Melissa Witmer, a Generations-cult pastor and wife of head pastor Rich Witmer, skews Scripture to support the cult's demand for large tithes and offerings. The cult teaches "prosperity gospel" to ensure followers give more than they can afford. See video here.

The following research article discusses the ethics of Prosperity Gospel:




This paper examines prosperity gospel and identifies a number of ethical considerations that relate to this new Christian doctrine. Preachers who choose to teach prosperity gospel in their churches are said to have excessive incomes and live lavish lifestyles. These prosperity preachers use the Bible to support their behavior and claim God wants everyone to be rich. They encourage their followers to spend large amounts of money on tithes and offerings to their churches with a promise that God will monetarily reward them 100 fold for their donations. This paper evaluates prosperity gospel through the lens of various ethics models, and provides recommendations on how to prevent people from using prosperity teaching for selfish means.


Background

    Prosperity teaching is making its way into Christian churches across the country and around the world (Ayegboyin, 2006; Blake, 2006; McCormick, 2007). It suggests that God intends for Christians to be prosperous in wealth through the practice of giving money to the church. The basic premise provides that the more money Christian members give to their respective church, the more money they will receive from God in return. According to Ayegboyin (2006), "Most critics suppose that there is a form of exploitation, which is attendant on this practice" (p. 80). Additionally, many theologians and religious scholars suggest the teachings are creating a divide within mainstream Christianity as prosperity teachers like Rev. Creflo Dollar of Atlanta are awarding themselves millions of dollars a year while many of their followers hand over their life savings in return for promises of God's blessings (McCormick, 2007).
    Theology ethicists believe this practice is an aberration of the Bible's message. Sondra Ely Wheeler of Wesley Theological Seminary says prosperity teachers are "giving people divine sanctification to be greedy. You tell them what they want to hear: The reason you have a Mercedes is because God loves you" (Blake, 2006, p. 1MS). According to Robert Stivers, a professor of Christian ethics at Pacific Lutheran University, "It's a gross misreading of scripture and tradition. It misses the whole center of Christianity, which is trust in God, not the acquisition of wealth" (Shapiro, 2003).
    Former televangelist Jim Bakker, who was convicted of fraud in 1989, was a prosperity teacher. He admits in a 1996 book that his prosperity message was wrong: "The more I studied the Bible, however, I had to admit that the prosperity message did not line up with the tenor of Scripture. My heart was crushed to think that I led so many people astray. I was appalled that I could have been so wrong, and I was deeply grateful that God had not struck me dead as a false prophet! How could I have taught and even written books on the subject of 'how to get rich' when Jesus spoke so clearly about the dangers of earthly riches?" (Bakker, p. 355).
    According to Wheeler (1995), who analyzed the New Testament's treatment of wealth from an ethical perspective, "... wealth is associated with fraud, the corruption of the judicial process, and the neglect of the laws instituted by God to prevent the means of wealth from being concentrated in the hands of a few" (p. 124).
    However, there are other various experts who suggest prosperity teaching is exactly what the Bible calls for. Reverend Creflo Dollar of Atlanta, for example, claims that God wants believers to be rich. Dollar said in a 2006 interview: "We want to demonstrate to people that we are excited about obeying God's word. There was a time during offering time that people were depressed, sad. [Now] it's an opportunity to say we are excited about giving because we know that something happens supernaturally in our lives when we are givers" (Burns, 2006).
    According to McCormick (2007), Dollar has been preaching "prosperity gospel" for 20 years and now "owns – among other things – a multimillion dollar home in Atlanta, a $2.5 million apartment in Manhattan's tony Time Warner Center, two Rolls Royces, and a private jet" (p. 42). According to Martin (2006), Dollar claims that "his wealth comes from the sale of books and inspirational tapes, not from church donations" (par. 16). Symonds, Grow, and Cady (2005) describe these religious business ventures as ploys to earn larger amounts of money. They write, "Such marketing and services help create brand loyalty any CEO would envy" (par. 22). This brand loyalty attracts more and more people to the church. "All this growth, plus the tithing many evangelicals encourage, is generating gushers of cash" (par. 24).
    Another prosperity teacher in Yuma, Ariz., claims similar rewards. Pastor Richard Witmer, who leads a congregation of approximately 1,000 people, bought a "half million dollar house" in 2006 and drives a 2007 BMW (R. Witmer, personal conversation, August 24, 2006). Witmer began his prosperity ministry in 2001 when he opened Generations Church. Although Witmer admits that he has no formal education in the Bible, he claims he has ordination papers authorizing him to operate a church. However, ordination papers are readily available over the Internet to anyone willing to pay a nominal fee (Karp, 2006).
    Witmer preaches the prosperity message and tells his congregants that God will monetarily reward them "100 times" what they give to the church. This message is common in prosperity churches, and it serves to propel excessive giving. According to Ayegboyin (2006), "Some rush into business situations based on such personal prophecy because they believe such prophecies would cause them to prosper. In some cases, quite a number end up giving out what little they have only to wait endlessly for a hundred-fold multiplication of what they have given" (p. 81).
    A Texas-based prosperity teacher landed himself in prison for 15 years for sexually assaulting female members of his church. According to Mosier (2006), the judge presiding over the case "said the pastor's fall from grace shows the danger of abandoning Christian self-sacrifice for self-gratification" (par. 2). Although this example doesn't suggest prosperity gospel leaders will all commit these types of crimes, it does underscore the premise that prosperity gospel's promises of earthly riches leaves people vulnerable to succumbing to other sins of the flesh.


Introduction

    Ethics is the combined focus of human behavior and decision making that discerns positive and negative behavior and results. In organizational contexts, ethics can positively and negatively affect a number of situational and fixed variables. These include profit, morale, and group dynamics. According to Bottorff, "Good ethics on the other hand have a surprisingly positive effect on organizational activities and results. Productivity improves, group dynamics and communication improve, and risk is reduced" (par. 4). The three basic psychological steps in the ethical decision-making process presented by Trevino and Nelson (2005) are: moral awareness, moral judgment, and ethical behavior.
    Moral awareness. As leaders, prosperity preachers are responsible for the welfare of those who follow them. This means prosperity preachers have an ethical duty to protect their followers from any harm that could be attributed to church activities. However, Trevino and Nelson point out that people aren't always aware of the ethical nature of certain situations. This suggests two possibilities: First, if a prosperity preacher is aware of ethical issues related to asking for large donations then he or she will consider the ramifications of such. Second, if a prosperity preacher is not aware of the ethical issues, then he or she will not consider the consequences. In the case of prosperity gospel, with critics publicly denouncing its practice around the world, it is difficult to assume that prosperity teachers are unaware of the ethical issues involved. "People are more likely to recognize the moral nature of an issue or decision if they believe that their peers will consider it to be ethically problematic" (p. 111). Based on these assertions, it is likely that most prosperity preachers are at least aware of the ethical considerations involved in their teachings, whether they choose to agree with their critics or not is a choice of moral judgment.
    Moral judgment. According to Trevino and Nelson, "Once people are aware of the ethical dimensions of a situation or decision, they engage in moral judgment processes that contribute to ethical conduct" (p. 113). If prosperity preachers are aware of the ethical issues involved with their teachings, and they continue to teach people that God will reward them 100 fold for their monetary donations, then their behavior could be either ethical or unethical depending on their personal beliefs.
    Ethical behavior. This psychological approach to ethical decision making leaves prosperity preachers in one of two categories depending on the sincerity of their personal beliefs: ethical or unethical. One could argue that prosperity preachers who truly believe that God wants people to be rich, and the method for which to accomplish God's will is through heavy tithing, are acting ethically. However, the same premise provides that those prosperity preachers who do not believe or doubt the prosperity doctrine are unethical, and are probably in it for themselves. Unfortunately, there is no simple test to determine who is truthful and who is not. At the same time, however, other ethical considerations suggest the impact on stakeholders should determine ethical behavior (Trevino & Nelson).
    In business, ethics issues can often become more complicated than the personal ethics issues that an individual might normally face. This is magnified when a business decision carries the power to affect a large population. Things can get specifically complicated when decision makers face the challenge of making an ethical decision that supports a greater good while that decision might contradict their individual ethical concepts. For example, if a prosperity preacher does believe his doctrine, yet his or her followers are too poor to give great sums of money to the church, then it could be considered unethical to encourage excessive or heavy tithing because doing so could undermine the quality of life of those who give too much. Trevino and Nelson provide numerous examples of companies that failed to meet ethical or social obligations. They write, "The costs of bungling an ethical obligation to any of the four primary stakeholder groups can not only be crippling, they can also be fatal" (p. 218).
    According to Zablow (2006), "There is growing evidence that a broad cross-section of stakeholders, including shareholders, regulators, law enforcement, lenders, insurance underwriters, analysts, and bond raters are willing to reward organizations that have a proven commitment to integrity" (p. 26). Although the writer isn't speaking directly to religious organizations, the idea of various stakeholders rewarding a religious institution that practices integrity is valid. For example, churches led by prosperity teachers who drive luxury cars and live lavish lifestyles have come under scrutiny by numerous audiences over the last two decades. This public scrutiny likely keeps some potential church members from joining those churches. Jim Bakker caught the attention of the media and law enforcement officials after flaunting his wealth, which was earned under the guise of the prosperity gospel and at the expense of his congregants. It is likely, therefore, that those religious leaders who elect to live modest lifestyles will earn more respect and generosity from various community members and stakeholders because they will be seen as virtuous. For example, if and when the government creates or finds a way to formally crack down on prosperity preachers and their institutions, those churches that elected not to participate in prosperity gospel will earn a higher level of public trust and will possibly attract new membership from the population of people who appreciate their consistent unselfish teachings.
    An ethical examination of prosperity gospel is appropriate in a business sense because those churches that subscribe to the prosperity doctrine apply businesslike decision-making processes in the government of their churches. According to Ayegboyin (2006), "The funding and management of the churches are portrayed as business concerns" (p. 78). Most prosperity preachers write and sell books on getting rich, sell copies of their sermons, and develop and sell various church memorabilia to their congregants. Pastor Richard Witmer of Generations Church in Yuma, Ariz., established a fully staffed coffee and espresso bar in his church and sells products to his congregants at Starbucks prices (R. Witmer, personal conversation, August 24, 2006). This operation is purely a business venture that is designed to increase the pastor's income. By contrast, a canvass of other local churches revealed that they offer free coffee services to churchgoers via donations and volunteers.
    Ayegboyin (2006) further cites the advertising campaigns these churches employ are fashioned after large business operations. As one example Ayegboyin writes, "The calendars and posters advertising conventions and big rallies carry the photographs of 'host pastors' standing by their wives" (p. 78). This practice parallels the advertising behavior of Generations Church in Yuma, Ariz., where the church purchases billboard space depicting the pastor and his wife, Richard and Melissa Witmer, owners and founders of Generations Church, Inc.
    According to Ayegboyin, critics impeach this practice of ownership as a means to ensure the church (and therefore its profits) stays within the grasp of the founder's family. For example, traditional Christian churches use boards to select and hire pastors and/or grow their own from within the congregation, creating an ever-changing succession of leadership. Prosperity churches are generally created and owned by the pastor, who will also employ his wife as a pastor. This arrangement typically creates a permanent leadership fixture in the church as "the senior pastor serves as the president and chief executive, and the wife serves as the co-founder, deputy president and treasurer" (p. 78). Furthermore, this setup essentially guarantees that the church will remain as a family business. The business model used to manage prosperity-driven churches allows a researcher to apply an ethical evaluation of their processes based on established ethics models employed by businesses in general.

Prescriptive approaches

    Trevino and Nelson (2005) provide three ethical approaches: consequentialist, deontological, and virtue. This section will analyze prosperity gospel and its preachers from each perspective.
    Consequentialist perspective. When determining "what's right or wrong, consequentialist theories focus attention on the results or consequences of the decision or action" (p. 89). Applying this theory to the decisions and actions of a prosperity preacher, one would assume that the preacher should consider all possible consequences (good and bad) for all stakeholders regarding teaching the prosperity message. If the list of bad consequences outweighs the possible good outcomes, then the preacher should be ethically obligated to not practice prosperity gospel. A literature review of available research on prosperity gospel provided zero evidence supporting the premise of the more people give to their church, the richer God will make them. However, there are various documented cases where heavy giving caused financial hardship for some people (Ayegboyin, 2006). Based on these findings, it should be difficult for a preacher using a consequentialist perspective to side in favor of teaching the prosperity message because of the potential harm to a large number of churchgoer stakeholders.
    Deontological perspective. This approach generally refers to a universal theory of what's right (to include honesty). From a deontological perspective, preachers must determine what universal principle they serve. As leaders, preachers are responsible for church-related actions that affect the welfare of their followers. As preachers, they are responsible for teaching the word of God from the Bible. Since most theologians and religious scholars agree that prosperity gospel is not supported by scripture (Ayegboyin, 2006; Bakker, 1996; Shapiro, 2003; Wheeler, 1995), and since there are documented cases where prosperity gospel had a negative impact on believers, a deontological perspective would not allow prosperity teaching.
    Virtue perspective. According to Trevino and Nelson (2005), "A virtue ethics perspective considers primarily the actors character, motivations, and intentions" (p. 93). This application of ethics would examine the actual intent of a preacher who practices prosperity gospel. If a preacher actually believes in the doctrine, and his motivations were well intentioned, then a virtue ethics perspective suggests the preacher is behaving ethically. However, the same test would deem a preacher unethical if he or she was using the prosperity message for self-serving motivations.

Corporate social responsibility

    Corporate social responsibility refers to the combined activities that define business processes and their impact on the company, on people, and on the environment. Where ethics involves doing what is right from a moral perspective, corporate social responsibility involves doing what is right for society. Although these two ideas might seem similar, they do pose some differences. For example, some posit that a business has an ethical responsibility to be profitable for its shareholders. However, the company's responsibility to society could interfere with this obligation when maintaining or earning profits requires actions that could damage a societal interest (i.e. – selling nuclear technology to a rogue state).   
    According to Trevino and Nelson (2005), "The biggest corporate social responsibility challenges come when ethical responsibility and economic responsibility conflict" (p. 31). In the example above, it might be ethically responsible to sell nuclear technology to a rogue state because it will ensure profits for stakeholders; however, it would be socially irresponsible.
    The question of whether a company can be ethical without being socially responsible (and vice versa) is a complicated one that requires considerable attention to the variables in a specific instance. The notion of ethics is often vague and undefined, and one could also say that social responsibility is relative to the issue at hand. However, generally speaking, corporate social responsibility suggests that it is not possible to be ethical without also being socially responsible. This is because corporate social responsibility requires positive results for all stakeholders, which include those inside and outside an organization, and on society in general.
    Fortunately, social responsibility is becoming increasingly important. According to the Mallenbaker (n. d.) Web site, "The pressure on businesses to play a role in social issues will continue to grow" (p. 3). In the case of prosperity gospel, prosperity leaders and teachers are making large sums of money from a growing number of church-business activities that encourage churchgoers to give large portions of their incomes to the church in exchange for God's monetary rewards. However, prosperity gospel is potentially very damaging in communities that are especially poor. According to Ayegboyin (2006), "Prosperity teaching is, to a large extent, a theology for the rich rather than the poor" (p. 83). This is because people who are poor simply cannot afford the level of giving that prosperity preachers encourage and demand, yet they are compelled to try because they desire to be right with God.


Ethical decision-making model for religious organizations

    This section will apply the research of Whittier, Williams, and Dewett (2006) on ethical decision-making models to religious organizations that rely on monetary donations from their members. Their paper evaluates the prescriptive value of ethical decision-making models and offers suggestions of what methodology and approach best suits companies. A literature review of available research on prosperity gospel churches failed to identify any churches that employed an ethics-based, decision-making process. However, the authors posit that businesses should use an ethical decision-making model in order to avoid making ethical mistakes. Based on the authors' recommendations, a decision-making model for a church should include the following criteria:
        · Consideration of the moral issue
        · Real-world applicability
        · Consideration of context
        · Integrations of individual and organizational factors
        · Capable of recommending decisions
        · Ability to clarify goals and integrate knowledge
    In addition, the Josephson Institute of Ethics (2002) provides a working list of factors that people can use to improve their ethical decision-making ability. They offer, "Filter your choices through each of the Six Pillars of Character: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and citizenship" (six pillars). Applying these pillars to decision-making processes will help ensure decisions are ethically sound.
    According to JIE, "The stakeholder concept reinforces our obligation to make all reasonable efforts to foresee possible consequences and take reasonable steps to avoid unjustified harm to others" (2002).
    According to Zablow (2006), "Decision-making models provide an organizational framework for determining the facts of a given situation; identifying the alternatives and consequences of each contemplated action; choosing a course of action; implementing the decision; and evaluating its outcome" (p. 28). However, in prosperity churches built on the premise of growing membership to earn more money, such decision methodologies are likely to be ignored. This possibility is further aggravated in those prosperity churches that are established and owned by the founding pastor because he or she is unaccountable.
    These barriers to implementing ethical decision-making models in religious organizations could be mitigated by installing a formal system of checks and balances for religious organizations that have historically operated under the radar of governmental oversight. One such option is public review of church financial records.

Public review and governmental oversight

    During a personal conversation with the pastor of Generations Church in Yuma, Ariz., this researcher asked to see the church's financial records. The pastor adamantly refused and said, "That's just weird" (R. Witmer, personal conversation, August 23, 2006). However, if an organization truly has nothing to hide, then it should be more than happy to share its financial records with the public. The U.S. Constitution provides certain safeguards for religious organizations that preclude them from having to share certain information. However, in light of the various moneymaking ventures these new church-businesses participate in, it is time the government examines whether religious organizations should be allowed to autonomously operate as businesses without some level of oversight.
    The government should also examine its moral and ethical obligations to protect citizens from predatory churches that teach prosperity gospel. One way it can do this is to introduce legislation that would require religious organizations to make their financial records public. This policy would discourage unscrupulous churches from preying on their congregations because it would force them to show where their funds come from and how they're spent. Once the public sees these numbers, people will likely speak out against these prosperity churches because their true purposes will no longer be transparent.

Require formal education

    Most mainstream religious denominations require a certain level of scholarly achievement before earning rights of pastorship or ordination. However, there are very few regulations that pertain to church establishment and religious leadership. A majority of the existing requirements in individual mainstream churches are self imposed and regulated. By comparison, U.S. laws and regulations prevent people from practicing medicine and law without proper schooling, credentials, and licenses. However, literally anyone can become a pastor and start preaching for money. For example, the pastor of Generations Church in Yuma, Ariz., admitted to having no formal education in the Bible and has only a high school diploma. However, he was quick to point out that he is "ordained" by his pastor, Cesar Castellanos of Columbia (R. Witmer, personal conversation, August 23, 2006). Interestingly, Castellanos was the one who invented the order of prosperity gospel that Witmer teaches. Their relationship is akin more to one of business than one of religion, as Witmer is required to purchase his church materials from Castellanos.
    An educational requirement for pastors and other religious leaders might not solve the issue of various theological differences. However, it would make it more difficult for charlatans to rise to positions of power in religious organizations. People who are out to make a quick buck at society's expense will rarely invest time in endeavors that will first require them to earn the prerequisite credentials.


    An ethical examination of prosperity gospel revealed a number of issues that should be further addressed by theologians, religious scholars, and Christian followers. The seemingly predatory function of prosperity teaching in church opens numerous doors for charlatans and con artists to manipulate people for personal gain. This is further magnified when one considers the lack of qualifications and/or credentials one needs to practice prosperity gospel.
    The business model prosperity churches apply to their organizations to ensure and grow profit is a telltale sign of their underlying goal: to make money. Governmental oversight of religious organizations and educational requirements for religious leaders are two recommendations that could alleviate concerns of fraud and manipulation that currently plague these prosperity organizations and their leaders.
    Ayegboin (2006) argues that since prosperity doctrine cannot be applied universally, it should not be used at all. Additionally, since churches should be responsible for safeguarding their congregation from religious harm, those who preach prosperity gospel are violating the tenets of good corporate social responsibility.


Ayegboyin, D. I. (2006). A rethinking of prosperity teaching in the New Pentecostal churches in Nigeria. Black Theology: An International Journal, 4(1), 70-86.

Bakker, J. (1996). I was wrong. Nashville, TN: Nelson Books.

Blake, J. (2006, October 22). Was Jesus rich? The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, p. 1MS.

Bottorff, D. L. (n.d.). Ethics and culture management services. Retrieved January 8, 2007 from the Ethics Quality for Organizational Excellence Web site: http://www.ethicsquality.com/about.htm

Burns, R. (2006, October). Almighty dollar. Atlanta, 46(6), 119-132.

Center for Responsible Lending. (2004, December 10). Soldiers at risk: Military personnel vulnerable to payday loans. CRL Issue Brief, 22.

Chisholm, D. (2002). Organizational change in uncertain times: The U.S. military and Millennium Challenge 2002. Naval War College. Retrieved January 16, 2007 from http://web.mit.edu/ssp/seminars/wed_archives_02fall/chisholm.htm

Grebb, M. (2005, October 17). A blessing or a curse? A look at the numbers and ethics behind televangelism. Multichannel News, 26(43), 46-50.

Henriques, D. B. (2004, December 7). Seeking quick loans, soldiers race into high-interest traps. The New York Times, p. 1.

Josephson Institute of Ethics. (2002). Obstacles to ethical decision making: Rationalizations. Resources: Making Ethical Decisions. Retrieved Jan 16, 2007 from the Josephson Institute of Ethics Web site: Josephson Institute of Ethics. (2002). http://www.josephsoninstitute.org/MED/MED-2sixpillars.htm http://www.josephsoninstitute.org/MED/MED-5rationalizations.htm

Karp, M. (2006, September 20). Internet offers endless buffoonery. Sun-Sentinal [Electronic version]. Retrieved February 11, 2006, from http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/custom/nextgeneration/broward/sfl-bhs20oddthingssep20,0,2022783.story

Mallenbaker. (n. d.). Corporate social responsibility-what does it mean? Retrieved on February 25, 2007, from http://www.mallenbaker.net

Martin, E. (2006, November 12). Their faith in the Dollar; Ministers who preach God intends the faithful to be wealthy have spawned followers and critics. Newsday, A24.

McCall, J. J. (2002). Leadership and ethics: Corporate accountability to whom, for what and by what means? Journal of Business Ethics, 38(1/2), 133-139.

McCormick, P. (2007). Finance ministers. U.S. Catholic, 72(1), 42-43. Mosier, J. (2006, August 29). Hornbuckle handed 15 years: Pastor must serve at least half; rape victim tells him 'you are evil'. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved August 29, 2006 from LexisNexis Academic.

Shapiro, N. (2003, November 5). Blessed for success [Electronic version]. Seattle Weekly. Retrieved January 18, 2007, from http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0345/031105_news_blessed.php

Symonds, W., Grow, B., & Cady, J. (2005). Earthly empires. Business Week. Retrieved January 18, 2007, from MasterFILE Premier database.

Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and managerial ethics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Wheeler, S. E. (1995). Wealth as peril and obligation: The New Testament on possessions. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Whittier, N. C., Williams, S., & Dewett, T. C. (2006). Evaluating ethical decision-making models: A review and application. Society and Business Review, 1(3), 235.

Wood, S. (2006, October 18). Financial readiness equals mission readiness, official says. American Forces Press Service. Retrieved January 16, 2007, from http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=1675

Zablow, R. (2006). Creating and sustaining an ethical workplace. Risk Management, 53(9), 26-29.