Well, there goes a biblical defense of capitalism.

Hurray for the Lausanne group!

While the full “Prosperity Doctrine” may not be preached in some places, the attitude of the “Prosperity” teachings permeate and infect many otherwise orthodox and well-meaning Christians.

The whole principle of magic and the teachings of magic is that the very word you speak has its own power and can accomplish the desired effect by its own energy.  This has been the basis of magic.  It got into Christianity through a “New Thought” book by a hypnotist named Phineas Quimby which was then plagiarized by a “Christian” evangelist named Kenyon.  Kenyon’s teachings were picked up by Branson and others who taught it as “Biblical” which it most certainly is NOT.  It got into the bloodstream of the pentecostal/charismatic movements and is a central doctrine of the “New Apostolic Reformation” and all its loosely allied sub-groups.

The idea that speaking your own word out loud can make things happen is magic, not Christianity.  However well-intentioned that word might be, it puts the speaker in the place of God.  People who practice this essentially become gods of their own whether they consciously understand that or not.  I have found that this attitude withers and eventually kills our relationship with Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.  Interestingly, those who are part of this movement very often come to place emphasis on worshipping the Father (often in a NON-Trinitarian form) and reveling in the Holy Spirit, but only rarely mention Jesus Christ.

So go for it, Lausanne!  You have identified a real genuine cancer in the Body of Christ.  I dearly hope that a whole lot of people will read this and come to understand the danger.

I remembered the other two important “Christian” teachers of the prosperity teachings:  Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland.  Although they claim to be teaching something different because they use slightly different language, the “Global Awakening” people are teaching the same heresy and offer Kenyon’s books for sale.  I can’t emphasize enough how deadly this stuff is.

“However, we reject as unbiblical the notion that God’s miraculous power can be treated as automatic, or at the disposal of human techniques, or manipulated by human words, actions or rituals.”

Aren’t there Evangelicals who would read this as a repudiation of sacraments understood as anything other than symbolic? Even if so, a half a hurrah for Lausanne.

#2. LumenChriste,

The idea that speaking your own word out loud can make things happen is magic, not Christianity.  However well-intentioned that word might be, it puts the speaker in the place of God.”

Not quite so. Behavioral and sports Psychologists have examined “self talk” and advocate that folks accentuate positive self talk. The negative self talk we all engage in from time to time is counterproductive and self defeating. This is not magic, it is good mental health.

#4. MarkP,

Aren’t there Evangelicals who would read this as a repudiation of sacraments understood as anything other than symbolic? Even if so, a half a hurrah for Lausanne.

There is a difference between magic and mystery, between the expectancy of faith and the superstition. By Faith we call things that are not as though they were. (Rom. 4:17) I believe we lead a life between a theology of the cross and a theology of glory.

Dcn Dale—I am not talking about self-encouragement or mere mental health.  I am speaking of people who actually have the idea, that when you are “filled with the Holy Spirit” you are then able, at your own discretion, to “speak into being” all sorts of objects in the material world, e.g. a Mercedes Benz.  This is not mental health, it is a delusion, and an affront to God.

MarkP has a point that some evangelicals may tend to look at sacraments as a kind of magic.  At the core of things, sacraments are, of course, the very opposite of magic because they are done in obedience to Christ’s command and by God’s Will and power only.  Again, the “prosperity” people understand that their own word does the job, by their own will, really.  Somehow the indwelling of the Holy Spirit makes this possible, but once the Holy Spirit is received, He seems to be infinitely manipulate-able. 

On both counts, two hurrahs for Lausanne.

1. From the article above if taken literally, anathematizes the use of prayer.  If we cannot hope to use words, actions and rituals to change the mind of God, what Lausanne calls “manipulate”, then the words, actions and rituals of prayer fall on deaf ears of the God the Father.

There are numerous Old and New Testament examples of man beseeching God, and God hearing the prayer of the righteous and to granting that prayer.  The most famous example was probably Lot pressing God to save Sodom and Gomorrah, constantly asking God to save the cities if only an every dwindling number of righteous men could be found.  (Of course, I realize that ulitmately Lot lost that one and God brought forward his original plan.)

I understand both the allure and danger of the prosperity gospel, but I think these statements, especially number 1 go too far.

#6 LumenChristie says:

MarkP has a point that some evangelicals may tend to look at sacraments as a kind of magic.  At the core of things, sacraments are, of course, the very opposite of magic because they are done in obedience to Christ’s command and by God’s Will and power only.  Again, the “prosperity” people understand that their own word does the job, by their own will, really.  Somehow the indwelling of the Holy Spirit makes this possible, but once the Holy Spirit is received, He seems to be infinitely manipulate-able.

I used this analogy once when the question of sacraments as “magic” came up in a class:

I can go to my phone, dial 911, and tell the dispatcher that I need an ambulance.  Within a few minutes, an ambulance will appear at my door.  Does this mean that I have some kind of magic power to summon ambulances?  Does it mean that I have somehow compelled the ambulance driver to drive to my door?  Of course not.

The reason I can ask for an ambulance and know that one will appear is because I live in a society that has decided that as part of the social contract, this is a service that the society will provide.  It exists within and because of a web of reciprocal agreements and self-accepted obligations:  I agree to pay taxes that go towards funding the service, I agree not to use it frivolously, the dispatchers agree to answer the phones, the ambulance drivers agree to respond to the dispatchers’ instructions, and so on and so forth.  All of this is necessary for me to be able to call for an ambulance and know that one will appear.

Similarly with the sacraments.  When an ordained priest in apostolic succession says the words and does the actions with appropriate sacramental intent, within the ecclesial context of the Church, then we know that God will act in certain ways—not because the priest has magic powers, not because we can compel God to act at our will, but because God has covenanted with us to act in those ways when we do those things and we know that God is faithful to his covenant promises.  We have our own covenant obligations that are part of the same fabric; and that whole context is necessary for the sacramental action to take place.  The Evangelicals are correct in that it is God’s action and God is not constrained by what we do, but the sacramentalists are correct in that we can be confident that more is happening than a simple memorial.

Or so I believe, anyway.

Now of course this does not mean to suggest that God has covenanted to act only in the sacraments of the Church, and certainly not that God has covenanted to act always when and how we want him to.  The sacraments are the sacraments; outside those bounds that God has agreed to, God will act as God wills.

Great comment, Ross.

Know therefore that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His loving kindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments; Deuteronomy 7:9

I second Robroy—well said, Ross.

Preachers of the prosperity “gospel” have always bothered me terribly.  Bascially, they get up and say: ‘Give me money, and then God will reward you with even more money.  And see, I’m proof that it works, because I drive around in my many fancy cars and fly in private jets.’  They are the worst kind of charlatans.

The problem with “prosperity” teaching—or more properly “Word of Faith” is that it does purport to to manipulate or even force God.  Kenneth Copeland has actually said that, “God must obey your word.”

#7 billqs:  Of course this does not prevent real prayer or the effects of prayer.  In prayer we lay our needs before God and wait for Him to dispose of them according to His good Will and pleasure—in response to our petitioning.  Prayer is a relationship of mutual love—give and take.  Magic is about power, and is a whole different dynamic

I thought the money quote was this:
“We therefore wonder if much popular Christianity is a syncretised super-structure on an underlying worldview that has not been radically transformed by the biblical gospel.”