Prosperity preaching has been attacked by many as an illegitimate approach to religion. Is black liberation theology any better? Aren't both what Karl Marx described as "opiates" designed to soothe/placate/pacify their parishioners? Is "God wants you to be rich" any worse than "God wants you to be free"?

Why?

Good question. I think one can take two approaches to it. If you are a non-literalist, one could argue that both are legitimate forms of religious expression. Although we obviously have to question the intention of "prosperity" preachers who do so under the guise of "if you give to God (meaning my church) you will be blessed". However those prosperity preachers who preach faith, intelligence and hard work and provide support in those financial arenas I would argue are similar but necessarily equivalent to liberation theology. The both see a social circumstance, and they both use biblical text to change that social circumstance.

As a literalist first one would have to determine the structure of doctrine they hold to from a literal position and then analyze the doctrines in relation to that. Prosperity preaching ignores the very real doctrine of "godliness with contentment is great gain" and other passages and examples where some of the most faithful folks in the New Testament work broke, and were broken and beaten and killed by other folks. In relation to black liberation theology I think a similar position holds. Is the intent of the New Testament really liberation of a specific group of individuals or is it living a righteous live and spreading the gosepl of Jesus?

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:
Prosperity preaching has been attacked by many as an illegitimate approach to religion. Is black liberation theology any better? Aren't both what Karl Marx described as "opiates" designed to soothe/placate/pacify their parishioners? Is "God wants you to be rich" any worse than "God wants you to be free"?

Why?

MBM,
I think that you raise an interesting question, one which at least in part, I am dealing with in the second chapter of my dissertation. If you where to ask a proponent of Black Theology, they would say that their position is the antithesis of an opiate. Their position is not simply that God wants you to be free, but that God is involved in the liberation struggles of poor and oppressed people, wherever they may be. Thus, to be a Christian, one must be involved in said struggles. It is not a "passive" position. It is fundamentally about what one does in the world. It is meant to counter quietistic piety of I'll have mine in some sweet bye and bye. It also promotes a vision of a collective and communal mission, where one is willing to follow Jesus's example of service unto death.

To me, the prosperity message is certainly more individualistic. In some respects it is Weber's Protestant ethic on steroids. God wants you to be rich and successful, and the attaining of such is a sign that have God's favor. So, ultimate responsibility is yours.

I think that both are certainly derived from what might be called real religious experiences. As some one who does more philosophy and sociology of religion, I try not to make claims as to what is a legitimate approach to religion. I study and try to learn about what is given, what is at hand.

I do think that in some respect, however, that the ends may well be the same. That they both represent a quest for full humanity, agency, and personhood. I think that they have different understanding of what that constitutes, but that either course can be profoundly meaningful and fulling for persons.

However, as a person of faith, I clearly resonate more with the black liberation tradition than the prosperity tradition.

quote:

I think that you raise an interesting question, one which at least in part, I am dealing with in the second chapter of my dissertation.

What are you writing your dissertation on? I would be interested in checking it out when you get done.

You also raise a point that I haven't thought of Kresge. When blacks are "liberated" what happens to the theology? Does it not then transition into the opiate or cease to exist?

So Y'Shua said this:

John 10

7 Y'Shua therefore said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.

8 All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.

9 I am the door. Whoever enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and shall go out and find pasture.

10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to slaughter, and to destroy. I have come that they might possess life, and that they might possess it beyond measure"

So it could stand to reason that BLT, or any Theology should be one that points to Messiah as a way to have the "abundant life" or whatever it consists of.

It surely is not through poverty or oppression, no by force (theft, murder, desolation) but by liberty...poor in spirit, humility, good stewardship..etc.

There is that song that says "this joy that I have, the world didn't give it to me.. the world didn't give it and the world can't take it away".

Part of grown in maturity in a believers walk is in:

Contentment -which wards off idolatry which leads to covetousness which leads to the root of all kinds of evil, which make it difficult, but not impossible to enter Yahweh's kingdom

and

Conviction - which means you resist the works of the destroyer in it's various permutations, and do so without apology. If that be through "community organizing", church mission or some other grass roots efforts, then so be it. Was not the spreading of the Gospel a grass roots effort?

I prefer neither the prosperity message or BLT. If people had the mind of Messiah, then there would be very little need to ADD to Yahweh's words.

Proverbs 30

5 Every Word of Eloah is tried; He is a shield to those taking refuge in Him.

6 Do not add to His Words, lest He reprove you, and you be found a liar.

So as long as they are in context and not adding to His word, as divisive though they be (especially BLT) then it's all good.