I've been wondering what post could possibly follow up the last entry. My last entry I posed the question "Why is it a crime for a minister to be wealthy?" This post grabbed attention and conversation. First I want to thank everyone who participated in that conversation. I enjoyed listening to everyone's point of views.
I was sad to learn that many believe that ministers should be poor, shouldn't have comforts, rewards, money or any prosperity like the rest of us are entitled to. I think everyone is entitled to the rewards that God offers us all. We each are entitled to prosperity. For some prosperity will come in family and love, others it will come in fame and notoriety, and others in financial wealth. The majority of the comments displayed a belief that ministers (maybe even all of us) shouldn't be wealthy. I disagree.
I want to bring to light part of one comment last made. Bun Girl you hit the nail on the head. Here is part of that comment: "Our first and foremost pursuit should be God's kingdom and His righteousness. If we seek after that alone, then God will take care of the rest."
That is exactly the point. If a minister, is in fact, pursuing God, in your words "God's kingdom and His righteousness," why can't he prosper? After all, as you highlighted if that pursuit is pure "God will take care of the rest." Ok so the minister has pursued God and God has rewarded him with prosperity. He didn't pursue prosperity. He only was teaching God's word, doing God's work, and serving his Lord.
God does provide prosperity to us all. We just have to be ready to accept it. I think that ministers should be entitled to that wealth as any other man God provided the same too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Within the context of the video you published in the last post, the problem with that minister (and the others on the list) is that they may be misusing donations people are making to their ministry. If someone makes a donation to a ministry, in order for it to further the gospel in whatever way, and the minister instead uses it to buy a mansion or a fancy car, that's just plain dishonest. In effect it's stealing from the ministry that donor intended to support. I don't think anyone who is truly seeking God first in all things would choose to take money given to God's purposes and waste it on luxuries for themselves.
Hi Bun Girl,
Welcome back.
I didn't hear that he was breaking the law, nor stealing, nor spending recklessly. What I heard was that some politician wanted to unjustly view his books and he didn't think that was legal. What he said was that the IRS wasn't investigating them because their is no reason to investigate. He further justified his house, car, clothes (which we all have) as coming from his own earnings, from his own money. He further clarified and said that the money he has mainly comes from other investments and not just his salary. What's wrong with that?
I do know that Jim Baker screwed up. I know that others may try to pull what Jim Baker did. I don't think that all ministers are Jim Baker and not all ministers are crooks. All ministers shouldn't be punished because of one or two bad seeds. The politician is basically meddling because he's unhappy that some ministers could righteously be wealthy without doing any wrong, but rather by just enrichment.
I think that simply picking 12 ministers to investigate simply because they have wealth is wrong. Don't you?
Well, you've now moved out of the Biblical context and into the legal. Legally, his main source of income is a non-profit group. There have to be checks and balances to make sure that a non-profit remains non-profit and doesn't become a cash cow for the founder/president/whoever. Do I think that those specific dozen ministers should have been singled out? Probably not. I'd have liked to see other non-faith-based groups looked at as well. But that's another topic entirely.
It's pretty easy for me to jump to the legal. But you did bring up the video of the Larry King interview and I felt that was more legal than biblical. He was being made to defend his legal rights not his profession. ...
New subject ?? oh my.. shall we? LOL.
I'll go there.. which groups would you like looked at?
Scientology comes to mind for me! I think they did look at them and that's when L. Ron Hubbard mysteriously disappeared, or so the rumors go...
Oh, I was thinking more of an across the board, check up on the top non-profits in every category kind of thing. Though I'd love to see PETA get some more attention in the form of subpoenas. And Scientology probably needs a look or two too. Really though, I just think they shouldn't be targeting ministers specifically, rather they should look at the leaders of all kinds of groups that fall under the non-profit header.
Well I guess I'd be ok with an investigation if their were red flags that warrant the investigation. The IRS closely monitors the big institutions. I think if they thought their was a problem they would go through the legal channels and start an investigation. But just any ole politician decides a set amount of people need to be looked at -- that's where I find the problem.
I am grateful that Scientology is not given religious status. I think initially they considered them a cult. Now, I think they simply don't qualify as a religious organizaiton. Or so the story goes...
Post a Comment