BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
News

TIME MAG vs. PROSPERITY GOSPEL

sermonindex Sep 15, 2006

[image][img]http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2006/1101060918_400.jpg[/img]

DOES GOD WANT YOU to be RICH?

(Time.com) -- In three of the Gospels, Jesus warns that each of his
disciples may have to "deny himself" and even "take up his Cross."

In support of this prediction, he contrasts the fleeting pleasures of
today with the promise of eternity: "For what profit is it to a man,"
he asks, "if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?"

Generations of churchgoers have understood that being Christian
means being ready to sacrifice. But for a growing number of
Christians, the question is better restated, "Why not gain the
whole world plus my soul?"

For several decades, a philosophy has been percolating in the 10
million-strong Pentecostal wing of Christianity that seems to turn
the Gospels' passage on its head. Certainly, it allows, Christians
should keep one eye on heaven. But the new good news is that
God doesn't want us to wait.

Known (or vilified) under a variety of names -- Word of Faith, Health
and Wealth, Name It and Claim It, Prosperity Theology -- its
emphasis is on God's promised generosity in this life. In a nutshell,
it suggests that a God who loves you does not want you to be broke.

Its signature verse could be John 10:10: "I have come that they
may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly." In a
Time poll, 17 percent of Christians surveyed said they considered
themselves part of such a movement, while a full 61 percent
believed that God wants people to be prosperous.

"Prosperity" first blazed to public attention as the driveshaft in the
moneymaking machine that was 1980s televangelism and faded
from mainstream view with the Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart scandals.

But now, after some key modifications (which have inspired some
to redub it Prosperity Lite), it has not only recovered but is booming.

Of the four biggest megachurches in the country, three -- Joel
Osteen's Lakewood in Houston; T.D. Jakes' Potter's House in
south Dallas; and Creflo Dollar's World Changers in Atlanta -- are
Prosperity or Prosperity Lite pulpits (although Jake's ministry has
many more facets).

While they don't exclusively teach that God's riches want to be in
believers' wallets, it is a key part of their doctrine.

And propelled by Osteen's 4 million-selling book, Your Best Life
Now, the belief has swept beyond its Pentecostal base into more
buttoned-down evangelical churches, and even into congregations
in the more liberal Mainline. It is taught in hundreds of non-
Pentecostal Bible studies. One Pennsylvania Lutheran pastor even
made it the basis for a sermon series for Lent, when Christians
usually meditate on why Jesus was having His Worst Life Then.

The movement's renaissance has infuriated a number of prominent
pastors, theologians and commentators. Fellow megapastor Rick
Warren, whose book The Purpose Driven Life has outsold Osteen's
by a ratio of 7 to 1, finds the very basis of Prosperity laughable.
"This idea that God wants everybody to be wealthy?" he snorts.
"There is a word for that: baloney. It's creating a false idol. You
don't measure your self-worth by your net worth. I can show you
millions of faithful followers of Christ who live in poverty. Why isn't
everyone in the church a millionaire?"

The brickbats -- both theological and practical (who really gets rich
from this?) --come especially thick from Evangelicals like Warren.
Evangelicalism is more prominent and influential than ever before.
Yet the movement, which has never had a robust theology of
money, finds an aggressive philosophy advancing within its ranks
that many of its leaders regard as simplistic, possibly heretical
and certainly embarrassing.

Prosperity's defenders claim to be able to match their critics
chapter and verse. They caution against broad-brushing a wide
spectrum that ranges from pastors who crassly solicit sky's-the-
limit financial offerings from their congregations to those whose
services tend more toward God-fueled self-help.

Advocates note Prosperity's racial diversity -- a welcome exception
to the American norm -- and point out that some Prosperity
churches engage in significant charity. And they see in it a happy
corrective for Christians who are more used to being chastened for
their sins than celebrated as God's children.

"Who would want to get in on something where you're miserable,
poor, broke and ugly and you just have to muddle through until you
get to heaven?" asks Joyce Meyer, a popular television preacher
and author often lumped in the Prosperity Lite camp. "I believe
God wants to give us nice things."

If nothing else, Meyer and other new-breed preachers broach a
neglected topic that should really be a staple of Sunday messages:
Does God want you to be rich?

~Go to - http://www.time.com - for the entire cover story in Time.

Copyright © 2006 Time Inc.
-----------------------------------
(SOURCE: CNN.com)
-----------------------------------

I
IRONMAN Sep 16, 2006

brethren
when the economy of this nations bottoms out there are going to be a lot of angry people over this notion that God doesn't want us to be broke...was Christ wealthy? what about the other apostles? what about those who were wealthy in the Church? what did they do with the money/wealth they had? Acts chapt 4 says that they had all things in common, those who had fields and such from time to time would sell them and bring the money to the apostles feet. that way nobody had too much and nobody had too little. it seems to me the purpose of wealth is for the benefit of the body not for hogging or spending on what we think are nice things. The wealth is not even ours to begin with, the earth is God's in the fulness thereof. Our Lord is about to fix this problem and expose this so called prosperity gospel for the fallacy that it is.

come quickly Lord!AMEN.

C
CaptainFant Sep 16, 2006

I'm just astounded at what Joyce Meyer said!! :-o :-o

"Who would want to get in on something where you're miserable, poor, broke and ugly and you just have to muddle through until you
get to heaven?"

I believe its for 'the glorification of God and the gift of eternal life'

but according to good 'ol Joyce, if God is throwing in cash as well then i suppose it makes for a better deal.

sermonindex Sep 16, 2006

(I thought I would offer this article in juxtaposition to that utterly depressing hellish secular article from Time)


The new monastics
Alternative Christian communities

by Jason Byassee

At a time when the church had grown too cozy with the ruling authorities, when faith had become a means to power and influence, some Christians who sought to live out an authentically biblical faith headed for desolate places. They pooled their resources and dedicated themselves to a life of asceticism and prayer. Most outsiders thought they were crazy. They saw themselves as being on the narrow and difficult path of salvation, with a call to prick the conscience of the wider church about its compromises with the "world."

I'm describing not fourth-century monks, but present-day communities of Christians who think the church in the United States has too easily accommodated itself to the consumerist and imperialist values of the culture. Living in the corners of the American empire, they hope to be a harbinger of a new and radically different form of Christian practice.

These "new monastics" pursue the ancient triumvirate of poverty, chastity and obedience, but with a twist. Their communities include married people whose pledge to chastity is understood as a commitment to marital fidelity. Poverty means eschewing typical middle-class economic climbing but not total indigence—some economic resources are necessary for building this desert kingdom. Obedience means accountability not to an abbot but to Jesus and to the community.

The description new monasticism comes from the theologian Jonathan Wilson. In Living Faithfully in a Fragmented World: Lessons for the Church from MacIntyre's 'After Virtue' (1998), Wilson responds to moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, who concludes his celebrated 1991 critique of modernity by calling for "the construction of local forms of community within which civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark ages which are already upon us. . . . We are waiting for another—doubtless very different—St. Benedict." Wilson agrees, and as an Anabaptist theologian he recognizes the resources in his church to create precisely the sort of new monasticism for which MacIntyre calls.

Be careful what you write. Wilson's daughter is now a founding member of one such new community, the Rutba House in Durham, North Carolina. Rutba got its start and its name from the experience of a Christian Peacemaker Team that was in Iraq at the start of the war. Leah Wilson-Hartgrove and her husband, Jonathan, were trained in CPT's tactics of nonviolent conflict resolution and of "getting in the way" of those who would do violence. Their group had a car accident in which a member was seriously hurt. They took him to Rutba, the nearest town with a hospital. The Iraqi doctor treated the injured American for no fee, but asked the group to promise to tell others what had happened to them in Rutba—that while their country was dropping bombs on his, he offered healing and peace. (Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove tells this story in To Baghdad and Beyond: How I Got Born Again in Babylon [Cascade].)

The Wilson-Hartgroves returned to the United States and started the Christian community in Durham, where Jonathan began study at Duke Divinity School. It's based in a sprawling old house with creaky hardwood floors in a largely black section of the city called Walltown; drug problems and civic neglect give the neighborhood a reputation as a dangerous place. Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove describes Rutba's mission there as one of "hospitality, peace-making and discipleship." He contrasts the community's vision with that of the rural Southern Baptists among whom he grew up: "Jesus doesn't just forgive my sins, he gives a whole new way of life—the best way to live."

The community shares meals and daily prayers from the Book of Common Prayer. Its members do not have a common treasury in the strict sense. They tend their own finances, but they do keep a common purse that members are encouraged to give to or take from as they have ability or need.

Their theological commitments are visible in the pictures on the living room walls: one is of Martin Luther King Jr., the other of Dorothy Day, cofounder of the Catholic Worker movement. Rutba's members are committed to being in Walltown. When other Duke students travel home for holidays, Rutba is their home. A bit worried that the Rutba members may be perceived as white do-gooders who intend to "save" the housing projects, Jonathan can only counter that they are committed to being a presence in Walltown—"unless the area gentrifies completely."

Wilson-Hartgrove heard a call to this sort of life while at Eastern College outside Philadelphia, where he studied with Tony Campolo. "A lot of Tony's students took his ideas more seriously than even he was ready for," he said. A number of Christian communities that include Campolo's students have cropped up in blighted neighborhoods in and around Philadelphia.

The Rutba community has only five members. In addition to the Wilson-Hartgroves, it includes another divinity school student, a 40-year-old man and a high school student whom the community has taken in as a foster child. When I asked whether the neighbors think Rutba is weird, Jonathan said, "You should hear [the high school student] tell his friends where he lives. 'Well, I live in this house, they're Christians, white and black, who aren't really kin to me, but as Christians sort of are . . ."

Despite its small size, Rutba House has a prominent place in the network of intentional Christian communities. In 2004 Rutba hosted a conference that led to the publication of a book, School(s) for Conversion: 12 Marks of a New Monasticism (Wipf and Stock), which includes essays on such topics as "Relocation to Abandoned Places of Empire," "Sharing Economic Resources" and "Peacemaking in the Midst of Violence and Conflict Resolution." Jonathan also tends a Web site that seeks to connect and support like-minded communities across the country (newmonasticism.org).

He is wary of having such a leading role in the young movement. "The Internet is the 'yeast' of the Pharisees about which Jesus warned," he jokes. Indeed, the Wilson-Hartgroves and Rutba could be accused of a sort of naive idealism, both in Iraq and Walltown, as they try to change a violent and racist world as 20-somethings. They are aware of that charge, and reply that their steadfastness over time will refute it. (The rate of failure for these sorts of communities is quite high.) These communities' eager use of the Internet reveals some of what is new in the new monasticism. They do not reject technology as such. They embrace the Internet, as it serves their purposes of linking similar Christian communities to one another and sharing resources.

Newness is also evident in their embrace of Catholic and Orthodox sources of inspiration, which other Anabaptist or Amish communities who live in similar ways once eschewed. Wilson-Hartgrove often uses a Dostoevsky quote that Dorothy Day employed in her ministry: "Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing compared to love in dreams."

In contrast to Rutba, Reba Place Fellowship in Evanston, Illinois, is a long-established intentional community. It was founded in the 1950s by a Mennonite professor from Goshen College who wanted a church more strictly modeled on the New Testament. Reba's membership peaked in the 1970s at about 150. Now it has 33 adult members, 16 children and teens, five "interns" who are considering membership, and a half-dozen or so people who simply "knocked on the door" to express interest, according to Reba leader Allan Howe. Some seminary students in the area have been steered to Reba by their professors. Those who want to know where they can find the way of life described in the New Testament actually lived out are directed to Reba Place Fellowship.

Reba members pool their money, and the community draws from the common treasury to cover members' housing, transportation and health care. Over the years Reba has acquired considerable resources, including dozens of houses and apartment buildings in racially diverse south Evanston. The fellowship rents many of these apartments at below-market rates as a service to the community. In contrast to Rutba's young idealism, in 50-plus years Reba's membership has grayed considerably. The community's decision to foreswear health insurance, trusting Providence for expensive medical care, may eventually tax even its deep pockets and those of its generous givers.

Reba is hesitant to refer to itself by using the ancient Christian terminology of monasticism. Mennonites have always rejected what they see as a two-tier church in which monks and priests are regarded as especially holy. Reba's David Janzen says the community has no interest in MacIntyre's ultimate purpose of "saving Western civilization." Rather, its members hope to show the world what following Jesus' way of justice and peace might look like.

A Chicago television station recently profiled Reba Place Fellowship by focusing on the Selph family. Doug Selph is a computer programmer who puts his $100,000 salary into Reba's common pot. Doug and his wife, Lisa, and her two children receive $762 a month from the community to cover the family's expenses. The WTTW program focused on one event that revealed how the community works. Lisa Selph's daughter Hannah was being encouraged by her violin teacher to buy a professional-quality instrument at a price of $10,000. The Selphs took the proposal to their "house group," with whom they pray regularly. The next step would have been to take the proposal to the entire fellowship.

Reba's leaders said they would be inclined to regard such a purchase as good for the whole community—like paying for a college education. But the question never got that far. The Selphs' house group suggested that Hannah earn the money to help pay for a new instrument and in the meantime continue to rent an instrument and develop her musical gifts. For the Selphs, Reba's practice of communal discernment kept the family from making an idol out of their child's talents.

Janzen, who contributed an essay to the New Monasticism volume, says that how the community's life works is not as important or interesting as why it works. "We keep returning to Jesus' teaching, [his] commands to love one another, to see to one another's welfare. There is a Spirit that grows up among us in doing that that is heaven on earth."

Even a casual visitor to the fellowship gets a sense of what he means. Their prayers crackle with evangelical piety and concern for peace, both global and local. The presence of a visitor from Christian Peacemaker Teams talking about her work in war-torn Colombia shows this is not merely private piety. The members of the fellowship want to make an impact, however small, on the world.

Something of a different animal from Reba is the Church of the Servant King in Eugene, Oregon. Many of its members are evangelicals who originally joined a parent congregation of the same name in 1978 in Gardena, California. The Eugene congregation was planted in 1987. Most of its key leaders have been living together in intentional community since the '78 founding.

Servant King started as an evangelical effort to live out scripture's vision of the church. A commitment to nonviolence evolved slowly, partly as members read the works of Stanley Hauerwas, partly as they decided who would clean the bathrooms. Peace is not merely about a position on the war in Iraq; it is about how one relates to one's neighbor, one's spouse and one's adversary in the community. Community leader Jon Stock points out that most intentional Christian communities that are not committed to nonviolence don't survive, because when arguments erupt, someone has to win—and the community loses. The Gardena congregation that planted Servant King has had such a rupture and is now on strained terms with its ecclesial offspring in Eugene.

Servant King's members say that a key to its survival is its "overcoming of pietism." They are not rigid about drinking, smoking or cursing; the atmosphere there can seem a bit like the early hours of a fraternity party. This is intentional. Members have worked hard to avoid any sense of competition over righteousness, both as individuals and in comparing Servant King to the wider church. Such pride can splinter a community, as in the Gardena congregation's case.

When I asked Stock whether he considers his community a model for the rest of the church, he almost visibly shuddered: "I'm much more comfortable talking about the mistakes we've made." Though smoking and drinking are permitted, the group is traditional in other moral matters. "We're quite conservative in what we do with our genitals. You have to get money, sex and power straight or they'll ruin you."

Pietism can create artificial boundaries between a community and the wider church. Communities like these are born precisely out of impatience with the mainstream church, which they regard as compromised by or indistinguishable from the world. Servant King has, with some difficulty, reembraced the wider church. It follows the lectionary in its preaching and celebrates the Lord's Supper weekly. It invites prominent theologians to visit and teach in its midst.

On the Sunday I visited, the community added a new member to the group, which Stock says is made up of 23 adults, eight teenagers and "I can't remember how many" children. The group gathers in the largest living room of its several houses in Eugene to sing "Down to the River to Pray" and to accompany the new member to her baptism—in a large tub in the backyard. She makes a public confession of sin, saying she has "idolized relationships above all." Stock almost whispers, "The Lord forgives." His fellow pastor, Brian Logan, shouts St. Paul's words as he dips her under the water: "If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation!"

In a liberal university town on the west coast, Servant King seems strange not because it's a commune of sorts, but because it's Christian. The community works to be known as such among its neighbors. It runs Windows bookshop, a used bookstore with mostly theology texts on its rough-hewn shelves. Ten years ago the bookstore birthed Wipf and Stock Publishers, which employs many of Servant King's members. The community also runs a coffee shop. All these activities take place in a city block-sized building that includes a pizza parlor and a stage for performances, which draw others in. Eugene's small number of Christians (it has the fewest churches for a city its size in America) know the church, as do the colorful assortment of folks who stop by for pizza, coffee, books or conversation.

By comparison with Servant King's members, Reba's Mennonites seem a bit more pious and plain. Reba's participation in a network of similar Anabaptist fellowships in the Shalom Mission Communities also stands in contrast to Servant King's independent status. But the two groups have some things in common. The life of the mind is important to both (one makes its living by selling books; the other has bookshelves filled to overflowing). Both communities are also quite wealthy. Reba's real estate is worth a fortune in the overheated Chicagoland housing market, and Servant King's property has tripled in value during the recent housing boom.

Yet these communities are not investors. Their property is important to them only as a way of allowing members to live near one another and share life together, as Stock writes in the New Monasticism book, or of enabling them to offer low-cost housing to their neighbors. When I asked Stock and Logan what they plan to do when their members retire, they looked befuddled. Christians don't retire, in their view. "Florida is not on the Christian map," Stock says. They plan to work until they cannot, at which point they will trust others to take care of them.

If their care for one another now is any indication, others will be there for caregiving. Stock and Logan kiss each other on the cheek when they part for a journey of a few days, suggesting that three decades in intentional community has led to a deep friendship. "What we're after is a place that tastes and smells like the kingdom of God," Stock says. One gets a sense of such a place at the party after the baptism. The new member has requested a traditional backyard barbecue, but I'm told she could have chosen any food she liked. Really? Even lobster? Sushi? Caviar? "Sure, she's a new member of Jesus' body—when else do you celebrate?" Servant King is not opposed to extravagance as such, but wants to see it in the service of building the kingdom of God rather than in private consumption.

Another branch on the new monastic family tree is the Church of the Sojourners in San Francisco. Eighteen years ago some evangelicals who wished to wed a personal gospel with the social gospel helped begin a church and intentional community in the city's Mission District.

Tim Otto, part of a leadership team for Sojourners, speaks of rethinking vocation along Christian lines. The new monastic communities swim against the pull of the American dream—to be financially secure, to move across the country for a better job, to plan for retirement. Sojourners encourages members to resist the allure of relocating or borrowing for career opportunities, but to be eager to move or take out a loan for the sake of the church. When asked what he does for a living, Otto says, "I'm trying to become a saint." Only subsequently does he reveal that he is a part-time nurse. The flexibility of part-time work is important to him, as he devotes the rest of his time to the church.

Sojourners traces its founding to its members' realization that they were better at being Americans than at being Christians. Disparagement of America is not controversial in San Francisco, but the claim to be Christian is. The contrast is evident in Sojourners' concocted "Celebration of Yahweh's Kingship," held annually on the Fourth of July. Its goal is to "colonize" the holiday for Christianity the same way Hallmark and Madison Avenue have colonized Easter and Christmas for their purposes. Member Debbie Gish says the Sojourners' barbecue and fireworks are part of a "declaration of allegiance" not to the United States but to "Christ the King," by citizens "of a monarchy, not a democracy." That won't play in either red state or blue state America.

Another church that bears a family resemblance to the new monastic communities, though with some key differences, is Grace Fellowship Community Church. The largely Asian congregation, part of a small denomination, the Cumberland Presbyterians, began as an offspring of a 100-year-old congregation in San Francisco's Mission District.

Grace looks like a "normal church," according to pastor Bob Appleby. Its members do not all live together as in the self-described intentional communities. But to join, one must submit to an intensive, nine-month catechetical program. The church takes Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon's Resident Aliens as a sort of manifesto. Catechumens are asked, among other things, to take the church's trash out and make the coffee. Such tasks are seen as a sort of truth in advertising—the church is about service, not about having one's "felt needs" met.

Grace Fellowship's primary relationship to the new monastic communities is its effort to give the church prominence in its theology, rather than the state. Pastor Sharon Huey talks of Grace's catechumenate as preparation for taking something like a "vow of insignificance." Putting off prestige is hard, especially for "overeducated" and upwardly mobile Californians, and even more so for Asians, she says. But it is scriptural.

Huey and Grace Fellowship share with other evangelicals a love of scripture. But they have put it to use in reading Hosea as carefully as the rest of the Bible. The prophet taught Huey that the common reduction of Christianity to psychological help for the privileged is a sort of "whoredom." Reading the prophets is training in how "not to be nice," the amiable Asian woman says, for her community is "better at harmony than truth." In a time of empire when the church should tell a "more persuasive story" than one of exultation of the nation, Bible study is radical stuff. Community members say they were "ready" on 9/11, for the prophets had taught them to mistrust claims that saving power comes from anything other than God.

The communities I visited have important differences in organization, style, finances and even theology. Some are churches, like Church of the Servant King and Church of the Sojourners. Some are related to churches. Reba sponsors two ecclesial gatherings nearby, so that one can worship with a Reba congregation without participating in Reba's common-purse arrangement. Rutba looks for support and wisdom from nearby St. John's Missionary Baptist Church, but members do not have to attend. Grace Fellowship is simply a mainline church committed to more radical living. Reba folks have a common treasury and give a stipend to members; Sojourners members maintain an agreed-upon standard of living and give the rest of their income to the church. Servant King members tithe 15 percent and open their books to one another to account for the rest. Servant King's rough speech and petty vices would make some people at Reba uneasy.

These communities can seem a bit inbred. Jonathan Wilson, coiner of the phrase new monasticism, is father and father-in-law of the key members of Rutba, which hosted the conference, edited the book and sponsors the Web site by the same name. The woman I saw baptized at Servant King is Jon Stock's niece. Stock runs Wipf and Stock Publishers, which prints Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove's work. Members of Sojourners and Grace Fellowship spoke at a conference organized by the Chicago-area seminary professors who send students to Reba.

Another problem the communities face is the challenge of transcending divisions along the lines of race and class. While those who do join are drawn to the scriptural norm of communities that transcend racial and financial barriers, they tend to be white, college-educated folks, despite great effort to reach out. For example, one of the Sojourners' original goals was to serve some of the tens of thousands of refugees displaced to San Francisco as a result of civil war in El Salvador. Three Salvadoran families joined the church and benefited from its legal clinic and job preparation aid. As soon as they acquired the resources, the families promptly bought minivans, left the church and moved to the suburbs. Perhaps those who have had less of a chance at pursuing the American dream are not yet ready to be disenchanted with it.

Even with these difficulties, the new monastic communities say they are adding new members, and various new communities are sprouting up around the country. Camden House in New Jersey has planted a garden in an area of postindustrial blight, where homeless people can get fresh vegetables. The Open Door in Atlanta is billed as a sort of "Protestant Catholic Worker" house, where members staff a soup kitchen for the homeless and agitate for justice in the city. Others communities have arisen in such unlikely places as Shreveport, Louisiana; Omaha, Nebraska; Waco, Texas; Springfield, Massachusetts; and Lexington, Kentucky, now linked as part of the informal new monasticism network. Each has its own gifts, idealism, quirkiness and commitment to local community. And each claims to be an alternative to the now-regnant empire and a foretaste of a coming kingdom.

Each of the communities I visited seeks also to serve the wider church—and even to convert it. Monastic communities have always had greater influence than their numbers. For one thing, they enable preachers and other Christians to point and say, "See, someone does try to live out the costly demands of Jesus with regard to possessions, family, nonviolence and love." Their presence also encourages more traditional churches to alter their life in small but significant ways.

Even if the effort doesn't have that effect, its adherents view it as worthwhile. As Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove says, "Whether these communities proliferate or not, this life is good enough in itself."

Jason Byassee is a Century assistant editor.

C
crsschk Sep 16, 2006

The prophet taught Huey that the common reduction of Christianity to psychological help for the privileged is a sort of "whoredom."

That speaks volumes...
vow of insignificance

Even more so.

sermonindex Sep 18, 2006

I thought I would offer this article in juxtaposition to that utterly depressing hellish secular article from Time
bartle, I found both articles interesting.

'New Monasticism' is an interesting way of communicating the sense of separating from the world's systems which comes from these attempts at New Testament living. Amen.

Have you ever been to the Reba Place Fellowship?

R
roaringlamb Sep 18, 2006

[b]Servant King's members say that a key to its survival is its "overcoming of pietism." They are not rigid about drinking, smoking or cursing; the atmosphere there can seem a bit like the early hours of a fraternity party. This is intentional.[/b] Members have worked hard to avoid any sense of competition over righteousness, both as individuals and in comparing Servant King to the wider church. Such pride can splinter a community, as in the Gardena congregation's case.

Everything was going well until this popped up. Don't the Scriptures admonish us to "avoid all appearance of evil" I am all for communities like these mentioned, but not at the expense of GOD's Word.

Pietism can create artificial boundaries between a community and the wider church. [b]Communities like these are born precisely out of impatience with the mainstream church, which they regard as compromised by or indistinguishable from the world[/b]

Interesting that they say the Church is compromised but have no problem living in a frat-like setting, and intentionally have avoided piety which is holiness.
I'm sure that they mean well and all, but again not at the expense of the Scriptures. Too many are getting fed up with the organized church, and casting aside Truth while starting their own movements based upon human reasoning, and what seems good to men.
To quote Charles Wesley
"soldiers of GOD arise and put your armour on"

R
repentcanada Sep 18, 2006

Here is the full article from Time Magazine:

Does God Want You To Be Rich?

A growing number of Protestant evangelists raise a joyful Yes! But the idea is poison to other, more mainstream pastors
By DAVID VAN BIEMA, JEFF CHU

Posted Sunday, Sep. 10, 2006
When George Adams lost his job at an Ohio tile factory last October, the most practical thing he did, he thinks, was go to a new church, even though he had to move his wife and four preteen boys to Conroe, a suburb of Houston, to do it. Conroe, you see, is not far from Lakewood, the home church of megapastor and best-selling author Joel Osteen.

Osteen's relentlessly upbeat television sermons had helped Adams, 49, get through the hard times, and now Adams was expecting the smiling, Texas-twanged 43-year-old to help boost him back toward success. And Osteen did. Inspired by the preacher's insistence that one of God's top priorities is to shower blessings on Christians in this lifetime--and by the corollary assumption that one of the worst things a person can do is to expect anything less--Adams marched into Gullo Ford in Conroe looking for work. He didn't have entry-level aspirations: "God has showed me that he doesn't want me to be a run-of-the-mill person," he explains. He demanded to know what the dealership's top salesmen made--and got the job. Banishing all doubt--"You can't sell a $40,000-to-$50,000 car with menial thoughts"--Adams took four days to retail his first vehicle, a Ford F-150 Lariat with leather interior. He knew that many fellow salesmen don't notch their first score until their second week. "Right now, I'm above average!" he exclaims. "It's a new day God has given me! I'm on my way to a six-figure income!" The sales commission will help with this month's rent, but Adams hates renting. Once that six-figure income has been rolling in for a while, he will buy his dream house: "Twenty-five acres," he says. "And three bedrooms. We're going to have a schoolhouse (his children are home schooled). We want horses and ponies for the boys, so a horse barn. And a pond. And maybe some cattle."

"I'm dreaming big--because all of heaven is dreaming big," Adams continues. "Jesus died for our sins. That was the best gift God could give us," he says. "But we have something else. Because I want to follow Jesus and do what he ordained, God wants to support us. It's Joel Osteen's ministry that told me. Why would an awesome and mighty God want anything less for his children?"

In three of the Gospels, Jesus warns that each of his disciples may have to "deny himself" and even "take up his Cross." In support of this alarming prediction, he forcefully contrasts the fleeting pleasures of today with the promise of eternity: "For what profit is it to a man," he asks, "if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" It is one of the New Testament's hardest teachings, yet generations of churchgoers have understood that being Christian, on some level, means being ready to sacrifice--money, autonomy or even their lives.


But for a growing number of Christians like George Adams, the question is better restated, "Why not gain the whole world plus my soul?" For several decades, a philosophy has been percolating in the 10 million--strong Pentecostal wing of Christianity that seems to turn the Gospels' passage on its head: certainly, it allows, Christians should keep one eye on heaven. But the new good news is that God doesn't want us to wait. Known (or vilified) under a variety of names--Word of Faith, Health and Wealth, Name It and Claim It, Prosperity Theology--its emphasis is on God's promised generosity in this life and the ability of believers to claim it for themselves. In a nutshell, it suggests that a God who loves you does not want you to be broke. Its signature verse could be John 10: 10: "I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly." In a TIME poll, 17% of Christians surveyed said they considered themselves part of such a movement, while a full 61% believed that God wants people to be prosperous. And 31%--a far higher percentage than there are Pentecostals in America--agreed that if you give your money to God, God will bless you with more money.

"Prosperity" first blazed to public attention as the driveshaft in the moneymaking machine that was 1980s televangelism and faded from mainstream view with the Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart scandals. But now, after some key modifications (which have inspired some to redub it Prosperity Lite), it has not only recovered but is booming. Of the four biggest megachurches in the country, three--Osteen's Lakewood in Houston; T.D. Jakes' Potter's House in south Dallas; and Creflo Dollar's World Changers near Atlanta--are Prosperity or Prosperity Lite pulpits (although Jakes' ministry has many more facets). While they don't exclusively teach that God's riches want to be in believers' wallets, it is a key part of their doctrine. And propelled by Osteen's 4 million--selling book, Your Best Life Now, the belief has swept beyond its Pentecostal base into more buttoned-down evangelical churches, and even into congregations in the more liberal Mainline. It is taught in hundreds of non-Pentecostal Bible studies. One Pennsylvania Lutheran pastor even made it the basis for a sermon series for Lent, when Christians usually meditate on why Jesus was having His Worst Life Then. Says the Rev. Chappell Temple, a Methodist minister with the dubious distinction of pastoring Houston's other Lakewood Church (Lakewood United Methodist), an hour north of Osteen's: "Prosperity Lite is everywhere in Christian culture. Go into any Christian bookstore, and see what they're offering."

The movement's renaissance has infuriated a number of prominent pastors, theologians and commentators. Fellow megapastor Rick Warren, whose book The Purpose Driven Life has outsold Osteen's by a ratio of 7 to 1, finds the very basis of Prosperity laughable. "This idea that God wants everybody to be wealthy?", he snorts. "There is a word for that: baloney. It's creating a false idol. You don't measure your self-worth by your net worth. I can show you millions of faithful followers of Christ who live in poverty. Why isn't everyone in the church a millionaire?"

The brickbats--both theological and practical (who really gets rich from this?)--come especially thick from Evangelicals like Warren. Evangelicalism is more prominent and influential than ever before. Yet the movement, which has never had a robust theology of money, finds an aggressive philosophy advancing within its ranks that many of its leaders regard as simplistic, possibly heretical and certainly embarrassing.

Prosperity's defenders claim to be able to match their critics chapter and verse. They caution against broad-brushing a wide spectrum that ranges from pastors who crassly solicit sky's-the-limit financial offerings from their congregations to those whose services tend more toward God-fueled self-help. Advocates note Prosperity's racial diversity--a welcome exception to the American norm--and point out that some Prosperity churches engage in significant charity. And they see in it a happy corrective for Christians who are more used to being chastened for their sins than celebrated as God's children. "Who would want to get in on something where you're miserable, poor, broke and ugly and you just have to muddle through until you get to heaven?" asks Joyce Meyer, a popular television preacher and author often lumped in the Prosperity Lite camp. "I believe God wants to give us nice things." If nothing else, Meyer and other new-breed preachers broach a neglected topic that should really be a staple of Sunday messages: Does God want you to be rich?

As with almost any important religious question, the first response of most Christians (especially Protestants) is to ask how Scripture treats the topic. But Scripture is not definitive when it comes to faith and income. Deuteronomy commands believers to "remember the Lord your God, for it is He who gives you power to get wealth", and the rest of the Old Testament is dotted with celebrations of God's bestowal of the good life. On at least one occasion--the so-called parable of the talents (a type of coin)--Jesus holds up savvy business practice (investing rather than saving) as a metaphor for spiritual practice. Yet he spent far more time among the poor than the rich, and a majority of scholars quote two of his most direct comments on wealth: the passage in the Sermon on the Mount in which he warns, "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth ... but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven"; and his encounter with the "rich young ruler" who cannot bring himself to part with his money, after which Jesus famously comments, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Both statements can be read as more nuanced than they at first may seem. In each case it is not wealth itself that disqualifies but the inability to understand its relative worthlessness compared with the riches of heaven. The same thing applies to Paul's famous line, "Money is the root of all evil," in his first letter to Timothy. The actual quote is, "The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

So the Bible leaves plenty of room for a discussion on the role, positive or negative, that money should play in the lives of believers. But it's not a discussion that many pastors are willing to have. "Jesus' words about money don't make us very comfortable, and people don't want to hear about it," notes Collin Hansen, an editor at the evangelical monthly Christianity Today. Pastors are happy to discuss from the pulpit hot-button topics like sex and even politics. But the relative absence of sermons about money--which the Bible mentions several thousand times--is one of the more stunning omissions in American religion, especially among its white middle-class precincts. Princeton University sociologist Robert Wuthnow says much of the U.S. church "talks about giving but does not talk about the broader financial concerns people have, or the pressures at work. There has long been a taboo on talking candidly about money."

In addition to personal finances, a lot of evangelical churches have also avoided any pulpit talk about social inequality. When conservative Christianity split from the Mainline in the early 20th century, the latter pursued their commitment to the "social gospel" by working on poverty and other causes such as civil rights and the Vietnam-era peace movement. Evangelicals went the other way: they largely concentrated on issues of individual piety. "We took on personal salvation--we need our sins redeemed, and we need our Saviour," says Warren. But "some people tended to go too individualistic, and justice and righteousness issues were overlooked."

A recent Sunday at Lakewood gives some idea of the emphasis on worldly gain that disturbs Warren. Several hundred stage lights flash on, and Osteen, his gigawatt smile matching them, strides onto the stage of what used to be the Compaq Center sports arena but is now his church. "Let's just celebrate the goodness of the Lord!" Osteen yells. His wife Victoria says, "Our Daddy God is the strongest! He's the mightiest!"

And so it goes, before 14,000 attendees, a nonstop declaration of God's love and his intent to show it in the here and now, sometimes verging on the language of an annual report. During prayer, Osteen thanks God for "your unprecedented favor. We believe that 2006 will be our best year so far. We declare it by faith." Today's sermon is about how gratitude can "save a marriage, save your job [and] get you a promotion."

"I don't think I've ever preached a sermon about money," he says a few hours later. He and Victoria meet with TIME in their pastoral suite, once the Houston Rockets' locker and shower area but now a zone of overstuffed sofas and imposing oak bookcases. "Does God want us to be rich?" he asks. "When I hear that word rich, I think people say, 'Well, he's preaching that everybody's going to be a millionaire.' I don't think that's it." Rather, he explains, "I preach that anybody can improve their lives. I think God wants us to be prosperous. I think he wants us to be happy. To me, you need to have money to pay your bills. I think God wants us to send our kids to college. I think he wants us to be a blessing to other people. But I don't think I'd say God wants us to be rich. It's all relative, isn't it?" The room's warm lamplight reflects softly off his crocodile shoes.


Osteen is a second-generation Prosperity teacher. His father John Osteen started out Baptist but in 1959 withdrew from that fellowship to found a church in one of Houston's poorer neighborhoods and explore a new philosophy developing among Pentecostals. If the rest of Protestantism ignored finances, Prosperity placed them center stage, marrying Pentecostalism's ebullient notion of God's gifts with an older tradition that stressed the power of positive thinking. Practically, it emphasized hard work and good home economics. But the real heat was in its spiritual premise: that if a believer could establish, through word and deed (usually donation), that he or she was "in Jesus Christ," then Jesus' father would respond with paternal gifts of health and wealth in this life. A favorite verse is from Malachi: "'Bring all the tithes into the storehouse ... and try Me now in this,' says the Lord of hosts. 'If I will not for you open the windows of heaven and pour out for you such blessing that there will not be room enough to receive it.'" (See boxes.)

It is a peculiarly American theology but turbocharged. If Puritanism valued wealth and Benjamin Franklin wrote about doing well by doing good, hard-core Prosperity doctrine, still extremely popular in the hands of pastors like Atlanta megachurch minister Creflo Dollar, reads those Bible verses as a spiritual contract. God will pay back a multiple (often a hundredfold) on offerings by the congregation. "Poor people like Prosperity," says Stephen Prothero, chairman of the religion department at Boston University. "They hear it as aspirant. They hear, 'You can make it too--buy a car, get a job, get wealthy.' It can function as a form of liberation." It can also be exploitative. Outsiders, observes Milmon Harrison of the University of California at Davis, author of the book Righteous Riches, often see it as "another form of the church abusing people so ministers could make money."


In the past decade, however, the new generation of preachers, like Osteen, Meyer and Houston's Methodist megapastor Kirbyjon Caldwell, who gave the benediction at both of George W. Bush's Inaugurals, have repackaged the doctrine. Gone are the divine profit-to-earnings ratios, the requests for offerings far above a normal 10% tithe (although many of the new breed continue to insist that congregants tithe on their pretax rather than their net income). What remains is a materialism framed in a kind of Tony Robbins positivism. No one exemplifies this better than Osteen, who ran his father's television-production department until John died in 1999. "Joel has learned from his dad, but he has toned it back and tapped into basic, everyday folks' ways of talking," says Ben Phillips, a theology professor at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. That language is reflected in Your Best Life Now, an extraordinarily accessible exhortation to this-world empowerment through God. "To live your best life now," it opens, to see "your business taking off. See your marriage restored. See your family prospering. See your dreams come to pass ..." you must "start looking at life through eyes of faith." Jesus is front and center but not his Crucifixion, Resurrection or Atonement. There are chapters on overcoming trauma and a late chapter on emulating God's generosity. (And indeed, Osteen's church gave more than $1 million in relief money after Hurricane Katrina.) But there are many more illustrations of how the Prosperity doctrine has produced personal gain, most memorably, perhaps, for the Osteen family: how Victoria's "speaking words of faith and victory" eventually brought the couple their dream house; how Joel discerned God's favor in being bumped from economy to business class.

Confronting such stories, certain more doctrinally traditional Christians go ballistic. Last March, Ben Witherington, an influential evangelical theologian at Asbury Seminary in Kentucky, thundered that "we need to renounce the false gospel of wealth and health--it is a disease of our American culture; it is not a solution or answer to life's problems." Respected blogger Michael Spencer--known as the Internet Monk--asked, "How many young people are going to be pointed to Osteen as a true shepherd of Jesus Christ? He's not. He's not one of us." Osteen is an irresistible target for experts from right to left on the Christian spectrum who--beyond worrying that he is living too high or inflating the hopes of people with real money problems--think he is dragging people down with a heavy interlocked chain of theological and ethical errors that could amount to heresy.


Most start out by saying that Osteen and his ilk have it "half right": that God's goodness is biblical, as is the idea that he means us to enjoy the material world. But while Prosperity claims to be celebrating that goodness, the critics see it as treating God as a celestial ATM. "God becomes a means to an end, not the end in himself," says Southwestern Baptist's Phillips. Others are more upset about what it de-emphasizes. "[Prosperity] wants the positive but not the negative," says another Southern Baptist, Alan Branch of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Mo. "Problem is, we live on this side of Eden. We're fallen." That is, Prosperity soft-pedals the consequences of Adam's fall--sin, pain and death--and their New Testament antidote: Jesus' atoning sacrifice and the importance of repentance. And social liberals express a related frustration that preachers like Osteen show little interest in battling the ills of society at large. Perhaps appropriately so, since, as Prosperity scholar Harrison explains, "philosophically, their main way of helping the poor is encouraging people not to be one of them."

Most unnerving for Osteen's critics is the suspicion that they are fighting not just one idiosyncratic misreading of the gospel but something more daunting: the latest lurch in Protestantism's ongoing descent into full-blown American materialism. After the eclipse of Calvinist Puritanism, whose respect for money was counterbalanced by a horror of worldliness, much of Protestantism quietly adopted the idea that "you don't have to give up the American Dream. You just see it as a sign of God's blessing," says Edith Blumhofer, director of Wheaton College's Center for the Study of American Evangelicals. Indeed, a last-gasp resistance to this embrace of wealth and comfort can be observed in the current evangelical brawl over whether comfortable megachurches (like Osteen's and Warren's) with pumped-up day-care centers and high-tech amenities represent a slide from glorifying an all-powerful God to asking what custom color you would prefer he paint your pews. "The tragedy is that Christianity has become a yes-man for the culture," says Boston University's Prothero.

Non-prosperity parties from both conservative and more progressive evangelical camps recently have been trying to reverse the trend. Eastern University professor Ron Sider's book Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, a fringe classic after its publication in 1977, is selling far more copies now, and some young people are even acting on its rather radical prescriptions: a sprinkling of Protestant groups known loosely as the New Monastics is experimenting with the kind of communal living among the poor that had previously been the province of Catholic orders. Jim Wallis, longtime leader of one such community in Washington and the editor of Sojourners magazine, has achieved immense exposure lately with his pleas that Evangelicals engage in more political activism on behalf of the poor.

And then there is Warren himself, who by virtue of his energy, hypereloquence and example (he's working in Rwanda with government, business and church sectors) has become a spokesman for church activism. "The church is the largest network in the world," he says. "If you have 2.3 billion people who claim to be followers of Christ, that's bigger than China."


And despite Warren's disdain for Prosperity's theological claims, some Prosperity churches have become players in the very faith-based antipoverty world he inhabits, even while maintaining their distinctive theology. Kirbyjon Caldwell, who pastors Windsor Village, the largest (15,000) United Methodist church in the country, can sound as Prosperity as the next pastor: "Jesus did not die and get up off the Cross so we could live lives full of despair and disappointment," he says. He quotes the "abundant life" verse with all earnestness, even giving it a real estate gloss: "It is unscriptural not to own land," he announces. But he's doing more than talk about it. He recently oversaw the building of Corinthian Pointe, a 452-unit affordable-housing project that he claims is the largest residential subdivision ever built by a nonprofit. Most of its inhabitants, he says, are not members of his church.

Caldwell knows that prosperity is a loaded term in evangelical circles. But he insists that "it depends on how you define prosperity. I am not a proponent of saying the Lord's name three times, clicking your heels and then you get what you ask for. But you cannot give what you do not have. We are fighting what we call the social demons. If I am going to help someone, I am going to have to have something with which to help."

Caldwell knows that the theology behind this preacherly rhetoric will never be acceptable to Warren or Sider or Witherington. But the man they all follow said, "By their fruits you will know them," and for some, Corinthian Pointe is a very convincing sort of fruit. Hard-line Prosperity theology may always seem alien to those with enough money to imagine making more without engaging God in a kind of spiritual quid pro quo. And Osteen's version, while it abandons part of that magical thinking, may strike some as self-centered rather than God centered. But American Protestantism is a dynamic faith. Caldwell's version reminds us that there is no reason a giving God could not invest even an awkward and needy creed with a mature and generous heart. If God does want us to be rich in this life, no doubt it's this richness in spirit that he is most eager for us to acquire.

sermonindex Sep 18, 2006

Have you ever been to the Reba Place Fellowship


no, but just another place to add to the long list of "wanna-go's".

In Jesus' love, bartle

L
lovegrace Sep 18, 2006

I only read the orginal article that Greg posted, but wow.

This should be another 'sign' of that we are in the last of days. The world even recognizes this as a 'new' gospel. *I.E. the headliner on the picture*

Wow. Saints be prepared, Jesus is coming back! Soon!

O
OverSeer Sep 18, 2006

Here is what is amazing to me about this whole delusion: First, the Bible prophesies, classifies, and clarifies the truth of
[b]the[/b] coming counterfeit revival before the Lord comes back. [b]The apostasy must come first[/b] (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3). This end-time delusion will be for the purpose of judging "those who perish because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false (the lie)" (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11). Jesus expressed it this way when He told His purpose for speaking in parables: "To you it has been granted (those who have received the truth) to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them (those who have rejected the truth) it has not been granted....Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand" (Matthew 13:11-13). The Bible tells us that the end-times will be marked by powerless professors of the faith - men who hold to a form of godliness all though they have denied its power (2 Timothy 3:1-5) and that men "will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will [i]turn away[/i] (apostasize) their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths" (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
The second amazing thing to me about this whole delusion is that God has sounded the trumpet through His faithful men and is still sounding the warning. Paris Reidhead rang the bell with [i]Ten Shekels and a Shirt[/i]. In that sermon, preached in the mid-sixties, he nailed the prosperity gospel, the liberalism of Joel Osteen, and the fundamentalism infected by humanism proclaimed by Rick Warren.
It's time for the church to wake up! "For this reason it says, 'Awake sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you'" (Ephesians 5:14).

Grace and peace
Olan

O
OverSeer Sep 18, 2006

I'm describing not fourth-century monks, but present-day communities of Christians who think the church in the United States has too easily accommodated itself to the consumerist and imperialist values of the culture. Living in the corners of the American empire, they hope to be a harbinger of a new and radically different form of Christian practice.

God has never called us to set up alternative Christian communities but to [i]be Christian in our communities[/i]. While I admire the motive I don't agree with the method. We are to be separated but not isolated - and the two are not the same. We are to have contact without contamination just as our Lord did.

Grace and peace
Olan

This discussion is locked.

Archived
1 of 12 posts