Where do pastors' funds go?

Most of us desire to believe the best about religious institutions and, in most cases, that desire is well founded. However, there have been some glaring historical exceptions. For example, consider Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker’s matching Rolls Royces, along with their dog’s air-conditioned doghouse.

Recently, in response to a number of letters suggesting that certain religious leaders were exploiting their tax exempt status, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, sent a letter to six high-profile evangelists asking them to provide detailed statements explaining their spending. The six were Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer, Creflo Dollar, Paula White and Eddie Long. Obviously, the list could have been much longer, but one has to start someplace.

The responses, if there was a response, have run the gamut from full cooperation to downright opposition. Two in the latter category are Bishop Long, who, it was revealed in 2005, drove a $350,000 automobile, and John Copeland, who wears his wealth as a sign of the validity of his “Prosperity Gospel.” Several cite their belief that Grassley may be violating the constitutional guarantees granted churches.

The intent of this article is not to argue the details of this unfinished investigation. However, I believe that churches, as would be true for other not-for-profit organizations, have an ethical as well as a legal obligation to answer in minute detail as to how their funds are allocated.

There is a good argument to be made that church facilities devoted strictly to worship activities should not be taxed, but the situation becomes quite hazy when it comes to some other activities and investments made by churches. Many churches actually welcome the government to require tax reports, while others feel it is a great anathema or an improper intrusion by mammon into the things of God. 

Some fortunate and gifted men have made great fortunes and have done their best to protect their wealth for succeeding generations of their family. But when they die – and they all die – government invariably intrudes to get its share. On the other hand, churches can have lifetimes much longer than any one man. This fact has permitted some churches to become quite adept in making long-range investments that greatly postpone the day of reckoning allowing for a governmental-directed social sharing of the wealth.

Grassley was accused of religious bias, which he vigorously denied. But, be that as it may, I think it is both socially and politically valid for religious bodies to be totally transparent in their finances. I think it is eminently fair for Grassley to question whether it makes sense for ministers to exclude from income the parsonage and housing allowance, as well as other personal benefits. I applaud Senator Grassley for his attempt to bring about much more transparency.

The end of this story, i.e. Grassley’ s investigation, may not come about for many months or even years, but when it does I believe it will merit your attention.