Why Is The Church Silent?
Those of us who have been involved in the prolife movement (or for that matter, any other movement that impinges upon moral issues) for any length of time know how frustrating it can be to get churches mobilized in any kind of formal and organized way in defense of the preborn.
The process of mobilizing a church begins, in most cases, with the church's pastor. If the pastor is unsupportive, it's unlikely the church will be supportive. I know from much personal experience that there are thousands of pastors who claim to be prolife, yet they are noticeably nervous when I ask them to work with me in organizing a Life Appreciation Sunday, or join us for the Life Chain, or participate in any active way in defense of the preborn.
When pressed on the matter, the conversation inevitably turns to the pastor's fear of jeopardizing his church's tax-exempt status.
The Rev. D. James Kennedy has stated:
</font>Dr. Kennedy is right, but he's also blaming the wrong party. The IRS has never required any church to be 501c3.
- “The federal government has proved a tremendous impediment to the ongoing work of Christians. In all the laws that they have passed against Christian schools, gagging the church, taxation, and all kinds of things that they have done, they have made it harder for the church to exercise its prerogatives and to preach the gospel.
"Take the last presidential election. There were numbers of things that I knew that I was never able to say from the pulpit because if you advance the cause of one candidate or impede the cause of the other you can lose your tax exemption. That would have been disastrous not only for the church, but for our school and our seminary, everything. So you are gagged. You cannot do that. The IRS, a branch of our government, has succeeded in gagging Christians."</font>
The IRS' own publications plainly state that all church are "automatically tax-exempt and tax-deductible" without ever having to apply for 501c3 recognition.
Not only is 501c3 status unnecessary for any church, when a church becomes a 501c3 they place themselves under the regulatory control of the IRS, and all the potential threat and intimidation that comes along with it. Why would any thinking pastor want that, when it's not at all necessary? It just doesn't make sense.
Thankfully, there's a remedy. Churches can stop "rendering unto Caesar" those things which belong exclusively to Jesus Christ. For some insight on the issue you might want to check out: http://hushmoney.org
The IRS has "gagged the church"
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by kirkguardian, Jun 28, 2004.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
Kirk,
501c3 status is not required for a place of worship, but it is required for other not-for-profit charitable endeavours, even if church affiliated. For example, the Salvation Army Church is not required to file for a 501c3 status, but Salvation Army Charities is, since it's not a place of worship.
Many houses of worship file for 501c3 status to guarantee that any endeavours they engage in that may not be directly house-of-worship related will not compromise their status.
Dr Kennedy's own televised Coral Ridge Hour and Coral Ridge Ministries are 501c3 corporations. -
JMHO -
The interesting thing is that the NT never mandates a "life chain" or "Life Appreciation Sunday." The NT mandates the preaching adn teaching of the word of God. As a pastor, I don't get involved in those things for a very simple reason ... it was not what the church was commanded to do. We preach Scripture, unadulterated and unchanged. When Scripture touches on life, I touch on it. I in fact, have talked about it several times in the last few months.
But we need to keep in mind that the NT gives the church mandate, not the political situation.
And the IRS is not gagging the church. If a pastor is not saying something that is in the Bible because he fears the IRS, that is his fault. It is not the fault of hte IRS or the fault of the many churches who do not do that. -
Agreed Pastor Larry. I've preached and taught "pro-life" throughout the year, not just on special Sundays.
-
In point of fact, the tax code and IRS publications repeatedly make use of the term "integrated auxiliary of a church." In IRC 508c it states:
</font>- Sec. 508 Special rules with respect to section 501(c)(3) organizations.
(a)New organizations must notify secretary that they are applying for recognition of section 501(c)(3) status.
(c) Exceptions.
(1) Mandatory exceptions. Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to --
(A) churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches</font>
IRS Publ. 557 gives examples of church integrated auxiliaries, such as religious schools, mission boards and missionaries, youth groups, etc., etc. The IRS is far more expansive in its understanding of what the term "religion" means than the position you are taking, which is to limit and constrain "religion" to a "place of worship." I don't know where you came up with your "place of worship" theory, but you won't find it in the law.
More than likely it was all done because, just like the vast majority of big church ministries, their board of directors is run by "licensed professionals" (attorneys and CPAs). Licensed professionals love the 501c3 status because it gives them job security and lots of billable hours. Non-501c3 churches don't really have much use for licensed professionals, so why would any licensed professional have any self-interest in recommending that a church not be 501c3?
The fact that you yourself are going far above and beyond the legal requirements, by attempting to restrict the terms "church" and "religion" to the rubric of "place of worship" demonstrates how ignorant most Christians have become on this issue.
Jesus Himself didn't have much nice to say about lawyers, did He? - Sec. 508 Special rules with respect to section 501(c)(3) organizations.
-
In point of fact, the tax code and IRS publications repeatedly make use of the term "integrated auxiliary of a church." In IRC 508c it states:
</font>- Sec. 508 Special rules with respect to section 501(c)(3) organizations.
(a)New organizations must notify secretary that they are applying for recognition of section 501(c)(3) status.
(c) Exceptions.
(1) Mandatory exceptions. Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to --
(A) churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches</font>
You're correct. A house of worship, or an auxiliary of a house of worship, is not required to file for tax examption. 501c3 status is granted to them automatically. However, just because something is church run, doesn't mean it's automatically an "integrated auxilliary". A church-run bookstore or food court, for example, would not be automatically tax exempt.
- Sec. 508 Special rules with respect to section 501(c)(3) organizations.
-
It was my understanding that 501(C)(3) was actually for the benefit of donors. A church does not have to be 501 to be tax exempt, but an individual donor cannot deduct charitable contributions on Schedule A he contributed to that organization. Many probably do and assume they can, just because they have never been audited.
Being able to deduct on Schedule A is not automatic. For many, many people, the standard deduction is greater anyway. However, I think the concept is sound. And for many people, the deduction is good stewardship, enabling them to give more.
Karen -
It is in no danger.
Hundreds of SBC churches in OK do both of the above, have for years, and are not in danger of losing 501.
In OK (I have helped organize Life Chains) it is not fearful pastors that refuse to participate. It is IFB pastors who have a particular view of separation. They will not participate with a Lutheran in a Life Chain any more than in a Billy Graham crusade. That is their right, of course.
Karen -
Here is how your church can be
free of government meddling;
1. Do not own land
(the land belongs to "your church"
only by prmission of the civil government
/in the USofA that is the States/ )
2. do not collect or use money
(The easiest way to do this is don't
collect any money at all from members of
the church. This money is printed by
the civil authorities /in the USofA by
the Federal Government/ It is their money
and is used with their rules)
So then, the so called "government meddling"
is a BONUS for the local church
I'd give $7,000 a year to my church as
long as i have my nice job.
Now i can give all $7,000 because i don't have
to pay income taxes on it.
Were the church i belong to deside they
don't want to mess with the government
meddlin', then i'd have to pay 20% on
that as well as i do with the rest of
my income. That means a tax of 20% of
$7,000 which is $1,400. So i'd only give
my church 7,000$ - 1,400$ = $6,600.
Isn't it neat? My church gets $6,600 from
me directly and and $1,400 from the
government of the USofA because of me.
Isn't that really meddlesome
BTW, if i was an investigator for the IRS
i'd be checking bulletin boards. When i
find someone speaking against the IRS, i'd
be checking their account and make sure
that they are paying their fair share.
Fortunately, I'm in distrabutions
NOT in collections. -
The legal fact of the matter is that not only are churches "automatically exempt" from taxes (IRS Publ. 557) but they are "automatically qualified" as tax deductible (IRS Publ. 526).
See http://hushmoney.org/501c3-myths.htm -
Why should churches be tax-exempt in the first place?
-
You ask a good question. Tax exemption is not a constitutional requirement.
But that's not the issue being argued. The issue is whether a church should have to file for examption to be considered tax exempt. A "house of worship" is not required to file for tax exemption. But any other charitable endeavors that a church engages in typically does, since those other endeavors are not "houses of worship".
The mistake is that we often use the word "church" to refer to any type of ministry activities. The IRS rules exempt only "houses of worship". Otherwise, you could open up a brothel, call it a church, and presume that your actions are tax exempt and legal. They ain't. -
-
-
The American tradition of tax exemption arose from the gradual disestablish of the state churches; as the established churches lost their ability to levy tithes, they were at least able to keep the exemption, and toleration had increased to the point that the non-established churches could enjoy it as well. -
Thanks for bailing me out on that one ... I couldn't remember the citation ...
-
</font>[/QUOTE]well, more like $7K - $1,400 = $5,600. Sorry if there was any math
anxiety started.
-
Just giving you a hard time, my friend ...
-
i at least aught to do my mathemanacles right :confused:
Page 1 of 2