I agree. But I don't agree with the comparison to Jim Jones, who I'm sure did not have oversight from any outside pastors.
And while we can question what kind of oversight they have, the fact remains that this pastor was removed from his post by this board for having personal problems that interfere with his ability to lead.
So obviously they do have that authority.
Some mega-church pastors supplement their income by selling books; some so successfully that they do not accept a salary from the church. I don't know what the case is here.
I am used to the church model in which a local board of elders hire and fire the preacher, and set the budget and salary. But then again, such a model is biased toward a very stable church body. I can see that a board consisting of mega-pastors would be biased toward fast growth. Its a different mentality. A church, a pastor, that determines to reach the lost by the thousands will think differently than one that is content to watching baptisms and funerals balancing one another out.
There are preachers who think in terms of reaching, not hundreds or thousands, but millions. They think differently, and would require a board of overseers who are on the same page.
Very interesting observations, marron. Your point about a different goal for the church, so to speak, requiring a different governance structure is quite sensible.
Considering that Jim Jones was a Marxist I am sure he had no pastoral oversight either.
Although Marxism is a religion dressed up as a political philosophy.
Perhaps Leonid Brezhnev could have given him some tips.