Nathan Clarke goes to Ghana to explore the forms that the prosperity gospel takes in that West African nation as a discussion starter for The Global Conversation’s exploration of the Prosperity Gospel. The video was posted on the ‘Out of Ur‘ blog, part of the Christianity Today publishing group.
The video explains what the Prosperity Gospel is. When I captured the video to post here I titled it ‘The Type of Gospel Christianity Today Rejects’. Nate indicates below that he believes his portrayal is more nuanced than that, hence the revised title of this blog post.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "The Type Of Gospel Christianity Today…", posted with vodpod

I commented on the ‘Out of Ur’ blog:
A thoughtful piece.
It is interesting to see that there is a ‘gospel’ that Leadership/CT would basically reject.
There seems to be an irony inherent in the posting of this the day after lodging a post that asserts “the strength of the Free Church tradition—the willingness to experiment with ways of reaching people—the unchurched and the poor—with the goodness of the gospel”. [The post to which I referred was not authored by Clarke, btw]
Why should those who hold biblical expressions of the Gospel be linked to practitioners like these by blanket labels like ‘free church’?
There also doesn’t seem to be any Biblical data to support the contentions made about the shortcomings of the prosperity Gospel in this video.
In the end we’re left with the author’s feelings.
I agree with his feelings, but not because his well made video makes me feel a certain way.

Nathan Clarke replied:
I’d like to hear you unpack some of your ideas a bit.
As the filmmaker of this piece, I was tasked with investigating the prosperity gospel as it is being expressed in Ghana. I’m not entirely convinced by the statement that this piece is a rejection of the prosperity gospel (it certainly isn’t an acceptance of it either.) Rather we are showing three expressions of the prosperity gospel in three very different settings. Yes I have my own opinions about it after experiencing it which are actually rather different than what I thought I would think before taking off for Ghana. But I do think this piece at least opens the door for a very different picture of the prosperity gospel than just pigeon holing it as greedy pastors who want expensive cars. If I wanted to do that, I would not have included the second church.
In regards to the contentions made in the piece without Biblical data, what contentions would be better supported with such data?
Thanks again for the comments / feedback

I left another post:
Nate ~
I actually hadn’t thought this was about greedy pastors seeking lots of cars. If I want that I could watch ‘Leap of Faith’ again. >aluminum siding, anyone
We can accept these folk are sincere while maintaining they are sincerely wrong.
God ‘told’ a speaker that the congregation needed to bring US currency. Really.
Your observation that this was not just a simple scheme to raise money, but connected emotionally and spiritually with the people stood out. I don’t understand why the two are mutually exclusive. If I wanted to part people from their money I’d be trying to engage them emotionally and spiritually. That was actually what you saw happening.
Your worldview comments basically described what is a Christianised veneer over animistic practice.
Kwabena characterises this as a gospel that seems focussed on the individual’s effort and work to experience prosperity and blessing. Jesus is not mentioned, so in this framework it seems what His complete saving work does is get the Christian into a position where they can now work to earn God’s blessings. Contrast this with a Gospel in which all heavenly blessings have been won by Christ and we share in them. Forgiveness of sin is not mentioned, only believing for financial victory.
The most pernicious thing is that for those to whom prosperity does not come the only explanation proferred is that their faith is lacking. Christ’s work is not enough. Instead of the freedom of the Gospel their is only a crushing burden of failure for something the Scriptures do not promise.
I know this is not a direct answer but it’s all I’ve got for now.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.