The prosperity gospel is poor, and when taken in full dosage it has a devastating side effect; it impoverishes the Christian faith. The promises of health and wealth for all Christians are exciting and appealing as they often are presented by rhetorically gifted speakers who seem larger than life. Yet behind the golden façade lies at least three weaknesses, each of which I will briefly discuss.
For the record I want to mention that I have graduated Kenneth Hagin’s Rhema Bible Training Center. I have been a strong proponent of prosperity theology until further studies and New Testament research opened my eyes to some of its fatal weaknesses. What I present here are some loosely put together thoughts which I hope can spark further discussion.
The Prosperity Gospel Is Theologically Poor
What view of God does the prosperity gospel generate? This is perhaps the most important question to ask. If, at the end of the day, God is portrayed differently from what emerges from the biblical accounts, then there is a major problem.
A common criticism voiced at the prosperity gospel is that it turns God into a vending machine; put faith or “seed money” in and out comes the blessing you want. Even though prosperity preachers vehemently oppose such criticism it is in fact how God becomes. Central to prosperity theology is the idea that God operates on divine principles or laws (e.g. sowing and reaping and the mouth’s confession or positive confession). If we learn how to practice these laws we will get access to “life more abundantly.” There is therefore a great emphasis on studying and learning these principles as lack of knowledge is the main reason why Christians are stuck in poverty mentality, it is said.
But if God simply operates – responds – to our actions and acts within spiritual laws, what does that make of his sovereignty and omnipotence or of creation ex nihilo? We must also ask what such a Newtonian view of God makes of a personal relationship with the personal God? Further, if God requires us to provide “seeds” to work “harvests” in our lives, what does that make of grace and atonement? Does not God give freely and is the cross not sufficient? These are some important questions to consider.
Prosperity theology is in the danger of putting humans in the center. Instead of us being “here” for God’s glory, he is “there” for our. Ironically, prosperity theology thus runs the danger of being anthropocentric, much like the 19th-20th century liberal theology that it so sharply opposes and ridicules.
The Prosperity Gospel Is Hermeneutically Poor
If prosperity theology can boast of any kind of exegesis it is more of a barbaric sort. Little thought is given to hermeneutical method. Prosperity teaching is often an exercise in proof texting, where Scriptures are taken out of their proper setting and used to support an argument or point which is not itself taken from Scripture. Scriptures tend to be used without considering literary context, cultural context, linguistic gaps, literary genres and other crucial areas. A common mistake is to see Proverbs as absolute promises, something which a proper use of such Jewish wisdom literature disallows. Poetic devices are often read as direct language (e.g. metaphors or hyperboles tend to be taken literally and parallelism is mistakenly seen as equal statements).
Whether meaning is said to be in the author’s intention or in the text itself matters little when key texts are interpreted according to the reader’s desire and preference. Hence prosperity theology might lie closer to reader-response reading of the text than a historical-grammatical reading. Texts are often read through the lenses of pragmatic materialism and the desire to justify (“biblify”) the American dream. There is little self-critical reflection as to what presuppositions are influencing the prosperity reading of the texts.
Prosperity theology is often an exercise in individualistic hermeneutics where promises or prophecies are taken to apply directly and without limitations to each believer. This is expressed in popular slogans such as “the Bible is God speaking to me” and “every promise in the Book is mine” and perhaps most clearly seen in the idea that every Christian needs to be wealthy so as to give to the gospel. Instead of seeing world evangelization as a communal project for the people of God, it is taken on individual terms. Personal commitment and application of the Bible is of course an honorable Evangelical virtue as such, but blind and unexamined applications of the biblical texts can become disastrous.
Some of the key prosperity verses (e.g. Josh 1:8; Ps 1:3; 35:27; Matt 6:33; 2 Cor 8:9; Gal 3:13-14) seem to make up a canon within the canon and thus form a gird through which other texts tend to be read.
A materialistic hermeneutic often governs the reading of Scripture. What else can be said when Paul’s great soteriological teachings in Galatians where makes use of the phrase “the blessing of Abraham” are taken to speak of how the material prosperity Abraham experienced now is the right of every Christian? Or the interpretation of the heavenly inheritance in 1 Pet 1:4 as speaking of money which we can access here on earth?
The Prosperity Gospel is Philosophically Poor
Not only is prosperity theology theologically and hermeneutically poor, it is also philosophically lacking. Prosperity theology’s outlook and reflection on our existence and human experience is poor. A more nuanced handling of key concepts such success, money and suffering is called for.
“God is good” is a common saying among prosperity preachers to which the congregation gladly responds “all the time.” Since God is good, he wants us to have a good life. The “good life” is described almost exclusively in materialistic terms. The healthy, wealthy and successful person is living the life God intended. The word “good” has become an empty box in which anything can be put. “Good” for us humans tends to be lack of suffering and hardships, but is that really the good life? Paul would definitely disagree, not to mention Jesus himself.
In this regard – that faith brings a happy life free of hardships – the first Word of Faith theologian must be Job’s “comforter” Zophar who assumes that Job’s problems are rooted in himself and that God guarantees all his righteous (faith-filled?) children a life “brighter than noonday” (Job 11:17).
One current of thought influencing prosperity theology is American pragmatism with its focus on action and result. “God’s word works” and “if it puts food on the table…” are repeated phrase in Word of Faith circles used in reference to practical and direct application of faith and the Bible. Because of this, prosperity theology has little patience for theoretical, methodological and philosophical discussions.
Money is not a subject to be treated simply and naively, as the New Testament warnings make evident. Yet, money is almost exclusively seen in prosperity theology as a neutral means of exchange. However, that is not a complete view of money. What about the discussion of money as an end? As an end in itself, money has the power of influencing and forming people not to mention the power to attract trust and obedience. It is perhaps this aspect which makes money so potentially lethal, as a competitor to God, thus becoming and idol. To deal with money in the simplified fashion that prosperity theology does is dangerous. It is here the lack of philosophical thought makes prosperity theology incapable of helping people cope with the real issues of life such as suffering and lack, riches and greed, materialism and consum-ism.
Conclusion
I suggest that we need to look closer on what view of God the prosperity gospel spreads, what kind of hermeneutical method underlies it and sound the philosophical depth of the prosperity gospel. This should not be done for the sake of faultfinding but to equip us to better display the riches of Evangelical faith to those whose faith is impoverished by the prosperity gospel.