The Institute (協会)

No it is not the role of government, but I would ask you to compare the powers and duties assigned to the various branches by the U.S. Constitution with the powers that these same branches have assumed. Next I would ask you if you can name 4 state representatives in your current state of residence. I would ask you to figure out what the 10th amendment actually means, and why it is never the right answer on a bar exam.

Why does this matter? Because we don't have a NATIONAL government. We have a federal government. The states have rights. Oh doggone it AB, you went and got me started.

Serious question though, what would happen if these people just didn't respond? Was it a request or a subpoena? Sounds like a lot of bark and no bite.

It's a request, I think, so if they fail to cooperate, there could be subpoenas if the committee approves them. Those subpoenas are actually enforceable. I'm not sure the Democrats care enough about this though.

Let's put it this way: congressional investigations are no scarier than prosecutorial investigations. Congress at least is subject to the inherent restraints of electoral accountability. Prosecutors at the federal level (U.S. Attorneys) are appointees of the President, and thus serve at his pleasure. Consequently, members of Congress are less powerful than federal prosecutors. (I know, I know, the actual prosecutors are Assistant USAs.)

Anthony, you argue that churches should not be tax exempt so they can avoid government intrusion in the life of the church by in turn letting the government intrude in the church by collecting taxes from them. I don't understand.

Aaron, read the tax exempt statutes of the tax code and maybe you'll get my point. The point was NOT taxes but "tax exemption." Tax exemption changes the equation. You completely misstated my point as well.

I do not agree on the government's involvement in a person's choice of lifestyle and what to do with their money, however, isn't this our fault as a Church? I mean...when did we forget about prudence, frugality and such....

I agree to a degree, Anthony, that the government should keep it's nose out of Church affairs. However, who, in terms of earthly authority, besides the government, will these extortionist be accountable to?

This churches have zero accountability, and by the virtue that they are incorporated as non-profits, and have fiduciary responsibilities as a corporation they are open to scrutiny by our government same as any other corporation. These ministries deserve to be investigated. Could they be called the Christian Enrons?

There is no separation of church and state with the present non-profit incorporation and tax exempt status in place.

It's worth noting here that absent the 16th Amendment, there would be little to nothing to fight over here, with the possible exception of whether churches should have to pay property taxes.

And how embarassing that those who support these people haven't started asking questions....

Anthony, I want to understand your point. I have read the tax exempt statutes and it is precisely because of that reading that I am trying to understand what you are communicating. If you are saying churches should not be tax exempt and churches should not allow any government regulation including not paying taxes to them than I understand your point. Currently, under the tax statutes there is no neutral ground...you are either tax exempt or tax liable...unless you refuse to pay taxes and refuse to be tax exempt at the same time and then you are in another world of government interference in your life altogether.

"I do not agree on the government's involvement in a person's choice of lifestyle and what to do with their money, however, isn't this our fault as a Church? I mean...when did we forget about prudence, frugality and such...."

Berkelyrican noted already, but I think it bears repeating: these churches have opened themselves up to this by being incorporated non-profit organizations. It isn't merely their tax-exempt status, but the reason they are exempt. As non-profits, they are held to certain standards of finance and money usage. The opulent lifestyles of the so-called pastors of these churches is a big, red flag pointing to probable misuse of funds. In order to uphold the standards of non-profit qualifications, it is necessary to examine the use of funds in these churches, just as it would be for any other charitable non-profit. If churches don't want to be accountable for their use of funds as it relates to their status per the federal government, then they shouldn't choose to be non-profits or tax-exempt because of that. This isn't government intrusion to me, this is the reasonable reaction of a responsible government when charities (including churches) do forget, as you so aptly put, the virtues of prudence and frugality.

The traditional reason for tax exemption is that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Consequently, if we want to preserve the ability of churches to exist independent of the government's ability to tax them at a 100% rate, they need to be able to operate without paying taxes. The conditions upon which such tax exemption takes place, of course, are open to debate.

This is one of the problems with conceiving of churches as legal entities. You have liability problems and such. Strictly speaking, we don't need to incorporate as a 501(c)(3) in order to have a church. Doing so, however, is incredibly convenient, especially for churches forming hierarchical denominations.

Yes, let's leave theology aside (and the tax-exempt, to incorporate -- not to incorporate debate).

I'm very uncomfortable with the US Senate requesting such information. I don't know what is motivating Senator Grassley. Is he looking for additional tax dollars or trying to root out evil (a legitimate role for government)? The latter option ought to be carried out by law enforcement not a legislative body but only if there is clear evidence of law-breaking. This reminds of the old saw about the camel's nose getting under the tent -- pretty soon the camel is inside! Grassley's fishing expedition is rather dangerous.

Are any of these ministries part of the evangelical group for financial accountability (ECFA)? That alone ought to give people pause before handing over their money. Another question is who sits on the boards of such organizations? Usually it is relatives (wives, sons, daughters, etc.) which is another huge red-flag.

Where is the church on this one? If we were policing our own ranks then men like Senator Grassley wouldn't be tempted to over-reach their constitutional bounds. What ministry exists to shine a light on these folks? What radio or TV ministry exposes these folks for what they are? Why do we look the other way until 60 Minutes, 20-20, Dateline, etc. decide to do an investigative program? We are cowards.

Keep an eye on Oral Roberts University: rumors of a financial scandal are swirling but who knows if we will ever get to the bottom of it. The group leading the "investigation" are independent televangelists like Richard Roberts. They are accountable to themselves and it hardly seems likely that they will be impartial.

Anthony, while I agree with you that the government should not be in the business of our churches. I can personally appreciate some of these churches being accountable to someone. I personally belong (not for long) to a denomination that for years have used donation money recklessly. This is on top of some of their other reckless decisions that have gone against the denominations bylaws. Which is registered in California. The government has also got invloved in this case, which brings a sigh of assurance that even if they won't listen to its members they will now have to listen to the Law.

"I don't know what is motivating Senator Grassley."

Feeling ineffective, really low congressional approval ratings, boredom. Probably all of theses.

Charities should not have to pay taxes. But neither should corporations. And neither should individuals. Once taxation of any kind is legitimized, there is no rational stopping point.

As Christians it is hard to discern whether to accept the discount coupon that is a 501-c-3. Yet we don't hesitate when accepting the discount coupon that is a state marriage license. Why?

Churches and ministries might reconsider their tax-exempt status if only because of the adverse set of incentives which accompany such privilege. The potential for abuse is notably huge.

Nathanael Snow

I would question if these are truly "churches" or truly Christian institutions. They use the name of Jesus to rake-in profits from gullible Christians (oh, that the Church at large would actually make a serious effort to teach doctrine!).

If they are not really churches then they should be subject to all tax laws inflicted upon for-profit corporations.

Grassely grew up on a farm near my home town. Though I haven't lived in the state for many years, I do follow the politics. He is a straight-arrow very conservative Republican and a Christian. His character is impeccable and he tries to be intellectually honest. I disagree with him on a lot, probably on most issues,but I doubt that he is doing this for any other reason than he thinks it's the right thing to do. He got complaints and could not in conscience ignore them. His committe has responsibilty for non-profits.