Separation of Truth and State

If you read this piece by the Associated Press and some of the comments therein, you might think that jack-booted anti-religious thugs from our federal government were unfairly terrorizing churches nationwide, investigating their daily activities and making unreasonable and burdensome requests for personal, private donor data. But if you thought that, you thought wrong.

What happened was that the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, launched an "investigation" last week of six evangelical mega-churches by requesting information about "compensation, board oversight and perks -- from luxury oceanside homes to flights on private jets to opulent spending on office furniture." If what Grassley suspects is true (no way for us at Charity Navigator, or you at home, to know--these groups are of course exempt from filing ANY financial documents with any authorities--state or federal), it would seem that these salaries and benefits would not be, as the IRS requires, "reasonable." IRS rules theoretically (again, no way for anyone to know what's going on inside these groups--despite the fact that we as taxpayers subsidize their activities) prevent pastors and other insiders from excessive personal gain through their tax-exempt work. The six ministries in the inquiry are Pentecostal groups that have television presences and preach a ''prosperity gospel'' message, in which the faithful are supposed to receive great material rewards.

Three thoughts:

• Non-profit religious groups are supposedly "policed" by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. I have no problems at all with ECFA, but membership in their group is completely voluntary. None of the groups questioned by Grassley belong (and based on the amount of donations they must be receiving, this refusal to participate has not affected them adversely with donors). The ECFA's principles for governance are the religious equivalent of the new ones recommended by the Independent Sector. While those that adopt them are demonstrating to their donors that they have an interest in playing by the rules, they're worthless for most of us if there are no financial or regulatory repercussions to those that ignore them. Self-regulation is cute, but this case shows that the only way to definitively rein in the outlaws, in a situation void of true market forces, is through external regulation.
  
• How non-accountable are churches, big and small, not just to their individual donors, but to the taxpayer populace as a whole? Senator Grassley's "investigation" consists of him faxing a letter to the mega-churches in question, asking them some questions about how much they pay their leadership, and what kinds of benefits they receive. And what happens if they don't answer his questions truthfully and transparently? Nothing. In fact, they are under NO legal obligation to answer his questions at all. You heard that right. The ranking Republican on the Senate committee with jurisdiction over non-profits in this country can ask these non-profits questions until he is blue in the face and they are under NO legal obligation to answer these questions, ever.
  
• Anyone else troubled not just by the double standard here, but by the hypocrisy of those who say that Grassley is unfairly singling the religious groups out, demanding that they play by different rules, when in reality they're the only ones not playing by the rules? Why should these particular non-profits, which pay no income or property taxes because they are serving the public as a whole, be allowed to pay their leaders salaries which are not "reasonable" and furnish them with "opulent seaside homes," while maintaining total secrecy over their finances, just because they're religious in mission and nature, while at the same time, we demand that every other non-religious group in this nation open their books to anyone who asks? I like my separation between church and state as much as the next guy, but how is this even rational, let alone defensible? The seven-figure compensation package of Benny Hinn is private, even though he's running a non-profit approved by the IRS, to whom every donation to is fully tax-deductible, while the lady who runs my local rape crisis center has her $70,000 salary published on the internet by someone like Charity Navigator?
  

Please don't read this as some sort of anti-religious rant. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It's just an issue of common rules and common sense. If these groups are going to take the benefits from our federal government of being non-profits (and the benefits are immense), shouldn't they have to bear a few of the costs?