Should church leaders be vetted more than they are?

[nobspeople]

An article (see below) kicked off a thought: Should church leaders be (better) vetted before being offered a leadership role in a church or religious organization?

Independent of denomination, power intoxicates some. With power often times comes influence and, more to many peoples' liking, money. It's no surprise that churches can be ca$h cows. The bigger the church, many times, the more money it brings in. We've most all seen church pastors/leaders with private jets, Bentleys and so on. People like doctors often times can't afford such things. A quote from the article: "Caldwell used about $900,000 he received from the scheme to maintain his lifestyle and pay down credit cards and mortgages, according to the Justice Department. Caldwell has a masters degree from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania and had worked in the financial industry."

I've said it before and will say it again: religion is the oldest profession in human history IMO. And these mega-church leaders show, if it's not the oldest, it's one of the most profitable.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-megach ... 06983.html

The above made mad me TBH

For discussion, should potential church leaders be further vetted prior to being offered the position? And should a degree in business be enough for them to become a church leader?

[brunumb]

The idea that "religion" is among the most profitable professions is clearly false.

The vast amounts of tax free dollars flowing into religious organisations does give one pause to wonder. Their books are often closed and the amount that actually flows out again in terms of help for the needy is never really clear. I guess that's where faith rears its ugly head again.

[bjs1]

The idea that "religion" is among the most profitable professions is clearly false.

The vast amounts of tax free dollars flowing into religious organisations does give one pause to wonder. Their books are often closed and the amount that actually flows out again in terms of help for the needy is never really clear. I guess that's where faith rears its ugly head again.

Churches do not report income. People who receive money from churches do report it.

[JehovahsWitness]

The idea that "religion" is among the most profitable professions is clearly false.

The vast amounts of tax free dollars flowing into religious organisations does give one pause to wonder. Their books are often closed and the amount that actually flows out again in terms of help for the needy is never really clear. I guess that's where faith rears its ugly head again.

Churches do not report income. People who receive money from churches do report it.

I do not know much about US law but I believe all non profit organisations and charities must be audited by law.





JW

[bjs1]

The idea that "religion" is among the most profitable professions is clearly false.

The vast amounts of tax free dollars flowing into religious organisations does give one pause to wonder. Their books are often closed and the amount that actually flows out again in terms of help for the needy is never really clear. I guess that's where faith rears its ugly head again.

Churches do not report income. People who receive money from churches do report it.

I do not know much about US law but I believe all non profit organisations and charities must be audited by law.

Its complicated. (Shocking, I know.) The US federal government does not audit donations to churches without cause, but does require church to report income other than donations. Beyond that each state has its own set of rules.

The state I live in does not require churches to report donations, but does require them to report income other than donation and to provide a yearly report of net worth that includes both liquid and fixed assets.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #21]

Sure, but "religion" also employs far more people.

I said church, you said religion. I offered details on religion. You offered a 'yeah sure, but....'. Enough said but thanks for your response anyway.

[bjs1]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #21]

Sure, but "religion" also employs far more people.

I said church, you said religion. I offered details on religion. You offered a 'yeah sure, but....'. Enough said but thanks for your response anyway.

Indeed, you have a point as long no one looks too hard at it. A surface level glance might make your point seem valid. A closer look reveals that you are treating extremes as if they were normative, which is still not a good idea.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #21]

Sure, but "religion" also employs far more people.

I said church, you said religion. I offered details on religion. You offered a 'yeah sure, but....'. Enough said but thanks for your response anyway.

Indeed, you have a point as long no one looks too hard at it. A surface level glance might make your point seem valid. A closer look reveals that you are treating extremes as if they were normative, which is still not a good idea.

While I appreciate your wrong POV above, there's not one iota of truth therein.

I've found if you look hard enough at most anything, you can find just about anything you're looking to find; that's what's happened in your case, here, as I have zero interest in proving anything one way or the other. I simply posted links for your review (or not) that shows your POV incorrect, and my opinion. Nothing else.

Pro tip: when it comes to my comments, read them for the words they are; they are as simple as can be with no underlining motive (there's no point, especially in here, where most everyone already has their steadfast POV).

Happy posting!!

[bjs1]

I simply posted links for your review (or not) that shows your POV incorrect, and my opinion. Nothing else.

Nah, you just found some articles and then you claimed that they said things they just didnt say. But, like you said, "everyone already has their steadfast POV."

[nobspeople]

I simply posted links for your review (or not) that shows your POV incorrect, and my opinion. Nothing else.

Nah, you just found some articles and then you claimed that they said things they just didnt say. But, like you said, "everyone already has their steadfast POV."

Nah, I found articles speaking to the point you seemed to have chosen to ignore. Which is fine. It doesn't change that I'm correct

But church finances aren't what this thread's about so we should get back to the topic at hand

[bjs1]

But church finances aren't what this thread's about so we should get back to the topic at hand

You started the thread with a series of statements that focus on extreme and exceedingly uncommon events in churches. You then treated those extremes as if they were normative, and asked, "Should potential church leaders be further vetted prior to being offered the position? And should a degree in business be enough for them to become a church leader?"

The second question is a little silly, since virtually no church leaders have only a business degree. Caldwells business degree was mentioned specifically because it was unusual.

Now there is a valid discussion about how churches vet leaders. However, you opening statements largely poisoned the well for this thread. If you actually are interested in the topic, you might check in to how churches normally vet leaders and then start a new thread with more accurate information to frame the debate.