For thousands of years the people of God have been engaged in an ongoing discussion as to what is the line that separates believers from non believers. I'm always interested when people who represent factions that essentially argue for no limits, all of a sudden start to get dogmatic about who isn't a Christian.
We've recently seen a lot of uproar about how Joel Osteen is now a horrible human being and should probably be excommunicated from Christendom because he didn't open up his church for Harvey victims.
Don't mistake this for an endorsement. There are plenty of us who have been vocal for years about Osteen and his tribe of prosperity/self help gospel teachers. So, first I say, thank you all for finally acknowledging that there are some boundaries that define what Christianity is and is not.
Having said that, these are (by and large) people who won't blink an eye when various "christian leaders" deny things like the existence of God or the deity of Christ. That's being inclusive and trying to have a "big tent". But heaven forbid that someone not live up to some arbitrary standard of hospitality.
What I find most amusing is the insistence that Osteen lose his "tax exempt" status, because he's worth $40 million. This is one more example of people who don't understand things trying to capitalize on their ignorance.
For starters Osteen DOES NOT have "tax exempt" status. Got that, he DOES NOT have "tax exempt" status. The church he pastors DOES, he DOES NOT. That means that every dollar that he's earned to accumulate his millions was taxed, since much of his income is from sources other than his church salary, it's probably taxed at a higher rate than the complainers. The more you make this claim, the ore ignorant you look.
On top of that, there is no requirement in either Church tradition or ecclesiastic law that requires pastors to automatically open their church in times of need. I'm not arguing that he shouldn't have. I'm certainly sure that it's a horrible PR move (both personally and from a big picture faith wide perspective).
But of all of the things Osteen has done that might place him outside of the bounds of "Christianity", this one seems like small potatoes compared to the rest of the heretical crap he teaches.
I guess it'll have to be enough to see that there is at least some lines that can't be safely crossed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I think we probably largely agree on this (although, I'm not sure that there are any serious calls for "excommunication" from any entities over this). His gospel he teaches IS problematic, as compared to what Jesus taught. AND his behavior this week does not appear to have been very Christ-like (although, I really haven't followed it closely).
The place where we may disagree is that I'm saying that prosperity gospel type messages are not in fitting with Jesus' teachings. I'm not, on the other hand, saying that Osteen isn't a Christian. The more fundamentalist amongst us appear pretty ready to tell everyone who is and isn't out. As if they know.
Dan
If that's your best take, then you must not be paying attention. "Excommunication" was hyperbole. For all I know there's probably folks condemning him to hell.
My point is that Osteen and his ilk have never accurately represented either the Church, nor the teachings of Christ. For most who've been paying attention, that's never been an issue.
My point is that you're side is perfectly willing to accept all sorts of heresy (up to and including denying the existence of God), and are to pusillanimous to draw the line there. Yet are willing to throw Osteen to the wolves for not doing something he wasn't obligated to do under any rational reading of scripture.
Should have, could have, sure. But required to, no way.
I'm just pointing out the latest instance of hypocrisy on the left, and appreciating the fact that your side isn't willing to say that nothing is beyond the pale.
The fact that you're trying to excuse the hypocrisy just makes my point more clearly.
1. I'm agreeing with your point.
2. Liberals have always found Osteen distasteful.
3. Thus, there is no hypocrisy in finding this latest to be distasteful, as well.
4. If you agree with liberal Christians who think we should take the words of Jesus seriously, and agree with the sheer volume of Jesus' clear teachings warning about the trappings of wealth and the liars/cheaters/abusers who use their faith to accumulate wealth, you would find nothing surprising in our distaste in this latest news, to the degree that it's accurate.
5. Presumably, you agree with liberal Christians that Jesus teaches against this Rich Christian philosophy of Osteen, so I'm not sure what "hypocrisy" you're trying to charge us with.
But go ahead, kick against the goads if you wish.
1. With parts of it
2. Really, "liberals" as in all liberals? Or just some.
3. I never said there was
4. I agree that there are liberals who have taken Jesus words and attempt to use them to negatively portray those who they perceive as "too rich".
5. My agreement isn't with with those on the left who've decided to join those of us who've been speaking out against folks like this for years.
The hypocrisy is the fact that "liberals" in general and you in particular have zero problem with all sorts of heretical ideas and the people who hold them.
John Shuck
Dominic Crissan
Rob Bell
Greg Boyd
Brian McLaren
I could go on, but won't. Y'all (you specifically) can't/won't even admit that someone who denies the existence of God is outside the realm of Christian orthodoxy, and is welcome in the big tent. But heaven forbid some idiot doesn't throw open the church doors when y'all think he should.
That's the hypocrisy. Perhaps you missed it the first two times I said it.
Dan would seemingly prefer to use this post as another opportunity to promote his "simple(minded) living", which is no more a teaching of Christ than is Osteen's prosperity gospel. Indeed, Dan's is the polar opposite, the poverty gospel, with both suggesting that Christ was concerned about economic status either way. He wasn't. So I submit that Osteen and Trabue are two sides of the same coin.
I also wonder if Dan has any polling numbers of those who follow Osteen's preaching in order to determine who many of them are or are not themselves liberal politically. The point here is really the arrogance of speaking for all liberals, when speaking only of his own opinion of Osteen is all he can truly confirm (assuming he's speaking truthfully---not something I feel comfortable assuming at this point).
No, of course I don't have statistics about liberals opposed to Ostend's message. The point, fellas, is that liberals do not tend to like those who appeal to wealth and getting wealthy, especially preachers who do this. Liberals tend to value simple living and devalue "get rich with God" type appeals.
Do you all seriously think that liberals DO like Osteen's message?
The point I was making is that we don't tend to say, "That person is not a Christian," not in any serious way. We tend to say things like, "That message is not fitting with Jesus' message." and leave judgments of one's Christianity up to God.
You guys are the ones who like to presume you can tell who is and isn't out, not liberals. Thus, it's not hypocritical for us to find these teachings/actions distasteful, just as we didn't find his earlier teachings/actions distasteful. The error you're making is in presuming that we find this current behavior a "line that he crossed" but not earlier behavior.
Dan
Ok Dan, if your going to choose to ignore the point of the post, which you've had two opportunities to get, you'll be done here.
The fact that you can spin the silence from "the left" into some sort of criticism of Osteen, while pretending that there aren't folks on your side doing what you say "the left" doesn't do and ignoring welcoming all sorts of folks whose message doesn't fit with Jesus message.
Clearly you've chosen to ignore my point and twist it into something else.
I guess you've given up any pretense of honesty.
"The point, fellas, is that liberals do not tend to like those who appeal to wealth and getting wealthy..."
Rather surprising given how many liberals are both wealthy and working toward acquiring more wealth. This would include most of Hollywood, musicians and singers, corporate people like Mark Zuckerberg, uh...George Soros and other very, very wealthy people. Indeed, liberals love all these people simply because these people are also liberals.
As to liberal "Christians", dismissing wealth and wealth accumulation is typically posturing. They love wealth and the wealthy as it is those people the liberal Christian expects should pay for everything they wish to impose upon others.
"Do you all seriously think that liberals DO like Osteen's message?"
I seriously think you have absolutely no clue as to how many liberals not only approve of Osteen's message, but also consider themselves followers. I know I don't, so I wouldn't presume to speak for them. YOU certainly shouldn't, either.
"You guys are the ones who like to presume you can tell who is and isn't out, not liberals."
We presume nothing. We simply acknowledge the clear and unambiguous teachings of Scripture and aren't afraid to say when a given behavior fails to align with those teachings, or worse, clearly is a rejection of those teachings. It's rather Biblical to do so in fact.
I'd put it like this. We look at what God has communicated through scripture,and we look at how people's words, beliefs, and actions line up with that. If they are diametrically opposed to scripture, then we conclude that they probably aren't "Christian" in any meaningful sense. Beyond that, it's up to God.
But, why would someone who denies the existence of God really be that concerned.
Post a Comment