Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Your Best Life Now: a review of Joel Osteen’s best-seller
Your Best Life Now: a review of Joel Osteen’s best-seller
Jul 11, 2026 12:18 PM

In my Sunday School class, we finished Exodus last week. Between books, I often do miscellaneous lessons or a topical study. So, before we start Numbers next week, I did the only thing on my miscellaneous docket: a book review of Joel Osteen’s Your Best Life Now.

Now, why would I bother to read Osteen’s book (I already have, more or less, my best life now!)—and why would I devote the time to talk about it in my class? First, a dear friend of mine gave it to me and my wife for Christmas. That’s probably not an mon gift to receive, but it is noteworthy because he’s a Southern Baptist minister (not exactly Joel’s usual audience). Moreover, he credits Osteen’s ministry with important changes in his own preaching—in terms of both style and substance.

Second, Hank Hanegraaff is not a big fan of Joel’s, strongly critiquing him on the handful of occasions when I’ve heard him speak on the topic. In particular, he’s labeled him as a “Word of Faith” (WoF) minister who preaches a “prosperity (health & wealth) gospel”. I have tremendous respect for Hank’s ministry through the Christian Research Institute. (CRI’s review of Osteen’s book is not a hatchet job by any means, but I disagree with some of the conclusions.)

So, how do I resolve the views of these two men? Well, for starters, I decided to read Osteen for myself! (Keep in mind that I have never seen/heard Joel in action. For better and for worse, this is only a book report!)

GENERAL OVERVIEW/THOUGHTS

-The book is an easy read. It is quite redundant, but perhaps this is necessary given the themes. If one is having trouble in the areas that Osteen addresses, “saying it once” is unlikely to be sufficient.

-The book is Proverbs-like in that he is municating principles, not laws of nature or of human behavior. If one wants to consider them rules, then there are clearly exceptions. In any case, the context of his remarks is relevant—and implied as one goes along. For example, he uses one example where a lady should remain in her job instead of taking an undesirable promotion (p. 96). But at other times, he encourages people to avidly pursue job promotions—if their reluctance has been a function of a negative attitude like fear or self-loathing.

-Likewise, in a sense, the book is sloppy—if one wants to read it closely/narrowly. This is not an academic work; he’s speaking/appealing to a popular audience. And he’s depending on the audience to understand the context of his remarks. (Ironically, those who are more academic may be least able to read the book in this manner!)

MY CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE BOOK:

-Most of the book is bined with already solid theology and practice. Even if one doesn’t have a solid background, the book could still be helpful if one is recovering from some forms of bad theology.

-Likewise, how one reads/sees this will depend on their religious background and personal circumstances/background—whether Charismatic or Reformed, whether successful and confident or struggling and fearful.

-At least in terms of the book, Hanegraaff/CRI’s critique misses the mark. Other critiques are (quite) valid, but Osteen (at least here) is at most a first cousin to WoF.

-Osteen points to (and pounds) the importance of hope, vision, and faith. As such, his (best) audience seems to be broken people and munities—whom Jesus describes in Mt 5:3 as “the poor in Spirit”.

-The title of the book is descriptive. “Your best” implies the context-specific nature of what “best” means to each individual (vs. the usual WoF message of general health and wealth for the faithful). “Life now” speaks to the fact that the Gospel is meant to have a tremendous impact on our life on earth (not just fire insurance to get to Heaven)—and the need to take steps now, rather than procrastinating. These are themes developed by writers for whom I have tremendous respect: In The Divine Conspiracy, Dallas Willard talks about a “gospel for living not just dying” (as is often the case in Evangelical circles). And in The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis talks about the need to focus on the present and eternity and not so much on the past and future.

NOTABLE THEMES:

-The biggie: the need to transform one’s mind and attitude (Rom 12:2). There is a considerable “focus on self” here. But the changes are plished with God’s help and ultimately directed for greater/godly ends. In addition, Osteen may have in mind a corrective to the standard Charismatic emphasis on the devil’s power. If so, Osteen is urging his audience to avoid blaming external factors and deal with internal aspects of the sin nature.

-Related to that: we need to believe in a big, involved, benevolent God (Jer 29:11, Heb 11:6)—and we need to go to Him with big dreams/goals (Eph 3:20; Mt 7:7-11).

-There is some emphasis on material prosperity, but it is reasonable/balanced. All things equal, “God takes pleasure in prospering His children” (p. 87a)—although, often, not all other things are equal! But Osteen has much more on spiritual prosperity and abundant life properly defined. (For example, later on p. 87, he identifies “a poverty mentality [that]…is not glorifying to God”.)

-Even within his discussions of material prosperity, all of Part 6 (50 pages) is devoted to giving and serving of all sorts. “We should concentrate more on being a blessing than trying to be blessed.” (p. 226) “Somebody needs what you have to give.” (p. 230) He challenges people to start sowing and planting—rather than waiting until things get better. And there is only one reference to church giving (encouraging people to stretch from 10-11%). Finally, it is evident that it is more important to Osteen that his audience would live a life of integrity and excellence vs. mediocrity—than a concern about material prosperity (ch. 31).

-Osteen repeatedly talks about ing to us—and the importance of our response to it. In fact, all of part 5 (50 pages) is devoted to this topic, including chapters on “standing up on the inside”, trust God’s timing, and the purpose of trials (p. 206’s “God is more interested in changing me than my circumstances”). My favorite point here was his distinction between a “delivering faith” (where one has faith and God delivers you quickly from a trial) and a much more laudable “sustaining faith” (where one’s faith sustains you through a trial). This is good stuff in any case—but especially in contrast the WoF teachers to whom he is pared!

-Likewise, Osteen talks (pointedly and at length) about taking ownership and action vs. blaming circumstance and others. plaining and start rejoicing” (p. 278). Chapter themes? Move on with life vs. getting stuck in paralysis (Jn 5:6’s “do you want to get well?”; II Sam 12:13-23). Be quick to forgive; don’t let bitterness take root. Let God take care of justice (David with Saul). Osteen also points to the need to e the crippling power of guilt and self-condemnation. In a word, choose life and blessing today (part 7); live with enthusiasm and passion; and “bloom where you are planted” (p. 273).

-Osteen devotes part 3 to the power of our thoughts and words. This is as close as es to standard WoF teaching. He might be a little hyperbolic or overstated at times, but the points are still legitimate. Our words and thoughts matter—a lot! In particular, he mends searching the Scriptures for relevant verses and saying them out loud—for ourselves and for others. At times, he leaves the reader with the impression that words alone will get the job done (p. 140). But elsewhere (and often), he talks about the importance of habits, disciplines, and choices. I especially enjoyed his “remote control” analogy (p. 144-145)—where we make conscious decisions to change from a bad [mental/spiritual] channel or to stay there and even pull up a chair and grab a bag of popcorn to enjoy the “show”! This is similar to John Nash in “A Beautiful Mind” who talks about the need to have a “diet of the mind” to avoid a mental spiral into the depths of his schizophrenia.

WEAKNESSES:

-His misunderstanding and misapplication of Abraham/Sarah’s (lack of) faith is brutal (p. 79-80, 82-83).

-He is not clear enough in identifying his audience. It seems like he’s addressing Christians mostly (but that’s a problem given some of the critiques to follow). In any case, it would have been helpful/clearer to make this explicit.

-At times, he has too much emphasis on pop psychology—or at least, its lingo (e.g., p. 61’s self-esteem, p. 62’s self-image, 72’s negative attitude). At the least, it’s an unnecessary stumbling block for some in his audience. At worst, it is a stumbling block! As such, I could easily imagine a critique for Osteen being too much like Robert Schuller, Zig Ziglar, and Norman Vincent Peale. (That said, I don’t know enough about any of these four to say for sure.)

-Oddly, there is little reference to Jesus and nothing on the Spirit explicitly. It’s all about God. He does use references to the teachings of Jesus to help him illustrate his points. And he does have the equivalent of the sinner’s prayer—with Jesus as Lord and Savior—at the very end. He has an appropriate emphasis on “God’s provision and our participation”. And he talks about the related concepts quite often: “depending on God”, “empowerment by God”, etc.—but without any mention of the Spirit’s role in this. A few thoughts on this: First, it is certainly strange, given the usual WoF emphasis on being “Spirit-filled”. Again, this points to the fallacy in labeling him WoF. OK, so why does he do it? It could be a stunning lack of theology, but it’s difficult to imagine him being that deficient. More likely: he wants to avoid any connection (or wants to extend a corrective) to standard WoF excesses. Or most likely, I think: for better and for worse, a “seeker-sensitive” concern for his primary audience, wanting to avoid spiritual jargon.

WRAP-UP:

At the end of the day, I can’t speak for Osteen’s ministry. But his book (as a stand-alone) has some value, especially for those who struggle with the (wrong-headed) mindsets he critiques.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Was Gordon Gekko Catholic?
Is greed really good? Does self-interest equal sin? Samuel Gregg takes on these questions at Aleteia.org, in an excerpt from his new book, Tea Party Catholic: the Catholic Case for Limited Government, a Free Economy and Human Flourishing. In many ways, the free economy does rely upon people pursuing their self-interest rather than being immediately focused upon promoting the wellbeing of others. One response to this challenge is to recognize that fallen humanity cannot realize perfect justice in this world....
Lord Acton and America’s Moral Absolutes Concerning Liberty
Lord Acton once said of the American revolution: “No people was so free as the insurgents, no government less oppressive than the government which they overthrew.” It was America’s high view of liberty and its ideas that cultivated this unprecedented freedom ripe for flourishing. Colonists railed over 1 and 2 percent tax rates and were willing to take up arms in a protracted and bloody conflict to secure independence and self-government. In a chapter on Lord Acton in The Moral...
Dispersing Poor People And Crime
Emily Badger at The Atlantic Wire posts mon sense story regarding the debate about whether or not the dispersing of poor people out of inner-city housing projects into suburban neighborhoods, through government housing voucher programs, increases crime rates. The article reflects recent research by Michael Lens, an assistant professor of urban planning at UCLA. A growing stack of research now supports [the] hypothesis that housing vouchers do not in fact lead to crime. Lens has just added another study to...
The Rise of Free-Market Alternatives to Obamacare
Referring to the Affordable Care Act, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus (D-Mont.) stated earlier this year, “Unless we implement this properly, it’s going to be a train wreck.” And indeed, from looking at the Obamacare implementation timeline alone, the law seems to have gotten off to a shaky start. The implementation of the so-called employer mandate, which would require businesses with more than 50 workers to offer insurance to all full-time employees, or else pay a fine...
For America’s Elites, Religious Freedom is a Non-Issue
America’s Founding Fathers considered religious liberty to be our “first freedom.” But as Ken Blackwell notes, that view is no longer shared by our media and foreign policy elites: All such understandings of the religious freedom foundation of American civil liberty and foreign policy seem long forgotten by the elites of today. The media cares little about religious freedom. The famous Rothman-Lichter study of 1981 surveyed 240 journalists from the prestige press. Of course, 80 percent of them voted one...
Bradley Cited in News Roundup on Millenials Leaving Church
Last week, Rachel Held Evans wrote an article discussing millennials leaving the church. This piece quickly went viral prompting responses from mentators, debating “why those belonging to the millennial generation are leaving the church and what should be done about it.” Research fellow at Acton, Anthony Bradley, discusses Evans’ piece in “United Methodists Wearing A Millennial Evangelical Face.” Jeff Schapiro, at the Christian Post, discusses this debate and summarizes mentators’ opinions, including Bradley’s: Anthony Bradley, associate professor of Theology and...
Spirit-and-Body Economics
Over at the Kern Pastors Network, Greg Forster points to Rev. Robert Sirico’s speech from this year’s Acton University, drawing particularly on Sirico’s emphasis on Christian anthropology.“One may not say that we are spirits inside of flesh,” Sirico said, “but that we are spirits and flesh.” Forster summarizes: Christianity teaches that the human person is, in Sirico’s words, both corporeal and transcendent. We cannot make sense of ourselves if we are only bodies. How could a strictly material body think...
What Distributists Get Wrong
Last week, we took a look at what distributists get right in terms of economics, through the eyes of David Deavel at Intercollegiate Review. Now, Deavel discusses where distributism goes off the rails in that same series. It is a rather long list, but here are the highlights. First, Deavel says that simple economics escapes distributists. Despite the fact that economics teaches that actions in the real world have real world consequences, distributists tend to ignore this fact. They scoff...
Do the Poor Vote for More Welfare?
A popular saying (often misattributed to Alexis de Tocqueville) states that a democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. If this is always the case then we should expect the poor to vote themselves even more welfare payments. However, as Dwight R. Lee explains, the desire for transfers that others will pay for has almost no effect on people’s voting behavior: This argument that a significant financial gain from...
Disability and Discipleship: God Don’t Make No Junk
In this week’s Acton Commentary, “Disability, Service, and Stewardship,” I write, “Our service of others may or may not be recognized by the marketplace as something valuable or worth paying for. But each one of us has something to offer someone else. All of us have ministries of one kind or another. Our very existence itself must be seen as a blessing from God.” During a sermon a couple weeks ago at my church, the preacher made an important point...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved