https://petehurst.com/prosperity-the-big-lie-and-the-big-truth/
https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2025/12/the-sweet-taste-of-vomit.html
I commented on Hurst back in December of 2025 but this article crossed my path and left me more astonished than usual. Does anyone actually read the Scriptures?
Does it ever occur to someone like Hurst that the Westminster 'divines' may have been wrong? Wealth is often typological in the Old Testament and ambiguous - sometimes praised, sometimes condemned, and sometimes cast in terms other than gold coin. The New Testament provides great clarification but the lessons it provides are seemingly rejected by the overwhelming majority of 'conservative' Christians in the West.
I must 'confess' I also find it rather humorous if not absurd that he quotes the Larger Catechism Q.141 - when Q.142 forbids (as per the 8th commandment) the concept of usury, the very foundation of modern Capitalist society and the bedrock of Hurst's wealth and even his ethical system.
Thus (to state the obvious) he's obviously less than familiar with the Westminster Larger Catechism and the larger economic questions involved, and thus his use of it as an authority is more than a little suspect.
Hurst doesn't really have a problem with the Prosperity Gospel - only when it's been abused. Otherwise, like so many in the Magisterial Protestant tradition he fully endorses the pursuit of wealth and power. I continue to contend that the Prosperity Gospel that is so often condemned is tied to the kind of low-brow tastes and proclivities of the poor. The bourgeois world of Confessional Protestants (not to mention the upper class) has different tastes. They seem to be more justifiable in that they are rooted in a larger set of narratives and aesthetic framings - but in the end, when viewed theologically, it's still a prosperity gospel, and thus still anathema.
Hurst reinforces his 'optimism' by appealing to Romans 8.28, revealing again the paucity of his exegetical scope and skills as the apostle makes his statement regarding God's good purposes within the larger discussion of eschatological hope amid groaning, sufferings, and the futility that characterizes this present evil age. The appeal is to fortitude and perseverance amid a world of tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, and the sword. Indeed even though we are sacrificed as sheep we are more than conquerors. And it's sure a lot easier if you've got a portfolio.
No doubt Paul envisioned the Romans sitting on a private beach with their feet up, drinking expensive umbrella adorned cocktails - a decadence born of worldliness and a wealth built on sand, not to mention usury and the exploitation of others. The wealth Hurst celebrates is all too often sleight-of-hand deceit, exploitative mark ups, speculation, and manipulated dividends produced by the alchemy that is the foundation of Wall Street's economic order.
Hurst quotes passages about suffering, self-denial, and the problem of those who have confused faith with wealth. But this is just a cover for while he denies that health can bring happiness or is to be expected, it's clear he champions wealth and exhibits the very 'love of money' attitude condemned by the apostle.
In fact, he goes further and suggests that it just may be that 'some people' are going to be blessed by God with health and wealth. Did you catch that? He's not condemning the notion but just the idea that it's universally available to all. That's why these teachers need to be turned away from - not for what they necessarily say but rather how they apply it.
He even quotes Paul in 1 Timothy 4 - ignoring what he says elsewhere about money. Money is not neutral when one has millions of dollars. It changes your values and grants you status and power that you would not have otherwise. The Spiritual Franciscans erred in thinking it was sinful to have any money. But they were closer to the truth than Hurst is. For having a lot of money creates a fundamental problem to the extent that it becomes idolatrous. Christ himself said so when he declared you cannot serve God and mammon. They are in opposition.
So what is a lot of money? What is being rich? And this is where rich Western Christians turn to sophistry. All Western people are rich they argue - a point they make by contrasting even the lower end of Western lifestyles with the people living in African shanty-towns. It's an invalid argument as I have long contended. We're not even given the choice. You're not allowed to live in a shanty town or without utilities. Your children will be taken away and in many cases you're violating zoning laws and other ordinances. It's even hard to live that way out in rural areas. It's possible but if you have kids, you're going to come into conflict with the authorities.
Do some of the poor in places like the United States own a television? Yes, things like televisions are easily purchased because of the dynamics of techno-industrial society. I remember (as would Hurst) a time when poor people didn't have televisions because they were (relatively speaking) far more expensive than now. They were better made and lasted longer, but globalization (for all its problems) did make some of these things cheaper (in every way). So yes, the Western poor who are isolated can at least afford a cheap television - for that's all the community they have access to and thus it's important to them. A more fitting example in today's context would be the Smartphone but the argument is the same and (interestingly) most of the poor in the developing world now have them as well.
Hurst plays games with his $100 bill analogy - what if we talked about gunpowder? Is there a difference between a bullet and a 2000lb bomb?
Further in quoting Mark 4 I notice he seemed to miss the part about the deceitfulness of riches. He seems to suggest that if you just happen to have the right moral character, than all the warnings and dangers concerning wealth don't apply to you. Isn't that interesting?
He then pays lip service to the kind of Christian life and ethic we're called to in the Sermon on the Mount but then quickly turns back to material wealth and its celebration - an ethos antithetical to the Sermon on the Mount.
Does God want me to prosper financially? Well, if one is obedient to God's commands and finds himself wealthy, that would be one thing. I have to say, I think such cases are rare to the point of being on the extreme end of extraordinary - a near inimitable oddity.
I find many cases of people who have been unfaithful and disobedient even while claiming otherwise and then when found wealthy, they claim that God has blessed them and in some cases even due to their faithfulness. The danger of self-deception on this point cannot be overstated.
If it's merely Providence as Hurst seems to suggest, then there's no virtue in wealth, there's no morality to it. It's just a roll of the Providential dice. Is that what he means to say? I don't think so.
He lists the reasons God gives prosperity:
1) To meet needs. Bills have to be paid. Savings are needed for future needs like college and when Aunt Sarah doesn’t get her Social Security check on time.
The funny thing is all the wealthy people I know seem to generate bills that others don't have. They live an elevated lifestyle which in turn shapes their ethics - remember the deceitfulness of riches, the very thing Hurst has omitted? Also, some of those bills are related to the many safety nets they stretch out and the walls of protection they erect to secure their financial empires.
And what are needs? I admit this is not easy as few are willing to really follow through on what Christ says but it's really easy to confuse needs with wants and it would seem that many needs are in fact defined by social norms and expectations. Again, this is difficult but I don't sense that Hurst is even willing to wrestle with these issues. He's certainly not being very careful in how he presents this.
2) Support of Christ’s Church. Salaries, ministries, help services, domestic and foreign outreach, etc.
In general I don't disagree with this - how could I? However I will say that when I examine the financial philosophies which undergird modern denominations and even the budgets of individual congregations that I have attended - I wonder if it's not sinful to financially support them? All the more when one weighs how these churches and para-church groups (such as denominations) are tied in with the financial system and Wall Street. But these questions are really too big for this discussion. Let's just say I'm not convinced or convicted that I must give more money to the church and support its ridiculous overhead connected to buildings, salaries, pensions, tax schemes and the like.
3) Support of Kingdom work. Christ’s work is beyond the Church. Special ministries and Christian causes. This could include Christian education, publishing, medical, business and other things.
Hurst plays some doctrinal cards here in defining the Kingdom as beyond the covenant community and the purview of the Holy Spirit. I am suspect of his special ministries and Christian causes many of which are farcical and function more as a means of making merchandise of God's people than anything else. I can only imagine what he might mean by 'medical, business and other things', but let's just say based on everything I've read thus far, I would be wary if not outright cynical.
Of course if the Kingdom (and thus the means of its expansion) is limited to the ministry of the Holy Spirit, then his assumptions are false and his argument is fallacious.
4) Celebration. Christians need to celebrate God in His blessing by taking vacations, going to concerts, eating ice cream, and other ways of individual choice.
Ah, isn't bourgeois Christianity great? There's nothing wrong with celebration and sure, if I'm able to make it work, we will sometimes venture out for a long weekend. There's nothing wrong with some travel and exploration - but I definitely approach it differently than the normal conceptions and expectations of the middle class vacation. We look to have fun but also to learn and reflect. There's nothing wrong with going to a concert or eating ice cream but the Middle Class treats this as an entitlement - not a luxury. Further there is in some circles a theological gloss put on this that is based on false assumptions and outright errors. Hurst gives every indication that he is infected with this virus.
5) Dominion or cultural mandate as found in Genesis 1: 26-28 and Psalm 8. This subduing of the earth might mean business expansion or expenditure in creative arts. It’s closely related to Kingdom work I mentioned above.
Last but not least we come to that very theological justification - God wants his Church to exercise power and conquer the world. His appeal to Psalm 8 apart from Hebrews which explains that Christ is the man in question (the one who takes Dominion), demonstrates how quickly this teaching can go off the rails. The mandate of Genesis 1 is permanently modified in Genesis 3 - in fact it's largely over. When it reappears in Genesis 9 after the flood, it's modified and it's clear that while Noah is to multiply, the 'Dominion Mandate' (so-called) is removed and instead we find a further elaboration of the curse in man's 'dread' conflict with nature that now involves blood and killing. This is a broken world and the Kingdom is no longer temporal but eschatological. The rest of the Old Testament is characterized by a temporal and typological manifestation of that Kingdom which (in redemptive-historical terms) is doomed to fail and thus the real Israel appears with the New Covenant - not a kingdom of land and riches backed up by the sword, but an eschatological Kingdom.
Needless to say, there are many who fail to understand this and this entire exercise reveals the implications of that when it comes to the Kingdom and the Christian Life. The ethic that results is in fact a serious departure from the New Testament.
And so (sadly) we find men chasing mammon in order to build a kingdom that is a counterfeit and deception. They think the Kingdom of God rests on money, power, and the Cainite tokens of civilization. We can use money, enjoy and interact with the arts, and we're forced to reckon with the business world but our posture toward all these things is that of pilgrims and as such there must be a level of detachment and indifference - not as an imperative but as the result of the Spirit at work in us, driving us ever to seek first the Kingdom of God and to (in contrast to everything Hurst represents) lay up our treasures in heaven.
Hurst argues for a viable path between the love of money which is the root of all evil and the seeking of prosperity. Once again I find it striking that he ignores the exhortations regarding the deceitfulness of riches, as well as the apostle's warnings concerning they that want to be rich. He speaks of temptations and snares as well as foolish and hurtful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. Further this quest results in being pierced with many sorrows.
Unlike Hurst who justifies this desire (or even lust) which he thinks Providence has granted him, Paul tells Timothy to flee these things and lay hold of eternal life.
Undoubtedly there were some who entered the Church (then and now) who were already in possession of money. They are repeatedly warned throughout the New Testament. It's a much of a burden as a blessing and there is a danger. They must be ready to give it up if called upon to do so - perhaps by Providence? Maybe it's not taken from them by Caesar (it is his coin in the end) but they need to be ready to give to their own hurt if there's a need. That's not quite the security and respectability ethos of the Middle Class is it?
Additionally this conduct is directly tied to questions of eternal life.
As such, only a fool would seek after riches. It's too easy to lose your way.
I'm sure Hurst knows that to 'make it' in corporate America or to run with the big boys in the realm of business, one will have to put in long hours that will result in sacrifices when it comes to Church and family. But that's not a problem in some circles as I know of OP pastors that tell the businessmen in their congregations not to worry about working late and missing a Bible study. After all, what is effectively their pursuit of profits is Kingdom work and just as important as gathering and worshipping with the saints, hearing the Word and being an encouragement to them.
Actually the Christian plumber he describes will more likely than not be despised and taken advantage of because he puts the interests of others first and loves his neighbour as himself. When he visits those in distress he doesn't exploit them. When he sees that old lady with the broken water heater he thinks of his wife as an old widow and hopes that someone like him will come and fix her water heater. As such, he will not 'prosper' as per the world. He does not live by the ethics of the market but those of Christ. He will be poor and struggle and be looked down on by the 'Christian plumbers' with their warehouses and vehicular fleets - the kind of swindlers that Hurst celebrates. It takes one to know one.
You see what Hurst calls a good work ethic is in fact the vomit of the world and reflects its values. I encounter this kind of Christian businessman all the time and they are about the last people I want anything to do with.
Hurst runs through his litany of qualities about such people - and it's all the world dressed up in Christian garb. If such a man has millions of dollars in the bank and usurious investments, then the adjectives we need to use are not faithful or blessed but unfaithful, disobedient, and criminal. They may not have broken man's laws in this humanistic society (the foundation of America's liberal capitalist order) but they have ignored the teachings of Christ and the apostles and are (as Peter warned) like dogs returning to vomit. Such conduct is tantamount to functional apostasy - having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof, professing to know God but in works denying Him.
The actually faithful plumber (or whatever) may be respected to a point and have a lot of work come his way. People will use him because he's honest and (relatively speaking) cheap. But at the same time they will despise him because he's not part of their class. They believe they are off the hook in using him because according to the ethics of Capitalism, they are not obligated to be truthful or transparent - though they expect him to be. They may know full well that they are underpaying him but they attach no ethic to it and feel no conviction as they try to squeeze him at every turn.
I know this all too well for I have often been that plumber, painter, carpenter, electrician, and the like.
The fact that the faithful plumber (as opposed to the one extolled by Hurst) doesn't 'bid' jobs at an inflated rate is not appreciated - at least by very few. I know of many cases wherein if the people requesting services (the home and business owners) actually understood what they paid for work in terms of an hourly rate (when it comes to a bid) they would go into fits, but not knowing the difference, they smile and think they were treated well. It's ironic because the unchristian ethic of caveat emptor can go both ways. Once again, capitalist ethics says that if people were willing to pay it (or not pay it) then it's ethical - a subjective standard determined by market forces, which are (by the way) easily manipulated. How someone thinks this is compatible with New Testament ethics is beyond me. In most cases I know people don't actually read it, or in the case of Hurst read it selectively and narrowly, focusing (it would seem) only on the parts that affirm his life choices and values. There's a real and rather startling lesson here.
I find Hurst's philanthropic casting of retirement to be repugnant and morally bankrupt. I think of this every time I visit Pittsburgh where the spectre of Andrew Carnegie and others like him haunts the city and its many grand buildings and (for North America) sometimes splendid and intriguing architecture. We are to extol these men for their generosity. But it's all backwards and twisted. They ended up with more money than that could possibly spend. Why? Because they were thieves and murderers who stepped on and destroyed people as they accumulated their wealth. And then out of guilt or some hubris-driven desire to make a name for themselves, they build monuments, libraries, and museums. It's a fascinating story but it has nothing to do with godliness or virtue.
Hurst's little narrative of the philanthropic plumber is more of the same and in some respects the middle class version is just as bad. The difference is the wealth is often divorced from the inflicted pain - insulated by the middle-men, brokers, agents, financial advisors, and corporate figures. By the time the dividends arrive in the portfolio, the happy middle class retired folks have no clue as to how that money grew - it was like magic. It might as well have been, but that's not how it works.
Hurst can quote the Proverbs but like all of the Old Testament, it must be interpreted by the New. A failure to do so is to Judaize and the result is often inverted ethics. We see this over and over again in Church history and even in recent examples such as the appeal to Joshua in order to justify civilian deaths in war - once again assumptions resting upon assumptions.
Hurst speaks of the Big Lie. The truth is all his thinking is based on lies - lies about the Magisterial Reformation, what the Scriptures teach, and the sources of his own wealth. The biggest lie is related to his own self deception and how he builds on this to deceive others and lead them astray when it comes to New Testament ethics, questions of wealth, and how we relate to the world. Given the Scriptural warnings regarding the deceitfulness of riches, one is left somewhat speechless when contemplating what Hurst calls the Big Lie. In his desire to call out one form of deceit, it's abundantly clear he was been deceived in the very manner Christ and the apostles speak of.