It is vital to note that obedience to the Creator is owed by mankind, both by the demands of God’s very nature and by man’s nature itself as creature. And it is the demands of God’s nature which the Osteens seek to throw off, and to convince us that we should throw off under the guise of seeking our own happiness.

We do not expect false prophets and false teachers to be pretty or handsome. There is almost the subliminal expectation that they have nascent horns, yellow eyes, while bellowing sulfur from a mouth filled with pointed and jagged teeth. Or, at least have hair that is so teased and shellacked with hair spray that there is at least some visual clue for us. Perhaps this is because one might assume that if one is teaching the doctrine of demons that one would look like a caricature of a demon: “Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons” (1Tim. 4:1, ESV).

Recently, the wife of erstwhile “life-coach” Joel Osteen, Victoria, on a widely Internet circulated video clip sermonette said, “I just want to encourage every one of us to realize when we obey God, we’re not doing it for God–I mean, that’s one way to look at it–we’re doing it for ourselves. So, I want you to know this morning — Just do good for your own self. Do good because God wants you to be happy. . . . When you come to church, when you worship him, you’re not doing it for God, really. You’re doing it for yourself, because that’s what makes God happy. Amen?”

I don’t know what is worse, this heresy or some of the reaction of Christians to it. Like many of the heresies of the past there’s just enough truth here to give one pause, small whispers of truth that echo down from the days in the garden. One has to take it apart from a biblical perspective in order to see it for what it is.

To place it in its proper framework, let me tell you of an experience I had. A Christian friend of mine posted the video on his Facebook page. Another friend, who is not a Christian, balked at the Christians and pointed out two things: 1) Doesn’t God want us to be happy? And 2) Where does it say that Jesus said we had to obey God? Despite my pointing out the obvious answers, especially to the second question, facts certainly weren’t going to persuade him.

Al Mohler wrote about the central problems surrounding this first question as the central problem of the prosperity preaching of the Osteens.[1] But here I want to address the problem of the second question: our obligation of obedience to God. At first glance it would seem to be a no-brainer; but not in the world-view of a post-modern society.

The term “postmodern” was first used in the 1930s to describe a minor movement within the arts by Frederico de Onis. In the 1960s French Philosopher Jacques Derrida’ began a philosophical movement known as “Deconstruction.” Essentially, the meaning of a text may well be intentioned by an author but when the pen is lifted from the page, he releases his hold on meaning. The reader(s) bring to the text their experience, culture, and own sets of meaning. Thus a text has no intentionality other than what the reader brings to it. To insist that the text has one meaning; i.e., that meaning intentioned by the author, is to insist that it (the author’s meaning) can be the only meaning. Therefore it is oppressive and imperialistic. It is considered authoritarian since the reader of any given text brings a multiplicity of experiences and viewpoints to the text. A text then must be de-constructed before meaning may be derived. This movement of deconstructionism broke out from the linguistic philosophical circles to affect the other disciplines. Its inertia carried itself to the Western World and is now known as postmodernism. Each person brings their own set of meaning(s) to “reality” (whatever that is). In a world of many voices, it is said, each not only has an equal right to be heard, but each is equally right. For the postmodernist it is arrogant to claim that one can absolutely know absolute truth. Yet for the modernist Christian, he presents the claims of Christianity through apologetics, propositions, and “timeless truths extracted from the exegesis of the text.”

More importantly, for our discussion, is the rejection of “metanarrative” by the postmodernist. A “metanarrative” is a story or proposition offered as an all-encompassing, truth-explaining, and therefore “meaning- yielding” hermeneutical thread that explains “reality.” A friend of mine put it well: the Internet has “flattened information.” By that he meant what used to be perceived as a person speaking with authority on a subject has gone by the way side. A humorous internet meme put it this way, “You may have two doctorates but I read an article on Wikipedia.”

It is “natural” then in a postmodern world view to reject an over-arching metanarrative that says “Jesus is Lord,” or that God, as God, in His person, deserves and mandates obedience from all His creatures and creation, for His greatest glory. The Westminster Confession of Faith 2.2 states,

“He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.”

For the postmodernist, then, to insist that one owes obedience to a Creator, is to do violence to him; thus Victoria Osteen’s statement: “When you worship him, you’re not doing it for God really. You’re doing it for yourself, because that’s what makes God happy.” In other words, whether she has thought through this or not, she has conformed to the (postmodern) world (Romans 12:2) in that you can have this experience of happiness because God would never stoop so low to do violence to you as to require you to be obedient, to seek His highest glory.

The Westminster Confession of Faith continues in Chapter 7 by stating,

I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.

In commenting on the first paragraph, A.A. Hodge wrote,

To be a created, intelligent, moral agent, is to be under all the obligation of obeying the will and of living for the glory of the absolute Owner and Governor…The very act of creation brings the creature under obligation to the Creator, but it cannot bring the Creator into obligation to the creature.[2]

It is vital to note that obedience to the Creator is owed by mankind, both by the demands of God’s very nature and by man’s nature itself as creature. And it is the demands of God’s nature which the Osteens seek to throw off, and to convince us that we should throw off under the guise of seeking our own happiness. The Westminster Shorter Catechism Question 13 reads:

Q. 13. Did our first parents continue in the estate wherein they were created?

A. Our first parents, being left to the freedom of their own will, fell from the estate wherein they were created, by sinning against God.

Satan, whispering in the garden, convinced creation’s couple, though Adam was not deceived (1 Tim.2:14), they would be much happier, i.e., they would be as gods, if they simply would just cross the line. In contrast, Jesus, the Second Adam, being born under the Law, as the author and finisher of our faith, “Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him” (Heb 5:8-9, ESV). Obedience to the gospel is obedience to Christ and to God. Jesus said, “I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins” (John 8:24, ESV). His burden is not violence done to us, and is easy and light compared to the violence, both of the world, and the weight of an eternity spent apart from God (2 Thess.1:8, 9).

One would not think it possible to pack as much heresy into such a short video clip as the Osteens did. But even Satan’s temptation is recorded in only five verses (Gen.3:1-5). I find it ironic that many balk at the Osteens’ short clip, not for the content but because they appear to be such nice people. We have come full circle.

Dr. Christopher Faria is a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America. He served as an Army Chaplain for 26 years and as a church planter in Falcon, Colo. He lives in Colorado Springs, Colo.

[1] Al Moehler, The Osteen Predicament — Mere Happiness Cannot Bear the Weight of the Gospel, http://goo.gl/xpbNYm

[2] A.A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith, epub version.