Why Christians Don't Have To Care What Joel Osteen Says

One of the great things about true Christian faith is that the doctrine we follow is governed by Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, and not...well, "some dude." The Bible, and everything in it, was written by divine inspiration. As for what is not in the Bible, God is not only the divine Author of the Scripture, but its divine Editor as well. And God being eternally good, and never contradictory or changing (James 1:17), those who believe in the sovereignty of Jesus and not the authority of people have no fear of following an immoral facet of this faith.

But, there are sects of those who claim Christ in a twisted way, but are led by mere men - dudes prone to bias, agendas, and corruption. For example, the presidents, "prophets," and leaders of the Mormon church held for about one hundred fifty years the gross doctrine that black people were all cursed, descendants of Cain. In Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie wrote, "Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed on them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God, and his murder of Abel being a black skin."
Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, wrote, "Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization." 
One of Smith's predecessors, Brigham Young, echoed these racist sentiments: "Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which was the flat nose and black skin...the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree...If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be."
However in 1978, as the tide was thankfully strongly turning concerning America's racism, then-president of the Latter-Day Saints, Spencer W. Kimball, announced that God had apparently changed His mind concerning black people, and that they were no longer cursed.

The point of this is not to bring up the history of racist doctrine in the Mormon church, but rather to make the point that this faith's doctrines were concocted and changed throughout the years by mere men. And these mere men, whatever they stated, true or false, was "gospel" for the Mormons.

Faith in Christ's authority and sovereignty - and His alone - does not carry this conundrum.

For example, when Fred Phelps, former leader of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, would say hideous things like "God hates f*gs," this did not reflect the belief of all, or even most, Christians, and certainly did not reflect or affect God's words in Scripture. Fred Phelps was just some dude, whose ravings reflected only himself and the wanderers who followed his warped view. Jesus remained Lord, while Phelps remained only a bitter, raving man who led others astray.
Likewise, if another controversial figure in Christianity, such as a Joel Osteen or others of his ilk (certainly not to compare Joel Osteen to Fred Phelps), whose teachings on the so-called "prosperity gospel" have been rejected by many Christians who find no basis for it in - again - God's word, say something questionable, it does not reflect the truth of God, nor are Osteen's sayings precedents for all believers to follow.

A few years ago when Haiti was plagued with natural disasters, Pat Robertson, of 700 Club fame, attributed the tragedies to some "pact with Satan" that Haiti had made long ago. There have also been many who blame tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, and the like, on moral decline in America and the rest of the world. But we know this notion to be refuted by the Bible, as God said after the Great Flood, "I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Genesis 8:21).
Again, Christians were not obliged to heed Robertson's ill-informed statement because God's truth trumps the words of men, even if those men profess to be God's spokespeople.

One of the only "televangelists" (though he's served in many more capacities for the church of God than just televangelism) I enjoy listening to is Dr. Charles Stanley...out of the, like, four televangelists I've ever listened to. Lately however, I discovered that he and I have differing views on the timeline of the Great Tribulation and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (keep in mind however that I still require much more study and prayer on this matter, as we all do - I could be butt-over-tea-kettle wrong in my view; Spirit and prayer will tell). So, because I find Dr. Stanley to be a well-spoken, gentle, and passionate man of God, does that mean I should abandon my views, or even ignore what the Holy Spirit lays on my heart concerning those issues? Absolutely not.
I don't have the nerve to say "Charles Stanley is wrong, and I'm right," as I'm not even a cup-bearer in God's Kingdom, but merely a jester (but given entrance to the Kingdom by the grace of God nonetheless).
But, I do know that if the Holy Spirit convicts me in my future studies and prayer on the End Times, and affirms that what I've learned from Scripture concerning those things is true, even if they don't line up with Dr. Stanley's views, then I must abide by the Spirit, and not Dr. Stanley.

Therefore, seek not the wisdom of Charles Stanley, Billy Graham, Ravi Zacharias, or Beth Moore. If these servants of God said something wonderful, and in accord with His gorgeous Gospel, then praise the Holy Spirit who gave it to them. We must seek answers in prayer and the holy Scripture; if God's servants preach a sermon, write a discourse, or make a remark that jibes with the Word, praise the Lord and not the servant. We should encourage the man or woman of God in their proclaiming of the Gospel, but we must always acknowledge first and foremost Christ - for, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:1-3, 14).

Those rooted in Jesus Christ may be condemned and criticized by an unfeeling, unbelieving world, but they have a much easier yoke to carry than those who follow the ever-changing, ever-dreadful words of men.

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." -Hebrews 13:8

Why I Can't Attack Evolution & Islam & Etc

I've learned recently, or may have just forgotten in complacency, that if one has guts enough to believe in something, he or she can't be thin-skinned about it.

Among the words of Jesus I remember and cherish the most are those recorded in Matthew 10:16 - "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves."

I've long touted the claim that I hope to keep my mind as narrow as "the narrow way" preached by our Lord. If I leave it open to any doctrine, teaching, theory, philosophy or creed, I become a random mess of miscellany. My mind and heart must test what is spoken to me before I believe it. And if I believe the words of the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit to be the absolute truth, then to those words I have a duty, to preach, to encourage, to defend. But I've recently come to realize that the verse on which the practice of 'Christian apologetics,' i.e. the defense of our belief, should be based is Matthew 5:39, when Jesus said, "whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."
Actions speak louder than words. If I'm criticized for my faith, I do no good, I win no souls for Christ, I warm no hearts, by retaliating with endless strife and arguing. Sure, I may have once owned Richard Dawkins in a debate at Oxford Lecture Hall, and made him hold my jacket while doing so - but who did I feed? Who did I bless, to whom did I minister?
Nobody.
God's words through the apostle Paul are "Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies," and "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal."

I would have done far more good to have kept silent, left the lecture hall, and went to whom the Lord led me to bless, rather than keying "LOSER" on Mr. Dawkins' car and going to the Manchester United after-game party at a local pub.
Jesus' silence during His interrogation was among His greatest works - He knew the men questioning and striking Him would have accepted no answer He could have given; the Pharisees were only determined to see Him crucified, Herod Antipas wanted only a miracle for his own amusement, and Pontius Pilate only wanted desperately to be rid of the whole matter. Jesus' actions spoke louder than any response He could have given - He gave Himself on the cross as a ransom for the souls of you and me, and rose again from the dead.
As Isaiah prophesied six hundred or so years before Jesus' birth, "He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth" (Isaiah 53:7).

I convince no one of the truth of the Gospel by arguing about it; I have a much better chance abiding by it.

So, what does this have to do with my defense of the Gospel and of my Lord, and my newfound refusal to directly attack any other doctrine?

I don't know if the Koran teaches or endorses violence against non-Muslims; as far as religion goes, it's really irrelevant to me, because what I do know is that Islam does not profess Jesus Christ as "the way, the truth and the life," as the only Lord and Savior. Rather, Islam teaches that Jesus was only a prophet or "helper" of God, and further denies His death on the cross and Resurrection from the dead. This is all I need to know about Islam, or any religion, creed, or doctrine of spiritual substance, before I give it any attention. It doesn't matter if Scientology truly teaches men to eat placentas or not - it does matter that Scientology denies Jesus as the Christ. It doesn't matter if Mormonism teaches its members to wear special underwear or not - it does matter that Mormonism was founded when false gospels were added to the truth of Jesus, which the Word of God strictly forbids.
Do I desire for Muslims or Scientologists to come to know Jesus Christ as their Savior? Do I desire for Mormons to abandon the false teachings they follow? Absolutely. But I cannot lead them to Him with venom in my words.

As for the evolutionary and Big Bang theories, at least in the way they've been so widely accepted, there are many Christians who subscribe to them. I've found that science and the Bible are in harmony - but when a theory or claim, scientific or not, denies what was authored by God through prophets and parchment, I can't accept it. For the the Big Bang or human evolution to work, the Biblical account of Creation must be denied. This comes from the Scripture I believe to be holy and sovereign, from God's mouth to man's hand, a Book He would not let become faulty or flawed. I don't have to attack the ins and outs of evolution or other theories to defend what I believe.

I'm too stupid for lots of things - mathematics, algebra, women, and science among them. The most profound scientific thing in my argumentative canon, and even this is probably theoretically flawed somehow, is that if Louis Pasteur disproved the myth of spontaneous generation, why is the Big Bang Theory still being taught? Again, I'm sure someone from the scientific field would correct me or explain this, but remember: I know little to nothing about those things. So if you're a scientist, you probably would find it frivolous to correct an idiot like me, admittedly unlearned, on my claim.

And, again, being uneducated on matters of evolution, Big Bangs and et cetera, I've no business attacking them. I do however have every right to dismiss them as they pertain to the Word I believe to be flawless and holy. Much like I would not want someone with little or no knowledge of the Bible to attack it, if I were an evolutionist, I'd have no time for someone like me, whose last scientific studies came from watching Beakman's World, criticizing their claims.

It's enough for a person to defend his or her own beliefs without directly attacking another's; if the defense is done so in love, he or she makes a case, whether he can prove it or not, even if there are others who believe the same thing though they may not behave as they should. In the eyes of the world, my claim of Jesus' divinity may be dismissed as superstition, but I open the door to many more ears if I stick to what I know, and who I love, rather than what I don't know and those whose love I could drive away from accepting the Gospel.

May the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.