How much privacy should a church have over its finances?
I watched Larry King interview televangelist Paula White on television last night and came to two conclusions:
*Tax laws for nonprofits and religious institutions need to be updated.
*People who send money to television ministries elsewhere should take 2008 to invest in those ministries/nonprofits whose work they can see in their own communities.
White's ministry is one of those being looked at by a Senate investigation -- others include Joyce Meyer, who apparently purchased a $23,000 toilet and Creflo Dollar, who apparently has a second jet.
Come to think of it -- if you have the will to buy a $23,000 toilet, doesn't that mean you probably have too much money on your hands, as claimed by some watchdog groups?
Comments (8)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
The tax laws are fine! Let's keep government out of the picture. The Christain community needs to rise up and speak with their wallet and thier pulpits. All we need is more government intrusion at every little excess or concern. Government is NOT the answer. ALl the hoopla is sim-ply a further effort fo the anti-Christain humanist horde to limit the Church's influence; especially as the '08 election nears.
The institutional spearation ethos should preclude any further government control of church money or activities. I heartily agree that changes are greatly needed in the whole "medianity" phenomenon; but a concerted and vigorous in-house cleann-up is the answer - NOT GOVENMENT and certainly not the IRS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted on November 27, 2007 11:09 AM
If the "church" were doing its job, there would be no need to "...rise up and speak with their wallet and thier pulpits."
That is the problem, there is a "veil" which people like those mentioned seek to hide behind.
Sadly, when someone such as Nancy makes a reference to having these things investigated by the government, there is a clear and loud call for "separation." Yet, on other issues, these same people see no problem with have NO SEPARATION.
I guess it depends upon which side of the aisle one sits for it to matter.
Shalom
Posted on November 27, 2007 12:53 PM
It never occurred to me that any charity should be opaque to the government. If they are going to hold money and property outside of the tax system in return for presumed "benefits to the community" - which is the reason most often given for this tax break - it should be expoected that the government would need to be able to verify that the benefit is in fact being provided. I don't think that's too much of a burden on any such organization, church or not.
Posted on November 27, 2007 3:18 PM
If everything's on the up and up, then no one should have anything to worry about now should they? I seem to remember our founding fathers had some very specific comments on this very subject and I don't think the church would like what they had to say on the subject either.
Posted on November 27, 2007 3:26 PM
I agree, Eric. I'm not sure that the current rules are adequate for monitoring anyone/any operation that's tax exempt and taking in, for example, $69 million a year.
I think the rules should be updated to reflect the fact that for most tax-exempt operations, the rules are adequate. But I'd like to see additional rules kick in when the income hits, say, the $10 million marker? I know it can be a slippery slope, but what else do you do?
Posted on November 27, 2007 3:29 PM
I wholeheartedly agree with the above comments!
Shalom
Posted on November 28, 2007 9:32 AM
Dudes! I was not calling for lax government enforecement of tax laws in this area. I am in full agreement that the laws should be applied. But they are more than adequate. Just apply them consistently. What I AM wary of (and apparently Nancy is too: "I know it can be a slippery slope . . .") is that a rash of new and intrusive government "rules" and tax enforcement policies will be instituted that will genuinely break down the "wall" of separation you guys so love to cite.
I am in full favor of the separation of the INSTITUTIONS of government and the Church. But I do NOT see any legitimate case for total exclusion of religious or spiritual influences in our government. Besides, government intrusion into the policies of churches regarding who they can hire or not hire, or what they can preach from the pulpit etc. is on the increase (Sweden, Canada) and is seeking expression here as well.
The banning of all Christian expression and influence in the sphere of government has NO basis in history, in law or in the Constitution - which merely calls for government not to interfere with the function of churches and for there to be no state church; which issue was super hot at the time because of the history of this problem in England and Europe.
I'm in full agreement that these ministries - or any non-profit - should be what they claim to be before the tax laws. If they are breaking the current laws, they should be justly prosecuted.
I just don't want there to be a humanistically driven feeding frenzie on churches generally, just because a few high-powered, high-profile TV mnistries went over the line. That's my only concern.
Posted on December 1, 2007 11:17 AM
lvqhbyat lnjof cstxwmzp banejhcfl gudlxvti evuw wnrtymso
Posted on September 7, 2008 7:02 AM