To which O’Reilly responds:
I’m generally not interested in defending Sarah Palin against charges of hypocrisy. But for heaven’s sake: it’s not a paradox to have a pregnant, unmarried teenage daughter and still believe that premarital sex is wrong. Having moral convictions despite the existence of sin and human weakness is not “willing blindness.” On the other hand, believing that a preacher like Garay is sincere, or that “Jesus loved money” is a Christian message, is clearly a form of self-deception, motivated by a complicated mix of ignorance, vulnerability (especially among poor immigrants), and greed. Investigating those dynamics would be worthwhile, but it would require a genuine interest in religion — and a willingness to abandon a cutely contrarian framework once it proves unsupportable.
That’s some good media criticism.
Ryan -- thanks for following up! If I may take the liberty of linking to myself, I did write about this story at the time. I actually thought the headline was relatively accurate -- ludicrous, of course, but it seemed to me that was the argument Rosin tried to make, insofar as she made any argument at all. Too bad, because her reporting should have led her down much more fruitful paths of inquiry.
#1 Posted by Mollie, CJR on Thu 27 May 2010 at 10:48 AM
Nice to see the Rosin story coming in (however belatedly) for some much deserved criticism. The headline wasn't the problem; the article was, if anything, worse.
Rosin does, in fact, claim that the prosperity gospel caused the crash. For this, she offers no actual evidence beyond correlation. Poor people, particularly minorities, were attracted to the prosperity gospel; foreclosures are concentrated in poor areas, particularly those with large minority populations. I almost snarfed my coffee when I first read that. Really, Hanna? That's the best you have to offer? Needless to say, prosperity gospel isn't popular among the buyers or packages of CDOs or CDSs, where irrational optimism abounded.
Then there are her misunderstandings of theology. It's quite possible for a doctrine finding in material success evidence of salvation to produce a healthy work ethic - see (Weber, Max) for more details.
But the sin for which I simply cannot forgive her, or her editors, is the fact that of the actual examples she offers, every one of them was in significantly more dire financial straits before they embraced the prosperity gospel than after. If you're going to blame the doctrine for financial problems, can't you find at least one person you can name in the article whose financial problems stemmed from the doctrine? Instead, we get Garay, going from failed drug dealer to successful preacher and family man, and Billy Gonzales, who was snorting cocaine and getting drunk four times a week and is now productively employed with a family. Neither of them is actually rich, both struggle, but aren't they better off? And indeed, the sole expert to whom Rosin talks who has actually studied these things rigorously on the ground, makes the case that these congregations are highly effective, and that they teach congregants "not just how to survive but how to thrive; not just live paycheck to paycheck but handle money—manage complicated payrolls, invest in equipment."
But Rosin won't hear of it. Despite the fact that all the evidence in front of her suggests that the prosperity gospel, on the whole, incentivizes its adherents to work hard, manage their finances, and aspire to better things, she resolutely sticks with her original and incendiary premise, that its supposed promise of something for nothing brought on the financial crisis, and ruined its adherents.
I'm not sure whether to blame poor reporting, an inability to examine evidence, or a relentless hostility to the role of religion. But whatever its causes, the article was an outright disgrace.
#2 Posted by Cynic, CJR on Thu 27 May 2010 at 12:00 PM
Cynic - My link above didn't work (serves me for getting fancy), but I laid out some of my problems with that article here:
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=5580
#3 Posted by Mollie, CJR on Thu 27 May 2010 at 04:41 PM
Did Hanna Rosin really say that? Wow. I realize that writers gotta write, but . . . Thanks for calling her out. Imagine if someone of a different view surveyed the demographics of Wall Street, the predations of Bernie Madoff, etc., and asked if Judaism caused the crash.
#4 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 27 May 2010 at 05:03 PM
It is easier for a rich man to enter heaven seated comfortably on the back of a camel than it is for a poor man to pass through the eye of a needle.
#5 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Thu 27 May 2010 at 06:36 PM
Thanks for reposting the link Mollie - that's good stuff.
I'm with you on most of it. And I'd add that the very particular circumstances of this church - a pastor who was also a broker selling to his congregants - may have made Rosin think she had a powerful metaphor, but actually serve to render it somewhat sui generis. It's not as if this such conflicts were widely found. Most pastors were not also brokers. So her examples, such as they are, have limited applicability.
The other thing I'd point out is that, odious though I find the prosperity gospel as theology, there's actually a fair amount of evidence that it works reasonably well as a self-help doctrine. Which contravenes Rosin's case. It appeals to people who haven't had much success, and encourages them to focus single-mindedly on achieving financial success (with a religious zeal). It may not make them happy. It probably will never make them rich, despite the promises they're given. But it can, and does, make them work hard, take risks, and generally strive to increase their net worth. As a Christian doctrine, it's a sham; as a moral message, it's entirely hollow; but as a self-help doctrine, it's not too shabby. There's simply no evidence that adherents of the prosperity gospel are worse off for it, in financial terms - and quite a bit in the other direction. And that's a huge, huge hole in the story.
#6 Posted by Cynic, CJR on Thu 27 May 2010 at 07:50 PM
Mollie, thanks for posting your piece. It's excellent I will update with a link above. I critiqued the headline and you did the much more difficult task of critiquing the story.
And I fixed the link in your first comment, just fyi.
Thanks again, and thanks to Cynic and Mark Richard for their comments here.
#7 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Thu 27 May 2010 at 08:14 PM