Mike Horton on Joel Osteen’s Message: “It is certainly heresy”
Oct 17th, 2007 by Nathan White
Reverend Horton believes that Osteen tells only half the story of the Bible, focusing on the good news without talking about sin, suffering and redemption.And Rev. Horton goes even further. He levels the harshest charge of all, calling the Osteen method of teaching heresy.“It is certainly heresy, I believe, to say that God is our resource for getting our best life now,” Horton says.
“Because?” Pitts asks.
“Well, it makes religion about us instead of about God,” Horton explains.
This past Sunday the CBS News show 60minutes did a piece on Joel Osteen. In case you missed it, you can find the transcript and other clips of the program here.
One of the critics of Joel Osteen that 60minutes interviewed for this piece was Michael Horton. Horton is a teacher at Westminster Seminary California, editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine, author of a number of books (several of which I have read and enjoyed), and host of one of my favorite weekly podcasts, The White Horse Inn.
Instead of exhausting this subject and all the concerns we should have about Osteen and his ministry/message, I’d simply like to point out two particular things that got my attention as I viewed this program:
Pragmatism
Pragmatism is basically a belief/philosophy which understands that the results or the ends of a practice justify the means used in the practice. That is, a message or an approach is deemed right or wrong based upon the results that the practice produces.
Pertaining to this issue, I was troubled to see this blatant pragmatism when Osteen was challenged by the fact that other Christians have serious disagreements with his message. Osteen, rather than attempting to justify whether or not his message is indeed right or wrong, instead pointed to the results of the message: the changed lives, the success of his ministry, etc., as a justification for the truthfulness of his message. It was a classic demonstration of pragmatism, a philosophy that is clearly contrary to the scriptures.
Take for example, a leader who boasts of his own message or his ministry by saying things like: ‘look at how many are getting saved’; look at all the changed lives’; ‘look at all the money that was given last month’; ‘look at how many we are running on Sunday morning’; etc. Is not this type of language normally found among leaders who love to run the show themselves (have preeminence), who will not be held accountable to anyone except whom they deem proper to hold them ‘accountable’, and who normally shy away from a close examination of the scriptures when their ministry/practices are questioned? Why are they normally so distant and pragmatic? Could it be that this is because numbers and success stories are never an accurate indicator of the truthfulness of a particular message, and that they realize that a close examination of their words will show an unfaithfulness or carelessness to the revealed Word of God? According to scripture, outward success is much more often a sign of compromise than it is a sign of faithfulness to the Gospel.
My friends, as nicely as I can put it, pragmatism is contrary to the message of the cross. As Jesus said to Peter, “you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” To conclude whether or not ‘God is moving’ or ‘God is blessing this ministry’ by looking at outward success is to clearly usurp the scriptures and ultimately the authority of Jesus Christ as the head of the church.
This brings me to my next point, Michael Horton’s statement quoted above:
“It is certainly heresy, I believe, to say that God is our resource for getting our best life now,” Horton says.
“Because?” Pitts asks.
“Well, it makes religion about us instead of about God,” Horton explains.
Michael Horton says that CBS interviewed him for 4 hours, but the final cut only gives us about 2 minutes of Horton. I am thankful, however, that CBS allowed this comment through, because I believe it gets to the very heart of the matter. Praise God for men like Horton!
“…it makes religion about us instead of about God.”
The gospel now days has become about man in his needs, his desires, his plan for his life, and his personal preferences in who/what/how he likes to worship and obey, instead of about God and what He has commanded, He has decreed, and what He has given us as an example and rule to follow. Osteen here is no exception, and Horton rightly recognizes this as one of his chiefest errors.
I must say that Arminianism, or an emphasis on free will, is certainly the root of this man-centered approach by Osteen. Sure, not all Arminians take their free will theology to his extreme, but most certainly he is only acting consistent with this foundational belief. When man is that captain of his own ship; when man gets to decide if he deems his Creator worth the time to submit to and worship; when man’s sinfulness is covered up to the point where he still has the innate goodness within to make the most important ‘decision’ in all of eternity; when God’s kingdom is more like a self-help club which members choose to enter into as they see fit, then these types of ministers and messages will only continue to flourish. This is precisely why we should proclaim God’s sovereignty in all situations, whenever possible. Jesus certainly did! An error in this area is foundational and will lead to an assortment of other errors; it should not be taken lightly.
The gospel and yes, religion as a whole, is not about man, it is about God. It is not about getting blessings now; it is not about better marriages, a better career path, a better person, more obedient children, better relationships at work; it isn’t even solely about us escaping hell! I hate to break it to you, but if you have outwardly embraced Christ for relief from the present circumstances, and not as an ultimate aim for His glory and His praise, I fear that you may have embraced Him in vain. I would encourage you to consider a few things I had to say here, where I mention that Paul nailed this point down quite clearly when he said:
“If in Christ we have hope this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.” - 1 Cor 15
If we have embraced Christ for the hope that it will give us on this side of heaven, then we are the most pathetic people on earth. That is the message of the cross; and it is completely contrary to human wisdom and to the self-seeking of this age –which is one small reason why pragmatic thinking is insufficient to the Christian world view, and Arminianism fails to rightly understand the nature of God and His ‘working all things after the counsel of HIS will’.
It’s not about us, it’s all about Him.
It’s not about my pain, my child within.
It’s all about His glory.
It’s all about His praise.
It’s all about the worship due His holy name.Has worship become nothing more than my own self-gratification?
Do we pray to the Lord, as some ‘Hertz rent-a-god’, to bail us out of hard situations?He’s not the ‘man upstairs’ you know.
He’s not your Higher Power you know.
He’s not a ‘therapist’ for your soul.
And we dare not recreate Him into our own image you know.We crank up the band, sing, shout, and dance. Is it praise or celebration?
Another ‘God is my girlfriend’ song of romance, just a carnal celebration.It’s not about us feeling blessed.
It’s not about our needs being met.
It’s not about some new experience.
He’s a holy God who won’t be robbed of His glory!God won’t share His glory with anything else.
When He alone is not worshiped, it’s just all about ourselves.–Steve Camp, from his album Desiring God, “Not About Us”
” “It is certainly heresy, I believe, to say that God is our resource for getting our best life now,” Horton says.
“Because?” Pitts asks.
“Well, it makes religion about us instead of about God,” Horton explains.”
This doesn’t even make sense. If God is our resource for a best life now it has nothing to do with us and everything to do with God.
People need to be 1000% more careful how they use the word heresy. Their is nothing I have ever seen by Osteen that even comes close to heretical. Another baseless attack on a man of God. for shame!
Chris,
God is not your resource for your best life now. God is not interested in making you healthy, wealthy and happy. If you are a child of His, His work in you is toward sanctification and holiness, two things which personal wealth and self-satifisfied happiness can often get in the way of. Two things which trial and tirbulation often bring about. Perhaps the basis of Mr. Horton’s accusation of heresy might stem from such things as Osteen’s book, “Your Best Life Now” which is the complete opposite of what Jesus Christ taught His followers would experience here on earth, which would be tribulation (Matthew 24:9, John 16:33, Acts 14:22, Romans 5:3) and suffering (Romans 8:18, Phillipians 1:29, etc. ) The definition of heresy is “opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system.” It would appear that Osteen’s teaching on your best life now is at variance with Jesus Christ’ teaching on what our life would be like now.
Chris said: This doesn’t even make sense. If God is our resource for a best life now it has nothing to do with us and everything to do with God.
Chris, Jesus didn’t come to bring peace, but a sword. Truly embracing Jesus makes our life here on earth much worse, not better. Osteen promises blessings that are not there, as he puts the focus of Christianity on what we want instead of what God wants.
Chris said: People need to be 1000% more careful how they use the word heresy. Their is nothing I have ever seen by Osteen that even comes close to heretical.
I certainly agree that we need to be careful about using the word heresy, but I still believe that true heresy needs to be called out as such –as it was in Osteen’s case. But furthermore, the word ‘heresy’ is most accurately described as that which is completely contrary to Christian doctrine, mostly as defined through church history. Regardless of whether you think Osteen is right or wrong, you must admit that his teaching is contrary to historic Christianity.
Chris said: Their is nothing I have ever seen by Osteen that even comes close to heretical.
Well then I must say that you’ll probably disagree with about 99% of what I write on this blog, as I strive to take the scriptures as the final rule of authority, and I see a direct contradiction between what Osteen teaches and what the scriptures themselves teach.
God is our only resource, now AND forever! We can only have a “best” life if we get it from God. It seems the argument is on semantics. Yet another distraction on our call to evangelize.
Just curious have you read the book? Have you attended several services and been involved at his church to see whats going on aside from the TV broadcast or a book? If not how can anyone make a judgment like heresy! Truly folly!
Never have I ever heard Osteen say prosperity and hope mean money and possessions. Never have I heard him say that we will not suffer, be persecuted and carry the cross daily. If I am wrong please show me where he says that.
Jesus also says that God will take care of us. That only the LOVE of money makes it our master. I have heard/read nothing from Osteen that contradicts Jesus’ teachings. In fact if anything Osteen models Jesus’ teachings in a way more preachers should.
Once again heresy is a serious charge and it is a false charge in this case. For shame again!
Nathan I do not disagree with everything you say. You have many relevant and important things to say. I do believe that the conclusions made in some of the words on this blog are just plain wrong, especially in some of your posters. Like the charge of heresy which you emphasized.
You are correct, our life is MUCH harder when we are a follower of Jesus. But our lives are also infinitely more blessed as well. The idea that our lives cannot be both is shortsighted and nowhere in the bible. In fact God blesses people over and over in the bible. Certainly Solomon was extremely blessed in many ways including material things.
So if God has called Osteen to deliver a message of hope, which is what he is doing on the basic level, who are you or anyone for that matter to attack, criticize and call heretical?
There are plenty of heretical doctrines out there that need to be fought but Osteen isn’t one of them. Sorry but these attacks on pastors and churches over nonsense are purely self-serving. Some of them are warranted but certain people spend a lot of time searching out other Christians to attack rather than doing real ministry (not saying you are one of them). What a waste!
Chris said: So if God has called Osteen to deliver a message of hope, which is what he is doing on the basic level, who are you or anyone for that matter to attack, criticize and call heretical?
Chris, Joel himself admits that he does not preach on sin, hell, righteousness, holiness, etc. Instead, he picks out the things that he knows people want to hear, and then he discards the rest. This is the same guy who got on Larry King and wouldn’t even admit that Jews/Muslims etc., will face an eternity of God’s wrath for their rejection of Jesus. That, my friend, is what scripture calls a false prophet.
So just to be clear, it isn’t me that is calling Joel Osteen a heretic; instead, I will let scripture do the talking.
But thank you for the kind words about my blog; I do hope that you keep reading.
The thing is Nathan that the scripture isn’t calling Osteen a heretic. You and others are making a leap that isn’t supported by facts or scripture. The conclusions are based on assumption and incomplete information.
Heretics and false prophets are out there but Osteen isn’t one of them and you and others do a great disservice to our faith and our cause when you sloppily throw that charge around.
Chris,
I do not know how much you know about “word faith” theology. And, I think that you need to take the time trace the roots of posive confessionalism. Horton doesn’t just make the leap concerning the truncating of the Gospel. He begins:
Horton extends this heresy to a wide variety of “christian” communities. The term pragmatism is not isolated to just the idea of praxis. The way that it is used, negatively, is what Horton calls an appeal to the law. This has always been condemned in Scripture. It is known as manipulation, using as Horton says, and this is my term, “magic talisman christianity,” to obtain favor from God. This is the christianity of Madame Guyon and the likes. It is heresy to take the things of the Lord and use them in a occult practice. It denies grace and makes a mockery of the Faith by introducing “works.” It should be obvious that this is paganism, an occultic praxis that operates on the basis of formulas: “If you do this, God will do this.” It fits within the broder realm of christian communities in the most benign looking ways. It is typically found bound up in very conservative anti-charismatic, anti-Pentecostal organinzations that hold to the manipulative conscience of the theology know as Arminianism. These are some of the beliefs of Osteen’s church:
First of all, I would ask you to look and find where Scripture declares us to be baptized in the blood of Christ. While it is true that we have a clean conscience having our minds sprinkle with the blood of Christ, there is no passage that says we were baptized into it. Let’s see what Scripture says:
Notice, it is not the blood, but the body, and it is not his life but his death. His death is our point of entry, not his blood. And, in reality the blood is not applied to us, but to him, and cleanses us, by virtue of we being in him, and that by his death. Secondly, it is not a testimony to our faith, but, as Paul said it testifies of Him. That is why Paul did not baptize, so that there would be no confusion as to where the efficacy was. Jesus did not either, and said
It is by the declaration of the Father that we are saved, it is not as Osteen’s confession says:
This is exactly what Paul wanted to avoid- a pragmatic view of salvation. “If you do this, God will do this.”
Pragmatism, negatively characterized as an occult practice, is found embedded in Arminian Semi-Pelagianism (Horton’s “typical focus of American Christianity”), which teaches that if we try with God’s help we can overcome. So, instead of what the Scripture teaches:
Joel Osteen teaches
He defeats the positive declaration of Scripture that Christ has given us the abundant life, “I have overcome,” by making it something that “God intends,” implying, and this is what he teaches, that those who are not experiecing abundance just are not trying hard enough. This goes directly the opposite direction of:
It is not a light thing when the word heresy is used, and the subject is as you pointed out much deeper than it look on the surface. That is why is is so it is so deceptive. One of the things that Osteen has done as Horton points out, was to remove the “fire and brimstone,” preaching that used to characterize the word faith teachers. This is not a good step, but a further moving away from law and Gospel (not that the Arminianism of word faith ever understood the two.)
Something y’al might like here.
I have not read the book, however, I have listened to his sermons (out of curiosity) and I saw the interview on 60 minutes.
Nate did a good job of pointing out the obvious heresy and although not all agree there are other things that prove this is the case.
His wife is the “co-pastor” of the church. This in itself is a LARGE red flag in that it goes against Biblical teaching as to the place of a woman in the church. Although I do not know her specific role, just using the term co-pastor raises many concerns over the Biblical (or non-Biblical) approach of Joel and this church.
Lastly, may I make the comment that if a church has a following of that many people it almost certainly has compromised in the area of Biblical teaching.
Wide is the path that leads to destruction…and many are that find it….
I agree with the gist of all you say in this post, Nathan. However, I am unsure whether your wording captures the right biblical balance. Alongside Jesus’ statements about self-denial, taking up our cross, hating our own lives, losing our lives for his sake, etc., he also appealed to us to accumulate treasure in heaven, to seek to be exalted (by first debasing ourselves - Luke 14:10), and to seek rest for our souls (Mat.11:29). In Romans 2:7 Paul describes true believers as those who seek their own “glory, honor and immortality”. Paul endured extreme hardships, at least partly in order to share in the blessings of the gospel (1 Cor.9:23). And in 2 Tim.4:8 Paul was looking forward to receiving a reward for his work for Christ.
So although the expression “It’s not about me, it’s all about God” contains an important truth and is a much needed corrective for the modern church in the West, I think it should not be understood in an absolute sense. How many of us would choose to suffer eternal torment in hell if somehow that would glorify God more than us being eternally saved?
Respectfully …. Phil
Phil said:
However, I am unsure whether your wording captures the right biblical balance.
Phil, I think we’re on the same page. I knew when I posted this that some might get a wrong impression, mainly because I didn’t have the space to clarify everything. But for the most part, I think I agree with what you are saying.
Phil said:
That’s not what I was hitting at. Instead, we should and must have the mindset that God is completely sovereign, and that it is up to Him what to do with our eternal souls. If we are seeking salvation only to be saved from torment, then I would certainly encourage others to take another look at that profession. Certainly, escaping punishment is a valid stimulant to repenting and turning to Christ, and it is probably the only thing on our minds at the moment of salvation, but as we learn and grow, we should and must have the view that our salvation is for God’s glory above and beyond everything else. If we are seeking anything else, be it good works, rewards, temporal happiness, without an overarching dominant view for God’s glory alone, then we have become modern day pharisees and are probably outside of Christ.
Hope that helps explain what I was trying to say, even though I think I agree completely with what you were saying.
The Prodigal Attitude: That even though he was a son of his father, he sought to be treated as one of the hired servants. Jesus said that after we have done all that we are commanded to do, to have this attitude. We know up front the Prodigal story that we have an inheritance that will not fade, it cannot be corrupted and we store up riches because they are ours by grace. Yet, it is not because of who we are, but who the Father is. He has made us highly favored, accepted in the beloved. It is because it is his house that we seek it, having come to our right mind. Because we know him who was from the beginning we seek his glory, for he seeks to be glorified in us. Therefore we put on that attitude that was in Christ, because we know that in the end when we have counted ourselves worthy only of the shame of the cross, the least in the kingdom shall be the greatest.
God bless
I saw this and thought it pertained to the subject at hand.
Heresy is not so much rejecting as selecting. The heretic simply selects the parts of the Scripture he wants to emphasize and lets the rest go. This is shown by the etymology of the word heresy and by the practice of the heretic. “Beware,” an editorial scribe of the fourteenth century warned his readers in the preface to a book. “Beware thou take not one thing after thy affection and liking, and leave another: for that is the condition of an heretique. But take everything with other.” The old scribe knew well how prone we are to take to ourselves those parts of the truth that please us and ignore the other parts. And that is heresy.
—A. W. Tozer, We Travel An Appointed Way.
Gives a whole new meaning to, “This little light of mine.”
Thanks Hannah!
Chris said,
“So if God has called Osteen to deliver a message of hope, which is what he is doing on the basic level, who are you or anyone for that matter to attack, criticize and call heretical?”
I guess my proble is determining what the message of hope is? Hope from what or to what?
By his own declaration, Osteen doesn’t talk about sin or condemnation, so what would one have hope for?
If there is no condemnation, or wrath to escape, then the implication is one for a prosperity gospel - the material life now.
Without understanding our position of offending a holy and just God, then we have nothing to aspire to - to “hope” for.
Excellent quote, Hannah. Perfect for this situation. Thank you for sharing.
Nathan,
Yes, I agree with Horton that Joel Osteen does not preach the gospel. I would not even recognize his church as a valid visible church because they do not preach the gospel. I do not know their views on discipline, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper.
I also, don’t believe Horton should be left off the hook either. His seminary and church preach and practice heresy because of their views of baptism which leads to an unregenerate church membership. We Baptists need to be consistent on this with “All” people. We have become blind in the area of ecclesiology with the Padeobaptist. We have let Calvinism blind us to ecclesiology. Baptist must be careful in blasting Osteen but fail to charge the Michael Hortons with heresy as well. Let us be reminded of what our confessions say about a visible gospel church: New Hampshire Confession adopted by the SBC in 1925 : Article 13 Of a Gospel Church: We believe that a visible Church of Christ is a congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the Gospel…………. . The 1644, 1689 supports this as well. Yes, I would rather on any day be around Horton but lets be consistent on charging with heresy. I would charge Horton with Heresy by putting unconverted children into membership of a visible church and serve the Supper to them when they are unable to examine themselves. BTW, the passage in 1 Cor 11 gives clear evidence that Paul is speaking to the saints in Corith and this is not a picture of open communion because he was not writing to Galatia or any other visible church and we see no picture in Scripture where Saints participated in the Lord’s Supper with other Churches either. Not one ! Paul did break bread in Troas but he was an apostle and apostles are no longer in office today. We certainly don’t believe in the Charsmatic gifts of today because we believe they went out with the apostles and an apostle such as Paul was a rare thing for them to take communion with other churches. We are not going to say because Paul took communion with Troas then that gives us the right to take comunion outside of our local church. If we believe that then the Charsmatic gifts are just as active today as well. Ha Ha Nathan ! I’m having fun with you on closed communion. I have not commented in a while so I thought I would have fun with you. I do believe though we Baptist are blind on my first comments though. I enjoy your blog !
Scott,
You should be ashamed of your words towards Mike Horton, which undoubtedly hurt all Presbyterians, and even of the very position you are defending. You’ll never minister to any padeobaptists with that kind of rhetoric. That’s really all I have to say.
Amen, amen and amen!
Nathan…excellent article on Joel Osteen and churches that gut the Gospel message of Jesus Christ and our sin debt. Those who make God about us…rather than recognizing that it’s all about Him and that He is a righteous, omnipotent, holy God. If they even begin to grasp that…the watered Gospel would go away. These folks are unwittingly doing Satan’s bidding. If he can’t keep us from going to church…he does the next best thing. He keeps us from hearing God word…which is able to transform lives…and bring men from death to live in Christ Jesus our Lord. Thank you for being a truth teller! I stand in Christ alone…Susan Bunts
Although I don’t know enough about him to hate, I suspect that Osteen is just another coward “Christian” who hates on the O.T. laws and is more about getting massive amounts of people at his church by only focusing on the messages of love and forgiveness as opposed to all of the truth. By the way, what’s up with all these people quoting Saul of Tarsus more than our Lord Jesus Christ and YHVH?
Because to quote Paul is to quote YWVH and our Lord:
or if you like the OT:
For Peters confirmation of God’s words in Paul’s mouth:
Thomas, thanks for the response, but it doesn’t completely answer my question. The question was why do people quote his scriptures so much MORE than Jesus or YHVH (generally speaking and not just concerning this blog post)? When it comes to whether or not we are to follow the laws, I see people cite Paul saying they don’t need to, but God clearly tells us in the OT and even Jesus in the NT that we are to follow those. People take his words over Jesus’ words or James (Jesus’ brother) words. In response to Peter’s confirmation of Paul, Jesus prophecized that Peter would mistakenly support Paul near the end of his life in John 21:18 (Peter’s approval of Paul came at the end of his life).
Jhn 21:18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry [thee] whither thou wouldest not.
Where, pray tell, is Paul mentioned in Jn? Beside that, you’d have a very difficult time explaining the OT law without the lenses of the NT, especially Paul’s instruction. Again, examine the verses that I quoted. Note, what Paul said to Timothy was a restatement of the OT:
and so forth. I have never found anything contradictory to the OT in what Paul taught.
Those Scriptures Jesus reissues as :
Paul says the same thing:
And, as I pointed out, Peter himself says that what Paul says is Scripture:
What I sense then is that you are one of them. You have inserted Paul’s name into a Scripture where it does not exist for the purpose of twisting what you do not understand about Paul’s teaching.
Some how I would imaging you would deny:
because you aligned this book with being a false testimony, one in which Peter has been deluded by Paul, right? How convenient. In this very book Peter says that what Paul says has been given to Paul as wisdom. There is a consistency between, God breathed, carried along, and wisdom given and the fact is that lines up perfectly with the OT revelation of how God speaks. Obviously Peter is considering those who deny the truth of Scripture, but includes what he says and what Paul says and concludes that their own very words are the words of the OT YHWH spoken through he and Paul. So then, you must decide if Peter was a false prophet. Since there is never once any indication that Peter was anything but Christ’s own servant, that is going to be difficult, indeed.
So your task, if you can do so, is to prove that Paul is the one Jesus speaks of, but I do not think you will be able to. In fact, at most what can be said is that it is either a reference to those who would put him to death, or the Holy Spirit. My money is on the second. For when we are old, when we are mature, we come to know that it is not we, or any other man who carries us along, but the Lord.
[…] I got an email from Joel Osteen today, telling me I could pay $15 to come hear him tell me how much God wants me to get rich. Um, no thanks. But it did get me searching the Internet again to see if anyone else has caught on how much Joel Osteen really isn’t at all about the Gospel or the God of Scripture. And I found Nathan White commenting on Joel Osteen. […]
Good work, Nathan. Keep it up.
Well, except for that part where you use an appellation that belongs to God alone for a mere (though good) man, Mr. Horton. Hmmm. Just guessing here, but it’s probably Doctor Horton?
“Holy and reverend is HIS name.” Psalm 111:9.
Centuries of tradition don’t justify this common practice.
Gee, I thought that his saints were called his holy ones? And, the proper appreciation according to Scripture of one who is in authority is reverence, i.e. to fear. The word of title would be the one to be feared, reverend. We are to pay honor to whom honor is due and fear to whom fear is due. Perhaps part of the problem with the church today is a lack of proper fear of authority. The elders (reverends) are to be feared as those who can prosecute the legal authority in the church. The proper title, and one that should be revered among us is Reverend. That is a title, somewhat like what Sarah was commended for in calling her husband lord, adon, master, a dimunitive for of the word Adonai. I am sure that Michael Horton’s students are just a little fearful of him. As either Dr. or Reverend the intent is a good one, tradition or not. It is surely not a name that is reserved just for God any more than elohim, seeing that he has also called us governors.
Supersitition and legalism will kill ya, Mark.