This topic contains 10 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by 
shade 1 year ago.
-
Posts
-
I really had no idea where to post this, so I’m putting it here. I guess it falls under both theology and the church.
After reading that article about Furtick and his 1.7 million-dollar home, secluded and fenced off, I started thinking about this. It seems like the big issue isn’t the money or the lack of transparency or the house itself. It’s the underlying theology. Churches seem to think that the hierarchy is “save” people first, then help them. If your whole theology is based on getting people to believe in Jesus so they don’t go to hell, then OF COURSE it doesn’t matter if a pastor spends more personal funds (or heck, even church funds) on a house than on, say, providing food for hungry people. Churches that do things the other way around don’t usually have multi-million-dollar buildings. They also don’t tend to produce half the Christian crap that megachurches do (books, CDs, educational materials, etc.). I see the people defending Furtick as being mostly in the save-first-help-later camp. The church we were at before was, too–get people to come here and see that they “need” Jesus to overcome the sin in their lives; then get them connected with a small group to meet their relational needs (and physical needs). If, through that, the church deems them deserving enough, maybe the church will help out with stuff too. I’m not kidding–this was literally the philosophy the church taught. They did NOT see themselves as being the ones to help in the community, unless it was convenient. They honestly, truly believed that it was more important to get people into the church because then they could be properly “helped” (once they admitted they were deeply broken, of course). It’s no wonder people like Furtick and Driscoll and others can get away with the things they’re doing–it can be overlooked because “look how many people are getting saved!”
Yes. I don’t think these guys are consciously greedy. They really believe they are fulfilling a mission and are fairly being compensated for it.
What is the going price for one saved soul these days? Just curious
That’s a really good point. As long as the “Good news” is being spread, who cares if the pastor is living a ridiculous lifestyle off the back of his/her followers. I love how people feel that everyone needs Jesus and are willing to share Him but they think giving someone food will make them lazy and dependent.
The going rate is 10%, given cheerfully.
…people feel that everyone needs Jesus and are willing to share Him but they think giving someone food will make them lazy and dependent.
YES. But of course, if you point out people who are NOT lazy but struggling with major life issues, they’re quick to say, “Oh, but I didn’t mean THEM.”
Just did a cartoon and post: HOT TOPIC: I drew a cartoon and commented on it “Pastor Steven Furtick, the Church, Money and Transparency” http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nakedpastor/2013/10/pastor-steven-furtick-the-church-money-and-transparency/
AnonymousAs someone who has worked with the homeless in this community, located in the Bible belt, this is really fascinating. It explains so much more about how theology has shaped our attitudes toward those in poverty. One of the major theological factors is the Calvinistic karmic attitude that those in poverty reap what they sow. Sometimes I cannot believe that ordinary working class persons could still hold onto this perception when they themselves are mere inches from poverty.
Thanks for enlightening me.
“It’s no wonder people like Furtick and Driscoll and others can get away with the things they’re doing–it can be overlooked because “look how many people are getting saved!”’
The last conversation I had with a pastor friend was exactly that. We were discussing Driscoll and that’s what he said. He didn’t agree with a lot of it either but said “look how much good he’s doing”
I think there is a parallel to the bankers. There are bankers who are about wanting money, irrespective of whether they deserve it or not. They have found a way to get loads of money, so they are raking the system for everything they can get.
But I have heard some who argue that they are making huge amounts of money for their companies, and for the country, so for them to be paid based on that is perfectly fair and reasonable. I think Furtick probably takes this approach. He is not fiddling the system. He is not abusing people to get money out of them (as far as we know). He is doing his job well, according to the measures that are used, and so considers that he has earned the benefits of his role.
The problem with this is that, like the bankers, this is the perspective from within the system. Looking from the outside – as we all are – this is seen as excessive. the problem is, I don’t know which is true. Or whether there is another perspective that works. I do think that one of the issues is with the way that success is measured. For bankers, it should not be the profits on deals, but the contribution to the wider economy, the real contribution to the global economy. Similarly, “success” is an impossible to define – or at least extremely difficult – for a church. And clergy should live, IMO, as befits their local community.
there’s this idea that runs through american culture too, that we’re supposed to work hard and things will go well. when you add the g-d factor and prosperity gospel, it becomes a shame-fest.
i work hard, but live under the fear that i will be found out. that all of our struggles really are a punishment.
the desire to buy into a promise of snake oil hope is tempting and normal. rejecting it means acknowledging that the world just doesn’t work that way. and that’s hard when you’ve bought so deeply into it that your very fortune is hitched upon its success
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.