The more I observe prosperity gospel and the types of people that become ensnared by its deception the more I come to see how it twists the truth of scripture into lies to take advantage of those who are narcissistic by nature, have an overwhelming and uncontrollable idolatry and felt need for money, who desire easy wealth at little or no cost, who only want to see what they desire out of scripture, or who have no regard for academic study and are thus easily swayed by pleasing rhetoric and sophomoric reason. I see people who are easily deceived caught by the lies of prosperity gospel which promises so much but in reality only draws its victims further down a road of destruction. Despite its promises of health and wealth, I see prosperity “health and wealth” gospel feeding narcissism, fueling a sense of unrealistic and cheap entitlement, creating a spirit of arrogance, judgment and legalism, destroying marriages, and distorting the witness of Christ in the lives of these people.

I am saddened by the destructive nature of this secular teaching of greed that claims to be for the most spiritual and faithful. I am sad for those who are caught up in the lies of this heretical nonsense. I am sad to see so many people hurt by the false promises of prosperity, health and wealth.  I am sad for those who promote such lies that deceit.

One only needs to look at the fruits of prosperity gospel to see that the broken fruits it produces are anything but godly.

My heart aches for those who are caught up in the bondage of the prosperity gospel.

As I was reading through some Scripture I came to a thought about salvation.

Calvinism believes in the election of souls for salvation. We do nothing for our salvation but rather God choses and saves those whom he decides to save. With such a system of salvation and thus eternal security, it makes sense that many calvinist-based ministries place great emphasis in getting the non-believer to come to salvation yet tend to be weak on the follow-up towards discipleship, because the goal of calvinist evangelism is to get that commitment for Christ on the basis that once a person has become a believer, he will be eternally secure no matter what he does with his life afterwards.

This seems fairly logical and satisfies a desire for security yet that is just the problem. Are we trying to understand God’s plan for our comfort of mind in a system that logically makes sense to us? Or are we trying to understand how God works as he has revealed himself in scripture?

Inconsistencies seem to arise when we adopt such a logically pleasing doctrine, as Scripture seems to suggest election as well as a universal love that allows for free will. Is Arminianism right? or is Calvinism right? Scripture shows evidence for both in action, and to claim that one is right at the exclusion of the other seems rather presumptuous, arrogant, and creates inconsistency in the understanding of Scripture.

One such inconsistency deals with the saving power of Christ’s death. Scripture tells us that Christ died for all, yet Calvinist theology tells us this cant be so. The assumption is that if Christ died for all then all should go to heaven. Yet people still deny Christ and go to hell. If Christ died for all and people still go to hell, then his saving power is ineffective. The Calvinist conclusion is that Christ only died for those who are elect. In this way Christ’s death was 100% effective for those whom he died for.

The inconsistency with this theology is that while according to their definition, Christ’s power is effective for whom it was meant, it is now limited. It is as if to say that Christ could not save everyone, so he chose to save those he could save. While trying to save one limitation, Calvinist theology in effect creates another. If I were to say that I can beat everyone at a game of cards and yet I only played against 8 year-olds, then yes, given that I only play against 8 year-olds I can beat everyone I play against. However it is quite obvious that my ability at cards is very much limited in skill.

1 John 2:2 says, “and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”

There is nothing limiting or ambiguous about “holos kosmos” (whole world) that could possibly make it mean “whole world of only those he chose to save”. The normal reading and understanding of the phrase is simply the “whole world”, everyone, chosen or not, no exceptions, all. Christ’s power has given the potential for all to be saved if we but respond to His saving grace.

Instead of asking, “are you an Arminianist?” or, “are you a Calvinist?”, maybe we should stop blindly following human figures or popular books and programs, and instead look at what Scripture actually says and follow Jesus Christ.

Before we begin to say, “Calvin said…” or “Mother Teresa said…” or “This book says…”, maybe we shoudl stop, see what Scripture has to say about it, and find out what God has to say about it.

It seems like those who cry loudest for the freedom of whatever group they support while calling everyone else ignorant and narrow-minded are in actuality saying that people only have the freedom to believe what they want as long as it agrees with them. If anyone dare to believe anything different they will instantly be labeled as ignorant and narrow-minded, because the liberal concept of freedom has nothing to do with the actual freedom of belief, or equality for that matter. The liberal practice of freedom is like a selfish little child whose world view cannot and does not extend beyond the sphere of his own immediate and experiential desires. The child’s world defines all self-interest as a necessity regardless of the impracticality of what it may be or the inconvenience or expense it may cost to others. Such is the practice of freedom by those who cry for the freedom and rights of their group while ignoring others, and even at the expense of others, while calling all who disagree with  them ignorant, narrow-minded fundamentalists. So who is really ignorant and narrowminded and perhaps even bigotted?

To hide under the guise of freedom when really self-interest is the true motivation is cheap and without honor. If freedom of belief were truly the heart of the matter than those who cry for freedom of belief have no right to turn around and complain against those who believe differently than they do. That is like telling someone they are free to chose whatever color they want from any of the possible colors as long as its fire engine red. Of course this makes no sense at all, but this is how liberal freedom seems to work in practice.

Sometimes I wonder if Christians who want to defend people from the evils in the media of the world, are not in themselves the ones creating such evil. It makes me wonder where the evil really is, if Christians are finding evil meanings in even the most mundane or ordinary of things.

Recently I heard of a Christian elementary school that taught the students that the Song “Puff the Magic Dragon” by Peter, Paul, and Mary was a song about smoking. Really? I thought it was a simple song about the growing up of children and the imaginary friends and things they leave behind in their youth.

Origin of Song

Originally the lyrics to this wonderful song were written by a young man named Leonard Lipton. He was inspired after reading the poem by Ogden Nash titled: Tale of Custard the Dragon, to write a poem/lyrics of his own. Custard the Dragon was about a fierce looking dragon that was really quite cowardly until a pirate came and broke into his master’s house, it was then he courageously protected the house before lapsing back into his cowardice.

Lipton wrote the most of what is now Puff the Magic Dragon with the intent on it being innocent. It was supposed to a tale of boyhood and how “little boys” grow up and childhood fantasies fade away as they age.

Leonard left his poem in the hands of Peter Yarrow, who made some revisions and turned it into lyrics. The group Peter, Paul, & Mary made it a popular and well known song.

You can find a video statement of Peter from Peter, Paul, and Mary, live in front of an audience on YouTube in which he states the actual meaning of the song as the loss of children’s innocence as they grow up in contrast to the unfortunate misinterpretations of drug referencing.

Scripture calls us to forgive. It also calls us to be wise in whom we trust and how much trust we place in people. Scripture calls us to be accountable and to call our brothers into account for their actions, yet it also calls us to let them go, and to release them down their destructive paths when they refuse to receive guidance.

 At what point do you stop trusting someone? Too often people within the church confuse trust with forgiveness. They use them interchangeably as if to create the ultimate excuse system. If trust were to be blind and given universally as is forgiveness, then they are free to live irresponsibly and wrecklessly. They can continue to wrong and hurt the people around them because in their minds they have equated trust to forgiveness. The people they hurt have to forgive them and therefore trust them and this creates a system that enables irresponsibility and selfishness. Rather than focusing on the cause of the problems the attention is instead shifted onto those who are to forgive.

 At what point do you release someone to go down their path of destruction? No amount of patience or love can turn these people from their hurtful, selfish, and bitter ways. Whether it be love of money, adultery, selfishness or other forms of idolatry, they continue down their destructive path hurting those around them. At some point the responsibility to turn them from harm stops, and one must cease to enable them and release them to their own path. One can only hope that with a great fall will come realization into truth.

But where are these lines? Unfortunately it is not cut and dry. I believe it really lies in an open heart and mind to listen to God’s leading, and within one’s convictions as we try to live lives of integrity and righteousness..

“These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: “Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. “And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give.” (Matthew 10:5-8)

If health and wealth prosperity gospel is true, and its claims are true, why then do we not see people being raised from the dead? They proclaim that every Christian should be able to do miraculous signs of healing and the casting out of demons and raising from the dead, but if you look at their ministries they are far from showing any positive results of raising people from the dead. In fact it all seems to be empty claims. I bet if you approach them with an actual case, they wouldn’t touch it with a 10 foot pole.

What causes this? Its interesting how the same set of scriptures that Christians universally claim to be true, result in so many different interpretations and understandings. In the case of health and wealth, the interpreting hermeneutic seems to be based on a need for control and authority. If you notice the hymn and praises of these people, its not so much about what God does, and about the character of God, but rather on the authority to do miraculous things that these people have because of God, or on the promises the people have because the nature of God mandates such promises. The shift is subtle, but it is there. It moves focus away from God, and places the focus on the people. Even when God is credited, it still seems to focus on what the people can do, and what promises the people have. God becomes the tool not the power. The people are no longer the tools of God’s power, but rather the wielder’s of God.

Let us examine the scripture above. This is a key scripture because believers in the health and wealth prosperity gospel use this as a proof text to show that every Christian must have the ability to heal, cast out demons and raise from the dead. If a Christian cannot do such things, then he is blamed for not having enough faith. But if we really examine the text we find 2 things:

1. The command to heal, cast out demons, and raise people from the dead is part of a 2 part command that cannot be separated.

a. If we are to take the one command to do such miraculous things, then we are to also take the 1st part of the command which tells us to only preach to the Jews. If such is the case, then why are any Gentiles Christian? According to this two part command, the only people to whom the gospel message should be preached to are the Jews.

2. The command to heal, cast out demons, and raise people from the dead is within the specific context of Jesus and the disciples.

a. The context of these commands is within the earthly ministry of Jesus. In Jesus was the kingdom of heaven, which is why the kingdom could be said to be near. It was because of this presence that the miracles were present in the ministry of Jesus and his disciples. The miracles were to proclaim this message, not for our benefit as a tool because God wants us to be healthy and wealthy as proclaimed by the prosperity gospel.

The context of this scripture has to be understood within its proper place. It was a command given by Jesus specifically to his 12 disciples to first reach the Jews. Only after such an attempt was made would the gospel then be taken to the Gentiles. The purpose of the miracles was specific to the ministry of Jesus and the disciples and was closely tied to the nearness of the kingdom of heaven present in Jesus.

This scripture in no way promises or mandates that every Christian should have the ability to heal, cast out demons or raise from the dead. Such an understanding is a gross misunderstanding of scripture out of its context. It would be as if a child asked for candy on a given day, and because his mommy said “yes”, he then understood it to mean that he could have as much candy as he wanted, whenever he wanted, where ever he wanted, and even his friends. Obviously we would laugh at such a childish misapplication of the situation, but then, why do we allow it with scripture?

I am perplexed to find that many Christians seem to think that faith and common sense are diametrically opposed. As Christians we are autonomous creatures, accountable before God and therefore responsible for our actions, and yet bound to the spiritual realm of unseen things that require faith. Not enough faith and we end up relying on our own skills, wisdom and knowledge. Not enough common sense and we become leaves on the wind being blown about by by anything that seems to offer a spiritual gust.

What gets me, is how many people fall under this second category and while being blown about to and fro by every whim of spirituality, they judge others for not having enough faith. The problem is, without common sense, a person led by faith alone, has no system of checks and balances to determine whether their next whim of spiritual leading is of God, of men, or of Satan. They only look for what feels spiritual, and what seems to be faith filled or inspiring. The problem is, Satan is also a spiritual being, and we who live in the physical and the spiritual often confuse the two and ascribe spiritual labels to the emotional chemical fluxes we find being created by our endorphins and anxieties.

Many movements have been led by the genuine intent to be led by the Spirit, but without the checks and balances of common sense, have turned out to be nothing more than satanic deceptions. God gave us a brain and a heart. How about we try to use them both?

It is amazing how people’s misunderstanding of grace will lead to very incorrect interpretations of scripture, and how misunderstandings of scripture will lead to incorrect views of grace. Such misunderstandings lead to the development of a cheap grace that is an excuse for improper behaviors or addictions. Cheap grace causes people to become users of God and to interpret scripture in narcissistic ways that support, enable or excuse their habits, helping to make them feel good about themselves without ever taking true responsibility and ownership of their addictions. True repentance never takes place and the addiction ceases to be a sin, but rather a mistake. Just as someone might say to spilling a drink “oops, my bad”, the believer of cheap grace says “oops, my bad” at the reoccurrence of their addiction.

One such example might be the misuse of the following scripture: “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.” (1 Corinthians 10:13)

This scripture means that there is no temptation that will afflict a person that is so utterly new and unknown that no other person has ever experienced it, or that God cannot provide a way out of it. This verse highlights God’s faithfulness to provide ways out of temptation. This verse shows us that the sins we suffer are common, meaning known and tolerable. You cannot be tempted by a sin so unique to only you, that there is no way out. There will be someone around who having suffered the same temptation can help you through the temptation, however the emphasis on this verse is on the second half of the verse, pointing us to God’s faithfulness to guide us through the temptation.

The cheap grace understanding of this verse, in order to normalize and excuse the addiction, focuses on the first half of the verse and seems to ignore the second half. The focus is on the word uncommon, and understands it to mean that the addiction the person suffers from is something every person suffers. The cheap grace understanding wants to believe that ever person suffers the same lack of control and addiction, in order to normalize it and excuse it as being minimal and even inconsequential. It takes a horrible and ugly problem and projects it onto all people so that person can feel better about his or herself. The sin becomes minimalized in their mind to the level of a simple mistake made by all, from which they only need to say “I’m sorry”’ and all is made better until the next time they need to say “oops, my bad.”

Cheap grace normalizes even the worst of addictions, causing the misled believer to think none too much about it, believing that all people suffer the same addiction, and decreasing the amount of guilt and need for self-control or repentance from such an affliction. Cheap grace decreases the urgency to turn from such a sin, while at the same time making the believer the controller of God. Whenever they sin all they have to do is ask God for forgiveness and in their understanding, God will and even has to give it. The God of cheap grace is a vending machine for forgiveness of their addictions.

Continuing the discussion on people and money fixations, I’ve come to view Money as the socially acceptable addiction. Unlike alcoholism or idolism, miserism seems to be socially acceptable.

What is a miser?

 mi·ser  

• Pronunciation - [mahy-zer]    –noun

• 1. a person who lives in wretched circumstances in order to save and hoard money. 

• 2. a stingy, avaricious person. 

 It seems that a person with this addiction has almost no area of his or her life that is not somehow tainted by the desire to acquire, save, or hold onto money. Every aspect of life is ruled by this addiction to money. The person may even conduct morally questionable behavior such as deceipt and/or fraud while still believing that they are fully within moral and just guidelines of honesty and faithfulness if it fits the framework and needs of their miser-affliction. It doesnt matter how much money they have, their overwhelming addiction to money and their perceived need to have it, save it, and acquire it, will have them living miserable lives of constant want and felt need, even to the point of believing that they are poor, living as if they are poor, and the informing of those who are not as financially well off as they are of their poverty. They may even accept gifts from these unfortunate people who come to believe that the afflicted person truly is poor. The afflicted person may accept these uneeded gifts from those who are less fortunate than they are as gifts and blessings to be praised rather than seeing it for the truth that it is: a gross misuse of trust through fraud and a feeding and perpetuation of their addiction.

 Like any other addiction, it controls every aspect of the persons life. No area of life from the most mundane and simple task to the deepest of spiritual matters are not affected by the disease. It degrades the quality of their life, and even affects those around them, sometimes in minor ways, and sometimes in awful and tragic ways. Unfortunately the afflicted person is often unaware or in denial of the disease.

Of course these are all just my observations and thoughts. I think its a problem that is often overlooked, minimized, and sometimes even justified, yet I believe it is a fully real and dangerous affliction.  

When a person is fixated on money, it becomes their god. Every thought is motivated by money. Whether for gain, or frugality, money becomes their motivating factor. The more their life revolves around money the more they believe others are likewise focused on money. Money becomes the tool of their life as they begin to believe that others are equally motivated and bribed with money. They begin to believe that people are after thir money and that the people around them are mooches. What they have is never enough, and while having more money than most people will ever hope to see in their lives, they may even contine to believe that they are poor and in want. This is why Scripture does not say that money is the root of evil, but rather that the love of money is a root of all evil (1 Tim 6:10). Even their image of God becomes warped by this love of money, so that they begin to wrap every element of their faith around money. They skewed perception of faith creates a God who rewards with money. It creates a God who wants you to be wealthy, and who rewards faith with wealth. It creates a God who can be bought by the giving of tithes and gifts. The focus of the faith moves away from God to money. Money becomes the subject of the faith around which god becomes the object that is moved by, influenced by, motivated by, and shaped by the subject: Money. In the end, love of money turns money into an idol. The person is wholly moved by it and motivated by it. Money is their God. 

I’m sure you’ve seen it. The bumper sticker that says “coexist” using symbols from different religious faith groups. Sometimes I wonder what people are thinking. The goal is tolerance, yet the effect seems to be ignorance.

The thought calls for tolerance on one basis. It is the basis that all religions are equally valid. And to someone who has no deep felt care or concern for matters of religious faith, than in their own mind where religions are nothing more than flavors of ice cream to choose from, than there really is no significant difference between religious options.

The problem however is that there is NO religious faith does not claim exclusive religious truth. Every faith in existence claims to be the one truth. Even in faiths that accept and tolerate other faiths, they still hold their own faith as the true path to salvation or enlightenment. Even the Dalai Lama is exclusive in his faith. As tolerant and accepting as Tibetan Buddhism seems to be, it is only as such, because it believes that given enough time, all people in the world will eventually be born into Buddhism through the process of reincarnation by which they will receive true enlightenment.

In general people hold to their faith as something very important to them. People live their lives according to their faith and people have died for their faith. Religious faith gives people the power to change the world, and yet the Coexist bumper sticker basically tells them that what they believe is insignificant and perhaps no better than a Dr. Seuss book.

Is it tolerant to tell someone that the one thing they believe in and live their life according to, is no more significant than the flavor of ice cream they decide to choose at Baskin Robbins on a $1 scoop night?