Grassley irked some religious leaders when he quipped about the lifestyles
of the preachers under investigation, saying Jesus road into Jerusalem on a
donkey, not a Rolls Royce.
Posted on 12/04/2007 5:50:02 AM PST by Zakeet
Among the many conservative Christians who feel misunderstood by the general public, the six televangelists under investigation by a Senate committee are an embarrassment.
The ministers' on-air faith healings and fundraising, backed by self-serving misinterpretations of Scripture, reinforce offensive stereotypes of greedy preachers and put their followers at spiritual risk, critics say.
But traditional Christians aren't universally celebrating the inquiry. Some are wondering whether the investigation led by Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa is the right way to end any wrongdoing, especially if the result is more government oversight of all ministries.
[Snip]
he ministries under review include Randy and Paula White of Without Walls International Church and Paula White Ministries of Tampa, Fla.; Benny Hinn of World Healing Center Church Inc. and Benny Hinn Ministries of Grapevine, Texas; David and Joyce Meyer of Joyce Meyer Ministries of Fenton, Mo.; Kenneth and Gloria Copeland of Kenneth Copeland Ministries of Newark, Texas; Bishop Eddie Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church and Bishop Eddie Long Ministries of Lithonia, Ga.; and Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International and Creflo Dollar Ministries of College Park, Ga.
All the ministries preach a form of Word of Faith theology, known as prosperity gospel, which effectively teaches that God wants believers to be rich.
[Snip]
"This has nothing to do with church doctrine," said Grassley, who has been investigating nonprofit compliance with the tax code for years. "This has everything to do the with tax exemption of an organization."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Grassley irked some religious leaders when he quipped about the lifestyles
of the preachers under investigation, saying Jesus road into Jerusalem on a
donkey, not a Rolls Royce.
This should be an interesting thread.
Mrs. Clinton must have some good stuff on this Sen. from Iowa, for if his Honor was a dim most would see the light here.
A fool and his money are soon parted.
I can't wait for the flame throwers to come out!
AMEN!
Paul said that the greedy impale themselves on all sorts of griefs.
Seems that once again, God’s word is proven to be correct.
Book, chapter and verse, please.
One would think that the 1st Amendment would protect religious organizations. Anybody notice that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are in the same amendment? Think that was done for a reason or is it just a coincidence?
How else does the state control criticism of abortion and homosexuality other than threatening tax exempt status?
That's the problem with messing around with the Constitution. Adding an income tax amendment gave the federal government the power to affect the 1st amendment. How convenient.
Indeed.
All the preachers cited live pretty high on the hog, and their "theology" is pretty transparently designed to maintain their lifestyle. I thought Robert Tilton was as shameless as it could get, but I was naive.
I suspect that a lot of evangelical Christians, of whom I am not one, are upset with this congressional probe because it amounts to a public airing of dirty laundry they'd rather keep within their community.
Kinda hard to justify any kind of a Congressional investigation of preachers for what they say. I am surprised that Grassley is the one who’s doing it. You’d think he of all people would recognize the danger of government involving itself in such matters.
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
Hey, it beats selling used cars.
That protection is not automatic and absolute. If it were, anyone could simply scratch out "company" and write in "ministry." You'd have used car ministries, real estate ministries, insurance ministries, and so on.
Why don’t you gaze through the transparent design and explain the “theology” to us, oh, sage one.
Who will investigate greedy Senators and their appropriation requests?
"Oh look at this beauty!! It has factory air, leather seats and very low mileage. It's a real creampuff. A credit problem is no problem here at Benny Motors. "
He looks like he’s dancing in a Bollywood film.
"If you give us money, God will give you back more money."
There's more to it, of course, but that's the gist.
I have no problem with them making money off books or some other trade but to use Church funds for mansions/luxury items is stealing from God.
Either way I would rather see the Feds not win. At least these churches/preachers are contributing to the economy (Slight /s applied) and not an impotent bureaucracy. Still these preachers enjoy a very lucrative loophole that most don't have access to.
That’s the verse I thought you had in mind. The key phrase is “wandered from the faith”.
While Congress gets elected and rides into town on their asses. Then after a few years have enough stolen taxpayers loot to sport around in Rolls Royces?
A lot like calling the kettle black, isn't it?
Opps ... sorry. Congress only sound like preachers
It seems to me that the stronger the link between salvation and a request for a personal check, the less genuine the preaching. The people under investigation are the least genuine on my list.
Yeah, you can't selectively quote my post and understand the point. Your response assumes that the income tax amendment properly gave the feds the power to impact the 1st amendment.
The point is that it is an unintended negative consequence of the income tax amendment that gave the feds the power to impact the free speech protected in the 1st amendment.
That's a bad thing, btw.
Well it wasn’t my post that you replied to, but I am sure that is what the original poster was referring to. I agree that “wandered from the faith” is the operative phrase. There are many wealthy folks who are solid Christians, I’m not one (wealthy that is).
ping
Yeah, I sometimes do that, but it was pretty obvious to me. I always got high marks for class participation.
That's true, but there are organizations like $cientology and CAIR which need shutting down more than the big hair guys do - and Congress has been bullied into ignoring their activities.
The critics are right! These individuals, and others like them that are to numerous to mention, are nothing but "Spiritual Hucksters". They use a method called "Proof Texting", taking a verse of scripture out of context and misapplying it to support their position. If people really, and I mean really, studied the Word of God and weren't so lazy, they would realize these people are charlatans.
I don't intend to get into any debates on scripture, or with any of their duped followers, here on FR. If anyone thinks I'm wrong fine ..... get off your derrieres, find a real pastor-teacher that actually teaches the Word of God, study scripture and learn the truth for yourselves. If I've insulted some of you, I make no apologies.
I’m sorry but I really, really do not get what people see in Benny Hinn.
I agree with you.....that is the principle.....I also believe that Blessings come in many forms...and God’s law of sowing and reaping doesn’t necessarily mean that you will get back exactly in kind what you have sown (i.e. money for money).....but you will definitely be rewarded (or not!) in this life, or the next.
If God chooses to bless you more now....then he will only give you what you can handle......if you can’t handle it..he will take it back......that too is a principle laid out in the Bible.
He’s amusing as all get-out, if you watch him from the “This is cheaper than the circus, with just as may clowns” viewpoint.
1 Tim 6:9-10
“But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.”
There's more to it, of course, but that's the gist.
That covers it well. However I believe the government should butt out, there's probably a clause somewhere in the constitution that covers people's right to be stupid and for those who think there is a legitimate government interest because of the tax exempt thing, I'll buy into that as soon as black churches are investigated for being forums for liberal political candidates
Any corporation or other entity that is granted tax-exempt status (Section 501(c)(3) tax exemptions are on religious, charitable, or educational grounds) must comply with certain rules regarding private inurement and private benefit.
Basically, the organization does not have to pay taxes because its funds are being used for the public good (religion, charity, or education). However, the organization cannot spend an unreasonable amount of public funds for the private good of the organization's insiders (that's called private inurement) or private individuals even if they aren't insiders (private benefit). That's really stated so simplistically as to almost be wrong, but that's the theory.
Except for the thread of religion running through these organizations, this is similar to when different United Ways were slammed because the officers were receiving huge salaries and other perquisites.
When you contribute money to a tax-exempt, you get credit for a charitable donation and the tax-exempt does not have to pay income tax on its revenues. You ASSUME that most of the money you donate goes to the charitable cause and not to supporting an outrageous lifestyle of individuals. It's bad enough when a charity spends 80%+ of revenues on administration, as some disease-specific or children's care organizations do. The problem with these churches is that a large amount of money is spend to maintain a millionaire lifestyle of the minister.
I'd point out that I think many of those making donations to these churches KNOW that the minister is living the good life, but they continue to donate money. Most of those donating to a "cure a disease" charity don't know or expect those who run the charity will be able to live like millionaires.
There's also the situation that a religious tax-exempt might be entitled to more flexibility than a charitable or educational one simply because of the First Amendment.
But . . . when you boil it all down, the question is whether these tax-exempt churches are using excessive amount of money that was intended to advance the ministry or support church charitable projects, but instead are going to pay for mansions, custom-made suits, gold-plated faucets, stables of luxury cars, etc.
I wasn’t aware I was on your ‘hook’, but I hope that suffices.
The “Prosperity Gospel” that these men and women peddle focuses on the material, whereas God’s word speaks of spiritual abundance, not physical. While it’s true that God is pleased to bless some of his children with financial wealth, the responsibility is on those people to turn it into something (parable of the 10 talents) useful for the Kingdom, not hoarde it or use it for selfish means.
Paul spoke of being content no matter what his situation, whether he had much or little, because the goal is heaven - not earthly accumulation. God promised to meet our physical needs, not overload us with physical things that only rust and rot.
We have all we need in the redemptive power of our Savior Jesus Christ. If one is truly a regenerated soul, he needs nothing else. We have heaven - what else is there!
BTW, Rev. Jackson spoke at Sean Taylor's funeral. Somebody said OJ Simpson also attended.
Everyone agrees that if you want to receive kindness or patience or respect you must give those very things first. That’s sowing & reaping and everyone agrees in the principle except when it come to money. Hmmmm.....
That's a very interesting point, GourmetDan. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but there are a couple of extra issues that I believe muddy the waters.
First, the income tax is possible because of an amendment to the Constitution. True, the amendment does not specifically state that Congress has the power to decide whether or not something is taxable based on freedom of speech, particularly religious speech.
But . . . there has to be some line at which society gets involved in what form of free speech constitutes religion. What you get at the margin, otherwise, are people claiming a religious right to heroin, rape, murder, pedophilia, etc., because it's part of their "religion's" doctrine. For years, Scientology was denied tax-exempt status as a religion -- I believe the status was granted during the administration of Bill Clinton.
The second issue is figuring out what is the "speech" that is supposed to be free when it comes to Hinn's ministry. The donors are still free to give money to Hinn whether or not his organization is tax-exempt. He's still free to preach his doctrine, whether or not he is tax-exempt. Is being able to wear custom-made suits, be driven around in a Rolls Royce, live in a 50-room mansion, etc., a form of protected "speech"?
I guess if nude dancing is speech, then it the right to live outrageously on supposedly charitable contributions may be a form of speech in the eyes of some. However, my personal opinion is that the freedom of speech would still exist for those who want to follow Hinn and donate to Hinn's ministry, and freedom of speech would still exist for Hinn to preach his ministry, even if the rules for tax-exempt entities prohibited him from exercising "free speech" by living lavishly on the tax-exempt contributions of others. Let him live lavishly; just tax his organization on any money in excess of a "reasonable" amount that he uses to live.
If there are any tax-exemption attorneys floating around on FR, then they may want to say a little about Excess Benefits Transactions by tax-exempt entities. That’s a relatively new penalty against officers and directors of tax-exempt entities who approve the unreasonable use of tax-exempt funds for non-tax-exempt purposes.
I don’t want to argue with you, and I certainly don’t mean any disrespect. I have been involved in churches that taught “prosperity”....some responsibly, some not.
It is my belief that God does wants us to prosper....as long as we are prospering for the sake of blessing others.....we are supposed to be vessels from which blessing flow out...not containers to hold the blessings for our selves.
I do know, from experience, that many times people are giving $$ only expecting to get $$ back.....as we know from the Bible...if someone is doing that, they already have their reward.....their motive is all wrong!. We are not supposed to be giving for the sake of receiving.
I don’t believe that God wants his people poor, bruised, and broken, but...he is not going to bless us with materiel wealth if by him doing so, it is going to take us away from him as well. I understand your point of “logic”....but, in God’s kingdom, “logic” doesn’t always apply.
Although I think some of these preachers are frauds and/or money-grubbers, I don’t think it’s the government’s business to decide what is scriptural and what isn’t.
I respectfully disagree that that's what's being done by the government.
The government isn't saying that these preachers cannot preach their doctrine. The government is not saying that their followers cannot follow the doctrine. What the government is saying is that laws that give the donors credit for a charitable contribution, and tax-exemption to the ministry, do not permit the ministry to spend outrageous amounts of money to support the outrageous lifestyle of the ministers. Donors can still give the money. Hinn and others may still preach the doctrine. However, you and I don't get stuck subsidizing Hinn's mansion(s) through the donor and Hinn's ministry being given tax breaks.
Yeah, a lot of non-religious, non-charitable tax breaks are ridiculous, too. But that doesn't mean you should be able to call yourself a church, collect deductible contributions, pay no taxes, and use the church to buy really expensive assets that you are allowed to use.
What makes this really look like a scam is the fact that title to all of these goodies stays in the church -- Hinn, Creflo Dollar and others just get to use them. If they were given to Hinn or Dollar, then they would clearly run afoul of the tax laws. So instead, Hinn probably doesn't even own the suits and shoes he walks around in. They are likely owned by his ministry.
Nothing in the 1st gives religious organizations tax exemption.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.