Back   828 Ministries
Font
PageWidth
Original Content at
https://www.828ministries.com/articles/The-Gospel-Coalition-Shill-by-Anthony-Wade-God-170922-913.html

September 22, 2017

The Gospel Coalition Shills for Joel Osteen

By Anthony Wade

Now the Gospel Coalition of all places is trying to defend the absolutely indefensible...

::::::::


(Image by Unknown Owner)   Details   DMCA

These false teachers are like unthinking animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed. They scoff at things they do not understand, and like animals, they will be destroyed. Their destruction is their reward for the harm they have done. They love to indulge in evil pleasures in broad daylight. They are a disgrace and a stain among you. They delight in deceptioneven as they eat with you in your fellowship meals. They commit adultery with their eyes, and their desire for sin is never satisfied. They lure unstable people into sin, and they are well trained in greed. They live under God's curse. -- 2Peter 2: 12-14 (NLT)

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/does-your-social-media-outrage-bear-false-witness

Just when you thought it was safe to move on from Hurricane Osteen, the Gospel Coalition felt the need to add one more voice to the cacophony of shrill defenders of the absolutely indefensible. Seriously? The Gospel Coalition? The organization that totes such reformed heavyweights as John Piper and Tim Keller? What in the world is going on in the church today? Joel Osteen does not serve the body of Christ beloved. He is leading countless numbers of people away from Jesus Christ by preaching an incomplete and false Gospel. This is not something that has to be ferreted out. Osteen admits it! Just last year he stated that he does not feel he is cheating people by neglecting to preach about hell or repentance! Are we serious? When Paul leaves the Ephesian elders he states that he is innocent of their blood because he did not hesitate to preach the entire counsel of God. Does anyone seriously think Joel Osteen is innocent of the blood he will answer for? Let us reason together one more time beloved in response to the above linked article entitled, "Does Your Social Media Outrage Bear False Witness?"

"In the wake of devastating floods in Houston, social media--including conservative Christians--spread word that Joel Osteen's 16,800-seat Lakewood Church turned away people who sought shelter. Many believers called the polarizing megachurch pastor a hypocrite." -- Gaye Clark

This is the primary false talking point employed by Osteen defenders regarding the recent hurricane that devastated Houston. A handful of people using social media claimed people were "turned away." This of course was not the actual problem with how Osteen handled the hurricane. The problem was he essentially turned everyone away by posting on his Facebook page that the church was inaccessible due to flood waters, which was not true, and then providing a list of other places they could find shelter. Perhaps to the Gospel Coalition this is acceptable but to those who understand hypocrisy it is not. So did Osteen turn people away? Absolutely. How effective was this turning away via Facebook? Osteen flacks admit that only three people showed up at Lakewood for help. Three people beloved. To a facility that holds 20,000 people and sees traffic exceeding 50,000 every weekend. Three people. To a church that rakes in over $600,000 in tithes and offering every weekend. The worst part is that because the church helped these three people the Osteenites use this as proof that they did not turn anyone away. How sickening.

"It felt good and right to call out Joel Osteen, but was it true? Did it honor the Lord? The truth is Lakewood Church itself had sustained flooding. At the time of the backlash, only three people had requested assistance from the church, and they got it. Considering this, how often do we tweet retractions when we've posted something we assumed was true but turned out to be false? Have we considered that as surely as we know others' words and actions have consequences, so do ours?" -- Gaye Clark

Did it honor the Lord? Yes the truth is always honoring of the Lord who hates deception. For instance, it is deceptive to use the three people, which proves he turned people away, to claim the opposite. It should be embarrassing to the largest church in the country to claim victory because they helped three people. As for the claim of flooding this has been debunked by Osteen himself. He admitted that Lakewood was not flooded. The floodwaters had risen to within ten feet of the flood gate and they were concerned about it but it did not flood. Even if it had? Does that mean Lakewood is unusable as a shelter? How many floors and levels exist in the former home to the Houston Rockets? Does anyone seriously think that the other places that served voluntarily as shelters did not experience flooding? Even the huge facility down the road from Lakewood had their entire first floor flood on Tuesday. Yet they still took in ten thousand people. Do you know how many their capacity was for? Five thousand but when you care about helping people, you help them. By the way, the official reason given by Osteen for not opening Lakewood was not flooding but because the city had "not asked him." This is all public record.

'"In Scripture, the point of rebuke is correction and, if necessary, repentance. But this goal often seems lost when we log on to our computer. On social media, public rebuke can seek to shame or discredit. As friends like or retweet our thoughts, our reprimand toward another can fester into outrage. Maybe they had it coming? Perhaps they said or wrote something horribly wrong. After all, if you speak publicly, it's only fair to be rebuked publicly, right? I used to think this was true, even biblical. But what happens when we pass on information we cannot possibly confirm? Will we place a kind intent on their words as we read them, or are we quick to assume the worst motives? As Ed Stetzer writes, "It seems some Christians hate Joel Osteen more than they love the truth. I'd expect that from the world, but I hoped for better in the church."' -- Gaye Clark

Ed Stetzer? The same guy who writes for the most disgraceful fake Christian website today in Charisma News? His talking point here is what is known as a strawman argument. It is used by people who realize their weakened position in the discussion. The issue is not about hating Joel Osteen. I hate that he preaches a false gospel that is leading people to hell but I do not know him personally. He seems like a nice guy who may perfectly well not understand what he is doing. I also might add here that if he had simply come out on Monday and said, wow we could have handled this better then that would have been enough for me. Anyone can make errors in planning and decision making. Instead he did not plan to help anyone even though everyone knew on Wednesday that Houston was going to get creamed. On Saturday he cancels services. On Sunday he claims flooding that was proven to not be true and directs people to other shelters. On Monday he tries to blame everything but himself including the city not asking him. Like they asked all of the places that served as shelters. On Tuesday he relents and says that Lakewood would help people -- after all the other shelters were full. These are the facts beloved. They are not in dispute. If you wish to defend that more power to you but I cannot. Our difference I bet is more a case of your idolization of the cult of personality than some imaginary "hate" I hold for Osteen. By the way, the point of rebuke is not only to correct. It can also be to expose. To mark those who teach falsely.

"Rebuke or Revenge? Consider the effect that social-media shaming has on the lives of those who receive our scorn. Is our zeal for truth fueled by personal contempt or love for their eternal soul? Technology makes it easy to lose sight of the image-bearer we're addressing. Rather than creating a sorrow that leads to repentance, our public rebuke can generate shame, which leads to despair." -- Gaye Clark

Love for their eternal soul? Where is the love for the eternal souls who died in the hurricane or were displaced for what likely will be months and years? This is the horrific double standard always employed by defenders of false teachers. They are ultimately concerned about one wolf instead of the all the bloody sheep lying at his feet. The Bible does not instruct me to play with wolves. It does not instruct me to pet them, take them in, or even pray for them. Say what preacher? We really need to understand our Bibles better. God, who sees all time, penned the key verses through the Apostle Peter about false teachers. They are unthinking animals. They scoff at things they do not understand. They will be destroyed. Their destruction is their reward for the harm they have done! Never lose sight of the harm they do! They are a disgrace and a stain among you! They delight in deception even as they eat with you. They commit adultery with their eyes. They lure unstable people into sin, are well trained in greed, and are under God's curse. Earlier in this chapter God says that He condemned them long ago. Not one word about praying for them. Not one word about worrying about their eternal souls. This may seem like a hard word but that is only if you have taken your eyes off of the sheep. The public shaming of Joel Osteen was deserved and resulted in appropriate shame which finally led him to do something right in this situation.

"Scott Sauls expresses this point well: As a Christian who is active on social media, I often remind myself that each image-bearing name is sacred. The ninth commandment, which warns against bearing false testimony of any kind about one's neighbor, must remain in the forefront. I must remove all negative caricature--the exaggeration of someone's worst features and the censoring out of her or his best ones--from my words, both spoken and written. It is unChristian to bless God while cursing a person with a soul." -- Gaye Clark

Wow, that sounds so pious. Too bad it is not biblical too. First of all it is utter hyperbole. It is exaggeration for the sake of defending someone who does not deserve our defense. No one "cursed" Joel Osteen, well except God according to the key verses. There is also nothing false about the accusations leveled at Osteen. Let me be clear. If there were I would openly rebuke them. Let me give you a practical example. Last year Victoria Osteen said during a sermon that we do not worship God for Him but rather for ourselves. It was a horrible statement of pure narcissism but I did not write about it. I wanted to give her time to reflect on it and clean up the point she was trying to make. I assumed the best. A week later she came out and doubled down on her heretical statement and Joel stood there nodding his head in agreement. That was when I wrote about it. This is about the truth and what is most unchristian is siding with someone who is false in general and false in the situation you are defending them in. Clark and Sauls seem very concerned about how Joel might feel when he reads the criticisms but not a word about the countless thousands who watched Osteen close his church and then lie about why. The lost who now will never give the Gospel a chance because of the witness Osteen and his defenders provided during one of the worst natural disasters of their lifetimes.

"Christians wouldn't murder someone they disagree with in the name of standing for the truth. Yet some believers use social media to assassinate an individual's character, going far beyond the critique of a specific action or words. As James writes, "From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so" (James 3:10). How often do we read of repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation due to being confronted and shamed on social media? And if someone does publicly repent, how likely will those on social media receive them back? As Sauls points out, "Apologies don't make good stories, do they? They aren't as tweetable." -- Gaye Clark

Murder someone? Seriously? How much hyperbole and ridiculous exaggeration do we have to endure? Osteen did not suffer character assassination beloved. He was rightly criticized for how he handled the hurricane situation in which his church resides. Apologies are absolutely tweetable but the problem is that he has not apologized. He has deflected, obfuscated, and relied upon people like Gaye Clark and the Gospel Coalition to do his dirty work for him. All the while the unsaved watch in disbelief. The things of God may be foolishness to them but the things of foolishness? They understand that quite well.

"More Excellent Way. When possible, we ought to confront one another in person. It helps to look them in the eye when we speak of their heart. Acts 18 tells of an intriguing encounter with two laypeople, Priscilla and Aquila, and a Greek scholar named Apollos. An "eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures," Apollos preached publicly to many, but his theology needed correction. So Priscilla and Aquilla pulled him aside privately and "explained to him the way of God more adequately." Their correction didn't invalidate Apollos as a minister. Afterward he returned to public ministry with Priscilla and Aquilla's blessing. Instead of destroying community, this confrontation built redemptive relationships." -- Gaye Clark

There are some things jumbled up here. The more excellent way has to do with love and spiritual gifts, not this doctrine of personal correction. I can only assume she is getting this from Matthew 18 but those verses are dealing with when a brother sins against you personally. Thirdly, the theology of Apollos did not need correction but rather enhancement. He only had heard of John's baptism. Thus he was not being rebuked for turning away people during a hurricane. He was not being corrected for then lying about it. He was learning the rest of the Gospel. Lastly here is she seriously suggesting that everyone should have boarded a plane and flown to Houston to ring Joel's doorbell?

"I'm grateful for the men and women who have loved me enough to quietly pull me aside and correct me. They could have easily called me out publicly, and many onlookers would have admired their insight. Instead, they put my welfare before their ego. As a result I continue to look to them for guidance, and their influence extends far beyond one encounter. Has social media warped our thinking? Might privacy produce better outcomes?" -- Gaye Clark

No Gaye, no. Now privacy may cause you less embarrassment but you chose to make these points public. By addressing you privately I ignore everyone who may have read your piece and been genuinely confused why you are doing theological gymnastics to defend one of the most obvious wolves on the planet for his completely indefensible behavior. One last attack eh? This is not about my ego. Of these I am the least. Those in discernment ministries certainly do not do it for the hallelujahs and amens because they are few and far between. If it was ego that motivated me perhaps I would preach to people that this is their best life now. Perhaps I would persuade them that they can speak things into existence and that they are little gods. Perhaps then I would write several books about how much God wants to bless them here and now. I would have to ignore half the Gospel to accomplish this but ego is the goal right? Maybe I would then need to open a church in a basketball arena and embark on a worldwide tour of popular television shows to sell my brand. If it was about ego that is.

Here is the thing though. Even if I had done all of this I would know better than to not even plan for how to help my neighbors during an impending disaster. I certainly would not turn people away by telling them I was closed due to imaginary flooding. I would not provide a list of other places people could go instead of my 17,000 seat arena. I would not then lie about it when the truth is so easy to access in this digital age. These things that I wouldn't do are not motivated by Public Relations. They are not motivated by branding and image protection. I wouldn't even say that it wouldn't be Christian. That falls so utterly short of the mark. It wouldn't be human. Isn't that the point that people like Gaye Clark are missing here? I am sure her heart is in the right place but this article defends the absolutely indefensible and attacks people who stood up for the truth. Joel Osteen was not the victim here. Those were the people he turned his back on. The Gospel Coalition should have known better.

Reverend Anthony Wade -- September 22, 2018



Authors Bio:
Credentialed Minister of the Gospel for the Assemblies of God. Owner and founder of 828 ministries. Vice President for Goodwill Industries. Always remember that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.

Back