Joel Osteen as Cultural Selfobject: Meeting the Needs

Joel Osteen as Cultural Selfobject: Meeting the Needs
of the Group Self and Its Individual Members
in and from the Largest Church in America
Christine Miller & Nathan Carlin
Published online: 14 April 2009
# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract This paper examines the appeal and success of Joel Osteen, pastor of the largest
church in America: Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas. Our guiding theory comes from
Heinz Kohut’s Self psychology, especially as elaborated in his interviews with Charles
Strozier. We also draw on the work of Indian psychoanalyst Sudhir Kakar, who, using
Kohut, argues that the guru in the Indian context functions as a cultural selfobject, and we
argue that Osteen functions in an analogous way in the American context—that is, as a
cultural selfobject. Specifically, we argue that Osteen’s appeal and success is due to what
Kohut refers to as idealizing transferences and mirroring transferences, as well as Osteen’s
ability to provide a “calming structure” and a sense of “continuity,” as Kohut uses these
terms, for members of the Lakewood community. To demonstrate this thesis, we analyze a
recent sermon by Osteen, a chapter in one of his bestselling books, and the airplane incident
that involved Victoria Osteen in December 2005. We contextualize our analysis by
discussing relevant sociological and demographic data pertaining to Lakewood Church, and
we conclude by making the point that cultures can become disillusioned with their own
cultural selfobjects and, whatever the fate of Joel Osteen and company, our culture will
nevertheless continue to produce new cultural selfobjects.
Keywords Joel Osteen . Victoria Osteen . Lakewood church . Kohut . Kakar . Narcissism .
Culture of narcissism . Megachurches . Selfobjects
Introduction
During the past 10 years, Lakewood Church has transformed what sociologists have called
“the religious marketplace” (see, e.g., Berger 1967, p. 138). Lakewood is now the largest
Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51
DOI 10.1007/s11089-009-0197-7
C. Miller (*) : N. Carlin
Department of Religious Studies—MS 15, Rice University,
P.O. Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251-1892, USA
e-mail: christine.mllr@gmail.com
N. Carlin
e-mail: nathan_carlin@yahoo.com
church in America, boasting 47,000 attendees every weekend. The second largest church in
America, Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois, is less than half
the size of Lakewood (Kwon 2007). The purpose of this article is to offer a psychoanalytic
explanation as to why Lakewood Church has been so successful. It is possible, too, that our
findings will be extendable to other megachurches in the United States. In any case, the
man behind this transformation of the religious marketplace in Houston is Joel Osteen,
senior pastor of Lakewood Church.
Osteen, born in 1963, is the youngest of five children. His father, John Osteen, began his
ministry as a Southern Baptist preacher, but was firmly embedded in a kind of charismatic
Christianity by the time he founded Lakewood Church in 1959. Joel’s mother, Dodie
Osteen, conducted Lakewood services alongside her husband until his death in 1999. Since
then, Joel has been serving as senior pastor alongside his wife Victoria. Unlike his father,
Joel has no formal theological education. He does not even have a Bachelor’s degree, as he
dropped out of Oral Roberts University in 1982 to begin televising his father’s ministry. In
time, he also began to handle all of Lakewood’s marketing. Osteen’s jingle (“We believe in
new beginnings, and we believe in you”) was rated as one of the most successful marketing
campaigns in Houston history by The Houston Press (Young 2007, p. 90). Osteen’s
business acumen was further developed when Osteen and his wife Victoria—they married
in 1987—became co-owners of Channel 55 in 1998 and when Osteen was named station
president (Young 2007, p. 90). Osteen’s experience in marketing and management prepared
him for making the strategic hires and crucial business decisions that led Lakewood to
41,000 new congregants in less than 9 years. Today, Joel and Victoria have two children—
Jonathan, age 13, and Alexandra, age 9.
A few other facts to demonstrate the significance of Osteen and his church: (1) Osteen is
America’s most watched inspirational figure and can be seen in over 200 million U.S.
households and 100 countries worldwide (Lakewood Church n. d.a); (2) His 2004 book,
Your Best Life Now, was number one on The New York Times bestseller list and has sold
roughly five million copies (Dooley 2007); and (3) Simon and Schuster publishers paid
Osteen a $13 million dollar advance for his latest book, Become a Better You. The book
debuted October 15, 2007 with a first printing of three million copies, the highest first
printing ever for a hardcover book at Simon & Schuster (Garret 2007). Osteen also made
Barbara Walters’ “Ten Most Fascinating People of 2006,” becoming a media favorite, and
Osteen has also graced the covers of such magazines as People and has appeared on
television shows such as Larry King Live (20/20 2006). At a time when 70–80% of U.S.
churches are either stagnant or in decline, Lakewood Church stands out as a beacon of hope
for many Christians (Kwon 2007). At the time of his father’s death in 1999, weekly
attendance at Lakewood was 6,000 (Young 2007, p. 55). How is the pastoral psychologist
to understand 41,000 new faces in less than 9 years? This article, as noted, attempts to
answer that question.
Despite Osteen’s popularity and Lakewood’s burgeoning numbers, the available
literature on Osteen and Lakewood Church is scarce. When we were writing this article,
for example, the only complete published book on Lakewood Church was by Richard
Young (2007), but more scholarly books are sure to follow. The biographical information
and numerous quotations in this book made it a valuable resource. Apart from Young’s
book, interview transcripts and popular press articles comprise the available literature. The
first author’s (Miller) close proximity to Lakewood Church, however, allowed her to
engage in participant observation research. She attended various Lakewood services from
September 2, 2007 through April 27, 2008. Within this period, she heard the preaching of
all of Lakewood’s pastors: Joel Osteen, Victoria Osteen (Osteen’s wife), Dodie Osteen
28 Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51
(Osteen’s mother), Paul Osteen (Osteen’s brother), Lisa Comes (Osteen’s sister) and Marcos
Witt (a pastor who preaches in Spanish). Despite the relative lack of literature on Lakewood,
then, Miller was able to make up for this shortage by means of extensive field research. We
also examined in great detail Lakewood’s webpage. It could go without saying that webpages
change all of the time, but we thought that we ought to make this point explicit, so as to make
clear the nature of our sources, which included the following: books and articles, interviews,
public lectures, participant observation, and internet research.
For the purposes of our article, it is necessary to provide the reader with some kind of an
overview of Lakewood Church. To do so, we will discuss four key strategies of Lakewood—
Lakewood’s vision statement, religious symbols at Lakewood, Lakewood’s ecumenical spirit,
and Lakewood’s “light” theology—as these strategies, we believe, contribute greatly to
Lakewood’s success. But we argue that there is something more going on here than what
might be thought of as marketing strategies. We are not going to make a theological argument
about this “something more”—that, for example, the Holy Spirit is especially at work in
Lakewood Church, which is why they are so successful—though one very well could make
such an argument. We will, instead, make a psychological argument about this “something
more,” which, we believe, can be understood as a cultural phenomenon. Specifically, we
argue that Osteen’s appeal and success can be understood in light of Heinz Kohut’s notion of
cultural selfobjects. We got the idea for this article from an argument that Sudhir Kakar
(1991) made about the guru in Indian culture, which we will discuss below.
Four key strategies of Lakewood Church
Lakewood’s vision statement
If one were to search Lakewood’s website for a designated mission statement, one would
not find one. There is, rather, a welcome page for newcomers, introducing Lakewood’s
vision “to make a positive impact upon the city of Houston by creating a city-wide family
center in which all are welcome—a place where all individuals and families can grow and
flourish in faith and discover God’s plan for their lives.” The mission statements of many
traditional churches declare that their purpose is to bring in, build up, and send out the
disciples of Jesus Christ. Lakewood, though, seems to understand that many people today
perceive mission statements such as these as somewhat intimidating and detached from
everyday life. Lakewood is also “committed to making a positive impact upon the world”
and serves as a “world-wide Christian outreach center.” They reach over 150 nations,
helping millions “experience the ‘perfect peace’ that comes from faith in Jesus Christ and
obedience to the Holy Spirit.” Visitors are invited to attend one of Lakewood’s
“encouraging worship services” and to “feel the presence of the Holy Spirit.” “Everyone
is welcome!” (Lakewood Church n. d.b).
We suggest that Lakewood’s vision statement reflects a kind of market mentality with
regard to religious practice, which is one reason that it is so successful in terms of numbers.
Across denominations, some scholars observe that the majority of churches are either
stagnant or dwindling in attendance (Kwon 2007). The greater proportion of senior citizens
in the pews and fewer number of total bodies in churches has been a painful reminder to
many churches that the days when people came simply because that is what people do on
Sunday are past. As what might be called “religious monopolies”—that is, when a
particular religion, such as Christianity, had virtually total and complete cultural support
and legitimation to the exclusion of other religious traditions—are dismantled, churches can
Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51 29
no longer expect people to come. People simply have more religious options than they used
to have. And the plurality of religious forms in America has given the power back to the
people, so to speak, to choose how they want to worship, if at all. As spiritual seekers
peruse their options, churches, it seems to follow, must now make themselves appealing to
gain attendees. In any case, Lakewood has done precisely this, with great results.
The phenomenon of the religious marketplace has been discussed in religious and
sociological circles, and one topic of central interest in these circles is religious conversion.
Donald McGavran, one of the leaders of the Church Growth Movement, believes that the
primary barrier to conversion is not theological but sociological (Wells 2005, p. 289). His
belief in the great influence of sociological factors in religious conversion lies beneath
church marketing and seeker-sensitivity so prominent today. David Wells (2005) designates
traditional churches as “producer” churches and seeker-sensitive churches as “consumer”
churches, and Wells argues the power has shifted from the producer to the consumer.
Churches who have adapted their worship services, dress, and architecture to cater to
consumer preferences have experienced rapid growth, precisely as Lakewood has done.
Religious “consumers” often do their homework ahead of time to decide whether a
particular church is worth their time and, as it were, worth their dollar. Lakewood has
recognized this trend and has, therefore, tailored its webpage with the religious consumer in
mind, eager to emphasize elements which are sure to draw people (inclusiveness, family,
growth, encouragement, peace, spiritual experience) and careful to tread lightly on those
elements that some religious seekers may find foreign (God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit,
ancient creeds, political statements, and so forth), while, at the same time, including enough
of this language so as to be inclusive of traditional Christians as well. The resulting vision
statements are inviting and able to accommodate a wide-range of personal beliefs.
Religious symbols at Lakewood
The market mentality is perhaps most apparent in Lakewood’s sanctuary, which lacks overt
religious symbols and visual cues that would remind a visitor that they are in a church. The
entry way looks more like an office building or mall than a church. Stained glass windows,
organ pipes, and crown molding are absent from the sanctuary. Comfortable stadium seats
replace traditional pews. A massive world globe bathed in gold light rotates where the cross
would traditionally stand. There is no baptismal in the sanctuary, no choir directly behind
the pastor. In place of a choir, a big band of young men in tailored suits “jam out” for the
Lord. Choir robes are absent. Women in the choir wear purple, blue, or black flowing
blouses with black pants. To the front right, a tall man in his early 30s plays a bright red
electric guitar, his long blonde hair giving him the look of a rock star. The music stands are
programmed to change patterns during the singing. When Osteen makes his way on stage to
deliver the sermon, the entire band sinks down into the stage. Musicians exit the stage
unseen and instruments are out of sight as Osteen begins to address the TV audience. The
choir flanks the big band on each side, next to flowing waterfalls cascading over rocks and
plants.
There are no hymnals and no single music director leads the singing. Three large screens
display song lyrics and project close-up shots of the song leaders’ and the choir’s
enthusiastic delivery. Cindy Cruse-Ratcliff, a Dove Award winner and acclaimed
songwriter, works the stage in dark eye shadow. Her long blonde hair, chunky jewelry,
and fashionable apparel are suited for the camera. Da’dra Greathouse and Steve Crawford, a
sibling duo signed with Sony/Columbia, add even more energy to the stage. Israel
Houghton, a 2008 Grammy Award winner, completes the worship leaders. These four
30 Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51
artists are talented individuals. Combined with an ensemble, choir, and big band, Lakewood
breaks out into what might be seen as a concert for God. The stage is bathed in yellow light,
then green, then blue, as the songs move from vibrant celebration to contemplative worship.
The ceiling likewise changes colors as the music pulsates throughout the former Compaq
Center, the former home, that is, of the Houston Rockets.
By avoiding churchy architecture and putting young, attractive, highly stylish people on
stage, Lakewood has, in a sense, minimized the cognitive dissonance (cf. Festinger et al.
1956; Festinger 1962) between certain aspects of everyday life and church, as going to
church here resembles going to a leisure activity. The theatrical lighting, upbeat music, and
young men jumping with electric guitars bring the church experience closer to the daily
experience of teens addicted to MTVand families who love Disney World. Lakewood is not
only church; Lakewood is also top quality entertainment. The ceiling, in point of fact, is
preprogrammed to change colors. The sheer spectacle of it all, from Da’dra jumping on
stage in stilettos to the close-up of a crying woman having an ecstatic experience projected
on a big screen, is, few would deny, stimulating to the senses.
Lakewood’s technological prowess, performance-type worship leaders, and lack of overt
religious symbolism are often perceived by outsiders as indicators of secularization and
shallow religious commitment. Lakewood has undoubtedly borrowed a technique or two
from secular playbooks, but does this necessarily translate into what has been pejoratively
called a “cotton candy gospel” (Pitts 2007)? The fact is that churches must take consumer
preferences into account, or else they dwindle and die. As some argue, consumers in
America live in a secular society, so naturally “they will prefer religious products that can
be made consonant with secularized consciousness over those that cannot” (Wells 2005,
p. 272). Even among churchgoers, there is no longer “brand loyalty” as people sample
different churches from Sunday to Sunday. Following Wells logic, the prevailing
predicament of church growth today is that churches must find ways to incorporate enough
“secular culture” to break down sociological barriers while still remaining true to their
theological commitments. Lakewood does this by creating an entertaining environment
amiable to secular or everyday consciousness while presenting the Christian message in
somewhat non-theological terms. They are, we believe, an ideal seeker-sensitive church.
Lakewood’s careful use of seeker-sensitive symbolism is best expressed in their
sanctuary, where the only symbols are a globe and the American flag. Conveniently, the
meaning of these symbols can easily shift to fit a viewer’s comfort level. A Christian, for
example, could gaze upon the globe and perhaps pray for missionaries or be reminded of
God’s love for the entire world. Or a secular Jew could look upon the same globe and
experience a feeling of wholeness and multiculturalism. A cross, in contrast, does not lend
itself to as flexible interpretation as the globe, as a secular Jew, when viewing the cross in
worship, might feel unwelcome and excluded. But the globe offends no one, and it can
supply multiple meanings to fit individual preference. Similarly, Christians can recognize
the flame and dove in Lakewood’s logo as symbols of the Holy Spirit, while people
unfamiliar with Christian symbolism, however, may just think it is a neat logo (to see the
logo, just google “Lakewood Church,” and the church’s website will return in the results,
usually if not always as the first result). The American flag can unite all members as
American, regardless of denomination or political party. One can imagine that the high
numbers of immigrants at Lakewood infuse the American flag with hopes, dreams, and
promise, and Osteen would encourage such imaging as he so often tells his own rags to
riches story that is the quintessential stuff of the American Dream. And the gigantic
American flag stretched in the back of the sanctuary, one can further see, renews the hope
of those who come that they too can achieve the American Dream. Through the careful
Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51 31
choice of symbols in the sanctuary, Lakewood has created an environment that is both full
of and devoid of religious symbolism, depending, of course, on the viewer, which, we
believe, is a key aspect to Lakewood’s wide appeal and success.
Lakewood’s ecumenical spirit
After reviewing the vision statement and religious symbolism, it should come as no surprise
that Lakewood is profoundly ecumenical. Featured authors in the Lakewood bookstore
cover the entire denominational spectrum, from charismatic televangelists, such as Benny
Hinn, to conservative Baptists, such as James Dobson. You can purchase books by Juanita
Bynum (2005), a black self-proclaimed prophet, or you can stick to the classic, Oswald
Chambers’ (1935) My Utmost for his Highest. The bookstore can accommodate practically
any theological and political leaning. For a nondenominational church serving over 47,000
people, this diversity of viewpoints is necessary so each person who enters can find an
author with whom they can identify.
When questioned about ministers whose messages conflict with his own, Joel responds
that God has called people for different purposes. Though he believes his church should
welcome homosexual persons, when confronted with the fact that Jerry Falwell attacked
gays and lesbians, Joel responds, “You know what? There are different callings. I can’t fault
anybody” (King 2007). Osteen uses a similar tactic when criticized for his lack of informed
scriptural interpretation. On 60 Minutes, Osteen explained, “There are a lot of people more
qualified to say, ‘Here is a book that explains the Scriptures to you.’ I do not think that is
my gifting.” (Pitts 2007). In both of these instances, Osteen maintains what seems to us as a
humble stance and affirms ministers who disagree with him without compromising his own
message. To Osteen, a diversity of viewpoints within Christianity does not necessitate that
someone is wrong. Rather, a diversity of viewpoints is the result of God calling different
people for different purposes. Other ministers are not rivals—they are friends engaged in
the same work for God’s glory.
Osteen’s ecumenism is also apparent in his relationship with other churches. Aware of
his influence, Osteen is careful not to trample over smaller churches. Whenever Osteen
takes services on the road with “An Evening with Joel Osteen,” service times are often on
Friday nights, so as to not interfere with local congregations’ Saturday and Sunday services
(Wadhwani 2007). After every altar call, Osteen, with a gentle and genuine smile,
encourages believers to get involved in a Bible-based church and proclaims, “We are not
the only good church.” Much like a businessman in the secular world, Osteen endeavors to
make allies in all camps. He criticizes no one, but emphasizes the good each person can do
in the area to which God has called them. His disarming charm and affirmation of other
churches and ministers—his “competitors”—makes Lakewood Church all the more
appealing.
Lakewood’s “light” theology
The question of ecumenism raises the issue of theology and doctrine. What does Lakewood
teach? What do they believe? Osteen states his message simply: “God is a good God and
has a plan for [our] lives.” In his own words, it is “a message of encouragement... to put a
seed of hope in people’s hearts” (Osteen in Symonds 2005). He concedes that he is not one
to explain theology and doctrine, but his gifting is to make the Bible practical and to teach
people how to apply it to life (Osteen, April 5, 2008). When questioned to what he
attributes his success, Osteen responds, “Our message is very positive. There are a lot of
32 Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51
negative things happening in the world and in people’s lives. What we share is hopeful, and
I think that resonates” (Osteen in Smith 2007).
Though Lakewood is now nondenominational, John Osteen (Osteen’s father) began
Lakewood as a full gospel Baptist church. Today, Lakewood’s Baptist theological heritage
is evident in doctrinal statements, which include the inerrancy of the Bible, water baptism,
and communion as an act of remembrance. Yet to classify Lakewood as a nondenominational
church with Baptist roots would be inaccurate. Since its inception, Lakewood has
preached a kind of composite theology that defies classification into any one denominational
strand or movement within Christianity. Apart from Baptist theology, the majority of
Lakewood’s theological influences fall into the Pentecostal/charismatic strand, the most
controversial influence being Word of Faith teaching.
The argument that the Word of Faith message emerged as a syncretism of the Holiness/
Pentecostal tradition and the metaphysical cults is now accepted by most scholars (Perriman
2003, p. 66). Pentecostal contributions to Word of Faith teaching include healing as part of
the atonement, faith as a spiritual law that is activated through positive confession (the
belief that words have creative power and thus speaking faith-filled words generates the
power for the believer to have whatever was spoken), and prosperity for all believers. New
Thought metaphysics supplied the Word of Faith emphasis on the power of human thoughts
to create reality through a positive attitude, visualization, and confession. Lakewood
spokesman Don Iloff stated that Word of Faith teaching has been a part of Lakewood and
still is an integral part of Lakewood, though he was quick to qualify his statement with the
observation that what beliefs and practices Word of Faith entails is not consistent across
churches (Miller 2008).
In recent years, it seems Lakewood has attempted to conceal its connection to
controversial Word of Faith teaching in order to enter the Protestant mainstream. In this
image makeover, Lakewood adapted the “This is my Bible Pledge” from the original version
under John Osteen to hide or perhaps modify its reference to positive confession, a hallmark
of Word of Faith practice. The initial version contained this declaration: “I boldly confess”
(Young 2007, p. 100). But the pledge was adapted to the following: “I boldly confess: My
mind is alert. My heart is receptive. I will never be the same.” Joel Osteen, one can observe,
is still heavily dependent on Word of Faith teaching, though he has rendered the
controversial elements more palatable to reach a wider audience.
Osteen does not always preach Word of Faith teaching, but he does so frequently enough
for Word of Faith to be considered a primary basis of his theology. On March 16, 2008, for
example, Osteen preached a sermon titled “Having the God-kind of Faith,” which was
based on a Word of Faith translation of Mark 11:22 as “have the faith of God.” Osteen
explained how “God wants to take some of his faith and put it on the inside of you,” and, if
you “learn how to tap into the faith of Almighty God,” then you can “allow God to believe
through you” (Osteen 2008). The translation of Mark 11:22 is an obvious example of the
New Thought origins of Word of Faith teaching. Grammatically and contextually, the
translation Osteen used as the foundation of his message makes little sense, leading
translators outside of Word of Faith to translate Mark 11:22 as “have faith in God”
(Perriman 2003, p. 85). People outside of the Word of Faith Movement discern the claim
that God has faith to be highly problematic. First, most interpreters of the Bible do not see
the Bible as attributing faith to God. Rather, faith instead is understood as a human stance,
implying a dependence on a higher power. God, having inherent authority, has no need for
faith. If, in other words, we have faith in God, what or who does God have faith in?
Second, the claim that God has faith seems to make faith an autonomous force. If God
needs faith, then God is dependent in some fundamental sense, therefore implying that God
Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51 33
is not ultimate. In any case, Osteen’s adoption of this questionable translation of Mark
11:22 is perhaps indicative of his lack of theological training. Unfortunately, Osteen’s
mistranslation and subsequent interpretation of this verse is just one example of Word of
Faith hermeneutics refusal to converse with academic theologians and biblical scholars as
evident by their consistent failure of thinking about, say, historical context and literary flow
when interpreting scripture. Perriman (2003) characterizes Word of Faith hermeneutics as
“contractual,” meaning that “statements of various types which have only a localized or
particular frame of significance in the text are reconfigured as universal rules and deployed
as personal promises for the believer” (p. 90).
Word of Faith theology also teaches that health and prosperity are guaranteed in the
atonement. In this manner, the prosperity gospel can be viewed as a sort of realized
eschatology, eager for the benefits of salvation now. Osteen, however, does not consider
himself a prosperity preacher. And when challenged on the topic, Osteen typically adds that
he has never preached on finances and that when he does speak of prosperity, he is not just
talking about money. Osteen’s version of prosperity is broader: “God wants us to prosper in
our relationships, our health, and our finances” (Symonds 2005). He talks about being
happy and whole and, more than anything, that “God wants to bless us where we are”
(Sheahen 2004). All of the prosperity jargon (increase, favor, divine health, anointing,
season of victory) is there, but Osteen is actually rather balanced in his claims compared to
many Word of Faith prosperity preachers. He is about blooming where you are planted and
enjoying life, not only getting rich.
It would be inaccurate to generalize that all of Lakewood’s messages are Word of Faith.
Not every message Osteen, Victoria, Paul, Lisa, Dodie, and Marcos preach reflects Word of
Faith theology. In fact, Paul Osteen’s messages resemble typical Baptist sermons without a
hint of detectible Word of Faith influence. For example, on December 30, 2007, Paul’s
sermon was entitled “Final Instructions for Jesus’ Disciples.” Paul talked about the great
commission, the gospel story, and the 2.5 billion people in the world who have never heard
the good news. Unless we go with the gospel story, they will “spend eternity in a Christ-less
eternity, in a place called hell” (P. Osteen 2007). The sermon had a three point structure and
multiple Bible verses. When Paul neared his close, he commissioned attendees to make a
difference for Jesus in the area that God had entrusted them and to commit to praying for
nations, churches, and missionaries overseas. There was no positive thinking, no selfesteem
work, no prosperity jargon, and no Word of Faith translations. Paul stood behind the
podium and spoke of God’s love, the world’s need, and hell. This is extraordinary
considering that Osteen and Victoria do not even mention sin when discussing Christ’s
sacrifice. Osteen says, “Our whole message is the fact that Jesus came, he died on the cross,
he rose that we might have an abundant life” (King 2007). Victoria Osteen has stated that
“Jesus had an assignment when he came to this earth; that assignment was to bring us
abundant life” (V. Osteen 2008). Neither Osteen nor Victoria mentions that Jesus came to
save us from sin and separation with God. They opt for the abundant life motif of John
10:10, “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly” (NRSV).
The substantial variety of theological outlooks in the Osteen family points to the fact that
theological specifics are not important to Lakewood. What is important is that God is a
good God who loves us and accepts us regardless of our current condition. The Osteens feel
very strongly that it is the all-encompassing love of the Heavenly Father that draws people
to repentance, not fear of judgment. Battling over the correct theological position on a
particular issue does not help hurting people heal. What brings hope, rather, is the simple
message that God is on your side and can fight your battles for you. What brings hope is
recognizing your identity in Christ.
34 Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51
Having provided an overview of Lakewood Church—an overview that has focused on
some of the key “marketing strategies” of Lakewood—we now want to turn to an explicitly
psychological interpretation of the appeal and success of Osteen and his ministry.
Four concepts in self psychology: mirroring and idealizing transferences, selfobjects,
cultural selfobjects, and the group self
Self psychology was developed in response to a new type of patient in psychoanalysis, one
that suffered not so much from conflict caused by unconscious drives, but from a poor selfimage.
Heinz Kohut, the chief theorist of Self psychology, theorized that analysts could
help the patient develop a healthy sense of self through what he called narcissistic
transferences, of which he posited two types, “mirror transferences” and “idealizing
transferences.” In “The Disorders of the Self and Their Treatment,” Heinz Kohut and Ernest
Wolf (2001) define these two transferences as follows: “(1) the mirror transference in
which an insufficiently or faultily responded to childhood need for a source of acceptingconfirming
‘mirroring’ is revived in the treatment situation, and (2) the idealizing
transference in which a need for merger with a source of ‘idealized’ strength and calmness
is similarly revived” (p. 249). By use of mirroring and idealizing transferences, the analyst
could begin to restore the patient’s self-esteem.
A second primary idea of Self psychology is the selfobject, defined by Kohut and Wolf
as “objects we experience as parts of ourselves” (p. 250). In practice, it makes more sense
to think of selfobject experiences rather than selfobjects as a particular person or thing,
because it is this experience of being addressed as an independent self by the other that
develops one’s identity. A continual supply of selfobject experiences is necessary to
maintain the individual’s sense of self. The underlying notion is that the individual develops
their identity in large part by how they are addressed by others. As infants, the primary
selfobject experience is being held and cooed by the mother. In adulthood, selfobject
experiences transmitted through culture may replace the physical selfobject experiences of
childhood.
We can thus think also in terms of cultural selfobjects—a third central concept in Self
psychology—what Kohut describes as “the replica of the culture for the group self of what
occurs in individual development” (Kohut and Strozier 1985a, p. 227). In an interview with
Charles Strozier, titled “Idealization and Cultural Selfobjects,” Kohut discussed the
psychological problems induced by poverty. He stated that
In the poor slums I think the real deprivation is not economic but cultural. It would be
ridiculous to deny that one needs enough calories and vitamins and proteins to be
able to develop physiologically. But as far as I can judge in the United States—
though there are real pockets of deprivation to which I don’t have access—most of
those whom I have treated from slum areas generally had enough calories when they
were young. But the food was dreary, and that was the important thing. Everything
was dreary. There was no artistry in the apartments in which they grew up. And I
don’t mean artistry in the sense of good taste—but in any taste. It is a world of
cultural emptiness. (p. 225)
It was, in other words, a world devoid of cultural selfobjects, which impoverishes the sense
of self in such communities. Kohut does observe, however, “remedial action” carried out in
black communities, such as “in the creation of cultural selfobjects like the baseball players,
the boxers, the great athletes” (p. 225).
Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51 35
In another interview with Strozier, this one titled “On the Continuity of the Self and
Cultural Selfobjects,” Kohut remarked that
Rather than talking in general about cultural selfobjects, one should talk about which
particular functions for the group self a particular selfobject fulfills. The good
historian, for example, does this for the group.... If the group feels history-less, it
lacks an important sense of a live, vital group self. It is the same with the individual.
We search for the continuity. (Kohut and Strozier 1985b, pp. 235–236)
Kohut also notes that the telling of old stories about cultural heroes serves the function
of giving the group a sense of cohesion while, at the same time, uplifting the group.
The telling of myths about cultural heroes is not unlike a father telling his son what it
was like when he was young. The son wants—needs—to idealize his father. As Kohut
puts it, the son needs to hear, over and over again, stories about his father’s victories. The
son wants to hear old stories about Daddy’s battles and victories, about how he overcame
great obstacles, and how he became the great man that he is today. One such story is
Kohut’s own story of coming to America, a story that his son enjoyed hearing over and
over again, the story about how Kohut spent all of his money—$25—on a bus ticket from
Boston to Chicago, because he only knew one person in America, and that person was in
Chicago. And Kohut, of course, went on to become a great psychoanalyst in Chicago.
These kinds of stories, and stories about, say, Jackie Robinson for black communities, are
uplifting stories. Another way of putting this is as follows: what stories about parents do for
individual children is what stories about Jackie Robinson do for the group self—a fourth
key concept in Self psychology—which is why Jackie Robinson functions as a cultural
selfobject.
In yet another interview with Strozier—“One Needs a Twinkle of Humor as Protection
against Craziness”—Kohut offers further reflections on cultural selfobjects and the group
self. He talks in some detail following a line of thinking that some might find offensive—
namely, the case of Nazi Germany:
The Nazi capacity to tune to large groups of the most diversified people and offer
them an image of cohesion and strength, heal the fragmentation, the weakness, and
the underlying depression, suddenly give people a sense that they are worthwhile,
indeed better than others, had something truly artistic about it. (Kohut and Strozier
1985c p. 246)
But Kohut also states that Hitler, in the end, could not have won: “Nazism never really
could have endured, because it doesn’t lead anywhere” (p. 247). Hitler and the Nazi
movement did not provide cures; they provided short-term, easy answers.
Hitler, then, functioned as a cultural selfobject, but one that was therapeutically
ineffective because Hitler enabled the depleted self to become “arrogant, and falsely selfsufficient”
(p. 248). But Kohut, however—perhaps controversially—emphatic he is trying
to be, nevertheless finds fault with Hitler’s followers on psychological grounds, specifically
for their lack of humor. In Kohut’s words,
I think it is part and parcel of good human equipment to be able to be enthusiastic for
the great. In some people this capacity needs to be liberated rather than curbed. The
capacity to admire a great leader figure, even a messianic and charismatic one, is not
pathology. However, what you [Strozier] rightly implied is that there must be an
awareness of that process, there must be insight. It is like the difference between
paranoia and normality. To my mind, one of the outstanding symptoms of a paranoid
36 Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51
person is his deadly seriousness. One needs a twinkle of humor as a protection
against craziness. (p. 249, our emphasis)
Kohut continues, “Neither the people who followed Rev. Jones into death nor Jones himself
had a twinkle in their eye. The same was true for Hitler” (p. 249). These dynamics, we
believe, are relevant for understanding Joel Osteen and Lakewood Church, especially
because Osteen, unlike Jones and Hitler, does have a twinkle of humor in his eye, and he is
very aware of his own limits.
The guru as healer
We now want to proceed by turning to an application of Kohut’s ideas, an application that
will serve as a model for us as we apply Kohut’s ideas to Joel Osteen and Lakewood Church.
In the second chapter of The Analyst and the Mystic, “The Guru as Healer,” psychoanalyst
Kakar (1991) draws on Kohut to show that the guru functions as a cultural selfobject in
Hindu culture. Kakar found those who sought gurus tended to have endured at least one
tragic experience that had seriously damaged their sense of self-worth. Kakar puts it this way:
In my own work with gurus and disciples, I found that many of the latter shared a
common pattern in their lives that had led them to a search for a guru and to initiation
in his cult. Almost invariably the individual had gone through one or more
experiences that had severely mauled his sense of self-worth, if not shattered it
completely. In contrast to the rest of us, who must also deal with painful feelings
aroused by temporary depletions in self-esteem, it seems that those who went to gurus
grappled with these feelings for a much longer time, sometimes for many years,
without being able to change them appreciably. Unable to rid themselves of the
feelings of “I have lost everything and the world is empty,” or “I have lost everything
because I do not deserve anything,” they had been on the lookout for someone,
somewhere, to restore their lost sense of self-worth.... This “someone” eventually
turned out to be the particular guru to whom the seekers were led. (p. 40)
The guru, Kakar argued, is a cultural selfobject in the sense that the guru provides new
selfobject experience to the disciple that gradually rebuilds the disciple’s sense of self. The
figure of the guru essentially offers Hindu adults “a developmental second chance.” In
doing so, the guru fulfills the desire of the afflicted to somehow find someone to heal the
wounds caused by dysfunction in the original parent–child relationship. Kakar calls this the
“guru fantasy” (Kakar 1991, p. 43).
Kakar provides case studies or, as he calls them, vignettes to support his observations,
such as the case of Harnam. Harnam was “the youngest of four sons of a peasant family
from a North Indian village” (p. 41). Because he was the youngest, he was “indulged during
his childhood, especially by this mother” (p. 41). His mother died when he was 18, and
subsequently he became depressed (udasinta). The depression lasted for 15 years, and he
suffered from thoughts of death and severe headaches. “Then,” Kakar writes, “suddenly he
had a vision in a dream of the guru (he had seen his photograph earlier), who told him to
come to his ashram to take initiation into the cult. He had done so; his sadness had
disappeared as did his fear and headaches, and he felt the loving omnipresence of the guru
as a protection against their return” (p. 41). Harnam’s loss here is the loss of his mother,
with whom he was very close. Until Harnam was able to become close with (merge with)
another, he was depressed. He was able to achieve such closeness with his guru.
Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51 37
Another case is that of Amita. She is “a thirty-year-old woman who is a lecturer in
Hindi in a local college” (p. 44). Amita was “[b]orn into an orthodox middle-class Brahmin
family” and has been “searching” since childhood (p. 44). She described her mother as “a
hot-tempered, dried-up woman with little human sympathy or kindness” (p. 44). And yet
her mother was extremely pious, worshiping many gods everyday. Amita made it clear that
she had a difficult relationship with her mother her whole life. Amita also noted that she
has been searching for a guru her whole life, but, alas, has always been dissatisfied with
every guru with whom she has been engaged—until she met her current guru, who “is like
the cloud that gives rain to everyone” (p. 44). Kakar notes the juxtaposition of her mother,
who is dry, and her guru, who gives rain to everyone. Kakar also notes that Amita’s
particular guru is a very fierce woman, and, he suggests, the very combination of fierceness
and warmth was precisely the kind of combination—a combination that Amita did not find
in any other guru—that Amita needed to overcome, psychologically, her issues with her
mother.
By means of such cases, Kakar challenges the negative light in which Western
psychiatry views the guru–disciple relationship. And in so doing, he also brings attention to
the ways in which the guru utilizes Kohut’s mirroring and idealizing transferences.
According to Muktananda, a Hindu guru who introduced Siddha Yoga to the U.S. in the
1970s, the exemplary guru never criticizes the disciple, but helps to break self-destructive
attitudes and reorients the disciple’s thinking away from guilt and negativity by praising the
disciple’s inner divinity (Kakar 1991, p. 48). In this way, the guru “mirrors” the disciple
through complete acceptance and praise. Kakar notes that it is the idealizing transference,
however, that is at the heart of the guru–disciple healing process. Transformation can occur
when the disciple is able to temporarily merge with the power and serenity of the guru. One
guru explains: “The Guru is the disciple, but perfected, complete. When he forms a
relationship with the guru, the disciple is in fact forming a relationship with his own best
self” (Muktananda 1983, p. ix, emphasis added; anticipating our discussion below, it is not
insignificant that the title of Osteen’s bestselling book is Your Best Life Now). The guru
provides the disciple with intense selfobject experiences to rebuild a sense of self within
this transference.
As the guru aids the disciple by enabling narcissistic transferences, the guru, like the
analyst, takes on the role of parental selfobject. In Freud’s day, psychoanalysts thought that
a patient’s healing occurred primarily through the expansion of conscious awareness while
sitting on the couch, but contemporary research in Self psychology has shown that it is not
so much the content of the psychotherapy as much as the relationship between the analyst
and the patient that facilitates healing. This is shown by the fact that the power of the guru
is found more in his presence than in what is actually said. Similarly, in psychotherapy “it is
of more value from the curative point of view, to have a mediocre interpretation supported
by good transference than the reverse” (Nacht 1962, p. 208).
Another interesting point is how individuals choose a guru or analyst, as their choice
often is reflective of the patient’s or devotee’s relationship with their parents, as
demonstrated in the case of Amita. This should come as no surprise, because, if Kohut is
right, what these folks are after is a developmental second chance, a chance to get the things
right with one’s parents and other significant early relationships that did not go well the first
time around. And so ideally a guru or analyst is similar enough to a person’s parents to feel
familiar, but different in the sense that they can fill in the gaps where the original parents
were deficient. With a good fit, the guru or analyst provides the devotee or patient with
empathetic parental selfobject experiences to counteract trauma to the self caused by the
original parent–child relationship.
38 Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51
Osteen as cultural selfobject
We hypothesize that Osteen, at this point in time, functions as a cultural selfobject in America in
a similar manner as the guru does in India. To provide some evidence for this hypothesis, we
analyze a chapter in one of Osteen’s bestselling books, one of Osteen’s (2008) recent messages,
“Have the Right Image on the Inside,” and a recent court case that involved Osteen’s wife,
Victoria. One could find evidence for this hypothesis by other means—by looking at, for
example, Osteen’s prayers, the lyrical content of music at Lakewood, and so forth—but we
wanted to focus our analysis in some way, and focusing on a sermon, a chapter, and a court
case that gained the attention of the national media, we felt, was an engaging way to do so.
We do not mean to imply that this sermon represents every one of Osteen’s messages, and, of
course, the same goes for the chapter that we explore. These are merely examples of how
Osteen nurtures narcissistic wounds. Viewed through the lens of Self psychology, it becomes
apparent that the masses flock to Osteen not for the theological content of his sermons or his
books, but for the way in which Osteen sees them and affirms their sense of self. It is the
empathetic relationship that Osteen builds with his audience that brings healing, a relationship
that is akin to the guru and the devotee, as well as to the patient and the analyst.
Our basic hypotheses can be described as follows. Osteen fulfills all of the duties of the
ideal guru. He never criticizes his flock, but helps the hurting break self-destructive patterns
of thinking and behavior through practical advice and praise. By means of mirroring
transferences and idealizing transferences, Osteen’s flock is uplifted by his presence as their
sense of self-worth is gradually restored. It is the power of this therapeutic encounter
between Osteen and his congregation that holds the key to his appeal. People do not go to
Lakewood to learn about the Bible intellectually or academically. They go, rather, to be
restored—emotionally and spiritually. They go to be transformed. They go to find their best
self. In this way, Osteen is like a Kohutian psychoanalyst, as the theological content of his
messages is not as important as his personal and affirming presence in them.
Osteen, like a Kohutian psychoanalyst, enables, whether intentionally or intuitively,
mirroring transferences and idealizing transferences, and so functions as a selfobject. But as
Osteen became successful in his ministry and became a national figure, he became a part of
American culture in ways that most of us are not a part of American culture, because he is on
television, radio, and in bookstores all across the country, and most of us, of course, are not.
He was able to become a part of American culture because, whether knowingly or not, he
tapped into the narcissistic needs of American culture—and, as should be obvious, we use the
term narcissism in a psychological, not moral, sense—thus becoming a cultural selfobject.
To provide some evidence for our hypotheses, we examine, as noted, Osteen’s (2008)
message “Have the Right Image on the Inside” in some detail to reveal potential instances of
or opportunities for idealizing transferences and mirroring transferences. We realize that this
approach somewhat contradicts our earlier point that what is important with regard to the
guru or the analyst is not so much the content or words but the presence and experience. The
best way to understand our argument would be to attend a Lakewood service for yourself and
experience Osteen’s presence. However, we also believe that we can get our point across by
looking at Osteen’s words, as they reflect in a genuine way his desire to help people, and,
after all, the healing that occurs by means of psychoanalysis could not occur without words.
Have the right image on the inside
Making space for mirroring transferences In this message, Osteen addresses the problem of
low self-esteem and poor self-image by reminding his audience of their true identity in
Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51 39
Christ and the rights and privileges that accompany that identity. He guides his
congregation through seven stories, each illustrating his central thesis that “How we see
ourselves will determine what kind of life we are going to live.” These seven stories, each
followed by an interpretation, create the structure of Osteen’s message. Although the stories
are not explicitly spiritual or religious, Osteen inserts scriptures in his interpretation that
connect the mundane anecdotes to God’s high regard for his children. Scriptures include
Ephesians 2:10, “You are God’s masterpiece,” Matthew 9:29, “He touched their eyes and
said, ‘Become what you believe,’” and James 4:10, “He will lift you up and make your life
significant,” among others (translations cited here are the ones used by Osteen).
Osteen’s empathy for the broken congregant is evident, as he diverts blame for failure
away from the individual toward society, which he believes conditions people, who were
born winners, to lose and to think of themselves as losers. To override the negative
messages from others that hold people back from living the life of victory, Osteen, in the
early part of his sermon, advises his congregation to check their “spiritual birth certificate.”
By doing so, they will learn that, as children of God, they are crowned with glory and
honor, shielded by favor, and covered with blessings for walking in obedience. Osteen
explains how to reprogram our thoughts “to get in agreement with God.” When Osteen tells
his audience that “God accepts you” and “God approves you,” he provides a space for
people to accept themselves as they get in line with God’s Word.
In the first opening sentence of his broadcast, Osteen is already mirroring a brighter
world to his congregants by expressing his delight in the viewer: “It is always a joy to come
into your homes.” Within seconds, one is invited to feel as though Osteen loves you, is on
your side, and has faith in your future. “We’re believing for God’s very best in your life,”
he proclaims. He lets his audience know that it is alright if they are not the most creative or
intelligent people today, because in their DNA is “strength, ability, wisdom, fortitude.” The
current situation is of little importance when they realize how God has equipped them for a
bright future of promotion. By the middle of his message, Osteen pushes the transformation
theme more emphatically: “You can’t go around believing what it’s been like the last ten
years. This is a new day.” He encourages his audience that they can do it by noting the
force of Almighty God is behind them to help them fulfill their dreams. In fact, Osteen says
that “he [God] wants you not only to fulfill your dreams, but he wants you to leave your
mark on our generation.”
Throughout his message, Osteen continually pauses to teach positive self-regard. He
brings all of the common insecurities into the open, such as “People may have tried to push
you down,” “Somebody may have rejected you,” “You may have discouraging thoughts
telling you that you’ll never lose weight,” and “You’ll never beat that addiction.” And he
counters each one by declaring all of the positive attributes of believers in his audience
since God made them champions in Christ. These positive attributes are the result of the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit, what Osteen refers to as God’s DNA. He explains, “When
you gave your life to Christ you became a new creation, and Almighty God infused you
with his DNA.” As new creations with the Holy Spirit (God’s DNA), Osteen tells believers
that they are blessed, anointed, prosperous, valuable, equipped, creative, and forgiven. He
teaches his congregation how to affirm themselves: “Instead of sitting around thinking, ‘I’m
not talented. I’m not attractive. I don’t have anything to offer.’ No, just turn it around, ‘I’m
fun. I’m creative. People like to be around me.’” In this way, Osteen helps congregation
members get in touch with what Kohut would call their grandiose self.
Osteen is explicit in the purpose of confessing the good things that God says about us.
He explains, “God’s Word will repair a damaged self-image. His Word is bringing healing
to you.... You are getting back to who you really are.... Healing is coming. Your self-image
40 Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51
is being restored.” Osteen speaks in the present tense. He does not say that God’s Word will
heal you and restore your self-image: It is happening now. The fascinating aspect about the
present tense is that the individual may associate their healing with Osteen speaking to them
now rather than making the intended connection with God. Even though Osteen defers to
God’s Word as the source of healing, Osteen is clearly the deliverer of healing in this
circumstance. A hurting individual who idealizes Osteen will have difficulty not conflating
the two. This naturally leads into a discussion of Osteen as an idealizing selfobject, but first
there is one more important aspect of Osteen’s mirroring, namely, that he gives his audience
grace for the present and hope for the future.
Osteen gives numerous examples of Bible characters who were transformed into
righteousness: Jacob became Israel, Saul became Paul, and Simon became Peter. Osteen
interprets these transformations with the assertion that “Jesus was saying, ‘It’s not what you
are that really matters; it’s what you can become.’” The congregant is reminded that Jesus
sees them not as they are, but as their best self, which is the way Osteen sees them.
Concluding his message, Osteen tells his congregation, “When I look out at each of you, I
don’t see a bunch of clay. I see solid gold. I know what’s on the inside. I’m looking at
champions. I’m looking at thoroughbreds. I can already see you standing in the winners
circle.” People are drawn to Osteen because they experience grace in his presence. Osteen
brushes aside their faults, empathizes with their weakness, and sees them as whole and
capable. While people at Lakewood learn about God’s grace, an abstract theological
concept, they can feel Osteen’s grace now.
Making space for idealizing transferences The fact that Osteen sees each of his attendees as
the best possible version of who they are—where they are going, not where they are now—
transitions easily into an analysis of how Osteen also makes space for idealizing
transferences. In our discussion of the guru, we noted that “the Guru is the disciple, but
perfected, complete” (Muktananda 1983, p. ix). Likewise, Osteen can be seen to be
functioning as the perfected and completed image of the people who wait in long lines at
Wal-Marts to meet him. Just like them, Osteen dropped out of college. Just like them,
Osteen is criticized. Just like them, Osteen has a half-brother from his father’s failed first
marriage. Osteen started where they are today, but Osteen did not stay there. He turned it
around. He learned about media and marketing and became wealthy. He learned how to
neutralize his critics in a respectful manner. He married an attractive woman and has stayed
married to her for over 20 years. Osteen is profoundly human, but he has discovered how to
overcome challenges in his own life. People idealize him because they see themselves
reflected in his life story and they too want to overcome every obstacle in their finances,
health, and relationships. Like the guru, Osteen is a cultural selfobject, one that not only
mirrors a brighter world to them, but also one that they can admire and idealize. When
people idealize Osteen as a champion in life and are in his presence, they temporarily merge
their psyche with him and are revived by the security and confidence he embodies in their
mind. In Self psychology, it is often noted that the individual does not experience
selfobjects as wholly external, but as part of themselves (Oakes 1997). In other words, as an
idealized selfobject, Osteen is not merely an external preacher for a Lakewood member, for
he also functions as a part of congregant’s internal self-picture or image. He is the person
they want to become. He is their best self. Because Osteen’s presence elicits the best
version of yourself, there will be of those in his care a burning desire to watch Osteen on
TV, to buy Osteen’s books, and to never miss a Lakewood service. The joy that an
individual feels when they succeed where they have previously failed is not experienced as
separate from Osteen. Rather this elation and self-contentment the individual feels from
Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51 41
their success is consciously or unconsciously associated with Osteen, the idealized
selfobject the individual experiences as their best self.
Understanding your value
We now want to turn to a discussion of a chapter in Osteen’s (2004) Your Best Life Now,
titled “Understanding Your Value.” Osteen’s book consists of 32 small chapters, which are
divided into seven parts, which are intimated by the book’s subtitle: “7 Steps to Living at
Your Full Potential.” “Understanding Your Value” is chapter 8 of the book, which falls into
part 2 of the book, which is titled “Develop a Healthy Self-Image.” We focus on this
chapter because of its particular relevance for our discussion of mirroring.
Osteen begins that chapter by telling a story. It is about his father, his father’s friend
(Jesse), and Jesse’s son (Jeff). Osteen’s father and Jesse went to watch Jeff play in a high
school football game. Jeff, who played defense, did not have many opportunities to touch
the football. But on one play—a short punt—he caught the ball. Osteen describes what
happened this way:
He ran over, caught the ball, took a half step to his right and a half step back to his
left, his eyes darting in every direction, searching for some daylight. But there was no
running room to be found. Just then, about ten guys from the opposing team
clobbered him. I mean, he didn’t advance the ball one inch. (p. 65)
Osteen says that his dad felt pretty awkward after this play as he sat next to Jeff’s father,
Jesse, because the play was a total disaster. But then, Osteen adds, Jesse playfully “punched
Daddy in the ribs. He had a big smile on his face as he nodded toward the field where Jeff
was just getting to his feet” (p. 65). And then Jesse said, “Pastor, did you see those two
good moves?” (p. 65). Osteen adds: “Only a loving father could see his son’s two good
moves, rather than the fact that his son just got tackled by everybody but the cheerleaders”
(p. 65).
Osteen next goes on to instruct and to comfort and, we believe, to mirror compassionate
words to his readers: “But friend, that’s the way our heavenly Father looks at us. He’s not
dwelling on the times we get knocked down. He’s not dwelling on our faults. No, God sees
our two good moves. God focuses on the things you’re doing right; He sees the best in you”
(p. 65). From a Kohutian perspective, what the readers are able to get here is an affirmation
from their father, symbolically from God the Father, an affirmation that is being delivered
by Osteen. Many men, of course, did not have fathers who focused on their “two good
moves,” but Osteen, like a guru in the Indian context, enables men to attain, spiritually, as
adults what was emotionally missing when they were boys.
The main point of Osteen’s chapter can be summarized in his own words: “Your sense of
value should be based solely on the fact that you are a child of the Most High God” (p. 66).
Osteen, just as he began the chapter with a story, continues to reinforce his point by the use
of common, everyday, easy-to-understand illustrations. For example, Osteen asks the reader
to imagine that he hands them a brand-new 100-dollar bill. He then asks his reader, if I
crimpled it up, would you still want it? The answer, he assumes, is yes. And then he asks,
what if I took it outside and stomped on it, would you still want it? The answer again, he
assumes, is yes, because even though the bill is not in mint condition, it does not lose its
worth. He writes, “It doesn’t lose its value simply because it has aged, is not as pretty as it
once was, or has taken some bumps and bruises in life” (p. 68). He goes on, “That’s the
way God sees each one of us. We all go through challenges and struggles. Sometimes we
feel like that hundred-dollar bill, all crumpled up and soiled. But just as that hundred-dollar
42 Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51
bill still has value, we do, too! In fact, we will never, ever lose our value. Our value has
been placed in us by the Creator of the universe, and nobody can take it away from us”
(p. 68). We can also observe here how Osteen is addressing, in a very accessible way, the
emotional needs of his readers. Assuming that many of his readers are suffering from poor
self-esteem—his book, after all, is a self-help book—Osteen tells his readers that the most
important person—God himself, the Creator of the universe—has placed value in them and
continues to sees value in them. In Kohutian language, Osteen’s invocation of God as
Creator likely serves as a redressal of a deprived, yet deeply needed, affirmation of infantile
cosmic narcissism.
Toward the end of the chapter, Osteen directly addresses the subject of parental rejection
during childhood. He talks about a young man named Steve. Osteen reports that Steve’s
parents beat him down verbally as a child, “telling him that he was never going to make it
in life, that he’d never amount to anything” (p. 69). Steve later told Osteen that the root of
his parents abuse of him centered on the fact that they wished that they had had a girl. For
17 years, Osteen reports, Steve lived with depression, guilt, and shame, feeling that his life
“was one horrible mistake” (p. 69). Osteen told Steve: “Steve, you cannot allow your selfesteem
and your sense of value to be determined by how other people treat you. The Bible
tells us that God accepts us even if everybody else in the words rejects us” (p. 69). Osteen
continues,
I could see a glimmer of hope reflected in Steve’s eyes, so I continued to encourage
him. “I love what the psalmist said in Psalm 27:10: ‘Although my mother and father
have rejected me, the Lord will take me in and adopt me as His very own child.’ God
will never reject you, Steve. He always accepts you. Don’t allow the rejection of
other people to cause you to reject yourself.” It took a while for Steve to accept the
truth of what I was telling him, but today he is well on his way to living a happy,
productive life. (p. 69)
Osteen’s use of scripture here is striking, especially from a Kohutian perspective. Steve
experienced severe developmental failures with respect to his relationship with his parents,
failures that affected his self, leading him to believe that “his life was one horrible mistake.”
But Osteen provided by means of scripture where Steve’s parents had neglected: God is a
parent who never rejects us and always accepts us. We suspect that many of Osteen’s
“followers” have similar stories to Steve, because Osteen, as an American guru, functions
as a very gentle and affirming parent, a kind soul who mirrors to those who will listen these
kind words about God, words that close his chapter: “You will always be the apple of His
eye. He will never give up on you, so don’t give up on yourself” (p. 71).
Osteen as a non-anxious presence: the airplane incident
In How Does Analysis Cure? Kohut (1984) notes his view that the original selfobjects are
parental, and that one task of parents is to provide their children with a non-anxious
presence—in Kohut’s words, parents are to provide for their children “calming structures”
(p. 30). If a patient as a child did not receive such calming structures from her parents, then
the task of the therapist, Kohut argues, would be to enable the possibility of a redressal of
such childhood deficiencies in analysis. The analyst does so by being a non-anxious
presence.
We believe that Osteen functions as a non-anxious presence for those who use him as a
cultural selfobject. Evidence for our claim can be found by reading the newspaper accounts
of a recent incident that involved Joel and Victoria Osteen (see, e.g., Murphy 2008a, b).
Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51 43
Kate Murphy (2008a), a writer for The New York Times, reports the basic facts. In
December 2005, the Osteen family boarded a plane in Houston, Texas, which was headed
for Vail, Colorado. The Osteens were sitting in first-class. On their way to their seats,
Victoria noticed that there was a stain on her seat, about the size of a quarter on one of the
armrests. Victoria demanded that it be cleaned, and she allegedly physically assaulted a
flight attendant, Sharon Brown. The flight was delayed, the Osteen family was escorted off
of the plane, and they were fined $3,000 for interfering with a crewmember.
Brown also brought assault charges against Victoria, suing her for 10% of her net worth. A
psychiatrist, Patrice Lee, testified and stated that Brown was suffering from depression and
post-traumatic stress disorder on account of the incident, particularly because Victoria acted in a
racist manner toward Brown (Victoria is a Caucasian, and Brown is an African-American). Lee
also stated that the incident led Brown to “question the whole issue of spirituality.” The court
found that Victoria Osteen was innocent. James McKinley (2008) notes that Victoria denied
that the “attack” took place, that it was merely an argument, and that, if she did touch Brown,
it was in a “friendly” way. Based on the testimony of various witnesses, the jury unanimously
found that the incident did not rise to the level of an assault.
What we would like to call attention to here is how Joel Osteen dealt with this situation,
both as it was happening and after the event had taken place. First, while Victoria and
Brown were arguing, witnesses said that Joel offered to clean up the spill himself, thus
trying to ease the situation. Second, after the incident occurred, Joel convinced Victoria that
they should pay—rather than dispute—the $3,000 fine so as to put the incident behind
them. Third, after the court case was over, Joel, during a church service, was able to
respond to the incident with humor, teasing Victoria by saying that, if it were not for him,
she would be in jail. All three of these actions suggest that Osteen was able to remain calm
and keep his composure—and even to take a humorous perspective—while Victoria obviously
was not able to do so. Osteen would be the first to admit that he is not always able to remain
calmand patient—he preaches andwrites about times that he has fallen short—but this is a time
when he was able to remain calm, and this time happened to be an event that attracted the
national news media. Perhaps for Christians Jesus is the primary religious cultural selfobject,
the one who remains calm and has the power to calm storms at sea and in the self, and
Osteen, one of Jesus’ representatives, tried to follow in Jesus’ footsteps that day in December,
but, alas, he was not able to calm the storm in the airplane, because, despite all of his
attempts, a lawsuit still developed.
Sociological and demographic considerations: race, class, gender, and age
We now want to turn our attention to sociological and demographic considerations so as to
contextualize our hypothesis that Osteen functions as a cultural selfobject in a similar manner as
gurus function in India. Osteen’s message of transformation resonates across social strata, which
is remarkable in-and-of-itself. It is also curious that racial minorities and people of low
socioeconomic status seem to be drawn to Lakewood Church.We also found it fascinating that a
large number of men attend Lakewood Church, as studies have often shown that women attend
church and are perceived to be more “religious” than men (see, e.g., Capps 2002). In different
ways, all of these groups could have, in one way or another, particularly strong needs to heal
narcissistic injuries imposed by society, though, regarding the latter, men, of course, often
enjoy many privileges on account of sexism and androcentrism. In any case, Osteen is a white,
wealthy, athletic man—why would racial minorities and economic disadvantaged persons be
drawn to him? And why are masses of men going to his services and reading his books?
44 Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51
A house for all the nations
Lakewood’s congregation is nearly evenly divided between whites, blacks, and Hispanics with
a small population of Asians (Lakewood Church n. d.c). This racial composition roughly
mirrors the racial demographics of Houston: 49% white, 25% black, 37% Hispanic, and 5%
Asian (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Churches this integrated are truly rare. Only 8% of U.S.
churches can be classified as multiracial (Yancey 2003, p. 15). The majority of multiracial
churches that compose this meager 8% are still dominated by one racial culture and have
been unable to integrate social networks (DeYoung et al. 2003, p. 167). How has Lakewood
attracted such a diverse congregation? Lakewood’s first slogan—“Lakewood Church: An
Oasis of Love in a Troubled World”—not only describes John Osteen’s vision for the church,
but also echoes the role of the church in racial minority and immigrant communities.
Historically and today, the black church has served as a safe place away from racism when
blacks faced severe discrimination in greater society (DeYoung et al. 2003, p. 112). Likewise,
separate Asian and Hispanic congregations have functioned as a refuge for immigrants as
they struggle to learn English, find jobs, and establish themselves in America (DeYoung et al.
2003, p. 118). Lakewood is attractive to racial minorities because it fulfills many functions of
racial minority congregations but offers more, namely, the chance for personal transformation
and assimilation into a unified, successful, multiracial body of believers.
When Osteen, a powerful white man, continually affirms the worth, intelligence, and
creativity of a person who has suffered racial epithets, the wounds that racism inflict on
self-esteem can, for some, begin to heal. This is not to say that, in order for those who have
been “wounded” by racism to be healed, they need the affirmation of a powerful white man.
Yet, in some cases and for complicated and ambiguous reasons, one can imagine that such
affirmation might be experienced as healing, even though, problematically, such dynamics
could also be supporting social and psychological racism that is buried deep within us,
meaning that such “healing” is not healing at all (for a discussion of narcissism, selfobjects,
and racism, see Rector 2008). In any case, we realize the issue of race is likely very
complicated here, but one thing is certain: People of many different races continually attend
Lakewood Church, and they find Osteen’s ministry to be uplifting. Perhaps this is because
African Americans and Latino/a persons are in leadership roles in every service, and that
Lakewood has a Spanish speaking service led by Marcos Witt, a Latin Grammy award
winner, prolific writer, and animated preacher. Racial minorities, it seems on the surface, at
least, are attracted to Lakewood because it provides a chance at overcoming the false
barriers of race and assimilating into a new unified body of believers. At Lakewood
Church, it seems that there is no difference between Jew or Greek, but deeper inquiry into
race at Lakewood Church could reveal key insights into how race relations have evolved at
Lakewood since its inception in 1959.
Why are the economically disadvantaged drawn to Osteen?
What about class? How does class function at Lakewood Church? One may wonder if
Osteen’s success, his business background, and his current wealth would be alienating to
less successful and lower income individuals and families. This, however, is simply not the
case. In fact, Osteen is particularly appealing among people of low socioeconomic status.
Part of Osteen’s message is that we cannot let a dearth of education or finances limit us, a
message that is particularly attractive for the uneducated lower class. Osteen’s (2004) first
book, Your Best Life Now, was found to have a greater percentage of readers with a high
school diploma than a college degree (The Barna Group 2005). The reading base of all
Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51 45
other religious bestsellers of 2004–2005 was predominately college-educated. These
included The Da Vinci Code (Brown 2003), The Purpose Driven Life (Warren 2002), The
Five People You Meet in Heaven (Albom 2003), Left Behind (LaHaye and Jenkins 2005),
The Prayer of Jabez (Wilkinson 2000), and Tuesdays with Morrie (Albom 1997).
Explaining the draw of the uneducated and economically disenfranchised is, on one
level, rather straightforward: Those without access to wealth and resources, one can easily
imagine, would be naturally drawn to a message that says they can overcome every obstacle
and not be limited by the system. Such individuals and families see the Osteen family and
Lakewood Church as a rags-to-riches story, and they are eager to be involved in this
narrative. Consider some of these oft-repeated narratives at Lakewood: Lakewood started in
an abandoned feed store with cracks in the floor; now, however, Lakewood has some of the
most impressive facilities in the nation. John Osteen grew up dirt poor on cotton fields, but
Joel Osteen (2007), as noted, recently received a forward of 13 million dollars for his latest
book, Become a Better You: 7 Keys to Improving Your Life. Lakewood Church members
have the privilege of being part of something exciting, something happening in the world.
By attending services at Lakewood, the economically disadvantaged worship where the
Houston Rockets, one of the NBA’s premier basketball teams, used to play, and they are on
television. For people who have been unable to achieve success economically, being a part
of Lakewood gives them the feeling that they, too, are great, that they, too, are champions.
But Lakewood’s appeal among people of low socioeconomic status is not only because
of the rags-to-riches story of the Osteen family. It is also because Osteen’s theology itself,
so heavily informed by the Word of Faith message, is tailored to the needs of the
economically disadvantaged. The Word of Faith message is a theology of transition, what
Harrison (2005) calls “the gospel of socioeconomic mobility” (p. 152). When Osteen says,
“God is a progressive God,” “He likes to do new things,” and “Believe that where you are
today is not where you are staying,” he touches on the two primary emphases of the Word
of Faith message—namely, change and movement (p. 156). It is a religious response to
class hierarchy, a way of reasserting a sense of agency over one’s destiny through faith. In
this way, Harrison notes the Word of Faith Movement can be seen as a type of “poor
people’s movement” composed of people who at least have the desire to rise higher
(p. 148). Interestingly enough, the economic system itself, with all of its inequalities, is not
criticized in Word of Faith teaching. Those who achieve social mobility are praised for the
“favor” God has on their life. Those who do not advance economically live a life of
constant self-improvement and striving to strengthen their faith.
Seen through the lens of the Word of Faith message that promises to level the playing
field with respect to access to resources, one can easily see how Osteen would become a
kind of hero or role model (or, to use the language of Kohut, a cultural selfobject) for the
impoverished immigrant, the high school graduate with no career path, and the single
mother struggling to pay her bills. Like the guru in Hindu context, Osteen is a repository of
grace for people who have been wounded by life, for those born winners that society
conditioned to lose. The hurting can idealize him and temporarily merge with his greatness
while, in turn, he mirrors their need to feel special, valued, and significant.
Why are men reading Osteen’s books?
And this, finally, brings us to gender. We found it to be a curious fact that many men attend
Lakewood Church and, further, that many men read Osteen’s books. In “Why Women Read
More Than Men,” Eric Weiner (2007) noted Ian McEwan’s unscientific experiment where
he handed out free novels in a London park. He found, not surprisingly, that women, by a
46 Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51
large margin, took more books than the men did. Weiner also notes that a survey conducted
by the Associated Press reported that men, on average, read five books last year, whereas
women read nine. Weiner also noted that “Women read more than men in all categories
except for history and biography.” Weiner does not answer the title of his article, but he
does note several theories as to why women read more than men, one being that “At a
young age, girls can sit still for much longer periods of time than boys.”
In general, then, one would not expect men to read books on religion or spirituality.
Strikingly, however, Osteen’s (2004) first book, according to one study, had more male
readers than female readers (The Barna Group 2005). Why are men reading Osteen? What
turns them from the history and biography sections of bookstores to the religion and selfhelp
section? There has been some work done on men and megachurches (see Twitchell
2006), but this research is not particular to Osteen or Lakewood Church.
In any case, we have several guesses as to why Osteen and his books are appealing to
men. Our first guess is that men read Osteen because he is successful. When men spend
their time reading history and biography, they are probably reading about other successful
men. Osteen’s book, then, since it is written by a successful man, is therefore akin to the
reading that men are already doing. Our second guess follows from this: Osteen, prior to
becoming America’s most successful preacher, was a businessman, and this, too, likely
resonates with male readers. He is not only a spiritual role model; he is a role model in life.
Osteen’s lucrative book deals and smart real estate decisions (which he openly shares with
his congregation) earn him respect among men. Osteen even gives practical advice on
reducing debt and paying mortgages. It is no surprise that men prefer books written by
Osteen, a businessman with practical advice on how to succeed financially, than other
religious bestsellers. A third reason that men might feel comfortable reading Osteen is
because of his athleticism. Indeed, it is difficult to find a televised interview without footage
of Osteen playing basketball or football. Print interviews often include his story of playing
basketball at the YMCA. In his People cover story, we learn that during breaks Osteen lifts
weights or takes 2-mile runs. “I don’t jog, I run,” he says (Rogers and Bane 2007, p. 98).
And in his 60 Minutes interview, it is noted that Osteen can bench press 300 lbs (Pitts
2007). Osteen speaks the language of the common man and meets him in his element, while
exhibiting athleticism that men can respect. And this guess—which is our most speculative
but also our most interesting—connects directly with our Self psychological argument:
Because Osteen is an athletic leader and a role model, his presence would naturally recall,
for men, some of their memories of gym class and sports, and, above all, the locker room,
where most boys have suffered narcissistic injuries. Osteen’s athleticism, we believe, allows
men to identify with him, allowing men to heal the wounds of boyhood. Most men cannot
bench 300 lbs., yet Osteen’s impressive strength, like his other admirable attributes, is not
used to intimidate or demean. Here again we see the potential for secondary redressal of
previous narcissistic injuries, again in the dynamics of both idealizing and mirroring
transferences. Men are able to admire (idealize) Osteen’s strength and athleticism while he
tells them that, they, too, can benefit from God’s blessings, that, even if their bodies are not
perfect, inside they are made of gold (mirroring).
Osteen’s generational appeal and the continuity of self
While we do not have specific numbers with regard to age at Lakewood, just a glance
around the sanctuary reveals many young faces. Young families and individuals gather here
by the thousands. This suggests to us the possibility that Osteen, who is in his mid-forties,
serves as a cultural selfobject for those who are in their twenties, thirties, and forties.
Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51 47
Teenagers and children, while they might enjoy going to Lakewood services because they
resemble other youthful events (e.g., rock concerts), they are probably more likely to take
musicians, athletes, and actors closer to their age as cultural selfobjects, though it is possible
that Osteen would function, in some cases, as a cultural selfobject for them as well. But young
adults and adults, however, are likely to take someone in their mid-forties as a selfobject,
because Osteen himself has just navigated through these years with great success.
We noted above that, according to Kohut, selfobjects and cultural selfobjects provide a
continuity of self. Good historians, Kohut suggests, provide such continuity for groups.
And we noted that good parents provide such continuity for their children. As Kohut put it,
the son wants to know
“Daddy, how did you do it? Did you really come to this country and have only $25?
Just enough for a bus fare from Boston to Chicago? Is it really true you knew only
one person in the United States? And he was in Chicago, and that was why you spent
your $25 on the bus fare? And then you got here and had no money at all? And yet,
look what became of you?” “Yes, Tom, that’s the way it was” (Kohut and Strozier
1985b, p. 237)
What we would like to point out here is that Kohut seems to be referring to himself and his
relationship with his son, as Kohut was an immigrant who settled in Chicago and who had a
son named Thomas. Kohut, allowing himself to be admired by his son, is providing a story—
a history—that enables a continuity of self that is uplifting for Thomas. Kohut notes that
children want to know
“How was I when I was a little boy?” “How were you when you were a little girl?”
“What did you do?” “Tell me about me,” we ask. “Did I really say those clever
things? Was I bad sometimes?” It doesn’t matter what the questions are exactly. The
importance of these questions is not so much to investigate the past... but to establish
the continuity of self via the reflecting eyes of the selfobject. (p. 236)
By hearing stories about our own childhood, and stories about the childhood of our parents,
children are able to establish a sense of continuity of self—they are a part of a larger story.
Kohut also tells a story about his mother. When Kohut turned 60 years old, he was the
President of the American Psychoanalytic Association. He notes that his birthday occurred
during the meeting time of the group, and that he received many flowers and gifts. But he
also received an unsigned telegram that read: “To me it seems like yesterday” (p. 237). The
telegram was from his mother. Kohut reflects, “You get the point? That was all she sent. I
will never forget that. It was one of the best things she ever did” (p. 237). The present that
she gave to him reminded him that she remembered him before he could remember himself,
as though it were yesterday.
One of the reasons, we believe, that Osteen is able to function so effectively as a cultural
selfobject is because of his generational appeal. Osteen has taken over his father’s ministry,
and, as noted, many of his family members still contribute a great deal to the pastoral
leadership of Lakewood. It appears as though the generations are working together in the
Osteen family, that they are on good terms, as Kohut seems to have indicated about his own
familial relationships in his interviews with Strozier. Osteen is surely viewed by his
congregants as a good father to his children, and so Osteen’s appeal may be, in part, on
account of the fact that he can appeal to (and be admired by) at least three different
generations—the generation of his children, his own generation, and the generation of his
father—which can provide the congregants of Lakewood with a sense of continuity by
providing a model of the family that his congregants may not have had themselves.
48 Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51
Conclusion: Osteen and America as a culture of narcissism
It is well known that Christopher Lasch (1979) argued that America is a culture of
narcissism. Drawing on this work, but also critiquing it, Donald Capps (1993) notes that “a
weakness of [Lasch’s] book is his selectivity in the use” of the clinical writings on
narcissism (p. 9). In The Depleted Self: Sin in a Narcissistic Age, Capps (1993) made the
case that we do in fact live in a narcissistic age, but the antidote to narcissism is not
abandonment of self-love in favor of object-love. Rather, the treatment of narcissism entails
a transformation of narcissism, a transformation that often occurs by means of mirroring. In
an earlier essay, titled “Religion and Psychological Well-Being,” Capps (1985) also
addressed the issue of narcissism and religion. Here Capps rather prophetically stated that:
If religion exerts less influence on the social order but retains its influence on
personal life, as various secularization theories suggest, this “privatization” of
religion provides a favorable context for an increasingly close association of religion
and narcissism. We would predict that religious institutions capitalizing on this trend
will be those responding to the interests of the narcissistic self. (p. 242, our emphasis)
Capps continues, “The survival of the sacred in a highly secular world will depend to a
significant degree on whether the narcissistic self is not deposed but transformed. Religious
institutions and movements would be better advised to devote themselves to its
transformation than to attack it as morally or spiritually bankrupt” (p. 242).
We have argued that Joel Osteen, knowingly or intuitively, has capitalized on this trend,
and, indeed, this is why his ministry is so successful. If Lasch and others are correct in
identifying America as a culture of narcissism, then it is no wonder, but neither is it a small
miracle, that this very culture has also produced a selfobject suitable for the treatment of
this narcissism. It remains an open question for how long Osteen will be found to be a
suitable cultural selfobject. If, say, a controversy would come to light that would prove him
or his ministry to be unworthy of idealization—while we were writing this article, we
wondered if the lawsuit that Victoria Osteen was engaged in would have such an effect (cf.
Murphy 2008a)—it is possible that he would no longer be able to cultivate the experiences
of mirroring. Cultures, that is to say, can become disillusioned with their own cultural
selfobjects. One way to avoid such a fate would be to die young. Another would be to age
gracefully, perhaps as Billy Graham has done. In any case, whatever the fate of Joel Osteen
and company may be, there are other religious cultural selfobjects, and it is likely that our
culture will produce new such objects as they are needed. With regard to the future of
Osteen as a cultural selfobject, it is impossible to say what will happen, but one possibility
is that he will gracefully give over his leadership to his son, Jonathan, or to his daughter,
Alexandra, or to both, teaching them as they grow how to meet the needs of the group self
and its individual members, those, that is, who are a part of the Lakewood community,
whether physically, virtually, or in spirit. Unlike Jim and Tammy Bakker’s infamous
ministry, Lakewood’s ministry appears secure for generations to come, and this in itself
supports the sense of a secure “group self,” a much needed sense of security in America’s
culture of narcissism.
Acknowledgments Christine Miller is the first author of this article, which derives from her senior
honors thesis at Rice University. Nathan Carlin, the second author, helped her revise the thesis into a
publishable article. They would like to thank Donald Capps and William Parsons for their assistance in
writing this essay.
Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51 49
References
20/20. (2006). The 10 most fascinating people of 2006. 20/20. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://
abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2716887&page=1.
Albom, M. (1997). Tuesdays with Morrie. New York: Random House.
Albom, M. (2003). The five people you meet in heaven. New York: Hyperion Books.
Berger, P. (1967). The sacred canopy: Elements of a sociological theory of religion. New York: Anchor
Books.
Brown, D. (2003). The Da Vinci code. New York: Anchor Books.
Bynum, J. (2005). The threshing floor. Lake Mary: Charisma House.
Capps, D. (1985). Religion and psychological well-being. In P. E. Hammond (Ed.), The sacred in a secular age:
Toward revision in the scientific study of religion (pp. 237–256). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Capps, D. (1993). The depleted self: Sin in a narcissistic age. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Capps, D. (2002). Men and their religion: Honor, hope, and humor. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press
International.
Chambers, O. (1935). My utmost for his highest. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company.
DeYoung, C. P., Emerson, M. O., Yancey, G., & Kim, K. C. (2003). United by faith: The multiracial
congregation as an answer to the problem of race. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dooley, T. (2007). Reaching the masses: At home in the world. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved October 17,
2007, from http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2007_4441365.
Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Festinger, L., Riecken, H., & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails. Minneapolis: The University of
Minnesota Press.
Garret, L. (2007). New Osteen book at three million. Publisher’s Weekly. Retrieved April 13, 2007, from
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6433682.html?nid=2286.
Harrison, M. F. (2005). Righteous riches: The word of faith movement in contemporary African American
religion. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.
Kakar, S. (1991). The analyst and the mystic: Psychoanalytic reflections on religion and mysticism. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
King, L. (2007). Interview with Joel and Victoria Osteen. Retrieved October 16, 2007, from http://transcripts.
cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/16/lkl.01.html.
Kohut, H. (1984). How does analysis cure? Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Kohut, H., & Strozier, C. B. (1985a). Idealization and cultural selfobjects. In C. Strozier (Ed.), In Self
psychology and the humanities: Reflections on a new psychoanalytic approach (pp. 224–231). New
York: Norton & Company.
Kohut, H., & Strozier, C. B. (1985b). On the continuity of the self and cultural self objects. In C. Strozier
(Ed.), Self psychology and the humanities: Reflections on a new psychoanalytic approach (pp. 232–243).
New York: Norton & Company.
Kohut, H., & Strozier, C. B. (1985c). One needs a twinkle of humor as a protection against craziness. In C.
Strozier (Ed.), Self psychology and the humanities: Reflections on a new psychoanalytic approach (pp.
244–253). New York: Norton & Company.
Kohut, H., & Wolf, E. (2001). The disorders of the self and their treatment. In D. Capps (Ed.), Freud and
Freudians on religion (pp. 249–263). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kwon, L. (2007). Top 100 largest, fastest-growing churches. The Christian Post. Retrieved October 31,
2007, from http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071003/top-100-largest-fastest growingchurches_
page2.htm.
LaHaye, T., & Jenkins, J. (2005). Left behind. Carol Stream: Tyndale.
Lakewood Church. (n. d.a). About Joel and Victoria. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from http://www.lakewood.
cc/site/PageServer?pagename=LCH_aboutjoelandvictoria.
Lakewood Church. (n. d.b). About us. Retrieved January 15, 2008, from http://www.lakewood.cc/site/
PageServer?pagename=LCH_aboutus.
Lakewood Church. (n. d.c). Our history. Retrieved March 2, 2008, from http://www.lakewood.cc/site/
PageServer?pagename=LCH_ourhistory.
Lasch, C. (1979). The culture of narcissism. New York: Warner Books.
McKinley, J. (2008). Jury finds pastor did not assault a flight attendant. The New York Times. Retrieved
February 10, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/us/15houston.html.
Miller, C. (2008). Interview with Lakewood spokesman Don Iloff.
Muktananda, S. (1983). The perfect relationship. Ganesh-puri: Gurudev Siddha Vidyapeeth.
Murphy, K. (2008a). Air-rage accusation lands megachurch pastor in court. The New York Times. Retrieved
February 10, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/08/us/08houston.html?ref=us.
50 Pastoral Psychol (2010) 59:27–51
Murphy, K. (2008b). Megachurch pastor denies assaulting flight attendant. The New York Times. Retrieved
January 16, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/us/09houston.html?_r=1.
Nacht, S. (1962). Curative factors in psychoanalysis. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 43, 206–211.
Oakes, L. (1997). Prophetic charisma: The psychology of revolutionary religious personalities. Syracuse:
Syracuse University Press.
Osteen, J. (2004). Your best life now: 7 steps to living at your full potential. New York: Warner Faith.
Osteen, J. (2007). Become a better you: 7 keys to improving your life everyday. New York: Free.
Osteen, P. (2007, December 30). Lakewood Service.
Osteen, J. (2008, April 5). Lakewood Service.
Osteen, J. (2008, February 10). Have the right image on the inside. Sermon Preached at Lakewood Church.
Osteen, J. (2008, March 16). Lakewood Service.
Osteen, V. (2008, January 13). Lakewood Service.
Perriman, A. (Ed.). (2003). Faith, health, and prosperity: A report on ‘word of faith’ and ‘positive
confession’ theologies by the Evangelical Alliance (UK) Commission on unity and truth among
evangelicals. Cumbria: Paternoster.
Pitts, B. (2007). Joel Osteen answers his critics. CBS 60 Minutes. Retrieved October 14, 2007, from http://
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/11/60minutes/main 3358652page2.shtml.
Rector, L. (2008). Narcissistic dimensions of racial identity: The role of self object experiences in the
development and maintenance of “whiteness.” Paper presented at the meeting of the American Academy
of Religion, Chicago, Illinois.
Rogers, P., & Bane, V. (2007). Joel Osteen counts his blessings. People, 94–100.
Sheahen, L. (2004). “Expect God’s favor”: Interview with Joel Osteen. Beliefnet.com, Retrieved March 1,
2008, from http://www.beliefnet.com/story/157/story_15735_1.html.
Smith, E. (2007). Texas monthly talks: Joel Osteen. Texas Monthly. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from http://
www.texasmonthly.com/2007-11 01/talks-1.php.
Symonds, W. C. (2005). Online extra: Meet the prosperity preacher. BusinessWeek.com. Retrieved April 23,
2008, from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_21/b3934014_mz001.htm.
The Barna Group. (2005). Religious books attract a diverse audience dominated by women and boomers. The
Barna Group. Retrieved May 27, 2008, from http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate
&BarnaUpdateID=191.
Twitchell, J. B. (2006). Where men hide. New York: Columbia University Press.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Houston (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. U.S. Census Bureau.
Retrieved February 1, 2009, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4835000.html.
Wadhwani, A. (2007). Religious titans bring feel-good message. The Tennessean. Retrieved May17, 2007,
from http://www.joelosteen.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/Tennessean_ article.pdf.
Warren, R. (2002). The purpose driven life. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Weiner, E. (2007). Why women read more than men. Retrieved May 27, 2008 from http://www.npr.org/
templates/story/story.php?storyId=14175229.
Wells, D. (2005). Above all earthly pow’rs: Christ in a postmodern world. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Wilkinson, B. (2000). The prayer of Jabez. Sisters: Multnomah.
Yancey, G. (2003). One body, one spirit: Principles of successful multiracial churches. Downers Grove:
Intervarsity.
Young, R. (2007). The rise of Lakewood Church and Joel Osteen. New Kensington: Whitaker