3 ms·

> Just because there isn't a formal requirement doesn't mean that there isn't intense social pressure that creates a de facto requirement. That may be the case

> Just because there isn't a formal requirement doesn't mean that there isn't intense social pressure that creates a de facto requirement. That may be the case at some churches, but I would assert that that kind of social pressure is wrong and unbiblical. "Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." - 2 Corinthians 9:7 So for a church where this social pressure exists, that is the fault of that particular church (it's leadership and/or people), not churches or Christianity in general. Anecdotally, I've never experienced this kind of pressure at any church I've attended or been a member of. > To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual > The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion... https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz... Churches qualify for 501c3 tax exempt status because they are religious organizations and are non-profit. Same goes for mosques, temples, etc. So why is using "church" in the traditional Christian religious sense and being exempt from taxes bad?

throwawaygh 5y ago
> So why is using "church" in the traditional Christian religious sense and being exempt from taxes bad? It's not, per se. Although I do think the Parsonage exemption is wrong and should be repealed, and I do think "religion" as a criteria for non-profit status should also be removed from tax code. Just treat Churches like any other 501(c)3. What's the problem with that? (Answer: many churches spend untaxed money on things that would lose them their 501(c)3 status if they weren't religious organizations... which is almost always also unbiblical stewardship of church finances, so it's perplexing to me that any practicing Christian would oppose at least the latter change to tax law). But, again, that's not what I was saying. What I critiquing was your characterization of Buddhist temples and Synagogues as "in the traditional sense of the word" (your owrds). That traditional sense has no meaning in the USA. Go read court opinions. "Church" does not imply Christian. "Gospel" doesn't even imply Christian. Because, if those things did imply Christian, most of the tax benefits that are unique to churches would be struck down as state establishment of religion (protestant Christianity, to be precise). These aren't my opinions. They're the law. "Church" and "Gospel" are interpreted to mean, roughly, any group that meets regularly and has some sort of spiritual tenets. Anyways, again, this is all far off-topic from my original post, which in fact characterized tithing in a positive light.

throwawaygh 5y ago

> So why is using "church" in the traditional Christian religious sense and being exempt from taxes bad? It's not, per se. Although I do think the Parsonage exemption is wrong and should be repealed, and I do think "religion" as a criteria for non-profit status should also be removed from tax code. Just treat Churches like any other 501(c)3. What's the problem with that? (Answer: many churches spend untaxed money on things that would lose them their 501(c)3 status if they weren't religious organizations... which is almost always also unbiblical stewardship of church finances, so it's perplexing to me that any practicing Christian would oppose at least the latter change to tax law). But, again, that's not what I was saying. What I critiquing was your characterization of Buddhist temples and Synagogues as "in the traditional sense of the word" (your owrds). That traditional sense has no meaning in the USA. Go read court opinions. "Church" does not imply Christian. "Gospel" doesn't even imply Christian. Because, if those things did imply Christian, most of the tax benefits that are unique to churches would be struck down as state establishment of religion (protestant Christianity, to be precise). These aren't my opinions. They're the law. "Church" and "Gospel" are interpreted to mean, roughly, any group that meets regularly and has some sort of spiritual tenets. Anyways, again, this is all far off-topic from my original post, which in fact characterized tithing in a positive light.