This court ruling is, without question, an interesting one:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that a religious organization that primarily holds Internet and radio worship services does not meet the U.S. Internal Revenue Service’s definition of a church.
A three-judge panel on Monday unanimously upheld a ruling by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, in a case brought by the Foundation of Human Understanding, founded by Roy Masters in 1963 and “based upon Judeo-Christian beliefs and the doctrine and teachings of its founder.”
Fascinating.
The Court of Appeals essentially cited legal precedents which emphasized an associational test. This test defines a church as an organization where it’s members meet regularly for worship in a formalized fashion.
This will most certainly impact and bring to question the rise (and continued rise) of online gatherings with new web-based technologies. I know a few ministries that have contacted me personally in the past explaining how excited they were to create completely-online ministries and churches – they are climbing an uphill battle from a legal standpoint.
Thoughts?
Read the full ruling here.
Trevor Taylor says
Thankfully the Gov’t is not the final word on these matters. Gov’t does not change God’s view on His people. Go BE the church today.
Cliff says
Although this is a bummer for primarily-online churches, I think it’s probably necessary to keep everyone with a video stream from claiming they run a tax-exempt ‘church’.
Vince Marotte says
true.
Daniel Mosley says
My thoughts as well.
Chris MacDonald says
I’d have to agree with Cliff on that this ruling will prevent people with a web cam and a guitar from trying to claim church/NPO status.
If a church has a physical meeting space and the online portion is just one part of their overall ministry it shouldn’t affect the way that they operate; all the web stuff will just be a normal operating expense.
Brad McCarty says
Wow. Scary, to be honest.
The fact is, though, our own definition of the Church being the body of believers (regardless of space or place) won’t match the legal definition. It does, also, open a can of worms about tax exemption and other legalities that come into play with ministry.
adam shields says
In the short term I don’t think it will make much of a difference. I don’t think there are all that many online churches that are not attached to a physical church, which from my understanding means they are not connected to the ruling.
In the long term, I would guess that this will be over turned. When you can point to a significant community that has a worked out theology of online church then it becomes the government regulating the practice of religion.
Gordon Marcy says
Though legal definition has a number of implications, the primary impact of this would seem to be the loss of opportunity to be legally declared nonprofit. Other than that, what does the decision really do?
If God calls someone to go to a place, having a government declaration isn’t the final word. And, there are many, many ministries and good works in the physical world that do not have a nonprofit designation.
I really don’t see it as a problem to using the Internet for church or any other kind of God inspired ministry.
jon says
Of course, offline worship isn’t a church, either. According to the precedence, formal worship in one geographic location is a church.
Quote: The Court of Appeals essentially cited legal precedents which emphasized an associational test. This test defines a church as an organization where it’s members meet regularly for worship in a formalized fashion.
As we work hard to help followers of Jesus think about church from a missional perspective, this ruling reinforces the very image of church we are fighting. This is as tragic for house churches, for missional communities, for discipleship movements as it is for online churches.
Mike says
I wonder if this will be used to oppose the tax deductible status of gifts given online?
Gordon Marcy says
I doubt that. Making a gift online is no different than making a gift by phone, email, or fax. The Internet in that instance is just a channel for processing the transaction. The status is determined by the standing of the entity receiving the gift.
Stephen Bateman says
Just found this from a somewhat shoddy looking internet source advocating religious freedom from gov’t control:
/* quote */ Churches Have a Mandatory Exception To Filing Tax Returns
Not only is it completely unnecessary for any church to seek 501c3 status, to do so becomes a grant of jurisdiction to the IRS by any church that obtains that State favor. In the words of Steve Nestor, IRS Sr. Revenue Officer (ret.):
“I am not the only IRS employee who’s wondered why churches go to the government and seek permission to be exempted from a tax they didn’t owe to begin with, and to seek a tax deductible status that they’ve always had anyway. Many of us have marveled at how church leaders want to be regulated and controlled by an agency of government that most Americans have prayed would just get out of their lives. Churches are in an amazingly unique position, but they don’t seem to know or appreciate the implications of what it would mean to be free of government control.” /* endQuote */
— Is this true?? —
Adam Shields says
It is sort of true. Churches do not need a tax exempt status. But if the courts say you are not a church, then you cannot qualify for that exemption.
Practially, many banks and real estate and other organizations won’t work with you if you do not have an official 501c3. So most churches get one or even more often fall under a group exemption that is held by their denomination.
Dale says
John,
Interesting. I come down in favor of providing online participatory and spectator/edification resources, but am unsure about “ONline only” being rightfully called “Church”. I say this based on the concept of the church being the family of God, and I think we would have a bit more pause in considering a group of people who only interact online a “family” in the legal sense. There’s no arguing that families can extend and enhance their communication via online communication, and there’s no question in my mind that churches also can extend and enhance their life online. I’m not even against the idea of “Online Only” Christian education and para-church activity; but the FAMILY concept is what gives me pause on this one. I’ll defiinitely be blogging onthis one. Thanks for posting it , John, and to Matt Carlisle for retweeting it (I saw Matt’s retweet first in my Twitter stream)
Dale
Dale says
I also am much more concerned about the Google/Verizon issue; the idea of the wireless spectrum getting limited to “premium” content providers seems to me to be an ominous trend that will impact online efforts of churches and other non-profits much more than IRS status.
John says
This sound very simular to what the disabled are/were going through with online websites not being accessible. The law states that any place where people congregate are required to make themselves accessible to the handicapped. The problem is, proving that a website meets those needs. In the case of Target.com, the judges rulled in favor of the Blind.But it took years of different cases to get to that point. Earlier cases lost quite a bit. I think, this is a very simular case and eventually will be allowed.
JayCaruso says
Well, the law here seems to be pretty clear and the court didn’t seem to have much choice. It’s going to be up to Congress to redefine what it means to “associate.”
I think qualifying as a “church” for tax exempt status is not all that difficult. Just look at Scientology.
Yohan Perera says
Well, looks like the government knows the Bible better than we do…
I am not against online gatherings. I enjoy watching them. It allows me to listen to different preachers and be inspired. I learn new things. But technological advancements can never replace the original biblical principles.
I don’t think any church with an online presence doesn’t have bother about this court ruling as long as they know their Bible…
Kevin Cooper says
Church comes from the Greek “ekklesia” which means “an assembly”. I think North Point Online, Lifechurch.tv and others prove that to be true.
JayCaruso says
True, but what about the book of Acts where the basis of the church is formed (specifically Acts 1:13-14)? I realize Acts did not take place in such a technological age, but the emphasis on people being together is still there.
North Point and Lifechurch’s online presence is certainly welcome. I remember being sick one weekend and not being able to attend my own church, I watched Northpoint’s service and it was great.
But can a church function entirely online without those face to face relationships? I have fostered some online friendships with people but it reached a different level when I met some of them in person. There’s just that added layer of that relationship.
I know that I’m beyond the scope of what the discussion was initially about. Congress may decide to determine that for tax reasons, a church can exist entirely online. But the question I have (and what Yohan was alluding to) is: Can a group of people that meet entirely in the online space really be called a church?
Dale says
Jay,
I like your thinking here. While I am all for reaching out online to find comradery and personal support, I know from personal experience that we all need some people to be with, to hang with, and to know that they are thinking of us, and desire not only our ideas and input, but our presence.
Kevin Cooper says
To answer your last question there, I don’t see why not if we, as a church (meaning believers in Christ) are to edify each other as taught by the Bible, and that happens on IP address as opposed to a physical address, then I think it can. Other duties would be to reach others for Christ and that can mostly certainly be done online.
Personally, (and maybe even sadly) I feel as though I’m more built up in my faith by those of you online than I am in my local physical church.
Trevor Taylor says
I have found myself in the position where I have gone to online resources for personal discipleship. I do not have anyone who mentors me or specifically invest into my life on a regular basis. I do have many Christian friends and live in community with believers, but discipleship has come from the Bible, books, and all kinds of online sources. I had an amazing Sunday school teacher growing up. He invested into me and others. I would love to have that again. I do get that from amazing teachers online.
Yohan Perera says
I agree with you Jay…
Trevor from Excellerate Church Management Software says
I would encourage anyone who didn’t click the “read the full ruling here” link to do so. It’s actually a journal article, not the incompressible legalesse I expected, and is extremely interesting. Apparently, one of the main reasons the court ruled as they did was actually the lack of fellowship in the broadcast. The argument was that just because everyone listened to the service at the same time that doesn’t mean they were “together” in their worship. The article also mentioned that even before the court proceedings, the IRS said the ministry would qualify as a 501(c)3, just not as a church, which I found to be an interesting distinction since, clearly, the tax exempt status isn’t in question, merely the definition of “What is a church.”
I’d be interested to hear what people think about the question of “what is a church?” in a religious rather than legal sense. What is the role of fellowship in defining church and what is the role of the typical church events listed on an order of service (a sermon, singing, prayer, etc.)? As more and more churches use the internet, what level of fellowship is necessary in order to distinguish church from, say, putting a worship CD in your car stereo and then turning on the radio which happens to be broadcasting a sermon? Does the fellowship need to be with other people in attendance, or is the most important thing that you be submitted to a pastor or some other church leader, even if you don’t talk to the person in the computer next to you?
Graham Brenna says
Interesting indeed. I’m not going to pretend to be able to interpret law. No training what-so-ever in that area. But I will just say that I don’t like this ruling… 😉