What should churches do?
Care of Drudge, a two page article in Politico about some church pastors daring the IRS to revoke their tax-privileged status for their campaigning directly for candidates from the pulpit. I haven't excerpted any of it, mainly so that you can find those parts you feel are most important to you.
So how should churches deal with this sort of thing?
I'll tell you how I feel. On the one hand, I'm tickled pink at extra voices working to defeat some of these idiot Democrats. On the other hand, I'm not too sure how I feel about these guys double-dipping, not only with respect to me but also with respect to their own congregants and their sister churches. By double-dipping, I mean they're getting some envious financial and tax benefits (like Rod Dreher's church not having to report much on any of his personal money which may or may not slosh through it) for agreeing to certain terms, then deciding to forsake those terms while keeping the benefits. Me, I'd like that deal, too.
Keep in mind that being the beneficiary of a tax expenditure (the formal term for these church exemptions) is no less a case of being on the government teat than receiving a welfare check; you just pocket the money other people including your congregants and parishioners don't get in a different way.
So what should churches do?
Should they play by the rules they originally agreed to?
Should they even be making deals with the government at all?
Churches should carry out their mission according to their beliefs in the manner that they see best. If they end up running afoul of the tax laws, so be it. If they alter their message or mission because of whether the government allows contributions to be tax-deductible, they have submitted to government control of their mission, which is qualitatively little different than the arrangement in Communist China. If we don't like how the bread gets sliced in any particular instance, then it is up to us to elect those who will slice it the right way.
ReplyDeleteP.S. One of the most odious terms in politics to me is the term "tax expenditure". It is odious because it connotes that the government is spending money when it chooses not to tax certain income -- in other words, that the money we earn actually belongs to the government and they merely deign to let us keep some of it.
Churches should carry out their mission according to their beliefs in the manner that they see best. If they end up running afoul of the tax laws, so be it. If they alter their message or mission because of whether the government allows contributions to be tax-deductible, they have submitted to government control of their mission, which is qualitatively little different than the arrangement in Communist China.
ReplyDeleteAh, but the question, Pik, is what if they try to do both at once, to have their cake and eat it, too? The tax-exempt church exemption is a choice that is actively made or not made by those qualifying. In those circumstances, when they choose both - yes, please, God and Mammon - what have churches made of themselves?
Unfortunately, whether or not the term "tax expenditure" is odious or not doesn't change the net flow of the arithmetic: those who aren't able to keep their potential tax liabilities end up covering the tab for those who do.
I think I'd be more impressed with those pastors who want to endorse candidates from the pulpit if they cancelled their tax exemptions in the process, if they defiantly gave back their tax advantages as well.
I don't have a philosophical problem with a church that both serves God and also argues strenuously for its tax-exempt status. Maybe they win, maybe they lose -- but they can legitimately put up the good fight so as to stretch their contributions and the Lord's work. My problem is if they alter their message in order to keep the financial benefit.
DeleteFlip side: as a Catholic school parent in years past, I always had a worry about the push for tuition vouchers -- because of the regulatory strings that would no doubt be attached to the money.
Here's the sort of scenario people may not automatically envision: a moderate-to-liberal pastor uses his singular perch in the pulpit to endorse a liberal-ish (gay? pro-amnesty? $15 minimum wage?) candidate which at least half his congregation moderately to strenuously disagrees with.
DeleteIn effect, he's transcended being a man of God to having become a representative - but only in sharply limited part - politician, and one who "stands for election" among his constituents in a markedly different way
Why does the content of the pastor's message matter? My answer is the same either way -- churches ought to have latitude to preach their message independently of the government. Even at a cost of some occasionally entering the political fray.
Delete(Goes without saying that the church must actually be a church, and not a front for a campaign operation or other sham.)
Why does the content of the pastor's message matter?
DeleteBecause without limits on the content of the pastor's message you no longer have a church, you only have a 501(c)(x): an all-purpose tax-exempt advocacy organization without any of the limitations of the other 501(c) organizations. That it may also deliver the periodic Christian sermon or pot luck supper may not be enough to save it from the inevitable corruption that such a bright shining opportunity would surely invite. I fear pre-defining such corruption away by disclaiming something "goes without saying" would probably not be enough.
Better for churches to slip the government tax leash entirely. Then they're wholly in 1A territory, whatever they want to say.
What I meant was that I thought you were making a point by having a liberal pastor rather than a conservative.
DeleteI'd rather that churches would slip the gov't tax leash entirely than have Lois Lerner in the pews listening and judging. But with the tax burdens such as they are, I'd rather simply give churches wide latitude on the message.