All Comments for: Goodbye Charity | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2009 > April (Web-only)

Christianity Today, April (Web-only), 2009 |

Speaking Out

Goodbye Charity

Churches and charitable institutions provide services that some politicians feel belong to the federal government.

Newt Gingrich and Rick Tyler | posted 4/20/2009 09:09AM

As with any administration, tax and spending policies are telling indicators of priorities. President Obama's plan to reduce the tax incentive for giving to churches and charities, while massively increasing ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 26 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

Brandon

Posted: April 22, 2009 2:52 PM

According to an article on the Christian Post, Obama's plan would reduce tax deductions for charitable donations from 34% to 27% (I may be 1 or 2% off) for individuals making over $200,000 or families making over $250,000. I think that diatribes like this make it sound as if all tax incentives will be eliminated. While I lament the potential money lost for charitable donations, I am afraid that polemics like this will reduce donations more than the numbers themselves, which are seldom included in the discussion.

Kerrick

Posted: April 22, 2009 11:26 AM

This is one of the best columns I have ever read! While relatively brief, it thoroughly describes ONE of the MANY problems socialism effectuates in our society - one that has been based on freedom and capitalism. It points out that even our charities and their many successes (before the U.S. unknown to this world) are even based on capitalism. To argue that "if you need a write-off you shouldn't be giving" is short sighted and tunnel-visioned. This view is focused solely on the gift, giver, and recipient, while the probelm and the subject at hand is the government. The issue is about how the goverment chooses to solve these social issues. By taking these incentives away, the Obama administration (and other socialists) are claiming that the government can provide better solutions than churches and charities. This historically, economically, and administratively FALSE notion will negatively impact our society - all in the name of political pandering!!

Matt K

Posted: April 22, 2009 10:04 AM

If Newt and his friend really were concerned about charitable giving, why did they not oppose George W. Bush's slashing of the estate tax? How many churches and charities will see estate gifts decline while the children of the privileged are given no opportunity for "responsibility" and "self-reliance" that the GOP allegedly espouses. We are in an extraordinary economic crisis that will take the efforts of church, state, family, and business working together to get out of it. The GOP is too busy playing politics to offer any positive contribution to the fight. Christians of all stripes, democrat and republican, need to put aside partisanship and fear in order to build a more caring and just society.

H. D. Schmidt

Posted: April 22, 2009 1:37 AM

For Christianity Today to listen to this jokester, that of Gingrich, is actually insulting to the Gospel. If Christians in America were truly prcticing Christians, the present tax code would not exist. This tax code is one of the devil's tools to keep Christianity in America, more pagan than Christian. This politician is just one of them. By the way may I put a word in for Ron Paul? He was not one them dirty ones. He spoke truth He would have restored credibility to this nation under God and therefore allowing Christians to go about doing good! Presently the American Empire is actually destroying Christianity in America and all over the world.

RandyT

Posted: April 21, 2009 9:28 PM

If all Christians tithed, our churches could meet all the needs and assistance to the poor. They do not and churches can not help the poor much less our middle class obtain resonable cost health care. I believe it was seven of the last eight years poverty increased in this country. Wages adjusted for inflation have decreased $800/year since 1973. Concentration of wealth to the top is now as great as prior to the Great Depression. All this has occoured under Republican and consevative Democratic leadership. Newt is another right winger wanting Obama to fail, for they are wanting back in power, to heck with American citizens. Growth of the federal government under Bush and a Republican congress was greater than anytime since the Second World War. Where was Newt then?

Trierr

Posted: April 21, 2009 3:26 PM

The article seems to believe that because something worked 170 years ago, it should still be valid now. We, however, are not at all the same people as de Tocqueville spoke of. And to imply that if the government takes on more of the responsibility of social services that churches will somehow be harmed is disingenuous at best. These kind of social services will always be a free market. Clients will be free to seek out church based or non-church-based as they please. The question becomes whether church-based services can provide better service for their clients. The assumption of the article is no, so the government must not compete in this arena and weaken the churches. It seems to forget that the reason we have government social services is that the needs weren't being met by the church in the first place. And given that churches spend roughly 90% of their income on themselves, this seems unlikely to change.

Creed Pogue

Posted: April 21, 2009 2:49 PM

If you listen to Newt Gingrich long enough, you realize that he is either talking because he loves the sound of his own voice or he is one of the biggest flim-flam artists going today. How much is $7 billion out of all of the giving to churches and charities? Are we talking about even 1%? Two-thirds of Americans do not get a tax break from their charitiable giving whether to churches or museums having Mapplethorpe exhibits because they do not itemize their deductions. Obama isn't talking about eliminating the charitable contributions deduction but instead capping it at 28% which would only affect those making over $200,000 a year. Gingrich falls into that category, but the overwhelming majority of Americans even Christian Americans (probably even the editorial staff of CT) do NOT. He knows this, but is willing to lie for political gain anyway. Isn't that false witness? I would think that is a problem for any Christian even a thrice-married newly minted Catholic.

Robyn

Posted: April 21, 2009 1:51 PM


There is nothing that the government can do that should ever discourage us from giving of our financial resources to churches and Christian charities. God call us to give. So we give. Not because of an tax deduction. Anyone who would think twice about giving based on the loss of tax benefit isn't giving with pure intentions anyway.

CE	Posted: April 21, 2009 1:44 PM


The amount of money given to support the work of Christ on earth should not be proportional to the size of the reward we expect to receive from the government. Giving comes from the condition of the heart and the strength of faith. I am disappointed that this politically charged story built upon a faulty non-biblical premise about giving found its way into CT.

Cindy

Posted: April 21, 2009 12:55 PM

The value in morality, work ethic, and general contribution to society that is provided through and by churches and other non-for-profit organizations cannot be measured. It goes far beyond the provision of financial assistance, it goes to the human condition. At times of crisis and economic downturn, the attendance in churches goes up.... why? People are looking for HOPE! Helping people work through their problems, finding communities of friendship, and assistance in parenting.... it goes on. I understand that prayer had to be taken from schools for the sake of equality of religious opportunity, but look at the crime rate, delinquency and deterioration of the home-life of millions of Amercians since that occurred.... Is there a direct correlation? The church and other charitable organizations provide so much more than a free meal, a night's lodging and or medical assistance--all which are needed, but consider the human spirit--the work ethic--the moral fiber of our society. HIGH RISK

Joe	Posted: April 21, 2009 12:16 PM

President Obama reminds me of Chairman Mao: very popular with certain groups of people, especially young people; has grand plan to change a country, religiously pursue centralization of power not just in the government, but in the hands of a few, takes away personal freedom, implement the agenda under the guise of "common good". Let us look at the results under Mao. Is that the country we want for the United States?

J.Randall W

Posted: April 21, 2009 9:15 AM

Lurking behind the curtain is the real agenda, the accumulation of power and elevation of the state to paternal status. The state seeks to usurp the authority of and place of God in people's lives. The church exists as a challenge to that position. It is interesting to note that where ever the state arises as the source of our "daily bread", the influence of the religion in daily life diminishes. Social democratically run countries and purely socialist countries are countries where Christianity has been marginalized, weakened and in some instances eliminated. The State is God. The Mother or Fatherland provide all you need. When coupled with the recent Newsweek front page on the decline of Christianity and the rise of secularism, we see the early stages of intolerance being formed. It will all be done in the name of progressivism. It is sad that progressive movements are so prone to statism.

Elizabeth

Posted: April 21, 2009 9:08 AM


Agree with "drivel" comment. Why is the supposedly non-biased CT providing a platform for right-wing ideologues? Isn't Rick Tyler the Texas governor who wants to secede, or is that another Rick? This is really inappropriate. Next up: a photo essay on the "tea parties." You guys can do better.

Christian Lawyer

Posted: April 20, 2009 9:52 PM

Newt is hysterical. He says "Whether intentional or not (and we suspect it is intentional), instituting policies so that intermediating institutions that [provide charity] are systematically weakened undermines civil society in ways that are incompatible with our country's survival." Here are the actual facts: "Under Obama's proposal, the tax deduction for those with incomes over $250,000 -- which is now 35 cents for each dollar donated -- would be limited to 28 percent. That would return the rate to where it was during President Ronald Reagan's administration." Wash. Post article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/25/AR200903250 3103.html Hardly "incompatible with our country's survival." Good grief! Why does CT publish his drivel?

Nay	Posted: April 20, 2009 5:55 PM

The bible speaks endlessly on charity and generousity. To add to many of people that have commented (and those who thought about it), "if you need a write-off you shouldn't be giving". Good, bad or indifferent people need to see the joy of giving. Churches and charity need not promote the tax refunds but more the personal benefits to ones soul and overall goodness. "Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to." Deu 15:10. I believe this to be true of most charitable people and that makes me truely happy inside. ;)

Tom	Posted: April 20, 2009 4:39 PM

Mr. Obama and his cohorts need to review the US History a little. When the US needed to finance WW1 by taxing the people, the government instituted the charitable deduction as a way of encouraging giving in the private sector so that churches and charities could take up the slack in social services created by the re direction of funds to finance the expesne of WW1. To discourage charitable giving is to reverse a nearly century long system in the US that has made soical services more accessible at the local level and giving contributors a say in the focus and direction of the various agencies involved. This has created a group of "interested donors" because they can designate their contribution to the kinds of services that are needed in their area or are of special inportance to the donor. Obama's plan is one that says, we'll take your money and spend it how we see fit because you don't know how to direct your funds. No good can come of this.

Kim	Posted: April 20, 2009 4:00 PM


I think we have to see the bigger picture. This article speaks to a trend to further marginalize religious organizations, their members and their value. It speaks to a trend to give government more and more power, people less. The God I serve isn't about that. He's about freedom to choose, for good or bad. Change we can believe in? I think that would be Jesus Christ, not Obama.

Leslie

Posted: April 20, 2009 3:55 PM

Very interesting article. And debate. I don't like the idea that Obama and Congress will take away those tax breaks... simply because I believe it encourages civil responsibility in larger corporations. (By the way, my spell checker is highlighting Obama in red - the man has been in office for months, how sad that the spell checker doesn't recognize his name... *sigh* anyway back to my original thoughts...) As Christians we are either taught that we 1) must give tithes or 2) to show our love to God we must give tithes or 3) that we should tithe (if we love God) etc.... Not saying that I think preachers who talk about money all the time are annoying (well, they are) but that we need to be constantly reminded that money is a tool to be used. The world in general is not reminded of this act of charity (pun intended), but the tax breaks maybe gave them a little bit of a taste that it truly is better to give than to receive. But then, I'm for small government anyway :)

Adam S

Posted: April 20, 2009 3:10 PM

SS, I think you misunderstand me. I am not complaining about church based organizations. I think that many church organizations seek out those in need. What I am saying is that by the very nature of small non-profits, they are local and do not help everyone. So you will never be able to have local non-profits (or even national non-profits) take over the social service work of government because while non-profits often do great work and sometimes it is both cheaper and more effective, what it is not is universally available.

K.	Posted: April 20, 2009 2:26 PM


Obama's plan to limit charitable deductions is just a way to increase the taxes people pay. That's it. There's no hidden anti-religious agenda here. That said, I do disagree with him...

Scott Williamson

Posted: April 20, 2009 2:20 PM

I, too, disagree with President Obama's plan to limit charitable deductions. However, I see no reason to divine an intent on his part to diminish religious and civic organizations. I don't doubt that he thinks his ideas are what's best for America, mistaken though he may be. To darkly suggest nefarious motives only further tarnishes the image of conservatives in public life by making them seem fearful and unreasonably distrustful.

Kevin Alexander

Posted: April 20, 2009 1:45 PM

While I agree with most of the ideas, let me point out something else. Charitable donations are one thing. Tithing in the context of the Church is something else. It is not simply a freedom granted by a civil authority. It is a fundamental attribute of the Kingdom of God. Therefore, while I certainly believe it is unhealthy to punish those who would give to charities, I also think that too much charitable contribution is focused on tax breaks instead of truly giving to a worthy cause. But again, this isn't the business of the government to determine. It is God's place alone to determine that, because it has to do with the heart. Man looks on the outside, but God looks upon the heart, right? That being said, I do find it interesting that the President gave 6 percent to charities. Perhaps that might be forming his apparently hostile attitude.

Xinosaj

Posted: April 20, 2009 1:37 PM

I can't trust a word of this article because it was co-written by Newt Gingrich. But even assuming that this article is 100% accurate - a first for an article in the "conservative media" - Obama won't have any choice but to nickle and dime the country. The huge deficit handed to him by that great born-again Christian W makes sure of that. When some religious nutcase who speaks using evangelical-ish language tries to take out the commander in chief with a sniper rifle - something that, tragically, is bound to happen in the next couple years - don't expect the country to think much of your "priorities" then. And don't forget - Newt Gingrich is the guy who cheated on his wife and left her on her death bed.

SS	Posted: April 20, 2009 12:11 PM

Adam - there are a lot of Christian ministries that deliberately go out into areas that are hurting, rather than stay in their own immediate communities. While I'll agree if your point is that there should be more of that going on, I think you are overgeneralizing. Much Christian ministry is unnoticed by the public at large -- partly because those working in ministry don't toot their own horns - and partly because the secular society refuses to see anything but the failings of the church.

Garrick

Posted: April 20, 2009 12:05 PM


As Bono said, "The God I believe in, isn't short of cash, mister!" Not saying I am a fan of the Obama plan, just that I doubt that this will be any type of serious blow to churches and charitites.

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment