The Word-Faith Controversy: Understanding the Health and Wealth Gospel

Rating:
Summary: I have a question!!
Review: If your child was sick and expected to only live for another year, who would you rather have to pray for your child?:

a "Word-of-faith", Charismatic Christian who believes in divine health and hasn't been sick in 38 years?!
or
Robert Bowman (or some other "Fundamentalist") who believes miraculous healings have "ceased" and have been "done away" with?!

Give that one some thought...

Rating:
Summary: Excellent book! A must read!
Review: Robert Bowman did an excellent job in this book! He really does his homework and does a lot of research on how the word faith movement came to be, with its roots in e.w. kenyon, to its spread thru word faith teachers like hagin, copeland, price, dollar, hinn, etc. Also, I think the tone that he writes with is great, because he doesnt attack or condemn anyone, but instead carefully tries to show thru scripture why the word faith teachings are erroneous. An excellent book i recommend to all christians, especially anyone who is currently caught up in the word faith movement. a definite eye opener!

Rating:
Summary: An Important Contribution to the Word-Faith Controversy
Review: This is the best critical analysis of the Word of Faith (or Word-Faith) movement to date. Bowman, a non-charismatic, shows an acute awareness of the pertinent issues and seems familiar with not only the primary literature and tapes of the Word-Faith proponents but also it’s critics and counter-critics (e.g., Bruno, DeArteaga, & Spencer). Contrary to the primary critics of the movement such as Hanegraaff, McConnell and Hunt, Bowman feels that the movement has its roots in the evangelical faith-cure movement of the late nineteenth century, not the metaphysical cults (New Thought, Christian Science, etc.). Nonetheless, he does qualify this by stating that “the possibility exists that the evangelical faith-cure movement and early Pentecostalism were also influenced in some respects by meta-physical thought” (pg. 82), although he leaves this possibility relatively unexplored in the book. Interestingly, contemporary New Thought authors Anderson & Whitehouse, in their book “New Thought: A Practical American Spirituality” (1995), also note the similar interest in healing between their movement and the evangelical faith-cure movement and, like Bowman (but unlike some critics), recognize the differences in world views (pantheism vs. Christian theism). It is also worth noting that they state that most of the leaders of the major New Thought groups existing today came from Traditional Christian backgrounds which didn’t meet their needs, especially for healing. Apparently both movements expanded their interests to include not only physical health but also overall well-being and success (including wealth). From the evangelical faith-cure movement came the 20th century’s Pentecostal & Charismatic movements, which included a revival of supernatural charismatic gifts, including speaking in other tongues (unknown languages) by the Holy Spirit.

Bowman considers E. W. Kenyon to be the grandfather, not father, of the Word-Faith (W-F) movement because he considers it to be essentially a Pentecostal movement since the W-F movement’s primary “father”, Kenneth Hagin, was Pentecostal, unlike Kenyon (but he also considers William Branham and Oral Roberts to be contributing “fathers” to the W-F movement in various ways). He also thinks that Hagin contributed certain doctrines to the movement that Kenyon didn't teach. Bowman thinks the W-F movement is an extreme Pentecostalism, or a Pentecostalism “at it’s worst”. One must keep in mind, however, that there are various definitions of what constitutes “Pentecostal” and “Charismatic”. Technically, the former is applied strictly to those who believe that speaking in other tongues is the sole “initial evidence” of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. In other words, if one doesn’t speak in tongues, then one HASN’T been baptized in the Holy Spirit. This is the position of classical Pentecostal denominations such as the Assemblies of God (A/G), the largest Pentecostal denomination in the world. Those who reject this position but still believe that speaking in tongues is for today, along with the other charismatic gifts of the Spirit, are generally categorized as “Charismatic”. Kenneth Hagin was once affiliated with the A/G, but left the denomination to become “independent” or “non-denominational”. Although Hagin is a classical Pentecostal, I personally don’t think that the “initial evidence” position of Hagin is integral to the W-F movement & its theology. There are many in the W-F movement that are Charismatic, not Pentecostal. Bowman occasionally uses a broader definition of “Pentecostal” than the more technical definition related to the “initial evidence” position which he considers a “hard-line view” (pg. 62), rejected by such men as F. F. Bosworth, author of “Christ the Healer”.

Bowman considers the W-F views on healing and prosperity to be the least problematic aspects of their theology (pg. 11), but I tend to think that their distinctive theology was formulated to reinforce the movement’s views on healing and prosperity. The doctrines of healing and prosperity as available in this life through “faith” are the “positive” motivating force of the movement regardless of the distinctive aberrant theology just as they are the thrust of the New Thought movement with its “positive” message regardless of its pantheism and/or panentheism. It is not surprising that the New Thought authors noted above consider Norman Vincent Peale and Robert Schuller as promoters of some of New Thought’s ideas on positive/possibility thinking although neither Peale nor Schuller is a pantheist or even a Pentecostal or Charismatic....