Posted on 09/06/2014 10:55:34 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
After weathering a blistering week of scorn and ridicule for controversial comments she made during a worship service at the popular Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas, including a declaration that worship is not for God, co-pastor Victoria Osteen now says that's not what she meant and dismissed the notion as "ridiculous."
"While I admit that I could have been more articulate in my remarks, I stand by my point that when we worship God and are obedient to Him we will be better for it," she told The Blaze in a statement Friday. "I did not mean to imply that we don't worship God; that's ridiculous, and only the critics and cynics are interpreting my remarks that way."
She further explained that her congregants at Lakewood Church knew exactly what she meant and there was no confusion among the flock she co-pastors with her New York Times bestselling author husband Joel Osteen.
"Every Lakewood member knows what I was talking about because they have experienced firsthand the joy and victory of a Lakewood Church worship service, and the honor, reverence and gratitude we show God," she said.
In the last week, Osteen sparked a firestorm of withering criticism after a 36-second clip of her controversial comments on worship and adoration for God went viral.
"I just want to encourage every one of us to realize when we obey God, we're not doing it for GodI mean, that's one way to look at itwe're doing it for ourselves, because God takes pleasure when we're happy," she said in the 36-second clip posted on YouTube, with her husband smiling at her side. "That's the thing that gives Him the greatest joy "
"So, I want you to know this morning: Just do good for your own self. Do good because God wants you to be happy," she continued. "When you come to church, when you worship Him, you're not doing it for God really. You're doing it for yourself, because that's what makes God happy. Amen?" the clip ended as congregants cheered.
The problem starts with the words “co-pastor”, although in this case the “pastor” is teaching garbage, too.
... only the critics and cynics are interpreting my remarks that way."
No, airhead. Lots of people interpreted your remarks that way precisely because you were inarticulate in what you said.
And, of course, there is that as well...
Hahaha, made me smile and give a little chuckle, no easy task for a cynical ole Catholic like me.
There was no way to misinterpret the drivel she spewed.
She’s got dem dare crazy eyes...and I bet she’s quite the tigress.
Our purpose is to love and be loved, to live our lives full out in deep, overwhelming joy. I think that’s what she was saying that God wants us to do. Everything has a payoff. Everything.
“I did not mean to imply that we don’t worship God; that’s ridiculous, and only the critics and cynics are interpreting my remarks that way.”
So just keep sending in the money. :=)
Sounds almost like she was saying “Do what thou whilst”.
The section below is from J I Packers Introductory essay to John Owens THE DEATH OF DEATH IN THE DEATH OF CHRIST...
very apropo to Ms, NOT PASTOR Osteen
the recovery of the gospel.
This last remark may cause some raising of eyebrows, but it seems to be warranted by the facts.
There is no doubt that Evangelicalism today is in a state of perplexity and unsettlement. In such matters as the practice of evangelism, the teaching of holiness, the building up of local church life, the pastors dealing with souls and the exercise of discipline, there is evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with things as they are and of equally widespread uncertainty as to the road ahead. This is a complex phenomenon, to which many factors have contributed; but, if we go to the root of the matter, we shall find that these perplexities are all ultimately due to our having lost our grip on the biblical gospel. Without realising it, we have during the past century bartered that gospel for a substitute product which, though it looks similar enough in points of detail, is as a whole a decidedly different thing. Hence our troubles; for the substitute product does not answer the ends for which the authentic gospel has in past days proved itself so mighty. The new gospel conspicuously fails to produce deep reverence, deep repentance, deep humility, a spirit of worship, a concern for the church. Why? We would suggest that the reason lies in its own character and content. It fails to make men God-centred in their thoughts and God-fearing in their hearts because this is not primarily what it is trying to do. One way of stating the difference between it and the old gospel is to say that it is too exclusively concerned to be helpful to manto bring peace, comfort, happiness, satisfactionand too little concerned to glorify God. The old gospel was helpful, toomore so, indeed, than is the newbut (so to speak) incidentally, for its first concern was always to give glory to God. It was always and essentially a proclamation of Divine sovereignty in mercy and judgment, a summons to bow down and worship the mighty Lord on whom man depends for all good, both in nature and in grace. Its centre of reference was unambiguously God. But in the new gospel the centre of reference is man. This is just to say that the old gospel was religious in a way that the new gospel is not. Whereas the chief aim of the old was to teach men to worship God, the concern of the new seems limited to making them feel better. The subject of the old gospel was God and His ways with men; the subject of the new is man and the help God gives him. There is a world of difference. The whole perspective and emphasis of gospel preaching has changed.
From this change of interest has sprung a change of content, for the new gospel has in effect reformulated the biblical message in the supposed interests of helpfulness. Accordingly, the themes of mans natural inability to believe, of Gods free election being the ultimate cause of salvation, and of Christ dying specifically for His sheep, are not preached. These doctrines, it would be said, are not helpful; they would drive sinners to despair, by suggesting to them that it is not in their own power to be saved through Christ. (The possibility that such despair might be salutary is not considered; it is taken for granted that it cannot be, because it is so shattering to our self-esteem.) However this may be (and we shall say more about it later), the result of these omissions is that part of the biblical gospel is now preached as if it were the whole of that gospel; and a half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth. Thus, we appeal to men as if they all had the ability to receive Christ at any time; we speak of His redeeming work as if He had done no more by dying than make it possible for us to save ourselves by believing; we speak of Gods love as if it were no more than a general willingness to receive any who will turn and trust; and we depict the Father and the Son, not as sovereignly active in drawing sinners to themselves, but as waiting in quiet impotence at the door of our hearts for us to let them in. It is undeniable that this is how we preach; perhaps this is what we really believe. But it needs to be said with emphasis that this set of twisted half-truths is something other than the biblical gospel. The Bible is against us when we preach in this way; and the fact that such preaching has become almost standard practice among us only shows how urgent it is that we should review this matter. To recover the old, authentic, biblical gospel, and to bring our preaching and practice back into line with it, is perhaps our most pressing present need. And it is at this point that Owens treatise on redemption can give us help.
My thoughts also. They’ve already broken scripture with her being a “pastor”.
Sola Scriptura in action. Sad.
No, this is more like whatever the Latin is for “making [stuff] up as they go along”.
That IS what Sola Scriptura becomes. Eventually you get Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard, since we can all make up whatever we want, choose whatever “Holy Books” we believe in and cut out those parts that trouble us. Islam started that way.
RE: Sola Scriptura in action. Sad.
ALAS, another misunderstanding of the principle of Sola Scriptura.
Nope.
YEP.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.