Laut Studie rechtfertigen Predigten in großen evangelischen Kirchen tendenziell wirtschaftliche Ungleichheit. Die Untersuchung konzentriert sich auf eine große und schnell wachsende Megakirche im Mittleren Westen der USA und legt nahe, dass die dortigen Pastoren die Heilige Schrift auf eine Weise interpretieren, die Ungleichheit herunterspielt und die Anhäufung von Wohlstand verteidigt.

I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jssr.70001

From the linked article:

**Sermons at large evangelical church tend to justify economic inequality, study finds**

A new study published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion provides detailed evidence that some evangelical church leaders use sermons to justify economic inequality, even when discussing Bible passages that could challenge it. **Focusing on New River Church, a large and fast-growing megachurch in the American Midwest, the research suggests that pastors there interpret Scripture in ways that downplay inequality and defend wealth accumulation**. The findings indicate that these messages are shaped not only by theology but also by the broader social and economic pressures religious leaders face.

Vosburg’s analysis focused on sermons that addressed economic themes, particularly those that mentioned wealth, poverty, generosity, or financial responsibility. He found that New River’s pastors used several strategies to present economic inequality as morally acceptable or even divinely sanctioned.

One of the most consistent themes was the defense of wealth itself. In multiple sermons, pastors emphasized that God does not condemn people for being rich. Instead, they argued that the real issue lies in how people relate to their wealth. As long as money does not become a person’s primary source of identity or security, its possession is seen as a blessing. Sermons included repeated assurances that owning luxury goods or expensive homes was not a spiritual problem. Listeners were warned not to “rich shame” others and were reminded that even Jesus did not condemn wealth outright.

Another message involved minimizing inequality within the United States by comparing it to global poverty. The pastors often cited statistics showing that most Americans, including low-income individuals, are better off than many people around the world. This framing was used to argue that everyone in the congregation was already “rich” and should feel grateful rather than concerned about economic disparities at home.

Spiritual interpretations of Bible passages were also common. When preaching on texts that mention the poor or criticize the rich, pastors frequently claimed these references were metaphorical. Rather than addressing material poverty, they said, such verses referred to “spiritual poverty.” This move allowed them to sidestep any direct challenge to inequality in the material world. Notably, this type of spiritual interpretation was not applied to passages about tithing, where members were encouraged to give a specific portion of their income to the church, often with the promise of divine financial protection in return.

Vosburg also found that sermons invoked the idea that “God owns everything” to justify the current distribution of wealth. Since all resources belong to God, the logic went, He must have intended the current economic order. From this perspective, questioning inequality amounts to questioning God’s will. This line of reasoning was used to suggest that everyone has been given exactly what they need by God, and people should avoid comparing themselves to others.

These justifications did not rely solely on biblical texts. Pastors often framed inequality using common cultural narratives found in the broader American context. For example, they appealed to ideas of merit and individual effort, suggesting that people receive wealth because of their abilities or faithfulness. Although God was said to give the ability to earn money, the end result still aligned with the idea that success is deserved.

Vosburg argues that the structure of evangelical churches like New River, which rely on donations and voluntary attendance, creates strong incentives for leaders to avoid offending wealthy members. In one sermon, a pastor described how a wealthy couple had left another church because they felt judged for their financial status. At New River, the couple found a more accepting environment where their wealth was affirmed rather than criticized.

Leaders running megachurches have greater access to wealth than regular pastors/priests and, subsequently, such jobs may select for grifters.

The American propaganda machine makes NK and china jealous 

The gospel of prosperity is a very skewed (IMO) interpretation of JC’s teachings.