It is felicitous that L. Berger introduced a call to distinction between the “prosperity gospel” and Pentecostalism and/or the charismatic movement (see redeeming the prosperity gospel). Actually, Asamoah talked about “neo-Pentecostalism”. Maybe the reason why they have been so easily confused in the past is the fact that unlike the evangelical movement the Pentecostal and Charismatic movement seemed not to have established a very solid systematic theology tradition that grounds their faith statement, or at least have not vulgarized it enough. This is changing actually and I guess a more definite, clear and codified statement of the Pentecostal theology is being articulated, showing its distance from the “prosperity gospel”. However, if the Pentecostal movement (neo or old) should be charged of this, at least it should also be credited to have taken up the challenge of engaging boldly the pervading despair, powerlessness and oppression that is the lot of the “poor” everywhere in the world. Truly, its answers or approach might not be balanced as so well demonstrated by Amos Yong. But our evangelicals’ gospel would not be complete with a decisive tackle of the subject. I want to raise the caution that I fear I might need to be more elaborate on what I am going to talk about. However if you would bear with me, I want to take the risk to raise the issue as roughly as it has appeared to me recently and hope it can be more elaborate with discussions. I am wondering whether we should distinguish between “prosperity” rhetoric which is a manipulation of true bible promises to the satisfaction of what seem human agenda and greed, on one side and the “prosperity” message which is a genuine edifying message on God’s true promises that tie with the biblical “shalom”. I do not think our gospel will be complete without a genuine emphasis of God’s desire of “shalom” for His people: which include peace within and without, a total state of well being.  If the source and the perfection of the “shalom” is not the material ‘prosperity’; which is the greater mistake of the “prosperity” rhetoric of some, it would certainly not exclude it as being a wrong manifestation of God’s “shalom”!  I would not condemn whoever desires that to manifest in her/his life here and now. A lot of people go to school and get degrees for that! I personally have been very encouraged and motivated in certain “Pentecostal” prosperity preaching (known as such) churches which I attend in my trips around West Africa. I confess the hardest for me was at two occasions, at the end of sermons which I consider a very balanced presentation of prosperity a poor rhetoric on giving was used to announce the offering and was tied back to the sermon, exactly in the terms presented by Femi B. Adeleye and Ruth Padilla. I do not really know why, because I would have given as much I could to support a ministry that gave hope, self esteem and power of action to the poor through sound bible teaching; as is often also part of some varieties of the “prosperity gospel”. Whatever the case, in throwing out the “concept” in a bulk, we might be throwing out “the baby and water we used to bath him altogether” as they would say in my culture. But, how to properly redeem it and care as need be? Leaving the mentality of powerlessness, despair, oppression to ‘prosper’ is at least as unbearable as “prosperity gospel”. And that is not as much a problem in Africa as in South East Asia or Latin America.