Your Best Life Now? A Scriptural Examination of Joel Osteen's Best Seller (Part 1)

Your Best Life Now?
Part 1

In response to a host of questions about one of the most recognizable television preachers in America, I have decided that it would be a good time to reflect upon the theology of Joel Osteen's message of prosperity and positive thinking as presented in his book Your Best Life Now. I think the best way to approach this task is to blog through his book section by section. The question we will ask of Joel, as we ask of all men who stand as preachers of God's Word, is this: "Are his claims supported by Scripture?" After all, every one of us should strive to be like the Bereans, whom Luke said were noble because they examined the message they heard against their knowledge of the Scriptures (Acts 17.11).

Here is the format I will use for the project:
1) I will summarize the section fairly and briefly for those who have not read the book.
2) I will examine his use of Scripture to see if they are interpreted properly and taken in context.
3) I will examine his claims to see if they are based upon the passages of Scripture he uses to support his contentions.
4) I will examine whether or not his claims are consistent with other portions of Scripture he did not cite (remember, God's Word never contradicts itself).

Section One - Summary

Section one of Osteen's book is an introduction to the prosperity gospel as a whole. The basic premise is this: You have not because you expect not. In other words, if you want God's best for you life now, then you must think, confess, and expect God to give you His best. The first section is filled with similar quotations:

1. "You must conceive it in your heart before you can receive it" (6).

2. "If you believe, all things are possible" (11).

3. "God usually meets us at our level of expectancy" (14).

4. "Break our of your self-imposed prison" (15).

5. "Low expectations will trap you in mediocrity. You must think positive thoughts of victory, thoughts of abundance, thoughts of favor, thoughts of hope; good, pure, excellent thoughts" (17).

6. "God wants to give you your own house. God has a big dream for your life" (35).

7. "[God] has crowned me with favor, therefore, I can expect preferential treatment [from the world]. I can expect people to go out of their way to want to help me" (39).

The list could continue, but you get Osteen's point. The reason God has not blessed you is because you have been thinking poor thoughts about your present situation. God wants to give you your best life NOW. Now that we have completed the summary of section one, we turn to the scriptural examination.

Critique

Let's begin by examining Osteen's use of Scripture. After all, this message of prosperity is supposed to be based upon God's Word. Osteen uses four verses of Scripture in his foundational chapter (one) to support his contentions: Ephesians 2.7, Matthew 9.17, Isaiah 43.19, and Mark 9.23. The first issue of note is that the author fails to give the citations for those verses in the text itself. Rather, he makes the reader turn to the endnotes if he or she wants to know what verse Osteen has cited. At first I gave the author the benefit of the doubt and just assumed that the use of endnotes was a stylistic issue insisted upon by his editor. After I began to examine the verses, however, it became obvious why Osteen did not tell you where the verses were: every verse he cited was taken out of context! If the reader merely reads his Bible while reading Your Best Life Now and is careful to read each verse he cites in context it becomes very clear that the author has not scriptural support for the claims he has madewille wil examine the two most egregious examples of Osteen's misapplication of Scripture.

The first example is Ephesians 2.7. Osteen cited this verse to support his contention that God wants to give all of us His "far and beyond favor" (5). By "far and beyond favor" Osteen means "victory, success, health, abundance, joy, peace, and happiness," which "nothing on earth will be able to hold" from us (5). Is that what Ephesians 2.7 teaches? ABSOLUTELY NOT! The point of Ephesians 2.7 is an explanation of the riches we have in Christ. Now at first glance, "riches in Christ" may seem to support Osteen's claims. If you read all of Ephesians 2, however, it becomes clear that this verse refers to the grace that God has poured out upon his children in saving them from their sin and reconciling them to Himself. NOTHING IN THE TEXT speaks of physical health or material blessings. This verse is misapplied by Osteen.

For another example, we turn to Isaiah 43.19, which Osteen cites to support the idea that we have to think differently if we want God to do something new in our lives. Osteen said, "God is always trying to do new things in our lives. He is trying to promote us, to increase us, to give us more. Yet it is interesting that God asked the question, 'Do you not perceive it?' In other words, are you making room for it in your own thinking? Are you believing for increase? Are you believing to excel at your job? Are you believing to be a more effective leader, a better parent? It's time to enlarge your vision" (10). Is this contention supported by the text of Scripture in which Osteen tries to ground it? Not if you read the passage. In this passage God is speaking of His faithfulness and mercy in light of Israel's unfaithfulness. The passage is not a call to positive thinking. It is a rebuke of Israel's failure to acknowledge their only Savior, the One who chose them and keeps His promises.

These examples are only two of a number of misappropriations of the Scriptures by the author. Careful examination of the rest of the book's citations of Scripture leads this reader to believe that Osteen has little regard for whether or not he handles God's Word appropriately.

Is Osteen's Message Consistent with the Remainder of Scripture?

The simple answer to this question is NO. Osteen tells the reader that because of God's favor we can expect great blessings in this life (health and wealth) up to and including preferential treatment by the world around us. Apparently Osteen has not read either the Old or New Testaments. No one had more favor with God than His Son Jesus Christ, yet he did not have wealth. Scripture tells us he had no place to lay his head. Health? He was crucified. What about his followers? Jesus said that the world would "hate" us because we follow Christ (Matthew 10.22) not give us preferential treatment, after all no servant is greater than his master. What of the apostles and early leaders of the church? They certainly had favor with God. Did it result in health, wealth, and advancement? Only if you rip the book of Acts and Paul's letters out of your Bible. Paul was stoned and left for dead. Stephen was stoned and died! John was boiled in oil and lost everything in his exile to Patmos. So much for the "name it and claim it" promises in the Bible. If anyone should understand those promises it would be Paul and John who authored over two thirds of the New Testament, yet according to Osteen's standards they did not understand them because they did not have "success" in ministry, were unhealthy, and poor.

Osteen fails to recognize that suffering, as much as faith, is an integral part of the Christian life (Phil. 1.29). Does God want us to have our best life now? No, He wants more than that. He wants us to have our best life for eternity. For that to happen, we must struggle in this life as we are sanctified and grow into the image of Jesus Christ. Does that mean that all Christians will be poor or unhealthy? No. One of my very godly mentors has more money that he knows what to do with. His financial blessings are a direct result of God's blessing of his hard work. God, however, is in no way obligated to bless us all financially just because we have an expectation of Him to do so! God is only obligated to keep His Word and act in a way that is consistent with His character. He has never promised to bless us all in the manner in which Osteen says He has.

Scripture provides us with a great case study in the Apostle Paul. Consider his account of his thorn in the flesh. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says that he pled with God three times to take away this messenger of Satan that "tormented" him. Certainly Paul could envision life without the painful torment. He was, after all, pleading with God to take it from him. He was an apostle, we can safely assume he was not lacking faith. If you look at Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians 10.7-10, however, the reason God did not answer his prayer had nothing to do with a lack of "vision" on the part of Paul, rather it was God's sovereign plan to keep Paul humble. What's amazing is this passage follows one of the very verses Osteen cites for the power of positive thinking (2 Corinthians 10.4)! How's that for ignoring context!

We will review the rest of Osteen's book over the course of the next couple of week's. For now it is safe to say that Osteen has two major problems. First, he consistently fails to approach Scripture honestly. Second, he consistently defines success according to the world's standards rather than God's.

I hope to have the next installment posted by Monday afternoon. Blessings.

Chris

Repentance, Forgiveness, and Authentic Relationships

It is rare that I make a change in a sermon series mid-stream, but given the number of questions I have fielded in our church about the topic and the number of conflicts I have observed in area churches (and in my past), I have prayerfully decided to interrupt our walk through the book of Ecclesiastes and begin a brief sermon series on the topic of forgiveness.

While I will allow the teaching of Scripture to guide each of the sermons (as always), I do want to offer application that is as direct and relevant as possible. To do that I would like your help. Over the next few weeks I want YOU to ask questions, make suggestions, or even offer hypothetical situations that I can address over the next month in an effort to help all of us get a grasp on living lives of grace. Your questions can be anonymous if you would like. While I will post other topics over the next few weeks, I will continue to check this one for comments. If there are questions that I am not able to address in my sermons, I will answer them on the blog.

Remember, authentic relationships will never be developed in any congregation if forgiveness is withheld in times of conflict or misunderstanding.

I look forward to your questions.

Chris

By the way, Ashley Mozely took this picture at a Bats Baseball game on the fourth of July. It is me wearing my "rally cap" unsuccessfully. She suggested I use it as my blog photo. What do you think?

Losing Our Religion - The American Baptist Convention and Scriptural Authority

Ever wonder why the Southern Baptist Convention has flourished and spread across the United States (43,000 plus churches) while our former partners in ministry, the American Baptist Churches, USA (5,800 local fellowships) has not? The SBC is growing (in a number of ways) and taking an increasingly influential stance on moral issues that face our country. The ABCUSA, on the other hand, is racked with division, has seen scores of churches recently abandon long-standing cooperative relationships, and celebrates the diversity of "cultural mores" and approaches to biblical interpretation that exist from church to church. What is the difference?

If one had studied the respective histories of our denominations only, it would be temping to think that God would have blessed the ministry of the ABC-USA rather than the SBC. After all, the SBC was formed when Baptists in the South pulled out of the Triennial Convention in 1845 over the issue of slavery. The Home Mission Society had begun to refuse to appoint slave holders to serve as missionaries and in response to that refusal, Baptists in the South pulled away and began their own convention. We were wrong! Slavery was wrong. It took years for Southern Baptists to change their views on this issue, and when they did it took even longer to renounce those views. It was not until 1995 that Southern Baptists "officially" renounced our racist past and "apologized" for our defense of slavery in the mid-1800s. We were not only wrong on the issue of slavery, but often found ourselves on the wrong side of the civil rights movement in the mid-twentieth century. At our worst, Baptists spoke against the movement. Those who did not speak against the movement were silent rather than taking a strong stand in the south.

So why has God chosen to bless the ministry of the SBC but not the ABC-USA? In my opinion it is because we have remained a "people of the book;" we are committed to the authority of Scripture. Even in our mistakes (which have been significant and numerous), there has been a willingness to be guided and corrected by Scripture. Our approach and interpretation has not always been right (after all, we did try to defend slavery biblically) and sometimes change has come stubbornly, but we have been willing to submit to the Scriptures. Such a commitment allows us to find our way when we wander from the paths of righteousness. The same cannot be said of the ABC-USA. While they started off on the right path, eventually they gradually abandoned the one source of authority that led them to take a stand against slavery 150 years ago: the Bible. As a result they are now a denomination shaped as much by the culture as they are the Scriptures and are no longer willing to defend the inerrancy of Scripture, reducing it to the "final written authority for living out the Christian faith" (which actually allows for a host of fallacious approaches to interpretation and application).

As a result, the ABC-USA no longer resembles the strong, vibrant body of churches it once was. The manner in which we submit to the authority of Scriptures as the inerrant, infallible, revelation of God has drastic implications for how we approach ministry. Today the ABCUSA is torn over whether or not churches that affirm (and even ordain) homosexuals should be allowed to participate in the life of their convention. When a body of churches cannot come to an agreement over an issue such as that one, it becomes impossible to take a strong moral stance on any topic. Still not convinced? Take a look at this brief article written Russell Moore at Southern Seminary. The article is about ABC-USA "Pastor" Donna Schaper, who speaks openly about and defends the abortion she had 19 years ago, even though she agrees that abortion is murder. She says her abortion was bad, but not as bad as bringing a baby into the world that she did not "want enough." As you read Moore's summary of the situation or even Schaper's article it becomes much clearer how far we can stray when we cut the ropes that anchor us to our moorings.

In many unfortunate ways, Donna Schaper is the shining example of the face the ABC-USA wants to present to the world. A face that in many respects is no longer blessable by God.

I look forward to your comments.

Chris

Christian Unity, Morality, and the Enigmatic Al Sharpton

No matter how hard I try, I cannot understand the approach to moral issues that the Rev. Al Sharpton continues to take in the national press and political arena. In a guest commentary on CNN.com yesterday, Sharpton called African-American pastors across the country to task for taking strong stands against abortion and gay marriage while apparently ignoring the pervasive issue of racism. At first glance, Sharpton appeared to be calling pastors to task for an imbalanced approach to ministry. After all, as Christians we cannot have pet sins that we preach against (gay marriage) while ignoring other sinful issues (racism, oppression) that affect the world in which we live on just as grand a scale. If that was the intent of Al Sharpton, you would find me first in line to give a hearty "Amen!" to his commentary. As the article progresses, however, it becomes obvious that the intent of Sharpton's barbs toward his fellow African-American pastors was not to call for balance, but to call for silence.

After chastising these conservative pastors for daring to "deny a woman's right to choose," and claiming that such a position is a "narrow scope of belief" which is in the minority amongst African-American pastors, Sharpton further levels the charge that these pastors are using their theological convictions to drive a wedge through his "people" (his word, not mine). The point he made is clear, African-American pastors should not address the issues of abortion and gay marriage if speaking to those issues threatens the existence of a unified front against racism in the United States (which I will be the first to admit remains prevalent). Rather, according to Sharpton, black pastors should focus on the issues of "dire importance to the black populace as a whole" which are racism, poverty, and equality at the ballot box.

If you have seen my blog picture, you are aware of the fact that I am not a black preacher. The fact that I am an Anglo-American will lead some to conclude that I have no right to interject myself into this discussion. I disagree for two primary reasons. First, I (and other Christians) should stand with our brothers in Christ who refuse to remain silent on issues that threaten the very moral fabric of our nation. In this respect, Al Sharpton is using his theological stance in an attempt to drive a wedge between my people, the body of Christ. I will not remain silent as he attempts to do so.

Second, as someone who spent his formative years in several housing projects, I am well qualified to speak of the social evils of poverty and racism. I know what it is to be poor (my divorced parents frequently struggled to provide the basic necessities for their three children). I have seen first hand how poverty affects young children at every level of their existence and undermines their efforts and ability to overcome their circumstances. I have also been the recipient of racism (although Cornell West and Spike Lee would deny my ability to experience true racism because I am white). As a child there were a couple of significant occasions when circumstances forced my family into dilapidated housing projects in which we were one of two or three white families in a predominantly black area. Even though I was a child, I grew to appreciate what it meant to be excluded, insulted, assaulted because I was in the racial minority. My experience led me to hate racism with a vehemence that has not diminished one iota in twenty plus years. It also gave me a unique perspective among my peers when we studied the Civil Rights movement in high school. I understand and affirm the need for continued diligence in the fight against poverty and racism in our country. I believe more white pastors should take stands against these forms of oppression in keeping with the ethic revealed in Scripture. We must, however, resist the temptation to address the social ills which affect us the most while ignoring other areas addressed by the Bible. This approach is exactly what Al Sharpton advocates in his rebuke of conservative, black pastors. Sharpton wants them to speak up on the issues of racism, poverty, and voting rights, but not to address the murder of innocents or assaults on the family.

If Rev. Sharpton was applying his hermenutics of God's Word consistently, he would see that the same Scriptures that led Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to fight to end the shackles of racism also call for all of us to defend the lives of those who cannot defend themselves, namely unborn children. The same Scriptures that compelled King to confront evil in the culture, still speak and compel men of God today, which is why we cannot remain silent on issues such as abortion or gay marriage (which threatens to undermine marriage and the family as we know it). While Sharpton has persistently attempted to paint King as one who would have defended a woman's right to abortion and opposed the war against terrorism in Iraq, the truth is we do not know how King would have responded to either of those issues. The prevalence of abortion on demand and the threat of terrorism were not even on America's radar screen during King's ministry.

Without addressing the fallacious nature of comparing the gay rights movement with the Civil Rights movement, I would instead like to ask the Rev. Sharpton why he does not consider abortion to be a "dire" problem facing the black community today. An excellent article on CNSNews.com reveals the negative impact abortion has had and continues to have on the black populace today. For example, since Roe v. Wade, over fourteen million African-American babies have been "terminated" prior to birth, a death rate of genocidal proportions." Since 1973, more than twice as many blacks have died from abortion than from heart disease, cancer, accidents, violent crimes and AIDS combined; Blacks make up about 12 percent of the population in the United States but account for 32 percent of the abortions; and about 1,450 black infants are aborted every day in this country." Why is Al Sharpton not speaking up on behalf of these oppressed infants that cannot speak for themselves? Why does he remain silent when Planned Parenthood intentionally places a majority of their abortion clinics (62.5%) in communities with a higher percentage of blacks than that particular state as a whole? Does racism somehow trump murder? The answer is no. Should we remain silent on racism? Again, the answer is no. But neither should we remain silent on the issue of abortion. By doing so, Al Sharpton has stood passively while the enemy has worked to deplete the ranks of those who would otherwise stand with him in the fight to end racism.

If Al Sharpton really wants to see an end to racism in this country, he should return to a consistent application of the Scriptures, take a stand with evangelicals, and defend the civil rights of all African-Americans in this country, not just the ones who safely make it out of the womb.

As I read this article, I began to realize that many use the word "people" with differing connotations. Some use the word "people' to refer to specific ethnic or racial group. Others, such as myself, are convinced it is more important to identify with the "people of God" than any other group. Al Sharpton's employment of the word leads me to question whether his "people" are African-Americans or the Democratic party.

Al, it is time to submit your political views to Scripture and not vice versa.

I look forward to your comments.

Chris