Prosperity theology and the MAGA movement

San Francisco CA

Description

The origins of prosperity theology One of the first things that is encountered when reading their books on money is the statement that God wants all Christians to be rich, and the reason for this is not only so that it can be given away. Price believes that God also wants Christians to enjoy being wealthy: Yet by walking in God’s financial plan, you can have the $15,000 automobile, wear the $300 suit, and buy the $100 designer shoes. God does not care. He wants His kids to look good.15 Michael Bassett takes this one step further and says: If you want a nice watch, why don’t you give one away and be expectant for your nice one to come in? If you want a nice car, why don’t you sow for one, then you can be expectant for a new car?16 Sacrificial giving is not a concept that they seem to embrace: ‘you cannot give away much when your own needs are not met. You cannot do it when you are struggling yourself to pay your electric bill.’ Wilful poverty is seen as a ‘denial of all that Christ has won through his death’, and the ignorance of this fact which prevents financial endowment, as tragic. Surely this is not what is implied by either Jesus in Luke 6 or Paul in 2 Corinthians 9. Thus, it can be powerfully argued that God does not wish all Christians to be materially rich, and yet it is an oft-observed fact that when a poor person becomes a follower of Christ, his poverty disappears. John Wesley wrote: I do not see how it is possible in the nature of things for any revival of religion to continue for long. For religion must necessarily produce both industry and frugality, and these cannot but produce riches. But as riches increase, so will pride, anger, and love of the world in all its branches.20 Wesley’s solution was to give away as much as possible and he himself did precisely that, but the burning issue is which item of expenditure is a justifiable necessity and which is a luxury? Wesley’s policy in this matter was to avoid raising his standard of living and giving away his ever-increasing excess of income. This is surely more in keeping with Jesus’ teaching than the teaching of the prosperity theologians whose chapter titles reflect the nature of their message: Steps to Prosperity, Avoiding Poverty Traps, Heavenly Banking with Tithes and Offerings, 20%—The Penalty For Robbing God, Deposits and Withdrawals, Prosperity NOW!. An American, Daniel McConnell, has conducted a piece of research which is extremely illuminating in establishing the origins of prosperity theology. His first move is to establish Kenneth E. Hagin as the father of the faith movement. Kenneth Hagin : ‘Almost every major faith ministry of the United States has been influenced by his ministry.’ Then, from correspondence with the major leaders with in the movement, These leaders do in fact openly acknowledge Kenneth Hagin as the HolyGhost in human source of their inspiration, the fount of their teaching, and their spiritual mentor. These men include Kenneth Copeland, Frederick Price and Charlie Capps. But, if Hagin is the father of the faith movement, then he is not the author of its teaching. Hagin’s claim that the new teaching was given to him personally by Jesus through a series of divine visitations during the 1950s does not match the evidence uncovered by McConnell. He places side by side several passages from the works of both Hagin and a man called Essek W. Kenyon, and the overwhelming conclusion is that Hagin has directly plagiarized Kenyon. The word-forword uniformity of the two men is beyond the bounds of coincidence, and McConnell writes that the passages he cites are merely representative ones drawn from just eight books: ‘Many more could be cited’.…3 All of Hagins work postdates Kenyon’s, who in fact died in 1948. Therefore McConnell sums up: Whereas Hagin appears to have copied only occasionally from sources other than Kenyon, he has plagiarized Kenyon both repeatedly and extensively. Actually, it would not be overstated to say that the very doctrines that have made Kenneth Hagin and the Faith movement such a distinctive and powerful force within the independent charismatic movement are all plagiarized from E. W. Kenyon. Having isolated Kenyon as the source of prosperity theology, McConnell has one final surprise up his sleeve—that E. W. Kenyon was not a Pentecostal. Even though he may have influenced many of the post-war Pentecostal healers, the dominating influence on his theology is in fact the metaphysical cults which abounded at the turn of the century. He actually wrote that the Pentecostal movement was as destructive as it was instructive. Kenyon attended the Emerson College of Oratory in Boston, Mass., during the last decade of the nineteenth century, a college which was at the time immersed in the metaphysical cults, and the underlying New Thought. The influence of the metaphysical cults is clearly visible in his work, and while he claims to remain resolutely Christian, and indeed explicitly refutes elements of the metaphysical cults, yet he simultaneously, often in the same breath as his rebuke, asserts the foundational beliefs of these cults.5 Ern Baxter remembers that Kenyon spoke very positively of Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy (the mother of Christian Science), claiming that there was a lot that could be learnt from her.6 It is clear from merely the titles of Kenyon’s books that his was a polemical aim directed against the established churches with whom he had become disillusioned. The Two Kinds of Life, The Two Kinds of Righteousness, The Two Kinds of Knowledge, The Two Kinds of Faith, The New Kind of Love, and so on, all express his desire to correct what he saw as being awry in the church of his day. Living at a time when the metaphysical cults were growing rapidly, this was Kenyon’s ‘Christian’ response—a ‘Christianized’ metaphysical cult. The mainline churches were failing because they produced no signs and wonders and Kenyon was keen to redress an anti-supernatural tendency which was driving bored Christians into joining such people as Mrs Baker Eddy. He sought to establish a teaching which provided Christians with all the benefits of the metaphysical cults, while remaining within the Christian fold. The result was prosperity theology, which is, with a very few embellishments, the theology of the present-day faith movement! In spite of this, McConnell is wrong to ignore other influences on the faith movement. For example, Kenyon rejected tongues as being altogether too subjective an experience, while for the faith movement, speaking in tongues is a necessary sign that one has been baptized in the Spirit. Charismatic Pentecostalism has also left its mark, especially so because such are the roots of many of those in the faith movement today. Thus, while the doctrines are undoubtedly those of Kenyon, very often the practices are those of the charismatic Pentecostals. Attitudes to wealth We need to realize that prosperity is the will of God. It is God’s perfect will that everyone prosper in every area of life. Primarily, we are dealing with material and financial prosperity, because it has to do with tithes and offerings. When the subject of prosperity theology is broached, the immediate aspect of its teaching which springs to mind is God’s guarantee of material wealth to all believers. At the start of this lesson, we posed the question: could we expect God to meet our every need on the strength of isolated texts like Philippians 4:19? Our answer must be yes provided we are putting our faith to work.12 Gloria Copeland therefore takes Mark 10:30 and writes: Give one house and receive one hundred houses or one house worth one hundred times as much. Give one airplane and receive one hundred times the value of the airplane. Give one car and the return would furnish you a lifetime of cars. In short Mark 10:30 is a very good deal.13 That this interpretation cannot withstand scrutiny is plainly obvious since Levi did not become phenomenally rich, nor did James and John receive a hundred fishing boats, or one boat worth a hundred times as much. A closer examination of the passage seems to suggest that the rewards for sacrifices made for the sake of the gospel are realized in the common life of the church. Just as one’s family is multiplied, one assumes not literally but rather through entry into the new family of God, so one’s possessions are likewise multiplied as this new family holds all things in common. Another new and interesting piece of exegesis concerns the person of Jesus Christ. Because God wants all Christians to be rich and Christ-like at the same time, it follows that Jesus himself must have been rich. Thus Price writes: Jesus must have had plenty. He was never caught short. He was responsible for feeding five thousand people at one time. Remember, He had a staff of twelve men who walked with Him everyday. They did not work on any job that we have any record of for three and a half years. For that time, He took care of all their transportation, food, lodging, and clothing. He must have had something, somewhere, somehow, or He could not have had a staff of twelve. This is in stark contrast to the picture that Jesus paints of himself in Matthew 8:20: ‘Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.’ Also, if the gospel involves the endowment of wealth, why did Jesus send out his disciples without money or spare clothes, and with instructions to depend on the charity of others (Mt. 10:9f.)? There is also some doubt as to whether it is right to refer to the disciples as ‘staff’, and whether Jesus was responsible for their physical well-being. Finally, I would love to ask Price what he thinks was needed to take care of ‘transportation’ in first-century Palestine. However, as mentioned above, there are passages in the NT which do support the claim of the faith movement, namely that if you give, then you will receive more than your gift in return. What is crucial however is the motivation of the giver, and not the certainty of material abundance by way of divine reward. The prosperity theologian believes that God makes his people rich so that they can give away lots of money; after all, God cannot ask a man to give £500 if he has not got it. This is surely a sound statement on the basis of 2 Corinthians 9:6–11, but there are aspects of the faith movement’s teaching on this subject which are not so certain. Another subtle variation in the teaching of the faith movement on giving is that where as the Bible seems to lay an emphasis on charitable giving, it lays the emphasis on giving to finance mission. Gaunt says:. The needs today are tremendous. We’re talking in millions and millions of pounds for the spreading of the good news of Jesus, and satellite television is just one aspect … so millions of pounds are going to be needed to see that the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of God.21 S. Matthew completes the argument: Our aim is to be like Christ, to spread the gospel, to share his love with our needy world in a demonstration of power.… Our financial prosperity will finance its happening.… Money is needed to make it happen.22 Thus, the gospel requires very large amounts of financial backing for it to be effective in drawing people to Christ, a stance which is controversial to say the least. Although Paul insisted that the full-time Christian worker was entitled to be paid by those whom he served, the only time that he actually made a collection was for alms and not evangelism, which as Paul and the apostles demonstrated, requires an active Spirit working through willing servants rather than ‘big bucks’. What therefore are we to make of the OT, and the fact that it seems to contain adequate grounds for arguing that God does want all Christians to berich? In the first place, the OT must be used with extreme caution because, as Deuteronomy 8:18 says, the promises contained therein refer to the terms of the old covenant which was made with the sons of Abraham at a time when such sonship depended on physical descent. In other words, the covenant people of God in the OT are a national entity dwelling within geographical and political boundaries. This fact is fundamental to the understanding of the OT, and Deuteronomy in particular. The relationship between wealth and God’s blessing was radically altered when the new covenant came into force with Jesus Christ, and to be a son of Abraham now involves not blood descent but rather having the faith which Abraham had. No longer are the people of the covenant distinguishable by nationality, and this renders inappropriate many of the promises made to the state of Israel, just as it does to many of the regulations laid down for her way of life. Jacques Ellul notes that in the majority of OT references to the rich, they are found to be under God’s condemnation. Therefore he concludes that wealth was not a blessing in itself, but rather a tangible sign of the blessing, and as such, a sacrament which was apt for four reasons: First, it implied the freedom of election. Secondly, the fact that wealth is used as the sign implies that the grace which brought about this election is abundant and that, not content to restrict himself to the provision of daily bread, God gives wealth which gives rise to luxury, comfort, and ease. Thirdly, it has a role in the final judgment. In Isaiah 60:4ff. (and Rev. 21:24–26), all the riches of the earth are to be brought into the heavenly Jerusalem. Thus, human accomplishment has a place in the final eschatological plan. Fourthly, the glory of the heavenly Jerusalem is to be present in our midst through this wealth. This also acts as a reminder that all a man’s work and the totality of human power belong to God.23 Ellul however believes that wealth was not a permanent sacrament and continues: Wealth, well suited to bringing the gift of the Promised Land to mind, is certainly not suited to reminding us of the gift of the Child in a manger. It is not an adequate sign; therefore we find it stripped of its true value. God thus puts an end to the sign’s ambiguity. Wealth is no longer a sacrament because ‘God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong’ (1 Cor. 1:27). In Christ God chooses that which has no intrinsic value and makes it adequate to the work he is undertaking.24 While some of the points that Ellul raises are not without their problems, his actual conclusion is matched by that of Thomas Schmidt who avoids the sacramental language of Ellul and introduces the means of acquisition as being important. The OT declares that wealth is a confirmation of God’s covenant with his people, a reward for keeping the terms of his covenant. Among the stipulations of the covenant are the justice imperative and the demand that man acknowledge God as the sole source of prosperity. The OT devalues wealth accrued in violation of these stipulations.25 In fact if ‘Bible’ were substituted for ‘OT’, this statement would not be out of place in a prosperity theology publication. But Schmidt believes, as Ellul does, that Jesus changed all this. Schmidt’s thesis is based on the synoptic gospels and he is struck by the repeated incidence of Jesus’ followers either giving up everything to follow him, or being instructed to do so. In Mark for example, ‘the commands in 8:34; 10:21, the statements in 10:28; 12:44, and the narrative accounts in 1:16, 18; 2:14 reveal a patterned or formulaic theological devaluation of wealth’.26 It is impossible here to go into the details of Schmidt’s work, but its well argued conclusion is that … ‘hostility to wealth exists independently of socio-economic circumstances as a fundamental, religious-ethical, tenet consistently expressed in the Synoptic Gospels’.27 The NT’s account of the teaching of Jesus simply does not support the contention that God wants all his children to be materially rich, since such wealth would then be a blessing. This is not consistent with Jesus who is to be found stating, both explicitly and implicitly through parables, that the kingdom of heaven is for the poor and that there is no future comfort for the rich who have apparently already received their comfort (e.g.Lk. 6:24). The parable of the rich man and Lazarus never actually states that the rich man was unrighteous, but nevertheless he is to be found in a reversed situation subsequent to his death (Lk. 16:19–31). It is also interesting to note that in the parable of the wedding banquet, the Jews are represented by the wealthy, and the Gentiles by the poor (Mt. 22:1–14). Teaching on healing When the Bible talks about suffering, that doesn’t mean ‘sickness’. We have no business suffering sickness and disease, because Jesus redeemed us from that.28 The grounds for believing this particular ‘truth’ fall, broadly speaking, into three categories—Jesus’ example, the recorded activities of the apostles, and the substance of the atonement. (i) Jesus’ teaching and example The reason why all those who pray faithfully for healing will receive it is because Jesus in his earthly life healed all those who came to him to be healed. Matthew 4:23 demonstrates that Jesus healed all manner of diseases. Mark 1:32 further elaborates this truth, so making this divine healing available to anyone who would with ‘faith’ ask for it. This holds good today because after all, Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. This is a strong argument and yet it is not without its problems. Are we to believe that at the pool of Bethesda (Jn. 5:1–9), none of the other infirmed who gathered around it asked Jesus to heal them? Perhaps it is just conceivable that John did not bother to mention that Jesus healed them, but highly unlikely given the rest of the pericope (10–15). (ii) Apostolic healing activities After his resurrection, Jesus sent out his disciples to preach the gospel, and he endowed them with the power to heal. In Acts 3:1–8 Luke tells of Peter and John healing the cripple at the Temple gate. Further on, attention is drawn to the apostles performing miraculous signs and wonders, healing many (5:12–16). Philip did likewise in Samaria (8:4–8), and finally Paul is used by God to the extent that everyday articles that had come into contact with him could heal people (19:11f.). It is clear, though, that sometimes those prayed for were not healed. There is the case of Timothy who, in 1 Timothy 5:23, is instructed by Paul to take a little wine for his stomach condition. Then in 2 Timothy 4:20, Trophimus is described as having been left sick in Miletus. There is even Paul himself, who only preached to the Galatians in the first place because he was ill (Gal. 4:13f.). (iii) Healing as a consequence of the atonement This argument starts with Isaiah 53:4ff.: ‘Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows … and by his wounds we are healed’, and then calls upon Matthew 8:16f. to show how this prophecy was fulfilled in the person of Jesus: ‘When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed the sick. This was to fulfil what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took up Our infirmities and carried our diseases.” ’ This latter passage demonstrates that healing is part of the work of the atonement carried out by Jesus Christ upon the cross and this fact is central to the faith movement for which healing is as automatic as the forgiveness of sins: John Wimber, in his book Power Healing, includes a chapter that seeks to explain why divine healing is not always granted. In it, he usefully lists a number of theologians who disagree on whether healing is in the atonement.29 If it is accepted that it is not in the atonement, then we need go no further in refuting the above statement. However, if it is included in the atonement, and I believe that it is, why is healing not as automatic as the forgiveness of sins? Donald Carson finds Matthew 8:16f. as convincing as the prosperity theologians on this matter, but he writes that:. From the perspective of the NT writers, the Cross is the basis for all benefits that accrue to believers; but this does not mean that all such benefits can be secured at the present time on demand, any more than we have the right and power to demand our resurrection bodies.30 Hence, though forgiveness is instant in the present time, the fact that healing is not always granted can be explained in that while we are the new covenant people, yet we possess earthly and sinful bodies. When healing does take place, it is a reminder that Christians are a part of the new kingdom, it is a sign that God is supreme, and it is a portent of things to come. When healing does not take place, it shows that the new kingdom will not finally arrive until the second coming, and that until then, even Christians must face having to live in the domain of the evil one. In the meantime, the faith movement has to deny that sickness can lead to premature death, and Price elaborates on life expectancy in a startling manner. First he quotes Luke 7:11–16, the raising of the widow’s son. He continues: This young man was too young to die. Do you know that in the accounts that we have in the Bible of Jesus raising the dead He always raised young people? Did you ever think about that? Your minimum days should be seventy years, that’s just the bare minimum. You ought to live to be at least 120 years of age. That’s the Bible. God out of His mouth—in the Did Testament—said the number of your days shall be 120 years. I didn’t write it! God said it. The minimum ought to be 70 years, and you shouldn’t go out with sickness or disease then.31 The dualistic foundation of prosperity theology Underlying prosperity theology is a dualism which has hovered around Christianity from the very beginning. This involves a belief in two mutually exclusive realms—the spiritual and the material. The former is the superior one, it is under the governance of the supreme God, and is the proper domain for people. The latter is ruled over by its own god, and is in eternal conflict with the former. All people start in the material realm, and the common aim in life is to aspire to the spiritual one, an aspiration that can only, be satisfied with the aid of some outside agent from the spiritual realm. This scheme of things was adopted by a group of Greek sects in the first few centuries ad, many of whom took Jesus Christ as the outside agent of salvation. They were Strongly rebutted by the early church and became known by the title Gnostic. The faith movement today stands condemned by many of being Gnostic due to its dualism,32 but whether a dualistic foundation is enough to make this charge stick is debatable, and the out workings of doctrine do have some wide divergences, not least in the attitude to material things. Nevertheless, there are some marked similarities between the two. Kenyon is thoroughly dualistic in his separation of revelation knowledge and sense knowledge.33 The former is to do with the spirit and comes from the Spirit of God. The latter is worldly and is not only inferior to, but inhibits the development of the former. Sense knowledge comes from the five senses and so is limited to the physical environment. It is totally opposed to the things taught by revelation knowledge which is to be gleaned from the Bible. Kenyon displays a marked similarity to a second-century Gnostic named Marcion who championed Paul while omitting Matthew, Mark and John from his canon. Kenyon argues that revelation knowledge came only with the writings of Paul, and he denies that Peter and John knew the full details of eternal life.34. Price echoes Kenyon when he too speaks of two kinds of knowledge—faith knowledge and sense knowledge—which clash most prominently in matters of healing. ‘Remember,’ writes Price, ‘Satan is the God of the world, which includes everything in the sense realm. If you allow your faith to be affected by your senses, you will be defeated in every encounter of life.’35 Here is surely a hint of the demiurge of the ancient Gnostics. Satan is indeed the prince of the world but he is not its God. He did not create it, he simply enslaved it. He rules the world, but only for as long as God chooses to let him. He is not God of the world, he does not order the seasons neither does he have control over the rain widen the Lord makes to fall on the righteous and the unrighteous alike. He is the polluter, not the fount of goodness. Christians have long been convinced that the hand of God can be seen in creation and many find what is officially termed natural theology to be a valuable aid to faith, revealing the glory of God through his handiwork.