a guided tour of the global village (my little corner of the conference) here at the midsouth winter conference.
My issues with Prosperity Theology
Does God want us to be wealthy?
Does giving to God mean he will give back to me (monetarily)?
Is my faith (or lack thereof) tied to God’s blessings in my life?
Does not tithing mean God is unable to bless me?
These are weighty questions, and a blog is hardly the place to answer them thoroughly. Especially if I want people to actually read the post. So I’ll try to keep this brief.
I am not against wealthy people. I am not against wealthy pastors, even. The Levites (ministers in the Old Testament) were well paid, and got the finest things. They were, after all, paid with “first fruits” from everyone else.
What I am firmly against is the idea that if I give to God, he is obligated to give back to me; or the reverse of that—if I don’t give to God, He can’t or won’t give to me. I once heard a pastor say to his congregation “There is a 50% blessing window open over this church, because only 50% of the members tithe.” As though God is bound by our giving in how he blesses us. That sentiment totally and completely undermines the gospel. It could not be any more opposite to the gospel.
What the “prosperity gospel” teachers (such as Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, T.D. Jakes, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, Peter Popoff, Robert Tilton, Bruce Wilkinson, etc) are totally missing is that JESUS is the blessing of the gospel. Money, health, sucess, and all the other blessings of the Christian life all pale in comparison to Jesus. And I don’t get 80% of Jesus because only 80% of my church is tithing. I get all of him.
It is a thoroughly pagan idea that we need to give to God to make him give to us. It’s how all of the pagan deities were satisfied. You give them money, and they don’t punish you. It’s karma. Do good to get good. “Pay it Forward.”
Conversely, Jesus offers grace. That’s a word that has almost totally lost its meaning after years of being tossed around the sanctuary. It means unmerited, unearned blessings and gifts. Grace is the idea that you get something for nothing. In the context of God’s economy, grace means you get life when you deserve death, blessing when you deserve a curse, heaven when you deserve hell. The gospel turns karma on it’s head. You do nothing to get everything. Instead of “Pay it Forward,” Jesus Paid it All.
The gospel is not just how God operates to get you into the kingdom, though. It is his MO all the way through the Christian life. Because of Jesus, God can and does richly bless you in spite of what you do. There is nothing you can do to earn his blessing, affect his blessing, or revoke his blessing. That’s the beauty of grace. If you can’t earn it, you can’t un-earn it. Tithing doesn’t make God like you more, and not tithing doesnt make him like you (or bless you) less. To think or say that is a direct offense to God’s kindness in dying for you.
So today, on Christmas, let’s remember the ultimate gift of God. He is Jesus. He is still the highest blessing we could ever receive, and we receive Him by grace. We have more wealth in Christ than we could ever have from money.
To close, here’s my favorite song. A song that resonates so deeply in my heart. It helps me to realize that I do the exact same thing that I speak out against. Following the song is a video of Derek Webb describing the song’s meaning.
Found this over at Kelly’s Blog. What a great performance! Merry Christmas!
Two Baptists, two Methodists, and a Presbyterian go to a restaurant…
Sounds like the beginning of a bad joke, I know. But last night we went out to dinner with some of the other campus ministers at UNC Asheville. We had a good time, got to hang out with folks we don’t normally, and had one of those moments where you secretly hope somebody brings up a volatile subject like alcohol, or women in leadership, or predestination. Or maybe that was just me. It would have been fun to watch the fireworks. But alas, everyone there was far too mature, and nobody lobbed any spiritual grenades over the theological fences that divided us. It’s nice in situations like that to be on the “interdenominational” team, because it leaves others trying to figure out where you stand, which team you are on. In the grand scheme, though, it was nice to all be on the same team. What would have made the joke funnier would have been if we were walking into a bar…
Why I don’t recommend "The Shack"
I just got done reading The Shack by William Paul Young. As a heads up, I am probably going to spoil the plot for you in this review. But that it pretty well done by reading the back cover of the book, so I don’t feel too bad about it.
Any time a book is sweeping the nation and addresses spiritual issues, I feel compelled to read it, to stay on top of what the culture is producing. Frankly, that’s the only reason I even made it all the way through this book. It’s just not good, from a literary and artistic standpoint. It attempts to create a strange sort of new genre somewhere at the intersection of realistic fiction, fantasy, theological non-fiction, and philosophy. In so doing, it is completely confusing.
In trying to meet in-between genres, you lose believability and credibility in all of them.
As a work of realistic fiction, it’s laughable for it’s predictability, aggressive foreshadowing, and melodrama. The lines are forced and heavy early on in the book, trying to set the stage for the Missy’s murder. I felt brow-beaten by the onslaught of cliched sappy-ness juxtaposed with the impending doom.
As a work of fantasy, it’s unbearably cheesy (a guy goes for a walk with Jesus off the end of a dock and across a lake? Really? That’s not supposed to make me laugh?). Personifying God as an African-American woman is not a punishable offense, on the surface. Making her live up to multiple negative stereotypes of African American culture, from the “barefoot in the kitchen with flour on her face” to having her start every other sentence with “honey,” could very well be a crime, if you are looking to write a respectable novel.
As a work of theological non-fiction, it’s far too loose with the analogies, metaphors, and anthropomorphisms to be considered anything other than heretical by serious Christian theologians. In fact, the book even conjures the goddess Sophia, a key player in many pseudo-christian religious movements such as Gnosticism and various other forms of cultic mysticism. When “Papa” (the female “Father” figure of the book—which I am not going to comment on for the sake of brevity—and to avoid the hate-mail) declares her preferred name to be “Elousia,” and the “Holy Spirit” figure in the book goes by “Sarayu” both of those names have roots in Hindu scriptures. I could spend a long time nailing down all of the things I see theologically wrong with the book, but others have done that quite well. Click here for a thorough, fair, and sensitive approach by another blogger to the theological issues at hand. Some of the comments after the post become heated, but the blogger himself does a great job.
As a work of philosophy it comes the closest to believable, as it does a fair job through the characters of relating philosophical truths and concepts. But it gets too bogged down in plot and character development to really shine as a work of philosophy.
In short, please don’t read The Shack. It’s just not good. It sincerely frightens me when people say things like “The Shack will change the way you think about God forever,” as Kathie Lee Gifford says just inside the front cover. Paul’s letter to the Romans or possibly Desiring God by John Piper can change the way you think about God forever. The Shack should not do so. It’s bad “Christian Art” at best, and dangerous heresy at worst. And shame on Michael W. Smith for endorsing it on the back cover.