The false gospel of prosperity

So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. (1 Peter 5: 1-3)

I was asked by someone why I labeled the “Health, wealth and prosperity” movement a heresy. It is a fair question. I have complained before about the casual way we throw words like “heresy” around, so here are my reasons for labeling the HWP movement a heresy. I will admit I have no use for the HWP preachers and it is hard for me to look at this objectively. I would strongly recommend a number of articles by John Piper, who minces no words about his feelings on the prosperity “gospel”, especially this one: Prosperity Preaching: Deceitful and Deadly

First, we never, ever see someone preaching anything like the HWP in the New Testament. NEVER In fact, we see the opposite. We see the earliest church speaking of self-sacrifice, of humility and quiet living. Preaching prosperity is not something that calls people to a life of self-sacrifice and humility, it is a call to something that the Bible says is an impediment, not an aid, to the Gospel.

When it comes to health, you certainly don’t see great health being a hallmark of the apostles life. Paul suffered immensely and tradition holds that the apostles universally died horrible or at least solitary deaths. On a few occasions we see examples of miraculous healings in the Bible, but it is impossible to draw a normative line between the apostles healing people for the purpose of preaching the Gospel and today’s false teachers who are not healing anyone. In fact Paul wrote that he had prayed for an issue of suffering to be removed (the thorn in his flesh in 2 Cor 12: 7-10) but it was not granted. Was Paul not a faithful Christian? In fact he rejoiced in this weakness, for in our weakness we are strong. Material prosperity and physical health is not a evidence of God’s providential blessings.

The Bible does not teach us that Christians should seek or expect a life of comfort and prosperity. This world will hate us and we should not be too comfortable in this life. Jesus told His disciples that they will find trouble in this world but that we should take heart because we know that He has overcome the world:

I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world. (John 16: 33)

How you can read that and expect a life of anything but tribulation is beyond me. I always get a bit nervous when things are going too well. The message of the Bible is not one that calls us to, gives an expectation for or inculcates a desire to be wealthy and prosperous. Think about the message of the parable of the pearl of great value:

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it. (Matthew 13: 45-46)

That pearl of great worth was the Kingdom, not some earthly treasure. The merchant was willing to give up all that he had because that pearl (i.e. the Kingdom) was so much more precious.

In several accounts, Jesus sends His disciples out with nothing but the shirt on their backs...

And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal. And he said to them, “Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics. And whatever house you enter, stay there, and from there depart. (Luke 9: 1-4)

I am not thinking that they were expecting to live a wealthy life or a prosperous life but they certainly were expecting to live a joyful life and that joy was not connected to health or prosperity! They were concerned with seeing men saved, not making a buck.

We see the example of the earliest church giving all that they had (Acts 2:45) and doing so to help their neighbors, not because of an expectation of getting something back in return but out of love for our brothers and sisters.

In 1 Thessalonians 4:11 and 2 Thessalonians 3:12, we see that Paul is calling on us to live a quiet life, to mind our own business and to work with our own hands. Not a life of lavish prosperity.

The Christian life is a quiet one, a life of modesty, contentment, self-sacrifice, of caring for others more than ourselves, of humility. It is not a life focused on blessings here and now, although each of us is blessed abundantly with what we need. What we really need and what the world tells us we need are not one and the same. The preaching of the HWP movement is based on worldly desires and we are warned against that…

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. (1 John 2: 15-17)

In fact, I think that being prosperous is one of the worst things that can happen to a believer. The greater our comfort and prosperity, the blurrier the cross becomes. God draws us to Himself often through our suffering and if you look around the world, the places where the church is persecuted and in hiding, the Gospel thrives. In places of comfort and apathy, the Gospel witness is hindered.

The HWP preachers are preaching the desires of the world with religious language. Perhaps even more dangerous, in many cases they twist the words of Scripture to fit their own agendas. For example, I was referred by the person putting forth the original question of why I consider the HWP movement a heresy to the ministry of a man named Joseph Prince. His “Daily Devotion” for today, Healthier, Stronger Each Day, implies that by partaking of the Lord’s Supper, you will experience mystical healing. From the devotional based somehow on Acts 2:46:

Now, I am not saying that you must take the Holy Communion every day. But if you feel led to and you want to, go ahead! The thing about taking the Holy Communion daily is this: If you are sick, you can be made well on a gradual basis. This means that you get healthier and stronger from day to day — first thirtyfold, then sixtyfold, then a hundredfold!

You see, while you can receive healing through the prayer of faith (Mark 11:24), it sometimes puts pressure on you because it requires you to believe that you receive it all — complete healing — the moment you pray. There is nothing wrong with the prayer of faith, but you may find yourself saying, “I must believe I receive it all, now! I must believe I have it all, now!”

But the Holy Communion allows you to receive a measure of healing every time you partake in faith, so that you get better and better. The more you take it, the better you become. There is no pressure to believe that you receive it all at once. Isn’t God good? He meets you at your level of faith!

The truth is that you can faithfully eat the Lord’s Supper and in fact not get stronger and healthier. That is not at all what it is about. That is one of the most egregious misuses of Scripture that I have seen in a long time and I say that as someone who used to be a mormon, so I know misuse of the Scripture when I see it. In another section of his webpage, he lists out “prooftexts” that allegedly support prosperity preaching. Here is the problem with all of those texts. When God blesses us and gives us riches, that is clearly not in material possessions. We read rich, we think money. In context and in example, that is quite apparently not what the Scriptures meant. I am richly blessed with eight kids. I am richly blessed with a godly wife who stays home and cares for and teaches those kids. I am richly blessed with enough food to eat and a home in which to sleep. None of that helps my checking account balance.


Men like Mr. Prince often cannot help but exalt themselves, as evidenced by descriptions of him on his webpage in the "About Us" section which really should be called "About Me". He uses humble language to describe himself like: Pioneer, humorous, anointed, dynamic. It culminates with this:

Over the years, Joseph’s ministry as pastor, teacher and conference speaker has helped to set many people free from guilt and condemnation, and caused them to fall in love with Jesus afresh as they see His love, goodness and grace.

Notice the emphasis here. Who is being exalted here? He may sprinkle the name of Christ all over the place but make no mistake that his focus is on himself, how powerful a preacher he is, what a great healer he is, how “anointed” he is. The focus of “Joseph Prince Ministries” is Joseph Prince. I have seen this same sort of megalomania from men ranging from prosperity preachers to “faith healers” like Benny Hinn to famous “revival preachers”. Invariably, no matter how much pious religious language they use, the object of their truest adoration is themselves. I honestly pray for those deceived people who become “Ministry Partners” and in exchange for their contributions get plastic cards designating their contribution level, ranging from “Destined to Reign Partner” to “Gospel Revolution Partner” and culminating in that highest honor, the platinum card declaring the holder to be a “Joseph’s Inner Circle Partner”. Notice that the highest level of faithfulness gets you into Joseph’s inner circle for the low, low price of $500 (or more!) per month. Only six grand a year to be counted among Joseph Prince’s Inner Circle! I can’t make this stuff up.

In the end, those preaching HWP are preaching something that God has not declared and they are making promises on God’s behalf that God has not made. They are making claims, couched in religious terms and sprinkled with out of context verses, to augment their statements and those claims are aimed not at making disciples of Christ but attracting followers for themselves. Followers who will “sow” money into the pockets of these men.

Jesus did not die on the cross so you could have a new BMW. He died so that you would be forgiven of your sins and receive that which is the most valuable, not earthly prosperity but eternal life. When someone presumes to say “God has said” when God has not, he speaks as falsely as the serpent who said "Did God really say?" in the Garden. Ascribing to God promises that God has not made is quite frankly heresy. If I am prosperous, I should praise God. If I am dirt poor and destitute, I should praise God. The measure of God’s faithfulness to us is measured by the cross, not by the balance in our checkbook. My duty to praise God is based on His grace, not on my prosperity.

Let me close with a couple of videos from John Piper on the prosperity "gospel"...

Here is a tricky and dangerous question

Dr. Mohler mentioned a recent article in the New York Times dealing with faith healing, parents refusing medical care for their minor children. This issue pops up periodically, typically when a child is severely injured or in this case dies. It sounded chilling, so I went to the article and read it in its entirety. The event cited in the NYT happened in Wisconsin…

WESTON, Wis. — Kara Neumann, 11, had grown so weak that she could not walk or speak. Her parents, who believe that God alone has the ability to heal the sick, prayed for her recovery but did not take her to a doctor.

After an aunt from California called the sheriff’s department here, frantically pleading that the sick child be rescued, an ambulance arrived at the Neumann’s rural home on the outskirts of Wausau and rushed Kara to the hospital. She was pronounced dead on arrival.
The county coroner ruled that she had died from diabetic ketoacidosis resulting from undiagnosed and untreated juvenile diabetes. The condition occurs when the body fails to produce insulin, which leads to severe dehydration and impairment of muscle, lung and heart function.
----
About a month after Kara’s death last March, the Marathon County state attorney, Jill Falstad, brought charges of reckless endangerment against her parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann. Despite the Neumanns’ claim that the charges violated their constitutional right to religious freedom, Judge Vincent Howard of Marathon County Circuit Court ordered Ms. Neumann to stand trial on May 14, and Mr. Neumann on June 23. If convicted, each faces up to 25 years in prison.

Set aside for a moment the issue of refusing any sort of medical care for Christians. That is a whole can of worms that really isn’t pertinent to the bigger question. There are precedents in the Bible for treatment of medical conditions, not necessarily a slew of antibiotics every time your kid gets a cold, but some kind of treatment beyond prayer. For example, Paul urges Timothy to take a little wine for his frequent stomach ailments in 1 Timothy 5:23. So setting aside the issue of modern medicine or natural remedies, the issue I want to look at has less to do with the specific example of this case (faith healing) and more to do with the general practice and protection of religious beliefs in a pluralistic, secular society. The statement that Dr. Mohler pointed out and that really struck me as well was this statement from the presiding judge:

“The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief,” the judge wrote in his ruling, “but not necessarily conduct.”

So what this judge is saying is that the First Amendment protects your right to believe whatever you want, but not necessarily to practice your religion however you want. I don’t want to be Chicken Little here, because I know that the law exempts parents in a lot of circumstances. But also there is the issue that while the laws of an individual state protect parents, those laws can be reversed and the underlying issue is the Constitutional expression of religion and what that does or does not apply to.

What does the First Amendment say? A lot of people appeal to the First Amendment but not many actually look to see what the wording was or ask "what does it really say"? People throw the word “rights” around cavalierly but there are certain rights enumerated in the Constitution and there are lots of things that are not spoken of. This is what the First Amendment actually says and concerns:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note that the key here is religious expression or exercise. Exercise necessarily implies not just belief but outward expression. People often say that the First Amendment protects our “freedom of religion”, but what is at stake here is not merely belief but practice as well.

Where I am troubled is the tension between parental rights and the perceived obligation of the state toward children. It is pretty easy to look at seemingly obvious cases of neglect and say the state should step in. It is harder though when you alter the fundamental ideal that the default is that parents have the right to make decisions for their children. It is not a stretch, and in fact has become law in many places, to see this intrusion spreading beyond merely issues where parents withhold medical treatment and into determining what is or is not appropriate discipline for children. Beating a child to death is not discipline but many assume that any sort of corporal correction for children is inherently child abuse. We have administered stern correction to our children on a fairly regular basis (eight kids=lots of discipline!) and there are some who would say that what we do, while commonplace a generation ago and for most of human history, amounts to child abuse. There is a stream of thought in some circles of academia that seems to be gaining credence that even religious instruction amounts to abuse of children. In other words, you are free to breed if you must but the state and the academics will decide what your kids will think, learn and how they will behave. It is not difficult to see where applications of a narrow interpretation of the First Amendment as merely protecting belief and not practice can lead to outlawing of corporal punishment and homeschooling. A perfect example of this was the raid on the polygamist compound in Texas where one unsubstantiated rumor of abuse led to armed law enforcement officials swooping in and removing hundreds of children from their homes. It took weeks for these children to be reunited with their parents. I am sure that the members of the FLDS cult assumed that could never happen, but it did and we had better be vigilant in our suburban homes and orderly mainstream churches because the same thing could happen to us.

Thus our quandary. No one likes to see an 11 year old die from a very treatable disease. The impulse can very easily be to wonder why the state didn’t step in. But when you read words like: ““The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief, but not necessarily conduct.”, it can be chilling. Where do we draw the line? What is to regulate the well-meaning, in some cases, intrusion by the state into parental rights? The law runs on precedent and if the precedent becomes that the First Amendment, especially as it pertains to parents and children, only covers belief and not practice, what will stop the state from mandating public school for homeschooled kids, from banning any sort of corporal discipline in families, ultimately from banning religious instruction for children as being unhelpful to the promulgation of a pluralistic society? These are not alarmist statements, these are real questions we need to ask and think through before we look around and see our children being taken away.