Joel Osteen apologizes

Steve Camp wrote a letter of brotherly rebuke and concern to Joel Osteen, and Osteen apologized humbly and unequivocally (see The Joy of Humility). Further Osteen published an apology on his own church's web site. It isn't so easy to find, if you don't know where to go -- but it's there. And at its end, he links to his church's very "lite" statement of faith, which does include the statement that "We believe that eternal salvation is found only by placing our faith in Jesus Christ and what he did for us on the cross."

What do I think? I think it's good he apologized. (He certainly did a better job of it than Senator Durbin!)

Mostly I think, "We'll see." I wouldn't blame a star-struck young Christian for wavering a bit, and cursing himself later. God knows I've done it under far less intense pressure.

But this is Wonder Boy. He speaks to hundreds of thousands. His name is on a best-seller.

He's supposed to be a pastor. And he can't be counted on plainly to lay out the Gospel?

That's bad.

(Al Mohler has also noted and commented on Osteen's apology.)

Weird title alert

The New York Times has a surprisingly positive writeup of the pro-life Nick Cannon song I wrote about earlier. That's news in itself.

What's odder is the title: An Unborn Fetus With a Message for Mom.

Isn't the point of the song that the message is from a born fetus?

Billy Graham: Bill Clinton should be an evangelist, and Hillary should be president

No, you haven't woken up in Bizarro-world. Or at any rate, not in a different Bizarro-world than the one we live in.

So, imagine this: you're in your eighties, in failing health, and you know that you will literally have the eyes of the world on you as you give your last public sermons. What do you tell the world? What message do you bring, by your choices, your actions, and your words?

Here's one of the things Billy Graham chose to tell the world about Bill and Hillary Clinton, who he had sitting on-stage next to him as he preached about a Savior their lives show no hint of having embraced:

"They're a great couple," he said. "I told an audience that I felt when he left the presidency he should be an evangelist because he has all the gifts and he'd leave his wife to run the country."

I may or may not post more fully on this later. For now I'll say that the decades have taken me, very reluctantly, from being a Billy Graham admirer to one who feels mostly disappointment and a degree of horror for how he compromised the Gospel and damaged "evangelicalism" (whatever that means, anymore) over the years.

For a very well-documented presentation his and others' contributions to that sad process, leading to the mess we're in today, see Iain Murray's Evangelicalism Divided. It's not a happy read, but it is a good, informative, and bracing study.

And so Graham's long, long and steady decline prevents me from blaming either his age, his health, or his staff. So do James 3:1, Luke 12:48, and a host of similar Scriptures.

Billy Graham is a cautionary tale for all who would make an impact on the world for Christ.

UPDATE I: NewsMax reports that at least one evangelical leader and former supporter of Billy Graham's walked out on the meeting, shocked and appalled at Graham's allowing himself to be cynically used by the Clintons.

UPDATE II: Anyone think I was harsh? Andrew Longman in the Illinois Leader makes me look like a creampuff in his hard-hitting, truthful essay Please, Please Let Goodness Rub Off On Me? (thanks to Marilyn Niccum of Mind & Media for pointing me to this). Longman cites the perfectly apposite verse: "But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one" (1 Corinthians 5:11).

UPDATE III: Rob Schenck, the pastor who walked out, writes on his thoughts and actions, in walking out on the crusade in spite of his great enthusiasm for being there. One could wish for a rewrite; I can easily see how more negatively-inclined readers will find hubris in his own stance ("I'm not leaving Dr. Graham off the hook... I'm simply giving him a little slack for being 86 years old..."). Still, his feeling of shock and revulsion, and the reasons for it, comes through loud and clear. I'd say he certainly did a right thing.

UPDATE IV: Billy Graham's son Franklin has made something of a response to concerns about his father's endorsement of both Clintons. It amounts to, "Jus' keedeen!" See if you're convinced and reassured. And, as they say, if you think the Democrats/Clinton's won't use this, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. (Hint: they already are.)

If you had any doubts about Joel Osteen....

Back in February, I joined with others in raising an alarm about our new "evangelical" leader (?! -- who decides these things?), "Pastor" Joel Osteen. That essay provided a number of links.

Recently, the wonderboy was on Larry King. I like three things about Larry King: he has had some heavy-hitter Christian guests, he asks straightforward questions insistently, and he lets his guests answer. I think the Biblical answers he's gotten from people like John MacArthur bother him, so he asked this new "leader" those questions... and probably got answers he liked better.

So, before the link, Christian Reader, let me just ask you -- do you think you'd be able to give straightforward, Biblical answers to the following questions?

KING: Is it hard to lead a Christian life?
KING: But you have rules, don't you?
KING: Because we've had ministers on who said, your record don't count. You either believe in Christ or you don't. If you believe in Christ, you are, you are going to heaven. And if you don't no matter what you've done in your life, you ain't.
KING: What if you're Jewish or Muslim, you don't accept Christ at all?
KING: If you believe you have to believe in Christ? They're wrong, aren't they?
KING: I want to get to the seven steps. But when the people call you cotton candy theology. Someone said you're very good but there's no spiritual nourishment. I don't know what that means ...
KING: What is the prosperity gospel?
KING: Also many in the Christian belief are wary of too much material, aren't they?
KING: I asked Reverend Graham if god loves the devil. Didn't -- couldn't -- he'd never been asked it before.
KING: He loves everything. Does he love...
CALLER: Hello, Larry. You're the best, and thank you, Joe -- Joel -- for your positive messages and your book. I'm wondering, though, why you side-stepped Larry's earlier question about how we get to heaven? The bible clearly tells us that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light and the only way to the father is through him. That's not really a message of condemnation but of truth.
KING: So then a Jew is not going to heaven?
KING: But you believe your way.
KING: But for someone who doesn't share it is wrong, isn't he?
KING: So you make no judgment on anyone?
KING: What about atheists?
KING: You believe there's a place called heaven?

Could you answer those questions Biblically? In fact, would you not pay good money for the opportunity to answer those questions, Biblically, in the hearing of tens of thousands of lost and needy souls? If your honest answer is "no"... you need to read the Baby Man essay below. Seriously.

Meanwhile, read the Larry King/Joel Osteen transcript (h-t: James White). Read Osteen's forty-three "I don't know"s, and, what is far more harmful, his actual answers.

And then tell me: in even a marginally-healthy Christian church, would this man even be allowed near a Sunday School nursery, let alone a pulpit?

UPDATE: see also Al Mohler's and Steve Camp's Biblical critiques.

UPDATE II: Osteen later apologized.

Dems kicked out of Baptist church? (Some of) the rest of the story

Did you hear the one about the Baptist pastor who kicked everyone who voted for John Kerry out of his church?

Sure you did. Titles like these were all over, a month or so ago:

• Church ousts members who don't back Bush
• Members [-- presumably ALL of them?] say pastor kicked them out of church over politics
• Minister Ex-Communicates Members For Not Backing Bush

They all told the same story, about a power-mad nutty fundamentalist Christian pastor (-- is there another kind?) who drove out all the blinking, innocent, minding-their-own-business Democratic Christians in his church. All over politics.

It amazed me, as it always does, to see the furor among some conservatives, blasting and damning this pastor for his actions.

Suddenly, we can believe the MSM? Some miracle occurred, that made the AP a reliable source for stories relating to Christians and their activities? Have we learned nothing?

Leave it to WORLD magazine, once again, to point out that, once again, the MSM told us the story it wanted us to believe (see Teapot tempest). That should not be news.

That so many still fall for it -- that's the news.

Brings to mind the world-weary sigh of Tommy Lee Jones' Agent K, in Men in Black: "Lord, what a gullible breed."

Senator Dick Durbin teaches us how NOT to apologize

Headline after headline today will refer to Senator Dick Durbin's "apology." Did he apologize? To whom? For what?

The Bible does not use the word "apologize" as we do in English. In fact, the Greek apologia has the opposite semantic impact. Far from being an admission of guilt, it means a reasoned defense (cf. 1 Peter 3:15). We have to look for other words to find out what a real apology is.

What should we do when we do something wrong? The shortest expression I can think of both sides -- what not to do and what to do -- is found in Proverbs 28:13, to wit:

Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper,
but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy.

The background is his transgressions, acts that someone has committed which cross the line, which are wrong. They are his, they are no one else's. That is a fact. It is what he does about them that makes the difference.

Perhaps he conceals them. That is, he tries to cover them over. Maybe he denies having done anything. Or maybe he acts as if nothing happened. Perhaps he explains them. Or he blames others for them. He insists that he, or his actions, were misunderstood. He accuses others of being harsh, judgmental, unkind. He says that everyone does it.

If does any of this, his transgressions remain his transgressions, and he won't go anywhere good because of them.

The only other alternative has two parts: confess, and forsake.

You confess when you admit that you did something wrong. No excuses, blameshifting, equivocations, Byzantine explanations. "I did wrong. Here's what I did wrong. It's my fault I did wrong."

Then you forsake it when you turn your back on it, and replace that ill behavior with right, God-honoring behavior.

Now, you can't forsake something that you've explained, rationalized, or blamed on someone else. You can't forsake something that wasn't your fault, or wasn't really bad. It all hangs together.

Having said that, consider these excerpts from Senator Dick Durbin's "apology" for likening the American military (and, which was more his subtext, the evil genius/idiot behind it all, President George Bush) to Nazi's, or to Pol Pot, or to torturers at the Soviet Gulags. See if this apology, which I've excerpted with my own emphases added, meets those criteria:

...I took the floor of the Senate to speak about genuine, heartfelt concerns about the treatment of prisoners and detainees at Guantanamo, and other places. I raised legitimate concerns that others have raised, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, about the policies of this administration, and whether they truly do serve our needs to make America safer and more secure. Whether, in fact, some of the policies might, in fact, endanger our troops, or in some ways, disparage the image of America around the world. ....After reading the horrible details in that memo.... ...I made reference to the Nazis, to the Soviets, and other repressive regimes. Mr. President, I've come to understand that was a very poor choice of words. ...I tried to make this very clear, that I understood that those analogies, to the Nazis and Soviets and others, were poorly chosen. I issued a release, which I thought made my intentions and my innermost feelings as clear as I possibly could. ...I sincerely regret if what I said caused anyone to misunderstand my true feelings. ...even though I thought I had said something that clarified the situation, to many people, it was still unclear. I'm sorry if anything I said caused any offense of pain to those who have such bitter memories of the Holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of our time. ...I'm also sorry if anything I said in any way cast a negative light on our fine men and women in the military. ...I never, ever intended any disrespect for them. Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them, I extend my heartfelt apologies. ...I don't want anything in my public career to detract from my love for this country, my respect for those who serve it, and this great Senate. I offer my apologies to those who were offended by my words. I promise you that I will continue to speak out on the issues that I think are important...

Did he say he had thought or done anything wrong, wrong in itself? Did he admit to any error in judgment? He admits his words were poorly chosen; what of his thoughts?

He apologizes -- but for what? And to whom? He likened the military to the Nazi's and those other murderers. Did he apologize to them for doing so, or for choosing words which some thought might do so? Did he take the blame for bad thinking which resulted in bad words? Or did he, in a roundabout way, blame others for not understanding him? Did he actually admit to thinking or doing anything wrong? Or did he promise to keep doing exactly the same thing (i.e. blame America first, demoralize our troops, enable our enemies, vilify our president)... but maybe with better-chosen words?

And what of President Bush? It would take a pretty dim bulb not to discern that the real target was President Bush, whom Durbin was meaning to rank with Hitler and other tyrants. Did he apologize to President Bush, for stating outright that he is responsible for such heinous policies?

Class -- marrieds, singles, employees, church members, friends -- this is a golden lesson in how not to apologize. It may be the Clinton way. It is not the Christian way.

UPDATE: humorist Scott Ott, at the often deliciously and hysterically funny Scrappleface, satirically outlines what actually would have been an immeasurably better and real apology.

"Baby Man" -- a sermon illustration come to life

When I would preach on Christian growth, and particularly Hebrews 5:11-14, I'd often use an illustration. (Yes, the same one; yes, all preachers do it; yes, even the Lord re-used parables.)

I would say that one expects a baby to do -- well, not much. Hard job, really: all he has to do is sit there and be cute. Now he giggles and coos, now he cries. He's either taking in food, processing it, or disposing of it. Sometimes all those things in combination.

It's adorable, in a 6-month old.

And we love our little toddlers, wobbling around in their huge diapers, emotions on their sleeves. They're really actually learning at an astonishing rate, but it doesn't look like it: they just teeter and totter, explore, make demands, and bless the house simply by being there.

Now, I say, picture a twelve-year-old in the same state. Or at eighteen, twenty, thirty: still in diapers, still helpless and dependent, still in infancy.

Well, of course (I preach) we'd all immediately know something was severely, seriously, terribly wrong. But then (I go on to say) suppose you were to find out that, no, there was nothing wrong with that man's brain. Perfectly healthy. No injuries, no diseases; nothing physically wrong whatever.

He'd just decided not to grow up.

And then I point out that what would horrify us in a marketplace apparently doesn't cause the slightest stir in church.

How so? How many people think they've been Christians for five, ten, twenty, thirty years, and haven't yet read the whole Bible through even once? How many could not name the books of the New Testament in order, let alone the whole Bible? In fact, how many could not even name the four Gospels?

(Aside: a fellow I knew once surveyed several dozen professed Christians, asking them just to name the four Gospels. Either none could, or only one could. And these were long-time Christians, including leaders within their churches. Were they embarrassed at their own astonishing ignorance? No; they were offended at him for asking.)

Poll after poll reveals those who claim to be born-again Christians to be stunningly ignorant of the Bible, or rebellious against it. On Biblical teachings as basic as the deity and bodily resurrection of Christ, the reality of the Devil, salvation by grace alone through Christ alone, low numbers recur constantly.

And even among those checking the right doctrinal boxes, if you ask them to demonstrate their faith (on which they claim to base their lives) from the Bible, even if only by one or two apposite verses, you're likelier to be disappointed than not.

How can this be? No age, and no country, has had more abundant access to the Bible than ours. No age, and no country, has had available the helps for Bible study that ours has. None has had greater freedom to use and exploit that access.

Yet I daresay that, for all the impact the Bible has on the average professor, the Bible might as well still be in Latin and chained to the pulpit at the local Roman Catholic Church.

We have churches filled with folks who, if their spiritual condition could be seen, are fully grown adults lolling about in diapers, trading off one "binky" for another. It's a horror, but it's a horror we live with without being horrified.

I tell this as an illustration.

Enter "baby man."

"Baby man" is the flesh-and-blood embodiment of my illustration. He is a 54-year-old man who "sleeps in a crib, eats in a high chair and does it in his diaper -- by choice." Click on the link, look at the pictures, let your jaw drop in revulsion...

...and next time you excuse yourself for not reading your Bible, not studying, not memorizing, not going to rigorously Bible-preaching churches, not knowing what the Bible teaches as well as you know your favorite hobby, not growing, not bearing fruit, not being one who could teach others instead of standing in daily need of having the basics repeated to you, in spite of your decades of professed Christian faith -- next time you find yourself doing that, I say, think of Hebrews 5:11-14.

And think of William Windsor. Think of "baby man."

Because that's you.

Pro-lfe hip-hop

I don't know anything about Nick Cannon -- which means I may have to pull this post later!

But he has produced a very powerful pro-life hip-hop video called Can I Live?

If it helps take the bull's-eye off the baby, that's a good thing.

Andree Seu puts the hurt on me

Over the last six or so years, WORLD magazine's regular columnist Andree Seu has gone from a what-is-she-talking-about? to a must-read for me. Her May 14, 2005 column Mental Filibusters is will show you why.

I know she wasn't thinking of me, but both "yikes" and "yikes-yikes" (name that movie!) as to how successfully she targeted and nailed my excellent adeptness at being a witness without actually witnessing. Take a look, see if she nailed you too.

UPDATE: it is July 7, and still no one has named that movie. (c;

Bedlam, USA: one act, one intent, two victims, two perpetrators, BUT....

The status of abortion law in America has made us an insane nation. It would be beyond the ability of God Himself to make the following situation rationally explicable, let alone morally sane.

A 19-year-old boy and his 17-year-old girlfriend committed fornication. As a result, the young woman conceived twin babies.

Four months after her willing invitation brought two babies to her womb, she regretted not having them killed earlier.

Evidently reasoning "better late than never," she then began trying to kill them. Ever the solicitous father, her partner in immorality became complicit in this act as well. He stepped on her, as she punched herself in the area of her womb -- the home into which they had both invited the babies.

Now, how would you expect a court to rule in such a case? There are two babies, both targets of the same deadly intent, by the same sorts of actions committed by both of these people. (The court was unable to determine which parent succeeded in killing the children.)

Well, think of an analogy. Frankly, my soul cringes from being too specific even in a "let's suppose" mockup, but briefly imagine two parents both engaged in killing a toddler. One act, right? Two complicit perpetrators. Same sentence for both. That would seem a sane conclusion.

It might be sane, but it isn't the state of law in America.

No, the court was forced to find the father guilty. The mother, however, was not charged with any crime.

Yes, you read right. In this same act, committed with the same intent, targeting the same defenseless children, the court was forced to issue two totally different verdicts.

The father was convicted of two counts of murder, and sentenced to life in prison.

The mother walked.

Why? Now, now; you know the answer.

He was committing murder. In the very same act, the mother was simply exercising her right to choose to have an abortion.

The mind reels, trying to find sanity in this mess. This means that the law is requiring us to see the same two children as part of the woman's body, and therefore subject to her whims and proffered no protection by law. Unpapered mutts in her parents' front yard have more protection. Snail darters have more protection. Spotted owls have more protection. Her unborn human babies, however, have none.

Well, no protection from her. But when their father assists their mother in killing them, he is a murderer -- for doing the same thing, to the same babies, with the same result.

If she wants to kill them, they are non-entities. If he wants to kill them (even with her permission and participation), they are human beings. In the same act of killing the same babies, he is guilty of murder, she is merely another poster-child heroine of "choice."

But if the boy had just had a medical degree, and had used a knife, he'd have walked away a hero. All because our all-knowing Supreme Court codified our soulless and irresponsible amorality by painting a bull's eye on babies.

Insanity. But then, God warned us long ago that the flight from Him is necessarily a journey into progressive insanity and chaos (Romans 1:18-32).

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'll never be much impressed by the National Day of Prayer, until it follows a National Day of Repentance.

UPDATE: the more you know about this story, the sadder and uglier it is.

Joel Osteen again: it's all about the Lexus

The Wittenburg Door is very much like Longfellow's little girl: when good, very good; when bad, horrid.

In Todd Outcalt's parodic summary of Joel Osteen's Big Book, it's more the former than the latter. Rather than have to read the whole book (all 320 pages), this article will condense Osteen's special way to skip the cross and go straight for the Lexus.

Bush, Buffy, and the Bible

You know the joke: "'Mixed emotions' is watching your mother-in-law go over the cliff in your brand-new Cadillac." And even though I trust that you, like me, have never wished harm on your mate's mom, you understand the humor.

My definition of "mixed emotions" would be: being President Bush's speech-writer.

I like President Bush. He seems to be a good man. However, I just can't agree with my fellow Bush-supporters who think he's a great speaker. In fact, I think he's quite a poor speaker.

He garbles words. He mangles diction. Phrases that should be thundered are instead raced through without emphasis, like a TNIV paraphraser whisking past Deuteronomy 4:2 or Ecclesiastes 5:4b. Instead, minor words are hit hard, big words are ricocheted, and syLAbles receive odd emPHAses.

I can honestly and easily imagine that, if I were his speech-writer, I might eventually take a pass on actually watching his speeches. An evening of checkbook-balancing might be less painful than watching brother Bush bloody that golden prose I'd spent hours polishing and perfecting.

On the other hand, I'm sure writers are sometimes thrilled to see what others do with their language.

For instance, take the TV show "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."

Of course, you'd never imagine that an unapologetically knuckle-dragging FundaDispieCalvinist like me to watch such a show. And I'm not saying I do. No sir. Nor that I own all seven seasons on DVD. But... but maybe I know people who have watched it. Yeah, that's the ticket.

At any rate, that show had some very clever writing, and some terrific actors -- er, I'm told. In particular, Alyson Hannigan, who played Willow, embodied her role and brought the character to life. She could take simple lines and make them sing and dance.

For instance, in the episode The Puppet Show, the gang figures out that a person was apparently not murdered by a monster, but by a human being. They find that even creepier.

Overwhelmed by the implications, with great animation Willow says, "It could be anyone! It could be me!" Then when everyone looks at her, in a flash of emotions she visibly deflates, sort of pouts, and says, "It's not, though." Just three words, but it's what she puts into them that is so fun, and funny.

Or I think of four words that Ian McKellan's Gandalf chokes out, in The Fellowship of the Ring. Frodo has offered him the Ring, repeatedly, insistently. McKellan, than whom I cannot easily imagine a better Gandalf, physically backs away as Frodo pursues him, holding out the cursed thing. Then all the character's internal struggle with the allurement of the One Ring is distilled and expressed in those four words: "Don't... tempt me, Frodo!"

I can easily imagine watching my words taken up by and brought to life by a McKellan or a Hannigan, and thinking, "Wow. I didn't know I was such a good writer." Or, on the other hand, I can imagine hearing that good man, President Bush, bringing howling death to my words, and sighing, "Wow. I didn't know I was such a bad writer."

"Yes," you explode, your patience at an end, "...and what possible connection can that have with the Bible?"

It makes me think of the way we often read the Bible in public.

Now, we Christians say we think that these are the very words of God Himself, breathed forth by Him and fully expressing His mind and heart to us (2 Timothy 3:15-17). There is nothing like the Bible. It is sui generis, in a class all its own.

We know that the words are living and full of power (Hebrews 4:12), they are eternal (Psalm 119:89), they are like a fire and a hammer (Jeremiah 23:29). They have moved and molded history itself, on a national scale, as well as on a personal scale. We find them sweet (Psalm 19:10), and they give joy to our very hearts (v. 8). We treasure them above all things (Psalm 19:10).

So you would think our public readings of the Word would be heartfelt, vibrant, dynamic, ebullient. You'd think it would lift us out of ourselves, and bring forth our deepest feelings and emphases.

Well, evidently it doesn't.

Some readers sound like funeral directors... or their customers. I think of one brother who reads over the radio. Somber, somnolent, even somnambulent. Certainly not soulful.

Or I recall a brother I saw years ago. I came to be sure that, each time he read the Word in public, it was the first time he'd seen the passage. (By contrast, I see the good brothers in our church poring over the passages in advance, making sure they've got a good grip on what they're about to read.)

Others affect unnaturally "holy" tones, so that narratives and dialogues and expostulations lose all heart and vigor. (Example: if you can read Galatians 1:1-10 without raising your voice, you're doing it wrong!)

Think of the original settings of these majestic passages. Can you imagine Isaiah preaching the contents of the fortieth chapter in an oh-well, ho-hum voice? No. Or the broken-hearted laments of Jeremiah? Or the thunderings of Ezekiel, or the expostulations of Malachi?

If we were to anthropopathize God excessively, could we imagine Him being pleased with the lifeless, bloodless, peremptory jobs we often do of reading His words? Or might He even wince, and cringe, and wonder why He'd even taken the trouble?

We'd not think much of a man who stood up to preach, and acted as if he'd never seen his notes before, or treated them as if they were hieroglyphics, their meaning a bafflement to him.

We who read the Word -- whether on the radio, to our church, or to our families -- should give no less heart, nor thought, to our readings. It's the Word of God. Shouldn't we read it that way?

Welcome, La Shawn Barber readers!

Thanks for the mention, La Shawn!

Of course, the views on this blog are my own, La Shawn is not responsible for my blah blah blah -- and your mileage may vary!

Check out the Archives for diverse essays on marriage, the role of the "religious right" in politics, "Gannongate" and liberal hypocrisy, the TNIV, Eleanor Clift, Joel Osteen, and Biblical commentary on various news items and cultural trends.

(c8