The Gospel of Prosperity?

My favorite evangelical, the Texan Joel Osteen, has been on television a lot lately, promoting his new book, Become a Better You. During these appearances, Joel and his wife have been modest and gracious; they have answered questions of talk show hosts like Larry King with humor and intelligence. 

And there is much to be said for the Osteen's positive Gospel; most of us need help in living a fulfilling Christian life, and we all can use hope. The Broad Church Movement in which many of the founders of the Church of the Incarnation were involved had an important optimistic side, seen in its most famous American member, Bishop Phillips Brooks.

But the negatives, too, are obvious: the so-called Prosperity Gospel can lead to selfishness and greed, as witnessed by the announcement of an investigation of six other evangelists who are also in this camp. These preachers apparently have helped themselves to a few too many of the offerings collected by their non-profit churches.  

The issue, however, goes much deeper than the fate of popular clergy. These are the two sides of all religion: sacrifice for others v. abundant life for oneself. Sometimes these aspects are present together, as when a doctor receives joy from working long hours to help poor people. But often, religion seems to go in one direction or another, towards personal satisfaction or towards painful duty.

Myself, I'm hoping to do my duty and still find abundant life. Or as Joel Osteen entitled his first book, Your Best Life Now. --J. Douglas Ousley

Further on the Atheism Business

Maki Hoashi's comment to my last post made me guilty that I had commented on books that I hadn't read. Though I have read a number of Richard Dawkins' previous books and articles, I had not read Christopher Hitchens' book on religion. I will order the latter to atone for my hubris.

In the meantime, I still wonder how much difference it makes that famous thinker X or Y believes or doesn't believe Christianity is true. My faith is strengthened by knowing a number of bright people who are believers; my faith isn't weakened by knowing a number of bright people who are atheists. This isn't logical, yet we all have to accept some things on authority; we can't weigh every argument and every bit of evidence. Perhaps here we come to the life beyond the thought; or in the biblical phrase, "By their fruits shall ye know them." How beliefs are lived can suggest whether they are true or false. --J. Douglas Ousley

The boredom of atheism

I admit that I have not read the latest crop of atheism books. I have read numerous books by Richard Dawkins so I feel I don't need to read any more of his and I suspect that the rest of them will offer few new arguments. I was trained as an analytic philosopher London, in the mid-twentieth century heyday of that movement; at the time, most philosophers were atheists and their arguments against religion were strong and detailed. 

In the years since, Christian and Jewish philosophers have responded with their own counter-attacks on atheism and defenses of the possibility of Christian belief. The power of these responses is perhaps the main reason atheist philosophers no longer argue much with the religious.

In leaving the field to amateurs, however, they don't do much for the atheist cause. While Hitchens is a first-rate political commentator and Dawkins a brilliant biologist, neither has any philosophical training (nor much experience of religion--but let that go.) Such windy rhetorical attacks pose little threat to Christianity. In fact, it is said that sales of Hitchens' and Dawkins's books have been mostly to evangelicals who want to "know the enemy!" Whether or not this is true, Christians don't have much reason to fear these enemies, because the enemies don't have good reasons to support their claims.  --J. Douglas Ousley