And then Again…Clarifications about “Christian Reconstructionism” and the “Prosperity Gospel”

Last updated on: December 4, 2015 at 8:12 am by Roger E. Olson

And then Again…Clarifications about “Christian Reconstructionism” and the “Prosperity Gospel” 2015-12-04T08:12:49-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

This is a footnote or addendum to yesterday’s post entitled “A Call for American Evangelical Leaders to Confront Evangelicalism’s Lunatic Fringe” (December 3, 2015).

Whenever I mention a movement or type critically someone responds—either by direct, personal e-mail or here, in a posted comment,—accusing me of being “uncharitable.” Often they mean—to them or their organization. Sometimes they just think being critical is uncharitable.

Yesterday, after that critical call for evangelical leaders to denounce religious extremists who call themselves “evangelicals,” I received an e-mail from the director of an organization. He accused me of having my facts wrong and of being uncharitable. So I asked him (by return e-mail) why he thought I was talking about him or his organization. I didn’t mention any by name. So I examined his organization’s web site. I found nothing there about either Christian Reconstructionism or the Prosperity Gospel. He did not say in his e-mail what specific facts I had wrong or in what way I was being uncharitable—to the ideologies I specifically described.

My suspicion is that there are people “out there” (among the nearly 300 million Americans) who, for whatever reason, identify themselves with “Christian Reconstructionism” who do not fit the profile I described. I made quite clear in that post what I mean by “Christian Reconstructionism”—the goal of establishing “biblical law” as the law of the United States, the goal of using political muscle, power, to establish a kind of Christian theocracy in America. Are there individuals and groups that consider themselves “Christian Reconstructionists” who do not have those goals? Perhaps. But that’s why I made very clear who I was talking about without naming names—not everyone who thinks they are “Christian Reconstructionists” but those who fit the profile I outlined and described.

The same happens when I criticize almost any ideology or theology. For example, if I declare “The Gospel of Health and Wealth” heresy and even describe what I mean by that—belief and teaching that financial prosperity and perfect physical health are God’s will for everyone and that “positive faith” practiced “the right way” (viz., “claiming them”) causes God to bestow those “blessings” in a kind of mechanical way (“magic” as opposed to true prayer)—inevitably someone who thinks they adhere to a “gospel of health and wealth” accuses me of being uncharitable and having my facts wrong. No, the problem is that they only think they adhere to “The Gospel of Health and Wealth,” so-called “Word-Faith Theology.” For whatever reason they’ve attached themselves to those labels (or attached those labels to themselves) when, in fact, they do not believe or teach what I described.

Given the fact that these ideologies, theologies, movements, have no headquarters or popes, there is some inevitable diversity among people who subscribe to them (or think they do). That’s why I specifically said in yesterday’s post that “Christian Reconstructionism,” like the “Prosperity Gospel,” comes in degrees. I was clearly talking about the most fanatical advocates of “taking America back for God”—those who wish, for example, to see homosexuals executed just for being homosexual—a clear indication of wanting to establish the harshest aspects of Old Testament law, meant for ancient Israel, as American law.

Now, if there are people who call themselves “Christian Reconstructionists” who have no such vision for America, but only want to influence American culture through persuasion toward a greater voluntary acceptance of the gospel of Jesus Christ and truly Christian (New Testament-based) ethics without criminalizing distinctively Christian norms and mores, I don’t call that “Christian Reconstructionism” even if they do. Also, if there are people who call their theology “Prosperity Gospel,” and/or “Gospel of Health and Wealth,” but only believe God wants everyone to have sufficient shelter, food and clothes to live decent human lives and that God wants to heal people of physical illnesses in response to prayer (not “claiming” those things expecting that God must bestow them if they are “claimed” without strong enough faith), I don’t call that “Prosperity Gospel” or “Gospel of Health and Wealth.” Whenever I have criticized that teaching I have made clear what I mean by clearly describing beliefs and practices. Yes, I know there are people who think they adhere to a “gospel of health and wealth” and maybe even teach something they consider that, but we may be talking about entirely different things.

People need to pay attention not just to labels but to descriptions.

My response to people I have not named (and not named someone they follow) who criticize me for my criticisms of certain ideologies, theologies or movements is this: If the shoe fits, wear it; if the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t.

I have read enough literature by some Christian Reconstructionist leaders, authors, ideological teachers, to know many of them, probably most of them, do indeed envision a “taking back of America for God” by coercion, political power, even criminalizing certain behaviors, if not beliefs only because those behaviors are condemned in the Bible.

I have read enough literature by some advocates, leaders, authors, teachers of the Gospel of Health and Wealth, the “Prosperity Gospel,” to know many of them, probably most of them, do indeed believe that God must bestow physical health and financial prosperity, even “abundance,” in response to “positive faith” expressed as “claiming” them.

Having said all that, which I hope clarifies things, I must go on to say that I think any talk of “taking America back for God” is pernicious unless it is explained as meaning evangelism and apologetic persuasion without any degree of coercion by means of political power. Here’s one reason why (that I think any reasonable person ought to agree with): If we American Christians persecute or even marginalize other Americans just because they aren’t “us,” we cannot reasonably object when other religious groups in other countries attempt to do the same to Christians in their countries. If American Christians, for example, think it is wrong for “Sharia law” to be imposed on Christians in certain African countries, then it is hypocritical and even dangerous for American Christians to want specifically Christian beliefs about what is sin to be imposed by law on non-Christians in America. None of that rules out discourse about “natural law” in legal settings.

If someone considers himself or herself a “Christian Reconstructionist” but does not believe in “taking America back for God” using any degree of coercion to erase pluralism and religious freedom I do not consider him or her a Christian Reconstructionist in my sense of the term. But knowing there are people who call themselves “Christian Reconstructionists” who do not fit my definition led me to be very clear and specific about what I mean by it—giving examples. If someone believes in “taking America back for God” only through persuasion and not at all by coercion, then I do not know why they need any label other than “evangelical.”

Uncategorized

Previous Post

December 3, 2015

A Call for American Evangelical Leaders to Confront Evangelicalism's Lunatic Fringe

Next Post

December 5, 2015 A New Research Project: Editing/Revising the "Handbook of Denominations in the United States"

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How many days did Jesus fast in the wilderness?

Select your answer to see how you score.

12 7 40 30