The Destiny of Tax Exemption

This week, like many, I was disgusted by claims from Brian Tamaki that earthquakes are caused by sin, and in particular homosexuality. Whilst the comments were a small part of his talk, it was still wrong. The outage that followed was understandable and justified. I even understand the calls to remove the tax free status from Destiny, with organisers of the petition calling the church a "hate group".

Yet, while I understand and agree with the outrage I am concerned about the petition and will not be signing it. Not because I don't agree with the sentiments of the petition organisers, not because I feel uneasy about the way money donated to Destiny is spent and how a pastor and his wife can live such extravagant lifestyles while people who attend their church are struggling, but because I feel it would set a dangerous precedent which could be harmful for a number of churches and charities throughout the country, the majority of which are doing amazing work that warrants the tax-free status they currently utilise.

In the wake of this outrage I came across a tweet by Peter Dunne, United Future MP, former Minister of Revenue and current Minister of Internal Affairs (the department responsible for the running of the Charities Services and therefore the department that signed off on Destiny’s charity status). Being someone who has worked in politics for a number of years I would think he would be slightly more careful and cautious, but it seems his outrage got the best of him:

  

Curious, and slightly alarmed I re-tweeted his message, asking the question of how it might work: 

 

I was somewhat surprised to get a fairly immediate response:

This got me curious on a few counts. 1. If Destiny has failed the charitable purpose test, then why is it still able to claim tax free status? 2. If promotion of religion is not a charitable purpose, then  how can most churches claim tax-free status, and 3. How would you go about applying a religion test to churches?

I set out to find the answers through some research. Of particularly help was the Charities Services website, where you can search a database of registered charities. There are a number of sectors available, one of which is Religious Activities. So religious activities are permitted under the Charities Act, but many churches don’t just provide religious activities. Whilst that may be the main activity, they also provide many other services that play a significant role in our society (for example, care, counselling, facilities for the community). Looking on the database, Destiny provides those services as well. So, according to the Charities Services database, Destiny meets the charitable purpose test that Dunne claims it fails. It is upfront that its main activity is to provide religious services / activities. In addition to that main activity it also provides a number of listed activities that help the community in which Destiny lies in.

But what of my third question: How to apply a religion test to churches? According to Peter Dunne, it would be based on history, tradition and theology. However, despite Mr Dunne’s comment, it isn’t as clear cut as that. How long a history does a church need to have? 10 years? 20 perhaps? Or is it more like 100 or 200 years plus? And again with tradition and theology - how do you measure these? What traditions do you set as a benchmark? Many pentecostal churches are often new and sit outside of an established tradition. And what theology? An obvious starting point would be the Apostles’ Creed, but after that it gets messy. It’s the reason we have many different denominations. Finally, who would decide how to measure these definitions - the government? If so, that is state run religion and something we want to stay far far away from. A group of clergy? If so, which clergy from which denominations? And what of shrines, mosques, temples and the like for New Zealand Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus etc? The implications are much much wider than just a few churches.

I was concerned about where this might be heading so asked Dunne for clarification. He replied: 

Dunne’s comment highlights the danger in this petition and the precedent it could set. We have a very robust and strong charity sector in New Zealand. Many charities would cease to exist if the rules changed. Organisations already have to abide by guidelines in order to receive their tax-free status. Peter Dunne is wrong to claim that Destiny doesn’t fit the criteria. Changing the rules to exclude one organisation could do irrevocable damage to many churches and charities as well as the parts of the community at large that they help. We as a society don’t want to see that happen. So while I understand the outrage and the disgust over the horrible, theologically questionable and morally reprehensible comments of Brian Tamaki, I cannot endorse the petition. There is too much greater good at stake.

Embracing the Other: A Reflection on the US Election

Like many the world over, I’ve been doing a lot of reflecting after the US Presidential Election on Wednesday. Mostly it has been around why an event in another country on the other side of the Pacific has affected me so much. The conclusion I have come to is that this week fear, hatred and pride won. I believe it is only a temporary victory but it still hurts to see it occur.

Why do I say that? Because the now President-elect has built his campaign, not on policy but on fear. Fear of the unknown. And by doing so, he tapped into the fears of white working class America. Fear of immigrants taking their jobs. Fear of terrorism. Fear of losing their Second Amendment rights. And for evangelical Christians, the fear of babies being ripped from the wombs of their mothers so close to birth. It was emotionally charged speeches from a very rich powerful white man trying to capture (and succeeding it has to be said) the working class. It has been sad to see people, in their desperation to look after their families and in their frustration with a political system that seems to have neglected them for too long, embrace a candidate whose campaign has isolated, belittled, mocked, and ridiculed some many. Sad to see those working class embrace someone who divided his own party and who was endorsed by extremist organisations like the KKK.

But what can we learn from what has happened to make sure it doesn’t happen here in Aotearoa New Zealand or anywhere else? I think the best answer is to embrace the other. By embracing the other, we break down walls not build them. By embracing the other we are saying, “hey, you are important. You matter. I care about you”. And by doing that we destroy the illusion and false worldview that those who aren’t like us are out to get us.

The last two days have also seen me listening to a new podcast (Huia Come Home) about theology, Maori worldview & life in Aotearoa. The interviewee of the inaugural episode, Dr Alistair Reese I think hit the nail on the head. In talking about Maori and Pakeha living together in Aotearoa  and honouring the Treaty of Waitangi, he used a marriage metaphor. He said that at the core of a marriage relationship is self sacrifice - a call to honour the other above yourself. So in terms of relationship with the others Dr Reese challenges us to ask two questions: 

    -    How can I live that will enable the other to prosper?
    -    What environment can I nurture that will enable them to be all that they can be?

The hope is that that will be reciprocated but it has to start with us first. I love the way he puts it and it can equally apply wherever we are in the world. If we look to create a society where the marginalised, where the minorities and the least of us are enabled to be all that they can be then we all benefit.

And that is what I want to move towards and what I believe we here in Aotearoa New Zealand, our fellow men and women in the US, the UK (when I think about their Brexit decision) and throughout the world should be moving towards. Let’s learn from what has happened in the US and use it to work towards building societies that embrace and encourage others. Through that we as individuals and as nations can grow and be blessed by learning from the “other” as they are enabled to be all they can be.


NOTE: I use the terms other, marginalised, minorities and the least of these. The best way I can define those terms is that they refer to people who aren’t like myself. So for me, as a white middle class university educated male I would see those terms as referring to all who aren’t like me, including people of other races, females, members of the LGBT community, the poor, the homeless and any other groups I may have missed. They are my brothers and sisters in the worldwide family of humanity and my desire is to embrace them and learn from them. I believe that I can become a better person by learning from them all.