Why should the Church enjoy tax exemption? Why should the most blessed group of organized citizens not pay their fair share? Is it not a violation of what Jesus himself said, when he told his disciples, “Give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar”?
I have for a very long time wondered about this. Why should the Church, as an organization, be exempt from paying taxes? It seems very inconsistent on a lot of levels.
If the organization is exempt, then why not its individual members as well? Wouldn’t that make sense? Why should I have to pay property taxes? Oh, I know. You say, “The financial giving of the individual is exempt.” That is true, and only furthers my point… as you will see in a few moments.
Some would suggest that the Church is exempt because it is “not for profit”. Someone needs to explain to me why that should matter at all. If a “for profit” organization is profitable, the government enjoys a large piece of that profit… Why??? If a “not for profit” organization is doing very well financially and holds tremendous assets, no taxes are assessed. Again, why???
Maybe it is because the Church “does good” in a community. Doesn’t a profitable “business” do much good for a community? It provides jobs. It helps a community grow and prosper. Some might even suggest that a “for profit” business does more good for a community than a Church. Perhaps taxes should be assessed solely upon the “community good” that is NOT done by an organization. If you help the community in some tangible, calculable way, your taxes are less. If your organization is a drain on community services without providing anything in return, your taxes go up.
Perhaps it is because of the intent… the heart of the matter. Let me see… Because the intent of the Church is not to be profitable, it enjoys tax exemption even though it may hold large sums of money and assets. However, the legitimate businessman whose intent is to be profitable and yet is not, still must pay property taxes… What is consistent or fair about this?
The fact is that the Church’s gift of tax exemption has nothing to do with its shelter of “not for profit”. It has nothing to do with the ministries of the Church that help the poor. It has nothing to do with any of these “do good” things that the Church does. There is only one reason that a government that is desperate for money doesn’t enrich itself at the treasury of the Church. Stop and think for a moment… you’ll get it. Why would the a government that is willing to take up to 50% of a dead man’s estate, turn away from the bank account of the Church? The government takes money from what we eat, the fuel we consume, the property upon which we live… it taxes our entertainment, our travel, our wealth… it is even now trying to tax the air we breath!!!.... But it avoids taxing the Church… WHY????
The government doesn’t give the gift of tax exemption without demanding something in return… There is no “free lunch”. What’s the one thing that the government demands in return for tax exemption? SILENCE.
Until 1954 the Church enjoyed both tax exemption and the freedom to influence the political path of America. But in 1954, under the leadership of then Senator Lyndon Johnson, political freedom of speech for the Church was effectively taken away through the Internal Revenue Code.
The law says that tax exempt churches must not “influence legislation” and must not “endorse or participate in support of a particular political candidacy”. The government pays an enormous price for the silence of the church. One must ask the questions: “Why? What do they fear? What did the man who would become one of the most liberal Presidents in modern history want to prevent?”
If I had asked at the onset of this post if the government controlled the message of the Church, most would have answered, “Absolutely not.” If I had asked if the government was currently silencing the message of the Church, again you probably would have answered, “No”.
But the answer is, “Yes”. There are limits to what a “tax exempt” Church can say.
The government further controls and silences the Church by rewarding the individual financial support of its members with tax exemption on the same. When POTUS recently suggested that “charitable” giving in some cases might be taxed, the Church came out swinging against such an idea. The Church assumes that if charitable giving was taxed that it would have a net negative effect. So, the fight was on. “We must keep giving tax breaks on charitable giving because we otherwise wouldn’t survive”. Oh, I get it… The survival of the Church is due in part to the generosity of the government. Is that what we are suggesting?
What does the government get in exchange for this tax exempt gift? SILENCE.
Let’s play a little game…
What if the government said, “If you preach against homosexuality, you will lose your tax exempt status”, would you then be silent on this issue? What if the government said, “Preachers, you must preach against the war… War is wrong and you must preach against it, or you will forfeit your tax exempt status”, would you then stop praying for the success of our U.S. soldiers? What if the government said, “If you preach that abortion is the killing of an innocent child, you will lose your tax exempt gift”, what would you do?
You wouldn’t be silent on these issues… Then why are you willing to sell your silence on political issues at the price of tax exemption?
Lastly, take note: When the government no longer fears the political influence of the Church… when it no longer needs to silence the Church… when the message of the Church is effectively controlled by some other means… Mark this: The gift of tax exemption will be immediately taken away.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
POLITICS AND CHRISTIANITY: THE DEFAULT POSITION
Is it possible to remain politically neutral? Is is possible to have non-neutral political opinions but remain publicly silent? Are we not warned repeatedly in the Scripture against neutrality? When a person "takes a stand for Christ", does not that "stand" demand a non-neutral public posture by default?
The Catholic Church has taken this path of non-neutrality in regard to abortion. We have all seen the bumper sticker: "You Cannot Be Pro-Choice and Catholic". I recall, when Mr. Obama gave his Commencement Address at Notre Dame University, the images of an elderly white haired Catholic Priest being bound and taken away by the South Bend Police as he non-violently protested the President's involvement in the Commencement Ceremony. I remember that I openly wept.
I have made this public vow: Never again will I NOT be there. Never again will I watch from the comfort of my living room. Never again. The next time I will, with grave seriousness in my soul, stand beside the next Catholic Priest that "takes a stand" in public defiance of politicians who are willing to sanction the killing of defenseless babies. I have made this promise: I have never before been in jail, but... The next time, the police will take two of us away.
It seems to me to be an oxymoronic idea that one can be publicly Christian and privately political. Is that not the very idea of which Jesus spoke when he commanded us not to hide our light under a bushel? Can a follower of Christ be private?
I whole-heartedly agree that a Christian pulpit should never be a political pulpit. Never should the pulpit be the place to endorse any particular personality except Jesus. But if the pulpit is a place for a presentation of the Truth, then it is a logical and short trip to connect the dots that would lead us to conclude that we should not support certain politicians, as well as publicly take a stand against them.
This does indeed present a bit of a conundrum for a Pastor. But to hide behind the pulpit, when we are in fact not behind it, seems to be a much too convenient way to avoid the beating our public popularity might take if we came out from behind our sacred hiding place. The Christian in the pew doesn't have this advantage, so neither should Pastors.
Let me ask a question: Is a King a politician? Jesus declared himself a King in John 18. In fact, it seemed that Jesus was unable to keep his ministry as a Preacher clear of the problems created by his position as a King. Did not his political rivals ultimately kill him? Was not the public charge posted against him, "King of the Jews"? The religious/political powers of his time viewed him as a threat to their tyrannical political power, so they took him down by crucifying him.
Which brings me to my point: History repeatedly warns us... History shouts at us... And to Preachers specifically it demands a response. Public neutrality is not an option. Watchman Nee, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Jonas Clark, John Knox, Dietrich Bonhoeffer... the list goes on and on of those for whom politically neutral public silence was not possible. Are we different than these? Do we get a pass? If we fail to join the ranks of Christian leaders such as these, what shall be the result?
As Christians, we should all take heed. If we allow a religious vacuum to exist in the arena of public policy / politics, then do not be surprised when the same is filled with Sharia law.
We can all hope and pray that America will return to it's Christian roots, but it is looking less and less with each passing day like that will happen. Christian pastors need to be prepared to make a choice. However, the choice to which I refer is not a Republican or Democrat choice. It is not a Tea Party / Independent choice. When the time comes, we will all wish it were that easy.
The choice to be made (if history does indeed repeat itself) may very well be: Underground Pulpit or Public Prison.
The Catholic Church has taken this path of non-neutrality in regard to abortion. We have all seen the bumper sticker: "You Cannot Be Pro-Choice and Catholic". I recall, when Mr. Obama gave his Commencement Address at Notre Dame University, the images of an elderly white haired Catholic Priest being bound and taken away by the South Bend Police as he non-violently protested the President's involvement in the Commencement Ceremony. I remember that I openly wept.
I have made this public vow: Never again will I NOT be there. Never again will I watch from the comfort of my living room. Never again. The next time I will, with grave seriousness in my soul, stand beside the next Catholic Priest that "takes a stand" in public defiance of politicians who are willing to sanction the killing of defenseless babies. I have made this promise: I have never before been in jail, but... The next time, the police will take two of us away.
It seems to me to be an oxymoronic idea that one can be publicly Christian and privately political. Is that not the very idea of which Jesus spoke when he commanded us not to hide our light under a bushel? Can a follower of Christ be private?
I whole-heartedly agree that a Christian pulpit should never be a political pulpit. Never should the pulpit be the place to endorse any particular personality except Jesus. But if the pulpit is a place for a presentation of the Truth, then it is a logical and short trip to connect the dots that would lead us to conclude that we should not support certain politicians, as well as publicly take a stand against them.
This does indeed present a bit of a conundrum for a Pastor. But to hide behind the pulpit, when we are in fact not behind it, seems to be a much too convenient way to avoid the beating our public popularity might take if we came out from behind our sacred hiding place. The Christian in the pew doesn't have this advantage, so neither should Pastors.
Let me ask a question: Is a King a politician? Jesus declared himself a King in John 18. In fact, it seemed that Jesus was unable to keep his ministry as a Preacher clear of the problems created by his position as a King. Did not his political rivals ultimately kill him? Was not the public charge posted against him, "King of the Jews"? The religious/political powers of his time viewed him as a threat to their tyrannical political power, so they took him down by crucifying him.
Which brings me to my point: History repeatedly warns us... History shouts at us... And to Preachers specifically it demands a response. Public neutrality is not an option. Watchman Nee, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Jonas Clark, John Knox, Dietrich Bonhoeffer... the list goes on and on of those for whom politically neutral public silence was not possible. Are we different than these? Do we get a pass? If we fail to join the ranks of Christian leaders such as these, what shall be the result?
As Christians, we should all take heed. If we allow a religious vacuum to exist in the arena of public policy / politics, then do not be surprised when the same is filled with Sharia law.
We can all hope and pray that America will return to it's Christian roots, but it is looking less and less with each passing day like that will happen. Christian pastors need to be prepared to make a choice. However, the choice to which I refer is not a Republican or Democrat choice. It is not a Tea Party / Independent choice. When the time comes, we will all wish it were that easy.
The choice to be made (if history does indeed repeat itself) may very well be: Underground Pulpit or Public Prison.
Monday, September 13, 2010
PULPIT SWAP
I don’t have the resources to do this… but I would love to be able to. I wish I had about 5 acres of vacant land right across the street from my church. I would then offer to lease the land for $1 per month to any group of Muslims that wanted to build a mosque on it.
The lease would be available with the following conditions. If it at any time it was determined that the leadership of the Mosque was involved directly or indirectly with the support or advancement of Jihadism the lease would be immediately revoked. Secondly, if it was determined that the leadership of the Mosque was involved directly or indirectly with the support or advancement of Sharia law in America the lease would likewise be immediately revoked. If I could find a group of Muslims willing to agree to my terms, I would not only make the above offer, but would pray that they would take it.
Why? Because I believe nothing would help advance my cause more than to give people a clear and obvious choice. I would be completely unafraid to put the life saving Gospel of Jesus right next to the message of Islam. I firmly believe I would win that contest if given a fair and equal opportunity.
This might come as a shock to some (but if you are a fan of the Unrepentant Antagonist, what else have you come to expect??)… But, I would jump at the chance to do a pulpit swap with a Muslim Imam. I have a complete confidence in the ability of my congregation to not falter if given an opportunity to hear an Imam make his best appeal on behalf of Islam. I likewise have an even greater confidence in the power of the Lord to prevail, if I were given an open and unfettered opportunity to make a clear presentation of the Gospel in a Mosque…
The lease would be available with the following conditions. If it at any time it was determined that the leadership of the Mosque was involved directly or indirectly with the support or advancement of Jihadism the lease would be immediately revoked. Secondly, if it was determined that the leadership of the Mosque was involved directly or indirectly with the support or advancement of Sharia law in America the lease would likewise be immediately revoked. If I could find a group of Muslims willing to agree to my terms, I would not only make the above offer, but would pray that they would take it.
Why? Because I believe nothing would help advance my cause more than to give people a clear and obvious choice. I would be completely unafraid to put the life saving Gospel of Jesus right next to the message of Islam. I firmly believe I would win that contest if given a fair and equal opportunity.
This might come as a shock to some (but if you are a fan of the Unrepentant Antagonist, what else have you come to expect??)… But, I would jump at the chance to do a pulpit swap with a Muslim Imam. I have a complete confidence in the ability of my congregation to not falter if given an opportunity to hear an Imam make his best appeal on behalf of Islam. I likewise have an even greater confidence in the power of the Lord to prevail, if I were given an open and unfettered opportunity to make a clear presentation of the Gospel in a Mosque…
MY MUSLIM FRIEND
An ordinary moment became extraordinary in a blink…
Last Friday I walked into a local business to drop off some equipment that needed a repair. The owner turned and saw me at the counter and promptly approached me with a smile and a question. In the presence of other customers he asked me: “Hey, Pastor. Are you going to be burning a Quran this weekend?” This question came as no big surprise to me; everyone seemed to be talking about this story. However, the thing that made this particular inquiry different… the owner of the business was a Muslim.
I promptly looked and him and responded, “No. I don’t think I’ll be doing that anytime soon.” My response was dressed in a smile that conveyed to him the message that I would never indulge in such a ridiculous behavior. Furthermore, I didn’t think it was the perfect setting to get into a big discussion about such controversial matters, so I suspected that the conversation would end with my reply. Boy, was I mistaken.
I won’t herein go into all the details of our exchange, but what began in a blink lasted over 20 minutes. For what would be to this point, my longest one on one conversation with a committed Muslim, I was given a full opportunity to enjoy an open and honest dialog with a very smart and articulate disciple of Islam.
He asked me why a “Christian” pastor would do such a thing. My response was that just because a person calls themselves a Christian doesn’t necessarily mean that they are one. There are radicals among the Christian faith just as there are among Muslims. I then went on to tell him how and why I, as a Christian, ride with the Patriot Guard to protect the grieving families of soldiers that have been killed in the war from being exposed to the protests of the radicals of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas.
Because this Quran story quickly was being connected to the NYC mosque debate, our conversation soon circled around to include this national hot potato. I looked my Muslim friend directly in the eye and said, “You could build a Mosque right across the street from my Church and it would bother me a bit. My quarrel is not with Islam.” He seemed surprised by my words, but not as surprised as was I by his response. He said to me, “I wouldn’t build a mosque across from your church until after I had spoken with you to see if you were agreeable to me doing so… That would be the right thing to do if we were going to be good neighbors.”
It was then that our conversation took its most serious turn. I repeated my previous statement extending my open willingness for a mosque to be built next door to my church. I also again repeated that I have no quarrel with the Islam. Disagreement: yes. Quarrel: no. And then… then I added… “My quarrel is with the advancement of Sharia law. I as a Christian and you as a Muslim recognize and are willing to admit our theological differences. I believe one thing and you believe something else. But as an American, I believe that we must both adhere to Constitutional law alone. The media continues to make this an argument about religion. To do so misses the point." (I did not say this to him, but I am content to let Court of heaven be the final judge as to which one of us was correct. One thing is certain: we cannot both be correct because the theological differences are irreconcilable.)
The conversation continued on for several minutes with him explaining the deep rift within Islam pertaining to the application of Sharia. In the end, we shook hands as friends and I believe we both walked away smarter than when we began. I, with great eagerness, look forward to more opportunities like this one.
Epilogue:
I do not expect for an American Courtroom to be a Christian Courtroom. I likewise do not expect for there to be two Courts - one Consitutional, the other Christian - thereby giving a person a choice. And, I most certainly do not believe that there should be three courts; Constitutional, Christian, and Sharia/Islamic. I do expect for there to be one Court ruled by the Constitution alone.
If I, as a Christian, or my Muslim friend, as a follower of Islam, feel that we cannot act according to the requirements of the Constitution, then we each must make the personal decision as to how we should act. If my actions as a Christian American results in a penalty according to law of the Constitution, then I must be prepared to take the penalty without complaint. Likewise, if Sharia law demands that a Muslim American kill a family member that converts to Christianity, then that Muslim must be prepared to suffer the penalty prescribed by Constitutional law for murder.
Last Friday I walked into a local business to drop off some equipment that needed a repair. The owner turned and saw me at the counter and promptly approached me with a smile and a question. In the presence of other customers he asked me: “Hey, Pastor. Are you going to be burning a Quran this weekend?” This question came as no big surprise to me; everyone seemed to be talking about this story. However, the thing that made this particular inquiry different… the owner of the business was a Muslim.
I promptly looked and him and responded, “No. I don’t think I’ll be doing that anytime soon.” My response was dressed in a smile that conveyed to him the message that I would never indulge in such a ridiculous behavior. Furthermore, I didn’t think it was the perfect setting to get into a big discussion about such controversial matters, so I suspected that the conversation would end with my reply. Boy, was I mistaken.
I won’t herein go into all the details of our exchange, but what began in a blink lasted over 20 minutes. For what would be to this point, my longest one on one conversation with a committed Muslim, I was given a full opportunity to enjoy an open and honest dialog with a very smart and articulate disciple of Islam.
He asked me why a “Christian” pastor would do such a thing. My response was that just because a person calls themselves a Christian doesn’t necessarily mean that they are one. There are radicals among the Christian faith just as there are among Muslims. I then went on to tell him how and why I, as a Christian, ride with the Patriot Guard to protect the grieving families of soldiers that have been killed in the war from being exposed to the protests of the radicals of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas.
Because this Quran story quickly was being connected to the NYC mosque debate, our conversation soon circled around to include this national hot potato. I looked my Muslim friend directly in the eye and said, “You could build a Mosque right across the street from my Church and it would bother me a bit. My quarrel is not with Islam.” He seemed surprised by my words, but not as surprised as was I by his response. He said to me, “I wouldn’t build a mosque across from your church until after I had spoken with you to see if you were agreeable to me doing so… That would be the right thing to do if we were going to be good neighbors.”
It was then that our conversation took its most serious turn. I repeated my previous statement extending my open willingness for a mosque to be built next door to my church. I also again repeated that I have no quarrel with the Islam. Disagreement: yes. Quarrel: no. And then… then I added… “My quarrel is with the advancement of Sharia law. I as a Christian and you as a Muslim recognize and are willing to admit our theological differences. I believe one thing and you believe something else. But as an American, I believe that we must both adhere to Constitutional law alone. The media continues to make this an argument about religion. To do so misses the point." (I did not say this to him, but I am content to let Court of heaven be the final judge as to which one of us was correct. One thing is certain: we cannot both be correct because the theological differences are irreconcilable.)
The conversation continued on for several minutes with him explaining the deep rift within Islam pertaining to the application of Sharia. In the end, we shook hands as friends and I believe we both walked away smarter than when we began. I, with great eagerness, look forward to more opportunities like this one.
Epilogue:
I do not expect for an American Courtroom to be a Christian Courtroom. I likewise do not expect for there to be two Courts - one Consitutional, the other Christian - thereby giving a person a choice. And, I most certainly do not believe that there should be three courts; Constitutional, Christian, and Sharia/Islamic. I do expect for there to be one Court ruled by the Constitution alone.
If I, as a Christian, or my Muslim friend, as a follower of Islam, feel that we cannot act according to the requirements of the Constitution, then we each must make the personal decision as to how we should act. If my actions as a Christian American results in a penalty according to law of the Constitution, then I must be prepared to take the penalty without complaint. Likewise, if Sharia law demands that a Muslim American kill a family member that converts to Christianity, then that Muslim must be prepared to suffer the penalty prescribed by Constitutional law for murder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)