However, I do think that it is fair to closely examine how many of these men (and women) spend the money that their followers have sacrificed for. Some of these ministers are Word of Faith preachers; some are not. All of them, in my opinion, should publish detailed financial statements that reveal precisely where the donations were expended. It is my understanding that Rev. Billy Graham was very conscientious about the oversight of his organization.

For me, the true test of the motivations of these ministries is how would they respond if I wrote them a note and told them that the money that I was going to send them was used to feed and clothe a hungry child in my neighborhood?

However, it's not debateable as to who started the Word of Faith movement — it was Hagin.

He used Kenyon's teachings to do it, but to say any more than that isn't accurate. Kenyon didn't start a movement; he wrote some books and did some teaching. Hagin started the movement.

However, I do think that it is fair to closely examine how many of these men (and women) spend the money that their followers have sacrificed for. Some of these ministers are Word of Faith preachers; some are not. All of them, in my opinion, should publish detailed financial statements that reveal precisely where the donations were expended. It is my understanding that Rev. Billy Graham was very conscientious about the oversight of his organization.

For me, the true test of the motivations of these ministries is how would they respond if I wrote them a note and told them that the money that I was going to send them was used to feed and clothe a hungry child in my neighborhood?

However, it's not debateable as to who started the Word of Faith movement — it was Hagin.

He used Kenyon's teachings to do it, but to say any more than that isn't accurate. Kenyon didn't start a movement; he wrote some books and did some teaching. Hagin started the movement.

It was started by a man named Kennith Haggan. Copeland is Haggan's protege. You are right to observe that the movement is much bigger than him, by now, and that there are many faces to the movement. However, Copeland is one of the most well-known and richest of all of them, and from within the movement itself (which I can attest to), he is still looked to as one of the most significant figures.

The phrase “name it and claim it” came from within the movement itself and is still used positively. “Blab it and grab it” is obviously paradoy and originated from outside the movement.

Let me put it this way: I would never make a post that made fun of the extremes in Christianity. For example, a pastor from my church posted on his blog, “Social justice without the gospel is little more than the PeaceCorps.” I'm a Christian and currently serving as an AmeriCorps member (domestic peace corps). The comment seems to imply (to me, at least) that the PeaceCorps is fundamentally lacking something and is therefore incomplete and is therefore not worth a Christian's time. I objected on his blog and explained why — and I clearly responded from my own experience in AmeriCorps.

My point is only that rhetoric like this is usually divisive, not constructive. Even if the reasoning or idealogy behind the rhetoric is correct (which I think it is, in this case), what's the point of employing it if it's going to unnecessarily offend Christian sisters and brothers — many of whom we would all agree are victims of these ministries, not perpetrators!!

I have no problem with calling Copeland (and others like him) out on the carpet — none whatsoever. But let's do it in a way that considers that hundreds of thousands of well-intentioned Christians follow their teachings. Because if the point is to “expose the truth,” as you said well, then we must consider how we can do that in a manner that doesn't put off the very people we are trying to “help” (for lack of a better word).

And yes, I think April Fool's jokes are better when they are self-parody, because they are inherently unoffensive. It's impossible to interpret them as “Us vs. Them.” It's just us, at that point.

Not at all- as I stated, I'm not saying you should have posted something there. Just that you were perhaps responding to this because it impacted you more. Perhaps you *could* agree that it is much better that most of the April Fools jokes were self parody, than the alternative?

It depends on what you mean by a “follower of Jesus”. Christian, sure. But if you mean that literally, than at that moment, in that particular aspect, the implication would be correct- someone stealing money or pursuing wealth for it's own sake can not possibly be a follower of Jesus, anymore than can another at that moment in that action as he takes a gun to shoot someone and end the life of one who is in the image of God.

And frankly, calling it “blab it and grab it” is another frustrating thing for me to read. By your own admission, you've never heard of the Word of Faith movement, so why would you use pejorative language like “blab it and grab it”?

Regarding “reading into it.” You think I'm reading into it because you don't know what “Word of Faith” is. That movement was started by a man named Kennith Haggan, who was Copeland's pastor and mentor. Copeland has carried the torch and is now considered the foremost figure of the “Word of Faith” movement.

Moreover, almost all of the names listed by SisterMarie are members of that movement.

I'm not reading into anything. In this article, Copeland could have been substituted by any number of names, all of whom are a part of the larger “Word of Faith” movement.

Regarding not posting in the “liberal” threads: I didn't grow up as a liberal, so yes, obviously this one hits close to home. Are you saying it's somehow inappropriate for me to post my thoughts about what hits closely and not about that which does not hit closely?

I'm perturbed because of the tone of this post and the (unavoidable) implication that Copeland could not possibly be a follower of Jesus — because he has misunderstood Jesus' message about money.

To me, that is fundamentalist thinking — it's just that the fundamental is the appropriate use of money rather than the doctrine of Scripture (or something else from the “right”).

Let me put it this way. I totally believe that we can ask God for help in faith, and he will provide. Within his best wishes for us, of course, so most of the time this doesn't involve material wealth, for he calls us to be devoted to Holy Sister Poverty (I believe). But I believe that faith produces results. I could therefore read this article as attacking everyone who has that kind of faith. But I don't. I read it as an attack on those kind of televangelists who extort money from their followers, much like Madeoff. Some of them might be part of Word of Faith, and some might.

It's good that you are equal. But I notice that you haven't posted something similar on the 3/5ths of the April Fool's Jokes on this site that were attacks on liberals. (And in fact, the three got very little attention from anyone.) And I'm not saying you should have. But rather suggesting that perhaps, because of your experiences, you are more impacted by this article, and are reading into it things that aren't there, since there is no mention here of “Word of Faith” in the actual article.

However, I do think that many of those men genuinely believe in Jesus as their savior. They are wrong about money. Does that exclude them from the church and salvation – as you just implied by using the word “condemn”?

As an aside, I happen to know Jim Bakker personally, and I believe he was genuinely reformed as a direct result of meeting Jesus while in prison. I can't speak to the other men.

But, drawing a direct comparison as you just have with Jesus and Scripture is entirely different than simply mocking them.

My only point was to say this: if you want to object to these teachings and doctrines, then do so in the manner you just did — not by making fun of them. Because, at the end of the day, they all call Jesus their Lord as well, and we are called to love them, not ostracize them.

However, I was trying to bring my experience to the table. I grew up in a home that believed in the Word of Faith message — at least in a moderate form, not the extremism of Copeland and the like.

Agree or disagree with that form of moderate Word of Faith stuff, it was a thoroughly Christian home.

So, when posts like this blog post are made, it is important to keep in mind that you are not just attacking the Copelands of the world, but ultimately, every person who adheres to the Word of Faith teaching — in whatever form.

Consequently, you are alienating the very audience you are trying to communicate with by unnecessarily offending them.

Not everyone who believes Word of Faith doctrine agrees that ministers should have private jets. The movement is much more diverse than that. And if the goal is to present the truth, then present the truth in a manner that won't unnecessarily hurt other Christians.

Again, I can only speak from my perspective — as one who grew up in and knows intimately the Word of Faith movement — and as such a person, I find this article extremely offensive.

Yea, it's funny. But the humor doesn't justify the hostility.

And for what it's worth, I post this same message on other boards who write off groups such as Sojourners as crazy liberals. And I do so because I sincerely hope that bridges can be built around our common agreements instead of simply making fun of each other about our disagreements.

Well, I saw this as more of an attack on Madeoff than Copeland. But I disagree that Jesus and the prophets were always trying to convince. Frankly, when Jesus was on trial, and when I read a lot of the stuff of Jeremiah, they were saying all the *wrong* things if they wanted to convince the other party. We know from psychology today that there are effective ways of convincing people, and they were often doing the opposite.

Often the prophetic is revealing the truth. It is saying to people that they will “have eyes and not see, lest they turn and be healed”. Were this a regular occurrence on Sojourners, I'd agree with you. But 1) it is in a culturally sanctioned moment (which all cultures have) called April Fools Day, like a roast, when everyone knows you are joking and people in our society mutually agree to it, and 2) they just finished in the article right before this lambasting themselves as well.

Lastly, this was truly prophetic, in teaching and revealing. I got a laugh out of this article, but in truth, I had never before considered the similarities between what Madeoff did and what Copeland and many other televangelists have done. And there's a real depth of truth in that.

In a previous church age, leaders in the Roman Catholic Church were rightly criticized for their sale of indulgences. These men (and others) should be equally condemned for their abuses.

To me, it comes across as cowardly. If you have a problem with the Copelands, and for the record I do, then address it constructively. Demonstrate how it conflicts with the teaching of Jesus.

My point is this: this approach is only going to unnecessarily offend the very people you are trying to convince.

For example, like I said I was raised in Word of Faith teaching. I understand it intimately because I lived it. Had I read this article back then, I would have written it off as left-wing propaganda, nothing more.

In other words, if an article like this is to be written, it should be written with a constructive, redemptive outcome in mind.

And that's the key difference I see between this and Jesus & OT prophets. As parabolic, hypoerbolic, and sometimes sarcastic as they were, they were always focused on a positive outcome.

In my view, this article is demonstrative of nothing more than fundamentalism. “We've got it right, and they've got it wrong.” The only difference I see between this article and the fundamentalist thinking from the right is a different set of fundamentals. And in my view, fundamentalist thinking is simply a dead end.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing another Christian. But let's remember that no matter how much you or I might disagree with Copeland and those in his stream of thinking, they all call Jesus Christ, “Lord.”

I think that common acknowledgment of lordship should define how we relate to and communicate with them. Engaging them in conversation that is guided by Scripture and church teaching with constructive outcomes in mind is perfectly appropriate. But making fun of them in our public blogs not only makes them look bad, it makes all of us look bad — including the one that we all call Lord.

I submit that, if it is quite clearly parody (as this is, as the Onion is, as is a big portion of the talk shows and late night comedy in America), then parody is acceptable- and even Biblical and prophetic, if we look at some of the words of the OT prophets. And if acceptable, then why should we shirk at it just because someone happens to be a Christian, or claims that faith?

Your story about Kenneth Copeland would be a lot more entertaining if there were not so much truth in it. Kenneth and Gloria have an 18,000 square foot home worth $6 million in 2008. They have a fleet of planes, including a $20 million jet with a private runway strip. none of this lavish life style would be possible if it were not for thousands of willing people who respond to Copeland's message of receiving a hundred-fold increase on their donations.

William Aramony was rightly convicted for his bilking the United Way of America out of a huge amount of money. If we were not already conscientious about where our donations to charities was spent, that incident alone was enough to sensitize us to the possibility of abuse. And although churches and TV ministries may not be obligated to issue financial statements, their reluctance to do so should make us wary to their appeals.

In my opinion, if your church does not issue a financial statement at least once a year, or if you are donating to a TV ministry that does not disclose its receipts and expenditures, then you are not being a good steward of the belssings that God has given to you.

I grew up in the Word of Faith movement. I love a lot of people who believe those things.

It's not right to outright ridicule others who call themselves Christians.

It's one thing to engage them in conversation and challenege their beliefs and claims.

It's an entirely different thing to make fun of them in an “onion” style blog post.

You should be ashamed of yourself, Ryan, and I sincerely hope this garbage — because that's what it is — gets deleted.