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.
Me: The Night Writer, John Stewart; 50 years old and smart enough to have married my trophy wife first.
