Samaritan's Purse, on the other hand, uses its land in Alaska for Operation Heal Our Patriots, a retreat serving wounded veterans. The ministry also runs other vital projects, such as disaster relief and global aid. This focus on Alaska overlooks the fact that Samaritan's Purse is a leader in disaster relief. It is often the first ministry on the ground responding to hurricanes, floods, pandemics, earthquakes, and wildfires.
After Hurricane Helene in 2024, they deployed volunteers to western North Carolina, clearing debris, rebuilding homes, and providing medical support, including a field hospital for oxygen-dependent patients. They've helped over 86,000 families across 205 U.S. disasters since 1998, often partnering with local churches like Kerrville Bible Church in Texas after the 2025 floods. They have numerous charity outreaches, such as their World Medical Mission and their Children's Heart Project. The good they have accomplished is stunning and humbling. Apffel strikes me as an extremely liberal man. Perhaps his early focus on Franklin Graham's Samaritan's Purse was fueled more by contempt for Graham's politics than any "breadcrumbs" that Apffel may have followed in Alaska. Apffel went after Graham's ministry at the very beginning of his docuseries, when there were actual egregious examples he could have begun with. Instead, he goes after a global charity helping thousands in great need. I found that telling. I also found it reprehensible. I am not a fan of Nathan Apffel.
https://www.samaritanspurse.org/media/fact-sheet-samaritans-purse/
https://www.samaritanspurse.org/donation-items/us-disaster-relief-donation/
The outreach of Samaritan's Purse is global. They provide food, water, and medical care in crisis zones. In 2024, Samaritan's Purse airlifted 260 tons of aid globally, distributed 1 million Bibles in Ukraine, and supported Ethiopian families at dumpsites with Operation Christmas Child shoeboxes. Their 2021 financials show 85% of $676 million in expenses went to ministry, with 42% for Operation Christmas Child, and 17% for emergency relief -- almost 115 million dollars in just one year -- directly aiding the poor. Does Apffel do any of that -- or anything even close to it? Will his docuseries harm the ability of Samaritan's Purse to continue responding as effectively in the future? Shame on him if it does. He insists we should give directly to individuals in need, but that kind of giving -- while sincere -- can never match the global impact of communal support given through a ministry like Samaritan's Purse. Individual donors simply don't have the resources, expertise, or reach that Franklin Graham's organization has.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan's_Purse
https://www.samaritanspurse.org/our-ministry/church-engagement/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan's_Purse
https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/faith-in-action-how-samaritans-purse-is-rebuilding-lives-in-western-north-carolina/
While Apffel critiques financial opacity, Samaritan's Purse earns a 4-star Charity Navigator rating for transparency, and only 5% of its revenue comes from federal grants, relying heavily on individual donations. Their focus on tangible aid -- rebuilding homes, disaster relief, providing water, feeding the hungry -- contrasts with the profit-driven image Apffel emphasizes. By overlooking these projects and sensationalizing the land's remoteness and numerous tracts, Apffel risks discouraging support for an important ministry. To me, I think his critique of Samaritan's Purse misses the mark (which is the definition of sin) and feels more like sensationalism -- or personal contempt for Franklin Graham. I believe Samaritan's Purse is faithful to the biblical command to give and serve, and I believe Apffel may have done them, and those who depend on them, great harm. We will be held accountable for every idle word. Perhaps Apffel should consider his accountability before Christ for the words he has spoken against an important ministry, especially if his words limit the ability of Samaritan's Purse to help needy people and communities in the future.
Luke 6:38: "Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
2 Corinthians 9:6-7: "Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."
Acts 20:35: "In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"
1 Timothy 6:17-18: "Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth... but to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share."
One of Apffel's criticisms centers on the property Samaritan's Purse has acquired in Alaska. He takes great issue with the amount of land, questioning why a ministry would need so much in such a remote location for a retreat. To me, this came across as an insinuation that something unlawful or shady was happening at Samaritan's Purse. I worry that others may interpret it the same way, and that it could lead people to withhold much-needed support from a ministry that is doing real good.
Apffel's questioning of why a ministry would need significant land in a remote location like Alaska, combined with my growing sense that he is guilty of selective outrage, deserves a closer look. Below, I will examine the specifics of the Alaska property owned by Samaritan's Purse, its use for the Operation Heal Our Patriots retreat, the context of the land purchases, and whether Apffel's critique holds water. (Note: At the time of writing, I have watched the first five episodes of the docuseries. I find Apffel's approach so off-putting that I am struggling to finish the remaining episodes, even though I agree with his criticism of the shameful excesses, sexual scandals, and abuses found in many megachurches and large ministries. That said, I am deeply troubled by his targeting of Samaritan's Purse. To lump it in with figures like Kenneth Copeland or Jim Bakker -- individuals many would consider corrupt or even clownish -- is incredibly unfair and biased. It is a disservice to a legitimate ministry, and Apffel's framing has the potential to cause real harm to people in need by undermining trust in one of the few large Christian organizations that is consistently doing good work.)
Samaritan's Purse Alaska Property and Operation Heal Our Patriots.
What is the property used for? Samaritan's Purse owns Samaritan Lodge Alaska, a retreat center in Port Alsworth, Alaska, roughly 150 miles southwest of Anchorage, adjacent to Lake Clark National Park. This facility supports Operation Heal Our Patriots, a ministry launched in 2012 to strengthen the marriages of wounded U.S. military veterans and their spouses, particularly those injured post-9/11. The program offers week-long, biblically based marriage enrichment retreats, including workshops, spiritual counseling, and wilderness activities like fishing, hiking, and kayaking.
https://www.samaritanspurse.org/education-2/operation-heal-our-patriots/.
As a vet, and as a family member of a severely wounded veteran, I support this ministry. One of my cousins was almost killed in a roadside bombing in Afghanistan. He has a Traumatic Brain Injury that ended in divorce and 100% disability. He came back from the war a different man. It would be impossible to express my respect for my wounded cousin. I am offended by Apffel's portrayal of this outreach in particular. In my opinion, and of course all of this is my opinion, Apffel is actively looking for boogey men behind every tree. If one isn't there, he finds it anyway. I think targeting this ministry in particular is one of the biggest injustices in The Religion Business.
What is the Scope of Operation Heal Our Patriots?
Since 2012, over 1,546 couples have participated, with 850 committing to Christ, 1,008 baptized, and 961 rededicating marriages.
https://www.samaritanspurse.org/our-ministry/operation-heal-our-patriots-fact-sheet/
The 2025 season runs 17 weeks, hosting up to 11 couples weekly.
https://www.samaritanspurse.org/article/operation-heal-our-patriots-starts-12th-summer-season-in-alaska/
Its lodge is on five acres of lakefront property in Hardenburg Bay. It includes individual cabins, wheelchair-accessible boardwalks, and amenities like gourmet meals.
https://www.samaritanspurse.org/article/samaritan-lodge-dedication/
It's remote and accessible only by air. The location is perfectly suited to its purpose of providing a beautiful, distraction-free environment for healing. The majestic beauty of God's creation can be as powerful a healer of the soul as any counselor in the world. This retreat helps veterans who carry both physical and emotional scars reconnect with their spouses and with God, offering deep spiritual and relational restoration. All costs -- travel, lodging, and activities -- are fully covered by donations, not by the participants. Most of our veterans are not wealthy. A retreat like this would be far beyond their financial reach, but it is not beyond their need.
https://www.samaritanspurse.org/article/alaska-retreat-brings-restoration/
In addition to the lodge, Samaritan's Purse has invested in Alaska since 2006, completing 36 construction projects, including churches, homes, and youth centers in remote Native villages like Ruby and Dillingham.
https://www.samaritanspurse.org/article/samaritans-purse-rebuilds-two-more-churches-in-rural-alaska/
https://www.samaritanspurse.org/article/helping-the-people-of-alaska/
https://www.samaritanspurse.org/article/new-church-under-construction-in-remote-alaska-town/
For example, they rebuilt Lake Clark Bible Church in Port Alsworth, serving both locals and visitors. These projects often require land for facilities suited to harsh climates, delivered via barges and planes due to Alaska's remoteness.
Specifics on the total acreage or cost of Samaritan's Purse’s Alaska holdings are not fully detailed in public records, but the lodge's five-acre plot and additional lots, such as its youth center in Nome, suggest to me that these are targeted purchases for ministry purposes -- not something unlawful and nefarious. The remote nature of Port Alsworth and other villages necessitates land for infrastructure like runways, storage, and community facilities, as 80% of Alaska is accessible only by air.
Is Apffel's Critique of Samaritan's Land Purchases Fair?
Apffel's concern centers on why Samaritan's Purse needs so much land in the "middle of nowhere" for a retreat, implying that the purchase is excessive or questionable. Even if there isn't enough transparency to satisfy Apffel, is there not enough good being done by this ministry to outweigh those concerns? I understand his broader critique of church finances and appreciate his spotlight on the "dark sector," where ministries, exempt from IRS Form 990 filings, often lack accountability. Reform in that area is certainly needed. If Samaritan's Purse has not fully disclosed details of its Alaska land purchases, such as cost or total acreage, I can see how that might raise questions about necessity or intent, especially given the ministry's $676 million budget in 2021. However, there is ample evidence that Samaritan’s Purse is doing meaningful work around the globe, and Apffel’s docuseries does not meaningfully acknowledge it.
The image of a large ministry purchasing land in remote Alaska could appear extravagant, especially when Apffel frames it alongside the excesses of megachurches, such as pastors with private jets and multiple mansions. He might argue that the remoteness of the property suggests a luxury retreat rather than a practical ministry hub, particularly if he perceives the scale as disproportionate to the program's stated goals. Samaritan's Purse has significant assets and high-profile leadership (Franklin Graham's $720,000 salary has drawn scrutiny), Apffel might question whether land purchases prioritize ministry or institutional growth, especially in a state with high land costs due to its isolation.
However, the Alaska property serves a clear and noble mission: Operation Heal Our Patriots. It provides free retreats for wounded veterans, which is a group with high divorce rates (30,000 military marriages ended in 2011 alone). The remote location is intentional, offering a distraction-free setting for healing, as veterans like Marco Solt and Mike Parsons have testified. The five-acre lodge, along with additional lots used for churches and youth centers, is modest compared to sprawling urban megachurch campuses. The land also supports essential infrastructure such as runways, cabins, and storage -- critical in a location that is only accessible by air. Supplies must be stockpiled and transported with care due to the isolation. So yes, Samaritan's Purse owns more land than just the five-acre lodge, but in my view, Apffel focuses narrowly on that fact while ignoring the broader picture.
The African ministries Apffel praises are certainly worthy, but their outreach pales in comparison to the global scale and impact of Samaritan's Purse, including in Africa. Apffel appears to believe he alone occupies the moral high ground, but I think he's walking around with a plank in his eye the size of a Redwood when it comes to Samaritan's Purse.
https://www.crosswalk.com/special-coverage/america/samaritan-s-purse-operation-heal-our-patriots.html
https://www.samaritanspurse.org/article/military-couples-mark-new-beginnings-in-alaska/
https://www.samaritanspurse.org/article/my-life-has-been-changed/
How do you put a price tag on changed lives, new beginnings, saved marriages and families, salvation, and hope?
Samaritan's Purse earns a 4-star Charity Navigator rating, with 85% of its 2021 budget ($576 million) going to programs like disaster relief and Operation Christmas Child, not overhead or land hoarding. Their Alaska projects, including 36 churches and homes since 2006, directly serve Native communities and veterans, aligning with biblical mandates to help the needy (Deuteronomy 14:28-29).
https://www.samaritanspurse.org/article/samaritans-purse-rebuilds-two-more-churches-in-rural-alaska/
https://www.samaritanspurse.org/article/new-church-under-construction-in-remote-alaska-town/
Apffel disputes tithing, claiming only landowners paid tithes and they were non-monetary, but this misreads Scripture. Matthew 23:23: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You tithe mint, dill, and cumin but neglect... justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former." This shows non-landowners tithing goods. Levites, with limited property in cities (Leviticus 25:32-34) and no tribal territory, paid a “tithe of the tithe” from goods, not land (Numbers 18:26-28).
Leviticus 25:32-34: "Notwithstanding the cities of the Levites, and the houses of the cities of their possession, may the Levites redeem at any time. And if a man purchase of the Levites, then the house that was sold, and the city of his possession, shall go out in the year of jubilee... But the field of the suburbs of their cities may not be sold; for it is their perpetual possession."
This passage indicates that Levites were allocated cities (48 total, see Numbers 35:1-8) with houses and surrounding fields ("suburbs") for their use. They could own and redeem houses in these cities, but the fields were a "perpetual possession" for the tribe, and could not be sold. This suggests Levites had limited property rights -- houses and access to communal fields -- unlike other tribes, who received broader land inheritances (Joshua 13-21). Many are under the impression that Levites could never own property, but the "no property" understanding likely stems from their lack of a tribal territory like Judah or Benjamin, as God was their "inheritance" (Numbers 18:20).
I think this is an important point to stress: Levites could own personal property, such as houses, but their ownership was restricted compared to other tribes, and fields were held communally. Apffel's claim that only landowners paid tithes is disputed by this. Levites were not land owners, but they paid a tithe of the tithes they received (Numbers 18:26-28). They could own possessions like houses, but the land was communal property that could not be sold. The land was given to all of them as an "eternal" possession, and it was community property. They did not "own" the land as other tribes did.
Acts 4:36-37: "And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet."
Barnabas, identified as a Levite, owned and sold a field, donating the proceeds to the early church. This confirms Levites could own personal property, like land or fields, during the diaspora (Cyprus was outside Israel). By New Testament times, Levites were not strictly bound to the Mosaic land system, as many lived outside Judea and were involved in commerce and property ownership unrelated to OT Israel.
Another argument against only landowners paying tithes is that Israelites who worked as tenant farmers or laborers were also expected to tithe from their produce or increase. Deuteronomy 14:28 outlines the principle of giving a tenth of one's "increase," which applied broadly to anyone with agricultural and pastoral gains, not merely to landowners. Unless I missed it, Apffel also fails to acknowledge, at least in the first five episodes of his docuseries, that goods like crops and livestock functioned as currency in ancient economies. While they may not have been currency in the modern sense, they carried real monetary value. Giving was essential to sustain the priesthood and to provide for the poor, the widowed, and the foreigner. Samaritan's Purse's
Alaska land supports ministry to the vulnerable, like my cousin with a
Traumatic Brain Injury, echoing the Old Testament's tithing for priests
and the poor, not personal gain.
In the same way, Samaritan's Purse supports ministry to the poor and vulnerable, reflecting the biblical model of tithing as a means of communal care, not personal enrichment.
Apffel's critique seeks to discredit tithing altogether, using the abuses of megachurches and prosperity gospel preachers as justification. But in doing so, he throws the baby out with the bathwater, ignoring the enduring biblical mandate for giving. That mandate supports effective ministries like Samaritan's Purse and the thousands of small, faithful congregations like my local church.
I doubt I will be able to finish the last two episodes of this docuseries; my lack of respect for Apffel is making it difficult for me to listen to him objectively.
Old Testament Commands on Giving
Leviticus 27:30-32: "A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the Lord; it is holy to the Lord... Every tithe of the herd and flock -- every tenth animal that passes under the shepherd’s rod -- will be holy to the Lord."
This passage establishes a mandatory 10% tithe on agricultural produce and livestock, set apart for God's service. It applied to anyone with crops or herds, not just landowners, which directly counters Apffel's claim. The tithe supported the Levites and priests (Numbers 18:21), showing that tithing was a universal obligation for Israelites with resources. However, even the poor were expected to give, as illustrated by the widow’s mite (Mark 12:41-44) and the provision of alternative sacrifices for those who could not afford more costly offerings (Leviticus 5:7). And because the Church has been grafted into Israel (Romans 11:11-24), the principle of giving continues. The Church inherits this duty of generosity through Israel.
Numbers 18:21, 26-28: "I give to the Levites all the tithes in Israel as their inheritance in return for the work they do... Speak to the Levites and say to them: 'When you receive from the Israelites the tithe I give you as your inheritance, you must present a tenth of that tithe as the Lord's offering.'"
Here, God allocates the tithe to the Levites as compensation for their service in the temple. In turn, the Levites give a "tithe of the tithe" to the priests. That's not from proceeds coming from landownership. This model closely parallels the work of Samaritan's Purse: they receive donations not to enrich themselves but to serve others. Through ministries like Operation Heal Our Patriots and global disaster relief, they give from what they receive. I don't know anyone who would claim Samaritan's Purse is a megachurch or a prosperity gospel hub. It's a charity focused on helping the poor and needy around the world, and it's doing a very good and effective job of it.
Deuteronomy 14:22-23: "Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and olive oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the Lord your God at the place he will choose..."
This tithe was consumed during sacred festivals, fostering both worship and community. It applied to all who had produce, not just landowners, and reflected the joyful, communal nature of giving. Everyone was expected to participate, regardless of land ownership.
Deuteronomy 14:28-29: "At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites... and the foreigners, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied..."
Every third year, the tithe was used specifically to care for the poor, the Levites, and the marginalized. That demonstrates the deeply social and compassionate purpose behind biblical giving. This mirrors the mission of Samaritan's Purse to serve disaster victims, the displaced, the impoverished, and those without means. In this light, Apffel's profit-driven narrative falls flat.
Malachi 3:10: "Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the Lord Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing..."
God commands full tithing to support the temple and its functions, promising blessing for obedience. This command is addressed broadly to Israel, not only to landowners, and it encourages faithful giving. Countless small churches embody this principle today, with modest tithes supporting local ministry efforts. Apffel's discouragement of tithing, based on the abuses of megachurches and prosperity teachers, disregards the biblical call to support the Church and those in need.
Small Church Realities
Apffel interviews one struggling pastor from a small church, but his primary focus remains on megachurches, and they are an extreme minority. According to the Hartford Institute, only about 1.4% of U.S. churches (roughly 1,750 out of 300,000) qualify as megachurches (defined as having 2,000 or more attendees). By spotlighting these outliers, Apffel ignores the 80% of American churches that have fewer than 200 members, many of which operate on annual budgets under $100,000. How convenient for his narrative to leave that out. It gives the misleading impression that megachurches are the norm in America, when in fact they are not. This distortion casts suspicion on all of Christianity, and for those who already hate the Church, it's a message they will eagerly seize and repeat -- further damaging the Church's reputation and potentially weakening the faith of many. That is a heavy consequence of Apffel's skewed portrayal.
As a side note, the series also raises the question: What is the Church? It is not an institution, a building, or an IRS designation. According to Ephesians 2:19-22, the Church is the body of believers, followers of Christ united through the Holy Spirit.
Small churches like the one Apffel features often face serious financial struggles that threaten their survival. Their pastors frequently earn less than the national median income (which was $51,810 for individuals in 2023, according to U.S. Census data) and often take second jobs to make ends meet. These congregations are sustained by modest tithes from poor or working-class members, reflecting the reality of their circumstances. Yet Apffel's blanket rejection of tithing undercuts the efforts of faithful pastors serving in small congregations -- while having little effect on prosperity gospel megachurches, whose followers often idolize wealthy celebrity pastors. In the end, his position harms the "good guys" far more than it curbs the "bad guys," further weakening ministries already struggling as they serve humbly and faithfully. I think his docuseries hurts the Church far more than it helps it. I don't even know if helping the Church is his goal. He seems to be doing more to tear it down than build it up in my opinion.
While some megachurches may exploit IRS loopholes, such as claiming "association of churches" status to avoid filing Form 990, small churches typically lack the resources (and maybe the knowledge) to pursue such strategies. Their financial challenges are rooted in survival, not excess. But instead of focusing on that reality, Apffel opts for the sensational.
https://julieroys.com/podcast/religion-business-producers-interview/
New Testament Commands on Giving
Matthew 6:1-4: "Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them... But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret..." Jesus commands giving to the poor discreetly, emphasizing humility over showiness. This assumes giving is a duty for all believers, regardless of wealth. This aligns with the humble service of the majority of American churches -- and Samaritan's Purse's aid (e.g., 260 tons of global relief in 2024) -- not flashy megachurch displays.
I make no excuses for megachurches or prosperity teachers. My issue with them has always been rooted in doctrine -- and in their compromise with the world. It's no surprise that when the foundation is bad, the whole structure is rotten. These ministries should be called out. Over the years, there have been countless news reports about financial scandals in many of these so-called ministries, but Apffel shows that the problem is broader and deeper than I realized. In that regard, he does a good job exposing it.
However, as I've noted, Apffel strikes me as quite liberal -- and not without issues of his own. I seriously doubt that doctrine is of much importance to him. If he actually believes the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God, I will be shocked. He refers to God as an "It" in the first episode. Though he personally calls "It" God, the language he uses is telling. It signals that his intended audience is not the Church, but the skeptics. He is not speaking to the choir -- he's speaking to the anti-choir. Or perhaps to the shaky Church, the wobbly middle. And I worry that the right wind could blow it over. "He's blowing an ill wind," to quote Lionel Jeffries in Murder Ahoy.
In Luke 6:38 Jesus encouraged generous giving and promised blessings in return. This applies to all believers, not just the wealthy or landowners. Giving supports the work of the vast majority of American churches, and many members give despite their poverty. But Apffel's focus is on how the greed of megachurch pastors twists such teaching. His solution is to give to individuals directly. What does that do to the small churches who depend on those tithes? Or to an individual who is in another country or in a flood zone? I do not deny the greed of megachurches and prosperity gospel teachers. I also do not deny Jesus's promise in that verse. Does Apffel deny it?
I think he has been lopsided and biased in his docuseries by focusing on megachurches. He does not give small congregations their due in my opinion. If he wants to stop people from tithing, is he condemning the small churches that are faithful, while inadvertently building up the churches that are not? As I've said, he's not going to stop those who idolize wealthy pastors by condemning their wealth. Perhaps he will give small churches more credit in the last two episodes, but at this point, (the first five episodes) he has not. As I've said, small congregations are the norm in America. Yet Apffel gives the impression that megachurches are the norm and that people are leaving the small congregations in droves to run after the entertainment of megachurches where less is expected of them. There are many who would never dream of attending a megachurch with a superstar pastor, or sitting under a prosperity-gospel teacher, and I'm one of them.
In 2 Corinthians 9:6-7, Paul urged Corinthian believers to give freely and joyfully, not under obligation, in order to support other churches and the poor. This reflects the voluntary, heartfelt giving of the numerous small churches in America, (and large ministries like Samaritan's Purse). These small churches and worthy charities stand in sharp contrast to Apffel's profit-driven caricature of the American church.
In Acts 20:35, Paul quoted Jesus to emphasize giving to the needy as a Christian duty, modeled through his own labor. I think this echoes Samaritan's Purse's disaster relief (e.g., Hurricane Helene aid) and the many small churches in America that give without any fanfare, serving the poor and needy -- both with money, goods, service, and boots on the ground.
In 1 Timothy 6:17-18, Paul instructed Timothy to urge wealthy believers to give generously, focusing on good deeds over materialism. This challenges the megachurch excesses that Apffel critiques while affirming the giving of all believers.
These verses show that giving is a universal command for believers, not limited to landowners (as Apffel claims about Old Testament tithing). Again, the requirement to tithe wasn’t strictly defined by land ownership. For example, and as I've already stated, Israelites who worked land as tenants or laborers were expected to tithe from their produce or increase. The principle was to give a tenth of one’s "increase" (Deuteronomy 14:28), which applies broadly to any agricultural or pastoral gain, not just to those with formal land ownership. The Levites' "tithe of the tithe" illustrates that giving was a communal act for all with resources, much like numerous small churches and their modest tithes -- or Samaritan's Purse's donor-funded programs like Operation Heal Our Patriots -- which has served over 1,500 veteran couples. Apffel's focus on Samaritan's Purse's Alaska land purchases as "shady" ignores their biblical alignment with serving the needy (Deuteronomy 14:28-29, Luke 6:38), risking discouragement of support for such important and worthy ministries.
In 1 Corinthians 9:1-14, Paul made it clear that ministers of the Gospel had a right to compensation. On the other hand, we have the warning of Peter in 2 Peter 2:2-3, "Many will follow in their depravity, and because of them the way of truth will be defamed. In their greed, these false teachers will exploit you with deceptive words. The longstanding verdict against them remains in force, and their destruction does not sleep." Or Jude 1:4, "For certain men have crept in among you unnoticed -- ungodly ones who were designated long ago for condemnation. They turn the grace of our God into a license for immorality, and they deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."
It is an age-old problem.
Is It Right to Question Tithing or Samaritan's Purse's Land Purchases?
Questioning large land purchases by any nonprofit, including Samaritan's Purse, is reasonable to ensure accountability, especially given the ministry's scale. However, Apffel's critique seems unfair if it ignores the documented purpose and impact of the Alaska property -- serving veterans and Native communities in a remote region where land is essential for logistics. Without specific evidence of misuse (such as profiteering or unnecessary acquisition), his emphasis on the number of purchased tracts and the land's remoteness feels like sensationalism. The critique would be stronger if paired with concrete data on purchase costs, unnecessary purchases, or mismanagement, which isn't evident in the available sources I've studied.
The Religion Business questions why Samaritan's Purse owns land in remote Alaska for a retreat, implying it's excessive. Yet, this overlooks the Samaritan Lodge, a five-acre haven for Operation Heal Our Patriots, where wounded veterans and spouses find healing through free, Christ-centered retreats -- with more than 1,500 couples helped since 2012; 850 saved; and 961 marriages renewed (according to Samaritan's Purse data).
I believe this reflects the biblical tithing system. Many small churches, scraping by on modest tithes, recognize the value of ministries that serve the broken -- ministries like Samaritan's Purse. That stands in stark contrast to the excesses of megachurches, which Apffel rightly critiques. But his selective outrage, ignoring the good Samaritan's Purse does, misses the mark. Their land in Alaska fuels Gospel-driven aid, not profit. Dismissing this ministry risks deterring support for a work that is clearly doing the work of Christ (Luke 10:30-37), as evidenced by their many projects over the years.
My first home church has long participated in preparing shoeboxes for Operation Christmas Child. It's a ministry that touches lives around the globe. It deserves to be strengthened, not undermined.
My greatest concern regarding Samaritan's Purse is that Apffel's docuseries may discourage support for a ministry that is both worthy and desperately needed. I worry that donors will be turned away from supporting vital programs like Operation Heal Our Patriots, which relies entirely on donations to cover all costs for wounded veterans and their spouses. I'm also deeply concerned that his rejection of tithing will harm small churches -- not just large ministries. If viewers come away believing that tithing is unbiblical, they may ask, Why should I support my pastor or contribute to the upkeep of my church at all? That kind of thinking could have devastating consequences for countless faithful congregations already struggling to stay afloat.
And ironically, if small churches close their doors, where will their members go? Won’t that just drive more believers into the very megachurches Apffel set out to criticize and bring down? As Julie Roys asks in the docuseries, where will people go once the megachurch pastor falls from grace if the small church they left has closed its doors? It's a haunting question -- and one Apffel and Roys don't seem to have fully considered. The sad reality is this: their critique may unintentionally accelerate the decline of faithful small churches far more than it disrupts the influence of bloated megachurches. And if that happens, the long-term damage to the Body of Christ could be severe.
Many of these difficulties revolve around tithing. In the docuseries, Apffel doesn't point to scripture to dispute the practice of tithing. He quotes an "expert" who rejects it as an historical construct of the Church over time. Apffel also claimed, in a comment on X, that Jesus didn't tithe. The implication was that Jesus didn't tithe, so we don't have to.
Tithing long predates the Church. It is rooted in the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 27:30-32; Numbers 18:21-28; Deuteronomy 14:22-29), and even before that, we see Abraham giving a tenth to Melchizedek (Genesis 14:20), centuries before the law was given and long before the Church of Rome existed as a power. Jacob also vowed to give a tenth to God in Genesis 28:22. These early examples of tithing are pre-Israelite and demonstrate that the practice was not invented by the Church or during the Roman Empire.
The suggestion that tithing is an invention imposed on the Church is historically and biblically unfounded.
And the argument that Jesus didn't tithe is an argument from silence. The Gospels don't say Jesus didn't tithe. They just don't detail His every financial transaction. We already know that Jesus affirmed the practice of tithing in Matthew 23:23.
Jesus supported tithing as a valid act of obedience. Furthermore, as a Jew living under the Law, Jesus would have kept the law perfectly, and that includes tithing, especially since He was without sin (Hebrews 4:15). His participation in synagogue life, temple observance, and obedience to the Law would have included giving.
The argument that Jesus didn't tithe, therefore we don't have to also misunderstands the nature of Christian giving. We are not under the Old Testament legal system as a means of salvation, but the principle of giving generously, proportionately, and regularly is carried over into the New Testament (see 2 Corinthians 9:6-7, Acts 2:44-45, and Acts 4:32-35). Many Christians view the tithe as a starting point for New Covenant giving. It is not a legalistic burden, but a joyful response to God's provision.
How this Connects to Tithing
Laborers and tenants in Israel who were expected to title of their increase refutes Apffel's landowner-only tithing claim, reinforcing that biblical giving was inclusive and purpose-driven, much like Samaritan's Purse's use of Alaska land for veterans and Native communities.
I acknowledge the importance of Apffel's call for transparency, and I support him in that, but I challenge his lack of evidence on Samaritan's Purse’s land misuse. How do you take issue with the 1,008 baptisms at the lodge. I think that, along with its other impacts, show its value.
I also argue that Apffel does a great disservice to the vast majority of churches in this country, as well as Samaritan's Purse, due to his broad-brush critique and stance against tithing.
If Apffel's docuseries does any good, (beyond his bank account, fame, interviews, and speaking engagements), it will pale in comparison to all that Samaritan's Purse has accomplished over the years. This ministry operates in more than 170 countries, delivering tangible aid such as 260 tons of relief in 2024 alone. Since 2006, they've built 36 churches and homes in Alaska and have served 1,546 veteran couples through Operation Heal Our Patriots. By contrast, Apffel -- through Corban Productions and a relatively limited social media presence -- does not have a comparable community impact. His documentary may find an audience among skeptics of organized religion, but the track record of Samaritan's Purse speaks for itself. Their 4-star Charity Navigator rating and over $1.1 billion in donations reflect broad trust and strong accountability.
The danger is this: Apffel's critique may end up hurting legitimate ministries doing real good, rather than curbing the excesses of the self-serving organizations he rightly criticizes. That is my central concern. If his documentary fosters distrust and donations decline, programs like Operation Heal Our Patriots, international disaster relief (such as aid after Hurricane Helene or the Myanmar earthquake), and critical medical missions (such as Tenwek Hospital in Kenya) could suffer. That would be a terrible tragedy -- not just for Samaritan's Purse, but for the thousands who rely on their help.
If this docuseries leads to that kind of harm, I believe it will be a serious burden to bear before God. And I believe everyone involved in this unjust attack on Samaritan's Purse -- and on the broader American Church -- shares in that weight.
A Disservice to The American Church
However, I suspect there will be a lot of viewers who will wrestle with a documentary that criticizes institutions while operating within the same profit-driven structures. When someone like Nathan Apffel charges almost $30 for a documentary and has a sizable following, yet critiques others for monetizing religion, it raises a natural and important question: What makes his version of monetizing religion so different?
There's often a fine line between calling out hypocrisy and practicing it, especially when the person doing the calling out is also building a brand, selling content, and cultivating a large audience.
It seems to me that this film is marketed as an exposé on corruption and profiteering in religion, but it itself is highly monetized. That feels disingenuous to me.
He presents himself as a kind of truth-telling outsider, "a stony-surfer dude from San Diego," as he puts it, yet benefits financially from the very interest that system generates. It looks a little like a repackaged version of the same machine -- just wearing ripped jeans instead of robes or suits.
Of course, that doesn't mean the content has no value. It does! But it does mean he opens himself up to the same scrutiny he's directing at others -- and I'm sure viewers like me will notice there are inconsistencies here.
This kind of issue isn't unique to Apffel. We've seen it before. It's been raised with:
Anti-capitalist authors who make millions from book sales,
Documentary filmmakers critiquing corporate greed while accepting corporate sponsorship,
Or influencers who condemn fame and branding while building their own.
The difference often comes down to transparency, humility, and consistency. If he acknowledged the problem and showed an effort to live differently -- say, offering the film for free, using profits to support a cause, or just being open about the financial side -- it might feel more genuine to me in its criticism of Samaritan's Purse.
I don't think I'm cynical to point it out. Are we not allowed to question his motives? Is this an entirely justified critique of religion in America, or just another hustle with better PR?
I suspect he makes a lot more money than the average pastor in America. Most American churches are relatively small with pastors struggling to make ends meet. He's attacking megachurches, and I think the attack is justified. Problem is, most American churches aren't megachurches -- as I've already covered. He goes to Africa for authentic Christianity, (I wonder how much that and all his other travels cost and who paid for it) but ignores the 1000s of small churches making big impacts in their communities in America. He also ignores some of the terrible abuses that have gone on in Africa. He acts as if no one has ever heard of the warlord Joseph Kony and his horrible atrocities; yet, the movie, Machine Gun Preacher, starring Gerard Butler, covered the issue in 2011. He makes no mention of that. I doubt it fits his narrative.
Most American pastors are not wealthy. He highlights one case. In fact, there are too many to count. Many pastors are working two jobs or scraping by financially while serving small congregations, counseling families, organizing outreach, and keeping the lights on in aging buildings.
The focus on megachurches -- while justified due to real excesses -- can give a distorted view of what Christianity looks like in practice for the average believer or local pastor.
By flying to Africa to find "authentic" faith, Apffel may unintentionally romanticize it -- ignoring the messy realities there too, including spiritual abuse, financial exploitation, and even dangerous syncretism or cultic movements in certain regions.
I think that is a kind of narrative selectivity. He chose stories that reinforce a particular point while leaving out inconvenient truths. That's fine in an opinion piece, but in a documentary that claims to offer a serious critique of religion, it becomes a real problem.
His failure to recognize the everyday faithfulness of small churches -- the ones feeding the hungry, caring for widows, teaching kids, visiting the sick -- undermines the credibility of his message. And so does his own financial success if it's built on exploiting people's disillusionment with religion.
It's absolutely fair to say, "Yes, critique the megachurch machine -- but don't act like it represents the whole Church."
Because it doesn't.
The Church -- globally and locally -- is far bigger, messier, and more beautiful than that.
+++
P.S. I apologize for repeating myself in this post. It took several days and a great deal of research to write. I worked as much as 20 hours a day on this. I gathered my thoughts in stages, jotting down points in one notepad, then pasting them into the draft. I did that multiple times, sometimes forcing scattered observations into place just to keep the argument moving forward. It wasn’t an easy piece to write, and my strong distaste for the docuseries made it challenging at times to focus purely on facts rather than emotion.
