Clergy Housing Allowance is Sexist as Applied by Many Southern Baptists

"In general, the IRS and the courts require that a minister be ordained, commissioned, or licensed.... [to] be deemed to be a minister for tax reporting purposes." Richard Hammar, J.D., LL.M., CPA

"Therefore, be it RESOLVED.....that we encourage the service of women in all aspects of church life and work other than pastoral functions and leadership roles entailing ordination." Southern Baptist Convention Resolution, voted and approved June 1984

"Do I believe in women behind the pulpit? You bet I do, how else do you expect them to vacuum back here if they can't get behind it?" Ergun Caner, 2007, at Ohio Free Will Baptist Men's Retreat
-----------------------------------

One aspect of the clergy housing allowance that is being overlooked, is the unfair, and sexist manner in which the allowance is applied by many Southern Baptist churches.

As seen in the quote above, it is the official policy of Southern Baptists NOT to ordain women - even those who are seminary trained and have decades of experience serving in churches as ministers. Yet some of these same churches will ordain men who are hired on staff with absolutely no seminary training or ministerial experience! FBC Jax is one of these churches.

While ordained ministers can enjoy this benefit of receiving a portion of their pay for their housing, furnishings, maintenance and utilities tax free - this benefit is denied to many female ministers in the SBC simply because they cannot be "ordained". And thus women employed as ministers at most SBC churches, cannot be considered "ministers" for IRS tax purposes.

What employees of a church would be considered a "minister" by the IRS, and would thus be eligible for the housing allowance benefit? The short answer is, they must be ordained or licensed.

Probably the best overview of the clergy housing allowance benefit and who qualifies for it, is given here by the Evangelical Council of Financial Accountability (ECFA). If you want a more in depth discussion, you can go to this document and read pages 92 and beyond which deals with who qualifies as a "minister" for tax purposes.

Without boring you with too much detail, there have been two tax court rulings that effectively created two "tests" to be applied to ministers in determining if they are a "minister" as defined by the IRS. These two rules are the "Wingo Test" and the "Knight Test". The Knight test is the most recent, and it requires the minister to be "ordained, commissioned, or licensed", and then there are four other provisions that may or may not be met.

Here are the requirements of the Knight test, defining a minister for tax purposes:

1. administers sacraments;
2. conducts religious worship;
3. has management responsibility in a local church;
4. is ordained, commissioned, or licensed;
5. is considered to be a religious leader by his or her church or denomination

In a ruling subsequent to the Knight case, the IRS determined that only the fourth factor is absolutely required, and the others are applied in a balancing test. If the church's ruling authority (such as board of trustees or elders) believes the minister qualifies, and if the minister submits a written request and dollar amount, the church can issue a separate pay check for the amount of the housing allowance and no taxes are deducted on that portion. There is no limit to how much of their pay can be designated for the housing allowance, and as discussed in my previous post it can even apply to multiple homes. And the minister receives a double tax benefit in that they can still deduct mortgage interest from the taxable portion of their income!

So the IRS requires "ordination, commission, or licensure" of the minister. But the SBC does not "license" ministers, and I don't think they "commission" people except perhaps missionaries, thus ordination is the standard method used to designate a "minister" in the SBC. But women cannot be ordained in most SBC churches. Thus, the IRS rule is set up to unfairly exclude female ministers in the SBC from enjoying this tax benefit.

Let me give an example of the ridiculousness of this: at FBC Jax, over the years there have been several female full-time vocational ministers holding the position of "director". They are seminary trained, they are in leadership positions, but because they are not ordained can't enjoy the housing allowance benefit, while their male counterparts of mostly equal job responsibilities do.

There are multiple male ministers on staff at FBC Jax who are not seminary trained, but hold the title of "Reverend". These men joined the FBC Jax staff with no formal seminary training or credentials or formal vocational ministry experience, yet were promptly ordained and immediately enjoyed the title of "Reverend". I know of three of them: Dan Elkins, John Blount, and Kevin King. All three hold and use the title of "Reverend".

Reverend Elkins's job title is "Middle School Pastor", while Shelly Norman's job title was "Elementary Ministry Director". Shelly has close to 20 years ministerial experience, and a degree from Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary. Elkins, at the time of his hiring and ordination, had a bachelor's degree from UF (chemistry I believe), and little or no vocational ministry experience. Yet he is a deemed a "pastor", and Shelly a "director". They both served the same functional purpose in their employment - Shelly coordinated the children's ministries, Dan the middle school ministries.

But Dan is a male, and thus he is entitled to be a "Reverend" and a "Pastor". Shelly is female, and thus she is "Ms. Shelly" and a "Director". Same job functions, but gender makes the difference between Pastor and Director.

Now I do not know for sure if Elkins, Blount, and King enjoy the housing allowance benefit, but my point is that FBC Jax has taken steps to ensure that under the IRS rules they would qualify using the Knight test. They have been ordained with no credentials or formal seminary training whatsoever, they have been given the opportunity to "conduct a worship service" by preaching at least once in the Main auditorium. So I would have to imagine the good 'ole boys on the FBCJ board of trustees have made sure their male ministers enjoy the tax benefit. Elkins, Blount, and King have management responsibility in the church, and by virtue of their title and job descriptions they would be considered "leaders".

But take a female minister at FBCJ, like Shelly Norman: she is seminary trained, does hold management responsibility in the church, and DOES conduct religious worship of children, and she is considered a "leader" by those that volunteer in her ministry. She is a minister by any reasonable definition and does meet 3 of the 5 requirements of the Knight test, but because of the lack of "ordination" she is not a minister by the IRS definition.

Thus, because females can't be called "Reverend", no housing allowance for them.

I would say that if "Reverend" Elkins or "Reverend" Blount or "Reverend" King qualify as "ministers", then certainly seminary trained female ministers who hold similar positions at the church should as well, at least for tax purposes. The test should be primarily a functional test, not one of ordination or licensure.

The IRS either needs to change their definition of ministers, knowing that some denominations specifically exclude women from ordination, or better yet they need to do away with this tax benefit altogether.

I prefer the latter, as ministers are now mostly degreed professionals who earn salaries and benefits and don't live in parsonages, and thus this benefit has outlived its purpose and should be a thing of the past.

But at the very least, let's not leave the decision of who enjoys a ministerial tax benefit to guys like Ergun Caner and his Baptist buddies who believe a woman's most useful function in church is performed with an apron and a vacuum cleaner.

Parsonage Tax Benefit Abused by Wealthy Clergy Now Applies to Multiple Homes

The Wall Street Journal this week reported on a recent U.S. tax court ruling that says the tax rules allowing ministers to buy and maintain their "parsonage" tax free - get this - it applies to MULTIPLE homes!

Yes, the tax provision put into place decades ago to help men-of-the-cloth earning meager incomes to be able afford housing, can now be abused by wealthy clergy to purchase and maintain multiple homes - all tax-free.

Furthermore, there is no monetary limit to the tax-free dollars. The fair market rental value of the property including maintenance, furnishings and utilities can be exempted - this could be a small apartment, or could be a multi-million dollar mansion.

And as the Wall Street Journal reports, it can be applied to multiple clergy homes. And to make it worse, clergy can receive a double benefit, as they still can deduct mortgage interest paid if they itemize their deductions. Pastor William Thornton has an excellent article on his blog this week in which he rightly points out that the disgust over this benefit is not over typical pastors who save a few thousand dollars in taxes each year. Rather it is the wealthy ministers who use the loophole to avoid paying taxes on multiple tens of thousands of dollars of income used to buy lavish homes, sometimes second homes, that puts this clergy tax benefit at risk of repeal.

Most Christians would not object to a pastor and his family enjoying such a benefit if they are earning a meager, or even reasonable salary from their small church. But all Christians should be appalled that this benefit applies to the extremely wealthy mega church pastors, especially those who misuses the bible and beat their sheep to convince them that God requires 10% of their income be given to the church.

Not surprisingly, most mega church members are clueless as to the lavish lifestyle their beloved pastors live. Last year it took Brett Shipp at WFAA to expose Ed Young's "parsonage" valued at over a million dollars, and that he owned a second home, a Miami beach house.

I wonder if Ed Young pays for both of these homes and their upkeep and their utilities with tax-free income?

Not sure if the FBC Jax faithful realize that their own pastor owns two homes now. Mac and Deb Brunson own a home in Jacksonville valued at $900,000 (sitting on property given to him by a church member valued at $307,000), and now according to public records, the Brunson family owns a St. Augustine Beach condo purchased in 2009 for $309,000. Apparently the Brunson's formed a corporation called DDCTW, Inc. which owns the condo in St. Augustine Beach. Deb Brunson and daughter Courtney Chesney are the officers of the corporation, and FBC Jax trustee Jarrett McConnell is the corporation's registered agent.

Given the financial blessings Brunson has, it is pretty laughable to hear Brunson compare himself to Job in his recent sermon series, as some sort of suffering servant of God being attacked by the devil.

I wonder if Mac Brunson pays for both of these homes and their upkeep and their utilities with tax-free income?

In my next article, I will address another aspect of this tax loophole for clergy that spells its doom: how in some Southern Baptist Churches, including FBC Jax, only male vocational ministers get to enjoy the clergy tax benefit, while the female ministers are excluded.

Berean Baptist: Another Example of Arrogant Church Pastors and Their Sycophants Who Think They Are Above the Law

Below is a video news report from First Coast News in Jacksonville that shows portions of the video tape released by the Clay County Sheriff's Office, showing evidence of Berean Baptist Church Pastor Greg Neal's involvement in a secret video tape made in his office while female church members undressed.

In the video you will see Greg Neal's father and co-pastor declare his son's innocence, and then make this statement:

"I am more convinced than ever that my son is innocent...and I want to assure you that we are investigating, we will get to the bottom of this, and I'll have much to say about this in the coming days."

Really? "We" are investigating? His church is investigating? Why are they just NOW investigating a video tape that has been around for 9 years or so? This same man denied the very existence of the video tape for years.

This pastor thinks the people of Jacksonville are fools. You see, if you read the Clay County Sheriff's Office investigation report, this statement is made about the detective's criminal investigation into the illegal video tape and this pastor's refusal to help:

"After several attempts to contact the suspect, Gregory Michael Neal, and his father Herman Thomas Neal, they refused to cooperate with this investigation or provide a statement."

So if someone besides Greg Neal made this video tape as his dad says, then that means that there might have been a pervert on the loose at Berean Baptist Church. Why would the pastors NOT cooperate with authorities in their investigation? Sure, the statute of limitations ran out on THIS video tape, but perhaps there are more. Maybe women at Berean are still at risk with a pervert voyeur watching them and video taping them.

You see, this is what modern, institutionalized Christianity has become under the leadership of powerful, professional clergy who act to protect their jobs and power: pastors and their following lay leaders who think they are above the law as they go about doing God's will. The Neals refused to cooperate in the police investigation of crimes against women in their church, but when the news cameras show up, they tell Jacksonville not to worry, they are on the case and will get to the bottom of it. Yes, the discipline committee of Berean Baptist church, versus the Clay County Sheriff's Office. You've got to be kidding me.

Another recent example: Langworthy out at Prestonwood is molesting kids, and the church leadership does not report it to the police. They do their own investigation, and then decide to simply send Langworthy packing to another church with no warning to the parents and kids of Langworthy's new church.

Another quote from the Berean Baptist police report that should send chills down the spine of church members:

"While speaking with both William [the member who reported the tape to police] and [victim's name], they informed me of some of the concerns they had for their safety. Both said the church leaders have been known to cast out and in some cases threaten harm to those who oppose them. Both William and [victim's name] said they fear retaliation for their statements and accusations."

That is in the police report. Yes, in fundamentalist churches with powerful pastors and dedicated lay leaders who protect their pastor at all costs, this is a real concern: pastors taking revenge on people who dare to speak up in opposition to the pastor. And William Cochran's fears were well-founded, as he says after he informed members of the video tape he was escorted off the church property.

I go back to my own experience with FBC Jax and the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office in 2008 as another example of this institutional arrogance. During depositions last summer in the federal lawsuit against the City of Jacksonville and the Sheriff's Office, it was clear from church administrator John Blount's and Detective Hinson's testimony that Hinson opened his investigation into the FBC Jax Watchdog blog at the sole request of John Blount during a chance encounter on church property (the day after Chest of Joash). The detective then issued subpoenas to Google and Comcast to find my name, and he closed his investigation at the request of John Blount - after Blount got what he wanted: my name.

Even though Hinson interviewed no one in his "investigation", and even though he admitted under oath he still had "concerns" about the blogger, he still closed his investigation - because the head administrator at his church wanted it closed. And of course none of this was in his police report - it all had to come out in depositions of a federal lawsuit.

And at the time, Detective Hinson was a member of the church's discipline committee who sought my identity - a clear conflict of interest. Hinson never disclosed this conflict of interest...it only came out when we asked John Blount the right question at his deposition - and thankfully John Blount admitted that yes, Robert Hinson was on the church's discipline committee at the time of his investigation into my blog. Someone had the bright idea at FBC Jax that putting a detective with subpoena power on their newly formed discipline committee would be a great idea. What stupidity and arrogance.

After stories like that, and this one of Berean Baptist not wanting to help the police, and Prestonwood Baptist Church not reporting a crime to the police...it is clear that churches with powerful pastors think they are above the law.

This sort of behavior should not surprise us, since these people view their pastor as "God's man" a "prophet of God", doing the most important work of saving souls, and thus anyone that opposes him, or blogs about him, or speaks ill of him, or decides to investigate him, must be of the devil.

Jim Smyrl's Church, LHBC, Distributes the "Member Covenant"

This past week Jim Smyrl's new church, Loyal Heart Bible Church, distributed it's "Member Covenant".

The Watchdog did get his copy delivered this weekend from a reader of the blog, and I have had a chance to review it. I was a bit concerned what it might contain, given Smyrl's reformed theology and knowing what other reformed churches require their members to sign - a list of rules and regulations, and an agreement to submit to the "authority" of the church.

I am not going to provide the entire covenant here - it is two pages in length - but will give some portions and commentary of what stuck out to me, and I'm going to compare and contrast this covenant with portions of the bylaws from FBC Jax from whence Smyrl comes. The "member convenant" for FBC Jax members is found in Article V of their bylaws.

It Was Distributed to Everyone
What a concept! Smyrl actually drafted the covenant, and is letting everyone have a hard copy, and they were allowed to take it home with them!! Unlike the goons at FBC Jax, who when they made significant changes to their bylaws in December 2007, they did not distribute them, they only allowed members to read them in the church library, but could NOT take a copy with them!! Then, before voting, neither the pastor, nor the president of the trustees, nor the head deacon read or even described the nature of the changes, they just called for a vote! The changes significantly changed the church governance, added a discipline committee, and other very significant changes, as I blogged 2 1/2 years ago here, here, here, and here.

So kudos to you, Jim, you're letting the folks have a hard copy. A.C. Soud, are you reading this? When will you freely distribute and post the December 2007 bylaw changes? Why not post them on the Internet, like you did the Deacons Resolution 2009-1?(affectionately called the "Anti-Criticism Doctrine" by yours truly).

Members Must Sign It
The covenant says all LHBC members must sign it. If I wanted to join Smyrl's church I wouldn't sign it. Why does one have to sign it to become a member? Why does one have to become a "member" anyways? Why not just attend, and contribute as the Lord leads? I would drop that requirement, Jim. The covenant already says that the congregation will reaffirm their commitment to it at the beginning of every communion service.

Members Affirm They Will Live "Under the Authority of Christ"
Biggest shocker - the document doesn't require members to submit themselves to the authority of the pastor, the elders, or the deacons or any other special group of believers.

No Reference to "Pastor" or "Elder"
There is no definition of church heirarchy. It refers to "believers", "mutual submission", "working in brotherly love". It does not set up a difference between the pastor and elders, and the regular members. Throughout it assumes all believers are on equal footing with one another. I assume that there will be "bylaws" at some point that flesh out some sort of operational structure of the church, but at least the covenant recognizes the priesthood of the believer, and not the "senior pastor".

Doesn't Require Members to "Love, Honor, and Esteem" Their Pastor
One of the creepiest aspects of the FBC Jax member covenant is this requirement of members:

"It shall be the duty of each and every member of this Church to honor, esteem and love the Pastor, to pray for him constantly, and to manifest a tender regard for his reputation."

Notice, that is NOT in Smyrl's member covenant - he doesn't mention "pastor" at all. The further time slips that I have been away from First Baptist Jacksonville, the more that statement makes my skin crawl. Who on earth prays for their pastor "constantly", and why would that be a "duty" of each and every member? What on earth does it mean in the real world to "manifest a tender regard for his reputation" mean? Of course, it means shut up, don't complain, and follow your pastor without question.

So FBC Jax members: you better be meeting your duty to pray constantly for your pastor. Do not complain about your pastor, as to do so would not be to manifest a tender regard for his reputation, and could get you a visit from the discipline committee, or worse! Memo to FBC Jax Trustees: please add a section that requires the pastor to manifest a tender regard for the church's reputation, ok? Thanks.

Does Specify "Church Discipline", No Discipline Committee
Smyrl's covenant does state that they will "...lovingly seek to restore a believer in sin through the practice of biblical restoration including the removal of unrepentant members from our fellowship." I don't see the creation of a discipline committee, but that could come in future LHBC bylaws. The FBC Jax bylaws specify a discipline process which in effect excludes the pastor, since the discipline committee has to get the approval of the pastor before taking disciplanary action! (FBC Jax bylaws, Article XIV, Section 4).

Does Not Require Members to Waive Legal Rights
The covenant doesn't require members to waive their rights to file legal action against the church. Unbelievably, in the December 2007 bylaw changes at FBC Jax, the following statement was added in Article XIV:

"All members waive the right to file any legal action against the Church in a civil court or agency."

And they didn't even bother to explain to the plebe at the voting meeting that this was what they were voting on.

So all in all, not a bad covenant. As I said, Smyrl freely distributed it, and people can read it and judge it for themselves.

LHBC members, I urge you to demand that any bylaws drawn up for LHBC that further define your responsibilities, a discipline process, how elders are selected, etc. etc. be freely distributed to everyone. I am confident Smyrl will do this, as he most certainly had to see the injustice done at FBC Jax by trustees making changes to bylaws and not making every effort possible to educate the members.

Driscoll Claims to Have Specific Visions of Sexual and Violent Assaults Against Church Members: Did He Report These to the Police?

"On occasion I see things...it's the supernatural. It's a whole other realm. It's like 'The Matrix', you can take the blue pill, you can take the red pill. You go into this whole other world, and that's the way it works....I've seen women raped, I've seen children molested..."

I know I said a few weeks ago that I thought I had seen everything when I watched James Merritt pitch the Fortune HTM multi-level marketing scheme at his church.

I was wrong. I hadn't seen it all.

But NOW I think I finally have seen it all: Mars-Hill mega church pastor Mark Driscoll on tape, telling people that he "sees things" that he has special visions. Visions of rape, incest, spousal abuse, and graphic adultery - and the visions involve real people that he confronts and his visions end up being correct!

Watch the video above, and you can hear Driscoll explain the following violent crimes that he saw committed against specific individuals, that he later approached and CONFIRMED that they actually happened exactly as he saw them in the vision:

1. At the 0:25 mark of the video he describes that he had a vision of a person being molested as a 1-2 year old, confronted the victim about his vision, and the victim went and confronted the perpetrator who admitted it. The victim came back and told Mark that indeed he was right.

2. Driscoll describes in graphic detail how he had a vision of a female church member having adulterous sex with a "really tall blonde guy", graphically describing it, and even throwing in the detail that she had sex with the light on because the blonde guy was her "fantasy body type". He confronted the woman with the vision and she confessed.

3. At the 2:45 mark, Driscoll tells a person that their grandfather had molested her. She confronted her grandfather, and Driscoll says he admitted it.

4. Driscoll describes a woman at his church who walked by and he had a vision of the husband the night before throwing her against the wall, grabbing her by the throat and "physically assaulting" her. Driscoll says he confronted her with the details of the vision, and she broke down and admitted his vision was correct. Driscoll called the husband into the church and he confessed. Driscoll said he told the abuser that "Jesus told him" about the abuse, not the wife.

And elsewhere in this brief video Driscoll talks of having visions of women being raped, children molested, people abused and beaten, even children being dedicated in cultic groups as infants.

This all is too weird. The video raises the following serious questions:

- why are his visions only about perverted sex acts and physical violence? Why aren't his visions about, say, a husband who was really sweet with his wife and took her to dinner the night before, or a grandpa picking daisies with his granddaughter the day before?

- Driscoll stood in front of a camera and described specific, horrific crimes committed against specific individuals by specific offenders. Did he contact the authorities once he learned of the molestation by the grandfather? Did he call the police when he discovered that a woman actually was violently abused by her husband the night before? Was it wise to actually call the hubby and bring him in the room to confront him with the wife present? Why didn't Driscoll instead tell her to immediately go to the police station and report her husband's abusive behavior?

- if he has these accurate visions of crimes against church members that are correct most of the time, why not go to the police and offer his services? He could help them solve crimes. Perhaps he could author a TV series where the mega church preacher helps the sheriff's office solve violent sex crimes as he receives visions from Jesus of the crimes being committed, a "Justice by Jesus" show...wait, I think there is one similar to this out there. Oh, wait, I think I'm getting it now...

I guess what is most offensive about all of this poppycock is that Driscoll actually thinks people believe him.

Driscoll describes his visions as "...you can take the blue pill, you can take red pill."

I say, you can drink the grape Kool-Aid, or you can drink the cherry Kool-Aid. Take your pick, it is all the same: Looney Tunes in the world of egomaniac mega church pastors who believe they have special powers and aren't afraid to declare it in front of the camera.
---------------------------------
H/T: Coffee Trader-News and Views, Pyromaniacs Blog