Indianapolis church revisited

The Feb. 13 seizure of an Indiana church sent shock waves through Christian communities across the nation. Many watched on television as Greg J. Dixon, pastor emeritus of the Indianapolis Baptist Temple, was carried out of the sanctuary on a stretcher while his son, current Pastor Greg A. Dixon, walked beside him. U.S. marshals and local police carried other church members out as well, after the property was cordoned off and the agent-in-charge, Marshal Frank Anderson, read the court order confiscating the church for not collecting taxes from its employees.

After the seizure, media that had covered the 92-day standoff between parishioners and the Justice Department disappeared. But IBT had rekindled a debate as old as the Union: What exactly is the relationship between church and state?

While courts maintain that "generally applicable" laws related to taxation and the withholding of income taxes apply to churches and do not violate First Amendment-protected rights to the free exercise of religion, some circles in Christendom assert that the government has run roughshod over what the Founders intended to be a government that is completely hands-off when it comes to churches.

The debate is heated and the arguments compelling. IBT's fate is the nightmare of many pastors in America who live in a climate of fear -- fear that they will lose their status as a tax-exempt organization under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3). To keep that status, which places restrictions on political activity, many pastors remain silent on the issue of taxation.

IRC 501(c)(3) is the section of law exempting religious, educational and charitable organizations from the federal income tax. Any entity seeking tax-exempt status under 501(c)(3) must apply for recognition to the IRS. The only entities not required to apply for that status, with very few exceptions, are churches, which are automatically granted tax-exempt status.

While churches increasingly are becoming aware that they do not need to apply for 501(c)(3) status, it is not commonly known that they are treated as such under the law regardless of whether or not they have applied. That treatment applies to both the tax exemptions and the restrictive regulations the statute provides.

Simply put, churches are subject to the Section 501(c)(3) exemptions and regulations, whether or not they have chosen to apply for recognition as such.

In addition to requiring that churches withhold taxes from employee paychecks, those regulations include an absolute ban on campaigning for or against candidates for political office and significantly restrict lobbying for or against legislation or ballot measures.

The restriction on lobbying generally prohibits a church -- and indeed any 501(c)(3) organization -- from spending a "substantial amount" of its resources on lobbying activities. Some lawyers interpret "substantial amount" to be more than 5 percent of the church's resources. That number is debated but, in any case, many pastors steer clear of political subjects like taxation.

"I think they're a lot of reasons why pastors won't get involved," said Pastor Greg A. Dixon. "They don't want to lose their business people," who often serve as leadership in local congregations.

The leadership skills that come from well-to-do professionals, not to mention their financial support, are invaluable to churches that operate without a great deal of intervention from a larger denomination. Risking political unpopularity with church leaders who may disagree and potentially putting the tax-exempt status of the church in jeopardy -- which gives donors security in claiming contributions as tax deductions -- is often a leap pastors are unwilling to make. Such pastors would often rather keep the peace and spread the Gospel while serving their communities, leaving the tax fight to those specifically called to that purpose.

Also not commonly known is that churches may retain tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(4), which frees churches from restrictions on lobbying and political campaigns. The difference, however, is that, unlike 501(c)(3) status, churches must apply for 501(c)(4) recognition, and financial donors cannot deduct contributions on their tax returns.

Regarding the silence of churches on the tax issue since the American Revolution, Dixon remarked, "Freedom has died in our hearts somewhere along the way."

"We have bought this line that Romans 13 means unlimited submission to government. The only thing that we are obligated to have unlimited submission to is God," he said.

Some Christians have jumped into the church taxation debate, arguing that Jesus Christ tells all believers to submit to government authorities, citing the writings of the Apostle Paul in Romans 13, which states in part: "The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." (Editor's note: Read Pastor Greg A. Dixon's commentary on this subject in today's WorldNetDaily.)

Dixon sees America's federal government as the attempted usurper of God's authority, which has resulted in societal ills.

"They think they can fix every social ill of society, but they can't without God. But they're going to try. The federal government is the one that creates the problems for society with their unjust laws, and then they tax the people to solve them. And now they're trying to tax churches to try to solve the problems they have created. That's what humanism is. It's trying to do something good without God."

Homeless worshippers

While the debate continues, the church that brought it back to the forefront of Christian consciousness goes on, though without the use of the buildings that were its home for 50 years.

"They took the church, but they didn't take the congregation. There's a big difference," said Dixon.

The congregation has been meeting for the last eight weeks in a rented high-school auditorium located less than a minute from the former IBT campus. Scheduling its services around high-school activities, there are two weekends between now and May when the church must meet at a local banquet facility. After May, the congregation will begin meeting at a location 10 miles away. The arrangements are temporary and, as yet, the church has no meeting place lined up for the fall.

But that's a relatively small hurdle for a congregation that has kept its spirits up despite its recent confrontation with law enforcement. Attendance has not declined and offerings are as steady as before the ordeal began, said Dixon, who described his flock as "unified."

"Literally, there has not been one person who has complained," said the grateful pastor.

In addition to the sanctuary and other church buildings, IBT also lost its private school in the seizure.

"Children have been displaced," said Dixon, "but not one person has blamed or accused. It's really been amazing."

Now, "we are able to just be a congregation, no strings attached," he continued. And the congregation is not only surviving -- it's thriving. In the last five months, there have been 44 conversions, he said, and members built a church building in Haiti about a month ago.

"Right after they took our building, we went and built a building," he remarked.

There have been 24 baptisms; six families joined the church; and the congregation just committed nearly $100,000 to foreign missions.

Pressure continues

But the government is not through with IBT. Though the church's case is essentially over now that the IRS has the money it assessed in the form of the church's property, U.S. attorneys are investigating the personal finances of Dixon's father -- former pastor of IBT, Greg J. Dixon. As part of that investigation, the Justice Department is demanding that Greg A. Dixon and church secretary Colleen Tiffany hand over the names and contact information of IBT members who deal with the church's finances.

In a letter dated Feb. 26 and addressed to the church's former attorney, Al Cunningham, Justice Department employees Claire Fallon and Deborah S. Meland wrote, "... we are seeking information, including the names and current addresses and telephone numbers of the individuals personally involved, relating only to IBT's financial and record keeping operations. We are seeking the information as part of our efforts to gather information about the financial relationship between Gregory J. Dixon and IBT."

The letter continues with an explanation of the government's authority to demand the information, citing a 1982 cause in which the Supreme Court found that "mandatory participation [in the tax system] is indispensable to the fiscal vitality of the Social Security system," and that "the Government's interest in assuring mandatory and continuous participation in and contribution to the Social Security system is very high."

The Supreme Court has held that "neutral laws of general application that burden religious practices do not run afoul of the Free Exercise Clause [of the First Amendment]." In other words, imposing employment taxes that apply to all employers, regardless of employers' religious beliefs or purposes, is an acceptable government practice under the First Amendment.

"The Free Exercise Clause absolutely protects the freedom to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine one desires," wrote Circuit Judge Ann Williams in her decision against IBT. "It also provides considerable, though not absolute, protection for the ability to practice (through the performance or non-performance of certain actions) one's religion."

Accordingly, the Justice Department letter to Cunningham summarizes, "The United States' interest in maintaining an efficient tax system fully justifies obtaining the specific information that we are seeking. It is clear that there is a compelling governmental interest in enforcement of the tax laws."

The letter set a deadline of March 5 for Dixon and/or Tiffany to provide the names and contact information, but neither has complied. Dixon said Tiffany doesn't have the information the government wants in the first place. And Dixon said he "can't give up the names of church members for any reason."

"There's a principle here. The government cannot be allowed to make a pastor give up confidential information about church members. How would anybody in my congregation ever believe me or ever trust me if they know the first time I get squeezed a little bit, I tell them who the shepherds are so they can be audited and harassed?" asked Dixon, who noted seven of the church's largest donors have already been audited. "Why would I want to sic these wolves on them? I'm not going to do it. It has nothing to do with hiding anything -- there's nothing to hide. There's a principle there."

In a letter dated March 13, the Justice Department again asked Cunningham to contact U.S. attorneys with the contact information it seeks. As yet, there has been no further communication from the government.

Cunningham, who represented IBT in its legal battle, no longer serves as the church's lawyer. He was let go by the congregation in early March due to financial constraints. The church had spent over $300,000 in the last two years in legal fees, said Dixon, and still has an outstanding legal debt of $60,000.

"And we have lost," the pastor added. "I just couldn't see having an attorney on the clock any longer."

Though an e-mail has circulated saying the pastor and his secretary are threatened with contempt of court, Dixon says no such threat has been made to his knowledge. However, he said he realizes he could be put in jail for the offense if he is charged and found guilty.

Regarding the likelihood of his being held in contempt and subsequently incarcerated, Dixon commented, "There's no way of knowing right now whether they're going to or whether they're not going to."

"I'm not sure what they want," he continued. "I mean, they got $6 million worth of property ... They've destroyed us, taken everything. I don't know what else they want, other than the fact that they want information about the church and about my father."

Dixon suspects government officials may be looking for others in the church who may have different stories about why the church did not withhold taxes.

"I don't want to go to jail. I don't want to be in contempt. But I can honestly tell you that I have no fear. I have the peace of God that passes all understanding. I know that what I’m doing is right and I know that what the government is doing is wrong and tyrannical," stated the determined pastor, who said his "greatest fear in college was not to be used by God. If this is what it takes, then so be it."

In the meantime, Dixon has a church to run.

"We're going to continue doing what we have been called to do. There's nothing else for us to do. In one sense, it's really up to the government to decide what they're going to do."

So, for now, the congregation meets in the newly renovated gym, half-suspecting the government will come after them again.

"I guess we'll find out sometime in the future if the First Amendment -- which is dead as far as we're concerned -- says we have the right to peaceably assemble."

As for a permanent home in the future, Dixon says that prospect is "too far out at this point in time," though he suggested a few possible scenarios. "Someone could buy the building back and give it to us. Another entity could own something and let us rent from them," he hypothesized, not leaving out the possibility that "maybe we'll never have a building of our own."

Building or no building, the congregation marches on, and Dixon takes some comfort in the example IBT has set for other churches.

"I think if there is one thing that we did which was right is that we were able, and will be able in the future, to tell churches how to get through the battle while keeping the church together. The battle won't destroy you, but how you fight the battle will. If we don't learn how to fight the battle correctly, we will destroy everything we have worked for," he said. "We have taught others how to fight this battle with the right attitude. We've not attacked people personally, but we've attacked the principles that are involved."

Read Pastor Greg A. Dixon's exclusive commentary in today's edition of WorldNetDaily.com.

Read WorldNetDaily's comprehensive analysis of the Indianapolis Baptist Temple case.

Read Joseph Farah's analysis of IBT's seizure.

The April edition of WorldNet magazine is devoted entirely to an in-depth examination of the income tax, the 16th Amendment and the legal strategies opponents are using to challenge them. Titled "Tax revolt: How Americans are challenging the IRS and the 16th Amendment," it is available from WND's online store.