This is a little disturbing. So, the “game” is OK? As long as you “do it better”? Seems to cede the whole argument to the “success” game, and ignore the distinctives of the church. That’s why we refer to it as “the world”, because the church is “other” than that. Osteen is in the world. Maybe he’s even “reality based”. But God has a different “reality” in mind that somehow escapes the thoughts of those whose only measures are the trappings usually associated with “success”. And then only as the world defines success.
theParish (Greg):
Joel practices the great American religion: entertainment. Sometimes entertainment is transformative, sometimes it’s banal. Christians can criticize him all they want for watering down the Gospel, preaching prosperity, or being a heretic, but the bottom line is he’s doing what most of their churches are doing; he’s just doing it better. Entertainment has become the water in which the church worship machine swims. If Joel does it better, learn from him. Quit crying about it. If you think entertainment is awful, stop playing the game. Churches aren’t going to do that though; it would cost them too many members. Think of it like a sports metaphor: if Joel is the top of the BCS rankings, don’t bitch about him because your church isn’t in the top 25. You’re playing the same game; he’s just better.
the parish: Joel Osteen: Cry Me a River
a while back (in this post) , I wondered about this bit of blogging from Greg:
Church has become a concept that is begging for reificiation, and different groups reify it every week in ways that look much like ego-projection or psychological gratification.
Second, I didn’t go to church for community in the first place. I went because I honestly believed there was this character within an all-encompassing grand narrative named God that ordered existence in a way that offered worship (definition another subject) as a means to grace. I have come to believe that there is indeed a character in a grand narrative, but he ain’t writing any new chapters, and the narrative is all but closed to scrutiny or understanding. I found people at that place who became part of my community, but if people are looking for a church to become their community, they are seeking in vain.
The community ought to extend far beyond any entity called First Church of Anything. My community includes people who don’t believe in God, who believe in a different kind of God, who work in bars and restaurants and offices and hospitals and who don’t work at all. It includes people of different socio-economic status. It includes people I call friend and people I don’t; some are acquaintances and some are folks I genuinely don’t like.
In short, community is the group of people with whom I share my life. I don’t need an artificial construct called church to create a bond of commonality.
the idea that prompted this post, the first quote about Osteen, strikes me the same way. It strikes me as coming out of a concept of church that is missing the key ingredient of a community called apart. It is, like he says in excusing Osteen, more like “doing the world” better. He holds up Osteen as “doing it better” based on an assumption that what churches are here for is to be some sort of entertainment, or an “event” that attracts crowds.
(update: I found the original post that Greg had made that got him added to my RSS list: Jesus Loves Private Property. It was a critique of the way so many “American Christians” make it look like they are “American and then , oh by the way, Christian”)
So, Greg, sorry, but these two posts come off sounding a lot like the church as a community is an option. The trouble I seem to be having over the past 6 or so years is working itself out as if I too treat the church as an option, but I simply don’t believe it. I’m treating this as much as a problem that stems from me as I do a problem of “finding the right place”. Your post here on Osteen comes also on the heels of my reading Michael Spencer’s post recently after Osteen appeared on 60 minutes (here’s my post reacting).
