Charlatan faith-healers

https://billdembski.com/theology-and-religion/faces-of-miracles-chapter-2/

This is a good expose of some high-profile charlatans, and that's just a sample.

However, the dilemma of this sort of expose is that those who are listening don't need to hear it while those who need to hear it aren't listening. In general, those who are listening weren't taken in by the charlatans in the first place while those who need to hear it are impervious to evidence that their idols are flimflam men. That's not the fault of Dembski and countercult ministries. 

Paula White

TMZ

After becoming an official White House staffer, Paula White started to experience dramatic, inexplicable medical problems. Her teeth began to fall out. Her fingers and toes became gangrenous. Her painted fingernails and toenails became leprous. Her hair morphed into writhing snakes. 

An anonymous informant at the NSA told TMZ that Melania became jealous at the amount of time Donald spent with Paula. So Melania contacted a gypsy in Slovenia to cast a spell on Paula. That's when the symptoms appeared. 

Michael Brown on Joseph Prince

http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2017/02/on-michael-browns-interview-with-joseph.html

Trump: televangelist

Much has been made of "evangelicals" who support Donald Trump. Trump supporters are demographically diverse. They include blue-collar workers, Stormfront folk, disaffected LewRockwell.com folk, &c. But what about the evangelicals? To begin with, the category is fairly diffuse:

“Diverse group with differing priorities” indeed. I’m glad to see Chideya note that Evangelicals — especially in the South — are hardly a monolith. Unlike the Northeast, West, and parts of the Midwest, in the South there is no social stigma to labeling yourself an Evangelical, and in some communities non-Evangelicals are in a decided minority. That’s not to say, however, that the Evangelical movement here is culturally dominant. There is a significant gap between those who proudly declare themselves to be Christian and those who actually go to church or participate in church in any meaningful way. And amongst church-goers, there are wide variations in belief and approach. Denominations still matter down here. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431730/donald-trump-revealing-fault-lines-evangelical-movement

But I'd like to make another point: It's not surprising that "evangelicals" who get their theology from Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Jesse Duplantis, John Hagee, Benny Hinn, T.D. Jakes, Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen, Rod Parsley, Paula White et. might be Trump supporters. Trump is pretty interchangeable with the prosperity preachers who litter TBN. Glitzy, worldly, showbiz Christianity. If televangelists like that are your standard of comparison, then you'd feel right at home with Trump. 

Old gossipy wags

Sometimes it doesn't take much to test a man's integrity. A quick, simple test will expose what's lacking underneath. This separates the pilgrims from the apparatchiks. Men of God from company men. 

Fred Butler ‏@Fred_Butler  Mar 23@triablogue Since when has the Tblog team become a bunch of busy body old church ladies? Why do you care how much a pastor is comped?

i) To begin with, what does Fred have against old church ladies? Some of the finest Christians I know are old church ladies. I imagine a fair percentage of the parishioners at Grace Community church are old ladies. Indeed, I suspect Pastor McArthur's wife is an old church lady by now.

ii) Prosperity preachers like Steve Furtick, Creflo Dollar, Robert Tilton, and the Bhagwan Rajneesh (of blessed memory) would deeply appreciate Fred's position. 

Fred Butler ‏@Fred_Butler  Mar 23@triablogue How is impugning JMac w/ dishonest gain seeking a consistent standard? It's like you all have become old gossipy wags.

Since John MacArthur devotes pages and pages of Strange Fire to attacking prosperity preachers, is Fred accusing MacArthur of being an old gossipy wag as well as a busybody old church lady? Why should he care what they are comped? 

Triablogue ‏@triablogue  Mar 23@Fred_Butler @TimmmmBates Witness to the world. Processes that are transparent to the world. Beyond question. Are all those in place at GTY?
Fred Butler ‏@Fred_Butler  Mar 23@triablogue @TimmmmBates Yes. The very email you deconstruct explained to you that it was. Obviously you aren't satisfied w/ that.

The email only discussed his income from GTY. That means most of MacArthur's sources of revenue remain unaccounted for. That lack of transparent is an obvious problem when he presumes to attack prosperity preachers. 

Triablogue ‏@triablogue  Mar 23@TimmmmBates @Fred_Butler Hays: Before he published Strange Fire, did MacArthur attempt to contact the charismatics he targets in his book?
Fred Butler ‏@Fred_Butler  Mar 23@triablogue @TimmmmBates Oh for goodness sakes. Are you for real? Now you sound like a whiney tone police YRR cry baby.

Since it was a member of MacArthur's inner circle who complained about my failure to contact MacArthur or him before doing my post, that must mean Fred is accusing my correspondent of being a whiney tone police YRR crybaby. 

David Kjos ‏@TheThirstyTheo  Mar 24@Fred_Butler That @triablogue throws out "nepotism" as though hiring relatives is a priori corrupt reveals a prejudiced disposition.
Fred Butler ‏@Fred_Butler  Mar 24@TheThirstyTheo @triablogue It's a joke, really. As if families aren't allowed to minister together.

So when a megachurch operation puts relatives on the payroll (or makes them business partners), that's not nepotism. That's just "ministering together." Once again, prosperty preachers will surely appreciate Fred's euphemism. Perhaps Furtick can hire Fred to be his press secretary. 

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?  

In his house are many mansions

Pastor Steven Furtick's newly built $1.7 million, 16,000 square-foot mansion is under the spotlight. A few comments in no particular order of importance:

i) I automatically catalogue stories like these in the "There's a sucker born every minute" file. 

ii) One thing you can say about prosperity preachers: they aren't hypocrites. They practice what they preach. Or maybe I should say, they practice what they leech.

Why is anyone shocked, least of all their check-writing parishioners, when a prosperity preacher is…prosperous? Admittedly, it's sometimes hard to balance a wealthy lifestyle with a healthily lifestyle, but Furtick's still young. The arteriosclerosis comes later. 

iii) Imagine what a new 16,000 square-foot mansion would cost in California!

iv) Furtick's come a long ways from Moncks Corner. Jerry Falwell had many faults, but he was born, raised, lived, worked, and died in the same place all his life.  

v) Furtick's parishioners have no cause for complaint. You get what you pay for. And they have the best pastor that money can buy. 

They are to Furtick what Obama voters are to Obama. Just as Obama voters are coming to the rude realization that, where Obamacare is concerned, we are all One Percenters, the members of Elevation Church have more dollars than sense. 

vi) If one of his parishioners built a $1.7 million, 16,000 square-foot mansion, would this even be a story? It's not just Christian ministers who are called to a servant lifestyle. All Christians are called to a servant lifestyle. Our life is not our own. We were bought with a price (1 Cor 6:19-20). Furtick deserves to be excoriated, but let's avoid double standards.

Update:

I notice that the controversy swirling around Steven Furtick's McMansion has spun off in a new direction. I think we need to draw some rudimentary distinctions.

There's a difference between valuing certain amenities and creature comforts because they make life more pleasant, and spending big bucks on status symbols. There's a difference between valuing something because it's beautiful, and valuing something to impress the neighbors. 

Furtick's mansion is ostentatious. That's worldly. 

To take a comparison: you can own a big boat because you enjoy boating, or you can own a big boat to make a statement about your bank account. There's a difference. 

Measuring Oral Roberts' influence

John MacArthur on Oral Roberts.

HT: Charlie Sebold.