Craig, Mark’s talk directly addressed Osteen’s short clip. He faithfully showed the shortcomings of what was said in that clip.

G’day David,

As you can see I disagree.

Osteen was clearly talking about family and work place relationships.

Mark was talking about being persecuted for the faith....totally different subjects.

But perhaps we need to agree to disagree on this one.

Craig Bennett - 23 February 2008 12:55 PM

Do you preach to your congregation that they are going to have bad relationships at home because Jesus did?

In our family Bible reading a couple of days ago had us read Matthew 10:34-39. It was a touch odd - but good - to talk with our kids about why Jesus spoke about bringing a sword, setting a man against his father, etc. ‘A person’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ Of course, this should also happen in congregations.

(I haven’t seen the clip to which you are referring, though, Craig. So I’m not trying to disagree with your assessment of it. I simply don’t know.)

Hi Craig

I think you’ll fiind that Driscoll was critiquing the very framework that Osteen hangs most of those things on. in fact he was contrasting two completely different theologies.

The first is the metanarrative of Paul and Jesus - which is the story of the cross and victory, then suffering and then glory.
The 2nd is the false metanarrative of the prosperity movement -which is the story of victory and glory then more victory and more glory.

what Driscoll was saying and what I concur with - is that Osteen’s whole framework is perverted.

its like a car with a screwed chasis. It may look ok and shiny on the surface, it can have all the dings puttied up and polished over, it may even get you from A to B in relative style, but when its tested with a decent knock - it will crumble and possibly kill you.

If you know the car has a screwed chasis - you don’t buy it- you don’t even get in it - no matter how big the subwoofer and squishy the leather seats are - it is a spirtual death trap because it will not, it cannot, cope with suffering and a God who not only allows but instrumentally uses suffering.

we don’t preach bad relationships, we preach the cross and the cruciform life, whatever that might entail.

an excellent summation of the prosperity gospel here

Shane, I actually agree with what you said here.

think you’ll fiind that Driscoll was critiquing the very framework that Osteen hangs most of those things on. in fact he was contrasting two completely different theologies.

The first is the metanarrative of Paul and Jesus - which is the story of the cross and victory, then suffering and then glory.
The 2nd is the false metanarrative of the prosperity movement -which is the story of victory and glory then more victory and more glory.

what Driscoll was saying and what I concur with - is that Osteen’s whole framework is perverted.

However if we are going to do that, we have to ensure that the illustration matches what it is we are actually saying. So Mark should have perhaps put together a clip from various sermons to illustrate each point he was making.

However he didn’t do that and so many of his points, which I thought were well said, failed to specifically engage with what he showed Osteen saying.

There have been many occasions that I remember where Phillip Jensen was taken to task by the media, one a few years ago while in England. But the media failed to truly engage with what it was he said, and Sydney Angs got a little hot under the collar about it. In the same way, we have to ensure that if we are going to critique someone and illustrate it with what they are saying, then we have to make sure that we use an example that truly matches the points we are making.

The example linked to failed to do that and therefore it was a little dishonest in its approach.

I