Maybe God helped cause this whole subprime mess

I'm web surfing, as I do on most Sunday mornings while watching the news shows, when I come across this article in Time Magazine.

It poses the question about whether God, or more accurately, Prosperity Gospel, helped cause the rash of foreclosures we're currently experiencing.

Here's an excerpt:

"Has the so-called Prosperity gospel turned its followers into some of the most willing participants — and hence, victims — of the current financial crisis? That's what a scholar of the fast-growing brand of Pentecostal Christianity believes. While researching a book on black televangelism, says Jonathan Walton, a religion professor at the University of California at Riverside, he realized that Prosperity's central promise — that God will "make a way" for poor people to enjoy the better things in life — had developed an additional, dangerous expression during the subprime-lending boom. Walton says that this encouraged congregants who got dicey mortgages to believe "God caused the bank to ignore my credit score and blessed me with my first house." The results, he says, "were disastrous, because they pretty much turned parishioners into prey for greedy brokers."

The article made me think about a church I attended when I lived in Dallas, Texas. Now I won't reveal the name of the church, but I will say the pastor there all too often preached about the accumulation of wealth and status.

His sermons centered around the notion that if only a person remained steadfast in God's word and to the church, then they could get that job, house or car they wanted. The pastor I'm familiar with would repeatedly say, "Don't hate the game, play your own game," before bragging about his newest luxury vehicle.

It disgusted me to see members who were unemployed and/or struggling from one paycheck to the next, sit there and listen to this man continuously talk about his expensive car. Needless to say, I stopped attending the church.

What do you think, does the author of this article make a valid point, or is his argument weak?