You get a sense that it's okay to have good stuff and still claim a relationship with God. So enslaved Africans rethought their predicament in a way that entailed getting good stuff, material stuff, and having a deep relationship with God. There was no contradiction. And the idea just moves forward from there.

Poor people want to be poor; if they just worked harder they could have more.

The key figure in the Christian faith involves a story of suffering so that others do well. You're only going to get so much liberation, you're only going to get so much transformation, from a system that is based on suffering.

There's a separation of church and state. If you want the perks that churches have traditionally received, then abide by the rules. If you're going to be involved in the political process, even in soft ways, then surrender the privileges. Let ministers pay income tax on all of their income. Let churches pay income tax, let them pay property taxes. They can't have it both ways. You can't pat the politicians on the back, break the rules, and then get all these perks.

The problem is poverty. And it hides the problem. We often associate black churches with a history of protest. But prosperity gospel and megachurches tend to be rather soft on political issues. T.D. Jakes doesn't take a major stand on political issues. Creflo Dollar certainly doesn't.

Churches typically argue is that God wants God's people to have a good life, and that a good life involves prosperity. This prosperity is not just emotional well-being, spiritual well-being, or physical well-being - it's also having good stuff. Having a nice house, a nice car, good clothing, etc. It's a package deal.

Churches can easily bring together, in a short period of time, a substantial number of people, and politicians have to assume that these folks have the potential to vote. Although there's supposed to be a separation of church and state, they want to go to these churches to say hello to the people, and they assume their hello might turn into votes.