The Atlantic just published a provocative article, Did Christianity Cause the Crash?
America’s mainstream religious denominations used to teach the faithful that they would be rewarded in the afterlife. But over the past generation, a different strain of Christian faith has proliferated—one that promises to make believers rich in the here and now. Known as the prosperity gospel, and claiming tens of millions of adherents, it fosters risk-taking and intense material optimism. It pumped air into the housing bubble. And one year into the worst downturn since the Depression, it’s still going strong. ...
This is an interesting analysis and I think her take has a lot of merit. But I would take this a bit deeper. It isn't just the prosperity gospel that is the problem. It is the failure of Mainliners and other churches to give a proper theological context for our daily work lives. The prosperity gospel is a symptom of this larger problem.
Two years ago, Paul Gifford wrote an article in Christian Century, Expecting miracles: The prosperity gospel in Africa. While Gifford does not endorse the prosperity gospel he does note something very important about its emergence: It gives hope and legitimizes the expectation that poverty and despair ought not be. People ought not surrender to fatalism and should hope for a better world. Reflecting on Gifford's article, Richard Mouw writes:
... It’s tempting to trash that kind of [prosperity] theology, but the Century writer rightly holds back from doing so. He is obviously concerned about the sort of preaching that he has witnessed there [Africa]. But for all of that, he reminds us, there is something to be said for telling desperately needy people “that you matter, that you belong on top, that you will have what you desire.” Marginalized groups of people do need to hear encouraging words that “provide incentives in circumstances in which it is all too easy to give up.”
What I would add to this wise counsel is that we need to do the theological homework that will address these concerns more effectively. For me, the case was put in a challenging manner by my former colleague, the late Paul Hiebert, who published an important essay, “The Flaw of the Excluded Middle,” in the early 1980s in the journal Missiology. Hiebert recounted his experience as a missionary anthropologist with recent converts to Christianity in a village culture in India. When these folks would face difficult challenges relating to fertility, family crises, or economic threats, they would often turn to the shaman for help. Hiebert realized that he did not have the theological resources to address their practical concerns. He had a “high” theology of God, salvation, and human destiny. He also had a scientific grasp of empirical reality. But he was lost when dealing with a middle range of issues: How can I avoid accidents? How can I win my husband back? Who can help me deal with my child’s illness? How can I find enough food for our next meal?
This is the theological “excluded middle” that my own theology does not know how to address. Yet for many people in the world, those are the most important issues in their lives. Much of what goes into “prosperity preaching” makes me nervous theologically. But until the rest of us learn how better to address “the middle range,” I for one will refrain from attacking.
I think Mouw has nailed it. The response by so many of our Mainline leaders and structures has been to denounce the prosperity gospel but offer no "middle range." We get platitudes about living in abundance and exhortations to avoid greed but where is the instruction that guides me in my daily economic life. Consequently, Christians pick up whatever they can from whoever they can get it ... our equivalent of shamans ... to make sense of their economic existence. They sure don't get it from the the church. The prosperity gospel fills a vacuum created by Mainline leaders. So, yes, the prosperity gospel contributed to the crash but the rise the prosperity gospel is a consquence of silence from Mainliners and other Christian communities.
