Talk:Prosperity theology/Archive 1

Note: discusssions may be refactored.

Merger with Word of Faith
Often times this theology includes a promise for material weath in exchange for a committment on the part of the congregation member to support the ministry.(Tithing) Also this theology sometimes offers wealth in exchange for faith, on the part of the congregation member, in a promise for wealth from GOD. The term prosperity theology could include one or both of these ideas depending on who is leading the congregation. If an analytical person believes the bible statement "faith witout works is dead" (James) then the natural conclusion is one part of this theology cannot be adopted without the other, therefore Word of Faith theology is a part of Prosperity theology.User talk:Trappy77 02:50, 6 January 2006


 * I agree. Health and Wealth Gospel, Prosperity Theology and Word of faith incorperate the same ideas and have the same ethos (faith and wealth/health are related) to the point where they are different names for the same thing. In my experience Word of Faith is a less well used term than Prosperity theology, which again is less well used than Prosperity Gospel (currently a link to Word of faith) though "Prosperity Theology" is the more technical term and Prosperity Gospel is used solely by detractors. I think Word of Faith and Health and Wealth Gospel should be merged into a larger article in Prosperity Theology (with Prosperity Gospel linking to Prosperity Theology). No loss of information should be made in any merger. The "Relevant passages" section in Word of Fatih is most useful and should be preserved in the new article. To separate the lists of names from text a "history" section and a list of detractors and adherents should be created.       -    Fegor 01:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think what might be more appropriate would be to use this article to give a more in-depth view of the theology of the Word of Faith movement, with the Word of Faith article itself concentrating on the movement's origins, history, features, main personalities, criticisms etc. Jammycakes 06:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Better Criticism?
I'd like to see this stop being a stub...could someone add the scriptures that would seem to speak again Christians being automatically prosperous?

E.g.: Jesus says he has no place to lay his head (and if he's not prosperous, why the rest of us?); the disciples were all martyred (save John, who was exiled), and martyrdom is a "good" ending, that is, a strong demonstration of faith; Jesus repeatedly said that those who follow him will be hated by others and will suffer hardships, and that "woe unto you when all men speak well of you." I don't see these meshing with the idea that being a good Christian means everything suddens works well and you get a lot of money and all your physical problems are solved so you can live in complete comfort. In fact, money is often spoken of as a negative thing, in that it can pull your focus away from God; and those who are comfortable are too often complacent.

Can someone make sense of this sort of argument and put it in the article in an appropriate manner? Thanks. Kilyle 22:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Bear with me - first time on Wikipedia
 * Calvin's got on interesting take on this one. Most (not all) examples + promises of material prosperity are OT - including Job! Look at the last chapter particularly - all previous wealth values doubled - same of kids again (meaning he now has twice as many as before since the others are waiting for him in glory - implied but not stated). Calvin's explanation is that the OT has not spelt out our heavenly future - thus all promises of reward are earth bound. The NT makes it clear that rewards in the next life are worth even more than this life can offer.


 * "If Jesus is not prosperous - why the rest of us" - It depends whether you see Jesus as our example or our susbtitute in this context. He suffered for our sins. That is so we don't have to suffer for our sins - but we will suffer for righteousness. Incidentally I don't recall Jesus ever getting ill. I'm not sure that you can link the wealth and health in this way. [Unsigned comment by User:Smonthevidd 07:17, 18 September 2009]


 * Maybe you should have mentioned that when jesus said he had no place to lay his head he was ministering outside of his hometown in Capernaum? ofcourse not, that wouldn't advance your argument. or maybe you should have mentioned that when jesus was crucified Roman soldiers were gambling over his cloak which they couldn't tear (because it was seamed and tailored unlike their own clothing). Matthew was a tax collector, Mary  martha and lazarus who were jesus's friends were wealthy  (mary washed jesus feet with a perfume worth a years wages). James John and their father had hired servants to fish with them. Mark 1:20  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.92.230 (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 173.77.92.230 misses the point. There is a lot of very heavy criticism of prosperity gospel. This is an encyclopedia, the objective is not to decide whether the criticism is valid, but whether it is noteworthy (clearly it is in this case). Thus we should document and provide a non biased view of that criticism. Additionally it is noteworthy that in 173.77.92.230s impassioned list of "prosperous"(debatable point) NT people, he doesn't mention Paul. Or 1 Timothy 6:6. 173.77.92.230 is clearly a bit biased here, and I probably am too. However given the amount of criticism from mainstream Christian sources, I think(being as objective as I can)this deserves documenting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.147.236 (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Expanded a bit
I've tried to exapnd the article a bit, and add some potential references for more information. I don't know if the article needs to to be limited to christianity, so I even changed the stub. I think there could be enough here where Word of Faith could just be a section (maybe with a Main article: tag to lead to a full Word of Faith article). If I've misunderstood some technical meaning of "Prosperity theology" I do apologise. Ewlyahoocom 02:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of the links I added were recently removed. If this page is meant to apply specifically to Christianity, let's rename the page Prosperity Christianity. Here's some of the basis for some of my additions:


 * From Islamic banking: Such participatory arrangements between capital and labor reflect the Islamic view that the borrower must not bear all the risk/cost of a failure, as it is Allah who determines that failure, and intends that it fall on all those involved;
 * The link to Wat Phra Dhammakaya may not be clear, but that's because that page actually needs to be expanded to include the information in the Asiaweek article, Compare A few families virtually bankrupted themselves after a husband or wife handed over life savings and Monks preach that the generous will get their money back ten-fold - 10,000 baht could beget 100,000 baht with good old American-style televangisim;
 * This paper also has some information about prosperity on a country-wide scale, perhaps a little outside the scope of this article, but it may have a useful bibliography. Ewlyahoocom 08:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the links because they didn't make sense in the context of the article. As it stands at the moment, it is still in its entirety about the Christian prosperity gospel, which is also covered in the Word of Faith article—hence the suggestion that the two be merged. The expression "Prosperity Theology" also tends to be associated in most people's minds with this particular brand of Christianity, so links to sites about Islamic banking and Buddhist whatever look completely out of place. If you think they should be left in, they really need to be explained and contextualised. Jammycakes 21:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm so sorry. It looked like a stub to me and the name of the article is a little misleading. Ewlyahoocom 22:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

um
I don't think prosperity theology is entirely the same as the other articles it wants to merge because not just christianity has versions of this. Mostly I think so because the link I clicked to get to this article was from a page discussing the caste system in hinduism. [Unsigned comment by User:81.132.112.22 01:14, 13 May 2006]

Australia—whut?
"...and Australia consists of the 3% most richest people in the world, which meant within Australia, despite whether "God makes you rich" - you are rich, and only God gives you what you have; so implicitly he has made you rich."

Taken literally, this ungrammatical statement (it sounds like a snatch of a pub argument) means that the richest 3% of people in the world are all Australian. It also means that all Australians are in the top 3% for wealth. This means that Australians and the richest 3% of the world's population are the same group of people. Since Bill Gates has to be in the richest 3% of the world, this statement implies that he is an Australian.

And it means Australia has a population of 180 million.

The contributor of this sentence tacks it on to material (s)he has contributed that otherwise makes sense; otherwise I would take it for vandalism. Even if it was couched in a way that made sense, it looks pointless. Koro Neil (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to here/Word of Faith
Why is it that Prosperity gospel redirects here, but Prosperity Gospel redirects to Word of Faith? If they were distinct terms, that'd be fine, but they don't seem like they have separate senses. It seems kind of pointless. Stever Augustus 03:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Other Verses
Another OT verse commonly appealed to is Malachi 3:10. Today I saw a Range Rover with the license plate MAL3 10, clearly a prosperity gospel adherent justifying their expensive purchase with the verse. And in the NT, there's Mark 11:24 and John 14:14. Lippard (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"In understanding be men..."
For those who profess themselves to be Christians it is important to understand that our faith is based upon the Word of God and nothing else. The opinions of man, religious-sounding self-abasement, uneducated and unintelligent exegesis of the scripture, and worldly gossip and criticism is not what we base our faith upon, nor are we concerned with those types of communications. Although this earth may have thousands of cultures with thousands of interpretations of how scripture is to be practiced, yet the truth of the scripture in the original languages is best for our foundation of theology and understanding. Yet, the writer of Hebrews in the New Testament says that there are those who need "milk" and those who can eat "meat" (Hebrews 5:12-14), so there is a difference in people in what they understand because of where they are at in their spiritual walk and growth.

I say all this to point out to the theologically unaware that there are dispensational differences in how God has dealt with us, though He never changes. There is an Old Testament, a New Testament, and Jesus, the Son of God was sent primarily to the Jewish nation to be the pivot-point of transition between the two. Once Jesus rose from the dead, then a new dispensation called the Church age started and we see in Paul's writings particularly how God deals with the Christian.

So, for all of you critics out there who want to discuss and quote scriptures about your stance on prosperity, please show some intelligence by quoting a verse either appropriate to your audience (the church) or yourself (whatever you are). Now in this time there are three types of people; the church, the world, or the Jew. If you are going to quote scripture to support your stance, please "rightly divide" it by finding scriptural passages that apply to your audience. If your opinion is not based on a scriptural passage, but rather a church practice or religion opinion, then true believers are not interested in it. 192.85.47.11 (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Jewish prosperity theology
It might be of some value if relevant research could be done of the possible existence of a prosperity theology in the history of the Jewish community. Many Jews have historically been criticized for being unspiritual and materialistic in the economic realm, in ways that are reminiscent of debates on the modern-day prosperity theology. The polemic about usury essentially comes from the idea that interest rates should have a double standard : one for members of the community, and one for members outside the community, something which allows lenders to practice unfair or unjust business dealings. ADM (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The usury thing comes from anti-semitic beliefs and the general belief against charging any interest on loans in the Christian (and Muslim) world until the early Modern period.  In any case, I don't think we should turn this article into a synthesis of every religious belief that claims to lead its followers into material wealth--what about how Chinese folklore practicioners smear honey on the mouth of a household Buddha?  Too many examples of this phenomenon; we should stick to the specific, contemporary prosperity theology movement, and similar movements that have been directly compared to it.98.16.26.157 (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Reworded a paragraph
The one that began "a somewhat similar (yet strikingly different) belief..." seemed illogically-worded, as though one editor tried to make the comparison, and another tried to contradict it. I tried to edit the wording, keeping with what I think was the intent of the original contributors. In any case, I question the utility of these sections. Does any source directly compare these two theological beliefs? If not, what's the point in listing it here? 98.16.26.157 (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What is up with this page?
What is going on with this wiki page? The "biblical arguments made by proponents of Prosperity Gospel" reads like an advertisement for P.G. Additionally, there is no mention made of the primary criticisms against PG: that is, that the same evangelicals who are indicating that God will reward their Godliness with prosperity, are also selling that "Godliness" in exchange for donations. They are, in effect, marketing God is a high-ROI investment strategy. It appears from the history that this issue has been raised in the past but erased via edit-wars. Someone should fix this page or mark it in violation of NPOV. J.Mayer (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. The page is terrible and needs a major rewrite.  Unfortunately, I don't have the time or inclination to do it.  Getting rid of most of the Bible quotes would be a good start.Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have heard Kenneth Copeland actually state  in the middle of an offering that if the people attending feel that God is calling them to partner with some other ministry they should do this instead. I have heard it many times. I have never heard such a comment EVER come out of the mouth of the "begging for money" radio preachers that are his staunchest critics. Neither Copeland nor Dollar send appeal letters asking for money unlike many of your favorite ministers. This doesn't seem to be a beef about method but about results. When someone is lead by principle they care about method, when someone is lead by covetousness they care about results. Personally i don't think it is a good idea for irrational critics of this theology to be the loudest voice on this page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.92.230 (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Uncited arguments
The entire discussion of causation consists of claims that various Biblical quotes are commonly used to defend this or that position regarding prosperity theology, but not a single reference to any source which uses the quote as alleged. This gives the appearance of original research. Can we get some citations here? If it is true, say, that someone claims Abraham's blessing has something to do with probabilistic causation, then give us a reference. As it is, I can't imagine why being told you'll have as many children as stars supports the idea that causation is probabilistic. I rather suspect that the reason these arguments appear as OR is that they are OR. Phiwum (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Original research
I've tagged this for what looks like a large amount of original research - which I also think should be removed now unless some reliable sources are forthcoming. And speaking of reliable sources, what makes the YouTube video a reliable source for this article? Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Conditional statements huh?
What is up with the conditional statements in the "Prosperity Belief" section? I'm not entirely sure how they add to the article, and they don't actually make logical sense.

First, "Godliness causes prosperity" isn't directly translatable into the conditional "If X is prospering, then God made them prosper." This is roughly equivalent to saying the phrase "smoking causes cancer" is translatable into "If X has cancer, then X is a smoker." Even if we were to say that smoking always causes cancer (which it doesn't), then the most natural translation is "if X smokes, then X will have cancer." The equivalent for that is "If X is godly, X will be prosperous," not "If X is prosperous, X is godly." These are entirely different statements.

Second, the three-sentence set "1. If X is prospering, then God made them prosper./ 2. X is prospering. / 3. Therefore, God gave them their prosperity." is not a "conditional," it's a "syllogism."

I don't know what the word "offset" means in the statement "this is offset by the Job study" - "If X is in poverty, then God allowed them to be tested" isn't inconsistent with "If X is prospering, then God made them prosper." Doesn't "offset" usually mean, at the very least, "tempered"? I suppose that this conditional may be inconsistent with the statement "If x is godly, then x will prosper," as long as you also suppose that God generally tests godly people, not sinful people. But again, these are completely different statements.

The bullet points explaining why people have embraced probabilistic causation also don't seem to follow. They appear to be the reasons why people have embraced probabilistic causation, but they make no sense. For example:

"Statistical data doesn't show correlation (despite "correlation does not equate causation") due to the butterfly effect; that is, the inclusion of many variables."

First, correlation doesn't equal causation, but even probabilistic causation requires some small amount of correlation. The "butterfly effect" and the "inclusion of many variables" aren't the same thing.

"The fear of misleading statements of fact."

Who's afraid of which kind of misleading statements of what facts?

I made some corrections that appear to be consistent with the original writer's intent, but there are some problems that I don't even know how to fix because the original writing is so unclear. --Sammka (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Overall this article is a shocker.  I think getting rid of most (if not all) of the Bible references would be a great improvement.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox and the article should state the facts, backed up by reliable sources.  As it stands, it is a jumbled article that reads like a very poorly written essay on the subject. I (still) don't have the inclination to fix it, but would love to see the whole thing reworked! Wikipeterproject (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I criticized the same section as OR months ago. It's time that it is deleted, but the article requires a bit of reworking to delete this section.  The same section contains some useful and cited information, I think.  (Sorry, I won't make the change myself at present, since time doesn't permit it.) Phiwum (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Arguments against...
I'm adding the word NOT in the quote from Revelation 3:17 which is omitted (accidentally?) which totally changes what it says...even though I see a few editors want to eliminate the Bible verses. Stars4change (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Add verse?
If no one objects I'll add verse Haggai 1:6 "You have sown much, and bring in little; you eat but you have not enough; you drink, but you are not filled with drink; ye clothe you, but there is none warm; and he that earns wages earns wages to put it into a bag with HOLES." Also a link to William Blum's book Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower & this huge website: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/index.html. Stars4change (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Reworking of article
I have attempted to re-work the article, and in the process a lot has been changed. I recognize that in doing this I have basically taken a huge hatchet to the article and may have removed something whose importance I underestimated. Please feel free to respond here if you have any concerns, feedback, or changes you feel should be made to improve the article.

I will summarize the changes as best I can remember:


 * Pruned all arguments to make sure they are sourced and influential (e.g. these are arguments made often enough to affect the movement)
 * Restricted list of prosperity gospel teachers to those who are 1. notable, and 2. whose Wikipedia articles mention prosperity teaching
 * Instead of having a pro-prosperity Bible verse section, some verses were moved into a section about verses that are foundational to the movement; e.g. that inspired its teachings. This way we are not making WP:OR arguments.
 * Unfortunately, had to remove the anti-prosperity Bible verse section entirely since it was not sourced at all. If there are specific verses that you feel a lot of prominent critics use (and you have a source that says this!) then please add it in.
 * Anti-prosperity arguments have been sourced and condensed (it isn't necessary to have so many quotations)
 * Condensed New Thought statements into one section
 * Updated some references, web links, cite template, etc.

If material you like was removed and you want to preserve the content:


 * You are free to preserve it in a User page or a sub-page thereof.
 * Instead of a really long list of every prosperity teacher ever, why not create a WP:Category page? That would actually be really useful.
 * That Bible quote list (both sides) was excellent, and must have taken a lot of work to assemble. I felt bad deleting it, even though it doesn't belong here... please feel free to preserve it; e.g.you could make a blog and put it up there, or post it up in your favorite theology forum, or make a user subpage here on Wikipedia...

Here is my suggested To-Do list:


 * Format sources
 * Prune external links
 * Further prune notable teachers section if necessary (there are still a lot!)
 * Ensure that all arguments included in this article are WP:Notable; e.g. each argument has to be influential enough to meet notability.
 * New Thought section still sounds a little promo-ish
 * Can support/criticism be integrated in the other sections so it doesn't seem like a POV barrage?
 * Replace YouTube quote references with more reliable (preferably text, but official audio recording is O.K. too) sources that will survive a DMCA takedown request Resolved.  -- Joren (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * More sources! Especially any academic research into the movement!

Anyway this is my attempt at improvement; let me know if there's anything we can do to make it better. Thanks! -- Joren (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I was hoping somone would take the pruning knife to this troublesome article!  It's a subject that stirs emotions, so having a well-sourced, NPOV article is very, very important.  Well done.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A great improvement. It's good, in particular, to rid the article of the symbolic logic interpretation and discussion of Prosperity Theology, which was clearly Original Research. Phiwum (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're most welcome, both of you. I started off wanting to mend one thing and I noticed so much wrong with it... I'm not usually one for writing/reworking articles, but sometimes the messiness just iritates me to the point of jumping in anyway.  Glad I could help.  -- Joren (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Reception" section
I've taken the liberty to rename the "Controversies" section "Reception". This is the preference under WP:CRIT to, among other things, encourage NPOV. It gives the opportunity to include both positive and negative reception to the topic. Like everything in Wikipedia this should not include original research and contributions should be referenced with reliable secondary sources. It's probably important to be extra vigilant about this in an article like this where there are strong feelings either way. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Prosperity theology present in older Christian traditions?
I may be wrong about this, but it's my understanding that prosperity theology is much older then the contemporary one common among Pentecostals/charismatics. Specifically, I've remember learning about a world view in Calvinism (we're talking during the time of the Puritans) that financial success or social status was a sign of God's blessing and a sign of being one of the elect and that is one of the reasons for the rise of the Protestant work ethic. If this is right, then this article may benefit from an expanded look at the wider history of Christianity for similar prosperity theologies. Please if anyone has more knowledge on this topic, I'd love to hear about it. Ltwin (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Similar theologies
Similar theologies have been noted in the same vein as the prosperity gospel. One is the "combat gospel" or "indestructible theology" in which military personnel subscribe to a belief that if they are true believers in God, they cannot be killed in battle. In a nutshell, it is often seen by those who write "God is with me" on their helmets and on the insides of their BDU covers. Another theology is the "relationship theology" in which men see a beautiful woman and are convinced that "this is the wife that God wants me to have". It could also be called "romance theology". Is there a case that if news of these pick up, could they be included on this page or given seperate pages? 98.231.205.18 (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality
Regardless of belief, I think that this page still ought to conform to WP:NPOV. "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject" It just seems to be that the tone of the article is subtly unfavourable to the topic in question. There just doesn't seem to be balance in the article. If you do not believe me, if you look closely, the amount of text devoted for the supporting point of view is actually lesser than the opposing point of view and even within the "supporting" sections there are portions that belong to the other "camp".

Also, as per WP:WTA, there are weasel words, "expressions of doubt", "unsupported attributions". eg. "whose proponents claim has tens of ..." Just a thought Songjin (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

New version
Sorry for changing everything all at once, but the previous version wasn't very well cited and seemed to be going in a bunch of different direction. I think my new version is fairly neutral/well cited--but please fix it or suggest how I might improve it if it is not. Thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I realize the prose does need some serious polishing, my apologies. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll read over this tomorrow (I'd do it now except I just got done "trying" to improve Glossolalia and I am tired of Wikipedia right now lol) and see if I can catch any grammar or problems with prose you missed. I have been wanting someone to do something with this article for a long time. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm finished copy editing the page. In my opinion, it looks good. I removed this sentence though:


 * "Hagin[clarification needed] has denied that he began promoting prosperity after reading Kenyon's work, maintaining that his prosperity teachings were prompted by divine revelation that he received.[4]"


 * The reference given was "Coleman 2000, p. 46". I removed it because it didn't fit in with the overall article. Hagin isn't introduced into later and the accusations that Hagin borrowed form Kenyon aren't explained anywhere else in the article. If more context is added, it should be added back in. Ltwin (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help! This has been a fun article to research. No problem with removing that sentence, now that I look at it again it really doesn't fit well there. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge article?
While copy editing, I discovered that there is a Health and Wealth Gospel page. I think these should be merged as they are the same thing. Since this is the better article of the two, I think H&WG should just be merged into this one and be converted into a redirect. What do others think?

Also, I'm aware that an article for Word of Faith also exists, but in my opinion this is related but not the same as prosperity gospel. Ltwin (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a merge would be a good idea, TIME says it is the same thing: "Known (or vilified) under a variety of names--Word of Faith, Health and Wealth, Name It and Claim It, Prosperity Theology..." Agreed about WoF as well. As I understand it, they are the real hardcore prosperity types and there are some other movements that incorporate Prosperity theology in a more moderate way (like Joel Osteen, I think). Mark Arsten (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support merger as suggested above. In general, there is so much fragmentation that it was "suddenly noticed". Merge is a good idea here. History2007 (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support merger per above. If there were any difference(s), then Ltwin or someone would need to show what the said difference(s) are. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 10:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Should Word of Faith be merged as well?
To be clear, I'm the one suggesting that the two articles be merged. If there is consensus that all three articles should be merged, I can live with that. But I don't think they are the same thing. For one, you can believe in a gospel of prosperity without believing in every teaching of the Word of Faith movement. There are also ideas (which are covered in the WOF article) that really aren't included in the health and wealth gospel, such as the "Little gods" and the "Jesus died spiritually" belief. I can try to do some digging in some sources I have handy and see what they say. The WOF and Prosperity gospels are close concepts, I'm just not sure that they are exactly the same concept. I think the most readily recognized difference is that prosperity theology, as the article mentions, has penetrated non-Pentecostal/charismatic evangelical churches, while full blown WOF has not. Ltwin (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, after consulting two books (The Future of Pentecostalism in the United States and [Pentecostalism in America) it does seem that Word of Faith, prosperity gospel, health and wealth gospel, and positive confession are all used interchangeably to be more or less of the same thing.


 * That being said I'd also support merging Word of Faith as well. The question is what article would the new merged article go under, Word of Faith or Prosperity gospel? Ltwin (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Some commentators...
The "some commentators" argument is used heavily in this page. What is the definition of "some"? Who are the "some"? Why do "some" commentators get higher precendence to "other" commentators, namely the ones who worship for prosperity? Who decides which commentary applies? And, what about any rebuttals to the commentary made by those "some" commentators? The use of this nonsense is a sign of an extremely biased description, and it needs to be removed. [Unsigned comment by User:135.245.10.6, November 9, 2011]


 * If you must know who these "some commentators" are, I suggest you make use of the footnotes that follow the sentences in which the opinions of "some commentators" are mentioned. Ltwin (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's actually not that bad of a criticism, writing "some commentators" was sort of sloppy on my part. It was a bit more work to look up the authors being cited and so on. But I think I've rephrase most of them. I left "some commentators" in the lead section, since that's simply a brief summary of what's presented below. Rebuttals are fine, as long as they're sourced to reliable sources. I thought the article did a good job balancing criticism and rebuttal, but then again I wrote it :) Mark Arsten (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Improving this article
Hi there. Mark Arsten recently asked me to have a look at and help improve this article, which I am wiling to do. I'll briefly give my initial thoughts, then we can discuss anything we need to while improving it. Hopefully, we can get this to a very good standard.

Overall, the article is pretty good - it is well sourced, adheres reasonably well to NPOV and mostly follows the style guide. I'll focus on the things I think need improving, rather than spend too much time talking about what is already good.
 * I think the lead needs improving, as it doesn't quite following WP:LEAD. The lead section should summarise the entire article, so that it functions as a shorter version: there should be nothing in the article that is not in the lead. At the moment, it does not do this.
 * The article is mostly broad in coverage; however, reactions to the theology would be useful. There is no real consideration of the theology's criticisms, which I think is necessary to provide a more neutral point of view.
 * There are some issues with grammar, and certain phrases could be reworded to flow better - most of this could be achieved with a general copyedit.
 * Some sections need expansion. The practices section, for example, is only a paragraph long, with a single reference.

Those should be pretty simple to do - the main issues are with the lead and the lack of criticisms (the rest were mostly minor points). I'm sure we can work to improve this article; it seems close to good article standard. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look at it, those are good comments. I'll try to work on those soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As is always true with Christian doctrines, finding reliable sources is proving difficult. I've found some useful material regarding criticisms, and Google Books is often helpful too. I'll get going on something in a moment. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice work everyone. I think I can make some additional contributions as well. Let me look through sources. We already mentioned both Lakewood Church (the largest in the U.S.) and Yoido Full Gospel Church (the largest in South Korea and the world). It's also the case that Hillsong Church, Australia's largest church is a prosperity teacher as well. I'm not sure if their are any other countries where the largest congregation teaches prosperity gospel, but the fact that this is the case in three countries and worldwide (in the case of Yoido) leads me to think is this the case in other countries.
 * Just one question though. In the "Socioeconomic analysis" section, should "Swedish World of Life Church" be "Swedish Word of Life Church? Ltwin (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help guys (I assume you're both guys), I'll try to add a few sources and bulk up the lead soon. This has been a tricky article since we ended up working with so many sources.
 * Yes, that looks like a typo, the name of the church is Livets Ord, which apparently translates to Word of Life. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Recent changes look good. Currently, I think the history section is very good and the reception is coming on well. The section on practices could do with a lot of expansion, and the tone might need addressing. We need to be careful not to over-generalise; I think that section might do so a little too much. The wording will address some of that, but finding other sources which discuss alternative practises within prosperity theology churches will allow a wider view. Comparison is small, but I think that is ok; I shall make it s subsection of reception.


 * I think the whole article still needs a copyedit for tone, clarity & style, but that shouldn't be too hard. I'll probably try to go through it section by section myself at some point - feel free to do the same. The lead still needs addressing, though it is probably a better idea to look at that when the rest of the sections are boradly determined. I would suggest that anyone who has the time looks through the lead and makes sure that everything mentioned is also present in the rest of the article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, this article really is getting there. This book might be good if we need more theological criticism. The practices section might be tricky, I didn't find too many good sources at first glance. I put the article in at WP:GOCE/REQ, but that's badly backlogged so they may not get to it until February. I'll try to get around to looking at copyediting, I usually can do an OK job copyediting if I set my mind to it (which seldom happens). Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that book on my source searching, too. It will take time to find the relevant bits, but it should provide helpful information. I think we can all provide something in regards to copyediting. When I work on Good Articles, I always like to go through each section, one at a time, very carefully - when I have time, I'll do that. The more people who look at it, the better. I'll also go through it with AWB and Wikicleaner at some point. I'm currently looking for sources on practices - you're right though, it'll be difficult to find enough reliable sources. It might be that there just isn't that much; we'll see what we can do. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the problem with practices is that for the most part, many of their practices are not that different from other Pentecostals and charismatics. The main difference is the content of the messages, the importance of tithes and offering, and the emphasis on "practical teaching": how to get out of debt, how to have a happy marriage, etc. There is one thing that I have read which says there is a tendency for prosperity teachers to couch their teaching in gnostic terms: A secret knowledge has been revealed to them which they now teach to their followers. It does strike me that many of these preachers to hype up the "newness" of their teaching even if it is only a reformulation of other ideas. I don't have the book with me, but when I find it again I can possibly add this in. Ltwin (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I took a stab at moving a paragraph from analysis into practices, I think it might work there. You just brought to mind that something about marriage and kids might be addable as well. But that's a very interesting observation about the secret knowledge, especially in light of the plagiarism accusations against Hagin. I think there might be something to that tune in the source ItsZippy added earlier. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll continue looking through that book we found - chapter 3 has been especially useful for theological criticisms. As for the practises, we'll just have to see what we can find from sources. Moving the analysis into practises looks like a good move to me - the section looks more substantial now. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's odd - I could get a free preview of chapter 3 on Google Books yesterday; now I can't. I'll see what else I can find, then. If anyone actually owns the book, that'd be helpful - I've used stuff from the gospel section of theology, but not from further on. I have, however, already used this source, written by David Jones, who co-wrote Health, Wealth and Happiness - we can probably get some useful things from there too. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ItsZippy, Google Books will do that. It changes up what parts you can preview. However, you may be able to switch computers and see if that works.
 * The Assemblies of God (a Pentecostal denomination) has a position paper called "The Believer and Positive Confession." It is a criticism of positive confession. I eventually plan to read it all, but if anyone else has time go for it. I think it could be useful for seeing what other Pentecostals find wrong with the prosperity gospel. Ltwin (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I typically use Chrome, and when doing some research on Gbooks last week I found that when I switched to Firefox I could get a slightly different page range viewable on Gbooks. Usually when I'm doing research if google blacks out a book page that looks important I check if Amazon's look inside feature has it. But good find on that paper, I put it as an external link for now so we don't forget about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh, thanks annoying. Thanks for letting me know. That paper you found looks very good - I'll see if I can take a look later. It's a minor point, but I would suggest that we avoid the term "alleged" in this article when discussing criticisms. An allegation is a factual claim, the truthfulness of which is unknown. In this case, it would be better to talk in terms of "arguing", "criticising", etc, which are not to do with fact-claims and are used when outlining arguments and criticisms. As I said, a minor point of semantics - I hope you don't mind. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, that's a good point. That's the kind of thing we have to be watching out for. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've read the paper and added an overview into the theology reception section. It encompasses what all of the paper says, but might be a little long at the moment. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that, I'll try to read through it soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ready for Good Article nomination?
I'm thinking that this might be ready or almost ready for Good Article nomination; are we happy to take this to nomination now? I don't think it is perfect, but I do think it would pass the GA procedure, and we can still improve the article once it is nominated (it might take a month to get reviewed anyway). If we're happy, then I (or someone else) will nominate it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we can nominate it now, there are a few more things to tidy up--but I think that even if we get a quick turnaround on a review we should be able to make time to fix it all. BTW, your help has been greatly appreciated thus far. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for nominating it. I expect it will take quite a while - GA review is backlogged and philosophy/religion articles generally take a long time due to their narrow audience. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

American English vs British English
It's a minor point, but the article seems to use both the American and British variants of English - it's better to remain consistent throughout the article. I'm British, so naturally write in British English, though that is not necessarily the best variant to use. As this is predominantly an American doctrine, I suggest we use American English and that any British spellings are changed. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That makes since. This is truly a global doctrine now, but most of its leadership (i.e. the Copelands, Hagins, and TBN) are from the U.S. and America gets the most blame for "importing" it to poorer nations. Ltwin (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've accidentally put American English in plenty of UK-related articles, so I think I deserve to be punished by standardizing variants of English for a while :) Mark Arsten (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The most important question, of course, is whether we should use the Oxford comma. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So we're agreed on American English, good. I'll see if I can catch some common ones (criticise/criticize, etc) with AWB. As for the Oxford comma, MOS:OXFORD states that it should be used if necessary to avoid ambiguity, and that an article should be consistent with itself. Therefore, as there is at least one case where it is necessary to avoid ambiguity (I'll find it if you really want me to), I suggest it is used throughout the article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Works for me, I went through and tried to catch most of the British spellings. I typically use the Oxford comma out of sheer habit, so I'm fine keeping it there. This article is coming along quite nicely, good job with the copyediting. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and good job on the improvements you've made. I think we're getting to a stage where there is little left to do - this will almost certainly pass a GA review and is getting towards FA standard. I suggest we look at sources now and make sure that every single source is completely reliable - that is the one area we have given less attention to and, though not too important for GA, will be picked up on if we decide to take the article to FA. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a good plan. Though I hadn't thought about taking this to FA, I haven't taken anything there yet. I'd like to try to bring a couple articles there over the next year. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Further improvements following GA
For ease of navigation, I've created a new heading for further improvements. I have shortened the criticisms from Jones/Woodbridge and the General Council to one paragraph each, though I'd appreciate it if someone could go through what I've written with fresh eyes. I've tried to keep all the content in there, but made the writing more concise and cut out an excessive examples or analysis from the sources. I'll look at improving the section on theology later. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Good thinking, I'll try to go over the section again later tonight. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking... Would there be any merit in moving the theology section above the history section? That would allow readers to better contextualise the topic and know what the prosperity gospel actually is, before delving into the history of the movement. What do you think? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. I'm not sure, I'll give it some thought. Feel free to be bold though. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I was going to be bold, but I was in two minds, hence the question. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea. Anyway, I've added a paragraph on positive confession to the theology section and expanded a few other areas, including the practises. I'm finding it difficult to distinguish between theology and practise, as they are both interrelated, and am tempted to make practises a subheading, under theology. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've requested a peer review for this article here. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, good thinking there. I'm fine with the new layout, btw. There are a few small additions I was thinking of making, and might look at the sources again with expanding the word of faith subsection. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarify this sentence?
In the first paragraph of the Theology section, there is this sentence:


 * It maintains that Christians have been given power over creation because they are made in the image of God, and teaches that a certain type of speech—positive confession—allows Christians to exercise dominion over souls and material objects.[2]

While I understand what is meant by dominion over material objects, what exactly is meant by "dominion over souls?" Is it talking about the confessor's soul or the souls of other people? The only thing I can imagine this referring to is the belief that if one prays and confesses that, for example, their mother will accept Jesus as Lord and Savior that that act of faith will eventually lead to the person's mother accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior. However, maybe its just me, but the current wording seems to imply that they believe that they can exert some sort of supernatural control over people if they just believe hard enough. I think the wording needs to be more specific as to what this actually means for people who are unfamiliar. Ltwin (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point, "dominion over souls" sounds like something from a fantasy B-movie. I'll check the source out again, but I think that what I meant there is that positive confession is said to allow people to exercise dominion over their own soul, fighting spiritual oppression and so on. (Although I'm sure that there are some ambitious folks who try to get supernatural control over other people.) I'll take a shot at clarifying it. Interestingly enough, Norman Vincent Peale apparently took some New Thought classes before he wrote The Power of Positive Thinking. If you can, keep watching for unclear sentences like that. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Featured article
I think we're getting close to being ready for a Featured Article candidacy. I suggest that, if we do so, we wait until the new year. Would everyone else be happy with this? Also, are there any final issues that need to be addressed before we nominate the article? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'd prefer to wait a month or so before taking this to FAC. Last week I asked Kiefer.Wolfowitz if he could review the article and he was receptive to the idea but said he couldn't get to it for three weeks or so. And I put the article in for a featured-quality copyedit (though that could take a while). Feel free to nominate the article whenever you think it's ready though. I should be around to respond to feedback whenever. I don't have anything of note to add to the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable to me. I'm more than happy to wait longer if it means that we can further improve the article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, from what I can tell, things have been pretty slow at FAC lately, so maybe there will be more reviewers around in a few weeks. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you think about this external link?
Hey guys. I was looking on George O. Wood's website and found two sermons on positive confession. Wood is the current general superintendent of the Assemblies of God USA, which as most probably know is one of the largest US Pentecostal churches. His position is in line with the AG statement cited in the article, but since it is a sermon that deals with more practical consequences of prosperity theology I thought it could be useful in the external links section. However, I suppose we should also find a sermon which comes from a pro-prosperity position explaining the teaching. What do you guys think? Ltwin (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not too sure. We want this article to remain NPOV (which I think we have done very well); introducing a link to a sermon which is obviously supportive of the doctrine does not quite fulfil this. I think it would be best to keep external links to critical examinations of the doctrine (both supportive and opposing), rather than public sermons, which are not really theological works. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article nomination
Per a message at my talk page from Mark Arsten, I have nominated this article for Featured Article status; the nomination is here. Mark, I've listed you as a co-nominator as you seemed to suggest that to be the case; Ltwin, I have not added you as I've not heard from you - feel free to add your name. Thanks everyone for all the great work that has gone into this; hopefully we can reach this milestone. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Source
I just noticed this book, it may contain some pretty helpful information. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's great - thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hillsong reference
I don't mean to nitpick, but could the statement "Hillsong, the largest church in Australia" possibly be clarified a little. There are a few definitions of church, e.g.,:

1. a building for public Christian worship. 2. public worship of God or a religious service in such a building: to attend church regularly. 3. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) the whole body of Christian believers; Christendom. 4. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) any division of this body professing the same creed and acknowledging the same ecclesiastical authority; a Christian denomination: the Methodist Church. 5. that part of the whole Christian body, or of a particular denomination, belonging to the same city, country, nation, etc. , (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/church)

While I expect that in this sense we are referring to a specific congregation or perhaps a physical building, the phrase to me could also imply that Hillsong (or at least Pentacostalism, or whatever they claim to be) is the dominant religion in Australia, which it most certainly isn't (see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/AustralianReligiousAffiliation.svg, "Hillsong" would have to be included somewhere in the "Other Christian" category). Cheers, Melissza (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hillsong is a member church of the Assemblies of God in Australia which is a Pentecostal denomination. I'll change the wording to "congregation" to avoid confusion. Ltwin (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, nitpicking is good here. By all means, do as much as you want! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not trying to stir a debate but The Bible does talk about Christians being the temple of the Holy Spirit thus making the actual Christians not the building the church. Alliereborn (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the problem, when someone says "church" they can mean one of many things. So we have to use very precise language in articles. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

What to do with the Word of Faith article?
First, I'd like to congratulate Mark Arsten and ItsZippy on the work you guys did to get this to FA status.

Second, I'v brought this up before but after reading the Word of Faith article again and doing more research, I'm coming to the conclusion that these two movements are essentially one and the same. It may be true that prosperity theology preceded Word of Faith theology, but now both seem to be practiced by the same people simultaneously. In the literature I've read, such as The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, list them together. The NIDPCM discusses both Word-faith and prosperity under "positive confession" and doesn't make a distinction between them. In Globalisation of Charismatic Christianity : Spreading the Gospel of Prosperity, Simon Coleman states that the labels "Faith, Faith Formula, Prosperity, Health and Wealth or Word Movement" all refer to the same thing (p. 27).

Add to that the fact that the Word of Faith article essentially repeats information already presented here. The only difference is that the WOF article focuses more on the criticism of the "little gods" teaching and the belief that "Jesus died spiritually." I'm still looking to see if I can find a source that makes a distinction between the two. However, it seems more likely that no reliable source makes that claim. In the meantime, I'd ask anyone with some time on their hands to take a look at the WOF article and give input into a possible merger with this one. Ltwin (talk) 16:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this was a long process, but I think we did Ok in the end. I'd tend to oppose such a merge, since prosperity theology as a whole preceded WoF (and some contemporary prosperity teachers often aren't seen as part of WoF), I don't see a reason why WoF couldn't have its own article on Summary style grounds--as a detailed examination of one stream of prosperity theology with some distinct doctrines. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as sourcing goes, page 99 and 100 of this book seems to draw somewhat of a distinction. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Swaggart inclusion
Just came across this paragraph and had a comment about the mention of Jimmy Swaggart pertaining to the prosperity doctrine.

“In the 1980s, public attention in the United States was drawn to prosperity theology through the influence of prominent televangelists Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker. Their influence waned, however, after they were implicated in high-profile scandals. In the aftermath, Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) emerged as the dominant force in prosperity televangelism, having brought Robert Tilton and Benny Hinn to prominence.”

To my knowledge, while Swaggart did briefly teach this doctrine, he rejected it by about the 1980s and to a large degree has frequently criticized the prosperity teachings. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting, the source I cited there says "'Prosperity' first blazed to public attention as the driveshaft in the moneymaking machine that was 1980s televangelism and faded from mainstream view with the Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart scandals." I guess that doesn't clearly state that Swaggart was promoting it in the 80s, I'll remove his mention. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Bible verse as an illustrative example?
I propose to add a bible verse to make the claim that Paul's life and teaching is in conflict with prosperity theology more illustrative and understandable for the reader. The verse I chose is, in my opinion, one of the most fitting for this topic (at least from Paul). Hence I suggest to mention it. Although Witness Lee does not write about this verse in the context of discussing the prosperity gospel I regard his writing sensible as a source. He is simply one of many who understand such statements of Paul contrary to the prosperity theology. The context in his book (around page 359) does however speak about the sufferings, hardships, difficulties,... of the apostel and fit the last two sentences of the second paragraph which address the poverty of the Apostels. The title is linked with google books, so please check it. If someone knows a reference of an adherent of the prosperity theology discussing this verse it would be interesting to mention this here as well.

Following sentence could be added to the section "Theological criticism" at the end of the second paragraph: Expressions of Paul such as "poor, yet making many rich, as having nothing, yet possessing everything" (2 Corinthians 6:10) are understood as referring to spiritual richness. References: Witness Lee 1990, pp. 359–60. Bibliography: Lee, Witness (1990), Life-Study of 2 Corinthians: Messages 30–59, Living Stream Ministry, ISBN 0-87083-144-5 Nikil44 (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a very interesting verse, but I don't think we can include it if it wasn't spoken about in the context of prosperity theology itself. See WP:SYNTH for details. Also, I have concerns about whether that book is a reliable source WP:RS. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Black Liberation Theology
I study theology. I'm confused on what black liberation theology has to do with prosperity theology. Indeed, they seem like polar opposites. If someone doesn't explain in a few days, I'm going to remove this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.234.35 (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I appears that you've only read the introduction in the article. It helps when making a complaint if you actually read the whole article :). If you look at the "Comparisons with other movements section," you will see that the liberation theology is mentioned and the comparison is explained. Ltwin (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

"Unsound" how?
Intro mentions two "unsound" but not the rest of the article, which should explain "unsound" not just by assuming that bad behavior or psychologically destructive equals "unsound". There are some chains of logic missing in the text. Prosperity theology might be deviant from what some Christian consensus regards as proper theology, but if it is to be "unsound" it needs to be psychologically destructive and/or indirectly create some kind of internal or external conflict. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 11:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Prosperity churches often teach about financial responsibility, though some journalists and academics have criticized their advice in this area as unsound". We see this discussed under practices, where it is said,


 * "Many prosperity churches hold seminars on financial responsibility. Kate Bowler, an academic who studies prosperity theology, has criticized such seminars, arguing that though they contain some sound advice the seminars often emphasize the purchase of expensive possessions.[11] Hanna Rosin of The Atlantic argues that prosperity theology contributed to the housing bubble that caused the late-2000s financial crisis. She maintains that home ownership was heavily emphasized in prosperity churches, causing a reliance on divine financial intervention that led to unwise choices.[11]"


 * On another note, the formatting of your source request took out the rest of the last paragraph in the lead. You do realize this is today's featured article? Anyway, if you still fill the need to request a source to satisfy your own definition of "unsound" then please make sure you don't eliminate nearly an entire paragraph. Ltwin (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Why is "unsound" the right formulation? I would prefer "irresponsible" for bad advices. "Unsound" as far as I can tell, refers to theology and spirituality causing conflicts and psychological problems. Personally I think they may actually have an "unsound" theology, but the connection between the lede text and the content is quite obscure, and may be criticised for neutrality as it stands.
 * As for
 * On another note, the formatting of your source request took out the rest of the last paragraph in the lead. You do realize this is today's featured article?
 * my answer is
 * Pardon for HTML/CSS, my only apology is that I didn't design them.
 * respective
 * Yes.
 * Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 13:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, I've made some tweaks to the lead in response. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Unconventional interpretations
Hello, The article makes two mentions of 'unconventional interpretations' of the bible, I believe the the micha was singled out. What is a 'traditional' intepretation of this verse, and what is the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.136.15.178 (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're referring to the Book of Malachi? As described in the "Theology" section, PT teaches "tithing leads to blessing" as a sort of unbreakable contract. Traditionally speaking, most Christian groups hold that tithing doesn't necessarily lead to blessing, or only did in the context of the nation of Israel etc. Do you think this comes across in the article? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Theology vs. Doctrine
It is rather a Prosperity Doctrine, which is called Prosperity Theology by non Theologians. There is a huge difference between Doctrine and Theology (in Wikipedia the difference under "Theology" it is also unclear). The Article should point that out. The article name should be Prosperity Doctrine, referring to it being called Prosperity Theology. Prosperity Doctrine has no developed theology as such at all. Doctrine is only a sub division in Theology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.168.149.161 (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, you may be technically correct about the distinction between a doctrine and theology. However, that doesn't necessarily need to be reflected in the article's title--we tend to go by the commonly used names for topics. In this case, I think "theology" is standard. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * popularity doesn't equal accuracy. an encyclopedia should be accurate, as it the information is for the service of the reader, not the service of the one submitting the article. as such prosperity doctrine is the correct title not theology. it seems to me to be the case that the undue insistence to call it a theology places an undue stigma of fictionalization to the doctrine thus the title itself is outside of the neutral stance one should take in writing an encyclopedia article, to speak nothing of the article itself which has a condescending tone. such a bias as seen in many places in the wikipedia system only serves to further discredit wikipedia and dampen its interests. similar actions have led to the rise of competition and lack of intrest in relation to wikipedia. (side note can someone who knows how wrap this text as it trailing off to the side) Alex Gibson (talk)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.106.128 (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm open to changing my mind, but we have to follow the lead of reliable sources (WP:RS), not your opinion or my opinion. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Is Reverend Ike . ..
even mentioned??? When you mention Prosperity Theology, I think of Reverend Ike immediately and he is not even mentioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverend_Ike

http://www.scienceoflivingonline.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Bernard_Jordan

He is really the father of Prosperity theology. And many of those accused of Prosperity Theology: ie, Kenneth Copeland, Bill Winston, Oral Roberts, et al are part of the Faith Church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith johncheverly 21:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * He was mentioned, but he was eventually removed for some reason. Any suggestions on the best place to introduce him? Mark Arsten (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am just dipping my toes into the editing pond, Mark, and I would be loathe to dictate that. I would say he is the seminal American figure of Prosperity Theology and should be posted very near the top.  He really only preached on money.  YouTube is loaded w/ his "teaching."  Here is a classic sample: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE-dXg5fChIjohncheverly 22:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say he's the "father" of it. I've never heard of him, and he's never mentioned in any of the histories I've read as being a formative influence on the development of prosperity theology. That doesn't mean he wouldn't merit mention in the article, but he should not be designated a "father" or "founder". Ltwin (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would. There have always been religious cons out there.  Jesus was accused of being one by the Pharisees.  With respect to Rev. Ike, I can remember that during 1970s he was big news.  Morley Safer did a piece on him for "60 Minutes", and he did have a prerecorded television program that aired on, I believe, WPIX-TV??? in New York.  He was big and really all he did was preach on money . . . especially why Rev. Ike needed YOUR money.johncheverly 22:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Prosperity theology is older than the '70s, and its intellectual evolution has clearly been traced to figures such as E.W. Kenyon. No matter how popular Rev. Ike was in the '70s, he cannot be the "father" or "founder" of something that existed prior to him, which is my point. By all means, if people feel like mentioning him in the article, then do so. Just don't overstate his importance. That's all I'm saying. Ltwin (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * How many of Kenyon's books gave you read??? (BTW, you didn't sign your post, whomever you are.) I actually purchased one.  It was more of a booklet once it came through the mail and it only consisted of maudlin poems that one might find in an overly sentimental greeting card.  Also Kenyon's Wikipedia page mentions NOTHING about prosperity theology, let alone that he is the founder of it.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_W_Kenyon  johncheverly 22:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I forgot to sign my name, thanks for the reminder. I've never read a book by Kenyon; I don't have the time to read all 16 of them anyway. But I have read scholarly work about the prosperity gospel—work I certainly give more weight to than a wikipedia article (which by the way is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia). The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements: Revised and Expanded Edition's entry for Kenyon states: "Various aspects of his theology later became an important influence on such diverse people as ▸W. J. 'Ern' Baxter, ▸F. F. Bosworth, David Nunn, ▸T. L. Osborn, ▸Jimmy Swag-gart, and many others (Gossett and Kenyon, 1977, 3). Kenyon’s writings also became seminal for the ministries of ▸Kenneth Hagin, ▸Kenneth Copeland, Don Gossett, Charles Capps, and others in the Word of Faith (▸Positive Confession) movement."


 * The entry for "Positive Confession Theology" states: "An alternative title for 'faith-formula theology' or 'prosperity doctrine' espoused by the 'Word-Faith' or 'Word of Faith' movement and promulgated by several contemporary televangelists under the leadership and inspiration of ▸Essek William Kenyon (1867–1948)." I did a search for Reverend Ike, but I he was not listed in the dictionary. Ltwin (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Dude, please take a look a my post of last evening that includes several links to the mainstream media articles about Reverend Ike. Quite frankly, your opinion doesn't carry much weight with me as you stated in an earlier post you were totally ignorant of his existence.  Just because some old tiptoe-tiptoe-through-the tulips preacher gets one, maybe two sentences in a moth-eaten encyclopedia, doesn't make him the founder/father of anything.  Numerous YouTube uploads and mainstream media articles incontrovertibly verify that Reverend Ike is the seminal promulgator of Prosperity Theology in the USofA.  You can type until your fingers bleed and it doesn't mean a doodily flip in the light of overwhelming evidence.  I'm glad you learned to sign your posts, however.johncheverly 17:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I never heard of him, and I grew up in a church that teaches positive confession and prosperity gospel. Names like Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Oral Roberts, and Benny Hinn, and a ton of more were standard names you'd hear from the pulpit. Never heard of Ike. Moth eaten encyclopedia? Dude, you need to read WP:Reliable sources. The most the articles you cite say is that he was "He was one of the first to advocate what is now known as the 'prosperity Gospel,'" (NPR) and "With the move, the Reverend Ike stretched Christian tenets, founding the doctrine he named the Science of Living and thereby relocating the idea of God to the interior of the self, calling it “God in me,” with the power to bring the believer anything he or she desired in the way of health, wealth and peace of mind," (NY Times). None of that means he is the "seminal promulgator of Prosperity Theology in the USofA." Indeed, his "Science of Living" sounds like a much more radical version of prosperity gospel, divorced from a literal reading of Scripture and an exclusive Christian worldview. The LA Times article doesn't even say he came up with Name It, Claim It. It's quoting Rev. Cecil L. "Chip" Murray, an African Methodist minister describing Rev. Ike's message. There is no indication that Murray was giving Ike credit fro the phrase. You are reading into the article. Once again, I'm not saying he doesn't belong here, I'm saying when someone says he is the "father", "founder" or "seminal promulgator" they better have a reliable source that actually says that. Happy editing! Ltwin (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, looks like hardcore Prosperity theology. I think there might be a brief profile of him in All Things Are Possible--I'll try to look him up and add something. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * K. He was a big figure in Prosperity Theology and definitely a character.johncheverly 02:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is his NY TIMES obit: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/nyregion/30ike.html?_r=0 . In it, he calls his theology :The Science of Living."  His website: http://www.revike.org/whois.asp .  Very negative op-ed about him in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/tony-norman/the-wretched-venal-life-of-rev-ike-352193/ .  NPR story: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111388940 .  Two page LA times obit: http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-reverend-ike31-2009jul31,0,2556008.story?page=2 .  According to the LA Times piece, he may have been the one that coined "Name it and Claim it."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs) 03:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC) johncheverly 03:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Gospel of success merge
This section was added following a decision to merge with this article. I contend it is a pejorative (and perhaps more common version) of "prosperity theology". If so, then how is the POV tag justified? Attleboro (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Because as you well know from Articles for deletion/Gospel of success, the material has been recognised as the POV-pushing coatrack it clearly is, full of poorly sourced original research, weasel worded editorialising and a general flouting of any pretence at objectivity. There has been no evidence whatsoever put forward to indicate that the term 'gospel of success' is anything but a synonym for 'prosperity theology', in spite of your dubious cherry-picking of a few sources to suggest otherwise. Given that the section currently characterisesDonald Trump as a 'heretic' with no source whatsoever cited for the assertion, and goes out of its way to brand Joel Osteen as both 'heretic' and a 'subversive' with no pretence at presenting any objectivity, or even an intimation that others might not share this point of view, it clearly violates WP:BLP policy, and on that basis, I am now going to delete the section entirely. Please note that WP:BLP violations are taken very seriously, and restoring the material may well result in you being blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You are not reading carefully and rushing ahead. It is Osteen whose ideas are considered heretical, by a bona fide theologian. All evidence is that while "gospel of success" refers to essentially the same thing as "prosperity gospel", it does so with a jaundiced eye. This is not POV but actual usage in the press, academia, and wherever. Attleboro (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "A [single] bona fide theologian" may well consider Osteen heretical, That doesn't entitle to use words like 'crass', 'hucksterism', 'heretical' or 'subversive' in Wikipedia's voice. And neither does it legitimise your self-evident cherry-picking of sources to attack Orsteen (or Trump) with no indication whatsoever that this is but the opinion of one theologian. Where is Orsteen's reply? Why should we consider this particular theologian's opinion to be worth mentioning? Where are the opinions of other theologians on the matter? You have cherry-picked sources solely to discredit Orsteen. And as for your assertions about 'all evidence', that is original research - unless you can find a source that states this explicitly, it simply doesn't belong in Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * All those are exactly the words used by reliable, note-worthy sources, not me. Most importantly, you are ignoring the decision to merge, not redirect. I'll give you a day to think it over. Take the time and review your actions. Attleboro (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Opinions must be attributed. As for the 'merge' decision, it is entirely clear from the AfD discussion that the intention was for a new, properly sourced, section on 'gospel of success' to be added to the article. As for 'thinking it over', the section as it stood violated multiple policies when I deleted it, and it will still do so tomorrow. It simply isn't acceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that words such as "crass" and "hucksterism" are not appropriate. I also don't really see the need for a separate section, based on the material we have currently. The Donald Trump material, for example, in my opinion should be eliminated. The prosperity gospel is a religious doctrine, but the sense in which it is being used in relation to Trump seems to be something else entirely. The quote about Osteen could be incorporated into the existing theological criticism section. Ltwin (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ltwin here that the words "crass" and "hucksterism" are not appropriate. Also, as Ltwin says, this sentence:
 * seems to be about something entirely different than the subject of this article. Horton's criticisms do in fact seem to be related to the subject of this article, but to tie them to that first sentence and Donald Trump strikes me as synthesis, especially given that Brooks doesn't talk about Osteen in the source cited.Finally, given that this is a featured article and the formatting and style of the new section are wildly out of line with the quality of the rest of the material here, I think it would be best if the proposed material were discussed on the talk page line by line so that the formatting, content, and placement can be worked out before it's slapped onto the bottom of the article like a bad appendix.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with Alf.laylah.wa.laylah sentiments. This is a featured article, and there is no justification for diminishing its quality over one small disputed section. I second the proposal to work out a resolution on this talk page before adding anything back into the article. Ltwin (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree as well, there's no need to put sub-par content in a featured article. Let's work out a consensus version here first. The text as it stood was definitely not needed. It seems to be totally undue weight on some criticism of Osteen, and POV language to boot. If the "Gospel of Success" is different than other types of prosperity theology, I could see adding in a blurb in the history section to explain the development and emphasis of the different stream. But I'm not sure that "Gospel of Success" is really anything more than another name for "prosperity theology", which has garnered more than a few different nicknames over the years. So I really don't see anything that needs to be done here. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand that the great dignity and high tone of this article may be somewhat in jeopardy by allowing such a jaundiced view as the "Gospel of Success" so often seems to imply, but the decision was to merge, not redirect. There has to be a way to handle this criticism which has existed for so long. As I see it, the main objection is WP:BLP. According to WP:3RR exemption 7, "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption."

Since neither libelous, unsourced, nor poorly sourced, the only one of these that may apply is biased, but since this is criticism, that shouldn't apply either if reliably sourced to a notable. The words everyone objects to are sourced, except no one called Donald Trump a "heretic". Some of Osteen's ideas are called "heretical". Some of what Trump represents are called "subversive". No individual is called a name. None of the editors that allowed these words (including the NYT) saw anything requiring retraction or even major correction, let alone anything actionable. Anyway, here it is for reference and picking apart...
 * You're 100% wrong. It doesn't matter what the Afd was closed as, you need to gain consensus before making non-trivial changes to featured articles--and that's an official policy: WP:OAS. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, the see also links you keep re-adding aren't very well chosen. You're linking to "further reading" on one of them and a list of quotes on another. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Gospel of success
"Gospel of success" is a term used since at least 1910 in American journalism and social commentary to refer to a crass blending of Christian theology and optimistic hucksterism   that at least one Christian theologian, the Rev. Michael Horton below, considers heretical. David Brooks calls it, "The strongest and most subversive ideology in America today."

Besides the example of Donald Trump Brooks cites, another example of such a blending, as reported on CBS 60 minutes:

.

Attleboro (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't think that's very good work. It's totally undue weight on criticism of Osteen for one. No reason to single out one of many prosperity proponents with a lengthy quote like this. Second of all, what on earth does Donald Trump have to do with this? Is he even a Christian? There's no indication of that in the source. Third of all, you need to define what "Gospel of Success" is before listing criticisms of it. I still don't know how this varies from most streams of the prosperity movement. You seem to have found a number of mentions of the phrase "gospel of success" over about 100 years and tried to stitch them together to make a topic out of it. That is what's known as WP:SYNTH, and we're not allowed to do it. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, as you have repeatedly been told, there are no circumstances whatsoever where it is appropriate to use words like crass or hucksterism in Wikipedia's voice like that. If you are incapable of understanding even the basic principles of WP:NPOV policy after it has repeatedly been explained to you, I have to question whether you are in fact competent to edit Wikipedia at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * And also, besides being, as Mark says, undue weight on criticism of Osteen, it's undue weight on Horton's opinion. Is Horton somehow such a notable critic of Osteen's that we're going to put this much material about Osteen in here?  Osteen is one small part of this article, and Horton is one small part of the commentary on Osteen.  That makes Horton's opinion on Osteen a really very small part of what belongs in this article.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Kenyon
I've just reverted several edits about E. W. Kenyon. It seems to me that these edits are reflecting an opinion about the man rather than a neutral presentation of how reliable sources describe his role in the movement. I added some clarification about his position, as well. Does anyone have any issues with the current version? Mark Arsten (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The statements made about Kenyon and several of the other so called prosperity teachers are bias and unsupported - they make statements about these teachers but have no direct quote from these teachers. EG. If Kenyon is the one who influenced so many in the prosperity gospel, why are there no quotes of Kenyon's words to this effect? In fact Kenyon says the opposite. How can he and others be accused of something that there is NO proof they made direct statements about? How can this be reliable? It seems like a lot of critics airing their bias and quoting one another. Wiki rules state that consensus does not over-rule facts. EG. If there's 100 critics all saying the same thing, but the "accused" has ever been quoted in a reliable source as saying something, the 1000 critics have no weight in the absense of concrete proof of their statements. Many critics are making a lot of money from sensationalism. Truth may not be their highest goal. June 29 WordofGOD'Spower — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordofGOD'Spower (talk • contribs) 06:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikipedia prefers to use independent sources in its articles. We shoot for neutral, third-party coverage, see WP:SOURCES for details. The passage about Kenyon in this article is based on a book by an academic publisher, so it counts as highly reliable. We generally don't base our information about a movement only on the writings of advocates of the movement, because that can lead to bias. I.e. our articles about political candidates are based on news coverage rather than the candidate' webpages. Similarly, in this case we want to accurately portray the teachings of prosperity theology and the word of faith movement, but we don't want to reply on sources that promote the movement, because they may be biased. We also want to similarly avoid basing the article on statements by critics of the movement. Does this clarify my perspective? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If this article is about Word of Faith Theology and origins, the perspective and some sources for this article are biased and ill-informed. Dominion theology, Word of Faith, and some of the extraneous details in this article are being mix and matched to create an inaccurate or confusing article. Is this article about prosperity teachings of the Word of Faith movement? Are there other groups like the Dominion group included in this article? What other groups are you including in this article? It needs to be made clear what points belong to which group. [Comment made by User:Christian4life4ever, 17:43, 3 July 2013]
 * Dominion theology does seem to be a different topic, as I understand it. I'm not sure that we need to mention it at all here. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To put things a bit more broadly, the article should line up with what reliable sources (WP:IRS) say about the subject. I don't believe that this book qualifies as a reliable source, since the author appears to be out to promote Kenyon. If you feel that any sources in the article now are unreliable, feel free to point them out. Complaints about the accuracy of the article should be backed up by sources, not only by your opinion or my opinion. But if you feel that specific statements in the article are inaccurate, please propose possible improvements here instead of repeatedly changing the article's text. Try to follow best practices for reverting, WP:BRD, so we can come to a consensus about what to do. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Article protected
This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page duscussion of the disputed content. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Kenneth Copeland
Kenneth Copeland should be included in the list of names in the third paragraph. I know that Kenneth Copeland is mentioned later, however, he really is one of the main people that directly has taught the Prosperity theology the longest.Easeltine (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption‎
So, can we add Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption‎ somewhere into the article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that might be a good addition somewhere in the criticism section. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As a starter, I added a short paragraph. I included just one source so as not to overload the footnotes, but of course there are many more if anyone thinks they're needed here to establish that Oliver's critique is worthy of a mention in this article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you folks! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead of the article
I removed two paragraphs (out of five)from the lead of the article. It was becoming it's own article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm ok with cutting down the size of the lead. WP:LEAD states, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." It should remain "a concise overview of the article's topic . . . [identifying]] the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." With that being said, I'm going to re-add the historical summary paragraph. Ltwin (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ltwin that is okay with me. However would you agree that it could be a little more concisely worded? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with conciseness. If anyone wants to improve the wording, they can have at it. Ltwin (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at it. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Dominionism
Are we perhaps placing undo weight on the links between Dominion Theology and prosperity theology? The article connects the two without qualification. Many (maybe even most) prosperity teachers do not emphasize Dominionism. There is some overlap, but I don't think we should give the impression that the two are always connected. I'm specifically concerned about this part of the last paragraph under the "Theology" heading:

"Prosperity theology casts itself as the reclamation of true doctrine and thus part of a path to Christian dominion over secular society.[35] It contends that God's promises of prosperity and victory to Israel in the Old Testament apply to New-Covenant Christians today, and that faith and holy actions release this prosperity.[40] C. Peter Wagner, a leader of the New Apostolic Reformation, has argued that if Christians take dominion over aspects of society, the Earth will experience "peace and prosperity".[45]"

I'm not sure how Coleman phrases this, but would it be better for us to write that "Prosperity theology sometimes overlaps with Dominion Theology, casting itself as the reclamation of true doctrine and thus part of a path to Christian dominion over secular society"? Ltwin (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prosperity theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120611015733/http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4183_confession.pdf to http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4183_confession.pdf

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

David Crank
Pastor David Crank of Faith Church is offering financial semenars citing selected Bible Verses that sounds very much like the Prosperity Theology in St. Louis, Missouri and West Palm Beach, Florida. Here it is, 2 AM, and KMOV-TV is airing his infomercial where he is also trying to sell his book. Bushido Hacks (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prosperity theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161229150522/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/trump-inaugural-to-include-prayers-from-prosperity-preachers/2016/12/28/9830fbae-cd4f-11e6-85cd-e66532e35a44_story.html to https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/trump-inaugural-to-include-prayers-from-prosperity-preachers/2016/12/28/9830fbae-cd4f-11e6-85cd-e66532e35a44_story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Security and Wealth in introduction - citations needed
a religious belief among some Christians, who hold that financial blessing and physical well-being are always the will of God for them, and that faith, positive speech, and donations to religious causes will increase one's material wealth. Prosperity theology views the Bible as a contract between God and humans: if humans have faith in God, he will deliver security and prosperity.

This claim is dubious.

I'm tempted to use Contradict-inline or just delete it as per wikipedia rules since the claims appear to be 'nonsense and unlikely to be true'.

But this is not my field - so I'm not going to attempt any serious edits here, but I've added 2 'citations needed' in the opening introduction.

Claiming that the people listed in this article preached a doctrine of personal wealth and security is a big claim that needs primary source citations and headings in the article to show more detail. I'd expect to see two headings:

- god promises material wealth

- god promises security

But I'm going to be seriously surprised if you can come up with primary sources for those preachers making those claims. But that's what you need to be able to do if you want to make that claim in the introduction of your article.

I read Brian Houston's "you need more money" and several other books like it years ago and my understanding was:

- the purpose of prosperity from God was generosity to others. ie: you 'get' so you can 'give' to the poor (not 10% - 100% - one dollar in; one dollar out)

- security always come from faith in God, not through miracles or works.

So claiming the opposite here, in the introdcution is a big claim, and I'd expect to see really good citations to first source material, eg: a book by one of the preachers highlighted in the article.

Arthur (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but Wikipedia editors don't do original research. Wikipedia editors report what published reliable sources say on a subject. Therefore, there is no requirement that we cite primary sources in the lede or anywhere else in the article. Ltwin (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, wikipedia editors don't do original research - and I wasn't asking for that. Yes wikipedia editors report what reliable published sources say on a subject, which is why I added the citation tag.  I appreciate you are trying to be helpful, thinking I'm a newbie (which I am) but it's coming across as defensive.  What are you trying to defend?


 * A primary source is the most reliable. And putting things in the introduction that are not backed by the most reliable sources, is really asking for a citation tag.  Hence why there are quality complaints on the "word of faith" article  for self-published sources and Wikipedia verifiability.  Primary sources do have their own set of problems, but when you are talking about LIVING PEOPLE and WHAT THYE HAVE SAID (and what they have said their 'catch phrases' mean) primary sources are incredibly relavent and important.


 * You've cited Wilson 2007 (err, Melissa Harris-Lacewell? Melissa Harris-Perry? the author of that 'chapter' - not sure how that should be referenced...) for the wealth part, and I've checked the reference. As I said - this is not my subject specialty  - but this see pretty poor reference - on page 141 he himself says "Unlike theologians, I am not interested in the biblical accuracy of the doctrine per se;" - wheras a citation here would suggest that is exactly what the citation would claim.  OK - re-reading that, maybe that's not what others would imply.  Maybe it's sufficient that he's documenting that the statement has been attributed to one of these preachers.  But I personally think that a reader would expect that not only do the preachers say this, but they defend it as biblical doctrine.  I don't see evidence, and certainly not cited evidence, of that.


 * The only primary source wilson claims is "The Reverend Creflo Dollar of the World Changers’ Church International in College Park, Georgia". Since Creflo is cited in the text of the article, the citation can't be discounted completely - but the cited text does say that his is the most egrarious, therefore in my view, possibly the only one to make this claim.  A better reference would be one that shows that several (most?) of the preachers identified with 'prosperity gospel' in this article make this claim.  If it's only made by Creflo, it hardly warrants being mentioned in the introduction.


 * So I'm going to restore the citation-needed on 'security' and add a Better-source} to the wilson claim on wealth.


 * finally, don't undo my edits and then add the citations. If citations are not needed, undo the citations.  If citations are needed, replace my citation-needed with the citation.  'wealth' is not mentioned anywhere in the article at all - writing that the article has plenty to say about the claim of wealth in the prosperity gospel is unsupported in the material


 * Arthur (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Since you self-describe as a newbie, I will give you friendly advice in regards to your questioning of my or any other editor's motives. Assume good faith.
 * In regards to the article, Wikipedia editors are specifically discouraged from citing their own interpretations of primary sources. As WP:RS states, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." You have, I'm afraid, misunderstood WP:PSTS, which states, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
 * In regards to the lede, citations are not required for every claim because the lede should only be an overview of the article. Therefore, all statements and claims in the lede should be summarize statements and claims backed up by reliable sources in the article. For example, the Wilson citation was already in the article. I just duplicated it to meet your objections. (See MOS:LEADCITE)
 * Harris-Lacewell, the author of the chapter (Wilson is the editor of the whole book) does say "I am not interested in the biblical accuracy of the doctrine per se" in the context of deciding what is heresy or not. That only means the author does not have a theological agenda—she is not trying to prove that prosperity gospel is orthodoxy or not. She's writing on the role that prosperity gospel has in contemporary American religion (particularly the black church). That statement has no bearing on whether or not she's a reliable source who understands the subject matter.
 * "wheras a citation here would suggest that is exactly what the citation would claim"—No the citation simply tells the reader that this isn't original research but has been taken from a verifiable, published source that is considered reliable.
 * "Maybe it's sufficient that he's documenting that the statement has been attributed to one of these preachers." We do not have to show that every statement written in a reliable source can be traced to a sermon by a prosperity preacher. If a reliable source says "the prosperity gospel teaches that followers who tithe regularly and maintain positive, faithful attitudes and language will reap financial gains in the form of higher incomes and nicer homes and cars," then that is a statement we can include in Wikipedia. We don't need to analyze every sermon ever preached to verify if that's true.
 * "'wealth' is not mentioned anywhere in the article at all - writing that the article has plenty to say about the claim of wealth in the prosperity gospel is unsupported in the material"—Really? Where did this come from then, "Wealth is interpreted in prosperity theology as a blessing from God, obtained through a spiritual law of positive confession, visualization, and donations.[49]" or this "While Malachi has generally been celebrated by Christians for its passages about the messiah, teachers of prosperity theology usually draw attention to its descriptions of physical wealth.[51]"?
 * It is ok to add citations to the lede, but they don't have to be primary sources. Ltwin (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion in lead of article regarding connection to Judaism
First time proposing a change to an article -- please let me know if I'm doing it wrong!

This proposed change regards the claim in the lead regarding Prosperity theology that "It is based on interpretations of the Bible that are mainstream in Judaism (with respect to the Hebrew Bible),[3]."

I looked at the reference and the only statement that addresses this that I could find is on p. 67 of the print edition: "Although Judaism has similar notions about prosperity--our prayers often ask for sustenance--it is, by far, not the highlight of the service. We do not worship the almighty dollar. If we're asking for anything, it's for stuff like health or good tidings. But the focus of most of our prayers is praising God and actually has nothing to do with our wants and needs."

That the source may not be authoritative enough to begin with and also that the author in any case does not seem to support the claim leads me to suggest that it be modified or deleted.

Thanks in advance for your comments and suggestions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.63.5 (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I had not noticed this message before until the removal. I could not access page 67, but have no reason to believe that you modified the above quotes.  I think the removal is fine: as you said, that type of book should not be considered a high authority on the topic.  Moreover, that was the lead, a summary of the article, with the body not covering it.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Which Bible translation to use
I reverted a good faith change of Bible quotes from KJV to NLT. The editor who changed the quotes to NLT did so for the admirable reason that the quotes are easier to read and also because of a claim that NLT is what Millennials use. I find that second claim dubious. However it was not a claim in the article so won’t ask for a citation ;)

Bible translations are a thorny issue and KJV is often chosen simply because it avoids the inevitable war over what translation is best to use. It was brave to change to NLT, but NLT is a translation that uses the concept of dynamic equivalence and for that reason there are many who hold concerns about it, as it can imply specific interpretations that others disagree with. It clearly does so to aid clarity but it is a very debatable subject. This is not the place for the debate though - here we just note that there are people who would debate it.

So a translation that sticks to literal renderings would be better. Or, if you can show that everyone uses NLT, then that would be okay too. However I doubt there is any consensus in the church over its usage. ESV and others are also very popular. I would suggest sticking with one of several literal translations though. — Sirfurboy (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * there never was a consensus about it but in 2019 I started this thread. As for NLT I'd have to check, but KJV is hardly considered literal rendering (and is considered archaic enough that some groups today support doctrines using quotes from it but that don't take in consideration the English of the epoch).  There exist interlinear literal translations that attempt to match word for word, although they are rarely used outside of academia it seems and can be awkward to read...  Anyway, my suggestion there was for MOS to suggest consistency within a same article (so I agree that if this article mostly uses KJV a consensus should be formed to switch), although it was considered unnecessary to add anything to the manual of style guide.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 12:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A touch late with my reply ;) KJV is a literal translation in the sense that the Greek words are literally translated and there is no attempt to interpret idioms. E.g. 1 Cor. 7:1 KJV has "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" which is what the Greek *says* but not what the Greek Means. The NIV 1984 gets it horribly wrong, interpreting it as "it is good for a man not to marry" but ESV has a better rendering "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations". Of those three, only KJV is strictly literal, but leads to a misunderstanding of the idiom. NIV 1984 uses dynamic equivalence and gives an interpretation (the wrong one IMHO), and ESV is between the two in interpreting the idiom but as literally as possible. However, KJV does rely on manuscripts now known to not be the best reading, and as you say, there are things in there that are misinterpreted by modern readers because they do not understand how the English has shifted meaning. There will never be unanimity of the right translation to use, but as a rule of thumb, I would argue for one that attempts to be literal whilst also being up to date. NKJV, ESV, NASB, RSV even. But probably not NLT which strays too far into interpretation. Cheers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Non-Christian prosperity theologies?
I'm no expert, but I think that there may exist non-Christian movements that could also be considered "prosperity theologies". I have heard that said in reference to the Buddhist Soka Gakkai International, but have no idea whether there is any truth to that. It occurs to me that "prosperity theologies" might all be considered to be misunderstandings of the concept of karma. (In one sense I myself am outside of all this, having been raised to be, and remaining, a non-evangelical atheist, who does not believe in either theologies nor karma, but respects many people who do. Therefore, my own ability to understand the nuances may be limited.) Acwilson9 (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has authority over material objects
There is a line in here which is beyond ridiculous and I edited it but it was edited back. No prosperity gospel teacher of any legitimacy would say that a person has spiritual authority over every material object. You will not find this in any writing of Kenneth Hagin or Kenneth Copeland. If this was correct God would be pleased if you walked past a neighbor's house and prayed that they paint their house another color or that the wife will start a relationship with you. In 99% of cases you don't have authority over what you don't own. You have spiritual authority over an object you own and any object where someone invites you to pray about it or in relation to it. You can pray that a Mormon Church is not built in your district. But you have no authority over that. You are just asking God. It is not your land. Whatever the outcome is you must accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.189.80 (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You inserted the following parenthetical phrase into an existing sentence: but only if you legally own the objects or are invited to pray or otherwwise act in relation to them. I am the editor who reverted because I wanted to know if the source cited (Coleman, 2000, p. 28) made such a distinction or if this was original research on your part. Ltwin (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

i cab't think of a written source offhand. I have heard many sermons and read many books over the years. It's a complex topic. It relates to the concept of spiritual authority. Say if there was an ancient mask from Egypt or wherever and you were concerned that it was inviting an evil atmosphere into a place. If you owned it, you could pray over it and throw it away or give it away if you wanted to. If it was in someone else's house, you could pray silently about it but you wouldn't have the right to touch it unless the owner invited you to. (The concept of spiritual authority follows ethical and legal rules.) If it was in a shared facility, for example, a church building or office, it is more complex, e.g. a CEO would have rights in relation to most objects except when major decisions are involved. It might be safer just to leave any references to material objects out of the article text.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.189.80 (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge from Word of Faith
I suggest that Word of Faith is merged into this, Prosperity theology. The former literally says they are the same thing in the first eight words of the article, and i cannot see that they are not the same thing; happy days, LindsayHello 08:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think the lead paragraph of Word of Faith is just mistaken and needs to be corrected. It looks like Word of Faith is a particular denomination or tradition within the broader prosperity theology movement. Said tradition advocates prosperity theology and was founded by one of the leading figures of prosperity theology, but it is not synonymous with prosperity theology. Prosperity theology includes other denominations, churches, etc. which are not affiliated with "Word of Faith". Similarly, "Word of Faith" advocates more besides prosperity theology. According to Prosperity theology, "Word of Faith" was founded as "a new prosperity-oriented teaching developed in the 1970s that differed from the one taught by Pentecostal evangelists", which suggests "Word of Faith" is not synonymous with the broader prosperity theology movement. Scyrme (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've since edited the lead paragraph of Word of Faith to remove the misleading text. Scyrme (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)