At the end of the year, folks who have been paying their tithes and contributing to charity usually get a report detailing their contributions for tax purposes. I even understand that there are some who view charity giving as an avenue to dodge the high taxes usually imposes on high income earners in America. So, in essence that defeats the underlying reason to donate to charity, which is to assist the underpriviliged with no ulterior motives. But with regards to paying tithes and then filing taxes to claim part of it back from the government, is it acceptable in the eyes of God or not?

What do you think?

I wonder why nobody has touched this yet?

Ndipe, you're right. It never made sense to me. Here in America we give to charity/churches, only to get it back on our tax refunds. The donations people are giving to Haiti now, some can get it back, donations to the Salvation army (be it money, clothes, cars etc) you can get it back. Is it really giving if your mind is fixed on getting it back through the government?

I signed up once for it at my church. When I got the paper in the mail at the end of the year I said to myself, is this really giving? I tore it up and cancelled my name off the list.

This is news to me. Well, i guess it a way of making more money. You just have to tithe the refund from the Government which is an additional income or it will amount to short-changing the Almighty. Such income might be acceptable to God though.

JeSoul:

I wonder why nobody has touched this yet?

Ndipe, you're right. It never made sense to me. Here in America we give to charity/churches, only to get it back on our tax refunds. The donations people are giving to Haiti now, some can get it back, donations to the Salvation army (be it money, clothes, cars etc) you can get it back. Is it really giving if your mind is fixed on getting it back through the government?

I signed up once for it at my church. When I got the paper in the mail at the end of the year I said to myself, is this really giving? I tore it up and cancelled my name off the list.

lol this was one of the points i raised on the Haiti hysteria thread. Everyone is signing up to "give" to Haiti but expecting to get it back from the US government at the end of the year . . . so much for "charity".

At my church most give through envelopes where the church then sends you a reciept for your "tithe" and "offering". I prefer to give cash . . . as far as i'm concerned . . . tithes and offerings are what you shld be joyful to part with for the sake of the kingdom. Not using the Lord as an avenue to scam the government.

Zikkyy:

This is news to me. Well, i guess it a way of making more money. You just have to tithe the refund from the Government which is an additional income or it will amount to short-changing the Almighty. Such income might be acceptable to God though.

Yeah, you "tithe" that refund but get a receipt from the church . . . so you get it back from the government at the end of the yr and the charade continues.

davidylan:

Yeah, you "tithe" that refund but get a receipt from the church . . . so you get it back from the government at the end of the yr and the charade continues.

True talk

Hallelujah!
I have waited patiently for this day and in truth, I am still somewhat wary. I have always wanted to press the issue of tithing beyond the doctrinal to the practical and further to the spiritual implications. One of the ploys of mandatory tithe proponents - wittingly or unwittingly - has been to keep the conversation revolving around if its an open and shut case of yes or no.

I have longed for us to discuss more expansively and take on the whole of Christian giving, use of money, examples in the scriptural narrative, meaning to the church as a body and as the bride. How, why, what for, when, to whom. The question posed here is but one of the many sub-theme's that should have emanated from that convo, but we simply never got there - or we just hindered from doing so. Whenever there's a crime, the police always look for the money trail. Sometimes, if you follow the money trail, you'll discover the crime.

"Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars"
I am not sure of the details of what obtains in the US, but let me touch on what I am familiar with here in the UK. For a Church to be in a position to claim tax back on charitable giving, they have to "register" as a charity. This leads to what any "smart" thinking person would welcome which is tax relief. Makes sense right? No, because it also brings you under the aegis of the charities commission - the state regulator of charities - and you will recieve your tax refunds on "charitable donations", but you become yoked to the state. Subject to its laws. tbc.

contd.

Taxes are levied by the state  - all things being equal - to develop and maintain infrastructure for the good of all. Church goers, Christians, use whatever label you will, utilise the infrastucture and services provided like everyone else. Why would we (the church) claim tax refunds? As I pointed, out tax refunds given by the state are granted in return for control. The Church cannot serve two masters or even afford to be unequally yoked.

Let me make my point with a case known to all of us KICC was involved in a huge imbroglio with the state here about use of its funds. ^{Now please, let me make this clear; I do not discuss, people, personalities, denominations or sects per se. Doctine yes, policy sure, my walk absolutely. This is not an opinion on the church or their leader.} This is merely to illustrate my position.

So my point is that the reason the state could intervene and rule was because of what I see as a adulterous monetary relationship. Like someone said, "he'd rather give cash". If we as say a NL church meet and pool whatever amount of our post tax income and do whatever with it. No one govermental, corporate, legal or whatever has the right to interfere or rule over what we do. Led by the Holy Spirit only. Subject to one Lord only. tbc.

I do know that in the US, some churches are incorporated as companies. Same difference. You become a legal entity, subject to the state and its laws. I'm sure the US equivalent of being a charity brings its own yoke.

I understand the charity commission influence is so pervasive here in the UK as to even influence sermon content. But be that the case or not, the relationship IMO is already a spiritually adulterous one. The Church of Christ is a bride betrothed to the one.

So while it looks smart, may even appear wise. I see it as utterly wrong. The church must remain free and subject only to her Beloved. Sorry if I'm waxing a lil' lyrical, blame that SOS thread  !

God bless
TV

So churches give receipts?

Man, if I donate old clothes to goodwill or salvation army, you better believe that I will itemize it. I have learnt a lesson the hard way, some of the stuff, they turn around and sell it and the money goes into the organization. So, it's not as if most of these clothes will be handed to recipients for free. Maybe in some cases, but I will still itemize.

davidylan:
At my church most give through envelopes where the church then sends you a reciept for your "tithe" and "offering". I prefer to give cash . . . as far as i'm concerned . . . tithes and offerings are what you shld be joyful to part with for the sake of the kingdom. Not using the Lord as an avenue to scam the government.

I think this is how majority of churches in the US function now. Also you'll be hard pressed to find a church that doesn't have some kind of "financial" program . . . at mine they call it "Financial Peace University"

Ndipe:

Man, if I donate old clothes to goodwill or salvation army, you better believe that I will itemize it. I have learnt a lesson the hard way, some of the stuff, they turn around and sell it and the money goes into the organization. So, it's not as if most of these clothes will be handed to recipients for free. Maybe in some cases, but I will still itemize.

This is a double egded sword. Technically if you're giving it away, our concern shouldn't be what they do with it afterwards should it? I don't see how it can be termed "charitable giving" if you're refunded for your donation.

TV01:

Hallelujah!

Praise the Lord! 

I have longed for us to discuss more expansively and take on the whole of Christian giving, use of money, examples in the scriptural narrative, meaning to the church as a body and as the bride. How, why, what for, when, to whom. The question posed here is but one of the many sub-theme's that should have emanated from that convo, but we simply never got there - or we just hindered from doing so. Whenever there's a crime, the police always look for the money trail. Sometimes, if you follow the money trail, you'll discover the crime.

"Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars"
I am not sure of the details of what obtains in the US, but let me touch on what I am familiar with here in the UK. For a Church to be in a position to claim tax back on charitable giving, they have to "register" as a charity. This leads to what any "smart" thinking person would welcome which is tax relief. Makes sense right? No, because it also brings you under the aegis of the charities commission - the state regulator of charities - and you will recieve your tax refunds on "charitable donations", but you become yoked to the state. Subject to its laws. tbc.

TV01:

contd.

Taxes are levied by the state  - all things being equal - to develop and maintain infrastructure for the good of all. Church goers, Christians, use whatever label you will, utilise the infrastucture and services provided like everyone else. Why would we (the church) claim tax refunds? As I pointed, out tax refunds given by the state are granted in return for control. The Church cannot serve two masters or even afford to be unequally yoked.

Let me make my point with a case known to all of us KICC was involved in a huge imbroglio with the state here about use of its funds. ^{Now please, let me make this clear; I do not discuss, people, personalities, denominations or sects per se. Doctine yes, policy sure, my walk absolutely. This is not an opinion on the church or their leader.} This is merely to illustrate my position.

So my point is that the reason the state could intervene and rule was because of what[b] I see as a adulterous monetary relationship[/b]. Like someone said, "he'd rather give cash". If we as say a NL church meet and pool whatever amount of our post tax income and do whatever with it. No one govermental, corporate, legal or whatever has the right to interfere or rule over what we do. Led by the Holy Spirit only. Subject to one Lord only. tbc.

TV01:

I do know that in the US, some churches are incorporated as companies. Same difference. You become a legal entity, subject to the state and its laws. I'm sure the US equivalent of being a charity brings its own yoke.

I understand the charity commission influence is so pervasive here in the UK as to even influence sermon content. But be that the case or not, the relationship IMO is already a spiritually adulterous one. The Church of Christ is a bride betrothed to the one.

So while it looks smart, may even appear wise. I see it as utterly wrong. The church must remain free and subject only to her Beloved. Sorry if I'm waxing a lil' lyrical, blame that SOS thread  !

God bless
TV

Lol at the SOS reference . . . glad it is still resonating 

  Thank you for the above breakdown. I've heard about the UK charities commission but never this clearly and based on that I think I would agree whole heartedly that this is not the ideal situation for the church of Christ to be in. I bolded some parts of your post, and the most disturbing in bold red . . . really? they have/can influence sermon content? really?

  While this body serves to keep religious bodies/charities accountable - and that is a good thing, but from a spiritual perspective - from a Holy Spirit perspective, I agree with you it amounts to being unequally yoked. But realistically, how many churches would rather be free and independent and not seek extra finances by getting taxes back?

Here there are certain things churches are not allowed to do in order to retain their "tax exempt" status - ranges from politics to social issues. Should a church rather pay taxes and function however they please or work within the limitations imposed on it by the govt? Is it wrong for a church to want to function in a manner that is harmonious with the state?


ps. I owe you some pix, lemme think up an expedient solution.

I don't think there's anything wrong in filing tax returns - there's nothing 'charitable' in letting the government keep the money in my opinion!

But seriously speaking, the key issue here is the motive. If you are giving simply to dodge the tax man, then it is definitely wrong and not acceptable in God's sight. However, if you give of your own volition and still get a tax return, I don't see the harm.

The money given to the charitable organisation still goes to the organisation, it still impacts the life/lives of the people involved and whatever else the money was intended for.

My personal view is that whatever you get back as a tax return by virtue of your giving, GIVE IT AGAIN and then claim the return and continue the cycle.

This talk of being 'subject' to the law is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned - in order to avoid abuse, it is very right to be subject to financial regulation. We have enough people destroying the image of the Church by their wrongdoings that is imperative to have this oversight.

As long as you are on this earth, you will be subject to earthly authority in some shape or form. We can't say because we are 'free' we'll go build a noisy church in a quiet residential area or erect a building in the middle of the freeway.

We must also remember what 'absolute' power did to the Catholic church in the past - their nearly total control of land, money and power led to absolute corruption.

Give, claim back tax returns, then give AGAIN and claim back tax returns the more. Like the bible says, the wealth of the wicked is stored up for the righteous.

I like your reply Debo

I claimed Stuff I gave to Salvation Army this year, But most of the other stuff like church and fundraising, I did not.

I dont feel bad about it, and it barely affected my return. You dont get money back, you just pay less taxes, tis all

debosky:
My personal view is that whatever you get back as a tax return by virtue of your giving, GIVE IT AGAIN and then claim the return and continue the cycle.

 I know some people who do this and feel fine with it. I used that justification for about 1 hr before deciding it was not for me. I want to give and forget about it. But this is me, everyone should go with their own conviction.

I part run an org at my college, we can get free money from the school to put on our shows and events, but there's red tape, procedures, limitations etc. After doing it once, we shoved it aside and went back to doing car washes to raise money. Sometimes getting a free check from the govt/school is not worth it and I'm so glad that God is not interested in how much money we can gather for Him.

This talk of being 'subject' to the law is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned - in order to avoid abuse, it is very right to be subject to financial regulation. We have enough people destroying the image of the Church by their wrongdoings that is imperative to have this oversight.

As long as you are on this earth, you will be subject to earthly authority in some shape or form. We can't say because we are 'free' we'll go build a noisy church in a quiet residential area or erect a building in the middle of the freeway.

We must also remember what 'absolute' power did to the Catholic church in the past - their nearly total control of land, money and power led to absolute corruption.

We all acknowledge corruption, it is present from the church to the state house. But if what TV says about this commission possibly influencing sermon content - then it is a big problem and the church is not obligated to follow on man made laws that deviate from the scriptural teachings or the leanings of the holy spirit. We know there are bad eggs who will cheat, but should that influence us away from what we know is right? all in a bid to "submit to earthly authority"?

When i think of stuff like this it makes me remember the Ananias and Sapphira story. If you're giving to God in the hope of paying less taxes then i think you need to re-evaluate your MOTIVE for "giving". The bible says God loves a cheerful giver. I do not wish to "give" and get a receipt for it that i can then use to game the government into taking less from me.

davidylan:

When i think of stuff like this it makes me remember the Ananias and Sapphira story. If you're giving to God in the hope of paying less taxes then i think you need to re-evaluate your MOTIVE for "giving". The bible says God loves a cheerful giver. I do not wish to "give" and get a receipt for it that i can then use to game the government into taking less from me.

Should we have less paying jobs then? or more children
One shouldnt count church tithes- Understood
And you dont get money back in your taxes just reduce the amount you pay to Uncle Sam

platinumnk:

Should we have less paying jobs then? or more children
One shouldnt count church tithes- Understood
And you dont get money back in your taxes just reduce the amount you pay to Uncle Sam

Giving to God is not the same as giving to charity. If i wish to give to the Red Cross i will most assuredly claim that . . . if i were to give an offering or a tithe . . . i consider that my own way of saying thank you for being granted much that i dont deserve. For me this entire thread boils down to one thing - motive.

Why do you give to God in the first place?

davidylan:

Giving to God is not the same as giving to charity.

You sure?

If our giving is motivated by Christ, then regardless of whether its the local church or the local Salvation army - you're still giving to God.
   
    But if our giving is motivated by getting some cheddar back from Uncle Sam then I guess we shouldn't be calling it "giving". But I think you and Debosky are 100% right that it comes down to motive I guess . . . and only God can truly assess that.

I Give Back to God because he blessed me and I want him to continue to do so.

I never claimed that on my taxes, but I too dont hesitate to put the mini fridge I gave away to Salvation Army

Finally, Something we can agree on David

JeSoul:

You sure?

If our giving is motivated by Christ, then regardless of whether its the local church or the local Salvation army - you're still giving to God.

But if our giving is motivated by getting some cheddar back from Uncle Sam then I guess we shouldn't be calling it "giving". But I think you and Debosky are 100% right that it comes down to motive I guess . . . and only God can truly assess that.

Well chuch is church and the way I lookat Salvation Army is that someone needs it way more than me, and why be wasteful throwing it away?

Why pile up landfills when u can donate your old doors to Habitat for Humanity?
Or burn ur old blankets when the homeless would like them?

platinumnk:

Finally, Something we can agree on David

I cant believe it . . . i'm rubbing my eyes.

JeSoul:

You sure?

If our giving is motivated by Christ, then regardless of whether its the local church or the local Salvation army - you're still giving to God.
 

Not really IMO. If i have 5 shirts i dont need, it would be better to give it to the homeless man down the street than throw it away.

davidylan:

I cant believe it . . . i'm rubbing my eyes.

Miracles do happen

platinumnk:

Well chuch is church and the way I lookat Salvation Army is that someone needs it way more than me, and why be wasteful throwing it away?

Why pile up landfills when u can donate your old doors to Habitat for Humanity?
Or burn your old blankets when the homeless would like them?

davidylan:

I cant believe it . . . i'm rubbing my eyes.
Not really IMO. If i have 5 shirts i dont need, it would be better to give it to the homeless man down the street than throw it away.

 No no, you're both diverting. No one is saying throw away your clothes or burn your old blankets instead of donating it.


 My question is this:
    is all our giving motivated by Christ? then you're giving to God be it the church or the SA.

   Now, your giving can also be motivated by Christ - i.e. giving to the SA etc but you're not really giving because you're expecting and getting something in return. I just want to make that distinction.

but Usually when I give to SA I dont think about it being dediicated to God , Im just like I dont wanna waste it.

platinumnk:

but Usually when I give to SA I dont think about it being dediicated to God , Im just like I dont wanna waste it.

Lol, I think we all do .

Note: I'm absolutely NOT saying there's anything wrong in donating to the SA and then itemizing on your tax returns - absolutely nothing wrong with that. I was just trying to seperate the two saying its not really giving if you're expecting something in return.

Give to ceasers what is ceasers and give to God what belongs to him, if the law accommodates it, then, go ahead.

debosky:

I don't think there's anything wrong in filing tax returns - there's nothing 'charitable' in letting the government keep the money in my opinion!

Give to Ceasar what is Ceasars. It may well be dressed up as a "tax refund" but its essentially state money that comes with obligations to the state.

debosky:

But seriously speaking, the key issue here is the motive. If you are giving simply to dodge the tax man, then it is definitely wrong and not acceptable in God's sight. However, if you give of your own volition and still get a tax return, I don't see the harm.

Its slightly different at an individual level. We are all subject to the laws of the state and our "charitable giving" is tax deductable. Nothing changes if an individual chooses to take advantage of that.

Church funds however, should be distinct and seperate, and not made subject to "charitable giving" laws. Subject to the leading of The Holy Spirit only or the consensus of the congregation. For the Church its different. The church is a body, a bride and she is to be submissive to her own husband. To take advantage of tax breaks a church/organisation/charity has to assume a legal status, which yokes it to the state.

tbc.

debosky:

The money given to the charitable organisation still goes to the organisation, it still impacts the life/lives of the people involved and whatever else the money was intended for.

My personal view is that whatever you get back as a tax return by virtue of your giving, GIVE IT AGAIN and then claim the return and continue the cycle. back tax returns, then give AGAIN and claim back tax returns the more.

Agreed for an individual. I use it to donate to humanitarian crises. Its slightly different in that the money is donated tax free so there's no reclaim, but its essentially the same and I do it. I don't think church should.

debosky:

This talk of being 'subject' to the law is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned - in order to avoid abuse, it is very right to be subject to financial regulation. We have enough people destroying the image of the Church by their wrongdoings that is imperative to have this oversight.

I appreciate your position here. But should the church need to b regulated by the state? It doesn't prevent wrongdoing, only seeks to penalise where it has occured. Who asks an outsider to chasten his wife?

tbc

debosky:

As long as you are on this earth, you will be subject to earthly authority in some shape or form. We can't say because we are 'free' we'll go build a noisy church in a quiet residential area or erect a building in the middle of the freeway.

We must also remember what 'absolute' power did to the Catholic church in the past - their nearly total control of land, money and power led to absolute corruption.

1. That is rendering unto Ceasar. Planning, zoning, noise restictions. It is also not causing offence and being at peace with all.

2. It was precisely because the Catholic Church' interplay with the state and political inclinations that that happened.

The church should not be subject to, yoked with or seek the power of.

One last point. The church/state interplay is a resonating scrpitural theme. And the state has always persecuted the true church.

Thanks for your response.

God bless
TV

davidylan:

When i think of stuff like this it makes me remember the Ananias and Sapphira story. If you're giving to God in the hope of paying less taxes then i think you need to re-evaluate your MOTIVE for "giving". The bible says God loves a cheerful giver. I do not wish to "give" and get a receipt for it that i can then use to game the government into taking less from me.

You're not gaming the government - they freely give the money back.  


Besides, I don't think it bears much on Ananias and Sapphira - they chose to hide part of their proceeds, this is claiming back something the government has legally said you can.

JeSoul:

 I know some people who do this and feel fine with it. I used that justification for about 1 hr before deciding it was not for me. I want to give and forget about it. But this is me, everyone should go with their own conviction.

Exactly - if you have an issue with it, then by all means avoid it.

I part run an org at my college, we can get free money from the school to put on our shows and events, but there's red tape, procedures, limitations etc. After doing it once, we shoved it aside and went back to doing car washes to raise money. Sometimes getting a free check from the govt/school is not worth it and I'm so glad that God is not interested in how much money we can gather for Him.

Of course those moments exist - there is nothing more beautiful than owing no one, not even for a 'favour'.

We all acknowledge corruption, it is present from the church to the state house. But if what TV says about this commission possibly influencing sermon content - then it is a big problem and the church is not obligated to follow on man made laws that deviate from the scriptural teachings or the leanings of the holy spirit. We know there are bad eggs who will cheat, but should that influence us away from what we know is right? all in a bid to "submit to earthly authority"?

Personally, anyone who will let his/her sermons be influenced by this 'legal' commission would likely be committing worse sins already.

I don't see how getting some of your tax money donated to a charity (a RIGHT of every citizen) amounts to deviating from scriptural teachings or leanings of the holy spirit. What requirements by the government do you interpret as such?

The KICC example, as far as I know, arose from excessive expenses incurred by one person from the church purse, not any attempt by the government to 'regulate' the church.

TV01:

Give to Ceasar what is Ceasars. It may well be dressed up as a "tax refund" but its essentially state money that comes with obligations to the state.

We disagree fundamentally here - it is MY money which I have given to the state to be my custodian. My getting back some of that money is by no means obligating me to the state. Any obligations put on the church or charity body by the state are at MY behest - ostensibly to prevent abuse of MY money, which the state is the custodian of on my behalf.

Church funds however, should be distinct and seperate, and not made subject to "charitable giving" laws. Subject to the leading of The Holy Spirit only or the consensus of the congregation. For the Church its different. The church is a body, a bride and she is to be submissive to her own husband. To take advantage of tax breaks a church/organisation/charity has to assume a legal status, which yokes it to the state.

I disagree - you might as well argue that the church should keep all of it's money in cash since opening an account in a bank means it is under financial regulation and money laundering laws. There is no yoke to the state - the state is a custodian of the taxpayer and simply acts, as decided by the taxpayer, to ensure judicious use of the funds.

Even with the 'consensus of the congregation', you cannot act in contravention of the law. As I mentioned, I am yet to come across case where the state has prevented a church from doing something led by the Spirit because of the charitable giving laws.