If you asked most people to describe the prosperity gospel, most people would probably name men in nice suits promising healing and financial blessings in return for donations or some demonstration of faith. Do not be fooled: many are still caught under the spell of such men. However, I believe that the prosperity gospel has gotten a facelift. Its peddlers don't wear suits or ask for seed offerings. They look and sound different, but something feels the same. So, what exactly is the prosperity gospel? I want to suggest some criteria. A quick Google search shows that I'm not the first to name a "new prosperity gospel." I don't follow any prosperity preachers closely, nor any who write about them. I am not attempting anything original nor to provide a definition with scientific precision. Nonetheless, I think these three criteria seem to be useful. I am open to suggestions or critiques if you think I've missed something.
1) Over-Realized Eschatology
The current age is temporary. There is coming a day when Jesus will return and sin, suffering, and death will be done away with. That age is often called the "eschaton" (meaning, "last"). Doctrines pertaining to the eschaton fall under the umbrella of eschatology. Wise readers of the Bible recognize that some of God's promises are experienced right now. For example, "... I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Mt. 28:20b) Others will only be experienced when Christ returns. For example, "... This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come in the same way that you have seen him going into heaven.” (Acts 1:11b) Many others are experienced in part now, but in full later.
God has undoubtedly promised that his people will be healthy and prosperous in the eschaton. But does that promise apply now? The prosperity gospel blurs lines between this age and the eschaton to claim future promises in the present. This is called an "over-realized eschatology." What is promised in heaven is claimed now. This subtly minimizes the dangers and temptations of earthly riches (material or otherwise). The love of money may be sanctified under the guise of faith in God's promises. Meanwhile, the desire for spiritual riches, which are often obtained through suffering (Php. 3:8.), may be diminished.
2) Assurance via Prosperity or Wellbeing
How can we know we are right with God? Traditionally, Protestants refer to the Word of God. We know God loves us because he tells us so. If someone doubts whether they have been saved, we normally ask whether they have faith in Christ (even if only feeble faith!), and whether that faith is evidenced in their actions. But that saving faith must be anchored in what God says. Prosperity preachers usually look for evidence of God's love in circumstances. According to them, we know God loves us because he provides, heals, and makes us whole. This could mean money, but it could also mean mental health, a happy family, or something else. Perhaps inadvertently, blessing replaces God's Word as the ground of our assurance.
3) Works Based Righteousness
As I alluded to above, Protestants have traditionally said that the way we enjoy God's promises and blessings is through faith and faith alone. Our works contribute nothing to our salvation and cannot make God love us any more or less. Importantly, faith is not a work. Faith is not saving because of some quality in it, like its strength. Everyone has faith in something, and it usually is not saving. Faith is saving when its object is Christ. In other words, we are not saved because we have enough faith but because we put whatever faith we have in Christ.
But the prosperity preacher has a problem. If God's promises are for the present (see (1)), and we gain assurance that we are right with him through his blessings (see (2)), then why doesn't every believer receive these promises? The problem must be on our end. Perhaps we have some hidden sin in our lives, or perhaps we don't have enough faith. What we are left with, then, is a mechanical God. Put enough faith and obedience in; get a blessing out. The appeal of this is that we become masters of our own destiny. When life gives us problems, the prosperity gospel gives us solutions. It promises that if we just give more, obey more, repent more, and believe more, all will be well. Unfortunately, the appeal doesn't last. In the end, we are left with a God doling out blessings and curses to those who deserve them—NOT a loving Father. It forces us to conclude that if we are suffering, it is our own fault. It undermines the gospel by teaching us to win God's favor through our own efforts, and it eventually leads us to despair.
Making and Using the Criteria
A good definition of the prosperity gospel must do two things. First, it must hit all the right targets. Joel Osteen and Kenneth Copeland are different in many ways, and yet both are rightly called prosperity preachers. Any set of criteria needs to name core features shared in common even if there are superficial differences. However, the definition must not be so broad that it applies to those who don't deserve the label. I hope my definition helps believers discern erroneous teachers. I would be horrified if it was used to accuse someone who didn't deserve it. Hopefully, I've been clear enough to prevent that.
Second, it needs to make clear why the prosperity gospel is an error. Above, I have endeavored to show that the prosperity gospel presents fatal problems for Christian doctrine and life. To summarize, it is fatal to the Christian doctrine because it eliminates important distinctions between this age and the next and because it teaches that God's favor may be won by human effort. It is fatal to Christian life because ignores the temptations of earthly riches, diminishes our focus on the next life, decenters God's Word in the life of the believer, and ultimately condemns those who suffer.
Of course, no one is going to admit to being a heretic. The prosperity gospel has a following because it is presented in a way that sounds biblical and that gives its peddlers a way to plausibly deny accusations. Again, we must be extremely cautious not to engage in witch hunts, but let me offer a made-up example of how this criteria may be used. Joe is poor. Joe's pastor keeps telling Joe that God is going to deliver him from his poverty, though, when pressed, he says that sometimes God would have us endure hardship. When Joe complains that this deliverance has not come, Joe's pastor tells him that he needs to pray without doubting that God will graciously provide. In this example, Joe's pastor seems to be promising that God will provide material wealth. He is likely to deny this because he has also said that sometimes believers must endure hardships. But if he only occasionally says that, but frequently and confidently tells Joe that he will be delivered, one would rightfully question whether he's avoided the first criterion. Joe's pastor also seems to be suggesting God will respond once Joe has enough faith. Again, he's likely to deny this. After all, he said, "graciously." But it's hard to see how his advice does not amount to saying that God will reward more faithful prayers. While it may be the case that Joe's pastor never explicitly says a condemning word, Joe would not be wrong to feel as though he had been implicitly condemned for a lack of faith. Joe's pastor also seems to have met the third criterion.
Two Hunches About the New Prosperity Gospel
I began by saying that I think we are witnessing the rise of a new prosperity gospel. While old-school prosperity preachers continue to draw crowds, I suspect that their influence is waning while a new wave of prosperity preachers gains steam. I worry that this second wave could be bigger than the first. Again, I don't have any sort of scientific proof for the idea, but I have a couple of hunches about the new prosperity gospel.
First, I suspect the new prosperity gospel will be communicated primarily in therapeutic terms rather than physical or financial. Modern people tend to think of themselves in psychological terms. Identity, meaning, and satisfaction are things we think we must look inward to find. Hence, culture has come to be dominated by the therapeutic. Consider how important the concept of "mental health" has become, especially for young people. [1]
Because the new prosperity gospel makes its appeal in therapeutic terms rather than promising physical healing or wealth, it may fly under the radar of many Christians. It sounds biblical because the Bible says not to worry but to rejoice. Joy is a fruit of the Spirit! But the Bible also describes faithful men plagued by all manner of troubles. Jesus himself was so troubled that his sweat became like drops of blood (Lk. 22:44). While we should heartily affirm that God gives his children joy, how that joy is manifested is complicated. Apparently, it can coexist with mental anguish.
And so, what are we to make when a church's pitch is essentially, "We can show you how to beat depression and anxiety"? Are we promised deliverance from mental illnesses? If we say "yes," then why do so many believers continue to struggle with mental illnesses despite appearing to be faithful? Saying that they must not really be faithful reeks of self-righteousness. And yet, I'm afraid that's exactly the message that is preached. It's the same error but repackaged for a therapeutic culture. Of course, I am NOT saying that churches should not talk about mental health. They should! And so, don't see any talk of mental health as a red flag. I am only saying that the same old error is being repacked to suit the needs of the day.
Second, I suspect that the new prosperity gospel will spread primarily via music, not preaching. Modern worship bands have massive audiences, and you don't need to be orthodox to make it big. Consider these lines from Charity Gayle's "I Speak Jesus," a very popular song that I've heard on the radio and in multiple church services:
"I just wanna speak the name of Jesus
Over fear and all anxiety
To every soul held captive by depression
I speak Jesus
'Cause Your name is power
Your name is healing
Your name is life
Break every stronghold
Shine through the shadows
Burn like a fire."
Anxiety and depression are clearly named, and so we see the therapeutic categories front and center. Of course, there's nothing wrong with naming either. But, while I'm not sure what the author meant to communicate, I'm left with the impression that simply speaking Jesus' name will bring psychological healing. I could name countless other songs that speak of God breaking chains, moving mountains, working miracles, and the like. All of these ideas come from the Bible and have been in Christian music from the start. However, unlike many older Christian songs, these songs feel untethered. Whereas older songs often used these phrases to describe God saving sinners through Christ's work, modern songs are frequently ambiguous about what they are talking about. Is Christ breaking the chains of sin and death, or is he delivering me from some other problem? The artists may intend nothing unorthodox, but the ambiguity can be easily abused. As biblical literacy declines, we need more clarity in our music, not less.
It's been a long time since I posted anything, so it is fitting that I returned with such a long post. If you've made it through the whole thing, pat yourself on the back. I hope this is helpful, and I'd welcome any feedback on the ideas.
[1] Here, I am indebted to Carl Trueman's Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2020.
Comments