A couple visited my church a few months ago. Both were veterans of the Iraq war, and both had been injured during the way. They were not the stereotypical church attendees — they wore black clothing and were covered in tatoos. I was not able to meet them after services, but the church was warm and welcoming to them.
That afternoon, I received a call from the woman who had visited our church that morning. She was very upset. She’d just learned of the Westboro Baptist Church’s antics, how it pickets the funeral of soldiers killed in the wars overseas. This visitor called to ask me if my church thought that God was killing the soldiers to punish the USA for our acceptance of homosexuality.
She cried at times during the call, recounting the horrors she’d experienced and the tragic deaths of many of her fellow soldiers. “Did God really kill them to punish our nation?”
I won’t recount the rest of my conversation with this visitor. I do want to point out that the view expressed by the Westboro Baptist Church is an extreme version of a common idea among many in the religious right. For example, I have often heard people say that, in the past, God had blessed America with greatness because we were a Christian nation. Our financial and military dominance was the result of our Christianity. Or, perhaps more frequently, I’ve heard people say that America will not be great again until we return to God. These views are all within the same family, a family that is related to the Westboro Baptist Church’s views. The idea is that God will bless our country’s righteousness by giving us a great economy or a mighty military, and that he’ll punish our country’s unrighteousness with an economic recession or a military disaster.
Hold on to that. I am going to shift gears, but I’ll come back to this.
A few years ago, I was looking at magazines in a Christian bookstore. I saw the current issue of Christianity Today, and I flipped through it. The cover story was about the Prosperity Gospel–what is sometimes called the “Health and Wealth” gospel–and its rapid acceptance in Africa. Not surprisingly, the doctrine that Christ wants his followers to be materially wealthy, more wealthy than they could ever imagine, is spreading fast through some of the poorest areas in the world. The article mentioned a preacher who has a golden throne that he sits on during worship!
I firmly believe that those teachings misrepresent the true gospel. I’m not, however, giving my reasons for believing that in this post. Many Christians reject the Prosperity Gospel. Not all do, of course, and my impression is that more and more Christians are accepting it. This post is directed towards those who reject the prosperity gospel on the individual level.
While reading the article, though, I realized something: I have heard many of my friends, fellow church members, and family members flatly deny that God sends material blessings to those who follow him, and then, in the next few minutes, start talking about how the U.S.A. used to be a great and powerful country because we followed God. You’ve heard people talking about the latter. Back when people weren’t so sinful, the churches were packed, and prayers was in the schools, our economy was booming and we were a superpower! Now that everyone has turned away from God, our jobs are being shipped overseas, and terrorists are killing Americans left and right. How is this not the Prosperity Gospel on a larger scale?
Or think about the reverse idea: How many Christians would never dream of telling a loved one who has terminal cancer that God gave them the cancer because of his sinful life, but will talk about 9/11 being God’s punishment for our nation turning away from him?
It is inconsistent (unless I am missing something ). If God doesn’t bless you with wealth, power, and health because you follow Him, what makes you think He will bless your country with those things because the country follows Him? Either reject the Prosperity Gospel at the individual and national level, or accept it for both.
About
3 Comments
It is not necessarily inconsistent.
Consider the view that a country that is largely christian will tend to:
1) Do what they agree to do (honor contracts; so that A will honor a contract and B knows that, and A knows that B knows that … and vice versa)
2) not encroach upon other people or their property.
This is some people’s utilitarian argument in favor of christianity, it’s widespread adoption inculcates preconditions for economic growth. Of course the problem is you can’t actually be a christian if that is your reason for being a christian.
This is more along the lines that God’s rules and laws are not arbitrary hurdles to prove your love/obedience/whatever to him but rather a better way of living all around, it is intrinsically better aside from blessings merited because of it. In the case of economic growth it would be sort of a network effect. Regarding Lewis’ “The Abolition of Man” those non christian societies that have come farther along the road of reason towards the law have also benefited from the intrinsic benefits and network effects of the law.
But this misses my point. You said that the life of the Christian will tend to be better “aside from the blessings merited because of it”. My argument is directed towards people who are focused on the “blessings merited” due to following God. If you think that God actively blessed our country because of its faithfulness, then why do you not believe that He actively blesses individuals because of their faithfulness.
You miss my point in another way, too. My post argues that it is inconsistent to hold that God materially blesses a country for its righteousness, but does not materially bless the individual for his righteousness. That’s the inconsistency. Interpreting God’s blessings as the economic consequences of honoring contractual obligations and respecting property rights would not make it so that these “blessings” come to our country for doing these things but not to individuals. Don’t libertarians believe that individuals who honor contracts and respect property rights tend to, on average, fare better in the world than those who do not? If so, then this type of blessing would come to the individual and the country. My post is not written to address someone who accepts material blessings for righteousness to both country and individual.
And we are talking past each other.
I am rejecting it at a personal and national level. But I am defending those who are defending it on a national but not personal level not being wrong but misapplying the word “blessing”. Of course the 9/11 thing is right out. But that “merica is richer than Godlessstan” because we “were/are” a christian nation. Chance will fall on everyone fortune and misfortune within a given society and looking at that is shortsighted. The most virtuous man in the world might suffer chance misfortune, but that this averages out for society.
” In the case of economic growth it would be sort of a network effect. ”
I assume that the individual will tend to be better off all things being equal, but that the better off is compounded as others also adopt these patterns of thought and behaviour. The sentence you quoted of mine is in reference to the individual hence “prove your” and extrapolated to the society/state/country with “network effects”. So these side effects of virtue accrue to society in general as they accrue to individuals, and the effect is compounded as an increasing fraction of individuals practice virtue.
Fringe cases: but that life would suck for the lone virtuous man in a society of devils and you might be better off materially to not be the only virtuous man. A telephone is useless unless someone else has one. So 1&2 may not be useful materially if there isn’t a subset that is virtuous and they can find each other. Of course virtue is beneficial more than materially
The blessings merited I am talking about are not accumulation of wealth, the “aside from” might be.
” Don’t libertarians believe that individuals who honor contracts and respect property rights tend to, on average, fare better in the world than those who do not? ”
With enough qualifications yes. They believe these things ought be done and it is a wonderful correspondence between utility and deontology that virtue tends to benefit. Of course “tends to”; given the status quo politicians are better off for being politicians, and other such examples. Crime can pay to the individual.