The golden calf

I'm going to preface this post by saying that where their standard of living is concerned, I don't have a different yardstick for clergymen and laymen. I don't think it's acceptable for laymen to live like the Vanderbilts but unacceptable for clergymen to live like the Vanderbilts. 

In the church we sometimes witness cash cows mating with sacred cows to produce golden calves. Offhand, the two kinds of scandals to which religious institutions are liable are financial and sexual scandals. Of course, that's hardly unique to religious institutions. But in the case of, say, government, you can add abuse of power–among other things.

Some religious figures found empires. There's then the question of who they bequeath their empire to. Many treat their "ministries" like estates, which they will to their sons, viz. Frankin Graham, Gordon Robertson, Richard Roberts, Jonathan Falwell, Robert Schuller, Jr.

This invites two types of corruption. To begin with, there's the vice of nepotism. Despite its pejorative connotations, nepotism is not inherently wrong. There's nothing wrong with a family business. There's nothing wrong with families employing relatives.

The problem is when a church is treated like a family business. And that's a problem for non-profit institutions generally. It's not your personal piggyback. 

A related problem is when a relative receives an exorbitant salary. Again, I'm not talking about a family business, but a religious institution or nonprofit generally. In both cases, that's a misappropriation of donations. Tithes and offerings. 

And some of the aforementioned individuals illustrate both problems. 

On a different, but related front, we're been treated to the "plagiarism" scandal involving Mark Driscoll. Actually, I think the plagiarism charge deflected a related, but more serious issue. Normally, an author is entitled to the revenues from his books. If, however, the book was actually ghostwritten by his "research assistant," then that creates an ethical problem. The church pays the salary of the research assistant, yet the pastor receives the revenues. 

Another different, but related front, is the recent case of Steven Furtick and his McMansion.  I don't know if Furtick is technically a prosperity preacher. But you don't have to preach the prosperity gospel to have that standard of living. 

Which brings me to the final comparison. A couple of years ago, the Bayly brothers did a post on John MacArthur:

http://baylyblog.com/blog/2012/02/appreciation-john-macarthur-warts-and-all

Tim and David Bayly are vigorous complementarians who took great exception to the fact that MacArthur was going to use the NIV for his study Bible. I think they regard the NIV as a very insidious and effective way of infiltrating the evangelical church with feminism. That's their core objection.

But they then speculated on what would motivate MacArthur to use the NIV. I take them to mean that proceeds from his study Bible would help to secure the long-term solvency of MacArthur's empire after he retires or dies with his boots on. Like an endowment. I'm open to correction if my interpretation is not what they intended.

Phil Johnson took strenuous exception to their conjecture:

http://baylyblog.com/comment/1039#comment-1039

In an effort to justify the original allegation, Tim Bayly recently followed up with two additional posts on financial aspects of MacArthur's ministry:

http://baylyblog.com/blog/2014/01/john-macarthur-revisited

http://baylyblog.com/blog/2014/02/post-john-macarthurs-money-answering-objections

In one respect it's a repetition of the previous allegation, with regard to alleged royalties–which Phil Johnson disputed. But it involves some additional allegations:

so after negotiating royalties (which unlike John Piper's royalties, remain a secret)... 

The national source of their non-profit's profit is the reason our IRS requires these men to divulge whether they fly first class (MacArthur does) and whether they have their own relatives on their governance boards (MacArthur does) and whether their organization pays a relative money as a business transaction (MacArthur pays his son-in-law $650,000 per year for video work) and how much they get paid by their non-profit ministry (MacArthur's non-profits pay him just about $500,000 per year, and this amount doesn't include his church pay or royalties). 

2010            2011          John MacArthur's Income 

$47,000       $103,000     (108% one-year increase) 40 hrs p/week at Masters College 

$222,000     $402,000     (81% one-year increase) 20 hrs p/week at Grace to You 

Add to the above John MacArthur's other personal income, speaker's fees, etc.: 

$200,000    $200,000      conservative estimate of Grace Community Church salary 

$200,000    $200,000      conservative estimate of royalties 

$669,000    $905,000      TOTAL ANNUAL INCOME (projected)

Then consider this increase in the annual contract John (GTY) pays to his son-in-law: 

$658,000    $694,000     Grace to You paid The Welch Group for video work (an example)

To my knowledge, these additional allegations have not be rebutted. 

Of course, if the royalties are secret, then I don't know the basis for estimating royalties, if any. But if the royalties are, indeed, secret, then that itself is problematic. 

As I read it, there's also the accusation that MacArthur is triple-dipping by collecting three salaries. 

And there's the question of his son-in-law. Is he on the payroll? Does he now receive nearly 700K per year? 

I haven't done any independent research on these accusations, but then, I could say the same thing about Franklin Graham, Steven Furtick, &c. All I know is what I read.

It would be ironic if MacArthur, scourge of charismatic prosperity preachers, emulates (or exceeds) their standard of living. Perhaps the danger of wielding a broad brush is having it splatter on the painter. 

But perhaps their documentation or analysis is inaccurate.  

I can't help noticing that the usual suspects who were defending Janet Mefferd against Mark Driscoll are now attacking Tim Bayly. But shouldn't we apply a consistent standard?