Shane Rogerson - 20 February 2008 09:36 AM

here’s the rub - how do you convince this kind of person that something aint right

Hi Shane,

You need to be armed with a full diagnosis of what is happening with Joel Osteen and similar, rather than just a description of symptoms.

This will enable you to focus on the deep issues, rather than the surface images when discussing Osteen etc with someone.

The material from Dr Michael Horton (pun intended) that I linked to earlier in this thread is the best I have heard/read on this topic and I recommend it to you.

If I had more time I would post a precis here but I can’t look at that for several days at least......

Don’t be distracted by the occasional folksy Americanism on Horton’s radio messages/discussions....
you have to rise above those cultural barriers....8-)

Unmerited favour and peace,
Terry

Regarding the interview between Osteen and Wallace, here’s the full transcript if anyone is interested:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318054,00.html

Hi Shane
How do you convince someone that truth is more important than a nice feeling? Or even than keeping everybody happy and not making waves?

Wish I knew.

one of the difficulties we face is our own trojan horse called pragmatism.
Often within confessional evangelicalism we are unprincipaly pragmatic in a heap of areas including numbers. So when we see a ministry that has thousands and a global influence we instinctively baulk and think - they must be doin something right.  In deed they might, but then other zeitgeist notions like ‘ it is wrong to judge’ or ‘ there’s nothing wrong with a positve message’ or ‘nobody like a critical person’ come into play.

It seems everybody wants God’s good gift yet few want his gift of discernment ...

I wonder if many in our churches are susceptible to the gospel of triumphalism because we struggle to teach and embody the theolgy of the cross.

Good questions Shane.

I think we also have to admit there is a level of Biblical triumphalism that we don’t preach. In that often the evangelicals preach more about the death of Christ and not much about his resurrection and accession. I can see the hackles rising, and say down guys, let me go on.

Firstly there are some elements in the church that take this triumphalism to far such as the Copeland’s and perhaps Osteen’s. Yet perhaps because of them we are frightened to preach about God is with us in an ever present presence helping us through our trials and tribulations that we must face.

It seems to me that often when ever Job is preached we are left in the beginning or middle of the book and its not preached how God healed and blessed Job more abundantly. We are not taught to pray expectantly that God will answer our prayers only that he might do so. And not to expect too much from God in this lifetime, its all in the future…

I would say that part of the reason for Pentecostalisms success is that they continually preach that God is with them in their endeavors, believe it and step out in faith believing for big things, and we tend to shrink back a bit from doing that in case we come across as being a little bit too triumphalistic.

I would say that we need to look at what some of these people are doing well that we can accommodate into our own churches without distorting the message, instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Cloud is a hard-hitting fundamentalist, and most on the SA forum despise him for that. (At least he does his research and his claims are well documented and referenced.)

Andrew, I don’t know how you would know what people think about David Cloud. I would guess that many members of this forum would never have heard of him.

Cloud comes across as arrogant and proud, and seems to be against almost every other Christian. It seems to me that some Christians want to put themselves in a very narrow circle which excludes everybody else.

The assumed answers to the questionnaire for joining the Way of Life association of churches are an illustration of this. Would Calvary Baptist churches be acceptable, Andrew?

His articles on music sound racist and silly. I can’t see how it is necessary for Christian music to sound completely different from all other kinds of music.

Having said this, in listening to Mark Driscoll’s talks on Philippians entitled A Rebel’s Guide to Joy, I find the music at the end of the talks, which is a song by a writer whom they have briefly introduced, appalling.
They are usually new, inferior tunes set to some classic hymns, or else a very badly done version of the original hymn. Do you like this stuff Schwarzey?

Hi all!!

Regarding pragmatism and the “gospel of triumphalism”, I suspect many times when Christians emphasise on these at the expense of solid Bible teaching centred around the cross of Christ, they are only hearing what they want to hear.  I am reminded of a passage in 2 Timothy 4:1-5:

1In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry. (NIV)

The reason Paul tells Timothy to “Preach the Word” (v2) is because the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine, and would rather gather teachers around them to say “what their itching ears want to hear”, to suit their own desires (v3).  What is also sobering is v4: “They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths”, which I believe happens today in many settings, including various churches.

But then comes v5, which I believe is an encouragement amidst all the noise of pragmatism and triumphalistic type preaching.

Having said this, I don’t believe that pragmatism in itself, is wrong.  I do believe that once we’ve heard correct Bible teaching, we should know how to apply its truths in a very practical way.  For example the command to “love your neighbour as yourself”, you wouldn’t want to just leave the application as “okay, we should love our neighbour”.  Perhaps we could be more specific, like being gracious in the way we speak to Christians from a pentecostal background, with a view to gentle correction or just to encourage them in their walk with God, rather than criticising them to the extent (I certainly don’t think that constructive criticism is wrong) that we are condemning them and therefore not helping them to grow in godliness (I hope I’m not implying that anyone here is guilty of that, rather I thought this would be a good example of a practical application).

Triumphalism?  Well, I think a great biblical example is 1 Cor. 15 about the resurrection.  I’ll quote the last couple of verses:

57But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

58Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

It’s an encouragement for us to keep on persevering in the Christian walk, that we can keep on giving ourselves fully to the work of the Lord, knowing that our labour in him is not in vain, because of the victory that is ours through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Death has been swallowed up in victory!!  Jesus is risen from the dead, and we will follow likewise!!  I believe this is something we can confidently proclaim without having to feel ashamed about it :) .

Regarding numbers, I think we would be wise to know that lots of numbers wouldn’t necessarily indicate that the ministry or church is doing something right.  I mean, they might be, as Shane pointed out.  I think a good example of this not being right is the Christian cult Mormonism.  No doubt they would have started off with a few people, but now their membership numbers in the millions (I think this is correct).  The same goes for Islam, the second largest religion in the world, numbers-wise.

Regarding the statement “there’s nothing wrong with a positive message”, again this wouldn’t always hold true.  If someone were to preach that all will be saved, despite sounding positive, there will be consequences of eternal dimensions.  It is definitely unbiblical and a downright dangerous and deceptive teaching.  There are definitely some who would preach that.  I think they are called “universalists”, or something like that.

Regarding pentecostal Christians, I must admit that there are things I admire about them.  Certainly one of those things is that for a lot of them, God really is real in their lives, by the way they joyfully praise God in their songs (as opposed to just mere hype), by how they involve God in their everyday lives and so on.  I’m exactly sure how to be more specific, and I’m sorry if this seems a bit vague, but I hope you can understand a little of what I mean.  Of course their teaching would normally be a weakness.

For those churches which are strong in Bible teaching, I think we need to be careful that it doesn’t merely become theoretical and academic.  Good theology should touch our hearts and change our lives to be more like Christ.  For example, the doctrine of the resurrection should be a great encouragement to us as Christians to persevere in our walk with the Lord as detailed above.

Craig says:

“I would say that we need to look at what some of these people are doing well that we can accommodate into our own churches without distorting the message, instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.”
Agreed :) !!

I think the triumphalism I refer to is an eschatologoy that says the Kingdom has arrive and the time of suffering and patient waiting has gone (or is going)
it is the Kingdom without the crucifixion
the cup without the cost
the crop without toil
it is the crown without the cross

more than conquorers yes amen amen amen
but no less than cross bearers until his glorious return

Hi Shane!!

Shane said:

“I think the triumphalism I refer to is an eschatologoy that says the Kingdom has arrive and the time of suffering and patient waiting has gone (or is going)
it is the Kingdom without the crucifixion
the cup without the cost
the crop without toil
it is the crown without the cross

more than conquorers yes amen amen amen
but no less than cross bearers until his glorious return”

As in Christians shouldn’t be suffering in this world, and if they are, then there is something wrong with their faith in God?

no quite the opposite

What on earth are you talking about Andrew? People preach against prosperity teaching all the time. No one has a problem with calling people out for their errors either. If anything Sydney has a reputation of bashing Hillsong (for instance) too much! But where does this ‘you and Cloud’ martyrdom come from? And this “modern church” conspiracy stuff? It seems completely contrary to what happens here, at least.

BTW, doesn’t it seem odd that according to yourself you have to strip away Cloud’s language to see the things you describe? That’s not my argument, it’s yours! Shouldn’t you see them because of his language, not in spite of it? Oh well..

G’day Andrew you asked me.

Craig B, when you say we need to ‘criticise in love,’ can you be a little clearer?

By this I mean we have to ensure that what we are criticising about someone is the truth, rebuke where needed, but also acknowledge it when the person does speak the truth.

Take for example what I said about Mark Driscoll’s talk regarding the section from Osteen’s sermon. There were a number of comments he made which did not equate to what I heard Osteen say. For example - Osteen said, my paraphrase

What is your attitude towards God going to be like when your bank balance is zilch?
It doesn’t matter how much money you have in the bank if your family life sucks - what are you going to do about it?
Also what about the relationships you have with people at work, do you need to reconcile with them?

Now it seems to me that these are real Biblical subjects that Osteen touched upon - he wasn’t talking about being persecuted for your faith which is an entirely different subject - which Mark Driscoll maligned him for.  Therefore I think that some of what Mark said in relation to Osteen was dishonest and therefore was not speaking the truth in love.

If Osteen had of said, You will never suffer any hardship from others as you preach and share the Gospel then Marks criticism would have been spot on, but it wasn’t what Osteen was talking about.

As I said before, I don’t listen to or watch the TV guys mentioned, but if we are going to critique them I think we have to listen carefully to what it is they are saying...and not just what we want them to be saying or think they are saying...and acknowledge truth when it is spoken and when it is not.

I would also say, You are not in a position to be speaking into Osteens life, but perhaps the best thing you could do is to pray for him and his congregation in the way the Apostle Paul would pray in Eph 1:15 - 20

Andrew you asked

Out of curioity, does your church speak on subjects such as faith healings, prosperity, tongues etc? And would it call out people by name?

Kind regards. 

I’m not sure what you mean by call people out by name?

There are times at church when the pastor will ask if there is any one sick in the church to indicate it by putting up their hands and the church will pray for us if so. I don’t know if you know it, but I am going through a particular hard time at the moment through illness, and personally I find it very comforting, strengthening and encouraging during and after these times of prayer.

I would hope that every church preached on faith, and I’m not sure what you mean by prosperity? Its my opinion that God wants us to prosper - not in a greedy selfish way, but to prosper in our attitudes, relationships, work, homes, church, etc prosper in love, joy, peace, kindness, self control… if you mean come to Jesus and get filthy rich then nope, I have never heard a sermon like it.

Our church does believe that God heals today and so yes we do preach it, and obey the scriptures about praying for the sick...i personally have prayed over the years and seen many miracles / healing happen to others and have also received healing before as well.

Yes we are a Pentecostal church and so we do preach about tongues being valid for today and I use the gift myself. You can read an assignment I did regarding the gift of tongues and how it relates to Pentecostal Doctrine here

But you know what, our church also preaches on the glory of Christ and him crucified, that you must be born again, that you must repent of your sins, that Christ is the way the truth and the life....and that is the most important part

Now it seems to me that these are real Biblical subjects that Osteen touched upon - he wasn’t talking about being persecuted for your faith which is an entirely different subject - which Mark Driscoll maligned him for.  Therefore I think that some of what Mark said in relation to Osteen was dishonest and therefore was not speaking the truth in love.

Hi Craig,

I had watched Mark Driscoll’s sermon twice “Philippians: The Rebel’s Guide to Joy” on the subject of Joel Osteen.  Now, I tend to agree with Driscoll’s assessment in this.  I have the Australian Christian Channel at home and have watched Joel Osteen’s program quite a few times, and some of his sermons, he never made references from the Bible, neither the name of Jesus was ever mentioned.  He always says the same things all the time “We are victors and not victims”. Osteen always talks about looking good and feeling great.  Now there is nothing wrong with a positive outlook in life - but he tends to ignore the sin problem.

Hi Greg,

I’m not saying that there is no problems with Osteen or his message. I am saying that we have to be honest in being critical. My remarks were in regards to the video link David Mackay linked to previously of Mark Driscoll.

BTW I am a fan of Driscoll and enjoy most of his sermons. From the short segment that Mark showed of Osteen it was a dishonest critique of it, for the reasons I posted. I think all of us could be painted with the same brush of not using scripture or talking of Christ in our sermons if someone happened to take a two minute segment of our sermon and decided to critique it, which would not be a fair or honest critique of what was truly said, or the context of why it was said.

On another note, do we have to actually mention a specific Scripture in our sermons / talks etc for our talks to be Scripturally correct. Don’t get me wrong here I think there is a huge danger of going down that street and so I’m not advocating for it.

In critiquing the short video segment that David linked to, was Osteen talking about Biblical subjects and asking Scriptural questions, even if he didn’t specifically mention Scripture in that short segment.

I would also say that Osteen was talking about sin in his speaking about unreconciled relationships, though he didn’t specifically mention the word sin in that short clip. If someone in that congregation did have a bank load of money and yet had a terrible family life...and that man went home and started putting his home life into order - wouldn’t you say that that man recognised his sin and was truly repenting of it?

Or if someone was having trouble at work with a certain person or persons and went to work and sorted it out, would you say that that person has actually repented of their sin?