I wouldn’t expect all to admit to it, frankly.
This is the strangest of strange occurrences: government guaranteed loans paying the salaries of pastors and other church and church related workers.
If you’re applying or have received the loan and want to explain your church’s thinking, feel free. I doubt that there will be a question on the ACP about it.
I’ve seen some SBCers weigh in against it as a general principle. The only serious warning I’ve seen on this was this.
Let’s assume that 100,000 religious organizations receive federal funding through the CARES Act and that 5,000 of those organizations fail to meet the requirements of the act to have their loans forgiven and therefore enter into a repayment program. And, let’s assume that of those 5,000 organizations, 1,000 find themselves unable to repay their loans on time – a one percent default rate.
What happens to those 1,000 organizations?
Good question. The author outlines a few possibilities.
I make no judgment about any church’s autonomous choice. These are strange times. For now, other questions are more pressing.
Its not a separation of church and state issue. Its a does your staff pay state and federal taxes like every other working American is required to? Then what is meant for some is meant for all. There is really no argument here at all.
There actually IS quite an argument with reasonable people disagreeing.
Use the money appropriately for what its intended for and THERE IS NO LEGAL ARGUMENT to make. Im sure there are plenty from the standpoint of conscience sake, just dwell here long enough. But if your church organization pays income tax like any other approved and governmentally valid organization there will be no payback as long as the funds are proven to have been used for prescribed purposes. The government called for this shutdown and are responsible to some degree to assist in its recovery. Keep good records and move ahead.
Btw you wrongly removed my comments from the Article on Mohler post and that should not have happened. It genuinely displays the one-sidedness that SBC voices represents.
Now you’re just being “intellectually lazy” and “UnChristlike,” Scott. Peace.
You are correct, Matt, but try not to insult others.
Seriously, Matt, if you have no intention of joining the conversation here and adding to it, but your only intent is to stop by and lob insults, you really probably could use your time better elsewhere.
Scott, I don’t actually know who removed your posts, but I support the action. You were not commenting ON THE TOPIC, but using the post to give political rants. Stay on topic.
I’m confused by your argument. Does your church pay taxes?
Of course it does. What church does not pay payroll taxes?
Mine
Bro. Dave, doesn’t your church pay payroll taxes (half of the Social Security and half of the Medicare) on your administrative assistant? If you pay a custodian, there would be more payroll taxes.
I did that. Some of your comments were highly inappropriate for a Christian blog. We can discuss things and disagree agreeably. I’m sure you can do better.
Use your Uncle Sam “Loan” as you call it William to pay for salaries, utilities, and mortgages, and there in no problem. It is a grant then. If you use it otherwise, you borrowed money from the government and were probably being deceptive.
Well, sure. The article linked speculated about churches in default. The government guarantees the loan. The loan docs are legal docs. It is entirely conceivable that churches, in their rush to get the cash, may have committed errors in the process. My guess is that the government doesn’t want to enforce the terms of the loan but we change administrations regularly. Maybe one will be hard nosed. I think it a certainly that some churches and religious entities (evangelists, schools, charitable orgs, etc) will have been deceptive, some deliberately so.
Government Financial Help (CARES)
We have all heard about the dangers of accepting government funds because of the possibility of some form of control being imposed later on. I have lived through this experience overseas. Traditionally, the Venezuelan government had offered funding for the state church in the form of building construction and salaries for the priest.
When our Baptist work begun in 1948, one of the principles of the work was to not accept any form of government help. This had been almost universally practiced until 1999 when a socialist/communist leader was elected. The popularity of his populist government led some of our younger leaders to look at the offer for financial help as part of the community effort to improve the lives of the people. Several of our churches accepted financial help in construction, etc.
Years later as the government became very antagonistic toward us Baptist because they couldn’t find a way to control us (no bishops, no ecclesiastical authority, etc.) they began to accuse our churches of having accepted government funding and therefore the government had a say in the use of our buildings. They were already sending government “spies” to our services since it was the only way to monitor our activities. In the words of one of the government leaders, we Baptist were (and are today) the largest “uncontrolled” groups in the country.
Those churches (Baptist and otherwise) that couldn’t prove that they used no government funding often had their church buildings taken over for “social” activities, etc. Over 51 church buildings and properties were appropriated in this manner. Now, even those who kept to the separation principle are having their facilities taken over if the government decides it is convenient.
I know we live in the land of the free, but we lived in a democracy in Venezuela when we first arrived there in 1979. When free stuff is offered there are way too many people willing to give away their freedom. I can guarantee that I will not lead my church that I pastor to accept the first penny from any source other than tithes and offerings.
One has to admit that Southern Baptists were once absolutely against any such things. We had national committees to watchdog government aid to schools and such.
That would Actually be a 20% default rAte. 95% met the requirement for forgiveness. But if those who did not 20% defaulted.
I haven’t suggested our church go this route and would, for numerous reasons, discourage it if the idea gained steam in our church….but for those whose churches prayerfully and thoughtfully have or will seek To engage in the PPP (or as the plodder has dubbed it the “Uncle Sam clergy payroll plan“) , I say go for it and good luck.
What happens to those 1,000 organizations?
The answer to your question is “What would have happened.to these organizations without the loan?”
Probably nothing. The PPP has been a gold rush for churches. I’d love to see the data on how many.
If I were a betting man – I would say not many churches do it…at least not many SBC.
I know 4 pastors personally of churches who got the loans.
Many more churches will take the loan than will publicly admit it because of the condemnatory attitudes of many.
Sheckles can certainly lead to shackles if one is not careful…and perhaps even if one is. Owe no man anything! That way, whatever God asks from us, we are free to give!
“The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends.” BF&M ‘25, ‘63, ‘00
Yes Robert, There seems pretty clear cut case against it in our confessional document.
This would be part of the reasoning I would use in discouraging church to have any part of the PPP. Thankfully our church has exceeded budgetary needs during the COVID shutdown and so there has not been much clamour for seeking outside help.
What other churches do…..well, there is that autonomy thing.
Why would a church need to take out a loan to meet its payroll? Don’t you collect tithes and offerings and plan a budget? What do you do when there’s a shortfall in normal times?
By God’s grace we managed to stay in the black during the entire time of quar, er, I mean, enforced shutdown. I would have attempted to do something else for an income before taking Caesars’s coin, though…
Bro. Dave, you may have missed a question to you. Scott Betts posted, “What church does not pay payroll taxes?”, and you answered “Mine.” I asked, ” doesn’t your church pay payroll taxes (half of the Social Security and half of the Medicare) on your administrative assistant? If you pay a custodian, there would be more payroll taxes.”
Don’t do much blogging on Tuesday and Wednesday. These days, that’s my office work and sermon day. We record on tonight. I am 3 hours from recording and my sermon is NOT ready.
That is why many churches use contractors instead of employees for lawn care, janitorial and such.
But with secretaries – you are correct…churches do pay 7.65% (I think that is right figure) of all employees like secretaries and such. I do not know if the megas have to do that with the plethora of directors, facilitators, orchestra, band and choir members they pay. 😉
Probably an obscure option but I think a church can make some election, once, for this. Guidestone probably has something on it buried deep in their website.
Question for pastors: How do you pose this issue to your members, or do you? I’m sure there are differing answers to this. Speaking from the pews, I’d want budget choices disclosed early on to all members b/c 1) the value of truth, respect and communication; 2) considering gov’t loans is a huge departure from the norm for Baptists (ref. BF&M above, and what you teach); members need the opportunity to know and do, if God leads us. This is a whole-church family issue and an opportunity for faith and good works. In an ideal world, I’d like my church to put the budget shortfall before us, projections, the options (including cuts that must be made absent increased $), and a set period of prayer.
If anyone would not put this before the church, what are the reasons? That’s a real question.
Good question. Any church I pastored would have a congregational vote. After all, the thing is a loan. My guess is that most churches require a church vote in order to borrow money in the church’s name. Some churches may delegate this to a committee.
That is good to hear. Any church taking a government loan to meet payroll for the first time in their history (which may include WWI, WWII and maybe even the Civil War) needs their membership on board, or at least forewarned.
The truth always comes out. Are identities of churches receiving PPP public record, or subject to FOIA requests? Please don’t put your members in position of finding out later from a Sunday morning newspaper article (imagine the title!).
I know some Baptist colleges have accepted the money. I wonder how many of our seminaries have accepted it and will they make it public. I am hesitant to say it is wrong since this is a circumstance that is unprecedented but this definitely is a big change from traditional Baptist beliefs and practices.
Found a few answers: NPR and CBS reported this week, based on a Lifeway survey, that about 40% of Protestant churches surveyed have applied for PPP – tending to be larger churches. I’m calling my church today to ask.
I was surprised to find a number of Baptist sources on how and why Baptist churches can/should take PPP, but otherwise kind of an eerie silence. Dave Ramsey, whom many of your people follow, remains consistently opposed to debt and is adamantly “triple negative” on PPP for churches.
Official SBC entities have been neutral on churches taking PPP loans. Some have offered guidance in the process for churches that decide to apply. That’s a proper role for SBC entities.
SBC’s ERLC is not neutral on this. Russell Moore’s article says taking PPP loans does NOT violate separation of church & state, and finds that every traditional Baptist reason against gov’t funds doesn’t apply here. As to churches that decide in good conscience not to apply? He allows he “would not condemn” you. (That’s immediately after comparing PPP to calling the fire department if your church is on fire). That’s an SBA green light, bordering on recommendation. Press is citing it.
I have read that 12,000 Catholic churches applied and 9,000 received the loan. I wonder what similar numbers are for Baptist churches. I wouldn’t have a problem with churches taking out a loan since this was brought about by a national emergency. The problem is that it turns into a grant. In other words free tax payer money paid to churches and religious institutions. I am sure Mormon, Buddhist and Muslim houses of worship are also receiving your and my tax money as a grant to pay salaries.
And I’m guessing most churches intend it to operate largely as a grant, rather than paying it all back.
This is interesting: “Churches in the U.S. were a crucial provider of social services through the early part of the twentieth century, but their role shrank dramatically [@30%, controlling for other factors] with the expansion in government spending under the New Deal.” (study in the Library of Congress). In other words, during the (unprecedented) Great Depression, government spending took over a share of what was formerly church charity — although churches continued to support themselves. Poverty is a terrible thing, and I’m sure churches suffered. Now, some seminary and other faith leaders say that applying for PPP, receiving loan/grants to pay our own commitments and pledges, is following Jesus’ command to love our neighbor. (SE Seminary). Who’s going to argue with that?
It’s a huge sea-change…question remains whether the rank-and-file know about it, or agree.