11 ms·

The phenomenon of "megachurches" and "televangelists" in America fascinate me, you have guys like Pat Robertson driving Rolls Royces and flying in private jets,

The phenomenon of "megachurches" and "televangelists" in America fascinate me, you have guys like Pat Robertson driving Rolls Royces and flying in private jets, all paid for tax-free, in the name of a religion that commands its followers to give everything they have to the poor. It's all so perverse.

hobotime 2y ago
Pat's income from his mega church and gifts in kind are taxable. I'm not saying he's a good person, but he has personal income just like the rest of us. The odd clergy exemptions to the personal income tax are not that large: https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417 https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > he has personal income just like the rest of us And like the rest of his fellow mega-wealthy, he'll be able to fiddle it away in a number of ways. The flights (and dinners, and cushy hotels, and big parties) will be for "church business". The "fair rental value" of his home will be immense, and "reasonable compensation for the minister's services" will be something the IRS is reluctant to fight over.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
pram 2y ago
A lot of the original evangelical megachurches were directly influenced and guided by Peter Drucker who was a big "scientific management" figure, if that tells you anything. He was a direct mentor to Rick Warren who started the Saddleback Church, which is like the modern megachurch template. Pretty interesting rabbit hole to go down.
Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
> in the name of a religion that commands its followers to give everything they have to the poor Yeah, too bad that's a command they don't even follow.
bigstrat2003 2y ago
First, many Christians (literally every Christian I've ever known) would agree that megachurches have lost their way and that the people in charge are in no way fit to be leaders among God's people. You're preaching to the choir. Second... > in the name of a religion that commands its followers to give everything they have to the poor. This isn't actually true. The point of this story (as with a lot of things Jesus did) is that the standards for us to be righteous on our own merit is impossibly high, but that God in his mercy will forgive us anyway. That's why the next bit says that Jesus' disciples asked "who then can be saved?", and Jesus replies that with God, all things are possible. To be righteous in our own merits we would have to take extreme steps like selling all our material possessions (and more), but we don't have to because of God's grace. That said, we are explicitly commanded to care for the poor and other downtrodden members of society. Not being required to sell all our possessions is not a pass to just ignore the poor, or to half-ass our efforts towards them. It's just that we aren't actually commanded to sell all our possessions.

hobotime 2y ago

Pat's income from his mega church and gifts in kind are taxable. I'm not saying he's a good person, but he has personal income just like the rest of us. The odd clergy exemptions to the personal income tax are not that large: https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417 https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417

ceejayoz 2y ago
> he has personal income just like the rest of us And like the rest of his fellow mega-wealthy, he'll be able to fiddle it away in a number of ways. The flights (and dinners, and cushy hotels, and big parties) will be for "church business". The "fair rental value" of his home will be immense, and "reasonable compensation for the minister's services" will be something the IRS is reluctant to fight over.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

pram 2y ago

A lot of the original evangelical megachurches were directly influenced and guided by Peter Drucker who was a big "scientific management" figure, if that tells you anything. He was a direct mentor to Rick Warren who started the Saddleback Church, which is like the modern megachurch template. Pretty interesting rabbit hole to go down.

Sohcahtoa82 2y ago

> in the name of a religion that commands its followers to give everything they have to the poor Yeah, too bad that's a command they don't even follow.

bigstrat2003 2y ago

First, many Christians (literally every Christian I've ever known) would agree that megachurches have lost their way and that the people in charge are in no way fit to be leaders among God's people. You're preaching to the choir. Second... > in the name of a religion that commands its followers to give everything they have to the poor. This isn't actually true. The point of this story (as with a lot of things Jesus did) is that the standards for us to be righteous on our own merit is impossibly high, but that God in his mercy will forgive us anyway. That's why the next bit says that Jesus' disciples asked "who then can be saved?", and Jesus replies that with God, all things are possible. To be righteous in our own merits we would have to take extreme steps like selling all our material possessions (and more), but we don't have to because of God's grace. That said, we are explicitly commanded to care for the poor and other downtrodden members of society. Not being required to sell all our possessions is not a pass to just ignore the poor, or to half-ass our efforts towards them. It's just that we aren't actually commanded to sell all our possessions.