The Prosperity Gospel: A Doctrine of Devils

The Christians should always be healthy, the Christian should always be financially well off, and the Christian should be popular and prosper in all that he does. These are the beliefs held by many people today, and particularly by those within the Word of Faith movement. We are told that it is always God's will for a Christian to be healthy, and if they are sick it is because they have not enough faith. Likewise God desires us to be financially well off and to prosper in everything that we do, as expressed by Joel Osteen who said that 'You were born to win. You were born for greatness. You were created to be a champion in life.' Yet is this truly what the Word of God teaches? Is it true that a Christian should always be healthy and if they are not prospering in life it is because of a lack of faith? Is a child of God supposed to focus on health, wealth and prosperity in this life, and is the message of preachers such as Joel Osteen and Creflo Dollar really in accordance with the Word of God? 1st Timothy 4:1 says that 'in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils'. It is my belief that rather than being biblical in origin, the prosperity gospel has its true origins in hell, and is that which is described in 1st Timothy; a doctrine of devils. The notion of 'your best life now' was accurately derided by John MacArthur when he said that the only way this is your best life is if you are going to hell.

Do Christians impose their views?

How many times have we heard the complaint that Christians are guilty of imposing their views on non-believers. When Christians refuse to support same sex marriage we are accused of imposing our views, likewise when we oppose Sunday opening, and even when we seek to carry out public evangelism. Every time a Christian speaks out against unbiblical laws and practices they are met with the accusation that they are forcing their religious views on the rest of the population. Is this accusation true; are Christians really guilty of forcing their beliefs on other people? Is same sex marriage prohibited in Northern Ireland because Christians impose their views on others? Are people in the United Kingdom being forced to accept the views of a minority of Christians?

Can we accept new revelation?

Throughout the two thousand year history of the Christian church it has been widely accepted that God's revelation to man is complete, contained solely within the sixty six books of the Old and New Testaments. However there have always been those at the periphery of 'Christianity' who have held a different viewpoint, believing that God continues to speak to man outside of Scripture. The Church of Rome has in a sense taken this view, partly by adding the authority of church tradition to the authority of Scripture but also by accepting the dreams and visions of its mystics as being a revelation from God. The cults have likewise rejected the sufficiency of Scripture with Joseph Smith claiming divine revelation for the Book of Mormon. Indeed most cults include the belief that their leader has received a new 'revelation' from God. 

Generally the views held by these groups have not posed a significant threat to evangelical Christianity for most believers reject the claims of Roman Catholic mystics as well as cults such as the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. The danger today in relation to extra biblical revelation and the sufficiency of scripture (and it is a very real danger) is found elsewhere, specifically within the Charismatic Movement. The shelves of most Christian bookstores are filled with the titles of bestselling authors who claim to have received a message from God. Books such as 'Heaven is for Real' have been made into films, and have found great popularity amongst many Christians, yet they are based entirely on the belief that God continues to reveal additional truth outside the Holy Scriptures. The words which emmanate from the mouths of many preachers are no longer preceeded by 'the Word of God says', but more often it is 'God told me' which we hear.

Separation not isolation

In today's ecumenical age it is always important to emphasise the need for believers to separate from those who hold false doctrine. We are not to fellowship with those who profess Christianity, yet deny the fundamental truths of God's Word, but are rather we are instructed to 'come out from among them'. Likewise what is necessary on an ecclesiastical level is also important when it comes to our relationship with the world. This is not to be characterised by integration but instead by separation, for although we live in a sinful world, we are not to be partakers of that sin, but are to come apart from it. Biblical separation is good, it is beneficial and it is to practised by all believers, yet it is important that it is practised properly. Our view of separation must never be taken to the point where we isolate ourselves from everyone who disagrees with us when the points of disagreement concern secondary issues.

Who are Bethel Church?

To most people in Northern Ireland the name of Bethel Church, Redding would have meant very little up until a couple of weeks ago. However since then anyone who has kept abreast of religious news in the province may have heard of them in connection with the split which has developed at St Matthias' Parish Church at Knocknamuckey near Lurgan. Many issues have been raised in relation to this split, but one of the main reasons cited for it has been the hosting of a service involving representatives from Bethel Church, based in northern California. Such has been the difference of opinion that the congregation has now split in two, with the minister at the centre of the controversy, Rev Alan Kilpatrick, holding his services in the Goodyear Sports and Social Club, whilst the remainder of the congregation have continued to worship at Knocknamuckley.

Whatever other issues there might be within the parish of Knocknamuckley, and within the Church of Ireland at large, those who have expressed concern at the teachings of Bethel Church, and the association of their congregation with it are absolutely right in being concerned. The doctrines of Bethel church are both unscriptural and dangerous, and as this ministry has been recently highlighted in our media, it is perhaps beneficial that we expose some of their error, lest anyone be drawn to them. This would be particularly important for any young believers who follow the band 'Jesus Culture', as this band (who recently played in the province) was formed in Bethel Church in 1999 and continues to have a strong association with the church.

In truth the errors associated with Bethel Church are so numerous and far reaching that we cannot possibly deal with them all within the scope of this blog post, nor go into detail on any point. What we will simply seek to do is highlight some of the more serious, dangerous, and indeed bizarre teachings which has emanated from Bethel Church.

After Ashers - what now?

In the past week two significant events have caused grief to many Christians; the defeat of Ashers Bakery in their court case with the Equality Commission and the yes vote in the gay marriage referendum in the Republic of Ireland. During and shortly after the build up to the Ashers court case Christians across Northern Ireland have voiced their support for the company, attended rallies and pledged to buy their products. So too in the Republic of Ireland there have been those who have campaigned vigorously to maintain the biblical definition of marriage. Yet on both occasions those on the side of truth have suffered defeat. Like the psalmist David we have cried 'let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me' yet as we look around us we see the enemies of the gospel rejoicing in their victories, and declaring their intention to further pursue their anti-God agenda. In the face of an ever militant homosexual lobby we must ask ourselves, what should Christians do now?

Should a pastor be a politician?

With little more than a week to go until polling day, the United Kingdom is in full election mode. In Northern Ireland elections are an almost annual occurrence and politics is more ingrained in the public psyche here than in most other parts of the country. The two fields of religion and politics have often been interlinked, and many questions asked about what relationship they should have with each other. One question which is sometimes raised is whether gospel ministers should also hold political office. This is particularly relevant in Northern Ireland since there has been a long history of ministers also working as politicians. Rev Ian Paisley was an MP, MEP and MLA for many years whilst also moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church. Rev Martin Smyth was also involved in Northern Ireland political life whilst serving as a minister in the Presbyterian Church. Methodist minister Rev Robert Bradford likewise served as MP for South Belfast from 1974 until his tragic murder in 1981. Many others have also entered the field of politics over the years and continued their role as a church pastor. Even today ministers can be found actively involved in Northern Ireland politics. DUP Westminster candidate for South Antrim Rev William McCrea is a Free Presbyterian minister and Non-Subscribing Presbyterian minister Rev Paul Reid is a councillor in Mid and East Antrim Borough Council. Beyond the shores of Northern Ireland other examples could also be cited of gospel ministers who are also elected politicians. The question to be then asked is whether this should be so; should a gospel minister also take up political office?

A note on anonymous comments

In recent weeks a significant number of anonymous comments have been made on this blog, more so than normal. Whilst the very nature of commenting anonymously means that the author cannot be identified, it has been obvious that a lot of these comments have been posted by the same person. Up until now I have always allowed anonymous comments for a short time, only asking for a name when a longer dialogue is to be entered into.

I feel however that many of the recent anonymous comments have displayed a cowardly and hypocritical attitude by the person involved, challenging others for their view of particular issues, whilst not being prepared to put a name to their own comments and views. Indeed the repetitive theme of the anonymous comments which have been posted across a number of posts raises questions about their motivation and aim, particularly as they choose to remain anonymous. In light of this I will no longer be permitting anonymous comments on the page. Those wishing to make comments should be prepared to leave their name - if we have genuinely held beliefs then we should not have any concern about being publicly associated with those beliefs. If this results in fewer comments being placed on the blog that will reflect more on those who comment, rather than on this policy. Those who cannot identify themselves are in no position to criticise what others may or may not say in a public blog.

I am willing to answer any question placed on the blog and certainly will not prohibit questions which are awkward, inconvenient or critical of my own church. Any of the questions which have been recently submitted anonymously can be re-posted with genuine name attached (not a pseudonym) and they will most certainly be answered.

Needless to say, anonymous comments will not be permitted on this post.