Preaching a "Celebrity Gospel"

Preaching a ‘Celebrity Gospel’By Mark CreechWhat’s a Christian Answer?
July 10th, 2005
Reverend Mark Creech is condemnatory of both Billy Graham and Joel Osteen - http://www.joelosteen.com/site/PageServer - for preaching a ‘celebrity gospel’, which in his words:

• “A ‘celebrity gospel’ should be deemed for what it is: anathema -- something to be shunned and reviled by the faithful.” “The hope or objective of a celebrity gospel is that people might feel helped and encouraged, not condemned or judged.” “Moreover, any gospel message that fails to deal with sin -- messages that fail to specifically address sin -- are not setting forth the need for people to be reconciled to God. Such messages fail to address why one needs to be saved.”

Well, I have heard both preach, Graham of course more over the years than Osteen. I haven’t read Osteen’s book, although my wife has and found it meaningful and spiritually uplifting. Both these evangelist do deal with sin. Albeit a different approach that, maybe, Mr. Creech could learn from. While Reverend Creech, it sounds as if, would deliver a message of condemnation and judgment, the Celebrity Gospel (CG) ministers deliver a message of faith, hope, and charity, without always prescribing/identifying the sins of the one who needs to repent. I think most of us know what our sins are, and we as Protestants do not have to confess to anyone except God, who will judge and know if our confessions are bogus or incomplete. What more is required for our atonement with God -- other than to love God with all our hearts, mind, soul, and strength and to love our neighbor as ourselves?God, I believe, welcomes a positive message of the good news. In thinking about the good-news message my first thoughts turned to Luke 4:16 when Jesus read from Isaiah: 18 “The uSpirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me 9to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To vset at liberty those who are 1oppressed; 19To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” Then He sits down as if enough said. Now is that not a positive message? Of course we know Jesus went on to say, among other things, likening Himself as a prophet, 24 “Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in the prophet’s hometown.” Now here again is the John 14:6 when Rev. Creech said, “When preachers fail to make central to their message what Christ said of himself -- "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father but by Me" (John. 14:6) -- they have compromised the gospel and left their audience with no certain means to find their way home.” Even though I personally accept the way of Jesus doesn’t mean there are not other ways to God. In fact I think the insistent-gospel of this passage does a grave disservice, an injustice to humanity, of the 4.4 billion people outside Christianity who for the most part will never hear the good-news Christian message.Another point to be made in this article, aside from the fact that Rev. Creech in differentiation to the CG ministers would have his “one-and-only-truth” religious beliefs to influence politics, is the fact that Franklin Graham likewise relies on politico for his religious support. Evangelist Billy Graham who has tried to stay clear of politics, especially since he ran afoul of Jews in disparaging comments recorded in a conversation with President Nixon. Of course, he has on many instances since when asked about that profusely apologized to the Jewish people. Billy came to Franklin’s rescue after a disparaging statement Franklin made about Muslims after 9/11. However, most recently Franklin found it necessary to correct a political snafu by his father who had made a complimentary remark toward the Clintons when he said Bill Clinton should be an evangelist. The gracious words Billy Graham bestowed to the Clintons recently apparently caused much consternation among constituency of Samaritan's Purse, Franklin Graham's relief organization, and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. The following link: http://wwwbeliefnet.com/story/170/story_17016_1.html gives Franklin’s well crafted response, but in a separate interview, Franklin gave a more political answer, as paraphrased: “Dad did not really mean that Clinton should be an evangelist; he was joking, it was only in jest, besides Clinton has not been called to preach. We certainly are not in agreement with their politics.” A Christian response that could have come from someone like Dr. Tony Campolo - http://www.tonycampolo.org/index.shtml - (Bill Clinton’s Christian counselor and speaker at The 2000 NC Annual United Methodist Conference) might have gone like this: Yes, Bill Clinton could be an evangelist, if called by God. God has used some very appalling characters and sinful people throughout Biblical history, included among them the murderer and most sinfully converted Saul, St. Paul, who in very large part is responsible for founding the Christian Church.My wife Jane, a 3rd grade teacher for years, has related her embarrassment over responding to small children after the discomforting Clinton Presidency. While I could empathize with her, I have said, why not have given them a Christian lesson response, such as: You as a child will come to learn that some good and intelligent people do very bad things. You should be aware that there could be sever consequences for anyone who makes bad choices. Sometime in your life, if not you, someone close to you or someone you know will be in deep trouble over a bad choice. Above all, you should remember that what is equally important as the sinner’s redemption, it’s your forgiveness of them.When we as Christians stop condemning, for the things we know nothing about, and start giving Christian answers and looking for Christian solutions, whether it be the daughters and sons of Allen Keys, Dick Cheney, Dick Gephert, or any other parent of a lesbian or gay child, then we will have advanced ecumenically for greater unity in Christian ministry. If only we could search our hearts for all children and adults of biological and mental disorders - beyond their control - which may cause offensive behaviors. One thing I do admire about the Cheneyes, withstanding the very bright Lynn Cheney’s disparaging remarks (a political answer) about John Kerry that “he just wasn’t a good person”, is their resolute position for their lesbian daughter, even in a counter position, political or Christian, of the president. There is no greater example of working together in a Christian solution than with President George H. Bush and President William J. Clinton running side by side in the tsunami relief efforts. Further, give credit where credit is due: George W. Bush in granting a record aid to African nations, the only continent of this world that is poorer than it was 25-years ago. I only hope we can pay for it.Oh, did I mention something about the need for separation of church and state?Some say as in the adage of the country song: “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.” Maybe it’s time to initiate a new motto: “Be careful what you stand for; when you think you have the TRUTH, Keep Searching!” Truly, I do want to stand for something – and I want to make sure it’s in alignment with the will of God – as I believe that’s the vigilant stand of a Billy Graham or a Joel Osteen.That’s my sermon for this Sunday. I’ll see you in church. Hope you get a good one at your church today.Cornellzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzhttp://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/7/52005mc.aspThe Right Frame of MindPreaching a 'Celebrity Gospel'By Rev. Mark H. CreechJuly 5, 2005(AgapePress) - I don't know who first coined the term "social gospel." But it's generally understood among conservative evangelicals to be an American theological aberration. The social gospel rose to prominence during the 1960s, when preachers strayed from the gospel of the grace of God and started proclaiming a message of salvation through "good works." The social gospel essentially advocates redemption based on social action, without teaching the necessity of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.No one who understands the Holy Scriptures would deny our Lord calls us to good works or to social action. Nevertheless, the Bible teaches such should be wedded with the message of salvation in Jesus Christ alone. Corporate or societal righteousness is actually an outgrowth of the masses coming to know Jesus Christ.I consider the social gospel something to be considered anathema -- something to be shunned and reviled. The danger it poses, however, pales in comparison to another, more recent, very popular approach to the gospel today that is extremely deadly. It too, I believe, is a theological aberration. We might call it a "celebrity gospel."A celebrity gospel is when a preacher compromises the gospel of Christ in order to achieve or sustain a celebrity status. When a preacher proclaims a celebrity gospel, offenses are stringently avoided. There is no need to carry a Cross -- no need to take a stand theologically or politically. Christ is preached, but without preaching against sin. The good news of Jesus Christ is set forth in vague generalities designed to keep from dividing the audience. The hope or objective of a celebrity gospel is that people might feel helped and encouraged, not condemned or judged.Two good examples of preachers proclaiming a celebrity gospel of late are Dr. Billy Graham and Joel Osteen. Please understand it troubles me deeply to speak negatively of either one of these ministers. I consider myself unworthy to even shine their shoes. Dr. Graham has preached to more people in the world than any other evangelist in history. Joel Osteen serves the largest church in America, has a national television ministry, and has had a book on the New York Times best-seller list for several weeks. But I have witnessed compromises to the gospel of Christ by these two that I can only assume are driven by their desire to protect their celebrity.For instance, talk-show host Larry King, on CNN's Larry King Live, recently interviewed both men separately and in so many words asked them if they believed people of faith outside of Christ would go to heaven. Graham's answer: "That's in God's hands. I can't be the judge." Osteen responded: "Here's my thing .... I think it's wrong when you go around saying, you're saying you're not going, you're not going, you're not going, because it's not exactly my way." Both acknowledged their own faith in Christ, but wouldn't clearly delineate that there is only one mediator of salvation between God and man -- Jesus Christ (I Timothy. 2:5).When King asked Graham and Osteen about involvement by preachers in politics, both expressed their own reluctance to do it. Graham said, "I'm trying to stay out of politics. And I've been queried quite a bit lately, why I don't take a stand on certain issues." Later in the same interview, King asked Graham whether he believed people were born homosexuals or not. Graham would only say, "Well, that's a big debate." King then pressed the issue and asked, "But if it's not a choice, it can't be a sin. Right?" To which Graham replied, "Well maybe. God will make that judgment, not me. I'm not deciding who's a sinner and who is not." When Osteen was asked by King about issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, he said he believed same-sex marriage was not what God intended, neither was abortion the best, but he wasn't going to call anyone a sinner. He added he doesn't even use the word "sinner."Why is this a matter of concern? It's a matter of great significance because it's a breaking away from sound Christian doctrine. When preachers fail to make central to their message what Christ said of himself -- "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father but by Me" (John. 14:6) -- they have compromised the gospel and left their audience with no certain means to find their way home. We would all do well to consider the example of the early Christians, who lived in a pluralistic and liberal-minded city like Rome, yet wouldn't take a pinch of incense and place it on a fire before a graven image of Caesar because they were unwilling for Jesus to be considered just another god in a Roman pantheon. They believed Jesus was the one true God and that only He was Lord, not Caesar. For that faith they were willing to die of unspeakable tortures. Moreover, any gospel message that fails to deal with sin -- messages that fail to specifically address sin -- are not setting forth the need for people to be reconciled to God. Such messages fail to address why one needs to be saved.The message of the Cross is not simply a message about God's love. It's also a message about God's anger at sinners. The message of the Cross contends that God has been offended. Sin is so vial in God's eyes it necessitated the violent and bloody death of His own Son to assuage His wrath. It says no matter how good you may think you are, this is what you deserve: what Christ experienced on the Cross. Christ died in your place to pay the penalty for your sin and there is no other way to be saved except through Him. The apostle Paul referred to this as "the offence of the Cross" (Galatians 5:1) -- a message no preacher has a right to neglect.Lastly, preachers unwilling to address political matters of moral import are derelict in their duty to obey Christ's command to be "salt and light" (Matthew 5:13,14). What is more, their neutrality in such matters is a departure from the example of early church leaders like Telemachus, who gave his own life to stop the gladiator games in Rome. Then there's John Knox, who changed all of Scotland in his lifetime. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, whose sermons often addressed issues like indentured servitude, rampant drunkenness, slavery, and the poor health of the peasant class. William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army, sought by law to destroy the prostitution racket in London during his day. And let's not forget the Black Regiment -- those ministers who wore black robes and contended from the pulpit for freedom during the days of the American Revolution. Without them there would have never been an America.Though it may be very popular and garner the support of thousands -- though it may bring in the big crowds, result in high praise and the adulation of most -- the preaching of a "celebrity gospel" is not acceptable with God. W. Philip Keller summed up the matter when he wrote: "The high calling to which God calls those chosen ones to speak on His behalf is not only a holy duty but also a lonely life. It is to be very much among the suffering and sorrows of our society but also (more often than not) somewhat alone in bearing the burdens -- frequently misunderstood and often wrongly accused. Christ came to us as the Man of sorrows, acquainted with grief. So it is to be expected that those who follow Him will taste the same suffering and endure the same disdain. This is inevitable."A "celebrity gospel" should be deemed for what it is: anathema -- something to be shunned and reviled by the faithful.
(image placeholder)(image placeholder)(image placeholder)