Andrew Sullivan is wrong - about this and just about everything else. He also doesn’t get that “tab A goes in slot B” thingy.
The Lofgren article referred to in the post is just a rant by a sodomite former GOP staffer who is hoping to get a “hot” reception at gay bars.
I was a listener to Joyce Meyerfor several years and not once did I hear her cpme close to preaching what I would call “prosperity gospel”, i.e. “Send me money and you will be properous.”
That said, there is plenty in the Gospel that does preach abundance of blessings and provision to the obedient, in both Testaments.
Jesus told us not to worry about what we would eat or drink or wear “But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.” Matt.6:33
The Tea Party promotes Ayn Rand Objectivism, not the Prosperity Gospel. Cutting taxation and spending is important but nothing will improve until the power of money creation is taken back from the private oligarchs who run the Federal Reserve.
Prosperity gospel is flim flam, pure and simple. God isn’t going to give you a car, or pay your mortgage or even pay your medical bills if you pray for it. That is nonsense.
Now that doesn’t mean that everyone who is labeled as preaching “prosperity gospel” really is. A lot of enemies of Christianity want pretty much everyone on the Right labeled as preaching Prosperity Gospel, or Dominionism, or whatever else they can make look nutty or scary. That is why Sullivan needs to be ignored, period.
I think the link they are trying to deny is that, if one let’s go of the guilt associated with becoming rich, one will eventually be drawn to conservative political philosophies because time has shown again and again that limited government is the best engine of growth. That’s the fear the left has over this, we all know they try to demonize wealth whenever they can (for others anyway). If God wants us all rich how can they tell us the rich are the root of all evil?
I was flipping channels the other day and stumbled upon Mike Murdock, who has always seemed to me to be one of the most blatant and sleazy of the prosperity Gospel advocates. But he’d make a damned good used-car salesman.
This is incoherant tripe. The author or Andrew Sullivan or both have conflated Prosperity Gospel with “Dominionism”. For starters, one is real while the other is a shoddy, nonexistant erection of the looney left; it goes downhill from there.
I can’t make heads or tails of this article with it’s poorly organized writing style. What is the author saying that Sullivan is right about? That the prosperity movement controls the Republican party? Then why does the author say that the “Religious Right” has rejected the prosperity gospel? Are we supposed to believe that something can control the modern Republican party while bypassing the Religious Right?
For the life of me, I cannot figure out what his point is.
Joh 6:26-27 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal."
After this, many fell away.
God promises to take care of us. That doesn't always include a free lunch.