Senator Grassley and the churches

[Prof]

Many of these "Churches" teach the "prosperity" or "name it and claim it" or "Jesus wants you to be rich" gospel, sometimes called "Word of Faith." The focus, like that of historical Calvinist groups like the Pilgrims, on wealth is that success/wealth is a sign of "election."

Many if not most of these folks also practice "faith healing" and, as Pentecostals, believe that the gifts of The Pentecost, to original Desciples, of healing, tounges, etc., still descend from the Holy Spirit up certain ministers and others.

Many of these preachers are -- to me -- somewhat unsavory. Benny Hinn, in a public, recorded sermon, asked God to visit cancer upon a commentator (or the wife of the commentator) who criticized him, Hank Hennegraff. Hennegraff, "the Bible Answer Man," is a very conservative Dutch Reformed preacher who operates the Christian Research Institute. Hennegraff writes extensively on the theological problems of the Mega-Churches and has written a book or two criticizing their theology. (Not that Hennegraff is perfect -- he does not believe in evolution and believes that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.)

Here in San Antonio, the newspaper has been publishing articles about a local mega-church and its practice of letting the pastor and others charter aircraft or fly first class on junkets to other churches. The pastor has also bought gifts for other church leaders from expensive stores. The pastor chartered a flight to the islands for his daugher's graduatio trip, etc. There has been some consternation.

Another mega church pastor -- linked to the Whites, who are divorcing, and she is relocating here -- is going thru a messy divorce where a number of financial issues are surfacing.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I think we're eventually going to find Grassley is acting on behalf of someone who has an axe to grind against one of these operations.

[Weathervane]

Many of these "Churches" teach the "prosperity" or "name it and claim it" or "Jesus wants you to be rich" gospel, sometimes called "Word of Faith." The focus, like that of historical Calvinist groups like the Pilgrims, on wealth is that success/wealth is a sign of "election."

Credibility boils down to one thing, and that is if the way you live is consistent with what you say you believe.

The bible says nothing good about accumulating "wealth", if for no other reason than it draws too much attention to the worldly (worthless in God's eyes) life instead of the siritual life.

And there is also no requirement of poverty to be a good christian either. Self sacrifice is not necessarily a prerequisite to enter the kingdom.

But it does say a lot about abundance. There's a huge difference between abundance and "wealth" , and one that has been lost on the church in a most grotesque fashion. A more abundant life is what the teachings promise, and this has much more to do with creating and sharing than it does with accumulating money.

Of course if you were to ask a rich church leader why don't they sell their mansion or Escalade to feed the poor, they will say "but you will always have the poor".

Sad.

[Demosthenes]

I think we're eventually going to find Grassley is acting on behalf of someone who has an axe to grind against one of these operations.

Nope. Grassley has been systematically and agressively targeting abuses in the non profit world since 2004. Jay and I both testified at the hearing that started the tax exempt ball rolling.

There's a long laundry list of abuses that the IRS has been bad (I'm being nice here) about shutting down. Abusive car donation programs, tax shelter schemes involving non profits, corrupt governance issues, scummy donor advised fund and supporting org schemes, and so on. Grassley has been picking them off one by one for three years now. For profit churches were the next thing on the list, and there are many many more projects in the works.

[Imalawman]

Many of these "Churches" teach the "prosperity" or "name it and claim it" or "Jesus wants you to be rich" gospel, sometimes called "Word of Faith." The focus, like that of historical Calvinist groups like the Pilgrims, on wealth is that success/wealth is a sign of "election."

Not to hijack the thread, but I'm not sure of that statement. That would go against a major reason why the pilgrims decided to leave both Rome and Church of England - they thought displays of material wealth was a form of idolatry and desired a separate way of worship that was simpler in both liturgy and material elements. While not puritans, they did indeed hold onto a rather ascetic lifestyle and I have not heard of any reputable theologian making such a claim about their beliefs.

[.]

Abusive car donation programs

Cause and effect are not always determinable, but I can tell you that down here in south Florida about 4 or 5 years ago there were a crapload of ads for supposed non-profits importuning one to donate their automobile to the alleged charity.

They ceased about 2 years ago. Poof.

[Quixote]

I understand that this is a pet peeve, but they got a lot of ____ing nerve.

Whatever you're doing, you're doing it in part on my dime. Give up my dime, then zay gezunt. Keep using my dime, I have the right to know how you spend it. You don't agree, kush meer in toches. Not a constitutional issue in sight.

Nothing like Yiddish for strong opinions.

I'm no fan of televangelists. I think 99% of them are crooks.

But they are not doing it on "your" dime. Whether it's not taxing churches, or giving a tax cut to a person or a corporation, that is NOT giving them someone else's money. That is allowing them to keep their own money.

If the norm is that income is taxed, then not taxing the income of specific groups means that everyone else has to pay more to meet the same budget. If I'm paying someone else's share into the communal pot, they're operating in part on my dime.

However, taxing churches raises the question as to if churches have any income to tax. Most churches seem to have expenses at least equal to their income. (The deductibilty of donations is a separate issue.)

[Prof]

Many of these "Churches" teach the "prosperity" or "name it and claim it" or "Jesus wants you to be rich" gospel, sometimes called "Word of Faith." The focus, like that of historical Calvinist groups like the Pilgrims, on wealth is that success/wealth is a sign of "election."

Not to hijack the thread, but I'm not sure of that statement. That would go against a major reason why the pilgrims decided to leave both Rome and Church of England - they thought displays of material wealth was a form of idolatry and desired a separate way of worship that was simpler in both liturgy and material elements. While not puritans, they did indeed hold onto a rather ascetic lifestyle and I have not heard of any reputable theologian making such a claim about their beliefs.

I typed Pilgrims and meant Puritans.

[Demosthenes]

Abusive car donation programs

Cause and effect are not always determinable, but I can tell you that down here in south Florida about 4 or 5 years ago there were a crapload of ads for supposed non-profits importuning one to donate their automobile to the alleged charity.

They ceased about 2 years ago. Poof.

The Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Grassley's legislation) killed off the abuses as of 1/1/05. When you donate a car to charity, your deduction is limited to the gross proceeds when the charity auctions it off. Prior to the law change, a donor would fudge on the fair market value and deduct, say, $4,500 and then the charity would sell it off at auction for an average of $75.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I think we're eventually going to find Grassley is acting on behalf of someone who has an axe to grind against one of these operations.

Nope. Grassley has been systematically and agressively targeting abuses in the non profit world since 2004. Jay and I both testified at the hearing that started the tax exempt ball rolling.
...

See what I mean?

(Just teasing, Demo!)

[Prof]

Abusive car donation programs

Cause and effect are not always determinable, but I can tell you that down here in south Florida about 4 or 5 years ago there were a crapload of ads for supposed non-profits importuning one to donate their automobile to the alleged charity.

They ceased about 2 years ago. Poof.

The Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Grassley's legislation) killed off the abuses as of 1/1/05. When you donate a car to charity, your deduction is limited to the gross proceeds when the charity auctions it off. Prior to the law change, a donor would fudge on the fair market value and deduct, say, $4,500 and then the charity would sell it off at auction for an average of $75.

One of the obvious questions that the public and the IRS should have about mega-church preachers is the actual income of those folks. In other words, even in Pastor Swaggert only receives a salary of 50,000 dollars, what benefits should be considered as income? The automobile (say a Caddy)? The vacations to Rome or Jerusalem or Cancun? The love offerings from members for of use of the condo in Santa Fe and the apartment in Manhattan?

Those of you who are interested in this sort of thing will recall that Oral Roberts' son just resigned at ORU for just this sort of thing.

I grew up in a small and relatively modest farmining community. If the preacher at the little SBC church had not received gifts of food, clothes, meals, gasoline, and the like from the church members, many of whom lived as modestly as he did, he and his family would never have survived.

Now, mega-churches seem to try to outdo themselves on what the pastor (and, usually, his entire family) receive (and, usually, the pastor "owns" the operation, having started it from scratch, and thinks of the church as his family business, employing the entire clan).

I wonder how the Lord feels about these shepherds?

[Judge Roy Bean]

Demo: Secret puppeteer of the Senate Finance Committee.

Would you be so kind as to also go kick some *** over at the Financial Services Committee? The smoke and mirrors lala dance they do every once in a while on behalf of their pals in the lending industry is getting old and tired.

[.]

killed off the abuses as of 1/1/05

Good job, or, more accurately, good job assisting in getting the end result.

While the ads were running (and they were incessant,) I considered them to be akin to Slick Willie's charitable deduction of 2 bucks a pop for his old underwear back when he was but an aspirant for Governor of Arkansas.

I noticed the fact that the ads disappeared, but never bothered to find out why, I was merely happy that they were gone.

Who says that you can't learn something from Quatloos every day?

[Famspear]

From the Associated Press, 25 February 2008 (Yahoo News):

Hinn turns over material to senate panel

By ERIC GORSKI, AP Religion Writer

A senator's investigation into spending and oversight at six "prosperity gospel" ministries has hit a roadblock with a minister intensifying his efforts to fight the inquiry, but made progress on Monday when another turned over documents.

Flamboyant Texas-based faith healer Benny Hinn had turned over material to the Senate Finance Committee in response to a letter of inquiry from Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, in early November, an aide to the senator said.

Meanwhile, another target of Grassley's investigation, Kenneth Copeland, sent a letter to supporters this month accusing Grassley of targeting the six ministries because of theological disagreements. Grassley denies the charge.

Copeland, whose supporters have called Grassley's office to protest, is a pioneer of the prosperity gospel, which teaches that God wants his followers to be rich both spiritually and materially.

Grassley, the ranking Republican on the finance committee, sent the inquiries after media reports and complaints from the public. He asked the ministries to answer questions about spending on things such as private jets and oceanside homes.

He also wanted to know about oversight from boards at the ministries.

Several ministries complained that religious freedoms were threatened and said that the Internal Revenue Service, not a Senate committee, had any business asking those questions.

Jill Gerber, Grassley's spokewoman, said it was too soon to characterize the documents from Hinn, but added that Hinn's representatives say "they want to be cooperative and transparent," and understood Grassley's position.

A Hinn spokesman did not immediately respond to calls for comment. Last week, he refused comment about Hinn's plans.

In a statement Monday, Grassley's office said it received about three-dozen calls from Copeland supporters echoing the letter's message. The statement said Copeland's response has fallen "far short," and that while lines of communications are open, "additional steps in the congressional review" also would be considered.

Grassley has said he doesn't think he'll need to resort to subpoenas, but hasn't ruled them out. Grassley is expected to send another round of letters soon reiterating the committee's jurisdiction over tax-exempt policy.

Only one ministry, headed by author and motivational speaker Joyce Meyer, has "substantially answered" Grassley's questions, Grassley's office said.

Two Atlanta-area ministers, Creflo Dollar and Bishop Eddie Long, have refused to cooperate, while Paula and Randy White of Tampa also have failed to provide any information, Grassley's office said.

Copeland, initially reserved, has become increasingly combative toward Grassley.

In a letter this month to supporters, Copeland wrote that the ministry's response to Grassley "contained detailed information about non-church related questions" but did not provide information it deems private.
Copeland said the ministry fully complies with all laws, and pledged that he would go to jail before turning over names of donors.

"The enemy is not going to steal what the Lord has won through this ministry, and he is not going to use this attack to bring harm to the rest of the churches and ministries in America!" Copeland wrote.

Referring to Grassley's comment that Jesus road into Jerusalem on a donkey, not a Rolls Royce, Copeland wrote that Grassley seems to have targeted the ministries because of their shared prosperity theology.

Grassley has said he is concerned with tax-exempt regulations, not theology.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080226/ap_ ... kS8VpI2ocA

[Famspear]

Here's something on Kenneth Copeland and Senator Grassley's request for data last year:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/nonpro ... pelan.html

[Gregg]

Though the religious blogs (like this one) seem on both sides of the issue, those in support of Kenneth Copeland generally assert that the government has no business prying into the finances of houses of worship (see the comments to the blog linked above). They basically state that followers can make their own decisions regarding the extent to which they financially support their religious leaders. Gotta point there.

But the point is tax exemption, it's not how much THEY want to support their religious leaders, it's how much they want ME to support THEIR religious leaders.

I'm an atheist, I'm not militant or vocal, I just choose not to believe. I have no hostility whatsoever against churches in general and I don't really have much against the tax exempt status of most of them, but these TV preachers flying around in G5s that have golden toilet bowls and live in 30,000 sq. ft "rectories" and always seem to have the whole family on the payroll somehow, it just infuriates me. Joyce Meyer, Oral Roberts, and their ilk are just better lawyered than most conmen in my opinion and to tell you the truth Televangelist are largely responsible for my current lack of faith.

When I assume complete omnipotent power and dominion over the land and seas, one of my first acts will be to find a way to give them a tax break for the charitable acts they actually perform and start making the good reverend in charge pay his taxes like the rest of us.

[LPC]

One of the justifications for the tax exemption for charitable contributions is that charities contribute to the public good and reduce the burdens on government. Through charitable contributions, people voluntarily pay for services that would otherwise be paid for by the government through taxes.

But this doesn't apply well to churches, because it's not clear how using tax-deductible dollars to pay Kenneth Copeland (or any other pastor, for that matter) really provides a public benefit.

And non-religious charitable deductions raise similar issues. A recent op-ed in the NY Times observed that, through a charitable estate tax deduction, Leona Helmsley was able to divert $3.6 billion in tax money from the government coffers to the care and feeding of stray dogs. Given a choice, would Congress have appropriated $3.6 billion for that purpose? If not, then why did we give Leona Helmsley the power to make that choice?

[.]

would Congress have appropriated $3.6 billion for that purpose?

Absolutely not. Dogs can't vote. It's a loser in 1808 or 1908 or 2008.

why did we give Leona Helmsley the power to make that choice?

Freedom is a bitch. The fact that you don't like some of the stupid choices that result matters not. Litigate to your heart's content.

[Gregg]

While only atheism and the fact that she died, then failed to rise from the dead, convinces me that Leona Helmsley was not the antichrist, it was after all her money and she had good enough lawyers to do what she wanted with it. If nothing else, the stray dog problem is more than likely taken care of somewhere for quite some time.

I once worked for a Helmsley company and let me tell you, from her personal assistant (who if their is an afterlife and justice must have been a very bad person on a prior plane of existence) to the busboys, nobody was more despised than the nasty lady whose picture was over the time clock. From the swankiest hotel in Manhattan to the Dutch Pantry on I-70 in Powhatton Missouri, I don't think you could find anyone more hated by people who had never met her, just had to listen the boss read her weekly pep talks in order to get a paycheck.

[Judge Roy Bean]

....through a charitable estate tax deduction, Leona Helmsley was able to divert $3.6 billion in tax money from the government coffers to the care and feeding of stray dogs. Given a choice, would Congress have appropriated $3.6 billion for that purpose? If not, then why did we give Leona Helmsley the power to make that choice?

Because it was her money to begin with.