Joel Osteen Preacher of the Self Over Christ

 Owwwwwww!   Had no plans ever to listen to Joel Osteen based on what I've heard about him, but I had to hear some of it just so I'd know.   Scary

This isn't Christianity, it's the opposite of Christianity.  Positive thinking, Word of Faith, etc.  Speak only positive things and they weill come true.  You have power over your own life by what you say so if you say negative things you will have a negative outcome, positive things will bring you all kinds of happineness, success, desired relationships, blessings galore and so on.   This is supposedly all in the Word of God, it's what He wants for you.

At the beginning of his talks he has the audience chant something that inclues the line "This is my Bible:  I am what it says I am, I have what it says I have, I can do what it says I can do."   All the positive self images I'm sure, none of the negative ones.

What struck me is how that is the complete almost exact opposite of the chant of a fourteenth century mystic who was seeking God, 
I am nothing, I have nothing, I desire nothing but Jesus Christ.'

While I don't have much faith in chanting anything toward receiving blessings of any sort whether having the abundant life in this world or having the presence of God, the aims of the two sdifferent Christian pursuers are clearly entirely opposite from one another.  In the one I'm seeking my own wellbeing, in the other I'm seeking to get myself out of the way so that I can know God.    Osteen is Me forcuszed, the old mystics were God focused.

TThere is apparently no 
deny yourself and take up your cross
 in Osteen's ministry.    But that is the formula, if it can be called that, for drawing near to God.  Losing oneself.  Scripture says that if we will lose oursr lives for Christ's sake we will find them, but we will lose our lives if we seek to hold on to our lives.  But this is exactly what Osteen is praeching.  Holding on to your own life and enhandcing your own life.   That is how people lose Christ and if you lose Christ that is to lose everything.    This is an evil doctrine.

It is hard to deny the self.  Self is always popping up no matter what we do it seems.  I know from personal experience that if I do manage to choose against myself in this or that I am blessed with wonderful experiences of God.   I learned that years ago and then lost it, but I know that is where I want to go.  It is God that is our happiness, nothing in ourselves is real happiness no matter how successful we are.  In fact many people come to Christ from a sense of the emptiness of all their achievmeents.  How amazing it is to find teachers who promote those worldly achievements that can only leave a person ultimately empty and bereft of the presence of God.  

Osteen, like Beth Moore, commands whole stadiums of people with his Christless message of self-fulfillment.  

The Latest on the COVID Situation

Jan Markell's latest Understanding the Times radio show covers the usual sad litany of lies and corruption but also gives useful information about available health services.   The statistics are staggering and depressing and didn't have to happen but the Powers That Be have suppressed the needed treatments and pushed the dangerous ones.  As usual but it's the most recent As Usual.  

Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste – Twila Brase (rumble.com)

When the Best Embrace the False Reading of the Head Covering Passage I Know the Church is Doomed to Judgment.

Ontinuing to pursue the controversies about Beth Moore I wanted to hear John MacArthur's assessment, especially since he'd become a target himsedlf for a quick response he'd given ito a rather unfair challenenge a couple years ago.   I   All there seems to be along these lines is a talk he gavve that was captured only by someone in the audience apparently on a phone camera.  the sound is  e echoy but not too bad and I finally gave in and listened to the wholed thing.  

It's a very good biblical discussion fo the role of women in the Church and in the family, including an analysis of the Curse of the Fall.  I wanted to post it for  that reason alone, but then toward the very end, starting aroudn 50 on the counter, he decides he must address the issue of the woman's head covering in 1 corinthians 11, sand I'm SO disappointed.

John MacArthur | Response to Beth Moore and Women Pastors - YouTube

Who am I to disagree with John MacArthur?  He's probably the best preacher in the world today and I always get something out of his sermons.   I disagree with him about the Bible versions too so it's not as if I'm just a complete fan of his, but for the most part I am a fan.  He's the best.

As I think about it, getting this wrong is giving in to the very feminism he's so good at exposing and condemning.  To my mind this remains an open door to all the apostasies that have  been inundating the churches for years now.  It was eyeopening to me to hear, as I report in the previous post, that theologian Wayne gr4udem had identified feminist influences in the churches as the beginning of liberalism.   I'd wondered about that, it's seemed like an important possibility to me, and his research seems to have borne out my suspicion.

And to my mind the head covering is a hugely important emblem of that encroachment of feminism into the churches.    Beth Moore has the position she has because of it, that's my sad suspicion.  And it makes me cry.

MacArthur just gives the same old argument from culture that was foisted on the churches by Thomas Shrine.   It's been answered by many but I can't muster all that here and I don't remember a lot of it.  I think Michael Marlowe who called himself The BGible Researcher  did a particularly good job of showing that Shriner got it all wrong about the culturral  ppractices in Corinth at the time of Paul's writing.   But I can't make that argument here.

It's about the head, the literal skull that sits on top of our shoulders.  that's what it's about.  It's the symbol of authorityh that Paul is talking about.  It is not about appearing feminime or masculine.  There's isn't one shred of a hint in the passage that justifies that claim.  It's all about covering the head, the literal head as a symbol of the headship order ordained by God.   The hair that women tend to wear longer than men is given as a clue to the meaning that it's about the head and nothing else.  The long hair of women covers the head.   

I also  think it is particularly telling that we require men to remove their headgear on the basis of this passage.  And for all the centuries up until the twentieth century women were also required to cover their heads.  but all of a sudd3en when feminism was getting to be a force against the chur ches suddenly we stop requiring it, and it is justified by this flimsy and erroneous excuse for an analysis of culture that has influenced all the best churches in the co7untry and the world.   

It's particularly sad to me when he goes into some detail about the watching angeles who would be offended by a violation of God's ordinances.   As I see it that's what we are doing all the time these days, offending the obedient angels by not requiring that women cover our heads in the assembly.  IIt hurts.

Well, so much for any hopes I've had that it might be reversed and the churches start to find their way badck from the capitulation to the culture that is rampant these days.   Even if a church hasn't gone liberal and still maintains good Bible preaching it's got to be compromised in some way by embracing such a false view of a Bible passage.  

Down swe go.  All I can do is cry.

I'll add this thought.  If I'm wrong I want to know it and I'd be very very happy to be wrong about this.  I've prayed about it and will go on praying abou5t it in the hope that the Lord will give me a clear confirmation or disconfirmation of the wqay I think about this.   If I see clearly that I'm wrong about it IK'll come back and correct my statements here.

Beth Moore and the Role of Women in the Church; Which Gets Me Back to the Women's Head Covering As a Possible pPivotal Infleucne in the churches in the Direction of Apostasy.

The Wikipedia article about Beth Moore reports that she recently left the Southern Baptist Convention to become a member of the Anglican Church because the former holds a Complementarian view of the role of women in the Church while the latter are egalitarians.  complementarianism holds to the biblical view that women are under the headship of male leaders in the Church, while egalitarianism is the doctrine of equality of roles for both sex3es in the Church.  

Here is a video I found by someone whose name I didn't catch who lays out the case as I understnand it myself.  He quotes Beth as claiming that Complementarianism is not biblical but a doctrine of men, which is quite wrong as it is completely biblical.  

eth Moore Criticizes Male Leaders - YouTube

He also refers to Wayne Grudem's presentation of the evidence that liberalism in the churches starts with feminist egalitarianism, which is an interesting piece of information to me as I've often wondered if the fact that the churches have abandoned the head covering for women was a pivotal point in the degneration of the churchews today .   the head covering symbolizes male headship and the position of women as under male leadership.  That makes a prominent leader like Beth Moore a violator of the biblical order given by God.

She has apparently already endorced Critical Race Theory in the Church, although I'm not completely clear about that, and I know she strongly opposes Trump because of his locker room talk that got captured on video and spreade abroad.  Although that was a pretty objectionable incident the fact is that it was exposed by the Left to smear Tr7ump while they carefully protect Leftist politicians from that sort of exposure.  We know now, or at least some of the conservatives know, that Biden not only talked about what Trump talked about he actually did it and a woman complain4ed.   And we just don't know anything about the private lives of many other Democrats.  We found out about Kennedy's womanizing eventually but that's probably just the tip of the iceberg.

So this speaker is looking for Moore to keep sliding into Leftist positions.  

he recHe recommends an interview by Justin Peters of a Christian woman leader Susan Hecht about Beth Moore so I am listening to that and will post that information:

An Interview With Susan Heck On Beth Moore - YouTube

Susan Hecht sounds like a  trustworthy Bible teacher who should be the main reference for bible studies instead of Beth Moore.     this interview is a good overview of Moore.

So I think I should end this with another emphasis on the women's head covering.  It's such an emblem of the whole complementarian theology of women's role in the Church.  So many times I've wondered if  the abandonment of this practice has something to do with the drift into apostasy in so many churches.  there are certainly many churches where it is not practices but the church is orthodox in spite of irt, but since my own study of it led me to such a strong undeerstanding that we are in fact required to cover our heads in the sanctuary.    

We require men to UNcover their heads and that comes from the same scripture passage.  It was a theologian who is a part of a sstrong complementarian ministry who wrote the article that destroyed the time honored understanding of that passage as requiring a literal head covering, interpreting it as meaning just that women should take care to appear feminine in our dress and that sort of thing.  It's poisoned the churches.   I've  documented all this on my blog Hidden Glory.  I keep thinking this is a linch pin issue, that wif churches got back to requiring it we might see a reversal of the trend to apostasy and a revival of the Church with the power we've lacked for so long to have an influence in the culture.    

WelThis topic is not mentioned by ANY teacher I know of, including all those I particularly appreciate as true Bible teachers.  Out here in the cyber boonies I have no ability to influence anything in the church and I don't know if I could even function in such a role, but I nevertheless hope that what I say out here might be picked up by someone and passed on to someone who could make a difference.  It's up to the LORD and so far it's not happening.  Nevertheless I continue to think this is a pivotal problewm in the churches.

Beth Moore Different Impression

 The Wikipedia article on Beth Moore makes her sound a lot more legitimate than I got from listening to the recent series.  She's written books with good titles.  Her background is pretty standard evangelical Christian.  She worked with Kay Arthur whose Biblie Studies I've always considered to be completely legitimate and good Christian teaching.

So now I'm confused because my impression was of somebody who is rather unhinged.   And that first one I saw really is as crazymaking as I said it was.  

Nevertheless I'll have to come back to her later and review her case when my first impressions have died down.  

Maybe I'm Getting a Scrambled Brain From Hearing Too Much Beth Moore

Well, considering that I really don't have much patience with all this I need to keep what I say to a minimum.  Maybe I can come back to it later with more understanding than I have at the moment.  

I've listened to more of Beth Moore and I don't know if she's making more sense or I'm getting used to her.  She still throws in some silly non sequiturs.  I still want to call her the Queen of Gobbledygook.  But as with most false teachers she says some good things mixed in with the nonsense.  Same with that book Jesus Calling.  There are good messages all mixed in with its heresies.  In Moore's cae it may not be heresies, but it is a strange kind of disjointedness and to my mind ultimate meaninglessness.

This series I've been listening to is called The Art of Growing Up which is in itself an oddely inappropriate way of characterizing the passage in Ephesians 4 she's supposedly wrapping this theme around.  Growing up into the stature of Christ knit together with the Body in unity through our spiritual gifts == there's just something wrong about the way she turns that into a series about growing up in the  usual earthly sense.    Yes it is a kind of clang association on the term growing up.  The words don't mean the same thing in the different contexts.  

The Art of Growing Up - Part 1 of 4 | Beth Moore - YouTube

Growing up into Christ is about confessing and repudiating sin, where is that in her teaching?  It's about knowing the life and character of Christ so as to become more like Him.  All the talk about finding our purpose seems sort of related but it's so abstract and so easily taken over by the worldly context it's hard to know what to make of it.  

We need to go back to the old ways.  There are some current preachers who are good but these crowd-pleasing entertainers should be avoided even when they are saying some true things.    The glibness is unerving even when something true is being said.    There's something wrong with it all and I'm having trouble pinning it down.

Beth Moore the Seducer and Entertainer

Here's Part 4 of her series on Growing Up, which that other one was part of also.  Here she's being what I'd call the entertainer and the distractor.  As in the other one she took a biblical messahge about groowing into the character of  Christ and made it into a messabgge about not letting yoruselve be treated as a child, here's she's doing the same thing.  Using the passage in Ephesians about growing up into Christ together with all the other memebers of the Church with all our spiritual gifts working together to unity in the faith, and while seeming to talk in that Christian context she does a lot of antics that are more about everyday life.  She's got a stage linbed up with props, a baby's high chair, a bicycle, car seats and a steering wheel so she can dramatize her pionts.  Again rather disjointed points but it's not as garbled and disconnected as the other one, more a case of taking scripture and garbling it with meaningless nonbiblical content.

It's supposed to be about finding our Christian calling, at least that's how she presented it at first, and I end up not knowing really what the message is supposed to be in the end.  I have to admit, however, that I have too little patiences to spend much time on this one.  It's not as clearly crazymaking as the other one but it's also not much of a Christian messabge either.  

Most of the people who are drawn to this sort of thing must not be genuine born again Christians.  How could they be?  The fare is empty of much in the way of Christian teaching.  

What draws people in such huge numbers to these "Christian" h seducers.  Interesting by the way that she has a short messabge about seduction which starts out seeming to talk about the kind of seduction a Christian should fear, being seduced away spiritually from Christ, but uses language and imagery to make it into an orderinary fleshly seduction although it's really not at all clear what she means since her terms are so general and abstract.    Anyway, SHE's the seducer.

As is Joel Osteen and all the Prosperity teachers, and all those who get these gigantic audiences.  There is no real attracttion here for the christian as far as I can see.  The attraction is just the usual attraction to entertainment with a sorta kkinda message about improving uyyo8uir life.  

After writing this I went back and heard more and she's now talking clearly about sesxual seduction.  It's a good enough message in itself but as I keep finding out in these videos it has no clear connection to the overall theme of finding our calling and even less connection with the scripture in Ephsians which is about Christians growing together into the characvter of Christ.  

I'm sorry to think that true Christians are being led away by these things.   

What's Driving You? | The Art of Growing Up - Part 3 of 4 | Beth Moore - YouTube