Carl Olsen over at InsightScoop has written a short bit about Joel Osteen's endeavours.
This isn't the first time I've heard some complaints about Osteen's brand of gospel so when I heard that his church had grown to fill up something the size of a sporting complex, I knew some more criticism would be coming.
Is this just "itching ears" syndrome or what? How often do we ask whether our success or failure is due to the fact that the message has been blanded down to appeal to a wider audience?
July 21 2005, 22:06:30 UTC 6 years ago
Then again, maybe they have been on the fore-front of small-towndom for so long that they are willing to hear and enjoy anything that is positive.
July 22 2005, 18:31:34 UTC 6 years ago
My problem with "feel good" sorts of things is that these sorts of messages seem rather bland/"wide-easy-path-to-destruction" sort of thing. A real Christian walk is down the narrow path and it's fraught with all sorts of trials and tribulations. If someone takes out all the hard stuff like the cross and suffering and Jesus, is it any longer Christianity? The first century martyrs sure didn't die for the easy path. Of course, maybe I should actually listen to the guy myself before being too critical of him.
July 22 2005, 18:55:54 UTC 6 years ago
Rather than emptying ourselves and learning to rely more on God, we are to learn to depend on ourselves and the hidden powers we have within us. It's garbage.
There is also blatant misinterpretation of scripture (just because you can use one of Jesus' metaphors to illustrate your point doesn't mean that's what jesus meant by it!).
There is a great critique of the book by Vineyard leader Don Williams on the kingdomrain.net website (under "First Response"). Williams points out that what's most "dangerous" about the approach is that it is very likely to yield results. Pscyhological empowerment can indeed help you live a better life. But it probably won't help you live a more godly life.