Is It Biblical for Churches to Take Government Benefits?

The case that was made was trying to assert that the government was giving illegal benefits to churches through tax exempt status. The courts said they weren't ... The courts happen to be right. The government is not supporting the church by giving them tax exemption. It is therefore, not a government benefit.

It doesn't subjugate the church to the IRS. You are crying wolf. In the real world, it just doesn't matter. I have no problem being subject to the IRS anyway. IF they don't ask me to do something unbiblical, I can abide under them. That is what Paul instructed the church to do anyway. If they ask me to do something unbiblical, I will say no. There is no problem here. You have created a great tension where there is not one.

If you are allowing the message of the Scripture to be controlled by the government, then you are wrong. Period. I am not. Most pastors I know are not.

 

I suspect that the original poster was talking about faith based charities and whether a church ought take money from the government for X program or cause.

I would counsel no. I really believe that we, as the body of Christ, best be cautious of institutions built by humans.

This is just my opinion, but as a voting member of my local church, if this ever came up, I would vote no.

 

The question is raised, is it biblical for a church to receive government benefits.

If the church building is on fire, I will not protest the benefit of the fire department coming along to put out the fire.

If the church is robbed, I will not protest the benefit of the police department investigating the robbery.

 

Situation :

Church is flooded, hit by a tornado, hurricane, and or bombing.

FEMA steps in to help rebuild.

Should the church take it? Or refuse it?

 

I agree that the courts have said what they have said. Which is why I say what I said. It is not an illegal benefit.

Because you are raising a big issue over something that is not an issue.

God said to be subject to the governmental authorities. That is why I don't have a problem with it. When they ask me to do something unbiblical I will refuse. When they tell me to pay taxes, we will pay them. I have no problem with it. They do not control me.

We are not 501c3. I have already said that. But if we were, and the IRS made such a claim, I would say no. We must obey God rather than man.

Can you give us an instance in Scripture where the church was mandated to "organize opposition" to governmental practices? No, you can't. In fact, in every place where government in mentioned, believers are told to be subject to it.

No, so I don't do that.

Granting for the sake of argument that you are right (which I dispute), We must obey God rather than man. It is simple.

No I didn't. 501c3 is something you file for.

I agreed to be subject to the IRS so long as they do not requires something unbiblical.

No it's not. You are crying wolf again.

Maybe your experience is too limited. Or maybe you have an unbiblical view of what the message hte church is supposed to be preaching is. As a pastor of a NT church, my preaching is limited by what the Scriptures say. I do not preach anything else.

Hopefully, he had the guts to repent of it ... Since I have not been gagged, I have no need to repent of it.

 

I wouldn't take government money to fund something that I feel God has called us to do. God is more then able to fund the ministry he calls the church to pursue. I don't even like "fundraisers" done outside the church. Which begs why do them if all you're going to ask is church folks anyhow.

That said I don't get the whole fear the 501(c)3 thing. My guess is that the hushmoney.org guys have had a run in with the IRS folks over another issue and are know mounting a charge against their new found windmill.

How about this, preach Jesus, taxed or not and see lives changed!

 

Should we be allowing discussion based on the writings of one Peter Kerhsaw? He is endorsed by the Southern Party of Georgia, check out the web-site Southern Party of Georgia web-site

Also this from the Center for Democratic Renewal
CDR web-site

If not overtly racist, at very least leaning that way with extreme views of seperation

 

Is a 501c3 church to be considered a church or a corporation? I have read some on this subject and believe the answer to be a corporation.

Is a 501c3 church...,unequally yoked to the government the same as a believer in Christ married to a non-believer? I think so.

Is the government the head of a 501c3 over and above the Lord Jesus Christ. From the IRS publications I have read on this subject..., I believe so.

Jesus is Lord and Saviour, not the government, He and only He should be the head of the church. I can come up with much evidence to lead me to think the tax exempt status of a church makes it a corporation (a legal business) and is no longer a church of God. Jesus threw the money changers out of the tempal if I remember the Bible correctly, and it's my belief that 501c3 churches have let them back in.

It's all in the fine print. The government, made up mostly of lawyers, seeks to control everything today. But, first they must have the laws in place. Small steps lead to big changes over time. First the legal groundwork (laws) then control by enforcement. And they, the lawyers, those silver tongued devils can make it as honey in your ears. Seems like I have heard a line like this in the bible somewhere.

 

I agree.

 

Most church are incorporated for legal reasons. It is not wise to not be, IMO.

I don't. The relationship is totally different.

ONly if the church is disobedient to God. This 501c3 issue is not as big as it is being made out to be. The only problem comes when the pastor is not obedient to God.

 

Pastor Larry, what are some of the legal reasons a church would want to incorporate over and what does the Bible tell us of this?

I am not a bible scholar, and have not studied it in order to form a church, so any passages you could give as examples would be appreciated. By me anyway. Thanks.

 

Liability, insurance, banking, payroll, etc.

Nothing. It does not address it apart from saying that we are to be submissive to the governing authorities.

 

Thank you Pastor Larry,

You bring up being submissive to governing authorities here. We already talked about Romans 13 in another forum awhile back, so, I won't start it here again.

I am not a bible scholar as I have said before, but I am a businessman, and I know full well that a person in these United States of America cannot start a legitimate business without first taking on the government as a partner.

I must pay the government monies to be in business. I might add, alot of monies to be in business. And the government has a jillion laws that I am to follow if I want to stay in business. In NYS I can work by myself and not have to carry comp insurance on myself, but if I am to hire help, even for a week, I have to come up with almost 30% of the wages to pay the government for the priviledge to have someone work for me. Social security must be paid, unemployment insurance must be paid, taxes must be paid, if a person is liable for taxes that is, disability isurance, and I have to purchase permits for everything imagineable. This doesn't benefit my business or my employees as I have found out by being in the Glaziers union for fifteen years. It all sounds good on the surface, but it is only another way for the government to control my business and employees.

So, if a church incorporates, it does it for business reasons, correct? And if it is a business, it must have the government as a business partner. How can this be biblical? If the church is the bride of Jesus Christ as I have been taught, doesn't this infringe on the power of Jesus and his right as the head of His church?

 

You are incorrect about government being the business partner. The government is not a business partner in any real sense. The government does provide protections through law for both the business owner, the employees, and the customer. There are valid reasons for business permits and disability insurance, etc. Even as a pastor, I have worker's comp insurance. If I get hurt on the job, I am covered by insurance. It doesn't benefit you or your employee until he needs it. Most people never need it. But that is the purpose of insurance. The insurance company is gambling that you will never need their services. You are gambling that you will. There are valid reasons for the government to have some control. How would you like to eat in a restaurant that was not inspected by the health department? How would you like to have a contractor work on your house without knowing what he is doing? In both cases, government oversight provides a minimal basis of comfort to the consumer.

As for the church, I didn't say "business reasons." I said "legal reasons." It is biblical because it is wise stewardship, and because it does not compromise any biblical principle. Incorporation provides a blanket for the officers of the church. It provides legitimate organization for insurance. Consider this: A piece of the ceiling falls and hits someone on the head and they file suit. Who do they file against? If you are not incorporated, they can file against the pastor personally, and against the deacons/elders/trustees of the church. When you incorporate, they can file against the church and the insurance takes over.

It does not infringe on the right of Jesus Christ in his church in anyway. We are not required to compromise our message or our operating principles by incorporation. The moment the government tries to tell me what to preach is the moment I will disobey them, in order to obey God. But that isn't happening.

 

At least it's not happening in America...Yet!!

A Swedish court has sentenced Ake Green, a pastor belonging to the Pentecostal movement, to a month in prison, under a law against incitement, after he was found guilty of having offended homosexuals in a sermon, according to Ecumenical News International.

Green had described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society" in a 2003 sermon.

Soren Andersson, the president of the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender rights, said on hearing Green's jail sentence that religious freedom could never be used as a reason to offend people.

SOURCE

It's only a matter of time before we start hearing stories like this coming out of North America, and eventually the United States. I would guess that many of the multi-million dollar mega churches would be willing to compromise on their message in order to follow the government standards of what is acceptable when this religious persecution starts here in the US.

 

I saw that this morning, NP. I clicked the link to see where it was happening. I think we are a very long ways from that in America, although it may come some day. If it does, then so be it. Some churches may be willing to compromise; some may not. I pray that I never will ...

So far the courts have been pretty willing to stay out of religious issues. I think that will continue to be the trend, at least at the higher levels of the court and in teh more conservative appelate districts. The 9th may do something stupid like that, but it would certainly be overruled I think. This is yet another reason why judicial appointees are so important. Who is likely to make better appointments in these kinds of issues: BUsh or Kerry? I think it is obvious that Bush would. That is why it is imperative to get him back in office this time. I wish there was another option but there isn't, and there is too much to lose.

 

The weeping and nashing of teeth hasn't started here in America yet praise God. But, that's today. Homeland security (sounds like 1930's Germany doesn't it?) raises that terror level to red and look out.