In the late 1990s while working at CNN Radio, I was moved to enter the seminary to train for a possible career change. Upon learning of my new endeavor, my boss shook his head and remarked, “From one low paying career to the next.”
His words were prophetic. Since leaving the media and entering the ministry, I have yet to again reach the pay level that I was receiving at CNN, despite actually working a second, secular, job to make ends meet. However, ministry is not a low paying career for some pastors. Some, like Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, and Joel Osteen are living fairly high on the hog for men of the cloth.
Osteen and his wife, in fact, recently appeared on the cover of Success Magazine—a glossy dedicated entirely to uplifting the world’s successful people. One gander at the magazine itself shows that the word success is decidedly defined as “people who have made a ton of money doing what they do.” The fact that they inspire folks like Osteen or Dr. Phil just makes the story that much more touchy-feely. They’re saying, “see, you can be a good person and be rich. Not all rich people are heartless bastards.”
Osteen’s Houston-based Lakewood (mega-)Church reaches about 40,000 people a week with Osteen’s folksy, feel-good, “God wants you to succeed, too” theology. Osteen took over the church from his father and more than quadrupled the 6,000 member church into what it is today.
Osteen told the magazine his success—multi-million dollar contracts for books, a nice home, national media attention—has taken him a bit by surprise:
“Ten years ago, I never dreamed that we’d be sitting here talking and we’d have the ‘success’ that we’ve had,” Osteen tells SUCCESS in an interview with his wife in the formal living room of their Houston home. “I believe every person has potential that is still waiting to be released, or you wouldn’t be alive. I tell people all the time, ‘If you woke up and God gave you breath to breathe, then you’ve got something else you need to do. Somebody needs what you have. You have an assignment. You have something to offer the world.’ ”
This quote is telling. Throughout the whole article, Osteen gushes his trademark gospel of positive thinking—a prosperity gospel of sorts that while it may leave people smiling at the end of the service, it has conveyed little to them about what God might define as true success. Even Barbara Ehrenreich in her new book Bright-Sided notes about Osteen’s message how, “God plays only a supporting role, and by no means an indispensible one, in the Osteen’s universe. Gone is the mystery and awe; he has been reduced to a kind of majordomo or personal assistant. He fixeth my parking tickets, he secureth me a good table in the restaurant, he leadeth me to book contracts. Even in these minor tasks, the invocation of God seems more of a courtesy than a necessity.”
Gone, too, from Osteen’s theology is any mention of topics that might intrude on happy thoughts:
Osteen avoids using current events in his messages so he doesn’t get sidetracked in controversy. Instead, he tells feel-good stories that help people relate to everyday trials. Some of the stories come from his life growing up, others from e-mail. He hears more stories after a worship service, where as many as 1,000 visitors are invited to meet him.
I apparently missed the seminary class that taught pastors not to get “sidetracked in controversy.” Instead, my classes taught me that it was theologian Karl Barth that counseled pastors to use both the Bible and the newspaper in their preaching, but Osteen will have none of that. Anything that might get in the way of a happy story, or a story about how God wants you to be happy and be the best “you” you can be, won’t make the cut in an Osteen sermon.
Outside of the walls of Lakewood, however, Osteen is not immune to controversy. Lately, he’s been asked about the issue of homosexuality. Surrounded on the couch by the women of “The View,” Osteen grinned nervously while Whoopi Goldberg asked him about homosexuality and whether or not he thought it was a choice. He squirmed at the question, but the dazzling smile never left his face as he proclaimed homosexuality to not be “God’s best” for people. Whoopi, sadly, let him off the hook, but it begs the question, “Does Osteen, the pastor of positive, even know what’ God’s best’ is?”
Jesus, the man Osteen claims to follow and preach about, was never one to avoid controversial topics. If Palestine had a daily paper in those days, you can see Jesus with it in his lap, preaching from the front page. It’s true that Jesus preached about God’s love and told his followers what God expected of them, but it had little to do with happy, feel-good stories, book contracts, and striving for worldly success. Instead, Jesus talked about selling possessions so the poor could eat, leaving behind family and worldly careers to dedicate one’s life to spreading the gospel, and giving up creature comforts like posh homes and brimming bank accounts. This is “God’s best”—giving sacrificially, loving God with all our heart, mind and soul, and our neighbor as ourselves. A life like this often results in worldly poverty—which is the definition of “failure” in the world’s eyes. Jesus would not recognize Osteen’s brand of preaching and most likely would denounce it as false—a whitewashed tomb.
Osteen, though, is no fool. He knows that preaching on controversial topics can get you into trouble. It cost Jesus his life, after all, and how can you enjoy all your wealth, formal living rooms, and book deals if you’re busy hanging on a cross? But, in his rush to assure folks of the “good news” that God wants you to be “God’s best,” Osteen misses a very important point.
Perhaps on his next long flight he can pull out his Bible and take a gander at Luke 16:19-31—the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Daily, the rich man ignored poor Lazarus, but when Lazarus died he was taken to “heaven” or a place of eternal comfort. The rich man’s fate in Hades was terrible, however, as he begged Abraham to “send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.” Abraham reminds rich man of how he treated the poor in his lifetime: “you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony.” These are words that should make anyone living in comfort in this life tremble. Osteen has received, and is now enjoying, his good things. In his comfort, he encourages others to get theirs while they can, because he thinks this is “God’s best.” The rich man has a message for Osteen and other positive, prosperity, preachers, and their eager followers.
There’s a lot of talk these days about who’s going to hell and who will end up in heaven. Some are certain of who is going where. But, if we’re talking about what “God’s best” is really all about—I have a feeling that has little, if anything, to do with avoiding controversy, delivering folksy, God is my concierge, feel-good sermons, and getting rich off of a positive thinking message. If this were “God’s best,” I think Jesus would have modeled this in his own life.
Maybe I’m being too hard on Osteen, but I freely admit, I’m not living “God’s best” for my life, but it has nothing to do with being a lesbian. Instead, I’ve been selfish, slow to help the poor and needy around me, hesitant to give from my own abundance. If Joel Osteen is honest, he would see that while he is indeed living man’s best—and is a role model for worldly success—his ministry is woefully lacking when measured against “God’s best.”
Tags: joel osteen, karl barth, prosperity, prosperity gospel, prosperity preachers
Colin Powell was-and wasn’t-born to greatness. The son of working-class Jamaican immigrants, Powell was born during the Depression and reared in New York City’s tough South Bronx. Those roots wouldn’t seem to be a springboard for success, certainly for someone destined to become one of this country’s most powerful and influential leaders. When George Adams lost his job at an Ohio tile factory last October, the most practical thing he did, he thinks, was go to a new church, even though he had to move his wife and four preteen boys to Conroe, a suburb of Houston, to do it. Conroe, you see, is not far from Lakewood, the home church of megapastor and best-selling author Joel Osteen. Many would look at Houston’s Lakewood Church, with its 30,000 people attending services each Sunday in a 16,000-seat arena that once was the home of the Houston Rockets basketball team as the epitome of church success. But that success was achieved at a cost to sound doctrine and spiritual integrity. It is honored not to use short term loans just to read his work of art. Some of reading material are charging my bill. Thank you for sharing this to us.
There is a lesson to learn from the Osteen story, but I think you get off track when you change the subject to heaven and hell. Joel has done everything to organize his life without blame. He is not paid any money for all the work he does as pastor of his church. His only income is from books he writes. Does he sell his weekly inspirational TV program, or is it distributed more as an infomercial to help with the books? It is hard to blame a man who is working for his church for free. His life still does have its trials, such as he has to make sure his pretty wife doesn't upset the apple cart. He has found a way to make big money in the religion business, by being an inspiration and avoiding sensative topics. There is a segment of the population that thinks this is a perfect kind of church to support, and those people have money.
You had the answer in your post, Candace, before you got sidetracked on that heaven/hell thing. The answer is religion doesn't really need God to be inspirational, and for a certain segment of the population, adding God to the source of inspiratin would be counter-productive to the spiritual path they have chosen. Perhaps if you really studied it, you would find no religion needs God, they only need the common teachings that hold them together.
Actually, the fact that he is 'working for his church for free' is NOT an indicator of blame or credibility. My father is a pastor who does receive a paycheck, so are you assuming then that the work he does for his congregations is any less genuine or loving than Osteen's work? I certainly hope not. My father does plenty for his congregations and the community that far exceeds whatever monetary value his paycheck shows. Whether or not you get paid for your work has nothing to do with the reasons why you do it. My father didn't change careers and enter ministry for the money or status it might have given him - he did it because he was answering a call, the gospel call. Having received a Master's in theology myself, I'm pretty sure the gospel isn't too keen on people acquiring obscene wealth and possessions. So if Osteen's theology were in line with that message, he could continue to not receive pay from his church, but he could also refuse to accept teh royalties from his book sales and/or spread his wealth around to those 'less successful' than him.
I wasn't saying anything about your father. I was just talking about Osteen. He has his stuff together, he has a great life, he doesn't need God, and he is motivating people that don't need God to be happy living the American dream.
Except that Osteen uses God as the reason for his happiness and 'success' so you just defeated your own point. And it is about my father and all other pastors, preachers, minister & reverends (including the author) when he refers to himself as the pastor/leader of a church.
And the American dream is a myth, and a dangerous one at that.
I think Christianity is the Christian god. They listen to the religion and are inspired by it, and believe. This is easy to see in Osteen's church because it is so simple, just listen to the motivation, and follow the American dream even if it is a myth. It is probably harder to work out the logic in the other churches, but in the end I think they also all worship their church. It is a function of the group. People are part of the group, and they allign with the group, and if it is a religious group the group becomes their God.
Interesting comments: To me, as one who strives to follow the Teachings of Jesus Christ, I think most of us who call ourselves "Followers of Jesus the Christ" tend to get very consumed with what others are not doing to live up to our own expectations on Faith Leadership.
I believe the Pasto Joel with his messages of Love, is attempting in his own way to achieve what most followers of Christ believe are the most important commandments: Love thy God with all thy heart, and with all they soul, and with all thy mind, and with all they strength; this is the first commandment, and the second is like namely this. Thou shall love they neighbor as they self. There is no other commandment greater that these.
While Pastor Joel may (Not YET) be living into these two commandments as a Faith Leader, I wonder who of us really does fulfill the two comments 100% without reservation.
To me –Pastor Joel is just a small part of the larger Christian issues being face by today’s followers of Jesus which to me forces us to ask “How do I actually live into the (2) commandments on a daily basis for all of God’s Children?”.
Oliver Martin
Committee Secretary
NYC Faith in Action for HIV/AIDS Prevention, Education and Care
www.nycfia.org
Right , Joel never talks about homosexuality. I think. I havent seen ALL his sermons. But the bible is clear the Homosexuals will not enter heaven. I dont know what is going thru the minds of gay clergy and the people who allow them and follow them.Why bother with the church thing if your going to hell? Unless they are doing it for a living and dont care where they are going after they die, which is 99% of all people
Actually, the Bible isn't all that clear on homosexuality when read in its historical context, so gay clergy, like myself, are certainly not leading anyone to hell by telling gays and lesbians that God loves them and expects them to live into that love and live as God created them.
Osteen, on the other hand, is misleading plenty of people by ignoring great swathes of the Bible that call for us to give sacrificially to the poor and needy and never to ignore the outcast. By preaching a prosperity gospel he promotes ignorance, intolerance, selfishness and turns people away from the exactly what Jesus taught.
Jesus was not a capitalist and condemned the money changers and repeated how hard it is for those with worldly wealth to please God. By encouraging others to selfishly enrich themselves and disregard the poor he's doing far more damage to the gospel than a gay pastor could ever do.
Yeppers. What she said.
I liken Joel to "The Secret" folks. He just tosses Jesus into the mix occasionally (actually, does he? Or does he do the Jesus-free mega church thing?). It's all feel good, hyper-individualized drivel. No concern for community, for the poor, for greater social issues. I appreciate his positive spin (I'd much rather listen to one of his vapid sermons than some hell-fire and brimstone hate-filled douche), but at after awhile it's just pointless.
Anne Lamott said it best when she described this kind of approach to faith as a "colo-rectal theology."
So, the bible isnt clear about man lying with man? Im not even going to show the verses that mention it. Taken in context eh? What context does 'effemintes will not enter heaven' mean that effeminates WILL enter heaven? Ive always wondered how gay clergy brushed scripture under the rug.By using the magic word "context". Well in that case, nothing in the bible means what it says, because of context.You know, the unsaved are the unsaved and will think anything and everything. I was unsaved once upon a time.
You can educate yourself about the Bible and homosexuality here:
http://www.whosoever.org/bible/
Reading the Bible in English, we miss a lot of what the Greek and Hebrew words really mean. For example, 1 Corinthians 6:9, which you refer to as using "effeminantes" uses two rather obscure words that most scholars admit they have little knowledge of what the words really mean. Most likely what is being referred to are male temple prostitutes.
The bottom line is, the Bible condemns any sexual activity that uses or abuses another person or breaks covenant like adultery. That applies to any sexual orientation, gay or straight. The Bible never condemns loving, committed, monogamous gay relationships. Never.
Let me be more clear. Everyone is unsaved befor they are saved. me included.No sin is worse than any other sin. My sin is no better than the sin of homosexuality. In the old test, man caught lying with man was to be stoned to death. You can tell yourself that its a bad translation or however you want to kid yourself. Once you call upon Jesus to save you and you are born again, this tendency will fall away. All tendency to do evil should fall away.
Let me be more clear: homosexuality is not a sin.
Keep sayint that over and over again. Maybe youll believe it
Hey, as a non-Christian who worries about these mega-church evangelists and the ways they can teach people to hate, judge, and get swept up in a heaven/hell, saved/damned world that isn't even scripturally sound, I like this guy. He's upbeat, he doesn't crusade against abortion, homosexuality, or liberals. He doesn't foment conspiracy and xenophobia. I imagine that the thousands who leave his church each sunday feel upbeat and well-disposed towards folks who might be different. Too much emphasis on all this success content deceives the reader -- the mega-church and its television tentacles produce collective effervescence . . . for good or for bad. Osteen does it upbeat. Would that there were more like him, and fewer like Robertson, Falwell, and the rest.
I was forced to go to Catholic school and church and lived through Vatican II. What the church sanctioned and the theology of Jesus was miles apart. All people were intrinsically evil and dedication to the tenets of the church was the only way to heaven. It was "feel bad" theology. Same on the other side. Feel good theology is miles from the message Jesus preached. Sorry, I don't like my religion packaged up with unrecyclable cardboard cutouts of Jesus and a bag full of sugary and empty calories. You have to remember also that Osteen has a regional theology which fits a middle class audience in Texas. It might fly in other middle to upper class regions. But if he were truly preaching the message of Jesus he would be in the inner cities preaching to the unemployed and homeless. But then, his cars might be hijacked, his wife's nails and hair might suffer, and he could be held up for his fat wallet. As a child I remember the local Lutheran congregation built their new church (from congregats newly found oil profits) 17 feet higher than the local Catholic church. The nuns were livid and told us pious little tykes that our Lutheran friends would go to hell for that horrible sin. No different from Osteen except by default the poor are simply not as pious as the rich in Osteen's theology.
About two years ago, through a roundabout reference, I got a call from then-President Bush's former sister-in-law, Sharon. She wanted me to ghost-write her life story, which centered on avenging herself against alleged mistreatment by the Bush family. The gossip intrigued me; I was no Bush fan; I was nearly broke. I said I'd think about it.
She said "You're an answer to prayer. I feel it," and then she said that the Osteens were "very close friends" who came to her house frequently to pray with her. My CynicOmeter went into the red zone. I'd never watched Osteen on television, but I figured I'd better take a look before accepting the job. I watched, and then I called Sharon back and told her I couldn't do the job. Our values are different, I said. She was puzzled; I had told her in the first conversation I was a Christian.
"I am," I said, "but I don't believe in the Christian life Osteen preaches and I don't want it. Jesus said that to truly live, we had to give everything to the poor and follow Him, that we had to be prepared to suffer, that suffering for our beliefs was nearly assured. So, I fall short of this life, but that life is my ideal. A life of poverty and suffering in the service of others."
"Oh, okay," she said. "Could you recommend someone else?"
Hi Candace; I'm always appreciative of posts on RD so thanks for a good article. That said, I think you are making some faulty assumptions regarding religion in general (and Christianity specifically) that undermine your argument.
While I more agree with your vision of Christianity than Osteen's, I think Christianity as a religious construct has a broad range of interpretation and Osteen is actually picking a view that has cultural capital and momentum. My point here is not to endorse him, but rather to say that comments that imply that there is a "right" view of the biblical/theological record miss the point that Christianity (from its inception) has always accommodated itself to the cultural winds that suited its local purpose. Thus, there is no universal Christianity that was lived on the ground everywhere, in all places, and at all times.
Therefore you can critique Osteen on the level of cultural or moral grounds, but you can't make a compelling argument that he is an unfaithful Christian because I don't think there really is an orthodoxy that holds water under scrutiny.
PS: I think it was the great theologian Reinhold Niebuhr who made the newspaper-bible comment famous NOT Karl Barth.
Thanks for your comment. I'll take you up on Barth v. Niebuhr first - if you follow the link in the article it will take you to a page on how accurate it is to even attribute the quote to Barth. While Barth may not have said such a thing verbatim, it fits with what Barth had said in the past, so I stand by my attribution to Barth.
As for your other critiques, you are certainly right to point out that orthodoxy is a hard thing to pin down, unless you're a fundamentalist, then it's quite simple really.
When we view the corpus of Jesus' ministry, however, we find very little for Osteen and his ilk to hang their expensive hats on. Jesus prefers the poor to the rich, the suffering to the comfortable, and the outcast to the socially respected. Osteen turns Jesus on his head, giving preference to the rich, the comfortable, and socially respected. Jesus, I fear, would dress poor Joel down as one of those who loves to wear his beautiful clothes in the market and have everyone bow before him and give him special treatment.
It doesn't really take a lot of serious exegesis - but rather a fairly plain reading of scripture - to see that Osteen's message has little or nothing to do with Jesus' ministry.
Candace, the mistake you are making is conflating Jesus and Christianity. I think you are right on almost everything you said about Jesus, but Christianity is a whole different story. You'll note that in my first paragraph I said faulty assumptions about religion (not Jesus). Thus, the mistake I think you are making is assuming that Osteen is divergent from historic manifestations of Christianity. I think, and I'm confident most historians would agree, that Christianity really has (and has had) very little to do with the historical Jesus. In light of that Osteen's "cherry-picking" makes a lot of sense and he stands in a long tradition of others who have done so.
Perhaps it's true that Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, but has been found difficult and left untried.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.