In a recent opinion piece in Christianity Today, Leah Payne and Aaron Griffith, highlight the unholy alliance that has led famous evangelical leaders, Franklin Graham, Robert Jeffress, and Jerry Falwell Jr. to endorse the latest book by Paula White-Cain. The theology espoused by Paula White-Cain has historically been anathema among evangelicals, but the appeal of Paul White's power, in particular her celebrity and close association with the President of the United States, have seemingly overshadowed any concerns about Paula White-Cain's personal history and Prosperity Gospel infused theology {
9 Things You Should Know About Prosperity Gospel Preacher Paula White by The Gospel Coalition's Joe Carter}. Before going on, read the full article, it is well worth it, I will interact with specific passages below:
Paula White-Cain’s Evangelical Support Squad Isn’t as Surprising as It Seems
On the surface, White-Cain’s support among these conservative white Protestants is surprising. For one thing, she is a prominent prosperity preacher associated with the New Apostolic Reformation, a loosely connected group of Pentecostals and Charismatics. For decades, tongues-speaking, vision-reporting prosperity preachers like White-Cain have been a theological anathema to more traditional white evangelicals. {The Prosperity Gospel has been making inroads for decades, inching closer and closer to being thought of as acceptable as its proponents' fame grows through their TV/online presence, book sales, and wealth from donations. Yet, until the events described in the article, leaders like Franklin Graham would have never publicly associated themselves with those selling this Gospel-for-profit perversion.}
Before fundamentalist-modernist battle lines hardened in the 1920s, it was common to see theological liberals and conservatives sharing stages with one another at tent revivals. Conservative revivalists were willing to work with liberal Protestants if it meant that they could achieve their broader aim of preaching to more potential converts with the support of the local Christian community.
To be sure, the revival tent was big, but it still could be contested. For Billy Graham, his continuation of the evangelical pragmatist tradition in inviting Christians of all stripes—from Johnny Cash to the president of Union Theological Seminary—to support his crusades or sit on his revival platforms drew the ire of fundamentalists like Bob Jones, who saw this impulse as misguided theological capitulation. But Graham helped set the stage for later evangelicals to think creatively about how partnerships could widen their appeal. {Here is the key fundamental difference between the actions of Billy Graham in previous years and those of Franklin Graham (and those of like mind) today: The purpose. To what end, for what cause, was Billy Graham willing to work with those he disagreed with about theology? For the sharing of the Gospel message and the saving of souls. Not for political gain, not for power, certainly not for money, it was a cause about which the Apostle Paul wrote, "
I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some." (1 Corinthians 9:22) Should we work with anyone, even non-Christians, including Muslims (for example), on disaster relief or humanitarian aid? Absolutely, for here we are not making common cause theologically, are not claiming to share a Gospel motivation or mission. To save lives we ought to be willing to work with whomever is willing to offer no-strings-attached aid. Should we work with other Christians, of other denominations, with whom we disagree on other issue, but agree upon the Gospel in those same areas, while including a Gospel message, praying, and worshiping together? Absolutely, for here the common bond of the Gospel supersedes our disagreements. To save souls we ought to be willing to work with anyone who affirms salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Should we work with non-trinitarians, with those who deny the God/Man nature of Christ or his resurrection, whose Gospel is man-centered, and though it pays lip service to Jesus, is instead focused upon elevating us to earthly riches? Should we embrace this false-Gospel for the sake of politics, wealth, or fame? May God forbid it. Nor can we work with those who embrace a false-gospel in an effort to share the Gospel, for what would we share?(Obviously, in the 3 questions above we would exclude working with those engaging in moral evil; i.e. we wouldn't accept food aid from terrorists, or Gospel preaching aid from pedophiles, that ought to go without saying, but lest anyone say, 'what about..?')
White-Cain frames her self-help efforts in the contractual language of the “hard” prosperity gospel, a term coined by historian Kate Bowler to denote certain ministers’ emphasis on the direct and specific returns that result from faith. In the words of an offer on White-Cain’s website, sow a $130 “Favor Seed” and reap a “Triple Favor” as money flows back to you. But it is not that different from the “soft” prosperity exhortations of other evangelicals, including many in the SBC, who claim that following biblical principles improves marriages, lowers anxiety, and creates extraordinary lives of success and significance.
Though there are innumerable evangelicals who would eschew prosperity language of any sort, a focus on the personal benefits of the faith is everywhere. Focus on the Family’s aesthetic is certainly different than White-Cain’s, but the organization clearly states that familial and marital thriving is available through adherence to biblical teaching. Likewise, Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University claims that “biblically based, common-sense education and empowerment” will “give HOPE to everyone in every walk of life.” Less overly contractual language perhaps, but health and wealth all the same. {Here is where this analysis ought to be especially sobering. While James Dobson and Dave Ramsey have some critics, and none of our techniques/methods are beyond criticsm, this is a more fundamental question than that. Has our comfort as an American Church with health and wealth grown so deep and so widespread that we don't even notice it anymore? Has it seeped into the fabric of who we are as a Church in America so much that we expect health and wealth to be part of Christian discipleship? The Church certainly has plenty of issues to be worried about, and many things that need to be corrected so that the work of the Kingdom of God can flourish, this question needs to be on that list.}
Evangelicals also are avid participants in celebrity-driven media culture. Like other Americans, evangelicals buy books, check Instagram, and attend conferences. And the drivers of all these media tend to be big names, authority figures who know how to communicate their signature messages effectively.
As a form of American stardom, evangelical celebrity culture is ruthlessly capitalist. One’s star rises and falls based on how many books are sold or where they are slotted in a conference lineup. Part of building a celebrity brand means creating cross promotions on media platforms and exploring unexpected partnerships to open up new markets. Each can open doors for the other. As writer Katelyn Beaty noted, “so much of the endorsement machine is about maintaining relationships, not giving an honest assessment of a written work.”...
And Jerry Falwell Jr., president of Liberty University and another of White-Cain’s promoters, describes himself in precisely these market-driven terms, as a businessman who is to be evaluated by the financial health, growth, and notoriety his educational empire, not his theology. His promotion of White-Cain’s book can be interpreted as a logical follow-up to White-Cain’s presence (in support of her husband, Journey keyboardist Jonathan Cain) at Liberty’s convocation in 2017. With her massive media presence (nearly 700,000 Twitter followers and counting), it is understandable that other evangelicals like Falwell (with around 75,500 Twitter followers) would see promotion of White-Cain’s work as a way to link their name with hers, benefitting both in the long run.
{As damning as the thought that leaders like Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell Jr, and Robert Jeffress might be duped into not recognizing the Prosperity Gospel danger that Paul White represents, it is far more disconcerting to consider the alternative: they know it but don't care. The allure of popularity, sales, and access to powerful people is too strong. I would disagree strongly with someone who made such an alliance for the sake of political gain, such marriages always corrupt those who embrace them, but if any portion of that compromise is being driven by the greed for fame and money, the moral failure is far greater than simply one of being in error.}
For those who do not share her theological disposition, it is wishful thinking to pretend that she is not a major force within American evangelicalism. It is now Paula White-Cain’s world. The question is how we should live in it. {The conclusion of the Payne/Griffith article, one that reminds us that this issue isn't going away anytime soon.}
Conclusions:
1. The Prosperity Gospel is anathema: The Gospel is about service for God, about selfless sacrifice in this life for the sake of the next, NOT about health, wealth, and fame here and now.
That the Church in America, even where the preaching and teaching remains orthodox, is infected with exceptionalism (i.e. God is for us more than other people, we're the special, chosen nation} and weakened by materialism, where the spiritual takes a back seat to the material, is now beyond doubt. That we've grown comfortable with a lite-version of Prosperity doesn't make it any less dangerous.
2. Any preacher who promises blessings from God in exchange for money is a charlatan who should be shunned no matter whether the theology that he/she is promoting is orthodox or not.
In this case, of course, the money seeking behavior is also coupled with deeply troubling theology. I am well aware that Paula White-Cain's website contains an orthodox statement of beliefs under the heading,
her beliefs, but video also exists of her denying the trinity and claiming that we are all little gods (reminiscent of the 'we will all be gods someday' heresy of Mormonism). The theology is bad enough, couple together with a money-making scheme and Christian leaders ought to be putting up "DANGER" signs, not endorsing the latest book.
3. Book sales, twitter followers, and appearances on TV are NOT an accurate measuring stick for who ought to be leading the Church.
You may perhaps already be aware of this, but the Apostle Paul wrote extensively to Timothy about the moral character, and lack of immoral behavior,
required of those who would be called to lead the people of God. Popularity is not on the list.
Additional material:
Jeffress Defends Endorsement of Paula White’s Book, But Admits He Hasn’t Read it “Word for Word” or Researched Her Theology by Julie Roys
Televangelist Paula White Hawks 'Resurrection Life' for $1,144 'Seed' by Leonardo Blair, Christian Post {An example of the absolute heresy of promising blessings to those who send you money, no better than the Papal Indulgences that infuriated Martin Luther}
Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore tweeted, “Paula White is a charlatan and recognized as a heretic by every orthodox Christian, of whatever tribe.”
