I read this statement today in an article about national religious broadcasters (NRB) that have concerns about Senator Charles Grassley's investigation into six Christian mega-ministries:
"This is not a crusade against ministries," Grassley said. "It has nothing to do with doctrine. It has only to do with the enforcement of the law, and it's no different than the investigation I've been doing on non-profits for the last five years."
Grassley is the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. He believes the government has a right to investigate these tax-exempt ministries to make sure they are using funds for charitable purposes and not lavish lifestyles.
Right now, Grassley's investigation focuses on six television ministries. But those associated with NRB say the implications of that investigation are far-reaching, affecting Christian broadcasters across the spectrum.
I tend to agree with the concerns that these broadcasters have. I am not sure that the government should be sticking its nose into the affairs of faith based charities. If people want to support these ministries.. regardless of what I personally think about them.. the government should leave them alone.. isn't that what this separation of church and state is all about? What do you think?
I read this statement today in an article about national religious broadcasters (NRB) that have concerns about Senator Charles Grassley's investigation into six Christian mega-ministries:
As a tax pro, this is an issue that drives me CRAZY! :)
ReplyDeleteSeparation of church and state does not mean church does not have to follow the laws of state. If an organization, faith-based or not, chooses tax protection under a charitable umbrella and then presents an image that questions how monies are being spent (i.e., lavish studios, exorbitant salaries, gold-plated Bibles), then they better be prepared to open their books.
Also, the idea of "separation of church and state" is simply that there be no official religion established by state, not that state turns their head and lets church do whatever - or that church has not function within state.
To look the other way would actually imply deference to religious organizations. I guess that would be what many fundamentalists desire - but it seems rather hypocritical to me - not wanting other groups to have special treatment if you know what I mean.
Missy, you must be having a busy tax time of year right now! Your explanation was informative. When an organization enjoys special protection from taxes, they must be more open to scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteWhat will be alarming is when (no longer if) the government, rather than denying or suspending a ministry's tax-exempt status, may decide that they can step in and tell the ministry how they can run their ministry. Plan on watching hospitals shut down and abandon their ministries when they will not provide abortions, and we've already seen adoption agencies shut down because they won't give children to gay couples.
The danger isn't to televangelists, it's to other religion-based tax-exempts.
That said, I agree with KBob: if people want to support these TV dudes and dudettes with the pink hair, then it's a free country and they can.
Here are a few questions that cause me to wonder about Grassley's motives:
ReplyDelete1) Why did Grassley choose only six ministries?
2) Why are all of these ministries similar in theology?
3) What criteria did he use to select these ministries?
4) Why did he not go after others?
Billy Graham receives $400,000/year in retirement - will he be Grassley's next target? Really, those questions simply need to be answered by Grassley.. they are not difficult ones.
Well, I went and googled the question and this Christianity today article, with its extra links at the bottom, sort of explains it all: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/novemberweb-only/145-45.0.html
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link TZ. I don't think that it answered my questions though. The main thing it seemed to say is:
ReplyDelete"The main limitation is that a church, like any public charity exempt from federal taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, cannot pay unreasonable compensation to any staff member. Paying unreasonable compensation will jeopardize a church's tax-exempt status."
Hard to say what is unreasonable compensation. These folks seem to be making somewhat unreasonable salaries - Billy Graham's retirement seems unreasonable.
So how do you sort it all out when the senator who is doing the investigating gets a retirement equal to full salary and benefits for the rest of his life.. after only six years of active employment by us taxpayers?
"These folks" that I referenced in my last comment are at:
ReplyDeletehttp://kansasbob.blogspot.com/2007/11/ministry-compensation-comparison.html
Somewhere late in the article it seemed to say that there was information of clearly lavish ("unreasonable") lifestyles being supported.
ReplyDeleteGee, I didn't think Rev Graham's pension was excessive ($400K) given what he's done for his church all those years. If you consider him a CEO of a large corporation, that seems reasonable.
I suppose the difference is that the senator will pay taxes on his salary, while these people can sink all their purchases into their churches and get away without paying taxes the income that should have supported those purchases.
Part of the difference between SOME of those other folks and Graham, is the way they report income. I suspect that the personal tax information filed by each might reveal that some report less than lavish personal income, yet live in million dollar homes that are "property of the ministry." They are hiding their personal fortune in the ministry to avoid income taxes. That is wrong. I don't care if they make the money. I agree that these guys can enjoy the prosperity of capitalism and fools (in SOME cases) who attempt to pay for "blessings," but if the payee is getting a tax break on the donation, and the ministry is getting a tax break - it better be for non-tangible benefits. If it's an "investment" in a promise of personal wealth, I consider that a tangible benefit. To make the promise or insinuation and then indicate in legal documentation that there is no benefit exchanged for the contribution made - well to get out of that one would have to admit to fraud. That might be why televangelists are targeted - because those promises on tape. ;)
ReplyDeletePlease know I don't feel this way about all the folk's being investigated, but I do feel that using a charitable label rightfully puts one under a microscope. And if they do what's right, they should be glad to.
TZ, no doubt the government should have no right to tell these faith based charities to break their own beliefs in the services they provide. However, these organizations that receive state monies should understand the restrictions that come with it and find another resource.
I agree with this Missy..
ReplyDelete"I suspect that the personal tax information filed by each might reveal that some report less than lavish personal income, yet live in million dollar homes that are "property of the ministry." They are hiding their personal fortune in the ministry to avoid income taxes. That is wrong."
..but I am not sure that is the reason these ministries are being probed. I just wish that Grassley was a bit more upfront with the reasons he was limiting his investigation to only 6 ministries when so many others engage in similar practices. I'd still like my questions answered but suspect that the senator is not reading my blog :)
I somewhat agree about Graham's retirement check TZ.. I was just making the point that to some that might seem a bit unreasonable.. but I am not sure that I agree with putting him on par with corporate executive compensation.. that reasoning is probably why many in ministry feel entitled the way that they do.
Great dialog.. I may be enjoying it too much :)
Missy said: "TZ, no doubt the government should have no right to tell these faith based charities to break their own beliefs in the services they provide. However, these organizations that receive state monies should understand the restrictions that come with it and find another resource."
ReplyDeleteBefore the government legalized the murderous practices of abortion and winked at euthanisia, and is attempting to legalize the "marriage" of two people of the same sex, there never would have been any incompatibility between what a faith-based institution and the government would strive for.
But your suggestion - "they can find another resource" - what effect would you predict? How many hospitals run by Catholics and Lutherans and whoever else would disappear? How many more adoption agencies would shut down? How many parochial and private schools would go out of business? Your suggestion would practically disintegrate the health and education systems.
As you correctly said, the separation of church and state does not weaken or deny the bulwark and foundation that the church and her services are to society. But force that foundation to support itself, and that's the ball game.
Unless you can suggest another model....
Therese, it's certainly flawed, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteBut, it's what we've got - and it's one of the best balances on the planet. I pray that both sides (church & state) stay weighted about the way they are today.
Many highly effective charities operate without gov't funds - several hospitals, especially many of the Catholic-based ones run without it.