Someone quoted the following verses, along with their question about whether it's wrong that some ministers of the Gospel are paid, especially if the minister already owns assets:
1 Corinthians 9:18 What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it.
2 Corinthians 11:7 Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge?
I engaged the person in a conversation, as follows:
JOHN
Paul said that although he chose not to be paid, he actually had the right to be - because the Lord ordained that those who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.
FRIEND
Was that from the law of Moses ?
JOHN
No. From Jesus, in the New Testament. And Paul quoted it in his Epistles. But the Law of Moses also taught that ministers should be paid.
FRIEND
I guess it's ok as long as Paul didn't love money.
JOHN
Yes - the love of money is the root of all evil. You can't serve both God and mammon. Just one or the other. But the right of the labourer to be paid is a universal ethic, taught in every part of the Bible - by the patriarchs before the Law, by Moses in the Law, by David, by the Prophets, by Christ as recorded in the four Gospels, and by the Apostles in the Epistles. And preaching the Gospel is work. To deny a labourer his wages is theft. It's the right of preachers of the Gospel to earn a livelihood from the Gospel.
Now consider this: the labourer's existing assets can't diminish his right to be paid. He has just as much right to be paid for his labour no matter whether he already owns nothing, little or much. In the same way, a preacher of the Gospel has just as much right to earn a livelihood from the Gospel no matter whether he already owns nothing, little or much.
But Paul chose not to avail himself of that right during his season at Corinth. Instead, he chose to work long hours in his trade so he could preach to the Corinthians without receiving a single piece of bread from them. (During that time, Paul did however accept an offering from another church in another city.) But even though Paul didn't accept support from the Corinthians, he still said it was his right to. He chose not to, for personal reasons. But it would have been within his rights to give-up his trade and accept support from the church at Corinth.
It's like my dad. For many, many years as the preacher of the Gold Coast Japanese Church, he chose not to be paid a single dollar by the church, and instead he worked to support himself. In fact, he gave money to the church! But he would have been quite within his rights if he'd acceped some remuneration for his efforts during all those years.
Paul also wrote that church elders who rule well - who labour in the Word and doctrine - should be counted worthy of double honour. Double pay!
But in the Epistles it also says bishops shouldn't serve for filthy lucre. They shouldn't be motivated by gain. Don't we need to be reminded of this today! But honest pay is not the same as filthy lucre.
FRIEND
Should those who teach 'mythology' be subjected to pay tax for their public addresses? Should those who preach the "Gospel" be subjected to paying Personal Income tax?
JOHN
They are. Ministers of the Gospel pay personal income tax. They are also subject to every other form of tax like: GST, excise, capital gains, Medicare levy, etc.
I think either none of us should pay a tax, or all of us should pay it. And I also think one rate - a flat rate - should apply to all, irrespective of profession, assets or income.
FRIEND
Do Ministers pay personal income tax if it is their sole income?
JOHN
Yes
FRIEND
Ok but when the 'tithe' net drags the flock! All that is scooped up! Is counted in cash, then that "sum" of money is then banked. That amount is not Taxed. i.e. Is not subject to 30% company Tax? Is this correct to your knowledge?
JOHN
Yes that is correct - while the money sits in a bank. But if any amount of the money gets withdrawn from the bank to pay a wage, then that amount of the money becomes subject to income-tax at that point.
Or, if the money gets used to buy a building, then Government Stamp Duty is payable (churces still pay Stamp Duty - educational institutions are exempt).
Or, if money is used to purchase goods or services, GST may be payable upfront but can be claimed-back afterwards. But GST can be claimed-back ONLY if the purchase is for something that will be used exclusively during church services inside the church building.
FRIEND
If a preacher is standing in cavill mall for e.g. and a person comes up to them and offers them a $50 (gift) is that deemed to be income and should it be "morally" subject to personal income tax?
JOHN
In the case of a minister being given a gift, the Tax office treats it exactly the same way as if a businessman gets given a gift...the same way as if anyone like you or I got given a gift, as described here:
http://www.bhatt.id.au/blog/australian-tax-tips-are-gifts-taxable/
Contrary to popular misconceptions, churches do not receive privileges in ways that businesses do not. Quite the opposite. For example:
In regard to income tax, the government is double-dipping. When you earn money, your income is taxed, then when you give some of your money to a church, you cannot claim it as a deduction - but when some of the money you gave to the church then gets paid to a minister as his wage, the money again becomes subject to income tax at that point - for a second time.
But the business-world is treated differently, in some cases. If you earn money, and pay income tax, and then you use your money as a sole trader to pay an employee or a contractor, the recipient will pay income tax, however you can claim his wage as a deduction - therefore the money isn't subject to income tax twice.
But with gifts to churches, you can't claim any deduction - therefore the portion of the money that pays a wage gets subjected to income tax twice. It's double-dipping. The system favours business and disadvantages the church, in that respect.
The government also favours schools. Churches are not exempt from Stamp Duty; and donations are not deductible. But schools don't pay Stamp Duty; and donations are tax-deductible - even though many schools are privately owned and are profitable.
The government also favours researchers, inventors, artists, hobbyists, cultural groups and other religions ahead of Christian churches. Each of these groups, including other religions, are eligible for "cultural" funding and grants, while Christian churches are not.
For example, former QLD Labor Premier Peter Beattie allocated $ thousands to build a mosque - but any similar donation to a Christian church would be considered as a discrimination against another religion in favor of Christianity, so it seldom if ever happens.
Other religions, cultural organizations, educational institutions and some businesses receive funding, grants and tax deductibility status - Christian churches do not.
No comments:
Post a Comment