It seems to have started on 20-Jun-2005 when Joel Osteen appeared on CNN’s Larry King Live show.
Larry King posed the following: But you’re not fire and brimstone, right? You’re not pound the decks and hell and damnation? to which Osteen responded: No. That’s not me. It’s never been me. I’ve always been an encourager at heart. And when I took over from my father he came from the Southern Baptist background and back 40, 50 years ago there was a lot more of that. But, you know, I just — I don’t believe in that. I don’t believe — maybe it was for a time. But I don’t have it in my heart to condemn people. I’m there to encourage them. I see myself more as a coach, as a motivator to help them experience the life God has for us.
That sounds innocent enough - Osteen embraces love thy neighbor and the prosperity gospel over Jesus is the sole path to salvation doctrine. Sin of mortal sins - hearing that abomination on the air, a range of the evangelical community subsequently came down on the Osteen ministry like the four horsemen of the Apocalypse.
When you read the CNN transcript, it’s clear that Osteen’s ministry is by nature inclusive. He is clearly uncomfortable criticizing and condemning others, and that appears to extend to their choice of religion – an apparent no-no in the eyes of his critics.
King follows with: But don’t you think if people don’t believe as you believe, they’re somehow condemned? to which Osteen responds: You know, I think that happens in our society. But I try not to do that. I tell people all the time, preached a couple Sundays about it. I’m for everybody. You may not agree with me, but to me it’s not my job to try to straighten everybody out. The Gospel called the good news. My message is a message of hope, that’s God’s for you. You can live a good life no matter what’s happened to you. And so I don’t know. I know there is condemnation but I don’t feel that’s my place.
I think we all fill in pauses in conversation with "and so", "uh-huh", and "you know" - perhaps "I don’t know" was merely a verbal placeholder for a background thought process, or perhaps Osteen was struggling to remember the relevant scripture, but at least one of his critics has assumed the latter. As a teacher of God’s word, the evangelical community expects Osteen to have a pat answer, based on scripture, for all conceivable philosophical dilemmas. Is it possible that Osteen is/was unfamiliar with 1 John 5:13,19,20. Sure, it’s possible. Is it possible that Osteen was struggling because he hasn’t embraced the condemnation doctrine that is its converse - even more likely.
Outside the scope of his back-biting critics, Osteen is immensely popular. It seems likely that there are at least a few people that know scripture among the thirty thousand that listen in person and seven million that watch Osteen preach hope and faith weekly on ABC-Family. Yet his listeners and parishioners aren’t sending him nasty notes citing 2 Timothy 3:13 and accusing him of being an imposter, as Rapture Ready reported in Joel Osteen Can’t Tell You the Gospel/Doesn’t Know Who’s Going to Hell.
Others have criticized the lack of religious icons and symbolism in the converted stadium that serves as the Lakewood Church. Chris Wallace addressed another criticism: You don’t go deeply in your sermons into scripture. Again, why not? to which Osteen responded: I do talk about sin at the end of every one of our services back at home and at the end of the broadcast, but … as a pastor … that’s not my main calling, like Billy Graham’s. He was an evangelist. He went out and tried to win everybody to Christ. And I am ultimately trying to do that, but I’m trying to teach people how to live their everyday lives, and so I do focus on it, probably not as much as some people would like.
Osteen, in rather awkward interviews and some of his weekly sermons reinforces the value of faith, forgiveness, and deeds. He cites scripture anecdotally rather than dwelling on a studied analysis of each turn of phrase. That experiential focus raises the hackles of critics that interpret the Bible literally.
Drawing a constitutional law analogy, we’re witnessing the ecumenical equivalent of the struggle between strict constructionists and judicial activism, with Osteen landing firmly in the activism camp. While I certainly agree that the application of faith and positive thinking can be misplaced optimism, I have a very difficult time swallowing his intent as a negative message. Naïve maybe, but deliberately destructive? Absolutely not.
Dr. Terry Watkins labels Osteen a false prophet, but Osteen isn’t predicting anything at all, so he doesn’t fit the prophet role, thus rendering a true-false judgment logically infeasible. You don’t need to read Matthew 7:15 to figure that out, just a dictionary. Osteen is (perhaps naively) encouraging listeners to forgive others their transgressions, to cling to their faith and the familiar ‘God has a plan’ or ‘God is in control’ mantras … aren’t these the very essence of Christian faith? Watkins goes on to criticize Osteen’s financial success, as though Osteen has somehow hoodwinked or conned his audience out of their contributions. Osteen doesn’t ask for donations during his television broadcast, so the donations aren’t solicited. How do you fault that? Are there any other television ministries that don’t ask for donations during the broadcast? At the close of the show he recommends that everyone attend a local bible based church, in theory sending his listeners into the arms of his ‘competitors.’ Could he be more generous than that?
When he and his wife Victoria go on the road, they rent facilities they don’t own and sell tickets to cover the travel and presentation costs. If there’s anything left over, it goes into the church’s pocket as net revenue. Osteen has been criticized for profiting from the tax free treatment of churches. He didn’t draft the tax law – he’s just living by it. If anti-Osteen zealots really want to fix that situation, they can put words into action and lobby their representatives to eliminate the tax exemption for churches.
The extent of the anti-Osteen criticisms ultimately spawned a small element of interfaith support, though without specifically mentioning Osteen or the Lakewood Church. Despite such efforts, I think it’s extremely doubtful that ardent evangelicals will ever be outwardly tolerant of anyone that doesn’t sprinkle a bit of threatening hellfire and brimstone into each sermon to keep the faithful on the path.
Modern homo sapiens are still rather stunted in their ability to make rational choices (assuming that choice of religion is rational). We really need damnation, a Roman overseer with a long whip, and similar constant negative motivators to drive us onto the path of righteousness and ultimate salvation. Yet, embarking on and following a path absolutely devoid of sin can’t save non-Christians. Such literal interpretations condemn people like Gandi to eternal damnation. Could a more ludicrous argument possibly result from a faithful reading of the Bible? Osteen ultimately wrote an apology to Larry King (since deleted from joelosteen.com ), but memorialized on Terry Watkins’ Joel Osteen, True or False?, trying to map a diplomatic compromise between his on-air answer and the ecumenically ‘correct’ one. So the outcome is that the uncompromising bully the tolerant into accommodating, in the grand might-makes-right tradition of the grammar school playground.
The really depressing observation of the anti-Osteen ecumenical backlash isn’t the obvious intolerance of the Religious Right for their ‘uninformed’ brethren, but the clear signal that there is a substantial element in society that simply cannot face a new day with a live and let live attitude. Their unwavering convictions make life difficult for the faithful with a divergent vision, Joel Osteen being a prominent victim of their fervent persecution. As ardent as they are numerous, chapter and verse quoting Christians are as vocal and politically active as they are sure of their convictions. That’s not a good recipe for inclusive, broad-minded legislation.
The same religious groups that are jumping all over Joel Osteen are also regularly clamoring for government to reject Roe v. Wade, with their current efforts aimed at defining marriage to exclude people they define as immoral. Abortion is a slippery slope (it’s a life and death question, more than a moral one), but any civil definition of marriage clearly imputes state establishment of religion, since not all religions disapprove of gay marriage. In fact, all civil marriage legislation treads heavily upon the establishment clause, since some religions do not require monogamy. Barring an outright repeal of the First Amendment or the elimination of the establishment clause within, passing an amendment defining marriage is constitutionally infeasible and outside the scope of rational governmental action.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving has been hugely successful in passing open container laws, but the fact is that laws regarding driving under the influence already cover the important bases. Why do we need open container laws? So we can arbitrarily (yet legally) arrest people that haven’t yet violated the DUI limit? Open container laws criminalize a behavior that merely has the potential to blossom into something harmful. It should be a bridge too far. Can’t we wait until someone actually commits an overt act before we act against the ‘violator’, e.g. by driving irresponsibly or appearing to be disabled behind the wheel?
This same anticipatory threat justification is behind George W. Bush’s doctrine of preemptive defense. That’s government doublespeak for “we’re going to cut off your fingers so you won’t be able to pull a trigger against us in the future.” International law is ambiguous on the legality of preemptive defense, but the situation becomes clearer when you pull governments, diplomacy, and military might out of the picture.
Imagine two burly brutes in a saloon. After a time, Big Bruiser overhears something about Guerilla George, BB decides that a preemptive strike is his best defense, so he blows GG’s left leg off with the 44 magnum he always has at the ready. Later, in front of the judge, BB retells the rumors he’s been hearing about GG’s predilection for violence, inflammatory rhetoric against BB, and outright hatred of BB and his lifestyle. BB therefor claims that blowing GG’s leg off was defensive, as the logical response to the clear and present danger posed by GG’s hostile rhetoric.
How do you think the judge is going to rule? BB acted without overt provocation and is guilty of felony assault - simple, no controversy, no grey areas. It’s only a tenable doctrine for an imperialist superpower and radical terrorist groups. Any sovereign nation that doesn’t condemn BB’s actions has one of two motives: 1) To be supportive of BB so as not to jeopardize an existing relationship; or 2) Not to get on the bad side of the bully, thus avoiding being BB’s next target. It’s simple survival.
The bottom line is that legislators respond to constituent pressure, yet are frequently ignorant of Constitutional prohibitions, or (more likely) knowingly draft unconstitutional legislation with full knowledge of the extended financially arduous effort needed to overturn it. Expedient, politically motivated legislation often sticks around for decades before Supreme Court review, eroding the delicate fabric of liberty. Working class people don’t have the resources to wage such an extended battle, so the task of to fending off unconstitutional legislation falls to the wealthiest and most passionate individuals and organizations. Given the economic realities of fighting ill-conceived congressional action via judicial review, the ultimate result is a continual, perhaps inevitable, erosion of constitutional rights and guarantees. Had the founders been prescient enough to recognize this trend, perhaps they would have required that all legislation be vetted for constitutional erosion before it could be submitted for executive approval.
The two most often cited justifications for legislators whittling away at Constitutional guarantees are increased safety and the prevention of moral decay. Mandatory seat belt laws restrict individual freedom of action without any threat to society at large. Open container laws criminalize potentially dangerous behavior. Defining civil marriage already violates the establishment clause; defining it as a heterosexual union obviously denies various financial protections to members of the gay community.
Pro-life advocates would have you believe that they are preventing murder, but human childbirth is a bit more difficult for pregnant mothers than it is for pandas and polar bears. Beyond the immediate health risks associated with childbirth, you have about two decades of dedication to child rearing following a successful birth. If pro-lifers were really committed to saving unborn children, they would put money behind their exhortations to ensure that saved souls have a shot at a decent life. Of course if such generosity were a reality, it would inevitably be abused, so the endowment would never get off the ground. The point is that the issue has much larger scope than simply averting abortion - twenty years of financial and emotional responsibility follow immediate thereafter. Even if every woman could be assured a reasonable element of financial security to raise their child, no one can eliminate risks associated with childbirth, natural or Caesarean. The logical course of action is to leave the decision to the responsible parties to the maximum degree possible. That posture requires that the conscience and religious convictions of the individuals involved should be paramount to the opinions and desires of organized society. The logical conclusion one must reach is that governments should not legislate against womens’ right to abortion. Given that women carry the full burden of the risks of childbirth, womens’ rights should supersede those of donor men, so a civil process to protect an unborn child sired by a pro-life man should ultimately result in the pregnant woman having the last word.
The same foundation of morally righteous conviction also appears to be the root justification of nonsense like the preemptive defense doctrine. Such passionate conviction appears to bring with it a willingness to impose the associated doctrine on everyone within reach. Yet, policies that usurp the autonomy of individuals ultimately fail to elevate society beyond the barbarism and analogous delusions of the moral superiority expressed by Muslim fundamentalists in jihad against infidels. Consequently, the best possible use of elements of society that define themselves as morally superior to other segments is to put them directly across the firing line from equally fervent but opposite minded fundamentalists. In the grand tradition of Middle Ages might-makes-right, God grants victory to the most righteous. When the cordite clears, the humble serfs remaining will undoubtedly have a more tolerant social/religious environment in which to exercise their personal autonomy without recrimination, if for no other reason than that there will be fewer zealots on both extremes. Maybe not utopia, but a step in the right direction.
Further reading:
On the Preemptive Defense Doctrine…
Shooting First: The Pre-emptive War Doctrine Has Met an Early Death in Iraq
Bush Doctrine
Iraq and the ‘Bush Doctrine’ of Pre-Emptive Self-Defence
Philoso?hy Talk
U.S. Use of Preemptive Military Force: The Historical Record
