Prosperity Preaching Is Not Christian (Osteen)

Pastor Joel Osteen’s TV ad announcing his new show on Sirius Radio begins with the promise, “We can have victory every single day.” Next come scenes of his pastoral team on stage during a church service, followed by a long shot of the congregation that looks as if it was filmed in the Super Bowl with every seat filled. (He reportedly has the largest congregation in the United States.)

Finally, he comes back on screen and declares to the audience, “There is a power in you greater than any power that comes against you.”

After seeing the ad for about the 200th time, I sent the following email message to some friends:

I’ve seen the Osteen ad many, many times and my reaction has been the same each time—I have felt a powerful urge to convert . . . . . . to Buddhism!

What made me descend to such curmudgeonly pique? Was it because Osteen’s face appears locked in a smile that shouts “insincere” (at least to me) or because he and his wife call to mind the 1970s and 80s preaching duo of unhappy memory, Jim and Tammy Bakker? Was it because Osteen’s trademark black hair is beautifully coiffed and boasts innumerable curls in the back? Might I be jealous of that?

The honest answer to all three questions is “yes.” But there is another, more substantive reason for my negative reaction. It is that Osteen’s message is presumptuous and misleading, not to mention smarmy and glib. (I know, I know, smarminess and glibness are not serious flaws, so let’s put them aside.)

First, presumptuous. The line “you have power in you greater than any power that can come against you” obviously refers to more than simple talent and potential and probably to more than being created in the image and likeness of God. The most likely intended meaning is the gift of the Holy Spirit that Christians call grace.

The problem, however, is his notion that this “power” (grace) is automatically in us by virtue of our being alive. In contrast, Christianity teaches that grace is a gift that God gives us but does not force upon us. We either accept it or reject it, and that choice determines whether we experience its power. This crucial fact Osteen seems to ignore when he presumes that everyone possesses grace automatically.

Now let’s consider misleading. At the heart of Osteen’s message is the promise of daily success in life: “We can have victory every single day.” Surely he is not referring to the victory of being received into paradise, which comes only once (if we are lucky), after death. What then does he mean? I consulted Osteen’s website for the answer and found this:

You have been blessed for unprecedented success. God has healing with your name on it, new dreams with your name on it [sic], promotions with your name on it [sic]. You are a child of Almighty God. He has already gone before you and lined up promotion, victory, and favor in your life.

With the exception of healing, these things come under the heading “worldly success,” so that is what Osteen must mean by “victory.” Oddly, however, he denies that this is his meaning. For example, he has said, “If prosperity means God wants us to be blessed and healthy and have good relationships then yes, I’m a prosperity teacher. But if it’s about money, no, I never preach about money . . .”

Osteen is being disingenuous. His themes may technically not be about money, but they are about “promotion,” “favor,” “abundance,” etc., so they might as well be about money. Consider a more specific example from Osteen’s Message # 619, “It’s Already Yours”:

Psalm 8:5 says, “You have crowned him with favor and honor.” What does this mean for you today? It means right now, there are blessings with your name on them—healing, promotion, good breaks, houses, businesses, contracts—that already belong to you. The question is, when are you going to go get what’s already yours? [Bold added]

The word “money” doesn’t appear in this passage, but the words in bold certainly stand for financial success and that spells financial prosperity, also known as money.

At this point readers who embrace Osteen’s “prosperity gospel” would no doubt respond “What’s wrong with saying God rewards those who love him with prosperity?” My first impulse is to respond, “If there is nothing wrong with the prosperity gospel, why is Osteen so determined not to be associated with it?” But here is a more meaningful response:

What is wrong with prosperity preaching is that it grossly distorts the Christian message.

To begin with, Isaiah didn’t prophesy a prosperous Christ but a suffering servant who would be “despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.” (Isaiah 53: 3)

Then, too, Jesus was born in a stable and lived a modest life with Mary and Joseph, so it is a reasonable assumption that neither Joseph nor Jesus was the sort of carpenter whose work brought that age’s equivalent of Ethan Allen or Thomasville prices.

In the most famous of all sermons, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, not a single one of the blessings mentioned suggests daily victory of any kind, let alone financial victory. They speak instead of daily spiritual stress, mourning, hunger, and persecution. The fact that Jesus called those who suffer these burdens “blessed” is best understood as a promise of eventual consolation or reward beyond this vale of tears.

The only place in Scripture where Jesus and prosperity are mentioned together is when Satan offers it to Him—“The devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. ‘All this I will give you,’ he said, ‘if you will bow down and worship me.’” (Matthew 4: 8-9) In rejecting Satan’s offer Jesus did not condemn prosperity, to be sure, but He certainly didn’t laud it either.

Jesus did, of course, tell his disciples that they could achieve anything if they had sufficient faith. For example, he said that they could move a mountain. (Matthew 21: 21-22) But in the next breath He added that the way to do so is to “ask in prayer, believing,” underscoring that the power obviously resides in God rather than in us.

Jesus often reminded his disciples that the way to follow him was to deny themselves and take up their crosses every day. (Matthew 10:38 and 16:24, Luke 9:23, Luke 14: 27 and 18:18-22) The references to crosses obviously did not concern daily victories but, on the contrary, disappointments and sufferings. In our time those would include unemployment, accidents, the wounds of war, deadly diseases, emotional disorders, and the infirmities of old age.

Jesus provided the supreme example of suffering courageously as He prayed, sweating blood, in the Garden of Gethsemane, was mercilessly scourged at the pillar and humiliated by the Roman soldiers, crowned with thorns, and nailed to a cross. Moreover, in the final throes of suffocation and exsanguination, He felt forsaken by God.

Down through the centuries, the message that has framed the Christian perspective on living has been Jesus’ words, “take up your cross and follow me.” His disciples were the first to do so, and every one of them suffered a violent death. The early Christians were required to practice their faith in secret or face imprisonment and death. And Christian martyrdom continues in our time. In 2013 alone, 2,123 Christians were murdered for practicing their faith.

Promising daily victory and worldly success insults all those who maintain their faith in Jesus despite suffering and disappointment. Rather than raising their spirits and giving them hope, it tempts them to think, “If I am not prospering, maybe God doesn’t love me.” Worse, it tempts the wealthy and successful to believe that they really are more virtuous and deserving than the poor and thus to adopt the attitude of the Pharisee: “God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.” (Luke: 18:11)

Whenever I hear Osteen or others preach the prosperity gospel, I am reminded of Jesus’ advice to the young man who lived honorably and wondered what more he could do to achieve an even better spiritual state. Jesus did not tell him to claim and enjoy the first century equivalent of “promotion[s], good breaks, houses, businesses, contracts.” Instead, he advised him to “go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” (Mark 10: 21-22)

The prosperity gospel is understandably appealing in this self-absorbed age, but because it replaces the cross with a dollar sign, it bears no resemblance to the Gospel of Jesus.

Dear SR, I enjoy going back and forth with you because I think you are not someone who just engages in cut-and-paste duels ("I'll see your Matthew 16:18 and raise you Galatians 2:11 and 2 Corinthians 11") but someone who puts the gear-wheels together and does a good deal of actual engaging.

If people on both sides (or all sides) have the wit, they can all use logic and a couple clobber-verses and invariably come to their own most comfortable conclusions; but the important thing is to examine the "different sets of assumptions," as you said. That's why these discussions we have at the FRRF go round and round so tediously and fruitlessly --- and then turn into snark, frustration and anger --- because we're not getting underneath and examining assumptions.

Having said all that --- I still am not in a position to get all into it today. Yesterday my mind was all occupied with Sam's burial; today I have other pressing tasks that I have to kick myself into doing. Do not think I am absenting myself from the volleys because I am daunted, or because I am disrespecting your discussion.

If don-o or somebody else wants to take it up, that's fine. I have to overcome my sloth. I have a sneaky sloth: I do stuff I don't have to do (joust with people on FR) and avoid things I really do have to do, which are the obligations of my state in life.

Don-o knows that! ;op

See you later. Carry on.

We make a different set of assumptions about the scope and nature of the Ecclesia BECAUSE Jesus invites us to look not at superficialities like geography or outward appearances, but inwardly, to the spirit, and to truth, as the grounds of proper worship of God.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

This idea of "oneness" means something or He would not have mentioned it. Acts 15 shows us that it meant enough to the Apostles that they had to come together to consider two radically different ideas about what was needful to be a Christian.

It meant enough to St Ignatius of Antioch, believed to be taught by St John, that he repeatedly commands unity with the Bishop.

These men did not have the luxury of spiritualizing the plain words that our Lord had left them. Their words and their actions reveal a clear fidelity to the unity idea that they had been given.

(I hope my comment is not taken as "mind reading". I am asking questions.)

Are you quite certain that you are not reasoning from your conclusions? What can be the meaning of His prayer for His Apostles in John 17, especially verses 21 - 23? (Not a big fan of block quotes of Scripture, but this was important when I went searching.)

No one is free of the risk of circular reasoning. Any skeptic reading these Protestant/Catholic debates doubtless sees even our shared assumptions about belief God and His holiness as circular reasoning in some respects. We don't address those because we hold those assumptions in common. Someone once said (I forget who, might have been Aristotle) that circular reasoning is fine, as long as the circles are small enough. By that we mean axiomatic, self-evident truth.

But as between each other, we have a discrepancy in axioms. That's kind of like having a split in the federal circuits, which must then be resolved by appeal to the Supreme Court. We see that unity of which Christ spoke as a real, spiritual bond that exists between all who are born of the spirit, who have a share in the Holy Spirit, are led by the Spirit and mind of Christ, and as a consequence of that spiritual unity, have substantial unity in matters of faith and practice as grounded in Scripture.

And this is a practical unity. I have encountered many believers over the course of my six decades and am repeatedly amazed at the bond of love we share in Christ, regardless of the superficial trappings of most denominational labels, which most often have more to do with history than doctrine. These are people who supposedly are total strangers, yet we both know and love Him, and His word, and that makes all the difference.

Whereas, without attempting to read your mind, I surmise that you view unity as self-evidently requiring a shared human organization, complete with a corporate headquarters in Rome, and the pedigree of an apostolic genealogy. In which case you must build into your interpretation of Scripture these badges of unity from your denomination's later history, which will then be used to confirm your authority to define and interpret those very Scriptures. Dizzying.

Which means that, the Roman paradigm for unity is self-defining. Rome defines what unity is, mostly a paper fiction, as the rank and file are always so "poorly catechized," and then claims to have the unity it defined for itself, eliminating, on paper, any outliers as "not true Scotsmen anyway." Very cozy.

So it becomes an unfalsifiable system. And that's a problem. Something that can't be falsified can't be shown to be true either. At least with a claim of adherence to Scripture, there is some hope of falsification. Someone who claims to follow Scripture, yet denies the virgin birth, or the deity of Christ, or the resurrection, or the traditional family, or the sanctity of human life, can be refuted, from Scripture, in a manner that will appeal to men and women of good conscience. We can test their claims to fidelity to divinely inspired truth, and reach a place of satisfaction that their claim is true or false.

Now, I know this isn't even a beginning of a good comparison between Catholic and Protestant epistemologies, but I hope you can see we are impeded by the problem of seriously divergent axioms. We see all the extra baggage Rome has taken on in the name of doctrinal development, and it is staring us in the face as self-evident that it doesn't match the generic Christianity described in such detail in Scripture, that Rome is therefore the schismatic. We then look at the unfalsifiable claims of Roman unity, and they roll off our back like nothing, because unity itself means nothing if not grounded in truth, in accordance with Jesus' teaching that the true worship of God is a matter of spirit and truth, not geography or pedigree.

But then the standard Catholic response kicks in, which begins not with Scripture but with Rome, that we have drawn conclusions from Scripture to which we are not entitled, and therefore our grounds for rejection of Rome don't have ... wait for it ... the sanction of Rome, and must therefore be invalid. To which we cry, "Orbis Magnus!" Big Circle, because that response draws the orbit of its logic around the earth, beginning and ending at Rome, a temporal association of mortal men and women, and not around the eternal Son of God, and the word of God that reveals Him to us. Catholic epistemology is still in need of that spiritual Copernican revolution. A great deal now that seems unduly complex will resolve to an elegant simplicity, once you have the center right.

This idea of "oneness" means something or He would not have mentioned it. Acts 15 shows us that it meant enough to the Apostles that they had to come together to consider two radically different ideas about what was needful to be a Christian.

It is always going to be in the nature of the Ecclesia to have to fight back against error, and nothing in the fundamentally spiritual nature of being the Ecclesia precludes its members from coming together in human associations of those who share the faith of the Gospel to decide how best to present a united front against error. Quite the opposite. We would expect the love of Christ for His sheep to appear in the form of guidance from the undershepherds, including cooperation among them. But not only them, but all those of the flock who hear His voice and will follow only Him. And never would we expect those transient, fallible human associations, if truly guided by Christ, to take on a life of their own, an empty organizational unity, quite capable of running without godly leadership at the helm, a ghost ship sailing forward with no clear reliance on the Spirit of God or the mind of Christ.

It meant enough to St Ignatius of Antioch, believed to be taught by St John, that he repeatedly commands unity with the Bishop.

Three things about Ignatius:

1) My understanding is he may or may not have been a direct disciple of John. There is a tradition to that effect, but the epistles between them do not confirm it

2) But more to the point, his words do not have the sanction of divine inspiration. It is worth considering what he says, but our contention all along has been that the Roman schism began in small steps as a move away from a sound, Biblical ecclesiology, and so we expect to find departures from Scripture appearing in various post-apostolic leaders.

3) But it may be too great a burden to lay that blame on Ignatius, because in context, his advice appears to be directed to respecting the overseer of the local congregation, not some vast as yet unformed pyramid of ecclesiastical overlords capped off with a pope. As such, his instruction would be acceptable in any number of Bapitistic or Reformed settings.

These men did not have the luxury of spiritualizing the plain words that our Lord had left them. Their words and their actions reveal a clear fidelity to the unity idea that they had been given.

It is no luxury, but a matter of necessity of conscience, to take the abundant testimony of Scripture seriously concerning the explicitly spiritual nature of the Ecclesia. The idea that the living stones of Christ's temple could become totally identified with an earthly organization defined in carnal terms and tied to a geographic center such as Rome is antithetical to the Biblical record. You suggest I am reasoning from my conclusions (always a valid concern, BTW, and I take no offense at the charge, though I deny it), but if one assumes that Christian oneness must look like Rome's definition of it, and reads that back into both John and Ignatius, that is circular reasoning.

(I hope my comment is not taken as "mind reading". I am asking questions.)

No problem. Charges such as circular reasoning or excessive spiritualization are fair game in these debates, as the claimed basis is analysis of an openly presented argument, not the secret places of the heart before God. So we're good. :)

Peace,

SR

I think one of the MAJOR reasons for the endless, tedious, repetitive and fruitless go-rounds we see here in the RF is not so much that some want to "clobber" an adversary or only seek "comfortable" conclusions - though I don't deny that may very well be the motivation of a few - but that, when ones argument is proved untrue, instead of acknowledging the correction, the faulty view is grasped stubbornly closer. It then gets repeated in another thread as if no correction had ever been made. Can you help me understand why that continues to go on?

Examining assumptions is a worthwhile pursuit but what good is it when the assumption is based on the conviction that one cannot ever be wrong? Over the nearly ten years I've been a member, I am still surprised to read threads that make assumptions and assert things that I know have been countered dozens of times on the SAME forum. It's as if saying something is true makes it true. Perhaps in the interest of truly advancing the educational benefits of having an open Religion Forum, we should try to reign in those kinds of threads that are repetitive and which we know ahead of time will cause snark, anger and frustration - because they already have every time?

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.