Group's Internet and Radio Worship does not meet IRS definition of a church.
A friend forwarded this story to me today (thanks Nick). Apparently all the theological debate about virtual church has been for naught; the IRS had a definition of a true church after all. The U.S Appeals Court (pdf) recently upheld a decision of the Federal Circuit Court that determined that The Foundation of Human Understanding's radio and internet ministry did not meet the definition of church. Here are the fourteen criteria of "church" that have been adopted by the IRS and applied in this case (Foundation I, 88 T.C. at 1357):
(1) a distinct legal existence;
(2) a recognized creed and form of worship;
(3) a definite and distinct ecclesiastical government;
(4) a formal code of doctrine and discipline;
(5) a distinct religious history;
(6) a membership not associated with any other church or denomination;
(7) an organization of ordained ministers;
(8) ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed studies;
(9) a literature of its own;
(10) established places of worship;
(11) regular congregations;
(12) regular religious services;
(13) Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young; and
(14) schools for the preparation of its ministers.
The court also applied the "associational test." This test defines a church as "an organization that includes a body of believers who assemble regularly for communal worship." (p. 5) This has been an important test in court cases that have determined that not every organization that is religious constitutes a church. As this decision argues, the religious organization must provide "the opportunity for members to develop a fellowship by worshipping together" and that a "church’s principal means of accomplishing its religious purposes must be to assemble regularly a group of individuals related by common worship and faith." (p. 8).
In this case, the court found that "the Foundation did not provide regular religious services to an established congregation and concluded that "[t]he extent to which [the] Foundation brings people together to worship is incidental to its main function" of spreading its message through publication and broadcasting." Foundation II, 88 Fed. Cl. at 234.
One issue that did arise in this decision is that these definitions implicitly preference certain groups and types of associations, though this appears not to be addressed. In the digital age it does raise questions: How does this impact virtual congregations? What if you meet both on and offline? Do all the meetings need to be face to face? What does it mean to gather? What is a fellowship? Most of us have common sense answers to those questions. But as I have noted before there are those who contest those answers. My grandmother is not able to regularly attend church in person, particularly in the winter, but she watches her church's services televised on local TV with a friend. Did she attend church last Sunday?
For now the tax man has spoken, and although this case is precedent setting, be sure it isn't the last to explore "what is a church?"
A friend forwarded this story to me today (thanks Nick). Apparently all the theological debate about virtual church has been for naught; the IRS had a definition of a true church after all. The U.S Appeals Court (pdf) recently upheld a decision of the Federal Circuit Court that determined that The Foundation of Human Understanding's radio and internet ministry did not meet the definition of church. Here are the fourteen criteria of "church" that have been adopted by the IRS and applied in this case (Foundation I, 88 T.C. at 1357):
(1) a distinct legal existence;
(2) a recognized creed and form of worship;
(3) a definite and distinct ecclesiastical government;
(4) a formal code of doctrine and discipline;
(5) a distinct religious history;
(6) a membership not associated with any other church or denomination;
(7) an organization of ordained ministers;
(8) ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed studies;
(9) a literature of its own;
(10) established places of worship;
(11) regular congregations;
(12) regular religious services;
(13) Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young; and
(14) schools for the preparation of its ministers.
The court also applied the "associational test." This test defines a church as "an organization that includes a body of believers who assemble regularly for communal worship." (p. 5) This has been an important test in court cases that have determined that not every organization that is religious constitutes a church. As this decision argues, the religious organization must provide "the opportunity for members to develop a fellowship by worshipping together" and that a "church’s principal means of accomplishing its religious purposes must be to assemble regularly a group of individuals related by common worship and faith." (p. 8).
In this case, the court found that "the Foundation did not provide regular religious services to an established congregation and concluded that "[t]he extent to which [the] Foundation brings people together to worship is incidental to its main function" of spreading its message through publication and broadcasting." Foundation II, 88 Fed. Cl. at 234.
One issue that did arise in this decision is that these definitions implicitly preference certain groups and types of associations, though this appears not to be addressed. In the digital age it does raise questions: How does this impact virtual congregations? What if you meet both on and offline? Do all the meetings need to be face to face? What does it mean to gather? What is a fellowship? Most of us have common sense answers to those questions. But as I have noted before there are those who contest those answers. My grandmother is not able to regularly attend church in person, particularly in the winter, but she watches her church's services televised on local TV with a friend. Did she attend church last Sunday?
For now the tax man has spoken, and although this case is precedent setting, be sure it isn't the last to explore "what is a church?"