Content area
Full text
The case of televangelist Jim Bakker and the PTL is now part of history. But the details of that fraud are important to recall--so that similar tragedies can be avoided in the future.
At the resentencing of Jim Bakker, the government submitted an affidavit reflecting the magnitude of the Bakker fraud. The affidavit stated, "...the fraud perpetrated by Bakker is one of the largest, if not the largest, consumer fraud prosecuted as a federal mail fraud violation to date in this country."(1) Specifically, Jim Bakker was found guilty of the fraudulent oversale of 152,903 fully paid lodging partnerships producing at least $158 million.(2)
The purpose of this manuscript is to examine the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA), and how it allowed PTL to continue as a member of the ECFA during the very time this massive fraud was occurring. The ECFA is sort of a "Better Business Bureau" for religious organizations. PTL was a member of ECFA from April 1981 until December 1986. Testimony and exhibits that were recently produced in the federal case of Teague v. Bakker' now raise questions concerning the actions of ECFA and its obligations and responsibilities to the public, at least as it relates to its review of the PTL organization.
BACKGROUND
Undoubtedly, the public and Congress may be asking what should be done to crack down on real and perceived abuses in charitable fund raising for religious activities? As estimated by the National Association of Fund-Raising Counsel in its publication, Giving USA, United States religious giving totaled $67.59 billion in 1991.(4)
It seems logical to ask if the government should step in to ensure credibility and integrity concerning the use of these massive amounts of tax-exempt funds. Because all charities are a public trust, it also seems logical to require accountability to the public concerning the charitable use of these funds.
However, some would contend that governmental intervention could violate the First Amendment's Freedom of Religion and specifically the Establishment Clause that has been interpreted to mean that a wall of separation must exist between church and state.(5)
If the government is to be discouraged from intimately involving itself in policing religious organizations, then shouldn't religious organizations find a way to police themselves? Shouldn't here be some...