The 501c3 Controversy in the Church of Christ

Post Reply New Topic

Hi yall,
Churches in America are typically classified as 501c3 non-profit corporations. It protects members of churches by not having them subject to personal liability for church debts and accidents if the church is incorporated. Also it is for tax reasons too. Some of the old school Church of Christ members like the non-institutional church of Christ members are very against a church incorporating as a 501c3. It would be a nightmare for a church members themselves to just own the church since probate and wills would have to determine ownership after the death of the members since churches typically last longer than one lifetime.

Some think its sin and that people in 501c3 churches will go to Hell. Many of those old school-types argue that a church cant be a 501c3 because there was no 501c3s in biblical times. Some argue there is no justification for being 501c3 but I would argue that there is justification because Jesus said to obey tax laws since the 501c3 is part of our tax laws. I cant believe incorporation is even controversial in the Church of Christ but sure enough it is.

Last edited by Texasmoneyman300 on 01 Apr 2025, 11:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

They know there's no Caesar to render unto anymore, but can't consider that the sentiment applies just as much to current states and their secular authority as it did to the Roman Empire.

Ironically the Church of Christ says to pay all taxes you owe but in this circumstance they argue that becoming a tax-exempt 501c3 is a sin.

Ironically the Church of Christ says to pay all taxes you owe but in this circumstance they argue that becoming a tax-exempt 501c3 is a sin.

In keeping with that, I'm not opposed to churches being taxed, but because tax exemptions shouldn't exist for them at all, not because taking exemptions that they're legally entitled to is a sin.

I don't understand how they apply the concept of sin to something that's entirely a matter of temporal law.

I wish we had someone who was an anti-501c3er to explain their logic here.

Some of the more extreme anti-501c3 people in the Church of Christ think the 501c3 is the Mark of the Beast. Also they think its wrong to incorporate as 501c3 because there was none in Bible times.

I am not a christian, or religious - but I believe I still may have an answer for you.

You are also mistaken about a few details.

Jesus didn't say "obey tax laws" so much as he said "pay your taxes". Churches have the choice to be for-profit or non-profit when they incorporate. Given that Jesus says "pay your taxes", any loophole or option that excuses you from having to pay taxes seems like the devil trying to tempt you and stop you from doing gods work. Just cos the opportunity to not pay taxes exists, doesn't mean they have to take the opportunity. They could still pay taxes anyways, like Jesus said to.

Trying to frame things as Jesus saying obey tax LAWS, and according to the law of MAN you don't have to pay taxes, even if according to the LAW of GOD you should pay taxes, seems like trying to bargain or swindle the Lord. Sounds like the devil trying to make a deal. How do we know the devil didn't write that law to tempt the righteous? That's probably why some christians see that code as the mark of the beast - it's acting like a serpent to get christians to not follow the word of Jesus, and rather than pay taxes, find ways to NOT pay taxes.

Where TMM is mistaken is, yes becoming a corporation does offer legal protections, but you don't have to register as a non-profit corporation - the churches could still just register as any other LLC, and just pay taxes, rather than choosing to avoid them.

It's like saying "Jesus said help your fellow man, but the law says I'm not obligated to help anyone" - well, as a christian, who are you expected to listen to? Man? or Jesus and god? The law says you don't HAVE to help people - but you can still choose to anyways. Even though there exists a tax law that you can choose, in order to avoid taxes, you can also choose to NOT do that, and still pay taxes anyways, like Jesus said to.

That's my best take, anyways...

Well I dont think Jesus would consider taking advantage of tax incentives as wrong or sinful. I think he would consider it good stewardship. I think Jesus is fine with us taking steps to reduce the amount of taxes that we owe as long as its not tax evasion.Also the IRS treats most churches that dont incorporate as tax exempt 501c3s...It is is very rare for a church to not be a 501c3 even if it is unincorporated. I think Jesus would want us to take advantage of tax incentives. Jesus only means pay the taxes you are legally required to pay and cant get out of legally through tax avoidance strategies. Paul said to pay revenue owed to the government but the revenue is not owed if you can get out of it through tax avoidance. do you take advantage of any tax breaks to lower your taxes owed? I know you are not a Christian but do you view reducing your taxes as morally wrong? Also it is not a loophole but its really how the law was designed and written. You dont owe Ceasar the taxes if Ceasar says you dont have to pay the taxes. Also the Church of Christ views incorporating as a for-profit as sinful because its preaching for profit. Some churches of Christ view incorporating as a non-profit or a for-profit as sinful.

Still seems subversive.

No, I do not use any tax breaks to lower my taxes. Yes, I do consider dodging taxes to be immoral. Part of the reason I can eat and drink and live and make money in the first place, is cos public works exist like roads and highways, public water and sewage and power, public education, police and fire, public clinics and hospitals, libraries, mass transit, disability benefits, and more - all paid for by taxes. If everyone dodges out on taxes, things either don't get paid for and fall apart, or they raise taxes to make up the difference. But if everyone just pays their fair share, then things work much better, and tax distribution becomes more equitable.

Taxes aren't like a "shakedown" where someone threatens to get in your way if you don't pay them - taxes are what pays for the resources we use and in some cases depend on to survive. If we didn't pay taxes, they wouldn't exist. Taxes are what pays for them.

Also, there's a difference between paying less tax, for a financially legitimate reason like having two kids, or owing money to someone, and therefore your earned income isn't representative of your actually available income, versus outright paying NO taxes, just cos "you're a church".

Some tax exemption might make sense, under the clause of "charitable donations", like if a church ran a food bank or a homeless shelter or job center - expenses directly related to that might be justifiable as tax exempt - but not the entire church as a whole, paying zero taxes, just for being a church - especially if it's one of those big millionaire megachurches where the pastor has a private jet and a ferrari collection, tax free, cos "the church" bought them.

Ironically a whole lot of Churches of Christ would simply go out of business if churches were taxed and so would a lot of the smaller churches....It would be people like Jim Bakker who could afford to stay in business as a church and not the small town Church of Christ. A lot of small churches would be gone.

Why do you think avoiding taxes is immoral if the government wants us to get out of paying taxes legally. I disagree that taxes are not a shake down because if you dont pay taxes the cops will come to your house with guns and arrest you and take you to jail. I get that taxes are needed but at the same time I think it still a shake down but its a needed shakedown for a civilized society. The gov threatens you if you dont pay taxes.

The phrase" avoiding taxes" is misleading. You can defer some taxes for legitimate reasons, such as debt or financial struggles - but "avoiding taxes" just cos you don't wanna pay them is not the same thing. The government doesn't WANT you to "avoid taxes" - they're simply willing to make exceptions for specific situations. Sometimes governments make poor decisions, and create opportunities that shouldn't be granted - like avoiding taxes entirely for churches.

The cops don't typically come to one's door "with guns" or otherwise, for failure to pay taxes - normally they just make you pay what you owe them, probably with interest, and maybe a fine, too. If the government comes to your door to take you to jail, you probably committed federal tax fraud, which is very different than simply not-paying-taxes.

Also, it's called "being accountable". Being an american citizen grants certain rights - but it also has certain expectations - like obeying the laws of the land. The constitution specifically declares it's right to levy taxes, both in the main articles, and in the amendments. In return for paying your taxes, you get your roads and paths and public spaces maintained, street lights and traffic signals functioning, police and fire departments operational, schools and libraries funded - all of which help create the functioning society we all benefit from.

Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself - in the beginning you claim that the government wants us to get out of paying taxes, but then also claim that it's a shakedown and they threaten you with guns if you don't pay them. So which is it? Do they want you to get out of paying taxes, or do they want to threaten you into paying taxes?

It's not a shakedown if it's a debt that you actually owe. You benefit from the existence of the resources that taxes provide. The taxes are necessary to provide them. It's a basic social contract, explicitly outlined in the founding documentation of our nation. You, the citizen, pay taxes to the government, so that the government can use the funds to maintain systems for the benefit of it's citizens.

The term for legally getting out of paying taxes because of incentives is tax avoidance. The term for illegally not paying taxes is tax evasion. According to accountants and financial advisors tax avoidance is encouraged and the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is 10 to 20 years in the slammer and tax evasion is obviously illegal. However the tax code is set up to encourage tax avoidance. Avoiding taxes is the actual financial term financial advisors and accountants use to refer to legally get out of paying taxes. I am never going to willing pay more taxes than I legally have to. It is perfectly legal and encouraged to avoid taxes because you dont want to pay them if you use legal incentives that are written in the tax code. Avoiding taxes is obeying the law of the land. The main reason why the gov wants you to avoid taxes is stimulate and direct certain economic activitiy that the gov cant do.

Although what you have said is partially, technically, correct as far as a legal definition goes, you've focused so narrowly on that legal definition that you've glossed over everything else.

Avoiding taxes is not "obeying" the law, as the law does not require the avoidance of taxes. You could NOT avoid taxes, and also still obey the law. What you're thinking of is "working within the law" - insofar as you're not breaking the law - but the law does not mandate that you avoid taxes, so claiming to be obeying the law for choosing to avoid taxes rather than paying them is a bit dishonest. I choose to NOT avoid taxes, and I too am obeying the law. So lets not make it look like avoiding taxes is somehow equivalent to moral compliance, just cos it's within the realm of legal compliance.

"Legal" isn't always a great moral compass.

Yes, sometimes tax breaks are used to incentivize certain behaviors, like a tax break for installing or using solar energy to help drive clean energy initiatives - but but the point of that is to drive the related behavior - not to lower the taxes for it's own benefit.

Lets say you make a charitable donation - you give some old clothes to a homeless shelter, you give some cans to a food bank - and you write it of as a tax deduction - the reason is, normally you'd pay taxes, and some of those taxes would be used to support those shelters or food banks, to buy supplies to stock their shelves for needy people. But by giving goods directly to them, you've still contributed into the system, directly in goods and materials, rather than indirectly with money. Every old jacket and can of tuna you give is one less item they have to buy themselves in order to have things for people. That's why the tax break. You're just changing how you've contributed to the system.

A similar intent applies to most tax breaks - you're being give the break cos the behavior has an equal or greater benefit to the system as a whole. You're still contributing, just in a different way. Notable exception would be for financial hardships. If you make less than a certain amount, you don't pay income tax. If you owe money, or have certain expenses, you can reduce your taxable income.

As relates to the topic, in what way does giving tax breaks to churches incentivize a behavior? A solar energy tax break is meant to get me to adopt solar panels. Is offering no taxes to churches supposed to make want to be become a church?