Earlier this year, Ray Leith told a national television audience she would be willing to become pregnant and have an abortion so that tissue from her fetus could be used to treat her father, who has Parkinson’s disease. Leith’s father declined the offer, but the case dramatized one of the many controversial aspects of fetal-tissue research and transplants.

Researchers have speculated that fetal tissue could be used in the treatment of many diseases because it grows more rapidly and would likely cause less potential for rejection than adult tissue. In January, the New England Journal of Medicine reported on operations in Mexico where tissue from the brain and the adrenal gland of a 13-week-old “spontaneously aborted fetus” (miscarriage) was implanted in a man and a woman suffering from Parkinson’s disease. The Journal said the two had experienced marked relief from their symptoms since the operations. Fetal tissue has also been used on an experimental level to treat diabetes, and much research is being done on potential treatments for a host of other diseases.

Harvesting Fetal Tissue

Much of the controversy surrounding fetal-tissue research and transplants centers on how the tissue is obtained. Doctors in the Mexican operations said they obtained the fetus with the prior written consent of the mother, who had a history of miscarriages. However, nearly all tissues used in research have come from elective abortions.

One team doing research on fetal tissue and diabetes said in a report presented at the Sansum Medical Research Foundation in Santa Barbara that they attempted to avoid anything that might “be construed as coercion” when obtaining fetuses. In a summary report of the 1986 Sansum Symposium, the researchers said they had floor nurses ask women scheduled for abortions if they would allow “researchers to use the tissue in experiments that may lead to discoveries of better treatments for persons with chronic diseases.” The team said 92 percent of the women agreed, saying it would enable “some good” to come out of their abortion decision.

Dr. William May, professor of ethics at Southern Methodist University, believes fetal tissue donated as a gift by parents who miscarried a child is an appropriate procurement of fetal material, while abortion is not. “If one has imposed upon the fetus the trauma of abortion, it seems to me that further traumas of raiding it for fetal material are not justified,” he said. “One doesn’t have the moral standing to make that further decision, in my judgment.”

Prolifers and feminists both fear that if abortion is the accepted method of procurement, women will be manipulated into having abortions and coerced into later, more harmful abortion procedures that would yield more beneficial fetal tissue. Kate Michelman, executive director of the National Abortion Rights Action League said, “There is a potential for abuse of women in this whole thing, and that worries us.”

In addition, opponents express fears that in some instances, because the tissue needs to be “fresh,” the fetus may not be dead before tissue is taken. Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, has filed a petition with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) charging that the government-funded National Disease Research Interchange (NDRI) in Philadelphia does not “perform tests on aborted fetuses to determine whether they are dead prior to removing tissues or organs.” NDRI gathers organs and tissues, including fetal tissues, and distributes them to researchers across the country.

NIH would not comment on the investigation other than to say it is “ongoing.” NDRI president Lee Ducat told the Washington Post it is not her job “to assure that fetal tissues were collected after death,” but she believes that “hospitals and clinics supplying the tissues acquire them lawfully.”

Commercial Breeders?

Another major issue is the fear of commercial exploitation. Rifkin’s group has filed a second petition with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) asking that all fetal tissues and organs be placed under the Organ Transplant Act, which forbids the sale of certain body parts for transplantation. NDRI is nonprofit, but Rifkin said a California group, Hana Biologies, is conducting research with the intention to sell fetal products for profit.

“If we don’t get this under the Organ Transplant Act, there’s the troubling potential of women becoming commercial breeders and being paid to grow and harvest fetuses for spare parts,” Rifkin said. Rifkin, an activist who has taken on a variety of social causes, is recruiting congressional help through the office of prolifer Sen. Gordon Humphrey (R-N.H.).

Prolife activist Bernard Nathanson, maker of the Silent Scream and Eclipse of Reason antiabortion films, also sees dangers in fetal-tissue experiments. He recently criticized the Ray A. and Robert L. Kroc Leadership and Visiting Scholars Endowment for its funding of research that uses fetal tissue. Ray A. Kroc was the founder of the McDonald Corporation. The Kroc foundation, Hana Biologies, Chevron USA, and others sponsored the Sansum Symposium on fetal-tissue research.

For David Schiedermayer, a bioethicist at the Medical College of Wisconsin and a member of the Christian Medical Society, the issue comes down to the question of whether the ends justify the means. “We want to possess the ends of effective treatment of all our diseases, and yet not be responsible for the means of how we do it,” he said. “It seems to me we have an insoluble means-ends problem, especially if there is any incentive to have an abortion for the ends of transplantation into another person.”

By Kim A. Lawton.

The practice of hiring a surrogate mother to bear a child violates state laws and offends public policy, according to a sternly worded decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court. As a result, the court ruled invalid the 1985 contract between Mary Beth Whitehead and William Stern that produced “Baby M” and two years of legal wrangling. The landmark decision reverses the finding of a New Jersey trial court concerning the contract, but affirms the lower court’s decision to grant custody of Melissa Stern to her natural father and his wife.

Surrogate parenting agreements have offered a high-priced solution to infertility for couples unable or unwilling to bear their own children. Generally unregulated by law, the practice has come under attack from ethicists, the religious community, and proponents of adoption (CT, Mar. 6, 1987, p. 42).

William L. Pierce, president of the National Committee for Adoption, lauded the New Jersey ruling. He said, “It clearly demonstrates that where there are adoption laws in place, commercial surrogacy cannot exist. [The ruling] could be the death knell for the surrogate industry.”

Baby Selling

The legal adoption of children is regulated by state laws that prohibit the sale of unwanted babies. Surrogate arrangements, in which birth mothers such as Whitehead receive fees in the range of $10,000, violate those laws, the New Jersey court ruled. The decision states: “We find the payment of money to a surrogate mother illegal, perhaps criminal, and potentially degrading to women.” The lower court, however, had upheld the contract as a valid, legal agreement, noting that the child’s natural father, William Stern, could not purchase a child that was already his.

However, the Stern-Whitehead agreement was arranged by the Infertility Center of New York, which received $7,500 from Stern. The Sterns claimed they were paying only for “services” from the Infertility Center and Whitehead, not for an adoption. The court contends that this is disingenuous, since under the agreement the Sterns would pay only $1,000 if the child were stillborn, “even though the ‘services’ had been fully rendered.”

Referring to a New Jersey law against baby selling, the state’s supreme court notes the seriousness of the crime: The child is sold without regard for whether the purchasers will be suitable parents, and the natural mother does not receive the benefit of counseling and guidance to assist her in making a decision that may affect her for a lifetime. “Baby-selling potentially results in the exploitation of all parties involved,” the ruling states. The same negative consequences may result from surrogacy as well, the justices contend, “especially the potential for placing and adopting a child without regard to the interest of the child or the natural mother.”

In addition to violating specific state laws, the surrogate contract flies in the face of sound public policy, according to the ruling: “The contract’s basic premise, that the natural parents can decide in advance of birth which one is to have custody of the child, bears no relationship to the settled law that the child’s best interests shall determine custody.”

And the contract guarantees that the child will be separated permanently from one of its natural parents. This is not the sort of policy the state ought to encourage at all, the decision says. “The whole purpose and effect of the surrogacy contract was to give the father the exclusive right to the child by destroying the rights of the mother.”

Awarding Custody

Following the lower court’s ruling in favor of William and Elizabeth Stern, the judge effected an adoption, giving Mrs. Stern status as Melissa’s mother. The state supreme court, in contrast, restored Whitehead’s rights as natural mother. It sent the issue of visiting rights for Whitehead back to the trial court, which had denied her the opportunity to have a continuing relationship with her daughter.

At the same time, permanent custody of Melissa remains with the Sterns. She has lived with them for all but four months of her two years. During the first four months of her life, she was abducted to Florida by Whitehead and her former husband in their attempt to regain custody of the child. Whitehead, who has since been divorced and remarried, argued that she should have custody of Baby M even if the Sterns were found to be better parents. She said surrogate contracts would be discouraged more effectively if the Sterns lost custody.

The justices disagreed with her, saying, “Our declaration that this surrogacy contract is unenforceable and illegal is sufficient to deter similar agreements. We need not sacrifice the child’s interests in order to make that point sharper.”

By Beth Spring.

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal from parents who say their children’s textbooks offended their families’ religious beliefs. The high court’s action reaffirmed a lower court ruling that public schools did not have to excuse children from classes using textbooks the parents found objectionable. The action also ended a lengthy and highly publicized battle that pitted fundamentalist Christian families against the Hawkins County (Tenn.) public school system.

The battle began in 1983, when seven families objected to the Holt, Rinehart & Winston reading series. They cited passages that they believed advanced witchcraft, astrology, pacifism, and feminism.

In October 1986, a federal court sided with the parents. Judge Thomas G. Hull ordered the schools to allow the children to “opt out” of the classes and be taught those courses at home. He also awarded the families more than $50,000 in damages.

However, last August a three-judge appeals panel unanimously overturned Hull’s decision, saying the required reading did not “create an unconstitutional burden” because the students were not required to “affirm or deny a belief” (CT, Oct. 2, 1987, p. 50). In refusing to review the case, the Supreme Court closed the last legal door open to the parents.

People for the American Way (PAW), the liberal lobby group that supported the school system in the case, called the action “a victory for schools and religion.” PAW Chairman John Buchanan said the outcome sends “a clear message to educators, parents, and students about the commitment to pluralism and diversity in our nation’s public schools.”

Concerned Women for America (CWA) spokeswoman Rebecca Hagelin called the Supreme Court’s action a “devastating blow for religious toleration in the classroom.” Hagelin said the Court’s action means “parents have no voice in the public school system” and “the free exercise clause [of the Constitution] does not extend to school children.” CWA had provided legal counsel for the parents. Hagelin said her group believes the ruling is “so coercive” it will prompt the filing of other cases about religious toleration in the public schools that the supreme court may one day hear.

Even before recent revelations of television evangelist Jimmy Swaggart’s sexual misconduct, his empire was in trouble. In a letter to supporters signed by Swaggart and dated February 8, his ministry reported a loss of $200,000 a day “through the previous thirty days” (a total of $4 million). It stated that “if this continues for a few more days, the Jimmy Swaggart Ministries will simply cease to exist.”

The letter continues, “We have investigated every possibility” as to why this is happening. “[Y]ou have to come to the conclusion that Satan wants to destroy this work.”

But last month Swaggart said he had only himself to blame following revelations he had visited a prostitute. It was widely reported that allegations against Swaggart had been brought to officials of the Assemblies of God—in which Swaggart is ordained—by former Assemblies pastor Marvin Gorman. Gorman lost his ministerial credentials in 1986 after Swaggart revealed Gorman had committed adultery.

The church’s executive presbytery, the 13-member body that functions as its board of directors, met on February 18 for more than 11 hours, four of those hours with Swaggart. Top officials of the Louisiana District Presbytery, which was responsible for recommending church discipline, were also present.

It was widely reported that evidence against Swaggart included photographs, apparently taken with a telephoto lens, of Swaggart entering and leaving a New Orleans motel room with a known prostitute. Who took the photos and how they ended up in the hands of Assemblies of God leaders has not been publicly disclosed.

After confessing to sin, Swaggart was ordered by his denomination to undergo a two-year rehabilitation period, during which he will be relieved of his duties as copastor of the Family Worship Center in Baton Rouge. The rehabilitation process, which has come under fire and may be rejected by the executive presbytery, calls for Swaggart to receive weekly counsel from three members of the Louisiana District Presbytery and to submit monthly and quarterly reports to denominational officials. Swaggart was also banned from preaching for three months except to fulfill “present commitments involving foreign governments.”

It appears, however, that the effects of this discipline on Swaggart will be minimal. A source associated with the Family Worship Center said Swaggart “did not perform pastoral duties” and implied that Swaggart’s role there was limited to occasional preaching.

CHRISTIANITY TODAY contacted Jimmy Swaggart Ministries in an effort to determine the extent of his overseas engagements over the next few months and also if and how Swaggart’s television ministry would be affected. But a spokesperson said she was “not at liberty” either to discuss the matter or to refer CHRISTIANITY TODAY to someone who could.

Assemblies of God bylaws state that “indiscretions involving morals” require a rehabilitation period of at least two years. They state, however, that “[c]ertain offenses may not require complete cessation of ministerial activities.”

Critics have questioned whether a three-month ban on preaching is sufficient discipline, especially since it appears Swaggart’s sexual misconduct was not just an isolated incident. One denominational official present at the closed meeting described Swaggart’s sin as “sexual misconduct over a period of years.”

The uncertainty raises questions about whether anyone else on Swaggart’s staff knew about his misconduct and failed to report it. The denomination has made answers difficult to obtain through a statement urging Swaggart and his associates to “resist the requests of those outside the church to respond to questions.” Assemblies of God information secretary Juleen Turnage did say that no one besides Swaggart was a subject of church discipline.

Turnage said that if the church’s executive presbytery affirms the district presbytery’s recommendation, “that would be a precedent. We have never had a minister under discipline for morals charges who has been allowed to preach in less than one year.”

Critics have hinted that Swaggart may receive special treatment because of his ministry’s contributions to Assemblies of God missions, which totalled over $23 million in 1986 and 1987. But Turnage said Swaggart is being treated neither more leniently nor more harshly because of who he is. “The executives will follow the church’s constitution and bylaws very carefully in this case,” she said.

The church’s bylaws state that church discipline is determined in part by “the attitude of the offending minister toward the discipline” and “the manner and thoroughness of his repentance.” A church statement said Swaggart had offered a “detailed confession” and that denominational officials witnessed evidence of “true humility and repentance” on Swaggart’s part.

Swaggart said to his television audience, “I do not plan in any way to whitewash my sin. I do not call it a mistake, a mendacity. I call it sin.”

Richard Dortch, second in command atPTCwhen news of the scandal broke, says he still experiences physical and emotional fallout. Like Bakker, Dortch lost his credentials as an Assemblies of God minister last May after failing to appear before church officials to answer charges about his role in the debacle.

“I made mistakes,” Dortch now says. “My approach is not like others who try to justify the excesses. I just say we were wrong. I should have refused the kind of salary I took.”

Dortch said that over the last nine months he has “taken advantage of every opportunity … to ask the public for forgiveness.” He said he has written hundreds of letters of apology to Assemblies of God officials, evangelical leaders, and others.

Though a possible target of a grand jury investigation, Dortch makes no apologies for helping to arrange payments to Jessica Hahn, the New York church secretary with whom Bakker had sexual relations in 1980. Dortch spoke extensively with CHRISTIANITY TODAY about his role in the cover-up and about many of the people and issues associated with the PTL scandal.

On his role in the cover-up:

Dortch said he first spoke with Hahn in 1984. She had called PTL, alleging Bakker had raped her. Dortch dismissed the charge as “preposterous.” “If she would have told me the truth about what I believe really happened—that she was enticed to come down to Florida when Jim and Tammy were separated—I might have believed her. But I could not imagine Jim Bakker raping anyone.”

When Hahn continued to contact PTL, Dortch mentioned the situation to Bakker, who denied raping Hahn, but told Dortch, “There is a problem.” Dortch said he was disappointed at Bakker’s conduct, but was satisfied Bakker had confessed his sin and had undergone successful spiritual rehabilitation.

“I made a deliberate decision not to report a friend to the denomination over an isolated incident that took place four years ago.”

On payments to Hahn:

Dortch said he would have ignored Hahn had it not been for a telephone threat from Gene Profeta, the pastor of the New York church Hahn attended. “He physically threatened me, told me I would be torn limb from limb, if I did not pay the money,” said Dortch.

Following this threat, Dortch contacted Paul Roper, who had corresponded with PTL as Hahn’s representative. According to Dortch, Roper told him he had been contracted by Profeta.

On the Assemblies of God:

“Both the denominational leadership and I made the mistake of talking to other people, but not to each other,” said Dortch. “In my opinion, the facts of the case did not warrant the action against me. My appearance before the denomination was scheduled for six days after my dismissal from PTL, and I really was in no emotional condition to defend myself properly. I should have checked into a hospital for care. I’m not sure the Assemblies leadership, with the pressures of that time, was prepared to accept my perspective of the case anyway. But I don’t blame anybody. I take full responsibility for my actions.”

Dortch has not applied for reinstatement in the denomination. He said he and his wife appeared (at their own request) in July before the same board that dismissed him: “I wanted those men to know I respected them, that I was not running from anything, and that I was repentant.”

On Jim Bakker:

Dortch said he believes Bakker’s version of what happened with Hahn in the Florida hotel room is closer to the truth than Hahn’s allegations that she was raped. “The main thing I’ve had to work through with Jim is that I feel I should have been told about the Jessica Hahn matter before going to PTL.”

Dortch said he had never heard allegations that Bakker is homosexual until after the scandal broke. “John Ankerberg is a liar to say I knew about it,” he said. “I called him in the presence of four or five witnesses within a week of when he made his accusations on the air, and he absolutely refused to talk to me.” (A spokesman for Ankerberg confirmed that Dortch called. Ankerberg instructed a staff member to tell Dortch that Ankerberg had decided to defer questions about the controversy to Jerry Falwell, at the time the head of PTL.)

On Jerry Falwell:

“Our perspectives about what went on at PTL are different,” Dortch said. “I want to stress we are still brothers. But from the day Jerry Falwell first talked to me about PTL to the day I left, not one person associated with his organization asked any PTL executive one question about the business of PTL. There were misunderstandings about how we operated—how we paid taxes, for example. They came in from day one and started making declarations—that money was missing, that offices were bugged. None of it was true. That’s when I knew they had their own agenda.”

On lessons learned:

“Sometimes I think the church doesn’t know anything about true success. It’s all tied to how many stations we have on our network, or how big our building is. It’s so easy to lose control, to compromise without recognizing it. At PTL, there was no time taken for prayer or for family, because the show had to go on. We were so caught up in God’s work that we forgot about God. It took the tragedy, the kick in the teeth, to bring us to our senses.”

On televised religion:

“A television camera can change a preacher quicker than anything else. Those who sit on the sidelines can notice the changes in people once they get in front of a camera. It turns good men into potentates. Television must be used only as a tool for evangelism. It’s so easy to get swept away by popularity: Everybody loves you, cars are waiting for you, and you go to the head of the line. That’s the devastation of the camera. It has made us less than what God has wanted us to become.”

John Wesley Fletcher, the traveling evangelist arranged the Florida meeting between Hahn and Bakker, maintains a full schedule of speaking engagements. Fletcher operates out of headquarters in Oklahoma City. He is ordained by the Victory Way Ministries in Union City, Tennessee, and, according to a spokesperson for his evangelistic association, he was not reprimanded for his role in the Bakker affair.

Jessica Hahn became a household name virtually overnight, following revelations of the 1980 incident involving Bakker. She claims to have been raped by both Bakker and Fletcher. Hahn presented the most thorough account of her version of the story in Playboy magazine. Today she is living at the Playboy mansion in Los Angeles, where she is working on another article about her experiences with PTL.

Today “Jim” and “Tammy” are household names. But barely more than a year ago, the Bakkers were known only to the subculture of televised religion. Some 140 television stations carried their daily show; nearly 13 million homes had access to it on cable. Jim and Tammy were on top of the Christian broadcasting world.

Then it happened: Jim Bakker, preempting a major exposé in the Charlotte (N.C.) Observer, announced his resignation from PTL, admitting to a sexual episode in 1980 with church secretary Jessica Hahn. Subsequent investigations into PTL would produce nightmarish evidence of moral and financial misconduct. Last summer a federal grand jury began investigating the financial abuses of Bakker’s PTL. Many believe the result will be indictments of Bakker and others formerly in his inner circle.

The scandal at least temporarily slowed the flow of funds to other television ministries. Even the positive-thinking Robert Schuller has turned to crisis appeals for funds, something he has tried to avoid throughout his ministry. Both Schuller and Oral Roberts have lost viewers, in part due to the negative publicity coming from the PTL scandal. And most observers predict even more damage as a result of last month’s startling revelations of sexual immorality surrounding the nation’s most-watched television evangelist, Jimmy Swaggart (see story on p. 47).

PTL founder Jim Bakker and his wife, Tammy, at one point said their days of ministry might be over. But the Bakkers, now in Palm Springs, California, are about to launch another television ministry. According to Norm Bakker, Jim’s brother, Jim and Tammy have laid ambitious plans for Heritage Springs, a complex similar to PTL’S Heritage USA, “only bigger.” The estimated cost: $2 billion.

Richard Dortch became president of PTL after Bakker resigned. But revelations about his role in the cover-up led to his dismissal. Later, the Assemblies of God revoked his ordination. Today he is president of the Clearwater, Florida-based Life Challenge, a nonprofit ministry Dortch started last June. The ministry serves high-profile people who have undergone major life crises.

Losing Battle?

Television preacher Jerry Falwell immediately succeeded Bakker at PTL, but relations between the two soured when Falwell became aware of allegations of homosexuality and other moral improprieties in Bakker’s past. Under Falwell, PTL filed for bankruptcy. But when a judge ruled last fall that PTL creditors and contributors could submit their own reorganization plan, Falwell and his board pulled out.

Today the mission to save PTL falls largely on the shoulders of David Clark, who last October was appointed by a bankruptcy court as PTL trustee. A former vice-president of marketing at the Christian Broadcasting Network, Clark admits to having reservations about moving to PTL because of concerns for his reputation.

But he ultimately decided that “in spite of all that happened, there was a valid and solid ministry here. There are a lot of good people at PTL for the right reasons.” Clark said PTL, the only allgospel network in America, has “an incredible impact on the nation.”

In the past year, 30 television stations have dropped the daily PTL show; and about 1.5 million fewer homes, according to Clark, have access to PTL on cable. Still, the ministry’s assets are estimated at between $175 million and $200 million. There are, however, some 1,400 financial claims against the ministry, including those filed by the IRS, totaling about $65 million.

On May 2, when direct court supervision of PTL will cease, Clark expects to become PTL president and chairman of a newly appointed, nine-member board. In addition to the nonprofit ministry, the reorganization plan calls for the creation of a seven-member board to govern a profit-making entity, which will supervise activities such as the 2,300-acre Heritage USA theme park.

By May 2, PTL must raise $4.2 million over and above normal operating expenses to cover costs associated with the bankruptcy process. It must come up with an additional $5.5 million by September.

Clark said the key to PTL’S comeback is programming. For a long time, he said, the television program was “a real-estate show, selling lifetime partnerships.” He added, “Having done ten years of research in religious broadcasting, I know that audiences want a program that meets their needs.” Clark said the new PTL is emphasizing inspirational testimonies and music, and Bible teaching.

PTL has challenged all 1,400 claims against it, mainly to buy time to examine each more closely. One of the claims—for $1.3 million—was filed by Jim and Tammy Bakker. Last month in response, PTL filed a $52 million countersuit against the Bakkers and their former top aide, David Taggart. Nearly $6 million of this is for overpayments. The rest is based on PTL revenue losses resulting from mismanagement.

The suit seeks no punitive damages. Clark said PTL would simply like to recover the money. “Our hope is that in the discovery process we can determine whether the money is hidden away,” Clark said. “It’s hard to imagine someone could spend that, especially when housing, cars, and other extras were supplied by the ministry.”

Unanswered Questions

As the new PTL moves forward under Clark, many questions about the old PTL remain unanswered, not the least of which is if there was criminal wrongdoing. The Bakkers, Taggart, and Richard Dortch (see story on page 46) are the names most often mentioned in association with criminal prosecution.

Dortch criticized evangelical leaders for jumping to conclusions about misconduct at PTL “when all the facts have not yet come to light.” He said the jury is still out on the propriety of the actions of those who represented Jessica Hahn in dealing with PTL. For her part, Hahn has implied she feels used by those representatives. She said there is a “missing link” to the story, which she plans to reveal in her third Playboy magazine article.

Also, a recent documentary on public television’s “Frontline” raises questions about the timing of government investigations into the PTL controversy. The documentary strongly suggests that the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Department of Justice were aware in 1980 of evidence of possible criminal wrongdoing, but held off for political reasons.

Former U.S. Attorney Charles Brewer said on “Frontline” that PTL received special treatment from the justice department. Speculating as to why, Brewer said the “fundamentalist/charismatic Christian movement” has “become a very important component of Republican Presidential politics.”

By Randy Frame.

A Year To Forget

March 19, 1987: Jim Bakker, confessing adultery, resigns from PTL; announces he is turning the ministry over to Jerry Falwell.

April 28, 1987: Richard Dortch, PTL president, is dismissed by Falwell following revelations of his role in a cover-up attempt.

May 4, 1987: Bakker and Dortch lose their credentials as Assemblies of God ministers.

June 12, 1987: PTL declares bankruptcy.

August 1987: A federal grand jury begins investigating PTL records to determine if Bakker and his former top aides are guilty of mail fraud and tax evasion.

September 9, 1987: The Bakkers file a claim against PTL for a minimum of $ 1.3 million in money they say PTL owes them.

October 8, 1987: Falwell and his board resign from PTL a day after a court rules that PTL creditors and partners may file their own reorganization plan.

November 1, 1987: David Clark assumes duties as PTL’S bankruptcy trustee.

December 16, 1987: The Internal Revenue Service, in an effort to revoke PTL’S tax-exempt status, claims the Bakkers and other top PTL officials received almost $15 million in excessive compensation from 1981 to 1987. A judge’s restraining order temporarily prevents revocation of tax-exempt status.

December 22, 1987: The reorganization plan submitted by PTL’S new leadership is approved in bankruptcy court.

February 1, 1988: The new PTL leadership files a $52 million counterclaim against the Bakkers and top aide David Taggart, based on overcompensation and mismanagement.

May 2, 1988: The newly reorganized PTL is scheduled to begin operating; it is also the deadline for raising over $4 million above operating expenses.

What can pastors and other local church leaders do to help their parishioners relate to media ministers? And how can the folk at First Church let the teleministries know what will and what won’t play in their family rooms?

Good News Or Good Times?

The clarity of the basic Christian gospel is perhaps the most important factor in evaluating individual video ministries. Sadly, as much of the preaching and teaching in our churches over the past two decades has turned from the doctrinal to the relational, the ability of Christian believers to distinguish the Good News from mere promises of good times has diminished. Without neglecting important relational truths, pastors must return sound doctrine to evangelical pulpits—if they expect believers to be discriminating in their selection of religious TV.

Moreover, in small groups and adult classes, pastors and teachers can deal more specifically with the strengths and weaknesses of individual ministries. In these less formal settings, local church leaders can help parishioners evaluate ministries by asking questions such as these:

• How obscure or clear is the gospel being presented by this ministry? (Does it conform to the teaching of Jesus and the apostles or does it sound strangely like popular self-help and inspirational books? Some ministries squeeze the gospel into a twentieth-century mold. Others, however, may be more cultic than Christian.)
• Is the gospel overshadowed by religious entertainment or the minister’s personality?
• Do we consider this video minister a good model for youth, for our fellow church members, for our non-Christian neighbors? (Because the medium focuses so closely on the “star” of the show, televangelists are far more likely to be treated as models than are local pastors.)
• Does this program make the gospel more or less attractive to the general public? (In one sense, whether the program helps the public to take Christianity seriously may be more important than the question of how many people are saved as a direct result of this ministry.)
• Does the technical quality of the program represent the faith well? (Shoddy production values and poor preparation do not help the public to take the faith seriously.)

Money Matters

While statistics show most televangelists spend less of their air time soliciting contributions than the sponsors of most secular shows spend pitching their product, there is no doubt that money matters to television ministries. Thus believers can affect the quality of Christian TV by the way they vote with their checkbooks.

Just as Christians need to ask key questions about the validity of a ministry, they also need to ponder whether to give it financial and prayer support:

• Does the program make a significant contribution to the cause of Christianity in general and evangelicalism in particular?
• What other ministries and charitable organizations might have a claim on a Christian’s generosity? (Pastors need to inform their congregations of giving opportunities: local church needs; local charities like the United Way; national charities and organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and various right-to-life groups; missions agencies; Christian colleges; and evangelistic and relief organizations. In addition, pastors should help their parishioners weigh the merits of these giving opportunities and evaluate the special attraction some ministries may have for particular givers.)
• Does the ministry rely on emergency appeals? (We can help people read between the lines of repeated “Crisis-Grams.” Do we want to support ministries always on the edge of ruin?)
• How does the ministry respond when asked for a financial statement—including information about the percentage of income used for administration and for soliciting more funds? (Ministries that turn a deaf ear to such requests or that respond with vague generalities may have something to hide.)
• Do the ministry’s fund-raising efforts promise more than is reasonable—for example, suggesting that for every so many dollars, so many souls will be saved? (Let’s remember that the Holy Spirit brings conversions, and that dollars do not automatically produce decisions.)

After asking these questions, Christians might decide not only to avoid giving to certain ministries, but that some ministries just should not be on the air. Evangelical commitment to freedom of religion and free speech does not mean that we need to support false religion or that we may not vigorously oppose antievangelical teaching. Cable systems and satellite dishes complicate matters, but viewers are still able to exert influence on local television stations. Station managers are interested in serving the public, and if they perceive public concern about the value of a program, they may act accordingly.

Christian viewers have a responsibility for the way Christianity is presented on TV; and pastors and local church leaders need to help them prepare for the task.

An important issue is emerging from the televangelism scandals: the hidden conflict between the legitimate right of religious ministries to protect themselves against inordinate government intervention and the legitimate right of government (and the taxpayers it represents) to have accurate tax information. As radio evangelist Robert A. Cook concisely stated to Congressman J. J. Pickle (D-Tex.) of a House Ways and Means subcommittee that was investigating the funding practices of Christian broadcasters: “We will answer any questions that you are constitutionally authorized to ask.”

Ministries have a right to carry on their work without inordinate governmental interference. However, tax-exempt status places special responsibility upon organizations whose receipts are nontaxable, and donations to which are tax deductible. The law gives these organizations privileged status, and thus they face a special moral requirement.

The tax-exempt status of an organization requires that it operate exclusively for religious or charitable purposes. In turn, donors are allowed to deduct contributions from their taxable income. To retain this status, the organization is required to serve a not-for-profit public purpose, refrain from lobbying and political campaigning, and from enhancing the wealth of any private individual. If the organization has earnings not related to religious purposes, these earnings are subject to taxes.

If ministries abuse their privileges, the government has a responsibility to investigate. If one who represents a religious organization takes more than a fair share of its income for personal benefit, the public has a legitimate interest, donors have a right to know how funds were administered, and the press has a duty to investigate.

Nevertheless, overzealous critics of religious broadcasters may forget the continuing need to protect freedom of speech and freedom of religion. They may prematurely imagine that an IRS investigation or other governmental regulatory action is the obvious solution to problems of abuse.

However, there remains a lot to worry about with respect to governmental intervention. True, the IRS, the House Ways and Means Committee, and other regulatory agencies are responsible to the American people for the accountability of tax-exempt television ministries. But there is already sufficient legislation to cover the rules of financial reporting of our nonprofit institutions. We do not need more laws.

The activity of Big Brother government could easily escalate, with investigations of scandal-ridden televangelists spreading to other religious organizations—and even to local churches. Thus the federal government could enter into the sanctioning of some ministries and into not sanctioning or even discrediting others. Any step in this direction must be resisted by those who are committed to constitutional protection of religion and speech.

Since there are serious First Amendment concerns, it is far better that the religious broadcasters put their own house in order than wait for the government to do it. And they are trying to do just that, with the new Ethics and Financial Integrity Commission (EFICOM) criteria of the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), an effort at policing the financial practices of their own members.

The New Rules

The self-regulatory process has been under way for some time and is now beginning to bear fruit. First, the NRB adopted a code of ethics in 1944 and revised it in 1978. In 1979, fear of strict government regulation spawned the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA). And in 1986 the NRB created EFICOM, giving it board approval in September 1987, and full approval by the national organization on February 3, 1988 (CT, Mar. 4, 1988, pp. 32–33).

EFICOM sets fund-raising standards for nonprofit religious broadcasting organizations, and evaluates religious broadcasters for accreditation and certification by the NRB. It will publish annually a review of accredited organizations. Organizations that have failed to comply with these standards cannot be approved (or can lose their earlier accreditation).

The guidelines require members to submit an annual audit prepared by independent public accounting firms. The standards seek to avoid conflicts of interest and inordinate compensation; they require full disclosure of all income and expense, including indirect staff remuneration, perks, housing, transportation, and bonuses; they require that funds be solicited for stated purposes and that the use to which funds are put be disclosed to the donors. And under new EFICOM standards, funds for stated purposes cannot flow back into administration; fund-raising expense may not exceed 35 percent of related contributions; and total fund-raising and administrative costs may not exceed 50 percent of total income.

EFICOM rules require every organization belonging to NRB to qualify for accreditation. They have 90 days to submit to the process, NRB members who wish to continue with ECFA may do so; and their ECFA membership is considered certification for NRB membership.

In the EFICOM guidelines, we are witnessing an attempt to restore public confidence in religious broadcasting—a serious effort to insure the integrity of these ministries by independent audits, by published annual reports, and by open disclosure of financial expenditures. Though these efforts seem late, they are nonetheless the fruit of soul searching. If they do not work, there may be no second chance. The IRS waits at the door.

Read On

A selective, annotated bibliography.

Sounding The Alarm

Buying Time: The Foundations of the Electronic Church, by Peter Elvy (Mystic, Conn.: Twenty-Third Publications, 1986). A British churchman sounds an alarm about “commercial” religion on American TV.

Prophecy and Politics: Militant Evangelists on the Road to Nuclear War, by Grace Halsell (Westport, Conn.: Lawrence Hill & Co., 1986). This is a critical and somewhat unbalanced look at fundamentalist views of the Middle East today, based largely on visits to the Holy Land with Falwell-sponsored tours.

The Faith Healers, by James Randi (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1987). A secular humanist uncovers faith-healing frauds, including several TV hucksters.

Academic Accounts

Television and Religion: The Shaping of Faith, Values and Culture, by William Fore (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1987). This includes a theology of communication and a critical assessment of religious broadcasting.

Televangelism: The Marketing of Popular Religion, by Razelle Frankl (Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1986). This is an academic but readable treatment of the origins of TV evangelism in urban revivalism. It includes provocative discussion of the impact of secular program styles on religious programming.

Religion and Television, by George Gerbner et al. (Philadelphia: Annenberg School of Communications, 1984). This is the most ambitious social-scientific study of the impact of religious programming on the local church and the broader culture. It is not for lay readers.

Religious Television, by Peter G. Horsfield (New York: Longman, 1984). This is by far the best summary of the academic literature on religious broadcasting for a lay audience.

Televangelists’ Portraits: Authorized And Otherwise

Pat Robertson: The Authorized Biography, by John B. Donovan (New York: Macmillan, 1988). This favorable bio Pat Robertson: A Biography, by Neil Eskelin (Shreveport: Huntington House, 1987). The inspirational but superficial account of Robertson’s life is by one of the first CBN employees.

Strength for the Journey, by Jerry Falwell (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987). Falwell’s autobiography describes his involvement in television, the church, and politics.

Oral Roberts: An American Life, by David Edwin Harrell, Jr. (New York: Harper & Row, 1987). This is the best biography of a televangelist to date. It is scholarly but readable.

Pat Robertson: A Personal, Religious, and Political Portrait, by David Edwin Harrell, Jr. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988). This is a valuable study of Robertson with limited analysis of CBN.

Robert Schuller: His Story, by Michael and Donna Nason (New York: Jove, 1987). An anecdotal and flattering portrait of the Schuller ministry.

Ashes to Gold, by Patti Roberts with Sherry Andrews (New York: Jove, 1983). Oral Roberts’s former daughter-in-law describes her experiences as a TV personality and cautions Christians about the medium.

Holy War: An Inside Account of the Battle for PTL, by John Stewart (Enid, Okla.: Fireside Publishing and Communications, 1987). A Christian attorney who helped represent Jessica Hahn early in the PTL scandal strongly criticizes the Bakkers in this journalistic narrative.

Salvation for Sale: An Insider’s View of Pat Robertson’s Ministry, by Gerard Thomas Straub (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1986). A Christian turned secular humanist recounts his conversion and his days as producer of “The 700 Club.”

Mountains into Goldmines: Robert Schuller and the Gospel of Success, by Dennis Voskuil (Ann Arbor: Books on Demand, no date). This is a critical, readable look at Robert Schuller’s theology and ministry.

Compiled and annotated by Quentin J. Schultze

This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy.

1 Corinthians 4:1–2

In the end, we must all give an accounting of our lives before God, of the resources and opportunities we used, abused, or simply let go to waste. But Scripture has also called Christians to be accountable in this life to one another in the body of Christ.

Through the leading of the Holy Spirit, different structures and offices have been built up in the various churches and denominations in order to provide guidance and exercise discipline: boards of deacons or elders, pastors, bishops, councils. These structures in organizations with any history at all help to keep us honest.

But young parachurch ministries, particularly those with all the opportunity for excess and privacy that television affords, need special help. A few items from the news would suffice to make that help urgent: sexual escapades, lavish lifestyles, cover-up, dishonest reporting, financial mismanagement, and unconscionable fund-raising techniques. Perhaps the bad news of the past year may be God’s providential way of calling ministries to greater accountability.

The Need For Accountability

Accountability has become the key word wherever the bad news about teleministries is being discussed. The lavish entrepreneurial lifestyle endemic to some of these ministries must go. The mass television market must now pay the price of radical asceticism in order to show repentance for the previous sins of excess.

Consider the ministry of Mother Teresa. Her ascetic ways may not be a practical model for television ministries, but some serious corrective is needed—something that involves an almost 180-degree turn. Note the quiet credibility that attends Mother Teresa’s mission. She refuses to ask for money; she simply goes about doing good. And when money does come, she praises God and uses it with extreme care.

Fortunately, a deeper ethic of accountability is beginning to take shape, as represented by the recent Ethics and Financial Integrity Commission (EFICOM) criteria of the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), and the long-standing work of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA). But even though such moderate changes may be resisted by many ministries, they are necessary for several reasons:

First, free-wheeling ministries have shot themselves in the foot. The crisis has not been foisted upon them by the IRS or undue media surveillance. The crisis finally emerged out of long-standing problems of weak or uncertain accountability, particularly in television ministries. When it finally came, it came with a vengeance.

Second, the crisis of credibility has invited activists who promote excessive government regulation. They are urging external surveillance of religious organizations, a move that could in time jeopardize both freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Third, unaccountable ministries affect our church members. Local church leaders can no longer assume that their people are not watching the television ministers: A USA Today poll revealed that 55 percent of all Americans watch some religious television. The CBN network alone has 35.8 million subscribers on 7,582 cable systems. There are 77 million cable subscribers today and numerous choices of religious broadcasting on various cable systems.

Fourth, the church is embarrassed and the offense of the gospel is obscured by the offenses of the ministry. Jim Bakker’s $ 1.6 million annual salary was unconscionable. The Rolls Royce, six luxury homes, and air-conditioned doghouse were simply an offense. The offense was not the gospel. The offense was the misbehavior of a few ministers. The result of such behavior was reflected in a Louis Harris poll: 41 percent of the people who watch television ministries think that TV evangelists do more harm than good.

But all our motivations that spring from embarrassment and offense pale next to the deeper motivations springing from the love and the law of God. A rigorous statement of the biblical teaching of accountability is needed.

The Biblical Basis For Accountability

The apostle Paul’s teaching on accountability may be divided into three parts: (1) In Jesus Christ, God has held himself accountable for our sins; (2) We in turn respond by acknowledging our accountability to God; (3) From this follow the human levels of interpersonal and institutional accountability through clear-cut responsibility in human structures and organizations, with full disclosure to supporting constituencies.

The center of Paul’s teaching of accountability is stated early in Romans: “Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable [hupodikos, ‘being brought under judgment’] to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known.… This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (Rom. 3:19–22, NIV; emphasis added). God has become accountable for us in Jesus Christ. We acknowledge our accountability as an act of gratitude in response to God’s gracious act of accountability for us.

Cultivating Generosity

In 2 Corinthians, Paul stated clearly the basic pattern of faith’s accountability. Speaking of the liberality of the churches in Macedonia as they contributed to the needs of other Christians, he writes: “They gave themselves first to the Lord and then to us, in keeping with God’s will” (8:5). Implied here is a threefold structure of accountability: God gives to us, and in response we are to give ourselves first to the Lord and then accountably to companions in ministry.

In this chapter, Paul encourages the generosity of the Corinthian church to follow the magnificent pattern of the Macedonians. They had, on their own initiative, already pleaded with Paul for “the privilege of sharing” in this “service to the saints” (vv. 3–4).

Paul commended his fellow worker Titus to Corinth and urged him to bring their act of gratitude to completion by seeking to nurture the same Macedonian-style generosity among them. Having “excelled in faith and knowledge,” the Corinthians, Paul knew, could also excel in the grace of giving, the pattern of which is made known in Jesus Christ, who, “though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich” (v. 9).

Paul was convinced that if one part of the church had God-given resources and another part of the church was facing poverty and suffering, these inequities could be corrected and mitigated by responding to the abundance of God’s grace in Christ. He trusted that grace would work its own way toward greater fairness, and that the outcome would be more equitable.

Responsible Management

In his appeal, Paul was intent upon making it clear that their giving to the saints of Jerusalem was not for his private benefit, and not for some hidden purpose. The purpose was fully disclosed, and the procedures for administration clarified.

Paul commended Titus as one who had already established a relationship of trust with the Corinthians, had previously managed the collection of funds, and had been chosen by the churches to carry out this work of offering. It is in this context that Paul says, “We want to avoid any criticism in the way that we administer this liberal gift, for we are taking pains to do what is right not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of men” (vv. 20–21). This is the key text of Christian financial accountability. It involved a painstaking task of administration that sought every possible means to avoid allegations of unfairness. It sought to be accountable not only to God but also in the eyes of human companions and sharers in the mission.

John Chrysostom in commenting upon this passage says that Paul took every step possible to make sure that all involved would be cleared of suspicion, that persons were chosen by due process on good credentials, and that there were several persons involved in the transmission of funds, to avoid the charge of a concentration of power in the hands of only one person who could more possibly deceive. Chrysostom noted that Paul “does everything and resorts to every expedient so as not to leave a shadow even to those who might be desirous in any way of suspecting something wrong.” For “the large amount of money is enough to afford suspicion to the evil minded, had we not offered that security” (Corinthian Homilies, NPNF 2 XII, 364–5).

There is in some ministries a tendency to regard risk as a virtue in itself, and to assume that God is blessing a ministry only if it is risk taking. Calvin, however, pointed out that Paul “prudently shunned dangers, and used great care not to furnish any wicked person with a handle against him. And, certainly, nothing is more apt to give rise to unfavorable surmises than the management of public money” (Commentaries, 20, 2 Cor., 301–2).

When ministries seek resources for their mission from among the faithful, a special covenant of sacred, mutual trust is entered into before God between donors and ministers. Thus these ministries are implicitly promising that their use of these resources will follow high standards of integrity.

The mutual responsibility of donor to ministry and ministry to donor, discussed in 2 Corinthians 8, remains a crucial question today. Donors have a right and a responsibility to ask for accurate information about how their money is being used. Recipients of donor monies have a responsibility to report accurately all relevant matters, including salaries and how they are administered.

Telling The Whole Truth

Contrasting with the example of Paul and Titus is the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1–10—a stunning tale of cover-up and financial self-interest. It reveals the disastrous consequences of heeding the alluring voice of money rather than the promises of the gospel. The narrative follows immediately after Pentecost as testimony of divine judgment on deception and fraud discovered within the earliest Christian community.

The primary offense of Ananias and Sapphira was nondisclosure. They had sold a piece of land, taken a portion of the price and laid it at the apostles’ feet. All well and good; but they deceptively withheld part of the proceeds. Their offense was that they falsely claimed to have given the entire proceeds of the sale to the community’s fund (see Acts 4:32–37). Their offense was not a lie outwardly told, but one silently enacted, which Peter penetrated. In response, Peter pointed out that they had not lied merely to human beings, but to God. Ananias fell down and died, and his wife, who repeated her husband’s falsehood, died also.

This was a highly disturbing event: “Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events” (v. 11). Yet the Spirit worked within this anxiety to enable the believing community to grow toward greater responsiveness and accountability.

Stewards Of Grace

In his sermon on “The Spirit of Bondage and of Adoption,” John Wesley distinguished between natural, legal, and evangelical existence: Natural man is self-satisfied in his natural moral competencies; legal man grows increasingly uptight about his moral deficits, and thereby more prepared to hear the gospel of forgiveness; evangelical man enters into a life of faith that lives out the gospel of justification by grace through faith.

Under pressure of crisis fund raising, there is a tendency among television ministries to sell out and reinforce the prejudices and illusions of natural man, using the gospel to reinforce the health-wealth syndrome, to promise natural man increased prosperity if he will support the ministry. The result is that these ministries do not really help persons enter into moral seriousness about their own human condition and do not really proclaim the gospel of forgiveness and responsiveness to grace.

Under the bright lights of a television studio, the gospel of forgiveness too often becomes antinomian pabulum. Grace is auctioned cheap. The television setting has the capacity to administer cheap grace at a faster rate than anything else. Because of its direct access to the homes and hearts of viewers, only television can say, “You’re forgiven,” millions of times in a millisecond—and without any hint of nurture or follow-up or accountability relationship or community of worship.

Hence, the theological problem inherent in television ministry is that it often fails to proclaim the offense of the gospel, while at the same time it reinforces illusions native to our natural, fallen, human existence, not moving moral awareness deeper into confession and repentance. The principle of accountability demands more than financial responsibility of TV preachers. It demands that they exercise a moral stewardship of their viewers as well.

Ministers were early regarded under the metaphor of stewardship, as stewards of God over the church (Titus 1:5; see also 1 Cor. 4:1–2). A steward is a manager (superintendent, administrator) of another’s household, property, or goods. In Jesus’ parables, steward is used of an employee who supervises a household or lands in the employer’s absence, called to be a resourceful manager of his master’s possessions (Luke 12:42–44). Bishops and elders were called stewards because they were expected to have the same qualities of integrity in management of the Christian community and its resources that a good manager of a household or treasurer of an organization would have. Today we call it accountability.

Paul regarded himself as a steward of Christ, “as one entrusted with the secret things of God” (1 Cor. 4:1). He instructed a younger associate in ministry to make sure that he was one “who correctly handles the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). Describing his own sense of stewardship, Paul wrote: “Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful” (1 Cor. 4:2). In ministry, having been given a trust, one must demonstrate faithfulness not by words alone but by sustained actions. Just having a good conscience inwardly is not in itself sufficient, for Paul wrote: “My conscience is clear but that does make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me” (1 Cor. 4:4). All this is placed in an end-time context in which finally God “will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and he will expose the motives of men’s hearts” (vs. 5).

Thus, those who solicit funds to support a ministry are ultimately accountable to the one in whose name solicitation is made: Jesus Christ. Yet one cannot evade accountability to persons on the basis of the claim that one is being accountable primarily to God in Christ. For Paul’s teaching is that he is also accountable to human companions, to the Christian community that indirectly is being represented in the solicitation, as well as to those the project seeks to serve, and to donors who are making an investment of valued resources in a particular ministry—all of whom are themselves accountable before God for responding liberally to his gifts.

Is Television Just Too Big?

The best scale of accountability in discipling ministries is the small local congregation, not masses of people at a distance. Richard Baxter wisely wrote in The Reformed Pastor: “Though a minister is an officer in the Church universal, yet is he in a special manner the overseer of that particular church which is committed to his charge.” He argued that “flocks must ordinarily be no greater than we are capable of overseeing.”

Baxter envisioned a locally grounded, focused ministry in which “the diocese had been no greater than the elders or bishops could oversee and rule, so that they might have taken heed to all the flock,” and in which “pastors had been multiplied as churches increased, and the number of overseers been proportioned to the number of souls, that they might not have let the work be undone, while they assumed the empty titles, and undertook impossibilities!”

It is clearly easier to keep local churches accountable than to strictly monitor ministries of national and even international scope. The local church functions with a local structure of accountability (a constituted church order, a board, a palpable congregation) that has to be faced again and again. But in parachurch ministries, there is much less clarity about where accountability lies and what it means. It is regrettable that parachurch ministries have not learned more from traditional forms of church governance about accountability.

Ultimately, every televangelist needs a Nathan, or if not a Nathan, at least a court jester. Some who work near those who have highly influencial roles in governance need to have the gifts of wit and admonition. They must be able to give critical counsel to a leader who is constantly getting mostly positive responses. Charismatic qualities that often attach to highly public roles of ministry work against straightforward, honest feedback, accelerating the tendency of persons to give positive responses.

As University of Alabama historian David Edwin Harrell notes in his new biography of Pat Robertson, “A certain degree of authoritarianism goes with the territory when a leader gets his directions from God, but debate was also blunted by the sheer force of Robertson’s personality. Tim Robertson acknowledged that the biggest problem his father faced was getting good advice.… One of the weaknesses of a Christian organization, observed Tim Robertson, was that people were not willing to ‘fight it out.’ Meekness was a Christian virtue, as was personal kindness, but they were traits that could dampen the needed give-and-take in high-level meetings. Honest confrontation was sometimes sacrificed out of Christian courtesy, usually to the detriment of the ministry.”

A leader then is constantly tempted to imagine that everything is wonderful. The leader needs not sycophants, but someone to challenge critically.

Jesus capped his parable of the shrewd manager (Luke 16:1–13) with this penetrating question: “So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?” (Luke 16:11). Just such accountability is being called for today. The church can no longer afford the luxury of the pretense of nonaccountability. The psalmist chided those who imagine that God “won’t call me to account” (Ps. 10:13). Ministries that have ignored the warning: “Be sure your sins will find you out” (Num. 32:23), are finding that it is being vindicated sooner rather than later.

The Players:

Jerry Falwell Is Not Just Another Baptist Minister

In some ways, Jerry Falwell hasn’t changed much since he first took to the air with a local television station in 1956. Then, as now, he declared, “Lynchburg is my parish.”

Yet even though Falwell stepped down as chairman of the beleaguered PTL television network to devote more time to pastoral work at his Thomas Road Baptist Church, his parish spreads far beyond the hills of Lynchburg. When he speaks in front of the camera, more than 610,000 households in 169 markets across the country tune in to listen. And, of course, they do more than listen. When he passes the electronic offering plate via “The Old-Time Gospel Hour,” it collects more money from people in Los Angeles than from any other market in the nation. Reported income from the weekly hour-long telecast was $91 million last year.

That Jerry Falwell is not just another Baptist preacher is further driven home by the armed security guards escorting visitors inside the unmarked building that is home to his electronic empire. When he is finally cornered in his office somewhere deep within the mysterious edifice, there is more than a trace of regret in his voice as he reflects on his rise from local preacher to national celebrity. Consider a simple pastoral function such as the hospital call. “I’ve tried sneaking up a back stairwell after hours and going directly to the room of one of my members, but then somebody hears your voice and when you walk out the door you find a crowd.”

Such trials, Falwell acknowledges, are largely his own doing. “I had the idea I could visit every place in the world in five years,” he said, referring to the popularity that came with television. “I should have stayed home and put more emphasis on the local church.”

What else would he have done differently? “I would have attended seminary.” Falwell considers himself largely self-educated, having earned a degree from Baptist Bible College that is “about a notch below a B.A.… If I had spent four or five more years in school and started my ministry later, I would have accomplished more by now than I have.”

Instead of staying home and emphasizing his church, Falwell expanded the television ministry, admitting such ministries need projects beyond the usual preaching of the gospel. “If preaching the gospel and getting people saved is television’s only reason for being, it’s not enough.” To Falwell, TV is a means to a host of ends: “Television is a recruiting arm for Liberty University and a motivational tool for pastors. It is a means of telling pregnant girls there is an alternative better than abortion. Television has allowed me an opportunity to speak out on the moral and social issues of our nation.”

It has also placed him in the company of others whose sermons bounce off satellites, and he speaks out just as strongly about them as he does about moral issues. “I think the media are derelict in not exposing the Bob Tiltons, the Ernest Angleys, or the Kenneth Copelands. Instead, they go after people like me, Billy Graham, or Jim Kennedy.”

Yet Falwell welcomes the attention. “I can’t say I have enjoyed the scrutiny I’ve received in the press, but it has helped us. Actually, with two exceptions—Ken Woodward of Newsweek and one of our local reporters—the secular media have been extremely fair.”

Falwell acknowledges the need for accountability watchdogs like the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA), though he currently is not a member of it. His organization found responding to every little charge was “counterproductive.” But he plans to conform to the National Religious Broadcasters’ new ethical standards. “Remember, PTL belonged to ECFA and that didn’t stop them. If a person is determined to self-destruct, there’s little you can do to stop him. He will do what he wants to do until the authorities catch him.”

The Players:

Jim Kennedy’S Humble Empire

Jim Kennedy is not a televangelist and he almost has the papers to prove it. “In the Presbyterian church we have a special ordination for evangelists, and that is something I don’t have,” says Kennedy. True, he is the head of an evangelistic organization, Evangelism Explosion (EE), and each week at least 484,000 television sets are tuned in to his broadcast. But the former dance-school instructor would prefer not to be lumped in with some of his colleagues who have exploited television for personal profit.

“Had I known in 1978 what I know now, I might not have gotten into television. Even then, though, I was hearing rumors about some television ministers being in it for the money. So I decided from the beginning that I would accept no salary, no honoraria from radio or television.”

He has apparently held to that decision. In ten years of beaming sermons from his Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, he has not received any income from the $12 million annual budget of the television program (though he receives royalties from his books, which are offered on the air). To further fight the image of a prime-time preacher fleecing his flock, Kennedy lives in the church’s parsonage (built for $74,000), drives a Mercury his congregation gave him three years ago, and limits his on-air appeals for contributions to about 20 seconds per broadcast.

Kennedy’s empire has a humble—almost dowdy—feel to it. It is built around a church that has a tower typical of megaministries. But the interior walls are unpainted concrete block, and the young men scurrying with television cameras remind you of the kids who always volunteered to run the movie projector in science class. His personal office is tucked into a cul de sac alongside the sanctuary, and after preaching he joins his wife in the foyer to greet worshipers.

If the intended effect of such careful attention to plain appearances was to assure followers he would never misuse their donations, it has also discouraged national media attention: “After the Jim Bakker story broke, a reporter from the Washington Post called and asked if she could come down and look at our financial records. I said ‘sure’ and that’s the last I heard from her.”

So who makes certain things are on the up and up with Coral Ridge Ministries (CRM)? Like Robert Schuller, Kennedy places a lot of the burden of accountability on his denomination, the Presbyterian Church of America. Unlike Schuller’s television ministry, the board of CRM is commissioned by the session, a group of 60 elders of the church, which in turn is accountable to the general assembly of the denomination.

On paper, it sounds fine, yet potential problems exist. As chairman of the board of CRM, Kennedy personally selects board members. And though he has never appointed a family member or relative to his board, one could accurately describe board members as Kennedy fans. “I could ask them for a six-figure salary for my services to CRM and they would give it to me,” Kennedy admits.

Other than occasional chiding from the local newspaper for not giving more money to Fort Lauderdale’s poor, Kennedy has received little financial scrutiny. Until recently, CRM did not belong to the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability because they “thought that was for organizations that didn’t belong to a denomination.” He has kept a long-standing policy of letting any donor see his ministry’s financial statements, yet he recognizes there is little stopping him from building a personal fortune through television.

“Anybody who wants to be dishonest can embezzle money. No system of accountability, as much as they are needed, can totally keep a person from wrongdoing. What it boils down to is personal honesty and integrity.”

Rarely do I watch Christian television programs. When I do, I get angry and embarrassed. I feel like I am watching “Begging for Dollars” or “Top My Testimony.” But I do pastor people whose lives have been changed by the gospel so imperfectly presented by many television evangelists. Their lives temper my generalized judgments and display the sovereignty of God.

Standing near me in the baptistry, she testified how her spiritual pilgrimage had led her from an antievangelical church to a ladies’ Bible study to praying to receive Christ with the host of “The 700 Club.” It was neither Pat Robertson’s theology nor his politics but the power of the Holy Spirit drawing her to believe that she, too, could know Christ.

At a luncheon, a businessman unsympathetic to evangelicalism startled me after I finished speaking apologetically about the recent TV scandals. “My mother-in-law left all her jewels to this TV evangelist,” he said. “The family was very angry. I told them—she did the right thing. For more than 15 years, the family seldom visited her, and her church never did. She looked forward every day to her hour with this TV evangelist. That was her time of inspiration. She had hope, joy, and was not afraid to die. He earned his pay!”

They lived together in the city far from our suburban church. Unmarried. Bisexual. Promiscuous. Addicted to alcohol and drugs. He visited our church at the invitation of a friend. She refused to attend. He accepted Christ. She did not. They separated over his desire for a changed life. Two years passed—I met them again. Married. Soon to be new parents. Free from addiction and immorality. Alone she had listened soberly to a TV evangelist preaching in a perspiring rage. Every sin he named she had committed. She prayed to the Christ who receives sinners, convinced that he would accept her. Their lives will never be the same.

At 82, she visited our church for the first time. “I want to be baptized,” she said trembling. We talked. “Have you ever been baptized?” I asked. “Why, no, Pastor! I’m not even saved. But I want to be.” In asking her how she became interested in becoming a Christian, she told me about the TV evangelist whose name she could not remember, who urged his audience to find a nearby church where someone could help them grow as Christians. She prayed for such a church. She drove through the neighborhood until she saw our building. That night I had the joy of watching her receive the Christ she sought. At 94, she still inspires everyone she meets with her vibrant faith.

Franchising Salvation

Ever since God first chose people to be his, those people have sought for some way to franchise salvation. Seldom have “the chosen” accepted taking the Good News outside traditional forums.

Yet the Good News really belongs to the disenfranchised. The blind beggar, the leper, the harlots, the fishermen, the tax collector, the demoniacs, the centurion, the common people, and the Gentiles—all heard the Good News outside the local franchise.

We make noble talk about reaching the unevangelized in America, but we are quite selective about the sinners we minister to. We like our sinners clean and acculturated to the importance of our style and traditions.

But a large and growing oral communication culture exists in America, and it does not fit nicely into our pews. Its members respond best to communications media that are narrative, oral, contemporary, and visual. They are suspicious of our traditions, for we resemble the Judaizers in our attempts to convert them. We regard their culture as secular and ours as so spiritual. Television is a natural entry point for the gospel into their lives. It gives them a private opportunity to hear the gospel.

An excellent case exists for convicting Christian television of many abuses. An even better case exists for indicting the church on those same charges. Merchandising, marketing, fund raising, immorality, fraud, and heresy have found great homes in Christian publishing, parachurch ministries, mission ministries, and the local church itself.

Those who mismanage funds with sinister motives have always existed in the church. They even existed right under the nose of Jesus Christ in the Twelve. We would do well to study how he illustrated that the sovereignty of God cannot be thwarted by such perversion. He is the Lord of the whole harvest, of both tares and wheat.

I do not intend to become a Christian TV groupie. But neither will I discount the place of television ministry. I know there are devoted men and women of God in broadcast ministries. I also know that the gospel—and neither the messenger nor the medium—is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.”