Live data from Hacker News

The preachers getting rich from poor Americans

bbc.com

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: The preachers getting rich from poor Americans

#41
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an issue with the Charismatic Movement, which is particularly strong among Evangelicalism but hardly limited to it. It promotes a cult of personality, or rather numerous cults of personality. Both Catholicism (even with the pope) and traditional Protestantism have mechanisms to resist this. Catholicism resists it because clericalism pushes back against cults of the person of the pope specifically (notice the inc…

I found this comment very interesting. Can you give an example of a cult of personality within the anabaptist movement?

One piece of evidence: if you look at this Wikipedia list of megachurches, Baptist-affiliated (and especially Southern Baptist Convention-affiliated) churches are second only to so-called non-denominational: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_megachurches_in_the_Un...

Many of the others, including Calvary and many non-denominational ones, are largely derivative of Anabaptist theology--e.g. practice adult baptism. Pentacostalism originally drew most of its adherents from Baptist churches. Ancedotally, where I grew up people readily migrated between Baptist and Pentacostal churches. Interestingly, there was also a group of Catholic parishioners at my church who practiced--or I guess I should say experienced--speaking in tongues.

More to your point, famous televangelists like Billy Graham were Baptist. Oral Roberts identified as a Baptist early on, and went to a Baptist seminary school. Likewise for Pat Robertson. Baptists really seemed to dominate the scene during the latter part of the 20th century when the rise of the megachurches began, though they were preceded and succeeded by iconic personalities of different denominations. Nobody really remembers the ones that preceded them, like the Roman Catholic Bishop for whom the word televangelist was supposedly originally coined, exactly because the shift toward cults of personality hadn't become widespread.

I'm neither a scholar of theology nor sociology, but I don't think this is all coincidental.

Part of it is likely that the Second Great Awakening (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Awakening) was largely dominated by Baptist and Methodist churches and especially charismatic (small 'c') pastors who at least nominally adhered to those theologies. IME, many modern American Methodist churches adhere to a significantly different theology than traditional Methodism, in many respects akin to Anabaptism. Methodism spread globally primarily through British colonies. IIRC, Methodism was the dominate Christian denomination in Singapore and Malaysia, and I'm pretty sure you could trace import of the Charismatic Movement into Singapore through the Methodist communities.

The critical element of Anabaptism isn't theological, per se, but the (lack of) institutional and community structures. Mennonites are Anabaptists but you don't find Mennonite megachurches or televangelists because the structures that Anabaptism removed were replaced with other communal structures. I do know a Mennonite who, with a Methodist spouse (whose father is a Methodist Bishop), attend an evangelical church--either Baptist-affiliated or non-denominational. It's a relatively easy transition from a religious perspective.

Re: The preachers getting rich from poor Americans

#42
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha. I see what you're getting at. It's a little different because politicians actually do have the power to change things. Proof by existence: before there was no ACA, now there is an ACA. While being a member of a church can probably improve your life in some ways -- a built in community of like-minded people -- it won't directly fix your problems in a way that another community can't. And if you're not using church…

Are you saying that organized religion doesn't have the power to influence change? Politicians do not have a monopoly on impact, in fact, I would say that they have become quite inefficient at it.

At least in the United States, organized religion is officially supposed to be apolitical, at least if the church is organized as a 501(c)-3. So if you're asking whether the church can influence social policy, the answer is obviously yes, but officially it is meant to be "no." And in any case, donations are not really connected to that process.

But if you're asking whether churches do good directly, then the answer is obviously yes. The question is one of degrees. I believe that most church income is spent on church matters (salaries for ministers, staff, rent, evangelism, programs, etc.), and a relatively small amount of it goes to actual charity -- although this belief is a supposition of mine, so I am open to being corrected. In light of this belief, no, I don't think churches in practice can effect systemic changes in the well-being of non-employees. Certainly not nearly to the extent that the government has that capability.

Re: The preachers getting rich from poor Americans

#43
post #32

This isn't limited to the US either, City Harvest Church in Singapore is a great example of the prosperity gospel in action elsewhere. S$50 million (US$36m) of donations were siphoned from the church, of which half went into attempting to launch the pastor's wife into pop stardom, including this distinctly un-churchy video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSZQH_c9jOU (Yes, that is Wyclef Jean; he was paid almost $2m…

It's an issue with the Charismatic Movement, which is particularly strong among Evangelicalism but hardly limited to it. It promotes a cult of personality, or rather numerous cults of personality. Both Catholicism (even with the pope) and traditional Protestantism have mechanisms to resist this. Catholicism resists it because clericalism pushes back against cults of the person of the pope specifically (notice the inc…

Currently taking a course about charisma in Islam and part of it discusses the so called “new preachers” - inward looking evangelism that’s a booming industry.

One prominent example is Amru Khaled عمرو خالد‎.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amr_Khaled

Re: The preachers getting rich from poor Americans

#44
post #3

It's not just televangelists; the local variety of parson is just as exploitative. I grew up in the Mississippi Delta—every "Reverend" drives around in a Cadillac while most of his congregation struggles to make ends meet. These same Reverends preach on the religious benefits of daily fasting while the children of their congregations get their one square meal of the day at school.

You could make the same claim of hypocrisy about any class of community leader or any cultural institution.

Setting aside the question of whether pastors (Charismatic Christian, Evangelical Christian, Christian, or even Muslim) are a particularly hypocritical bunch, megachurches are fundamentally different. They can be exploitative even if the leader is personally honest simply because they're breeding grounds for exploitative peer pressure entirely unmoored from traditional institutional and doctrinal anchors.[1] Power corrupts, and megachurches centralize a ton of power into a single individual.

Cults of personality are qualitatively different from your run-of-the-mill leadership position. If the Roman Catholic Pope tells the global Catholic community to do X, not many people will unflinchingly do X. People don't invest themselves as heavily in abstract doctrine as they do individuals. A megachurch is almost by definition a cult of personality, as to grow and thrive at such scale it takes an exceptionally charismatic leader in whom people invest themselves. And the doctrine of these churches tends to be particularly loose and particularly predicated on the exegesis of the leader, claims to biblical textualism and literalism notwithstanding.

[1] Yes, traditional institutions may have intrinsic exploitative characteristics. But they also have intrinsic mitigations that constrain exploitation, otherwise they wouldn't have persisted for so long. Like a virus, the most virulent ones extinguish themselves rather quickly.

Re: The preachers getting rich from poor Americans

#46
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that organized religion doesn't have the power to influence change? Politicians do not have a monopoly on impact, in fact, I would say that they have become quite inefficient at it.

At least in the United States, organized religion is officially supposed to be apolitical, at least if the church is organized as a 501(c)-3. So if you're asking whether the church can influence social policy, the answer is obviously yes, but officially it is meant to be "no." And in any case, donations are not really connected to that process. But if you're asking whether churches do good directly, then the answer i…

Churches file separate articles of organization for political donations, and members donate to those separately purposefully for influencing change.

Re: The preachers getting rich from poor Americans

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some data points: "When it comes to clergy, new Catholic priests, which includes bishops, can expect a salary somewhere in the mid-$20,000 range, with median salaries varying slightly depending on geography. The highest median salary for a new priest is in the Midwest, at $29,856, while the lowest median salary, $24,960, is found in the Central region, which spans from Minnesota to Texas. The maximum salary for p…

but everything included, so that is basically 35k, tax free, or in a lower tax bracket since so much of the compensation is non monetary, purely disposable. edit, this says the median is 45k https://work.chron.com/much-catholic-priests-paid-12915.html

Clergy pay income tax.

Also, even if they didn't - they are not making a lot of money.

On average, it's peanuts.

This notion of 'rich minister' is not 'a thing' - it's exceedingly less common than in any other line of business.

Re: The preachers getting rich from poor Americans

#48
post #16

> [H]e dresses in a suit, pulls out a Bible and urges viewers to pledge a very specific amount of money. "Don't delay, don't delay," he urges, calmly but emphatically ... drawing in viewers who ... are desperate for change. Can you imagine if this kind of stunt were pulled in the secular sphere? An aspiring leader dressed up in a suit, urging viewers to raise a specific amount of money. "Don't delay, donate today!" d…

Are these comparable though ? Is anyone raising money promising the virtues of a secular life that will give you a pleasant after life ? Also, isn't Jesus divine ? Why does he need donations?

Re: The preachers getting rich from poor Americans

#49
post #43
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an issue with the Charismatic Movement, which is particularly strong among Evangelicalism but hardly limited to it. It promotes a cult of personality, or rather numerous cults of personality. Both Catholicism (even with the pope) and traditional Protestantism have mechanisms to resist this. Catholicism resists it because clericalism pushes back against cults of the person of the pope specifically (notice the inc…

Currently taking a course about charisma in Islam and part of it discusses the so called “new preachers” - inward looking evangelism that’s a booming industry. One prominent example is Amru Khaled عمرو خالد‎. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amr_Khaled

Can you provide some references or biblio from the charisma in Islam course? Thanks...
Post reply on HN