Some people can’t stand the hellfire-and-brimstone types in Free Speech Alley. That’s understandable. But personally, I find a little dose of hellfire now and again is almost refreshing compared to the happy-go-lucky suavity of modern Christian televangelists.But the truth is neither side accurately represents Christianity. In fact, the polarization of the two sides is undermining Christianity’s credibility as a religion.On one side, the loud street preachers screech about damnation, and on the other side are the Joel Osteens, who present the scripture through the rose-colored lens of the “prosperity gospel.”Neither approach is ideal. But of the two, those who espouse the prosperity gospel — which is, essentially, the idea faith in God equals that new Ferrari you’ve always wanted — are more threatening to Christianity because they are the ones rewarded undue credibility.The poster child for this sugarcoated, lazy theology is Joel Osteen, pastor of Lakewood Church and the most prominent televangelist today. According to his book promotion, millions — which make up one of the largest audiences in the U.S. and throughout the world — tune in to his sermon every week to “hear his words of inspiration and wisdom.”This makes him one of the most influential and popular televangelists in the modern world. It has also made him one of the most controversial figureheads in the evangelical community.Not everyone agrees Osteen’s message is a completely accurate representation of Christianity. Rev. Michael Horton, a professor of  theology at Westminster Seminary in Escondido, Calif.,  said in a 2008 CBS story about Osteen that the preacher “uses the Bible like a fortune cookie” when sharing his “cotton candy gospel.”Horton further criticized Osteen by claiming he “tells only half the story of the Bible, focusing on the good news without talking about sin, suffering and redemption.”Osteen’s book “Become a Better You” gives credit to Horton’s criticism. The seven bulleted points the books gives to improve your life do not make one mention of God; the focus is more on the individual.This would be entirely appropriate if it were a garden-variety self-help book, but the implementation of the Christian doctrine has drawn criticism and ire, even as it draws in more followers. Regardless, it was easy for some to give Osteen a pass because the overarching theme of the book was positive and uplifting.But during Osteen’s telling 2005 interview with Larry King, he gave half-answers to King’s questions about the specifics of his faith, which did more to draw criticism than to his publications. Granted, Osteen later clarified his opinions — but his initial hesitancy was enough to sour him and reinforce the criticism that Osteen’s message lacks substance.Whether you agree with the Christian doctrine or not, the conclusion is inescapable — if Osteen is not secure enough in his faith to defend it adequately, then what business does he, and others like him, have being such a prominent televangelist?Moreover, if his presentation of the gospel has been criticized by prominent theologians as an inaccurate representation of Christianity, is it permissible to allow said presentation to become one of the most prominent symbols for the Christian faith?The solution does not lie in a continual watering down of the gospel. This isn’t to say the truth lies in the caricaturized extremism associated with fire-and-brimstone naysayers. Rather, a happy middle ground must be found and cultivated.Until the two sides are reconciled peacefully, Christianity will remain sorely diluted and largely ineffective.Linnie Leavines is a 19-year-old mass communication sophomore from Central City. Follow her on Twitter @TDR_lleavines.
 
 
 
– – – -Contact Linnie Leavines at [email protected]