Joyce Meyers

[Larry N Moore]

Just a drive-by post here...

I once attended a church that never passed any kind of money-holding recepticle. No plate, basket, charger, horn - nothing.

There was a wooden mainbox looking thing at the back and people put in what they wanted to put it. There was no pressure and no requests for money.

There's always exceptions to the rule.

I also have a friend that attends a church in Kansas. The ministers keep their day jobs and trade off duties. On top of that, they live simply - no extravagance whatsoever. They feel like they need to let as much as much money as possible go to the church.

I think monks pretty much fit the same description.

The question is: Is it immoral for someone who preaches the gospel to be supported for doing so? And then the next question would be (if the answer is no) -- How much should they be paid? I'll consider what the Bible says on the issue. If it's silent then, I'll hold my tongue. But if it's not immoral then the amount they are paid is purely a subjective opinion. You're entitled to it but, on the flip side the opinion of those on the other side of the equation are entitled to theirs. In chess that would be considered a stalemate.

[Goey]

There's always exceptions to the rule.

I think monks pretty much fit the same description.

The question is: Is it immoral for someone who preaches the gospel to be supported for doing so? And then the next question would be (if the answer is no) -- How much should they be paid? I'll consider what the Bible says on the issue. If it's silent then, I'll hold my tongue. But if it's not immoral then the amount they are paid is purely a subjective opinion. You're entitled to it but, on the flip side the opinion of those on the other side of the equation are entitled to theirs. In chess that would be considered a stalemate.

Greed is immoral, is it not? - I don't think the Bible is silent about that.

greed - WordNet ® 2.1 (2005) :

greed

n 1: excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially

more material wealth) than one needs or deserves

2: reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth

(personified as one of the deadly sins) [syn: avarice,

greed, covetousness, rapacity, avaritia]

From Titus:

Tts 1:10 For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision,

Tts 1:11 whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain. (NKJV)

Tts 1:10 For there are many who rebel against right teaching; they engage in useless talk and deceive people. This is especially true of those who insist on circumcision for salvation.

Tts 1:11 They must be silenced. By their wrong teaching, they have already turned whole families away from the truth. Such teachers only want your money. (NLT)

Tts 1:10 For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group.

Tts 1:11 They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach–and that for the sake of dishonest gain.

Edited November 16, 2007 by Goey

[socks]

Nothing in the bible says it's immoral to earn a living. Ministering could certainly be considered work, an occupation. In fact, a case could be made from biblical history that it pays to have those whose job it is to look out for and contribute to the well being of a group of people, be it Sheriff, Forest Ranger or indeed Pastors, teachers, etc.

Now - right there in that paragraph is how I see it working. That's the context.

[Larry N Moore]

Greed is immoral, is it not? - I don't think the Bible is silent about that.

Without a doubt.

Now let's look at the definition you so kindly provided. I'll highlight in red the key elements I think should not go unnoticed.

greed

n 1: excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially

more material wealth) than one needs or deserves

2: reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth

There is nothing wrong to desire and seek to acquire wealth. When it becomes morally wrong is when it's an excessive desire. Remember the verse that says: The love of money is the root of all evil? What you need to determine is if Joyce Meyer or anyone else has an excessive desire to acquire more than she needs. But there's something else you need to determine. Does she willingly share her abundance with others? It makes no sense for you to share what you need to give to them that lack. That makes them without lack but then puts you in the position of having lack yourself. Also, another thing you need to consider is: To a person who only earns -- say -- $15,000 he/she might consider someone else that earns $50,000 having more than he/she needs and thinks you should give up a good portion of your income and give it to someone who really needs it -- like themselves. And then someone who earns only $5000 might think the one earning $15000 should give a portion of that income to someone who needs it -- like themselves.

The scriptures you cited can also be looked at with greater scrutiny than looking at them and thinking they support your pov. In any case -- again -- you have to know and show evidence that Joyce's heart is only to get rich off of others in order for those scriptures to fit. I don't think you can.

[doojable]

Could you not look at her lifestyle and see how she lives? There is comfortable and then there is very comfortable, then there is "got more money than sense."

[Larry N Moore]

Could you not look at her lifestyle and see how she lives? There is comfortable and then there is very comfortable, then there is "got more money than sense."

Well, dooj -- I could also look at Solomon's lifestyle and conclude that God didn't have a problem with his great wealth so, I'm not sure God has a problem with Joyce's either.

[doojable]

I thought that God did have a problem with Solomon's lifestyle.

OTOH - there is a difference between being the King of a nation and being a minister.

[Larry N Moore]

I thought that God did have a problem with Solomon's lifestyle.

Dooj, if I'm not mistaken it was God that gave Solomon his great wealth because all he asked for was wisdom to lead God's people.

OTOH - there is a difference between being the King of a nation and being a minister.

Yea -- one wears a crown and the other doesn't. Both are responsible to care for God's people -- so there's really not much difference.

[Larry N Moore]

Btw, dooj, if you have a problem with Solomon then consider Job. Didn't God double all that he had after Satan took it all away from him?

[doojable]

There is a fine line here. It's late and I'm tired, so I'm not getting into it now.

I have no problem with wealth and success. I do think that there is a point where greed takes over.

Can I define that point? NO. Does that mean it doesn't exist? NO.

[Larry N Moore]

<snip> I do think that there is a point where greed takes over.

Can I define that point? NO. Does that mean it doesn't exist? NO.

I agree. That's probably why I prefer not to step into that role of being a judge. I'll let God sort them all out in the end. It's much easier (and peaceable) that way imo.

[sky4it]

You ever wonder WHY Ananias and Saphira dropped over dead when they sold their stuff and gave HALF to the first church? IMO, it wasnt about the money (although the apostles may have had a policy of ALL or you cant be a leader) It was about the fact they lied about what they did.

Perhaps it speaks a tad in HOW people should develop theology and money in the gospel.

[brideofjc]

That was Dragnet, not Hawaii 5-0.

And it's not illegal to solicit donations.

It's the morals in question.

Oh, Well..........I don't watch a whole lotta tv.

[brideofjc]

I thought that God did have a problem with Solomon's lifestyle.

OTOH - there is a difference between being the King of a nation and being a minister.

In the first testamental period, there were two people that had the Holy Spirit, i.e. The King and The Prophet.

So both were God's ministers to do good to the people and to teach God's laws so that God could bless

the nation.

[Goey]

The scriptures you cited can also be looked at with greater scrutiny than looking at them and thinking they support your pov. In any case -- again -- you have to know and show evidence that Joyce's heart is only to get rich off of others in order for those scriptures to fit. I don't think you can.

It's easy to pull out the old "you don't know her heart" defense suggesting greed cannot be "proven". -- And the old "who are YOU to judge?" defense, suggesting judgmentalism -- And the old, "it's between them and God" thing (another form of "don't ask - don't tell). This is the kind of thinking that allows these "Christian" hucksters to continue. This is the same kind of thinking that contributed to allowing the abuse in TWI to go on for so long.

Then someone invariably brings up the Solomon factor as a defense, comparing the modern day TV minister with an OT king. Meyer, Copeland, Hinn and others others are not kings, although they try to live like kings with their lavish lifestyles, huge salaries, and unchecked power over their organizations. Like kings, they answer to no one within their organizations since they domintate their coprorate boards by stacking them with family members and close friends who they employ. In any case, the Solomon factor is irrelevant - apples and oranges.

A persons heart is reflected by their words and their actions . We no more need to be God in order to see greed and corruption, any more than we need to be God to see love and kindness. If we can see a heart of love, we can also see a heart of greed. Being God is not necessary. Opening one's eyes is.

Did I say that "Joyce's heart is only to get rich off of others" ? Keyword "only". I do not discount the possibility that she believes she is doing a good thing, and that she is justified in her huge personal gain. It's possible that she may not see her own error and may be deceived herself. It is also possible that she is just in for the money. Either way there is error.

The Didache is an old Christian writing dating back to between 100 - 200 AD. While is is not generally considered God breathed, it was the only writing that many Christians had during that time and they held it in high esteem. Here is a portion of it.

Chapter 11. Concerning Teachers, Apostles, and Prophets.Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord. But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges.

If he asks for money, he is a false prophet. And every prophet who speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven.

But not every one who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he holds the ways of the Lord. Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known. And every prophet who orders a meal in the Spirit does not eat it, unless he is indeed a false prophet. And every prophet who teaches the truth, but does not do what he teaches, is a false prophet. And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself does, shall not be judged among you, for with God he has his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets.

But whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him. But if he tells you to give for others' sake who are in need, let no one judge him.

Chapter 12. Reception of Christians. But receive everyone who comes in the name of the Lord, and prove and know him afterward; for you shall have understanding right and left. If he who comes is a wayfarer, assist him as far as you are able; but he shall not remain with you more than two or three days, if need be. But if he wants to stay with you, and is an artisan, let him work and eat. But if he has no trade, according to your understanding, see to it that, as a Christian, he shall not live with you idle. But if he wills not to do, he is a Christ-monger. Watch that you keep away from such.

Chapter 13. Support of Prophets. But every true prophet who wants to live among you is worthy of his support. So also a true teacher is himself worthy, as the workman, of his support. Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, you shall take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests. But if you have no prophet, give it to the poor. If you make a batch of dough, take the first-fruit and give according to the commandment. So also when you open a jar of wine or of oil, take the first-fruit and give it to the prophets; and of money (silver) and clothing and every possession, take the first-fruit, as it may seem good to you, and give according to the commandment. (Didache- Roberts)

While not offered as supremely authoratative, the Didache gives some insight into early church teachings that addressed the problems they had with "prophets" that came teaching false doctrines and asking for money.

I don't think Meyer, Copeland, etc would have done too well back then.

Edited November 18, 2007 by Goey

[Jbarrax]

Bride, Larry, I think the Biblical understanding of whether or not a Christian minister should live like a rich man is best understood by looking at the new Testament, not the Old Testament. Comparing a modern minister to King Solomon makes much less sense than comparing them to Paul, Peter et al.

Paul wrote to the Church to follow his example.

1Cr 4:14 I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn [you].

1Cr 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [have ye] not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

1Cr 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

According to I Corinthians 10: 32 - 11:1, part of being a follower of Paul is living humbly so as to avoid offending people and impeding the work of the Gospel. This is where Joyce Meyer and her ilk are erring. By appearing to seek profit, they are giving offence to the Gentiles. Bride, you seem to think that ministers are not responsible for how the secular world judges them. That's not in keeping with Paul's example or advice.

1Cr 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

1Cr 10:33 Even as I please all [men] in all [things], not seeking mine own profit, but the [profit] of many, that they may be saved.

1Cr 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.

And again, in Philippians, Paul made a distinction between his example of humility and those who used their ministries as an excuse to obtain worldly wealth. It's pretty clear that people who want to live acccording to the Biblical standards of a Christian minister are not supposed to enrich themselves with private mansions, yachts, guest houses, enormous salaries, etc.

Phl 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.

Phl 3:18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, [that they are]the enemies of the cross of Christ:

Phl 3:19 Whose end [is] destruction, whose God [is their] belly, and [whose] glory [is] in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

Paul said that these people were enemies of the cross of Christ. What is the message of the cross, Bride? Humility! Christ, God's only begotten son, the Prince of all creation allowed himself to be publicly humiliated so that we could be redeemed and saved. That''s the theme of the entire epistle of Philippians, by the way. Esteem others better than yourselves. Serve!

Those who refused to humble themselves in service to God's people are enemies of the cross. Their god is their belly. That means they live primarily to serve their own personal needs. Their god is their belly, they mind earthly things. Now admittedly, it doesn't say explicitly that it's talking about having lots of money.

But can you convince the average person that a minister who lives in a mansion, drives big, fancy cars, and commands a salary more than ten times the average income of her contributors is not minding "earthly things"?

I don't think so. It's offensive to most people and therefore, it impedes the work of the gospel and should be stopped.

And, just in case there's any doubt that Paul's example was to live on sparse means in order to further the gospel, look at II Corinthians 6:1 -10. If Joyce wants to be a minister according to God's Word, she needs to appear to be an average person living on what she needs, not a rich corporate businesswoman, or King Solomon. Here again is Pauls' example.

2Cr 6:1 We then, [as]workers together [with him], beseech [you] also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.

2Cr 6:2 (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now [is] the accepted time; behold, now [is] the day of salvation.)

2Cr 6:3 Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed:

2Cr 6:4 But in all [things] approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,

2Cr 6:5 In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings;

2Cr 6:6 By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned,

2Cr 6:7 By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,

2Cr 6:8 By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and [yet] true;

2Cr 6:9 As unknown, and [yet] well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed;

2Cr 6:10 As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and [yet] possessing all things.

Edited November 18, 2007 by Jbarrax

[Larry N Moore]

It's easy to pull out the old "you don't know her heart" defense suggesting greed cannot be "proven". -- And the old "who are YOU to judge?" defense, suggesting judgmentalism -- And the old, "it's between them and God" thing (another form of "don't ask - don't tell). This is the kind of thinking that allows these "Christian" hucksters to continue. This is the same kind of thinking that contributed to allowing the abuse in TWI to go on for so long.

Since you've already concluded that ministers who live lavishly are living immorally I can understand why you consider them "hucksters". Despite that conclusion, the defense that "you don't know her heart" stands because you really don't know it. You know what your heart says on the issue -- and yet, your heart could be wrong.

Then someone invariably brings up the Solomon factor as a defense, comparing the modern day TV minister with an OT king.

I bring up Solomon (and Job -- and I could bring up many other examples) wealth because the Bible clearly states that his wealth was given to him by God. Are you now judging that God is wrong to give such great wealth to a man who serves Him?

Meyer, Copeland, Hinn and others others are not kings, <snip> In any case, the Solomon factor is irrelevant - apples and oranges.

You must have missed my previous reference to Job. He wasn't a king and yet after Satan took away all that he possessed it says the Lord doubled back his loss. How do you think God gave to Solomon or Job (or any of the others mentioned) their great wealth? Did He whip out His checkbook and write them out a blank check? I believe there's a verse that says something about "pressed down, shaken together and overflowing shall MEN give unto your bosom."

A persons heart is reflected by their words and their actions .

Well, Joyce says she loves God and spends all her time telling others how to live for God. I think those words and actions are in harmony with each other.

<snip> I don't think Meyer, Copeland, etc would have done too well back then.

Given the type of persecution many of the Christians suffered during the early years of Christianity I doubt many of us posting on GS would have done too well back then either.

[cman]

http://www.trinityfi.org/press/JoyceMeyer2.html

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/spec...A1?OpenDocument

[cman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Meyer

[Goey]

Since you've already concluded that ministers who live lavishly are living immorally I can understand why you consider them "hucksters". Despite that conclusion, the defense that "you don't know her heart" stands because you really don't know it. You know what your heart says on the issue -- and yet, your heart could be wrong.

So you are saying then that the heart cannot be seen by actions and words?

I bring up Solomon (and Job -- and I could bring up many other examples) wealth because the Bible clearly states that his wealth was given to him by God. Are you now judging that God is wrong to give such great wealth to a man who serves Him?

Strawman argument. Neither Solomon nor Job sold what they claimed to be the word for God for personal gain. I am not against wealth. I am against false prophets selling snake oil in the name of God while getting a tax break.

Address the actual issue please.

You must have missed my previous reference to Job. He wasn't a king and yet after Satan took away all that he possessed it says the Lord doubled back his loss. How do you think God gave to Solomon or Job (or any of the others mentioned) their great wealth? Did He whip out His checkbook and write them out a blank check? I believe there's a verse that says something about "pressed down, shaken together and overflowing shall MEN give unto your bosom."

In your zeal to defend Meyer, you seem to have missed my points completely or you ignored them. Once again neither Solomon's nor Job's personal wealth came from selling the Word of God. Solomon got his wealth through taxes, being the King. Job worked for his through legitimate business - sheep/cattle business. Your analogies are missapplied.

Well, Joyce says she loves God and spends all her time telling others how to live for God. I think those words and actions are in harmony with each other.

That's only a small part of what she says, and is unrepresentative of the whole. Martindale and Wierwille also said that they loved God. Look at their fruit.

I suppose then that because someone says they love God that we must take it on faith? And because Meyer SAYS that she " spends all her time telling others how to live for God" that it is actual credible evidence ALL all she does?

Have another sip of Kool-Aid.

Given the type of persecution many of the Christians suffered during the early years of Christianity I doubt many of us posting on GS would have done too well back then either.

Nice dodge/redirection. The context was prophets asking for money as describe in the Didache . Why not address what was written in the Didache instead of redirection. Do you disagree with it? Do you think the 1st/ 2nd century Christians that relied upon this teaching were wrong?

Edited November 18, 2007 by Goey

[Larry N Moore]

Since you've already concluded that ministers who live lavishly are living immorally I can understand why you consider them "hucksters". Despite that conclusion, the defense that "you don't know her heart" stands because you really don't know it. You know what your heart says on the issue -- and yet, your heart could be wrong.

So you are saying then that the heart cannot be seen by actions and words?

No, I'm saying your heart could be wrong. Unless you've never been wrong about a person's motives in the past I don't think that's an unreasonable comment to make.

I bring up Solomon (and Job -- and I could bring up many other examples) wealth because the Bible clearly states that his wealth was given to him by God. Are you now judging thatGod is wrong to give such great wealth to a man who serves Him?

Strawman argument. Neither Solomon nor Job sold what they claimed to be the word for God for personal gain. I am not against wealth. I am against false prophets selling snake oil in the name of God while getting a tax break. <snip>

It's difficult to address someone whose mind is already convinced that Joyce Meyer is a false prophet. Is that also a strawman argument? What she "sells" has helped thousands and thousands of people get closer to God (in relationship). If that's called "snake oil" then even some of the members of GS are buying it. (See the other thread about Joyce Meyer). I guess they're just being tricked by another false prophet, huh?

You must have missed my previous reference to Job. He wasn't a king and yet after Satan took away all that he possessed it says the Lord doubled back his loss. How do you think God gave to Solomon or Job (or any of the others mentioned) their great wealth? Did He whip out His checkbook and write them out a blank check? I believe there's a verse that says something about "pressed down, shaken together and overflowing shall MEN give unto your bosom."

In your zeal to defend Meyer, you seem to have missed my points completely or you ignored them. Once again neither Solomon's nor Job's personal wealth came from selling the Word of God. Solomon got his wealth through taxes, being the King. Job worked for his through legitimate business - sheep/cattle business. Your analogies are missapplied.

*sigh* I guess you missed my point that Solomon was responsible for serving God's children. He was rewarded with great wealth. Do you think Solomon never spoke God's word to God's children and inspired confidence in his leadership? Seldom will a man (nation) support another man if they don't instill confidence in their ability to lead them. Solomon was such a man.

Well, Joyce says she loves God and spends all her time telling others how to live for God. I think those words and actions are in harmony with each other.

That's only a small part of what she says, and is unrepresentative of the whole. Martindale and Wierwille also said that they loved God. Look at their fruit.

We aren't talking about Martindale or Wierwille. This is a strawman argument. What is Joyce's "whole"? Are there not thousands upon thousands that have been brought to a closer relationship with God? Isn't that what God wants?

I suppose then that because someone says they love God that we must take it on faith?

YOU don't have to take it all. YOU aren't the one needing a stronger relationship with God. THEY (that support Meyer's ministry) are the only one's whose "faith" matters.

And because Meyer SAYS that she " spends all her time telling others how to live for God" that it is actual credible evidence ALL all she does?

Well, I suppose you'll have to ask all those who have benefited from her ministry if what she does and says is credible evidence her ministry being of God. If it's not of God, then Satan sure does have knack for making idiots out of a bunch of people.

Have another sip of Kool-Aid.

*sigh*

Given the type of persecution many of the Christians suffered during the early years of Christianity I doubt many of us posting on GS would have done too well back then either.

Nice dodge/redirection. <snip> Why not address what was written in the Didache instead of redirection.

I don't recognize the Didache as being authoritative on this subject any more than I recognize the authority of the Gospel written by Mary Magdalene.

[Goey]

No, I'm saying your heart could be wrong. Unless you've never been wrong about a person's motives in the past I don't think that's an unreasonable comment to make.

The motives can be inferred by the hard focus on money given to her ministry. By the disporportinate amount of time dedicated to asking for money and selling stuff vs actually teaching (does not include teaching on giving) -- By the huge salary to herself and family members. Is that "unreasonable"?

What kind of "reason" are you using to suggest that I "could" be wrong? -- That I might have been wrong in the past? That's irrelevant. -- By your "reason" we should discount our instincts, intelligence, common sense, experience, facts, scripture, etc in matters relating to another's motives, becasue we may have been wrong once in the past. Care to think that through?

It's difficult to address someone whose mind is already convinced that Joyce Meyer is a false prophet. Is that also a strawman argument? What she "sells" has helped thousands and thousands of people get closer to God (in relationship). If that's called "snake oil" then even some of the members of GS are buying it. (See the other thread about Joyce Meyer). I guess they're just being tricked by another false prophet, huh?

So you agree that you made a strawman. Good. You're getting a bit more honest. And yes, it is a strawman also. You are not arguing the actual points. And yes, if they are swallowing Meyer hook line-and-sinker, if they asked me, I would tell them that I believe Meyer to be a huckster.

*sigh* I guess you missed my point that Solomon was responsible for serving God's children. He was rewarded with great wealth. Do you think Solomon never spoke God's word to God's children and inspired confidence in his leadership? Seldom will a man (nation) support another man if they don't instill confidence in their ability to lead them. Solomon was such a man.

I seldom miss points. In the way I addressed it, it should have been clear that I beleived your point to be irrelevant, since once again you dodged the real issue with a false analogy. Once again, Solomon was the King, not a word-faith TV preacher going about pressuring folks to give money to him with the promise of healing and wealth in return.

We aren't talking about Martindale or Wierwille. This is a strawman argument. What is Joyce's "whole"? Are there not thousands upon thousands that have been brought to a closer relationship with God? Isn't that what God wants?

I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what a strawman is. Mine was a simile/ analogy, illustrating that because someone "says" they do something, doesn't make it so. I used VPW and LCM as examples. This was to counter your bogus argument that implied that because Meyer said "xxxxx" that it should be taken as true.

Wether or not folks are coming closer to God through Myers' ministry is arguable. The rank unbeliever might get saved and get a basic understanding og God, and therefore be closer. Someone who already is saved and has a bit of understanding of God/Christ but who falls for the "word-faith message" may get further away.

YOU don't have to take it all. YOU aren't the one needing a stronger relationship with God. THEY (that support Meyer's ministry) are the only one's whose "faith" matters.

Strawman again. Don't you get tired of fallacious arguments?

Regardless of who or who may not benefit from Meyer's teachings, the real issues are whether or not Meyers deserves an extremely huge salary f a true minister of God. Whether or not her's is a for profit business. And whether to not the "Church" tax breaks should be allowed.

Well, I suppose you'll have to ask all those who have benefited from her ministry if what she does and says is credible evidence her ministry being of God. If it's not of God, then Satan sure does have knack for making idiots out of a bunch of people.

If you ask David Koresh's followers if they benefited, some would still say yes. Same with many other groups later to be discovered to be corrupt at the top. If you asked the same thing to many of us when we were were involved in TWI we would also have said yes to your question. Experience should tell us that our perceived benefit does not always reflect honesty and good motives at the top of the groups we may choose to follow or associate with. For many, the then perceived benefits were later found out to be a delusion or a detraction. However, I do agree that Satan does have a knack for making idiots our of people. The Bible is full of examples and warnings. You should consider them sometime.

I don't recognize the Didache as being authoritative on this subject any more than I recognize the authority of the Gospel written by Mary Magdalene.

I didn't present it as authoritive, didn't I make that clear? -- I asked you if you thought it was wrong, and if you thought the early Christians that followed it were wrong. Instead of addresing that, you evaded answering the questions with the above.

Considering that you refuse to address the actual points and insist upon strawman arguments, dodges, false analogies, redirection and evasion, it is increasingly apparent to me that this discussion cannot go any further in an intelligent and thoughtfull manner.

I'm done.

Edited November 18, 2007 by Goey

[Larry N Moore]

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/j.../1-19-13.0.html

Until January 2004, Meyer received a salary from her organization and donated all her book royalties back to Joyce Meyer Ministries. She now will retain royalties on books sold outside the ministry through retail outlets such as Wal-Mart, amazon.com, and Christian bookstores, while continuing to donate to her ministry royalties from books sold through her conferences, catalogs, website, and television program.

Meyer says her attorney—not her board—determines her and Dave's salary range. The board then decides within that range what to pay the Meyers. "We do not spend irresponsibly and are prudent in the way we manage our ministry, returning 85 percent of all unrestricted donations back to help hurting people around the world," Meyer told Christianity Today. "We do not agree that the ministry is in violation of any law. If the IRS were to investigate, we would fully cooperate."

[sirguessalot]

from the Gospel of Mark...

And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.

And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.

And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:

For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

while im certain that there are many layers of meaning beyond the surface reading of this passage

perhaps one can at least notice something being said about the tendencies of the wealthy

how they point to the bigness of their donations as justification for gross materialism

mostly entirely missing an essential element of an authentic devoted lifestyle

[irisheyes]

Goey, don't go get all frustrated. Your "arguments" are honestly presented and logical, very logical. I enjoyed your reasoning, as I enjoyed most of the others.

I feel I need to add my 2 cents, too. Solomon, first of all, taxed the Israelites, too. His outlandish "need" for a house bigger than God's temple wore the people out. His

"sin" however, was not materialism as much as it was idolatry. He was warned not to get mixed up with unbelieving women and their gods. He ignored the warning and by the end of his life he was worshipping their gods. I mean I think he had something in the area of 1700 women! But, I really think the point made that Solomon wasn't using God to get rich, is not quite right. He used his position to feed his ego and build his empire. Still, though the Old Testament is full of examples of rich men who loved God, the New Testament is not. How come no one has mentioned the lifestyle of Jesus himself? Yet though he was rich, he became poor? I'm not sure if that means materially; it doesn't really matter though. How many of us lead the life he led? How many of us are God-minded 24/7? I live a comfortable life. I'm by no means in J. Meyer's catagory and I honestly couldn't live with myself it I was. Money brings responsibility if we use it correctly. And that's all it should be for any of us. A means to an end. Jesus didn't have a big house, a big car, a big IRA. He didn't even have a pillow. Shouldn't we be doing as he did? Of course, times are different. I really wonder though if it matters to God how much money we have/don't have or what really matters is how we live, love and honor Him. Lots of those guys in the Old Testament did unspeakable things. Murder (Moses and David for starters); Paul in the NT. God forgave murderers. God even gave Cain a chance to repent. And, we need to spread that grace to people who aren't using what God's given them for the right reasons. Didn't Paul say that whether good or bad at least the gospel is spread? None of us are perfect. If in the end little old Joyce Meyers "suffers" (or whatever) for her life style, just be thankful it isn't you in her shoes. Lots of people still think the health and wealth ideal is biblically correct. You'd be fighting thousands, when instead you could be winning them. We ALL fall short of the grace of God.