Heck, what donation-receiver doesn't do this? Middle-men like the Red Cross count for both giver and receiver, so they're partially exempt - they give money / services they receive to those who intend to use it to further their best interest.
The more hip, "relevant" churches require even more money because they have more contemporary furnishings and design, agency-style marketing campaigns, sophisticated audio/video equipment, larger spaces for ancillary services such as child care and small group meetings, bring in out-of-town acts, and keep a large staff to support these operations. This is especially effective because it positions the church as more of a brand and lifestyle provider rather than just a "thing that we do on Sundays." People who spend 5-10 hours a week involved in church activities become psychologically dependent and are going to be astronomically more likely to donate, and donate in larger amounts.
This is clearly in the best interest of the church as it increases donations, and I have no problem with them undertaking these activities, but I think they operate far outside of the original spirit of what tax-exempt status was purposed for.
As a side note, and a little anecdote, my girlfriend works at a liquor store and has several regular customers that use their tax-exempt status as church staff to purchase wine and liquor that is clearly for themselves. Of course, there's almost no way to create an efficient audit trail for this type of stuff, so they get away with it.
From the standpoint of churches, I agree that many of them perform little outreach to their communities. However, many of them do provide valuable philanthropic services such as soup kitchens, clothes closets, donated space for AA meetings, etc.
BTW, are you the R. Branson? You never know on HN...