Starting January 1, 1984, all churches and schools which are exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code will be required to pay FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) taxes for each employee who is paid $100. or more in a calendar year. This change was made by the Congress virtually without opposition. Some churches took a position supporting the amendment on the ground of its benefit to their employees. It was also argued that the new tax is necessary to keep the Social Security program in existence. Further, churches and schools in many states already pay sales and excise taxes. The principle involved is plainly a tax on religion. Churches and religious schools are not afforded an option to pay, or not to pay, for an insurance program for their employees. The relatively small size of the tax 19 irrelevant (though to some the burden may be substantial). If religion may be taxed a little, why not greatly? The tax imposes obligations upon religious bodies in respect to the use and management of their own resources and with respect to the personnel of their ministries. What should be done with respect to this change? it is our opinion that a test litigation would fail. Without spelling out detailed reasons, it is clear to us that the Supreme Court would not strike down the amended law. The ly remedy we see is through the Congress. Corrective legislation should be prepared and introduced at a very early date. Если вже William B. Ball WBB:dh IN DEPTH The New Social Security Law As regular readers of FOCUS ON FREEDOM know, churches, Christian schools and other nonprofit organizations must begin paying Social Security taxes on their employees beginning January 1. 1984. In the past, enrollment under the program has been optional, not mandatory. Many pastors have voiced their opposition to the new law; some, in fact, have indicated they will not pay Social Security taxes on their employees. There is considerable reason for their opposition. Social Security (F.I.C.A.) payments are taxes. The employer. in this case churches and Christian schools, are responsible for one-half of the tax. The other half is deducted from the employees' salary. The National Christian Action Coalition (NCAC). a Washingtonbased lobbying organization, has examined possible legislative remedies. In their August newsletter. they report that the only reasonable solution would be to repeal that section of the new law which applies to religious, nonprofit organizations. The normal route for such a repeal would be through the Senate Finance Committee (Bob Dole, R-KS, Chairman) and the House Ways and Means Committee (Dan Rostenkowski. D-IL.. Chairman. "Unless there is a massive telephone and mail effort targeted at those Committees from 'mainstream and independent churches, and Christian schools." cautions NCAC. "the Congress will not even move off first base. Look at it realistically: Nobody wants to reopen the Social Security 'can of worms. NCAC does suggest, however, that there is an alternative if the committees fail to act. A repealer amendment could be attached to a finance bill on the floor of the Senate. To take advantage of this strategy, those seeking the repeal would need: (1) an appropriate "vehicle;" i.e., a finance bill that was "veto-proof;" (2) a Senator willing to introduce the amendment; and. (3) promises of votes from 51 Senators. It is possible that the new law will be challenged in the courts. The Christian Law Association, based in Cleveland, Ohio, is currently examining that prospect. The way it would happen is this: On January 1, a church governing board could write a letter to Treasury Secretary Reagan politely informing him that they have no intention of paying F.I.C.A. taxes. Soon thereafter. the government would bring legal action against the church. What happens then is anybody's guess. Judging by how the Supreme Court ruled on the Bob Jones University case, the church could lose. However, there have been recent cases involving Christian organizations and the National Labor Relations Board which give some cause for optimism. In conclusion, it should be noted that many churches and Christian schools already pay Social Security taxes for their employees. That is not really the issue. The issue is: Can such a tax be mandatorily levied against the church? Sometime in the next year we should know. Focus on Freedom is published twice monthly by the Christian Education and Research Foundation, Capitol I, Suite 306, 5515 Cherokee Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia, 22312. William Billings, Editor. Subscription rate: 50 copies of each issue-$7.50/month; 100 copies-$10.00/month; rates for additional copies on request. BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES: What are the biblical principles underlying the refusal of RBCS as a religious ministry to pay taxes in any form to civil government? We don't have space for an exhaustive teaching on this subject. Therefore, I will simply sketch the logic that underlies our position. After describing the biblical basis for our stand, I will then turn to our constitutional basis. What's the big issue? The big issue is the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In Matthew 28:18-20 we read these words in the New American Standard Version (NASV): And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." This passage tells us that Jesus has all authority both in heaven and on earth. Christians who believe the Word of God must, therefore, submit to the authority of Jesus Christ in every area of life. In considering the authorities that Christ has set up through His Word, we can determine that God has established various jurisdictions in His system of government. God commands each Christian to be responsible for self government. God requires each family to operate in accordance with the principles He lays down for family government. God gives commands to the local church and also gives commands laying down the basis for civil government. When Christ commands us to make disciples of all the nations, He is giving the followers of Christ the mission of cultivating more followers. When He says that we must teach them, "All that I commanded you," He is giving each Christian a responsibility to disciple others in accordance with the truth that Christ has laid down in His Word. When Jesus concludes, "I am with you always, even to the end of the age," He is emphasizing the fact that Jesus Christ is alive, is in authority and rules continually over His people. Another passage relevant to this subject is Romans 13:1-8. That passage reads as follows: LET every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For In This passage joins others to lay down the basis for human government. The concept of government is not restricted to civil government, for we are cautioned to be in subjection to the governing authorities. And we are told all authorities are established by God. In the home this means parental authority. a local church it would mean the authority of church officers, such as elders and deacons. In civil government it would refer to civil rulers whether kings, governors, or sheriffs. In all cases, authority rests upon God's authority. The basis for obedience is that authority is exercised under God's authority. God has established authority as a minister unto us for good. Thus we have the principle that Christians are to obey human authority because such authority is a servant of God. Quite clearly, if a civil government operates in accordance with God's authority, there will never be a reason for us to disobey. We would obey not only because of wrath (that is, because of fear of punishment for getting caught), but also for conscience' sake. That means, we obey because it is right to do so. Now what do we do if human authorities give conflicting commands? Suppose for example, a district court judge orders a person to carry out a certain act, but a court of appeals reverses the lower court's order. What is the citizen to do? The answer, of course, is to obey the higher authority. What do we do if human authority gives a command contrary to the commands of God? This question was put to the Sanhedrin by the apostles Peter and John: "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge." (Acts 4:19) The apostles were clearly stating that those in authority had the responsibility for discerning whether or not they were acting in accordance with the authority of God and if not, whether it was more important to obey God rather than man. The apostles supply a clear answer to their question in Acts 5:29 where they say, "We must obey God rather than men." The principle then is one of Lordship. When Jesus Christ commands His children, no authority can justly overrule. Let's consider another passage. Jesus had God's sovereignty in mind when the Pharisees tried to trap Him on the issue of individual Jews paying tax to Caesar. Not only must we pay lawful taxes laid on by civil government, but also we must render to God the things that are God's. We see that in the passage in Matthew 22:15-22. 1. It is appropriate to point out the difference between a tax on individuals This raises the question, "What is our responsibility to God, and what is our responsibility to Caesar?" Certainly if Caesar were to claim that which is God's, we must obey God rather than men. While the coin might be made in Caesar's image, man was created in God's image. Statist Humanist doctrine claims that the state is sovereign over all, and grants liberty as it chooses to its subjects. God tells us that He has created man in His image. Man is to exercise dominion over the earth as God's vice-regent. Human government is organized by man to protect God-given liberty and maintain justice. When the issue is the education of children we must then ask the question, "To whom does God give jurisdiction over the education of children?" A basis for the answer to this question is, "Who owns our children?" Some might answer, "The state owns the children." No biblical authority however, is found for such an idea. Others might respond that the parents own the children. Again, such an answer is not to be found in Scripture. Scripture makes it quite clear that the children are owned by God and given to parents in stewardship. Psalm 127:3 says, "Behold, children are a gift of the LORD; The fruit of the womb is a reward." If then parents are stewards over God's children, what responsibilities in particular do parents have? It is not my purpose to comprehensibly answer this question, but to focus on the one pertinent to this study. Parents are clearly made responsible for the education of their children. In Deuteronomy, Chapter 4, God calls attention to the fact that He has laid down statutes and judgments to be taught to His people. Verse 1 says, "AND now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I am teaching you to perform...." In verse 8 He says: Or what great nation is there that has statutes and judgments as Before moving to the next passage I would like to point out that the principle of these verses is that what God has taught us, we are obligated to teach our children, and a result of our teaching must be that our children learn to fear, or reverence, God all their days. Then in Deuteronomy, Chapter 6, Moses points out that God has commanded him to teach the people to obey God's law. In verse 2 he says, "so that you and your son and your grandson might fear the LORD your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments, which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days might be prolonged." This responsibility to teach our children extends 24 hours a day. That is seen in verse 7 where it is said, "and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead." The symbology in the latter words indicates that the principles of God must be in the operation of our hand and in our mind. In Deuteronomy, Chapter 11, God again instructs His children in verse 18: "You shall therefore impress these words of mine on your heart and on your soul; and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. And you shall teach them to your sons, talking of them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road and when you lie down and when you rise up." In Jeremiah 10:1-3 we read: HEAR the word which the LORD speaks to you, O house of Israel. Thus The warning to God's people is that they should not learn the way of heathen nations who are governed by their mythology, astrology, and so. The delusions that lead the world are not to lead God's children. In the New Testament in Ephesians 6:1-4 we read, "CHILDREN, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right." Verse 4 reads, "And, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." God's children are warned of their obligation in Colossians 2:8. "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." Paul also instructs us in 2 Corinthians 10:5 that Christians should be "destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, taking every thought captive to the obedience ... of Christ." These passages teach us that parents have the responsibility, if they are under the authority of God, to teach their children from the time they get up in the morning until the time they go to bed at night, to love God with all heart, mind and soul, and to develop a world view, a philosophy of life, a commitment of life under God's authority rather than in accordance |