Ah. That's called "prosperity theology" or "prosperity gospel" in Western Christianity. Joel Osteen, Paula White, and others also subscribe to that in varying ways and to varying degrees.
It's worth noting that Western Christianity largely opposes that sort of teaching. To the point of throwing the word "heresy" around, which might not sound like much to outsiders, but mainstream Western Christians prefer to be theologically circumspect to a fault.
Christianity in Nigeria is Western Christianity[1]. Moreover, the prosperity gospel churches in Nigeria are directly descended, AFAIU, from the American evangelical movement.
Your point about heresy lacks punch. Relative to Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, every major Christian religion promotes, directly or indirectly, heresy. For example, transubstantiation is either a rejected or optional doctrine in every major Protestant Christian denomination; a doctrinal viewpoint which is per se heretical. It's all downhill from there.
I _think_ some Anglican and even Catholic parishes in Nigeria have adopted prosperity gospel (or at least prosperity gospel light), simply because it's the only way to keep parishioners from defecting. Not all forms of prosperity gospel are necessarily heretical anyhow. Technically speaking, even orthodox Christianity accepts a huge range of beliefs. In my Catholic parish in the Deep South (of the U.S.), a heavily Pentecostal area, there was a prayer group who spoke in tongues. The parish priest thought it was nuts, but it wasn't heresy and he had no choice but to provide at least nominal support for the group's activities.
[1] I define Christianity as Trinitarian Christianity, as it's the easiest characteristic to apply. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses might balk at that, but I can't think of any better, more cogent dividing line. A broader category makes it too difficult to compare & contrast doctrine. A more narrow category makes it too easy to dismiss criticisms of Christian communities by arguing that they're not _true_ Christians, which I think is disingenuous.
It goes farther back. People have long thought, "The gods favor people with wealth and power". And similarly that people have thought certain acts (prayers, rituals, spells, sacrifices) would get the gods to do what they wanted. There's a logic to it since that's pretty much how people work.
Prosperity theology attempts to fit that approach into the words of the Bible. It generally relies on out of context quotes, fallacious logic, and errors of omission (John the Baptist ate bugs, Jesus couch surfed, the apostles did chores to earn their keep) to make its case. The New Testament is clearly on the record against showy religious displays, ritual-based theology, and status symbols.
Yup, it's interesting that the two things Jesus seems to preach the most about is (paraphrased somewhat) do not judge others and do not be a rich dude.
Jesus said "the poor you will always have with you". Matthew 26:11. So according to Jesus poor people are just going to be around no matter what. The problem of economic inequality is not solveable.
> Jesus said "the poor you will always have with you". Matthew 26:11. So according to Jesus poor people are just going to be around no matter what. The problem of economic inequality is not solveable.
That's ripping a small quote completely out of its context, and neglecting to point out that because it's not completely solveable doesn't mean that we shouldn't try... and to try is an emphasis of much of the gospels.
Reading the 3 parallel stories and noting that Judas was the instigator of the complaint according to John, suggests rather strongly that JC was pointing out the hypocrisy of a man whinging about perfume spilled when "He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it." Sounds just like these prosperity gospel megachurches, actually.
It is certainly open to interpretation, but is it fair to say thst Jesus also was against all the buying of various animal's for sacrifice that was common to Judaism at the time because he didn't believe that the commercial aspect of buying and selling these sacrifices for forgiveness was holy?
Having read the bible, the amount of burnt offerings and sin offerings and the meticulous cataloging of offenses requiring such offerings struck me as very central to the old testament and the Levitical law that goes with it.
Not sure if it was the selling itself or the profiteering that was the problem; I lean towards the latter. IIRC Jesus didn't say anything directly, but Hebrews 10:4 is pretty direct on it: "It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."
It is indeed fascinating to contrast the ritualism of the Old Testament to the anti-ritualism of the New.
It's worth noting that Western Christianity largely opposes that sort of teaching. To the point of throwing the word "heresy" around, which might not sound like much to outsiders, but mainstream Western Christians prefer to be theologically circumspect to a fault.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology#Criticism