NOTE: Elspeth below suggested that the following is a factually incorrect legal assessment, and she’s right. I’m retracting it, but not deleting it so that the context and useful discussion can remain.
One of the Christian charities in my local area is a for-profit enterprise. They are for-profit because if they were registered as a non-profit they wouldn’t be allowed to do what they do in the name of Christ. The services they offer and the requirements to receive those services are forbidden to non-profits. In order to freely fulfill the Great Commission free of government intrusion on their right to religious expression, they must pay taxes.
How many of you attend churches that are non-profit? Do you understand what that entails?
If you want to attend a church that is not financially beneath the boot of the IRS you start with your own pocketbook. I maintain a tithe account that I distribute as needed to advance the Gospel. Guy up the street needs groceries because he’s had a rough patch in his life? I have desire and resource to cover them in the name of Jesus. Woman needs the brakes done on her car to keep her safe? Same answer. Do I care if the recipient is a 501c3? Never, because that wasn’t mentioned either in word or implication in the parable of the talents and that is my model. Note that this takes effort, eyes to perceive and not just see. Its a lot more work than just teeing up a monthly ACH to you home church.
“Oh so you have a home church; do you support it?” Yes, when necessary. There are enough wealthy retired guys there to do so and I keep an eye on the weekly budget vs. offering. Note this used to drive my ex-wife nuts because she foundationally didn’t see returning our wealth to God as a joyful decision, made in the power of trust. I do.
I’ve never commented here so I am sharing this not to brag but to invite others to reason out this possible approach for themselves.
This is exactly what I’m getting at. Thanks for your contribution.
So are you positing that anything other than a home church is defacto illegitimate due to the risks inherent in the organizational structure?
Sincerely trying to understand. I can appreciate (and not fully agree with) the position, if that is indeed the position, because I’ve witnessed many of ills. But I’m not sure if that is actually your position.
No, my stance is not quite so hard as to declare church organization as outright illegitimate, but that isn’t to say it is inherently good either.
Biblically speaking, the church is not a business, location, enterprise, organization, or financial entity. It’s just people in a covenant collective.
When someone mentions your church, are they referring to the building or the organization? Or are they referring to the people? Who (or what) do people give money to?
The organization is bad to the extent that it detracts from what the church really is. This differs from place to place.
I know I’m chatty today (sorry!) but this topic interests me.
When someone mentions our church, they are for sure referring to the people who make up the body. An integral part of our fellowship is doing a LOT of things in members’ homes. Baby showers? Wedding showers? Always in someone’s home. At least once a month, Sunday evening gatherings in someone’s home. We’re the spot for June in our area, and other families are north, south, etc.
We’re small (150-ish), but scattered NSEW, because as I mentioned before, there are not a ton of 1689 churches in our area. Some members drive 45 min- 1 hour to get there. The regional gatherings keep everyone engaged and in fellowship on days other than Sunday when it’s not as easy to gather.
We give our money to the church’s general fund, to missions, etc. But we actually KNOW where that money is going. The congregation has a say in the yearly budget.
Our old church, an ex-mega-ish church which had shrank considerably during our final years there, was structured much more like the toxic model you are describing. When people referred to it, they were absolutely referring to the place, or more likely, to the man who had established it and whose personality clearly marked it.
I think a lot of times online, the antipathy towards any church other than domestic, micro-model is based on the caricature that all organized churches are like the big ones we have all been exposed to in some way.
As for closures during Covid, our old church closed and stayed closed for a VERY long time. By the time we found our current church, it was open. I did close for a few weeks at the very beginning of the whole mess (late March-Easter 2020), when they bucked the system and reopened.
Interestingly, the church where our school meets closed for a long time, mainly because the congregation skews VERY heavily to 70+ demographically. Even with this being the free state of FL, they gave way to fear rather than reopening quickly.
One of the mothers at our school has a very large house (library, sitting room, bonus room, etc.). So she opened up her home and our school of 35 students simply had classes there. School kept going without missing a beat.
We were concerned that the neighbors would grow annoyed at the crowds of people gathering at their house and coming and going and rat us out, but the county gestapo (our county commissioners are far less conservative than the governor’s mansion).
The truly amazing thing was that none of the families kept their kids out of school even some that we were certain would opt out of in-person classes.
All this to say, much as there were 7000 that Elijah had no idea about who’d never bowed the knee to Baal, there were Christians quietly going on about the work of ministry that no one knew about and who didn’t “cuck”, or at least, changed course very quickly. John MacArthur was actually not alone. He was just the most noteworthy standard bearer.
An excellent comment. I enjoyed reading it. It nicely illustrates both sides of what I am talking about. I really have nothing to add to what you said!
This is a great comment, Dan. Thanks. Serving others from our own pockets is such a part of our life (all credit to my husband, not me!) that I had not even considered that as a part of the conversation. Don’t all Christians do that beyond the regular check they write to their churches? It would seem to be a natural part of our walk.
I can’t even begin to add up the meals taken to families in sickness and hardship, the sweat equity (sometimes including the expense of supplies) that my husband expends for elderly brothers and sisters in the church.
I thought we were specifically discussing the idea of what the church does or doesn’t do with its money and whatever tax benefits it enjoys at the expense of preaching truth.
It wouldn’t be the first time I missed the point, 🙂
I haven’t thought of that, to be honest. Every church I have ever attended has freely evangelized, freely supported the work of the Great Commission, and freely helped the less fortunate in the name of Christ.
Our current church is heavily partnered with a well known local pro-life ministry, in addition to doing the all of the things I outlined above.
If they are a non-profit, I suppose they’re breaking the law? Is our hybrid school (501c3 with a super selective statement of Christian faith and behavior admission process) also breaking the law? Are all non profit Christian schools who teach the Bible breaking the law? Are the two things not related at all?
I know both entities prepare all of their things under the advice of legal counsel so I’m gonna withhold judgement based solely on the assertion you’ve made here in this post. Not that I doubt you, but there has to be something missing from the equation.
I have no idea. I should ask, lol.
—————————————————————————
Additionally, I think a church with substantial business enterprises (books, church school, other classes, etc) is simply protecting itself from possible tax liability by listing itself as “for profit”. Not because of the Great Commission, but because it is generating income.
Small churches (such as ours) do not generate income, and are at very little risk of running afoul of the IRS. Only heavy political participation (thus far, knock on wood) interferes with the ability to be tax exempt while preaching the gospel. We all know that “black churches” are exempt from this stipulation, but that’s an issue for another post.
I’m not sure you’re accurate on this one Derek. I’ll have to look deeper into it.
That’s a diplomatic way of suggesting that I’m wrong. But, you are right. I apologize for the inaccuracy and for wasting your time. I do not always get things right, but it still bothers me whenever I make a mistake.
There are definitely some restrictions. For example, here is what the IRS says:
501(c)(3) organizations are clearly not entitled to the full measure of free speech provisions afforded under the Constitution compared to for-profit enterprises. There are certain strings attached.
Of course some churches (e.g. the smaller ones or the “black churches”) cross these lines and get away with it. I’ve certainly attended churches that forcefully and explicitly endorsed certain candidates over others. But the larger mega churches can’t pull that off as they are in the spotlight (and usually have much larger operating budgets).
I was reporting what I’ve heard, but my memory is at fault here. I did get error-prone ChatGPT to confirm what the meatspace folk who run the charity told me…
…but this isn’t talking about 501(c)(3) status. I had conflated the various ways an organization can be financially “supported” by the government (e.g. grants and tax breaks). The error is mine.
I’ve retracted my post. Let me ask this instead:
If someone is paying your bills, directly or indirectly, then it has some measure of control over you. Whether this is formal or informal, subtle or overt, doesn’t matter.
I am aware the some churches do not seek 501(c)(3) status for this reason. I also agree with Dan’s comment above.
It is not clear to me that a church should even be a “for-profit” enterprise either. I suspect this is partially how the government managed to so aggressively pinch churches in 2020 and 2021 by forcing them—as a business—to close. They couldn’t have done this to a home church which isn’t a business.