If television evangelist Kenneth Copeland wants to raise money so his broadcasts can be viewed in high-definition, that’s his business, and that of those who choose to send him money for such a purpose. If Copeland wants to live in a $6 million home, that’s up to him and the board of his church, over whose decisions he holds veto power. If he desires to have numerous relatives on the payroll, benefitting financially by their involvement in various church-owned businesses, so be it.
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), member of the Senate Finance Committee, has been looking into the financial matters pertaining to some high-profile, and extremely wealthy, ministers, including Kenneth Copeland, in order to determine whether current tax laws governing churches are “adequate.” I assume that means, “Are they appropriate vis-a-vis church-state separation and sufficient in maximizing revenues for the federal government?”
Of course, for many, the temptation is to look at Copeland’s empire (1,500 acre gated compound, mansion, private jet, hefty bank accounts, etc.) and suppose there is something fishy going on. I’ll let Sen. Grassley worry about that, although that is not his stated purpose. After all, Copeland is a “prosperity gospel” advocate, so it makes sense he merely would not “talk the talk.” Talking, however, is not something he is doing with the senator from Iowa. Subpoenas may be on the horizon.
It appears I need to go back and consult lecture notes from my seminary days (as if I even could find them!), for I don’t recall that the words “prosperity” and “gospel” ever were linked together. I know I have missed it in my reading of the New Testament. In fact, sometimes I wonder whether the North American church, with all of its troubles, has endeavored to make the connection anyway, only to find it detracts from the reason for the church’s existence.
In other words, with organizational structures to maintain, intense focus on budgets and income, and strategies for “getting more members,” do the worship of God, and ministry in the name of Jesus become lower priorities for churches? It sure looks that way a lot of the time.
Ah, but we need to have all of that so worship and ministry can occur. Right? I guess so, if we are placing more faith in out-dated business models and comfort food levels of church membership (how many people are needed before valid ministry can occur, anyway?) than we place in the Holy Spirit’s guidance and God’s provision.
As I recall from reading the New Testament, Jesus rounded up a dozen average folks, taught them and showed them what God’s love was about, sent them out to tell and show others, and they became known as people who “turned the world upside down.” Not everyone welcomed them. Not everyone chose to join the parade. We know very little about their individual lives. They left no financial legacy, for there is no evidence they prospered in a material sense. In fact, many suffered as a result of their convictions and commitments.
Jesus called for sacrifice, and he took it to extremes, himself. Was he merely a fanatic? Was his approach unreasonable? Is there a connection between his teaching and example, and the Rolex (when you can refer to an inanimate object by a brand name only, you know you’ve moved to a loftier dimension) on some televangelist’s wrist?
How is success among Christians and the church to be measured?
What are the implications of faithfulness?
Legal, legitimate, honest, on the up and up, or not, it’s difficult for me, given the evidence of scripture and the experience of most Christians in the world, to embrace prosperity as the standard or result or promise of following Jesus.
