Prosperity Gospel, Albany Style

Times of economic crisis in the United States often stimulate fundamentalist religious reaction.  For example, the populist crusade of Fr. Coughlin in the 1930‘s combined anti-semitic, nationalist sentiment with anti-capitalist rhetoric.  A more contemporary reaction to financial hard times is the prosperity gospel preached by some prominent media evangelists and Protestant fundamentalists in today’s churches.

It is perhaps not surprising, then, that the Diocese of Albany has seemingly jumped on the prosperity gospel bandwagon.  Christ the King Spiritual Life Center is promoting the “Treasure Hunters for God” seminar on October 22nd. Led by Chrystal Langdon (whose financial credentials are not given, but a web search reveals that she is the founder of Crystal Clear Finances, Inc), the seminar promises to teach how to “capture, cultivate and create wealth”.

The SLC brochure invites attendees to “discover the golden nuggets to help you... relate to money.”  Chrystal Langdon offers to “unlock the hidden triggers found within wealth and scarcity mindsets.”  She promises her followers that “we will be creating a Treasure Map”.

What happened to Crown Financial Ministries, that last financial anodyne promoted by our diocese?

In essence, prosperity theology says that “a combination of faith, positive speech, and donations to Christian ministries will always cause an increase in material wealth”.  This philosophy gained prominence in the 1980‘s through influence of such well-known televangelists as Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker.  But other prominent evangelists such as Rick Warren and Jerry Falwell have been sharply critical of the movement.

New Testament scholar Scot McKnight characterizes the God of the prosperity gospel as “The Vending Machine God: put in faith and out pops blessings.”  But the problems here are in both the Bible and Christian experience.  McKnight says:

The God of the Bible is there, watching and waiting for us to trust him. He's with us, through thick and thin. We may or we may not be prosperous; what we are called to be is faithful and loving.

Only there can be found true riches.

Comments

[Father Mike Waverly-Shank]

Maybe I'm wrong - but I don't see this presentation as prosperity gospel - I read the article about it on CTK website and I see it as financial planning according to Biblical principles - and I see nothing wrong with that.

[Christopher Brown]

1. I was not actually accusing AVM of a lack of open mindedness -- I suppose I didn't put it very well, but I was trying to show that the AVM critique of the Prosperity Gospel (with which I agree) was really no different in kind from my critique of Borg and Spong.

2. My point was that the attempt to exercise theological discernment -- which AVM folk did with the regard to the Prosperty Gospel -- is not in itself "closemindedness."

3. I would not say that Marcus Borg's work is completely incompatible with the Christian faith, not by a long shot. There are things I like about Borg's work, though I have problems with his theological outlook. John Spong, on the other hand, is another matter. I am sorry but that is the way I see it. His work is an appalling excuse for theological discourse.

4. I certainly appreciate this site for its willingness to provide open discussion and debate -- and I have often said so.

5. Nor would I oppose in principle genuine opportunities in the diocese for open debate and exchange of ideas -- and I have in the past expressed a willingness to participate in such occasions.

[John White]

Canon Christopher Brown's latest comment is a clear cacophony of conflicting arguments. He complains of a lack of "open mindedness" regarding the prosperity gospel heresy, yet admits that such is a distortion of the Gospel. He allows that "the field is wide open for fresh thinking about the Gospel," but he refuses to accept that the theology of Borg or Spong is in any way compatible with the Christian faith. He complains that "the AVM folk" are closed minded, yet is it not this very blog and the AVM website that publish his opinions? Is there even one diocesan organ that communicates any word from the AVM? No - nor would the bishop of our diocese even admit the legitimacy of this blog site, or of the AVM organization. Debate is healthy, the good doctor opines. Then who in the diocese is willing to provide a forum for healthy debate? The AVM has sponsored several such venues. Who, then, has the right to "moralize"?

[Christopher Brown]

I wonder if anyone can see the inconsistency here: there is a collective rant when someone might be purveying a version of the Prosperity Gospel (which I agree is a distortion of the Gospel).

But when I suggest that Marcus Borg and John Spong might be theologically problematic, there is alarm about an absence of "open mindedness." Was there an "open mind" about the prosperity Gospel? Obviously not -- perhaps rightly so.

The real issue is about theological discernment. The field is wide open for fresh thinking about the Gospel. But one still must raise the legitimate question about whether particular restatement of Gospel has a basic Christian authenticity.

The indignation of the AVM folk about the Prosperity Gospel tacitly demonstrates an appreciation of the role of theological discernment. But it is not consistent, since to question a favored theological voice is a lack of “open mindedness.”

We obviously disagree – at least in part – about the standards of theological discernment. In my view Spong and Borg fail the test of coherence and compatibility with scripture and the creeds. Bob Dodd and others disagree. That is fine – debate is healthy. Just don’t moralize about “open mindedness.”

[Ann Carlson]

I fail to see what would be objectionable about having either Jack Spong, a bishop of the Episcopal Church, or Marcus Borg, Canon Theologian at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Oregon, at our Spiritual Life Center. As a diocese of the Episcopal Church, it would be good for us to include voices from the full range of Episcopal theologians -- our own particular community, right? [It's not possible to even determine what flavor of Christian Ms. Landgon claims to be from her profiles online.] Or does the Bishop not think that the diocesan programs should speak to the whole of the Episcopal community in the diocese? We do reflect the entire range from extremely liberal to the staunchest conservative, I can attest because we do so even in my own parish (but at least WE manage to get along). Since when did enforcing strict doctrinal uniformity of understanding in even the most minute theological points become Episcopalian? I joined this church because we are supposed to be a community united around a common worship, not a "leave your brain at the door and accept what we TELL you to believe" community.

[Robert T Dodd]

Archdeacon Brown's most recent comment on this thread makes it obvious why many mainstream Episcopalians have no interest whatever in what CtK has to offer:

“Of course the theological content of what is offered at the Spiritual life Center matters,” Brown+ says. “This is why the Diocese would not offer a program by someone like Marcus Borg, John Spong, or say, Deepak Chopra.”

For those with more open minds, Bp. Spong will speak at Robinson Hall, behind Harrisena Church on Ridge Road in Queensbury: at 7 p.m. on Friday, 28 October ("Redefining the God Experience in the 21st Century"); at 10 a.m.on Saturday, 29 October ("Are We 'Fallen Sinners' or Incomplete Human Beings?");and at 1:30 p.m. on the 29th ("Jesus: Divine Rescuer or the Empowerer of a New Humanity").

These lectures are open to the public without charge, but contributions are welcome to help cover expenses.

[John White]

Rev. Shank, I have another suggestion. Let's take the publicity for the seminar at face value and tell the presenter that the diocese will not stand for any Prosperity Gospel nonsense! From their own hype it appears that this is what is planned.

[Father Mike Waverly-Shank]

Why are we judging this seminar in advance?? Let's see what it really is all about!

[Richard Angelo]

Thankfully we can access the thoughts of theologians and Christian leaders like Marcus Borg, Bishop Spong, Bishop Gene Robinson, Phyllis Tickle, Diana Butler Bass to name a few, through the internet, books and even DVD teaching series. They have much to share with us, at least from my perspective!

[Suzi Ruota]

Mr. Brown speak from both sides of his mouth! He starts out clearly stateing that the "Prosperity Gospel" is a FALSE gospel; but then, once again, ends up in defense of same by defending the Diocese and its Bishop! Get off of your fence, Mr. Brown, and speak the TRUTH! As diocesan Canon Theologian, you're part of the "bandwagon" of which you refer to!!

[Christopher Brown]

In response to John White’s comment:

1. Of course the theological content of what is offered at the Spiritual life Center matters. This is why the Diocese would not offer a program by someone like Marcus Borg, John Spong, or say, Deepak Chopra.

2. My point was simply that if the diocese had unwisely promoted a program that had problematic theology – mistake though it may have been – that does not mean that such is the theology of the diocese.

3. But my other point is that this whole overwrought discussion is premature. The program may prove to be no more egregious than Crown Financial Ministries.

[Rev. Paul Hartt]

The "prosperity Gospel" is theological error and nonsense at every level. If it does in fact take that form or take that turn, you will have me on record in strong opposition.

[Carolyn D'Agostino]

I have reviewed her materials and though I am not Canon Theologian, "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck" it is a prosperity gospel duck. This should not be subsidized with diocesan funds.

[John White]

Canon Brown offers the opinion that “even if” Treasure Hunters for God is shown to be an expression of the prosperity gospel, it is really not a big deal because the diocese would not support such a theology. The big deal, Dr. Brown, is that the Spiritual Life Center, as an outreach of the diocese, has chosen to promote such a seminar, including the disturbing advertising that I quoted. If the advertising gives a false impression of the content, that itself is something that the diocese should be concerned about and address. And if the content does present a false gospel, then the diocese should repudiate it publicly and ban such seminars in the future. The diocese is directly responsible for the teaching it sponsors at the SLC, and is indirectly liable for seeing that it is advertised responsibly.

[Joseph M. Liotta]

The Diocesan leadership has already discredited itself and has continued to do so for almost a decade now. There is nothing slanderous about that.

[Ann Gaillard]

My question is: Will Ms. Langdon's presentation/seminar indeed support or endorse or advocate a prosperity gospel? The advertising for her presentation certainly implies that will be the case, but perhaps it's misleading. Perhaps she will be focusing on good financial stewardship, which certainly is important and something that the diocese should be advocating. But if not--if she really is "preaching" a prosperity gospel--then whoever invited her to the diocese should revoke the invitation. How can the diocese possibly advocate a "false gospel," as Fr. Brown so correctly put it?

[Christopher Brown]

I know nothing about Chrystal Langdona, nor about the “Treasure Hunters for God” seminar on October 22nd. I first heard about it on this blog.

I admit, I am not crazy about the phraseology used in the promotional leaflet. All this language of “unlocking secrets” or “unlocking hidden triggers” seems overblown, and I am not entirely comfortable with “hunt for True Love, True Life and True Wealth!”

On the other hand, its stated purpose of “learning the financial skill sets needed to capture, cultivate and create wealth,” sounds like basic financial management skills. This, I suspect, is really what the course is about, set within the framework of belief in a providential God and our commitment to submit our lives to his purpose – all of which seems theologically unobjectionable, and, perhaps, useful.

Until we have looked at the seminar a little more carefully, it seems a little premature to be throwing around pejorative theological stereotypes. And even if “Treasure Hunters for God” proves to be an expression of the "Prosperity Gospel," it hardly legitimates the claim that such is the policy and theology of the diocese, which it most definitely is not.

[Lorrie Graham]

I, too, find Prosperity Theology to be, at best, bad practice - but more than that, it's another way to discriminate. It implies that if you do not become wealthy, you're doing it wrong - didn't give enough, did't do enough good works, didn't have enough faith.

Jesus was not wealthy, nor did he encourage the amassing of great wealth.

Who is running our diocese that a get rich quick scheme is called a ministry?
Lorrie Graham

[William F. Hammond]

How is this 'prosperity gospel' to be reconciled with Matthew 19: 16-24 and other similar orthodox teachings that steer us away from focusing on prosperity?

[Christopher Brown]

I know nothing about Chrystal Langdona, nor about the “Treasure Hunters for God” seminar on October 22nd. I first heard about it on this blog.

I admit, I am not crazy about the phraseology used in the promotional leaflet. All this language of “unlocking secrets” or “unlocking hidden triggers” seems overblown, and I am not entirely comfortable with “hunt for True Love, True Life and True Wealth!”

On the other hand, its stated purpose of “learning the financial skill sets needed to capture, cultivate and create wealth,” sounds like basic financial management skills. This, I suspect, is really what the course is about, set within the framework of belief in a providential God and our commitment to submit our lives to his purpose – all of which seems theologically unobjectionable, and, perhaps, useful.

Until we have looked at this program a little more carefully, it seems premature to be throwing around pejorative theological stereotypes. And even if “Treasure Hunters for God” proves to be an expression of the "Prosperity Gospel," it hardly legitimates the claim that such is the policy and theology of the diocese, which it most definitely is not.

[Christopher Brown]

As Canon Theologian, I entirely agree that the so-called “prosperity Gospel” is a false gospel. The New Testament promises a share in the sufferings of Christ for those who follow Jesus Christ, not the outpouring of wealth and property. As Dietrich Bonheoffer stressed, Christian discipleship is costly; “when God calls a man, he bids him come die.” At no point does the Gospel offer the blessing of riches and material comfort in exchange for a commitment to Jesus Christ as one’s “personal savior.” Latin American Liberation Theologians were correct in their assertion that the New Testament articulates a “preferential option for the poor.” God HAS “cast down the mighty from their thrown and has lifted up the lowly.” It is a homeless man, Lazarus, whom Abraham clasps to his bosom, not the rich man who daily passed him by with callous disregard. And so on…

And it is erroneous, tiresome — and a hint slanderous (since lately this site seems to reach for anything it can to discredit the diocese and the decent, unassuming man who serves as bishop) to claim that “it is perhaps not surprising, then, that the Diocese of Albany has seemingly jumped on the prosperity gospel bandwagon.”