Nothing burns me like hearing that leaders of various Christian ministries are living the big life in big houses with fast cars and swimming pools all paid for by the donations of regular folks.
These men and women get a television or radio show and start taking large salaries or get houses and cars subsidized. The justification is that they'd be making much more in the secular world.
My response: Guess what, good Christian? You are supposedly engaging in a ministry and that entails certain sacrifices. More is expected of you and you are supposed to expect less for yourself.
The latest article in the series of disappointments focuses on Jay Sekulow:
But there is another side to Jay Sekulow, one that, until now, has been obscured from the public. It is the Jay Sekulow who, through the ACLJ and a string of interconnected nonprofit and for-profit entities, has built a financial empire that generates millions of dollars a year and supports a lavish lifestyle -- complete with multiple homes, chauffeur-driven cars, and a private jet that he once used to ferry Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
That less-known side of Sekulow was revealed in several interviews with former associates of his and in hundreds of pages of court and tax documents reviewed by Legal Times. Critics say Sekulow's lifestyle is at odds with his role as the head of a charitable organization that solicits small donations for legal work in God's name.
For example, in 2001 one of Sekulow's nonprofit organizations paid a total of $2,374,833 to purchase two homes used primarily by Sekulow and his wife. The same nonprofit also subsidized a third home he uses in North Carolina.
At various times in recent years, Sekulow's wife, brother, sister-in-law, and two sons have been on the boards or payrolls of organizations under his control or have received generous payments as contractors. Sekulow's brother Gary is the chief financial officer of both nonprofit organizations that fund his activities, a fact that detractors say diminishes accountability for his spending.
In his defense, he points out that he could be billing $750 an hour at a private firm. If the money is what you value, then go get it in the private sector. Stop the direct mailings and the big appeals to people struggling the pay the mortgage. They don't know too little goes to cover the cases, while too much goes into your residence.
29 comments:
T-man, I take my stewardship responsibilities seriously. The people getting my checks are not engaged in the kind of conduct described here.
The church doesn't stand between me and God like some kind of collection agent. The church is a spiritual and physical reality, the true part of which is discovered and known by its love and obedience.
It's not hard to distinguish the real from the unreal. While I'm disgusted by the story, I'm also glad. It's good for people to be informed.
Hunter, I am blown away by the concurrence of your making this point tonight and a former student of mine, Adam Rice, making the identical point (in virtually the same language) in a conversation with me Sunday night - about Jewish non-profits.
Adam's suggestion: let them first show a five year track record as a successful CEO at a for-profit and then we'll consider some proportionality in determining the salary for running the non-profit.
The problem is that most of these organizations are entrepreneurial, founded by that individual. This is no problem, of course, as long as they are productive. What tends to occur, however, is that a combination of burnout and lack of accountability tends to corrupt even the best people. Witness Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed.
Darn, did I do "tends" twice in one sentence? Ouch.
Sorry about that.
Hunter...thanks for the info.
Tlaloc...where are you coming from here? One moment you're telling me that Christians have a twisted view of human nature (that all are sinners), the next you're saying that no Christian organization can escape corruption.
What belief system do you hold that is devoid of the corrupt? What (recognizable) group do you associate with that has mastered virtue? How do I sign on with these folks? They sound pretty cool...of course, once they found out what I am really like they'll have to toss me out...then what hope do I have?
Matt, you're right on -- much thanks to Hunter, and by addressing the central question regarding human nature to tlaloc. I don't mean to pick on him/her too much, just that these (real, or just apparent?) contradictions should be challenged by readers and then defended by the author. Hopefully we're not provocative in the negative sense, just "thought provoking!"
Burwell, you sent me an email a week ago or so and I've lost it. Please resend. I remember you had a law school question.
I think Phil Collins and Genesis put it best: "Jesus, he loves me, so give me all you've got..."
Hunter, my observations of such zillionaire-prophets is that their contributors are well aware of the opulence they live in and indeed are happy to tithe their Social Security checks so that they may be a tiny part of helping him rival Solomon and his court.
Now, if a Jim Bakker diddles the help even though it's far more attractive than the wife, ala Bill Clinton, there's a problem. But viewing this materialistically misses the point of the whole deal.
I may be wrong, but I doubt it.
Tom, what you are saying does apply to certain preacher/teacher types who thrive on the "success gospel," but is not representative of what evangelicals expect of their leaders. You look at the way Chuck Colson, James Dobson, and Billy Graham conduct their financial affairs and you'll see integrity shining through.
If you read Christianity Today, you'll also know that when these stories come out out, it often spells the end or near-end of a ministry. The community isn't bad about policing itself.
[W]hat you are saying does apply to certain preacher/teacher types who thrive on the "success gospel," but is not representative of what evangelicals expect of their leaders.
My husband and I were alternately perplexed and amused to find that we were very close neighbors of this local high profile Power Gospel couple, who shepherd not one but two mega-churches of the Prosperity Gospel flavor in Prince George's County, star in their own weekly TV broadcast, and maintain a fleet of at least fifteen black Mercedes sedans plated SOFCC-1 through -nn. They have since built a multi-million dollar custom home about a mile away, so the neighborhood's only remaining pop celebrity is a somewhat more secular influence.
But Matt I'm an anarchist partially for this reason: since all organizations with longevity become corrupt we are better off without them.
Should we disband the local fire department or public utility then? And without organizations, isn't it more likely that corrupt individuals will flourish? Certainly organizations can be corrupted, and large corrupted organizations can do more harm than corrupt individuals or small groups, but it seems to me that you are downplaying the upside of organizations quite a bit here.
As before where you have an organization you have power (because no organization can survive without power to control people) and where you have power you have corruption.
The problem here is that eliminating organizations does not eliminate power (which corrupts). You have said in the past that the Christian view that 'all people are sinners' is a twisted view of human nature. But doesn't your belief that power corrupts lead you to view all humans as corrupt? For we all have power (quite significant amounts actually), and eventually, we're going to fail to administer it properly.
T, I think your characterization of the founding beliefs of Southern Baptists is wrong. That is the creation story of the group told by liberals, but the reality is that the SB's stood for the following:
1. Church membership should only consist of those who believe. This is referred to as a "regenerate membership."
2. The Church is not a political organization with a spiritual claim to all the citizens in a geographic area. It is only for those who are voluntarily seeking a relationship with Christ.
3. A church hierarchy is not necessary when the Scriptures are available for all to read and comprehend. Why have a creed when you have the Scripture?
Theologically liberal Baptists have turned those ideas into a free right to believe anything and still be Baptist/Christian under notions of "soul freedom" or "soul competency." In so doing, they seriously de-emphasize the original Baptists supreme fealty to the Scripture and its plain meaning.
Getting rid of organizations certainly won't stop people from being corrupt but it will vastly limit the power their corruption has to harm.
This assumes that the corrupt refuse to organize themselves, because if (when) they do...you're literally dead.
What upside is that?
Let's see...organizations make things that I can't (like just about everything I own)...they help protect my house and family from destruction by fire...they allow me to learn more than I could on my own...etc.
Oh no. A person can remain true to their beliefs and in so doing remain uncorrupt. OF course if they are in a position of power (by choice or accident) then they are far more likely to succumb. Even then they might withstand corruption.
Everyone is in a position of power. We have control over our thoughts and actions...we have the ability to influence others...just because some people don't have as much institutional leverage behind them doesn't mean that they don't have power...and that power corrupts everyone.
Everyone is in a position of power. We have control over our thoughts and actions...we have the ability to influence others...just because some people don't have as much institutional leverage behind them doesn't mean that they don't have power...and that power corrupts everyone.
Pardon me, Matt, but this argument relies entirely upon semantics. Insert a synonym for the word "power" in the context of human action, such as "faculty" or "ability," and the whole thing falls apart.
T, they wanted everybody to have an individual relationship with God within the local church, as the Bible establishes. Not some kind of do-it-yourself faith. The Christian faith is of necessity a community faith. I've never understood how hermitism came to be seen as holy.
Because the New Testament is largely the story of the establishment of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit.
Plus, most of Christ's teachings require community to be lived out.
Getting rid of organizations certainly won't stop people from being corrupt but it will vastly limit the power their corruption has to harm.
Let's try this again...what is to prevent the corrupt from organizing (and terrorizing) in your system?
Indeed they do and in return you work like a slave to buy the things and support the infrastructure that produces them.
How many slaves spend half their day on blog sites?
It's a trade off not a simple benefit as you seem to suggest.
How many individuals can build their own airplane or television or put out a massive fire? Give me a break, organizations provide tremendous upside.
Pardon me, Matt, but this argument relies entirely upon semantics.
I may be missing your meaning here James, but I don't think semantics are at play.
Tlaloc has stated that it is twisted thinking to say that all people are corrupt (sinners). Yet he acknowledges that power corrupts (even if he attributes power only to organization structures). My point is that all of us have a (quite significant) measure of power, and power (and the awareness of it) eventually corrupts all of us.
For example, my four-yr old knows that she has her dad's love, and can exploit that by crying when she doesn't get her way. You get the picture. The corruption may be minor, do to the relatively low level of power, but it is still there.
I'm not minimizing the 'downside' of organizations, you are just refusing to acknowledge that there is an 'upside'. If there weren't, why would you expect that they would have ever been formed in the first place?
"Let's try this again...what is to prevent the corrupt from organizing (and terrorizing) in your system?"
Oh nothing. But even that is a vastly preferable system than what we have now where both the corrupt and the well intentioned work in organization which serve the aims of the corrupt.
But then I could say that your system of anarchy leads us right back to where we are now (if we're lucky). Every day we all start out as little anarchists, free to choose where we go next...and every day, we choose to rejoin our various organizations (including you by the way).
But let's imagine the good little anarchists refuse to organize, even in the face of threatening organizations (gangs/nations)...what would you expect to become of them? Would you expect them to have more or less freedom than they do today?
It's in anarchy that one is truly enslaved — to your own passions and to the passions, often vicious, of other people. Freedom presupposes a moral structure. License presupposes nothing — it disdains any moral order — resulting in chaos. And order can only come through organization.
The problem though is that the vast vast majority of people don't realize that they indeed do have a choice.
But even those who do realize this choice (for example, you) choose rejoin organizations day-after-day. YOU vote against anarchy every day.
Your passions do not enslve you, they are part of you. As for others, well tell me how could you enslave me with your passions?
Because the desire for personal gain will likely lead me or someone else to force you to be our slave. You keep glossing over this point, as if it couldn't happen in your system...throughout all of history people have been trying to dominate others...your system makes it incredibly easy to do so.
Anarchy is exactly the same. It is precisely as orderly as people choose to be.
Exactly. We organizers have all kinds of mechanisms in place to try an prevent people from taking advantage of others, and you complain that it still can't be stopped. But then you acknowledge that anarchy has no ability to prevent the same trouble makers in from organizing and causing problems in your system, and you have absolutely no ability to stop them.
Because the desire for personal gain will likely lead me or someone else to force you to be our slave.
Matt, I'm a tad confused why you focus on the worst in human behavior. Historical example shows us that human behavior is just as likely to be communitarian as it is contentious. Until fledgling societies started merging territories and competing for resources, they were largely peaceful. You seem to view avarice as the sum total of human drives. Isn't that a rather fatalistic point of view?
Tlaloc, I have to say, though, that your point of view strikes me as having to rely upon a little too much of Rousseau's "noble savage" and the efficacy of reason. It's all a little too utopian, you know what I mean? Now, don't get me wrong, I think you're closer to the mark than Matt's apparently Hobbesian point of view, but still tinged with naivete.
That was very clear, Tlaloc. Thank you.
Tlaloc has said that power leads to corruption, and organizations are the source of all power. Therefore, in order to eliminate corruption we should eliminate organizations.
My response is that even if we eliminate organizations we quickly discover that power and its corrupting influence have not disappeared. This is really a no brainer. However, Tlaloc cannot concede this point because it would undermine his entire case for anarchy because it rests on organizations being the 'root cause' of corruption.
The fact that man is corrupt doesn't mean that I believe that corruption is the dominant characteristic of each person or society; it simply means that our fallibility makes it necessary for us to work together to keep the corruption in check.
On the contrary my system makes it impossible to do so. The only way you can make someone else your slave is with their consent.
Whatever...the point is that in your system I have way more ability to inflict the harm on you than any organization in the current system could.
Humans work best when our structures encourage the good and discourage the bad. We require both, and anarchy is seriously lacking of the latter while depriving us of the full potential available to us in the former.
Tlaloc, it sounds like your idea would be great if we were all like Jesus (Matthew 5:38-45).
That is utopian no matter how you slice it.
Further, your philosophy rests completely on man being perfectible.
For example, the imperfect will try to enslave others, but the perfect will not become a slave.
What if the imperfect tries to enslave the imperfect?
Finally I don't believe that it's possible to eliminate corruption rather what I'm saying is that since organizations magnify corruption you can MINIMIZE it by eliminating organizations. Subtle perhaps but very important distinctions.
But you can't stop others from organizing in your system. And I'm saying that the corrupt element within me may not be able to resist the temptation to organize and dominate you (we may use fists, guns, nukes, etc.). You will in turn either choose to organize yourself or suffer the consequences.
"Humans work best when our structures encourage the good and discourage the bad."
Perhaps but as that is never what organizations do it's a moot point.
Sure they do, it just never seems to last...however, when they don't they eventually get swept away by other organizational forces. Just because they don't get destroyed the moment they go bad, doesn't mean that we don't have some ability to police ourselves (again, your system has none).
How can you possibly believe that #2 is more corrupt than #1?
Because level of corruption defined in #1 is overstated, but more importantly, your notion that only a subset would form organizations, and that their ambitions would be tame is preposterous. Again, how do you think we got to this point? Because people like you have decided that anarchy is a bad deal.
The consequences don't exactly worry me. you can't control me unless I chose to let you.
And this bizarre logic applies in any situation, anarchy or organized. If you really believe this, you would never be upset about anything.
Besides which I have little faith that corrupt people can form organizations that would be stable without some true believers along for the ride.
This from the man who says that all organizations are corrupt, are unstoppable, and are the cause of all pain on earth!
Well, I think we've argued this as far as we can. I always enjoy the back and forth. See you in the next post!
Post a Comment