Power of I AM

Note: For the TL;DR please go the final paragraph.

“The Power of I Am: Two Words That Will Change Your Life Today,” (2016) by Joel Osteen is a self-help book which presents Positive Thinking as a Christian principle. Positive Thinking is the idea that our words or thoughts manifest into reality. For Osteen, these thoughts are “I am” statements which “will bring either success or failure,” (1) because “whatever you follow the “I am” with, you’re…giving it permission to be in your life.” (2). Osteen presents this idea as a Christian principle by using Bible passages, and writes that when your “I Am”s align with ‘who God says you are’ you “invite the goodness of God,” (7). Despite this affirmation of belief, a closer examination of Osteen’s message reveals disconnects from core Christian teachings.

The disconnections begin with the use of “I am”. In Christianity, the term “I Am” is associated with God, because it’s how God introduces Himself to Moses in Exodus 3. In the passage, Moses was tending sheep, and saw “a bush burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed,” (Exo 3:2). When Moses approached, he discovered that it was the Messenger of God, and God was asking Moses to return to Egypt to free the Israelites from oppression (Exo 3:3-12). Finally, Moses asks:

““When I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The god of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?”

And God said to Moses, “I am that I am, … say to the children of Israel, I AM has sent you,”” (Exodus 3:13-14).

The literature on this name is robust, but a common interpretation is that the “I am that I am,” statement is a declaration of God’s power and eternality as sovereign creator of the cosmos; that this “I AM” is the unmoved mover of creation who exists, has always existed, and will exist beyond the end of time; a designation of the God who is ever present with His people; the ultimate maker and origin of reality. (Hebraicthought.org)

But for Osteen, “I am” reflects the power of the individual’s words to ‘invite’ positive or negative things into our lives. He writes, “Whatever follows the “I Am” will eventually find you,” (2). It is, in essence, the ‘Law of Attraction,’ or ‘manifestation,’ which posits that positive thoughts bring positive outcomes, and negative thoughts bring negative outcomes. What this does, is place the individual’s positive thought as the ultimate maker of reality, thereby making the individual as powerful as God. And the disconnect grows deeper if we think of the broader goals of Christianity vs. The Power of I Am.

In Christianity, the underlying goal is to develop a relationship with God through the death and resurrection Jesus Christ. In this theology, God is the central power over reality. It posits that God is good, is the source of all that is good, and that the badness in the world is the by-product of rejecting God. God’s goal is to draw humanity back into relationship with Him, but humans are so far separated from His goodness that he needs to clean us from our badness first. He created the means for this washing through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, so that any who would believe could have relationship with Him (John 3:16).

In this system, the individual priority is accepting God’s cleansing grace through the cross of Christ and seeking God’s Kingdom and God’s goodness; hence the name “Christ-ianity”. Seeking God leads to a spiritual fullness which may or may not include material stability because the goal is to serve God and advance His eternal kingdom. This emphasis on the Eternal mindset is found in Matthew, where Jesus says:

“Therefore, do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear? For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.” (Matthew 6:31-33)

Which is to say, our health, wealth, and favor are temporary things, so pursue the eternal God because He will give what is needed when it’s needed for His eternal purpose.

In contrast, the underlying goals of “Power of I Am” is material prosperity. Positive Thinking places the individual’s thoughts as the central power over reality. It’s these thoughts that are the source of all that is good and all that is bad, and the goal is to adjust one’s thinking in order to ‘manifest’ positive things instead of negative things. Meaning, the events that occur to an individual are ultimately the result of their thinking, their “I Am”s.2

In this system, the individual priority is adjusting our thinking so that our “I Am”s are focused on good things. Seeking these good thoughts then summons the Universe (or God) to bring us physical and material well-being.

The difference, in essence, is that Christianity is God-centered looking towards the eternal/spiritual, while Positive Thinking is Self-centered looking to the temporary/material. These are hard stances to reconcile, and while Osteen encourages readers to ‘align’ with ‘who God says you are,’, it’s clear his underlying goals are material, not spiritual. He writes,

“Get up in the morning and invite good things into your life. “I am blessed. I am strong. I am talented. I am wise. I am disciplined. I am focused. I am prosperous.” When you talk like that talent gets summoned by the Almighty God: “Go find that person.” Health, strength, abundance, and discipline start heading your way.” (Osteen, 2).

Now, we could argue that these issues are circumstantial. Osteen never explicitly states that the individual is equal to God, or that the material gains should come at cost of the spiritual. Even so, these subtle shifts give the individual primary control over reality, and place material gains in the forefront, which leads to problematic theology. First, it could lead an individual think that material lacks are the result of spiritual or personal failing of faith. Second, it can make God sound like a cosmic vending machine: insert Positive “I Am” to receive the blessing cola. In Christian thought, neither of these are true.

This is best explained by way of illustration, let’s imagine we have a very wealthy friend. We tell everyone he’s our friend, and he’s told us everything we need to do to keep our lifestyle aligned with his. Now, let’s say we believe that, if we stay aligned with that friend, our positive affirmations will cause our friend to manifest our thoughts. We say to the friend, “I am filled, I am wealthy, I am wise,”. In response to this, our friend snaps his fingers and service staff arrives with a meal, precious metals, and new books. Our friend gives us these things, just as we expected, so we thank him for doing as we wished.

Now, imagine the friend doesn’t do anything, or doesn’t respond how we think he’s supposed to. We would undoubtedly feel one of two feelings:

1) We might feel we didn’t align enough with our friend, or keep a positive enough affirmation, and because of that our friend didn’t come through for us. We doubt ourselves and work harder to align and stay positive.

Or

2) We might resent our friend for not behaving how we think he should have. We say to ourselves, “I’ve done all this for my friend, but he won’t give me that thing!”

We end up feeling this way because we’ve developed a transactional relationship. If we accept that our thoughts manifest good things (by the power of God or otherwise), our lives are spent trying to be positive enough to manifest good things; or positive enough to garner God’s favor; and we start measuring ‘successes’ by our material wellbeing. Such a mentality leads to frustration and disappointment if things don’t go how we think they should go.

Now, imagine that same wealthy friend, but let’s say we believe our goal is to know one another personally. We tell him everything about ourselves, and we listen to his stories and advice. We grow to know and understand one another, and because of that our lifestyle begins to change to match his.

We grow comfortable enough to confide our troubles, and we say, “I am empty,” so our friend shows us where to find food; we say, “I am weak,” so our friend shows us a good trainer to build our fitness; we say, “I am ignorant,” so our friend gives us access to his library and tutors. Through that relationship our friend understands our needs, and we begin to understand that our friend will help us grow through the process; sometimes giving us what need, sometimes helping us learn through our needs.

Here in lies the difference between the Positive Thinking and Christian philosophy. Positive Thinking prioritizes our own desired outcomes, and could lead us to an unhealthy fixation on positivity where negative circumstances or ‘manifestations’ are perceived as personal failings. Counter to this, Christianity prioritizes the spiritual relationship, and accepts that “everyone is subject to chance and circumstance,” (Ecclesiastes 9:11) and that “The rain falls on the just and unjust,” (Matthew 5:45). Meaning, that while we should plan for and pursue our material goals, we realize that all things (good or bad) can work for the good of God’s spiritual purpose (Romans 8:28).

But where the use of “I Am” and the contrast of the underlying goals could be considered subtleties, there are larger issues when we look at Osteen’s interpretations of the Bible. When interpreting the Bible, the reader should remember that each book was written in a particular time and place, to a particular group of people, for a particular purpose. Which means, our goal as a reader is to extract the meaning of the story from the text as we attempt to draw the intended lesson from the passage. Throughout “The Power of I Am” Osteen presents Biblical passages and suggests that they mean “I Am” thinking is a Biblical principle, but a close reading of the passages show that he’s forcing meaning over the text instead of drawing from it.

We encounter this in chapter one, as Osteen presents the story of Abram and Sarai, Osteen writes:

“God promised Sarai and her husband, Abram, that they would have a baby. But Sarai was eighty years old, way past childbearing years. Back in those days, if a wife couldn’t…give her husband a child … the wife was considered a failure. … I can imagine some of her “I am”s: I am a failure. I am inferior. I am not good enough. I am unattractive.”

Yet Sarai has this promise from God that as an older woman she was going to have a baby. God knew that it would never to pass unless He could convince Sarai to change her “I am”s. It was so imperative that she have this new mindset that God actually changed her name from Sarai to Sarah, which means ‘princess’ […] she went from “I am a failure” to “I am a princess.” [..] This princess spirit got inside of Sarah. It changed her self-image… at ninety-one years old, against all odds, she gave birth to that baby. The promise came to pass.” (5-7)

The story Osteen cites takes place in Genesis 17. For Osteen, the moment shows how our “I am”s can limit God’s blessings, and it makes improving Sarai’s self-image God’s goal in the narrative. Osteen writes that “God knew that it would never to pass unless He could convince Sarai to change her “I am”s,”. Our task, then, is to see whether the text supports this goal of changing Sarai’s self-talk. The passage is Genesis 17:15, which reads:

Then God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name.

First thing we notice, is that God isn’t speaking to Sarai, he’s speaking to Abram. However, this could just be that God is working through Abram to enact the change in Sarai. According to Osteen, the name ‘Sarah’ is supposed to give Sarai ‘that princess spirit.’, if this is the case it’s reasonable to think that the old name should have a meaning that lacks the princessness of Sarah.

According to namestories.com, Sarah means ‘Noble Princess’ whereas Sarai means ‘My Princess,’. This is a problem. This means that God sought to give Sarai ‘this new mindset’ by changing her name from ‘my princess’ to ‘noble princess’. This is a strange choice if the purpose was to give Sarah that ‘princess spirit’, because the princessness of the name is still present. This means that the function of the name change must have a different purpose.

This function becomes clear when we read the context. Before changing Sarai’s name, God changes Abram’s. God says, “No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations.” (Genesis 17:5). In this section, God explains the reason for the change is because Abram will be the ‘father of many nations,’ which suggests that the name ‘Abraham’ is a symbol for this promise.

We see this promise in the meaning of the names. From namestories.com, the name ‘Abram’ means ‘Exalted Father,’ whereas Abraham means “Father of Multitudes”. This reflects an intensity of fatherhood, that is: Abram growing from a prominent local figure, to someone with a more ‘global’ influence. This shift from Abram to Abraham reflects the broader promise that Abram’s lineage would produce kings and would become a blessing to the whole world.

This context in mind, we see that the change from Sarai to Sarah parallels the change of Abram to Abraham. “My princess” is the princess of Abram’s house, the wife with local influence, but, like Abram, she becomes “Noble Princess,” a princess with the broader influence of God’s covenant, which God affirms when he says “[call her Sarah] for she shall be the mother of nations.” (Genesis 17:15-16).

The idea that their names are symbolic of God’s covenant emerges more organically from the text and allows us to find a reasonable interpretation without adding modern ideas to the text. We could argue that Osteen merely meant to use this as an example, which we could, perhaps, excuse if this was the only case of a forced reading. However, Osteen’s use of Roman’s 4:17 suggests a concerning disregard for context.

Osteen writes,

“Romans 4 says to “call the things that are not as though they were.” That simply means that you shouldn’t talk about the way you are. Talk about the way you want to be.” (8)

Here, Osteen pulls a part of a verse out of context and interprets it as a direct statement to individuals, prompting believers to ‘talk about the way you want to be,’. This interpretation is wrong, which we can discover by reading the whole verse.

Romans 4:17 reads:

“(As it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations,”) in the presence of Him whom he believed: God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;”

Read in the context of the verse, it’s clear that the line describes God’s power, and, in the broader context of Chapter 4, it’s an illustration of God’s power to deliver a child from Sarah’s ‘dead’ womb, and ‘draw from nothing’ a covenant with Abraham.

Osteen’s interpretation of this verse only works without the context, and his forced interpretation continues throughout the work. Rather than trying to draw good lessons from the Biblical text, he forces positive thinking over the text. While he may not be doing this intentionally, what this does is undermines the Christian faith and replaces it with a doctrine of positive self-talk. And this is most clear through his treatment of his final Bible reference in Chapter 1. He writes,

“In Numbers 13, Moses sent twelve men in to spy out the Promised Land. After forty days, ten of them came back and said, “Moses, we don’t have a chance. The cities are fortified and very large and the people are huge. Compared to them we felt like we were grasshoppers.” Notice their “I am”s. “I am weak. I am inferior. I am intimidated. I am afraid.” What happened? Fear, intimidation, and inferiority came knocking at their door.

The other two spies, Joshua and Caleb, came back with a different report. They said, “Moses, yes, the people are big, but we know our God is much bigger. We are well able. Let us go in and take the land at once.” Their “I am”s were just the opposite. “I am strong, I am equipped. I am confident. I am more than a conqueror.”

What is interesting is that the negative report from the ten spies spread like wildfire… make sure you don’t let the wrong “I am” take root.

The people of Israel were so distressed by the negative report that they complained against Moses and Aaron, “Why did you even bring us out here? We’re going to die in the wilderness. Our Children, our wives, they’re going to be taken as plunder.”

God answered back something very powerful and very sobering. He said in Numbers 14, “I will do for you exactly what you have said. You said you’re going to die in the wilderness, so you will die in the wilderness.” God is saying the same to us. “I am going to do exactly what you’ve been saying.” Don’t ever say, “I am weak. I’m intimidated. I’m inferior.” Friend, the wrong “I am” can keep you from your destiny.” (12-13)

Osteen represents the main body of the story in Numbers 13 and 14, and writes that this story is about watching your “I Am”s, because God will “do for you exactly what you have said,”. However, Osteen ignores clear statements in the narrative that help guide the reader’s understanding.

Osteen writes that they “complained to Moses and Aaron, “Why did you even bring us out here?”, but this misrepresents the target of their complaint. The passage reads,

“That night all the members of the community raised their voices and wept aloud. All the Israelites grumbled against Moses and Aaron, and the whole assembly said to them, “If only we had died in Egypt! Or in this wilderness! Why is the Lord bringing us to this land only to let us fall by the sword? Our wives and children will be taken as plunder. Wouldn’t it be better for us to go back to Egypt?” And they said to each other, “We should choose a leader and go back to Egypt.” (Numbers 14:1-4)

Osteen represents the complaint as a question of Moses and Aaron’s leadership, but the passage makes it clear that the Israelites were questioning God; not only the entrance to the promised land, but also the plan to leave Egypt in the first place! Even though God had acknowledged their prayers for freedom by sending them Moses; even though they had seen God’s plagues in Egypt; the Manna in the wilderness; the water from the rocks; and had followed His presence through the wilderness; when they heard of giants they said, ‘why did the Lord bring us here to die? We should go back to Egypt.’

In response to this, Moses and Aaron ‘fall on their faces’ while Caleb and Joshua tear their clothes and plea with the Israelites (Num 14:5-7a). If the concern of this story is that we shouldn’t let the wrong ‘I am’ take root, then we should see a speech full of affirmations and encouragement. However, Joshua and Caleb say to the Israelites,

“…The land we passed through and explored is exceedingly good. If the Lord is pleased with us, he will lead us into that land, a land flowing with milk and honey, and will give it to us. Only do not rebel against the Lord. And do not be afraid of the people of the land, because we will devour them. Their protection is gone, but the Lord is with us. Do not be afraid of them.” (Number 14:7b-9)

The tension in the story is a tension of belief, and the core plea from the duo us “Do not rebel against the Lord,”. The reason the Israelites were afraid isn’t that their “I am”s were wrong, it’s that they were looking at their own power in the first place. The theme is so strong in the story, that Osteen almost makes this connection when he writes, “Joshua and Caleb, came back with a different report. They said, “Moses, yes, the people are big, but we know our God is much bigger.”. Caleb and Joshua’s courage came from their faith in God’s strength, God’s equipping, God’s Confidence, and knowledge that God is more than a conqueror.

The narrative emphasizes this issue in the next few versus. God says to Moses: “How long will these people reject Me? And how long will they not believe Me, with all the signs I have performed among them?” (Numbers 14:11)

After all of this, God tells Moses “I will strike [the Israelites] down with a plague and destroy them, but I will make you into a nation greater and stronger than they.” (14:12). But Moses intervenes, appealing to the Lord’s reputation (14:15-16) and nature (14:17-18) concluding, “In accordance with your great love, forgive the sin of these people, just as you have pardoned them from the time they left Egypt until now.” (14:19).

And God relents, He chooses to forgive the rebellion, and instead of destroying them and starting over with Moses He decides that those who rebelled would not see the land (Num 14: 20-25). It’s after all this that God says through Moses,

‘As surely as I live, declares the Lord, I will do to you the very thing I heard you say: In this wilderness your bodies will fall—every one of you twenty years old or more who was counted in the census and who has grumbled against me. Not one of you will enter the land … As for your children that you said would be taken as plunder, I will bring them in to enjoy the land you have rejected […] suffering for your unfaithfulness, until the last of your bodies lies in the wilderness. For forty years—one year for each of the forty days you explored the land—you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you.’

The application Osteen takes from this is that “Friend, the wrong “I am” can keep you from your destiny.” because “God is saying the same to us. “I am going to do exactly what you’ve been saying.”. But read in context of the narrative, we see that this is not the intended meaning of the phrase, rather it’s a direct response to a particular faction of His people for lack of faith, “you will…know what it’s like to have me against you,”. The lesson, then, isn’t that we need to watch our self-talk, rather the lesson is that we need to trust God.

In conclusion, throughout “The Power of I Am” Osteen presents his message of Positive Thinking with affirmations of faith and Biblical references, and while this gives the book a Christian flavor, a closer look shows a fundamental disconnect from Christianity in it’s underlying goals and approach to biblical interpretation. The primary disconnections are that Positive Thinking makes the individual the center of reality, makes material success a priority, and forces readings of Positive Thinking unsupported by the text. The result is that while “The Power of I Am” may present a useful “Self-Help” motivational tool, it doesn’t present a useful knowledge of Christian doctrines.

A Note on References and Research:

This is an informal work of personal opinion, and as such my citations on anything other than Osteen and the Bible are poorly managed. For those interested in my sources, I have included a general reading list, but the bulk of my reading was on New Thought, Prosperity Gospel, and Osteen because these were subjects I’ve had little exposure to over the years. Concerning Christianity, while I have no formal training in Theology, I have had broad exposure through my personal studies.

1) https://hebraicthought.org/meaning-of-gods-name-i-am-exodus/

2) https://www.britannica.com/event/New-Thought

3) Chafer, Systematic Theology (1983). "The Bible being the chief source of all the material which enters into his science, the theologian is called upon to arrange the God-given material in its logical and scientific order." (page 7) "It is given to the theologian, as to otehr scientists, to recognize the character of his material and to give it an orderly arrangement. He should not misrepresent or change the truth committed to him, even by so much as a disproportionate emphasis." (page 8)

https://www.forbes.com/health/mind/what-is-law-of-attraction-loa/

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/1/15951874/prosperity-gospel-explained-why-joel-osteen-believes-prayer-can-make-you-rich-trump

https://houstonhistorymagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/lakewood.pdf

https://www.britannica.com/topic/prosperity-gospel

https://www.amazon.com/Blessed-History-American-Prosperity-Gospel/dp/0190876735