You Go J-O!

by Becky Garrison 05-05-2009

090505-joel-victoria-osteen When I found out A Night of Hope with Joel & Victoria would be playing in New York City, at the brand new $1.5 billion Yankee Stadium, I knew I had to attend this concert. (Sorry, but if you charge admission, I no longer call it a worship service).

Prior to the show, Joel and Victoria Osteen held a 15-minute press conference.

Hello this is Becky Garrison with Sojourners. You’re here at ($1.5 billion ) Yankee Stadium not that far from Wall Street. What do you want to say to New Yorkers who are going through this current financial crisis?

JOEL: I would say to them probably what I’m going to say to most of the people today. Keep your head up. Keep believing that good things are going to come, that this is a season that we will pass through. Really don’t get negative. Don’t get bitter. Don’t get discouraged cause that just draws in more of that negativity. So, I’m going to encourage people that we all go through difficulties. But I think God can bring us out and he can somehow bring us out better. So, just try to inspire them to keep believing.

No clue where Jesus is, but I suspect he’d rather not play ball at this stadium.

Now, it’s show-time. Given there were still well over 10,000 seats available, they didn’t really hit a homerun out of this ballpark. Even though the show didn’t sell out, we were all told we’re still champions of hope, victors not victims. Be a believer not a doubter. Guess mentioning the cost of the cross might be too much of a devotional downer.

I confess I’m not a major fan of crusades in general. They just don’t speak to me spiritually. Having said that, when I attended the Billy Graham Crusade in Flushing Meadows, I got the sense I was in the presence of a man of God. But the Osteen inspired happy-happy-joy-joy multimedia extravaganza made me wonder if I was at a worship service or a motivational seminar.

Once the praise music faded away, Joel and Victoria took the stage. After Joel rejoiced how tonight he gets to live his dream of playing professional baseball and prayed for this spanking new stadium, Joel and Victoria regaled the crowd with a replay of their favorite hits. Most of what I’m hearing seems to be eerily similar to Joel’s Madison Square Garden concert that I covered back in 2006. Has their faith not evolved in these ensuing three years? Surely folks as well-traveled as the Osteens might have some new stories they can tell. Victoria could share her latest adventures with airline attendants for starters.

By sheer coincidence, Dan Merchant, the author and director of Lord, Save Us From Your Followers was sitting right next to me. When I complained I had seen this motivational multimedia show before, he reminded me that I might say it (as a rock show expert): “People come to rock shows expecting to hear ‘the hits’ citing how the Rolling Stones play ‘Satisfaction’ at every concert.” He added, ”Like the Stones, Osteen’s Night of Hope hits the same buttons. Charisma, emotion, nostalgia, dramatic staging (gorgeous night, amazing new ball park), a sense of community—all Osteen was missing was the flashpots and a B-stage in center field.”

But when Joel and Victoria welcomed Matt and Laurie Crouch on to the stage, this went from being another glam and glitter religious rock show to a prosperity gospel pow-wow. Behind these mega-million watt smiles and the hair that praises Jesus lurks a ministry that makes the ’80s era PTL Club seem like Little House on the Prairie. I don’t recall nearly this much gospel-lite glitter when I caught Billy Graham in action.

But here’s where the Osteens really deviated from the Billy Graham Crusade plan. On top of the $15 admission fee, Joel Osteen Ministries passed the bucket “to support future events like this one.” Double dipping like this doesn’t sit well with me when the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) will be carrying this live throughout the world via the network’s 33 international satellites. Once one factors in how much money they stand to recoup from this broadcast, one has to wonder why they couldn’t let people in for free and then take a free-will offering. If the Dalai Lama and Billy Graham can host free events that attract even more followers, why couldn’t they do likewise?

Then there’s the not so itty-bitty problem with their charity of choice. Doing food drops in New York City via Feed the Children sounds like a noble gesture (though naming a facility “The Victoria Osteen Abandoned Baby Center” is just downright creepy.) But this charity has consistently received an F grade from the American Institute of Philanthropy for low program spending and high fundraising costs.

As I’m watching everyone raise their hands and reach into their wallets, my heart sinks. I know many people flock to Joel because they love his hope-filled message. And yes, we do need people who can present positive images of Christianity given how Christians are often portrayed as Fred Phelps and Ann Coulter’s love child. But what is Christianity without the cross? Also, I just hate watching people fill up on faith fast food when I know there’s so many other healthier Charismatic communities where they can raise their hands and really do some good for God.

Becky Garrison reported on the media coverage of this event at Religion Dispatches.

Categories: Economics, Ministry

Travis Mamone

Ah yes, the prosperity gospel at its best . . . or worst, I should say.

RozFruchtman

Becky:

I was at Yankee Stadium and enjoyed myself emensely.

This is the fourth time I have seen Joel Osteen in NYC.

The reason why they charge a nominal amount for tickets is to keep order. If people could just walk in there would be a mob scene. They explained that at one of the events - not this one - I do not think.

I do NOT consider myself to be highly religious, spiritual yes, but NOT religious. And yes... I did give. I felt it in my heart to do so. Was not a lot, but it was something. I enjoy Joel's positive message. It's better than the doom and gloom we live with 24/7.

I am Jewish and to be honest I would not be confortable with a highly religous Christian service. This is not a crime. Joel ministers to everyone. That is not a crime either.

Sounds to me like you have an axe<sp> to grind!

Roz Fruchtman
http://www.SayItWithEcards.com

PeiHaus

Insightful and enjoyable article, Becky. Your writing brings to mind Barbara Ehrenreich's witty style.

Like you, I also worry about the lack of Jesus and his work on the cross in Joel's ministry (if you will). I can't help to think that all the money and resources required for that one event instead could have been used to bring real hope and joy to the poor of NYC.

jeffp

I am pleasantly surprised to read a SOJO article that criticizes a ministry for not preaching the cross. You are right on with each criticism. There are some person jabs that you take that are unnecessary.

Osteen's message is inspiring and hope-filled, but it is not the gospel. I pray the church will reject both the cross-less prosperity gospel and the cross-less social gospel.

squeaky

To say the so called social gospel is cross-less ignores the fact that Jesus cared very much about social issues. The cross was a huge part of His ministry, but so was the example He gave concerning what the Kingdom looks like and values. Ignoring that ignores a huge aspect of His ministry and what it means to be His follower. It isn't an either/or question.

jeffp

Your response assumes that a critique of the "social gospel" is a dismissal of the importance of social issues. If we emphasize any part of the gospel without the cross we miss the point. The cross is not just a huge part of Jesus ministry, it is the central point from which all of His current ministries flows.

Historically the social gospel failed because it was cross-less. If we are to be effective in serving the poor it must be done through the ministry of the cross.

squeaky

It would make sense to clarify what you mean about social gospel as you did above. Without the clarification, you risk being misunderstood.

jeffp

Fair enough, though I would not assume that a critique of the "Prosperity Gospel" is an outright dismissal of that fact that God blesses his people.

Any "gospel" without the cross is not the gospel. It seems we agree on this point. I attended meeting of Emergents. Their emphasis was the moral teachings of Jesus, specifically the Sermon on the Mount. Absent from their teaching was the cross. I believe even the moral teachings of Jesus without the cross is a false gospel. I'm not saying this is a reflection of every emergent.
I'm a Pentecostal, emphasizing the gifts and fruit of the Holy Spirit without the cross is also false gospel.

squeaky

I think we are probably seeing a reaction against the apparent lack of emphasis on social issues by conservative Christians. I'd rather the pendulum didn't go all the way in the other direction, but I suppose I'm not surprised. I'd like to see it reach a healthy balance. You are right--any "gospel" without the cross is no gospel. But I'm also beginning to see that any gospel without the Kingdom is severely lacking as well.

ando

squeaky, well said. I appreciate your response. Too often I've found this blog to be too confrontational, too dogmatic. We do need a healthy balance, as you said. I don't see it happening soon based on interactions among many on this blog. It's not enough to vote for Obama, as most of us did; we must not criticize anything Democrats or the non-Religious Right does. Thus, we cannot have any healthy discussion because those in power now are doing the same as the Right did.

jeffp

I think the reaction is not a lack of emphasis by conservative Christians, but the assumption that there is a lack. I covered over 40 counties for the Salvation Army and can tell you that though I worked withboth mainline and evangelical churches who emphasized social issues, the more conservative leaning evangelical churches were the majority.

1Grace

"any "gospel" without the cross is no gospel. But I'm also beginning to see that any gospel without the Kingdom is severely lacking as well. "

Squeaky glad you stated this . I know many of us realize how important giving to the poor is in regards to our Faith . Have been reading much scripture as of late and in a good Bible Study . I am seeing how highly important in the Old testament it was to support the poor and those without . . The prophets spoke to it often, and God judged Isreal on how they treated the least of us .

In my youth i went to a respectfull and popular Episcopal church . Never heard salavation or relationship with Christ preached on a personal level. The church did much good for the local community, and I speak highly normaly of the last impression I received there of the holiness of God . Social Justice without the Cross is just as ineeficient as the Cross without any concern of the least of us and those in need.

squeaky

"I am seeing how highly important in the Old testament it was to support the poor and those without "

Your observation reminds me of the story of how a good friend of mine came to Christ. I (and others) had witnessed to her on several occasions, but what brought her to Christ wasn't the thought of eternity in Hell. Rather, she responded to the Bible's message concerning the "least of these" which she found in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Some are turned off by the Old Testament because of the violence, but she was drawn in by it because of the mercy she found there.

jeffp

Serving the "least of these" is our act of love towards them and God. This flows from our relationship with God. Part of this expression is to share the gospel if the opportunity arises.

No matter how well this is done, there will be criticism. If we feed the poor our motives will be attacked "only interested in getting people saved in the hood" or created "rice bowl Christians".

The key is God working in each part of the process.

BlueDeacon

Your response assumes that a critique of the "social gospel" is a dismissal of the importance of social issues.

In fact, historically that's just what "fundamentalism" was about during the split in the 1920s. What the "fundies" missed then was that the concern for social issues in the rest of the church grew out of their understanding of the Gospel, specifically James' comment that "faith without works is dead." Had both sides understood that there would have been no breakup.

jeffp

Actually the "social gospel" of the late 1800's and early 1900's was a movement looking for a theology. It lacked the message of the redemptive work of God through Jesus and mostly disappeared by the 1920. They also did not understand that there good works flowed from the gospel.

Some conservative groups did over react to the "social gospels" false gospel by minimizing social concern ministries that predated the social gospel. They threw there own babies out with the dirty social gospel bath water. But many continued to serve the poor, but purposely did so quietly to avoid being associated with the "social gospel".

BlueDeacon

It went further than that. I grew up in one of those fundamentalist churches which was part of a denomination that had broken away from the larger "mainline" denomination in the 1930s, and while it had a lot in common with it there was clearly no fellowship between anyone who was "different." In retrospect (and it later came to see this) it was focused way too much of doctrinal purity at the expense of evangelism.

jeffp

And there are liberal leaning non-fundie churches that do the same thing for the same reasons. What's your point and how does it relate to the falseness of religious movements or fads that lack the teaching of the cross, right or left, up or down, current or in the recent or distant past?

BlueDeacon

The difference is that the "fundie" churches are often so full of rules you have to obey to appear spiritual that you can miss God in the process -- that was the problem with the Pharisees (Philip Yancey's "What's So Amazing About Grace?" makes many references to that). The "liberal" churches, on the other hand, often ignore or discount doctrine to a point that they don't even know who God is; I left such a church about 25 years ago for that reason. That was the reason Jim Wallis subtitled the "God's Politics" book "Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It."

Also, the more dispensationally-minded churches tended to dismiss social action altogether unless there was a direct link to evangelism because, in that view, getting people "saved" was the primary purpose of the church. Now, these folks had the "cross," so to speak, but only in a personally pietistic way, which was different from the properly holistic Gospel that (thank God) is being preached more and more today in evangelical churches.

jeffp

It seems as if you want to disagree with me even when you agree with me.

I've attended many dispensationally minded churches and know many dispensationaly minded pastors (100's) and have never seem a church or met a pastor that fits your often stated profile. I think you are trying to make a person view into a universal truth. BTW, don't you go to a Dispie church yourself (CMA)?

BlueDeacon

Actually, I base that on what former dispensationalists have told me personally, and former dispie Tony Campolo had actually written a chapter in a recent book about that. (Or perhaps you're just not aware of that.) Yes, I attend a CMA church, but because it has a number of non-dispie folks in it (I'm one of a strong minority of Calvinists) it has become equally focused on the here and now -- probably no church in our city does as much ministry as ours. (The senior pastor had even attended a Reformed seminary for a time.)

Anyway, my point is about the doctrine of sin -- what you referred to as the "cross." A lot of people we would consider "conservative" focus either on personal piety, as I mentioned earlier; or moral purity (primarily sexual) without considering issues like racism, economics and the like which God also identifies as sin (but we don't often read those passages). You see, it's really easy to condemn the sins that the other guy is committing without checking the whole of Scripture to find out where you fall short.