In the last article, I dealt with academic elitism evident at some Pentecostal universities these days, and I did so as someone who was once on the "inside." Likewise, I am writing this from the perspective of one who has been there. What is called the "Word/Faith Movement" is a substratum of the Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition that unfortunately shares little in common with traditional Pentecostalism or even the Charismatic Renewal movement that transformed so many Catholic Christians in the 1960s through the 1980s. Some people who have researched this movement even say it is not Pentecostal or Charismatic at all, and they have some legitimate concerns to back up that assertion. However, it has become intertwined with the Pentecostal and Charismatic communities over the past 40 or so years due to many of its proponents coming out of those traditions, and for the normal "Joe Schmo" on the street, there is no marked difference between the two ideas. Even former Pentecostals like myself have dabbled there at some point - in my younger days as a budding Foursquare minister at a Bible college, I listened to Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, and others like them, and I even saw Kenneth Hagin in person at one of his meetings back in 1990 in Ozark, AL. The allure of these types of individuals is due to the fact that they take something legitimate and true, and then spin around it a whole system that ends up being foreign to the core truth that may have spawned the whole thing. As I began to grow in my Christianity, in time I began to see the futility of such things, and at first it caused a lot of confusion - I was mad at God for a while over it (and it wasn't even his fault) and it took years to unravel some of the garbage I imbibed from that movement. Some things I even still tend toward even today. That being said, let me now explain what the idea behind this movement is, as well as giving a little history. Then, I want to deal with one heretical aspect of the movement that we as Catholics need to be seriously aware of, as it involves a pillar of our faith.
The "Word/Faith" movement, also known as the "Health and Wealth Teaching," "Positive Confession," or by the more pejorative term "Name it and Claim it," is something that gets its core convictions from such Bible passages as Philippians 4:19 - "The Lord shall supply all your needs according to His riches in glory." The core truth in this is absolutely true - God does supply needs, and I can testify of many times in my own life where a serious need had been miraculously met in a way I didn't expect. The problem with the proponents of the "Word/Faith" doctrine is that they take this to the point where essentially they reason that God wants us to somehow be in perfect health, have abundant wealth, and achieve an unrealistic level of perfection based more on our desires than on our actual needs, and this is where that teaching goes horribly wrong. A lot of times, God's provision of our needs is just that - he gives us what we need. This is in opposition at times to what we want, because oftentimes needs and wants are two different things. Let's take this example that I am about to share. You have just been offered a job somewhere that you need, but you may have a transportation issue making it work. You need reliable transportation to get you to work, and you need the work to provide the financial support to meet your other necessities. Question is, how is that need provided? You can pray for it, and if it is God's will (more on that later) for you to have this job, he will make sure you get there. But, his way of supplying the need may not necessarily be with a brand-new Rolls Royce dropping out of the sky. The way the need may be met may be simply providing you with a small financial blessing of some sort until your paychecks kick in to allow you to afford to take the city bus to your work location, but that is providing a need. Or, it may be that God leads you to a decent car dealership who gives you a good deal on a modest car (such as a 1992 Prius or something) that will get you back and forth, but it still meets a need. So, God has answered the prayer in that case. Things like that happen all the time, and that is what Phillippians 4:19 is about. Where the "Word/Faith" people get it wrong is that those "needs" to them are extravagant wants that appeal to the lust of the eye. For the "Word/Faith" person, the bus is not good enough, because in their thinking we serve this "big God" who can provide a Rolls Royce, and the job - ha! To them, a job paying $12 hourly that meets your expenses every month and keeps a roof over your head is not good enough either - you need to "claim" that executive position paying $100,000 a year (although you know full well you don't have the training and experience for it) and if you don't, then you are guilty of "not trusting God" somehow. And, there is the fundamental problem - although God has provided and met the need you have, if you are a "Word/Faith" disciple this is not good enough, and you demand more. That thinking has caused more problems for people than can be documented here, and it is destructive and even dangerous. For those who teach this stuff, there is a worse danger - those "teachers" say often that you have to "sow a seed" into their ministry, and if you make that "faith promise" (which, basically, means that you are committing sometimes thousands of dollars you don't actually have) then you too can be healthy, wealthy, and wise. The flaw in this whole scheme is glaringly obvious - if that actually worked, there are two things one would notice. First, those extorting this money from needy people who don't have it wouldn't need to do so, in that they should by their own rationale have more money than they know what to do with and should be giving it away themselves. Second, if you drive past one of those "megachurches" where this crap is taught, you begin to notice something - there are not a lot of Lincolns, Cadillacs, BMWs, and Rolls Royces in those parking lots, are they? More often than not, the only person driving anything remotely like that in those parking lots is the "teacher" who is spouting that stuff, and that person got it by bilking all those other people driving 20-year-old Fords and Toyotas in the parking lot out of a load of cash. Common sense begs that one looks at the plain evidence in sight, but many do not tragically. So, the question is why people follow this stuff, and where did it start? Let's go back to origins first.
What we call the "Word/Faith" movement has its genesis in two different streams. The first has to do with a Baptist minister by the name of Essek William "E.W." Kenyon (1867-1948). Kenyon was not a Pentecostal, and although he was marginally associated with the Keswick and Holiness movements of the 1800s that presaged Pentecostalism, he had a whole different line of influence that shaped his teachings. In his early days, Kenyon attended something called the Emerson School of Oratory in Boston, which had its origins in the work of Charles Wesley Emerson (1837-1908), a Unitarian minister who also had some influence from the teachings of Emmanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), a cultic pseudo-Christian theologian who was influenced by occultic esotericism. Emerson School at the time was also a hotbed of another cultic heretical movement called New Thought, which was a more popular offshoot of Christian Science. New Thought is what is known as a "mind science," much in the same way as its parent movement, Christian Science, and it teaches that essentially all "bad" things are in the mind and that the individual has the power to change reality essentially by changing their mind and how they think. It's most popular modern-day expression, the Unity School of Christianity, still garners a lot of followers for the same reasons in many cases many "Word/Faith" teachers do on the airwaves. It is where the whole idea of "positive thinking" came from, and some proponents of this (including Kenyon) even proposed that in order for the positive thought to become reality, one has to "confess" it by speaking it out - essentially, "speaking the thought into existence." The problem from the outset with this is that it is similar to occultic ideas of magic, in that circumstances can be manipulated by thoughts/words, and thus it would be contrary to a Christian view on these issues, as only God Himself has that power. Some people, at least according to the Wikipedia article on Kenyon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._W._Kenyon - accessed 1/8/2018) dispute the role of New Thought metaphysical teachings on Kenyon's beliefs, insisting instead that he got them from Keswick and Holiness influences. However, neither the Keswick nor Holiness movements actually teach this sort of thing - both believe, as did the later Pentecostals, that the supernatural was real, and thus divine healing was possible (Catholics affirm that as well) but there was not any room for manipulation and "positive confessions" to facilitate it. Hence, the difference. Later, Kenneth Hagin would get "revelation" from Kenyon's writings (so much so he reportedly plagiarized them in his own books) and take these ideas further, and it would spawn a whole mess of heresies that Hagin's successors - Kenneth Copeland, Jerry Savelle, Benny Hinn, etc. - would expand to even more ridiculous levels. However, unlike Kenyon, Hagin had other roots, and as the "Father of the Faith Movement," he is pivotal to the discussion as to his origins.
Beginning in the 1930s, a number of Pentecostal evangelists began striking out on what is popularly called the "Sawdust trail," holding huge meetings in tents. Revivalism was not limited to Pentecostals though, as Baptists such as Billy Graham were also doing similar crusades at around the same time. In the 1940s and early 1950s, a number of these Pentecostal evangelists became well-known for their emphasis on divine healing, and their crusades began to feature that prominently. One of the biggest names of that period was Oral Roberts (1918-2009), a Pentecostal Holiness evangelist (later Methodist and then Foursquare) who also pioneered teaching called "seed faith." The idea of "seed faith" was that one had to "sow a seed" (which often signified financial contributions of some sort) in order to get a response from God, and this extended to a radical new interpretation of verses in Scripture such as Phillippians 4:19 in that a new "give to get" mentality was being fostered. This, naturally, is in stark contrast to what the Church has historically taught on this, as spiritual gifts such as divine healing were traditionally seen as manifestations of grace in which merit or position mattered little, in that they were tied to the Atonement. Despite this, Roberts cannot be rightly called a "Word/Faith" teacher in that for the most part, his doctrines were more in line with the classical Pentecostalism of his faith community and he only made this deviation based on his own opinions. However, Roberts was not the only evangelist out there, as a whole movement, called the "Salvation/Healing Revival," had taken prominence particularly in the early to mid-1950s with such individuals as Gordon Lindsay, A.A. Allen, Jack Coe, Kathryn Kuhlmann, and others. One of those was a young Oklahoma Assemblies of God minister named Kenneth Hagin, and this is where the "Word/Faith" movement has its genesis as such.
Kenneth E. Hagin Sr. (1917-2003) was a Texas-born Assemblies of God minister who around the year 1949 became a traveling evangelist in association with the "Salvation/Healing" movement. He formed his own evangelistic association in 1963 and began to be nationally broadcast sometime around 1967. Hagin, through both this association with the "Salvation/Healing" movement and his cursory readings of Kenyon's material, began to teach this "Word/Faith" doctrine, and a host of others soon rode in on his coattails, including Kenneth Copeland, Jerry Savelle, Marilyn Hickey, and others, in the early 1970s. Soon, the proponents of this movement dominated the airwaves and even influenced the teachings of people not traditionally associated with the movement, such as Jim and Tammy Bakker, Pat Robertson, and Oral Roberts. It is one reason too why many people mistakenly associate all Pentecostals and Charismatics - in particular those with television outreaches - with this teaching, which is not exactly fair to many of them. In recent years, a new crop of younger teachers of this doctrine has now taken over the airwaves, including such individuals as Joel Osteen, Paula White, Joyce Meyer, T.D. Jakes, and Casey Treat, but they essentially teach variations of the same ideas originating with Kenneth Hagin.
E.W. Kenyon, thought to be the earliest influence of the "Word/Faith" movement
Kenneth E. Hagin Sr., the real "father" of the "Word/Faith" movement
Before moving forward, there are a few observations about all this I want to make. First, I want to say that I acknowledge that there are actual Christians who are disciples of these "Word/Faith" teachers, and they are still Christians despite their belief in bad teachings. Second, like everything else, at the core of even the worst of these "Word/Faith" people may be some good that can be taken - for instance, I know from years ago that Kenneth Hagin's Bible school, Rhema Bible Training Center in OK, did have some fine music LP's, one of which I actually have. Also, I actually did receive a nice blessing when I attended a Kenneth Hagin crusade back years ago when a guy sitting behind me slipped me a note with a $20 bill in it saying "This is a blessing from God," and to be honest that met a need for food that week when I was a struggling college student in my dormitory. Third, it is important to also note that although there are extremes that come from these "Word/Faith" teachers that should be rightly rejected, it must also be remembered that at the core of their teaching is some truth that we must be careful not to discard - we take that truth and see where it fits into historic Church teaching, and then it can be accepted in its proper context. The truth, in this case, is that God does provide needs, and also that supernatural healing is possible. But, let's also remember that these things do not mean unlimited wealth and perfect health, and if you are expecting a model's body with a Rolls Royce in your driveway, you will be tragically disappointed, as that is not how God works. It is at this point I want to discuss this more thoroughly before moving on.
At the root of the excesses of "Word/Faith" theology regarding wealth and health is a materialistic worldview. At the core of this materialism is something that writer John Horvat defines in his book Return to Order (York, PA: Tradition Family Property, 2013) as "frenetic intemperance." On page 7 of the book, Horvat defines frenetic intemperance as a "restless, explosive, and relentless drive inside man that expresses itself in modern economy" in two ways:
1. It seeks to throw off legitimate restraints
2. It gratifies disordered passions
Though Horvat's definition is more or less focused on economics (in particular characterization of Keynesian economic theory that embodies these ideas), it can also be applied theologically in regard to the "Word/Faith" teaching. At the core of the "positive confession" of unlimited wealth and perfect health that are hallmarks of "Word/Faith" teaching is a type of disordered frenetic intemperance that seeks to throw off legitimate restraints (these "Faith teachers" are fond of saying, for instance, that those who disagree with them are "being religious" and "bound by tradition," and traditional teaching is what indeed restrains the excesses of heresy) as well as gratifying disordered passions (by promoting the "confession" of "wealth and health," it appeals to the base greed in the hearer). We now turn to a seminal evaluation of this movement authored by Christian apologist Hank Hanegraaff entitled Christianity in Crisis, as now his evaluation of this movement on these grounds shows how frenetic intemperance, rather than genuine faith in Christ, drives a lot of the heretical teaching in this movement, and it has created practically an alternative belief system that bears little semblance to traditional Christian teaching.
I first read Christianity in Crisis back in 1997, and to be honest it was a hard pill to swallow, as at the time I myself was beginning to be weaned away from a lot of teaching like this. Hanegraaff's book was actually written a few years earlier (around 1993 I believe) and I had refused to even touch it much less read it then. But, as I began to see things more clearly, I believe God led me to an audio version of the book I found in a library at a retirement community I was working security at during that time, and the timing of my discovery of this was perfect. Despite preconceived notions I had of Hanegraaff's motives, I actually found that he was very graceful and compassionate in his writing of this text, and he had the heart to see people delivered from some of the more destructive teachings of this movement. This is what also inspired me to maybe begin a sort of Catholic perspective on this movement, as that has been sadly neglected, and I think Hanegraaff's approach is a great place to begin. Hanegraaff in the past year or so has been received into the Orthodox Church, and being the Orthodox perspective is identical to the Catholic one on this subject, I am hoping that he can maybe continue to shed light on these teachings so as to benefit both Catholic and Orthodox readers and inform them better. That being said, let me give a brief synopsis of Hanegraaff's premise, as it is concise and very easy to follow.
The construction of Christianity in Crisis is built upon the acronym FLAWS, and Hanegraaff sets it up as follows:
1. Faith in Faith
a. Force of Faith
b. Formula of Faith
c. Faith of God
d. Faith "Hall of Fame"
2. Little Gods
a. Deification of Man
b. Demotion of God
c. Deification of Satan
d. Demotion of Christ
3. Atonement Atrocities
a. Re-creation on the Cross
b. Redemption (of Christ) in Hell
c. Rebirth (of Christ) in Hell
d. Reincarnation of Christ from Demonic to a mere "Son of God."
4. Wealth and Want
a. Cultural Conformity
b. Cons and Cover-ups
c. Covenant-Contract
d. Context to the Third Power
5. Sickness and Suffering
a. Symptoms and Sickness
b. Satan and Sickness
c. Sin and Sickness
d. Sovereignty and Sickness
Hanegraaff notes that the heresies of the faith movement can be systematically categorized by this diagram. Essentially, how it works is like this - faith is a force that our words activate, and since we are essentially "little gods," we have the power to confess with our words and create what we desire. In order for that to happen, Jesus had to be "born again" a demoniac, then "born again" again in hell, and demoted to a mere "son of God" so that we become those "little gods." And, because we are now "little gods," we are mandated to be healthy and wealthy, and if we are not, then somehow we are cursed or are harboring some "dark, secret sin." However, the focus I want to look at now is on something that is very disturbing, based on this faulty idea of "sovereignty and sickness" that these "Word/Faith" teachers propagate, as it bludgeons even the words of Jesus in the classic "Our Father" prayer He Himself taught us.
The great Catholic theologian/philosopher Romano Guardini, in his 1934 classic work on the Lord's Prayer, has as the backbone premise of his book that one petition in that prayer is the "gateway" to the rest, and that is the petition "Thy will be done." As he writes on page 4 of the book, he says "We are exhorted here to ask that God's will be done. So this will must be something that is worth asking for; something precious for which we have to petition with all the earnestness and ardor of prayer; something holy and salutary." (Romano Guardini, The Lord's Prayer. Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 1932. p. 4). In regard to this also, the Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us via the words of Scripture itself that "if anyone is a worshipper of God and does his will, God listens to him" (CCC 2827, John 9:31). Note also CCC 2611 - the prayer of faith goes beyond just calling on God's name but also entails disposing of the heart to do the will of the Father (note also Matthew 7:21). In stark contrast, "Word/Faith" teachers such as Rod Parsley, Frederick Price, and Benny Hinn mock this essential aspect of our prayer life by saying it is "stupid" (Price), a "succumbing to the traditions of men," (Parsley), and "being religious" (Hinn). Hanegraaff documents a rant by Frederick Price which is very disturbing in regard to this, in that Price actually says that anyone who has to say "Thy will be done" is "calling God a fool" (Hank Hanegraaff, Christianity in Crisis. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2009. p. 275). My question to Price then would be this - was Jesus calling Himself a "fool" by teaching us to pray the "Our Father?" If so, Price and his cohort have a serious problem - they are calling God, Jesus Christ, the Bible, and 2000 years of orthodox teaching a lie. God's will is ultimately what is good for us, and we have to rely on it as Christians. We are not forced to obviously, and God respects our free will if we choose not to follow His will, but as followers of Christ, it should be engrained into us that following God's will is exercising our will in trusting that He knows best (which he does obviously). That is why Guardini correctly concludes that God's will is indeed something worth asking for, and something very precious to seek after. So, for some TV preacher like Fred Price to come along and bludgeon that, it means that perhaps Price has a problem with trusting God himself. For these "faith teachers" to say things like this also calls into question their own conversion. No one can judge man's heart except God Himself, but if actions are any indication, some of these "teachers" may be living a lie and that fact alone would qualify them as false teachers that should not be given any serious thought, especially by Catholic Christians who have a richer reservoir of teaching to draw from that is proven and true. And, this is one reason why Catholics would do well to stay away from such nonsense, as what these people are teaching is, in essence, an outright heresy based on their own mindsets and not on solid teaching and evidence as provided in Scripture. That was the core issue I wanted to address in regard to this movement because as a catechist I am charged with transmission of what is called the "Four Pillars" (the Creeds of the Church, the Our Father, the Decalogue, and the Sacraments) to those I am chosen to instruct. If any of my students are hearing the garbage spewed by those like Fred Price and Rod Parsley on TV, it is my responsibility to point out to them that what those individuals say is wrong, heretical, and could endanger their souls. If I don't, I risk innocent blood on my hands. This is a very important reason why Catholics need to "step up their game" on addressing such things, as right now it's the Evangelicals who are doing commendable work to expose these errors, and we would do well to maybe pay attention to what our Evangelical brethren are doing in this case and address the issue from a Catholic perspective.
I hope this provides a brief overview for those of us who are Catholic Christians in dealing with the popular television preachers that many of our own Church often get sucked up into listening to, and in doing so hopefully we can be more educated and discerning as to what we nourish our souls with in regard to teachings, etc. More could be said, and perhaps at some point I will do so, but for now this hopefully will whet the reader's appetite to examine this issue more carefully. Thank you, and will see you next time.
