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 12, 2025 12:24 AM

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
Clarence Thomas Interviews
You are probably aware by now that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has published a memoir. The interview-avoiding judge has lately been giving, as Kathryn Jean Lopez puts it, “a lifetime of interviews.” Given the controversy surrounding his public life since his nomination to the Court, not much remains to be said about him, good or bad, that has not already been said. Suffice it to say that I draw attention to him now because: 1) My own view is...
C.S. Lewis vs. Sigmund Freud
Awhile back, I finished reading Armand Nicholi’s book, The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life. Dr. Nicholi is an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard and has taught a seminar on Freud & Lewis at Harvard for the past 35 years. The course eventually led to this book and a PBS series by the same name. The book is an interesting read for anyone modestly interested in one or...
The Uniqueness of Christian Ecology – Abundance
"Here is a boy with five small barley loaves and two small fish, but how far will they go among so many?" [John 6:9] Among all the many good things going on last weekend in Boise, I (and a few others) noticed something a bit disconcerting. The way many of the topics were covered shows how prone Christians are to being consumed by doom and gloom messages of scarcity and lack and overpopulation and an "ever smaller earth." While it’s...
Positive Freedom and Paternal Government
A quote from T. H. Green, refuting the view that the law’s “only business is to prevent interference with the liberty of the individual,” construed as doing what you like as long as it does not infringe on others’ rights to do what they want. Green writes: The true ground of objection to ‘paternal government’ is not that it violates the ‘laissez faire’ principle and conceives that its office is to make people good, to promote morality, but that it...
Pentecostalism, Poverty, and the Global South
Related to last week’s post about Reformed education and Pentecostalism, I point you to this post by Rod Dreher, who discusses his interview with Josiah Idowu-Fearon, the Anglican Archbishop of Kaduna state in Nigeria. Dreher relates the following: Pentecostalism is growing like wildfire, but there’s less to it than you might think. He said that in many cases, people are drawn to the emotional experience, and can tell you exactly when they gave their life to Jesus — but can’t...
One More Reason the Government Shouldn’t Subsidize Ethanol
Excerpts from Clifford Krauss’ article in the New York Times (cross-posted at )… The ethanol boom of recent years — which spurred a frenzy of distillery construction, record corn prices, rising food prices and hopes of a new future for rural America — may be fading. Only last year, farmers here spoke of a biofuel gold rush, and they rejoiced as prices for ethanol and the corn used to produce it set records. panies and farm cooperatives have built so...
Faith, Funding, and Substance Abuse
Why might there be “increasing participation by religious organizations in offering substance abuse treatment funded by federal government vouchers”? Perhaps because, at least in part, “A program’s faith element relates to the people they serve and the type of help they provide, as programs with more explicit and mandatory faith-related elements are likely to be substance-abuse programs.” Thus, the more explicitly faith-filled substance abuse programs will increasingly face a special temptation to take federal funds for such purposes. And this...
Two Perspectives on Climate Change
These two brief essays provide a good juxtaposition of two perspectives that view immediate and mandated action to reduce carbon emissions as either morally obligatory or imprudent. For the former, see Vaclav Havel’s, “Our Moral Footprint,” which states rhetorically, “It is also obvious from published research that human activity is a cause of change; we just don’t know how big its contribution is. Is it necessary to know that to the last percentage point, though? By waiting for incontrovertible precision,...
Mugabe: Rotten from the Start
An interesting article in the Los Angeles Times detailing how badly wrong Robert Mugabe’s supporters in the West have been from the very beginning (requires “free” registration; may I suggest BugMeNot?): From the beginning of his political career, Mugabe was not just a Marxist but one who repeatedly made clear his intention to run Zimbabwe as an authoritarian, one-party state. Characteristic of this historical revisionism is former Newsweek southern Africa correspondent Joshua Hammer, writing recently in the liberal Washington Monthly...
Patterson Stops Too Short In Jena Six New York Times Piece
Orlando Patterson, professor of sociology at Harvard University, penned a challenging piece on Jena 6 and our current racial tensions. I have learned much from Patterson over the years. For example, he was the first person to help me realize that we often confuse issues of race and class in America by assuming the race as the single variable accounting for the cyclical plight of poor blacks. In a September 30th New York Times op-ed piece Patterson rightly says that...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved