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."

Why do I blog?

Well I'm blogging because I was asked to give it a try by some colleagues at work, to see whether it might be possible to speak in a different way about a WCC meeting. And in case you're wondering, no I had no training - though senior management aka as Stephen - did set up the template etc for me. (OK I admit he also ironed out the odd photo that was posted upside down and immediately corrected the post when I said Simon supported Machester United rather than Manchester City - but that is what husbands are for, right?) I have been amazed at how easy it is - and appalled at how utterly dreadful my six fingered typing is! And even downloading the photos upside down has been fun.

Above all it has been a fascinating experience because I can now really see how blogging could work as a tool for maintaining and persuing discussions, contacts and networks following on from meetings. It is a little like a sort of live newspaper - I'm not claiming that for what I've written but I can really see how useful it sould be.

At a more personal level it has been interesting finding my voice - translators deal all day long with other people's voices, interpreters just try to keep up and often remember nothing of what they've said. So writing in my own voice has been good, but I noticed several things. The first was that most of the writing in my own voice that I've done in recent years has been of sermons and that does show, I did try to stop when I became too "preachy" (the posh word is kerygmatic) and I teased myself that I was becoming the worst kind of "letter from the minister" in the parish magazine - "Dear parishioners, as I looked out of my study window I thought God is just like a dishwasher...."
Another thing I noticed is how much I love language and how much language - even when there isn't interpretation - plays a huge role in international meetings and religious discussions of any kind. Words really are such wonderful things, there are so many wonderful incongruities between and within languages and it was great to note that down as it occurred to me rather than just let it pass into my subconscious.
Finally (for now) and this was the most difficult part - how to honour the discussion but respect that this meeting was a process that was ongoing - how to speak with my own voice and opinion and also leave space for that of others. I experienced a few moments of what practising journalistic responsibility is like, and on one occasion when I knew I was sailing a little close to the wind I did send my copy first to the aforementioned senior editor who sanitised my copy. I'll say a little more about that in a later post. But what is frightening is how terrifyingly quickly your words, thoughts, mistakes etc. get out there.
In the end it was that immediacy that really helped me find a voice - it's just like chatting to the computer.
And of course finding the time is easy - there was no tv in the Catholic Institute in Toulouse and I've certainly watched much less since I came back and continued blogging - swapping one small screen for another.

Rice Chistians - why do we use that term?

Brewer's dictionary of phrase and fable defines "Rice Christians" as "Converts to Christianity for worldly benefits, such as a supply of rice to Indians. Profession of Christianity born of lucre, not faith."
I've been thinking about this expression a bit since our meeting. It was raised in our discussion of a code of conduct on conversion in Toulouse in relation to church Diakonia or to economic and social pressure, subtle or overt. But I wondered about the expression itself, it seems a very loaded phrase - why call people who convert for potential worldly benefits rice Christians - why are they not tea and scone Christians, or spaghetti Christians or meat and two veg Christians? I suppose what I mean is that is makes so many assumptions both about the people likely to be so venal as to change religion - people who eat rice; and about those doing mission as well - Christians are of course bringing the rice. I really wonder about this, isn't there something in the Bible when the 72 are sent out which encourages those carrying the good news to actually eat and drink what is offered to them in the houses that welcome them in peace. (And of course despite this stream of consciousness writing the glories of the internet mean I've now just checked the reference Luke 10.7 "Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you".) It isn't at all the holy, wonderful Christians bringing rice but very often actually others who we seek to do mission to feed us.
However, unfortunately it would seem that the term "rice Christian" is commonly used in discussions of these kinds of issues. I really think it would be great if we could come up with another expression - how about social mobility Christians or survival Christians, surely there must be a better idea.
And then there's Kajsa Ahlstrand's remark reflecting that there is surely something problematic in referring to some converts as rice Christians while also trying to listen to Asian theologians who affirm that "God is rice".
What I did find heartening in the discussions in Toulouse was the overwhelming agreement that Christians service in the world is not about receiving anything in return, neither rice nor potatoes nor souls saved. Service is freely offered just as God's love is freely offered. No strings attached.
So to end a long quote on God is rice from an address by the WCC's former general secretary Konrad Raiser

"From an Asian perspective, Masao Takenaka has pointed to the way in which images and symbols rooted in the local culture can nurture the power of spiritual imagination and shape the human sense of responsibility. In an essay on Asian spirituality entitled God is Rice, he interprets a poem by the Korean Christian poet Kim Chi Ha, Heaven is Rice, which meditates on the highly symbolic character of rice as the daily food for people in Asia. "The Chinese character for peace (wa) literally means harmony. It derives from two words: one is rice, and the other is mouth. It means that unless we share rice together with all people, we will not have peace. When every mouth in the whole inhabited world is filled with daily food, then we can have peace." This leads to two important considerations: "When we say that God is rice, we do not mean that we should worship rice. We take rice as the symbol of God's gift of life. … Second, if we acknowledge that God is rice, the symbolic source of the whole creation, and if we accept nature as our companion rather than as an object to be conquered or exploited, there will be a decisive change in our attitude towards the ecological issues."
This approach to spirituality as rooted in the culture of people, especially the people of the 'Third World', is reflected also in the report of the 1992 Assembly of the Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians in Nairobi. In his introduction, K.C. Abraham quotes the preparatory statement by the Theological Commission of EATWOT which, referring to the same poem by Kim Chi Ha, says: "The cry of the Third World is a cry for life. It is a cry for freedom and dignity that constitute life as human. It is a cry for the rice and bread that sustains life as well as for the community that symbolizes and grows from rice and bread eaten in company. … Rice and bread for one person alone may not be spiritual because it may be selfish. … Or in the words of Nikolai Berdiaev, rice for myself alone may be unspiritual, but rice for my hungry sister and brother is spiritual. Thus our cry for life is a cry for the bread and the rice of life and for the spirituality of all the activities, processes and relationships bound up with producing and sharing rice and bread. Ours is a cry for a spirituality of and for life."

An evangelical case for hope about Muslim migration to Europe

And here is an interesting link to an article by John Allen on the subject of making the case for hope when considering Muslim migration to Europe.

http://ncrcafe.org/node/1270

I should add that I do not agree at all with the sentiments the article expresses. As a liberal and a bit of a leftist I'm not an advocate of encouraging the forces of conservatism to join together but I do think it's interesting that there is also a spread of opinion on the evangelical side on these sort of issues.

Sikh to convert to Christianity in order to get into good school?

There is an interesting link here to a British story on the BBC about a possible Sikh conversion to Christianity in order to get into a good school.
This takes the discussion we had in Toulouse about "rice Christians" a step further perhaps.

If I have time I'll post a little more about rice Christians at a later point. Kajsa made the point at our meeting that at a time when we are saying God is rice, why should we question or perhaps even deplore "rice Christians" -ie people who convert in order to get access to some form of actual or perceived material gain.

To follow the discussion from India on conversion

In order to be able to follow the email debate between Richard Howell from the Evangelical Alliance, P. Ninan Benjamin from the Bangalore Initiative for Regious Dialogue (BIRD) and John Longlois also from the Evangelical Alliance I've created a separete repository for these rather longer documents.
You can visit the first message in the repository by going to the following address
http://conversion-documents.blogspot.com/2007/08/convert-to-god-or-christianity-by-p-n.html

When I have a little more time I'll try to build the links in a little bit more organically - when I have time - midnight tonight probably!

So here's Jean Longlois in reply to Ninan Benjamin's first article.

Have I converted?

I've been wondering about this the past few days - did I convert. The memory that comes to mind is of talking with two boys on the school bus coming home one day. I was sort of maintaining a creationist argument - people who know me now might find this a little difficult to believe. The older boys who were trying to prove to me that I was wrong used a confusion between having to believe in every word of the creation story in Genesis (today I'd say which one of course!) if you have faith in God to argue their point. Looking back on that old argument, the thing that I see most now is how completely biblically and theologically iliterate I was and I think how very sad that is. My strong sense of faith was not really matched by any knowledge or intellectual framework to go with that.

I can still remember the wonderful liberation I felt newly arrived in France when at a weekend for 60 young people from the church one of my colleagues started us all thinking by giving a bravura performance, "in the beginning the world was round, round and flat, flat as a pancake, with a great dome above and great dome below." A real introduction to a way of thinking about how the earth was thought about in old testament times. We weren't there to try and tell young people to believe in several impossible or dogmatic things before breakfast, but rather to encourage them to understand and celebrate God's wonderful world and their and our faith.

In my early teens although I attended a fairly middle of the road and perhaps liberal church, the church youth group was run largely by evangelicals. I can remember watching at youth services as others went forward to respond to the altar call, I never did. The congregation I belonged to was ecumenical and made up of a real mix of people from very liberal to biblically conservative - and I still hold on to it as a special community and I'm truly grateful for the sense of vocation I received during that time of my life. But I would argue now that we need to rediscover a sense of passion about the Bible story and stories. Hans Ruedi Weber calls it "The Book that reads Me" - for me the way forwards in a secularised world is about sharing the story rather than dogmas or systems. It will never be about choosing science or God but choosing both. - and it's fine to share that from the outset with children and young people.

I hadn't really thought until now that perhaps I left an evangelical worldview behind at some point during my teens. I couldn't say when that happened but sometime in my teens the gradual move from evangelical to liberal just happened - and I know others who have made the opposite journey. How tolerant in the Christian churches are we of one another I wonder? So quick to pigeonhole people as in one camp or another rather than to in some way both truly discuss differences and celebrate the enormous diversity of God's church.

Enough I think, this is probably not understandable or even intereseting to anyone but me. Sleep calls!