Mark Driscoll on Joel Osteen

While I agree with your parenthetical comment in principle, Gal. 1:7 (and others) aren’t exactly good rebukes of Osteen considering after close to 2000 years we still have at times significant disagreements over exactly what Paul’s “euangelion” was. To equate what we were initially taught as Christians as being precisely what Paul taught is quite dangerous in my opinion.

And while there’s technically no such thing as “gnosticism” (at least not in the same way that there is Catholicism, or Judaism, etc.), I’m not sure how much of an authority of the subject Denny Burk is. He doesn’t strike me as particularly “objective”…

USAToday.com just ran an article on Olsteen.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-10-21-joel-osteen_N.htm

Is it better to be a bad Christian than not Christian at all?

Edgar

Turns out his wife is the church’s “co-pastor.” Interesting…

Edgar, I think that’s the real question that must ultimately be answered. There are a lot of (normally justified) negative responses to Osteen’s doctrines. Yet, often the disparaging comments likely do just as much harm as they feel Osteen is doing. It’s a tough line to walk when we try and rebuke our fellow believers. Usually people just want to beat Osteen over the head with a Bible (might not be the worst option), but what is really being accomplished in the end? Surely there must be a better way.

I think what Osteen really needs is to try and preach his message of health and wealth in, say, South Africa to Christian children dying of AIDS. Or, how about Coptic Christians living in Egypt that must build escape tunnels in their churches to avoid periodical raids. I’m sure Christians spending decades in Chinese prisons for their faith would get a kick out of Osteen’s sermons. Perhaps if he dialogued with these other believers, he could see how lacking his doctrines really are…

In the end though, what makes one a Christian? Are Osteen and his congregation not Christians because we disagree with them? I’m not willing to go that far, for I certainly don’t know their hearts. How can we engage Osteen and others like him on a level to bring about change and understanding, rather than anger and name-calling?

What makes a Christian, cheapham? I guess someone that gives their alliance to Christ… I guess. I know I am not the judge of who is one and who is not. However, I do think being a Christian well entails certain actions and beliefs and reserve the right to have those views and try and sort ‘em out with people. I won’t say that they are are not Christians, but I will say that they need to reevaluate their actions and beliefs.

The most frustrating thing here is that the rest of Christians are being named after him. Same thing with the Religious RightTM, Brother Jed, and the scores of other Christians that get press and give me a bruise on the top of my forehead.

I’d love to dialog with them.

While I agree with your parenthetical comment in principle, Gal. 1:7 (and others) aren’t exactly good rebukes of Osteen considering after close to 2000 years we still have at times significant disagreements over exactly what Paul’s “euangelion” was.

I’m not so much rebuking Osteen but rather the naming of their message as the health-wealth-prosperity-gospel. It lacks so much that is linked to the technical term euangelion. If you compare Osteen and other HWP’s with 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 you’ll notice that Paul speaks of sin but Osteen and many other HWP’s don’t. So I don’t think it should given the same name of euangelion because it doesn’t encompass the same ideas as the biblical use of euangelion.

Like Hank says: euangelion denotes bad news. And poverty and/or low self-steem are by-products of Sin.

Blessed are the poor in Spirit - for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.

-euangelion

Here’s the problem, it’s not as if “euangelion” is a magical word invented by the New Testament authors. Historically speaking, it is not even a distinctly Christian or biblical word. In fact, it was Christians who took the word and made it mean something different than it originally did.

As the old sermon goes, the term “euangelion” was used by the Roman Empire in promoting it’s own imperialist propaganda. Specifically, events like the ascendence of a new Emperor, or major military victories, etc. would be spread as “euangelion.” Christianity took the term and turned it on it’s head. It became a reference to Jesus Christ, who ruled a kingdom not of this world.

I would say that you are correct that the gospel that Osteen and others like him are promoting isn’t necessarily the “euangelion” found in the New Testament. However, we must understand that the Romans more than likely didn’t take too kindly to early Christian uses of the term either. The term was never exclusively Christian, and I feel we must remember that when arguing over such terms. Certainly, Osteen and his followers feel that his message is a “euangelion” of sorts. We can absolutely argue that it is not biblical (and I agree with that argument), but to say it is not an “euangelion” at all is perhaps over-stepping our bounds.

It may seem like I’m making minor quibbles over words, but I’d say given the testament of history, it’s an important distinction to make.

Good point Cheapham