Joyce Meyer

[kidsminister]

At the risk of upsetting someone, and this is not my intent, I think 'Joyce Meyer Ministries Inc.' pretty much screams what we should think of her. Put INC. behind any ministry name and it is no longer a ministry, but a money making concern.


I had a discussion in another forum on these TV preachers who go on and on about how God is blessing them with cash and jets and new clothes, and then they hit people up for cash at the end of their program. It really upsets me that so many get hooked on these folks.


We really need to be careful of who we trust, even if their teaching seems true. We need to beware of wolves among us.


My issue is, everything is money in these groups. They have rallies, and charge admission, they schlep their books on stage and in the book stores, and then they have the nerve to ask for even more money on their programs. And to make it seem more palitable, they quote scripture promises for prosperity. God doesn't bless you because you give to these ministries, He blesses you for doing His will, including giving to the places He tells you. Personally, I think we need to seek out the poor and homeless in our own neighborhood rather than giving to a "ministries inc." Just my opinion.

I attended a Joyce Meyer conference and admission was completely free of charge...most of them are, actually!

She asks for people to donate $$ so she can keep them that way.

 

[charityagape]

Just my opinion, they also incorporate so they can draw salaries out of the ministry.

Where should ministers take their salary from, the job the have on the side, after they spend all their time ministering the gospel. God's word says not to muzzel the ox. No one would have a problem with God blessing her financially if she was a lawyer or a doctor, but a minister? Well she must be fleecing the flock. Because shepherds are poor.

 

[janny108]

Why does it matter??

I think it matters a great deal what a speaker's background is. Cause subconsciously we could be influenced by it. I don't listen to someone because they are more "charismatic" than some others. In fact, that gets my antenna's up. I think she has a charismatic church background. I heard her say once about WOF, that she seemed like she did not understand it, but that she believed in faith, so if that makes her WOF... but to me she is not 100% WOF like some of these other preachers on TV.
Jan

 

[janny108]

Do you have scripture for this?

I believe, that if you believe you're tithing to these churches or ministires, and in your heart you believe it's to spread the gospel, I do not think God is going to hold that against you and not bless you because someone else takes your money, which you intended for "good" and uses it for "evil."


I gave to her ministry and Creflo Dollar's for 8 years and I did not see any special things happen in our lives because I did that. Of course, I tithed first to my church. I do believe when we do give to some ministries that the money is for the furtherance of the gospel. I'm not against doing it.
Jan

 

[janny108]

But I do her credit as she's addressed many issues that I knew I would not likely hear in church. I have received a lot of mental/emotional healing from her teachings. She is a great communicator, but I still have to watch out for what she says sometimes.
Jan

 

[Ann Doupont]

Okay, if it's important that we know a person's background before listening to their teachings, what would you think of someone who was raised Catholic, then became Assembly of God, then Foursquare, then Word of Faith, Vineyard, and is now non-denominational? Would you listen to such a person?

Yes, I know someone like that.

Ann

 

[MORTANIUS]

I respect her perspective and usage of Christianity to instill a positive reinforcement to our lives.

Good for her, I think thats great that someone actually is wise enough to see the world as a Christian should sometimes.

 

[Trish1947]

Okay, if it's important that we know a person's background before listening to their teachings, what would you think of someone who was raised Catholic, then became Assembly of God, then Foursquare, then Word of Faith, Vineyard, and is now non-denominational? Would you listen to such a person?

Yes, I know someone like that.

Ann

Sounds like someone that wants all the truth, not just bits and peices..nothing wrong with that.

I was Baptist, then Holiness, then Assembly of God, , then WOF.. Learned something from every single denom.

 

[jiminpa]

Put INC. behind any ministry name and it is no longer a ministry, but a money making concern.

Do you give to your church? The United Methodist Church operates under the same non-profit corporate laws that Joyce Meyer does, but as a church denomination they don't have to include it in the name. She could not legally call her ministry a non-profit organization or give her contributors tax credit if it weren't a corporation, and then people looking for an excuse to critisize her would claim she was hiding something, or else she wouldn't be afraid of government scrutiny.

 

[JimB]

Drawing a salary from ministry is one thing, but using government-granted charitable incorporation as a tax loophole for personal profit is something else entirely, and, until this practice is stopped by ‘ministers’ it will one day close the 501c3 incorporation status for everyone, even churches.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has been keeping tabs on Joyce Meyer Ministries (JMM) for some time now and report that JMM is now hauling in $100-million annually. That’s fine, if people want to give to that sort of thing. But what is not generally known and what the SLP-D has reported is that the JMM “parsonage” is a $4-million, 23,358 sq.ft. palace (actually there are five “parsonages”, one for each member of her family). You can say its not true, of course, and so can Joyce, but she has yet to say so or to file a defamation suit against the paper. Last month the Post-Dispatch reported that two of the five homes her children lived in “rent free” are now up for sale for a whopping $2.5-million.

No one knows for sure what the salaries of her family members are. A year ago, after Wall Watchers, a ministry watchdog organization, threatened to report her to the IRS for not being transparent about JMM revenues, Christianity Today, in a balanced article, reported that she agreed to a cut in salary although she will now retain royalties from her books, which were formally donated to JMM.

Personally, I enjoy watching Joyce. She comes across as sincere. But her relatively suddenly rise from obscurity to mega-$$ can be a heady thing that can lead to um, a lack of needed wisdom, as the PTL Club of the 1980s is classic evidence.

As long as Joyce Meyer is up-front and transparent about how she uses funds donated to ‘ministry’ by her supporters on a 501c3 incorporated tax exempt basis (which there is strong indication she is not) as churches do then there is no problem. If people want to continue giving to the lifestyles of the rich and famous televangelist, that is their privilege and no one can fault them. If not, that is their privilege also.

~Jim

 

[jiminpa]

And when those homes are sold who gets the money? Not the former residents. It and the equity go to the ministry.

 

[JimB]

And when those homes are sold who gets the money? Not the former residents. It and the equity go to the ministry.

That may be true. But then where does it go? That’s what nobody (but Joyce and God) knows. And that’s the trouble with ministries who snub accountability (like ECFA or other independent accounting agencies).

Again, ministries who flagrantly abuse their IRS 501c3 status may one day end the government sanctioned privilege for all ministries and churches. Did you know that at this very moment Congress is considering curtailing some of these privileges? So, it is more than just a matter between Joyce, et.al., and their supporters.

~Jim

Here is a sobering item from the ECFA.org website:

Fueled by media reports of scandal in the charitable and foundation communities over the last several years, the Senate Finance Committee held hearings last summer which described some of the more abusive transactions that have been occurring in the nonprofit community. Concurrent with the hearings, the Committee released a discussion draft containing proposed legislative changes to address the abuses.

In response to testimony from the nonprofit community that more time was needed to study the various issues before legislation was enacted, Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and ranking Minority member, Senator Max Baucus, (D-MT), asked the Independent Sector (IS) to convene a national panel of experts to study the various issues. IS is a large trade association of nonprofits and foundations based in Washington, DC.

IS convened a panel and numerous working and advisory groups to respond to the proposals initiated by the Senate Finance Committee and the Joint Committee on Taxation. ECFA’s President, Paul Nelson, was invited to serve as one of 25 members of the National Panel. The Panel’s work can be accessed at www.nonprofitpanel.org. In January 2005, the Joint Committee on Taxation issued a report, which addressed some of the same issues but in more detail.

Based on the latest Senate Finance Committee hearing, it is increasingly clear that legislation in some form is going to be introduced into Congress. ECFA supports the correction of abusive transactions but is concerned about sweeping charity reform measures. These reforms will likely raise the overhead costs of all charities, diminish the incentive for donors to contribute noncash gifts, and otherwise invade the boardrooms of America’s charities.

If your Senator serves on the Senate Finance Committee, you may wish to contact your Senator to share your concerns.


​

 

[Ann Doupont]

I've been wondering why so-called non-profit organizations, such as those that are 501c3, are called non-profit when they aren't.

What I noticed several years back when many began getting tax exemptions for their giving, was that since I usually take the standard deduction, I don't get a tax exemption. I had to search my heart as to my purpose for giving. Was I giving in order to get a tax break, or because I loved God and the ministry?

Ann

 

[jiminpa]

I've been wondering why so-called non-profit organizations, such as those that are 501c3, are called non-profit when they aren't.

Ann

I think you have a misconception on how non-profits work. As a for-profit corporation's income goes up so do the investor's income, automatically. When a non-profit's income goes up there are no investors to pay dividends to, so the money must by nature go back into the ministry somehow. There is no provision for excess income, and by regulation there can't be more than a small percentage of profit in a non-profit organization. The fastest place to bleed off the excess is payroll, and most boards feel as though they aren't paying the high profile employees enough anyway, in this case Joyce and Dave, so bam, it's bonus time. But that's not automatic, the board could just as easily give the support people the largest raises, or bonuses, or they could find other ways to put the money back into the ministry. In practice, increased income usually goes to a combination of expenditures with payroll coming after all the equipment and toys that various departments have been begging for for years. In a media ministry the size of Joyce Meyer's no department ever feels as though they have the funding they need to do the job they are given, especially the technical department. There's always a better piece of equipment than the one they are using.

 

[JimB]

I think you have a misconception on how non-profits work. As a for-profit corporation's income goes up so do the investor's income, automatically. When a non-profit's income goes up there are no investors to pay dividends to, so the money must by nature go back into the ministry somehow. There is no provision for excess income, and by regulation there can't be more than a small percentage of profit in a non-profit organization. The fastest place to bleed off the excess is payroll, and most boards feel as though they aren't paying the high profile employees enough anyway, in this case Joyce and Dave, so bam, it's bonus time. But that's not automatic, the board could just as easily give the support people the largest raises, or bonuses, or they could find other ways to put the money back into the ministry. In practice, increased income usually goes to a combination of expenditures with payroll coming after all the equipment and toys that various departments have been begging for for years. In a media ministry the size of Joyce Meyer's no department ever feels as though they have the funding they need to do the job they are given, especially the technical department. There's always a better piece of equipment than the one they are using.

Did you say non-prophet organization?

Hey, with all the great (and reputable) non-profits (i.e., Red Cross, Salvation Army, Feed the Children, World Vision, foreign missions, etc.) that know what to do with excess ‘profits’ besides line somebody’s personal pocket, you might wonder why Joyce et.al. doesn’t give the excess to them. If they have more money than they know what to do with, the Christian thing would be to share it with the needy. Right?

~Jim

 

[jiminpa]

Red Cross, speaking of lining one's own pocket. I don't trust that organization as far as I can change the course of a hurricane.

One of my points was that the board of directors of these organizations usually feels like the high profile people are underpaid in the first place. A lot of them feel like the whole staff deserves more. You do bring up a good point though. Thinking about it, it brings up a stewardship issue. If you run on donations and people are donating to you, they expect the money to be used for the ministry you perform. If I want to give to the SA, I'll send it to them, not someone else. It could be interpreted as misdirecting funds. Good idea on the surface.

I know some people who are high up in a non-profit, and their organization tithes to other organizations, but it is a set percentage, and, I assume, published in their financial plan, where contributors can see beforehand.

 

[Ann Doupont]

I think you have a misconception on how non-profits work. As a for-profit corporation's income goes up so do the investor's income, automatically. When a non-profit's income goes up there are no investors to pay dividends to, so the money must by nature go back into the ministry somehow. There is no provision for excess income, and by regulation there can't be more than a small percentage of profit in a non-profit organization. The fastest place to bleed off the excess is payroll, and most boards feel as though they aren't paying the high profile employees enough anyway, in this case Joyce and Dave, so bam, it's bonus time. But that's not automatic, the board could just as easily give the support people the largest raises, or bonuses, or they could find other ways to put the money back into the ministry. In practice, increased income usually goes to a combination of expenditures with payroll coming after all the equipment and toys that various departments have been begging for for years. In a media ministry the size of Joyce Meyer's no department ever feels as though they have the funding they need to do the job they are given, especially the technical department. There's always a better piece of equipment than the one they are using.

What I meant is that the ministries are making a profit. This one in particular is making plenty. They are very profitable. Many ministries are very rich. As Jim M. mentioned here, Joyce and her family lives in million dollar houses.

The people who give to support such ministries often live in apartments, never having owned a house.

Ann

 

[Ann Doupont]

Did you say non-prophet organization?


~Jim

Hey, Jim, I thought I made up that word - non-prophet organization. I have kiddingly said that this is what is wrong with many local churches. They are non-prophet organizations.

Sad, but true....

Ann

 

[jiminpa]

What I meant is that the ministries are making a profit. This one in particular is making plenty. They are very profitable. Many ministries are very rich. As Jim M. mentioned here, Joyce and her family lives in million dollar houses.

The people who give to support such ministries often live in apartments, never having owned a house.

Ann

If the ministry makes more than a small percentage of profit in any calendar year, I think it's 5%, they lose their non-profit status, and no ministry wants to risk it, so again, by the nature of the non-profit corporate structure it is impossible to make a profit. There is literally nowhere to put it.

There are no shareholders to pay dividends to. Joyce, Dave, their family, the board of directors, the ministry staff are all employees. The only money they see comes in the form of salary. It is a set amount. And bonuses, but those are determined by the board of directors, they don't just get distributed based on the ministry's income.

But then again, what does any of this have to do with Joyce's teaching, and whether she is word of faith or not?

 

[JimB]

What I meant is that the ministries are making a profit. This one in particular is making plenty. They are very profitable. Many ministries are very rich. As Jim M. mentioned here, Joyce and her family lives in million dollar houses.

The people who give to support such ministries often live in apartments, never having owned a house.



Ann

So, true Ann. It’s a shame, but its true. And, sadly, I have pastored some of these people.

Red Cross, speaking of lining one's own pocket. I don't trust that organization as far as I can change the course of a hurricane.

*****

It’s amazing that some in this forum will not hold televangelists – alleged minister’s of Christ’s gospel - to the same standard of ethics they would hold the Red Cross to.

~Jim