8 ms·

Yes, this is a major point in the gospels and one of the things that was subversive at the time that's a bit lost on modern audiences. At the time, the prevaili

by 542458 3y ago

Yes, this is a major point in the gospels and one of the things that was subversive at the time that's a bit lost on modern audiences. At the time, the prevailing belief was that good things happens to good people, and bad things happen to bad people. This is illustrated in John 9, where the disciples ask Jesus about a blind man: His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” This is why Jesus going around healing the blind and lepers was significant and a bit shocking: those were supposed to be the bad people, and if their state was punishment for their evil why would you go and help them? But the gospel message is that we all do bad things, and judged on our own merits we all fall short of goodness. But there is grace, and by grace the bad things we do can be put away.

UncleOxidant 3y ago
> Yes, this is a major point in the gospels and one of the things that was subversive at the time that's a bit lost on modern audiences. At the time, the prevailing belief was that good things happens to good people, and bad things happen to bad people. And yet, here we are again. The prosperity gospel which a large chunk of not only American but also global evangelicals (specifically the pentecostal subset) subscribe to suggests that the rich are rich because God has blessed them. This is one explanation for why the previous president had so much support among evangelicals: He's rich and so it must mean God likes him. This is also (as the article suggests) why there has been a long and concerted effort to suggest that Jesus wasn't suggesting something entirely impossible (like the debunked city gate explanation)
- danans 3y ago
  > American but also global evangelicals (specifically the pentecostal subset) subscribe to suggests that the rich are rich because God has blessed them. That's far older than modern American evangelicalism. I'd have to guess it goes back to the beginning of the institutional Church in Rome.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    Not to the same extent. Many officially recognized saints were extremely poor, and virtually all of the ones who had been rich were only canonized after (at least purportedly) giving all of their wealth away later in life. Nuns and monks, the holiest and most pious worshippers, must take vows of poverty. Clearly, the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox and other old institutionalized churches) preach that poverty is at least accepted, if not necessarily required. Of course, the church higher ups have always been rich and powerful, but that is not the official doctrine. The explicit belief that you can't be poor and beloved by God is a pretty modern, and pretty extreme, twisting of the meaning of the Bible.
    - danans 3y ago
      > Of course, the church higher ups have always been rich and powerful, but that is not the official doctrine. The explicit belief that you can't be poor and beloved by God is a pretty modern, and pretty extreme, twisting of the meaning of the Bible. There's doctrine, and then there is practice. The doctrine of the sanctity of poverty is about the idea of justice (if not in this world, then the next) and a counterpoint to the "divine right" of monarchs and aristocrats. However, in practice it is about maintaining the temporal support of the poor (who are the majority throughout history) as a counterbalance to the nobility/aristocracy. This is true across many religions. I'd argue that depending on the times, this doctrine/practice waxes or wanes, and I suspect that it correlates with both the spread of genuine aspiration to prosperity among the masses coupled with magical thinking about how to achieve prosperity. And when it fails to deliver on prosperity (as it must), you get angry populist reactions.
- Amezarak 3y ago
  Prosperity gospel is a fringe belief, even among evangelicals. It's definitely real, but the amount of attention it gets on the Internet is disproportionate to its real-world influence. From Wikipedia: > Mainstream evangelicalism has consistently opposed prosperity theology as heretical[37] and prosperity ministries have frequently come into conflict with other Christian groups, including those within the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements.[39] Critics, such as Evangelical pastor Michael Catt, have argued that prosperity theology has little in common with traditional Christian theology.[83] Prominent evangelical leaders, such as Rick Warren,[9] Ben Witherington III,[9] and Jerry Falwell,[84] have harshly criticized the movement, sometimes denouncing it as heretical.[9]
  - UncleOxidant 3y ago
    Most of the growth in evangelicalism is happening in the Charismatic/Pentecostal branches. https://www.prri.org/spotlight/the-future-of-born-again-evangelicalism-is-charismatic-and-pentecostal/ https://www.prri.org/spotlight/the-future-of-born-again-evan... Also, Jerry Falwell has been dead for several years, perhaps look to his son Jerry Falwell Jr's practices of flaunting wealth courting the wealthy for a more recent example. Yes, a lot of evangelicals denounce the prosperity gospel, but then they go on to act like it's their vibe. The prosperity gospel has permeated Christian Evangelical culture in the West to a degree that it's hard for the fish to see the water anymore. And in places like Africa it's often the mainstream teaching.
    - Amezarak 3y ago
      Sure. Prosperity gospel is a minority belief even among Pentecostals and other charismatic groups. “Charismatic”, as your article mentions, simply refers to the belief in very free distribution of the specific “charisma”/gifts of the Holy Spirit, most famously speaking in tongues, a very common practice among Pentecostals. This is indeed essentially the only faction that believes it at all, but its still not common and even many of the (alleged) famous adherents, like Joel Osteen, will deny having anything to do with it and condemn it - because they know they’d be deemed heretical for it. That’s really saying something, when speaking in tongues is sufficient for many orthodox and Catholic figures to suggest charismatics are being influenced by demons.

by 542458 3y ago

UncleOxidant 3y ago

> Yes, this is a major point in the gospels and one of the things that was subversive at the time that's a bit lost on modern audiences. At the time, the prevailing belief was that good things happens to good people, and bad things happen to bad people. And yet, here we are again. The prosperity gospel which a large chunk of not only American but also global evangelicals (specifically the pentecostal subset) subscribe to suggests that the rich are rich because God has blessed them. This is one explanation for why the previous president had so much support among evangelicals: He's rich and so it must mean God likes him. This is also (as the article suggests) why there has been a long and concerted effort to suggest that Jesus wasn't suggesting something entirely impossible (like the debunked city gate explanation)

danans 3y ago
> American but also global evangelicals (specifically the pentecostal subset) subscribe to suggests that the rich are rich because God has blessed them. That's far older than modern American evangelicalism. I'd have to guess it goes back to the beginning of the institutional Church in Rome.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  Not to the same extent. Many officially recognized saints were extremely poor, and virtually all of the ones who had been rich were only canonized after (at least purportedly) giving all of their wealth away later in life. Nuns and monks, the holiest and most pious worshippers, must take vows of poverty. Clearly, the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox and other old institutionalized churches) preach that poverty is at least accepted, if not necessarily required. Of course, the church higher ups have always been rich and powerful, but that is not the official doctrine. The explicit belief that you can't be poor and beloved by God is a pretty modern, and pretty extreme, twisting of the meaning of the Bible.
  - danans 3y ago
    > Of course, the church higher ups have always been rich and powerful, but that is not the official doctrine. The explicit belief that you can't be poor and beloved by God is a pretty modern, and pretty extreme, twisting of the meaning of the Bible. There's doctrine, and then there is practice. The doctrine of the sanctity of poverty is about the idea of justice (if not in this world, then the next) and a counterpoint to the "divine right" of monarchs and aristocrats. However, in practice it is about maintaining the temporal support of the poor (who are the majority throughout history) as a counterbalance to the nobility/aristocracy. This is true across many religions. I'd argue that depending on the times, this doctrine/practice waxes or wanes, and I suspect that it correlates with both the spread of genuine aspiration to prosperity among the masses coupled with magical thinking about how to achieve prosperity. And when it fails to deliver on prosperity (as it must), you get angry populist reactions.
Amezarak 3y ago
Prosperity gospel is a fringe belief, even among evangelicals. It's definitely real, but the amount of attention it gets on the Internet is disproportionate to its real-world influence. From Wikipedia: > Mainstream evangelicalism has consistently opposed prosperity theology as heretical[37] and prosperity ministries have frequently come into conflict with other Christian groups, including those within the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements.[39] Critics, such as Evangelical pastor Michael Catt, have argued that prosperity theology has little in common with traditional Christian theology.[83] Prominent evangelical leaders, such as Rick Warren,[9] Ben Witherington III,[9] and Jerry Falwell,[84] have harshly criticized the movement, sometimes denouncing it as heretical.[9]
- UncleOxidant 3y ago
  Most of the growth in evangelicalism is happening in the Charismatic/Pentecostal branches. https://www.prri.org/spotlight/the-future-of-born-again-evangelicalism-is-charismatic-and-pentecostal/ https://www.prri.org/spotlight/the-future-of-born-again-evan... Also, Jerry Falwell has been dead for several years, perhaps look to his son Jerry Falwell Jr's practices of flaunting wealth courting the wealthy for a more recent example. Yes, a lot of evangelicals denounce the prosperity gospel, but then they go on to act like it's their vibe. The prosperity gospel has permeated Christian Evangelical culture in the West to a degree that it's hard for the fish to see the water anymore. And in places like Africa it's often the mainstream teaching.
  - Amezarak 3y ago
    Sure. Prosperity gospel is a minority belief even among Pentecostals and other charismatic groups. “Charismatic”, as your article mentions, simply refers to the belief in very free distribution of the specific “charisma”/gifts of the Holy Spirit, most famously speaking in tongues, a very common practice among Pentecostals. This is indeed essentially the only faction that believes it at all, but its still not common and even many of the (alleged) famous adherents, like Joel Osteen, will deny having anything to do with it and condemn it - because they know they’d be deemed heretical for it. That’s really saying something, when speaking in tongues is sufficient for many orthodox and Catholic figures to suggest charismatics are being influenced by demons.