A mega-church in Minnesota is being investigated by the IRS for using funds to purchase a plane for the pastor, and also for making inappropriate political statements from the pulpit.
Mac Hammond inspires his congregation with the "prosperity gospel," a version of the good news in which following Christ leads to material wealth. With 9,000 members as of last year, a Bible college, elementary and high schools, a drug-treatment clinic, and a television audience reached through KARE-11, Living Word seems showered in God-given riches. The church bulletin proclaims a weekly operating income need of $319,822—or $16.6 million a year. Hammond, too, is a poster boy for his message. Though churches are not required to report the earnings of their pastors to the public, Hammond has garnered enough to donate almost $2.5 million back to his church.
But recently, the very prosperity Hammond preaches has gotten him into a sticky situation with the Internal Revenue Service. Living Word and the taxman are in the midst of a federal court battle over the church's refusal to comply with an IRS tax summons. The government wants to know the details of an arrangement in which the church helped Hammond finance an airplane, then leased it from him and paid the fees to keep it in a hangar. The IRS also wants information on loans Living Word made to Hammond—including helping to pay for his residence—which the church partially forgave.
If the IRS determines that the airplane deal or the personal loans violated rules prohibiting excessive financial benefit to insiders of 501(c)3 tax-exempt organizations, Hammond could be forced to pay the church back, as well as pay a fine to the IRS. In the worst case, Living Word could lose its tax-exempt status, though that scenario is unlikely.
I don't really care if the pastor promotes a specific politician. For what it's worth, I think churches should be free to speak out publicly about who they support politically. However, it really bothers me when churches act and operate like businesses, yet don't have to pay taxes.
In my perfect world, churches would be able to speak out in support of political figures, and they would also be taxed like any other business.
You may not care, but I do. And the framers of the Constitution did as well. The Church must not have political influence, period. People believe and trust their pastors, priests, and spiritual leaders to tell them the right thing to do. Endorsing a candidate is undue political influence where it doesn’t belong. It may just seem like an opinion or an endorsement, but when a religious group uses its power to sway votes in the political system, we lose the separation of Church and State. The political system must remain agnostic or we run the risk of having an American Pope instead of a President. Really, Cat, after having worked in D.C. and having railed against the City Church’s presence in D.C., I would think you would have a better grasp on the whole concept.
However, I’m not adverse to churches paying taxes. Long gone are the days when churches were the primary means of social welfare in local communities. The government can and does a better job of it, primarily due to scale. Most churches just don’t have the finances and logistical know-how to deal with all of the people who need help. Well then, if churches are now more of a club then a charity organization, why can’t we tax them? I think 503c should have limits on church income – that is, any church with an income over say $250,000 a year should have to pay taxes. (The average church budget is well below 6 figures.) How much of Living Word’s budget actually goes toward helping the local community? I’d be willing to bet it’s a small percentage.
The constitution does not have any statements about separation of church and state. The phrase comes from a letter from Jefferson that discussed the state staying out of the church, not the other way around. Considering the founders started state run religious education systems, I am pretty sure their perspective is not the 2008 perspective on church state issues. The actual law restricting churches from endorsing candidates was instituted in 1954 (give or take a year or two). So the policy is relatively new in terms of the history of the country.
I also think that it is a bit suspect in this environment for pastors to actively endorse candidates. It happens all the time for both liberals and conservatives. I’ve seen it done well and poorly. The reality is that people know where their pastors stand on issues whether or not they endorse a particular candidate or not. It does not take much to connect the dots. The problem for me is that if the church becomes too partisan, it becomes an arm of a party rather than representing God. The true problem is for the church not for the state. I could go on but won’t.
The Separation of Church and State means the government can’t endorse religion, and it means the government can’t interfere unreasonably with religion. It doesn’t mean that the church can’t lobby the government.
I don’t like using tax law as a means to prohibit churches from political speach. If you want to prevent churches from endorsing candidates, then you should make a law saying as such.
I take your point about a strong Separation of Church and State. I just don’t like using tax law to get there. I would like some other way to ensure that government doesn’t endorse religion.
I totally agree with this. You need something to protect the small churches that really aren’t making any money. But the tax exemption shouldn’t extend to everyone. Also, if we can limit Executive Compensation for CEO’s, then why not limit Pastor Compensation at churches earning over $250,000.
But even with all the restriction in place, is there any doubt that the Evangelical Church has essentially already become an arm of the Republican party.
I totally agree with a strong separation of church and state. I just don’t like the current way we do it. And I think you can allow churches to speak politically, while keeping government out of religion.
Anyway, good discussion. My favorite class in law school was on the First Amendment. It’s fascinating how it has evolved over the last 200 years.
Not to get off topic but could this be the future of CBC? I wouldn’t be surprised.
The thing is, that as ridiculous as City Bible has been with regard to preaching the prosperity gospel, they are actually quite tame, when it comes to spending their money.
Frank may have always wanted a private helicopter to take him from church to church but he never actually got one.
To get investigated by the IRS you have to have pretty lavish spending habits, and in comparison, City Bible just isn’t that bad.
I think CBC is going to come to regret leasing/purchasing so many buildings across the Portland Metro area. But I’d be surprised if it ever rose the level of an IRS investigation.
Great idea – limiting the Pastor compensation through the church would be a great safeguard against the temptation to try to fleece the flocks through tithes and offerings. It may limit the corruption we’ve been railing about in the prosperity churches.
Speaking of churches remaining neutral, what about all these prayer meetings leading up to the presidential elections? Not saying churches shouldn’t pray for our country but what if they are meeting specifically to pray in a republican candidate? We heard that CCC is asking their people to pray 3 times a day and I have a feeling it’s not a bi-partisan ‘thy kingdom come, thy will be done’ type prayer; it’s most likely shouting out scripture, pacing the floor like wild animals, tongues-talking-yelling-telling-God-what-to-do-make-sure-McCain/Palin-wins kind of prayer! (That alone would make me want to vote for Obama! It irks me that they think they have a corner on what God wants and how he operates.)
I do have to disagree a bit Cat. I think the church should remain neutral on politics. The reason for my thoughts is because in every church congregation from Athens Georgia to Hollywood California, you are going to have democrats, republicans, and all kinds of third party affiliations in the membership. Promoting one candidate or one measure over another will alienate those who think on the other side and eventually the entire church will consist of the same kind of people with the same kind of mindset, essentially destroying diversity. This is why there are so many poor churches today. Many congregations have failed at reaching out to others who don’t look, think, act, or believe the way the majority does. Now I have no problems with bi-partisan politics in the church as long as it’s “fair and balanced” (and not in the fake Fox News kind of way), by giving an equal platform for all sides and sharing thoughts and opinions from all perspectives then telling the members of the congregation to vote with their heads and hearts based on what they think is best for their city, county, state & the country. Does this happen? I have no idea, but would sure hope that there is some Christ centered church out there that is interested in hearing a diversity of political beliefs rather then just one.
I guess for the 1st time I agree with Cat here.
Churches should be tax free based on the 1st amendment. The founding fathers never thought of a politically neutral church. Income Taxes did not come till the 1930s and Tax exempt status came later. Churches played a large part in both the revolution and civil wars. Also on both sides of Civil Rights movement.
Reformers comment about the church should remain neutral is a great idea for the structure of a church and may even be the biblical approach. but that is up to the Church leadership to decide what they want for their church. If a church wants a defunct doctrine or a exclusionary doctrine let them it is their church, the government should not be allowed to control that much.
Someone commented about making 501c3s salaries caped at 250k or something. That is ok I do not have a problem with that.
I think there’s a difference between what a church should do, and what a church has to do. Should a church stay politically neutral, yeah probably. But the question is should the government be able to force them to stay quiet about political issues. And I say no. I just don’t like giving the government that much control. I put a high premium on free speech.
But hey, I’ve been wrong before, and I certainly could be wrong here.
Check out the video here: http://www.justinpeters.org
Peters is an expert on men like Hammond.
[Comment ID #35565 Will Be Quoted Here]
You’re right.
[Comment ID #35570 Will Be Quoted Here]
Wow, I had no idea some of them went so far. Mr. Peters seems to lay out a pretty good case against the WoF movement.
Speaking of churches…has anyone read “So you don’t want to go to church anymore?” And if you did, what did you think about it?
[Comment ID #35565 Will Be Quoted Here]
Ah yes, I do agree here. I am all about the government staying out of individuals lives. The government should have no right to tell churches how they run themselves, just like the government should not have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies. But I still wish churches were neutral on politics and did not push a specific political agenda…it alienates those of us who think for ourselves. I’ve even heard pastors say that your not Christian if you vote for a pro-choice candidate. How sad is that?
In regards to the prosperity gospel, I’ve heard of some churches in latin america where God is bringing propserity to the “people of the church” by way of gold dust, gold nuggets, diamonds, and precious stones…
What is your take on that? This is one of the churches that I know has recieved diamonds and stuff like that…
sorry forgot the link http://www.avivamexico.com
I think Latinos are just as gullible as the Gringos up north.
[Comment ID #35576 Will Be Quoted Here]
Wow! I was just talking to an old friend on the phone and we were comparing ‘church’ experiences and how difficult it has been for us to get back into going to church. She told me I HAD to read that book. I told my husband, he downloaded it off the internet and couldn’t put it down. It is a must read and is on my ‘to read’ list. What does anyone else think about this book?
Tri: I’ve read that book and am on another of his books and the revelation that has opened to me is one of God’s amazing love. To me it’s not about leaving church and starting a house church or vice versa, because you can have the same problems just on a smaller scale in a house church. To me these books have opened up my eyes to see a God I never knew. I grew up in the church and still attend one, however never in my 30 years did I ever expect to have my eyes opened like this. I think Wayne just wants us to realize the love the Father has for us and how we have replaced that love with religion. And Father wants so much for us to realize His love for us and to have relationship with Him. I recommend the book to anyone, if you go into it with any religious preconceptions you might not like it, but otherwise I think it’ll open your eyes!
Churches shouldn’t be taxed on the money that was given to them … then the money would be double taxed. However I do believe it is smart for a church to run as a business dose so they can survive and even thrive to do better and more good to the community around them. The money they convert into profit should be taxed and would solve that problem. This would eliminate all you business church haters. A church should run smart. The church is an organization who cares about people, The government is an organization who cares about power. The power should give to the caring and both would be happy. One gets power the other gets to care. EASY – BLACK and WHITE
No, they’re both interested in power more than people. To the business church, people = power.
Andrey sounds like you have a personal problem with a church you’ve been involved in.
We can only hope to that the government will use their power to protect our freedom. Sounds crazy I know. God gave us a freedom to serve who ever we want. The government is also giving us our right of freedom. Freedom of choice and freedom of speech. Key here is that it is freedom. The church and we are talking about all churches Morman, Christian, and even the those groups that call themselves a church but it’s all about the race. OK so now all these “churches” are equal and get the same rights. All non profits get the same rights, did you get that? It’s your choice to go to the church of your choice and give to the church as you please. This is all Called Freedom and Equal Rights. I couldn’t believe this blog when I first heard about it. But guess what… It’s great Churches should act as a business and it makes everyone think for themselves. SO THINK ABOUT IT! If you want somtehing different move to a country that fits you better with our freedom.
[Comment ID #35727 Will Be Quoted Here]
Did you read what you posted at all before you posted it? You sound like you’re talking to second graders. I know that it’s my choice – it’s also my choice to talk about these churches on this blog just as it was my choice to leave the church. You talk about such banalities as if they were somehow supposed to be profound. It’s all been said many times before, friend.
I was just stating the obvious. I could really care less about these “churches” which run as businesses, but the obvious conclusion of a church that think itself a business is that it treats people like assets instead of people. You may consider that a good thing, but if you do then you haven’t thought through the implications of such a philosophy.