Sounds like someone thought they were doing something to benefit both the host church and the guest church. Unfortunately it could end both. One would think the district president should have been notified, (if they hadn't been), before coming to Ad Crucem. Makes me wonder what kind of governance this church had to have this happen for so long.
In the last post on this matter, it was brought up that both the whistleblower and Ar Crucem reached out to the DP. The DP claimed not to know who Ad Crucem was and generally blew off the inquiry. His office also didn't communicate with the whistleblower.
The detail here that the church is Spanish language makes that make more sense to me.
That being the case, I think the DP bares some responsibility in this matter. He should be removed from office. We seem to have quite a few people that love the title but not the responsibility.
Desperation all the way around. The membership's giving of leftovers instead of first fruits requires a Lutheran congregation to seek income from renting to stay afloat. Renting to advance a false teaching church to boot. We are reaping the whirlwind. It is not uncommon and it is just delaying demise, for the Lord will not be mocked.
Important reporting. I only wonder at your assertion that "a numbered giving envelope ... declares to the IRS and real members that [the guest congregation] is a bona fide member." I have not seen numbered giving envelopes treated as an exclusive token of membership. In a few churches, I have seen non-member regular attendees assigned numbered envelopes (either at their request or at the financial secretary's insistence).
Nonetheless, what you lay out, as documented by the whistleblower, is clearly mishandling.
Thank you, Pastor. If a numbered envelope was distributed ad hoc, that argument might viable. However, the assignment of numbered envelopes and the purpose written on the checks, combined with disclosures to members, reveal a compelling pattern of evidence treating the payments as offerings.
One of the most eye-opening experiences of my life was when I was involved in an LCMS planting 20+ years ago.
I commend the pastor for working his tail off trying to get the church started. For several years he worked a side job, held Sunday services in a school cafeteria, and walked the streets knocking on doors to invite people to join.
However, when it came time to submit the finance package, he knowingly committed fraud.
I don't remember the exact details, but if the local church had enough weekly attending members and enough pledged giving, they could apply to the national planting committee for financial assistance. At the time, the national body would co-sign the building loan and provide seed funding for a couple of years.
The state Department of Transportation put out a planning document about possible future road and bridge construction. In our community there was a POSSIBLE project. If the community grew by X number of people, that state said they would convert a two-lane highway into a four-lane divided highway.
The night before the packet was to be submitted, someone on the financing committee changed the official state document to say that the state PREDICTED the community would grow, so they were going to build the road. When I mentioned the intentionally misleading change to the pastor, he said, "This is just how things work." The national committee made their decision based on the false premise that the community was going to grow.
The community didn't grow. The church tried to chug along with an annual weekly attendance of 40-50 people. The national committee got stuck with a $350,000 bill when the local church defaulted on their loan.
In that pastor's mind, the ends justified the means. He was willing to commit a 'little harmless fraud' if it meant his church was going to be built.
Yes, it sounds a lot like the situation you are describing in this article.
Someone notices a 'harmless' way to save some taxes... A pastor looks the other way. After all, it takes money to do the Lord's work. The larger church tosses around the eighth commandment and plausible deniability to avoid public responsibility.
This is a serious allegation that sounds credible because of the depth of detail reported. I would like to hear the other side of the story from congregational leaders and/or the District President. "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." - Prov. 18:17.
If they choose not to respond, I will have to conclude that the reporting is substantially true.
It is an act of love to point out that the actions of a sister congregation may constitute tax fraud, especially since the situation threatens the survival of the congregation. You say that someone attempted to address the situation privately, through proper channels, and was ignored. It is thus appropriate to report this publicly. Your steps to protect the identity of the congregation and people involved are commendable.
Thank you, Matt. I long for a call from the District and Synod that says, “we have sent in a rescue team, would you mind holding off until we stabilize the situation? We are doing XYZ to address the critical deficiencies. We will give you updates at least once a month so that you can verify the progress.” That will be the end of the matter for us unless there are circumstances requiring additional reporting.
All ecclesial and congregational authorities were asked to respond to itemized problems in the congregation. The whistleblower was ignored, and the DP recommended that everyone remain silent.
The LCMS Constitution, Article XIII, Expulsion from the Synod, states: “1. Members who… persist in an offensive conduct, shall, after previous futile admonition, be expelled from the Synod.”
This includes both individual members and member congregations.
The first question is whether the LCMS (including the Commission on Constitutional Matters) considers that it is “offensive conduct” for an LCMS congregation to classify rental payments as “donations” rather than reporting the income as Unrelated Business Taxable Income (UBTI) under IRC § 512.
The Synod President, the Southeastern District President, the congregation’s pastor, the current congregational president, a former congregational president, and the current treasurer of the LCMS congregation directly or indirectly have knowledge of, or participation in, the activities described in the Ad Crucem articles.
The second question then is whether the various synodical and district officials are carrying out their responsibilities under LCMS Bylaws 2.14, 2.15, or possibly 2.16.
[7] Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
Yes, the church tells US we need to pay OUR taxes but then...? Didn't Jesus pay the Temple Tax? But, really, how did they grow the church in the era of the Book of Acts without sound boards, video screens, and youth gatherings? Possibly the Holy Spirit? :D
Sounds like someone thought they were doing something to benefit both the host church and the guest church. Unfortunately it could end both. One would think the district president should have been notified, (if they hadn't been), before coming to Ad Crucem. Makes me wonder what kind of governance this church had to have this happen for so long.
In the last post on this matter, it was brought up that both the whistleblower and Ar Crucem reached out to the DP. The DP claimed not to know who Ad Crucem was and generally blew off the inquiry. His office also didn't communicate with the whistleblower.
The detail here that the church is Spanish language makes that make more sense to me.
That being the case, I think the DP bares some responsibility in this matter. He should be removed from office. We seem to have quite a few people that love the title but not the responsibility.
thatthatthat
Demonstrative nouns are the foundation of the King's English.
Desperation all the way around. The membership's giving of leftovers instead of first fruits requires a Lutheran congregation to seek income from renting to stay afloat. Renting to advance a false teaching church to boot. We are reaping the whirlwind. It is not uncommon and it is just delaying demise, for the Lord will not be mocked.
Important reporting. I only wonder at your assertion that "a numbered giving envelope ... declares to the IRS and real members that [the guest congregation] is a bona fide member." I have not seen numbered giving envelopes treated as an exclusive token of membership. In a few churches, I have seen non-member regular attendees assigned numbered envelopes (either at their request or at the financial secretary's insistence).
Nonetheless, what you lay out, as documented by the whistleblower, is clearly mishandling.
Thank you, Pastor. If a numbered envelope was distributed ad hoc, that argument might viable. However, the assignment of numbered envelopes and the purpose written on the checks, combined with disclosures to members, reveal a compelling pattern of evidence treating the payments as offerings.
One of the most eye-opening experiences of my life was when I was involved in an LCMS planting 20+ years ago.
I commend the pastor for working his tail off trying to get the church started. For several years he worked a side job, held Sunday services in a school cafeteria, and walked the streets knocking on doors to invite people to join.
However, when it came time to submit the finance package, he knowingly committed fraud.
I don't remember the exact details, but if the local church had enough weekly attending members and enough pledged giving, they could apply to the national planting committee for financial assistance. At the time, the national body would co-sign the building loan and provide seed funding for a couple of years.
The state Department of Transportation put out a planning document about possible future road and bridge construction. In our community there was a POSSIBLE project. If the community grew by X number of people, that state said they would convert a two-lane highway into a four-lane divided highway.
The night before the packet was to be submitted, someone on the financing committee changed the official state document to say that the state PREDICTED the community would grow, so they were going to build the road. When I mentioned the intentionally misleading change to the pastor, he said, "This is just how things work." The national committee made their decision based on the false premise that the community was going to grow.
The community didn't grow. The church tried to chug along with an annual weekly attendance of 40-50 people. The national committee got stuck with a $350,000 bill when the local church defaulted on their loan.
In that pastor's mind, the ends justified the means. He was willing to commit a 'little harmless fraud' if it meant his church was going to be built.
That's terrible. Very sorry to hear it. God save us from ourselves.
Yes, it sounds a lot like the situation you are describing in this article.
Someone notices a 'harmless' way to save some taxes... A pastor looks the other way. After all, it takes money to do the Lord's work. The larger church tosses around the eighth commandment and plausible deniability to avoid public responsibility.
This is a serious allegation that sounds credible because of the depth of detail reported. I would like to hear the other side of the story from congregational leaders and/or the District President. "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." - Prov. 18:17.
If they choose not to respond, I will have to conclude that the reporting is substantially true.
It is an act of love to point out that the actions of a sister congregation may constitute tax fraud, especially since the situation threatens the survival of the congregation. You say that someone attempted to address the situation privately, through proper channels, and was ignored. It is thus appropriate to report this publicly. Your steps to protect the identity of the congregation and people involved are commendable.
Thank you, Matt. I long for a call from the District and Synod that says, “we have sent in a rescue team, would you mind holding off until we stabilize the situation? We are doing XYZ to address the critical deficiencies. We will give you updates at least once a month so that you can verify the progress.” That will be the end of the matter for us unless there are circumstances requiring additional reporting.
Just in case you did not see the first article in this series: https://www.adcrucem.news/p/another-congregational-governance
All ecclesial and congregational authorities were asked to respond to itemized problems in the congregation. The whistleblower was ignored, and the DP recommended that everyone remain silent.
The LCMS Constitution, Article XIII, Expulsion from the Synod, states: “1. Members who… persist in an offensive conduct, shall, after previous futile admonition, be expelled from the Synod.”
This includes both individual members and member congregations.
The first question is whether the LCMS (including the Commission on Constitutional Matters) considers that it is “offensive conduct” for an LCMS congregation to classify rental payments as “donations” rather than reporting the income as Unrelated Business Taxable Income (UBTI) under IRC § 512.
The Synod President, the Southeastern District President, the congregation’s pastor, the current congregational president, a former congregational president, and the current treasurer of the LCMS congregation directly or indirectly have knowledge of, or participation in, the activities described in the Ad Crucem articles.
The second question then is whether the various synodical and district officials are carrying out their responsibilities under LCMS Bylaws 2.14, 2.15, or possibly 2.16.
From the minimal official response to queries, it is evident that answers to these questions will likely remain under the LCMS "cone of silence" (https://c.tenor.com/B17n3YbtiEAAAAAd/cone-of-silence-talking.gif).
Romans 13:7
[7] Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
Yes, the church tells US we need to pay OUR taxes but then...? Didn't Jesus pay the Temple Tax? But, really, how did they grow the church in the era of the Book of Acts without sound boards, video screens, and youth gatherings? Possibly the Holy Spirit? :D