It explains (in the sense of justifing it) it, if and only if,
the salary Ho received from her church wasn't enough to meet her
authentic needs; moreover, since she is married, we have to realise
that whatever money her husband was making, might also be a factor
that would have to be taken into account when forming an objective
estimate of the shape of her authentic needs.
I don't know if Ho is in any way profiting from her career as a
singer or whether, if she isn't profiting from it, her church is
continuing to pay her a salary.
It would be odd, though, that her church should pay her a salary if
it is the case that she is no longer willing to advertise herself
as a pastor of her church.
In any case, we have to realise that her husband is obviously being
paid a salary by her church (since he is its pastor) and whatever
she may be doing as a singer could be profiting her church
indirectly, in that it might be serving to attract a significant
proportion of her fans into her church where obviously they will be
expected, after having become members of her church, to wilingly
contribute a portion of their monthly incomes to the church's
coffers on a regular (possibly monthly) basis.
This line of reasoning, however, begs the following question: just
how much is she being paid by her church (in the event that she is
continuing to receive a salary from her church), and more
particularly, what salary is her church paying to her
husband?
It's odd that we expect the NKF to make the salaries of its
directors public on the grounds that it subsists on donations
solicited from members of the public; while we do not expect
typically that a church, which subsists on the tithes paid to it by
its members, should make the salaries of its staff public.
It would seem that we expect secular organisations to be more
transparent than a 'church' in this regard - which to my mind, is
one of the greatest of ironies.
Please continue to keep these pretenders on their toes,
Fugue.
Ben
