Reflections on the prosperity gospel or divine provision

The following post is from Tony Richie who sent me a copy of his contribution to an ongoing email discussion between members of one of the groups at the meeting in Toulouse which was looking specifically at healing and provision. I've very slightly edited what Tony has written - thanks for this Tony.

"I just read about your interesting take on our references to "rice Christians". And I also remember Kajsa's remarks. In fact, we extended that a little in our small group discussion. If I recall correctly, Rima was concerned that those who preach physical healing and financial blessings are offering an unfair enticement to conversion. As you can probably guess, Pentecostals have some special interests here too. Only ours is more like understanding salvation to be holistic or multidimensional. I'm sending you a copy of an email I sent to our small group on healing and provision as we continued the discussion."
....
"For my part, I find myself in agreement with Rima's initial suggestion that abuse in these issues - especially in the form of "health and wealth/prosperity gospel" - is a legitmate cause for concern in interreligious contexts regarding conversion. And I suspect also that Kajsa was correct that my own background as a Pentecostal Christian may offer some unique perspectives on this matter. This last only after acknowledging, as Fr. Felix reminded me at Toulouse, that others, such as Roman Catholics, also have strong traditions of miraculous healing and provision. Of course, in an earlier email Amos has already shared some of his insights noting values among various ethnic groups that include divine healing and provision.
In my own thoughts on the subject since our consultation and last email discussion, I wish to distinguish between lifting up the value and verity of the historic Christian and Pentecostal tradition and experience of divine healing and provision while acknowledging and addressing those who may and do abuse these for their own selfish purposes. I think this will help us with the issue without hurting innocent others.
Perhaps briefly noting some previous work already done in this area will be helpful. For example, on healing, Pentecostal historical theologian?Ronald A. N. Kydd, in Healing through the Centuries: Models for Understanding (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998) notes that divine or miraculous healing is rooted in the life and ministry of Jesus and the Apostles and present in many forms throughout Church history. He argues that divine healing is an ongoing phenomenon and that it's practice is indeed a legitmate form of gospel ministry today. He also admits, however, that the claims of healers and their supporters are often overstated. Yet the stereotypical healer really does not exist, as a wide variety of practioners show. Significantly, divine healing flows out of mystery, and has its source in the grace of God, and should never be used to prove (or disprove?) doctrinal correctness. He even says that "Divine healing has little to do with the rightness of all theological positions any particular healer might believe and everything to do with the endless love of the Divine Person" (xxiv).
As for so-called "prosperity," or as I prefer, "divine provision," Pentecostal scholars Irving Hexham (religious studies) and Karla Poewe-Hexham (anthropologist) show that while abuse may be rampant reactionism is also a problem. For example, negative studies of the "prosperity gospel" in Africa relied on anecdotal evidence and failed to appreciate the longstanding significance of belief in material provision in traditional black African religious concerns. The Hexhams, and this reminds me some of a point in our small group discussion, found that the reflex reaction of many is to blame the problem on imported (North) American values--but that this is not entirely correct. Please see "South Africa," in The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal Charismatic Movements, eds., Stanely M. Burgess and Eduard M. Van Der Maas, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 227-38 (esp. 237-38). Indeed, I would argue in agreement with Amos Yong that Christianity is holistic and includes material blessings in a multidimensional soteriology. See The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: The Possibility of a Global Pentecostal Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 91-98.
However, Kimberly Ervin Alexander, in Pentecostal Healing: Models in Theology and Practice (UK: Deo, 2006) is surely correct that a greater variety than previously supposed exists regarding the thought and practice of healing among Pentecostals. And Leonard Lovett argues that "Positive Confession Theology", which is really the basis for health and wealth teaching, is problematic even within Pentecostalism and ultimately unbiblical. See The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal Charismatic Movements, eds., Stanely M. Burgess and Eduard M. Van Der Maas, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 992-94. Might not we accordingly affirm variety and target so-called positive confession more directly rather than in any way sounding pejorative regarding divine healing and provision in and of themselves?
I am reasonably sure that a position statement in our Code of Conduct on Conversion that takes into account the above dynamics will be worthy of acceptance by Pentecostals and Charismatics who higly value the doctrine and experience of divine healing and provision. Also, it will still be well able to address the problem of abuse."