Entries from December 1, 2007 - January 1, 2008
An Extremely Wide Net
This Sunday I watched Fox News anchor Chris Wallace interview America’s most popular preacher today. He interviewed Joel Osteen who was pushing his new best selling book, "Become a Better You". Chris asked him a few questions that I thought worthy to comment on. So I will lay out the quotes for you and add my running commentary. WALLACE: You preach in a former basketball arena that seats 16,000 people. You're the most popular preacher on T.V. Your books are best-sellers. What do you think it is about your message that people want to hear?
OSTEEN: I don't know if I know exactly, but I think the fact that it's positive, it's hopeful, and I talk about everyday life.
On Sundays when I speak, I hopefully give somebody something that they can use the next day at work or at home. So I think that's part of it. And, too, I think, Chris, there's a lot of negative things trying to pull people down, and I think people respond when you tell them that hey, there are good things up ahead.
Chris Wallace asked Osteen a great question. In essence, what is your main message? Osteen's answer? Be positive don't be negative. You know that could have been a great time for Osteen to put forth some semblance of a Christian message. But we did not get that from the Mega-Pastor. Okay...let's move on.
WALLACE: Now, as with most successful people, you have critics who say that what you offer is gospel "lite," the prosperity gospel. They say you're more a motivational speaker than you are a pastor. How do you answer that?
OSTEEN: Well, a couple things. When I became a pastor eight years ago when my father died, I didn't change — this is who I've always been. I've always been — you know, my personality is motivating and encouraging. And so I'm just being who God made me to be. About it being "lite", I mean, every week we deal with people that are going through divorces and that are facing life-threatening illnesses, and I'm giving them hope. And to me, I don't think there's anything "lite" about that.
This is a very interesting exchange to me. Chris brings up the point that Osteen's critics accuse him of having a very light-weight, surface oriented message that Wallace calls "lite". Osteen actually gives us some insight into how he thinks. He says essentially, 'well we deal with folks with all kinds of issues and I'm giving them hope'. You know the Pope does the same thing, so does the prophet of Mormon Church. They both deal with issues and give people hope. Now he doesn't mention what that message is mind you. No his notion of success is evident here. He's dealing with lots of people, so what he is doing must be working so it can't be lightweight. It's the idea that success = numbers and numbers = success. Okay on to the good stuff.
WALLACE: But your critics, again, say you don't talk much about sin. And a lot of great preachers — Billy Graham used to talk about sin.
OSTEEN: Sure.
WALLACE: You don't go deeply in your sermons into scripture. Again, why not?
OSTEEN: Yeah. Well, I think — I do talk about sin at the end of every one of our services back at home and at the end of the broadcast, but just, you know, as a pastor, I'm not trying to get everybody to — and that's not my main calling, like Billy Graham's. He was an evangelist. He went out and tried to win everybody to Christ. And I am ultimately trying to do that, but I'm trying to teach people how to live their everyday lives, and so I do focus on it, probably not as much as some people would like.
I think Chris Wallace does a pretty good job here. Wallace asked essentially "You don't go very deep into the text of scripture, why is that Joel?" Wow, it seems hard to imagine being a Pastor and having a secular show say, "you know you don't delve much into that Bible of yours why is that? But it didn't phase the Mega-Pastor. He answers the question in a couple of ways. One- he's not like Billy Graham. He says he's not trying to get everybody to" and then he stops the quote and says "that's not my calling." "To" what Joel? You are not trying to get everybody "to" what? Curious? Next he says that Billy is an evangelist and he's not. But he's trying to get people to live their everyday lives. The interesting point here is that he doesn't think you can teach people to live their everyday lives from the text. So he has his own ideas on that.
WALLACE: One of the other things you say — and it has been noted that your book, "Become a Better You," — that there's no mention of God. It doesn't mention that you're a pastor, although the book — the text itself is filled with references to God and scripture.
OSTEEN: Yes, exactly. That's part of our — our whole message is it's easy to just keep preaching to the church and people that already come. But that's why we air on broadcast stations that are not necessarily Christian stations. It's because I want to try to reach people that — maybe they went to church 20 years ago, or maybe they just think, "You know what? I'm not a religion person. This doesn't have anything to do with me." I'm trying to make God more relevant in our society. And I think talking in everyday terms and making sure people can understand it — I think that's important.
Okay only one point here. Joel is trying to make God relevant. Does this mean that God is not relevant? If we talked about man's real need then God may be more relevant. If mankind heard that God’s wrath abides on them, then that may be relevant. But if we are just talking about being a "better you" then I guess we have to work hard at being relevant. It’s one thing to be simple, but it’s another thing to make God more relevant.
WALLACE: And what about Mitt Romney? And I've got to ask you the question, because it is a question whether it should be or not in this campaign, is a Mormon a true Christian?
OSTEEN: Well, in my mind they are. Mitt Romney has said that he believes in Christ as his savior, and that's what I believe, so, you know, I'm not the one to judge the little details of it. So I believe they are. And so, you know, Mitt Romney seems like a man of character and integrity to me, and I don't think he would — anything would stop me from voting for him if that's what I felt like.
WALLACE: So, for instance, when people start talking about Joseph Smith, the founder of the church, and the golden tablets in upstate New York, and God assumes the shape of a man, do you not get hung up in those theological issues?
OSTEEN: I probably don't get hung up in them because I haven't really studied them or thought about them. And you know, I just try to let God be the judge of that. I mean, I don't know. I certainly can't say that I agree with everything that I've heard about it, but from what I've heard from Mitt, when he says that Christ is his savior, to me that's a common bond.
WALLACE: Unlike a lot of preachers, you don't — and I can sense a little discomfort on your part — you don't get involved in politics. You don't talk a lot about abortion and gays and the so- called social issues. Why not?
OSTEEN: Well, it started back with my father. He never did. And I just don't feel comfortable as well. I don't feel like that's my main gifting. And I feel like when I stay focused on encouraging people, and giving them hope, and helping them live their everyday life, I think that's where I can have the most impact. I'm trying to throw a big net out there to say to anyone that God loves them and he's in control.
Okay so Mitt Romney is a Christian? We have an evangelical pastor now saying that because Mitt Romney believes that Jesus is his Savior then he's a Christian. When Wallace asked him about some of the Mormon doctrines, he says he doesn't know anything about those things. He also said he doesn't worry about the "little details". Since when did the 2nd person of the Trinity, and the nature of God become "little details"? He also said he "hasn't studied them or thought about them." (talking about Mormon doctrine) He hasn't studied them or thought about them but I guess he knows enough to know that Mitt Romney is a Christian. How is it that an Evangelical Pastor doesn't know anything about the largest Cult in America? Obviously with Joel Osteen there is no discernment or knowledge of even the simplest basic fundamental Christian beliefs about the nature of God. Well at the end of the interview Joel said he was "trying to throw a big net out there." Well he has done it. It's the biggest net, the all encompassing net that catches all the wheat and all the tares. Is Joel Osteen Unitarian? I guess he hasn't studied or thought about that passage that says, Matthew 7:13-14“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."
According to our Savior who is the only begotten of the Father, begotten not made, (Mormon problem) being of one substance with the Father, (in case Joel reads this) said that the wide way is the way of destruction and everyone finds that way. But the narrow way is hard and leads to life. Joel Osteen has cast a wide net indeed. It's an extremely wide net.
Read the entire transcript here:
Gage Browning
Post Tenebras Lux
Gage Browning
12 Comments
Is older theology always better theology?
I was not going to post until after Christmas. But I saw this and well, just had to post one more time. Can we have some sanity here please? I watched a youtube video recently where John Hagee said some tragic things while trying to sell his new book "In Defense of Israel". Here are some of the things he said with a few of my pithy comments... - Hagee said, "In Defense of Israel will shake Christian Theology". Well, I figured there would be a big selling point during the holidays. He went on to say in talking about his book, "It scripturally proves that the jewish people as a whole did not reject Jesus as Messiah". This point is most interesting! Please follow me here: Hagee says that he can prove that the Jewish people did not reject Jesus as Messiah (as a whole). BUT! He then goes on to explain that Jesus wasn't and doesn't even claim to be Messiah. Here's the quote: "It also proves that Jesus did not come to earth to be Messiah". So the Jews didn't reject the Messiah and Jesus didn't come to be Messiah....are you still following along? He went on to say "Since Jesus refused by word and deed to claim to be the Messiah, how can the Jews be blamed for rejecting what was never offered?" You can see the video here. WOW! What a blatant disregard for the Biblical text! John 4:25-26 says "The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.” So according to Hagee the Jews didn't reject Jesus as Messiah since he never claimed to be Messiah and didn't come to be Messiah. Amazing.... Anyway back to the post.
You know there is something that bothers me other than the fact that Hagee is obviously a Heresy peddler. My point of this post is not to prove to you that Hagee is a false teacher- he does that for me. But what bothers me about some of the crazy-(hyper) dispensationalists (guys like Hagee) is how new their theology is! Please understand I'm not talking about Historic Premil guys or even some of the DTS dispensationalists. I'm talking about the radical dispensational guys like Hagee etc.
In terms of theology, can something so new be something at all?
Was there ever this type of teaching in the early church? What about the earliest documents? It seems clear to me that the earliest form of the Apostles Creed doesn't mention the word millenium, which is not necessarily an argument against dispensationalism mind you. But the weight of my argument is the fact that the Apostles Creed doesn't know of the idea of dispensationalism. There are two forms of the Apostles Creed. One called the "Old Roman Form" which was formulated during the early 2nd Century. The other form of the Creed is the "Received Form" probably formulated around the 5th century and is the closest to the form that many churches read today. Neither form expresses a millenial reign by inference or explicit wording. So what does the Creed say? Well, here it is:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.
Amen.
"Whence he shall come to judge the living and the dead?" This is the early church's eschatology? Where is the millenial reign between the 2nd coming and the end of the age? Now understand that I'm not saying that the Apostles Creed disproves, discredits or injures necessarily premillenial dispensational theology. I'm trying my best to not make an argument from silence. My point is that there should be a greater burden placed on those who teach a theology that the early church knew nothing about. If one's theology can't be substantiated by those in the early church, then okay that is a cause for concern. If one's theology is not supported by the early church, or by anyone in the early church, then that is a cause for alarm. If my theology is fairly new should I be concerned? My answer is yes. Older theology has at least been tested and tried, refined if you will by the refiners fire. So is older theology always better theology?
Now some may say, "well we don't go by creeds." Some churches will actually rejoice in their lack of adherance to any creed. I understand the mentality that says, "no creed but my Bible." The point is what do you believe the Bible teaches? When you put that on paper you now have your creed! Now if one's theology does not match the Church for the last 1700 years shouldn't that be a cause for concern? Now I'm not saying that you must place more emphasis on the Creed then your Bible. No I fully believe that the Scripture alone is our only rule for faith and practice. Understand that the only point I'm making is that if you disagree with the creed then you may disagree with the Historic Church. That places a burden on those who make or declare something new! If it's new then you must wrestle with the Historic Church Fathers views and that seems like a daunting task to me. What do you say? Is older theology always better?
Gage Browning
Post Tenebras Lux
Merry Christmas - talk to you next year
Well this is a busy time for me and mine...so for now... Merry Christmas
FYI...for those keeping score. My Dad, Tom Browning accepted the call to become the Asst. Pastor at Grace Community Presbyterian Church. He starts in January. Pray for him.
Gage Browning
Post Tenebras Lux
A Seeker Christmas
So, when you think of Christmas, do you think MTV? What about the show MTV Cribs? Well Ed Young Jr did a sort of spoof on MTV Cribs, I guess you could call it. I wanted to see how this tied into the manger, and well you be the judge. For the record, about 30 seconds devoted to the "Crib" of Christ, and about 6 minutes devoted to the "Crib" of Ed. I tried to get the video to play where all you would have to do was click it, and I couldn't get it to work. So you have to click here: Ed Young Jr. Cribs
thoughts anyone?
Gage Browning
Post Tenebras Lux