Posted on 09/03/2014 4:42:15 PM PDT by Gamecock
When Donald Sterling had to sell the Los Angeles Clippers because he was caught on tape saying he didn’t want his mistress bringing black people to his basketball games, many people cheered. But if you had paid much attention to Sterling prior to the TMZ-leaked audio, you probably didn’t cheer—not because you weren’t troubled by Sterling’s comments, but because Sterling’s downfall over those particular comments felt a bit anticlimactic.
Sterling was sued for racial discrimination in basketball. He was repeatedly sued for housing discrimination against blacks and Latinos. Sterling’s wife allegedly posed as a health inspector to survey the race of people living in the couple’s properties and threaten them with fines if they didn’t keep their space clean. Not wanting people of a certain race to attend your basketball games is most definitely bad. But it is a minor tremor on the Racist Richter Scale in comparison to Sterling’s earthshaking brand of discrimination that directly hurt people’s lives and harmed their communities. So when you consider all of the insanely racist things Sterling has done, isn’t it a bit of a letdown that the least racist thing of the bunch served as his Waterloo?
From a theological perspective, I see something similar with the outrage from various Christian circles over recent comments from Victoria Osteen, wife of Joel Osteen and “co-pastor” of Lakewood Church, America’s largest congregation. At a recent service, Ms. Osteen commented that, when we offer God our obedience and worship, we do this for the sake of our own happiness rather than for the glory of God. Like Sterling’s TMZ tape, yes, Osteen’s comments are bad. Yes, the 37-second clip is a rambling mess born from almost incomprehensible Biblical ignorance. Yes, I hope these comments cause Osteen disciples to seriously reconsider their devotion to the most mega of America’s megachurches. But if these words succeed in toppling the Osteen empire, isn’t it a bit anticlimactic when the Osteens have said a thousand things that are even more theologically indefensible during their time at Lakewood Church?
When interviewed, Joel Osteen won’t clearly affirm there is no salvation outside of faith in Christ and seems incapable of articulating a coherent doctrine of repentance. And, as both these clips show, Osteen’s default response to any theologically challenging question is essentially, “Well, whatever the Bible says about this, the important thing for everyone to know is that I’m nice.” So is it bad for one Osteen to tell Christians God wants them to be more concerned with their own happiness than His glory? Absolutely. But this pales in comparison to the other Osteen telling Christians they should be more concerned with mimicking Joel’s unflappable positivity than with knowing what the Word of God actually says.
In their sermons and books, both Joel and Victoria Osteen give full-throated endorsement to the prosperity gospel, a theology which states that those enduring hardships, poverty, and sickness have only their lack of faith and confidence to blame for their suffering. There are, of course, some enormous theological problems with this Christianized version of “The Secret,” where you obtain God’s blessings by speaking them into existence. The first is that it has no basis in the Scriptures and conveniently ignores all of the words that Jesus speaks about the question of suffering, the cost of discipleship, and the blessedness of persecution. The second is that it offers nothing but despair to those who are faithfully enduring the crosses Christ has given them to bear. And the third is that such a doctrine simply doesn’t square with the lives of those who were the first to tell us about God’s blessings in Christ (self-promotion alert).
So is it bad for Victoria Osteen to encourage us to think of God as the “Treat Yo Self” Tom Haverford to our name-it-and-claim-it Donna Meagle? Most definitely. But surely it’s a few notches lower on the pole of theological indefensibility than speaking words that, one, say the exact opposite of what the Bible says; two, belittle suffering Christians with the insensitivity a man horking down a hot fudge sundae three inches from the face of a starving child; and, three, imply that St. Peter, St. Paul, and even Jesus Himself must have been really lousy Christians who couldn’t unlock God’s potential blessings.
But what really makes the Osteens’ books and sermons worse than the things they say are the things they don’t say. The Osteens talk about living your best life now and unlocking God’s earthly blessings. But the Osteens don’t talk about the best life won for us in the blood of the Lamb and God’s eternal blessings for those who cling to Christ in faith. The Osteens doesn’t talk about sin. They don’t talk about forgiveness or redemption or atonement. They don’t talk about heaven and hell or the crucifixion and the resurrection. Do you know why a teetotaler’s favorite drinking game is “Take a Shot Every Time Joel Osteen Talks About Jesus?” Because Joel Osteen doesn’t talk about Jesus.
So is it terrible that one of Lakewood Church’s preachers would mislead people into thinking they don’t need to focus on God’s glory? Most definitely. But it’s substantially worse to mislead people into thinking they don’t need to hear about God’s Son, without whom God’s glory could never be ours. And while Victoria Osteen is wrong about the glory of God, if you find those words more unchristian than the Osteen’s unwillingness to proclaim Christ Himself, I’m not sure your understanding of God’s glory is much better.
“For every beast of the forest is mine,
the cattle on a thousand hills.
I know all the birds of the hills,
and all that moves in the field is mine.
If I were hungry, I would not tell you,
for the world and its fullness are mine.
Do I eat the flesh of bulls
or drink the blood of goats?
Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving,
and perform your vows to the Most High,
and call upon me in the day of trouble;
I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me.”
What do these words from Psalm 50 tell us about obedience, glory, and worship? God didn’t command His people to sacrifice bulls and goats because He needed those sacrifices in order to be glorious. God is, after all, perfectly glorious and holy without us. Rather, God commanded His people to sacrifice so that they would see, in the blood of those animals, His promise of deliverance in the blood of the Messiah who was to come, and so they would thank Him in response.
In other words, God glorifies Himself by forgiving our sins, and we glorify God in our worship by thanking Him for His mercy in Christ. Why does God command Christians to be baptized and celebrate the Lord’s Supper? Not because He needs our obedience in order to be glorified, but because He wants to glorify Himself by wrapping us in His glory through the waters of regeneration and feeding us with Christ, the very bread of life, in the Sacrament of the Altar. Why does God command Christians to gather together in worship? Not because He needs the sacrifice of our praise, but because we need the sacrifice of Christ’s life, which is given to us in the Word of the Gospel proclaimed in Christian worship. How does God want us to glorify Him? Not by saying, “Lord, look what I’ve done for you,” but by saying, “Lord, thank you for what you’ve done for me.”
So when Victoria Osteen says we worship God for our sake and not His, she’s wrong. But she’s not wrong because she’s choosing man instead of God as her answer to the question “for whose benefit do we gather for worship?” Rather, she’s wrong because she’s made an either/or proposition out of the matter. And while it’s perfectly fair to criticize Ms. Osteen for this error and for a shallow, “God just wants you to be happy” theology of praise, I do find this offense rather minor in comparison to the Osteens’ overarching error of “pretty much everything we say is incompatible with the Scriptures and we will never, ever, ever point your eyes to the cross of Christ.”
I’m glad Victoria Osteen’s words are being criticized. I hope it causes people who have been lapping up the Osteen fluff to hunger for the real spiritual food they’ve been denied. But I’d rather see a heavyweight get knocked out with a haymaker than a jab. I’d rather see Al Capone go to jail for murder than for income tax fraud. I’d rather see Donald Sterling lose the Clippers for housing discrimination than for comments from a private conversation. And while it’s indefensible that Ms. Osteen spent 37 seconds preaching her recent nonsense, I’d rather see the Osteen kingdom come toppling down because it spent countless hours not preaching the King of Kings.
Victoria Osteen is wrong. “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy” :-)
Prisoner, he said he would attend a homosexual "wedding." There's nothing right about that, so why on earth would a Christian not call it out?
ahem.....they died BEFORE HE was BORN!!! HELLO!!! Of COURSE they didn’t hear about him!!! After 33 A.D., there is almost NO excuse unless you are a New Guinea tribe that has never heard of HIM!!!
Oh, thank you so much for posting this! Thank you!
Did not Jesus stand with a prostitute and say, let he who is without sin cast the first stone?
The issue for a lot freepers is that Osteen and wife are pretty obvious in their money grubbing. But even worse we have to come to fr everyday and see his daily message promoted on the front page.
He did. Then He said, “Go and sin no more.”
Scripture instructs us to expose false teaching. So I don’t understand why you have a problem with doing so. Should a Christian attend a homosexual wedding?
Well turn the page! Who forces you to read the thread?
Why do you read it? Or do you want control so others who might like it shouldn’t see it?
There is a Quinn and Rose - conservative talk radio - daily thread.
It has been said they want to profit from their warroom website. Most leftists eagerly point that out.
So maybe we should dump the Q&R daily thread because some don’t like it?
Again, what is wrong with the Osteen’s prayer at the end of their program?
I wouldn’t but I also wouldn’t condem those who would.
Jesus did say go and sin no more. Would he have not helped save another soul? Would he have not done the same thing again, and again and again?
Would he have not done the same thing for another prostitute?
BTW this thread has been enjoyable for me. I go to work in a couple of hours and must get some sleep. If I can I’ll rejoin later.
But I do enjoy these threads.
You wouldn’t condemn those who would. Good grief.
Osteen said he would attend a homosexual wedding out of respect for the two people getting “married.” It has nothing to do with wanting to convert them, because, as he said, “He isn’t against anything.”
He might as well drive the getaway car at a bank robbery, or be the lookout for a friend who’s in bed with someone else’s wife.
It isn’t about Osteen, you know. We get caught up in cults of personality, and we just don;t like seeing anyone criticize a preacher we like. It’s about God and His word...no one else. He made it clear how abominable homosexuality is in His sight; if we celebrate it, we make ourselves just as detestable.
I agree. Osteen preaches often about abundance and the rewards of faith. It sure is a refreshing change of message from the lib churches that indirectly vilify wealth and success, and happiness for that matter. I may not hear everything I like from the Osteens, but Joel is uplifting.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1203
I think you should learn a little theology. The Catholic Church DOES believe that those with zero faith in Jesus may be saved if their ignorance of Jesus is invincible.
He us uplifting because he is a motivational speaker.
He certainly doesn’t preach Scripture, except small fragments that fit his agenda.
HELLO!! Did I not mention people like a New Guinea tribe that had never heard about Him?? geesh.
This was your post to me little miss CAPS:
What the HELL are you talking about???? I’m a CRADLE Catholic.....Jesus said “I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE”!!! geesh......who have you been talking to?
http://www.forgottenword.org/osteen.html
Invincible ignorance! Add it to the long list of Catholic inventions. Yet, I do find its usage in Logic telling: “...a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to make assertions with no consideration of objections.”
Against such “invincible ignorance” I offer Scriptural evidence (who knew?) refuting Invincible Ignorance:
“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”—Romans 1
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.