The Cruelty of the Prosperity Gospel

I ran across this post while I was surfing around on Trevin Wax's blog titled Joel Osteen's Negative Message. The essential message of the post (which you can tell from the title) is that Joel Osteen's message is actually not positive but is rather very negative. Osteen preaches that you can have health and wealth and if you don't have it then something is wrong in your life. Most people see this as a very positive message. In fact, saying Osteen is not a positive preacher seems a bit strange. After all, he seems very positive. He is always smiling while he is preaching and his books are titled Become a Better You, and Your Best Life Now: 7 Steps to Living at Your Full Potential. Those seem like positive messages. Here is a quote that sure seems positive:

"I want you to get a bigger vision. There are exciting things in your future. Your future is filled with marked moments of blessing, increase, promotion. God has already ordained before the foundation of the world, the right people, the right opportunity. Time and chance are coming together for you. Why don’t you get your hopes up?" Osteen tells his audience. "Why don't you start believing that no matter what you have or haven't done, that your best days are still out in front of you."

And here is some more:

"If you’re not making as much progress as you would like, here's the key: don't lose any ground. Keep a good attitude and do the right thing even when it's hard. When you do that you are passing the test. And God promises you your marked moments are on their way," Osteen says.

But is that really a positive message? If you are having pain and suffering and are poor then you aren't trying hard enough. You need a better attitude and your life will be better. This is, of course, what is called the prosperity gospel and I appreciated Wax's approach to it because I hadn't really realized it before, but telling people that they just aren't trying hard enough really isn't a positive message and in fact it is an incredibly cruel message. Furthermore it isn't a biblical message regarding those who are poor in this world:

Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? (James 2:5)

What does this passage say about those who are poor in this world? Does it say that they aren't trying hard enough? Does it say that God is showing his disfavor with them? Does it say that if they hope in riches in this world that God will relent and give them this? No, it says that they are chosen to be "rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom" which is, of course, the kingdom "not of this world" which Christ referred to in John 18:36.

A kinder and more positive message is one that gives all men hope for the future in the life that lies beyond this one. This life ends in death for all of us. Looking for permanent health and wealth here ourselves is a vain search. Encouraging others to look for it is downright cruel.

Is Brutality Civility?

Tim Challies recently posted a blog about the book The Case for Civility by Os Guinness wherein the case is made that we need more civility in this world and that America is where it should start. This is the section from the blog that talks about why it should start in America:

It is a call for the United States to take the lead in restoring civility. “The place at which we must begin to search for answers is the United States. Not because the problem is worse here than elsewhere—on the contrary—but because America has the best cultural resources, and therefore the greatest responsibility to point the way forward in answering the deepest questions.” America is uniquely equipped to take the lead and Guinness urges her on

I'm not sure why anyone would think this about America (and I'm an American). I'm disturbed about the fact that it seems almost impossible to actually have civil discourse in America and if we are better off here than elsewhere then you must get spit on in the streets in other countries just for walking around. Look at the comment lists of blog posts and you'll see what I mean. It is appalling. The number of people that post comments in the name of kindness that are simply exercises in verbal bullying and brutality is astonishing. Most civil discourse that I have seen in blog threads and boards is terminated by the loud boorish shouting of people maintaining that somebody else is being "rude" or "insulting." This problem with civil discourse on the web is well known and has been a problem for a long time. There was a reason why all of the worthwhile Usenet groups on religion were heavily moderated and comment lists like Slashdot and Digg have (where you can vote down the worst offenders so that the rest of the comment list actually looks civil to later readers) were attempts to solve this problem, but in the end the root of the issue is that there are just too many people who believe that they are "kind" and "loving" and who are, in fact, the exact opposite. Anyone who is reading some thread or comment list and feels the urge from reading what some other commenter said that they merely disagree with to post an attack on the other person has the problem, not the original poster.

Listen, when you are reading something and you suddenly want to post a reply ask yourself in your reply if you are posting something substantive regarding what the actual discussion is or if you are posting a personal insult. Now, I have seen many people who post insults and then maintain that they are substantive so clearly the word "insult" is poorly understood, so here is another way to put it: does your comment have anything to do with the other person (as a person) at all? If it does, then maybe it is out of place. You see this demonstrated a lot in religious discussions where somebody makes some statement about a particular issue only to be replied to by some variation on, "Your constant attacks are sickening and only prove you are arrogant and unloving" and so forth. This response is not civil, it adds nothing to the discussion and furthermore it, itself, fails the test of a loving and gentle response called for in the Bible:

Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person. (Colossians 4:5-6)

The person who hurls the insults may think that they are given such a right by the actions of the person they are insulting. But this, too, is completely unchristian:

But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. (Luke 6:27-28)

Even if the original commenter was your enemy your insulting response would not be acceptable. In many cases, if you read something that makes you angry you are better off doing what James says to do:

Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger (James 1:19)

In terms of posting things on the Net, we could read it like this, "Let every person be quick to read, slow to post." We are better off posting nothing than posting some insulting response. These passages from Proverbs are apropos:

Whoever belittles his neighbor lacks sense,but a man of understanding remains silent. (Proverbs 11:12)

Whoever restrains his words has knowledge,and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding. (Proverbs 17:27) Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise;when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent. (Proverbs 17:28)

Wrestling with Biblical Relevance

I put "wrestling" in the title of this blog because this is me "wrestling" with the concept and not preaching to anybody.  I want to lay all of these thoughts out on a subject that I find difficult and see where it gets me.

It seems that there are several schools of thought on the relevance of the Bible to our time and culture.  There are those who feel that the Bible is relevant in itself and those who feel that it is not relevant unless it is changed to become relevant.  Well, as I write that last sentence I don't know that it really says what I want it to say so I'll come at it from a different direction.  There is a passage in the Bible that says this:

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.
(1 Corinthians 14:33-34)

Assuming we are talking about a person who considers themselves a Christian, there are several possible responses to this:

1. Assimilate the Passage - The passage's relevance is not culturally-based.  It bluntly means that women cannot speak in church and have to be quiet.  Following the passage then means doing this as best you know how.
2. Eliminate the Passage - The passage is not relevant to today's culture and hinders evangelism opportunities.  The passage should not be considered binding.
3. Modify the Passage - The passage is relevant to some degree but doesn't bluntly mean that women should keep absolute silence in church.  Interpreting the passage in this way is incorrect.  Therefore, it is possible to follow the passage without forcing all of the women in church to keep quiet.

I picked 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 since it seems to be such a blunt passage.  To me the different approaches are different ways of viewing Biblical authority in general.  I think discussions among the three groups are always problematic because the presuppositions that each have gets in the way.  The discussion really isn't about whether women can speak in church but rather about how you view the Bible (and I think also about how you view God, but more on that later).  Each group views the Bible like so:

1. Assimilators - The Bible is the work of God and therefore is the supreme authority under all cultural conditions.
2. Eliminators - The Bible is the work of men in different cultural contexts and is authoritative only when the cultural context is taken into account.
3. Modifiers - The Bible is authoritative but is interpreted in a cultural context and therefore the interpretation becomes a function of the culture.

It is worth pointing out that Modifiers I have known would quickly state that Assimilators are doing the same thing that they are but they just don't realize it.  That is, all interpretation is within a cultural context and claims of discovering the actual meaning of the text should always be viewed with skepticism.

All of these views end up saying something about a person's belief in God and how the Bible came to be created:

1. Assimilators - God inspired the Bible and is therefore its ultimate author.  Since God transcends culture the Bible also transcends culture.  When Paul says, "Women should keep silent in the churches" it isn't really Paul speaking but rather God speaking through Paul and since God is an infinite being that exists outside of the world his words are not a function of Paul or Paul's environment.
2. Eliminators - Men wrote the Bible and although they may have had something called "inspiration" this did not overcome their dependence on their environment.  Therefore God did not control the writing of the Bible and the Bible does not transcend culture.  When Paul says, "Women should keep silent in the churches" this is just Paul speaking what he thinks God would want him to say but what he thinks God would want him to say cannot be separated from his cultural context.
3. Modifiers - God may have inspired the Bible but our finite interpretive capabilities will always play a role in how we hear what it is saying.  Even if God controlled the writing of the Bible and the Bible itself transcends culture we cannot transcend our own culture and therefore our interpretation is always a function of our own environment.  When Paul says, "Women should keep silent in the churches" we have to interpret that within our own cultural context as we can do nothing else.

Eliminators seem to be more modernist and Modifiers more postmodernist.  Both Eliminators and Modifiers see Assimilators as arrogant and naive and Assimilators see the other two groups as heretics.  There doesn't seem to be a middle ground here that can be found because of the depth of the difference in each view.  If the three groups were to have a conversation on "making the Bible relevant to the modern age" they would each be saying those words but meaning completely different things.  An Assimilator believes that to make the Bible relevant is simply to preach the word.  An Eliminator believes that parts of the Bible that are relevant can be used and other parts can be ignored since the book is a work of man.  Modifiers believe that the interpretation can bend as far as needed to meet the application to culture and therefore the interpretation itself is what becomes relevant.  In some ways the Assimilator and the Modifier would seem to agree in theory (preaching involves interpretation) but in practice (as with the interpretation and application of 1 Corinthians 14:33-34) this doesn't happen because the Assimilator attacks the culturally difficult meaning directly and the Modifier changes it to something palatable to the culture which it clearly is not in its immediate form.

I admit that I'm an Assimilator.  Maybe I am naive and arrogant to believe this way although I try hard not to be arrogant, at least, but I want to think that when I read the Bible maybe I can understand it and maybe I can bend my life to meet it and maybe that will make me a better person.  Am I wrong to do this?

Bombastic!

I just read a post on another blog where a raging argument is taking place.  One of those commenting made this statement, which I thought was funny:

It is irresponsible as an historian, theologian, and Christian to use sophistry. And then to manipulate people under false pretenses with bombastic language.

This statement is even funnier in context since he has previously made an argument that if we read "MAL and HL" we will clearly see...  well, we'll clearly see something anyway.  At the end of this first post he says this:

(Yes, I study Cuneiform at UPenn and am not speaking ignorantly about this literature. I’ve read it.)

So he is apparently one of the most pretentious and bombastic folks in the entire comment chain and he chides others for these traits.  I was this way when I was in college, too.