Warren on the ‘Prosperity Gospel’
Posted by Chris L on Dec 6th, 2007
2007
Dec 6
HT: CRN.Info commenter ianmcn
Warren [...] has repaid every dollar he has earned in the pulpit of Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif., and pledged to give away 90 percent of his book royalties. He accepts no speaking fees and is not as reluctant as Osteen to criticize those who are less altruistic.
“The opulent lifestyles of televangelists make me sick,†said Warren, of those ministries now under investigation. The scandals, he said, flow from the “prosperity gospel†that many televangelists preach.
“Success in any area often creates a spirit of entitlement — ‘I deserve this’ — that is the exact opposite of servant leadership,†Warren said.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
I am somewhat bothered by how he makes his finances so public. Didn’t Jesus say not to let the right hand know what the left hand is doing?
But then Warren is letting known is what he does with monies he collects from Christians, so in a sense, I suppose those who attend his church and buy his books are much like tax payers who have a right to know where their dollars are going.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
He’s doing this to show he’s not stealing. A man in a big position like that needs to garner trust in that area. This is the most practical way to do that.
I don’t think any other Christian could have said it any better than Warren did right here. Good on him. He earns bonus points with me today!
I bet the ODMs will find some way to spin this negatively though. =(
Joe
December 6th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I’m a little confused here. How do I interpret this post?
I went to the source of the story that you quote and it bashes men who are ‘prosperity preachers’ and even calls them “pulpit pimps”.
Chris L, are you ACTUALLY trying to warn us about false teachers in the Church???
Are you working for Ingrid now?
December 6th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
David,
I would note that Warren doesn’t list out all of the places the money he gives back goes to, nor does he elevate the individuals who receive service on their behalf as examples of his ‘goodwill’ (which is, I believe, at the heart of that admonishment).
With all of the public scrutiny of leaders - be they political, religious or commercial leaders - the public expectation of transparency with finances has become a way to determine the “level of corruption” or “level or greed” of these figures, rather than an examination of their good works.
In a way, it is an accountability measure to the church at large…
December 6th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
No Chris R…
He’s just trying to warn people about people like you.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Chris R,
Interpret this post as “Rick Warren is not ‘Satan Incarnate’, like you and yours might think he is.”
It’s a good thing he’s doing this. Warren’s transparency is much appreciated on this matter.
Why aren’t you happy about this, Chris R? Aren’t you ever happy for other Christians? Do you always have to be negative, even on a totally positive dealy?
Please address the issue of what the post is about, not Ingrid or w/e.
Love,
Joe
December 6th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Chris R,
If you scan every word I have ever written, you will not find a single word in support of the prosperity gospel, nor those who peddle it.
I believe that teaching people that God will bring you health and wealth because of your acceptance of Jesus is “another gospel”, indeed. As systematic theologies go, the Prosperity Gospel is about the most shallow and self-centered ones I know of, and those who teach it are either deluded or corrupt.
If they are deluded, they have Christ’s grace to fall on, but a burden of guilt for the little ones who have stumbled in their path. It would be my hope and prayer that they would see the error in their ways, repent and teach their followers the true way.
If they are corrupt (which may be borne out of the Senate hearings), then they should repent right now, because they know their sin, and they should resign. (Basically, we’re dealing with the difference between intentional/unintentional sins).
Contrary to some folks’ belief, we’re not “anti-discernment” here. I would classify it more along the lines of “we’re anti-pharisaical-discernment”…
December 6th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Warren cannot win. I had a few conversations with Slice 1.0 commenters that would say Warren is just after money, but when I would offer the disclosure of what he now does with that money, they would say he is being prideful and boasting.
John Piper has shared a good example for a pastor and money. I am not suggesting that everyone must do this, but it is a good one. The church pays him a typical pastor’s salary. The ministry, Desiring God, owns all of his book royalties, products, etc. and he receives no salary. If you call that ministry, ask for a book, and tell them you can only pay $2, they will take care of it. It’s called the “whatever you can afford policy.†He suggests that this keeps him out of trouble with the temptation of “big money.â€
December 6th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Since all good deeds come with a full portfolio of human imperfections that can easily be exploited on any meaningless blogs, let us rejoice that Warren speaks out about a major blight of the church. He seems to practice financial moderation even though the word sacrifice would more aptly apply to fixed income seniors who continue to give out of their need.
I know Warren would be the first to agree with that. He spends a lot of his book money on African AIDs sufferers.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Chris R,
How is it you manage to sling dirt on a topic you agree with? At some point your strawmen stop being misunderstandings and start becoming deliberate distortions of the truth.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Randy Alcorn had an interesting article on the idea of whether or not all giving should be kept secret. He even talks about that verse David C. mentions. You can read it here, in his 2007 Summer newsletter.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
What? Rick Warren is a “reverse tither”. who gives away 90 percent of his book royalties? Gee, I almost for got about that, he’s only happened to have mentioned it, in passing of course, a few hundred times.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Yup Kent, definitely a negative thing. Not!
Way to ignore all the rest of the comments by the way. =)
Joe
December 6th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Kinda off topic…As anyone here ever taking the MMPI-2?
December 6th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
The what???
December 6th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I took the MMPI at Dallas Theological Seminary. It is required for all new students. You ask because?
December 6th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
I just took it at the recommendation and requirement of the church I’ve been the youth pastor at for 3 years. My pastor says it would be helpful to identify strengths and weaknesses so as not to put myself in circumstances/situations that I’m not gifted in or am not good at.
I’m just a little leary that’s all. So I wondered what everyone else (who took it) thought of it.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Chris,
I thought the test was designed to find out if you can handle the stress of something such as ministry, seminary work, etc. but to be honest, I just took it and went on about my business.
Now, Discover Your Strengths is very good for what you are describing regarding evaluation of a team members strengths and weaknessess. That said, I do think the church needs to recognize spiritual gifts above that and going a bit further, know that God can equip anyone for anything so we should not rely too much on business model designed tests.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Chris L said: “I believe that teaching people that God will bring you health and wealth because of your acceptance of Jesus is “another gospelâ€, indeed. As systematic theologies go, the Prosperity Gospel is about the most shallow and self-centered ones I know of, and those who teach it are either deluded or corrupt.”
Chris have you not heard RW’s gospel? There are prosperity preachers who are presenting a far more narrow gospel message than RW’s PDL (p.57 or 58) gospel wherein all you have to do is say to yourself, under your breath, “Jesus I believe you, Jesus I receive you” and RW popishly proclaims “Welcome to the family of God.” In essence Chris, and I am sure you will disagree with me here but that is not my concern, RW is in that book promising “peace, peace, where there is no peace” between men and God.
As to the repeated ad nauseum reverse tithing RW does, have any of you ever considered wanrning him of what Jesus Christ says in Matt. 6:1,2?
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.”
And one other issue Chris is the idea of our “acceptance” of Jesus - Matthew 7 is a sobering revelation of what really matters regarding “acceptance” - not that we “accept” Him or know Him but rather that we are known and accepted in the Beloved by Him for many will hear those most horrific words “Depart from Me….I never knew you.”
December 6th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Chris L,
Here is what you said:
Here is what I say.
You and I have some common ground. That was truthful, passionate and straight to the point.
What would you say to a person who followed the Prosperity Gospel and saw what you wrote and became offended by your words? In fact, here is something someone wrote to me.
That is from a real email that I received. If you had received this email what would you say to that person? You’ve already called the gospel they believe in a ‘false’, shallow and self-centered.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
I’m starting to really think that people just don’t read the previous comments and answers to questions. So we get dragged back in to an old part of the conversation again.
Bill…I think this concern has already been addressed. Warren = High Profile, needs that kind of accountability, transparency is a GOOD thing when it comes to this, and Rick donating 90% of his finances is INCREDDIBLE. Are you doing that, have you come even close to “sell all you have and give to the poor and then follow Me”? It’s amazing how when you hate someone, you’ll do anything to find something negative about them, even in the most positive situation. He’s basically agreeing with the ODMs and Watchdoggies about Prosperity Preachers, and they still hammer him. God help us.
Joe
December 6th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Correction in love, humility, meekness, and fear, Chris R. If they don’t listen, what else can I do but love them more? I don’t have to agree with them. And name calling would not be an option. Writing an article slamming them and then tieing it in to every other denomination and systematic theology I disagree with, to slam them too, would not be acceptable either.
That’s what I’d do, not that you asked me =). Chris L?
December 6th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Tim,
I know that Chris L. posted something I agree with. I am trying to determine the borders of our ‘common ground.
Tim, out of curiosity, do you agree with Chris L’s assessment of the prosperity Gospel? He called it false, shallow and self-centered. Do you agree with him?
December 6th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
You guys are correct about the pragmatism of Rick Warrens’ (and others) gospel. It is designed to elicit a positive response complete with unsubstantiated promises that your earthly problems will be solved. His boast that he could lead anyone to Christ if he knew their “buttons” reveal a distortion of Arminianism.
I am Arminian but what happens in many churches is sales strategy but not true Arminianism.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Bill,
What if Rick Warren had never said a thing about reverse tithing and his money? Well, he tried that for awhile and everyone accused him of doing ministry just for the money.
Like I said before, he cannot win either way.
I will agree with you there have been times where RW’s preaching of the Gospel has been narrowed and weak, such as on Larry King. But if you read the whole book, you will read the whole Gospel. When Saddleback’s Christmas Eve service was shown in its entirety on Fox News last year we heard the full Gospel message and the word sin was prominently displayed as a person’s biggest problem. The ODM’s were silent on that message.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Bill,
Can’t we have one discussion that doesn’t turn into a Calvinism/Arminianism debate? Seriously, it’s like a broken record.
Also, thank you for confirming Darren’s comment here:
December 6th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Joe,
I’m happy you jumped in!!
If the prosperity gospel is false, shallow and self-centered, doesn’t it pose a danger to the Christian church? Shouldn’t someone warn the church about this dangerous false gospel?
How much love would I really have for a person if I didn’t warn him about this dangerous false gospel?
December 6th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Rick Frueh is absolutely right about the differences between real Arminianism and Rick Warren’s pragmatic/positive approach to evangelism!!!! Calling Rick Warren and Arminian is actually an insult to real Arminians.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Since Rick Warren is a public figure due to his pastorate and his books, along with their influence on evangelical churches, it makes sense his finances be public in the name of honesty and accountability. Should be true for all tele-evangelists.
While Rick can be commended for the extent of his giving, it is the true motivation and spiritual attitude that should be the true measure of the goodness of such giving. This goes for everyone. The widower’s mite was a greater giving than the Pharisee’s tithe that was given out of his wealth.
Rick has repaid all of his salary that he received from Saddleback Church with the money he made from his books. He pledged to give away 90% of his book royalties. Still the 10% left over would be more than many churches’ budget. It’s good that he is challenging the tele-evangelists. I would like to see him take on Pat Robertson’s diamond mines of Africa.
Though this isn’t the theme of this thread and I’m not saying that Rick or anyone here is doing so, but I don’t like it when the legitimacy of one’s position (belief, innocence, etc.) is given credence because of how “sacrificially” that person gives of his/her money or time or other resources. Does the vow of poverty of it’s priests reflect the “rightness” of the Catholic Church? I believe sacrificial giving is a move of God in a person’s life and should not be engineered by telethons or pleadings in a church service nor out of a desire to look good.
So while Rick challenging the tele-evangelists is a good thing in my eyes, I doubt it would change anything in the matters of the heart. Tele-evangelists can “upped” their 10% by upping the amount of their salaries or other schemes.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Chris,
First, if I hadn’t listened specifically to messages by ________, I would do so, and I would reference those, specifically, in my return conversation with that person, and I would ask them if a) I understood them correctly; and b) if they agreed with what ________ preached.
If a) is yes, and b) is yes, then I would go into biblical proofs (being rather patient and methodical, if need be) and dialogue with the person, to see what their response would be. [Personally, I think that the health-wealth gospel is prett easy to refute.]
At the same time, I would acknowledge areas where I might agree with _________, even though I might not agree with their wording. (For instance, I heard a snipped of Osteen explaining how a faith in Jesus can improve the relationship between a man and wife because if they are both in tune with the Way, then the problems that normally might arise due to selfishness and sin between them would not occur in the first place. I understood where he was trying to go, even though I thought he had a goofy way of getting there.)
By recognizing points of agreement and disagreement, I would have some level of credibility and objectivity (which is often what influences people) , I avoid demonization of anything/everything to do with __________ (unless I really can’t find anything to agree on), and I end up being able to converse without all of the walls going up (or at least allowing some of the walls to come down).
As for actually applying this, I have a co-worker who was (was) a Benny Hinn fan that felt she “got what she needed” by watching him on TV and not belonging to a church community. Through discussion with her about what the “prosperity gospel” is, and by discussing the importance of community, she was convinced that she should belong to a church (not mine, though, as it’s about 30 miles away), and the one she goes to is not a PG haven…
December 6th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
FINALLY! Something from Rick Warren I can agree with. There is a God in Heaven.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
I agree with you, TB.
I also agree with this, but I think that Warren making this observation is a public, influential distancing of Evangelical Christianity from Televangelists and the Prosperity Gospel, which is good for all of us.
As for its effect on the PG folks, I believe it strikes a bit at their heart, because it challenges the assumptions they have made more so than it does the riches they have accumulated.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
I think Warren just did, and I know my church has done it corporately and individually. If the purpose of the warning is to the get the person being warned to “turn back before its too late”, it requires a degree of credibility on the part of the warn-er. This doesn’t come from standing on a street corner with a “Turn or Burn” sandwich board (or the virtual equivalent), but actual, targeted engagement which shows concern beyond what might be perceived as a “hidden agenda”.
If, however, the purpose of warning is to feel better about yourself for doing so (demonstrating your “fire in the belly”) and to be able to say “I told them so…”, then it’s nothing more than a clanging cymbal.
How much love would you really have for a person if you didn’t warn them about the danger in a way they were likely to listen to (which might require caring about them in more aspects than just whether or not they’re following false teaching)?
December 6th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Chris R, I agree with you. It is unloving to not tell someone of the doom they’re walking towards. I never said I disagreed with that. It’s important to tell people what is wrong with something like prosperity Gospel.
It’s bad however to use them being wrong as an excuse to attack, slay, destroy, and stab them in the back. I agree with how Chris L stated he would go about it. Thanks.
Love,
Joe
December 6th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Phil,
Why don’t you address the point I made rather than dismissing it by an unwarranted charge that I’m attempting to make it about the Doctrines of Grace? That was not my intent, but America is ripe with examples of what lengths man will go to when he loses sight of the very basics about Salvation and how it is worked in the hearts of men.
December 6th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Bill,
I’m not dodging the question. It’s just that your criticism certainly seemed to be coming from that angle. I guess one could say that Warren soft-sells the Gospel sometimes, but I think you would have to take the statement you cite in the context of the whole book. I don’t think a person would read or hear Warren and think they can be a Christian and remain unchanged.
Personally, I’ve seen God use all sorts of Gospel presentations to reach all types of people. Warren’s style of church and preaching doesn’t appeal that much to me, but it’s not all about me.
December 6th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Chris L,
Great answer. It was thoughtful and you argued your case well.
I particularly liked what you said about “Warning someone in the way they are most likely to listen.” I think that is particularly relevant.
Warning people about false teaching is a messy business. It always seems that no matter how carefully you build your case, site your sources, dot your i’s and cross your t’s there is always going to be someone who lashes out at you for daring to call their pet preacher or doctrine “false”.
There is always going to be someone who will never listen to your warnings.
December 6th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I see what you did there….
December 6th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I was hoping someone would pick that up…
December 6th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
“Warren’s style of church and preaching doesn’t appeal that much to me, but it’s not all about me”.
No, it’s not. It’s not about any of us. So when Warren, opens his PD books about how “it’s not about you”, then goes down a road of “self” and slaughters the Word, we ought to be issueing warning.
December 6th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Tim Reed,
I’m still waiting for you to answer my questions from above. Here are my questions again.
“Tim, out of curiosity, do you agree with Chris L’s assessment of the prosperity Gospel? He called it false, shallow and self-centered. Do you agree with him?”
December 6th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Kent,
*sigh* I guess there is a class of Christian that just can’t stomach a good word about a brother…
Is PDL somewhat shallow? Yes - but it’s not written primarily to a strong Christian. Does Warren teach biblical doctrine that fills in the gaps in PDL, helping shepherd the members of his flock in maturity? I’ve seen (and listened to) enough first-hand evidence to say ‘yes’.
Are there some Christians who are just looking to tear down other Christians when they achieve a certain level of notariety? Most certainly - it comes with the territory…
December 6th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
You really ought to read David Fitch’s book “The Great Giveaway” where he talks about the “professionalizing” of the pastoral position and how we have kind of CEO-ized the church by relying on methods that have little bearing or connection to what the Bible requires of Christians and leaders (by such things as personality tests, success measured by numbers, etc.). You really ought to read that book.
December 6th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Chris R,
You figure it out.
December 6th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
“Are there some Christians who are just looking to tear down other Christians when they achieve a certain level of notariety? Most certainly - it comes with the territory”…
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah…. and critical spirit…. It’s all been out there over and over, anytime someone defends the Truth against such a blatent attack on it.
Does Alistair Begg and John MacArthur have a certain level of notariety? They along with dozens of others are great teachers of Truth who I highly respect. They are among thousands who “rightly divide the Word of God and will unashamedly stand for truth when under attack, even if it means being accused of “tearing down”, etc…etc.. Hmmm, sorry Chris don’t think your theory holds a lot of water
December 6th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Who is Alistair Begg?
As for Johnny Mac, most of the time when I mention him in RL, the response is “who’s that”?
RW is making no “attack” on the truth (unless your limited scope of ‘truth’ is defined within a man-made theological “system”…)
December 6th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Tim,
Thanks for the answer and the link.
You said something very interesting on your blog. You said:
“Rhetorical Hand Grenades” is a very poignant word picture. I use one similar to it. My phrase is “Doctrinal Drive by Shooting”.
Out of curiosity, what are the chances that the running battle between you guys and the ODM’s has degenerated into a theological ‘gang fight’?
December 6th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
“RW is making no “attack†on the truth (unless your limited scope of ‘truth’ is defined within a man-made theological “systemâ€â€¦)”
Sorry Chris, another broken record statement. Again, it shouldn’t be about “self” or ones own Truth. All you have to do is compare what “Warren says” the Bible says, against what it really says, and clearly see that they don’t line up.
Many things he says seems to say don’t quite line up, kinda like when he said there was no Video shot of his little Syrian fiasco.
December 6th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Sorry, Kent - I’m not going to play ball with your unsupported ad homenims today… too busy with RL…