48

By Cain Labut | OpinionOverload.com |

There is a particular kind of audacity required to look at the Sermon on the Mount — that extraordinary document of radical compassion, of beatitudes for the poor, the meek, and the persecuted — and conclude that what Jesus really meant was: get yourself a private jet!

And yet, here we are.

What passes for Christianity in a significant swath of American public life today bears roughly the same relationship to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as a drive‑thru cheeseburger bears to a cheeseburger prepared by a world‑renowned chef in a five‑star restaurant. The shape is familiar. But once you examine it, most of the substance has been replaced by convenience, additives, and branding.

The transformation didn’t happen overnight. It took decades of careful theological engineering, political alliance-building, and the specific genius of American commerce to produce what we now call the Christian Right — a movement that has managed, with breathtaking efficiency, to conscript one of history’s most famous advocates for the poor into a mascot for wealth accumulation, political authoritarianism, and the protection of concentrated power. How this happened is a story about power, as it almost always is. But it is also a story about the peculiar vulnerability of sacred things when they are left unguarded in proximity to money.

The Original Text: What Jesus Actually Said About Wealth

Before examining the distortion, one must first sit with what was distorted.

Jesus of Nazareth was not a subtle man on the subject of wealth. “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,” he told his disciples in Matthew 19:24, “than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” The disciples, Matthew records, were “greatly astonished” — which makes sense, because Jesus had just told them that wealth, the thing their culture equated most directly with divine favor, was actually a kind of spiritual obstacle. A barrier. A gravitational pull away from the kingdom he was describing.

This wasn’t a rhetorical flourish. The Sermon on the Mount opens with blessings for the poor in spirit, the mourning, the meek, and those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. Luke’s version is starker still: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.” In Luke 6:24, the counterpoint arrives like a cold wind: “But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.”

He taught from a borrowed boat. He rode into Jerusalem on a borrowed donkey. He ate his last supper in a borrowed room and was laid in a borrowed tomb. If material wealth was a sign of divine favor, Jesus himself — by his own movement’s accounting — was among the least favored people in Galilee.

The prophetic tradition Jesus drew from was equally unambiguous. The prophet Amos thundered against those who “trample on the poor and take from them levies of grain,” building “houses of hewn stone” while the destitute starved. The Letter of James, likely one of the earliest documents in what became the New Testament, addressed the wealthy directly: “Your riches have rotted and your clothes are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you.” This was not a faith that celebrated the accumulation of private wealth. It was, if anything, a faith that regarded such accumulation as a spiritual emergency.

One does not need to be a Christian to read these texts and notice a profound gap — a chasm, really — between what they contain and what the contemporary Christian Right actually preaches.

The Prosperity Gospel: A Baptized Form of Capitalism

The theological machinery that enabled this transformation has a name: prosperity theology, or the prosperity gospel. Known colloquially as the “Word of Faith,” “Health and Wealth,” or “Name It and Claim It” movement, its central proposition is precisely the inverse of what Jesus preached. Where Jesus warned that wealth was a spiritual obstacle, prosperity theology teaches that material abundance is a direct sign of God’s favor — that faith, positive confession, and (crucially) generous donations to the appropriate ministry will result in financial blessing.

One scholar, with an economy of phrase that cuts deep, described prosperity theology as “a baptized form of capitalism.” The description holds. It takes the fundamental logic of the market — that outcomes reflect merit, that accumulation reflects virtue, that the prosperous deserve their prosperity — and drapes it in the language of the sacred. God becomes, in this frame, the ultimate investor. You seed money into a ministry, and God multiplies it back.

The architects of this theology are a familiar gallery: Oral Roberts, who built a television empire while threatening his followers that God would “call him home” unless they donated millions; Kenneth Copeland, whose net worth now exceeds $760 million and who operates a 1,500-acre campus outside Fort Worth, complete with a private airstrip and hangar; Joel Osteen, whose Houston megachurch fills a former NBA arena each Sunday and whose personal fortune is estimated somewhere between $50 million and $100 million. These men became brands as much as preachers, their theology a product line marketed with the same precision as any other consumer offering.

The confrontational absurdity of their position occasionally breaks through the surface. In 2019, Copeland was cornered by an Inside Edition reporter who asked why he owned a fleet of private jets. His answer — that commercial air travel would mean sitting in “a tube with a bunch of demons” — went viral almost instantaneously, not because it was surprising, but because it so nakedly expressed the contempt for ordinary humanity that animates the entire edifice. The same man once attempted to claim a $3.6 million jet as tax-exempt ministry property. The IRS declined.

What prosperity theology does, beyond enriching its primary practitioners, is solve a profound ideological problem for capitalism itself. Poverty, in this framework, becomes a spiritual deficiency rather than a structural condition. Kenneth Copeland put it with remarkable candor: “Poverty is not a money problem. It’s a spiritual problem.” This is a statement of extraordinary usefulness to a political economy built on the extraction of labor and the upward concentration of wealth. If the poor are poor because of their insufficient faith, then the rich bear no obligation toward them — and the structures that produce poverty require no scrutiny, let alone reform. The gospel of greed doesn’t merely celebrate wealth. It absolves it.

From the Pulpit to the Platform: The Political Alliance

The prosperity gospel would have remained a relatively contained theological phenomenon — a cottage industry of self-enrichment disguised as religion — were it not for its fateful alliance with political conservatism. That alliance, consolidated through the Reagan era and hardened into something approaching orthodoxy by the 2000s, transformed the Christian Right from a collection of churches into a political infrastructure. It was, as arrangements go, a marriage of mutual convenience: the Republican Party gained an extraordinary ground-level organizational network and a bloc of highly motivated voters; the Christian Right gained political access, cultural influence, and, above all, the protection of its tax-exempt status.

What emerged from this arrangement, over decades, was a movement that had oriented its spiritual priorities almost entirely around the political platform of one party — a platform defined not by the redistribution of resources to the poor, or the protection of the vulnerable, or the restraint of concentrated power, but by tax cuts for the wealthy, the deregulation of markets, and a vision of society in which individual accumulation is celebrated as the highest good. The convergence between prosperity theology and supply-side economics was not accidental. They were drawing from the same ideological well.

The face this alliance put forward to the world changed with time. But the logic remained consistent: the Christian Right provided moral validation for economic policies that demonstrably widened inequality, and in return received political power it used to enforce cultural preferences — restrictions on reproductive rights, opposition to LGBTQ+ equality, the installation of judges sympathetic to its agenda. Jesus, whose every recorded statement on wealth pointed in precisely the opposite direction, was quietly repurposed as the spiritual sponsor of an arrangement that would have horrified him.

The Anointed Leader: Divine Mandate and the Authoritarian Turn

The story took on a darker dimension with the rise of Donald Trump — not because Trump is uniquely villainous in the long catalogue of American political figures, but because the Christian Right’s embrace of him revealed, with unusual clarity, how far the movement had traveled from anything resembling its theological origins.

Trump does not practice Christianity in any meaningful sense. He has famously been unable to cite a favorite Bible verse, mispronounced books of Scripture, and admitted in 2024 that he does not believe he would “make it into heaven.” These are not minor biographical details. They are significant data points about the relationship between the man and the faith invoked to sanctify him.

The sanctification came anyway. Paula White-Cain, Trump’s personal spiritual adviser and the most prominent prosperity gospel preacher in his orbit, was appointed in 2025 to head the newly established White House Faith Office. Her theological position — that God rewards the faithful with wealth and blesses his chosen political agents with power — fit the Trump administration’s self-presentation with seamless precision. At a White House Easter lunch that year, she compared Trump’s political and legal travails to the suffering of Jesus Christ. “No one has paid the price like you have paid the price,” she told him, in a room full of people who apparently found this unremarkable. When questioned about her role, she framed it in terms of divine calling: “To say no to President Trump would be saying no to God.”

This is where prosperity theology and authoritarianism achieve their full synthesis. The doctrine that God blesses the wealthy with wealth can be extended, without great difficulty, to the proposition that God blesses the powerful with power — and that opposition to the powerful is therefore opposition to God’s will. It is a theological argument for the elimination of democratic accountability. If the leader is God’s instrument, criticism of the leader is heresy. If electoral loss is divine punishment for insufficient faith, then elections themselves become spiritually contingent — valid only when the chosen prevail.

A 2024 PRRI survey found that authoritarian views were most prevalent among white evangelical Protestants and supporters of Christian nationalism, with fully two-thirds of Republicans holding susceptibility to such appeals. These are not fringe data points. They describe a mass movement that has internalized, at some level, the proposition that democratic constraints on power are spiritually suspicious.

The policy infrastructure built to channel this energy is visible and documented. Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s 900-page roadmap for a second Trump administration — now, as of 2025, increasingly operational — is rooted explicitly in Christian nationalist ideology. Its authors argue that the nation’s survival depends on “restoring religious authority over public life,” replacing secular governance with what they describe as biblical values. Critics across the political spectrum have described it as a blueprint for an authoritarian restructuring of the federal government, replacing career civil servants with political loyalists, dismantling independent agencies, and concentrating executive power in ways that would make meaningful democratic accountability difficult to sustain.

This is what happens when a religion surrenders its prophetic function — its capacity to speak uncomfortable truth to power — in exchange for a seat at the table where power is distributed.

The Cost of the Bargain

There is, in all of this, something genuinely sorrowful. Not merely politically troubling, though it is that. Sorrowful, in the way that the corruption of a beautiful thing is always sorrowful.

The tradition that prosperity theology and Christian nationalism have colonized contains, beneath the layers of historical compromise and institutional failure, a genuine thread of radical humanitarianism. The early Christian communities described in the Acts of the Apostles held property in common, distributed resources according to need, and understood themselves as a counter-cultural community defined by mutual obligation across the divisions of class and ethnicity. This is not a romanticized reconstruction. It is what the texts describe. Whatever one makes of the theological claims, the social vision is extraordinary — and it points in exactly the opposite direction from the vision the contemporary Christian Right has chosen to promote.

Those who bear the cost of that choice are, as they almost always are in these arrangements, the people Jesus specifically addressed. The poor, told their poverty is a spiritual failing. The sick, promised healing in exchange for donations they cannot afford. The workers, whose wages the Letter of James says “cry out” against those who withhold them. The communities hollowed out by the economic policies that prosperity theology has provided moral cover for. The vulnerable in every category, whose legal protections are dismantled by a government that drapes itself in the language of the Beatitudes while governing in the interest of the already powerful.

There is a particular quality to the silence in all of this — the silence where prophetic witness used to live. Where are the voices in the megachurches calling out the billionaires? Where is the sermon against the consolidation of power? Where is the preacher telling the congregation that the gospel of wealth is not, by any reasonable reading of the available texts, a gospel at all?

They exist, of course. There are genuine voices of dissent within Christianity — theologians, pastors, entire traditions that have not made the bargain described here. They are, at this particular moment in American history, largely absent from the corridors of political influence.

A Mascot With Instructions

The Jesus of the Gospels was a complicated figure who defied easy political conscription. He was not a revolutionary in the narrowly political sense, but his social vision was profoundly disruptive to the hierarchies of his world. He ate with the wrong people, touched the untouchable, and told stories that consistently inverted the moral expectations of his audience — the despised Samaritan as the exemplar of love, the father running to embrace the prodigal son, the last made first and the first made last.

The mascot currently deployed by the Christian Right bears no resemblance to this figure. He is wealthy, or at least wealth-approving. He is politically affiliated, or at least aligned with the correct party. He is authoritative in the manner of a CEO, not the manner of a first-century rabbi sitting with fishermen beside a lake. He endorses tax policy. He has opinions about immigration. He does not, under any circumstances, suggest that the rich should sell what they have and give it to the poor.

This transformation required significant labor. The original texts had to be mined selectively, the inconvenient passages ignored or reinterpreted, the entire moral arc of the tradition bent backward against itself. The result is a theological product perfectly calibrated to serve the interests of power and wealth — which is to say, a product that serves the interests of everyone except the people the original teachings were addressed to.

What is being practiced in the prosperity gospel megachurches, in the evangelical advisory boards of the White House, in the Project 2025 policy documents with their “biblical principles” for governance — this is not Christianity. Not in any sense that would be recognizable to the tradition’s own foundational texts. It is something else: a sophisticated ideological system that uses the cultural authority of religion to validate economic extraction, political authoritarianism, and the abandonment of every inconvenient commitment the tradition ever made to the poor.

That is a long way to travel from a borrowed boat on the Sea of Galilee.

The distance ought to disturb us more than it does.