Earlier this week, Barbara Crabb, a federal judge in the Western District of Wisconsin, struck down the portion of a 1954 federal law that allows clergy to exclude for federal income tax purposes a portion or all of their gross income as a housing allowance. Judge Crabb claimed that the provision violates the First Amendment.
Her ruling will have no immediate impact. In fact, Judge Crabb herself blocked enforcement of her opinion until it can face appeal - which will certainly happen. The case will move immediately to the Seventh Circuit Court. In the meantime, though, we would be wise to think about this benefit that is extended to clergy.
In all likelihood, Judge Crabb's ruling will not stand. This same issue has surfaced many times in the past - and, today, members of the clergy still have their housing allowance. But the survival of the benefit does not necessarily mean that the benefit is a good thing.
In fact, as a member of the clergy, I happen to think that Judge Crabb is right. I suppose that a case could be made that the clergy housing allowance is constitutional. That will likely be the heart of the upcoming argument. Even if that's true, however, the housing allowance is probably not wise.
Her ruling will have no immediate impact. In fact, Judge Crabb herself blocked enforcement of her opinion until it can face appeal - which will certainly happen. The case will move immediately to the Seventh Circuit Court. In the meantime, though, we would be wise to think about this benefit that is extended to clergy.
In all likelihood, Judge Crabb's ruling will not stand. This same issue has surfaced many times in the past - and, today, members of the clergy still have their housing allowance. But the survival of the benefit does not necessarily mean that the benefit is a good thing.
In fact, as a member of the clergy, I happen to think that Judge Crabb is right. I suppose that a case could be made that the clergy housing allowance is constitutional. That will likely be the heart of the upcoming argument. Even if that's true, however, the housing allowance is probably not wise.
I have always been uncomfortable with the clergy housing allowance. Not uncomfortable enough not to take advantage of the benefit, of course - but still uncomfortable. What it means is that my housing expenses are not subject to federal income tax. It turns out to be a significant benefit, and it is extended to ministers in any faith tradition. The allowance (section 107 of the federal tax code) became law in 1954. At that time, many congregations maintained parsonages and this new provision allowed ministers not to claim their housing as part of their income. Parsonages are church-owned properties. And they are still around today, of course. But they are not nearly as common as they were in 1954.
The actual argument behind the 1954 allowance was based on the value to the community that clergy provide. Evidently, people believed that the presence of clergy was a good thing, and the housing benefit was a way to acknowledge their contribution to the health and well-being of the community. Since the benefit was extended to religious leaders of all faiths, people felt that such a benefit was neutral to religion.
I appreciate the good will behind that 1954 decision. I love the fact that at least some people see my presence in the community as a good thing. But I'm not sure that I should get a tax break simply because I have the title of "pastor." There are many people in my community who contribute much more to our town than I do. And it troubles me that I get a break on my taxes when they don't. Even more, other people are forced to pay more tax because I am allowed to pay less. At the most basic level, that is simply not fair.
But that's not the only problem. The deeper problem is the government extending special treatment to religious leaders. As a member of the clergy, I do not want special treatment from the government - even if that special treatment results in a significant reduction of my tax bill.
Those who oppose Judge Crabb's ruling point to the financial impact that her ruling will potentially have on ministers and churches. And that concern is completely valid. All the same, we are in grave danger when our theology is determined by economic arguments. We can talk all day about the economic cost of taking this benefit away - without ever asking whether the benefit should have been there in the first place.
Just for the record, this recent ruling of Judge Crabb will be billed as yet another example of the government's opposition to religion. But that's not what this is about. This is actually about special treatment extended to a certain group - special treatment that turns out to do more harm than good.
If I am dependent on a special favor from the government, then I am beholden to the government. As a minister of the gospel - as a follower of Jesus - I do not want to be beholden to anyone other than Jesus.
For my part, I respectfully would prefer not to have the help. I appreciate the good intentions, but it is dangerous for me to accept that kind of preferential treatment - even if refusing it carries great personal cost.
I realize that my ministry colleagues will read this blog with amazement. Who in their right mind would argue against a tax benefit like this? And maybe my colleagues are right.
On the other hand, maybe this is specifically the kind of help that the faith community does not need. Without this kind of help, maybe we are more likely to tell the truth and do our work. Without this kind of help, we are free to answer only to our Audience of One.
Yes, it's pretty foolish to argue against a benefit like this one. At the same time, let's allow our theology to drive our economics - and not the other way around. Clergy, of all people, should see the wisdom in that.
The actual argument behind the 1954 allowance was based on the value to the community that clergy provide. Evidently, people believed that the presence of clergy was a good thing, and the housing benefit was a way to acknowledge their contribution to the health and well-being of the community. Since the benefit was extended to religious leaders of all faiths, people felt that such a benefit was neutral to religion.
I appreciate the good will behind that 1954 decision. I love the fact that at least some people see my presence in the community as a good thing. But I'm not sure that I should get a tax break simply because I have the title of "pastor." There are many people in my community who contribute much more to our town than I do. And it troubles me that I get a break on my taxes when they don't. Even more, other people are forced to pay more tax because I am allowed to pay less. At the most basic level, that is simply not fair.
But that's not the only problem. The deeper problem is the government extending special treatment to religious leaders. As a member of the clergy, I do not want special treatment from the government - even if that special treatment results in a significant reduction of my tax bill.
Those who oppose Judge Crabb's ruling point to the financial impact that her ruling will potentially have on ministers and churches. And that concern is completely valid. All the same, we are in grave danger when our theology is determined by economic arguments. We can talk all day about the economic cost of taking this benefit away - without ever asking whether the benefit should have been there in the first place.
Just for the record, this recent ruling of Judge Crabb will be billed as yet another example of the government's opposition to religion. But that's not what this is about. This is actually about special treatment extended to a certain group - special treatment that turns out to do more harm than good.
If I am dependent on a special favor from the government, then I am beholden to the government. As a minister of the gospel - as a follower of Jesus - I do not want to be beholden to anyone other than Jesus.
For my part, I respectfully would prefer not to have the help. I appreciate the good intentions, but it is dangerous for me to accept that kind of preferential treatment - even if refusing it carries great personal cost.
I realize that my ministry colleagues will read this blog with amazement. Who in their right mind would argue against a tax benefit like this? And maybe my colleagues are right.
On the other hand, maybe this is specifically the kind of help that the faith community does not need. Without this kind of help, maybe we are more likely to tell the truth and do our work. Without this kind of help, we are free to answer only to our Audience of One.
Yes, it's pretty foolish to argue against a benefit like this one. At the same time, let's allow our theology to drive our economics - and not the other way around. Clergy, of all people, should see the wisdom in that.