Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

In the six years since inheriting Houston’s Lakewood Church from his late father, Joel Osteen has become the country’s most visible, and most credible, religious broadcaster. His “megachurch”—now the Lakewood International Center—has approximately 30,000 members; to accommodate the holy hordes, he recently purchased the former Compaq Center sports arena. His televised sermons reach millions in over 130 countries, and his 2004 book, Your Best Life Now: 7 Steps to Living Your Full Potential is affixed to the New York Times bestseller list, with nearly 3 million copies sold.

Osteen’s sermons eschew proclamations of damnation in favor of a “You can do it because Jesus says you can” approach. While it’s obviously distasteful to compare him to Bill Clinton, one can sum up the general theme of Osteen’s sermons with the ex-President’s campaign song: “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow.” With his grins, jokes, and easygoing personality, he has almost completely erased the stereotype of the sweating, screaming televangelist established during the Jimmy Swaggart era. (To his credit and wisdom, he does not request donations on his shows.)

Osteen has been criticized for being too upbeat in his sermons, and it’s hard to deny that he comes across as Oprah reborn as a white man from Texas. However, Osteen has also received tremendous praise—from the mainstream media, which is troubling.

Last month the Boston Globe published a lengthy profile endorsing his ministry for its racial diversity (Lakewood is said to have near-equal amount of black, white and Hispanic attendees) and his refusal to engage in moral attacks (“The Scripture,” he told the Globe, “says it’s the goodness of God that causes people to repent. Jesus didn’t condemn.”) Likewise, liberal columnist Tony Norman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette applauded Osteen because “he doesn’t parrot right-wing talking points” nor attempts to “push [viewers and parishioners] into becoming wholly owned subsidiaries of the Republican Party.”

Obviously, Osteen’s media approval is dependent upon his refusal to be a culture-war foot-soldier. However, it is neither logical nor possible for Osteen to continue positioning himself as being deaf to current socio-political tunes.

With the controversies over Roe v. Wade and court-ordered gay marriage still raging, the man who follows the Cross will soon find himself at a crossroads: does he take a clear stand against secularism and risk the opprobrium of the media? Does he firmly proclaim, as so many Catholic priests did last year, that there is one political philosophy whose objectives are clearly in tune with Judeo-Christian concepts and one political philosophy whose objectives are clearly not? Does he risk losing the support of that faction of  “cafeteria Christians” who watch his shows and attend his sermons precisely because he refuses to make moral judgments from the pulpit?

It’s hard to deny that Osteen’s influence and visibility would be effective weapons in the current “culture war”. Sure, the media would place the same mask of malevolence on him that they’ve already placed on John Roberts—but at least, it would prove that he wasn’t just another pretty face.