Talk:Word of Faith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Charismatic Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pentecostalism, the Charismatic movement and its relatives and offshoots on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Do not merge these pages

Very simply:

1. While the subsection under Word of Faith that specifically points to this subject is important, the subject itself (prosperity theology) is one that is transdenominational in nature. Thus, to limit it under Pentecostalism is misleading and will not adequately allow for links to it from other pages.

2. Many preachers and writers follow this type of theology in their work, even though their work doesn't specifically point to "prosperity theology." Many non-pentecostal preachers, like Joel Osteen, talk about making the life of the Christian better by following God's law and by having strong faith (refer to his book "Your Best Life Now"). This is essentially the same things as prosperity theology (perhaps in its broader sense).

3. Other denominations, such as Lutheranism, preach against what they call "theology of glory", or the belief that the life of Christians is supposed to be better than the lives of non-Christians. They would point specifically to this type of theology, prosperity theology, as contrary to their Lutheran teachings.

4. Finally, the term "prosperity theology" is a better term than "Word of Faith" for referencing this type of theology. The two, as others point out, are distinctly different.


You make some excellent points. I almost didn't find them since I was looking for new discussion at the bottom of the page. I can't argue with your logic. Your statement about Joel Osteen piqued my interest. His dad, John Osteen, who founded the church Joel "inherited" was an outspoken charismatic. I would be surprised if the church would have voted Joel in the pastorate if he differed on such a significant issue. I'll have to look into it. By the way, as I pointed out in discussion further below, some of the strongest critics of the Word of Faith theology have been Pentecostals and Charismatics themselves who resent the faith teachers' efforts to hide within the folds of their clothing.--Will3935 19:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge? No!

One of the reasons for confusion here is that the article on Full Gospel is inadequate. "Full Gospel" refers to the Pentecostal belief that the gospel includes physical healing as well as spiritual (ie salvation). "Word-Faith" is distinct historically, sociologically and theologically, even though it shares similarities. Hopefully now the article is part of the WikiProject on Charismatic Christianity, some knowledgeable folk can start to clean up both articles to make them both clearer.

[edit] Proposed merge from Full Gospel

It's not clear to me that these two articles should be merged. From the articles themselves, it appears that these are two distinct movements, started at different times by different people, though they do seem to be "barking up the same tree" to some degree. Of course, two distinct movements may believe in the same or similar things and not be the same movement. Is there some documentation that Word of faith is simply an explicit continuation of Full Gospel? If there is an article merge, at a minimum the articles would need to be changed to eliminate the latter of the two origination stories and unify these two items to reflect them as merely different names applied to the same movement. --Gary D 09:12, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, they don't seem to be the same thing. I oppose the merge. --Locarno 15:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As a Charismatic Christian, I know as a fact that there is no essential difference between "Full Gospel" Christians and "Word of Faith" Christians. They are just labels, nothing more.

Yes, but as movements they are separated by nearly a century. That in itself makes them distinct topics as far as an encyclopedia is concerned. Certainly they should be linked, as they are similar; but even without the chronological separation, the theologies seem to be different. Word of Faith stresses guaranteed healing and prosperity to those who claim it fervently enough, or with enough faith; that didn't seem to be stressed as much in Full Gospel (although I only know about Full Gospel what I learned from the Wiki). --Okto8 05:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I had always understood "Full Gospel" to be nothing more or less than a synonym for Pentecostalism and more recently the practices of the Charismatic movement, with churches using the term Full Gospel as a way of making known to the public that they believe in healing, speaking in tongues and other Pentecostal or Charismatic beliefs. Full Gospel is, basically, a marketing term. An example of its use, and probably the best known, is the Full Gospel Businessmens Fellowship. "Word of Faith" is a specific movement within Pentecostalism associated with Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland, and related to or often derided as "name it and claim it" or "the prosperity gospel". I don't think merging the two would be accurate. If anything I would think Full Gospel and Pentecostalism would be more appropriate to merge. Kaibabsquirrel 20:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we could condense the whole encyclopedia into about 100 "newspeak"entries! (Just kidding! Please see my entry under full gospel talk.)

Seems that there was only one or two advocates of the merge and they didn't defend themselves. I'm removing the merge notice. --Locarno 5 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

Should Prosperity Theology and Health and Wealth Gospel be merged into this article? I've done some cursory initial research, and it seems that all of these terms relate to essentially the same phenomenon. Note the cross references and similar descriptions here. Does anyone agree or disagree, and why? - Jersyko talk 21:26, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • This makes most sense: "All Word of Faith is Prosperity Theology, but not all Prosperity Theology is Word of Faith." For example, Norman Vincent Peale and Robert Schuller teach health and wealth but they are far from WoF. Not only do Peale-Schuller appear to advocate universal salvation, they are not Pentecostals. They also share no influences. They cannot be merged.
    • Can you please indicate how they are different, then? - Jersyko talk 07:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"Word of Faith" and "Full Gospel" are terms used by followers, while "Word-Faith Theology" (with a hyphen) and "Health and Wealth Gospel" (as well as the phrase "Name It and Claim It") are used exclusively by critics.

Word of Faith is a superset of Full Gospel; both groups believe in Gifts of the Spirit (including speaking in tongues) and divine healing, while Word of Faith places additional emphasis on faith and financial prosperity. It's hard to draw a line between the two groups, since many people who started out in Full Gospel demominations and groups have since embraced Word of Faith beliefs.

I agree they should be merged. The content of these three articles says nothing to distinguish them. Health and Wealth even says that it's a synonym for word of faith. Either merge them, or add content that distinguishes them. --Staecker 13:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


As a Word of Faith adherent, I don't think Word of Faith and Full Gospel should be merged. In my view there are fundamental differences in belief. Gloria Copeland, one of the most prominent voices within Word of Faith theology, has often referred to what "some Full Gospel people" believe, pointing out that they are different and in disagreement with some WoF beliefs.

Also. And this is important. WoF is prosperity theology, but not all prosperity theology is Word of Faith. There are many different flavors of prosperity theology -- for example, Robert Schuller and Norman Vincent Peale are their own universalist prosperity denomination, having no influence in or from WoF. - anon

  • I still haven't seen exactly how one can distinguish the groups or movements. You state that Copeland "points out that they are different" and "disagrees with some Word of Faith beliefs." Can you please provide specifics? If Copeland's attack is merely a general one, the fact that adherents of one might want to distance themselves from another movement without providing any concrete differences between/among them leads me to believe that they are all essentially the same, but that negative connotations have attached to one or more of the phrases used to describe the movement. - Jersyko talk 22:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Copeland's remarks were not significant or an attack on Full Gospel.

Almost all of the contemporarys named in this article are trinity broadcasting regulars. The statement about the prosperity movement of TBN should be changed to indicate that this WOF doctorine is a main part of TBN. It is evident to me that this doctorine is a subcategory to the prosperity doctorine, as it is written, and from a theological standpoint. Although from a timing standpoint it would seem the contrary. Prosperity theology encompases any belief that God will prosper you whether the formula is through tithing and works, or a promise that God will prosper you based on your faith alone. This WOF movement seems to be based mainly on faith in a Promise. trappy77

I disagree with merging Prosperity theology with Word of Faith. On the contrary, I suggest Prosperity gospel become the main heading for an article merging with Prosperity theology. My reasons are similar to those given by several people above: "Prosperity gospel" encompasses many theologies that are certainly not Word-Faith, eg those of Robert Schuller and Norman Vincent Peale, arguably liberals. David L Rattigan 14:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where?

Is this like an essentially american thing? Does this cult have followers in other countries? Shouldn't this be stated in the article (say, in the first paragraph)?

Word-Faith is international, although it began in the US. This article is now part of the WikiProject on Charismatic Christianity, so hopefully a good clean-up will take this kind of thing into account. David L Rattigan 11:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Called Into Question

I call into question the "little gods" segment of the entry. It implies that Hagen has specifically called Christians "little gods", but I've listened to many hours of his teaching (well upwards of 100) and I've been to some of his services but I've never heard any such statements. Hagen has more than implied that Christians possess abilities such as Jesus' (healing others, casting out demons, etc.), but I've never heard him or any of his followers state that Christians are on par with Jesus, God, or the Holy Spirit. I'll see if I can find any of his books that have been sourced to see if those quotes were taken out of context.MafiaCapo 16:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I added several category headings recently in an attempt to clean up the article and structure it according to the main strands of Faith teaching. They are rough headings for now. I think the stream of thought represented by the 'little gods' teaching is important enough to be included, although whether to call that section 'little gods' or something else is up for grabs, especially if it's disputed whether Hagin actually uses that term. What I don't think can be disputed is that almost all the major faith teachers use some sort of language that expresses the same thought, eg "the believer is Christ" (Hagin), believers are gods, believers are "duplicates" of God, believers are "in the same class as God". Whether they all use that exact term ("little gods") is uncertain. David L Rattigan 16:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that the "Little 'Gods'" segment be changed into "Like Christ" or "Akin to Christ" (or any similar thing that conveys the same idea) -for the time being- as the notion that Christians are equal to God seemingly goes against "you shall have no other gods before Me" (one of the commandments- but I don't recall which one specifically) which is one of the main tenats of Christianity. MafiaCapo 18:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
"Like Christ" would be misleading, as the language used is far stronger than that. It's not our job to soften what the faith teachers say in order to make it more consistent! I will do a bit more reading around the subject and see if I can find a more appropriate heading. David L Rattigan 19:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
After reading: http://www.myfortress.org/AreChristiansLittleGods.html I retract my arguement and I have no objections to the segment's content. MafiaCapo 19:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
In any case, I have substantially expanded that section, but kept the title the same. David L Rattigan 20:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the idea that this section does seem to be a little 'out there' and that the statements do not seem to meet the neutral point of view.Terrillwhite 09:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Discussion of the topic as a controversy is legitimate. this brief section clearly gives two opposing POV, and further NPOV was easily reached by clearly describing it as controversy, rather than slapping a NNPOV template on the entire article.-Robotam 16:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A friendly challenging perspective that I would like you to consider: I was a huge Hank Hanegraaff fan in the late 90's who has read "Christianity in Crisis" and "Counterfeit Revival" and who has gotten to know Word of Faith people in recent years pretty well. Whatever the original teachers meant by "little gods" in the handful of sound bytes that you all continue to focus on is certainly a misrepresentation with respect to what Word of Faith people understand it to mean nowadays. Your interpretation of what they meant in those sound bytes is certainly disgusting theology, no doubt. Heresy in fact! But it is wrong to demonize an entire denomination of Christians just because some of their teachers were caught on tape getting carried away and momentarily going too far with their excitement of their understanding of who they are in Christ. The result of them putting their foot in their mouth is immortalized in digital format until Christ returns. What a shame. I am very glad that the stupid things that I've occasionally heard coming out of my own mouth haven't been caught on tape--I certainly don't agree with everything that I say when I'm not cautious with the words I use. If your interpretation of what they mean by "little gods" is correct about elevating man to equality with God, then I would challenge your group to find additional sounds bytes that make this more clear. If it is not correct, then we could be dealing with an issue of semantics, language structure, and the occasional unfortunate misspoken sound byte which isn't fair to judge people about (especially different people in the denomination who interpret it another way than you suggest). Out of the tens of thousands of hours of sound bytes that you have to analyze from these teachers, you use the same handful of sound bytes over and over again to substantiate your idea that these people believe this. But that is not enough to convince an honest observer that this is how the entire denomination perceives it, especially considering how many Rhema people I have talked to that deny their understanding of it in the way you describe. In short, "little gods" theology is nothing more than what is taught in Genesis 1 that man was made in God's image, in His likeness. It is because of this likeness (compatibility with God in our designed nature) that God and man are able to have spiritual communion via the Holy Spirit, who enters our spirit/soul and becomes a part of who we are when we are born again with Jesus Christ. When we are born again, Jesus is in us and we are in Him, we are one with Him. (John 14:20, John 15:4-7, John 17:20-25, 1 Corinthians 6:17) Does this mean we ARE Jesus? Of course not! Does it mean that we are equal with God? Far from it! Rhema people don't think of it this way, and even if some of them did, such heretics certainly don't speak for everyone. When Christians discover the principle of being "in" Jesus in a more practical experiential sense rather than a theological cerebral sense, they get extremely excited. It's no surprise that sound bytes are produced of teachers getting carried away with that excitement (and saying stupid things that they don't end up believing when it comes down to it), and it is even less surprising that people who lean toward a cerebral relationship with Christ (sometimes to the exclusion of experiential relationship) misunderstand them. Human beings are complicated, please don't oversimplify what people think. While God is indeed interested in what is in people's minds, He is much more interested in what is in people's hearts. Word of Faith has had some very disturbing problems, and many of those problems are getting fixed, so I am thankful that the Bible Answer Man crowd prays for them more often than they shoot at them. Thank you for loving them. --DavidPesta 05:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As an entirely separate point, how different is the phrase "little god" from "little christ"? I ask this question because "little christ" is what the word "christian" actually means. People say things and have different meanings than what others might perceive. --DavidPesta 05:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, David. I think you are jumping the gun a little bit here. Neither of us in the above discussion offered the interpretation of the "little gods" language that you suggested. The article itself only gives direct quotes and then offers the two interpretations ("It's literal, and therefore heresy" vs "It's just another way of expressing the believer's identity in Christ").
If you have verifiable sources that expand on what the Faith teachers mean by "little gods", please include it. At the moment, the article only really notes that they use this language, without going into detail how it should be interpreted. David L Rattigan 15:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint, but I don't have the resources needed to comb tens of thousands of hours of material to find where these teachers may have corrected themselves on these points. However, the next time I hear one of them suggest something that indicates a personally submissive frame of mind toward the Lord, I'll be sure to report it (and vice versa). Unfortunately I'm not one who spends time listening to Copeland or Hagen who are the teachers in question, I only hear things from them second hand from others who enjoy their teachings, which isn't very often lately. For all I know those two really did have serious "little god" doctrinal problems at some time, but those who pay attention to them don't have the same problems. Either way, it is very clear to me that these "little god" interpretation problems are not at all emphasized by the teachers since those who pay attention to them are totally untouched in their perspective/attitude toward God by it and on many occasions outright deny that point of view. Maybe Hank scared it out of those teachers. ;D It's been a pleasure. --DavidPesta 00:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
By the way, as far as divine healing goes, I have personally seen God dramatically heal something overnight that doctors were unable to heal over the course of 11 years. And it was done in the context of the name of Jesus. I don't have access to documentation that proves this, so you're just going to have to write me off as some kind of fanatic if you choose not to believe me. I agree that it is very bad to deny the symptoms of sickness and avoid doctors, but it appears that God is still willing to use the diligent prayers of the simple minded who don't understand good doctrine properly. I have such a deep sense inside of me that the extreme compassion of Jesus to heal the sick transcends all that. This is not to say that proper mindsets are unimportant--I really believe they are. --DavidPesta 00:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have spent many years researching this movement and am impressed at the quality of the article. I added two important resources -- a fairly new book by Rob Bowman and an old article by Brian Onken and will correct a small, grammatical error. (Note to David Pesta: Most of the critics of the word-faith movement believe in divine healing [Charles Farah, D.R. McConnell, Walter Martin, Dave Hunt, Rob Bowman, Dale Simmons, Gordon Fee, and Judson Cornwall, for example].) The bottom line is best portrayed in McConnell's book, A Different Gospel. E.W. Kenyon was influenced by New Thought mind science (and to a lesser degree by Christian Science). He did not agree with these movements as a whole so he took the elements he did like and expressed them in slightly different terms (the "subconcious" became the "recreated human spirit," and "positive affirmation" became "positive confession," for example). Hagin plagiarized Kenyon and popularized Kenyon's essentially mind-science theology. Other have come along and followed Hagn's lead. I commend the editors of this article for maintaining the distinction between this specific movement and the entire Pentecostal/Charismatic movement. Critics of Pentecostals and Charismatics often try to unfairly identify them with this aberrant movement, and word-faith advocates often try to hide within the folds of mainstream Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity. The only caution I would give is to avoid portraying Hank Hanegraff as someone all critics of the movement respect. Hank has has his own problems. As to merging with prosperity doctrine there are pros and cons, but I think mostly pros. Prosperity teaching can be found outside of this specific movement, but it is popularly associated with it. Well Done.--Will3935 19:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That is all very important information. I did read McConnell's book, A Different Gospel and agree about the roots of the movement. However, it should be known that many of the followers of this movement in today's world do not carry this baggage. It appears that God was successfully able to communicate a proper way to understand these things to His people who have humbled their hearts before Him. They are too uneducated to know the bad roots of their movement in an academic sense. Please note that because of this many of them are brothers and sisters in Christ and are not a lost cause to be cut off. We can benefit from them as individuals through the giftings that God has given them for the body of Christ. There are certain components that they have been trained in regarding faith--components that the Lord has refined, making them extremely powerful in the area of Christ centered prayer and seeing radical tangible results. The bad roots of the movement are not emphasized in their lives or even mentioned. It would seem that once again God has demonstrated His ability to cause a perversion of the enemy to fail, even backfire, especially in the lives of the individual believers I refer to. --DavidPesta 15:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the teachings I have read in modern word-faith books, but I do not reject word-faith adherents as non-Christian -- not that our personal opinions about the movement should have anything to do with a Wikipedia article. Remember NPOV.--Will3935 23:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Many Christians from many denominations strongly disagree with each other about many different things. May the Lord continue to grow all of us closer to Him in our relationship and understanding of Him. Blessings to you! --DavidPesta 13:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


The critiques should be allowed with everything else. Instead of removing the title "little gods", the pro and con terms should be left in this title, with the case for each stated below. That is the only way to remain objective on this. Removing it would make this pro-Word of Faith. Leaving it would be anti-Word of Faith. Personally, I believe the WoF movement takes Scripture out of context (ignores the seeking God's will segments in prayer passages, and assumes God only works for what we in our finite knowledge think is good), but I believe it is essential to show both terms to be fair to both beliefs. Blessings! Dave Daveleau 01:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cite sources before you name names

Removed the whole section of supposed proponents of this movement all entries have no sources cited and are not verified and are both doubtful and harmful From wikipedia:citing sources All unsourced and poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately. It should not be tagged. See the official policy statements: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/o/r/Talk%7EWord_of_Faith_736d.html"