Should Christians Stop Saying They're Blessed by Material Increase?

Affluence is a funny thing, especially in the Christian west. Many times people when they realize that they have achieved more than most feel a bit guilty of that fact. Sometimes it plays out in the way a culture seeks to help the less fortunate, or how the race relations dynamic works, or even how we talk about wealth.

Much of this kind of angst has its origin in a Judeo-Christian worldview. The Bible tells us that we are not of this world (John 18:36) and we are sojourners on this earth (Psalm 119:19). We're given examples such as Abraham who lived in tents in the Promised Land, and we read of those in the early church who sacrificed by giving up their possessions and laying them at the Apostles' feet. Jesus' teachings seemed to show that the rich man was spiritually poor, building new barns while neglecting his soul (Luke 12:13-21) or the man who went away sad choosing not to give away his money to follow Jesus (Luke 18:23).

With all that, it is no surprise that an article is currently making the rounds on social media denouncing the Christian habit of speaking of material success by labeling it a blessing. In his Huffington Post article "The One Thing Christians Should Stop Saying," Scott Dannemiller argues that when Christians talk about some success in their lives they reflexively say they've been blessed. Dannemiller admits he's done it himself, but calls it "a lie." He says things like having a good year in business or buying a new car is not a blessing and he cries with urgency that "it has to stop!" He argues:

"First, when I say that my material fortune is the result of God's blessing, it reduces The Almighty to some sort of sky-bound, wish-granting fairy who spends his days randomly bestowing cars and cash upon his followers. I can't help but draw parallels to how I handed out M&M's to my own kids when they followed my directions and chose to poop in the toilet rather than in their pants. Sure, God wants us to continually seek His will, and it's for our own good. But positive reinforcement?"

Dannemiller goes on to write:

"The problem? Nowhere in scripture are we promised worldly ease in return for our pledge of faith. In fact, the most devout saints from the Bible usually died penniless, receiving a one-way ticket to prison or death by torture."

Dannemiller is simply wrong. As I pointed out above, there are many teachings that show how those who value their material possessions above spiritual realities are in sin. But to equate that concept to saying "I've been blessed to have success" is nowhere near accurate.  The Bible does in fact make that connection.  In Deuteronomy 28:1-8, when God was imploring the Israelites to follow Him he promises their faithfulness will lead to material blessing:

"And if you faithfully obey the voice of the Lord your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today… Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground and the fruit of your cattle, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock."

In order not to miss the point, God emphasizes that this blessing is monetary in nature just a few verses later: "The Lord will command the blessing on you in your barns and in all that you undertake. And he will bless you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you." Surely blessing in one's land and in one's livestock increase and in one's barns (you, know, those things that the rich man had to build because he was so rich?) would be clearly understood by an agrarian society.

But it isn't just in Deuteronomy that the theme is discussed. The psalmist equates the farmer's bountiful crops with blessing in Psalm 67. Even Satan complains to God that "You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land" in Job 1:10.

You may object at this point and say, "Those are only Old Testament passages. What about the New Covenant believers have in Christ?" Well, the concept is continued in the New Testament.

• Paul compared the wealth of the Corinthians to the manna that God bestowed on the Israelites, so "your abundance at the present time should supply their need" (2 Cor. 8:14).
• In Romans 15:27, Paul writes that the Gentile believers had material blessings and they could use those just like the spiritual blessings they received in becoming believers.
• The writer of Hebrews tells us that a good crop is a blessing: "For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God." (Heb 6:7)

The problem isn't having material wealth, it is not putting it in its proper perspective. I know people who are not wealthy, but they still think of God as "some sort of sky-bound, wish-granting fairy." In fact, the reason prosperity-gospel preachers succeed is that their congregations, who aren't wealthy, want to be and believe such ilk. 1 Timothy 6:10 doesn't tell us that money is the root of all kinds of evil, but the love of money is. It's emphasis, not accumulation. That's why Proverbs 3:9-10 reads "Honor the Lord with your wealth and with the firstfruits of all your produce; then your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will be bursting with wine." If you understand that material blessing are truly from God, then you had better treat them as any good steward would: mange them well and hold them a loosely recognizing that they are on loan to you. But don't deny that it is God that truly works in the lives of men to bless whom He will.

Dannimiller's second point is that many impoverished Christians in poor nations would be offended by such an expression as "I've been blessed" for a raise or job promotion. I understand his angst, but this doesn't seem logical at all. If God is sovereign, then He will choose different blessings for different people, just as Paul when writing to the Romans told them that they could benefit from the poorer churches' spiritual growth while they could benefit from the Romans' material wealth. As someone in ministry who relies on donations to survive, I completely understand this point.

Throughout the article, Dannimiller seems to blur the difference between an average Christian and one who holds to the heretical prosperity doctrine, one that I highly repudiate. Of course, heresies are offensive, but is it more offensive for Christians to say "I did all this myself with only myself to thank" or "Thank God for blessing me with time, opportunity and the ability to achieve success"? I would call the first statement a lie well before I would so label the second one.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus lists several ways people are called blessed. These truly are blessings, but Jesus never meant this to be an exhaustive list. For example, the gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12/14 are also blessings. There are many other types of blessings noted in the Bible as well.  The point is to not condemn people simply because they have been successful or perhaps have more than you. The point is what are you doing with the blessing of material increase that God has provided for you?  Christians are not to try and force the so-called 1% to give their wealth to the poor. Jesus calls on each of us to allow God to bless us so that we may in turn put his blessings to work.

What Does 'the Bible Is Inerrant' Really Mean?

The question over the reliability of the Bible is one that Christians must deal with from time to time. However, I've found that there is just as much confusion from believers as there is from skeptics concerning this issue. One such point of confusion is the reliability of biblical texts.

Because the King James Version of the Bible had such an enormous impact on the English-speaking world, many people still consider it the definitive version of the Bible. There are some, though, who take this idea ever further and hold that the King James translation is somehow inspired itself. I had written on this some time ago, but I still receive questions from people discussing the issue. I'd livke to let you "eavesdrop" on one such question I received recently. My correspondent wrote the following:

You know, I keep hearing that our Bible The "King James" version, is not necessarily the true and accurate version and that these new translations have searched and found a more accurate account of what is true. I have a very big problem with what has been said. First of all, if there are any errors in the Bible, then it is not the true Word of God. So when the Bible says that it is the inerrant Word of God, then that would be a lie.

It also says to not add or take away from the book and that is being done. If we cannot believe that we have the one and only true Word of God without error then why even read it? I read on one of your articles that only a hand full of men translated the "King James" but that over a hundred translated the NIV. To me that makes absolutely no difference. God could use just one man, if he so chose to, so just to say that more men studied and wrote more about what is right, is null and void. God knew what we needed and used the men he wanted to use and it has to be 100% accurate or we may as well not believe any of it. By changing the Word of God (and the beauty of the words), there is confusion in the church. Who can follow along with what is being read and preached if there are dozens of different translations and why would we need God to speak to us about what he wants for us to get out of His Word if several different men are writing different versions of the Bible? We don't need a bunch of different versions, we just need to ask God to show us what he has for us in the verses that are being preached or when we read by ourselves. Besides these people are making millions of dollars by writing different versions and trying to make it easier to understand by their understanding. Not only that but it is a tool of Satan to keep confusion in the church and in the minds of the people. What about the versions that leave the blood out of the translation? It is playing with fire to mess with Gods Word and there is no reason to change it or try to simplify it.

Thanks for listening. I love the Lord Jesus with all my heart. He is my Savior and I love His Word

Notice some specific piece in this letter. The questioner is concerned with the concept of inerrancy, but she has taken that too far, to mean that the KJ translation must be inerrant. Inerrancy has never been held to such a strict standard, though. She then equivocates the idea of retranslating the Bible to "changing the Word of God." She also appeals to "the beauty of the words" so there is more than a mere concern over accuracy here. Lastly, she believes that different translations somehow make the text say different things. (The point about versions that "leave out the blood" is in reference to Colossians 1:14, where the KJV reads "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins" while all the modern translations don't include the phrase "through his blood" as it is missing from the oldest manuscripts.)

My goal in online exchanges like these is to help people see the problems to which a faulty view leads. I want them to realize it themselves instead of just telling them they are wrong. So, I usually begin with a question that they should agree with. My initial response was this:

Hi and thanks for your concern. I appreciate your love of the Bible and your desire to follow God's word. But before we get too far into the discussion, I'd like to ask you a question. In 1631, Robert Barker published a version of the King James Bible, but when typesetting Exodus 20:14, he accidentally left out three letters. Unfortunately those three letters make up the word "not" so his version of Exodus 20:14 read "Thou shalt commit adultery." I am absolutely certain that Robert Baker had no malicious intent whatsoever. He made a mistake, that's all.

My question: Is it possible that the King James Bible could have other mistakes as well, and if so how would we tell?

My correspondent's answer was quick, although it missed the point of the initial question a bit. However, she did get to the crux of the issue.

Hi Lenny,
Thanks for answering my email. In my "King James" Bible, the word "not", is not left out, so where do you get your information?

How can anyone believe that there are errors in God's Word? Which part then would you believe? Have you gone to the Lord to ask the truth of His Word? Just asking!!!!!

Thanks again.

I replied:

Thanks for the exchange! I sure appreciate you reading and dialoguing. Many different people print the KJV. My claim was about one of the printers from every early on. (This version of the Bible was dubbed "The Wicked Bible" and you can find more information on it here.)

Your question is a really good one. How can anyone believe there are errors in God's word? I for one don't. I believe that God inspired the authors to write the very words that He would have them write. I also subscribe to the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. I make a big deal of this point in my article "Is The Bible Completely Error Free?"

However, while the Christian church has always held that the original writings by the Biblical authors are inerrant, it has NEVER held that someone couldn't make a mistake in copying or translating the work. The Jehovah's Witnesses offer a distorted version of the Bible in their New World Translation. Wycliffe translators working with indigenous tribes have made may errors in translation, sometimes simply because they didn't know the language that well.

Since we don't have any of the original writings, we need to go back and compare all the copies that we do have and make sure that the copies that have mistakes (like leaving out the word "not") are corrected. That is one reason why your copy of the KJV doesn't have this mistake. The original translators of the KJV didn't have nearly as many copies of the texts as we do today, and they didn't have as many early copies—copies that were less generations removed from the original writings.

I hope you can see how all this makes a big difference in understanding inerrancy. Let me know if you'd like more detail about it.

In a previous blog post, I showed the importance in asking questions in doing effective apologetics. Here is another example that allows for discussion while developing a rapport with your interlocutor. I'm not done with this exchange, though. In part 2, I go into a bit more detail as I continue my conversation. I hope you'll join us.

Science, God, and Knowing

Today, people look to scientists to find the answers to our problems in the world. But does science have limits? Are there other ways to know something as fact? And how are questions about God and religion tested scientifically? In this series of audio podcasts, Lenny shows why scientific objections to God fail.

• Science, God, and Knowing (Part 1)
• Science, God, and Knowing (Part 2)
• Science, God, and Knowing (Part 3)
• Science, God, and Knowing (Part 4)

Does the authoritative teaching of Christianity stifle reason?

Although G.K. Chesterton wrote Orthodoxy over 100 years ago, it continues to provide prescient, applicable wisdom for us today. At the beginning of chapter three in that book, a chapter entitled "The Suicide of Thought," Chesterton notes how the sages of our modern age trade on poor assumptions.

Concerning the rejection of religious authority, he writes:

Religious authority has often, doubtless, been oppressive or unreasonable; just as every legal system (and especially our present one) has been callous and full of a cruel apathy. It is rational to attack the police; nay, it is glorious. But the modern critics of religious authority are like men who should attack the police without ever having heard of burglars. For there is a great and possible peril to the human mind: a peril as practical as burglary. Against it religious authority was reared, rightly or wrongly, as a barrier. And against it something certainly must be reared as a barrier, if our race is to avoid ruin.

That peril is that the human intellect is free to destroy itself. Just as one generation could prevent the very existence of the next generation, by all entering a monastery or jumping into the sea, so one set of thinkers can in some degree prevent further thinking by teaching the next generation that there is no validity in any human thought. It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should anything go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" The young sceptic says, "I have a right to think for myself." But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all."

Chesterton here asserts that faith is not the enemy of reason, but that reason relies upon faith for its relationship to reality. While skeptics and atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris continue to shout that they have claimed the high ground of reason, Chesterton ably shows how those claims crumble, and he does so nearly a century before the New Atheists even made them!

The fact that the man or woman who holds to faith in Christ can truly be considered reasonable is made even more clearly with the release of the book True Reason: Confronting the Irrationality of the New Atheists. I was fortunate enough to have contributed to this volume and I highly recommend it to anyone looking for ways to demonstrate how Christianity is intellectually as well as spiritually satisfying.

Understanding Necessary and Sufficient Conditions

One of the bigger misunderstandings when conversing with others is the issue of necessary and sufficient conditions. Recently, my friend Max Andrews posted an article to his blog entitled "The Incoherence of Claiming to be an 'Ex-Christian'". You can read the whole post, but basically Max argues that folks like atheists who hold that they were one Christians but now are not are actually stating a contradiction. To be a Christian, one must believe things like God exists and that the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ were real events. In fact, one must trust in those beliefs, relying upon them for one's salvation. You cannot be a Christian without being saved, so, salvation is necessary to be a Christian. And it is necessary to believe in God's existence and the resurrection of Christ in order to be saved.

The problem comes in, then, when an atheist says that he or she is not now a Christian. Atheists reject the very points that are necessary to be a Christian at all. But that's the rub. If you claim that you used to be a Christian, you are then saying that the concept of being a Christian can obtain. Thus, you are also saying that God does exist, that Jesus did die and rise again, and any other point that is also necessary for salvation also obtains. But at the same time, as an "ex-Christian" you are denying these very points!

As the comments on Max's article seems to show, there are a lot of people who are confused about the concept of necessary and sufficient conditions.  These distinctions are crucial in clear-thinking and I found a wonderful video that pretty clearly spells them out. I hope this will help you better in your conversations.