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:
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:
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment