Should ministers (in the U.S.) be exempt from paying income tax on housing allowances?

I voted no but I want to explain myself:

• There is no doubt that a pastor should be adequately paid and honored for his position.
• A change would be painful
• The church would have to pay the pastor more … that means
• People would have to give more.

And:

• I hope the change does not take place.
• I think it will … ultimately!

As a Baptist I believe in a separation of church and state. The church (not the state) is to provide for our own ministries.

Our government’s greatest ability to reward or punish is their ability to tax. Granted, the problem is the entire tax code. Without the income tax code, the accusations of discrimination or unfair tax advantages would mostly disappear. However, given the system we are in, our leaders (theoretically) acknowledge good behavior that will benefit the nation, the community and the common good and reward that through tax breaks. Our gov. (fed and local) of punishing what they view to be a danger to the common good in ways such as the “sin” tax on cigarettes, alcohol, etc. For a long time, marriage was seen as something that benefited the good of society and thus tax breaks for marriage. Having children also was considered a boon to the nation, so tax breaks for having children. Churches (regardless of the religion) have been seen as providing a good service to society and thus the governments (local, state, and fed) have routinely had ways to make it easier for churches to function. The same is true regarding clergy. The concept behind a tax break for ministers, seems to me to be recognizing that they provide a function that our society is benefited by and without that tax break it the society will suffer something. Indeed it will, and I am not speaking about the gospel. Churches should function well with or without the tax break. However, I will say that our small to moderate congregation in a region hostile to the gospel for decades will suffer tremendously as we will probably be forced to cut salaries and thus cut the time spent in the work of the ministry. And sadly (from a community perspective), some of the first things that may go would be visiting and counseling inmates in jail. Free marriage and addiction counseling, and other “community” benefits. I am not speaking in light of the gospel at this point, but rather from the reasonable perspective of the common good of society. Having pastors and churches that can function vibrantly is good for society. I see two reasons why many in secular society today do not think this is true and are thus willing to cut any tax benefits to clergy and churches (I am not talking about the libertarian views). Many ministries and ministers are more interested in building empires and abusing people and have given a bad name to the calling of pastor (whether evangelical or not). Our society and particularly the millennial generation cares nothing or very little for religious matters. They do not believe that religion provides a good service to society, but view churches as business. There may be many reasons why this happened, not the least of is that churches have portrayed themselves as business and pastors as ceo’s rather than servants of God and others.

I am evangelical and very conservative in my theology and practice, and so my above arguments are general and appealing to a varied audience. Obviously, I believe that the gospel is the most important ministry of the church and that the proclamation of the Gospel will continue with joy regardless of the tax issues. I am writing from the perspective of a neighbor and a citizen rather than a pastor with the paragraph above.

Here are some ways my role as a pastor has benefited the common good of society that even unbelievers should admit.

• As an ordained and trained minister, I visit inmates at the county jail at any time and seek to encourage them to live productive lives in society when they are released.
• As one trained in counseling, I provide free services to the community for marriage counseling, addiction counseling, and job counseling.
• Christians tend to be better citizens, by teaching moral truths from God’s Word, our better equipped to be better citizens and neighbors
• We believe that by becoming a Christian, former criminals can become productive people.
• We keep a close watch on our community and if their is criminal activity, we work with the law enforcement to protect victims.

There are probably more, but perhaps you have become more dull by reading my thoughts, so I will cease.

So this local church discovers that, if they keep their pastor’s salary low enough, he’ll be eligible for food stamps, Medicaid, heating fuel assistance, and school lunch for his kids. The government percs just keep on coming.

In the NT, if a man refuses to provide for his family he’s worse than ‘an infidel.’ (1 Tim. 5:8). Between the Thessalonian epistles and the pastorals, there’s quite a strong emphasis in the NT on living by your labor. Paul went out of his way to set an example in that area (Thess.) and pastors need to set an example as well.

A congregation that forces a pastor into perpetual gov. poverty relief is working contrary to that example.

I was never in that situation, but if I were, there would eventually have to be an ultimatum if it came to that: “Raise my wages or I’m getting another job and the congregation will receive less of my time. I need to set an example of faithfulness in providing for myself and my family.” Given what we have in the epistles, it’s what Paul would have done. (Of course, this assumes the ability to get another job. Easier said than done. In Paul’s case, he was sometimes able to collect no income from a church at all. But in order to avoid sending the wrong message, earned that by labor rather than by receiving gifts. 1 Thess. 2.9 )

From a political theory standpoint, and theological church-state standpoint, I’m in favor of the housing allowance.

• Any tax that is not paid is simply keeping one’s own money. The law compels citizens to give a portion of their own property to fund the government.
• We are tacitly accepting liberal statist thinking if we assume that any tax break is equal to government subsidy. (The housing allowance, and other breaks, allow people to keep what was theirs to begin with. It is not subsidy.)
• Since the church is protected as a religious institution under the law, it is not subsidy to grant it unique protections from tax-collecting. (Again, non-collection does not equal subsidy.)
• The same cannot be said for EIC and other scenarios the current tax code creates, where you get money back from the gov. even though you didn’t pay any taxes in. So if there is gov. subsidy of ministers, the real problem is the progressiveness of the tax code in general. The subsidy is equally avail. to anyone w/sufficiently low income.

Tax questions have to be framed right. Tax payment is citizen/organization funding government. Tax non-payment is citizen/organization non-funding of government. It isn’t getting something from the gov.