The Religion Business: the docuseries, and the reality of what's happening in your church.
- Julie R. Neidlinger
- a few seconds ago
- 11 min read
On July 10, 2025 the seven-part docuseries The Religion Business was released on the website and through an associated app. I watched it over the span of three nights right away. While there are other reviews that you might find more useful, I thought I'd chime in on a few thoughts.
But first, let me tell you why I was particularly keen to see this, especially after seeing an interview that Julie Roys did with Nathan Apffel and Chris Ayoub, the creators of the docuseries in which the point was made that although the docuseries features large megachurches, the same issues are happening with small churches.
Your church, possibly.
I know, because I used to work at one.
And it is that experience that has made me inclined to listen to Julie Roys' content that often highlights the failures of churches and Christian leaders. While I by no means experienced physical abuse, I was definitely manipulated, gaslighted, and ultimately fired a month before the pandemic exploded onto the scene for trying to grasp what I can only say was dishonesty and hurtful behavior from church leadership, including opacity in financial issues.
So I review this not as someone who was frontloaded with long expectations and lots of background knowledge of the project; I'd only heard about the docuseries a few months before its release.
PROS: What I liked about The Religion Business docuseries.
The expert and varied interviews with people discussing this issue from multiple angles were excellent. Church historians, IRS experts, former megachurch pastors, accountants, and former detractors—I love that. The viewpoint was solid, well-rounded, and substantial. In particular, I could have listened to the IRS and church history experts discuss their topics for hours.
I liked some of the illustrative methods used to display information, making data visually understandable instead of just numbers rattled off by experts.
I appreciated how concepts of concern were tied to real-world examples and organizations, allowing the viewer to see what the problem looked like beyond the laboratory and in the real world.
The creators of the docuseries did a great job of introducing the legal and financial loopholes that allow churches and organizations to skirt restrictions, making them not only unethical but likely illegal. In particular, the use of housing allowances for pastors (and “ordaining” anyone on staff so they are a pastor and can get such an allowance), and non-profits reclassifying themselves as a church so as to avoid dealing with IRS 990 forms which require details about how they are using the money donors give them.
CONS: What I did not like about The Religion Business docuseries.
Here are my cons, which are unfairly longer than the pros, because we humans tend to find it easier to gripe than to see a positive.
#1. Length and structure.
I'd like to think I'm capable of lyrical and winding thinking, but the overall sense from the seven episodes was that it was too long and loosely woven. I guess I prefer a more linear and logical approach to delivering information of this nature, and therefore, would have reduced it to four episodes:
Church history from start to now: how we ended up doing church instead of being church.
Building earthly kingdoms: normalizing excessive housing allowances, IRS loopholes and wiggle room, the creation of worldly wealth and power because it's legal, though maybe not ethical, and what that does for the organization (and refute the "Joseph stored up for a famine" trite response you always hear).
When the darkness spreads: how shady financial dealings lead to emotional, physical, and sexual abuse in the church, because once one area of ethics goes dark or shadowy, it creeps into everything in the organization.
What do we do now: how should the Church be, and what can we do to reduce this problem? What rules and laws could address this issue? What should each church-goer demand from their church, and what do they do if the opacity continues? What basic financial details should the viewer know about anyone they give money to that would help them understand the true nature of the organization, i.e., what specific questions should we ask that help us find if someone is fudging the answers?
#2. Depiction of aviation use as financial wrongdoing.
Additionally, as a private pilot and with corporate pilot friends, I have concerns about how aviation is often an easy target for documentaries that aim to expose waste and fraud, but sometimes struggle to avoid poking the rich-poor divide just a bit to make it work. Having and using a jet isn't always a sure sign of financial wrongdoing.
Okay, okay, yeah. Regarding Kenneth Copeland, yeah, do your thing, guys. The only Copeland I can watch is the Andre Antunes heavy metal remix. But there were some other ways aviation was depicted that need better context, and some were from the Copeland footage involving a YouTuber I’d never heard of, and wasn’t sure why he was there.
The gates that opened at Copeland's airport are common to airports, as the fence is designed to keep out animals, etc. I'm more surprised the crew got onto the general property, but since they drove out onto an active runway, even at a private airport, yes, you are absolutely going to get a welcome party. I dislike 'gotcha' moments that put law enforcement in a bad position, as I personally have concerns about private property rights and trespassing. The question of whose property it was is valid, but if there were signs posted (which I didn't see, to be honest), that was trespassing. For the most part, though, Copeland is open season in my book.
My main gripe is with Samaritan's Purse and how its aviation budget was depicted.
Yes, I have some problems with Franklin Graham (his vax stance during the pandemic, and his handling of Saeed Abedini's alleged abuse of his wife). I also dislike organizations that accumulate vast wealth while still requesting donations, even when they do a commendable job in the immediate aftermath of disasters. Knowing they have over a billion or more makes it hard to scrape together the money to send a shoebox at Christmas, I'll admit.
But.
Samaritan's Purse does get it done. The orange shirts are deployed on the ground ASAP after a disaster or during the setup of field hospitals. They have a large aviation fleet, and those components are a key part of their mission.
So that aviation budget (I think they said $50M?) that was mentioned as for "staff flights" is where I have a problem. It would have been nice to know what those flights were for specifically. Is it just flying staff around, or is that their actual mission flights? If Samaritan's Purse wouldn't respond to such questioning, or if it wasn’t publicly available, it would be wise to at least acknowledge that such a large budget wouldn't be out of line necessarily for massive cargo planes flying all over the world for disaster relief, field hospitals, and delivery of supplies.
Their fleet includes (based on quick internet research):
Douglas DC-8-72CF: Configured to carry up to 74,000 pounds of cargo and 32 passengers, this is a combi aircraft used for rapid global response. It has been a workhorse since 2016, flying hundreds of missions worldwide. The DC-8 is scheduled for retirement by the end of 2025. (Cargo)
Boeing 757-200PCF: Added in 2022, this freighter can carry up to 67,000 pounds of cargo with a range of 3,400 nautical miles. It enhances the organization’s ability to deliver relief supplies quickly to disaster zones. (Cargo)
Boeing 767-300F: Recently acquired, this aircraft will replace the DC-8 and is used for long-range cargo missions. (Cargo)
Douglas DC-3: Based in Kenya, used for missions in Africa, capable of carrying five tons of cargo or up to 32 passengers. (Cargo)
Beechcraft Super King Air B200 & B300: Turboprop aircraft for regional transport.
CASA 212-CC: Two short takeoff and landing cargo aircraft, useful for remote airstrips.
Cessna Aircraft: Includes five Cessna 208s, a Cessna 172 Skyhawk, a Cessna 182E Skylane, and a Cessna A185F for smaller missions and bush flying.
de Havilland DHC-3 Otter & Quest Kodiak 100: Turboprop bush planes, particularly for operations in Alaska.
Helicopters: At least two, including a Bell 206-L4, for rapid access to hard-to-reach areas.
Executive Jets: Gulfstream G550, Dassault Falcon 50, and Falcon 900EX, registered to related entities, used for executive and special missions. (These are probably the ones that we'd want to look more closely at.)
The FAA and/or insurance required and periodic maintenance on those aircraft must be a massive cost; it's not clear if that was included in that total or not. Based on quick internet research, transportation costs in 2023 were $66M, and include operation, maintenance, deployment, and shipping of materials.
This is a huge fleet. It isn't a typical aviation fleet that you'd see being used to fly around a few leaders in cushy comfort, though I'm not saying there aren't flights that are questionable. Mainly, I'm saying that viewers were only told a significant total budget number that's shocking, but we really needed the context. Was that number just for the business jets and flying executives? Was it for personal use? Did it fit within FAA regulations if it was personal use? Was that for cargo used in relief efforts?
That matters.
I don't like seeing legitimate business or cargo aviation badmouthed because it's an industry prone to wild fluctuations, and the people in it are decent and do serve a purpose. There are legitimate reasons and cost savings to fly executives and staff privately instead of commercially in some situations (no, Copeland’s claims of demonic people on commercial flight is not a valid reason). We just get a bad taste in our mouths because of the abuse of those privileges we've seen.
Regarding Samaritan's Purse, at question in the docuseries was the Alaska property, both the continued purchase, the suggested mix of personal benefit with ministry funds, and a question of why go so remote for that veteran's program when it would cost a lot? This was packaged with the total aviation expense while talking about the cost of flying people and Graham into the remote area, as if that was the only aviation usage.
While there are good questions to have answered about the Alaska property, the aviation aspect should have been clarified.
Speculation is as close as we got, and context-free giant aviation bills. Anyone who flies knows aviation is ridiculously expensive. The same lightbulb is a few dollars at a hardware store, but hundreds if you have it certified for an airplane. I don't like aviation to be seen as the bad guy. I have personal experience with the heartburn of bringing in a Christian speaker for an event where they insist on First Class tickets only, when coach is good enough for those attending the conference. So I get it. However, context and clarification are preferable to obfuscation when it comes to a documentary.
#3. Where was Scientology?
The inclusion of the LDS church as a poster child for massive accumulation of assets was a great way to show how our current tax laws have created a religious monster that even giant corporations can't compete with.
But if you only show Evangelical megachurches and then the LDS church in the show, the assumption is:
LDS/Mormons are Christians, because we're mostly featuring Christian churches and organizations. (No, they are not. And that should have been clarified when the Mormon elder said you tithe to keep your name in the book for judgment day, something that you won't find ANYWHERE in the Bible.)
Only Christian entities are abusing these non-profit religious loopholes.
By excluding even a mention of Scientology, of which there are books and TV shows available exposing it to use as reference material if you wanted to avoid the goons that would get all up in your business directly, you've made this a Christian-only problem, and then absorbed the LDS church into it as Christian by this unfortunate inclusion/exclusion problem.
#4. The third-world motif.
For over eight years, I went to the same place in Nicaragua for missions. We built a farm, houses, a church, elder living, irrigation, sponsored kids for school, rescued people from living at the dump, and I finally quit going. I won't go into the details of the issues we encountered, but let me tell you that the same greed, corruption, and human issues that created this massive problem in the US are at work in the third world, even if it is not on the same scale or in appearance due to differences in economy and culture, even if the results aren’t mansions and jets, but simply more fresh fruit or a concrete block house.
It is worthwhile to understand how well off we are and to contrast how wasteful we are with money (e.g. tens of thousands of dollars a year on frickin' donuts every Sunday, don’t get me started) that could be used better elsewhere. I concur. But sometimes the money we tried to use wisely in Nicaragua was wasted by the people and we realized it when we came back the following year. All humans waste; it’s a matter of normalized scale as to the amount, but it is proportional.
However, we must be cautious not to portray the third world as more saintly and honest than the developed West. They are the same sinners we are, trust me. As these two filmmakers said in interviews, humans will human. Sometimes it feels as if we use developing countries as a foil to sharpen guilt, and that's not useful without context and a call to action.
We are not living in a slum in Uganda. Viewers need a better takeaway than guilt and anger, particularly since one interview pointed out that our Western tendency is to feel bad and give money to someone who says they'll fix it, thereby removing ourselves and not being great stewards of our money. It was a confusing message; were we to model ourselves on that, or was it merely a contrast of how much money we waste in megachurches and non-profit for luxury living? I assume the latter, but am not sure. The video cut that delivered this was from the ugly scene at Copeland's airport, complete with stressful music, then a cut to Africa with soft music. That felt like emotional manipulation rather than informing.
What would I like to see?
I want churches and non-profits to pay taxes based on their income.
I want the housing allowance to end.
I want a requirement that every last dime is made public and no one gets to hide where the money goes.
I want all top-level and leader salaries made public, along with any additional perks and payments they receive.
Why?
Because, regardless of the motives of the creators of the docuseries, of the motives of those who start non-profits, of the motives of the donors, of the motives of leaders, one thing remains: transparency is the only way light stays in, and where there is light, it cannot be dark.
Because the love of money is turning good intentions and good organizations evil. The love of money and the ability to hide it are attracting the wrong kind of people, those who see an opportunity for power and personal wealth. Because though it’s unfair that the good guys have to suffer, the longer this goes on, the fewer good guys there are.
The reasoning is that, depending up on the administration in power, churches could be targeted by the government and restrictions put on their ability to share their faith message.
Ironically, it’s the fear of losing tax-exempt status (and the lack of faith that God would keep them going without it) that causes them to self-censor.
All churches and non-profit organizations should report their financial dealings in detail and pay taxes like any other entity. No one—whether megachurches, Mormons, Scientologists, whackjobs, genuine do-gooders, or anyone somewhere in between—gets away with amassing personal and organizational wealth while paying no taxes while the donors bear the burdens. You report your assets, your property, your expenses, in detail, no excuses. No hazy or fudgy budget lines in your bookkeeping, but standard and clear descriptions so that a pastor can’t hide money behind “business lunches” or some other generic thing.
And the housing allowance thing is being so abused that the rule should be that your housing allowance can't exceed the average of the city where your church building is located and that you must live within X miles of your church, if we had to have a housing allowance at all. I’d rather pastors lived in the church-provided parsonage with restrictions on its size and cost, or they made a living off of their salary and paid for their own home like the rest of the people in the congregation.
Somewhere, between agreeing that Paul wrote it was right that pastors and teachers in the church should be paid for their work, and today, we turned it into a personal profit machine where some pastors are elevated and the religious guilt of the flock is tied up in making sure they stay that way.
Clarity and detail, transparency and light, explanation when asked, is not too much to demand from people giving you money.
I suppose I was disillusioned by what I witnessed during those few years in the church office, and since no member of the board bothered to inquire about what was happening, I imagine it still is going on. If knowing God sees and knows what you are justifying is not enough to spur you to honesty, I guess it needs to be the IRS.