Word of Faith

The critics' mythology holds to an audacious methodology. It is both historically and theologically wrong. They have peddled a myth, created a legend and divided the church. It’s time for truth.

D. R. McConnell mixed an unhealthy combination of limited history, biased theology, and unconscionable criticisms to create mythology attacking the ‘Word of Faith’ movement. He linked Revd. E. W. Kenyon to the metaphysical cults and then linked Revd. Kenneth Hagin to Kenyon and the mythology was born. The mythology claimed that the ‘Word of Faith’ movement was cultic. Many other critics jumped onto the mythological bandwagon. The most vocal was probably Hank Hanegraaff who took the title of ‘The Bible Answer Man.’ However, often his efforts have been exposed as being less than has been advertised, they are both theologically and historically deficient. DeArteaga for example has observed that Hanegraaff’s arguments lack ‘a broad Christian historical perspective’ (2001, p.268). He goes on to say that Hanegraaff’s views on aspects of the atonement are, ‘a serious injustice too many Orthodox believers’ (2001, p.271). The irony here is remarkable because many years later in 2017, Hanegraaff was to join the Eastern Orthodox Church! This change of emphasis by Hanegraaff is so dramatic that some are wondering if perhaps more irony is to come and maybe his next work might be a defense of the ‘Word of Faith’ movement?

Anyone who is seriously interested in the truth regarding the ‘Word of Faith’ movement will need to engage with the available objective appraisals. The British Evangelical Alliance, for example, commissioned ‘Faith, Health and Prosperity: A Report on ‘Word of Faith and ‘Positive Confession’ Theologies by ACUTE (the Evangelical Alliance Commission on Unity and Truth among Evangelicals).’ This work is referred to as the Perriman Report, after its editor Andrew Perriman. The Perriman Report remains the most serious scholastic work on the ‘Word of Faith’ movement to date. It’s conclusions expose critics of the ‘Word of Faith’ movement in the most serious manner.

Firstly, the Perriman Report has observed that the critics of the ‘Word of Faith’ movement, have been recognized as often having ‘ingrained and largely unexamined moral revulsion’ against the movement (2003, p.231). This observation is accurate, and the critics of the ‘Word of Faith’ movement have what seems to be a pathological animosity against the movement. This is to the degree that often the critics are striking in their theological and historical compromises. In using the word ‘unexamined,’ the Perriman report is highlighting the historical tendency that exists with the critics against the movement. The critics have shown prejudice and what the Perriman Report calls ‘spiritual snobbery’ (2003, p.231). This has had a significant impact so that even neutral people will often find it more acceptable to criticize the movement than to go against the liberal flow and defend it.

Perhaps it is not surprising given the spread of the mythology, that the Perriman Report highlighted significant problems in establishing accurate and balanced appraisals of the movement (Perriman 2003, p.1). The Perriman report chastises the critics of the ‘Word of Faith’ movement and suggests that the debate regarding the orthodoxy and roots of the movement ‘has been marred by misrepresentation, polarization, and invective’ (2003, p.15). It goes on to say that critics of the ‘Word of Faith’ movement, tend to be biased in their use of limited historical and biographical material, which has ‘frequently been assembled for the purpose of discrediting the movement’ (2003, p.1). Further, it recognizes that the critics have created ‘caricatures’ which it concludes are ‘an indiscriminate instrument of polemic’ (2003, p.231-4). In other words, the danger of creating caricatures is that it causes a generalization to take place. This is precisely what the critics were attempting to do in establishing their mythology of Kenyon and the ‘Word of Faith’ movement. Their generalizations repeatedly fail to engage in the complexity of the fusion of doctrines that exist. The Perriman Report insightfully observes ‘…that there is more to the teaching of Hagin and Copeland than is found in the one-sided analysis of their opponents’ (2003, p.232). DeArteaga points out that ‘the key is recognizing the difference between ‘collections’ and history; between assembling a scrapbook of errors and writing a fair description of another’s theology’ (1996, p.269). The Perriman report has been clear that some of the critics of the ‘Word of Faith’ movement have adopted polarized positions, which in turn have led to unbalanced and extreme classifications of the movement as being ‘cultic’ (2003, p.15).

The mythology in summary

I have listed the main points of influence on this work below, but this work is not limited to these points. We will uncover other related issues. We will expose the mythology of the leading critics of the ‘Word of Faith’ movement, who have claimed:

Kenyon was the father of the movement because of his influence over Hagin.
Kenyon had links to the metaphysical cults.
Therefore the metaphysical cults influenced the ‘Word of Faith’ movement.
The ‘Word of Faith’ movement’s atonement doctrine is cultic.
Word of Faith’ theology is generally cultic.

Within this work, we will show clear historical and theological evidence to disprove the critics' claims. It will be shown that:

Kenyon wasn’t the movements father, but he remains an influential figure.
Kenyon didn’t have links with metaphysical cults.
There are no direct metaphysical influences on the ‘Word of Faith’ movement.
The ‘Word of Faith’ movement’s theology is not cultic.
Kenneth Hagin is the father of the ‘Word of Faith’ movement.
The ‘Word of Faith’ atonement doctrine will be shown to be within the parameters of historical and theological orthodoxy.
The ‘Word of Faith’ movement employs a Biblical theology.
McConnell and the critics have invented mythology to attack the ‘Word of Faith’ movement.
The critics of the ‘Word of Faith’ movement have facilitated liberalism.
The ‘Word of Faith’ critics have created division within the body.