Stephen Bates of the Guardian profiles U.S. evangelist Joel Osteen who is currently on a preaching tour in Britain.
An excerpt:
Osteen was named most-watched pastor in America last year and America’s most fascinating person. This for a man whose Lakewood Church is a converted basketball stadium in Houston, Texas, whose ministry started only eight years ago and whose message is one that could charitably be described as theology lite. He gets 30,000 in his congregation every weekend and 18 million more tune in each month around the world to watch his services. That’s probably the secret. Osteen, a slight 44-year-old with a Texan drawl and a modest manner and gleaming teeth, smart suits and slicked-back hair, is not from the generation of hellfire preachers peddling old time religion. Nor, more importantly, is he one of the leaders of the religious right, men like Falwell and Pat Robertson whose pulpits and television studios have been platforms for nakedly partisan political messages designed to win secular power. Instead, Osteen’s is an affirming gospel, exemplified in the title of his book Your Best Life Now, which has sold more than 3 million copies since it was published three years ago.
Go to one of his services, as I did last year, and you will be told God wants you to do well: “God is a good God. He is smiling down on each one of you today We are going out for next week changed by God … Lord, we are filled with hope.”
Attending a service is an extraordinary experience. There are no religious symbols in the building. The stage is decorated with artificial waterfalls and a giant revolving globe, while above all flies an enormous stars and stripes.
The message of Osteen’s 12-minute sermons – precisely timed to hit the programme schedule – is studiously upbeat: if you keep a right attitude, God will reward you. It even extends to physical fitness in the obesity capital of the US: “Make changes for your health’s sake and God will make you better … if you get the physical side in balance, you will be rewarded by God.”
One on one, explains Don Iloff, Osteen’s press officer and brother-in-law, Joel knows where the rubber hits the road: “He’s telling them, God loves you, come on back. When they listen to Joel, they recognise a new face of God.”
Joel, he explains, does not have a great deal of time for pastoral work; visiting the sick, for example. There’s not enough time: that sermon takes two days to write and rehearse each week.
Elves, you slipped up big-time on this one. In my mind this criticism falls into the category of pathetic criticisms so prevalent on other areas of the blogosphere, but usually absent here: ‘you’re too anglo-catholic’, or ‘you’re too reformed’, or ‘you’re too charismatic’, etc.
St Paul speaks profoundly of the body as a sum total of many very different parts. As a conservative Anglican who has long listened to the sermons of Joel Osteen, I must stand here in his defense. This man may be too ‘positive’, too ‘short-sermoned’ or or too ‘unpastoral’. But in every way I have seen, his sermons are orthodox, inspiring, and yes, bring me closer to a living relationship with the living Christ.
Thank God the whole ECUSA situation is taking so long to resolve. It’s the only thing preventing us from splitting into a million little conservative alphabet soup pieces. What you are doing is damaging Christ’s body. Unless you have evidence of actual, regular heterodoxy in Mr Osteen’s sermons. Please turn down the burner.
Or not. Once we have devoured and torn to pieces Mr Osteen. Perhaps someone could come up with a damning critique on the latent pentecostalism in Fr Harmon’s sermons? (end sarcasm)
JM
And, O elf, since you admire the biblical substance of the critique, let’s discuss it. I’m just loving the title of your much-admired piece “He has absolutely no experience to be a pastor. Would you let a surgeon operate on you because he felt ‘called?'”
I’m sure that’s just how the guardian would have titled their critiques of Moses, Jeremiah, St Peter, and a host of other greats of the Bible. In fact, wasn’t that very excuse the one Moses used on God?
justinmartyr, your perspective is welcome.
You may be right that I overstepped here. I’ve not heard Osteen preach. So, perhaps I shouldn’t have editorialized even slightly about Bates’ article. Yet, what little I’ve read of Osteen’s writings has concerned me in its seeming focus on material prosperity. I’ll try to find a specific excerpt for you later on if I can get a few minutes.
That said. I’m not sure that posting Bates’ article is out of bounds. Is it not important how major Christian leaders are perceived? I’m thinking of several passages in the NT which talk about being mindful of how “outsiders” perceive believers or especially Christian leaders:
From I Thes 4:
But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more, 11 and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, 12 so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one.
From I Tim 3 and the qualifications for overseers:
6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
and From Titus 2:
7 Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, 8 and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us.
Our post of this article DOES NOT signify that we agree with Bates’ article on Osteen. This is a blog. It’s a place for discussion. We merely thought Bates’ article could stir up some good discussion. Hopefully it will.
And let me just say this, if Kendall has any concerns about what I’m posting, I’m really confident he will let me know. The privilege of covering the blog during his break is something I take immensely seriously. And yet I can’t pretend I am Kendall. What I post and how I post will not necessarily match how Kendall would have done something.
–elfgirl
It takes a lot for me to feel pity for Joel Osteen, but Bate’s manages to elicit that reaction. Does his bile have no limit? Let’s pass over the absurdity of dissing the pastoral abilities of a man with a 52,000 member church speaks for itself. Perhaps, if by “pastoral skills” one means personal counseling skills, Bates might have a point. An irrelevant point, but a point.
As a matter of fact, Lakewood Church was founded in 1959 by Osteen’s father, John Osteen. By the 70s, it was quite already what we call a megachurch with (I think) around 10,000 members. I don’t know the degree to which the senior Osteen preached the prosperity gospel, but he weren’t no slouch at congregation building himself.
Upon further reflection, and since I don’t have time to monitor the comment threads today as carefully as I might like, I’ve removed part of the intro blurb I originally posted above the excerpt from Bates’ article.
Bates’ remarks are strengthened by the fact of his having visited Osteen’s Houston church. This elf also appreciates that Bates critiques the substance of Osteen’s message, not merely the style. Interesting reading.
Too many people are likely to read into that unqualified support for what Bates has written, which is not at all true. (And yes, the headline was ATROCIOUS. But that is not Bates’ problem.)
I’ve seen lots of hit pieces on Osteen. I probably wouldn’t have given Bates’ piece the time of day EXCEPT for the fact that he has visited Lakewood, and because he at least makes some attempt to discuss Osteen’s message, not just the Osteens’ lifestyle.
I hope that helps clarify things a bit further.
–elfgirl
Thanks for posting this. I’m outside the loop in many ways but I want to know some of what is popular for the day. I’ve never heard of the guy.
I would not doubt that Osteen might go for a popular “gospel” but I hold judgement. Sooner or later I’ll run into a telling observation.
DonGander
I sometimes watch Joel Osteen for a few minutes with a critical eye and have never heard anything that contradicted scripture or reality in his sermons. I also read and reviewed his book with the expectation of finding several “health & wealth” messages to criticize. I ended up being fully supportive of the book that shares the message of the gospel. His ministry clearly focuses on the positive uplifting messages of the gospel; however he does not discount any of scripture from what I’ve seen.
Most of the attacks I’ve read of him attack his style rather than substance of his work. Mr. Bates has a hard time grasping Joel’s lack of formal education…again that does not contradict the Bible at all.
In his book, Joel continually credits his father and mother, his wife and church for his success and of course he credits God.
I think ministers all would benefit from polishing speaking skills and attending to the details of the service as Joel Osteen does. I think the benefits of his ministry outweigh the negatives. He is preaching the gospel message …unlike the leader of our denomination who is heretical. I don’t know why Christians don’t rejoice when someone like Osteen or TD Jakes gains a wide audience instead of denigrating them. We Christians too often kick them when they’re up and when they’re down.
I live in the Houston area and have listened to some Osteen sermons. Maybe I just listened to the wrong ones but they were are steeped in Word of Faith concepts which are not at all orthodox. Osteen speaks carefully and does make a real attempt to not be the next Benny Hinn, but a decidedly Copelandesque theology does slip out in sermons and in his book.
Five years ago I attended church with a family who left Lakewood after being told flat out that they were not really Christians because they had not spoken in tongues. I am not sure if this holds true today, but it did when they left which was just before I met them.
Those familiar with Stephen Bates’s religion reports over the years would have to agree that Joel Osteen got off so lightly — and even positively — that it amounts to a ringing endorsement of a biblically orthodox ministry.
Bates must be mellowing as he ages.
Elfgirl, wise choice in posting that piece. With an estimated 18 million viewers watching Osteen every week, you can bet the house that more than a few are Episcopalians. Maybe a little conditioning going on worth knowing about….
w.w.
Elf-girl, I’m sorry if my reply seemed like a personal attack on you. I didn’t mean it that way, and I can see that you are doing an exceedingly good job of bring up discussable topics. As much as I don’t like the commentary by the Guardian, I think that you are doing great. Nothing personal was meant, and keep up the good work!
I agree with Craig Stephens that people purportedly criticize Osteen because of the substance of his messages, but when I dig deeper it always turns out to be questions of taste and style.
My investigations have found the Word of Faith (or name it and claim it) accusations to be false. Osteen has been through too many incredibly tragic circumstances in his life to ever spout that “nothing bad will happen to you if you just believe.”
I much prefer the order of service of a small, traditional Anglican chapel to an Osteen-style megachurch, but that doesn’t mean he is not orthodox, and in many ways an admirable brother in Christ.
My apologies for shooting from the hip.
JM
Thanks JM. Apology appreciated and accepted. I confess to feeling a little stressed trying to cover the blog for Kendall. If it were a blog with 10 readers it wouldn’t be such a big deal. But knowing Kendall has earned the trust of about 10,000 visitors per day, it means I’m trying to fill pretty HUGE shoes!
I’ve watched Osteen for a while now. I’ve often heard him read a passage and then never again refer to it. I’ve watched weeks of messages and seen Jesus downplayed or never mentioned at all. God is often mentioned generically or at least in words that are less than personal. Sin is seen as a failure in our self-actualization, though I don’t think he would use those exact words. I have never witnessed him portraying sin as an offense to God done by us miserable offenders. As with certain leaders (past and present) within TEC if sin is only located in our minds or confined to the relationships of this world, the apostolic faith is denied.
The center of our faith is not our well-being, neither is it the well-being of the world around us. The center of our faith is our relationship to God through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the only bridge to God. Downplaying Jesus downplays the need for the bridge.
In defense of the elves (!!!), and Bates (!!!), I would concur that Osteen, if not actually an heretic, skates quite close to the line.
1 John 2:15-17 (ESV) says: [i] “Do not love the world or the things of the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world–the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions–is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.” [/i]
That verse alone given Osteen’s penchant for preaching personal happiness, success and better thinking leaves me wondering where Osteen is getting his message. This is especially so given from what I can tell watching him on TV, that Osteen preaches under a giant globe and an American flag. Very symbolic in my opinion of the key point that is missing in his messages I have heard.
The new Wembley Arena where our main football and rugby events will be held has a capacity of just under 13,000 seated so it is useful to us to know what the US take on this is. I don’t think that Bates would probably describe himself as a reasserter and has been leading a one man journalistic crusade against the principal of Wycliffe College. Presumably Osteen picked up quite a lot of theology from his dad. I am not sure how much formal theological training the apostles had.
Not fair to blame elves. Don’t shoot the messenger.
We here know little of the background of Osteen so it is interesting to find out about those coming to preach to us. What is all this about huge personal wealth – is that right or is it the church’s wealth with Jakes etc?
Mentioned in a prior post:
“The center of our faith is not our well-being, neither is it the well-being of the world around us.”
My way of saying this is that Jesus did not die on the cross to make us “happy”. We are, however, to have joy in everything – even tribulations, sorrow, and troubles. We confuse “blessed are they” with “happy are they”. Two distinctly different things. I am not accusing Osteen, who I know nothing about, but a common “itchy ears” problem is to confuse “happy, “joy”, and “blessed”. Such subtle lack of differentiations can lead many into temptation, and we are to pray, and act, to not lead us into temptation.
DonGander
In agreement with #12 above on every point. One must listen long and hard in Osteen’s sermons for Jesus to get even a passing mention, and then He only sounds like a personal trainer or a financial advisor. I wonder if Osteen has met the LORD that Joshua, Daniel, Isaiah, Habbakuk, Peter, Paul, and John met, who caused them to fall on their faces like dead men or to wail aloud at their own uncleaness in the light of His holy glory. How indeed would Joel Osteen answer the question Jesus poses to each of us: “Who do you say that I am?”
The following is from a Larry King interview; how does JO’s views differ from, say, Katharine Jefferts Schori ?
On Larry King Live, the following very disturbing conversation occurred with Larry King and Joel Osteen:
KING: What if you’re Jewish or Muslim, you don’t accept Christ at all?
OSTEEN: You know, I’m very careful about saying who would and wouldn’t go to heaven. I don’t know …
At this point, even Larry King appears surprised by Osteen’s answer. Then Larry tosses Osteen a “soft-ball” to explain his previous answer. And again Osteen openly denies that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way of salvation.
KING: If you believe you have to believe in Christ? They’re wrong, aren’t they?
OSTEEN: Well, I don’t know if I believe they’re wrong. I believe here’s what the Bible teaches and from the Christian faith this is what I believe. But I just think that only God will judge a person’s heart. I spent a lot of time in India with my father. I don’t know all about their religion. But I know they love God. And I don’t know. I’ve seen their sincerity. So I don’t know. I know for me, and what the Bible teaches, I want to have a relationship with Jesus.
Again Osteen denies the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Notice, he praises the pagan, false-religion of India as “I know they love God.” Unbelievable. . .
I’m sure some reading this are thinking, “Well, maybe Larry caught Joel Osteen flat footed. Maybe Osteen wasn’t prepared.” If Osteen only had been given another chance to testify of the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ, he’d get it straightened out.
Osteen did get another chance. . .
After Larry King opened the phone lines, a concerned Christian asks Joel to clarify his previous statement (which we just viewed). Again Osteen could easily clear this up.
CALLER: Hello, Larry. You’re the best, and thank you, Joe — Joel — for your positive messages and your book. I’m wondering, though, why you side-stepped Larry’s earlier question about how we get to heaven? The Bible clearly tells us that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light and the only way to the father is through him. That’s not really a message of condemnation but of truth.
OSTEEN: Yes, I would agree with her. I believe that. . .
KING: So then a Jew is not going to heaven?
OSTEEN: No. Here’s my thing, Larry, is I can’t judge somebody’s heart. You know? Only God can look at somebody’s heart, and so — I don’t know. To me, it’s not my business to say, you know, this one is or this one isn’t. I just say, here’s what the Bible teaches and I’m going to put my faith in Christ. And I just I think it’s wrong when you go around saying, you’re saying you’re not going, you’re not going, you’re not going, because it’s not exactly my way. I’m just…
I love to read the “religion professionals” on this blog slam successful preachers. It happens too much. It comes across as professional envy; mote in your eye and beam in mine. I am a church-member, Sunday morning attending episcopalian. I find it instructive that the elves commented on Joel Osteen without as much as ever heard him preach; kind of a Greek chorus for the big time British theo-columnist. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Does he have the problems our church has? no. Why do you figure that is? Has he got an episco-muslim preacher on staff? no. Is he suing anybody we know of? no. Is he wrapped up in politics – ecclestical and worldly – like our church is? He’s not wasting resources either. He has services where the Houston Rockets used to play basketball (converted stadium). Maybe we should all just consider cleaning up our side of the street. It needs it. Some of the comments sound like a visiting priest at a church I attended a couple of years ago who proudly announced he was getting a PhD in preaching. The guy could not preach a lick. Actually I watch Joel Osteen every chance I get, read his last book, and find his message and sermons practical and inspiring, not at all like the PhD preacher. Maybe we should check out what he is doing right?
#17 RoyIII (are you the 3rd in a line of kings, the meaning of “Roy”?), as far as beams in my eye, I have seen my own clearly pointed out to me by the LORD in His word, much as the experience I referred to of the prophets and apostles. Don’t use TEC’s unclean house or pompous PhD preachers to distract yourself from your answer to Jesus’ question: “Who do you say that I am?”
I think most people only have to watch 3 minutes of Osteen on TV to see he’s as phony as a three dollar bill. I feel sorry for those who can not.
OK, here’s my opinion – and it’s just opinion. My first reaction upon seeing one Joel Osteen TV show was that his “altar call” left out repentance. That bothered me. Also, I thought his message was a little “light-weight.” But I would hesitate to pass judgment on him. If his message, whatever that may be, leads to genuine salvation of souls, he is doing what God put him here to do.
I’ve heard the “parts of the body” sermon used to justify un-Biblical behavior. But I’m not smart enough to judge whether Joel Osteen and his ministry are an “arm” or maybe a growth. I hope it is the former.
RoyIII #17,
Successful preaching is not the attraction of a crowd of people to hear your words or buy your books. Successful preaching is the faithful proclamation of God’s Gospel of mercy and grace through Jesus Christ to human beings who are lost in sin.
Osteen, as others have also noted, seems to skip the need for mercy and goes straight to grace. The two are inseparable in good preaching, so Osteen is a success, but I do not view him as a successful preacher.
If that is a beam in my eye, so be it. Anytime I stand in the pulpit and do not preach the need for mercy at the Cross and the grace of new life in the Resurrection, I have worse problems than a wooden contact lens.
Milton, my grandfather’s nickname was Roy and I’m the third, that’s all. Thou protest too much, imho. I know Jesus is Lord, and I bet Osteen does, too. If y’all have the preaching down pat, how did our church get into the sorry state it’s in? One thing you have in common is the short 12 minute sermon. There’s plenty more distractions on our church, thank you.
My wife occaisonally watches Osteen and I have listened in to more than a dozen sermons. I tend to agree that his sermons are mostly fluffy pep talks with very little substance. While an occaisonal Osteen sermon can be inspiring I feel sorry for those who get nothing but a steady diet of this spiritual “milk”. These sermonettes are structured around telling people how good and wonderful they are. That aside, there is rarely anything I find grossly objectionable…
#16: I have been thinking – and rethinking – the passage that declares that those who come to the Father can only do so through Christ. It is commonly supposed that Christ meant “all people, all over the world, regardless of time and circumstance.” In short, it is taken as a universal. But I wonder now if that is a misjudgment of the situation.
As far as I know, there is no sign that Christ ever showed any awareness of the rest of the human world. One thing we do know, He saw his ministry as physically circumscribed. He held himself away from Samaritan woman, saying that he hadn’t come for the likes of them. He focused on the Jews to whom He belonged. This narrowness of focus is frequently overlooked it seems.
Moreover, when he spoke, he was exceedingly careful of his audience. He measured his responses to the capabilities of his audience. Because he was so sensitive to his audience, we may argue that the admonition under discussion was meant for this audience and its peers, not for all mankind. He might well be sayiing,” All you who have heard me in the past or who are in reach of my voice right now, I say this about salvation….” Such a reading is congruent with his approach to the scope of his ministry and to his awareness of his audience.
Now to hold that this is probable is not the same as saying his proposition is not a universal. But it does say that his strong sense of locality (geographic and ethnic) may force us to factor this into our assessment of the declaration.
I hav often wondered – been really puzzled by – His refusal to wander outside his neighborhood. It seems that his focus was quite narrow. Why would he not have gone to Egypt or the Tigris-Euphrates or even – you would think he would see the need – to Rome? But he never went anywhere. And so i wonder if we are not ascribing a universality to this proposition that Christ never intended.
Now I am aware that in saying this, i sound like Schori. This is intensely mortifying. PLease don’t remind me. One of the benefits of this blog is that it has forced me to rethink what I thought I knew or has demanded that I clarify what I had merely suspect. And the above is a case in point.
But let us suppose for a moment tht I am right. What has changed? Not much and everything. What remains is that I am within sound of his voice, I am in his audience, so I can never say, “Jesus who?” The implication is that there are other avenues to God, but then, I have always supposed that there have been, for to damn all who never knew Christ is to say that the Father is pitiless. Who dares say that? To say that countless millions are dying of thirst in the desert and to justify His giving a glass of water to one and one only, is to declare Him pitiless to an extreme.
There is another possibility, of course, and yet this reading oppresses me, for if God values most highly the prodigal son, why has he cut off all the rest of mankind so they can never have a chance to go home? Larry
# 13 Wembley seats 90,000.
Osteen sounds pleasant and unsubstantial – the kind of ‘uplift’ that American consumerism excels in. Probably not a lot to do with co-crucifixion with Christ and painful sanctiifcation by the Holy Spirit. More like Norman Vincent Peale or rovert Schuller transposed into mass charismatic enterntainment culture.
# 24: Larry, no one comes to the Father except through the Son – but how they come through the Logos has not been revealed to us.
Read William Lane Craig on God’s Middle Knowledge as a possible solution to the problem you mention. Or Daniel Strange on the fate of the unevangelized. In any case, Jesus came to fulfill the meaning and purpose of Israel for the sake of the world, not for Israel alone. In Wright’s words, he is the climax of the covenant. His Great Commission given to his church is the transmission of that purpose to all the world.
#26, “not for Israel alone.” Well, you probably know the nT better than I do, but I don’t see the evidence that he did not come for Israel alone. He said he had come to fulfill the Law, not destroy it. What Law? The context suggest that he means the Law of the OT. And then there is refusing the Samaritan because of what he had come to do. If he came for the world’s sake, why did he never leave home? Surely, he should at least have gone to Rome. He could have, after all. ANd his remark that a prophet is without honor in his own country suggests that he would have had a more profound impact talking to people who didn’t know his parents and brothers and sisters.
More important is the manifest cruelty of consigning all mankind to damnation who never had a chance to hear Jesus’s words. Why do such a thing? God after all could just as easily have made ten thousand Jesus’s and spread them throughout the world. That would be both just and merciful.
TO say tht Adam and Eve condemned mankind to damnation eternally doesn’t make sense because the story of Adam doesn’t tell us that. Adam and Eve are condemned to mortality, we are told, and their descendents will have the same limitation, but condemned to hell? I don’t see the evidence for such a conclusion. And Isaiah declares that the sins of a man will not be visited on his descendents.
It would seem to me that Christ died to lift the assigned burden, namely, inescapable mortality, for us all, whether living or dead. His death was to open up immortality once more, not to remove Adam’s condemnation of all his descendents to automatic damnation. His localness would seem to mean, “If I can save these few, then I can save all, the living and the dead, for they share a common lot.” This was, in short, another test to see if the Jews, God’s test case, would obey and believe, as they did not after Moses declared the Law. Larry
#25, Gordian – quite right – capacity of the new Wembley Arena is 90,000 seated; not sure where the other figure came from on Google unless for the old now demolished twin-towered stadium originally built for the British Empire Exhibition in 1924.
‘My bad’ as people on blogs say.
Wow! Talk about sour grapes . . .. You shall know them by their fruit. Let’s see: thousands of unchurched people hearing the Good News, believing, lives being changed, vs. law suits and dwindling numbers and wondering where the bishop drops his pants. Maybe JO is Chirsitanity Lite, but it gets the unchurched into the Word and people do “come and see.”
Actually the old stadium was apparently an 80,000 seater
http://www.the-english-football-archive.com/wembley_stadium.htm
compared with the new one
http://www.wembleystadium.com/brilliantfuture/wembley_today.htm
Larry, your conflicts and confusion (I say this not perjoratively but reading the objective content of your comments) about Christianity and the full teaching of Jesus found in the Gospels are understandable, especially if (I don’t know your actual situation) you are relying on the typical TEC sermon or priest for understanding. Wonderful and faithful exceptions do exist.
I give the strongest possible recommendation to Mere Christianity, a classic overview of traditional and orthodox Christian doctrine by a master apologist and the quintessential convert from agnostic to Anglican, C. S. Lewis (of Narnia fame). Other good Bible teachers (find their web sites by Google and listen to them at your lesiure) are R. C. Sproul, Alastair Begg, Chuck Swindoll, Tony Evans, Hank Hanegraaff, Michael Youseff, John Piper, Chip Ingram, and the late Adrian Rogers, J. Vernon McGee and A. W. Tozer. There are several other good teachers I left off for space saving, and I’m sure other commenters will chime in with those.
Larry, above all, trust in the character of God and use it to resolve all conflicts. In the court of your mind, always give Him the benefit of the doubt and take His word as absolute eternal truth, and He will vindicate Himself in the person of Jesus Christ every time.
#29, CandB: That’s what I’m talkin’ about!
Totally agree with #29….lighten up critics.
No sour grapes here…and if there’s no difference between apples and oranges then I’d agree that fruit is fruit. In other words, there’s no point in arguing with Osteen’s success: He is BIG TIME (and, for that matter, there’s no point in trying to compare his show to another Christian-ish spectacle: The Episcopal Church).
Here’s the deal: Osteen is a major talent, an exceptional motivator of the masses (especially those into prosperity and good health and fitness), and – first and foremost – he is a great showman. No need for malice. There is some good news (lower case), or at least some good feeling, about Christianity there.
I’ve watched Osteen many times; sometimes with a critical eye, and sometimes just enjoying the show. As for theological content and THE Good News? Well, I have said for years that in this regard Osteen is a rather poor preacher.
C’est magnifique, mais c’est pas le christianisme.
The reason I distrust the Osteens of the world is that their message that the news is good doesn’t square with reality, where the news is almost always uniformly bad. He is indeed a major showman, and that’s the other reason I distrust him; I have never met a major showman who didn’t have a lot of use-car-salesman in him. This is instinctive; experience has shown to often that major showmen are selling snakeoil, this is precisely why it is in their best interest to be a major showman. And I distrust the exhibitionism that is the stock in trade of the major showman.
But what snake oil is he selling? That the news is good and that Gods loves you and that everything will be all right. God loves us to be sure, and the results, as the Jews discovered, is that God’s love is like having a 200lb weight on your shoulders. I suspect that Osteen is a constitutional optimist and what we are watching, and what he is selling is not Christianity but his own brand of optimism which, because he is a major showman, is highly contagious. And that’s the mos important reason why I distrust the Osteens of the world. LM
I’ve actually been to Lakewood a couple of times with my family (it’s about a mile from my house); once as a “field trip,” and a few weeks ago because my teen-aged son wanted to go.
Osteen’s message may be Christianity lite, but it’s something a lot of people need to hear; remember Paul’s comment about milk before solid food. Say what you will about the man, he gets tens of thousands of people to think about God for an hour a week.
(One thing I noticed about Lakewood: There’s not a cross in sight; their logo reminds me of the UUs’ lamp.)