Joel Osteen is a popular preacher these days. With his winning smile and his massive congregation and his wonderful, friendly gospel that tells us that God wants all His children to be financially blessed, why wouldn't he be? And he's not alone in it. The likes of T.D. Jakes and Creflo Dollar and so many other names are simply doing a "booming business" with this "Yes!" answer to the question, "Does God want you to be rich?" After all, to those without such riches, that's truly good news. So prevalent is this movement, claiming millions of followers, that The Atlantic did a piece last year titled "Did Christianity Cause the Crash?" Started by the likes of Kenneth Hagin and Oral Roberts, this whole movement is still going strong. And in tough financial times, it is very popular with struggling people.
One has to wonder why. I mean, if they're struggling, what does that say? If God indeed wants His people to be wealthy (and, let's be careful here -- "wealthy" is a relative term, as Osteen is known to point out), why are they not wealthy? If God intends them to drive a Mercedes ... where is it? Further, trying to figure out how to fit together the opposing perspectives of "God wants you to be rich" and "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil" can be very difficult. Making sense out of "God wants you to be rich" and "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God" is a monumental task.
There is a pile of Scripture warning against money, the love of it, the accumulation of it, and the problems it causes. None of this phases the "true believer". You can't even shake them with the host of passages that promise and praise the suffering that believers will experience. It's not for them. My mother once told me, "If it doesn't play in Bangladesh, it isn't true." By that she meant that if God intended all believers to be wealthy, then they would be wealthy wherever they could be found ... and they're not. This, I think, must be one of the hardest things for them to overcome. You see, not only are African and Asian and -- well, just about any type -- Christians enduring less than "wealthy" and closer to "suffering", but we have a prime example of just this concept. Jesus told a would-be follower, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head" (Matt 8:20). Instead of being a beneficiary of the "promise of wealth" offered to true believers, Christ Himself failed to have such success. He had no home. He had no wealth. Instead, He suffered miserably, died alone, was buried in a borrowed tomb.
Now, the "prosperity gospel" folk call themselves "Christians" and try to use the Bible to prove their position. However, if being a "Christian" means following Christ and Christ was not wealthy, how is that going to fly? If the Bible is abundantly clear that the idol of wealth is a problem, how is that going to fly? Jesus said of false teachers, "You will recognize them by their fruits." If someone calling himself a Christian is teaching concepts directly opposed to Christ, I think you can find a better name for them than "Christian". I don't know, but perhaps John had a more appropriate name. He called them "antichrists". Doesn't that name make more sense?
14 comments:
Hear Hear!! Great post. And let's not forget the likes of Joyce Meyer. She is hugely popular in the UK with the "prosperity gospel" folks. I live in a dinky little village in the middle of nowhere, and a lot of us are POOR. And do you know, Joyce Meyer is lauded as a ticket to prosperity? All we have to do is follow her teachings. You know, the same woman who has a $28,000 bathroom in her office. Yeah, THAT'S real Christian of her. Up here in the sticks of Scotland, there are VERY few Christians, and sadly, the majority seem to be on the "prosperity gospel" bandwagon. So sad. Antichrist, indeed!
Sad when celebrated preachers are actually antichrist.
I really enjoy reading your blog. Not that I've read every one, but the ones that I have, I've liked. Where do you get t he ideas for your material? Is it mainly from things you read, or are some of these posts answers to questions you have been asked?
You are not suggesting that for a Christian it's better to be poor, are you?
I've heard of these types of preachers and I don't put much stock in them. I think God delights in the success and prosperity of believers, but I don't for a minute think that we're taught that He concerns Himself with our net worth.
You may have a particular verse or verses in mind, but I can't off the top of my head think of any that actually could be said to deny us a wealthy existence if we have the ability to aquire one. From what I can recall, we're warned against putting such ambitions above our ambitions for salvation. Wealth at any cost is indeed a problem. But wealth attained while maintaining Christian standards is, I think, quite acceptable.
Anonymous, I have a host of sources. Stuff I read. Stuff people write. Stuff people say to me. Stuff I overhear. I just hope it's edifying.
Marshall, I'm suggesting that it's better for Christians not to worship mammon. Oh, wait ... that's not just my suggestion, is it? Oh, and, of course, I'm suggesting that the Bible makes no such promise (indeed, promises the opposite) and to make promises to people from God is ... let's see ... what's the term ... oh, yeah, a lie!
OK. Then I think we're on the same page. A mutual "friend" has come to far different conclusions on Biblical teachings regarding wealth that coincidentally mesh with his, shall I say, leftist politics.
Marshall Art: "A mutual 'friend' has come to far different conclusions on Biblical teachings regarding wealth that coincidentally mesh with his, shall I say, leftist politics."
Without reference to any specific "mutual 'friend'", I find this almost amusing. Whether it be a "Christian" with a religious agenda or a person with a political agenda, there are many such types that argue that it's "wrong" to be rich. They may do so by pulling up verses that seem to support their view or they may do so from a more "socialist" perspective that likes to complain that the "very rich" have so much more and shouldn't. The irony of it all is that neither seems to actually believe what they are saying. I say that because every example that I can recall is ... rich. Oh, perhaps they're not filthy rich. Maybe they're only "socially secure" or "middle class". But since Americans are, as a whole, the richest people on the planet, every one that I know of is richer than the vast majority of the rest of the people on the planet. And still, while these folks are beating their breasts and complaining about "those rich people" and how unfair, even immoral it is ... they don't do a thing to divest themselves of the "evil riches" that they possess. No one who holds that it's wrong to be rich seems to be working toward being poor. That, to me, says quite clearly, "I don't actually believe what I'm claiming about it being wrong to be wealthy."
I have not been here in a few weeks. I see you have a cool new site look, with a saguaro cactus.
Earlier this week I tuned to Trinity Broadcasting to see what they were up to. A gray-haired white man whose name I did not catch was whipping up the studio audience with his preaching. “How many of you want to be a millionaire?” It looked to me like everybody in the audience (roughly 100 people) was enthusiastic about what he had to say to them. Some of them were even taking notes as he told them that he had some “very important principles [plural]” that they needed to learn. Over the course of the next twenty minutes he related stories from his life and from the Bible about how giving to God is the key to prosperity.
He said he has a nice house on the Florida coast, so it sounds like he has indeed been blessed with wealth. He likes people to call him “the minister of finance.” Paul Crouch, Sr. and his son and a couple of other men were sitting on a blue sofa drinking it all in and encouraging the man to keep on preaching that way.
He told of a woman who gave thousands of dollars to Trinity Broadcasting while she was starting up a business, following the breakup of her marriage. She gave in faith, and boy did it work! She is now prospering mightily.
The folks listening to him really didn’t need a notepad, as the denouement of his talk was to say to his studio audience and his television audience that the critical principle [singular] was to give ALL of your money to Trinity Broadcasting. “Why should God trust you with great wealth if you don’t first trust Him with the modest amount that you have now?” [Approximate quote.] He said that it is time for Christians to be the wealthy class, not the underclass living on food stamps.
As an early-teen Christian, I wondered if God would be willing to speak corporation names and specific dates for me to buy and sell securities in the stock market, once I was old enough to legally do so. “My son, buy 500 shares of a small company that goes by the name of Microsoft, and verily ye shall prosper.” :-} I never got the chance to find out whether He would do that for me, since I was agnostic by my late teens. The efficacy of a prayer asking Him for proper timing on buying and selling might be a fun topic for you to blog on some day. “Whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive,” Matthew 21:22 assures believers. But probably you will say that there are limits on the word ‘whatsoever,’ and you presumably will say that God would never honor a prayer of yours along financial lines.
This is veering off topic, but it says in Matthew 5:42 that a Christian is to give whatever somebody asks him for. Stan, I hope that you don’t take that commandment literally! My own opinion is that in an industrialized nation like the USA, there are very few legitimate reasons for a citizen to be in poverty and to be asking you for a handout. Most of the people in our country who are in poverty are poor because of bad choices they made.
{This is Lee logging on as anonymous since I can't seem to get the Google Account thingie to work right now.}
Lee: "'Whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive,' Matthew 21:22 assures believers."
Excellent example of prooftexting. Since the basic rule of biblical interpretation is that Scripture interprets Scripture, I think you'll find that context is important. In that particular context the point was "faith", not "Hey, you wanna get anything you want from God?" We also know, for instance, that "whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight" (1 John 3:22). Obedience is necessary. Jesus said, "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you" (John 15:7). An active, intimate, engrossed relationship with Christ is required. Conversely, "You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures" (James 4:3). So asking for the wrong motives blocks prayer. Prooftexting is a bad idea.
By the way, Matt 5:42 actually says, "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you." The point of this statement is included. "I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt 5:44). Thus, "Don't limit your aid to people on the basis of their friendship with you. Love your neighbors ... which includes your enemies." Again, prooftexting ... bad idea.
But, tell me, Lee, you like to quote the Bible while you're quite clear that you don't believe it and you're concerned that I might. Why is that? I mean, you're don't really care if I have answers to these questions, do you? I'm just askin'.
Stan asks if I really care about his answers. I do, in this sense: I am fascinated by why people believe the things they believe. That is why I spend time reading Christian blogs, listening to Christian radio, and (less so in recent years) watching Christian television. If I lived in a culture where some other religion was dominant, I would spend my time critiquing the beliefs of that other religion, I suppose.
Stan says, “An active, intimate, engrossed relationship with Christ is required” for the ‘whatsoever you ask for’ to work.”
Do you realize how much good you could do for the living things on this planet, if that is really true? Just one example: Pray that God will remove mercury from coal deposits. When power plants burn coal, the mercury goes up the stack and falls out downwind, getting into the food chain.
Okay, well I can’t resist a second example. :-} Would you pray that God would either remove false preachers from Christian broadcasting, or else that He will speak to them that they are misleading His flock with their prosperity preaching, and any other sorts of false preaching? (About six years ago I challenged a Christian to do that, after he told me that Benny Hinn is “a false prophet.” I still remember the man’s answer to me. I am curious if you will answer me the same way.)
--Lee again [off the Net for the next few days, so no hurry on your part]
I guess you don't understand the concept of "an active, intimate, engrossed relationship with Christ". Are you married? Married people find that as they are in an active, intimate, engrossed relationship with each other, there are some interesting characteristics. You find that you start to think alike. You find that your personal desires become secondary and your desires for best interests of the loved one take priority. Note, for instance, in the passage I gave you that Jesus said, "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you ..."
Now, if God's Word tells me that there will always be false teachers, would I expect God to eliminate false teachers? That would be a direct contradiction to "My words abide in you."
Lee: "If I lived in a culture where some other religion was dominant, I would spend my time critiquing the beliefs of that other religion, I suppose."
I doubt it. Not too many people pick through Hinduism or Buddhism (which, technically, doesn't qualify as a "religion") or Islam (except, of course, to complain about the radical versions of it).
But, what's the point? You live, you die, end of story. Nothing beyond. No hope for anything beyond the mere decades of existence you get here. No reason for pain and suffering. No answers for lost loved ones. Not even any rational reason for any morality that would be for anyone but you. But you like to critique the beliefs of people who have reason to hope, a belief in the hereafter, comfort in suffering, a reason for morality ... why bother? All you have to offer is ... loss. If I believed that this was all there was, I'd keep my mouth shut if I encountered people with beliefs that gave them hope, even if I didn't concur. Better than the hopelessness. Not you. Your hope is to pull of the blindfold (from your perspective) to show us we're all born to a cradle that swings over a grave with no hope, no future, no reason to live. "Surprise!" you can shout and then, "No need to thank me." What's in it for you?
One thing I would like other visitors to read is this: I have sent a number of skeptical thoughts to Stan’s website over the last year or two, and Stan has published every one of them. I can’t imagine a Muslim blogger would have the intellectual honesty (or confidence, or whatever trait it takes) to allow contrary stuff to go on his blog. So a big thumbs-up to Stan.
Your point on hope is well-taken. But my brain is just not wired in such a way that I can use a belief system as a coping mechanism or a hope-provider if I cannot get myself to see that the belief system stands up to reason.
Stan wrote, “Now, if God's Word tells me that there will always be false teachers, would I expect God to eliminate false teachers?”
Good point. But still, removing a false teacher in one instance (Benny Hinn, say) or removing false teaching from just the television ministry, would still leave false teachers elsewhere, such that the “always” prophecy would not be violated. By the way, the answer that I got from another Christian concerning this prayer challenge was that “it would be hateful for God to tell somebody what to preach, because God would be removing free will.” That answer may or may not have much biblical support. I am thinking of the occasion when God hardened Pharaoh’s heart as a counterexample. Also, it was not Job’s will to suffer like he did.
One thing that would really be helpful—maybe worthy of a new blog entry by you someday, rather than an answering comment on this particular page—is a list of some things that you would be confident God would do as a consequence of a prayer by you, in accordance with Matt 21:22, and another list of things you are pretty sure He would NOT do for you.
I think you would put the mercury/coal prayer in the second category, since you made no mention of it in your July 29 comment. If the weatherman says “Ninety percent chance of rain Friday” where you live, and you would be inconvenienced by rain (your daughter has planned an outdoor wedding reception, maybe), would you be only ten percent sure that God would honor your prayer?
So you can't ask God to provide timing on investments in order to buy yourself a luxury car to show off in. Fair enough. But can you ask God to provide optimal timing on investments so that you can give ALL of the post-tax gains to your local church, or to missionary work abroad?
Radio preacher Dave Gudgel once said that God has never spoken to him in an audible fashion. “God [instead] gave me a teachable heart,” he hastened to say. But Bible readers with only a teachable heart will disagree with each other on some pretty important doctrinal issues, such as whether females are allowed to be head pastors of a church. Would you expect God to answer your prayer that God start speaking audibly to Pastor Gudgel?
That last question reminds me of something. I have heard Pastor Gudgel preach a sermon on why he will not drink alcohol in any quantity. One of the many reasons he gave is that his kids would be likely to follow his example. But I have heard Andrew Tallman preach exactly the opposite. Mr. Tallman says that kids who grow up in a teetotalling household “are more likely to become binge drinkers.” If God would speak to at least the one of those two men who is getting it wrong, that would be a good thing in my book.
Stan wrote: “What's in it for you?”
As I mentioned before, my main thing motivation is to see why believers believe. But somewhere down the list of my reasons to keep pestering you :-} is the thought that someone of your intelligence would be an excellent person to have on the anti-superstition side. You could be become another Doug Shaver.
http://dougshaver.com/mystory/story00.htm
Since you've never come in with an "anti-friendly" approach, I've never seen any reason not to post your comments. That's my primary rule. You've done fine. You're a skeptic, but you've not been hostile.
On the whole prayer thing (and this is going to sound a lot worse, I suspect, than it is intended), you seem to think it's some sort of genie machine. You know, if prayer is valid, then we should be able to rub it and get what we want out of it and that's great! As if it is perfectly possible for human beings to convince God to change His mind. "Well, that wasn't part of my plan, but, hey, you asked, so I suppose I'll have to give it to you." Like God is my personal butler and if He's not fetching what my latest whim, He's fired.
In my experience God has never failed to give me what I need. He's done it when I've asked. He's done it when I haven't. He's given me what I asked for and refused me what I've asked for and, whenever I've been able to fathom the intent (which isn't always by any means), it seems that He's always been right. I don't want a God who bends to my whim, who shuts the people up that I'd like to shut up, who grants me fancies of insider trading or modifies the weather on my behalf. And, fortunately, He has never been such a God.
When I read, "If you abide in Me and My words abide in you ...", here's what I understand it to say. "When you are so in tune with me that your will is exactly what I will ..." And I am absolutely convinced, both by Scripture and experience, that every time I ask God for the things that are in His will, it always occurs. The question, then, isn't "What can I coerce God into doing for me?" The question is, "How closely can I align myself with Him?" Unanswered prayer, to me, is simply a sign that I'm not where I need to be.
Interestingly, it also seems that you think, if God were smart at all, He'd eliminate disagreement. Definitely Hinn would be gone. Gudgel and Tallman would agree 100% of the time. I suppose, if God had any real intelligence, He'd also eliminate evil, bad judgment, and anything else that is off center of what He would like best. To me, that seems ludicrous and, actually, counterproductive. We don't see homogeneous things. We see contrast. Defining "good" without "evil" is impossible. It was Jesus who said, "You shall know them by their fruits." You'd never know what justice was if there was nothing but good. It all seems so ... limiting. I've heard people argue that, and I'm perfectly willing to accept that they think that, but it makes zero sense to me.
And, oh, by the way, your "anti-superstition" comment is the closest you've come to that "unfriendly" warning I put at the top of the comment block. Superstition is an irrational belief (by definition). Have I suggested anywhere that I believe what I believe irrationally? You obviously don't agree with my beliefs, and I'm not making any demand that you do, but surely you must admit that I've offered rational responses, not "superstitious" ones, right? So that kind of false accusation isn't quite as friendly as your previous comments.
Okay, thanks for the considerable time you have devoted on this page.
I’ll crawl back under my rock.
At least for a few more weeks! ;-}
--Lee
Post a Comment