Being Tax Exempt Carries An Obligation
On the subject of TV ministries, something we don't talk about much is an issue the editors of the Montgomery Advertiser newspaper brought up this morning.
Honestly,
I find it insulting and frankly a bit unbelieveable to imagine that large ministries assume that their financial support is coming from people that are un-educated enough that they would not understand expenses. Now, I understand that some people give without understanding this, and that confusion around a balance sheet for instance could undermine some receipts, but that is why you also would disclose percentage summaries in addition to real numbers.
If you go to Joyce Meyers site for instance, you may really be impressed with how her organization has responded. Regardless of whether you think there might be things missing, or there might be some candy-coating... At least they are really making an effort to disclose to their supporters, where the money is going. This blog IS about perceptions given by media outlets right? Well I encourage readers here to go to Joyce's site and at least analyze what they are doing in regards to disclosure, and of late their public response to the Grassley letters.
If a mega-ministry has nothing to hide, and can show that they are sending millions of dollars into the mission field (home or abroad), then I want to give to THAT cause.
I don't have issue with Grassley's requests. What seems to be missing in my mind regarding our responses to this whole investigation is that we as the church have freely given to organizations that are NOT providing disclosure. We are giving because we are moved by someone's emotional tugs as they stare into the tv camera. Since we have NOT been wise, and we have not required more information before we write a check, there have been ministries that we have trusted that our money was going to one thing, where in reality a large percentage of it was going somewhere else. Since we have NOT held them accountable as a body, our government is checking them for adherence.
Since "We wrestle not against flesh and blood..." Do we honestly believe that this investigation can only be orchestrated by the devil? Or do we accept - at least the possibility - that this COULD be something that God will use to separate the wheat from the chaff?
Personally, I think it is a bit of an over-reaction to think that this whole thing is going to turn into some "state - controlling - the - church" conspiracy.
Now we each are entitled to our own opinions, but my thoughts are that some ministries are going to really look good, and some are going to really look bad. It is going to set a precedent that future mega-ministries are going to have to keep in mind. It is going to set a base-line for the IRS paying closer attention. In the end it might even mean that the local church will have to be better stewards of their money.
Everyone thinks this is a bad thing? Or do we just think that we shouldn't have to go to that much trouble to prove our innocence, or do we believe some conspiracy that the government is trying to control what we teach and preach?
I don't disagree with the premise at all that Christian organizations must be accountible and right in their dealings and that the government has a legitimate interest into addressing organizations that abuse their tax-exempt status and/or defraud their contributors.
In fact, I think some of the recent noise and investigation in this area is merited on that basis.
The problem I see is that institutionally, once a precedent is established in the realm of government it becomes a basis for repeated actions and expansion into other related areas.
The IRS already is tasked to oversee this area. Phil mentioned in another thread, and the more I think about it the more I agree with him that, Congress has oversight of the IRS. If they are not happy with the regulation then they should be investigating the IRS and holding them responsible to police this area better.
By making public inquiries into targetted ministries all kinds of bells legitimately should go off. I have all kinds of issues with some televangelist ministries on the basis of theology and financial practices. That doesn't justify me or the government targetting them in a public forum using government power for what can arguably be political purposes. Public opinion is not the proper forum to address these issues.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilence. Allowing actions of this nature to go unchallenged lays the groundwork for more extensive investigation and potential restrictions and shrinking of liberty for Christians, Churches and Religious Organizations.
If we as Christians and Christian organizations do not challenge this type of intrusion AND do what we need to on our own side to regulate and manage ourselves then I do believe there are the seeds of some major problems and reduction of liberties in our future and that should cause a lot of people and organizations to stand up and take notice.
Well, I don't mean to say that there are no reasons for concern or that there couldn't be resulting issues, but I don't see where a conservative republican senator is going to benefit politically by an unwarranted investigation or 'overstepped boundary'. To me that doesn't make sense.
The Finance committee that he is a ranking member of, has been doing this with non-profits - so I believe that precendent has already been established. If the finances are the issue, and not what is being spoken from the pulpit, and they have reasonable questions, then I don't feel that this is out of place.
So I sound anti-church to some. That is unfortunate. But the general state of the televangelist elite is even more unfortunate. I think there will be at least one exception out of this 6 ministry investigation... And I think Grassley knew that before he sent the letters. I think one or more ministries coming out smelling like a rose, will help to balance out the precedent. If they all come out with dirt, then the road will be harder.
There are other types of intrusions that I would oppose. That is certain. This particular request / investigation, is not something that I oppose. Holding them accountable for their finances is something that should be done. If it takes a special committee to clean things up, then that is a shame, but an effort to stop the investigation won't be something that I will align with.
Phil,
I think one question that hasn't been asked in all of this is: how were these ministries chosen? It seems arbitrary to me to state that these ministries are: 'six of the biggest names in the "prosperity gospel" field.' How exactly was this determined? By what they teach or by what they earn? I am very concerned that we are allowing a Senator to define the 'abusers' of ministry funds and overlook smaller ministries who may be worse offenders! And why only go after the 6 biggest? If there is an issue, why aren't all all of these ministries on the spot?
Does the size of the ministry determine who is a "prosperity gospel" ministry? If so, Joel Osteen was overlooked. Is it the types of clothing they buy or stores they shop in? If so, T.D. Jakes was left off the list...Is it how expensive their cars are? If so, I know a few pastors who would qualify for their list.
To single out specific ministries for investigation does not seem a just way to handle this. Consider T.D. Jakes...why is his ministry not on the list? God forbid that it is a political move based on his activism on behalf of the black community. Are his ministry and Joel's ministry more palatable according to politicians' standards?
Forgive me if I've missed what the true criteria was for selecting these ministries...was ORU truly the link? I'm not so sure. The bigger issue is when we allow the Senate to choose who will be investigated and who is "off the hook" then we are giving them too much power. If they want to investigate tax-exempt Christian ministries, then they should look at every one...not just certain, specific, politically-incorrect ones.
Sue in Denver, I think you are one of the few who is making much sense here. Since when do politicians (Grassley) tell the truth? This is a two-edged sword...it's about money and theology. As one commenter stated, "all kinds of issues....on the basis of theology and financial practices."
I'll avoid being redundant from my previous posts but, Sue, you are right. There is a level of discrimination being brought to only a few. And just who are the contributors and "concerned citizens" bringing the complaints?" Are they a faceless, mysterious entity as well? These are very general statements being brought by the esteemed senator. Reminds me of the "one person" bringing a complaint to the city commission because of a manger scene in the town square...so now we have none thanks to one...and the majority has lost again. My wife and I contribute monthly to two of the six ministries. Do we give blindly...hardly. It appears some are intimidated by "large salaries" and rapid transportation. Maybe some would rather use a horse like John Wesley did...me, I'll take the jet here in the 21st century.
The fringe posse must be bored...much to do about nothing. The Montgomery Advertiser, the Tulsa World...outstanding secular institutions...hardly our daily bread. And about as credible as the Whichita Eagle. Wish I had the media's margin of error in my profession. Then again, I would have a tough time explaining why my patients expired. :-)
One question to ask is what steps toward financial accountability had these ministries already taken? Within the evangelical community, there are many organizations who recognize their responsibility to donors and have agreed to a level of transparency -- accreditation with the ECFA, for example. (ECFA.org)
Well, I know for certain, thet Joyce Meyer publishes her annual financial reports on her website. I don't know about the others. I don't thing real "suspicion" of misspending or miconduct was the motive for this investigation at all...
Sue,
Maybe this excerpt from Grassley's press release (on his website) will help:
"I’m following up on complaints from the public and news coverage regarding certain practices at six ministries," Grassley said. "The allegations involve governing boards that aren’t independent and allow generous salaries and housing allowances and amenities such as private jets and Rolls Royces. I don’t want to conclude that there’s a problem, but I have an obligation to donors and the taxpayers to find out more. People who donated should have their money spent as intended and in adherence with the tax code."
There does not seem to be any disclosure of specifically where which complaints came from, but at least it does say "the public and news coverage".... Some of it may have been ORU news coverage... that is probably a safe assumption.
I think it's a good article and the points are valid. I think it misses a few important considerations as well.
1. Tax exemption is not established solely on the basis of Government caveat but upon the premise of separation of Church and State and to protect the Church from intrusion by the government.
2. The IRS and courts have appropriate venues to investigate tax-exempt organization. Singling out organizations by congressional fiat can lead to abuses and unequal enforement of the law which is discriminatory.
3. There has been a steady erosion of protection in this regard at the local level in particular as many localities have sought to bring religious properties back onto their tax rolls. Government is seeking to increase their revenues and the tax-exempt sector is a major target for politicians who see them as a source that will give them the funds they want without alienating the voting public by raising taxes. Don't underestimate the potential for abuse in that scenario.
It sounds good. There's more there however, and what are large organizations now which admittedly may deserve investigation and have problems will be the local church tomorrow.