right attitude...
jensen just came to tell me that j. olstein was on the tube, and i quote: "God promises that if you have the 'right attitude', you will be blessed with twice as much as you now have..."
i'm not sure to whom this equation applies, but i am a bit miffed...
A) homeless people: right attitude will bring about two meals
B) diseased people: right attitude will reduce to 1/2 diseased
C) insomnia: right attitude will bring 3 hours of sleep
D) millionaire: right attitude will make you a billionaire
which one do you want to be if this equation is a promise from God?
posted by Monica @ 9:56 PM
19 comments
19 Comments:
E) hundredaire: right attitude will make you a thousandaire.
Hmm... I only seem to be a thousandaire on payday before paying bills, so I somehow think that the Right Reverend Ostein's logic is flawed. Shocking, I know.
it's amazing isn't it? many, many people are becoming convinced with this message...it seems quite contrary to the man named Jesus who touched lepers...
A large part of the problem, I think, is that many people (if not most people) no longer know what religion is for. What is its purpose? Why do we spend our time thinking about such things? Is it the wellspring of our empirical knowledge of the universe? Is it a source of prophecy to tell us what is coming in the future? Is it a record of the spiritual experiences of peoples long dead? What is religion? And why should we care?
Oh wait, maybe religion is a way to gain wealth and prosperity in the here and now! Suddenly, assenting to a particular set of beliefs seems relevant to my life, for therein I have something to gain. Or maybe religion is a way to keep my ass out of the eternal hellfire of damnation. Suddenly, assenting to a particular set of beliefs is revelant to my life, because therein is an everlasting insurance policy for my immortal soul.
When faced with the most difficult and painful questions of the human experience, we want easy answers. We want a book or a cleric or a committee to tell us what to think and how to feel about it and what to do. But what we must come to affirm in this age of Joel Osteins is that religion isn't about answers. Rather, it's about living with the questions, and doing so together, with the guidance of a particular set of stories, traditions, and other wisdom to help push us in the right direction. This whole notion of Absolute Certainty - i.e. If you died tonight, DO YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN that you would be in Heaven? - is a sham, a false idol that was imported from Enlightenment thought and must be banished from our minds. We can have assurance in the grace of God without this intellectual notion of Absolute Certainty, for in this life nothing is certain (other than death and taxes, of course) and most people who say different are trying to sell you something.
you're sure you're not destined to be a preacher? :) this is what i long to do with my entire being...to permeate the world with a love that transcends our idols...can i do that? don't know, but i am willing to die trying...
The gospel of health and wealth to a starving person becomes the gospel of survival.
well said dees...well said
I'm not sure I agree that the gospel of health and wealth, given a vastly different socio-cultural context, would necessarily be the gospel of survival. Forgive me for sounding Gutierrez-ian, but the gospel to all of us - to the starving man and to the man with a full belly alike - is the gospel of liberation. To the starving man, it is liberation from hunger, from fear of death. To the man who is full, it is liberation from excess. Either way, the gospel can neither be reduced to fulfilling our wildest material dreams nor mere survival. The gospel is that which breaks through and subverts all our norms, such that everyone everywhere is turned upside down.
It seems to be the 'in' thing to pick on Joel Osteen here at APTS. But, while I don't necessarily agree with some of his theology, I think his message does more good than harm.
He has chosen one particular aspect of how God relates to humans and tends to focus pretty exclusively upon it (i.e. the Prayer of Jabez rewards model). It is the exclusive focus that I would critique moreso that the particular things he says. However, I find it a bit difficult to be all that critical of him at all. His theology may be a bit skewed and narrowly focused, but it does seem to bring an awful lot of people into relation with Christ.
I guess the question I'd ask is: are all those people really developing a relationship with Christ, or are they just trying to have their own needs met? But then, I'd question the motives of many of the people in our 'properly Reformed' churches as well.
Theology is not only risky business, but it is messy as well. Just like the variety of relationships that it addresses. I'd like my theology to be 'proper', but even more than that, I'd like it to make a positive difference in the relationships of people with God and with each each other. One could argue that the only truly proper theology is that which describes those relationships.
Greg, not to make a straw-man out of your defense of Ostein, but things like the Inquisition and Crusades also bring lots of people to Christ - in those cases, by means of the fear of death. But I think the way in which we enter into religion is in large measure for responsible for how we come to experience it. In other words, the theology of a believer will be fundamentally shaped by the way in which they are evangelized. The Inquisition convert will come to see God as a ruthless overlord who demands obedience. The Ostein convert, I fear, will come to see God as a divine grandpa who faithfully doles out a yearly birthday check as long as we're good.
You're right, of course: who among us does have perfect motives for being involved in faith communities? And while, on the basis of that question, it might be slightly hypocritical to criticize the Osteins of the world, I think we must nevertheless be deliberate and theologically grounded when we make the case for why it is desirable to become a part of a religious community.
So then....
How does the Presbyterian convert come to see God?
Unfortunately, from what I've seen in much denominational discourse, we seem to be afraid to say anything relevant. As a denomination, we've recently had trouble claiming Jesus Christ as Lord!
At the same time that we hear laments that the PCUSA continues to shrink, we turn around and hear that numbers don't matter. Continual criticism is levied at churches and pastors who seem to be successful. Even within the PCUSA, the larger churches often find themselves the subject of criticism.
The whole thing just smacks of sour grapes. If the traditions we hold dear are ignored and rejected, then it must be the fault of others instead of us being out of touch. Naturally, success in numbers does not automatically mean that things are well (i.e. the narrow road vs. the wide road to destruction). But, how can we ever truly make disciples of all nations if 'success' is always labelled as misguided?
When regarding Osteen's theology, the question is not does God reward faithfulness. Scripture is clear that the faithful are rewarded. The question is how does our theology account for those faithful who continue to suffer? The theodicy question; which pretty much keeps theology alive and relevant.
Personally, I'd choose to approach how people relate to God in a different manner than carrot and stick theology. However, both the carrot and the stick are both Biblical and theological. In fact, attempting to remove all concept of them is to deny that God is just.
This, then, also brings in the concept of free will. I must freely admit that I compromise on Calvin's concept of the sovereignty of God, being much closer to Barth in that regard. Now, while Barth will manage to logically keep God's sovereignty intact, he does so in such a way that human agency still plays a good-sized role. When all is said and done, humans have a huge role to play in Barth's theology, the reason's for that role just vary between him and more noted free-will theologians such as Wesley.
The challenge as pastors is to somehow assist people in recognizing their role in the created order. Joel favors carrot theology, while Jerry Falwell seems to like to carry a big stick. How might we, as reformed pastors, lead people in discovering their Christian vocations? Do we limit ourselves only to people who are already at the same point we are? Or do we consider meeting them wherever they might be?
I don't think it's a simple answer by any means. And any attempt will be messy and fraught with the potential for missteps. Where evangelism is concerned, I'm in favor of going out and 'sinning boldly'.
maybe i shuddered at the entire idea of 'right attitude' = doubly blessed because i believe that God's grace to us goes beyond any amount of total goodness that we try to put forward...
it feeds the notion that denies God's grace in suffering...job syndrome, what have you...the 'convert' story in reformed teaching doesn't exist...it was meant all along and somehow we have made it into something that we have control over...i'm not talking about agency- i'm passionate about the boundaries we as humans are putting around what we were never entitled to give in the first place...grace? salvation? love?
as the days go by, i become more synical of the god we promote and claim to love...it's frightening that there can be so many of versions from 'christian' people...
so who is right? everyone? some trails seem more detrimental than others...gotta go, the inner nihillist is waking up...
'Right attitude' is a poor choice of words on the part of Joel. From the sermons of his that I've heard, 'positive attitude' is closer to what his message seems to be about.
We have a close equivalent to that when we talk about living in 'grateful response' to what God has done for us.
It seems that, like the theologians we studied in Sys II, although we start in different places and use different interpretations, we tend to end up in the same place (not to dismiss the importance of the journey in getting there).
I believe there is a significant difference between living life in grateful response as opposed to the anticipation of being rewarded, otherwise I probably wouldn't be Presbyterian. Although, I'm not sure about the process of how people recognize what it is that they have to be grateful for. Reformed theology has good solid answers based upon God's sovereignty, but those answers don't seem to serve us so well in spreading the Gospel.
As a side note, I enjoy debating these issues because everyone's responses contribute to my own thinking and growth. So thanks! I hope no ever feels that I'm picking on them.
This question of motivation and methods of evangelism is truly intriguing me now. Just how important is it for someone to enter the Christian life with the right state of mind (the right heart, the Methodists might say)? If billionaire gave a million dollars to a children's hospital, would we act indignantly if we knew he had made the donation only to get a tax write-off? Probably not. However, if we discovered that a favorite theologian - say, Karl Barth - only wrote theology because he thought it would bring him fame and material wealth, and didn't really care about the underlying message, then we might hold Mr. Barth suspect due to his motivations.
One of the biggest moments in Christian history involving the question of motivation was the conversion of Emperor Constantine. Did he truly come to believe, or was he simply looking for a way to unite the empire? We can't ignore the question of motivation for his conversion because of the extraordinary effect he subequently had both on church politics and the development of doctrine at the Council of Nicea. Because of Constantine, becoming Christian eventually became not a choice one could make in one's life, but rather a requirement for being a citizen of the Empire. Citizenship and membership in the Christian church became synonymous. So we must ask: in what sense is a compulsory Christian the same as one who, at great personal risk, joins the Christian church in the time of, say, Nero? Again, this is the question of motivation.
Now, of course, we have freedom of religion, and the notion of "evangelism" (at least intra-United States evangelism) has really become a kind of sales pitch - "What will it take for me to put you in a new religion today?" Since the potential convert has freedom in choosing a religion, all the various sects must compete to "win" each person. Thus, it is incumbment on the dedicated evangelists to come up with a good sales pitch. My worry is that what evangelists are "selling" in their preaching is not really Christianity at all. However, as Reformed Christians, we believe in the invisible elect, and thus we cannot nor should we attempt to judge whether someone who assents to the tenets of the Christian faith in hope of material gain is REALLY a Christian at all. What we affirm, rather, is that God has the power to work in and through every situation, whether the theology is orthodox or not.
I think it would be helpful, also, to recall some biblical examples regarding motivation. Stories like this are prevalent in the gospels, and the response Jesus gives is not really all that consistent. On the one hand you have the disciples, who clearly do not get it, and in some version simply seem to be involved with Jesus because they see him as a potential political revolutionary. They are disappointed when their hopes do not come to pass. Jesus is well aware of their motivation for following him around, but he does not dismiss them, but rather lets them stay, despite their not "getting it." ON the other hand you have the rich young ruler. He's followed the commandments, but he's unwilling to sell his possessions. He's on the right track, but he doesn't quite get it yet. And yet, Jesus sends him on his way. Likewise, the would-be followers of Jesus who have to bury their fathers and such - Jesus, too, sends them on their way. These are people who have the right motivation, but who have various hang-ups and problems. Right motivation, but wrong actions: Jesus dismisses them.
Interesting stuff.
my friends, i too am glad for hearing your thoughts on the issue...sometimes, i tend to be a bit synical...sorry...
both of you are to me attempting to get at the point of my question...
which one do you want to be, IF you can have the 'right attitude'? can we even choose? can we be sold? can we join?
yes, and no...
The choices for what to be, seem to align somewhat with the levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs (i.e. Physiological needs, safety, love/belonging, status, actualization). Maslow says that the lower levels must be satisfied before the higher level needs can be addressed. I believe this has some relevance for ministry in that a sermon about discipleship probably has little relevance to someone who is hungry or who has severe health problems (physiological and safety needs are not met). Conversely, limiting preaching to social justice issues will leave the needs of people who are not sick and hungry and oppressed unaddressed.
So, which would I choose? None of the above. I guess in my current situation, money would be the choice coming closest to meeting my needs, but it would only take a downturn in health to change that right away. More generally, if that formula held true for anthing, I'd want the quality and quantity of my personal relationships doubled. But then, in a way, I think I might have gotten that when I came here to APTS :-)
Going back to Joel O, from what I've heard him say, it sounds like he stays somewhere up in the top 2 or 3 tiers of the hierarchy of needs. That probably fits his congregation well, but doesn't address the lower tiers where many people find themselves. I honestly don't know what, if any, emphasis is put on those needs off camera at his church. I would hope that his church is active in a wide variety of mission work. If they aren't, then shame on them!
First, let me apologize for not reading all of the comments in complete detail before posting. I really will do that at some point, because you guys are having really good dialogue. But, I want to contribute a real story from my real life to the conversation.
While in college, I had participated (along with BCD) in the Austin College Activators. This experience had a huge impact on the way I see the world today, and the way I see ministry today. It's not that it changed my theological stance, but it did both validate that stance and teach me to articulate it.
This story starts in 2003 (although if you've been following recent discourse on other blogs, you realize that I would say that this story actually started much earlier than that,) and I had been out of college for 2 years. A friend asked me to show up at their church's youth group meeting one Wednesday night. Despite the fact that I knew that the church was advancing and teaching a theology that I believe to be dangerous to youth rather than helpful, I showed up.
A band played. A preacher preached. Everyone prayed. It was a very emotional session - as all of their youth group meetings are. The preacher talked about how important it was to 'be right with God.' He then talked about all the blessings you would get if you were 'right with God' and all the curses that could happen to you if you weren't. The band began slowly ramping up in the background. They were playing the very distinctive A, D, F#m, E progression, and I knew what song was coming. Sure enough, as the preacher invited people to come down the aisle for prayer if they needed to be right with God, these lyrics start up:
I'm trading my sorrow
I'm trading my shame
I'm laying it down for the joy of the Lord
I'm trading my sickness
I'm trading my pain
I'm laying it down for the joy of the Lord
And we say yes Lord yes Lord yes yes Lord
Yes Lord yes Lord yes yes Lord
Yes Lord yes Lord yes yes Lord Amen
Tom (named changed) walked down the aisle to pray with the preacher.
A few hours later I was having dinner with my friends who invited me. They expressed concern and frustration because Tom just "didn't get that he doesn't need to keep accepting Jesus...the gospel just isn't sticking with him...he doesn't get it." It turns out that Tom walks down that aisle pretty much every week, and asks for the preacher to pray for him because he's not right with God. They also shared that Tom had expressed feelings of abandonment from God.
I asked them to tell me Tom's story.
His mother and father were divorced just a few years before. His mother has custody, but not enough money to support the family. His father withholds child support in hopes that the court will come to the conclusion that the mother can't raise the kids and change custody arrangements. His grandmother, who had been a reassuring source of strength in Tom's life, died a few months ago. With all the turmoil in his life, Tom was struggling to keep his grades up at school. It was possible he was going to have to repeat his Junior year in high school. His friends all had cars to drive around, but he had turned 16 and his mother obviously couldn't afford one. In short, Tom's life sucked. And that preacher and that song were both sending the message that people who were right with God had good lives.
Tom had more right than the preacher did. There's a reason we Presbyterians do Prayers of Confession just about every week in worship. None of us are right with God. We have all fallen short. Praying about that regularly is healthy.
But the message Tom got wasn't one of reassurance or encouragement or peace or hope. It was one of condemnation and anguish.
When I ask people not to use that song at youth events, they almost always say, "But, it's Biblical, it's right out of Corinthians." When I ask them to include the rest of the paragraph in their lyrics soas to give a better picture of what a life lived in the example of the gospel looks like, they often go get out a Bible and understand what I'm saying.
2 Corinthians 4:7-12
But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that his life may be revealed in our mortal body. So then, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you.
We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus...death is at work in us.
That's part of the truth about the creation we wake up in every morning. Thanks to Jesus, it's not the whole truth. But if we pretend like it's not there, bad things just get worse.
Jared, I am glad to hear your criticism of the song "Trading My Sorrows," because honestly, I HATE it. I remember having to sing it once during Junior High Jubilee at Mo Ranch... under my breath, I always sang "drowning my sorrows" rather than "trading my sorrows" because that what this song makes me feel like doing. Not to mentioned the "Yes, Lord!" section. Ugh. But you make a good point. Coming down the aisle during the 57th verse of Just as I Am doesn't guarantee anyone a hunky-dory kind of life. The Church exists within the context of a fallen world. Paul Tillich would say that we are torn between the ontological polarities of life. As such, the church is a place of ambiguity.
Yeah, the assumptions of the song are pretty much all annihilated by the passage in context (you only have to read the paragraph, not even the whole chapter!)
1. The song promotes a 'gospel of prosperity.' Scripture is teaching hope in the face of a sinful creation. It's not promising prosperity.
2. The song promotes a 'I did it!' gospel (yes Lord, yes Lord, I'm saying Yes Lord, etc.) Scripture is teaching about an "all surpassing power [from God]," not from anything we say or do.
argh.
you fellas are funny...i was the only person in my running crowd to disagree with lyrics in the songs we were singing...they accused me of being too critical..."you can come to the Lord monica, you can say yes...you can be desperate..."
thus, i left the baptist church and here i am...amen
Post a Comment
<< Home