And I think that blaming it for the financial collapse is a horrific example of “blame-the-victim” scapegoating.

Yes, African-Americans and Latinos held more sub-prime mortgages than did whites and yes, African-Americans and Latinos are broadly represented in Prosperity churches. This is correlation, not causation. The holders of those toxic mortgages are not the people who originated the loans. They are not the people who profited from risky lending. We often hear the term “predatory lending” in these situations. The predators were the banks; the people in Prosperity churches were the prey. Quoting Rosin’s article about Pastor Garay’s congregation:

One other thing makes Garay’s church a compelling case study. From 2001 to 2007, while he was building his church, Garay was also a loan officer at two different mortgage companies. He was hired explicitly to reach out to the city’s growing Latino community, and Latinos, as it happened, were disproportionately likely to take out the sort of risky loans that later led to so many foreclosures. To many of his parishioners, Garay was not just a spiritual adviser, but a financial one as well.

In pointing this passage out, what I want to make clear is that it is dishonest to just blame a particular church or theology without looking at the relationship between that church/theology and capital markets. Rosin does a fine job of pointing out troubling aspects of Prosperity Gospel thinking but she leaves off any implications for or indictment of the markets in which Prosperity preachers operate. It borders on racism to lay blame for the sub-prime collapse at the feet of African-American and Latino borrowers while not mentioning the White bank executives who invented sub-prime mortgages in the first place.

None of the foregoing should be understood, however, as a defense of Prosperity Gospel’s claims about Christianity. I want only to point out that–theologically and sociologically speaking–Rosin has not sufficiently examined the issues before her. As to Prosperity preaching itself, I think it does enough damage on its own:

Once, I asked Garay how you would know for certain if God had told you to buy a house, and he answered like a roulette dealer. “Ten Christians will say that God told them to buy a house. In nine of the cases, it will go bad. The 10th one is the real Christian.” And the other nine? “For them, there’s always another house.”

Pastor Garay has argued his way right into logical fallacy: the self-sealing argument. This is merely one example of many given in the article. Others include poor exegesis, proof-texting, torturous re-imaginings of the social messages of the Gospels, love of this-worldly status… I could go on, but that’s another article entirely.

Wait. What?

The feature article in The Atlantic this month is Hanna Rosin’s “Did Christianity Cause the Crisis”. It makes a case that the prosperity gospel was another factor in our economic meltdown. In particular, she suggests its message encouraged people to agree to subprime loans on mortgages they could not afford. Here are several quotes from the article that struck me:

“It’s a curious mix of active (a step of faith) and passive (“It started happening!”).”  That is, the riches started ”happening” because of faith.

“The message at prosperity churches [is] to be quintessentially American.”

“They get swept up in manifest destiny, this idea that God has lifted Americans above everyone else.”

“… a faith that, for all its seeming confidence hints at desperation, at circumstances gone so far wrong that they can only be made right by a sudden, unexpected jackpot.”

Some Thoughts:

The prosperity gospel conflates faith with financial reward. Though Rosin makes a thought provoking article, I doubt many are going to come away from this pointing fingers at Christianity. That said, we should be very mindful of what is going on here. We’re dealing with an amalgam of symbols, religious and secular, all of which carry emince meaning and power. Much of it, moreover, swirls around American mythology. I find it vexing when Jesus gets wrapped up in these modern day symbols of Mercedes Benz signs and fine Italian suits. It’s vexing precisely when I take a minute to remember exactly who Jesus was: a poor carpenter in Galilee, who was put to death for making the Roman Empire nervous in some way, shape or form.

But that’s not the Jesus we are dealing with here. There is little humility in this Jesus, only boldness–Wall Street-like boldness. Prosperity gospelers bank on a personal Jesus that conquered death and consequently will conquer their financial insolvency.

This is another one of those instances of “who speaks for Christianity?”. If we pretend that the prosperity gospel does not speak for Christianity, we are fooling ourselves. Their numbers are growing in popularity and the message of unending gain (without thought to satisfaction) is intoxicating in our consumer culture.

“Did Christianity Cause the Crisis” by Hanna Rosin

If you are looking for a shorter read, a very similar (though less recognized) article came out in Time last month by David Van Biema: “Maybe We Should Blame God for the Subprime Mess“.

Other Links:

“Prosperity Gospel Self-Examination” by Jonathan Walton
Watch This!: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Black Televangelism by Jonathan Walton
Time: Q&A with Joel Osteen