The Gospel of Comfort
This morning I referenced a recent 60 Minutes special about Joel Osteen. If you happened to miss it, you can catch it here.
Part of engaging the culture is knowing what's being marketed as "Christianity" out there in the mainstream. You may not be listening to or reading Osteen, but some of your neighbors are. There are a number of things in this interview that faithful Christians should find troubling.
2 sidenotes:
1) I was impressed that instead of finding a fundamentalist wacko to critique Osteen's message, the producers interviewed Michael Horton - an articulate, Reformed seminary prof from California who tells it like it is without seeming petty or arrogant.
2) Some sharp-eyed Coram Deo dudes have concluded that Osteen's hook shot in the driveway-basketball scene relies on some clever video editing... watch closely.
Part of engaging the culture is knowing what's being marketed as "Christianity" out there in the mainstream. You may not be listening to or reading Osteen, but some of your neighbors are. There are a number of things in this interview that faithful Christians should find troubling.
2 sidenotes:
1) I was impressed that instead of finding a fundamentalist wacko to critique Osteen's message, the producers interviewed Michael Horton - an articulate, Reformed seminary prof from California who tells it like it is without seeming petty or arrogant.
2) Some sharp-eyed Coram Deo dudes have concluded that Osteen's hook shot in the driveway-basketball scene relies on some clever video editing... watch closely.
posted by Bob | 8:38 PM
18 Comments:
That 60 Minutes reporter (Byron Pitts) was so good at understanding the problem with Osteen's "Gospel" and so unmoved by Osteen's "show" that after watching it I wondered if maybe Mr. Pitts is a Christian. So I googled his name and found a 2006 graduation address at Ohio Wesleyan in which he stated, "Now I'm a Christian, and proud of it." Now, I know just because he says that doesn't mean he is following Jesus, but I'd like to think Mr. Pitts was trying to brilliantly, subversively live for Jesus by deconstructing the Osteen Gospel on national television.
I am not too concerned with the camera edited hook shot. I am more concerned with the dude playing defense. Who is this guy? He didn't even contest any of Joel’s shots with a good hand in the face..lazyness.
I guess the ‘prosperity gospel’ is indeed ‘cotton candy gospel’. Joel will most likely not be preaching that true mission is uncomfortable and inconvenient; it is obvious that pop-culture Christianity does not want to hear that. On the flip side, is he really transforming a city? Is he transforming a city for the glory of God?
On a side note, if there ever were a true story movie based on the life of Joel Osteen, I think Tom Cruise would fit the part.
-ryan
or Lane Freemyer.
Ryan,
Osteen's defender on the court was the reporter, Byron Pitts. We'll give him the benefit of the doubt (Bob and Walker – Correct use of an idiom?) when it comes to his sloppy defense on the driveway court and assume that it was a staged game of one-on-one, since neither of them seems to be sweating or too terribly out of breath. Another reason for giving Pitts the benefit of the doubt could be that Osteen was throwing all kinds of hook shots past the hoop, into his front lawn and onto the roof. My assumption is that Pitts got tired of retrieving the ball and, therefore, had little to no energy to play a good, solid hand-in-the-face defense.
Honest question(s): what goes through Osteen's head as he answers Pitts' questions? Or prepares for a sermon? Or leads his family? Or writes a book? For example, is he genuinely being sincere when he speaks, and does he wholeheartedly believe what he's saying, despite the obvious (to us) gaping holes in the message that he's preaching? I also wonder who Osteen is accountable to other than his mom and dad. Who oversees what he's preaching and writing, besides his publisher, who probably makes a certain percentage off of his book sales?
One more question that I thought of when I watched this a few weeks ago: does Osteen or his church have a target person, or personality that it attempts to appeal to? Or does this “cotton-candy gospel'” appeal to a certain type of person (i.e. needy, uninformed/ignorant, and sensational)? Note: I am aware of the fact that I’m being stereotypical in that last question.
Clarification: my questions following the explanation of poor defense were not directed only to Ryan.
Yeah, I share everyone's concerns and critiques of Lakewood and Joel Osteen. I think this gospel is hurtful and, in some ways, dis-honest.
In reference to Ryan's comment, though. . Lakewood church does some pretty amazing stuff for the city of Houston,. . they do give alot of money away, that's for sure. (another reason why God isn't necessarily against the rich. . . He uses their money for great things! )
Ivy,. . . great question about the target audience. I think that we do need to look a little at that. . .since different sub-cultures in America will interact with the gospel differently. I think he's absolutely gone too far. . . . but the question of "how could anyone go for this stuff?" is answered by the sub-culture in question and sometimes by socio-economic factors.
ex-Texas residents: Do you see anything in that local culture or of Texas in general that would help some of this teaching take root? No knock on Texas at all. . . . I've just really started to see lately how Omaha is a very distinct place, as is Boulder, as is Texas, etc. . . . It's good to KNOW where you live.
Aaron
How dare you.
Lane, i stand by my statement, but i will not hold it against you if you punch me in the face for it next time i see you.
I suspect that Byron Pitts learned how to play defense from Kendal.
I am curious what people think regarding Dr. Horton's representation (or should I say 60 minutes edited representation) of the faith in contrast to Osteen? Any thoughts.
It seems to me that sometimes the media simply likes to further polarize certain issues rather than drawing helpful conclusions about them. In this instance, I am curious if those who like and agree with Osteen simply came away more certain of their endorsement of him, and those who disagree with Osteen were more fueled in their dislike?
I say this because it seemed that Horton's critique consisted of a brief bit of name calling ('cotton candy' and 'easy listening') and then the assertion that what he is teaching isn't biblical without explanation. I know Horton didn't get a lot of space, but in that space, was the name calling (and I understand he was name calling the content and not Osteen himself) at all effective? I am curious if this persepective was helpful to anyone who likes Osteen and/or is wrestling with whether or not his teaching is Orthodox?
Note: I do not agree with Osteen's teaching, and Dr. Horton is my professor. And I know 60 minutes edited the piece the way they wanted it. However, I am concerned about the way the orthodox come across to folks. Not necessarily in content but in manner. Thoughts??
P.S. Osteen lifts 300 pounds, I think that's awesome, he could post-up Pitts all day.
Yeah, I didn't love how the piece was edited. . . . I wanted to know specifics of a well-though-out critique of Osteen. Besides "he's only telling half the story" which I think is a great way to put it. . . . . . .They seemed to spend more time bemoaning the size of his budget or that his church used "hollywood-type stuff". Please.
Neither of those things are reasons to speak against Osteen or other mega-churches. . . Alot of times, that money is going to help the poor and other worthy endeavors.
Aaron
ps. what's the deal with even giving his bench press? that's so weird, it's right out of the pat robertson handbook.
They SAID he could bench 300, but they only showed him benching 185. And those guns weren't looking like 300-bench-press guns, if you know what I'm sayin.
Austin, Horton's counterpoint definitely had the 'edited for TV' feel. Since he's your prof, maybe you can ask him what he actually said, and what they edited out? If I were him, I would be thankful for the opportunity to critique Osteen, but miffed that what was (probably) a more substantive critique got edited down to a few sound bites.
In spite of all that, I was impressed with Horton's manner - even given the nature of the 'sound bites', he came across gently and winsomely.
Bob-
i think he was benching 215. however, those stabalized bench machines can make 300 lbs feel like 50lbs
ryan
Did anyone else notice that when Pitts was walking through the stadium/church with Osteen & his wife that Joel seemed strangely uncomfortable everytime a question was asked? He even grimaced when Pitts asked, "Why doesn't this look like other churches?" and then mumbled something as his wife answered.
It just stuck out to me as strange.
What about T.D. Jakes? We had someone that we know recommend his book to us, and we scoffed at it when we looked at it (in private), but I've never heard of him before this. In his book he said very directly, "I am not part of the prosperity gospel," buttttt....I'm hesitant to believe that after skimming his book.
Aaron-
yea, exactly. I think there are good reasons to thoughtfully and charitably critique Osteen, but new lights at the Astrodome and a sweet pulpit aren't exactly what I am thinking of. I wanted to hear more about how his new book only mentions our Lord Jesus Christ in passing, but I could be way off.
..And maybe that tells us why they put in the bench press figure...interesting, but not the most engaging information.
Good point about Jakes, something tells me they wouldn't critique him quite the same way even though he teaches similar things.
maybe everyone else has moved on. . . but the best part of that piece was hearing Israel Houghton on vocals. . . that dude rocks.
Ah, here's something a little more substantive I was directed to that didn't exactly make it on 60 minutes.
http://www.whitehorseinn.org/osteenreview.htm
Too bad this probably won't be published in the NY times as book-review in the near future.
Good call on the article, Austin. In so many words, Osteen asked the interviewer, "What's the harm in encouraging people?" I was surprised to read that part of the harm is legalism, which traditionally has a much different voice that Osteen's.
This article really shows the ramifactions of following comfort and forgetting Christ.
Post a Comment
<< Home