Prosperity and the way: An Introduction

Prosperity and The Way: An Introduction

Prosperity and the way:
An Introduction

It has been asked why do I launch off against Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer and the like in a manner that seems of topic and does little more than tear down a brother or sister in Christ? I would suggest that either people like Joyce or Joel are not actually members of the faith. Or they are and their understanding of the core issues of the movement founded by Jesus and a handful of men and women 2,000 years ago is so limited that they have failed to grasp the core tenants of said faith. Let us not forget that Joel much like many people in his movement (the Word of Faith Movement) does not posses any kind of theological or ecumenical education. Rather he is the son of a preacher who learned via on the job training. Now I am not suggesting that all pastors or leaders need to have this level of education. However, it was considered the norm for approximately 1900 years of Christian history for pastors and priests to go to seminary. A similar and much longer tradition is found in the Jewish faith, of which Christianity is an off shoot. At best this lack of eduction is problematic when explaining issues of doctrine, faith, and theology. At worst it makes Joel and others like him unqualified to serve as an expert in these matters. (Which he sets himself up as by publishing and broadcasting the way he does)

I take further umbrage with Joel’s message, because the Jesus he is talking about is not the one of the Bible. To be fair, Joel and others speak of Jesus st length. Joel however, advocates a gospel of health, wealth and never going through anything. This teaching is in line with the overall doctrinal stance of the Word of Faith movement. In contrast the scripture suggests a gospel of discipline, self denial, death to self and suffering for the cause of Christ—this can all be summed up in the notion of discipleship. The Hebrew concept for being a disciple suggests being covered in the dust of your Rabbi. Meaning that in an age when most people traveled on foot,on dirt roads; you followed behind your teacher so closely as to be covered in the debris of whatever he kicked up. Osteen’s has little in common with Christ, the Apostles and the original message of the gospel as it was originally intended.

Word Faith doctrine teaches that when you plead the blood of Jesus, he will protect you from hurt, harm or danger. To suggest that Christ or his blood protects us in this way at all flies in the face of the biblical evidence. The Biblical account suggests that Every single one of the original twelve save one died violently. In addition to this both James the Just (the brother of Christ and author of the book of James) was murdered and Paul and Timothy both died very violent deaths. 

Early Christian teaching suggests that Peter, while fleeing from Rome to escape execution saw a vision of Christ. In this vision Christ led Peter back to Rome to be crucified. Peter, had such reverence for his lord that he elected to be crucified upside down. Saying "I am not worthy to be crucified like my lord"  In fact the only member of the original twelve to die of natural causes was John. He ended his life in old age on the island of Patmos.

"Early tradition says that John was banished to Patmos by the Roman authorities. This tradition is credible because banishment was a common punishment used during the Imperial period for a number of offenses. Among such offenses were the practices of magic and astrology. Prophecy was viewed by the Romans as belonging to the same category, whether Pagan, Jewish, or Christian. Prophecy with political implications, like that expressed by John in the book of Revelation, would have been perceived as a threat to Roman political power and order. Three of the islands in the Sporades were places where political offenders were banished." (Pliny Natural History 4.69-70; Tacitus Annals 4.30) Adela Yarbro Collins, of Yale Divinity

Early church tradition teaches us that John was exiled to Patmos, undergoing a time of persecution under the Roman rule of Domitian. Revelation 1:9 states: “I, John, both your brother and companion in tribulation... was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. Early church tradition goes on to suggest that mot only was John exiled all of his property, family and his wife were confiscated by the Roman state because the emperor fancied his wife.

Osteen is a false teacher, his preaching damns people to hell. Why? Because he doesn't preach the true Gospel, people however think he does and therefore put confidence in the false message that he preaches. People want to follow, they look for signs of leadership and a message they can trust. When you are publishing and broadcasting, many assume that you have some level of expertise in a matter. calling yourself pastor assumes a level of understanding that exceeds the people who you are teaching. Sadly this is not the case for Joel or likewise many of his Word of Faith brethren. His preaching has no mention of our sinful depravity and our need of repentance. There is no explanation of Jesus needing to die on a cross for that sin to satisfy the wrath of the Father. Neither does he deal with the early church and how they were persecuted for their faith and died many on the cross of crucifixion. Instead the Word of Faith movement opts to teach that the Blood of Jesus protects us. That if we believe hard enough sickness or calamity shall not come nigh thee. That if we give enough, believe enough, say enough confessions and "live the right way" God will heal us, bless us and protect us from everything. Joel and others like him are motivational speakers with the incorrect title of pastor. Motivational pep talks are not the same as the Gospel of Jesus. We need to call out charlatans like Osteen who twist the Bible to line their pockets and scratch itching ears.

If this is to be considered to harsh or an attack, is there no place for calling out false teachers that preach a false and damning Gospel while making a profit from it? Is there no longer a place in "Christian" life for exposing heretics and wolves in sheep's clothing? 

Since that appears to be the case I feel I should point you back to Paul and the pastoral epistles. places like Galatians and 2 Corinthians were Paul goes off on false teachers. Or the books of Timothy where the requirements for ministry are outlined. Or even Paul's treatment of John-Mark. It's seems as if today as long as someone calls themselves a Christian or a pastor everyone gives them an automatic pass without testing their teaching against the Bible.

"I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:  preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound[or healthy] teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,  and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry." -2 Tim 4: 1-5

It has has been suggested that this kind of talk is disrespectful. That posting things in short form on social media is not the method for such discourse. I for one disagree. It is necessary in a world that no longer reads and has painfully short attention span one must appropriate what both the early church fathers, and the Old Testament prophets did to spread God’s message. In the prophetic books of the Old Testament we over and over again see the prophets of God standing in the way, at the city gates talking to whomever would listen. Spreading God’s word and exposing how religious and civic leaders alike were corrupt.  The same approach I fear is necessary today. That is to say we need to grab peoples attention in whatever way we can to share the truth of who Jesus really is and was.

The issue is a lack of understanding of the man Jesus was and what kind of conditions he grew up in. Jesus, was born to a royal blood line. A descendant of the royal line of King David. In Jesus day however, Israel was broken and occupied by the Roman empire and its client kings. Jesus himself grew up in first century Nazareth a poor village in the region known as Galilee. The son of carpenter named Joseph.  Their family was amongst the poorest families you could find in first century Israel. What we do know is that the entire region was very poor. Scholars suggest that even the priests struggled. In this region Nazareth was amongst the poorest. Many scholars believe that Nazareth did not even posses a holy site of it own.  Likely no bigger than 100 families, Nazareth was so small that it does not even appear in any kind of record until the third century. Nazareth may have not even been an organized village for another two or three hundred years. Regarding Jesus and Josephs role as carpenters tell us one critical thing, that they were poor. Possibly among the poorest in the region. To be a craftsman in Israel meant to have lost your land. And to have no other means of supporting yourself. This made Jesus barely better than a day laborer. Mary conceived him out of wed lock Being an unwed mother would have branded Mary and her family as social outcasts. For a young boy born to an unwed mother in the first century life would have been hard enough. Growing up in an honor and shame culture further complicates matters. Adding the fact that more or less all of the region of Galilee had been destroyed in the generation directly proceeding Jesus by Herod the Roman client king only serves to further entrench those who were impoverished in the gutter of Roman/Israeli society. Layer on top of this the fact that carpenters, or craftsman (which is a more complete and better translation) were Jewish men who had lost their land and had no other means of supporting themselves a picture begins to emerge of a region in desperate poverty. when looking at the holy family we see a family that was poor, very poor. Doing its best to scratch out an existence in a dangerous and hostile region, living on the edge of society. Suffice it to say that Jesus was no friend of the wealthy land owners who mostly lived in Jerusalem. This point of view would be expressed early and often throughout his teaching. All of these factors led to the forming of a man, a religious leader who would become as Reza Aslan suggests, a religious insurgent…disrupting everything that Rome and the Temple were doing in the name of both God and his people.

It is actually quite telling the people that Jesus chooses to spread his message. Of course his mother Mary was a person of humble means to say the least. You also have his brother James who was from the same humble origins. John the Baptist it is said was born and lived in the wilderness, read dessert. Perter of course was also a man of less than stellar origins. The point is that Jesus, who first century religious zealot from amongst the poorest of region called Galilee. Chose to follow and to surround himself with other people who were equally poor and equally desperate. The first century was in fact full of men and movements like this. To understand Christianity, it is necessary to understand her roots. Where she comes from. To do this one must understand the nature and the life of the men and women who changed the world by founding the Christian faith. 

Dr. King, suggested that unless the church returned to her first century roots, she was in danger of becoming nothing more than a useless social club.

What roots exactly are we returning to? Are we to believe what the Word of Faith Movement and much of the charismatic arm of the church has been teaching us for the last thirty years or so? Or is there another conclusion which will draw us closer to the God of the Bible and the faith of our fathers?

It seems clear from both the scriptural and historical records that the early church lived a life that would be best described as communal. We have examples of  people selling property and giving of all they had to fund the mission of Christ. We also see the punishment unto death of those who dared mislead the people of God. We see the saints breaking bread together every night. We even see a familiarity in the letters of Paul that suggests a closeness among believers. 

Contrast that with what the average Christian is constantly bombarded with when they tune into Christian media outlets, In today’s version and Christianity, a faith powered primarily by the charismatic and word of faith movements…or at least the media we see reflects those thought patterns. We have believers that are disconnected by differences in opinion, doctrinal view points and  material possessions. 

There are a few fundamental issues at the heart of the debate over wealth and riches in the kingdom. These issues center around the rich young ruler. Mary and Martha, and the Temple Incident. There are many issues at play in this larger drama. The beginning of understanding these issues must start with understanding the background and context of both who Jesus was, and also where he came from. 

To understand who Jesus was, we must also understand where it is that he came from. There is a reason that the Pharisees said that nothing good comes from Nazareth. To understand the man we call savior and how he saw things, we must uncover the place and time in which he grew up.

With these things in mind I ask you if the message of Osteen or in fact many popular Word of Faith preachers suggests this in any way? Or is it any more useful than the messages of social up lift espoused by many secular and as such equally godless groups? Or rather are these messages filled with scriptures ripped from divergent points of the Bible and thus devoid of both their context and their meaning. I would suggest that the Word of Faith message is nowhere close to being in the same universe as the message of the Bible. And in fact that this so called message of God is in fact as useless as Dr King suggested it would be. To this end, there is an old expression in biblical interpretation and biblical scholars circles "text without context equals proof text." Proof text is heresy and has been considered such for centuries. To be precise the ripping and joining of texts from various places in the Bible while ignoring issues on context, genre and authorship to make a point or to support a particular doctrinal stance.

Having understood this, is it not than just as likely that preachers like Osteen are most probably pedaling messages designed for tickling ears. Or at the very least diluting the message to such a point that it is unrecognizable to the true believer. DA Carsons, who is the head of New Testament theology at Trinity evangelical college in Deerfield, IL suggests that the Bible and yes any period or an ancient text is built upon concentric circles of context. Starting with the Immediate surroundings of the text in question. Including but not limited to the social, cultural and linguistic context of a specific passage. This of course extends to the entire world and surrounds of the entire biblical record. This thought process is further supported by Dr R. Steven Notley, Head of the Ancient Judaism and Christian origins program at Nyack College in New York. Dr Notley Suggests in many of his writings, that God moves through culture. This view is upheld by his predecessor, David Fleuser the worlds for most expert on Second Temple Judaism from a generation ago. Therefore, to suggest one can understand the meaning of a throughly ancient scripture without understanding the context of the culture it was born out of is nothing short of folly.

Osteen, and others like him espouse messages that show little respect for any of these details. And even less for the scholarly roots of both the Jewish Rabbinical and Christian pastoral orders.

If and when you really investigate who not only Jesus was, but also who is early followers were. Who the first century church that Dr. King mentions really were.  You will find that no where in the teachings of the first three centuries of Christian faith will you find anyone suggesting that followers of Christ should seek or keep worldly wealth. Furthermore Christian gatherings did not meet in anything but borrowed spaces until after the influx of Roman money and organizational principles through emperor Constantine after the council of Nicaea in the third century. 

If one is to suggest that the rich young ruler is about anything else but money,  you are frankly missing the point. Jesus took every single opportunity to thumb his nose at the priests who ran the temple and their Roman benefactors. John the Baptist who the scripture regards as the best and holiest among men who are born of a woman rails against this as do more or less every religious teacher we are aware of from the era proceeding and following Christ. To suggest that Christ and his followers were anything other than religious subversives who zealously sought to overthrow both Rome and the ruling elite of the Temple would suggest either that person is not aware of the textual evidence from both the biblical account, but from the extra biblical sources as well. If you were to look at just the biblical record, every time we see Jesus interacting with money or wealth in any form he views it negatively. A depth of study (which we will get into in a later chapters) is required to get past our modern notions of money. But once this happens, we see that in most cases Jesus was not the sort to over Spiritualise things. Actually what he was usually on about was how the ruling elite of Israel had turned their backs on God because of Roman wealth and power. 

Point of fact the particular set of circumstances surrounding that political arrangement so closely mirrors our present situation with mega churches it strains credulity how Intelligent people do not see it. When Christ is speaking of wealth he is condemning the wealthy.  Suggesting that it is no more likely for a rich person to enter heaven than a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Leads us to the necessary conclusion that Christ was and is leading to people who chose to follow him to a life if sacrifice,  self denial and giving all one has to his community.  Lest we forget that we are in fact called to count the cost before we take up with Christ. We are in fact once again called to a life of self denial and suffering for the cause of Christ. The famous Christian writer A.W. Tozer suggests, “God can use no man greatly unless he first crushes him deeply.” This suggests that What God is in fact looking for is not someone who will be famous or wealthy for him, but rather someone who will gladly be nothing for him. 

This of course contrasts the teachings of the Word of Faith movement, which suggests that God has "full life Prosperity available to you. If you will but only activate your faith, say your confessions and give by faith. Once again Dr. King's writings prove to be light to a dark place.

“If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as a Michaelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, 'Here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.” 

Some of the most influential people in my life have been the ones who were the teachers, the janitors in my high school. The people who volunteered at the food bank or at a local church.

The problem inherent with todays Christian teachings, is that we are suggesting that if all you are is a street sweeper you have in fact missed Gods calling for you. If these teaching are to be believed, who then will be the school teachers, the pastors, church secretaries and sunday school teachers? Who then will be the common everyday people that to borrow an expression from pastor Mark Ramsey of Brisbane Australia, influence us for good and for God.

Carl Trueman Professor of Historical Theology and Church History who holds the Paul Woolley Chair of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary. suggests 

"The worship of the American Evangelical Church of the last few decades has been marked by what one might call an aesthetic of power and triumph. Praise bands perform in churches often built to look more like concert venues than traditional places of worship. Rock riffs and power chords set the musical tone. Songs speak of tearing down enemy ­strongholds. Christianity does, of course, point to triumph, but it is the triumph of resurrection, and resurrection presupposes prior suffering and death. An emphasis on triumph, often to the exclusion of lament, will not prepare people for life this side of resurrection glory" -Carl Trueman.

Mr  Trueman is correct in his assertions, Todays teachings suggest victory without defeat. They suggest new life with out death. These notions are at odds with the message of Christ.

The core issue here remains the misrepresentation of something other than the gospel as exactly that. When people like Osteen are allowed to espouse this kind of teaching all it does is to placate masses of people who in truth are desperate for the truth of salvation in Christ, but in reality are no nearer to it than before they ever looked at a Bible. As has been said, if no difference is given between believer and not, than it is an easy leap between the notion that we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and the notion that we are perfect the way we are. The problem with the word of faith theology, is that it relies heavily on concepts that are well rooted in the ideology of the post modern era and American consumerism. The notion that whatever worldview works for you is acceptable before God. Or even that God is irrelevant to the atheist or Agnostic. To put in bluntly, this is detestable and an abomination before God. The notions of post modernism, consumeristic faith and the health and wealth prosperity gospel as espoused by the Word of Faith movement are at odds with a gospel that exposes to us a sovereign God who is both loving and Jealous—vengeful and merciful. Yes God is Love, but he is also a fierce lion who is not to be trifled with. And above all of that he is the sovereign Lord of all whose word is beyond contestation. I fear that in an age where we can define who God is to us and label it as revelation or a word from God that we have forgotten that there is such a thing as absolute truth. That we have forgotten that central to this truth is The Word of God, and if God is the same yesterday, today and forevermore—or to say it in a different way eternally the same; than how can we as believers justify preachers spreading messages to thousand and millions of people that does not line up with what the people who knew not only the land, culture and language of Christ best…but who also knew the man, the town and the family that raised him best?

To bring the issues for which I have outlined above into crystal clear focus, How can a people or even just one person who calls themselves a Christian stand by and not cry out when they see heresy and wrong being perpetrated across the globe by men and women who claim to be of God—exploiting people who do not have the resource or the education to know better. All while lining their own pockets. All while building their own kingdom instead of the kingdom of a fierce and jealous God.

In the Final analysis, If someone does not in fact stand up to these pulpit pimps who are pedaling this message, even in a small way people will continue to be led astray. And the Bible suggests that if we sit by and do nothing we are as guilty as those who in fact were doing the leading

As this Journey continues we will explore issues on context, interpretation and the message Jesus, Paul, Peter and others. And what they were driving at when they changed the world 2000 years ago.