On June 20, Joel Osteen punted on many issues central to Christianity and created a soft-sell of Biblical truth on Larry King Live. Apparently, Christians who saw the interview did not like it. It seems like there is a desire to mark truth-distictions among the megachurches. Joel then posted an apology on his homepage in an effort to frame his mentality during the interview.
As I read Joel’s apology, I had two feelings. One, I think this is a great sign for the level of discernment of the poeple who follow the teachings of Lakewood. Two, I get concerned when a pastor is moved toward correcting his message by the response of the crowd. Shouldn’t the message “be on” by a pastor who is shepherding over 30,000 people? I understand we all get misuderstood (believe me, I have been misunderstood lots), but this many times on so many foundational issues? The cynical side of me, (I know there are others from circle of the cynical out there!) says, “would you offer this apology if you were not moving into the former Compaq Center in July? Or, will this help those who are reading his book rethink their lives.
I don’t want to be cynical, overly critical, or perceieved as a stuck-up snob. After all, each of us has baggage that needs daily dosses of grace. However, I also do not want to endorse “Christianity lite” since what you win people with, you win them to.
How do you consider this? Correct Me or Clarify Me
First of all, he does not confess any sin or express any apology to God. He apologizes (I’m inferring now) to those who may have been offended, or something like that.
Second, he says, “I am comforted by the fact that [God] sees my heart and knows my intentions.” Far from bringing me comfort, I tremble when I think that God knows my intentions.
Third, to the Word:
2 Tim 4:2-4a, 7
2 Tim 2:15-16
The fact that a pastor — or anyone, really — has to issue an apology for failing to proclaim the gospel clearly, freely, and unashamedly speaks volumes about who he is really serving when the rubber meets the road.
Your last statement Hugh is worded too strongly. Here’s another point of view. Joel was on Larry King Live for the first time. That can be a big deal emotionally and mentally I would think. In that context, I am willing to give him wiggle room (not much) for mispeaking. There have been plenty of times I have walked away from a witnessing encounter and thought, “well I could’ve done that better”, or “Oooo I forgot to say…”.
It’s real easy to analyze Joel, because he is everyone right now in the media. I would be more concerned about Joel’s leadership and faith if he would not have said anything in response to the backlash. I would rather see a contrite leader than an untouchable one.
I don’t know, Kevin. A pastor of a congregation of thousands goes on national television and dodges the gospel, then posts a short letter buried in his Web site that sounds more like damage control than contrition… It doesn’t sound like he’s particularly fit to teach Sunday school, much less shepherding the souls of tens of thousands.
C’mon, Kevin… have you read the transcript? It’s not like he misspoke.
It’s like a special teams specialist set to receive a kickoff. He has an easy catch to make but knows he’s going to get creamed once he catches the ball. Does he let the ball go and take the easy way out? Or does he stand his ground, make the catch, and take what’s coming?
Joel dropped the ball.
Who is going to count on him in that spot again? Not me – at least not anytime soon and not before he proves himself in lesser things.
Yes, Hugh, but Kevin was generalizing on your generalization (“a pastor — or anyone, really”). And I agree with him that if Joel had just messed up, I’d be ready to forgive him for his humanity because we’d all have the same chance of doing the same thing. The fact still stands, though, that in this case, his theology was wrong–it wasn’t just a mistake.
In other words,
this specific case: bad theology
general case that Hugh brought up: forgivable as a human mistake
I didn’t know who this guys was until I read this blog and went to his website. I read the Larry King interview and thought that he was a little ridiculous on some issues. We all have to apologize for things we’ve done in life to make sure the people around us know where we really stand, but for a pastor to apoligize for not clearly presenting his beliefs on national television is kind of silly. I knew what he ment when he was answering each question that Larry King gave him. It was kind of like when you told your mom you were going somewhere but were really going somewhere she didn’t approve of you going, so you stop at the place you told her you were going just so you could say you went there if she asked you where you went. I grew up in church and understand everything in what he truly meant by his answers, but I also think that by answering them the way he did he was trying to make himself out to be a likable guy and make them seem like they had a totally different meaning to non-believers. It seemed very candyass to me.
Thanks Jeffrey. I was pointing to Hugh’s last statement in my remarks. Clearly, a man who writes a book called “Your Best Life Now” is not someone I am going to look to as a theologian. In trying to make the Gospel attractive to all, which he can’t, Joel was too soft in the interview.
Another idea for the fray. Last week I ate lunch with someone who proposed large mega churches serve as a “foyer” for those that what to taste Christianity anonymously. When they tire of “milk” they will seek out other churches (“the living room”) for deeper teaching truth. So is Joel’s draw of so many folks to church a good or a bad thing, given the what message he is drawing them with?
It all comes down to his view of man, view of Christ, and his lifestyle, now doesn’t it?
It would be nice if the mega-churches with gospel-lite were funneling people into churches where they would be discipled, but that does not seem to be the intent of those churches. They become holding pens where many folks are inoculated against the gospel. They get enough of it to think that they are OK (e.g., they go to church so they must be Christians), and they become hardened to the real thing. It just like a vaccine… you get enough of the actual virus (but dead) that your body will never get infected by the real thing.
OK, I’ll grant that my expansion to include “anyone” goes too far if we’re talking about proclaiming the gospel “clearly.”
But I stand by the idea that all followers of Christ must proclaim the gospel “freely and unashamedly.”
A few posts back Kevin said “I would rather see a contrite leader than an untouchable one.” I’d rather see an effective one. Sorry, this is Christ’s church. I’m not going to fuss about how much slack we should cut her leaders… it’s feet to the fire, baby! If there’s anything worth enforcing accountability over, surely it’s this…
I see a leader’s willingness to recognize their own mistakes as a component of being an effective leader and their own accountability. I hope you are not suggesting earthly church leaders need to be perfect in every moment, cause I only know one guy who did that. 😉
Sure – leaders make mistakes. They admit mistakes, address them, strive for reconciliation, and move on. Entirely forgivable.
But let’s agree that there’s a standard of accountability – in the spirit of James 2 – that calls into question the fitness of a guy like Joel Osteen for service in the capacity he’s in.
OK I feel the need to weigh in on this one. I have watched Joel Osteen’s show (don’t ask me to dignify it with the term “service”), and I have to say that his whole ministry caters to today’s society. The entire message is one of self-help and self-improvement. And when he turns to the home audience to give the “gospel” you get the chance to repeat some phrases he gives you – then (if you *meant* it), you’ve been born again! Just like the message itself, it appeals to our ease-of-use, quick-fix mentality.
Now on to the interview. I didn’t see it, but I have to make several observations about the opportunity that Osteen was given:
1. His chosen profession is, obstensibly, to give the gospel.
2. His chosen faith demands that he give the gospel.
3. I have to believe he KNEW he was going to be on the show.
4. Therefore, NOTHING should have deterred him from giving a vigorous defense of his faith.
Now in his “defense”: It sounds as though the “gospel” he gave to Larry King is the same as the one he gives to the home audience, so in that sense he is simply being consistent.
I have to agree with you Eric -I believe that his “apology” is simply damage control.
I appreciate when a spiritual leader will admit that they have been wrong. It’s a needed trait to have, especially among spiritual leadership, since we all have weaknesses that can bubble to the top of life-actions. Part of leading is leading in this area of life as well. However, should this glaring of an issue (not being clear as to the need and quality of the Gospel) be an acceptable level of weakness? I mean, we are not talking about moral weakness (drinking, pornography, gambling, etc.) but “message” weakness. It would seem that moral weakness is much more captivating in its allure than the ability/discernment in communicating the message of the Gospel. After all, it is the Gospel that is offensive. It is what the church is – offensive, that marks it as the Church.
I understand both sides and can articulate the merits, but the whole thing gives me pause. Historically, this is an anomaly among orthodoxy. Even people who created artificial means to show Gospel fruit like Charles Finney would never had backed away from the articulation of the Gospel. Never. Spurgeon would have burned the place down with his reply and Jonathan Edwards would have set fire to the audience with his God-centered view of the character of God and salvation. He would not have bumbled around for an answer that really said nothing in the end. Think about it: George Whitfield, Adoniram Judson, Charles Wesley, D.L. Moody, etc., what would they have said? The contrast gives new meaning to “stark.” If an apology is needed, would it be better to return to the scene of the crime? Why not ask Larry King to return to the show and reply in full? Fruit is the natural by-product of repentance is it not?
I am concerned that we watch ourselves (forget about Joel Osteen for a moment), and try not to fit in so much that we start hiding our light lest we be seen. We need to pray for Joel and us to articulate the Gospel in a way that leaves God as lover and avenger at the same time. Trust our Gospel presentations to God and let Him dictate blessing or persecution for our future. We must be concerned with faithfulness to the life and message of the Gospel. May God grant me/us this more and more as we see the day approaching.
Correction to my last – the passage on accountability is in James *3*, not James 2.
I think this is like those videos that we saw about Christians’ ideas about how to share the Gospel. We now have an entire generation of people that don’t understand their faith but have grown up in church knowing at some point in time they prayed a prayer “accepting Jesus” so surely they must be Christians.
Ineffective churchs producing ineffective members that end up being ineffective preachers.
I happened to hear a bit from Hank Hanegraaff today about a transcript of one of Joel’s sermons that seemed like a Hollywood screenplay of final showdown between Christ and Satan in Hell after the crucifixion. (Which is where in the scripture?) He also teaches “word-faith” from the pulpit.
Let’s contrast the way Franklin Graham and Joel Osteen represent Christianity. I do not have a link (it’s a pop up and over my technological head – help?), but here is how you get to it. Go to Fox News and select the “featured video” and then pick “The O’Reilly Factor” video link on the lower left side of the player. Then look for “Religion and Politics” with Franklin Graham’s picture on the screen shot.
Check out how he represents the faith and Gospel to Bill. It is very interesting to see the contrast. I am curious as to your thoughts.
FYI. It may rotate off soon, so get to it quick.
As compared to Joel, Franklin has a much clearer understanding of who God is and the condition of man. At no time did I hear Franklin mention anything about our best or being a champion, but in a five minute video clip I heard him twice mention that every knee would bow and worship Jesus as King. His emphasis was on God and Jesus, not man and our potential. There is a fundemental difference between the two. Joel is an ear tickler with little or no understanding of the nature of man or God and Franklin seems to rightly apprehend who God and man are. One pleases the ear and man, one does not.
I would agree that Joel was perfectly consistent on the Larry King show with what he teaches. Unfortunate but true.
Just keep in mind that Joel’s goal is to take the torch and build on the “successful” models from those such as Robert Schuler and Norman Vincent Peele to continue their “positive thinking” message to the world. Joel adds a Word of Faith spin to the whole thing which actually fits well with the “positive thinking” format.
All this while throwing the truth of scripture out the window, and quoting verses or Biblical characters here and there as an attempt to make it all appear as Biblical and truth. This trend mixed with the mega-church seeker driven model is creating a new generation of “religious people” that might never understand the importance of their relationship with Christ, and the need to “Hide the Word in their hearts”. Hey we all feel good about ourselves, so it has to be right…right?
I recently quoted an old saying from those of us that dealt with this same kind of false/Christianity-lite teaching in the Norman Vincent Peele heyday. A perfect contrast…..”If you find Peele appealing, you will find Paul appalling.” The Apostle Paul that is….
Here is my new one for the masses and you heard it here first…..”If you enjoy Joel’s cajoling, you might forget the Father’s freedom.”
“Joel the cajoler”
Definition of cajole
verb {I or T}
to persuade someone to do something they might not want to do, by pleasant talk and (sometimes false) promises:
– He really knows how to cajole people into doing what he wants.
– I managed to cajole her out of leaving too early.
– The most effective technique is to cajole rather than to threaten.
I appreciate the comments on such a critical subject matter as to what the Gospel is and how we express it to a world in need. There can be other issues that are as great as the nature and expression of the Gospel, but nothing is greater. A final thought: Let’s make sure that on the “small-stage” God gives us that we are change-agents in entering into conversations with people in order to express the love and grace of God while, at the same time, praying for those on the “large-stage” who are falling woefully short of expressing truth with clarity and understanding.
I find it too easy to write in a small blog on the back-side of the internet about the need to communicate the Gospel and all the while not be communicating the Gospel to the person next to me. Let’s guard ourselves from being zealots on-line while being hypocrites in life.
Agreed. Got to show genuine love to people we disagree with and not be Christian bomb throwers when trying to explain our beliefs to people. I am so inclined to win the argument and maybe lose the soul or turn them off from the truth because of the messenger. Namely me. Definitely a work in progress!
A good read….we are being marketed like new McDonalds French Fries.
Earthly Empires
How evangelical churches are borrowing from the business playbook
C.A., can I “push back” on the article you sited? Is there something essentially bad about mega-churches? Can a church be large today (2,000 and up) and be healthy or is there an essential, Biblical error in being large? I guess I want to make sure it is unhealthy values that we warn people to avoid instead of simply being large. It can be deceiving to view the numbers thrown around in the article because they seem so large (over 60 million for a 7,000 seat auditorium in Woodstock?), but if you look at the population and consider the average cost of a home for the families who attend, then the cost is negligable.
Are there non-negotiable items that make any size church unhealthy? Shouldn’t that be the issue?
Two observations about that article.
1. It’s Business Week. They write about money. Anything in BW is going to focus on the “big business” aspect. As readers we need to bear that in mind, and not treat it as an indictment of the churches in question – at least not on the grounds that there is some “money stuff” going on. What they do with the money is certainly in play, though…
2. The most disturbing quote in the article: “Evangelicalism’s theological flexibility gives it the freedom to adapt to contemporary culture.” Ouch!
My conclusion: the typical Business Week reader reads this and sends an e-mail to his business partner, essentially saying, “Check this out – sounds like there’s a whole lot of church types with money to burn out there. The best part is they’re all packaged up in a few strategic locations we can target with a new campaign. Sounds like they’re not too hung up on all that ‘repent for the end is near’ stuff, so all we need is something that sounds good… any ideas how we can tap into this?”
Dan – I am not a fan of mega-churches or even most of the “institutional church” in general so my argument is very one-sided. I believe that much of the institutional church today has gone astray and lost it’s first love. If a simple house church based on Acts existed in our area we would probably be there. GF is the closest thing to a house church or open church that I have ever experienced, and we are very happy that God has put GF so close to our home. I am excited about what God is doing in my life this year, and putting GF in our lives.
“IMO” Luther’s reformation was a partial reformation where we got the doctrine correct, but left much of the methodology in place from the Catholic church. We replaced the priests with Senior Pastor/CEOs, and left the church to be run by the paid professionals instead of the people. In general we are distant from each other instead of a Body as Christ desires.
My previous writing and citing that Business Week article was to list the info about Joel, and how we are being marketed to come to church with flyers in the mail all the time with cool slogans or a promise of “good food” or “cool music” or “casual dress”. All seeker driven. Could you imagine a flyer that said “Come to our new church as we will teach the truths of the Bible; God’s word each week, and worship the Lord. We want to help you in your Spiritual Journey by getting to know you and helping you to deal with sin in your life, how to overcome it, and live in the freedom and joy that Christ desires for you and your family. Most importantly, how to start a Relationship with Christ if you do not know Him.” Though true, this would be considered either the lamest flyer ever, or considered a Bible thumping church that would turn some people off. Only the mature believer looking for a new church home would be interested. We don’t want to be tricked into coming to church and marketed to with a new gimmick that the SBC tooks donors money to get market research about. That is where the McDonalds French Fry comment came from.
Would you not agree that most mega-churches are very “seeker driven” and shallow spiritually? Spiritual milk and no meat…ever. “Willow Creekish” Some places like Joel’s church are not even providing Biblical teaching from a leader that publicly says on Larry King that only God knows the hearts of people in other religions, implying that Jesus is not the only way!
To me it is all “big business” and the pastor is the CEO and their job is to bring more people in and increase the bottom line.
Truth and the meat of the Word has never been popular or trendy in this world and never will be.
Do people get saved in Mega-churches? Absolutely. Are there some good “programs” going on in some of these places? Yes. Are people getting solid Biblical teaching and learning verses in their hearts to take out into the world the other six days of the week? Maybe but probably not. Will they ever? Can a pastor of a 2000+ member church really be a pastor/shepherd to these people and actually know them to be able to get involved in their lives? No way!
Andy Stanley of NorthPoint is the most Biblically sound Mega-Church pastor I know, but if you talk to most people that go there the draw is “Andy is great”. They have a hologram of him at their Buckhead church each week that looks like he is actually there. C’mon people! If Andy gets in a car wreck one day and goes home to the Lord, that church will probably suffer and die. It’s built around the man, and with the millions that must be paid to keep the machine running once it gets that big, the machine becomes a monster that must be continually fed at all costs. Look what happened to Charles Stanley. He just could not step down when he promised he would since his church and ministry might not survive it. Even his son Andy thought he should step down. Just sad stuff!
A small to medium church where people are authentic and transparent, the Word is taught without being ashamed, where the Body life is actually important, and where the leaders are not on a personal quest to enhance their resume or build an empire for themselves, but care for the people they serve is where I want to be.
There is nothing in the Bible to list when a church is too big, but it would seem practical that a church is too big when the pastors could not care for the flock and effectively know everyone and lead. What to do when and if that happens? I just don’t know.
Joinks Scoob! It’s 2:25am and I have to work today. I need a blog intervention again. Somebody please stop me from this blog-itus! Good night all. Surely nobody will read this till daylight so good morning!
Hey C.A., could you expand on that? I’m not quite sure what you meant… 😉
A couple quick reactions…
First, you wrote, “To me it is all ‘big business’ and the pastor is the CEO and their job is to bring more people in and increase the bottom line.” A fair question, perhaps – I have similar intuitions that it works that way in practice even if it’s not that way by design.
But what about the person who says, “To me, Grace Fellowship is ‘small potatoes’ and the elders’ job is to limit the congregation to those who hold a uniform, homogeneous set of views?” Uncharitable, perhaps, but you can see how someone could view it that way.
The same logical problem undermines both points, and it goes something like this:
Church X is (huge/tiny).One way to get (huge/tiny) is by being(unprincipled marketers/thought police).Therefore, Church X is (unprincipled/legalistic).
The flaw is in the second point: the fact that a possible explanation exists – and even seems to resonate with other assessments we could make – is inadequate to get you to the “therefore” conclusion.
Does that make sense?
My other reaction deals with the North Point example.
Having gone to North Point for a number of years, I know what you mean about the “Andy is great” thing. Never got to know the guy – he may be! But I remember, for example, how it seemed like every baptismal testimony had “…and then Andy…” as its turning point, not the work of Christ.
But I’d cringe all the same if someone said “…and then Dan…” from our baptistry.
I guess I’m trying to say that what you’re saying resonates with a lot of my informed assessments and “gut feel” intuitions, but I wonder if there’s not a measure of our current “disputable matters” teaching (7/10/2005 sermon: “The Law of Love in Action”, notes, blog) that deserves application here?
Hugh – I about fell out of my chair laughing when you asked me to expand on my point. Only a half page this time OK? 🙂
To me it’s really a matter of our intentions and heart. Unfortunately I tend to see the cloud in the silver lining when it comes to the institutional church and believe that “career pastors” must keep the flock happy and show results for job security. Just like a CEO. Many times that means growth in numbers or bigger and better buildings. Bigger and better buildings mean bigger expenses and in many cases financing (which I am against by the way). The cycle is the monster that will require the church to keep those people there and keep bringing more in to keep the cash flow moving along. There is also a tendency for leadership to go easy on people in the church that are the “big contributors” so they don’t leave. We have seen all this first hand, and causes the church to lose track of it’s real purpose for existence, lost it’s first love.
I don’t agree with the small potatoes comment as there is no question a pastor team like at GF can take care of and care about the needs the flock. Knowing everyone by name. If someone is looking for something more showy and flashy then they need to examine their hearts and see what God’s purpose for the church is as clearly laid out in the NT. There are defiantly legitimate issues with smaller churches when it comes to lickings in the “programs” to cover the needs of the average family, but how many “programs” do you think the early church in Acts had? They were just happy to come together and help meet each others financial and spiritual needs and worship together. That’s where the Body comes in. We are not supposed to leave everything up to the pastors to do for the flock. We should be there for each other. Our culture wants to be coddled and served. We also love to be entertained. There are many “shows” going on Sunday mornings all over the country with professional bands, singers, and pastors/speakers with focus on them. The people are in the audience staring and not participating. Truly an audience for a performance.
If anyone is talking about how great Dan is, or any one of the other leaders on the team, then we are guilty of focusing on the man, just as those are at NorthPoint. I love Kevin, Dan, Ken, and John, and each one has such different talents and gifts that seem to overlap so well. I was concerned when we first started coming and people were using the name “pastor Dan” when talking about him. That is a hang-up that I have gotten over. Dan seems to be the person we see up there the most, but all of the leaders are involved in different aspects of the Body at GF and it seems to work well.
Personally, I very much admire the stance of the leadership team at GF by them stating that numbers are not important, but people are. Giant Amen as they really get it!
(I Cor. 3:6)
“I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. (increase)
Many try so hard in their own power to do cool things to attract people that in some cases could be questionable. Let’s be faithful to the Lord by being the Body that He desires, and watch what happens. At GF maybe we are 500 people, or 150. All we can do is be faithful and let God bring people in. I should not be judging large churches just because they are large. My point was the vicious cycle that large churchs set themselves up for, and how people lose touch with the Body and leadership in those environments. Very easy to sink into the woodwork and never be seen, noticed, or cared about.
The GF slogan really sets the tone for everything within our local Body. “For God’s Fame”.
(John 3:30)
“He must increase, and I must decrease”
Let me clarify what I meant by the “small potatoes” analogy. I wasn’t suggesting the small church’s leadership can’t take care of the body, or that “showy and flashy” has anything to do with it.
Forgive me if clarifying any of this comes across as a smackdown or something – but my concern is, as you said, “for God’s fame,” and being clear runs the risk of sounding harsh sometimes. So I apologize in advance for anything that might sound uncharitable.
I meant that you leveled a charge against “megachurches” that strikes me as unfair. That doesn’t mean there’s nothing of substance to what you allege – I think one could make good arguments for what you’re saying – but I think a follower of Christ must be careful with charges like that.
To illustrate, I offered an analogy to show how someone could level a similarly unfair charge against our church…
Your charge against megachurches (I’m paraphrasing) was that they’re just cynical bottom-line commercial operations, based on the fact that, anecdotally, there seems to be a tendency for “big and broad appeal” to turn into “bad.”
That’s like saying our church is warped because, anecdotally, someone might have seen “small and orthodox” turn into “bad.” There’s no intrinsic cause-and-effect relationship there.
Don’t get me wrong – I have many of the same gut reactions you do. I just want to be careful that, as a church, we do not give anyone cause to take issue with us (or the God we serve) because we neglected to think something through.
Our reasons for thinking something are as important as the idea itself – arguably even more so. “What do you think?” is often a less important question than “Why do you think that?” Just as faith is only as valid as its object, the way we live out that faith is only as sound as the understanding that informs what we do and say “for God’s fame.”
Hugh – I agree with you on just about everything you said and took it in the spirit that it was intended.
No offence at all. This is a place to openly discuss this kind of issue, and here we are doing it as brothers. I love it!
These are not absolutes, just my opinions (strong ones) from observations and past experience working with leadership at churches. Obviously my comments cannot be a blanket statement but a generalization. In the past Mary and I were always trying 150% and wanted to badly to gain the favor of the leadership in churches, and to gain acceptance based on our performance in singing or leading worship. People were so distant from each other, and we thought this was the only way we could try to start a dialogue and get to know people. We quickly found that people are happy in their own secret places and did not want anyone else to come in. No transparency. The leadership was not leading and also secluded. These were in small churches so can you imagine how it must be in many/most large and megas? Many pastors feel they have to stay at arms length from their flock so they maintain their authority and respect. So sad.
I think I am really mixing up large, mainline institutional churches with some of the mega-churches.
Personally I would tend to believe that some of the non-mega but medium to larger churches are the ones with the pastor that is sweating blood and wanting to grow and have results to keep his job. The CEO mentality.
I think many of the mega-churches are sincere in that they really want to help people, and in most cases bring them into “A Growing Relationship with Jesus Christ” as is the motto/creed at NorthPoint. The problem in my mind is the seeker focus, the milk vs. meat, and the focus on the man. I take this seriously because this is how the next generation of “Christians” are being shown how to walk, and will influence all of the world for good or bad.
Most megas started out small with a passionate vision and grew from there. Some out of control. Can you answer me this question. Why does a church like Northpoint need to have a “branch” in Buckhead and now a new “branch” in Cumming with Andy as the pastor and speaker of all three? Why does Andy need to be holographically generated to the Buckhead church instead of another speaker. I believe it is because Andy is the draw and the focus, and though much of what he says is pretty good, people don’t want to hear anyone else.
Joel Osteen should be left outside of all these groups as he encompasses the mega-church look, but what people get is a weekly feel good motivational speech with no freedom from sin and no life in Christ being taught. Just our own “Personal Power”.
Like the megas, Joel really concerns me as the new face of evangelical Christianity to the nation, whether we like it or not. We don’t need a new generation of positive thinkers that only feel good about themselves and no understanding of sin and salvation. We need a new generation of people that know who they are in Jesus Christ and can convey that love to the world and to each other.
I consider us a “post-Christian” nation, and these kinds of issues are just the continued march of secularization and humanism in the church of Jesus Christ in the US. A slippery slope that we are barreling down……..In my opinion. 🙂
Thank God for havens like GF that are at least making an attempt at being authentic without compromising to attract and not offend without being legalistic.
Now, have we beat this dead horse into a sticky paste yet? I’m tired! 🙂
Thanks, and I am enjoying the healthy discussion.
Sorry to resurrect the dead thread.
The Reformation 21 blog has some thoughts on the dedication of Osteen’s new worship facility.
Thanks guys for the healthy discussion. I really enjoyed everything you had to say. I am googling things like this becuase my wife and I are concerned with the direction of our church. Thanks (if you get this)
Anthony, you are most welcome and thanks for joining the dialogue.