The ‘Gospel’ Of Prosperity
1
THE ‘GOSPEL’ OF PROSPERITY
American Christianity is rapidly being infected by an insidious disease, the so called wealth and health Gospel—although it has very little of the character of Gospel in it.
In its more brazen forms (Brother Al, Reverend Ike, etc.) it simply says, “Serve God and get rich (or be healthy).” In its more respectable, but more pernicious forms, it builds 15-million-dollar crystal cathedrals to the glory of affluent suburban Christianity. Or it says, “God wills your prosperity (and health).”
The message goes like this: “It’s in the Bible. God says it. So think God’s thoughts. Claim it. And it’s yours!”
I recognize that not all adherents of this currently fashionable gospel say or do it so boldly, and that the two (wealth and health) can be avowed separately; but the biblical and theological distortions that lie behind both are similar. Indeed, the theology of this new “gospel” seems far more to fit the American dream than it does the teaching of Him who had “nowhere to lay His head.”
In this present paper l am addressing myself only to the matter of prosperity; and it should be noted at the outset that this is not a personal attack on anyone. On the contrary, I am convinced that many of the better-known figures in this movement—e.g., Oral Roberts, Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, Kenneth Hagen, Robert Schuller—are not devious people out to get rich at the expense of others. Nonetheless their message is in fact a dangerous twisting of God’s truth, a message which can appeal ultimately only to human fallenness, not to our life in the Spirit.
The problems are both biblical and theological. So first a look at their use of Scripture.
1. The basic problem with the cult of prosperity lies right at the point which the evangelists themselves consider to be their strength—the interpretation of Scripture. Indeed, much that is said by them has a biblical ring to it, which is precisely why so many well-meaning people fall into the trap. Thus Oral Roberts, for example, repeatedly reminds people that putting material things ahead of God is sinful;1. and Robert Schuller rightly argues that God loves the affluent as well as the poor. In his The Laws of Prosperity, Kenneth Copeland says, among other things: Money, although not evil in itself, makes a “lousy god”; true prosperity is spiritual as well as financial; prosperity should not be an end in itself, but a means of helping others; one should take God at His Word, and trust Him. These, and many other things, are truly said; who can fault them?
The fault, of course, lies not with such isolated truths, but with the bottom line, which always comes back to one continual reaffirmation: God wills the (financial) prosperity of every one of his children, and therefore for a Christian to be in poverty is to be outside God’s intended will; it is to be living a Satan-defeated life. And usually tucked away in this affirmation is a second: Because we are God’s children (the King’s kids, as some like to put it) we should always go first-class—we should have the biggest and best, a Cadillac instead of a Volkswagen, because this alone brings glory to God (a curious theology indeed, given the nature of the Incarnation and the Crucifixion). But these affirmations are not biblical, no matter how much one might clothe them in biblical garb. The basic problems here are hermeneutical; i.e., they involve questions as to how one interprets Scripture. Even the lay person, who may not know the word “hermeneutics” and who is not especially trained in interpreting the Bible, senses that this is where the real problem lies.
The most distressing thing about their use of Scripture, to use Copeland’s book as an example, is the purely subjective and arbitrary way they interpret the biblical text. Copeland, of course, argues just the opposite, but the evidence speaks for itself. On his first page (p. 13), he tells us “that we are putting the Word of God first and foremost throughout this study, not what we think it says, but what it actuallysays!” (italics and exclamation his). This is nobly said; but what does it mean? Implied is the hint that interpretations that differ from his are based on what people think, not on what the Bible says. But also implied is the truth that good interpretation should begin with the plain meaning of the text.
The plain meaning of the text, however, is precisely what Copeland and the others do not give us, text after text. Let it be understood that the plain meaning of the text is always the first rule, as well as the ultimate goal, of all valid interpretation. But “plain meaning” has first of all to do with the author’s original intent, it has to do with what would have been plain to those to whom the words were originally addressed. It has not to do with how someone from a suburbanized white American culture of the late 20th century reads his own cultural setting back into the text through the frequently distorted prism of the language of the early 17th century.
Let us take, for example, the “basic Scripture text” of this movement (3 John 2, in the King James Version): “Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.” Of this text Copeland says, “John writes that we should prosper and be in health” (p. 14). But is this what the textactually says? Hardly!
In the first place, the Greek word translated “prosper” in the KJV means “to go well with someone,” just as a friend in a letter two days ago said, “I pray that this letter finds you all well” (cf. 3 John 2 in the KJV, GNB, NEB, RSV, etc.). This combination of wishing for “things to go well” and for the recipient’s “good health” was the standard form of greeting in a personal letter in antiquity.2. To extend John’s wish for Gaius to refer to financial and material prosperity for all Christians of all times is totally foreign to the text. John neither intended that, nor could Gaius have so understood it. Thus it cannot be the “plain meaning” of the text.
We may rightly learn from this text to pray for our brothers and sisters that “all will go well with them”; but to argue from the text that God wills our financial prosperity is to abuse the text, not use it. One may well argue that all subsequent Christians are out of God’s will who do not go to Carpus’s house in Troy in order to take Paul’s cloak to him (2 Tim. 4:13), or that all Christians with stomach ailments are not to pray for healing at all, but rather to stop drinking water and to drink wine instead (1 Tim. 5:23). For these, too, are what the texts actually say, in Copeland’s sense.
It should be noted further that “abundant life” in John 10:10, the second important text of this movement, also has nothing to do with material abundance. “Life” or “eternal life” in John’s Gospel is the equivalent of the “Kingdom of God” in the Synoptics. It literally means the “life of the Age to Come.” It is the life that God has in and of Himself; and it is his gift to believers in the present age.3. The Greek word perrison,translated “more abundantly” in the KJV, means simply that believers are to enjoy this gift of life to the full” (NIV). Material abundance is not implied either in the word “life” or “to the full.” Furthermore, such an idea is totally foreign to the context of John 10, as well as to the whole of the teaching of Jesus.
Beyond these misunderstandings of the “basic texts” there are several examples, in Copeland’s book especially, where he simply runs roughshod over the plain meaning of texts—because the plain meaning so clearly runs counter to his invalid interpretations of the basic texts. At such points his “interpretation” is said to come from the “Holy Spirit.” But what Copeland does to the story of the “rich young ruler” (pp. 62-63)—suggesting that Jesus is affirming his wealth as the result of his lifelong obedience, and was only testing him to give it away, so that he might regain all the more—is so plainly contrary to the intent of the text that he would do well to be careful about attributing to the Holy Spirit that bit of subjectivity. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit, who inspired the original text with its plain meaning, is now to be found contradicting Himself.
Copeland’s (and his friends’) hermeneutics therefore is not in fact attempting to give us only what the Bible actually says. It is almost totally subjective, and comes not from study but from “meditation,” which in Copeland’s case means a kind of free association based on a prior commitment to his—totally wrong— understanding of the “basic” texts.
2. It should be noted further that this “gospel” is also not biblical in the larger sense of that word, in that it reflects a truncated view of the whole of Scripture. The selectivity of these evangelists allows them not only to espouse a view not taught anywhere in the New Testament, but also carefully to avoid hundreds of texts that stand squarely in opposition to their teaching.
This hermeneutical selectivity is most noticeable in their understanding of poverty and prosperity, which they themselves see as the conflicting realities. Thus it is often argued that the “traditional” Christian view is that prosperity is evil, and therefore that God would prefer us to be in poverty. Against this they argue that poverty is a curse (from Deut. 28:15 ff.), and therefore not in God’s will, whereas prosperity is His will. This is further supported by “conventional wisdom,” which fails to take seriously both the nature of the Fall and the reality of common grace.
Conventional wisdom sees life always in terms of quid pro quo, one thing in return for another. For every evil, there is a direct, specific cause (“Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”; Job’s comforters; etc.). And for every good, especially every material blessing, there is also a direct specific cause. Some “rules” that God has laid down are being followed.
But conventional wisdom is not biblical. Even though there are special times when God does protect His own, it is clear from the whole of Scripture that both the sun and the rain fall on the just and the unjust alike. The Galileans whom Pilate killed and the eighteen on whom the tower fell were not greater sinners, Jesus said (Luke 13:1-5). Conventional wisdom is simply not true. The Fall has so permeated the created order that all people are affected by its consequences, and God has revealed Himself as abounding in mercy-even to the sinner. Sometimes there seems to be no good reason why the wicked are “blessed” while the good are not, or vice versa!
Furthermore, even though God has promised the vindication of His own, He has seldom promised immediate vindication. For example, in Hebrews 11:32-39, some by faith saw great victories; but others by faith were destitute. But they are all commended for their faith. And these words were spoken to encourage believers who themselves had “joyfully accepted the confiscation of their property” (10:34 NIV), but who were now about to lose heart. Immediate vindication, however, is not promised to them, only eschatological (10:35-36). Conventional wisdom, therefore, cannot be made a part of the biblical view of poverty and prosperity.
In the full biblical view, wealth and possessions are a zero value for the people of God. Granted that often in the Old Testament—butnever in the New—possessions are frequently related to a life of obedience. But even here they are seen to have the inherent double danger of removing the eye from trusting God and of coming to possess the possessor. Poverty, however, is not seen to be better. If God has revealed Himself as the One who pleads the cause of the poor—and He has throughout Scripture—He is not thereby blessing poverty. Rather, He is revealing His mercy and justice in behalf of those whom the wealthy regularly oppress in order to get, or maintain, their wealth.
This carefree attitude toward wealth and possessions, for whichneither prosperity nor poverty is a value, is thoroughgoing in the New Testament. According to Jesus, the good news of the inbreaking of the Kingdom frees us from all those pagan concerns (Matt. 6:32). With His own coming the Kingdom has been inaugurated-even though it has yet to be fully consummated; the time of God’s rule is now; the future with its new values is already at work in the present. We have been “seized” by the Kingdom; our old values, the old way of looking at things, is on the way out; we are joyously freed from the tyranny of all other lords. In the new order, brought about by Jesus, the standard is sufficiency, and surplus is called into question. The one with two tunics should share with him who has none (Luke 3:11); “possessions” are to be sold and given to the poor (Luke 12:33). Indeed, in the new age unshared wealthis contrary to the Kingdom breaking in as good news to the poor. Therefore, if one has possessions (precisely because they have no inherent value) he can freely share them with the needy. But if one does not have possessions, he is not to seek them. God cares for one’s needs; the extras are unnecessary The rich man who seeks more and more is a fool; life does not consist in having a surplus of possessions (Luke 12:15).
It is precisely this new age attitude that one finds reflected in the early chapters of the Acts. The early church was not communal. But they were the new community—the new people of God. Hence no one considers anything owned to be his or her own possession. The coming of the Spirit that marked the beginning of the new order had freed them from the need of possessing. Hence there was sufficiency, and no one was in need.
This same carefree attitude toward wealth and possessions also marks all of Paul. He is a free man in Christ, who knows contentment whatever the circumstances. He knows both want and plenty, both hunger and being well fed. He “can do all things”—which in this context clearly refers to being in need!“—through Christ who gives [him] strength” (Phil. 4: 10-13).
Thus he tells those who have nothing to be content with food and clothing. “People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap” (1 Tim. 6:6-10). But then he remembers those who happen to be rich. They are to treat their wealth with indifference; they must not put any stock in it. Rather they are to be “generous and willing to share,” for this is true wealth (6:17-19). The point is in the New Age, prosperity is simply no value at all. How, then, can God will such a zero value for all His children?
The cult of prosperity thus flies full in the face of the whole New Testament. It is not biblical in any sense.
3. Finally, besides being non-biblical, the theology that lies behind this perversion of the Gospel is sub-Christian at several crucial points. Since that requires another whole article of its own, I will here only briefly note several of the more readily observable theological weaknesses.
First, despite all protests to the contrary, at its base the cult of prosperity offers a man-centered, rather than a God-centered, theology. Even though one is regularly told that it is to God’s own glory that we should prosper, the appeal is always made to our own selfishness and sense of well-being. In fact, the only one who could possibly believe this non-biblical nonsense is someone who wants to, and the only reason one would want to is because of its appeal to one’s selfishness. Many years ago, writing of God’s holiness, Gustav Aulen warned:4.
Holiness stands as a sentinel against all eudaemonistic and anthropocentric interpretations of religion. Holiness meets us as unconditional majesty. Every attempt to transform Christian faith into a religion of satisfaction and enjoyment is thereby doomed to failure. Egocentricity masquerading in the robes of religion is excluded. Faith in God cannot be measured and evaluated from the point of view of human happiness and needs, even if these concepts be even so refined and “spiritualized.” God is not someone faith employs with an eye to the higher or lower advantages which he may be able to furnish; nor is he someone we can call upon in order that our needs and desires may be met. Even if anthropocentricity should disguise itself in the most clever costume, it will inevitably be unmasked by the Holy One. Every tendency to make God serve human interests is irrevocably doomed.
He goes on: “If God is the Holy One, he is also the One on whom we are ‘absolutely dependent.’ We are in his power, not he in ours.” And the whole creation should respond: “Amen.”
Second, this false gospel presents a totally false theology of giving. In the New Testament, as well as the Old, God’s love and giving are predicated on His mercy, and therefore in their every expression they are unconditional. Cod loves, and gives, and forgives unconditionally—no strings attached. The human response to divine grace is gratitude, which expresses itself in identical, unconditional love, and giving, and forgiving. The cult of prosperity, on the other hand, tells us we are to give in order to get. It is by giving to the Lord, and to the poor, Copeland assures us, that we are guaranteeing our own prosperity. Furthermore, he candidly admits that he will give to the poor only on the condition that he is also given opportunity to tell them about Jesus. As noble as that end might sound, the means to the end is manipulative. It is evangelism tied to the apron strings of the American profit-motive mentality.
Third, such an Americanized perversion of the Gospel tends to reinforce a way of life and an economic system that repeatedly oppresses the poor—the very thing that the prophetic message denounces so forcefully. Seeking more prosperity in an already affluent society means to support all the political and economic programs that have made such prosperity available—but almost always at the expense of economically deprived individuals and nations.
The best antidote to this disease, therefore, is a good healthy dose of biblical theology. For an excellent exposition of the biblical view of wealth and poverty, as well as for some helpful suggestions toward a truly Christian response to the needs of the poor, I recommend Ronald J. Sider’s Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger.5. This book should bemust reading for every American Christian. In some ways it is tough medicine, but it should help to cure this loathsome disease. And in this case, I would be so bold and prophetic as to declare that the only alternative to such a “cure” is the awful judgment of God, which must begin first with the house of God.
One may count on it: Any “Gospel” that will not “sell” as well among believers in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso or Dacca, Bangladesh or Phnom Penh, Cambodia as in Orange County, California or Tulsa County, Oklahoma is not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 See, e.g., God Is a Good God (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1960), pp. 58-64.
2 See, e.g., the collection of ancient personal letters in the Loeb series: A.S. Hunt and C.C. Edgar, eds., Select Papyri (New York: Putnam, 1932), pp. 269-395.
3 Cf. C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), pp. 214-15.
4 The Faith of the Christian Church (London: SCM, 1960), p. 105.
5 Published by Intervarsity Press, 1977.