Preacher Perks

Interesting list linked on CNN’s website this morning that identifies the 15 richest preachers in the US.  Amazing.  Here are fifteen Christian multi-millionaires who own mansions, private jets, etc. 

Kenneth Copeland - $760 million

Pat Robertson - $100 million

Benny Hinn - $42 million

Joel Olsteen - $40 million

Creflo Dollar - $27 million

Billy Graham - $25 million

Rick Warren - $25 million

Bishop T.J. Dakes - $18 million

Juanita Bynum - $10 million

Joyce Meyer - $8 million

John Hagee - $5 million

Paula White - $5 million

Bishop Eddie Long - $5 million

Bishop Noel Jones - $5 million

Minister Louis Farrakhan - $3 million

Most got rich from media deals, televangelism, and some on book sales.  But, they all got rich.  All but one are non-denominational mega church types.  All are conservative.  What am I missing here?  Looks like we need to add another career for kids to think about on career day – become a preacher and make a million bucks.  Preach about mansions in heaven, not earth, giving up all and following me, harder for the rich to enter heaven than a camel through an eye of a needle, but make a million bucks.

It does not take long to recognize there are no Catholics on the list.  They take a vow of poverty.  Interesting.  And yet the Vatican is wealthy beyond knowing.  The Baptist Church is not on this list, but they are the single largest land owner in Texas other than the state of Texas.  Of course, owning that land is tax free for those who dunk rather than sprinkle and each of their churches has a built in hot tub.  Nor are there any of the thousands of mainstream Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, etc., preachers or priests on the list who serve in rural settings or major urban areas.  These rich guys are the Christian independents, those who do not belong to a denomination so they can make up their theology as well as their church polices as they go.  The more popular the message, the more they increase sales.

There is an assumption in this nation that those who make a lot of money are “successful” and those who don’t are “failures.”  We are, after all, a secular democracy, despite the efforts of folks like those above to make us a theocracy.  The hypocrisy is overwhelming.  I can make a lot of money because I am a successful preacher in a secular, free enterprise economy, but I argue that the nation really needs to be a Christian nation and follow the values I preach.  Not model.  But preach.

I’m a preacher’s kid.  As I child, I never lived in a house that we owned.  The church always furnished our housing.  We had no choice.  It was part of the deal.  We could not do any DIY projects without approval and even painting required a blessing.  That is one heck of a perk.  No rent or mortgage, no utilities, no insurance, no tax.  The price was no choice.  My dad made enough money to keep food on the table and provide one family vacation a year.  We were not in poverty but we surely were not rich.  Most denominations still provide a house, a parsonage, a manse, a rectory or whatever it is called.  Some ambitious preachers who follow God without question demand that they have choice in their own housing and get a housing allowance rather than a house.  Free enterprise strikes again.  Other perks of being a preacher’s kid was that everyone knew I was a preacher’s kid and lay in wait to see if I was sinful like other children.  School employees and Sunday school teachers could not wait to inform my dad of my shortcomings.  There really were no other perks that I recall.  That has morphed today so that male preachers actually take paternity leave, set their own office hours, etc.  I am beginning to think the Catholics may have all this right to begin with – vows of poverty and chastity.  Can a person who has made no sacrifice inspire others to do so?  If I am a preacher but the gospel pales to my drive to make money and have perks then I have no credibility.

When the pitch from the pulpit is to enrich the preacher I’m out of here.  I see preachers as servants of God, not local leaders deserving alms.  Show me a preacher where the governing lay people of the church are demanding that he or she take more time off because they live at and for the church, and I will be impressed.  School people are like that.  The very best among school people have a tough time ever going home.

It seems to me that expectations are amuck.  I became an educator and knew right up front I would not earn much money.  That was fine with me because I believed I was doing what I was “called” to do.  Happiness, excitement, fulfillment meant so much more than wealth.  Educators in effect take a vow of poverty to enter the profession.  One assumes preachers do as well.  As a superintendent if there were insufficient funds to give teachers pay raises then I would not take a pay raise.  My salary was always the first one frozen.  Why?  I was not in the business to make money.  So perhaps I should have followed in my father’s footsteps and become a millionaire in a mega church totally contrary to my beliefs, but rich.

I knew I could not be a preacher, though at an early time in my life I applied for admission to seminary.  I was accepted, but did not go.  I signed a teacher contract.  That is how it should have been.  I have no doubts about my profession and what is right and wrong.  I still cannot get over some faith questions like, why would God send his only son on a suicide mission?  Because he loves me?  I would never ask for such from anyone, much less a deity.  Nor would I be willing to sacrifice my son for someone else.  I deeply, deeply worry about the underlying ethics of such a deity.  Can it be that I love my son more than he loves his?  Or, does he just not value life much at all?  Etc.

Millionaire preachers do not need perks.  They can purchase whatever they want.  And all millionaire preachers should be listed as entertainers, not preachers; and their churches as venues, not houses of the Lord.  To call them preachers gives evangelism such a dirty name.  Does calling them Christian give free enterprise a dirty name?  At least one area of confusion is now clarified for me:  God does not need money.  Preachers do.