{"id":4980,"date":"2017-09-18T17:15:36","date_gmt":"2017-09-19T00:15:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.christianethicstoday.com\/wp\/?p=4980"},"modified":"2022-02-12T14:29:47","modified_gmt":"2022-02-12T21:29:47","slug":"salvation-with-a-smile-joel-osteen-lakewood-church-and-american-christianity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianethicstoday.com\/wp\/salvation-with-a-smile-joel-osteen-lakewood-church-and-american-christianity\/","title":{"rendered":"Salvation with a Smile: Joel Osteen, Lakewood Church, and American\u00a0Christianity"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Salvation with a Smile: Joel Osteen, Lakewood Church, and American&nbsp;Christianity<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><em>By Phillip Luke Sinitiere<br \/>\nNew York: New York University Press, 2015.<\/p>\n<p>Reviewed by Randall Balmer<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>&nbsp;&nbsp; W<\/strong>hen Joel Osteen assumed the pulpit of Lakewood Church following his father&rsquo;s death in 1999&ndash;wearing his father&rsquo;s suit, tie, shoes and clutching his Bible&ndash;he did so with grand ambitions. Osteen had been the television producer for Lakewood and, according to Phillip Luke Sinitiere in&nbsp;this remarkably informative book, Joel Osteen&rsquo;s theological training derived almost entirely from&nbsp;editing his father&rsquo;s sermons.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; Sinitiere doesn&rsquo;t pitch that observation as a criticism. Not at all. The author spends a great deal of&nbsp;time exploring John Osteen&rsquo;s&nbsp;&ldquo;Texas Theology,&quot;&nbsp;which evolved from&nbsp;garden-variety Southern&nbsp;Baptist to neopentecostal, complete with divine healing&nbsp;and more than a dash of prosperity&nbsp;theology. The elder Osteen&#39;s&nbsp;belief in divine healing grew out of the healing of his daughter&nbsp;(now one of the pastors at Lakewood), but such convictions, of course, placed Osteen at odds&nbsp;with the Southern Baptists&ndash;his divorce from a youthful marriage didn&rsquo;t help, either&ndash;so he&nbsp;charted a more independent course. John Osteen&rsquo;s early affiliation with the Full Gospel Businessmen&#39;s Fellowship International provided him with both an expanding network of&nbsp;confederates as well as a national platform.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; Once in the pulpit, the younger Osteen enlarged his list of&nbsp;influences to include John Maxwell&nbsp;and Joyce Meyer, who in turn was influenced by Norman Vincent Peale&ndash;not exactly theological&nbsp;titans, but that, according to Sinitiere, is precisely the&nbsp;point. Osteen&rsquo;s theology is simple, which,&nbsp;together with his meticulously polished and multi-platformed presentation, accounts for its&nbsp;popularity. Sinitiere believes that Osteen&rsquo;s prosperity teaching can be distilled into four elements:&nbsp;&ldquo;positive thinking, positive confession, positive providence, and finally, the promotion of the&nbsp;Christian body as a site of improvement&rdquo;&nbsp;(61).<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; Sinitiere contends that, just as Peale&#39;s&nbsp;theology of positive thinking offered predictability in the&nbsp;perilous early years of the Cold War, so too Osteen&rsquo;s contemporary articulation of New Thought principles &quot;provides predictability in an anxious age of global terror,&nbsp;late capitalism&rsquo;s ferocious&nbsp;economic uncertainty, and dizzying technological change&rdquo;&nbsp;(96). That formula, the author argues,&nbsp;is much more attractive than&nbsp;&ldquo;the historically combative cultural politics&rdquo;&nbsp;of the Religious Right&nbsp;(105).<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The book&rsquo;s most riveting chapter showcases what Sinitiere calls Osteen&rsquo;s &ldquo;piety of resistance&rdquo;&nbsp;to&nbsp;his critics. From E. W. Kenyon to the present, prosperity theology has presented a broad and&nbsp;tempting target. Osteen&#39;s evangelical critics pounced on a 2005 interview on&nbsp;<em>Larry King Live<\/em>, in&nbsp;the course of which Osteen was not sufficiently condemnatory of non-Christians. The harshest&nbsp;criticism directed toward him, however, emanates from the phalanx of so called New Calvinists,&nbsp;principally Michael Horton, John MacArthur, and R. Albert Mohler. (The latter, president of&nbsp;Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, comes from a denomination not known for its fidelity to&nbsp;Calvinism. Carey Newman, a fellow Baptist and longtime Mohler observer, characterizes Mohler&#39;s &quot;conversion&quot; as &ldquo;recent and expedient&rdquo;; he&rsquo;s a &ldquo;calculated convert.&rdquo;)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; These New Calvinists, self-styled guardians of orthodoxy (albeit a peculiar form of orthodoxy),&nbsp;prize theological certitude above all else&ndash;which, of course, is what draws them to Calvinism;&nbsp;once you accept Calvinistic presuppositions, you enter a theological vortex that explains&nbsp;everything, that supplies answers to every question. The New Calvinists have been blistering in&nbsp;their attacks on Osteen, accusing him of everything from Pelagianism and heresy to peddling a&nbsp;&ldquo;cotton candy gospel&rdquo;&nbsp;and functioning as&nbsp;&ldquo;an agent for Satan&rdquo;&nbsp;(189, 193).<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; For the most part, Osteen stands above the fray, refusing to engage his critics in the kinds of&nbsp;disputations they so adore. The eagle, after all, doesn&rsquo;t hunt flies; Osteen&rsquo;s success speaks for&nbsp;itself. Sinitiere finds a paradox here: &quot;spiritual sensibilities at the root of the prosperity gospel&nbsp;tradition that Osteen represents have long frustrated those whose commitments to propositional&nbsp;theology produce a clamorous resistance to change&rdquo;&nbsp;(209). Osteen and his critics, in fact, are&nbsp;remarkably similar.&nbsp;&ldquo;Osteen&rsquo;s message of God&rsquo;s favor and goodness,&rdquo;&nbsp;Sinitiere concludes,&nbsp;&ldquo;is in&nbsp;the end very similar to the predictability toward which his critics&rsquo;&nbsp;propositional theology has&nbsp;aspired&rdquo;&nbsp;(209).<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; So where does Osteen belong on the landscape of American religion in the twenty-first century?&nbsp;Scholars dating back to the nineteenth century have talked about the Great Man theory, an&nbsp;approach to history positing that certain individuals, through charisma, wisdom, intelligence,&nbsp;or political skill, embody the tensions, aspirations,&nbsp;and apprehensions of their age. In American&nbsp;religious history, Jonathan Edwards has been advanced as&nbsp;fitting that description, and Charles&nbsp;Grandison Finney must also be part of that conversation.&nbsp;There are perils aplenty to writing a biography of an individual still living, but Sinitiere&rsquo;s treatment of Joel Osteen suggests that the&nbsp;smiling preacher should be part of any&nbsp;larger conversation about religion in the twenty-first&nbsp;century.<\/p>\n<p><em>Randall Balmer&nbsp;is the John Phillips Professor in Religion and Director of the Society of Fellows at Dartmouth College. This review first appeared in the Journal of Southern Religion&nbsp;(18) (2016): jsreligion.org\/vol18\/balmer<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Salvation with a Smile: Joel Osteen, Lakewood Church, and American&nbsp;Christianity By Phillip Luke Sinitiere New York: New York ...<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,22,162],"tags":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/christianethicstoday.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4980"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/christianethicstoday.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/christianethicstoday.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christianethicstoday.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christianethicstoday.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4980"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/christianethicstoday.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4980\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6900,"href":"https:\/\/christianethicstoday.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4980\/revisions\/6900"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/christianethicstoday.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4980"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christianethicstoday.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4980"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christianethicstoday.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4980"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}