Southern Baptist churches get "group" tax exemption?

I’m still pondering some of the things Morris Chapman said when he was trying to avoid a budget-cut for the Southern Baptist Convention’s Executive Committee. That was when Chapman, the Executive Committee's longtime former president, went to town talking about the “enormous responsibilities” of the Executive Committee and about how it was “empowered to function” on behalf of the Southern Baptist Convention.

I wrote about some of it in a prior post, but as I said, I’m still pondering it. I know it’s pretty dry stuff, but bear with me.

In that same column, Morris Chapman says this:

“The Executive Committee maintains the I.R.S. group tax exemption on behalf of all cooperating churches.”

“Group” tax exemption?

When it comes to the problem of clergy sex abuse, the Southern Baptist Convention’s Executive Committee has repeatedly claimed that it is powerless to take action because each and every church is completely autonomous and totally independent.

But if each and every church were completely autonomous and totally independent, wouldn’t you expect that each and every church would file for its own tax exemption?

This seeming contradiction puzzled me so much that I finally went to the I.R.S. website and downloaded its Publication 1828, the “Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations.” (Yes, folks, I’m a certifiable nerd.) According to Publication 1828, the I.R.S. allows that a church may be recognized as tax-exempt “if it is included in a list provided by the parent organization.” And “under the group exemption process, the parent organization becomes the holder of a group ruling . . . .”

“Parent organization.” Those were the words that caught my eye.

There are many circumstances in which a “parent organization” can be held legally responsible for harm done within an apparent subsidiary organization.

There are also circumstances when the “parent organization” is not legally responsible. So the term “parent organization” is not, in and of itself, determinative. But the fact that the Southern Baptist Convention is a “parent organization” for purposes of federal tax law certainly suggests that it has a closer connection to the 45,000 Southern Baptist churches than the “we’re powerless” connection that it claims whenever it gets confronted with the problem of Baptist clergy sex abuse.

In other words, whether or not the Southern Baptist Convention’s “parent organization” status may ever subject it to legal responsibility for the sexual abuse and cover-ups that occur in Southern Baptist churches, its “parent organization” status makes apparent that it has enough of a connection that it should at least carry a measure of moral responsibility.

So, I decided to plow further into Publication 1828. Toward the end, it has a table with the filing requirements for I.R.S. Form 990. That’s the form that most other non-profit organizations have to file so as to show how they’re spending the money they take in.

“Churches” don’t have to file Form 990. This means that “churches” don’t have to disclose how much they’re paying their top executives like other sorts of non-profits do.

Guess what? The national denominational entity of the Southern Baptist Convention claims status as a “church.” This is what multiple journalists have told me, in expressing their frustration at being unable to obtain information about the salaries and compensation packages of the Southern Baptist Convention’s top honchos.

Again . . . this all seems a mystery to me. Why shouldn’t people in the pews – people who put hard-earned dollars in the offering plate -- be able to find out how many of those dollars the high-honchos who run the “parent organization” are paying to themselves?

The Internal Revenue Code does not specifically define the term “church,” but Publication 1828 lists “attributes” of a “church,” including these:

• “organization of ordained ministers”
• “ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study”
• “established places of worship”
• “regular congregations”
• “regular religious services”
• “Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young.”

So how exactly does the national denominational entity of the Southern Baptist Convention display these “attributes” so as to qualify for the benefits of being considered a “church”?

For example, if the national denominational entity of the Southern Baptist Convention is indeed a “church,” then who are its ministers?

And if the ministers of the national denominational entity of the Southern Baptist Convention are the same people as the ministers of the 45,000 local Southern Baptist churches, then those local churches are not really as independent as the SBC claims, are they? In fact, those ministers are the very people who give the national denominational entity of the Southern Baptist Convention its own status as a “church.”

To me, this all seems pretty mind-boggling. The same ministers who give the national denominational entity its status as a “church,” so that it can avoid federal non-profit disclosure laws, are the very same ministers for whom the national denominational entity claims it cannot possibly exercise any oversight.

Does this make sense to any of you? Can any of you explain it to me? I’m really struggling with it. To me, it looks like the national denominational entity of the Southern Baptist Convention gets to have its cake and eat it too.

Now here’s why I think this tedious tax-related stuff may be important.

These kinds of “have your cake and eat it too” inconsistencies are what may someday bring accountability to the Southern Baptist Convention. That’s what I believe.

Perhaps accountability will come in the form of legal responsibility. Or perhaps it will come in the form of moral responsibility, with a collective groan of disgust from church-goers who will finally refuse any further financial support for such an unaccountable organization.

Either way, someday, these kinds of “have your cake and eat it too” inconsistencies will break down the pretext of the Southern Baptist Convention’s “we’re powerless” charade. It’s a charade that leaves countless kids and congregants at risk, and so, that day cannot possibly come soon enough.