R.C. Sproul on the "Reformed Wrestling Smack Down"
I've been meaning to blog about Michael (Internet Monk) Spencer's challenge to evangelical bloggers to debunk the Joel Osteen phenomenon, but got distracted.
Now, I don't know Osteen from O'Hare, despite sharing a state and a religion with him. Well, I thought I shared a religion, but after reading Spencer's outing, I'm not so sure. I did read through a few of the interviews linked in Spencer's post and, by george, Osteen never once mentioned Jesus. One might chalk that up to editorial preferences, but that's hard to support considering the publications. I must admit that when a supposed evangelical preacher can toss out hundreds of words for public consumption and not mention Jesus, that raises a red flag or two.
Nevertheless, I'm having a hard time signing up to stoke the fire under the boiling tar, or to pluck the chickens to feather...um, further the cause. It's not that I don't think false doctrine should be exposed and rejected. I do, and will try to help whenever I have something useful to add to the mix.
But, regardless, I tend to side with R.C. Sproul:
Tip o'the Hat to Robert Williams over at Dead Man Blogging (who's really on a roll today, btw).
Technorati tags: Christianity | evangelicalism
Jared, I assume that you're asking rhetorical questions, because I certainly don't know what was in his head when he wrote his post. He seems to be referring to some reaction that he considers to be over the top, but since he doesn't elaborate (or link) then that's just a guess.
Have you asked him these questions?
I liked his post mainly for his call for a level-headed response...and you indicate that that is, indeed, what's happening from your perspective. I guess his comments aren't really universally applicable.
Posted by: Eric at February 2, 2005 04:43 PMYou could email him. Go to RC's blog and leave a comment. It sends email, and he does check it and respond, except when he's on the road.
It helps to remember that Joel Osteen is the son of John Osteen and is only carrying on the legacy of his father in the "oasis of love" church.
Posted by: bryan at February 2, 2005 06:01 PMI'm of the old school -- No Cross; No Crown. Osteen's approach is new-agey, feel good about yourself. It is what I call the Incredible Lightness of the Unchurch.
If his approach brings people to know Christ, that is a good thing. The question I have is, what will be their staying power in Christ? Will they stand in the gap when things go wrong (as they invariably do for many of us)?
Jesus isn't just for sunny days.
Posted by: John Luke Rich at February 2, 2005 08:56 PMJack, I wonder how he can bring people to Jesus if he never mentions Jesus. I'd be curious to see a breakdown of the sources of his church's growth...for example, how many baptisms they're performing vs. bringing in members from other churches. I also wonder if they have a "New Believers" class (which addresses to some extent your questions) and if so, what it consists of.
Oh, never mind. I just looked at Lakewood's website and it offers a "New Beginnings" class: "The New Beginnings class is a three-week series offered continuously to help you know beyond any doubt what it means to be born again, to give you an opportunity to be grounded in God's Word, and to learn how to become a disciple of Jesus Christ."
Posted by: Eric at February 2, 2005 09:12 PMLiving just a half-hour from the "Oasis of Love", Joel Osteen is a hot topic around here.
I have a friend who attended a service, mistakenly raised her hand as one who had made a decision for Christ that day (thought she was indicating a prayer request) and next thing she knew, she had been escorted back stage and was in line for the mike to declare her new-found faith to the thousands in attendance. Needless to say, that was her last visit. This is just me, but any church that flipped out about putting on a show and performance is missing the point.
It's about changing hearts and lives. Period. We're always going to have different ways of accomplishing that because people respond to different things, but that ought to be the common goal as stated by Jesus in the last chapter of Matthew.
Just my .02
Posted by: texasbug at February 2, 2005 10:52 PMOh, man...I can't believe a church would do that to a new believer. Most are nervous enough about simply walking down the aisle during an altar call, much less being put in front of a microphone in front of a huge congregation.
It's about changing hearts and lives.
I agree, although I'd add one simple phrase which I know you agree with: "through faith in Jesus Christ." That seems to be the minimized component in all the reports I read about the Osteen Pitch. Not saying it isn't there...but it seems to be hidden by a bunch of other things, when it should be front and center at all times.
Posted by: Eric at February 2, 2005 10:59 PMJoel Osteen should study the life of English evangelist George Muller (1805-1898) A quote from George Muller:" A servant of God has but one Master. It ill becomes the servant to seek to be rich, and great, and honoured in that world where his Lord Jesus was poor, and humble, and despised." Read Isaiah 53. Also, in Luke 12:15 Jesus says, "A man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." So much for prosperity preaching!!!!
Posted by: Jalaine at February 19, 2005 01:42 AM
I'm not sure I really understand Sproul Jr.'s point.
He says we should roundly denounce error, but then seems to be saying that Osteen's error is no big deal. I don't know what he means by "spilling wine on the carpet." Getting all worked up about the error?
As far as I can tell, nobody's really worked up. We're just organized and unified in our denouncement. Is Sproul saying we shouldn't do that? Or is he saying we should just let one person do it or something? I don't get it.
Also, I haven't found anyone who says Christianity won't survive Osteen or the church won't prevail. They just think it's a bad sign if he's the most successful evangelical preacher; that indicates that there are millions of evangelicals fine with a no-Gospel Christianity.
It's the defenders of Osteen who are getting really worked up about this. Osteen himself said on The Today Show the other morning that it didn't bother him if people thought of him more as a "self-help guru" or a "motivational speaker" than a preacher. But if guys like Spencer call him those things, it's considered a personal attack.
Posted by: Jared at February 2, 2005 04:07 PM