In this video John Oliver talks about televangelists preaching prosperity gospel: the idea that if you sow a seed in the form of a donation, you will reap benefits from God, such as clearing credit card debt or being healed from cancer. Oliver argues that the people who are targeted by such teachings are a vulnerable population who does not have the means to sow said seed donations. All of this money is non-taxable based off of the IRS's 14 points which constitute a church:
- Distinct legal existence
- Recognized creed and form of worship
- Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
- Formal code of doctrine and discipline
- Distinct religious history
- Membership not associated with any other church or denomination
- Organization of ordained ministers
- Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study
- Literature of its own
- Established places of worship
- Regular congregations
- Regular religious services
- Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young
- Schools for the preparation of its members
My question is this: through these rules is the IRS privileging the insider's perspective or just avoiding the difficult task of defining religious practice? Should there be a limit to what is considered a church when it seems that some individuals are "playing the system"? Who gets to decide whether they are playing the system or if this is a genuine belief?
Also, Trinity Broadcasting Network gets a shoutout in the beginning. Holler.
Wow, I have so many thoughts about this topic.
ReplyDeleteOne, I think you pose really thought-provoking questions that don't have an easy answer. I think defining religious practice is extremely different, so I would perhaps suggest that the IRS' list of broad points is just trying to negotiate this difficult topic without offending the wide variety of religions that already do practice in the US. However, I am sure some of the guidelines are based more on America's more Christian history: for example, the idea that young people need weekly religious instruction and the need for a defined ecclesiastical government.
In my opinion, your last two questions are even less "answerable" than the first. Who DOES get to decide genuine belief/playing the system? I would have originally suggested that - despite its flaws - this task still ultimately falls to the government, but after seeing how easily John Oliver was able to register his satirical organization, I have less faith in that system, so I don't know who should step in to fix this.
If the government and IRS are to remain in charge of churches, I would perhaps suggest that stricter guidelines are put in place. For example, Oliver states that there are 14 checkpoints the IRS says constitute a church, but not all of them need to be fulfilled. I would want to know why this is and if there are certain points that are necessary, while others are more optional.
Further, he talks about how churches are rarely audited: maybe this is an actual place where the IRS can improve. How are people like the Copelands - who were openly discovered using the church plane for their own vacations - and Robert Tilton, who asks for money biweekly, not audited? I believe that is an oversight on the government's part.
Lastly, I would perhaps put forward the question as to why people are still attracted to these churches? These megachurches and televangelists make millions of dollars, so there must be some draw to them that cannot be entirely discounted.
Also, just to add on a slight point about the Prosperity Gospel. There was this New York Times article published by a Duke professor, Kate Bowler, who talks about this idea and the rise of the idea of #blessed.
ReplyDeleteI won't elaborate too much because I've already said a lot on this post, but I think she makes an interesting point that seems to answer the question I pose in the last paragraph of my above comment. She says that the prosperity gospel allows for an "illusion of control" through God in one's life. No matter how bad your life's circumstances are, you are still blessed through God: as Bowler states, there are "no setbacks, only setups." I can't remember when we talked about this point, but it seems to relate to the idea that religion serves a comfort to people, which may explain why televangelists remain so popular.
Here is the link to Bowler's article, if anyone is interested: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/opinion/sunday/death-the-prosperity-gospel-and-me.html?_r=0.
This idea has always been one that I have thought about. Even in my own church when we have collection, I wonder how much actually goes to what it should be. However, I think society has definitely tricked us into thinking that we have to give to receive God's benefits. This idea of the Prosperity Gospel has been twisted in the wrong way I believe. I think giving, not necessarily money, can create better lives in other ways than financially. These televangelists are tricking these people into giving money.
ReplyDeleteThe NY Times article was very interesting, especially when she talked about how the Mennonites in her hometown would give money to a pastor and then see him drive a motorcycle. These type of things are happening right in front of people's faces, but people would feel guilty if they didn't donate anything.
Great conversation!
ReplyDeleteGreat conversation!
ReplyDelete