…and this is a 
Parasites preaching prosperity
Category: Religion
Posted on: December 28, 2007 1:11 AM, by PZ Myers
When I read this tale of woe, I have to admit I had a hard time feeling much sympathy for the victim.
The message flickered into Cindy Fleenor's living room each night: Be faithful in how you live and how you give, the television preachers said, and God will shower you with material riches.
And so the 53-year-old accountant from the Tampa, Florida, area pledged $500 a year to Joyce Meyer, the evangelist whose frank talk about recovering from childhood sexual abuse was so inspirational. She wrote checks to flamboyant faith healer Benny Hinn and a local preacher-made-good, Paula White.
Only the blessings didn't come. Fleenor ended up borrowing money from friends and payday loan companies just to buy groceries. At first she believed the explanation given on television: Her faith wasn't strong enough.
But then again, she was probably brought up to trust her preacher, and she was promised all sorts of amazing things like immortality and paradise, and no one ever raised a question about those promises — and she was probably also told that to doubt was a sin. Who do you blame for deeply inculcated gullibility?
The story does go on to say that Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa (and a Republican! Hallelujah, it's a miracle!) is investigating a half dozen of these holy parasites, including the odious Benny Hinn, and there is the threat of removing their tax exempt status. There is also the usual collection of theologians making excuses, claiming that this is not True™ Christianity.
Bunk. This is the heart of all religions: make the priesthood fat and happy by extorting money from the sheep with threats of hellfire and promises of paradise, promises that they never have to fulfill. If you're going to go after Hinn and Copeland and Roberts, you have to go after every little preacher who passes the collection plate on Sunday — they're all in the same game. The only difference is that the promoters of the prosperity gospel make promises that can be assessed. They broke the rule that the good stuff always has to be nebulous and untestable.
Politics
Comments
Well, to be fair, the religions have until recently been the havens of learning and scholarship; it was Irish monks who kept the British Isles from utterly sinking into total knuckledraggery after the Romans left. (Then again, it was the Bishop of Alexandria, Cyril (now St. Cyril) who had the great female scholar Hypatia murdered for being too uppity. So love of scholarship had its limits.) And the first schools, hospitals and poorhouses were set up by religious enterprises; they didn't even start to become secular enterprises until the Renaissance, at least not in Europe anyway.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | December 28, 2007 8:59 AM
I was listening to NPR a couple weeks ago and they were talking about the rise of the priesthood (excuse me, "mullahood") in Iran. The guy who was talking said that there are something like 1 mullah for every 75 people. Can that be true??? At a certain point doesn't the number of parasites overcome the host's ability to support them all???
And then I was talking with a buddy the other night about the rise of the lamaseries in Tibet. Most people think the Dala Lama is "cute" but doesn't realize that he's just A Pope like the other popes: the head of a massive and wealthy organization of parasites. Apparently at its peak some of the lamaseries would have 10,000+ of these parasites basically being fed by the remaining people who do all the actual work(tm) while the lamas polish their holiness. No wonder he's pissed at the Chinese - they're trying to wreck his racket and now he's had to get an honest job (namely: going around saying platitudes and making idiots like Steve Seagal into saints)
Anyhow - the point of this digression - do any biological models of parasitism apply here? At what point does a host become so encrusted with parasites that it develops new ways of getting rid of them?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | December 28, 2007 9:16 AM
It is even worse. The Mullahs are a married preisthood. This means they can and do found clans and dynasties just like the mafia.
I've read that 50% of Iran's oil revenues are siphoned off by the Mullahs. They are corrupt and not well liked within a lot of Iran.
Posted by: raven | December 28, 2007 9:47 AM
Posted by: Dave | December 28, 2007 9:53 AM
Here we go again. I know it's tasty fodder for the masses to cavalierly dismiss Christian criticisms of charlatans co-opting Christianity for their own material benefit as a True-Scotsman fallacy, replete with the cutesy True™. It is itself, however, a fallacious argument. It is so obvious that at fraud like Benny Hinn can use the trappings of Christianity for illicit purposes and rightfully be labeled as not a true Christian by the bulk of Christendom that it shouldn't require discussion. Nor, should anyone have to be reminded, that Christianity is not alone in having its mantle usurped in an abominable manner for some jackass's gain. Evolution is another common victim in the tactic of misrepresentation for rationalization of atrocious acts or beliefs. But it is convenient to argue that Christians are peculiar in their preclusion from the right to assess who is an accurate representative of their beliefs.
Since {Benny Hinn, Fred Phelps, ...} claim to be Christians, then they are "just as much" Christian as anyone else making the claim. We'll ignore the fact that one's Christianity is not to be judged on the basis of the claim, or even on the sincerity of the claim. Forget that there is only one way that scripture says to judge the credibility of someone claiming to be a Christian--by their works.
Arguing that other Christians cannot legitimately point out that Benny Hinn displays no evidence of being a True™ Christians is a cheap little ploy. It's an easy argument to make, the unthinking choir accepts it uncritically, and it requires no intellectual effort.
Posted by: heddle | December 28, 2007 10:02 AM
Unless my understanding of the nature of the job is grossly misinformed, you need to have at least a few brain cells kicking around to be an accountant. This woman is either deeply distraut, ill, or traumatized that she could be so guliible. In that case I feel bad for her. In the case that shee is just utterly irrational, I don't.
Posted by: Bill C. | December 28, 2007 10:21 AM
8=====D~~~~
Posted by: user | December 28, 2007 10:23 AM
This is precisely why Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons technology is little or nothing to do with any apocalyptic vision of Muslim Armageddon. The fat cat Mullahs in charge of Iran know when they're on to a good thing and they're hardly going to throw it all away for some vague vision of paradise many of them probably don't fully believe in anyway.
Posted by: tacitus | December 28, 2007 10:23 AM
heddle (#5): your argument makes sense at fist read, but ignores the complicity of "true" christians. Since precious few christians are denouncing these scumbags, who are clearly bearing false witness and committing numerous other sins against your prophet, the conclusion from your definition of "true" christian is that there are very few of these. Which, to me at least, sounds an awful lot like a very refined, exclusive True Scotsman's club.
Posted by: anonymous dave | December 28, 2007 10:34 AM
Ha! Benny Hinn. The used car salesman of faith healing.
Posted by: danley | December 28, 2007 10:41 AM
Phoenix Woman writes:
Perhaps, but over time, humanity has extracted the useful metal of "learning and scholarship" from the burdensome aggregate of religion. We can now dispose of the impurities. These days, religion aims more at impairing learning, as with creationism, abstinence-only contraception and unquestioning faith, than promoting it.Posted by: Ex-drone | December 28, 2007 10:57 AM
Forget that there is only one way that scripture says to judge the credibility of someone claiming to be a Christian--by their works.
By that standard, the closest thing to a true Christian I know of is Fred Phelps, and even he's not really there, since he doesn't stone his children when they're disobedient, and one can speculate that he's probably worn garments of mixed fabrics.
Posted by: cbutterb | December 28, 2007 10:59 AM
I have a mixed reaction to people who act like this, having seen them act like this in my home town. I was estranged from this mentality, always questioning rather than accepting the authority of those who preached in churches, so I cannot identify with this woman, but I also feel that I really could have ended up like her, had I been more obedient. People who are obedient don't know that they are followers - they think they are individuals, critical thinkers - and people who are genuinely critical thinkers don't know exactly how they became that way, so I sympathize, but not exactly empathize, with this woman. I have gotten myself into stupid situations, too, by trusting people that I should not have - but I got out and learned from my mistakes. I think everyone can learn independence, but I don't expect that everyone will.
Being an atheist so young and so alone, I learned to look at people from the point of view of the anthropologist, which causes a tension within me. I want people to act more rationally, to think, to reflect, and to change their behavior so that they are not their own worst enemies, and yet I know that most people are going to act according to predictable human patterns as they have for millennia, to have certain coping mechanisms, and to do stupid things. There is a point where my atheism, being an advocacy position, is in conflict with the (hopefully) dispassionate observer in me.
Americans personalize everything. People think in terms of personalities rather than systems. This woman is doing it - "That preacher took my money. He's the bad guy." Of course she won't accept responsibility (response ability), because she can't separate that from blame. Just because someone committed a wrong against you does not make you right. That's a counter-intuitive reality.
Posted by: Kristine | December 28, 2007 11:16 AM
Cbutterb,
OMG you are so right! The works of Phelps so resemble the behavior of Jesus he is a veritable WWJD poster child! And now that you mentioned it, I see that his deeds and ministry are also perfectly aligned with the kinds of works that, for example, James describes in his epistle! Come to think of it, who does Benny Hinn resemble if not the widow and her mite? Gadzooks, I simply do not see how I failed to notice the similarities. My bad.
Posted by: heddle | December 28, 2007 11:25 AM
To Marcus Ranum: William McNeill had an extended discussion of human social organizations as a form of parasitism in his book Plagues and Peoples. It is a bit dated (1976), and like much of his work it tends toward bold big pictures that don't stand up well to detailed study, but you would find it an interesting read for a long winter's night.
Posted by: barkdog | December 28, 2007 11:30 AM
Gotta run to the vet with a cat, but I wanted to alert you that preachers ain't the only ones.
Back when I drew the pay check from the dark side, I used to get the odd letters from Orrin Hatch's office, the ones no one else knew anything about or where to start. I had a collection of the letters from children who had discovered that their aging parent had written a $10 check to a Richard Viguerie-backed politician, on a carefully-crafted fund-raising letter ("you're contribution of $100 is necessary to save Social Security today! Of course, anything you contribute will slow the destruction of the system"). Tens of thousands of dollars, pension funds, Social Security checks, grandchildren's college funds, money that should have gone to electricity, pharmaceuticals, mortgage . . .
There are connections there, but I'll let you make them.
Fund raising, the boiler-room tactics, is to blame. Christians should recognize the problem and stop using the tactics as a function of their following the laws about widows, orphans, and parents. But so should everybody recognize the tactics, and not use them, and not feed them.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | December 28, 2007 11:36 AM
Some Hollywood people are smitten with the Kabbalah. This contemporary Kabbalah was started by a former insurance salesman Feival Gruberger, aka Philip Berg.
At least he is clever enough to go where the real money is.
Posted by: bernarda | December 28, 2007 11:40 AM
I like the biblical way of telling a true believer:
Mark 16, Verse No.17 and 18.
Tell them to drink a bottle of cyanide after playing with a mamba, just like it says in their book.
Posted by: Eljay | December 28, 2007 12:06 PM
Bill C. @ #7:
I disagree. I see this more as a classic con, where someone who is otherwise intelligent and rational is suckered by someone who knows how to push their buttons. That is, more a human failing than a symptom of major problems.
Posted by: YetAnotherKevin | December 28, 2007 12:14 PM
Eljay,
Gosh, you people are like comedians with no new material. I'll point out that it is almost certain that Mark intended the text in what became designated as chapter 16 to stop at verse 8. Now allow me to paraphrase a rejoinder:
No, it is simply to inconvenient for us that Mark 16:9-20 is a redaction, because we so like challenging believers to drink poison. Therefore, in spite of considerable supporting scholarship, and notwithstanding the fact that the earliest manuscripts do in fact end at Mark 16:8, you may not claim even the possibility that it doesn't belong in the canon, or we'll argue this way: "see, you bumpkins, most of you with three rows of buck teeth, simply pick and choose what is in scripture as it suits you." It doesn't matter that this is only one of a handful of passages for which there is good evidence of a redaction, because this is one we like to quote, so we'll argue in gross generalities and wild extrapolations. To reiterate: I don't want to hear about scholarship pointing to a likely redaction. If you dare question the authenticity of this passage I'll claim you willy-nilly come to your own holy book as if it were to be taken a la carte.
Posted by: heddle | December 28, 2007 12:28 PM
No, the only real way to judge the credibility of someone claiming to be a Christian is if God judges that they are a Christian. He's the standard which eliminates the need to "interpret." One would not argue exegesis with God. So let's wait and see what He says directly -- when He's not simply acting through human spokespeople and media.
That said, I'll agree with heddle that there are obviously con artists who cynically use and manipulate people who have been taught that faith in the unbelievable is a virtue, and they are not Christians, true or otherwise.
Posted by: Sastra, OM | December 28, 2007 12:29 PM
Heddle (#5) spake thusly: We'll ignore the fact that one's Christianity is not to be judged on the basis of the claim, or even on the sincerity of the claim.
Er, no. As non-Christians the only determination we can make about a person's belief system is that person's claims. If they say they are Christians, I take them at their word. The only exception is religious organizations with formal membership rules, ie Catholics. If a person claiming to be Catholic has been formerly excommunicated then the ruling of the organization is taken to be binding.
Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | December 28, 2007 12:44 PM
Sastra, OM,
You make a fair point. And no Christian would disagree that it is God who is the final and only binding judge. However, scripture definitely teaches that Christians should judge others who claim to be Christians. Your point may be taken this way: this human judgment is fallible. No doubt it is, but nevertheless we are instructed to do so (see Matt. 7 and Matt 18.) You are aware, I suspect, that the NT clearly condones the practice of excommunication--which presupposes some sort of judgment, subject to error--by humans.
Posted by: heddle | December 28, 2007 12:47 PM
Eh, we all engage in this sort of thing to one extent or another. If someone tries to connect Mao or Stalin or even Ayn Rand to one's own brand of atheism, some version of the "True Scottsman" fallacy is often trotted out in reply. Arseholes is arseholes, and while I believe that all Christians, all religionists, are equally mistaken, they are not all equally WRONG. The shit these Chaucerian bloodsuckers pull goes way beyond ordinary delusional wish-fulfillment into truly rapacious swindle. I realize that I'm opening myself up to inhuman rippage by saying this, but when I was studying to be a pastor, most of classmates were really good people, humble, not greedy. Now, if you trace back the origins of religion far enough, no doubt you do find a priestly class getting fat off the fear and ignorance of worshippers. I'm far from defending priestcraft. But the fact remains, many clerics are merely mistaken in the same way as their followers. They can be accused of ignorance, of course, but only by the grossest stretch of greed.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | December 28, 2007 12:55 PM
@21, ahh your 'true original' bible crap again.
Heddle, re-read what I said again, I never said its TRUE, I said I LIKED it.
The whole book is a pile of made up superstitious nonsense, one version is as bad as another.
While it is in the current bible get used to seeing it quoted.
Posted by: Eljay | December 28, 2007 12:59 PM
Oops, I meant "formally" in #22, above.
Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | December 28, 2007 1:01 PM
I am all for checks and balances in any ministry or charitable organization. I think Senator Grassley is right to investigate. I also think the woman in the article should be responsible for her own actions after all she is an accountant! Maybe something positive will come from the investigation. From the article:
"The checks and balances central to Christian denominations are largely lacking in prosperity churches."
"Meyer, who has promised to cooperate fully with Grassley, issued a statement emphasizing that a prosperity gospel "that solely equates blessing with financial gain is out of balance and could damage a person's walk with God.""
Posted by: Louise Van Court | December 28, 2007 1:01 PM
Bureaucratus Minimis
Are you that generous in accepting all claims? I'm not. I'm a non-Buddhist, but if tomorrow Benny Hinn or Fred Phelps claimed he was no longer a Christian but a Buddhist, and his behavior remained the same, I'd no more believe he was a True™ Buddhist than a True™ Christian.
And you say "we" but some others here certainly disagree with you. Eljay (#18) is arguing just the opposite. He is not claiming that as a non-Christian he is obligated to take Phelps at his word, but claims that Phelps is actually acting in a manner consistent with Christianity.
Posted by: heddle | December 28, 2007 1:02 PM
Correction,
the reference above should be to chutterb in #12, not Eljay in #18.
Posted by: heddle | December 28, 2007 1:04 PM
How does one explain to an Ol' lady that see is a twit without making her feel she is a twit? The reason I ask is, I had this girlfriend that had a kindly Grandmother. She told us how proud she was, as she sent money to this preacher on TV, and he sent back a personal letter and a picture of his family, that was supposedly hand-written, to thank her. It was filled with all his hardships and explanations on how her donation was going to help his family preach the word of God, and how he does not normally write but her letter he received with the donation had moved him into writing to her personally.
The confusing part for her was, even though this was supposed to be a unique letter written especially to her as the letter had said, her friend, who had also donated money got the same exact letter telling her how her letter was unique and inspired him to write yadda yadda yadda. She was actually puzzled by this and was looking for me to explain.
I am not sure how to say, "You're a twit" without offending her...
Posted by: Lago | December 28, 2007 1:36 PM
I'll never understand why these so-called "true" Christians are so wretchedly apathetic when it comes to these so-called "frauds" who bastardize and embarrass their religion.
I suppose, regardless of right or wrong, they would rather defend any form of Christianity than speak out or take action against those who pervert it.
To them, it's a show of faith. To most rational folks, it's called "aiding and abetting."
Posted by: Dan | December 28, 2007 1:53 PM
Heddle argues (#5) we must judge who's Christian based on their works. Other Christians, of course, point to Ephesians 2:8-10 in disparaging works. (Or is that one of those passages that True Scholars would omit from the Bible, heddle?)
Dennett points out in Breaking the Spell:
Dennett points out that the vigor of a religion (including Christianity) doesn't depend on everyone believing the same thing, or even believing anything at all, but merely on their saying they believe.
In contrast, evolution's robustness rests entirely on the evidence. When an evolution supporter is wrong, it doesn't raise an endless argument that no one definitively wins, it's settled by the evidence.
Posted by: Wicked Lad | December 28, 2007 1:53 PM
By the way, PZ, why are my comments chucked in the moderation queue while things such as the above are obviously, umm, not?
Don't worry. I know it's probably all automated and whatnots, and you probably have little to no control over such matters. It's just kind of bothersome, and I have had comments of mine just flat out disappear and never get posted.
Sadly, it's not just this blog either, but it seems to be all science blogs, and it's puzzling as to why. I can't imagine any rules which I may have fractured anywhere along the lines.
Posted by: Dan | December 28, 2007 1:59 PM
No, they are not all in the same game. At the Mennonite church where I am a member of, I know exactly how much our pastor gets paid (which is not that much, he has to have a second job as a marriage & family counsellor to make ends meet), I know where every cent collected in the offering plate goes to (be it building maintenance, Sunday School supplies, charity work at home and abroad) because all congregation members have open access to the financial books. While only members may vote on the yearly budgets, those meetings are open to anybody who wishes to attend. We have a number of non-members who attend regularly and add to the collection plate and their inputs during the business meetings as to the church's financial direction are valued, even though they don't vote. All finances at my church are completely transparent.
From personal experience, I know that many other Mennonite churches run their finances with this openness and transparency as well as such regional conferences as Mennonite Church Canada, Mennonite Church USA, and Mennonite Church of Eastern Canada and organizations like Ten Thousand Villages, Mennonite Central Committee, Mennonite Coalition for Refugee Support, and many others.
Neither my church nor any of the other churches whose workings I know nor any of the organizations I mentioned extort money from their congregations or supporters in order to keep the priesthood fat and happy.
Of course, for militant atheists religion is all bad, in spite of example organizations like Habitat for Humanity, Christian Peacemaker Teams and Ten Thousand Villages.
In many ways, I find that militant atheists act just like creationists when it comes to slamming their favorite bugbear.
Posted by: Cory Albrecht | December 28, 2007 2:08 PM
Wicked Lad,
No, Eph 28:10 points out that nobody is saved by works but by faith, a favorite passage for Christians everywhere. What I have been discussing is that the evidence that a Christian has actually been saved is by his deeds. Works are an effect, not a cause. The difference is night and day, and there is no inconsistency.
Posted by: heddle | December 28, 2007 2:16 PM
Heddle,
Try to understand the non-believer's viewpoint: There is a substantial controversy between recognized Christian denominations whether faith alone is sufficient to be a Christian or if works are necessary. As a non-believer, I have no dog in that hunt, so I accept both schools of thought as Christians. There are dozens of apparent contradictions in the bible. And while I have no doubt that they may be resolved through appropriate exegesis, I do note that differing denominations resolve those contradictions differently. And for the most part, those differing denominations do not deny the mantle of Christianity to each other over this (although they do claim the others are theologically in error.) So as one who doesnt consider the bible a particularly privileged text, and sees "Christianity" as a cultural tradition rather than a path of the Truth, I accept the big-tent approach that I see most Christians use most of the time, which appears to be accepting one as Christian so long as they claim to be and make some semblance of worshiping JC as deity/son of deity. After all, who am I, one who doesnt believe, to determine who is right and who is wrong? From my perspective, most of the time, Christians' themselves use this big-tent approach. It is only when presented with an embarrassment, such as this case, that they pull in the ropes and claim that that individual wasnt really a Christian.
Posted by: Dave | December 28, 2007 2:44 PM
@heddle (#5):
I'll grant you, for the sake of argument, the distinction between "frauds" and "true Christians". Even so, the frauds can only go about their business because "true Christians" have been taught by other "true Christians" to accept make-believe from authority figures uncritically and without evidence.
Posted by: Frank Oswalt | December 28, 2007 2:44 PM
Heddle, then how does that preclude Phelps from being a True Christian, since he very well may be the most faithful man alive (and how would anybody else know?) As Cory Albrecht notes above, his church (and the other examples he points out) are arguably doing good works, yet no one else can assess their level of faith. Mother Theresa's personal journal indicates that she'd lost hers, yet she continued her good works. Which of all of these can be said to be True Christians?
There's the inconsistency.
It seems to me that the category of True Christian is an elastic and fuzzy one, and most of us here (Christian and non-Christian alike) could probably identify individuals who are more or less like the prototypical True Christian based on their works or attitudes, but as you point out, faith (which cannot be assessed by anyone else) is the real kicker.
It's not as clear cut as you (or I did, when I still considered myself a Catholic and a Christian) make it out to be.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 28, 2007 2:47 PM
Poor heddle, "However, scripture definitely teaches that Christians should judge others who claim to be Christians."
Scripture teaches exactly NOTHING. They are just the writings of anonymous fools who knew nothing.
Posted by: beranda | December 28, 2007 2:55 PM
Am I the only one really bothered by this investegastion? A US Senator is going to investigate and possibly act against a ministry because he doesn't like their religious opinions for Christ's sake! I think Benny Hinn and his ilk are awful and Chuck Grassley is perfectly free to say so as a private individual, but Senator Grassley no farging right to make legal calls on which religious ministries are good or bad.
PZ's last paragraph applies here, but I disagree the prosperity claims can be assessed. For all you or I or Grassley know the prosperity claims are generally correct and God just has a plan that requires her specifically to be poor, or He just hasn't gotten around to making her rich yet, or she has no faith at all and just hatched a plan to get a senator help her get a settlement out of Benny Hinn. Grassley can't possibly disprove the prosperity claims so he has no more power to take away their tax exempt status than he can take it away from another ministry because it denies the divinity of Christ.
Posted by: SeanH | December 28, 2007 2:56 PM
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." -- Matthew 7:15. The words of Jesus himself. Something to point out if you know someone in the grip of one of these hucksters.
Posted by: Ray C. | December 28, 2007 3:03 PM
Lago, the way to explain to someone that they have beena twit is to point out the fallacy in reasoning without resorting to name-calling. Name-calling is unclassy and accomplishes exactly nothing.
Any decent church (yes, Virginia, there really are decent churches) will have a budget with the same transparency as the Mennonite poster was just describing. This is one instance where differences between religious sects becomes important. Some sects do teach blind obedience to the folks in charge, but other sects teach participation, and part of that participation involves asking questions when something seems fishy. After all, a church that is keeping its priests fat and happy is probably not doing much in the way of helping the poor, which is a central tenet of Christianity that all Christians have to at least pay lip service to.
Posted by: Elin | December 28, 2007 3:25 PM
Back to the original article.
The woman providing the personal angst for the story also provided a quote that intrigued me, "I'm angry and bitter about it. Right now, I don't watch anyone on TV hardly."
Anyone and hardly. Couple ways I could read this, but the way I rate most probable is that this woman is still watching televangelists now and then. I would love to get some data from her cable provider and quantify 'hardly'. Tracking the rate of change of 'hardly' over the next year or so would also amuse me.
The cynical me has five bucks that says she is a contributing regular viewer of another teevee preacher by the end of 2008.
Posted by: Sean | December 28, 2007 3:28 PM
That said, I'll agree with heddle that there are obviously con artists who cynically use and manipulate people who have been taught that faith in the unbelievable is a virtue, and they are not Christians, true or otherwise.
I have an aversion to saying "They are not Christians" because I've heard it so often, in two general situations:
1. A Christian is not being nice.
2. A Christian belongs to the "wrong" version of Christianity (Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholicism, blah, blah).
I don't like to play these games. As far as I'm concerned, a Christian is one if he or she claims to be one. A good person who is a Christian understands that by "with what judgement ye judge, shall ye be judged, and by what measurement ye mete, it shall be meted to you." You can be a Christian and forget this. It happens all the time. You can be a Christian and do anything.
There is really nothing, aside from claiming to be a Christian, that separates Christians from any other group - and the same goes for all other groups. I think the whole "is this transgressor a Christian or not" debate is a waste of time. How one personally manifests one's faith or the lack of it reflects the individual's personality, not the other way around.
Posted by: Kristine | December 28, 2007 3:33 PM
Dave,
Actually, not much that I am aware of. There are, however, numerous charges from one denomination that another denomination practices salvation by works. For example, some of my fellow Protestants will argue (incorrectly, in my opinion) that Catholicism teaches salvation by works. But Catholics are adamant that they do not. All mainstream denominations that I'm aware of claim that they do not teach salvation by works.
Frank,
I agree--the single largest cause of misguided Christians emptying their wallets to charlatans is poor education in Christian doctrine.
Brownian, OM,
Here is the thing--what I have been saying is that Phelps may be utterly sincere in his belief that he is a Christian and in his belief that Jesus is Lord, but that doesn't make him a Christian--the bible has famous (and unnecessarily frightening for believers) accounts of people who sincerely believed but are ultimately lost (Away, I never knew you.) It is beyond the scope of these comments, but in a nutshell it has long been recognized that sincere intellectual assent is (normatively) necessary but not sufficient (even the demons believe, James wrote.) On the other hand, maybe Phelps is a Christian but has gone off the deep end. I couldn't say--I can only say that according to the bible I am supposed to judge him, and when I do I find him lacking.
And how is he supposed to be judged? By his fruits (avoid the simple joke) as we are told in Matt. 7. What are these fruits--generally I would say they are attempts to imitate Christ. Specifically some are listed as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (see Gal. 5.)
The whole point of my argument is that it is reasonable (and from our viewpoint, demanded) for Christians to judge Phelps on the basis of displayed love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. When I do that, I find that his ministry preaches hate, not love; meanness, not kindness; harshness, not gentleness, reckless abandon, not self-control; confrontation, not peace--and all these things he preaches by large measure. Maybe I'll turn out to be wrong, but in the meantime I will treat him as either a fraud or self-deluded, but not a Christian. If other Christians find that Phelps measures up, then they should treat him as a Christian.
So there is a lesson for unbelievers who say "who are we to say who is a Christian?" You can judge for yourself whether Phelps exceeds or falls below any reasonably placed threshold short of the biblical standard--even if you discount the bible as garbage. By the same token, Christians can also judge Phelps, Hinn, etc. without committing a True Scotsman fallacy.
Posted by: heddle | December 28, 2007 3:34 PM
"There is also the usual collection of theologians making excuses, claiming that this is not True™ Christianity."
So when the next Social Darwinist comes along, I should take him at his word too? I wouldn't want to make excuses....
"Bunk. This is the heart of all religions: make the priesthood fat and happy by extorting money from the sheep with threats of hellfire and promises of paradise, promises that they never have to fulfill. If you're going to go after Hinn and Copeland and Roberts, you have to go after every little preacher who passes the collection plate on Sunday -- they're all in the same game."
Bunk backatcha. You must not know many pastors. I know a lot of them and none of them are "fat and happy." Most make a meagre living trying to serve their congregations as best they can. Census and Barna data I've seen place the median pastoral salary here in the USA in the $35-40,000 range. According to the AAUP, Associate Professors at the University of Minnesota-Morris are still dramatically underpaid at half-again as much (around $60,000). If $40,000 per year is "fat and happy" you might want to re-think your standards.
"The only difference is that the promoters of the prosperity gospel make promises that can be assessed. They broke the rule that the good stuff always has to be nebulous and untestable."
Double bunk. In the city where I live, the vast majority of support services for the poor above the pittance provided by the state (soup kitchens, homeless shelters, homework clubs, job placement and support, etc.) as well as a large percentage of community services (e.g. pre-schools) come from churches and other religious organizations. Pastors marry and bury every day along with visiting the ill and infirm and simply caring for people.
500 homes burned down in my town alone during the recent wildfires. Churches took the lead and are still working to provide financial and other support as well as still providing crews of volunteers to clear homesites, try to find personal effects thought lost and provide replacements as needed. My church is still sending teams of workers to do Katrina clean-up work on a regular basis (in the areas they're working, only churches are still involved) and some folks from a Mississippi church we helped came here to help us clean-up after the fires. There's lots of "good stuff" being done that's anything but nebulous.
Posted by: Sinbad | December 28, 2007 3:40 PM
Actually, not much that I am aware of.
heddle finally says something accurate about himself.
there is indeed, not much that you are aware of, being a Calvinist and all. You project so much it's remarkable.
In fact, I often use you as another example of a semi-intelligent person whose religious predilections have forced their mind into projection as defense mode.
Christians can also judge Phelps, Hinn, etc. without committing a True Scotsman fallacy.
One wonders if you can judge yourself without committing the same fallacy.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 28, 2007 3:41 PM
I'm a non-Buddhist, but if tomorrow Benny Hinn or Fred Phelps claimed he was no longer a Christian but a Buddhist, and his behavior remained the same, I'd no more believe he was a True™ Buddhist than a True™ Christian. - Heddle
But if they professed tomorrow to be True™ atheists would you be as discerning?
Posted by: Eric Paulsen | December 28, 2007 3:43 PM
Heddle (#28): I accept people's claims as to their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) at face value not out of generosity, but out of pragmatism. I feel that it serves no useful purpose for Atheists to judge who is a Buddhist, Christian, etc.
Obviously I don't speak for all here. Eljay and others are welcome to debate Atheist strategy with me. Atheists are not afraid to duke it out with one another online. But thanks for trying the old wedge strategy. Let me know how that works out for you.
Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | December 28, 2007 3:54 PM
Ichthyic,
I actually don't know what you are saying. I know you have been seriously pissed at me for a long time, I believe for using one of your comments on Pharyngula in one of my posts--and I am truly sorry about that and would undo it if I could.
Eric Paulsen,
Yes I would. I believe atheists have a moral compass, and have said so many times. Search my blog--you won't find any "atheists are responsible for the world's evil" threads.
Posted by: heddle | December 28, 2007 3:54 PM
Heddle wrote: (in #5)
Really? I'm sure it has been used, but probably not as extensively as you imagine. Let's take a look at the common anti-evolution rants in this area:» Hitler? - No, he based it on God. A Christian God.
» Stalin? - No, he believed Lysenko who, while not directly religious, was rabidly anti-Darwin.
» Pol Pot? - No, his regime claimed divine right and divine inspiration.
» Eugenics? - No, that was the lovely Christian God again.
So the question is, just what cases are you referring? Again, almost any rationalization will be used if the person using it thinks that it's enough to get them out of trouble. I'm confident that Evolution has been used to those ends, but overall it's got a pretty good track record compared to any major religion. I won't claim our side hasn't been a "victim" (as you put it) in such a ruse; I just dispute the context of it being common.
Posted by: RJM | December 28, 2007 4:03 PM
I believe for using one of your comments on Pharyngula in one of my posts
hardly. you quotemining me (and it was a quotemine, of course) on your blog means about as much to me as a dog pissing on my shoe. remember how many visitors you get to your blog?
and I'm NOT "pissed" at you, I rather find you humorous when you try to speak for "all christians" as you so often do, when it's so obvious you're just projecting. I just enjoy pointing it out to you.
in fact, along the same lines I rather think you are projecting your own anger on to me, likely for being called out on your BS so consistently.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 28, 2007 4:06 PM
@heddle (#45):
But that is not what I said.
The single largest cause of misguided Christians emptying their wallets to charlatans is that they have been taught to accept ideas for which there is not the slightest shred of evidence (such as the existence of supernatural beings). In fact, they have been taught to believe that the absence of evidence somehow ennobles the ideas in question.
Posted by: Frank Oswalt | December 28, 2007 4:09 PM
The reason that there is no such thing as "true" atheism is because atheism is NOT a belief system. There's only one belief relevant to one's atheism: Either one believes in supernatural agents or one does not. This is the basis on which we qualify as atheists or non-atheists. Nice and simple, isn't it?
Posted by: Elin | December 28, 2007 4:30 PM
Sorry Heddle, but when we judge people on some, "reasonably placed threshold short of biblical standard", we do so with the assumption that the later part of that sentence is nonsensical bullshit. Why? Because every single congregation has some minor variation as to what the hell the "biblical standard" is, making it damn hard to judge what standards are either above or below it. And your scholars are not much help, since most of them have shown, whenever they discuss what they think the religion says, that they have no fracking clue what the people who actually attend churches think, do, say, or how they act. We judge people's moral based on the best foundation that one can build, while building it on an incomplete understanding of ourselves, human nature, etc. You people reject that standard as being invalid, then try to replace it with one of 100,000 variations of stuff that contain stuff you insist is uniquely Christian, but isn't, stuff that is more or less uniquely Christian, but which probably shouldn't be, and your own personal collection of stuff and ideas that are **not** described or even hinted at in the Bible, but which you will bend its words into a pretzel, to try to convince us it does talk about. We reject that standard, but since you insist on using it to determine what a "True Christian" is, we don't have any choice but to assume, short of you people excommunicating each other until only the one "true" faith is left (like that is going to work), but to presume that *every* definition of Christianity must be considered generally valid, and that thus you have no leg to stand on when claiming that those other groups are not acting as true Christians.
I do however think that the over-separation that happens between the church and state is dangerous, since it shields people that the majority, Christian or not, wouldn't give the time of day to, if they *could* be charged with some sort of crime, including false advertising, slander, libel, theft, mail fraud, wire fraud, etc., etc., etc... The only way I could possibly think of to solve the problem would be to have religions define what the baseline should be for acceptable behavior, then have each congregation submit, as part of the paperwork to be recognized, a clear and precise statement about what their **actual** beliefs are, and how their organization will run, so that when they turn around and cheat some 80 year old priest out of his pention, after he gets sick, or **worse** offenses, the state has a clear stance it can work from, which judges that church by **its own** rules. As it is, the state can't judge if the rules are valid, even if its @%#@$#$#@ illegal to do it outside the church, so when ever a case of abuse by clergy comes up, the state has to reject the case, on the grounds that the current priest(s) in charge can maker up any damn excuse, rule, declaration or misquote of scripture to justify what they do to someone, or who and/or how badly they cheat them, and the state is not allowed to judge if they are being true Christians, or complete assholes.
Sure, we can judge people like Phelps by our standards, but when it comes to court (or just the opinion of about 60% of the Christians in the US who only care that he is a preacher, and don't have a clue about, or believe that he did anything), only ***his*** standards count, not yours, not other Christians, not mine, not the secular state's, not even fracking Jesus' standards, if one could get in touch with imaginary beings to get an opinion on the subject. The only standard that counts in court, and thus the only standard that any priest must, in the US, ever be held to, is ***their own***. Thus, it doesn't matter one bit what you think makes someone a true Christian. You are one tiny voice in a sea of billions, and in the end Phelps, and others like them, are always the final arbiters, because *they* are the ones making the rules for their version of Christianity. Mind you, we do make exception, for stuff like murders, rapes, parking tickets, etc, but not if it has anything to do with what, how, when, where, and in what magnitude they lie to their parishioners.
Of course.. What happens if the separation is lost? You get blasphemy laws, similar to the "defense of marriage" law, but more absurd. One day, it might even become a punishable offense (after all even Europe is willing to kiss the ass of Islam over this one) to write an article, publish a cartoon, or say something that offends some random, far right, religious institution, who will demand that you respect them, no matter how evil they act, solely on the basis of claiming to follow Jesus, or be... boiled in oil, or something. Well, at least jailed for life. Christians after all aren't violent people. They wouldn't simply kill you for it, they will torture you by robbing you of your hopes, dreams, future, privacy, freedom, etc. That is **so much better** than a quick death in front of a firing squad...
And you know damn well that the same people ranting about the US being a Christian nation and Biblical literalism **will** try to jail people for not being Christian enough if they ever got what they want.
Posted by: Kagehi | December 28, 2007 4:31 PM
Dan @31:
I'll never understand why these so-called "true" Christians are so wretchedly apathetic when it comes to these so-called "frauds" who bastardize and embarrass their religion
In broad terms, of course, you're right. Though I no longer regard myself as Christian, I cherish a lot of my former co-religionists. But not enough of them speak out against these charlatans, loudly or even at all.
But there are plenty of exceptions. Google "Ole Anthony", for example. Even David Heddle, who has so often had his ass handed to him round here (and was almost always asking for it) is an honourable exception on this count. Check out his website some time. Tons of stuff that almost everybody here would agree is high-end whackjobbery; but he absolutely hates the "prosperity gospel" and its salesmen.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | December 28, 2007 4:37 PM
I'll never understand why these so-called "true" Christians are so wretchedly apathetic when it comes to these so-called "frauds" who bastardize and embarrass their religion
I think they adopted a "don't ask, don't tell" position long, long ago.
besides which, IIRC, wouldn't the flight of "puritans" to the "new world" indicate that there indeed, historically, has been at least some pressure on these morons?
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 28, 2007 4:40 PM
Posted by: Dave | December 28, 2007 4:51 PM
RJM,
Oh brother, the royal flush: Nazism, Stalinism, Pol Pot, Eugenics--but what about Mao? What about Microsoft? Isn't religion responsible for those abominations, as well?
Nazism, by the way, co-opted both Christianity and evolution--but I refuse to reproduce those tiresome quotes and start down that worn path again. You do know, by the way, that the Nazis had a plan to persecute the Christian churches? Look up the Nuremberg Project at that center of fundamentalist thought: the Law School at Rutgers University. You can find some excerpts here, although the links to the papers at Rutgers are broken--but I'm sure a bit of Googling will find them.
Ichthyic,
OK, so your answer is that I project everything, including my anger onto you. Whatever. I doubt if anyone actually cares, but here is the post in question in which you claimed I quote-mined you--people can judge for themselves. Although, as you point out, almsost nobody reads my blog (this is true)--somehow you read it and remember it, although you are not upset about it; it's just me projecting my anger on you for your thorough job of pointing out how everything I write is crap.
Kagehi
I don't buy it. You can read as well as I can--you can read the passage I quoted from Gal. 5 about the fruits of the spirit, there is no ambiguity about the biblical standard, and you can judge whether Phelps measures up. It is straightforward to ask yourself, does Phelps resemble that, even approximately? The disagreement would only be on where to set the threshold--but the standard is clear.
Actually, I don't. I know a lot of Christians. I even frequent the circles where theonomy, at least intellectual theonomy, is at its strongest--Reformed postmillennials, and even then I encounter very few reconstructionists. It is an extreme minority position. It is wishful thinking, in a John Birch Society there's-a-commie-under-every-bed sense, that the majority of Christians want to establish a Christian state. I'm a Baptist, and we lay claim to inventing Separation of Church and State. The last thing I would advocate is a Christian state--we didn't fare too well under Rome or Geneva--but the main reason is the NT makes no call for Christians to assume poltical power.
Posted by: heddle | December 28, 2007 5:14 PM
[NOTE: reposting because the original post went into the moderation queue, probably because I had made the links below explicit.]
RJM,
Oh brother, the royal flush: Nazism, Stalinism, Pol Pot, Eugenics--but what about Mao? What about Microsoft? Isn't religion responsible for those abominations, as well?
Nazism, by the way, co-opted both Christianity and evolution--but I refuse to reproduce those tiresome quotes and start down that worn path again. You do know, by the way, that the Nazis had a plan to persecute the Christian churches? Look up the Nuremberg Project at that center of fundamentalist thought: the Law School at Rutgers University. You can find some excerpts here:
helives.blogspot.com/2006/03/were-nazis-christian.html
although the links to the papers at Rutgers are broken--but I'm sure a bit of Googling will find them.
Ichthyic,
OK, so your answer is that I project everything, including my anger onto you. Whatever. I doubt if anyone actually cares, but here is the post in question:
helives.blogspot.com/2007/03/mobilize.html
in which you claimed I quote-mined you--people can judge for themselves. Although, as you point out, almsost nobody reads my blog (this is true)--somehow you read it and remember it, although you are not upset about it; it's just me projecting my anger on you for your thorough job of pointing out how everything I write is crap.
Kagehi
I don't buy it. You can read as well as I can--you can read the passage I quoted from Gal. 5 about the fruits of the spirit, there is no ambiguity about the biblical standard, and you can judge whether Phelps measures up. It is straightforward to ask yourself, does Phelps resemble that, even approximately? The disagreement would only be on where to set the threshold--but the standard is clear.
Actually, I don't. I know a lot of Christians. I even frequent the circles where theonomy, at least intellectual theonomy, is at its strongest--the relatively small group of Reformed postmillennials, and even then I encounter very few reconstructionists. It is a minority position within a minority position. It is wishful thinking, in a John Birch Society there's-a-commie-under-every-bed sense, to believe that a majority of Christians want to establish a Christian state. The problem is (as with other groups) radicals write books and give interviews giving the illusion that they are representative, while those in the mainstream are not newsworthy. In the very same sense I suspect (but have no data) that, say, Sam Harris is not representative of your garden variety atheist.I'm a Baptist, and we lay claim to inventing Separation of Church and State. The last thing I would advocate is a Christian state--we didn't fare too well under Rome or Geneva--but the main reason is the NT makes no call for Christians to assume poltical power.