Where are you getting this information that most churches do any of this?
Personal experience. Church expenditures are an open secret, every family has a member on the executive board. There is hardly ever enough money to do all that wants to be done. There is no pad to enrich anyone at most non-affluent churches. I believe my experience is pretty typical for most church bodies.
Is your experience with exactly one church?
Believing something doesn’t make it true.
Do you have anything at all to back up your religious belief?
I agree with Temporary_Name, based on my experience on serving on two church boards.
When you rely on member donations for pretty much all your income, your members expect a certain amount of information.General Council on Finance and Administration
This report is fancier than most congregations put out; most congregations won’t spend the money for color.
Is the same information submitted to the government?
You have experience with two churches, and Temporary_Name has experience with one. You both seem to misunderstand the definition of of the word “most”.
To mix metaphors(and perhaps coin a phrase), you are gilding with a broad brush.
No, just my lifetime of experience.
I can tell you that two exceptions might be the Church of Rome where they have a very centralized top down structure where those at the top of the food chain may support favored but non self-supporting ministries. The Church of Latter Day Saints also has a strongly structured top down organization I am told by those who would know and that money once out of the local coffers is not subject to any oversight I am aware of.
I can tell you that any LCMS church has a full years budget that is voted upon by the entire congregation each year. (It seems ELCA churches also have similar budget arrangements.) My experience in other less liturgical, less theologically orthodox churches were very similar. But the two large, wealthy, nondenominational churches I have been adjacent to are not so open about their finances – but one of them has a million dollar campus and the other even larger one has a multi-million dollar campus with maybe forty buildings on it and a parking lot big enough for a sports arena.
In Plano Texas, I was elected the head of the Board Of Trustees and there was a very large budget for lawncare and building maintenance. It was a quarter million annual or larger (got divorced a few months in and was stripped of my role). Every invoice came to me and I had to initial it, then an executive had to initial it, and only then was it sent to the treasurer for him or her to cut a check. The pastors had no official say in these matters but their influence over the rest of us was immense. A long term member who was recently widowed was paid to strip and re-wax the floor so often we had to replace the flooring!
The government was never informed, neither was it consulted on how we spent our money. But those of us who contributed payed VERY close attention to every single dollar spent. Again, even though I have renounced the faith – I believe almost all churches deserve to be left completely out of any taxation consideration. But those that are only posing as churches should be at least looked at. Nothing but my experience to back me up on that though.
Without going into any detail at all, my experiences are a bit broader than you may imagine. I also attended a Bible/Christian College and most of my friends from those days have spent their entire lives in ministry. I am not completely unaware of church finances across multiple denominations. But please feel free to disregard my comments if they are not authoritative enough for you.
You have a lot of experience with one religious sect, and I accept your comments as authoritative when it comes to that one religious sect. Since the topic of conversation is “Taxation of religious institutions” would you mind showing a link between what your church does or does not do and the subject at hand? Is the government supposed to travel to every church, read what is posted on the bulletin board, then accept what they find as a legal document?
[quote=“Temporary_Name, post:69, topic:953884”]
The government was never informed, neither was it consulted on how we spent our money. [/quote]
(bolding mine)
Why did you throw that last part in? Who is asking for that?
According to the Hartford Institute For Religion Research, there are roughly 350,000 religious congregations in the United States. Would you say that you are familiar with how most of them operate when it comes to their financials?
Here’s a fairly comprehensive report (although it’s from 2012) on U.S. Christian churches. Unfortunately, it doesn’t say anything about tax status. It does say that 76.4% of congregations had a formal, written budget, and that the median income for a congregation was $450,000. 93% of congregations have fewer than 400 participants (and they define “participant” pretty loosely) while just 7% claim half of all participants.
Like many other entities, churches are splitting into a few very large operations and a lot of very small ones. The experience I have with two mainline Protestant churches that barely fit into the category of “midsize” (100-400 participants) doesn’t necessarily translate into a non-denominational megachurch.
ELCA does indeed have similar budget arrangements. Budgets must be voted upon by the entire congregation (they are prepared by the Congregation Council) - it is a required provision of the Model Constitution for Congregations.
Okay, I did not want to get into the weeds on this one, but I will make one more stab at the concept I am trying to convey.
I am not claiming, and never claimed to have intimate knowledge of every single congregation and how they spend their money. But I have been involved with many churches across half a dozen or more sects and while there are noticeable differences between them, there does seem to be one thing that unites them. That thing is they are trying to do good in the world through their belief in a deity. I have already mentioned that every single church that I have been involved with spends most of their money on themselves. Please allow me to add that in almost every case the entire church budget consists of contributions from congregants. Just by simple human nature, those congregants tend to examine expenditures in extreme detail and in many cases if the church refused to divulge expenditures (or contributions for that matter) donations would dry up pretty damn quick.
Now, there are about Nineteen-Thousand laundromats in the United States and I have not been to every single one of them. But I have a pretty good idea how a typical laundromat works. I certainly could not tell you which ones are just fronts for the Russian mob (or the Italian mob, etc.) If I stumbled into one that had cobwebs on the machines I might begin to suspect they are not a legitimate business operation – but absent any evidence, I tend to take them at their word. That they are a for profit business that provides me access to appliances I need to use for a small profit after expenses.
Another example I had thought of earlier:
There seem to be just over Thirteen-Thousand McDonald’s in the United States. Again I have never even seen half or more of them. But I am pretty sure what they are, how they operate, and what their business model is from my very limited experience in a few McDonald’s restaurants. But that’s not all!! There are about Six-Thousand Five Hundred Wendy’s in the US. Some of them might suck, some of them might be great – but they surely have more in common with each other than they have at odds with each other. One more- just over Twenty-Two Thousand Jack in the Box’s in the US. And I have experience with all three of those particular franchises. But even when I go to an unfamiliar fast food restaurant I know what to expect.
Perhaps like churches, I find that chain restaurants along deserted stretches of highway tend to be dirtier, more expensive, with slower service while urban ones of any stripe tend to have different traits.
So no, I do not know how every church works their finances- but most churches do not raise my suspicion at all. The last church I attended however (as a favor to a friend who is SO sad I have renounced my faith!) did raise many flags. I met with the pastor several times and asked very pointed questions which were always deflected. They do not have any monetary accounting that I have been able to find (they are VERY affluent!). They do discuss politics routinely and pointedly - - - and then deny that they ever endorsed a party or candidate. They are more expert at skirting the Johnson Amendment than they are at reaching theologically defendable doctrine.
I have accused the pastor of being a shill for the Heritage Foundation (and I do believe some political think tank does fund them – but cannot prove it because, no financials available). I have been forbidden to attend if I was going to discuss politics because I saw through them in an instant.
To summarize, if my experiences do not meet with your high standard of “evidence”, than please disregard them. I have nothing else to contribute. I had hoped that the parallel to gun rights I noted above would express my “most are okay – but a few need special scrutiny” in both areas, but alas- I have failed to make myself understood in this case.
Here is another example of an entire denomination expressly saying their books are open to the congregation, and I do think that is pretty typical of most churches.
BUT- I can’t prove it!
There is always a Westboro Baptist Church, but I would not consider them typical of all churches.
My initial point (which I think DID get lost here) is that most churches do not need to disclose their books to the IRS or ever be considered for business taxes. But the few that DO raise concerns should be examined. I am not terribly concerned that a few churches with murky financial dealings get away with something, that will certainly happen. My contention is that most churches be spared even the consideration of taxation ----- UNLESS there is smoke which makes one want to search for spark or fire. If any church is found fraudulently receiving or spending money on anything other than “The unfathomable benefits of faith”, they should be nailed to wall in this poster’s opinion!
Would you extend this courtesy to other non-religious not-for-profits?
Have a little Faith!
I have neither personal experience, nor have I read up on the subject so I do not feel qualified to comment upon their tax exempt status (which I realize is a cop out). One of the principle reasons I felt comfortable commenting upon churches is because I have been inside and outside and have seen the issue from several points of view. The fact that I am no longer a supporter of Christendom and some believe I am outright hostile toward Christianity is why I believed my view was valuable.
I support churches retaining their tax exempt status despite my antipathy toward them, not because of support for them.
I do hold a few large charities in high regard (the Red Cross, The Salvation Army- which is nominally Christian in nature, Make a Wish Foundation, I am sure most of the Animal Cruelty charities are sincere if emotionally manipulative). I have only worked with two charities that were not overly Christian and both of them have ties to Christendom. Food for the Hungry was a disappointment to me. They (decades ago- may still be true) had a “training center” in the desert on the outskirts of Scottsdale, AZ. Even back then they said there was such a food surplus that no person anywhere in the world needed to go hungry for even one day.
I stayed after the training to discuss their worthy cause and low level staffers told me that farmers and large food groups (think Del Monte) donated enough food every year to feed the entire population of Africa. That all cash donations they received were spent on transportation costs because there really was no food shortage. They said the infrastructure to deliver the food to those who need it-- and the corruption of local governments where humanitarian crisis existed was the only obstacle to ending world hunger. Yet they produced TV ads and flyers and pamphlets and raised money to the limits of their ability and encouraged volunteers to come out to the desert and spend a day, a weekend, or longer learning how to build a solar cooker or a two burner mud oven that used less fuel to cook meals.
I do know a few wealthy individuals who run foundations and are very sincere about one cause or another (specifically- breast cancer, child suicide, and addressing the opioid epidemic). In each case they raise money and mostly divert it to other larger organizations who actually spend the money, operate the charity, and do the “good”. They like having their own foundation because:
- It is usually named after a deceased loved one.
- They can control where the funds are funneled.
- they ARE passionate about the subject.
- They are doing something proactive to battle an evil in the world.
They often operate with very little cost, but then they use larger charities to do the actual work which may or may not have a low cost of operation. (I have heard unbelievable numbers about The United Way for example- like only fifty cents on a dollars ever goes toward those in need.)
I will give almost any church a pass because I believe they are sincere within their belief system. I don’t know if I could say the same about non religious charities. But I do know this, that whole topic is a barrel of snares that I could never straighten out into usable line.
The United Way is actually a fund-raising clearinghouse for other charities. You give money to a general UW appeal, and they in turn parcel it out to their members. I believe the local UW takes a 10%-15% cut for their own administrative expenses, and then passes along a portion of that to the national UW.
That means the member charities don’t have to spend as much time, effort, and money to fundraise. That’s a good thing for them. Employers like it because they can let the UW do one fundraising drive instead of having dozens of different charities battle to get in the door (it also reduces the problem of the CEO having to choose to include or exclude individual organizations.) On the other hand, it means that we the donors are basically paying for three sets of administration before our contributions get to the program level. On the third hand, the UW requires a certain level of accounting standards of member organizations, and helps them set up and maintain best practices.
But things are different between Jack in the Box and McDonald’s and Wendy’s right? And every one-off joint is probably different from the big chains and each other.
There are probably over 100 churches within 5 miles of my house. I expect the Catholic churches probably do things similarly * and the Lutheran/Baptist/Episcopalian churches probably do things similarly to others of their denomination - but most of those churches are storefront churches not affiliated with any other church. I have no idea how public those churches are about their budgets - and neither do you. But it would not surprise me at all if some of them resemble the Catholic churches of my childhood, where no financial information at all was shared with the congregation and the pastor made all the decisions.
* which in my experience consists of giving the weekly collection amounts and the weekly expenses and a report of how how much was pledged for certain drives in the bulletin, but certainly not every donation received is included in those amounts nor is there an annual budget in the narthex- and not nearly every family has someone on the budget committee if there even is one