Donald Trump, Joel Osteen, and the Evangelical "Money Cult"
"The market is becoming a mystical object of worship," says Chris Lehmann, editor in chief of left-wing "little magazine" The Baffler and the author of the new book The Money Cult: Capitalism, Christianity, and the Unmaking of the American Dream. "The market is becoming sanctified."
Which, he argues, helps to explain the rise of Donald Trump, who has no qualifications to run for president other than his vast (and exaggerated) riches. Evangelical Christians, Lehmann notes, are supporting Trump despite the billionaire's questionable religiosity and lack of charitable donations.
From poor and dispossessed millennialists to wealthy celebrity preachers such as Aimee McPherson and mega-pastor Joel Osteen, The Money Cult charts changes in the American economy and Protestant theology that led to what became known as "the prosperity gospel," or a sense that worldly success was a sign of spiritual salvation.
Lehmann sat down with Reason TV's Nick Gillespie to discuss his brilliantly written and wide-ranging work on how American Christianity came to see profit as a sign from God, whether progressives and libertarians can effectively join together on issues such as foreign policy, drug policy, and criminal-justice reform, and how he's working to shake up left-wing orthodoxies at The Baffler.
Approximately 21 minutes. Camera by Todd Krainin and Joshua Swain.
Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this. Click the link below for downloadable versions of this video.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The nice thing about this article is that it's unbiased and doesn't use a broad brush to condemn by association.
No, that would be crazy.
Translation = "Hey, lay off conservatives!".
I didn't know that being an Evangelical Christian made me a conservative. I thought I was an An-Cap.
Thank you for letting me know what I believe! Where would I be without you?
I'm making over $15k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. Go to website and click toTech tab for more work details...Now this Website... http://www.Trends88.com
"who has no qualifications to run for president"
He's a citizen and is over 35 years of age.
Nowhere did the Founding Fathers detail that one must by a crony capitalist, career politco, or lawyer to be President.
Compared to say, a community organizer and first term Senator?
Don't underestimate the guy. He managed to be a community organizer and first term Senator at the same time as being a crony capitalist, career politco, and lawyer.
Funny enough he got elected.
God did say, throughout Scripture, that wealth can be a sign that one obeys him (loves him with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength). However, the entirety of the book of Job should be enough proof that sometimes God's "blessings" really, really hurt.
Didn't Christ say "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."? That doesn't imply that riches prevent you from salvation, but it did blow the minds of the 1st century Hebrews who stubbornly thought that money was proof of God's favor.
Generally speaking, it's very likely that someone who claims to follow God will have more wealth if that someone actually does follow God. It's also possible that they will have less wealth (think missionaries in Ethiopia and how much wealth they'd have if they had stayed in their home countries).
I keep wondering why some atheists insist on trying to explain what they don't know very much about. I keep coming to the conclusion that it's often (though not always) tribalism.
Thank you for this thoughtful post, ace_m82. I have found that often times people unfamiliar with scripture maintain the warped perception that worldly success is somehow forbidden. If they just did their homework they would discover, like you say, that prosperity can sometimes be born of obedience to the gospel. There is no blanket prohibition of wealth. But that wouldn't fit the straw-man narrative of many atheists, would it. You are also on point, IMO, that any group, even the skeptical community that I consider myself a part of, can sometimes think and behave tribally, and therefore, antithetically to their stated premises. Just my 2 cents.
Worldly success is forbidden by leftists. Unless you are a leftist.
"Which, he argues, helps to explain the rise of Donald Trump, who has no qualifications to run for president other than his vast (and exaggerated) riches."
Really? This was written by an editor for Reason. That's an absurd statement.
Actually it is not any Reason editor saying that. It reads:
"Which, he argues, helps to explain the rise of Donald Trump, who has no qualifications to run for president other than his vast (and exaggerated) riches."
The "he" being referred to is Chris Lehmann, the subject of the interview and the editor of some left-wing mag.
Lehmann is the one who apparently does not know the only stated qualifications to run for president are citizenship and a minimum age requirement.
My friend just told me about this easiest method of freelancing. I've just tried it and now I am getting paid 18000usd monthly without spending too much time. you can also do this.
See Here---------> http://www.CareerPlus90.com
The cult I'm worried about is the Cult oif the State. I'm guessing Mr. Lehmann is one of the faithful.
So his bizarre contention is that religious people support Donald Trump, despite his lack of morals, because they worship money? It couldn't be because they cannot vote for Democrats who are clearly out to eliminate religious liberty in this country? What is their alternative?
Clinton is certain to continue Obama's assault on the First Amendment; Gary Johnson could give a shit, because he's a 'hip' libertarian whose copy of the Constitution has a truncated First Amendment without the uncomfortable language about 'free exercise', and Trump is the wild card.
They have no alternative.
1A is also incompatible with non-profit status for churches (=establishment of religion) and civil rights laws regarding religion (=incompatible with free exercise); I don't see Christian conservatives stampeding to end those.
I'm not sure where you got the concept that tax exemption is government support for religion, but that is a regressive (aka 'progressive') talking point. All nonprofits receive tax exempt status- this is not unique to religion. Your second point doesn't make much sense about 'free exercise' and 'civil rights laws'.
One can assume that you also have a truncated version of the Constitution and you are unaware of American history where religious belief has always been accommodated (to varying degrees) including in the Constitution where federal office holders are allowed to 'swear an oath' or 'simply affirm' (which was a conscience attempt to accommodate Quakers who do not believe in swearing oaths). Regressives, such as Johnson, want to import 'freedom of worship' from Europe to replace the American concept of 'freedom of religion'. One cannot claim to be from the liberal tradition that accepts the two ideas as equivalent.
Earning a profit should be celebrated. Profit is the difference between the benefit society freely places on a product or service through prices freely paid, and the cost to society in resources used. Those who earn the highest profits are giving people what they want, at the lowest cost to everyone else.
And who should keep those profits? The people who earn them and have shown they can create more? Or the people who stamp their feet the loudest about fairness and would have trouble holding down a job if government didn't exist?
Some wealth yes. But other wealth did not come from providing a wanted good or service. Trump for example, got much of his wealth by sucking on the teat of government. And not everyone who provides a wanted good or service gets to be a millionaire.
True, but that's still better than Hillary, who got all of her wealthy by sucking the teat of government (and sucking God knows what else).
Wonder if he goes into the whole Cult of Amway. That was the first time as a mainstream protestant first ran across the idea that Christian salvation promised earthly riches. I checked, and oddly enough they were using what appeared to be the same Bible as me.
I've got nothing against wealth, but it's not one of the spiritual gifts.
We shouldn't sanctify the market -- it's not perfect, and there are no angels/saints -- but we should recognize that it's the best predictive tool we have. Markets outperform experts in virtually every predictive field from political contests, to sports contests, to predicting earnings and stock prices. Markets reflect the combined knowledge and expertise of all participants, which almost always exceeds the knowledge and expertise of any individual. If we want to make good forecasts and decisions about the future, the market is the best place to start. In particular, the current tyranny of the bureaucracy (aka nanny state) is both wrong ("we know best") and unAmerican (inconsistent with our beliefs in freedom, self reliance, and individual rights).
The protestant ethic -- hard work leads to success -- has always been part of the American dream. I'm not sure what the point is here????
Donald Trump is qualified to be president because he won enough votes to get his party's nomination, and meets all other Constitutional requirements. Any other "qualifications" reflect personal value judgements, not objective criteria. My personal value judgement is that he's statist disaster, but he's certainly qualified to run.
Powerful and lucid assessment, uofmjones. I would be interested in hearing you debate the author. Actually, you thoroughly deconstructed his premises in your post. Not sure where he goes from here.
Thanks. I'm willing to debate any time he is...
I basically profit close to $10k-$12k every month doing an online job. For those of you who are prepared to do easy at home jobs for 2h-5h each day at your house and earn valuable paycheck while doing it...Then this work opportunity is for you
See Here====== http://www.CareerPlus90.com
Lehmann shouldn't worry much about Joel Osteen. Last I read he and his wife were big supporters of Obama. Probably in the tank for Hillary as well.
my classmate's aunt makes $80 an hour on the computer . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her check was $18306 just working on the computer for a few hours.click for this website
_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.55easyline.com
Cliff's Notes version of this interview:
EGG-SETTERA
EGG-SETTERA
EGG-SETTERA
This article ignores one important thing. Evangelicals that actually go to church are among the least supportive of trump. Cultural evangelicals (like cultural Catholics that don't go to mass or believe Catholic doctrine but still consider themselves Catholic) call themselves evangelical but rarely if ever go to church. Basically, the more evangelical someone is, the less likely they are to like trump. Osteen and the prosperity gospel are certainly a huge problem since that philosophy is unchristian but they are still a small percentage of evangelicals.