A friend of mine offers this commentary to my recent post about Pastor Mac Hammond, Living Word Christian Center and CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington):
Are you saying the end justifies the means? That because Mac and the church have done good things we should look the other way? That it’s not anyone’s business if they’re lining their pockets by fleecing willing congregants who think every dollar gets them closer to the Kingdom of Heaven? In the Strib article, Hammond says, “It’s impossible to bless someone else or be a blessing if you have nothing to bless them with.” So better to have a jet than a schoolbus. Better to have a Lexus than a 1998 Taurus. Better to have a $500,000 retreat than some housekeeping cabins. It’s like Steve Martin in “The Jerk” . . . this is all I need. These condos in Florida, this Porsche, my kids on the payroll and so on. You seem to shrug and let him off the hook by saying if he is up to no good, he’ll be judged. If he is indeed running some kind of pseudo-religious Ponzi scheme, shouldn’t his actions be exposed to the light of day sooner than later, even if you disagree with the media outlet that’s holding the lantern?
Actually, what I was saying was that the timing and sudden interest the Strib took in Living Word and Mac Hammond’s message (which he has been preaching since 1980, and from the pulpit of his huge building since 1998) was more about the newspaper being offended by his politics than his doctrine, but that may just be a biased assumption on my part. Perhaps I should wait for more evidence than just a circumstantial connection between the stories the newspaper ran, the complaint filed by CREW, and Pastor Hammond’s public endorsement of a candidate much reviled by the Strib’s editorial board and left-leaning watchdog groups.
Perhaps, from my own experience I am too judgmental and suspicious of those watching out for us, of whom author Mark Helprin once wrote, “The dog who protects sheep quickly learns how to direct them, and it becomes a habit. The people have been trained by their watchmen to jump, and to trample what the watchmen want trampled.”* Hence, I can look at the situation and think, “Something smells fishy.”
Similarly, there may be those who will readily assume a pastor or a church is fleecing a “conned”-gregation into thinking it can buy its way into Heaven because the reported facts look suspicious, even if all that has been presented is a careful marshaling of facts and innuendo while the newspaper carefully avoids making any direct accusation of wrong-doing. Why wouldn’t someone reading the story think, regarding the church, that “Something smells fishy?”
So, obviously, there can be differences of opinion based on perspective. I will, however, address the underlying question in the comment above as well as the actual question asked at the end (while also indirectly responding to other comments on the original post).
I don’t claim to be a great Biblical scholar, but I do have more than a passing acquaintance with the so-called “Prosperity Gospel” attributed to Pastor Hammond (also known, less charitably, by critics as “name it and claim it”). I won’t issue a judgment on Hammond because, as I said before, I don’t know what he is actually preaching. I do know, however, from scripture and — most significantly to me — my own experience that material as well as spiritual blessings have overtaken my family and I because we give liberally (admittedly, about the only thing we do “liberally”). We have good incomes, a nice house, nice things, and we tithe off of everything we receive, and give a similar amount in alms and other offerings, and are still able to put aside money for the future. Other people may have bigger incomes, nicer houses, more things, etc. without being givers, but we have seen amazing (some might say miraculous) connections between what we’ve given and the things we’ve received. When we give thanks for our meals we often include 2 Corinthians 9:8, “God is able to give us everything we need to live life in abundance and to give into every good work.” Unlike the world, we’re not just receiving from those who we’ve given to or vice-versa.
Some might say we live too well. We could, I suppose, get by with a smaller home, even older cars and without that new HDTV and home theater system, and give the money to the poor (or pay even higher taxes). Yet in a smaller house we never would have been able to take in the people we’ve taken in over the years, or hold the home church meetings on Friday nights; our vehicles are used to get us and others to places we need to be in order to be a blessing; and I’m going to bring the boys from the Fundamentals in Film class into my basement to watch this week’s movie (ok, that last part may be because I want to see them jump when the artillery hits more than because I want to bless them).
Or we could have kept for ourselves all that we’ve given and, theoretically, have even more stuff. It may be counter-intuitive, but I don’t think so. Proverbs 11:24 says, “One man gives freely, yet gains even more; another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty.” Giving and receiving and giving again is how we live. It’s not the be-all and end-all of our “creed” but it is something we’ve tried to help others to apply in their lives. As Mac Hammond said, “It’s impossible to bless someone else or be a blessing if you have nothing to bless them with.” There are certainly times when warm thoughts, open arms and fervent prayers can be a tremendous blessing, but it’s also valuable to send someone off with a hot meal or a new coat on behalf of our Father who loves us and would not “give us a stone when we ask for bread.”
So, count me among those who think it is an important part of the Christian life to be a cheerful giver (see 2 Corinthians 9:7), and as someone who has seen it bear fruit in my life. Does Mac Hammond have more fruit in his life than me? Apparently. Does he deserve it? That’s between him and God and his congregation, and my opinion doesn’t enter into their relationship and, in fact, could hurt my own relationship with God. I have no idea what percentage of the money that comes in to Living Word goes to Mac Hammond and no interest or say in what he choses to spend it on because there is no accountability between the two of us. It would seem, however, that those who do have a mutual accountability with him are well satisfied with the arrangement.
It is certainly obvious what the church is doing with the bulk of the money. If you go to Living Word’s Outreach page there is an impressive list of ministries and programs to people of all social classes, and all around the world. Missions, schools, a thrift store, a rehab clinic, a Christian night club (where youth can be edified as well as entertained instead of being left to seductions of the culture), and much more, plus a large staff to minister and administer these things as well as to the the people who come into the church itself. There’s always the risk that Hammond and the church love money — or it could be that they love what the money can do.
Of course, newspapers, businesses and governments all love what money can do as well, and they ask for it all the time. Each of us, individually, also has a powerful appreciation for what money can do for us. Cultivating a proper attitude toward money and seeing it as our servant instead of our master is a challenge and stirs up strong emotions and reveals strongholds in our lives. I remember several years ago that a man left our church saying, “All they’re interested in is your money.” A little while later he was found to have been embezzling money from his business. Interesting what he thought he was hearing, isn’t it?
I know that it is common for certain ministries to ask for money by referring to the Parable of the Sower in Matthew 13:8, “some seeds fell on fertile (good) soil and produced a crop that was thirty, sixty, and even a hundred times as much as had been planted.” These ministries will say that they are “good soil” and worth supporting. I typically don’t give to these because Matthew 13:23 says that the “good soil” is our hearts that receive the word, not the ministry that receives the money. Further, if my heart is good, then even if I give to the wrong place I can still reap a benefit well out of proportion to what I’ve sown.
No doubt, as with any church, there are legitimate reasons for people not to like Mac Hammond and Living Word. They may be put off by the large size and prefer something more personal. They may find the teaching too different from what they are accustomed to, or too challenging to their own comfort zone. They may consider it completely heretical. They might turn out to be right, but I can be nonchalant about it and let Mac “off the hook” simply because I’m not the one with the hook in the first place. As Matthew 13:24 goes on to say:
Here is another story Jesus told: “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a farmer who planted good seed in his field. But that night as everyone slept, his enemy came and planted weeds among the wheat. When the crop began to grow and produce grain, the weeds also grew. The farmer’s servants came and told him, `Sir, the field where you planted that good seed is full of weeds!’
“`An enemy has done it!’ the farmer exclaimed. `Shall we pull out the weeds?’ they asked.
“He replied, `No, you’ll hurt the wheat if you do. Let both grow together until the harvest. Then I will tell the harvesters to sort out the weeds and burn them and to put the wheat in the barn.'”
God’s word is the seed and brings the wheat into our lives, though there might be enemies and weeds in and around it. When the time comes, the light from the fire that burns those weeds will overwhelm whatever feeble lantern might be trying to illuminate those weeds — and I’m pretty sure I don’t want to be holding that lantern when it happens.
*From the chapter entitled “The Machine Age” in Winter’s Tale.
Good Answer, good answer. You’d be great on Family Feud. John: you need to find an outlet for your writings. I just picked up a Christian Chronicle recently, haven’t seen one in years. Something like that. Or, find an agent and have them start getting some of your stuff published in different places. I’m telling you, if Garrison Keillor can get his trash published, you can get your trashed published just as well. (just kidding, one mans trash is another mans treasure)
On the contrary, it’s not at all “obvious what the church is doing with the bulk of the money.” According to one of the follow-up articles you linked to, the church’s annual report said it had “$34 million in gross revenues last year and gave $3 million to charitable causes and evangelism.” Shouldn’t Living Word be doing better than giving nine percent? I don’t claim to know anything about Mac Hammond beyond what I read in the Strib articles and what I’ve picked up from his Stuart Smalley-like “Winner’s Minute” segments on TV. But I trust my instincts, and the guy strikes me as a Music Man, promoting not so much a Prosperity Gospel as a Cult of Personality. I’m not even challenging your experience that giving liberally is connected to receiving. Good for you. But shouldn’t one be content to give from the heart without expecting anything material in return? Isn’t it ultimately selfish to give because you’re “guaranteed by God” (and Mac) to get something in return? Shouldn’t the satisfied feeling that you’ve done the right thing be enough? It seems the attitude of followers of the Prosperity Gospel and the appeal Mac Hammond is making comes down to “What’s in it for me?” The answer for Hammond is…one hell of a lot.
Uncle Raven, I certainly agree that your heart must be for God as you give. But is it selfish to ask God to bless us in that giving when he has promised to do so? I don’t think so.
In your argument there is a snare. If we try to give in a selfless manner such as you describe, while ignoring God’s promises, we can be guilty of pride. Put in another way, we can become Pharisaical givers who give to prove our own righteousness. I think it’s best to give happily, expecting God to bless us while leaving the nature of that blessing up to him.
Wow – so many “uncles”! What a great family!
I’ll break my response into two parts: Giving in general, and Mac Hammond in particular. (See my next comment for part 2)
Part 1
My family and I give, cheerfully, because one) God commands it, and two) the love we’ve experienced from Him has caused us to love others more easily (my occasional snarks aside) and to want to share what we’ve received whether it’s time, peace, wisdom, healing or finances. We haven’t given money to our church or to individuals and then whipped out a calculator to figure out what the return will be if its 20, 30 or 100-fold. We’ve simply done what we could with what we’ve had (even when what we had was very, very little) and found ourselves blessed. It’s not like we get a paycheck from God every other week, but things come to us when they’re needed. I could fill several books with what has happened to us and how scripture has come true in our lives but I don’t have the time and space here and besides, hundreds of books have already been written along these lines (the Bible is still the best source). My point is simply that we know that God will give seed to the sower and it is one of the many ways He has to change people’s lives, and we love being used by Him to do that.
Part 2
When I said earlier that I’m acquainted with the Prosperity message it doesn’t mean that I necessarily embrace it in all of the ways it has been manifested or caricatured. I honestly don’t know if Mac Hammond is abusing these fundamentals or deceiving people, but I don’t think 10,000 people are coming to the church at gunpoint or are getting involved there because they think they’re going to get rich (not the people I’ve known that go, or have gone, there anyway). I can conceive of 10,000 people experiencing what my family has experienced and voluntarily working together to share the gospel and giving for the gospel’s sake (instead of say, joining a country club or buying season tickets to watch multi-millionaires play games) and in doing so, generating mind-boggling sums of money to fund such an outreach and pay the head of the organization a tidy sum.
I don’t know if that $3 million the church gave to evangelical and charitable causes refers to money given to entities outside the church or to the church’s own operations. I know, however, that it can’t be inexpensive to operate and staff two schools, a college (even with tuitions), a rehab center, a night club, a thrift store, and all the other things the church does to reach out to the community around it and to share the gospel (see the Outreach link in this post for more details).
(More)
Part 2a
Living Word is an impressive operation and, while too big for my taste, appears to be sincere in its outreach. It would seem to me that if it was all a scam they wouldn’t go to all that trouble just to profit a few folks at the top (believe me, I know how hard it can be to minister to others). LW might strike some as being more like a business than a church, but if so they seem committed to their “product” and appear to be good at it. If anyone wants to view it as a business then it might be interesting to see how Hammond’s compensation and benefits compares to CEOs of similar-sized businesses or non-profits. Comparable or not, that doesn’t justify or condemn Hammond. He has to account to God for what he has done with what he was given, just as I and all of us will do. If Hammond is doing wrong, and if I’ve not done as I should either, it’s not going to do me any good to point to Mac and say, “Yeah, but look at what he did…” Likewise, if Hammond is doing right and has given greatly of his time and money to advance the Kingdom of God, I won’t be found wanting for not doing as much as he did as long as I’ve been faithful with what I’ve been given. Ultimately we ll are accountable only for the things we think and do, not what someone else has or hasn’t done. It’s not only useless for me to judge another, it could also be dangerous if I allow it to harden my heart or provoke envy.
I believe that YOU give and are blessed and are balanced as you say, and are trying not to be judgemental, and I appreciate that. A red light goes on, though, with alot of concern over material things in a ministry, and rightfully so…..
I guess this whole Mac Hammond business is disturbing because I’ve seen the lives of friends and family members ruined by the selfish pursuit of material things, primarily because they felt they “deserved it.” And that’s just what Hammond is saying and modeling with his hyper-materialistic lifestyle. On the Sunday the Strib story appeared, he defended his accumulated wealth before his congregation saying, among other things, “it takes wealth, folks, to establish God’s covenant on this earth” and “it takes money to influence a community” and “the world is not moved by poverty, there’s enough of that” and “you can’t even obey the mandate to love without being financially prosperous – because love means to give – to be a blessing to somebody else. If you haven’t got anything to give, you can’t even love.”
HUH??!!?? Exactly what part of that are you okay with?
I dug out one of the messages from our pastor during our recent stewardship drive: “Paul said, ‘You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion’ (2 Corinthians 9:11). God gives us more, yes. But when He gives us more than we truly need we are meant to re-sow it. If we try to turn God’s promise into a means for selfish gain, we’re misinterpreting the promise and it no longer applies to us. God replenishes the store of the generous . . . he does not line the pockets of the greedy.”
Uncle Raven, based on what you quote it would certainly seem that Hammond has things skewed, especially that last statement. The problem that I’ve had with the criticism directed his way is that much of it has been saying that wealthy Christians are hypocrites by definition. I just want it to be clear that it is the love of money that is the problem, not the money itself.
UB and NW, I don’t think there’s any defending these ostentatiously wealthy Christian ministers who preach Word-Faith and Prosperity Gospel messages (Hammond, Copeland, Hagin, Hinn, among others). Their lifestyles are marked by opulence, luxury, riches and the assurance that all of this can be had by followers as well — if only they apply certain principles. It boils down to marketing. What creates more excitement and incentive in the average person than the promise of not just easy money, but incredible wealth? These ministers ARE hypocrites by definition, if you agree with how Paul defined the role of spiritual leaders.
Check out GenerousGiving.org, which points out Paul’s commitment to suffering for Jesus’ sake and Jesus’ demand that anyone wishing to become his disciple had to “deny himself and take up his cross” (Mark 8:34). In every letter he wrote as well as in the book of Acts, Paul continually holds himself out as an example of willing, radical sacrifice for Jesus’ sake. He calls others to share in his sacrificial lifestyle (1 Corinthians 4:8-17; 10:33-11:1. He grounds his own sacrifice and his call for others to follow a sacrificial pattern of life in the self-sacrifice of Jesus himself (2 Corinthians 8:9; Mark 10:44-45; 8:31-38), for “if indeed we share in his sufferings … we may also share in his glory” (Romans 8:17).
In his pastoral epistles Paul insists that leaders must not be “enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures” (Titus 3:3). We are free to receive what God gives us with gratitude and joy, and we must not arbitrarily reject possessions created by God for our good such as family, food, clothing and shelter (1 Timothy 4:1-5; 5:23; 6:8). But we must avoid the desire to be rich, the tendency toward self-indulgence, and [as UB noted] the “love of money” (1 Timothy 5:6; 6:9-10; Titus 1:7; 2 Timothy 3:4).
On a lighter note, I think I’ve discovered a new theme song for Pastor Hammond by the aptly named country duo, Big &Rich. The song is “Big Time” and includes these lyrics:
I know I’ll probably never make a million bucks
But savings accounts and the IRS never worry me much
I don’t need that stuff ’cause
I’ve got friends like you
To but me drinks, have boats and planes that I can use
I know you’re really living in that house up on the hill
So if you feel like giving, friend I’ve got a jar to fill
I’m having the time of my life
No worries on my mind
Everything’s just fine
Today is even better than yesterday
Everything is going my way
I’m living in the big time
Sorry to be so long in responding, but I was busy over the weekend and I wanted to respond thoughtfully to the comments thoughtfully posted. I am also happy to see an argument based on scripture, as I think it’s always better to consider what the Word says or suggests than to go by feelings that can be inflamed from either side – or by the words in the Strib, though I will repeat my original point that politics, not practice, is why Mac Hammond appeared on the front page instead of, say, Bill Kling, or why Torii Hunter’s 19,000 square foot house is a celebrated as a mark of achievement for someone who has thrilled thousands, while Hammond’s church, night club, schools, care centers – and airplanes, condos, houses, nice clothes are symbols of iniquity for someone who has presumably touched (use whatever definition of the word you prefer) thousands with the gospel.
I want to get into the scriptures here, but first I will respond to the question Uncle Raven (who I love like a brother for all we have been through) posed regarding “Exactly what part of that are you okay with?” (keeping in mind that what I’ve written to date has been less about defending Mac Hammond than it has been about guarding our hearts).
(more)
So, UR’s question included these statements from Hammond:
“…it takes wealth, folks, to establish God’s covenant on this earth” – well, loaves and fishes and miracles have been known to work, too, but somebody paid for the broth in the soup line, and in the OT covenants were often consecrated by sacrifice. Christ was the sacrifice for our new covenant (not cheap, that), but generally it’s hard to do anything without money as Paul himself acknowledged in his appeals to the various churches for funds. I’m not saying Mac Hammond is Paul, I’m just saying.
“…it takes money to influence a community” – well, apparently Hillary, Obama and Rudy think so, but I think they and Mac would say that money is the means for the message, not the message itself.
“…the world is not moved by poverty, there’s enough of that” – I’d say the world may be moved by poverty, but it’s not impressed. John the Baptist and a couple of others may have been effective while preaching in animal skins and looking like wild men, but generally that is a hard way to gain a receptive audience. Granted, it could be said that Mac does his message no favors with his style, but poor people typically don’t get much of a platform in our culture (not that they couldn’t do a better job than Britney Spears or Donald Trump).
“…if you haven’t got anything to give, you can’t even love” – that does seem a bit hard to swallow (as I noted in an earlier comment) since you can impart love even if you have nothing, so I guess I’d say I wasn’t “okay” with that part. I suppose I’ll just pack up my argument and go home.
(more)
Oh wait, I am home. Let’s go to the scriptures, then.
Uncle Raven had some great selections. I can’t argue with a single one. Especially since it is unnecessary, as anyone reading 1 Corinthians, as cited, can also see that chapter 3, verse 3 says “Every man’s work will be clear, for the day will declare it, because it will be put through the fire to see if it keeps its value,” while 4:5 exhorts us to “judge nothing before the time until the Lord comes, who will bring light to the hidden things of darkness and will make plain the counsels of the heart and then shall every man have his praise (or not) from God.” Of course, I could jump in there myself, but I’ll be lazy and let God do what He said He would.
Similarly, reading through Titus, as was mentioned, we see 3:2, “speak evil of no one and avoid quarrels” (ouch, that’s going to hurt the old blogging gig). We can also go to Titus 2:14 where we read that Jesus “might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” This is interesting because the Greek word translated as “peculiar” in that scripture means “superabundant, wealthy and prosperous.” (Thayer’s Lexicon). That could also describe people like Job and Abraham, who were greatly loved by God. We also see “peculiar” used in 1 Peter 2:9: “But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” From what I’ve seen, I don’t think you can say that God is opposed to someone having wealth, and could even take an active interest in putting it in certain hands.
(more)
I’m not willing to say that those are necessarily Mac Hammond’s hands, but neither am I ready to say that he shouldn’t have it either. The authority to bless or destroy what Hammond has built is not in my hands or my judgment. Similarly, who has the wisdom and revelation to truly say that someone has more than they need, or is not being a good steward? The Russian Bolsheviks were certainly willing and enthusiastic in doing so but that didn’t turn out very well, and the same danger exists today. I might be willing to draw the line for someone else after, oh, one airplane – yet someone else might want to draw the line for me at one less bedroom and car and confiscate my new television for my own good and that of the poor.
I have earned and been blessed with money, from which I pay what I owe God, and also give to others, and with what is left over I pursue my “needs” as I and my family see fit. If I received more money the pattern would be the same: more for God, more for others, and more for what we want, extravagant or foolish as that might appear to some. Ultimately, it is my heart that will direct my stewardship, and it is my heart that will be judged.
I guess my concern with Hammond and Living Word is not so much the impact on believers – most are likely unswayed by his message – but the impact on the unchurched, especially those people on the fence that read about Hammond and are instantly turned off by an ostentatious lifestyle that seems disturbingly out of whack with their idea of a man of God.
To quote John Piper, who taught Biblical Studies at Bethel College, “When I read about prosperity-preaching churches, my response is: ‘If I were not on the inside of Christianity, I wouldn’t want in.’ In other words, if this is the message of Jesus, no thank you. Luring people to Christ to get rich is both deceitful and deadly. It’s deceitful because when Jesus himself called us, he said things like: “Any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:33). And it’s deadly because the desire to be rich plunges “people into ruin and destruction” (1 Timothy 6:9).
I, too, have a big problem with anyone preaching the “Prosperity Gospel” exclusively as the “Good News”, just as I have with those who gain false conversions by urging others to “try” Jesus (without having to change their life) or suggesting that it’s all hearts and flowers, or those who teach that works alone, or that poverty itself, bring grace and mercy. The Good News is that all have fallen short of the glory of God and deserve condemnation, but by our Savior’s work we are saved if we accept that we need a savior and receive Him.
If that is what LW teaches in its various outreaches (as suggested by their Doctrine page on the Web) then I’m happy because that gospel does change lives, even if some other doctrines appear strange or taken to excess (there are always going to be differences between denominations and even between pastors within the same denomination). Christianity isn’t “easy”; struggles and challenges are promised. We can, however, as Paul writes, “join with me (Paul) in giving and receiving.” The “goodness of God that leads people to repentence” is seen in how we daily live our lives, overcoming the tests and trials out in the open and being known by the love we have for one another. You can do this if you are poor and if you are rich as long as you do it to the glory of God.
This might have been a much shorter exercise if I had laid that out at the beginning, but this has been an excellent discussion, conducted at an honorable level. My thanks and appreciation to Uncle Raven and everyone who has commented here so far!
I think we’ve discovered common ground in those three words: Christianity isn’t easy. That’s at the root of my problem with Hammond and his ilk. This “look at me, I believe and I’m on my way to having more money than God. And you can, too. It’s easy.” I’m uneasy with a quid pro quo of a non-spiritual nature and I’m skeptical about the interpretation of scripture used to support that notion. I guess being raised in the Catholic church, it’s hard to let go of the idea of self-sacrifice and “doing without,” a tradition emphasized now during Lent but practiced to some degree always.