Joel Osteen is undressing you with his eyes*
I went to Wal-Mart this afternoon to have a passport photo taken, and (because I’m stupid and go to Wal-Mart in the afternoon) the photographer was busy with a few hundred customers. So, instead of sitting patiently and listening to obnoxious parents gush about their spawn, I wandered aimlessly around the store for about a half-hour.
Why is this even worth mentioning?
Because at every aisle, there was this horrible face smiling at me from every angle like a clown in a funhouse.
I don’t know why Wal-Mart was saturated with this guy’s “book”, but if I had to take a guess, it’s because sleazy televangelists get the Wal-Mart higher-ups all hot and bothered.
Since I wasn’t really looking to become a better me (and I don’t hate myself), I didn’t bother to actually read the book, but I was curious about who this man is, and so turned to Google. From CBS News.com:
Joel Osteen’s positive, upbeat can-do message has turned him into America’s most popular preacher and earned him the title of most influential Christian in the country. He pastors the biggest and fastest growing American church and his services are the most watched religious broadcast in the country.
…………..
Osteen preaches his own version of what is known as the “prosperity gospel” — that God is a loving, forgiving God who will reward believers with health, wealth and happiness. It’s the centerpiece of every sermon.
Ah. The Prosperity Gospel. If you worship “faithfully,” tithe (at least) 10% to the church (read pastor’s 401K), and do everything your pastor says, God will reward you with riches in this life!
And if you do all of that, and you’re still stuck in a shit job with two kids you didn’t want and a husband who is emotionally distant at best. Well, that’s because God hates you. Oh, and disregard all of that business about the meek inheriting the earth, and rich men not being able to enter the gates of heaven; Jesus didn’t really mean it.
Thus far, Joel Osteen (and his creepster smile) preaches a message that is not only in direct opposition to the whole of the Gospel, but is also probably responsible for a good number of ruined lives.
It gets better.
Mr. Osteen also seems to think that homosexuality is roughly equal to drug use:
JOHN KING: Some would say if you look at the Bible, homosexuality is wrong. Some use the term evil. You say gays are welcome in your church, even though you might not agree with their lifestyle. How do you deal with that as a person and as a minister and someone who many in your community look to for guidance?
JOEL OSTEEN: “Well, the way I would – I would deal with that is that I think the worst thing we could do is say, “Well, this group can’t come, because they don’t believe exactly like me.” I want them to come to be able to receive help. That would be like saying that somebody has a drug addiction. You know what? I don’t believe that’s right. I believe that’s harming your body. But you know what? Come to our church. I want to give you help. I want to give you encouragement.
In fairness, Osteen isn’t rapidly anti-gay like Pat Robertson or the recently deceased Jerry Falwell, but still, I don’t think gay people appreciate being compared to crack addicts (or Courtney Love**).
So. Joel Osteen is a preacher of the prosperity gospel (read: fraud) and mildly homophobic.
Thank you Wal-Mart for spreading this man’s message of hope, love and God-sanctioned greed.
* It so looks like this guy is undressing innocent shoppers with his eyes.
** Cheap joke, I know.
“Joel Osteen (and his creepster smile) preaches a message that is not only in direct opposition to the whole of the Gospel…”
Find me the Christian sect (or preacher) that is in direct compliance with the whole – the whole, mind you – of the Gospel. I’m sure taking cheap shots at flavors of Christianity you don’t agree with is fun and edifying; but do you dare apply the same reasoning to the ones you DO agree with? If yes, you will quickly find that there exists no “true” Christianity – no sect honestly and completely implementing the ordinances of its own sacred texts. If no – well, that’s at least a little disingenuous.
Also, I don’t understand why you’ve heaved upon yourself the burden of proving that Osteen opposes every last bit of the Gospel. Was it not enough to accuse him of contradicting the spirit, or the main points, or something of that nature?
Dmitry, I think that in this case, you’re reading a bit too much into what I wrote. I pretty much agree with the whole of your comment, but as you said, taking cheap shots is pretty satisfying.
If I were interested in precision, then yes, I would have said something to the effect of “The Prosperity Gospel runs against a fairly strong anti-materialist strain in the Hebrew Bible and the Gospels.” But, I wasn’t trying to be precise.
Though – and maybe this is a misperception – I’m wondering why you’re so hostile in this comment? Normally it’s just an informed challenge, but this seems a bit more aggressive than usual.
No aggression was intended; that said, I dislike and distrust criticism of the authenticity of someone’s faith. You may have your opinions as to the sanity of the members of Sect X, and as to the quality of their adherence to Text Y; but ultimately you are not them, and you do (should?) not get to judge whether or not they are authentic members of Religion Z. In this sense the statement “Mormons wear funny underwear” is more defensible than “Mormons are not true Christians.” Implied in the former and usually obscured in the latter is the subjectivity of the judgment. Osteen, a Jew for Jesus, and a Holy Roller may not see eye to eye on the correct interpretation of scripture, but if each of them wants to claim Christian affiliation, by god, they’re all entitled to it.
And shocking as it may seem, prosperity theology remains somewhat of an underdog on the American religious scene. It was laughed out of existence so thoroughly at the end of the 1920s that it is no small wonder that it has managed to rear its head since.
Fair enough. I’m not challenging the authenticity of Osteen’s faith, I’m sure he’s as devout as they come. But I do think that challenging an interpretation is more than okay.
There are broad principles that most Christians – regardless of denomination – would agree to. Now, the devil’s in the details of course, but if someone were to say “My faith requires me to systematically wipe out the poor,” then that’s pretty clearly in opposition to what is generally considered “Christian.”
On a more general note, I’m pretty weary of the strong relativism that you seem to be a fan of. It’s weak. If two competing sets of values clash, then there is no way of determining which is actually legitimate. If I like puppies and you like curb-stomping, then (if I were a relativist) who am I to say that curb-stomping is wrong?
The second we judge some values as being wrong, is the second we tacitly admit that there is some method of evaluating the rightness of a set of values. And if we can do that, then we can’t really be relativists.
I cannot stand Osteen. Couching a self-help book in a church is annoying at best, but then when he said he’d rather spend all that money on buying the stadium in Houston instead of using that money for people who need it, that was the last straw. Osteen epitomizes the negative side of the American mega-church. Theologically what he promotes doesn’t last longer than an ice cube in hell. ugh.
“On a more general note, I’m pretty weary of the strong relativism that you seem to be a fan of. It’s weak. If two competing sets of values clash, then there is no way of determining which is actually legitimate. If I like puppies and you like curb-stomping, then (if I were a relativist) who am I to say that curb-stomping is wrong?”
That’s a popular distortion of moral relativism. The point is not to say, “No belief is right or wrong;” it is to say, “No belief is inherently true; I decide for myself which are good and which are bad.”
“The second we judge some values as being wrong, is the second we tacitly admit that there is some method of evaluating the rightness of a set of values. And if we can do that, then we can’t really be relativists.”
Yes we can. See above: it is admissible (and relativist) to say “I hate Christianity, Islam, and religion in general” – as long as some disclaimer is given to the effect of “I base this only on my own tastes, which I know to be neither better nor worse than the tastes of others.” You’re right in that no moral relativist is or aspires to be an entirely neutral creature. But you’re wrong to claim that having personal values, acting upon them, but never claiming them to be inherently better than competing sets of values is a disqualification from being a moral relativist.
Moral relativism is not opposed to notions of morality, but to notions of absolute morality. If people everywhere are the same (assumption) and deviance is relative (fact: there exists no single act which everywhere and at all times is regarded as wrong by everyone), then on what basis can a single morality (system of defining deviance) be elevated above other moralities but the little-used “such is my arbitrary taste?”
“I base this only on my own tastes, which I know to be neither better nor worse than the tastes of others.”
Some values are worth more than others. The values of a Red Cross nurse are better than those of a Nazi. Now I agree there isn’t an objective or universal morality that we can judge these things by, but it’s necessary that we judge these things. Judging values, separating the wheat from the chafe, the good from the bad, is the only way we defend ourselves against values – valid as they may be – which have dangerous consequences.
If our only basis for evaluating values is our “tastes,” then well, it becomes really difficult to have a good reason for opposing anything.
I also don’t think that values are arbitrary tastes, but that’s a separate comment.
“The values of a Red Cross nurse are better than those of a Nazi.”
Why? Either because you think so – as do I – or because you’re claiming – as I do not – that there exists an objective yardstick which you, a neutral observer, are invoking to judge their values.
“If our only basis for evaluating values is our “tastes,” then well, it becomes really difficult to have a good reason for opposing anything.”
Are you saying your own tastes are not reason enough to act upon them? Do your own values need to be supplemented by an (imaginary) absolute morality to drive you to action?
“I also don’t think that values are arbitrary tastes, but that’s a separate comment.”
You’re right, they’re not arbitrary in the sense that they are not very fluid or random for any given person. But they are appear arbitrary in a comparison among people.
“Are you saying your own tastes are not reason enough to act upon them? Do your own values need to be supplemented by an (imaginary) absolute morality to drive you to action?”
Your own tastes are reason enough to act, but they aren’t reason enough to oppose someone else’s tastes. You can’t say, “My taste is mine, and yours is yours” but then oppose a violation of your taste. (I think) You need a compelling reason for defending a taste, or value or moral. And strong relativism doesn’t provide that.
I don’t think that the choice is strictly between moral relativism and moral absolutism, there are other conceptions along the continuum. What I find attractive is a sort of “moral pluralism.” Where there are a finite number of competing “conceptions of the good (I really hate this phrase, but I use it anyway)” which will probably be in opposition to each other. Liberalism and conservatism, Christianity and Islam, etc. Each value system is entirely legitimate, provided that it doesn’t try to eliminate the other value system (hence the pluralism), if that does happen, the others can act in defense.
So, anti-abortion activists can protest all they want, but the minute they attempt to kill an abortion provider, said provider can act to stop them (and use violence if necessary). You still have the benefits of moral relativism – people can believe as they choose – but you also have a compelling reason for resisting another value system (violation of the pluralistic “agreement”).
Hey Joel,
God bless you for encouraging people giving them hope and inspiration through the word of God.I believe I am blessed to get to see you and hear your sermons.
I know you do good throughout America changing peoples lives.But I ask you for help in Jesus name.I am in plenty of debts as I took equity line to start business for my sons.Unfortunately I ended up in heavy losses and huge debts piled up.I have nowhere to go and surest place I can seek help and not be turned down is you since I have identified myself in the name of the Lord sought His help day and night and have remained in hope.I still believe that a good samaritan will walk down my front door and pay all my debts relieving me of stress and tension that I have been living in since 4 yrs.I am a widow and from a conservative muslim family.STill I believe I am a child of the most high and I know He knows how to take care of us.WE do our part.
Nusrat
“Your own tastes are reason enough to act, but they aren’t reason enough to oppose someone else’s tastes. You can’t say, “My taste is mine, and yours is yours” but then oppose a violation of your taste.”
I would think you can, understanding all the while that there is nothing special about your taste, and you are obeying it and not another simply because it is yours. What I object to is the claim than some tastes are objectively better than others (i.e., are “legitimate”). There is no objectivity in the judgment of tastes. There is always an observer, and that observer needs to make themselves visible and be honest about the subjectivity with which they judge others’ tastes.
“You need a compelling reason for defending a taste, or value or moral.”
What about, “this taste is mine; I have no other?” – or, for greater effect, “this taste is mine and my people’s; we have no other.”
“Each value system is entirely legitimate, provided that it doesn’t try to eliminate the other value system.”
But which legitimate value systems get to start the club? In the company of tyrants, it’s the liberal democrat who is breaching the compact of “moral pluralism.” Again, the seemingly objective measure of legitimacy – as you propose, tolerance for other ideas – is both subjective (relative to the founding/main ideologies) and arbitrary (being one among many possible ways to compare ideologies).
“But which legitimate value systems get to start the club? In the company of tyrants, it’s the liberal democrat who is breaching the compact of “moral pluralism.” Again, the seemingly objective measure of legitimacy – as you propose, tolerance for other ideas – is both subjective (relative to the founding/main ideologies) and arbitrary (being one among many possible ways to compare ideologies).”
Every ideology/value system is valid; the Nazi ideology – terrible as it is – makes sense from their perspective. There is no founding ideology. And in a “marketplace of ideologies,” the United States for example, they are allowed to compete. What isn’t allowed to happen is one to eliminate the others through the use of force. To some degree, tolerance for other ideas is arbitrary, but using tolerance as a metric provides for some way to defend against those ideologies which are violently intolerant.
I still don’t buy that “What about, “this taste is mine; I have no other?” – or, for greater effect, “this taste is mine and my people’s; we have no other.”” provides a method of legitimately defending your conception of the good. If you have no other taste, well, fine, I have no other taste than to take yours out.
(As an aside, this is a good conversation, I hope you think the same)
Jamelle:
“I’m not challenging the authenticity of Osteen’s faith, I’m sure he’s as devout as they come.”
You are wrong. Osteen is a false preacher who preaches a false gospel. The prosperity doctrine directly opposes virtually everything that Jesus Christ and everyone else in the New Testament preached and lived. The fact that Dmitry is defending Mormonism, which claims that God is not a spirit and that Jesus Christ is not deity and in the beginning themselves denied being Christians until their evangelism could no longer replace the number of people leaving their group (which, by the way, was the reason why they decided that their “prophets” Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were wrong after all and decided to start giving equal status to blacks, even though their books still to this day call blacks cursed, so that they could start replacing their declining white membership with American and African blacks), shows where he is coming from. It is not about “no church is in perfect agreement with the Bible.” It is about Osteen (and Mormons) being in direct pervasive purposeful disagreement with the most basic and explicit Christian doctrines.
And as far as the “homophobia” thing … well that would make the Bible and Christianity itself homophobic I am afraid, as well as Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and pretty much every religion that originated before the 20th century. And, well, let us just say that there is a reason for that. We do not talk about it in our PC society, but the reason why HIV is like 4 times more likely to spread from a man to another man than from a man to woman or a woman to man is because of the, well, tearing factor. If you believe in intelligent design and as such claim that “God made them that way”, well then all of these religions telling people not to act that way says otherwise. But if you believe in evolution, well I am sorry, but that behavior A) violates natural selection and B) the way that our reproductive and the gastrointestinal system evolved. And excuse me, but has this “gay gene” been identified yet? The Boston Globe (hardly a fundamentalist conservative paper) says “a gay gene has not been found–and there are few if any prospects on the horizon to locate one.” So why do we claim as though it is scientifically proven medical fact that homosexuality is genetic when no evidence exists of the kind? Simple: political correctness.
By the way, it is curious that you have chosen for your pictoral representation that old Public Enemy symbol. Did you know that Chuck D. was a graphic arts major at Adelphi University? Flavor Flav went there too, although I do not recall his major. Anyway, back when I used to listen to those fellows, they were 100% opposed to the gay rights agenda, as were all the rappers. They all claimed that gay rights was just another way to destroy the black male. Spike Lee claimed the same thing. Now I know that Spike Lee went from being opposed to gay rights to supporting it when he dealt with black male homosexuality in “Get On The Bus” (ironically about The Million Man March when you will not find a group more opposed to gay rights than the Nation of Islam who put that little shindig on) and has been parroting an agenda that has NOTHING to do with black folks ever since (Michelle Obama said it right at South Carolina State University … Hillary Clinton won’t do a thing for black men … but you can bet that she will do PLENTY for gay rights!). So, when did the rest of the hip – hop nation go from opposing gay rights to supporting them?
It is a shame that Earl Ofari Hutchison went from writing “The Destruction of the Black Male Image” to attacking Tony Dungy for not supporting the primary way that the black male image is being destroyed these days. Virtually all of the movies and TV shows all have the stereotypical gay black man now. Virtually all of the top black fiction writers are gay. Black women are now CONVINCED that virtually every heterosexual black man is actually “downlow” because that is how black men are being depicted, even in the books, movies, plays, etc. written and produced by blacks. I think this shows that the gay rights movement has a ton of influence on the left, and the civil rights movement has none. What’s the big issue for the black community right now? 1. Health care and 2. a hate crimes law that won’t even protect blacks that Sheila Jackson Lee was used by Nancy Pelosi (who represents, er, San Francisco) to introduce and put her name on. All those problems that black boys are having in California public schools and what do those California Democrats spend the last two years doing? Passing nothing but gay rights and gay tolerance measures. I am sorry, man, but the gay rights agenda is not the agenda of the black man.
The marketplace of ideologies is a sound framework for cultural interaction; but if it treats every ideology as valid/legitimate, even when it calls for intolerance, and only restrains adherents of radical ideologies who choose to act out their intolerance, then what disagreement exists between this system and moral relativism? If you admit that the tolerance requirement is arbitrary (i.e. reflecting the subjective values of the marketplace’s designers), then you have a discursive paradigm absent any claim to objective, impartial judgment of ideologies. Which is exactly what moral relativism is as I’ve described it above.
What is this “legitimate” method of defending ideologies you are searching for? Aside from the subjective visceral method I proposed of defending the ideology itself, there are plenty of objective empirical methods of defending the ideology’s claims. But I maintain that there is no objective method of either supporting as opposing an ideology as such (not as a collection of conjectures about reality).
Clifford Geertz’s conception of the relation of social science to ideology comes to mind:
“But though science and ideology are different enterprises, they are not unrelated ones. Ideologies do make empirical claims about the condition and direction of society, which it is the business of science (and, where scientific knowledge is lacking, common sense) to assess. The social function of science vis-a-vis ideologies is first to understand them – what they are, how they work, what gives rise to them – and second to criticize them, to force them to come to terms with (but not necessarily to surrender to) reality.”
(http://www.gongfa.com/geertz1.htm)
(*Supporting OR opposing an ideology as such.)
This might be my last comment, since this thread is getting really damn long, but I think you’re missing the focus of my “defending ideology” point. It’s not about defending claims, it’s about existential defense. If you say, “I am a moral relativist, and everyone is entitled to live out their tastes,” then with that as a stance, I don’t think it’s possible to provide a good justification for defending yourself and your belief system from physical harm.
But I think we may be talking past each other at this point. I would however, point you to the comment directly above yours, you might find it amusing?
1. Fair enough.
2. Who wouldn’t?
Once again, Joel Osteen’s utter failure to uphold Christian truth in an age of apostacy only further supports what is all too clear about his teaching: it is spiritually bankrupt.
Here is a link to articles our ministry has created on Osteen’s heretical compromise that is anointed as “Christianity” today.
http://www.spiritwatch.org/behindsmile.htm