Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Half-baked ministry
The Christian blogosphere has been abuzz about Sunday’s “60 Minutes” feature on Joel Osteen, in which Westminster Seminary California prof and “The White Horse Inn” host Michael Horton told it like it is. “It is certainly heresy, I believe, to say that God is our resource for getting our best life now,” Horton said, referring to Osteen’s method of teaching. “It makes religion about us instead of about God.”
In a review of Osteen’s latest book, Tim Challies sums it up well when he likens Osteen’s teaching to an unsuccessful loaf of bread he once baked that ended up being full of air — nothing but a crust: “As I thought about Joel Osteen’s new book, Become a Better You, I was reminded of that sad, pathetic little loaf of bread because this book, like that bread, is form without substance.”
Blogger Denny Burke adds, “I really think [Osteen] believes everything he is saying. That is why what he does is so awful. The prosperity gospel that Osteen preaches will damn the very people he intends to help (if they believe it), and he appears completely unaware of the darkness into which he plunges his followers.”
back to top24 Comments to “Half-baked ministry”
I tend to agree. What little I’ve been able to read/watch from him has appeared to tip over into heresy.
God doesn’t necessarily want you to materially prosper here on Earth (my very materially successful years were probably my very worst spiritually).
Trials and suffering are the fertilizer of spiritual growth. Many of us need a lot of fertilizer.
Report comment to moderator
Who needs lions in the arena when you can watch Christians battle each other?
Seriously, not being a Christian, I think Rev. Osteen comes across as a pretty decent guy. He doesn’t seem angry all the time like most preachers. Maybe it’s all an act. That certainly wouldn’t be anything new for a TV preacher.
I’ve always found it curious how Christians turn on each other (when they aren’t fighting feminists, gays, liberals, etc.). Personally, I think it’s a poor way to advertise your faith.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, all groups of people disagree among themselves. While Christians should disagree more graciously than others, I don’t think we are immune from the tendency (need?) to do so.
Christians do have a reputation for attacking one another, and that is wrong. I don’t think that’s what is happening here. A discussion of a preacher’s pronouncements is perfectly valid.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Seriously? Has all the time you’ve spent on WMB interacting with Christians been wasted?
I think what we’re seeing here is a complete failure on your part to distinguish between how you see Christianity and how Christians see Christianity.
Hint: Many of us actually believe that the gospel is true.
Report comment to moderator
H. Richard Niebuhr said of theological liberalism, “a God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” The same words apply to the so-called gospel according to Joel.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
As Rostin points out, we believe the gospel to be true.
We believe that we are sinners, and that God, in His mercy sent His Son to die our death and to give us eternal life.
We believe there is nothing we can do to earn this.
When we see others misrepresent portions of the gospel, we are rightly concerned, for a false gospel is no gospel (”good news”) at all.
Report comment to moderator
Perfect application of that quote, Terrible Ivan.
Report comment to moderator
Horton: ““It is certainly heresy, I believe, to say that God is our resource for getting our best life now. It makes religion about us instead of about God.”
It may be heresy, but so many Bible verses convey the impression that God gives us our daily bread that Horton would have a hard time proving his accusation beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if, as Horton asserts, God is not our resource for getting our best life now, God might be more forgiving of this error than Horton is. I suspect Horton mischaracterizes Osteen’s religion as being “about us instead of about God.” It’s likely about both.
Report comment to moderator
Come now people, Anlir was just being a smartass. Hasn’t he been around here long enough for you to correctly interpret what that little smiley on the end means?
He’s made a very valid point that most Christians would do well to take to heart: In the post-Christendom environment in which we live today, most Christians seem more focused on condemning the world than on demonstrating grace. That doesn’t make Osteen’s theology right (and to be honest I found him shmucky the first time I saw him, without any knowledge of his theology whatsoever), but Anlir’s observation of the contrast between his demeanor and the sourness of so many christian cultural warriors is a comparison well worth making.
Report comment to moderator
It’s just interesting to me that one group of people (or a person) can judge another person (or group) as “heretical” over a 2,000 year old book.
First, no two human beings have ever agreed what that 2,000 year-old book means. That’s why there’s all these churches and denominations and faiths.
Second, the person(s) calling someone else a heretic are just as human and fallible at the rest of us. The greatest Christian that ever lived (whomever that would be) is still a human being and subject to error.
I’ve often wondered why Christians don’t leave it to the individual and God to sort out who’s right, who’s wrong, who’s a heretic, who’s a true believer, etc.
One could spend 24 hours a day perusing all the theological disputes going on just between Christians (not to mention other faiths). Dueling books, dueling websites, dueling TV shows, Dueling magazines…it never ends.
Sorry, but many of us who are not Christians think ya’ll fight way too much. For a religion that claims to be about faith and love, it’s contradictory.
Report comment to moderator
Because not everyone agrees, (a more accurate and truthful proposition, Anlir, than saying everyone disagrees) it does not necessarily follow that all positions are false or of equal value and not worth disputing or that there are no templates for discerning orthodoxy.
I think Mr. Osteen is sincere but find his “preaching” shallow and empty of the cross. I find nothing in his overall approach or specific examples he uses to be relevant to any one other than an affluent American suburbanite. His “Best Life” principles and “Me”-centered rather than God-centered focus would be insultingly irrelevant to Christians suffering in Darfur or Iraq or China or any one of the world’s hellholes.
Although I am not enamored of his fluff, I think it extreme to pronounce his teaching heresy. It isn’t so much heretical as out of balance, elevating a part of the Gospel at the expense of the whole, but to his credit he regards himself as a motivational speaker, not a theologian, and reportedly has more substantive teachers ministering to his flock in small groups and classrooms with a more grounded and substantive Christian teaching.
Jonathan Edwards’ “The Distinguishing Marks of the Work of the Spirit of God” remains the best guide for winnowing wheat from chaff, and if we apply it here we can suggest that even if his public preaching and writing lack substance and relevance to most of the world, God can still use Mr. Osteen and we should rather be content with voicing what we thing might be lacking in his message than criticizing him for not including it in his own.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
It may be heresy, but so many Bible verses convey the impression that God gives us our daily bread that Horton would have a hard time proving his accusation beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt is sort of a subjective thing, so it’s hard to argue this point. However, I think you’d really struggle to locate a disinterested scholar who agrees with Osteen. That’s pretty telling, especially in light of the bizarre, non-traditional things that some professional theologians are willing to defend.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, thanks for staying in the discussion. Sincerely.
I know that “no two human beings” is hyperbole, but it still doesn’t ring true to me. There are millions of Christians who agree on the essential doctrines that are generally considered orthodox Christianity. (Among those millions there are lots of minor disagreements, but so what?)
You can be a flawed person and still believe that another flawed person is doctrinally incorrect. It happens even outside Christianity. Your use of “error” is appropriate. I would use “error” more often than I would use “heresy” myself.
I do leave it to God and the individual for the most part. When it comes to church membership or to pastoral or teaching positions, then it is up to a governing body to make that call.
All of that dueling is healthy. It means that people are trying to determine what they should believe and trying to help others determine what to believe.
We do fight too much. I’m sorry that it bothers you. Maybe you should ignore it, since you don’t consider yourself one of us. Or maybe you should join us and show us how to do better.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A.,
It’s true that there are millions of Christians who agree on essential doctrines. But there are also millions of Christians who don’t. From what I know (and I might be lacking in that area), there is disagreement on what is even considered “essential” anymore. And even in millions of people agree on something, it doesn’t necessarily make it true or right. Millions of people could be wrong. History is full of examples of that.
I’m not picking on Christians, because I know that all groups have disagreements. Five minutes spent on dailykos will confirm that.
I don’t know whether Joel Osteen is a heretic or misguided or what. I do know that he and his followers consider him a true Christian. If so, I’m wondering why not let God sort out who’s a “sheep” and who’s a “goat”? If Joel is wrong, She will set him straight some day.
My point is that from the perspective of someone on the outside looking in, it does seem like Christians have a thing for going after each other (when they aren’t going after us heathen
It seems to be a game of “I’m more orthodox than you”.
Report comment to moderator
There are several ministries built around this problem (see wayofthemaster .com). Many (if not most) churches today teach that when you become a Christian, your life will be improved, your marriage will be better, you’ll be more respected, etc. Christ said that your life would be worse, your marriage might fail, and people would hate you. When someone claiming to be a Christian teaches things contrary to what Christ taught, that is heresy.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop M – “It may be heresy, but so many Bible verses convey the impression that God gives us our daily bread that Horton would have a hard time proving his accusation beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Osteen seems to be more in the God is supposed to give us a BMW and 5 bedroom, 4 bath home mold.
Report comment to moderator
When someone claiming to be a Christian teaches things contrary to what Christ taught, that is heresy.
Point of information, this depends. Jesus taught not to bury your father and mother, but you may exhort your followers nevertheless to give parents a decent funeral. Heresy only infects the doctrines that are vital to salvation, whether or not they belong to the inventory of the teachings of Jesus. As long as you correctly and sincerely believe in the miraculous circle of key beliefs, all the rest is seeing through a glass darkly.
Many christians now as throughout history remain under the sway of the Roman godess Fortuna, although her name is no longer invoked or even known as it was before the Reformation. You can hear people, usually the poor, calling a store error in their favor a “blessing.” Even a wealthy lady may remain silent when a clerk at Zingermann’s neglects to ring up a $60 wedge of stilton. People like this aren’t bad, they simply have submitted themselves to Fortuna.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop M – You’re conflating a single verse in a series of items full of hyperbole with Jesus’ teachings. Yes, the one verse talks about not delaying following Him, in order allow for the burial of one’s parents. It was hyperbole (like cutting off one’s hands and plucking out one’s eyes to avoid sin – those aren’t teachings in and of themselves, they are verbal flourishes used in the task of gettign the teachings across).
Report comment to moderator
I’ve always seen Olsteen as a perfect example of American Protestant Christianity. Self-help, false humility and prosperity — the standard formula for religious success in America.
Report comment to moderator
For those who happen to be interested, here are a few essays Horton has written that flesh out his comments.
http://www.wscal.edu/faculty/wscwritings/horton.osteen.php
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
But that’s not the “standard formula” at every church. Come to my church and you won’t find such things. I hope it’s not the standard. Chances are you haven’t been to a lot more churches than I have, althought I’m not a “church-shopper”, so I don’t think I’m too far off base.
Report comment to moderator
KRM — slick. You could say half of the gospels are hyperbole — go into a closet to pray, give anonymously, forgive everyone everything, anger and contempt are murder, don’t make promises, don’t fight back or retaliate, don’t accumulate wealth, don’t judge, keep your spiritual knowledge secret, don’t say no to a request, love your enemies, join the minority,
But you’re wrong about this particular “hyperbole.” According to Matthew 8, Jesus heals a leper, tells a centurion his son is healed, heals Peter’s mother-in-law’s fever, casts out demons, dissuades two would-be followers (including a man with a father to bury) and then crosses the lake in a storm. No series of hyperbolic teachings. Luke 9 has the setting forth on the journey to Jerusalem, Jesus’ forgiveness of the inhospitality of the Samaritan village, and the dissuasion of the same two would-be followers as recorded by Matthew, followed by the declaration that no-one who commences ploughing and then looks back is fit for God’s kingdom (a metaphor, not hyperbole). No series of hyperbolic teachings there either.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop – Ah, that ought to teach me to post without checking the verse to confirm my increasingly iffy memory. It was a piece of hyperbole standing on its own (the book I was reading this morning mentioned it along with one of the series of hyperboles and I was mentally filing it there when I posted). The point remains – it was hyperbole. And yes, it is common in the NT, particularly of Jesus’ words. That sort of thing is why I qualify my position as being an essential literalist.
Report comment to moderator
According to the Apostle Paul: 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:11-13)
Again, he writes to Timothy: 4:1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. (2 Timothy 4:1-4)
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!