Most churches don't bring in much money. You get to the churches in smaller communities, and they struggle to survive. Not to mention that the ministers often have to take second or third jobs just to get by. So they really aren't ran like any other business, especially when they are non-profits.
Which is no different than a typical business environment. Mom and Pops in small communities don't make the same kind of money as their large city counterparts. Small cities can even have public officials who have other jobs to supplement their income.
A non profit's goal is to generate money. The difference is their purpose is to spend it on a particular cause. For this benefit to society they receive preferential treatment. Obviously differences exist, but those differences are not drastically so.
Jim Baker isn't back because he generates income. Really, that is ridiculous. Who would benefit from that income besides Jim, and the church building?
And that makes it ridiculous why? What else should he do to make a living? Because that is what he is doing. He doesn't have a primary job and preaches on weekends as a volunteer. This is his profession, how he pays his way through life. It pays for his house, car, cable and every other expense he has. I am not saying this wrong, but let's not make it something it isn't.
It's not like the congregants are making any money. It's not like the congregants really get any benefits from that money, besides maybe a more lavish church.
As a customer purchasing a service do you expect to make money from that transaction? When you pay your Doctor, Dentist, Plumber etc there is no belief that you could or would receive any monetary benefit. Why would a churches congregation believe any differently?
When a business takes income and invests in a better building in a better area it does so with the intention of attracting either more customers, better customers, create a more efficient workflow or all three. A religious organization is no different.
If they move to another area it is to serve (gain) potential new members, even if it is to a worse area. If they get another building it is to be more accessible or make attendance more appealing or provide for expansion. You rarely hear of a church that voluntarily moved from one facility to a lesser one because they felt downsizing was a good idea. If they want to service a community that is rougher than where they are they open an additional church.
And really, there aren't many people who are available who can preach as well. It's not like anyone off the street can go into most churches and preach. There are a number of qualifications that one needs in order to be a minister.
I didn't say anybody could do it. I said there are people who could do it just as well, even if there are only 10, who would not have carry the stigma he does.
Not to mention, some ministers are better then others. And those who have experienced hardships, over come that, and become better individuals for that, usually have a better ability to connect with their congregations.
Exactly. How can you tell if there is a connection with people? Attendance, both new and consistent retention. What happens when 50% of people will give $10 every Sunday? If you have 100 people that consistently show up plus retain more than you lose, then there is incentive for that person to continue based on a measurable metric which can offer a distinction between two or more people.
As for the child abuse scandal, that simply is a bad example. If we are looking at it now, once people began finding out what was happening, there was a backlash, and those priests will probably never preach again. Sure, you can find such bad examples, but to assume that the actions of one church dictates all others really is ridiculous.
I disagree. I wasn't taking a cheap shot at religion. Self policing or the failure to do so is not unnique to any particular belief system or to any industry for that matter. What I was pointing out that reliance on it can be disappointing. I agree with you that instances where there has been some type of ethical violation should have consequence. I would even be open to some way of transgressions being forgiven and the person being permitted to move on in the same capacity and earn higher positions within the organization. I don't think that the attempt to save the image of the organization should lessen or abuse that process though.
As for the specifics of what is now happening with regards to the abuse scandal The Vatican still is not cooperating 100% with authorities including denying extradition and offering sanctuary to suspected abusers and that is a top to bottom policy.
Finally, just to make it very clear, churches are not run like any other business. The main reason being that they are non-profits. Maybe they are run like other non-profits, but that is quite different then most for profit businesses.
The ones that continue and are successful are run like a business. Because it is a business. You may not like that the association tarnishes the motivation and intent, but that is about marketing not organization or operations.
Again I don't expect a church to be a hobby that some guy does when he isn't at his real job, but to make it something above or not subject to issues that businesses face only lets these abuses happen. We don't have to think less of a church because it is a business but to ignore that is irresponsible.
