What Makes a Church and Is the Family Research Council Really a Church?
We have asked before on this blog what makes a church a church? A group of Democrats on the Hill are asking the folks over at Treasury and IRS. They have sent a letter questioning church tax exemption in general and the Family Research Council in particular. The Family Research Council doesn’t use the word church to describes itself on its webpage:
Founded in 1983, Family Research Council is a nonprofit research and educational organization dedicated to articulating and advancing a family-centered philosophy of public life. In addition to providing policy research and analysis for the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government, FRC seeks to inform the news media, the academic community, business leaders, and the general public about family issues that affect the nation from a biblical worldview.
But it still doesn’t file 990s. Guidestar informs readers that FRC is not required “because it is a church.” Sixteen House Democrats don’t believe it though and are asking the Service not only to tighten up on its supervision of exempt organized worship groups generally, but to take a closer look at FRC. Here is part of a letter the group sent to Yellen and Werfel Tuesday:
Under IRS guidelines, no Section 501(c)(3) organizations—including churches—may “devote a substantial part of their activities to attempting to influence legislation” nor “participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” However, there is evidence that the Family Research Council (FRC) and other rightwing advocacy groups are engaging in substantial political advocacy.
We understand the importance of religious institutions to their congregants, and we believe that religious freedom is a cherished American value and constitutional right. We also believe that our tax code must be applied fairly and judiciously. Tax-exempt organizations should not be exploiting tax laws applicable to churches to avoid public accountability and IRS examination of their activities.
FRC is one example of an alarming pattern of rightwing advocacy groups applying for and obtaining church status. This is a claim that strains credulity: FRC does not hold religious services, does not have a congregation or affiliated congregations, and does not possess many of the other attributes of churches listed by the IRS. In its own words, FRC describes itself as a “research and educational organization dedicated to articulating and advancing a family-centered philosophy of public life. In addition to providing policy research and analysis for the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government, FRC seeks to inform the news media, the academic community, businesses leaders, and the general public about family issues that affect the nation from a biblical worldview.” Nevertheless, the FRC enjoys the privileges of church status, including the ability to shield itself from scrutiny.
Yeah, FRC does not fit the church boilerplate. It’s not like the group has regular Sunday services or Wednesday night Bible study. The only evidence of worship, on the website at least, is a link to daily Bible verses. But I did not do a deep dive into FRC’s business so I don’t have a strong opinion really. I just agree it doesn’t look or act like a church as much as it does an advocacy organization. Therein lies the fallacy, by the way. If FRC really is a church, there is nothing to be done about advocacy. The fallacy renders restrictions on political activities especially null and void when it comes churches. Organized worshippers are invariably advocates, campaigners even.
FRC’s President, Tony Perkins, doesn’t call himself “reverend” or “pastor,” though he regularly delivers politically laced sermonettes on social media. He is probably best described as a conservative evangelical. His Wiki page includes the misleading statement that Perkins “adopted 16-year-old Boko Haram-held captive, Nigerian Leah Sharibu.” It turns out that Perkins adopted Sharibu as a cause, not her personally. Still a good thing, though, even if purely symbolic. She’s been held captive by terrorists in Nigeria for more than six years. The U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom, on which Perkins once served as chairperson, states she is being held because she refuses to renounce Christianity.
The Dem’s letter stumbles a bit near the end. Whichever aide wrote it did a nice job of summarizing the hands off approach the Tax Code takes in exempting organized:
Therefore, we reiterate our request for the IRS to review the status of tax-exempt organizations that have obtained church status, but do not satisfy the requirements of a church, integrated auxiliary, or convention or association of churches. We also urge the IRS to improve the process for reviewing applications from organizations seeking church status to ensure that organizations that are not churches cannot abuse the tax code. Finally, we ask the IRS to answer our questions, including information about whether existing guidance is sufficient to prevent abuse and what resources or Congressional actions are needed to ensure adequate enforcement moving forward.
What applications? There ain’t no applications from organized worshippers. They are mostly exempt from legal supervision and thus, effectively unregulatable.
darryll k. jones