Not For Profit?

The other day when I was in the post office, I saw that someone had left lots of leaflets on all the tables, inviting the public to a religious service at a local mega-church (of which Tulsa has dozens). A certain Dr. Don (no last name) was going to be miraculously healing people. I considered this to be an example of soliciting for private profit on federal property, and as a patriotic citizen I helped the leaflets find their way into the recycling slot.

Environmental organizations have nonprofit (or not-for-profit) status, which relieves them from the tax burden that private businesses bear. And in most cases, this is beneficial to the whole country. NGOs (non-governmental organizations), often filled with motivated volunteers, can do a lot more good work than can a government agency and for a lot less money. By letting NGOs do some of the work, in return for tax breaks, the government comes out ahead.

Religious organizations such as churches also have nonprofit status. It is, however, not as clear what the social benefits are that churches confer upon the community as in the case of environmental organizations. It is true that many churches perform valuable services—counseling, food kitchens, literacy programs. But for the most part, churches proclaim very specific doctrines, collect money from people who have been convinced of those doctrines, and use the money to proclaim their doctrines to yet more people. If the doctrine so replicated is Jesus’ message of love, it clearly confers an advantage on society. But at least here in Tulsa, the doctrine is frequently this: Our church has the truth, and you should give us your money, because God wants you to, and you are going to hell if you don’t. The purpose of many churches is to enlarge themselves, not to help the community.

It becomes most troublesome when you hear about what some of the mega-churches do with their money. There appears to be no meaningful federal restrictions on compensation given directly to the preachers, nor to the perks that these churches provide to their leaders, who act as if they are little gods upon the face of the Earth. One of the most famous Tulsa evangelists ran a university which has a private jet that he and his family could use for almost any purpose (since wherever they go or whatever they do, they are evangelizing by their mere presence). Technically, such organizations are operating “not for profit,” but clearly these churches are just methods of scraping money up from gullible people and shoveling it into the coffers of rich evangelists. Just what good are they doing for society? Clearly they are doing a lot less good, tax-free, than do most corporations that pay taxes.

Corporations do not pay taxes on money they donate to the public good. But there are strict rules about how they can do this. Imagine what would happen if a corporate CEO decided to create a spin-off foundation to “help the environment,” appointed himself director, and gave himself a big salary or a tax-free house. This would be considered illegal. I think. But how is this different from what rich evangelists do?

I modestly propose that churches no longer receive tax-free status. If they are in the business of raising funds for their own expansion, let them pay taxes for it like the rest of us. This would also apply to all NGOs. But big churches abuse the privilege of freedom from taxes much more often than do environmental NGOs. The Botanical Society of America, for example, does as much good for the world as the big Tulsa ministries, with a thousandth the budget. And most NGOs are run by qualified people, not by some Dr. Don who is not required to prove where his title came from.

Churches claim to be concerned about, for example, the health of American citizens. If churches paid taxes, except on specific social programs, the federal government might be able to afford health care after all.

This essay was recycled from my website (November 9, 2009).