Church Sued For Misappropriation of Tithe Money

illinoisguy

Well-known member
Elect
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
1,032
Reaction score
491
Points
83
I am not sure what to make of this - Gateway Church in Southlake, Texas is being sued for failure to direct contributions to global missions as promised.


The Gateway leadership was slime, but I am not aware of a body of case law that supports the principle that church members can successfully sue their congregation over an issue of this type. If the donors are able to get their money back, presumably they would have to file amended tax returns with the IRS, if they previously deducted their contributions. Maybe it's better to keep the deduction and move on.

Gateway Church is where Pastor Robert Morris recently resigned after admitting to an inappropriate relationship with a "young lady" who turned out to have been only 12 years old when Morris started molesting her. And, of course, it was claimed that the relationship was "consensual" and that the girl was "flirtatious." Don't all sex pervert preachers make those kinds of claims?



Gateway members should leave this wretched church and stop donating, but I don't know if it is practical to try to get their money back. This episode should be a lesson to all of us - if you want to support a ministry, send your money to them directly - don't give through your church. It's okay - John R. Rice wrote an entire booklet against the concept of "storehouse tithing."

Some preachers, IFB and non-IFB, take the position that "We can do whatever we want with your tithe money, we don't have to account for the money, and if you have a problem with that, then don't give to our church." A valid response to such a statement is to stop giving to that kind of church and preacher.

Christian Law Association (wrongly, in my opinion) takes the position that churches do not have any obligation to honor designations of gifts. They can divert the designated gift to any other purpose they want. The model church constitution of Christian Law Association states that "We believe that a Christian relinquishes all rights to direct the use of the tithe or offering once the gift has been made." (Article 2, Statement of Faith and Covenant, U). Anyone who has a problem with that should not join a church which uses a CLA model constitution.
 
Does this church have no budget? Was it not approved by the membership? If so, they can't go back on it.

Also, if a donor gives money intended for a specific purpose (e.g. the mission fund), it's restricted--legally, under normal circumstances they can't redirect it to another purpose. Not being a lawyer or an accountant, I would assume that promising to give 15% of donated monies to missions also binds them, since it was donated with that understanding.
 
Interesting Comment on CLA ... because ...

15 years ago we had a missionary, upon the advice of his sending pastor, that used designated building funds for personal expenses. We informed him that using designated funds other than for the designated purpose was unethical, unprincipled, illegal, and in some instances most likely criminal. We sent him a "legal opinion" that at that time was supplied by the CLA in support of only using designated funds for the designated purpose.

I do understand that many include a disclaimer on their tithing envelops that states, "All Designations Shall Be Non-Binding Suggestions." We REFUSE to use that statement. I HATE it. We should be HONEST.

My Humble Opinion ...
 
I am pretty sure that they can't sue them. They will just claim that it was their intention to do that, but other contingencies interfered.
 
I remember a guy several years ago at a church I was a member of who was disappointed as he had been giving additional money for several years to help pay down the mortgage. At a meeting it came up that only the min payment had ever been made. The pastor let him know that while they try to comply with designations they had written into their constitution that they only take designations as suggestions.
 
I do understand that many include a disclaimer on their tithing envelops that states, "All Designations Shall Be Non-Binding Suggestions." We REFUSE to use that statement. I HATE it. We should be HONEST.

"While we acknowledge that restricted donations are legally binding, we reserve the right to ignore the law at our discretion."
 
"While we acknowledge that restricted donations are legally binding, we reserve the right to ignore the law at our discretion."
Sadly Said and Tragically Done ... but ... ministry leadership should not feign shock and hurt when the membership votes by never trusting them again with their designated, discretionary gifts. Why are the finances dwindling? Why won't people give to special projects any longer? What is their spiritual problem?

It is hard to grasp the reasoning behind this level of insanity.
 
Update:


"Shoulders said Gateway didn’t give anything close to 15% of the global fund to Jewish ministries during his tenure. 'On the contrary I, along with others, witnessed on multiple occasions when people would give a gift to Gateway and designate it for Jewish ministry, Kevin Grove would instead instruct Geoff Cohen, Jewish pastor at the time, to put it in the General Fund,' Shoulders wrote in his statement. . . .

“'I began to question whether Gateway, who claimed publicly to be the most generous church in the world, was privately taking the money and using it for purposes contrary to what Gateway had represented to donors?' . . .

'According to a publication by Philanthropy Roundtable, Texas has adopted much of the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (UPMIFA).
This act allows charities to alter the intended use of donations only if they 'deem the original purpose of the donation to be unattainable, wasteful or impractical to maintain.' But charities can make these alterations only if the donation is less than $25,000 and more than 20 years has passed since the donation was made."


One of the commenters at the bottom of the article states,

  1. "IRS regulations require that if a designated gift cannot be used for its intended purpose, it must either be returned to the donor, or the charity must obtain the donor’s permission to use the funds for another purpose. If Shoulders’ comment about designated funds being placed in the general fund and not tracked separately is true, Gateway would be in the same mess that Gospel for Asia got into, when it didn’t use donor-designated funds for the requested purpose."
It remains to be see seen how all of this will be sorted out in court, if it ever gets that far. In the meantime, the moral of the story is, if you want to support any particular ministry, send the money directly to them. Leave out the middleman, even if it's your own church (or pastor).
 
In the meantime, the moral of the story is, if you want to support any particular ministry, send the money directly to them. Leave out the middleman, even if it's your own church (or pastor).
This reminds me of BBN and their flagship station, WYFI, Norfolk VA. Back in 1987, there was a five minute spot called "Our Perspective" which was little more than founder Lowell Davy making a case for sending donations to BBN. One morning, Lowell came out and said that BBN listeners should not send gifs to the various teaching ministries that air on BBN because BBN was unique in that they didn't change air time to the ministries which they carried. Lowell reasoned listeners should instead funnel all their gifts to his network since it airs their programs free of charge. I was troubled by that. I personally knew and respected Lowell Davy but after that, I had a hard time listening to BBN.

I don't mean to be making digs against the network and I don't know if that is still their current policy, but I regarded (and sill do to an extent) BBN quite highly. I just had an extremely hard time with that philosophy.
 
For anyone unfamiliar with Attorney David Gibbs, Jr. and Christian Law Association, check out this info compiled by Spiritual Sounding Board

"PATRIARCHY. Operates from a patriarchial life and ministry philosophy patterned after Dr. Bill Gothard, Dr. Jack Hyles, and Paul Chappell. Speaks regularly for the patriarchal-oriented Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP) and for Paul Chappell.

"CHILD ABUSE. His legal work often helps cover for alleged and/or eventually convicted abusers, or the churches or ministries they work for.

"ORGANIZATION. Founder and President of Christian Law Association, begun in 1977 (not 1969 as advertised). Promoted by Pastor Jack Hyles (First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN) and Dr. Don Howard (Accelerated Christian Education), both of whom had moral questions raised about them. Dr. Paul Chappell – a protégé of Pastor Hyles – is on CLA’s Oversight Board, which does not meet or receive audited financials.

"LEGAL PRACTICE & MINISTRY. Moved to Ohio recently where he plans to retire, and is a non-litigating attorney, plus has a ministry as a King-James-Only traveling evangelist.

"CLIENTELE. Works exclusively for Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) churches, and clients with patriarchal authoritarian practices such as the following. Dr. Bill Gothard and the IBLP board with recent issues of sexual assault and harassment. First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, in the criminal trial of their pastor, Jack Schaap. Pastors Mark Chappell and Bill Wininger, and Dr. Don Howard(deceased), all accused of molesting young girls.


Source: https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/which-gibbs-article-and-chart-v2.pdf

Charity Navigator lists Richard Wallace, John Reynolds and Paul Chappell as trustees of CLA. Paul Chappell is pastor of Lancaster (CA) Baptist Church and President of West Coast Baptist College. CLA has been repudiated by Gibbs Junior's son, David Gibbs III, who was formerly a partner in this "ministry."
 
ESPECIALLY if those funds are paying David Gibbs for his legal "missions" help ;)
Wel, this church, Gateway Church in Texas is so far from the world of David Gibbs, it is laughable. One way to see that is looking here.
1729584593614.png

It is a different world of $100 million of income and doctrinal aberrance that many would call straight up heresy, Health, Wealth and Prosperity church galore.
 
Back
Top