A Doctorate of Ministry in Queer Theology. No, Really.

Take a gander at this video, ostensibly of a "pastor" who called on God to damn "white America" shortly before the shooting of those Dallas police officers who were there to protect him while he was making such asinine and anti-Christian statements and then going on TV to talk about "one America" and coming together in "love":

You heard that correctly. Here is a "pastor" (more on that in a second) who is calling for God's damnation on every person in this country that is white. That is not what he meant? Well then he shouldn't have said it. The video shows the guy with a hokey fake accent very slowly and deliberately calling for God to damn white America. Twice. I am white. I live in America. So this guy is calling on God to damn me because of my skin color. This wasn't an off the cuff remark, he clearly had thought this through and even invoked the name of another well known racist "preacher", Jeremiah Wright. Mr. Wright is a racist cut from the same racist cloth as David Duke.  Look at Mr. Hood (or as he styles himself "The Reverend Doctor Jeff Hood") as he invokes Jeremiah Wright with that smirk on his face as he gets the applause he is craving from the crowd. He looks like he is desperately wanting someone in the crowd to pat him on the head. He says it twice so it isn't exactly like he didn't think about what he was saying, when you repeat yourself it is for the purpose of emphasizing and reinforcing what you are saying.

Also watch later in the clip when he is talking to Megyn Kelly. Notice that his fake accent has mostly disappeared. Like Hillary Clinton he turns on what I guess he thinks is an appealing accent when speaking in front of a black crowd and then turns it off when speaking to a white reporter. If I were black I would be deeply insulted that this is what Mr. Hood thinks black people talk like and that if he uses a fake accent he can seem like a more authentic guy. When someone has a hokey accent for black audiences and then a more educated and articulate accent for white audiences, who is the racist here?

He also states: " We have to come together as one America". Huh. How do you think that is going to happen when you go on TV with a dorky smirk on your face and deliver "God damn White America" to curry favor? As part of "White America", whatever that means, I sure don't feel like linking arms with a racist like Jeremiah Wright or a self-loathing white leftist who fawns over Wright to become "one America".

Mr. Hood calls the police "the enemy" and then goes on TV (minus his "black" accent) to talk about coming together as one America and loving each other. I am assuming he only regrets what he was saying because of what happened that night. He shows little remorse for his racist attacks and his hypocritical statements, statements that have more in common with Westboro Baptist than the Biblical Church. That begs the question:

If inflammatory rhetoric from Donald Trump is directly to blame for violence at his rallies, why is inflammatory rhetoric from Black Lives Matter  and from a "pastor" who is clearly inflaming the crowd not to blame for the shooting of police?

Speaking of Mr. Hood as a "pastor". He goes to great lengths to brag about his accomplishments which is kinda ironic since he benefited educationally from institutions (Auburn, Alabama, South Seminary, etc.) which epitomize the "white America" that he wants damned. Of course he does have the super prestigious  "Doctorate of Ministry in Queer Theology at Brite Divinity School at Texas Christian University", which is actually a thing. There is actually a degree granting program at TCU's seminary that gives out "Doctorate of Ministry" degrees focused on "Queer Theology". According to Brite Seminary the cost of getting that nonsense is $13,200. I could have saved Mr. Hood thirteen grand and summed up what the Bible teaches about "Queer Theology": Don't do it. I am sure that Addison and Randolph Clark, the brothers that co-founded what is now Brite Seminary, must be delighted to see how far afield this seminary has gone. Read the rest of his humble intro:

The author of ten books (The Queer: An Interaction with The Gospel of John, The Queering of an American Evangelical, The Sociopathic Jesus, The Year of the Queer, Jesus on Death Row, Frances, Last Words from Texas: Meditations from the Execution Chamber, The Rearing of an American Evangelical, The Courage to Be Queer and The Basilica of the Swinging Dicks), Dr. Hood also serves in the governing leadership of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty and Fellowship of Reconciliation USA. In 2013, Dr. Hood was awarded PFLAG Fort Worth’s Equality Award for Activism. In 2015, Hood was named Hope for Peace and Justice’s Ambassador of Justice for his theological activism and also the Next Generation Action Network’s Person of the Year for his work against police brutality. In addition to being the husband of Emily and father of Jeff III, Phillip, Quinley Mandela, Lucas & Madeleine, Dr. Hood also maintains a close friendship with Texas Death Row prisoner Will Speer.

Well I have to admit none of those books is on my reading list although I am sure that "The Basilica of the Swinging Dicks" is a deep and profound theological work. Some of his other stuff claims that "God is queer" which is so incredibly nonsensical that it boggles the mind. He closes his bio with this:

With deep soul and a belief that God is “calling us to something queerer,” Dr. Hood is a radical mystic and prophetic voice to a closed society.

Well. I guess "deep soul" means "putting on a fake accent to appease a crowd".

It takes some doing to make Donald Trump seem humble but Mr. Hood has pulled it off. Lest you think I am being unfair, I would also point out that Mr. Hood is a poet. Here is a sampling, the first one I clicked on, of his "poetics", Chickens After Dark:

Chickens after dark

I hear you call

You know my name

I long for God

Tell me your secrets

Your eye leans in

Bawk

Bawk

Bawk

Bawk

That was it

Everything’s not dead after all

I seriously had to check to make sure this wasn't The Onion or the Babylon Bee. Bawk. Bawk. Bawk. Bawk. Dude, that is some deep stuff worthy of a radical mystic and prophetic voice. 

It is bad enough in this country with all of the inflammatory rhetoric. We don't need false teachers like Mr. Hood making it worse while styling himself as a "pastor". Lest anyone be confused: Mr. Hood doesn't speak for the church, doesn't have a clue who God is and has no idea what Christ came to earth to do.

Sometimes it seems like we would be better off without the internet so that people like Mr. Hood don't have a platform for their nonsense.

Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows Or As The Bible Calls It Unequal Yoking (Or Why You Shouldn't Join Glenn Beck In Fasting For Ted Cruz)

Speaking of unbelievers, here we are again. The apostle Paul wrote in 2nd Corinthians or as Donald Trump calls it "Two Corinthians":

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty." - 2 Corinthians 6:14-18

This is usually applied, understandably in our culture, to believers marrying unbelievers but it goes much deeper than that. It applies in any sort of relationship where our relationship with God is tainted by unequal yoking with unbelievers. This temptation is especially powerful in the realm of politics where voters who are devout Christians will often make cause with those who are not to advance a political agenda. That is dangerous primarily when the political world bleeds over into the religious world, as often is the case in America.

I have often written on the danger posed by radio entertainer Glenn Beck. As a mormon who is ostensibly a political conservative, Beck says things that appeal to a lot of Evangelical Christians who are overwhelmingly also politically conservative. He also tends to lace his political talk with a lot of religious talk and often positions himself as part of the same faith as Christians, a linkage that far too few of my brothers and sisters notice or object to. Many Christians of various stripes have appeared on his show to express solidarity. Something else I have frequently commented on is the marketing shift by mormonism away from emphasizing the difference between mormonism and Christianity and now trying to point out alleged similarities. It has gone from "join us because we have a better religion" to "join us we have the same religion just better".

Anyway, Glenn Beck has endorsed Texas Senator Ted Cruz for President, a somewhat unusual move for a radio talk show host. Of the remaining candidates I probably like Ted Cruz the best although I don't care for his pandering comments about "rebuilding our military" and unquestioning support for Israel. Late last night after the South Carolina primary results showed a big win for Donald Trump and Ted Cruz coming in third just a hair behind Marco Rubio, Glenn Beck put out a call to fast for Ted Cruz, our nation and the upcoming Nevada caucuses to his listeners, viewers and social media followers:

Now fasting is a Biblical thing, right? So what is the problem? Well because I would say this is precisely the sort of thing Paul warned the church against, even though it happens in a fashion that he couldn't have imagined. Set aside the problem of Christians praying specifically for a political candidate. Should Christians be joining intentionally with a mormon to fast and pray? I would say unequivocally no.

Let me ask you this. Would the people who are claiming to be Christians and joining Glenn Beck in fasting be just as willing if the one calling on them to join he and his family in prayer were Muslim? Or Hindu? Probably not but those faiths are about as "Christian" as mormonism and a false god is a false god, whether the god of Joseph Smith's imagination or Allah or Vishnu. I find it abhorrent to fast and pray with someone who is praying to a false god.

Fasting is a very specific and frequently mentioned practice for Christians, not as a matter of ascetism but as part of prayer and worship of God through His Son Jesus. Fasting for mormons is a once a month ritual done primarily for the purpose of setting money aside to give to the poor:

Fasting is a commandment from the Lord where we humble ourselves before Him by voluntarily refraining from eating and drinking (see D&C 88:76).

In the Church today, one Sabbath day each month is set aside for the purpose of fasting. Members of the Church go without food and water for two consecutive meals in a 24-hour period and then contribute the money that would have been spent for that food to those in need (see Alma 34:28).

 (Taken from the lds.org webpage topic Fasting and Fast Offerings, February 21, 2016)

Notice that the support for this practice is taken from the mormon "scriptures". While reference is made to examples of fasting in the Bible and one brief mention is made of fasting not associated with donations to the poor, the manner it takes place in mormonism is very different from what the Bible teaches. I am all for giving to the poor. I am all for fasting and praying. What I am not for is yoking ourselves to an unbeliever and worse a pagan blasphemer in a religious act that seems to make an equivalence between the ancient faith of followers of Christ and a recent religious movement that sprang from  the vivid imagination of Joseph Smith. 

If you want to fast and pray for our nation and her leaders, by all means do so. Just don't hold hands with a heretic while you do it.

What Is More Important?

Tim Challies has been running a very helpful series on false teachers throughout church history. He has looked at men like Arius, Joseph Smith and Marcus Borg, mostly uncontroversial posts. Today he takes a look at a far more controversial false teacher, Jorge Bergoglio aka "Pope Francis". The comments are sure to be explosive. Few figures in the religious world get the sort of attention that Jorge garners. The head of the Roman Catholic Church always commands a large audience as the head of a religious organization with over a billion followers. This particular pope gets even more attention due in large part to his very public humble acts of mercy. Many evangelicals hang on his every public act even as they brush aside concerns over his theology. It seems the church is in desperate need of a serious conversation about this man and what he means, not just to Rome, but to the church of Jesus Christ.

As Christians we cannot ignore the very public witness that Jorge presents to the world. In a media driven world where Christians are painted in the worst possible light, Jorge Bergoglio is a notable exception in that his every public act of mercy and humility is broadcast around the world. I believe that this is because a segment of the cultural elite hopes that Jorge will overturn some of the culturally distasteful practices of the Roman Catholic Church, namely a celibate all male priesthood, hard-line positions against birth control, abortion and contraception and maintaining the historical insistence that homosexuality is inherently disordered. Whatever the reason Jorge gets far more, and more favorable, treatment from the media than any of his predecessors or any other contemporary religious leaders. For that reason alone the church needs to engage with this very public persona.

However, as Christians, we cannot separate the deeds from the doctrines. I maintain that one cannot be said to be "Christlike" when propagating a false "gospel". I am somewhat more of a voice crying out in the wilderness on this than usual, cautionary expressions regarding Jorge get the stink-eye among many in my online circles, and I also keep returning to this topic but as I have said many times before, when you have someone that is put forth as a representative of the Christian faith to a world (and more often than not a church) that is theologically illiterate it is irresponsible to not engage the underlying doctrines he champions that are anathema to the Gospel.

Even the most ardent fan of Jorge that has even a smidgen of theological background knows the questionable doctrines I am speaking of. The issue becomes whether those are deal breakers or not. For hundreds of years the answer to that question has been a resounding "yes". In fact even asking that question would be a puzzle for most of church history post-Oct 31, 1517. Many, many Christians were martyred for refusing to compromise on the very issues that contemporary Christians are too open minded and enlightened to be concerned with today. That is many things but progress it ain't.

There is a serious choice to be discussed in the church as it pertains to Jorge Bergoglio. Do we set aside his heretical teachings (Tim Challies does a decent job of presenting some of them in his piece) in favor of embracing him for his public acts of mercy? Or do we stand for the Gospel and give it priority over admittedly humble and humbling acts of mercy towards those outcast by society?

The charge of Christ is clear. He sent out His apostles with the mission of proclaiming the Gospel, making disciples and teaching them to do all He commanded. The order and priority is obvious and critical. Our first calling is the call to repentance. It is a call that needs to be extended even to a public religious rock star like Jorge Bergoglio. Acts of mercy, especially to the poor and the outcast, are a necessary implication of the Gospel but  they are secondary to our primary calling.

It will be unpopular and likely reinforce the stereotypes of the church in public but our stand for the Gospel must take priority. We can certainly applaud Mr. Bergoglio as he washes feet and serves the poor but always without compromising on the damning teachings he represents, teachings embodied even in the public title of "pope" that he embraces. The wolves among the sheep that are obvious aren't much of a danger, we can see them for what they are. The truly dangerous wolves are those that blend in with the sheep, wolves that devour from within wearing a smile and being embraced by their victims. That may sound harsh and jarring to ears attuned to our contemporary enlightened religious sensibilities but we are warned repeatedly to be on watch for those who seek to lead astray the sheep. Church, we have been warned. It is up to us to decide whether we take those warnings seriously.

Mitt and Billy

I have been mulling over what, if anything, to say about the kerfuffle over Billy Graham's meeting with Mitt Romney, his subsequent endorsement of Romney and the highly controversial removal of mormonism from the list of cults on the webpage of Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Many of my fellow believers who are former mormons or on the front lines of mormon evangelism were rightly outraged by this and then today I read something that drove me to write this post.

Apparently the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association took out a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal, using funds donated for this stated purpose "building the kingdom of God and bringing people into relationship with Jesus Christ" to buy an ad to advocate for someone who is diametrically opposed to that mission in every possible way. In part the ad reads:

"As I approach my 94th birthday, I realize this election may be my last," Graham says in the ad. "I believe it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel. I urge you to vote for those who protect the sanctity of life and support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman."


How exactly can we take seriously a statement like that? A man who belongs to and has been a leader in a religious cult that denies every crucial doctrine in the Bible and perverts the Gospel cannot in any sense of the word be said to "base their decisions on biblical principles". The Bible says nothing about gay marriage. The Bible says nothing about abortion being wrong but preemptive war being OK. The Bible does say an awful lot about being wary of wolves seeking to devour the sheep, wolves who externally look like sheep but are only interested in destroying God's sheep.

I don't pretend to know Billy Graham's motivation here nor do I discount his decades of service to the Kingdom preaching the Gospel night after night to more people than I have talked to in my entire life about any topic. I do know this much. This action is yet another example of the extent to which American Christians are willing to set aside any sense of discernment to win a political victory. I also know that Christians who know nothing about mormonism look to Billy Graham as a trusted leader in the church and that leadership is a responsibility that transcends political pragmatism.

Watchbloggers like the Pyromaniacs would jump all over Billy Graham for this under normal circumstances but instead we are treated to a six part series about why they are voting for Mitt Romney. If Graham had met with Thomas Monson and then removed mormonism from the BGEA webpage as a cult, you can be sure that the boys would have something caustic and ugly to say. But not when it comes to defeating Barack Obama! These same fellows blew a gasket about other Christians signing the Manhattan Declaration which calls for unity among Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians in working toward ending abortion. One thing all three of those groups share is a belief in orthodox trinitarian doctrine and that is something that Mitt Romney explicitly denies. Just don't point that out or you will get an earful of self-righteous bleating.

Listen to me carefully:

Defeating Barack Obama in this election is not the highest priority of the church.

Did you catch that? In fact it isn't even in the ten top. Dare I say not anywhere on our priority list at all as the church.

The apostle John spoke to this very issue in his second epistle:

A lovely visit with a wolf

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. (2 John 1:7-11)

I wonder what John would have to say about the most recognizable figure in the church warmly greeting and endorsing someone that John called "the deceiver and the antichrist" because this election is so important to the church.

If you want to vote for Romney in the certain to be dashed hope that he will do great things like ending abortion, that is fine. Not my choice, not by a long shot. Obama is a horrible President and Romney probably would be a less horrible President and I don't feel obligated to vote for one over the other. Just don't blur the bright line between the Biblical Gospel and the perversion of mormonism to make evangelicals feel better about casting their vote for him. America will some day be gone and no one will care who won the 2012 election but those who spend an eternity in hell thanks to the lies of mormonism most certainly will care.

Pastor Romney

I studiously avoided the Presidential debate last night. I am not very interested in listening to two guys lie to me. Plus we were at the pregnancy resource center ministering which is a far more valuable;e use of my time. Anyway we got home and my wife turned on the TV and since all we get is broadcast TV of course the very end of the debate was on. I was in the other room but I could hear them. Romney said something that made my ears perk up. This is from the CNN transcript of the second debate (Emphasis added)

My - my passion probably flows from the fact that I believe in God. And I believe we're all children of the same God. I believe we have a responsibility to care for one another. I - I served as a missionary for my church. I served as a pastor in my congregation for about 10 years. I've sat across the table from people who were out of work and worked with them to try and find new work or to help them through tough times.

If I call myself Pastor maybe they will forget I am a mormon?

THAT got my attention. Mitt Romney, in case you missed it, is a mormon. He served in the Stake Presidency in Massachusetts and also as a "bishop" in his ward. This is important to note. As a mormon I never once heard a single reference to any mormon leader as "pastor". In fact pastor was more often a pejorative term. I would never have called the bishop of any ward we were in "pastor" nor would we have called the stake president by that title.

So why would Mitt Romney call himself a "pastor" when he never would have referred to himself as a "pastor" when he was in leadership and none of the people he led would have called him that either? Maybe saying "I served as a bishop and stake president" sounds too weird and alien to evangelical voters ears? Perhaps using those terms would remind evangelical voters that he is part of a religion that historically called orthodox Christianity heretical and an abomination in God's eyes?

Make no mistake. Mitt Romney is quite literally trying to become a wolf among the sheep and his job is made easier because the sheep have no idea what wolves look like. So many Christians think that Mitt Romney "shares our values" because he claims to be pro-life (at least when it comes to abortion). As a Christian, I can think of very few values that I would think Mitt Romney has in common with me because my values are formed by my faith in Christ, a faith that Mitt Romney does not share and in fact actively rejects. He talks about God but the "god" he worships is one of many in a polytheistic pantheon and is not the God we read of in the Bible. He says that we are all "children of the same God" but he means that literally in the sense of being offspring from a procreative act.

I am not saying you can't or shouldn't vote for Mitt Romney. I will not be but not because he is a mormon. I think and President Obama are two peas in the pod and neither of them would know the truth if it was tattooed on their foreheads. What I am saying is that because of the perverse marriage between politics and what we understand as the church many Christians are getting the impression that we share more in common with Mitt Romney, a pagan blasphemer, because he is "conservative" than we do with a "liberal" follower of Christ.

If you vote, and you are under no religious obligation to do so no matter what some blowhards say, do so based on your conscience and with your eyes wide open. Mitt Romney is not "one of us" and he does not share "our values" and neither does President Obama. Just watch how Romney speaks and pay attention to the words he uses because it is clear to me that he is trying to deceive the elect by making himself out to be something he is not.

Irony Alert!

Yesterday on the webpage of wolf in sheep's clothing Glenn Beck we find this headline:

The most biblically hostile President of all time?


Many Christians are saying "Amen!" in response to this post from an unbelieving blasphemer. Here is the uncomfortable truth. Nothing Barack Obama has said or done, as President or before, can hold a candle to the "biblically hostile" doctrines being spread by Glenn Beck's "church" each and every Sunday.
 
Wake up people. An unbeliever who is part of a polytheistic pagan religion but holds some similar political views is not someone we should look to for guidance on....well on pretty much any topic.

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"...

I wish Piper would just come out and tell us what he thinks...

Seriously though, the "prosperity Gospel" is no Gospel at all, it is another gospel and is anathema. We need to put aside false pretenses of brotherhood with false shepherds and wolves among the sheep and call them what they are. These men slander the name of Christ with their false teaching and need to be called to repent.

(HT: Brian at Voice of the Sheep)