“Health and Wealth”

Tags

Health and Wealth, raised to life, Word of Faith

Recently I have been thinking about a movement called the “Word of Faith” or the “Health and Wealth Gospel”. In this essay, I want to think a little about the way biblical terms and concepts are used by its preachers.
In the event that you are unfamiliar with this sort of teaching the “Health and Wealth Gospel”, as the name implies, teaches that God, the God of the Christian faith, wants all believers to be blessed by wealth and good health; benefits available to those in Christ through the vehicle of their faith, what is usually called “the word of faith”. Now I have to admit that at first glance some of what these men and women are teaching seems true.  God does promise to bless His people. Of course, He also promises to bless unbelievers as well, for the God who sends rain on the just also sends it on the unjust. The real problem with this teaching is that it fails to do justice to all the outcomes of faith.  Probably the best place to highlight this one-sidedness is Hebrews 11, where we read that by faith some received their dead back to life and some were, by faith, sawn in half. The “Word of Faith” movement seemingly misses just this point. Yet that is not the only misstep.
“Health and Wealth, Word of Faith” preachers all believe that faith becomes sight, something Scripture affirms as well. The problem is that the definition of concepts such as “faith” are not comprehensive or even biblical, which is unfortunate. Especially since Scripture gives us a very concise definition of it “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”. It is difficult to see how this definition lines up with the “Word of Faith” concept. “Faith” though is not the only term that seems to be misunderstood by “Word of Faith” preachers. Anyone listening to these men or women for very long will hear a lot about God’s blessing. True enough God wants to and does bless us, but again the concept of blessing is generally left undefined. Few if any “Word of Faith” teachers offer anything like a comprehensive biblical definition, or example, of what it means to be blessed by God. Unfortunate since Jesus gives us several examples of what blessedness looks like (Matthew 5.3-12).

The “Health and Wealth Gospel” fails on several points theologically, which is enough for me to warn others to avoid it. However, I have other concerns as well. The “Health and Wealth Gospel” is tragic in that it tends to appeal to those in great need of hope, and hope is something it does offer, in spades. However, it is an offer that it is not able to deliver, which means the “Word of Faith”, “Health and Wealth” movement is full of people who are either bitter or becoming bitter towards God. People who feel that God does not keep His promises or who feel like second class Christians due to their lack of faith. The “Health and Wealth Gospel” is no Good News, nor can it be. It cannot be for it knows nothing of the Christ of St. Paul, The Christ Who taught him to trust God, even in the worst of circumstances, for He is trustworthy and He loves to raise the dead back to new life. The “Health and Wealth Gospel” can never teach this for It is a lesson that can only be learned by faith exercised in the face of trials, sickness, poverty and even death. All of which are essential to becoming like Christ.

Organized Religion in Meeker,Colorado

Tags

occupy, organized religion

It is popular, in some circles, to bash Christianity under the guise of “organized religion” and to do so by alleging that “organized religion” is more about form than function. In other words, “organized religion” is more about theology and less about loving people. Therefore the truly spiritual, that is those that are able to recognize and diagnose these glaring problems within the church, are led by their angst to engage in methods that more closely resemble the occupy movement than anything else.  The odd thing is that this angst, this protest against “organized religion” does little if anything to remedy the problems they decry. To put it another way these “occupiers” are, at least in theory, all for social justice but in reality do little or nothing to further it.  Besides that, the criticism brought against “organized religion” will simply not stand scrutiny. Let me give you an example drawn from the small town we live in, Meeker, Colorado.

If you need help paying your electric bill in Meeker there is one place you can go for help: organized religion. If you are hungry and need food at anytime of the day or night there in only one place, you can go to: organized religion. If you are travelling through our town, run out of gas and appeal to the gas station or the Sheriff’s department for help they will send you to, you guessed it, organized religion. If you need help paying your rent your best bet is to turn to organized religion. If you are a stranger and need a place to stay a phone call will secure you a room for the night in the local hotel and that call will probably come from, again, organized religion. If you need a coat next winter, where is the best place to find one, for free? Organized religion. If you do not want your children being educated in the government school, where do you turn? Organized religion.  If you are pregnant and need help, the only place you can go in complete confidentiality and safety is to: organized religion. Organized religion accounts for probably 75 or 80% of the so-called “social safety net” in our county, if not more. The funny thing is that I see lots more men with clerical collars helping with this than I do guys with ear rings and guitars. Therefore the criticism falls very short of the mark.

It may be that folks making the above sorts of criticism are unaware of the good, the centuries of good, that the Christian Church (organized religion) has done. If that is the case then I would admonish said individuals against building straw men. No doubt the Christian church is a work in progress, indeed she is. It is also true that we are, in many ways, still in our infancy. We are and so let us press on and let us admonish those who, in the name of Christ, stand on the sidelines and point “that even now the ax is laid at the root of the tree, therefore bear fruit worthy of repentance”. “From the days of John until now the kingdom of God has been coming violently and the violent bear it away”. “Faith with out works is dead” and “He who has ears to hear let him hear”.

The Institutionalized Church

Tags

Body of Christ, Christ, institutionalized church

Occasionally I will hear someone say, “I just don’t like organized religion or formal worship” or “I have left the institutional church”. The irony of this is often missed for really the above proclamations are, in their own ways, forms of institution.  While these observations might be amusing, the statements are troubling for unwittingly or not they suggest a real misunderstanding, if not disregard, for Christ. For after all our doctrine of the church must begin with Christology. Indeed, as I think John W. Nevin noted, ecclesiology is a sub heading of Christology. Like it or not the ascension of Christ instituted the church, forever. The question is “can you turn your back on the church and still have Christ?” The short answer is “no” but just as soon as we reply in this way we must, just as quickly, qualify our answer. Perhaps its better say that from a human perspective “it depends”.

To begin, we must ask ourselves what we mean by “leaving”. Do we have in mind leaving a particular body or denomination or perhaps leaving behind a particular style of worship? Perhaps it is easier to look at this in terms of what we are not leaving or what we are keeping. So, if in our leaving we are still committed to things like Scripture, church discipline, the pastoral ministry, the sacraments (or if you like “ordinances”) and the preaching and reading of the word of God and orthodoxy then it would seem that  to speak in terms of leaving is more than a little bit misleading. For after all if the above are in place we can hold worship services in the local dump and bang trash can lids for music. It matters little for we are, as exemplified by our commitment to the above, still committed to the church instituted by Jesus Christ. In fact, such commitments are unavoidable for a Christian for they are part and parcel of who and what we are as Christians and it does no use to deny it.  Or, can an eye say just because I am not a hand I am not part of the body? Of course not.

I think that when we think about the church we often forget that the church, as an institution, exist as such not by virtue of mankind’s good pleasure but God’s. It is a, as much as I hate the word, supernatural institution, a city whose builder and maker is God. The “heavenly Jerusalem” who is the mother of us all.

So let us choose our word carefully, very carefully. For if, we are truly turning our back on the institutionalized church we are really and truly turning our back on Christ for the Church is the body of Christ.  If the church does not exist in the world visibly and truly then it follows that the incarnation cannot be true. To truly deny the church and her religion is to deny Christ.

Backward Conservatives.

Tags

christian values, conservative values, low intelligence

Recently (last week I think) Yahoo News posted an article about a study suggesting that folks who hold to “social conservative values” were of a measurably lower intelligence than others (probably social liberals) were. While the science behind this study has been called into question I have reason to think that if what Yahoo means by the term “social conservative” is Christian values, they may have a point and a biblical one at that.
Now I have to admit that when I first read this report I was a bit angry. I quickly began to do some fact checking via Google but then these words from St Paul to the Corinthians came to mind:
“But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
Being smart and being thought of as smart is a great temptation for us, especially if we really are. However, Yahoo has given us a great reminder of who we are and what we are to glory in and why. We Christians are indeed foolish, at least from a certain perspective. We are so (foolish), because we place our faith and hope in a crucified God, which is something that from a worldling’s perspective is the ultimate folly. Yet the truth of the matter is that we, the unsophisticated, uniformed, superstitious and intolerant are not fools at all. For we boast in The Lord and He has never let anyone that trusts (or boasts) in Him down. Wisdom (especially the wisdom of the world) will fade, but The word of The Lord remains forever, and I glory in that foolishness above all.

Tolerance and Tyranny part two.

Tags

gangs of New York, gods, liberals, monism, Ronald Regan

In an earlier post, I argued that what is often called “tolerance” is actually tyranny. In this post, I would like to look at how that is so.  It is a good thing to think about for our natural instinct is to see things the other way around and to equate tolerance with freedom. Let me start with the following observation: no one (no sane person) tolerates everything. Take for instance the political liberal. It is a safe bet that he or she will not tolerate much that a man like Ronald Regan might stand for.

The real question is by what standard we judge what is to be tolerated, and what is not. In the West, and for that matter in much of the East, the question of an ethical or moral standard was really more of an assumption than a real question. It was because for the first 1800 years or so of our history everyone assumed Christian values. Things, ideas, behavior etc. were judged tolerable or not based on The Word of God. In other words, there was one basic standard for morality.

So far so good, but then comes the rise of the enlightenment and rationalism followed by the hangover we call postmodernism. Suddenly skepticism came into vogue and almost overnight, the idea of objective truth (that is truth tied to some sort of a standard) became (almost) outdated. As one wise man put it, “Everyman did what was right in his own eyes”.

However, how does that sort of toleration lead to tyranny?

The reason is that when man replaces the objective truth of God’s word for another standard (whatever it may be) he has in fact recapitulating the age-old sin of the first Adam, who tried to be like God. Theologian RJ Rushdoony put it (roughly) like this: “when you reach the level of no further appeal, you have reached the god of the system” and it’s commonly understood that one sort of god does not tolerate any other sort of god very well. Therefore, the struggle for power begins.

I really like the movie Gangs of New York. It is a movie with some very graphic scenes but like many of Scorsese’s movies; it is making a good point by asking a good question. The question is “who is the biggest and toughest gang in New York?” and the answer is of course the US government. This brings us back to the question of tyranny. For, as I have pointed out, at the end of the day gods (and governments) will only tolerate themselves, and those that view themselves in terms of it. Like the gangs of New York, there may be room for slight variations but only very slight. The state becomes a monistic tyrant that will only allow reflections of its own image. Tolerance becomes tyranny and the only cure for that is The Trinity. How that is so is a question I will attempt to take up in my next post.