On Church and State

Amanda made a good comment and I feel I need to clarify some things from my last post ("On Faith-Based Discrimination").

Although my post focused mostly on the rights of employees at religious institutions, it was intended to deal aslo, perhaps even more so, with tax and other financial issues.

The separation of church and state is fundamental to our particular republic. Although initially it was installed to protect worshipers, it seems to protect those who choose not to worship just as much. Aside from a few extremists, I think most Americans agree that government has no business in religion and religion has no business in government. That having been said, I think that sometimes the faithful and the non-faithful use the doctrine as a device to change our laws.

As far as the First Amendment is concerned, the People (our government) recognize the valuable service churches and other ministries provide to a community. As the first American municipalities were growing, it became obvious that the church needed some help making ends meet. While operating solely on contributions, the church was trying to keep houses of worship open and running while simultaneously providing care for the poor, the hungry, the sick and the homeless. Tax exemption developed out of this need. Lawyers tended to work gratis; hospitals provided free care to clergy; many special conditions were set up to help churches and religious institutions continue providing their services.

In the 21st century, these laws, rules and exceptions remain. But here's the rub: in many cases these exceptions are being given to large, national, mutli-facted businesses and industries simply because the name on the owner's document is that of a church. Hospital chains, bookstore chains, nursing chains, publishers, funeral home chains, etc. There are churches which own a few or more of all of these services and businesses. But, while many of these businesses work on a for-profit basis, they remain under the non-profit, ministerial exception.

Here's my concern: Is the spirit of tax exemption and ministerial exception being bastardized to give unfair advantages to companies with holy names? Was the intention really meant to cover a theme park in Florida ("The Holy Land Experience")? Was it really there to help bookstores sell more Bibles, CDs, DVDs, and Precious Moments figurines (Bereans)? Was it meant to underwrite a powerful publisher which brings in over $100 million a year (Word)? Was it meant to be an umbrella to cover political action groups and lobbyists (The Christian Coalition, The Moral Majority)? Many of these institutions, while stemming initially from a single church's cadre of services have become massive, national money-makers - not to mention carrying large influence throughout the country. What is it that makes them deserve the advantage of no sales tax, no property tax and exceptions to basic civil and labor laws? That it's all in the name of God?

Even churches are, in my opinion, pushing the envelope. While the majority of chruches across America remain smaller in size and sphere of influence, there is a growing number of mega-churches springing up all over. These are massive complexes which include multiple auditoriums, gymnasiums, schools, bookstores, gift shops, coffee bars, recording studios, video editing suites and more. These are congregations that number in the thousands and even the tens of thousands. They employ a small army of bookkeepers, custodians, secretaries, ministers, musicians, artists, social-workers, etc. The largest bunch actually have multi-million dollar annual budgets. And their campuses are the size of small colleges or army bases. When does their provision stop being a community service and become a standard business service like doctors, lawyers and such? Why should Cedar Creek be able to buy their coffee tax-free while Starbucks has to add the cost? Is the coffee sold at the church really broadening the congregation's spiritual growth?

These are hard questions and the line will not be easily drawn. Nonethless, I believe it's our responsibility to manage our society carefully so these questions must be asked. The next time you hear Jars of Clay on the radio followed by Phil Collins, remember that the former's publisher gets the ASCAP return tax free while the latter's must pay all taxes. Does that really make sense?