Nepotism And Televangelist

[mes228]

The Catholic Church had such a problem of Priest considering the 'work" they had accomplished as theirs. Even to the point that Priest were leaving the family "business" to their children. Eventually, Catholicism instituted celibacy as a discipline to end this type of "nepotism" and problem. Thats my brief take on how/why Priest are celibate today.

Fast forward to Televangelist today. Most I can think of have groomed their children to assume the leadership of the family business (Fuller, Hagee, Osteen, Roberts, Schuler, Graham etc. ad nauseaum). I'm not saying that God has not used these people to further his work on the earth. Or that many "good works" have not been done by these people. All that aside, I believe this trend reveals perhaps these "works" are businesses in the heart of some who lead. You leave a family business to your children. Can and should you leave a Church to your children? Thats pretty close to "making merchandise" of believers. I find it offensive and suspect God does also. Some of the Apostles were married and I see no New Test. or historical example of the church as an inheritance. I suspect few that attend these churches know how they are incorporated, who owns the stock, who sits on Boards of Directors, what type of majority is required to pass a proposal (some Boards are "loaded" with family members in some organizations giving a simple majority), salaries, perks, expenses etc.etc. As an aside how can you be a faithful steward of the resources God has given you - if you don't know these things? Some these organizations have a rumor mill that the head honcho takes only what he needs and donates the rest back, or tithes faithfully (I know of three personally). Where's the proof?? I've heard this from members of several of these organizations. Some Ministers will preach that once you "give" it's no longer your concern. Apply that to the Gestapo, Jim Jones, KKK, Democrats, Gay Rights, Abortion mills, etc. and I believe it's clear every Christian has some responsibility to know who, and to what, they give support. I'll end now, thats my rant for the day.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Fuller, Hagee, Osteen, Roberts, Schuler, Graham etc. ad nauseaum

I rather imagine that God is much more troubled by the teaching and practice of these men than by their passing it on to their sons.

 

[rsr]

This appears to belong more properly belong in another forum, so it is being transferred there.

 

[mcdirector]

I rather imagine that God is much more troubled by the teaching and practice of these men than by their passing it on to their sons.

agreed . . .

 

[drfuss]

I can't find a great prophet who had a son who became a great prophet. Can anyone name one?

The question that should be addressed: Is it God's ministry or the family ministry? Or are Christians following the Lord or the man and his family?

Even Samuel tried passing his ministry on to his sons. His plan didn't work.

Of course, the Levites (the continual preachers in Israel) passed their functions on to their sons. However, none of the specially called prophets had sons who became great prophets.

 

[JDale]

I rather imagine that God is much more troubled by the teaching and practice of these men than by their passing it on to their sons.

Graham?? Come now -- are we lumping Franklin (or Billy) into the same category as these others?

JDale

 

[mes228]

Nepotism

Actually, putting Grahams name here among the others was an error. I didn't really mean to imply he was in the same league with many others. I was simply trying to remember those that had children moving into leadership roles. I still question the practice though.

 

[drfuss]

Actually, putting Grahams name here among the others was an error. I didn't really mean to imply he was in the same league with many others. I was simply trying to remember those that had children moving into leadership roles. I still question the practice though.

The list is about passing a ministry on to the son, and Graham certainly is doing that, so I don't see the problem with Graham's name being included. I suppose time will tell.

 

[D28guy]

But why CANT the son of a pastor, teacher or evangelist be the one God wants to continue it?

In the area of ministry the principal of younger ones being mentored by the older ones who posses much more wisdom is as biblical as can be. Fathers mentoring sons is biblical. I see no reason to catagorically rule this out as being of God.

Mike

 

[drfuss]

But why CANT the son of a pastor, teacher or evangelist be the one God wants to continue it?

In the area of ministry the principal of younger ones being mentored by the older ones who posses much more wisdom is as biblical as can be. Fathers mentoring sons is biblical. I see no reason to catagorically rule this out as being of God.

Mike

Fathers menitoring sons - Yes
Passing on God's ministry (including the position and wealth) as though it belongs in the family - No

The Levites and Priests had a continuing and routine ministry that was passed on to the sons. The prophets had special ministries; and there is no record, that I know of, that any great prophet passed on their God given ministry to their sons. I suppose the question is which do ministers identify with.

Note that the law did not allow the Levites to be in business and accummulate wealth. They could only have houses and fields for their own consumption.

 

[mes228]

Nepotism

The fact that a Minister CAN groom and place a family member shows it's a business.
Where are the inputs from the brethren, who chose him, who decides the succession?? Simply shows that something isn't kosher in the organizational set up. I own a company that's incorporated, and the stock, and I can do whatever I please. If someone else owned the stock, or had voting privileges, they would have some input as to what I do. In one local large Church the board of Directors is pretty much a sham (my opinion, and my church). As it's loaded with family members to produce a majority (or that's what my research seems to indicate). All of this is kept quite secret. I've asked these questions via letter and never get an answer. I've casually asked church members and no one knows. I doubt there's anything the head man wished to do that he couldn't. This also gives him much control over his compensation package, how things run, deals made, perks, etc.etc. Also allows many perks that he can benefit from with the Church bearing the cost, taxes, maintenance and upkeep. Some of the perks this man utilizes runs into the multiple millions of dollars and the church members are ignorant of it. On some level it's quite dis-ingenious to accept the few dollars from the widow, elderly and under-employed, underpay your staff (they are expected to sacrifice for the work) an then spend multiple millions on your personal perks & desires. Most church members are ignorant of the cost of these perks as they are so far out of their league. I'm sensitive to this issue as I spent years giving, sacrificing, serving what turned out to be family business, not a church. After this experience I simply cannot check my brain and eyes at the door. As many do.

 

[atestring]

I don' t see where being a son of a minister would disqualify anyone from being a minister. I think that Jonah was a PK. So why should sons of Graham , Schuller, or Hagee ,Ed Young , etc be a problem?

 

[mes228]

Nepotism

Nothing wrong with a Ministers son becoming a Minister. What's wrong is the organizational set up, control, etc. of a work where the leader can pass the leadership role on to the Son. Without someone, somewhere, or the congregation, questioning the power to do so. I suggest that this identifies a "work" as a "business" on some level. It also suggest that the members are "merchandise" in the family business on some level. In no way do I intend to imply that God has not used these "works" to create Christians, or do good works. In the end, some Christian leaders that own run a "work" as a family business may be surprised to find themselves a "castaway" and their parishioners saved. Just my opinion from experience and observation.

 

[atestring]

Nothing wrong with a Ministers son becoming a Minister. What's wrong is the organizational set up, control, etc. of a work where the leader can pass the leadership role on to the Son. Without someone, somewhere, or the congregation, questioning the power to do so. I suggest that this identifies a "work" as a "business" on some level. It also suggest that the members are "merchandise" in the family business on some level. In no way do I intend to imply that God has not used these "works" to create Christians, or do good works. In the end, some Christian leaders that own run a "work" as a family business may be surprised to find themselves a "castaway" and their parishioners saved. Just my opinion from experience and observation.

You cannot assume that these people will find themselves as " Castaways".
There could be castaways in other circumstances just as well.
Personally I will not loose sleep over this.

 

[mes228]

Nepotism

Neither do I lose sleep over it. Just an observation based on previous experiences.
Best regards and have a great day.

 

[drfuss]

The fact that a Minister CAN groom and place a family member shows it's a business.
Where are the inputs from the brethren, who chose him, who decides the succession?? Simply shows that something isn't kosher in the organizational set up. I own a company that's incorporated, and the stock, and I can do whatever I please. If someone else owned the stock, or had voting privileges, they would have some input as to what I do. In one local large Church the board of Directors is pretty much a sham (my opinion, and my church). As it's loaded with family members to produce a majority (or that's what my research seems to indicate). All of this is kept quite secret. I've asked these questions via letter and never get an answer. I've casually asked church members and no one knows. I doubt there's anything the head man wished to do that he couldn't. This also gives him much control over his compensation package, how things run, deals made, perks, etc.etc. Also allows many perks that he can benefit from with the Church bearing the cost, taxes, maintenance and upkeep. Some of the perks this man utilizes runs into the multiple millions of dollars and the church members are ignorant of it. On some level it's quite dis-ingenious to accept the few dollars from the widow, elderly and under-employed, underpay your staff (they are expected to sacrifice for the work) an then spend multiple millions on your personal perks & desires. Most church members are ignorant of the cost of these perks as they are so far out of their league. I'm sensitive to this issue as I spent years giving, sacrificing, serving what turned out to be family business, not a church. After this experience I simply cannot check my brain and eyes at the door. As many do.

You said it very well.

Before retiring, I was in the civil service and supervised a group of about 60 engineers and technicians. My son graduated from college with an engineering degree, but I could not hire him because it is against the law in government civil service to hire your relatives.

The church is somewhat like the government in that no one is supposed to own it. In the government, your salvary and benefits are public information and you cannot hire your relatives. Why isn't it the same in churches and religous organizations?

It is a shame that the ethics of government are higher than the ethics of many churches and religous organizations.