Some of you may remember a brou-ha-ha that arose back in 2007 when Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) wrote letters to six “media-based” church ministries about concerns he had related to financial accountability and policies.  The ministries Grassley wrote to were Joyce Meyer Ministries, World Healing Center Church (Benny Hinn), Without Walls International Church (Randy and Paula White), New Birth Missionary Baptist Church (Eddie Long), Kenneth Copeland Ministries, and World Changers Church International (Creflo and Taffi Dollar).  Sen. Grassley asked each of these ministries for certain information about their finances and governance.  Joyce Meyer Ministries and Benny Hinn’s ministry answered Grassley’s questions and provided information to the Senator.  The other four ministries did not answer Sen. Grassley’s questions out of concerns over religious freedom.  You can get a good history of what happened, including all the correspondence back and forth at the Senate’s Finance Committee Website.

ADF was involved in this issue in a tangential way.  Members of ADF’s attorney staff met with Sen. Grassley’s staff to offer our assistance and expertise and to share concerns about any outcome of the investigation that may result in additional government oversight or control of churches.  Sen. Grassley’s staff was responsive to our concerns.

Not much had happened on this issue, though, since late 2009. The issue appeared to be at a stalemate as four of the ministries were not responding to Sen. Grassley’s requests.  The issue, though, has now come to the forefront again as Sen. Grassley has released a report on the investigation.  The most significant aspect of the report is Sen. Grassely’s requested appointment of an independent Commission who will “review and provide input on major accountability and policy issues affecting” churches.

The Commission requested by Sen. Grassley will be headed by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, of which ADF is a member.  According to ECFA, the Commission on Accountability and Policy for Religious Organizations will “address some of the most challenging tax and policy issues involving religious organizations. They include: whether churches should file the same highly-detailed annual information return that other nonprofits must file (Form 990); whether legislation is needed to curb abuses of the clergy housing allowance exclusion; whether the current prohibition against political campaign intervention by churches and other nonprofits should be repealed or modified; and whether legislation is needed to clarify tax rules covering ‘love offerings’ received by some clergy.”

The Chair of the Commission is Mike Batts, managing shareholder of Batts Morrison Wales & Lee, PA, an Orlando-based accounting firm dedicated exclusively to serving nonprofit organizations. He is also former chair of the board of ECFA and is currently a member of ECFA’s board and executive committee.  Mr. Batts is a champion of religious liberty and has served non-profits for many years through his firm and his experience with ECFA. 

Well, what does this all mean and how does it relate to churches?  Should we expect more government oversight and control of churches by the government?  Overall, I think this is good news.  The ECFA committee will be a better forum to address the concerns raised by Sen. Grassley.  And Chairman Mike Batts is one of the best experts in the country on the issues facing churches and religious organizations,and he is fully committed to religious freedom and the rights of churches.  ADF has offered its assistance to the Commission and will monitor and assist the Commission as it needs while it works to complete its task.

An additional beneficial development is Sen. Grassley’s question to the Commission regarding whether the political intervention prohibition in 501c3 of the tax code should be repealed or limited.  As you know, this relates directly to ADF’s Pulpit Initiative which seeks to overturn this aspect of 501c3 in order to protect the rights of pastors and churches.  Senator Grassley’s request joins a growing chorus of legal scholarship concluding that the political intervention prohibition is unconstitutional, unworkable, and should be repealed or seriously limited.

The bottom line here is that the Commission and its Chairman are welcome news to churches and religious organizations concerned about the possible outcomes of the investigation started by Sen. Grassley in 2007 as well as the potential it raised for additional government oversight and control of churches.  And it is promising that one of the Commission’s goals is to provide feedback whether the political intervention prohibition in 501c3 should be limited or repealed.

ADF will continue to monitor this issue and will let you know of any significant developments as they arise.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch.

On January 10, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals in Canada released an opinion holding that marriage commissioners in Canada could not refuse to perform same-sex “marriage” ceremonies on the grounds that doing so would violate their religious beliefs.  The case arose after some marriage commissioners objected to performing same-sex “marriage” ceremonies.  The government asked the courts whether it would be lawful for the marriage commissioners to refuse to perform the ceremonies on the grounds that doing so would violate their religious beliefs.

The court held that allowing marriage commissioners to refuse to perform same-sex “marriage” ceremonies would violate the “Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” because it “would violate the equality rights of gay and lesbian individuals.”  In a summary of the opinion, the Court described its holding by stating, “The Court held that accommodating the religious beliefs of marriage commissioners could not justify discrimination against gay and lesbian couples.”

Well what about the religious freedom afforded Canadians in its Charter? The Court had a chilling answer to that as well.  It said that “the obligation to solemnize same-sex marriages does not affect or interfere with the core elements of a commissioner’s religious freedom: the freedom to hold beliefs and the freedom to worship.”

This decision is concerning on many fronts but it illustrates what ADF has been saying for many years.  The conflict between the homosexual agenda and religious freedom is real and carries grave consequences for religious freedom.  As Kevin Theriot pointed out in his recent blog, the current Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai R. Feldblum, was questioned about instances when religious liberty and homosexual “rights” conflict.  She stated that she would have “a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

That type of philosophy should concern every freedom-loving American.  The decision in Canada, though, attempts to make short shrift of those concerns.  The judges, in their eminent wisdom, assure us all that religious freedom remains intact because you can still believe whatever you wish and worship however you wish.  That’s cold comfort for Canadians, though.  Being told by your government that it will allow you to believe whatever you wish even though you cannot act on that belief is totalitarianism plain and simple.  What good is the right to belief if you cannot act in accordance with those beliefs?

Wake up America!  We are not very far removed geographically from Canada and some of our very own government officials have such a twisted view of our own First Amendment that they believe religious freedom should take a back seat to “equality.”  We would be naive to believe that what just happened in Canada will not find its way into our own system of law.  Especially considering the penchant some of our courts have for looking to international law to justify their decisions.

The time is short.  The warning signs are not just on the horizon anymore – they are coming into sharp focus.  God told Ezekiel, “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the people of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me.” (Ezek. 33:7).  I believe that God is giving pastors the same task today.  Pastors must warn their people of this threat to religious freedom.  I can’t say it better than this:

“If the Church in America will educate her people to stand against government-imposed sexual immorality, our leaders will lose the political will or power to merrily continue on this road to debauchery. But if this trend of rejecting biblical sexual morality continues, it won’t be long till it’s illegal to even preach against it. It is time for American pastors to unleash the light – lest we find ourselves where Europe and Canada have already landed.”

ADF filed a lawsuit on behalf of Tree of Life Christian Schools against the City of Upper Arlington, Ohio.  The lawsuit is the result of the City’s denial of zoning approval for Tree of Life to operate its ministry at its building in Upper Arlington.

Tree of Life Christian Schools serves about 660 students in the Columbus area.  The school is 33 years old and is sponsored by seven Columbus area churches.  The Mission Statement for Tree of Life is, “In partnership with the family and the church, the mission of Tree of Life Christian Schools is to glorify God by educating students in His truth and discipling them in Christ.”  The school is currently spread among four campuses in the Columbus area.  Three of the campuses are temporary locations in church facilities.  Tree of Life is bursting at the seams, and has had to turn away students because it lacks the space. Some of the facilities where Tree of Life is located are old and in need of substantial repair or remodeling to make them suitable for long-term use.

Tree of Life began a search for a new building in 2006.  It reviewed over 20 potential sites in the Columbus area, and finally found a building that served as a headquarters for AOL for many years.  The building had been vacant for several years and, with some appropriate modifications, would serve perfectly as a school building.  Through a set of truly miraculous circumstances, Tree of Life acquired the building in 2010.

The City of Upper Arlington, though, refused to even allow Tree of Life to apply for zoning approval to use its new building.  The City’s zoning code allows secular institutions similar in character and intensity of use to Tree of Life to use the building.  For example, the City’s zoning code allows for Child Daycare facilities to use the building as a matter of right.  The zoning code definition of a Child Daycare facility is virtually identical to Tree of Life’s activities.  Yet, despite this preferential treatment of secular institutions, Tree of Life was not even allowed to ask the City for zoning approval to operate its ministry at its new building.

This unequal treatment is exactly why Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, also known as RLUIPA.  RLUIPA is a federal law that, among other things, prohibits the government from treating religious uses on less than equal terms with secular uses.  In simple terms, RLUIPA demands that if the government allows secular institutions or assemblies particular rights or privileges in their zoning code, then it must extend that same treatment to religious assemblies or institutions.

RLUIPA turned ten years old last year and Tree of Life’s case against the City of Upper Arlington demonstrates just how important RLUIPA is to protect the rights of religious institutions.  If your church’s ministry is being prohibited by an unlawful zoning code, let us know about it.  We want to help, just as we are helping Tree of Life, to remove the barriers to spreading the Gospel.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch.

ADF filed a lawsuit against the City of Mission, Kansas, after the City instituted a “driveway tax” and applied it to churches and other non-profits.  The “driveway tax” charges property owners within the City of Mission an amount that is calculated based on the number of trips in and out of their driveways.  As bizarre as it sounds, churches are taxed for 5.8 trips per week per seat in their sanctuaries.  The people of Mission, Kansas, therefore, are paying a tax every time they go to church.

The City of Mission calls this charge a “Transportation Utility Fee,” and the monies raised are ostensibly earmarked to repair the City’s streets.  But this is not a “fee” at all.  Rather, the charge is a property tax in disguise.  And this new and unique property tax conflicts directly with the Kansas state law that exempts churches, non-profits and charities from property taxes.  The City of Mission cannot institute a new property tax on churches and non-profits when the State has already declared these organizations exempt from property taxes.

ADF is representing the First Baptist Church of Mission and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas.  These churches have stepped forward to protect the tax exemption for churches and other non-profits and charities.

Churches are exempt from taxes for good reason.  First, they provide essential services to the poor and disadvantaged in the community.  If they did not provide these services, the government would be left to provide them.  Second, churches are active in shaping virtuous citizens who contribute positively and help maintain a healthy society.  Without the work of the churches, the government is unable to benefit from this intangible, but important spiritual work that churches perform.  The government should view churches as an essential partner in society and not tax them, thereby removing funds from them that can be better used in fulfilling the religious mission of the church.

The City of Mission should not attempt an “end-run” around the property tax exemption for churches that exists for very important reasons.  We’ll keep you updated on the progress of this case as it progresses.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch.

Last week, ADF sent a letter to La Paz County Arizona Treasurer Leah Castro, asking her to protect a rural Arizona church from an abuse of power so wrong you have to suspend disbelief when you hear about it.

In 2006, The Church of the Isaiah 58 Project bought property in Quartzsite, Arizona for its church.  The church promptly applied to the La Paz County Property Assessor, George Nault, for a property tax exemption.  Under Arizona law, the Church was entitled to a property tax exemption.  But Mr. Nault responded to the Church by saying that he would not grant the requested exemption unless the Church could produce a letter of exemption from federal income tax issued by the IRS.  The Church correctly pointed out two things to Mr Nault.  First, that no church is required to obtain a tax exemption letter from the IRS to be considered exempt from federal income tax.  Churches are considered automatically tax exempt under the tax code.  Second, Arizona law does not require an IRS letter of exemption from federal income tax before a church can receive a state property tax exemption.

Not to be deterred, Mr. Nault refused to grant the property tax exemption.  He began to assess property taxes against the Church.  By 2008, the Church was already on the hook for thousands of dollars in property taxes which it could not pay.  The assessed taxes, under Arizona law, automatically became a lien on the Church’s property and, in February 2008, a private investor purchased the tax lien and now holds the right to foreclose on the Church in February, 2011.

The Church continued to work with the Property Appraiser because he had never made a final decision on the Church’s property tax exemption application it had filed in 2006.  Finally, in 2009, Mr. Nault granted the Church’s application and proclaimed the Church exempt from property taxes.  But here’s the kicker – Mr. Nault only granted the property tax exemption for the years of 2009 and forward, leaving the Church on the hook for the tax years 2006-2008, and still subject to the tax lien now held by a private investor who holds the right to foreclose on the property.

Mr. Nault’s decision becomes even more egregious considering that he acted on the original application from 2006.  Nothing had changed for the Isaiah 58 Church from 2006 until it was granted a tax exemption in 2009.  It’s not as if the Church finally in 2009 provided Mr. Nault with the information he needed to make the determination.  No.  The Church had provided all the information Mr. Nault needed to make the exemption determination in 2006 and he just sat on it until he finally got around to granting it in 2009.  But he did so in a way that left this Church with the very real possibility that it may lose its property next February.

ADF’s letter to the La Paz County Treasurer asks her to clear up this mess by abating the property taxes wrongly assessed against the Church and by removing the tax lien on the property.  We are hopeful that the Treasurer will do so quickly.

In 1819, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the power to tax involves the power to destroy.  That statement remains true today.  But when the power to tax is abused, as it was in La Paz County, then we can see the Supreme Court’s statement come into sharp focus.  The Church of the Isaiah 58 Project stands in real danger of destruction by an abuse of the power to tax.  It’s not too late for La Paz County to do the right thing and protect the Constitutional rights of the Church.  We’ll update this blog when we have a definitive answer.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch.