Jake Hogan said...
I think the whole thing is quite disgusting, but I'm not
surprised to hear about all of it. It seems that many evangelicals have been
happy to make the dollar part of *their* Trinity. I suspect that things will
continue to develop in this direction. We already have changed centuries-old
worship practices to suit the desires of people. Churches compete against one
another with different services as well as para-church
benefits (babysitting, a church gym, coffehouse,
etc). To me, and I mean no offense to any one person, but this is another
example, and perhaps a prophesy, about how the
Evangelical movement is becoming more and more wed to the world instead of
ministering to it.
On a side note, there was an episode of the Simpsons
a few years back where the church had to get corporate sponsors to keep the
church running. They had banners hanging up in the sanctuary like some kind of
baseball stadium and the minister said something like, "The following
sermon was brought to you today by Wheely
Tires." I can't wait.
Kurt A Beard said...
I cite the Simpsons Episode entitled
"She of Little Faith" http://www.snpp.com/episodes/DABF02
Homer and Bart blow the church up in a model rocket accident. To rebuild the
church they make a deal with Mr. Burns who hires a lady who “guarantee[s] I can
find some new revenue streams. Step one: Let's sell some ad space. Reverend,
how would you feel about wearing this robe? [holds up
a robe with "Fatso's Hash House" embroidered on it.” The church is
rebuilt with money changers and advertisements. It is a must see critique of
this issue. Lisa compares the new church to the whore of
Thinking in
Ohio said...
Before I ever read a comment I thought of this Simpson’s episode
myself! If that doesn't reveal something about us all (smile). Don't forget
that in the episode Lisa turns to a Buddhist temple for solace and there finds
Richard Gere meditating! In the course of the episode
the wise mentor/actor explains to Lisa that Buddhism respects diversity (unlike
Christianity--implied not stated) and she cements her faith in her new
religion. Clearly this episode portrays Christianity as the sell-out faith and
Buddhism as an untarnished religion. But maybe we need to hear the message
being conveyed here?
However, there is certainly nothing wrong with Christians writing books or
directing films (Left Behind and Jabez aside). Just
because people pay money for the product doesn't make it evil in itself
(although I'll be the first to admit I sometimes become nauseous in Christian
bookstores). Influence is a sign of success and having the ear of
As far as corporate sponsorship, I'm sure we'll all agree it must be banished
and/or barred from the local church and denominations (as Lisa Simpson has
shown).
However, I know of a lot of Christian colleges that sponsor youth retreats, denomiaitonal conventions, etc. Or take for example
Christian companies like Zondervan sponsoring
Pastor's conventions... Why couldn't a secular company sponsor a National
Pastors Convention--they already sponsor our beloved music concerts. Is
something inherently "evil" simply because it is "secular"?
I happen to like Diet Pepsi, about as much as (name your Christian college)--so
why not have them sponsor the next youth convention?
I'm not too dogmatic on this issue, I'm just
advocating a different perspective than the reponses
posted.
Daniel said...
This article made me sick to my stomach and made my heart ache.
It reminds me of Jesus's tirade in the temple. $8.6
billion is enough money to fully fund global anti-hunger efforts for 4 months
(source: http://costofwar.com ... after some simple division).
Granted, God is an entity of infinite resources. On that thought, could
corporate sponsorship be considered another form of God's providence? I mean,
we've accepted the medical industry as a means for God to heal and help people
-- why not corporate donations?
At a gut level I'm against it. My heart and my instincts tell me it's wrong.
One cannot serve both God and Mammon after all....
This article reminds me of a quote I read, "The church can
no longer say, 'Silver and gold have I none'... but it also can no longer say
'rise take up your bed and walk.'"
I know you were not addressing the wealth and power of the church but the
coming ethical dilemmas we'll face as the world's attempts to use our influence
to ramp up their own profits. But the power, influence and wealth of the church
somehow grates on me today.
Maybe it is because all this comes during the Christmas season where we just
celebrated the birth of a baby in a stable accompanied only by poor shepherds.
It got me thinking that once the "evangelical" church has become a
power center maybe we will no longer be the true
--JustKara
If Verizon Wireless wants to toss in a million dollars toward
our new church we'd be delighted to put their name just about anywhere they
want it put. What's their phone number? --PastorKarl
daniel said...
@PastorKarl -
Does that include hanging their logo on the wall behind the pulpit? You know
... where The Cross ought to be....
(I'm hoping you were being sarcastic.)
Why would it surprise us that a boomer like PastorKarl
would sublease the wall behind his non-existent pulpit—it was Bill Hybels, the high priest of his generation, who removed all
complex religious symbolism such as crosses from his “auditorium.”
For the boomer generation selling advertising space on the back wall is the
next logical step in their march toward secularism. --Tim
Wow! For just 8 comments (at the time of this writing) there is
an awful lot of finger pointing! I recall a class with Dr. Wayne Caldwell in
the basement days of
If Coke or Verizon want to spend their money building
churches or sponsoring events that build the body of Christ, why not? We
readily boycott companies if they advertise to lifestyles we don't condone, so
why not reward them when they do something positive for once? As long as the
gospel is preached, souls are saved, and people can gain a bit of heaven to get
to heaven on, then Praise the Lord!
(But I, too, haven't bought into the Left Behind/Passion/Jabez
juggernaut. I'm fairly turned off by the over-merchandising of Narnia stuff too!) Jim Schenck
daniel said...
@ Jim Schenck:
I don't think the issue is taking money from corporations (in the form of
donations). After all, tithes and offerings come from corporations through the
wages of church attendees anyway. The issue is corporations HIRING churches to
advertise for them. This makes the corporation "The Boss" of the
church -- a title that is rightfully God's. Fundamentally, the church should
not be used as an advertising tool. The church is a sacred place -- not a
marketplace or an advertising space. I think a "get money anyway you
can" mentality further confirms the beliefs of my athiest
and agnostic friends that 1) Religion was created by men for men 2)christians are hypocrites
3)Organized religion only benefits the orgainization
which proselitizes it.
A further comment on growth: If a human body grows faster than its needs can be
met - it is said to be cancerous, obese and/or diseased. In a similar light, it
seems to me that there is something fundamentally wrong with a church body that
grows faster than its needs can be met. Just as in the human body, each part of
the church body should support and provide for the body as a whole.
Perhaps I'm being young and idealistic ... but that's the truth as I see it.
Keith.Drury said...
I'm headed for
ONE REMINDER: Don’t forget to consider both
ethical issues raised—not just the church’s alliance with business but the
limits of a PASTOR accepting “financial considerations” in appreciation for (or
anticipation of) using their personal influence. This may be closer to home.
Wow, I am amazed at the judgmentalism
I read here. There are some pretty harsh condemnation
of those who embrace the ideas proposed in this article.
Does this issue not fall into the categories that the Apostle Paul referred to
in his discourse about food sacrificed to idols? Perhaps the problem with the
varied viewpoints is the same problem he addresses in Romans 14, varied levels
of faith. I have always found it interesting that those with greater liberty
are those who Paul classifies as having the greater faith. So, you make the
application to the question at hand.
Just rambling thoughts,
Tim Hawk
From a practical standpoint:
Coca-Cola is the most recognised brand name IN THE
WORLD. If it was Coca-Cola's goal to spread the word of God, all they would
have to do is put some Christian "God Loves You" type elements into
their TV commercials and it would be more effective than buying out church
walls. These signs and logo displays are no more than private billboards - one
of the most ineffective forms of marketing. This advertising does nothing for
God, but is done for the sole purpose of boosting Coca-Cola's sales so the
company can have more money, and grow itself.
Money has never been an essential element in bringing people to Christ.
There are hundreds of thousands of home churches across the United States that
take no tithes to pay the electric bill let alone the church leader. Several
Christian organizations give out free Bibles (these cost money, but that is
given through donations). What more does one need? Ok, maybe a library. That's
how C.S. Lewis became a Christian - by studying (and criticizing) it on his
own. Now he's one of the most respected Christian writers in the English
language.
daniel said...
@ Tim Hawk,
I'm fairly confused by your post. How does the issue Paul is addressing about
"whether or not christians should follow Old
Testament Law" apply to "Pulpit Payola" (if I may coin the
term)?
You seem to imply that anyone who states their opinion is weak of faith ... a
statement that seems to be antithetical to your position on judgementalism....
Thanks for any clarification you can give.
RE: Daniel
I think we may be talking on different levels here. (Maybe I'm old and
pragmatic!) Money is money is money. It is not evil. The love of money is, as
Paul points out. I don't believe a corporation adverising
means it is hiring a church. It is using the church as a venue to push it's own product, hoping to gain customers by the positive
association. If a church doesn't feel comfortable, then it could easily
decline. If it does feel comfortable, then put a blurb in the bulletin thanking
them, or give the corporation a full page ad in the program and a display table
in the foyer/narthex/lobby. I'll even go so far as to say I'd put up a plaque
with their name on it in the foyer/narthex/lobby. (I can always put a tall fern
in front of it!!! - joke -)
If, as you say, a church should not be used as an advertising tool, then we
must be consistent. No more posters for Billy Graham films. No more Christian
bookstores owned by the church in the foyer/narthex/lobby. No more books for
sale, or Christian music, or Christian artwork, etc.
Of course, I've never met your non-believing friends, but the athiests/agnostics I know generally use the money line as a
smoke screen for deeper issues they don't want to deal with - like their sinful
nature and the sole sufficiency of Christ's salvation. I keep on loving them
anyway!
And I see your point regarding "unhealthy growth" of the physical
body. But I believe that strains the metaphor of the body. I can't think of any
real growth in the body of Christ that could be considered unhealthy! If God is
blessing a certain ministry with converts, then He is big enough to supply all
their needs as well. Maybe some of those needs can be met from
never-before-thought-of sources? Bus ministry, multiple services, small groups,
stewardship campaigns, building funds, were all new at some point.
Now, as to Coach Drury's other admonition about ministerial bucks, I would be
very uncomfortable with that idea.
I don't have any problem with money for the body (buildings, etc). It benefits
the congregation as a whole. But money for the pastor looks too much like
congressional junkets or the golf games my brother the sales rep pays for when
wooing a client. I think the free pens from Wesley Press is
about as far as I want to go with freebies and promotional considerations.
On a side note - Hey, Tim Hawk, it's good to see you in print!
Daniel - thanks for keeping it real!
Jim Schenck
daniel said...
@ Jim,
Thanks for the clarification. Your point of view makes a lot more sense to me
now.
I suppose I was just shocked that the Body of Christ would
need so much help from the means of men. As you said, God is big enough
to take care of us no matter what our size. The modern church's seeming
obsession with growth (as the young, idealistic artist, that I am) quite
frankly distrurbs and frightens me. I'm not fully
convinced that more people attending church = more people who have dedicated
their lives to Christ. In other words, a "church body", to me, is not
the same as the Body of Christ. I worry that we're turning our all-powerful, loving
and perfect God into a spiritual commodity that can be bought, sold and traded.
And, as a gen-x-er, I'm concerned that The Church may
be diverting its attention away from "seeking and saving the lost"
and toward "filling pews and taking whatever means neccessary
to do so." Granted, the two overlap. Part of seeking and saving the lost
is filling pews (or folding chairs :) ). But, of all
the things I remember from my 24 or so years as a Christian -- it's not how big
the church is that keeps me loving Christ -- it's not the youth conventions or
the christmas plays or the music or how entertained
I've been -- or what kind of services the churches offer -- and, it's certainly
not a Billy Graham film.
It's the love, honesty, and integrity of the people who embodied a likeness of
Christ, and also the faithfullness of Christ Himself,
that has made me want to devote my thoughts, my work and my energy to God.
The church has survived this long without "pulpit payola". Why the
sudden need now? Perhaps what I'm trying to say is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
I don't mean to sound as though I'm disagreeing with you. I just wanted to
clarify my own point of view as well (perhaps more for my sake than for yours?)
Thanks again!
What ever happened to "if you want to be My
disciple, deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me?"
We are not in this for the money, are we?
So what does the church and
Does the altar sanctify the gift? Catholic charities are often funded with
tainted or laundered Mafia money. A priest never questions the source; he just
feeds the poor or uses it for charity. Thus, he turns the curse into a
blessing. Paul said, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good”
(Romans 12:21). Someone once said, “the only problem with tainted money is
there t'ain’t enough of it”.
@Daniel,
As I understand Romans 14 it is about the "disputable matters"
between Jews and Gentiles blending together in this new organization/fellowship
called "the church." Yes, the Jewish converts were bringing their
food issues to the situation, but so were the Gentiles - bringing food
sacrificed to idols. So, Paul was trying to guide them through the minefield of
these matters.
My relating this to the current conversation was that "pulpit payola"
may be another disputable matter facing the community of believers. Hope this
helps your understanding.
Concerning your comment about how the church has functioned for so many years
without pulpit payola, why now?, I offer this thought:
Many churches today are faced with much higher building and maintenance cost
than in the past. In the past, many congregations pitched in with volunteer
manpower to erect or maintain buildings. Today, more is hired, and the cost is
unbelievable.
For example, I attend a church that is growing due to the qualities you mention
being present. The current building is not large enough to accomodate
the many ministries we have a vision to provide. However, the building on the
blueprints will incur a price tag of about one million dollars. If we do not
move forward, we are at our peak, as each week there are very few empty seats.
We will be faced with a dilemma. However, the current congregation would be
stretched severely to fund this project all "in house." Outside
funding has great attraction. Will keep you posted as things progress.
Side note to Jim Schenck: Thanks for the encouragement! Good to read your
comments!
Tim Hawk
Polartribe said...
Out of curiosity - and not hoping to jump context too much -
what about the sponsorship efforts of a small business?
For instance, the local service station donates oil filters to a church's
oil-change ministry as long as the church mentions their donation.
What about the "discounted tickets" the youth group got from the
local bowling alley? Maybe the bread donated by Subway for a sub-sale
fundraiser?
What about a talented artist in the congregation displaying his/her prints in
the hallway of the church with their contact information so that you can buy
one?
Big business, small business - they all want the same thing. Our
money. They hope that their generosity now will lead to a greater return
on investment later on.
Regarding Jesus and the Money-Changers at the temple.
Was this rage a result of the selling of sacrificial animals at temple? Or was it
directed at the fact that this "corruption" prevented people from
coming to reconcilliation with God?
It is my belief that sponsorships, whether from a small business or a large
corporation, are not inherantly evil in themselves.
But when we let the sponsorships get to a point where they stand in the way of
God's message of salvation, then we must fear the
inevitable wrath that is to come.
Chris
daniel said...
re: the alter sanctifying the gift:
I think yes, it is alright to accept gifts from any source. However, if one
gives expecting something in return, it is no longer a gift but payment for
services rendered. This is the ethical dillemma. If I
pay a man to hold a sandwich board advertising my company, I am giving him
money in exchange for him promoting MY agenda. I wouldn't be giving this man a
GIFT by paying him. Should the church be promoting anyone's agenda besides
God's? Do these Catholic churches promote the agendas of organized crime? No.
Like you said, they accept the gift with gratitude and use it to further God's
kingdom.
@Tim Hawk:
Thanks for the clarification. I think I understand where you're coming from
more now. In your opinion have the costs churches are facing outstripped the
pace of inflation? Why can't church attendees volunteer anymore? Why is it so
important to move forward? What is the dire need for growth? Are all the
churches in your area full? If your vision is from God, will not God provide
the means to carry it out (without calling church ethics into question)? Can we
no longer ask the Lord of the Harvest to provide workers?
God's word will not return to Him empty but will achieve the purposes for which
He sent it, after all. --I don't mean to sound critical. I want to encourage
you and your congregation to have faith in our Lord that He will provide all
your needs. Again, maybe I'm being naive, but I believe God will accomplish
what He sets out to do.
Recently, I toured the cathedrals of
Today’s evangelical mega church finances a much larger empire than the historic
churches of
Wesley and Luther no longer influence us. Today, we are inspired by
entrepreneurs like Joel Osteen, John Maxwell, Bill Hybles,
and Rick Warren. We are motivated by cultural relevancy. We have experienced a
major shift in mission, priorities, and vision. Of necessity, a culture driven
church must constantly secure new ways to finance the vision. LET’S CALL IT
EVANGELICAL STICKER SHOCK!
Our challenge is to finance a mega vision with fiscal integrity. Is it possible
to impact our culture without corporate sponsorships like Coke or Disney? By
the way, what ever happened to George Bush’s faith based initiative?
What an enlightening interchange! You have explored the ethical dimensions well and helped me think through the implications far better than I had when I wrote this piece. The “rich church” thing emerged and blind-sided me since I had not intended on addressing that here. But it was an interesting side trip and certainly germane. Thanks also to the many who wrote to me by email (especially boomers who are still reluctant to post publicly). I am not able to reply to each of you personally but I do read every comment you send. Thanks again for all your insightful posts! --Keith Drury 1/8/06