The Prosperity Gospel in Uncertain Times
Slate just published this article on the prosperity gospel. (Another from the NYT). The article is of uneven quality (postmillenialism tied to prosperity gospel?), but his central point, that the prosperity gospel continues to attract followers in the midst of economic recession, is significant.
The prosperity gospel is self-validating and non-falsifiable. Consider the case of the fictional (though realistic) Mr. Kilpatrick. Mr. Kilpatrick has been struggling to break through into management at his office. He happens to attend a service at Lakewood Church where he hears Joel Osteen declare that “those same winds that are trying to defeat you, God can cause to change direction and be the very winds that propel you into the destiny He has in store for you!” Mr. Kilpatrick realizes that he just needs to “sow into God’s kingdom” (tithe and purchase materials from Joel Osteen ministries) and God will fulfill His covenant by financially blessing him. Mr. Kilpatrick digs into his pocket and gives. Lo and behold, several months later Mr. Kilpatrick gets a promotion! Clearly God had rewarded Mr. Kilpatrick for giving. Now Mr. Kilpatrick can buy a new home (with an adjustable rate mortgage), get a nice, new car, and give even more generously to Joel Osteen’s ministry.
Mr. Kilpatrick’s financial success validated Osteen’s ministry. But if the opposite had happened to Mr. Kilpatrick, if his financial situation had worsened, it would not have invalidated the prosperity gospel. Mr. Kilpatrick’s financial failures were a result of his lack of faith or his insufficient giving. If only Mr. Kilpatrick had trusted God a little more or given more than he would have been rewarded. The prosperity gospel is unfalsifiable since circumstances are always interpreted as proof of its validity.
The unfalsifiable and self-validating nature of the prosperity gospel, at best, undermines its followers pursuit of sanctification. A believer in the prosperity gospel who is financially prosperous will be tempted to ignore personal sin since the prosperity gospel replaces holiness with wealth as the standard of God’s pleasure. Alternatively, a prosperity-follower who is fiscally impoverished may spiritually castrate themselves as they seek for the sin in their lives that has caused God to frown upon them.
Ultimately, as John Piper has eloquently noted, the prosperity gospel runs counter to the true gospel.
[Add. 10/30/09 - Article]
While I’m temperamentally inclined to dislike the prosperity gospel peddlers, the eminent sociologist Peter L. Berger says we should take a second look at the prosperity gospel.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/february/2.12.html
Excerpt:
“Leaving aside theology and moral philosophy, sociology provides a rather different perspective. A few months ago, I visited a Pentecostal megachurch in a suburb of Johannesburg. The congregation of some 7,000 South Africans, black and white, created enough noise to give me a headache for hours. This was hardly a congenial form of worship for me. But I did hear the sermon, delivered by a highly charismatic preacher. There were two simple but powerful messages. One, “God does not want you to be poor!” And, two, “You can do something about it!” The New Testament strongly suggests that Jesus had a particular concern for the poor, but there is no suggestion that he wanted people to remain poor. As for the idea that God will bestow material blessings on those who remain faithful to him, there are some passages in the Old Testament, often cited by the prosperity preachers, that imply just that.
As I left the church, I asked myself: Would I really want to quarrel with these messages? There is no sentimentality about poverty in the prosperity gospel. There is an appeal to people not as victims but as responsible actors. There is also the confidence that generally people know what is best for themselves, better than any well-meaning outsiders. It is no wonder, then, that research data, from South Africa for instance, show that Pentecostals have an unusual degree of self-confidence and optimism about the future.”
More and more, I’m beginning to think that the way the gospel is translated in different cultures–to use missiologist Andrew F. Walls paradigm–looks theologically different and even contradictory to our western Christian minds.
And this is where Mr. Piper gets it all wrong.
He doesn’t differentiate between the American bred forms of the prosperity gospel and the more spontaneous manifestations in the Global South. Indeed he suggests that the popularity of the prosperity gospel in Asia, Central America, and Africa derive from American export. This lack of nuance is significant, and the mode of Mr. Pipers perspicuity on godly affairs trends to often to moral and intellectual hubris. [I'm not convinced that John Calvin would get his version of neo-Calvinist thought].
So what do you think? Can we give 2 cheers for the prosperity gospel?
You make a good point, Paul, about the “self-validating nature of the prosperity gospel.” I’m struck by the similarity to the covenant as the organizing idea of theology and society in seventeenth-century New England. Having postulated the existence of a covenant between God and New England, the Puritans were able to interpret any event by means of the covenant. If society prospered, then God was blessing in accordance with the covenant, and the Puritans held a day of thanksgiving. If society was distressed, then God was judging in accordance with the covenant, and the Puritans held a fast day. Once the Puritans sensed a disconnect between their fast days and thanksgiving days and God’s working through the covenant, it was not long until the covenant ideal was abandoned.
That’s not to say, though, that I hold covenant theology and the prosperity gospel to be equally bad ideas. Rather, I think that the prosperity gospel is far worse. But in making the comparison between the two theological ideas, I’d like to slightly refine what you’ve said, and to differ significantly with Ben.
First, I think you (Paul) might be implying that the prosperity gospel is wrong because it is self-validating. I agree that self-validation is no proof, but I’m not convinced that self-validation is necessarily a detriment to theology. After all, there is much in our faith which is self-validating, but we don’t discard it on that account. (Perhaps I’m mistaken, and you don’t imply that.)
Second, I disagree with Berger’s argument (which I suppose is Ben’s by extension) that the prosperity gospel is good because it teaches people to take personal responsibility for their economic standing. I think it’s entirely unlikely that the prosperity gospel does help people financially in the long-term. To continue Paul’s example, the fictional Mr. Kilpatrick is likely to get himself in serious financial trouble with his new found “prosperity.”
But even if the prosperity gospel does help people in this world, that is but one qualification that a religion must have to be true. It’s true that “religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction,” but it’s also true that “religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: . . . to keep oneself unstained from the world.” It’s not the visible, but the invisible, that matters to God. The prosperity gospel is void of any understanding of the Lord Jesus as the savior of people from their sins.
Thanks for the Berger excerpt, Ben; it is important to challenge our prejudices. Yet I remain unconvinced by the criterion that Berger offers. Berger correctly noted that his personal distaste was insufficient grounds for criticizing the prosperity gospel, but then he argued that the prosperity gospel deserves a second chance because it 1) empowers people as rational actors and 2) encourages confidence and optimism. Berger’s criteria for judging the validity of the prosperity gospel are essentially pragmatic (the effects are good, ergo…) and secular (there are no explicit appeals to Scriptural truth). Then Berger challenges Piper’s export argument by simply accusing him of arrogance. To quote Yoda: “Ad hominem attacks good evidence does not make.”
Anywho, I do not know what to make of Piper’s export hypothesis since my expert knowledge is limited to TBN commercials for Benny Hinn crusades in Latin and South America.
To be honest, I’m less concerned with whether Piper is right per se and more concerned with whether the prosperity gospel distorts the gospel preached by Christ.
Lincoln, I suppose that I muddied my argument by coupling self-validation and unfalsifiability. My primary goal was to note that the prosperity gospel continues to thrive during economic downturns because it is nearly impossible to falsify.
I think you are right to note that self-validation is a universal phenomenon. I recently read Andy Naselli’s condensed dissertation on Keswick theology and ironically a similar pattern emerges in the Keswickian mind.
On a deeper level, my objection is not based around the fact that the prosperity gospel cannot be falsified. I am concerned that the P.G. standard of verity is circumstance-centered and man-centered. Scripture presents a different standard. We “try the spirits” by the Word.
I suspect that everyone is prone to judging their individual relationship with God by non-Biblical standards. For the PG guy it is his bank account. For the Pharisee it was obedience to a set of rules. For many believers it is whether they “feel peace” or not. This is a sin common to man.
[...] Original post [...]
Here’s an obit on a father of the health, wealth, prosperity gospel:
http://www.jonathanlwalton.com/Site/Blog_and_Book_Reviews/Entries/2009/7/31_Remembering_the_Legacy_of_America%E2%80%99s_%E2%80%9CGreen_Preacher,%E2%80%9D_Rev._Ike.html