Life Coaching and “Mastermind” Events: A Lucrative Business for Megachurch Pastors

Ministers Bring in Millions with Life Coaching Side Businesses (Barry Bowen, The Roys Report, August 29, 2024)

 

Megachurches are even more evil than for-profit colleges, in my opinion. Life coaching is also getting big in the secular world, and I've previously expressed my concerns on that.

Just recently, a psychologist went viral for her interviews with two male celebrities. She has a doctorate in counseling psychology from Argosy, and a master's in marriage and family studies (or something like that) from University of Phoenix. She doesn't say anywhere online that she's licensed. She talks a lot about being a life coach, however. Unless she has a different legal name, she is not licensed in anything in the state she's lived in her entire life.

The issue here is that she calls herself a psychologist a lot, and people watching her keep calling her a therapist. They also state that she's licensed because they assume that she is. She is not licensed to provide therapy or psychological services. While she's, technically, not lying, her words can be misleading. She's not a research psychologist, psychology professor, health services psychologist, or an applied psychologist (i.e. I/O psychology). She is a life coach who sells life coach training.

 

It's apparent that the individuals and "churches" described in this article have severely diverged from orthodoxy. To judge "megachurches" on the basis of these is a hasty generalization and ultimately misguided. Besides, there are countless like the one Steve described.

 

I also dated a few Nigerians. Don't get me started on the churches there or the rest of Africa. I know you love to defend for-profit colleges despite the mountains of evidence I shared that proves that the majority of them do more harm than good. Are there a few decent ones? Yeah, a FEW. You haven't shared one piece of evidence that 4-year for-profit have similar outcomes to public and non-profits.

 

Coaching meets the traditional definition of a profession. It has a professional society (International Coaching Federation) that sets standards for entry. It has a body of knowledge. It has certifications (at three levels). It accredits coach training programs. It has active, local chapters all over the world.

Coaching is NOT a regulated profession, however. Anyone can claim to be a "coach," with or without professional certification.

Coaching is NOT therapy. Coaches partner with their clients to help them reach success as the clients define it. This is different from therapy, which is focused on healing. It is also different from mentoring, which is unstructured; many different types of people can serve as mentors in one's life. A short way to describe it is that mentors give answers, but coaches ask questions. We strive to help our clients own their choices and development. We run alongside them to help them get there.

To become an ICF-certified coach, one must go through an accredited coaching program (typically, 125 hours of training over approximately 10 months). (You can still qualify as a coach with non-accredited coach training, but it requires a portfolio process that is quite rigorous.) You have to pass an exam on ethics, receive mentoring from a certified coach, and accumulate 100 hours of coaching, 90% of which must be paid. Moving to the next level--Professional Certified Coach--requires 500 hours of coaching (again, with 90% paid coaching). The Master Certified Coach requires 2,500 hours of coaching, plus significant additional coach training. This level is usually occupied by people who want to teach, train, and mentor coaches.

Of ICF-credential coaches, 56% of them are at the ACC level, an additional 40% are at the PCC level, and 4% are at the MCC level. And, of course, the vast majority of people who identify themselves as coaches are not credentialed at all, whether or not they're members of the ICF.

Coaches do NOT have to have any particular subject-matter expertise; they can coach anyone. However, with the emergence of different "flavors" of coaching (life, career, executive, leadership, wellness, sports, etc.), it is inevitable that coaches have experience and education in these specialty areas.

Coaching is the real deal, especially for ICF-certified coaches. They know their stuff, stay in their lanes, and help their clients in ways that mentoring, training, education, and facilitation cannot anticipate.

 

You're denying fundamental organizational differences that require certain entities to operate differently. It is taught in healthcare economics, which I have taken at the doctoral level, that for-profit healthcare organizations have to prioritize certain things, which results in them caring for patients differently. It is also taught that patients are less able to make decisions in their best interests when they lack information. Knowing that you are receiving quality healthcare services is a lot more complicated than knowing that you're buying a quality backpack. There is a big educational gap.

This same knowledge has been applied to for-profit colleges. Most people do not understand the higher education system, and they are studying subjects they have no advanced knowledge of, so they do not know whether they are receiving a quality education. It is not stereotyping when it has been statistically proven than the vast majority of for-profit colleges have zero or negative ROI. You are injecting your personal libertarian feelings into this, but I am going off of statistics. I am a facts over feelings person. I am a facts over ideology person.

As for what's occurring in Africa, there is also research on the negative impacts of religion and superstition in that region. I'm sure that President Paul Kagame knew more than you when he decided to regulate clergy training due to the widespread malpractice and scamming of churches in Rwanda. Rwanda still has its issues, but it's not being terrorized by religious extremists like the failing Nigeria is.

I'm not a passport bro or someone looking for mail-order brides. I know you love foreign women, but that is not empirical research. I studied economic, food, and general security issues in Africa as part of my master's degree. I am also currently in the process of writing research articles on Sub-Saharan Africa.

 

I don't know if anyone else has taught at a for-profit university, but I have. I did for 3 years, and was even employed full-time for the first year of that.

I'd like to see a source for that. What does "statistically proven" mean? I know what it means in hypothesis testing, but we're not engaged in that here.

I do know there is anecdotal evidence of bad schools with poor outcomes. I also know there are plenty of for-profit schools that do quite well for their students. I know there is a very wide variance, both between schools and even within them. Finally, I know that the students themselves significant impact their outcomes.

At the school where I worked and taught, there was a very high (in my opinion) non-completion factor. It was a function of open admissions. But I also know that when graduates received their degrees, they had earned them. AND they'd received an education worthy of the degree and comparable to other universities.

I'm with Steve on this one. I don't think you can treat for-profit schools as a monochromatic class, tying "for-profit" to expected outcomes. There are just too many variables involved.

 

I taught at a for-profit college for a year, which I have stated many times over the years. I have also taught at two state universities. However, I am not going to base my entire opinion of the for-profit college industry on that one dysfunctional school that was forced to shut down. If I remember correctly, you taught at University of Phoenix, which has been sued and fined many times, it has lost about three-quarters of its enrollment, it was temporarily banned from recruiting on military bases because it was taking advantage of disabled veterans, and it is looking to join a state university system for survival.

You can look at my thread history for the stats.

 

You need to moderate yourself, then.

 

For the record, if I pulled this rubbish, I'd be banished in an instant.

 

If I were Sanatone I would look at the fact that more than one person here has noted the tendency to emotionally laden speech/vitriol. On top of that, as Rich Douglas managed to do by calling her on it, he/she makes these sweeping authoritative statements that sound good but perhaps aren't quite so authoritative. I think she knows less than she thinks she does (not that he/she isn't smart) but is very good at making statements that sound substantive and conclusive until you start asking for support (as Rich did). There is an art to his/her speech.

 

Thanks, but I already have a homework assignment.

Your assertions, your burden of proof. Do it, don't do it, ignore it, whatever. As for UoP, I didn't say it was delightful, and I do stand by what I said. I also described the horror that was a huge state university, which you chose to ignore. So, again, I'll just let stand what I said before.

 

I love so much of what you post (despite the occasional personal attack). I'm going to miss that.

 

This is projection. You got into a whole debate over politics, and referenced random people just to finally admit that you know nothing about politics or the people you were referencing. You also made a reference to my vagina, which was totally unnecessary when debating the issue. No, I am not going to go back and link to all the data I already posted on this forum. My profile has a list of threads that I'm sure many of you have seen. It is not my problem that you all have bad memories or selective memories. Once again, I am usually the only one who shares data to back my stances. The rest of you use emotions and opinions.

Any rational person would know that an entire master's degree is not swiping left or right on a dating app. That's just more projection. Steve claimed authority because he visited a church that his girlfriend attended. HE brought his love life into this conversation.

 

No, you wouldn't. Steve Levicoff attacked people unprovoked for decades and called me a bitch, and he wasn't even suspended.

 

Like when you called me an asshole when I wasn't even talking to you. Rich wasn't suspended for that either.