Brogdon Critiques of Prosperity Gospel

Critiques of the Prosperity MovementLewis Brogdon

1. Introduction:

1.1 Critiques of Prosperity Theology

While the prosperity movement in particular and the Word Faith and Charismatic

movement in general were growing in prominence everyone was not supportive of this

movement. Beginning in the late 1980’s and extending into 2007 the burgeoning movement was

increasingly subjected to scholarly critiques.1 I intend to survey a select number of major critical

arguments against the prosperity movement beginning in the 80’s and extending to contemporary

works. I will survey critiques of the prosperity movement in the scholarly community, critiques

from the fundamentalist community, critiques from the Evangelical community critiques from

the African American community, and finally critiques from the Pentecostal Charismatic

community. This cursory survey will provide an insightful and rounded understanding of the

historical and theological contours of this religious movement.2

2. Critiques from the Scholarly Community

2.1 Prosperity Teaching’s Failure to Legitimize its Claims

At the heart of the prosperity issue are the real life socio-economic conditions of people.

People in need are drawn to these churches as they seek to interpret and understand the 1 In fact these major critiques fall into three distinct periods: 1985-87, 1992-97, and 2006-07. 2 From a methodological standpoint the project will primarily be descriptive since my primary purpose is to provide a summary of arguments against the movement I am studying this movement from an historical and religious perspective. As a historian I am employing a synchronic method that takes the data of historical research and constructs an account of an aspect of this movement as it developed. As a religionist, I seek to explore the movement from a phenomenonological standpoint. Cornelius P. Tiele was one of the first phenomenonologists. Phenomenology of religion for Tiele has three components that are particularly germane for this project. First of all, theological agendas must be set aside if one is to critically study religious phenomenon. Secondly, one must to a certain extent detach oneself or bracket one’s belief in order to study a religious phenomenon for the sake of learning. Finally, from a critical analysis of religious phenomenon, one moves to classification or explanation. Both the synchronic and phenomenological component is employed. I have researched critiques and pieced together a historical account. Through the headings and sub-headings one finds a synchronous history and a critical account of the prosperity religious phenomenon. James E. Bradley and Richard A. Muller, Church History: An Introduction to Research, Reference Works, and Methods (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1995), 31. Ivan Strenski, Thinking About Religion: An Historical Introduction to Theories of Religion (Great Britain: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 169-73.


implications of faith for their particular economic context. But therein lies the problem. People

are drawn to these churches but their needs are not always met. The Heresy of Prosperity

Teaching: A Message for the Church in its Approach to Need is one of the more negative

treatments of the movement. In the article David T. Williams deals with what he refers to as “the

casualties of the faith message.”3 In other words, receiving prosperity by faith in God’s word

does not always work. This failure occurs in two ways: one does not receive the money claimed

by faith and secondly monies (blessings) that are not received in spite of large investments made

in prosperity churches and ministries. As a result, Williams explained, some non-prosperity

preaching churches are left to pick up the pieces when the promised results fail while others lose

their faith when it fails to produce. Prosperity teachers do not provide an adequate response for

these failures and so conclude that a particular Christian did not prosper must have been a lack of

faith instead of a faulty doctrinal system.

Williams furthers his critique by explaining what may appear to be a problem with his

reasoning. How does one explain the successes or the prosperity received by the advocates of the

message? In other words, does the fact that the teaching works for some and not others discredit

it as a viable theological system? He provides an engaging assessment concerning the pragmatic

issue. He asserts that teachers prosper because they share in the prosperity of the organization or

ministry in which they oversee. For example, he argues, prosperity churches can operate a large

scale ministry because it employs the mandatory tithing principle as the key to prosperity. As a

result larger amounts of money are received and the ministry is able to grow through the

generosity of the faithful. The implication is clear. Leaders in large organizations and ministries

prosper through the voluntary giving of its members while those giving do not have the same

3 David T. Williams, “The Heresy of Prosperity Teaching,” Journal of South African Theology (Dec 1987): 33.


reliable base of support. If this is true then “what works” in this system is to encourage people to

support their organizational success and not necessarily that God supernaturally prospers faithful

givers. It would appear that the only ones prospering are the churches and ministries themselves.

Having dealt with the pragmatic issue, Williams now turns his attention to the theological

issue. Prosperity teaching “can be condemned for a defective view of faith and consequently a

defective view of God.”4 What is meant by a defective view of faith is that through positive

confession and agreement, God is forced to act, a belief that many scholars believe resembles

pagan magic. Such belief undermines the sovereignty and freedom of God to act in any way even

if it is contrary to the desires of humans. Williams boldly asserts that the heretical nature of

prosperity teaching lies in its insistence on limiting God and communicating teachings that are

inconsistent with the nature of God.

In his concluding assessment though he views prosperity teaching as heretical he keenly

alerts the church about the nature of heresy and the opportunity heresy presents the church. “The

result of heresy is twofold. Firstly it is very naturally an overreaction to the problem, just as the

pendulum will swing to the opposite extreme, but secondly the final result, although this may

still be disputed, is a balance in doctrine, just as the pendulum will find its mean.”5 The

pendulum effect of radical prosperity teaching may be a reaction of a position in the church in

need of modification. Williams contends that there is room in the Christian tradition for a

theology of material benefit. As we conclude our analysis of his comments it is clear that the

indication is that in the absence of a viable theology of wealth prosperity teaching flourished

leaving in its wake disappointed Christians who did not prosper but an opportunity for the church

to develop a theology that speaks to these considerations.

4 Williams, “The Heresy of Prosperity Teaching,” 35.5 Williams, “The Heresy of Prosperity Teaching,” 37.


2.2 Prosperity Teaching’s Connection to Norman V. Peale

One of the most consistent critiques leveled against the movement is its origins in New

Thought metaphysics and Christian Science. One such example of this critique is found in an

insightful essay that links prosperity teaching to positive thinking. In the essay Prosperity

Teaching and Positive Thinking David T. Williams explores the problematic connection and its

resultant theological implications.6 For Williams, the movement’s connection to the positive

thinking of Norman Vincent Peale is a serious theological flaw.7 When the prosperity movement

first came to South Africa it was done so by Pentecostal and Charismatic groups. Instead of the

traditional emphasis on the Holy Spirit the increasing emphasis on material prosperity, for

Williams, is not an extension of Pentecostal thought but actually an ideology outside the

parameters of Christianity, ideas known as positive thinking. In the article he characterizes

prosperity teaching accordingly: material prosperity is the right of the Christian, positive

confession of one’s faith, a fundamentalist usage of the Bible where texts are extracted from

context, belief in faith that acts on what one expects and not circumstances, other techniques like

seed faith, the dominance of the substitutionary atonement view of salvation, and health.8

Norman Peale believed that material success is right and realized through a positive

attitude. He used the scriptures as an asset in conditioning the mind to receive as well as faith in

God’s power that is frequently expressed in one’s mind. For Peale if one’s thinking is positive

then it naturally progresses to the importance of positive confession. As a result Peale asserted

“if you expect the best you get the best and big thoughts get big results,” edicts that sound very

6 David T. Williams, “Prosperity Teaching and Positive Thinking” Evangelical Review of Theology 11.4 (October 1987): 197-208.7 The fundamental tenets of prosperity theology as presented by Williams are: material prosperity, positive confession, faith, the power of agreement in faith, and health. He also mentioned that these churches use the Bible in a fundamentalist manner where texts are extracted from context to justify a contemporary and new interpretation. David Williams provided these particular beliefs in order to substantiate the connection to Norman Peale and positive thinking. 8 David T. Williams, “Prosperity Teaching and Positive Thinking” 197-99.


familiar to those in prosperity churches.9 In addition, negative thoughts should be avoided.

These beliefs are very similar to core Word Faith principles employed to expound the prosperity

message particularly the belief in the power of creative faith filled words and the renewed mind

that thinks like God. In the concluding discussion Williams was careful not to over emphasize

the connection with Peale. He also illustrates how core Pentecostal Charismatic beliefs are

combined with Peale’s positive thinking which possibly resulted in these hybrid theological

beliefs.10

3. Critiques from Fundamentalist Community

3.1 Prosperity Teaching’s Faulty Understanding of New Testament Christianity

Harold Wilmington penned a stinging critique against the prosperity movement in the

Fundamentalist Journal. In the article Prosperity Theology: A Slot Machine Religion Wilmington

stated by “viewing the Bible through the eyes of a playboy philosopher, prosperity theology is

self-seeking and self-centered to its very core.”11 The reference to a “playboy philosopher” is just

a pejorative accusation that is not apart of this article but the self-seeking criticism was

marginally qualified. Contributing causes to the rise of the movement are summarized as

poverty backlash, sheer greed, and biblical ignorance. In times past churches abused the poverty

principle and rarely gave ministers a sufficient amount of money to maintain a modest living. As

a result, Wilmington thinks prosperity teachers are going to the opposite extreme by insisting on

wealth. This overly compensatory impetus has led to the growth of this movement. Wilmington

did not make any mention of the possible connection between the poverty backlash and the

almost ascetic-like tendencies and simple Puritan-like values of many early Pentecostals and

9 David T. Williams, “Prosperity Teaching and Positive Thinking” 201.10 This is an important distinction because A. A. Allen taught what could appear to be positive thinking before the Word Faith movement in books like Send Now Prosperity (Miracle Valley AZ: A. A. Allen Revivals, Inc., 1968).11 Harold Wilmington, “Prosperity Theology: A Slot Machine Religion” Fundamentalist Journal 6.10 (1987): 15.


Protestants alike. He also fails to mention or discuss whether or not those values no longer

adequately addressed the existential concerns of contemporary Pentecostals.

In this staunch rejection of all forms of prosperity teaching, he criticizes the fundamental

philosophical tenets of the theology and then corrects the biblical verses used to under-gird this

theological system. First of all, in regard to the philosophical foundation, he mentions three

troubling beliefs. He begins with the belief in universal and immutable laws that govern all

aspects of life even health and wealth. Then Wilmington criticizes the positive confession

teaching and finally he challenges the Word Faith belief that faith-filled believers are little gods

that in essence can create their little worlds characterized by health, wealth, and happiness. In the

article he does not clarify why he rejects these philosophical tenets but my suspicion is that these

beliefs are inconsistent with scripture. In fact these philosophical tenets seem to determine how

scripture is read. Philosophical tenets by nature come from the broader culture and not

necessarily the text or tradition itself. They almost functionally determine how to approach

religious issues. Lastly, he attacks the “supposed proofs” of prosperity teaching. He addresses

biblical verses commonly employed and challenged their faulty understanding and use of these

verses. Verses like Joshua 1:8; Mark 10:29-20; Luke 6:38; and 3 John 2. These verses, according

to Wilmington’s understanding do not in the least manner support any form of prosperity

teaching. He then employs verses from scripture that refute prosperity teaching as further proof

of their lack of understanding (Matthew 16:24; Luke 9:58, 12:15; Philippians 4:11-13; 1 Timothy

6:10; 2 Corinthians 12:7-10; Hebrews 11:25; and 2 Timothy 3:12). Wilmington basically

counters bad proof texting good proof texting.

In his final assessment of the movement he deals with the harm it has on the Christian

witness as a whole and with the harm the movement does to people. The prosperity movement


reduces the “Christian faith to a slot machine religion” because it encourages Christians to

gamble dimes in hopes of hitting the jackpot and it also makes them-centered.12 Both charges

reflect poorly on what Christianity is fundamentally about. On a personal note, Wilmington

believes that it condemns and unfairly judges godly believers who struggle with financial or

health issues. Again when the teachings are carefully followed with no result the effect is

devastating. When this happens believers feel condemned or rejected by God because they are

not prospering and they are often rejected or viewed suspiciously for not prospering.

3.2 Prosperity Teaching as a Bankrupt Theological System

David Jones provides a critique of prosperity teaching in the 1998 issue of Faith and

Mission. Jones, who was a Master of Divinity student at the time of writing, represents a

Southern Baptist critique of the movement that fundamentally holds to the belief that there is

basically only one correct interpretation of scripture, namely theirs. Obviously, Jones and many

Southern Baptists completely reject the theological validity of the claims made by prosperity

teaching.

In The Bankruptcy of the Prosperity Gospel: An Exercise in Biblical and Theological

Ethics Jones provides four reasons why the movement’s teaching are incorrect. A faulty

understanding of the Abrahamic covenant, the Atonement, giving, and faith are the strongest

proofs for the movement’s error, errors which emanate from faulty theology and biblical

interpretation.13 In regard to their faulty understanding of the Abrahamic covenant, Jones claims

that the prosperity teachers wrongly apply the blessings of the covenant in material instead of

spiritual terms. Secondly, it is commonly believed by prosperity teaching that sin, sickness,

12 The reference to gambling dimes is connected to the mandatory tithing principle that is commonly invoked. It is commonly taught that one cannot prosper without first paying tithes. 13 David W Jones, “The Bankruptcy of the Prosperity Gospel: An Exercise in Biblical and Theological Ethics,” Faith and Mission (Fall 1998): 79-87.


poverty, and death were once and for all overcome by Jesus on the cross. Jones, views this belief

as the “second cracked pillar” of the movement. Because they misunderstood that Jesus was not

rich during his earthly ministry and their warped view of 2 Corinthians 8:9 leads to a wrong view

of the atonement. Jones mentions, “one of the most striking characteristics of the prosperity

theologians is their seeming fixation with the act of giving.”14 His problem is that not only is

giving overemphasized; the motivation for giving is receiving- in essence giving to get. Jones

concludes by challenging the belief in faith as universal force by which believers attain the

blessings of God. Whereas he argues that faith is “trust in the person of Jesus Christ, the truth of

his teaching, and the redemptive work He accomplished on Calvary.”15 In the concluding section

of the essay, Jones analyzes the misuse of 3 John 2 in prosperity teaching. He claims “those who

use 3 John 2 to support the prosperity gospel are committing two crucial errors, the first

contextual and the second grammatical.” Jones maintains it was not John’s intention to articulate

a doctrine of prosperity through this verse and the Greek word for prosperous is incorrectly

understood to mean financial when in all actuality it implies having a good journey. As a result

both on the theological and biblical front Jones believes the prosperity movement has been

weighed in the balances and been found wanting. While others mention the movement’s

implications for those who subscribe to its teaching, Jones’ critique is primarily based on biblical

interpretation.16

14 David W Jones, “The Bankruptcy of the Prosperity Gospel: An Exercise in Biblical and Theological Ethics,” 82.15 David W Jones, “The Bankruptcy of the Prosperity Gospel: An Exercise in Biblical and Theological Ethics,” 82.16 For him, the movement’s greatest problem is mis-interpreting biblical texts. On a deeper level this reveals one of the fundamental weaknesses of conservative traditions and their approach to scripture. An appeal to scripture does not satisfy conflicting interpretations of the Bible or solve theological problems. A century ago that lesson was made apparent by the countless number of churches divided over the issue of slavery and the Bible in American society. Both sides appealed to scripture. The same seems to be true for these critiques of the prosperity movement. Fundamentalists correct mis-interpretation by reinterpreting the same texts. They also identify cultural influences that significantly affect how scripture is read but they do not readily admit such influence in their approach to biblical interpretation. So in the end, it makes the critique one-sided.


4. Critiques from the Evangelical Community

4.1 The Interpretation and Authority of Scripture in Prosperity Teaching

One of the earliest critical works is written by Ken Sarles in a prominent biblical studies

journal Bibliotheca Sacra. Sarles takes issue with the theology of the movement on several fronts

but I will focus on his criticisms of the hermeneutics of prosperity. I will mention three areas of

concern shared. In the article A Theological Evaluation of the Prosperity Gospel Sarles criticizes

the flawed hermeneutics because of it’s over reliance on inerrancy and flat literalism, the almost

equal authority with scripture that prosperity teachers claim, and the practice of proof texting to

support its beliefs.17

For Sarles, the fact that biblical inerrancy is not challenged leads to troubling

hermeneutical tendencies among Word Faith teachers. As a result Word Faith teachers accept

every part of scripture as equally inspired without making any distinction in regard to genre,

authorial intent, and context. Scripture is read and interpreted in a flat and uncritical manner.

Word Faith teaching is flawed because the hermeneutical principles employed to support its

beliefs are flawed. He stated,

Prosperity hermeneutics also leaves much to be desired. The method of interpreting the biblical text is highly subjective and arbitrary. Bible verses are quoted in abundance without attention to grammatical indicators, semantic nuances, or literary and historical context. The result is a set of ideas and principles based on distortion of textual meaning.18

The interpretive flaw is most evident by the beginning point for prosperity teachers. Prosperity

teachers, according to Sarles, begin the hermeneutical process with their American middle class

experience. That experience or ideal is equated with the divine agenda and will. Then they

proceed to “baptize that experience with a handful of Bible verses that seem to substantiate what

17 Ken Sarles, “A Theological Evaluation of the Prosperity Gospel,” Bibliotheca Sacra (Oct/Dec 1986): 329-352.18 Ken Sarles, “A Theological Evaluation of the Prosperity Gospel,” 337.


is claimed.” His line of reasoning leads one to believe that prosperity teaching is not rooted in the

teachings of scripture but scripture is used to justify a lifestyle that is desired and imported on the

text.19

4.2 Paganistic Views of God and Religious Life in Prosperity Teaching

Another staunchly negative critique of the movement is given by evangelical pastor and

theologian John MacArthur in his book Charismatic Chaos.” He charges that the movement is

partly a false religion because it creates a god “whose function is to deliver some sort of cargo…

Word Faith theology has turned Christianity into a system no different from the lowest human

religions- a form of voodoo where God can be coerced, cajoled, manipulated, controlled, and

exploited for the Christian’s own ends”20 He mentions book titles of popular Word Faith works

written by advocates as proof. Titles like How To Write Your Own Ticket With God, Godliness

Is Profitable, and God’s Formula For Success prove their materialistic theological base.21 In fact

Charismatic Chaos charges that this movement shares the following cultic tendencies: distorted

Christology, exalted view of humans, theology based on human works, belief that new revelation

from within the group is unlocking secrets that have been hidden, extra biblical human writings

19 Sarles’ comment raises a host of critical questions about biblical interpretation especially the intersection between engaging the text and the influence of culture. Postmodernism has in one sense done the church a service by pointing out how our reading of texts cannot be separated from the influence of cultural location. There has, however, been considerable debate about postmodernism and biblical interpretation. Some traditionalists still hold to the modernist notion that texts can be read “objectively” to the extent that one is minimally influenced by cultural location. Such a notion on the other hand, is not generally accepted by most scholars. Cultural location and social conditioning are significant factors that influence how scripture is read and interpreted. The question that is still debated is the extent of influence and can one move beyond culture to a broader interpretive posture. I would by no means agree that they always determine the conclusions reached. One can concede the influence the influence of culture but cannot to the extent that it pre-determines interpretive conclusions otherwise there is no viable basis to critique the American prosperity teachers. An important first step in biblical interpretation is to identify aspects of culture that are redeeming from those that are not. On this front one can criticize the prosperity movement’s sanction for American cultural values. But one cannot criticize them for being influenced by culture to varying degrees because everyone is so influenced. 20 John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 323.21 Ken Hagin, How To Write Your Own Ticket with God (Tulsa: Faith Library, 1979). Ken Hagin, Godliness is Profitable (Tulsa: Faith Library, 1982). Oral Roberts, God’s Formula for Success and Prosperity (Tulsa: Healing Waters, 1955).


that are deemed inspired and authoritative, and they shun any criticism or teaching that is

contrary to the movement.22

MacArthur fundamentally rejects prosperity because of the theological implications it

carries for theology, Christology, and the Christian life. Prosperity theology is founded upon the

wrong God, the wrong Jesus, and the wrong faith. Some of the teachings highlighted in this

discussion are: the teaching that God is bound by spiritual laws, the teaching that God is not able

to work until believers release him to do so, the teaching that Jesus was only a divinely

empowered man, the teaching that Jesus spent time in hell paying the price for our redemption to

the extent that satan dragged Jesus into hell, the teaching that faith is an immutable law that

works regardless of who uses it; and the teaching of positive confession. For these reasons John

MacArthur views prosperity theology as completely hostile and opposed to Christian orthodoxy.

As a result, in the epilogue MacArthur encourages evangelicals to confront this teaching and call

Charismatics to reexamine what they believe.

4.3 Hermeneutical Controls and Divine Revelation in Prosperity Teaching

Andrew Perriman provides a balanced historical, sociological, and theological account of

the word of faith movement. The strengths of Faith, Health, and Prosperity are that Perriman

focuses on the issues, both weaknesses and strengths, instead of producing the standard

polemical and uncritical assessments of Word of Faith teaching.23 Faith, Health, and Prosperity

is written to facilitate dialogue between evangelicals and Charismatics, and therefore written to

facilitate dialogue and not to categorize word of faith or Charismatics as heretics or unorthodox

Christians.

22 John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, 268.23 Andrew Perriman, Faith, Health, and Prosperity. (Great Britain: Paternoster Press, 2003).


In the discussion about the origins of Word of Faith movement, Perriman traces the

different streams of the WF movement to classical Pentecostalism, to the American social

milieu, and 19th century metaphysical cults, especially the teachings of E. W. Kenyon. In fact, he

asserts that it is New Thought that introduced the ideology of success into the mainstream

consciousness of America.

Faith, Health, and Prosperity provides a discussion of the interpretive issues related to

WF teaching, and scripture’s teaching on poverty and wealth in the Old Testament, the gospels,

and the New Testament church. More specifically in a chapter entitled Problems of

Interpretation and Theology Perriman outlines three broad problems with the theological and

interpretive approaches employed by the prosperity teachers. These problems are persistent flaws

in the movement’s hermeneutic is due to the largely undeclared set of presuppositions and rules

that govern interpretation; intellectual pre-commitments and interpretive controls pre-determine

the way scripture is read and guarantees the interpretive outcome for many advocates of

prosperity; the belief in revelation knowledge.24 In regard to the first two problems, his most

convincing indictment is that the prosperity doctrine operated as the interpretive control. As a

result of this a number of other problems arise. Prosperity teachers rely on a small number of

texts to support their teaching, the historical context is ignored, scripture is viewed contractually

and some interpretations rely on misleading or poor translations. Prosperity teachers’ pension

for resorting to the claim that their interpretations of scripture come from direct revelation

knowledge is a monumental hermeneutical problem. Perriman notes that prosperity teachers

make this claim when their views tend to conflict with traditional Christian teaching. Two even

more unfortunate implications result. When prosperity teachers rely on divine revelation they

view themselves and their teaching as somehow being above criticism. Beliefs and attitudes of

24 Andrew Perriman, Faith, Health, and Prosperity, 81.


superiority are common among preachers who do not have time to entertain the critiques of those

who have not received revelatory insight. It also tends to denigrate the use of reason in the

interpretive process. Why use or rely on human logic when God does the thinking for the

believers. Perriman’s insights are particularly useful because his intention was to provide

concrete suggestions that would facilitate dialogue.25

5. Critiques from the African American Community

5.1 The Prosperity Movement as a Threat to the Black Church

The debate in the Black church regarding prosperity teaching and its effects in the

African American community has been contentious. In a recent edition of the African American

pulpit that discusses trends in the Black church, Martha Simmons mentioned the growth of the

prosperity movement. This trend receives a rather brief and negative assessment. She describes

the movement as focusing heavily on money and success and less on social justice and crisis

issues. In another popular work Blow the Trumpet in Zion Jeremiah Wright, prominent pastor of

Trinity United Church of Christ, levels a disparaging charge against the movement’s teachers

calling them “prosperity pimps.”26 This strong charge results from the firm belief that this

movement represents a betrayal of sorts, of the core or organizing principles of the black

religious experience. Wright levels three critiques on the movement in the Black church.

Prosperity teaching operates as if it lives in a cultural vacuum and it preaches capitalism as being

synonymous with Christianity. These aforementioned critiques lead to the final critique. 25 Perriman’s discussion leaves room for Renewal considerations in regard to the interpretation of scripture. Three questions worth exploring are: 1. has prosperity hermeneutics been unjust criticized for its hermeneutical methodologies when other voices and traditions in the church have already begun interpreting scripture to speak to the existential realities of the marginalized? Many critiques come from voices in the tradition that do not allow for multiple interpretive meanings i.e. Evangelical and Fundamentialist. But such beliefs have long been called into question in the global Christian context; 2. Is prosperity hermeneutics another form of contextual theology and interpretation that is a prominent part of theological discourse today; and 3. from a New Testament perspective (esp. Lukan and Pauline texts), can a hermeneutic of prosperity be developed and sustained? In other words, is prosperity theology biblical?26 Jeremiah Wright “The Continuing Legacy of Samuel Dewitt Proctor” in Blow the Trumpet in Zion. Eds Iva Carruthers, Frederick D. Haynes III., and Jeremiah Wright. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 8.


Because prosperity advocates ignore its connection to a capitalistic society, it neglects how

capitalism in America was built by slave labor and continues to thrive by oppressing the two

thirds world. For Wright, the movement’s failure to unpack the significance of slavery by black

prosperity preachers is deplorable. How can black preachers forget how their ancestors were

enslaved to build an unjust economic system? How can they be content to “prosper” themselves

in a system designed to exploit the weak, many of which are their sisters and brothers? Faithful

preaching cannot be “cut off from the culture that produced it and the culture that produced us.”

As a result instead of following the prosperity teachers accomodationist tendencies, those who

really want to honor their heritage must make the critical distinction between philosophies and

practices in culture that need correction (capitalism) from those that are worthy of acceptance

(African culture).

Robert Franklin, one of the foremost ethicist in the country, made an alarming charge

when he said that the prosperity movement is “the single greatest threat to the historical legacy

and core values of the contemporary Black church tradition.”27 This alarming statement rests on

Franklin’s belief that this movement poses significant dangers for the future of the Black

church.28 First the movement’s teachers tend to focus on institutional well-being at the expense

of serving the vulnerable. Secondly, prosperity teachers deliberately suppress, ignore and/or

delete language about radical sacrifice for the sake of the kingdom. Thirdly, the bishops and

pastors of prosperity operate as spiritual entrepreneurs who know how to produce, package,

market and distribute user-friendly spirituality for the masses. Finally and also somewhat

connected to the aforementioned critique, the teachers rarely make stringent ethical demands 27 Robert Franklin, Crisis in the Village: Restoring Hope in African American Communities (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 112.28 Franklin argues that the prosperity emphasis represents a shift of commitments away from love, service, and justice and resultantly poses not only a new threat for black clergy for a broader crisis of mission in the black church. It is in the context of this crisis of mission that Franklins offers such a strong rejection of black prosperity churches.


because their primary concern is to market and distribute products. With leaders of the African

American community on both sides of this issue it is necessary to identify the issues at stake.

The prosperity movement is a betrayal of the core principles of the Black religious

experience on several fronts. It subverts the principle of liberation and justice by its failure to

address systemic and structural inequality. It prioritizes individual attainment over communal

and social responsibility. Ironically this movement can only thrive in the presence of social

amnesia. For example, some black prosperity preachers believe that blacks are somehow already

in the Promised Land does not resonate with the social realities of most black Americans.29

On a more fundamental level the movement fails to deal with structural inequalities and

social issues, it fail to connect prosperity with pressing social concerns of our community and

rarely understood in terms providing an agenda for social change or advancement but a tool for

individual betterment. For example Brad Braxton mentioned,

In the messages I’ve heard the focus tends to be on the individual and I have not heard many of his messages that are addressing some of the systemic issues…but I’m also going to ask when are we going to hear sermons by Jakes that call into question the whole prison culture of how corporate America is getting fat on building prisons at an alarmingly faster rate than white boys? When do you hear those kinds of messages?”30

In the black religious context there are two issues at stake, both of which feed into the other, the

theological and the social. The debate over the movement is so contentious because so much is at

stake both theologically and as well as socially. It is no wonder that the seminal works on this

movement in the black community are all sociological.

5.2 A Former Insider Analyzes the Word Faith Movement in the Black Community

29 In a meeting with civil rights veterans Bishop Eddie Long stated that blacks must forget about racism because they had already reached the Promised Land. John Blake, “Not all at seminary welcome bishop, graduation invites provokes protests,” Atlanta Journal Constitution, May 11, 2006, A1. Fred Price told members of his mega-church Crenshaw Christian Center not “to blame the white folks and do not blame the blacks in the ghetto. They are not your problem…I am thrilled to find out that nobody can mess me up. I like that. Thank God I am the one who decides.” Fred Price, Name It and Claim It: The Power of Positive Confession (Los Angeles: Faith One, 1992), 59. 30 Shayne Lee, T. D. Jakes: America’s New Preacher, (New York: New York University Press, 2005), 114-15.


Righteous Riches is another sociological account of the Word of Faith movement but its

focus is the movement in the African American religious context.31 Milmon F. Harrison makes

an important contribution by situating the Word Faith movement historically as a product of

Charismatic movement, socially as phenomenon unique in the American religious milieu, and

concludes with a keen analysis of the prosperity movement and assesses recent changes in the

Black church. Harrison studies an African American Word Faith church through interviews with

members and also offers reflections of his experience as a member of Faith Christian Center.

Righteous Riches provides an insider’s perspective of an African American Word Faith church as

a template for examining the larger phenomenon of not only Word Faith movement but

especially the prosperity movement.

Harrison contends that the Word Faith movement and its prosperity emphasis is not new

but actually stands in line with antecedent movements in the black religious community. Earlier

movements in the black religious community have always had to address the spiritual and

material aspects of life. For example, Johnnie Coleman and Rev. Ike introduced New Thought

metaphysics into the African American religious context in the 1950’s and 60’s. Johnnie

Coleman founded the Christ Unity Temple in Chicago and the Johnnie Coleman Institute and

Universal Foundation for Better Living. Frederick Eikerenkoetter popularly known as Rev. Ike

taught that one can live a better life through positive thinking and that poverty is the root of all

evil.

On the other hand, there are other black churches that do not preach neither metaphysical

prosperity nor Word Faith prosperity but proclaim a gospel of economic development. Churches

like Allen Temple AME Church in New York are examples of churches promoting the gospel of

31 Milmon F. Harrison, Righteous Riches: The Word Faith Movement in Contemporary African American Religion. (New York: Oxford Press, 2005).


economic development. These churches serve as the economic and developmental hub of their

respective communities. Thus in the wake of the depressing state of Black America, these

churches have provided economic empowerment through personal responsibility and faith in the

God who prospers the faithful. These churches located in inner city communities with large

African American populations are concerned with not only saving souls but providing jobs,

addressing societal ills, and creating wealth for its members.32 This was an important discussion

because Harrison argues that the spiritual and material, faith and money; are intricate parts of the

African American religious milieu. So the issue is not the proclamation of a gospel with strong

economic component to it because such movements are vital parts of the black religious

experience, but the implications of this particular movement in the black context. He concludes

with some important assessments. First of all, he believes that the prosperity or faith message

resonates with people who aspire to be successful. Secondly, this movement is a type of poor

people’s movement. Thirdly, it is based on the belief that America is a meritocracy. Finally, it

does not reform or seek to overthrow an unjust economic system as long as they can prosper

within it. Though Harrison’s work is primarily sociological, his analysis highlights some of the

weaknesses of this movement in the black religious context. Other voices have addressed the

heavy emphasis on success and the failure to address systemic injustice.

6. Critiques from the Pentecostal Charismatic Community

6.1 Charismatic Fear about Word Faith Movement and Prosperity Teaching

D. R. McDonnell offers a strong critique of the Word Faith movement in this work.33 In

fact his guiding belief is that the Word Faith movement is heretical and a serious threat to both

Christian orthodoxy and the burgeoning Charismatic movement. In the introduction McConnell

32 Milmon F. Harrison, Righteous Riches, 138.33 D. R. McDonnell, A Different Gospel. Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995.


places the Charismatic movement at a crossroads because of its close allegiance to the Word

Faith movement. He insists that this movement should not be viewed as an extension of

Pentecostalism or the Charismatic movement.

Traditionally Kenneth Hagin has been regarded as the founder of the Word Faith

movement. Prominent leaders such as Kenneth Copeland, Fred Price, Charles Capps, and John

Osteen have all view Hagin to varying degrees as instrumental in the development and growth of

Word Faith teaching. In Different Gospel McConnell contends that E. W. Kenyon, not Hagin is

founder of the Word Faith movement. The most important aspect of this text is his

documentation of the plagiarism of Kenyon by Hagin. Hagin meticulously copied large portions

of Kenyon’s thought without giving credit to Kenyon. McConnell views this as not only

problematic but also an indication that the origin of Word Faith teaching is metaphysical cultic

teachings and not the revelation knowledge often claimed by Hagin. Kenyon’s roots, according

to McConnell, are not Pentecostalism but actually the metaphysical religious beliefs of 19th

century luminaries like Mary Baker Eddy and Charles Emerson. This unchristian link should

prove the true origins as Word Faith teaching.

In this highly controversial text, McDonnell provides an insightful summary of prosperity

teaching. He contends that there are two types of prosperity teaching: the egocentric type that

advocates giving to the preacher as the key to prosperity and the cosmic type that centers on

universal principles or faith formulas that release prosperity. He also asserts that the doctrine of

prosperity has only two influences: the cultic meta-physical influence and the cultural influence

which he views as the church’s accommodation to the worldly values of America. Furthermore,

he offers what he terms “a biblical analysis of the doctrine of prosperity.” Some of the issues he

raised in this important section relate to need. McDonnell asks, how much does one need,


because he believes faith teachers misconstrue need. Another issue raised was the prosperity of

Paul. Paul appears to be a counter example of the king’s kid rule prominent in Word of Faith and

prosperity circles. In the Philippian letter Paul admitted to having experienced both abundance

and lack. There was absolutely no indication from Paul that his experience of lack was somehow

problematic for his faith. On the other hand, McDonnell sees a parallel between the king’s kid

rule and the immature attitude of the Corinthians that Paul vigorously sought to correct.

Moreover, the central issue for McDonnell is the implications of the cross as it relates to

the Word of Faith movement in general and prosperity teaching in particular. I will focus on the

latter issue. He argues, “at stake is nothing less than the meaning of the central event of

Christianity: the cross and resurrection of Jesus.”34 This strong claim is made because prosperity

teaching apparently contradicts the cross on multiple levels. It subverts the demand of the cross

for self-denial, it reduces God to a means to an end, and it is focused on the things of the world

as a sign of God’s approval. On a fundamental level this contradicts the central event and its

meaning as related to faithful living. Beyond the cross, prosperity teaching is deficient because

of its understanding of the teachings of scripture about the poor. In fact, McDonnell believes

they construct a theology that not only rationalizes the disparity between rich and poor, but also

that it degrades and insults the poor by claiming that they dishonor God. In addition scripture’s

warning to the rich is either ignored or greatly minimized. In summary, he emphasizes three key

critiques in his biblical analysis. The notion of prosperity is not consistent with key teachings in

scripture, it completely challenges the traditional theology of the cross, and it disregards the

Bible’s teachings about the poor.

6.2 Prosperity Teaching and its Faulty Hermeneutical Base

34 D. R. McDonnell, A Different Gospel, 178.


Gordon Fee, a prominent Pentecostal biblical scholar, provides essays of the two pillars

of the word of faith movement: the gospel of prosperity and the gospel of perfect health. Fee

states that the prosperity gospel is more a product of American society than the teachings of

scripture.35 Fee believes prosperity theology is sub-Christian. In the article he asserts that the

basic problem of this brand of teaching is their interpretation of scripture. He lists four larger

problems and provided critiques. Firstly, the belief that God wills for the financial prosperity of

all believers’ control or guides how scripture is read. Secondly, prosperity teachers read

scripture in a purely subjective and arbitrary way. Fee argues that prosperity teaching is nowhere

taught in the New Testament. It is based on randomly selecting texts while ignoring hundreds of

texts that oppose this view. Thirdly, Fee asserts that the prosperity gospel is not biblical in that it

has a truncated view of scripture’s theology of wealth and possessions. Lastly, it is based on

hermeneutical selectivity. The critique of hermeneutical selectivity consists of various parts.

Firstly it is based on the belief that there is direct one to one correlation between good and evil.

In other words, it is largely based on a strong belief in divine retribution: where God

immediately blesses obedience and punished disobedience. Secondly, it fails to account for the

fact that God, to a certain extent, allows the blessings of creation to be enjoyed by the just and

unjust (see Matthew 5). Prosperity teaching and its selective use of texts fails to account for the

ways creation has been permeated and affected by the fall.

For Fee, scripture views “wealth and possessions as having zero value” instead of the

belief that they are indicators of divine favor. He argues that in the New Testament wealth has a

double danger, possessions are to be sold to the poor, life does not consist in having a surplus of

possessions, and the poor should be content with food and clothing. These claims challenge the

35 Gordon Fee, The Disease of the Health and Wealth Gospels. (Beverly MA: Frontline Publishing, 1985).


foundation of prosperity teaching and prove the selective extent of texts use to base their system

upon. These critiques are situated in a much larger problem with this movement’s inability to

understand the importance of suffering and weakness and its failure to address the eschatological

tension latent in the writings of the New Testament.

7. Conclusion

Scholars and leaders from various Christian traditions have offered critiques against the

prosperity movement for its historical and theological inconsistencies and errors. I have

attempted to distill what I have found to be the major theological issues consistently alluded to

by these leading Christian thinkers. Delineating these issues allows Renewal historians and

theologians to develop a critical understanding of this movement. In an earlier essay David

Williams mentioned how even heresy compels the church to clarify and articulate a more

orthodox position on a theological issue. He viewed the prosperity movement as another

heretical-type of movement that compels the church to develop, clarify, and articulate a theology

of prosperity for the church. This essay may be one important step toward developing such a

theology. I have provided a template that delineates the issues at stake, highlighted the

theological fault lines in the popular movement’s theology, and briefly suggested areas where

there is promise or benefit. Any attempt to construct a theology of prosperity or an attempt to

find more positive aspects in the movement’s theology must, at some point, engage these issues.

Brogdon Critiques of Prosperity Gospel

Documents