A Preliminary Assessment of Word/Faith Televangelism

A preliminary assessment can now be made.  There are two types that are most prominent today.  The first type is that of positive or possibility thinkers such as Norman Vincent Peale and Robert Schuller.  The second type is that of positive confessionists, such as Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Oral Roberts, Robert Tilton and others.

The positive/possibility thinker believes in the power of the mind, the power of visualizing, the power of imagination, the power of faith.  What one thinks, visualizes, imagines, or believes strongly enough will be realized.  One's inner potential is so enormous and one's inner energy so powerful that one can literally think, visualize, imagine, or believe into being what one desires.  To the possibility thinker, the greatest threat to the possibilities that can be brought into being are a bad self-image and an absence of self-love.  Those negative elements are produced by negative thinking, it is said, including the type of thinking that entertains mans lostness before God, not to mention his total depravity.  In fact, the emphasis upon human sinfulness is itself the cardinal sin, for such emphasis would quickly turn a beckoning success story into a string of failures.  Instead, all the God talk, Christ talk, Spirit talk, and Bible talk, in general  should be designed to bolster or produce self-esteem so that one can begin to tap one's vast inner resources and realize one's incredible potential.

The positive confessionists have much in common with this approach.  But there is a difference.  Whereas the positive/possibility thinker is more "natural" in his orientation, the positive confessionist is more "supernatural."  The former emphasizes success as the natural outflow of the enormous human spirit.  In a sense, it is one-upmanship -- what the secularist can accomplish, the Christian can achieve more effectively...with Jesus.  The latter holds out the prospect of prosperity and success as the supernatural realization of the even more enormous possibilities that are presented to him in the framework of salvation.

In short, according to the positive/possibility thinker, man succeeds by mobilizing what he already is and regards success as no surprise.  Overcoming a bad self-image, of course, is part of the total package.  According to the positive confessionist, man prospers be claiming what God promises and calls this a miracle.  Part of the package is that he rests from Satan what is already his.  .

However these types may differ, they are at one in that they place man in the center rather than God.  And in spite of their different shades, they are only too eager to cooperate with one another.  For instance, the leading proponent of possibility thinking, Robert Schuller, frequently participates in the conferences of the positive confessionists and has even contributed the forward to one of Paul Yongi Cho's books.  The objective of both groups is to secure success and happiness for man rather than to present the biblical message of sin and grace.  Forget "glorifying God and enjoying Him forever!"  The goal of the Christian life is to "name it and claim it."  

It appears that biblical theology as defined previously and a systematic theology carefully built upon that theology and, on the other hand, the two types of televangelism described thus far are worlds in collision, for a properly constructed systematic theology places our attention upon the sin-holiness polarity with all that that entails.  Biblical theology does not allow a single issue -- and a man-centered issue at that -- isolated from the thrust of Scripture to dominate the preaching enterprise.

It should further be underscored that both types of televangelism are quite pretentious and aware of the different direction they take.  The first type of televangelism holds that the perspective of self-esteem puts its own imprint upon, and therefore requires a radical change in, the way one does (systematic) theology and in one's philosophical outlook upon life.  The second type of televangelism is of the opinion that it has finally unearthed the "full Gospel," well beyond any gospel that (biblical theology) has been able to formulate.

The Apostle Paul informs the Romans that he desires to come in the "fullness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ" (Romans 15:29, KJV).  In the light of the context of the epistle, in which he describes the "full gospel," it is questionable whether the theology of self-esteem squares with that "gospel," or whether the theology of prosperity squares with that gospel in its "fullness."  In a nutshell, the full gospel according to Paul is that sinners are accepted in the presence of God as members of the kingdom only through the righteousness of Christ and subsequently as saints enjoy that presence and serve in that kingdom only by surrendering everything to Christ.  Prerequisite for entrance into the kingdom is a loss of self rather than an esteem of self, although characteristic of service in that kingdom is self-sacrifice rather than health and wealth.

A televangelist, just like any other preacher, must preach the Word.  He must do so properly, informed by a properly construed biblical theology, one that springs from a covenantal perspective.  He must do so fully, informed by a carefully constructed systematic theology, which is to say that he does not confine himself to some popular themes, let alone fund-raising schemes.

His preaching must be evangelistic and edificational.  In his evangelistic preaching he must invite the sinner to come to Christ with his rebellious heart for it to be killed (Romans 6:6), with his guilty record for it to be cleansed (Romans 3:25), and with his unholy life for it to be transformed (John 15:5).  In short, he must invite the sinner to come to Christ for regeneration, justification, and sanctification, the sum and substance of the New Covenant, promised by the Father, personified by the Son, and personalized by the Spirit.

In his edificational preaching, he must bring the Word of God, including promise and law, to bear upon the believer.  He must seek to bring him into an ever-closer conformity to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29) and  be intent upon mobilizing the church as the light of the world and the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13-14) in the areas of evangelism and edification, so as to make an impact upon all of society (Acts 17:6).


For more information on Victory Churches and the Faith Movement, go to the Reference Library.  Click on any book title to get a brief overview of the book.  All books on the list are available through www.amazon.com. 

The Faith Movement Televangelist and the Word of God

Just as a doctor dares not practice surgery until he has studied the several branches of medicine, so a minister, including a media minister, should not presume that he broadcasts the biblical faith until he has a grasp of systematic and biblical theology.  It exhibits a glaring deficiency in both to claim, as does Charles Kapps, that Job "was sure not under the anointing" when he said, "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away."  Kapps calls this statement a "lie."  Similar quotations can be multiplied.

Systematic Theology

The call for a systematic theology may seem elitist, as if every Faith Movement televagelist should have a Ph.D.  But this is not the case.  Such a call does not need to sound threatening.  Systematic theology aims at nothing more than an orderly presentation of the teachings of Scripture.  It seeks to "round up" all biblical data on a particular subject and form a conclusion as to what the Bible teaches on that subject.  Eventually a systematic order of beliefs is in place, not a grid that we press upon the Bible, but an order that we construct from the Bible.  Scripture repeatedly argues for the need to develop a sound doctrinal position (Titus 1:9).  

Frankly, it cannot be threatening.  No student of Scripture engages himself in the interpretive process without a "systematic theology" already in place, whether consciously or unconsciously, partially or fully, whether it is profound or shallow, straight or twisted, right or wrong.  This applies to Jesus (Matthew 7:28), the Pharisees (Matthew 16:2), the Apostles (Acts 5:28), and to everyone else.  From one's own doctrinal perspective, anything that is espoused must appear "good" (Proverbs 4:2, N.K.J.V.), "true" (1 Timothy 4:6), "sound" (Titus 1:9; or "wholesome"), the "opposite" of all this (see 1 Timothy 1:10), or simply "new" (Mark 1:27).

That is not to say that systematic theology should dominate the interpretive process.  It may never dictate the meaning of the biblical text or in any way be its final determinant.  The text should always speak for itself.  What it does not say it cannot mean.  Neither is this to propagate the intellectualizing of the biblical message.    The ultimate aim is not the intellectual grasp of the truth, but the submission in heart and the conformity in life to God in response to that truth.

But it is to ask for the recognition of the fact that everyone enters into the hermeneutical process with some kind of systematic theology, good or bad, the influence of which must not be underestimated.  In view of this it would be irresponsible not to develop the best systematic theology possible.  Too much depends upon it.  Although it may not impose or determine meaning, systematic theology can insure that no interpretation of a particular text clashes with any part of God's revealed truth.  It provides the parameters for possible and acceptable meaning.  Systematic theology is a watchdog then specifically equipped to challenge our interpretation of any passage when our interpretation conflicts with the overall biblical view of God, man, Christ, the Spirit, salvation, the church and the consummation.  One can fail or neglect to build a systematic theology only at one's own peril.  

In short, the parts can never be interpreted apart from the whole.  The individual pieces, in other words, have to fit the total system.  Of course, it is also true that the whole cannot be grasped apart from the parts.  In fact, the individual pieces must be allowed to perfect or change the system whenever and wherever that is necessary.  Ideally speaking, a "spiral" should be in evidence in which one's doctrinal position "checks" one's interpretation of a text and one's interpretation of a text "balances" one's doctrinal position.  But the run of the mill Faith Movement electronic message has such a glaring need for a properly developed systematic theology that in this context the emphasis upon one side of the spiral!  The deficiency in the systematic understanding of many modern day Faith Movement televangelists will be substantiated in further detail in upcoming blogs.


For more information on Victory Churches and the Faith Movement, go to the Reference Library.  Click on any book title to get a brief overview of the book.  All books on the list are available through www.amazon.com.