What do I think of Trump's spiritual advisor, Paula White?
White and Trump at the National Prayer Breakfast, Feb. 6, 2025Introduction
President Trump has selected Paula White to be in charge of a new Faith Office at the White House. She has been a controversial figure. Here's a good summary of problems with Trump's spiritual advisor Paula White. However, I don't like the implications of the term "heretical" in this summary, though. Too many use this term these days in reference to someone who ought to be considered outside a right relationship with God and stands eternally condemned by Him. I, on the other hand, think it's better to assume the best until proven otherwise. In my view, someone who is accused of "heresy" may still hold to Mere Christianity. As far as I can tell, she is not denying that Christ paid the debt of sin we all owe on the cross.
In this blog, I will focus on two controversial aspects of White's thought. First, the so-called prosperity gospel and second, the claim that Jesus is not the only begotten Son of God.
Prosperity gospel?
It seems that there is a distinction to be made between a so-called prosperity gospel vs. a disputed theology that claims God wants His followers today prosperous. The former is directly tied to Christ's death whereas the latter is not. From the article linked above, it seems White is in the former camp.
Concerning the gospel, there are many silly add-ons to its basic message that are innocuous in terms of salvation. For example, if my little girl claims to believe Jesus died for her sins... and also in her mind this somehow entails she may have a pony. Is my daughter advocating a false gospel that damns her according to Gal. 1:6-9? I argue that she is not. She still holds to the basic gospel, loves Jesus, and believes He died for her sins. She isn't hellbound for not having perfect theology. And that's a good thing, otherwise we'd all be hellbound. Having said that, of course some have better and worse theology than others, and of course there are legitimate boundaries that if crossed, would rightly put one outside of rightness with God.
Part of what is known as the prosperity gospel claims that Jesus did die for our physical healing. Isa. 53:5 and 1 Pet. 2:24 both say that Christ died for our healing, but what type of healing? Spiritual or physical or both? These verses obviously don't entail what the prosperity gospel also claims, viz., that we are physically healed in this life and never have to be sick and die. The problem here, though, is it is empirically false. No one has lived this out. In addition to the obvious, Christians recognize that we have been saved from our sins, but that doesn't entail that we still don't deal with sins in this present life. Similarly, all Christians should recognize that even if we have been physically healed by Christ's death, this doesn't entail that we never have to be healed in this life... regardless of how physically and spiritually well we live.
Yes, one day all our sins and sicknesses will be gone, and because of our Lord's death and resurrection, we rest in this promise. However, the primary reference in the 1 Peter passage concerns our relationship to God. The very next verse makes the healing reference clear: "For 'you were like sheep going astray,' but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls." This is spiritual healing now, but yes, that entails a complete wholeness when it's all said and done, and that obviously includes the physical. However, the spiritual is primary. The add-on inference to this passage--that this entails never being sick in this life or that we are to be materially wealthy--is a bad inference, but it should not be thought of as something that would damn the believer to hell or something that makes one outside a right relationship with God.
The other consideration is: what was going on with the apostle Matthew applying the Isa. 53:5 passage to Jesus' healing ministry to the physically oppressed (cf. Matt. 8:16-7)? This also should not be understood that Christ's death does away with all our physical ailments today. Why? For one, Jesus had not even died yet. Jesus' bearing and healing of physical ailments prior to the cross was meant to be understood as Him being the fulfillment of the Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament. He is obviously the One who has the authority to be our spiritual healer, and He completely accomplished this ("it is finished") when He took our sins in His own body on the tree (cf. Mk. 2:8-12). These people Jesus healed here on earth eventually got sick again and died. However, there is a sense in which only those who made Jesus their Lord were made whole when they met Him after this life. For these, sicknesses (both physical and mental) are completely gone at that point. Even better, these believers will be made completely whole when they receive their permanent spiritual or resurrected body and are able to live in a new heaven and earth.
The only begotten?
What about White denying that Jesus was not the only begotten Son of God? It appears White agreed with Pastor Larry Huch who said that Jesus was not the only begotten Son of God. See the conversation here. She claimed Jesus was the "first fruit". Where does this term come from? Jesus is called this in 1 Corinthians 15:20-3. The reference there is simply that Christ was first raised from the dead, and then all who follow Him will subsequently be raised from the dead. There is nothing here that would deny that He is the only begotten Son of God.
In Col. 1:18, the similar term "firstborn" was also used in reference to the permanent resurrection. In verse 15, the term "firstborn" was used to express the Son's priority over all creation since He created it. The term throughout the Bible does not always mean the first one born in terms of birth order. For example, Manasseh was the first one born and Ephraim was younger (Gen. 41:51-2). However, in Jeremiah 31:9, Ephraim is God's firstborn. The term here is used in terms of priority, privilege, or preeminence. This is why even though Esau was the first one born, he sold his birthright to Jacob. Thus, Jacob became the firstborn. Thus, there is also nothing here that denies Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.
What about Romans 8:29 that says Jesus was the "first begotten of many brethren"? Here it is clear that Jesus is obviously not the only begotten son. He is the first begotten. That implies many others are also counted as "begotten". But in what sense? This is obviously a figurative sense to speak of adoption so that we may be heirs of God and co-heirs of Christ (vs. 17). That is the context (cf. vss. 15-29). In fact, the term "first fruits" is also used here (vs. 23) similar to the 1 Corinthians 15 passage. This figurative use of "begotten" here is similar to Paul calling humanity the "offspring" of God in Acts 17:28-9. The context there also suggests this is figurative since God cannot be resembled by idols; He created all things and is thus not spatial. We are forever dependent on the Independent.
So fellow Christians who condemn those like Huch and White as blasphemous heretics need to be a little more charitable. There is a sense in which Jesus is not the only begotten son of God. That is not to deny what John 1:14 and 3:16 claim. In these passages, it is clear that Jesus' Sonship is unique, since He is the creator of everything from the beginning (Jn. 1:1-3). C.S. Lewis said, "What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God" (Mere Christianity, Book IV, Chapter I, emphasis added). For Lewis, as well as for all traditional Christianity, there is only One who is worthy enough to be a Child of God in this begotten sense. Have Huch or White ever been on record as denying this sense given to the Son of God? The critics of Huch and White never bother allowing them to clarify their position. What do they make of these John passages? Do they ever deny monotheism in this ultimate sense? Until they flat out deny the Triune Creator of literally everything outside Himself, there is nothing blasphemous or non-Christian in qualifying that we are all "begotten" children via adoption... even if they want to use the term "gods" to convey the idea. Syntax is secondary to semantics. It is always important to qualify! (For more on this, see Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Ye are Gods? Orthodox and Heretical Views on the Deification of Man.)
Self-denial?
A more troubling quote from White said, "Anyone who tells you to deny your self is from Satan." This prima facie seems to go against the heart of the gospel, which is the way of the cross. Jesus, on the other hand, taught that if anyone wants Him, they must deny themselves, pick up their cross daily, lose their lives, and follow Him (Matt. 16:24 and Lk. 9:23-5). The problem with this White quote is that I have not been able to find the whole sermon to evaluate the context. Has any of her critics heard the whole sermon where this statement was made (a woman's conference in Orlando, FL that aired on TBN 10-30-07)? Without that context, just as the previous issue of the only-begotten offered above in this article, it is difficult to assess what was meant by this brief quote. For example, suppose the context was referring to marital sex. In that context, minus the injunction to separate for times of prayer (cf. 1 Cor. 7:5), the statement would be accurate. Of course, if White's statement was meant to be taken absolutely, it not only goes against the gospel, it would be empirically false and everyone knows this. For example, discipline by its very nature requires self-denial, and discipline for kids, athletes, dieters, etc. is a very good thing. Living a purely hedonistic life without any self-denial is probably not what White had in mind when she made this statement. Yes, I could be wrong about this.
Conclusion
Having said all that, is Paula White right with God? I don't know her, but I don't see any good reason at this point why she could not be. I am no Paula White scholar, so perhaps I have missing information. Has she taught a lot of things I don't buy? Of course. Has she made a lot of dumb mistakes in her life? Who hasn't? But I think other believers are a little too quick to condemn anyone who teaches and has done dumb things like Paula White.
Now is she qualified for leadership in the Church? That is a different issue, but I certainly would not put myself under her leadership, and I think I have good biblical warrant for that.
R.M. Sivulka
President, Courageous Christians United
West Jordan, UT
February 7, 2025
Updated February 12 and March 8, 2025
|
