religion. With that principle in mind, it occurred to them that the ability of the government to tax a church would provide a means of controlling a church. Thus, historically, churches were not taxed. Enter Senator Lyndon B. Johnson. Back in 1954 Johnson encountered a conservative nonprofit group hoping to limit the treaty-making ability of a president and called on Americans to elect Johnson's opponent. In order to silence them, Johnson introduce Section 501(c)(3) to the tax code that gave them tax exempt status as long as they kept silent on politics. It's hard to call this anything but "hush money." To this day, then, churches that engage in political talk can lose their tax exempt status under the 501(c)(3) rules.
To be fair, a church that decides not to submit to the 501(c)(3) restrictions is not exempt from the restrictions. All churches must abide by the federal Tax Code regardless of whether they have applied for IRS recognition of tax-exempt status. This is a matter of government control, not merely church greed.
So, if we're supposed to "be subject to the governing authorities" because "there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God" (Rom 13:1), what are we to do? We should keep in mind that "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). We, therefore, would need to determine if what we're pondering here in our churches is a violation of God's commands or just a violation of our politics. But if we determine that this is an issue of a violation of God's commands, what then?
The restrictions of church involvement in political activity is pretty straightforward. And yet ...? The restrictions do not prohibit a leader of an organization from expressing their opinion for themselves as individuals. The code does not restrict leaders from speaking about important issues of public policy. The prohibition is that leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official functions of the organization. Note the phrasing. "Partisan comments." "Official organization publications." "Official functions."
So, where do we stand? If there is a ballot option to vote for legalizing prostitution, can we comment based on Scripture regarding sexual immorality? If a proposition is up for a vote that will make guns illegal, can we comment from the position of "We ought to obey God rather than men"? If a politician is a communist, can we oppose him from the pulpit even though the government says we shouldn't? If he is in favor of expanding abortion rights, can we tell the congregation not to vote for him?
I think there is room for some commentary and there are restrictions on other commentaries. If we are to violate the restrictions, we would 1) need to be sure it's on the basis of God's commands over against government authority and 2) be prepared to willingly face the consequences of such an action. But I'm not the guy that gets to determine this. Should churches be restricted in what they say or not? Should pastors be allowed to talk about whether to and how to vote or not? Is the government overstepping their authority by restricting churches or not? I wonder.
12 comments:
I often have wondered why so many DFL candidates hold campaign events in black churches, yet the churches don't ever see any ramifications from those clearly partisan events.
I'd never thought of the tax exempt status as being part of the 1st amendment free exercise clause. But clearly you are right in saying that if the feds can tax churches, they can exert control over churches.
Where I'm currently seeing a grey area in this is social media. When I see pastors, and others in church leadership positions taking partisan, in some cases extremely partisan, stands on social media I wonder where the dividing line is between personal and pulpit anymore. My nature is to not push the envelope so I would most likely shy away from partisan comments on social media if I were a pastor.
I do wonder how many of the extremely vocal, partisan pastors would be so vocal if their congregation lost the ability to deduct giving from their taxes?
But, that gets back to using the tax code to control churches, doesn't it.
On the pastors expressing extremely partisan positions on social media, according to the IRS code, as long as it's not "official organization publications or at official functions," they're free to express their personal views. On the other hand, sometimes it's hard to draw the line between personal and "official," like Trump or AOC's Twitter accounts. Is it personal or is it official? The debate goes on.
The concern a lot of churches have over "Would they stop giving if they didn't get to deduct it from their taxes?" speaks poorly of 1) the pastors who don't teach about "Let your giving be in secret" (Matt 6:1-4) and 2) the hypocrisy of those who "give generously" simply to get a tax break. Bottom line, the suggestion is "We survive because of people giving" rather than relying on God.
That's exactly my problem with the social media issue. When someone's "fame" is because of their position at a church, then I believe that it's hard to disconnect them from their role. Unfortunately this may be a situation where ones public position requires a sacrifice of a degree of personal freedom. I think your comparison to politicians is a good one. You could make the argument that Trump's twitter is his "private" account and has no bearing on his public role, but the reality is that his position makes that virtually impossible. I'd suggest that the current pope is another good example when he uses his official pope twitter account. Although he's not subject to US tax law.
You've clearly hit on a different and equally valid point regarding the giving issue. I've always looked at giving as something I do when I support the cause or mission of the organization and the tax deduction to be more of a bonus than a motivation. I will say that since becoming self employed, that I do a fair amount of giving through my business account so that I can maximize the impact of the deduction of giving that I would do anyway.
I think they try to draw the line on those accounts as "official" or "personal" based on their primary purpose. I think the DOJ ruled Trump's Twitter account was "official" because he was using it to make official-proclamation kind of things.
I’m sure that’s the case. I’d argue that it would be impossible for a government official to maintain a truly private social media account .
I don't know. If a government official or a pastor is simply no longer capable of having a private social media account in contrast to an official one, it would seem like someone is getting ripped off. If someone has a Facebook account and then becomes, say, a state university employee, would that account revert to an "official university account" status? When Obama was in office, he used @POTUS which was his official Twitter account. It would seem possible, even reasonable, to have an official account and a personal account. (You used "private" and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm pretty sure you weren't, either.)
If a government official or a pastor cannot have a personal ("non-official") social media account, it would seem to me a LARGE number of people would fall into that category (teachers, administrators, police and fire, etc.).
I’m not suggesting they be forbidden from having a private account, just that the reality is that it will be treated as if it’s official no matter what.
I changed my profile so as not to run afoul of my previous employer’s social media policy.
No, I got that. Not forbidden. Just perception.
Perception is reality.
I believe the restrictions on churches should be overturned as soon as possible. It was bad law when Johnson got passed and it still is. It is unAmerican regardless of who is made to keep quiet. In this case it's churches and pastors. The thing is, the reason churches weren't taxed was because of what they say and how what they said was thought to be of great benefit to the culture, and thus to the nation. That included, back then, their political talk from the pulpit. During the Revolution, the so-called "Black Robed Regiment" influenced the public toward revolting against British rule. What was going on when Johnson got this travesty enacted was no different...pastors using their positions as spiritual leaders to guide their flocks with regard to civic matters. It's not as if there's no place for such. And while it's true that, especially today, there are pastors that are already guiding their flocks in the wrong direction, that's their right and they shouldn't be taxed just because some in government don't like it. It's just government censoring of free speech and is unConstitutional.
Creation of a co-dependent institution, no matter what its charter might be, must at some point compromise in order to appease the benefactor. The give and take between Government and the Church has always been a marriage on the rocks. today many churches in my area are down sizing because the young are moving away. this makes for desperate measures by pastors and congregants that want to maintain their large buildings and properties. when pastors fear for their livelihood because the money is tight, he situation creates an opportunity for creative compromise.
if for any reason you ask the question: if God wants to close this church, would you have a problem with that? they would jump to the answer they think is acceptable. "no I would not have a problem" but in actuality they do have a problem.. their view is that we have to keep this albatross afloat.. a true catch 22. I believe that we should go back to small group home fellowship and worship, that way I can take collections to pay for my boat...
To answer your question. If God wants to “close” a particular local congregation I have no problem with that. But the Church, is the Bride of Christ and is something that Hell won’t prevail against,
I’m willing to leave the preservation of His Church up to Him.
Post a Comment