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.

Religion has long been linked to ideas about justice, poverty, and wealth. Christianity in particular has played a wide range of roles in shaping attitudes toward inequality, both opposing and supporting it. Historical figures such as Martin Luther King Jr. used their Christian beliefs to fight injustice, while others have used the same religious texts to support capitalist structures and hierarchies.

Scholars have consistently found that evangelical Christians in the United States are more likely than other religious groups to justify economic inequality. This pattern is surprising, especially since evangelicals are, on average, less wealthy than the general population. Researchers have also noted that evangelical leaders tend to communicate economic individualism from the pulpit, promoting the idea that financial outcomes result primarily from individual choices and effort.

Given these patterns, sociologist Dawson P. R. Vosburg of The Ohio State University set out to understand how evangelical leaders reconcile Bible teachings that appear to promote equality with their support for existing economic hierarchies. His study focused on New River Church as a case example of how these messages are delivered to large congregations.

Vosburg analyzed 79 sermons drawn from a ten-year archive of nearly 400 messages delivered at New River Church. The church is known for its modern style and rapid growth, attracting thousands of in-person and online attendees. Though contemporary in its branding, the church holds conservative beliefs and emphasizes a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Free daily newsletter

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.

This anecdote highlights how market pressures can influence religious messages. Churches that openly challenge inequality may risk losing members and financial support. In contrast, those that affirm existing hierarchies may be more likely to attract and retain wealthier congregants. Vosburg suggests this dynamic helps explain why some churches emphasize messages that align with mainstream economic beliefs, even when those beliefs appear to contradict biblical teachings.

The study does not claim that all evangelical churches interpret Scripture in the same way or that all Christians support economic inequality. Vosburg points out that other traditions within Christianity have taken strong stances against inequality, and even some evangelicals have used their faith to push for greater justice. Still, the findings provide a detailed look at how one influential church handles these tensions in practice.

As a case study of a single church, the findings cannot be assumed to represent all evangelical congregations. New River’s size, style, and geographic location may shape its unique approach. Vosburg also notes that economic inequality is not always a prominent topic in sermons, making it difficult to track patterns across large numbers of churches without extensive data.

However, this study adds to a growing body of research using recorded sermons to analyze religious discourse. It introduces a framework for understanding how economic messages are framed in religious settings and suggests that future research could compare churches with different theological or political orientations.

Vosburg encourages scholars to investigate how religious leaders who oppose inequality present their messages, and how these churches fare in terms of growth and finances. The increasing availability of sermon archives and advances in text analysis may make it easier to explore how widespread these patterns are.

The study, “‘I Thank God We’re Rich’: Justifying Economic Inequality in an Evangelical Congregation,” was published August 25, 2025.