Here is a sampling of the many bullying Tweet's Matt Furtick has posted since Stuart Watson's expose on the finances of Steven Furtick and Elevation Church began on October 22nd. By the way, WCNC aired the fourth part of Watson's pieces, exposing some of the contents of a confidential Elevation Church financial report.
Yes, attacking the manhood of Stuart Watson. How Christ-like of Brother Matt.
Just a tad bit aggressive, almost threatening. Matt, Stuart is an Emmy-award winning reporter, and I don't think your biased view of him carries much weight.
Oh yes, the old "coward" accusation. I heard that so often back in 2007 and 2008 - along with "man up".
Steven Furtick's wife Holly sent a "Reply" Tweet to Matt's Oct 23 11:40 pm Tweet:
Again, that is Holly's October 24th reply to Matt's October 23rd Tweet calling Stuart Watson's report a "joke", a biased piece with "no factual information". After Holly seemed to publicly endorse Matt's characterizations, he then became more aggressive on successive days in attacking Stuart Watson on Twitter.
Matt Furtick describes himself as not being "affiliated" with Elevation, but says that he does attend when he is in town. Perhaps he helped Steven write the "Hey Haters" script?
I certainly understand Matt wanting to defend his brother, but this is just over the top to accuse a reputable reporter like Stuart Watson of being a "hack" and a "coward" - even questioning his manhood.
But this is standard fare when a person dares to ask questions about the finances of a mega church and the pastor.
As you would expect from Stuart Watson - who by the way has won three Emmy's for his investigative reporting along with three Peabody awards - he is taking the high road. In Stuart's Twitter feed I see only one direct response to the bullying of Matt Furtick:
Stuart, thanks for showing the grace and kindness that Jesus would show to those who are attacking him. You are the Christ-like example. Not the pastor and his brother, sad to say.
And Steven and Holly - you might want to reign in bro. Matt. He's really going off the deep end on some of his Tweets.









The problem is that Furtick and others got their money by turning the church into a business. Pastors like Furtick are obsessed with business leadership because they fashion themselves as the CEO and identify more with celebrity CEOs like Steve Jobs than with non-celebrity pastors. Decisions are made by the CEO to build the brand, to create a larger customer base, to increase the giving margin, and to expand into new opportunities. Church personnel decisions are made in the same way. Is the youth pastor growing the youth brand? Is the worship pastor stylish enough? While such decisions are constrained at some point by biblical considerations…they aren’t going to hire a guy who publicly rejects the bible…the biblical standards of Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 aren’t really considerations.
This creates two problems, though. One, churches aren’t businesses and aren’t supposed to be run as such. There is nothing wrong with Macy’s developing a non-fraudulent pricing and promotional strategy designed to extricate consumers with as many spending dollars as possible. Macy’s should offer products and services designed to produce high margin income. But churches aren’t businesses. The pastor shouldn’t spend time developing (or more likely purchasing from consultants) “offering talks,” or message series, or coaching services, or conferences with a goal of increasing the church’s income. The church shouldn’t be selling books and tshirts and lattes and bibles or anything else. God’s house is not a house of merchandise!
So when the Furticks of the Christian world stand up and talk about money (and they talk about money a lot!) it sounds a lot like Macy’s running television commercials for their two-day after Thanksgiving sale. When they preach on tithing (a subject on which bible believing Christians can easily disagree), it sounds self-serving because it is self-serving. Is it Furtick the preacher of God’s word talking, or Furtick the CEO of Elevation Church, Inc. talking? Nothing has changed in two thousand years. A pastor cannot serve two masters.
The second problem is the conflict of interest between the company (the church) and the CEO (the pastor.) Former GM CEO Charles Wilson reputedly once claimed that “What’s good for GM is good for the country.” (A misquote, but that’s not the point here.) Celebrity CEO Pastors seem to believe that what’s good for the Lead Pastor is good for the church. That’s why they freely write and promote books on “church time” and bring in other celebrity CEO pastors to “teach” (with undisclosed and sizable speaking fees). Does Furtick invite Craig Groeshel to teach for $____ because Groeshel brought in Furtick to teach at Lifechurhc for $_____? No one knows because it’s all a big, big secret. Is the five week sermon series on “Sun Stand Still Prayers” for the edification of the church, or to promote the CEO’s new book, which is conveniently for sale in the church bookstore. Building the CEO’s profile will help him sell books, increase his demand as a guest speaker, and feed his ego. But does it benefit the church? None of your business.
The clear conflict of interest is exacerbated by an utter lack of accountability. Sure, if Furtick gets caught sleeping with his cute personal assistant (which has happened in at least two smaller CEO-style churches I’m aware of), he couldn’t salvage his position. But no one from inside his inner circle is going to question his business dealings, his use of church time to work on and promote his books, his purchase of his own and friends books by the church, his speaking fee at churches with mutual relationships, or his promotional choice of message series. Anyone from the inside who did ask such impertinent questions would suddenly find themselves on the outs, and in a personality driven organization, loss of access to the leader is a dire sanction. Outsiders in the media or blog may ask questions, but they won’t get answers. And the rank and file members will stay on and keep giving.