Is Oprah Winfrey a Christian?

Consider this article from CNN.

Excerpt:

Lofton, a professor of U.S. religious history at Yale University and the author of “Oprah: The Gospel of an Icon,” was intrigued that Winfrey had mentioned Jesus, since she had used his name sparingly on air.

“Early on (in her career) she was more comfortable in saying that but over time began to use this more universal language of ‘spirit,'” said Lofton, who wrote about Oprah’s final show for CNN’s Belief Blog.

Lofton says Winfrey wants to be viewed as someone who “translates and understands herself as a Christian woman” but reflects a modern attitude about religion and religious institutions.

And that has angered a few folks.

In 2008, Winfrey endorsed the book “A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose,” helping it sell more than 3.5 million copies after the talk-show host selected it for her book club. Winfrey and the book’s author, Eckhart Tolle, took part in a webinar in which she angered some Christians by saying that Jesus didn’t come to die on the cross.

“It really was about him coming to show us how to do it, how to be, to show us the Christ-consciousness that he had and that that consciousness abides with all of us,” she told the audience.

One viewer even asked the question on the Oprah.com message boards: Is Oprah a Christian?

Pistis07 wrote: “I was surprised because I had always thought she was a Christian but after flicking through her website and watching clips of more shows where she seems to be promoting a type of New Age religion and books from ‘New Age spiritualists,’ I really doubt that she is a Christian in the way Jesus explained and most Christians understand. Or perhaps she’s just confused about the nature of God.”

It was an issue her critics seized on. They said she wasn’t promoting the God of the Bible but instead was indoctrinating her audience into a New Age spiritualism.

Authors Josh McDowell and Dave Sterrett say as much in their book, “‘O’ God: A Dialogue on Truth and Oprah’s Spirituality.” Sterrett told Crosswalk.com in October 2009 that Winfrey “reflects the common American practice of choosing whatever beliefs seem most attractive and leaving the rest.”

Her message in the final years of her show was that the truth of life was within the individual, several commentators have said.

“Christians aren’t people who have gotten in touch with their inner selves, but those who actually have Christ living inside of them through the Holy Spirit,” McDowell told Crosswalk.

What Winfrey tried to get across is her belief that there wasn’t just one right way to be connected to God, Lofton argues.

“The only right way is the way that she herself articulates and embodies, which is multiplicity,” she said. “You can be many things. There are many paths to God, she says. It’s that multiplicity which very much marks contemporary religious life.”

Some people evidently think that she is not. And I agree with those people.

Consider this article by William Lane Craig about salvation and religious pluralism.

Excerpt:

“There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4.12). So proclaimed the early preachers of the gospel of Christ. Indeed, this conviction permeates the New Testament and helped to spur the Gentile mission. Paul invites his Gentile converts to recall their pre-Christian days: “Remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2.12). The burden of the opening chapters of Romans is to show that this desolate situation is the general condition of mankind. Though God’s eternal power and deity are evident through creation (1.20) and the demands of His moral law implanted on the hearts of all persons (2.15) and although God offers eternal life to all who seek Him in well-doing (2.7), the tragic fact of the matter is that in general people suppress the truth in unrighteousness, ignoring the Creator (1.21) and flouting the moral law (1.32). Therefore, “all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God…'” (3.9-1 1). Sin is the great leveler, rendering all needy of God’s forgiveness and salvation. Given the universality of sin, all persons stand morally guilty and condemned before God, utterly incapable of redeeming themselves through righteous acts (3.19-20). But God in His grace has provided a means of salvation from this state of condemnation: Jesus Christ, by his expiatory death, redeems us from sin and justifies us before God (3.21-26). It is through him and through him alone, then, that God’s forgiveness is available (5.12-21). To reject Jesus Christ is therefore to reject God’s grace and forgiveness, to refuse the one means of salvation which God has provided. It is to remain under His condemnation and wrath, to forfeit eternally salvation. For someday God will judge all men, “inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (II Thessalonians 1.8-9).

It was not just Paul who held to this exclusivistic, Christocentric view of salvation. No less than Paul, the apostle John saw no salvation outside of Christ. In his gospel, Jesus declares, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me” (John 14.6). John explains that men love the darkness of sin rather than light, but that God has sent His Son into the world to save the world and to give eternal life to everyone who believes in the Son. “He who believes is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3.18). People are already spiritually dead; but those who believe in Christ pass from death to life (John 5.24). In his epistles, John asserts that no one who denies the Son has the Father and identifies such a person as the antichrist (I John 2.22-23; 4.3; II John 9). In short, “He who has the Son has life; he who has not the Son of God has not life” (I John 5.12). In John’s Apocalypse, it is the Lamb alone in heaven and on earth and under the earth who is worthy to open the scroll and its seven seals, for it was he that by his blood ransomed men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation on the earth (Revelation 5.1-14). In the consummation, everyone whose name is not found written in the Lamb’s book of life is cast into the everlasting fire reserved for the devil and his cohorts (Revelation 20.15).

One could make the same point from the catholic epistles and the pastorals. It is the conviction of the writers of the New Testament that “there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (I Timothy 2.5-6).

Indeed, it is plausible that such was the attitude of Jesus himself. New Testament scholarship has reached something of a consensus that the historical Jesus came on the scene with an unparalleled sense of divine authority, the authority to stand and speak in the place of God Himself and to call men to repentance and faith.{1} Moreover, the object of that faith was he himself, the absolute revelation of God: “All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Matthew 11.27) .{2} On the day of judgment, people’s destiny will be determined by how they responded to him: “And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God; but he who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God” (Luke 12.8-9).{3} Frequent warnings concerning hell are found on Jesus’ lips, and it may well be that he believed that most of mankind would be damned, while a minority of mankind would be saved: “Enter by the narrow gate, for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (Matthew 7:13-14) .{4}

A hard teaching, no doubt; but the logic of the New Testament is simple and compelling: The universality of sin and the uniqueness Christ’s expiatory sacrifice entail that there is no salvation apart from Christ.

The Bible is very clear that belief in Christ’s atoning death on the cross is required for a right relationship with God. I find it interesting that so many Christians, especially Christian women, have so much respect for a person who is not even a believer. Can you really rely on a non-Christian to give you advice about morality and spirituality? Is she an authority on the Bible? An authority on logic? An authority on science? An authority on history? Has she debated her views with scholars who disagree with her – as might be done in a courtroom where evidence trumps feelings? Shouldn’t you rely instead on the Bible, and the work of authentic Christian scholars who accept what the Bible teaches?

7 thoughts on “Is Oprah Winfrey a Christian?”

  1. Winfrey is definitely not a Christian. Her beliefs are occult, New Age, and just about everything else. She accepts very little of what Scripture says and only then if it makes her feel good. She is one of the worst things that happened to America from the entertainment industry, having single-handedly deceived more women than anyone. And are almost as bad as they buy anything Winfrey recommends.

    Like

    1. While I’m not going to contest that Oprah’s ability to corral women (and yes, men) around by merely waving her hand at a new book, I really find it hard to believe she’s “occult.” I also don’t think it’s very fair to say she’s the worse thing to happen to the American entertainment industry, considering she does make a conscious effort to put back into society what she takes out. She’s charismatic, and you can’t fault her that.

      As for the “especially Christian women” line in the main post, again, I don’t see why you’re trying to call out women here in general. Christian men are just as easily deceived by anything, and many often take that deception to the next level to excuse their actions.

      A non-Christian can understand morality (perhaps not spirituality). MORALITY is not intrinsically tied in with Godliness, it is merely demanded, and religion offers one way to inform about it — but it’s not something that only “Christians” understand and have.

      Also, I really don’t think it’s your place to deem someone Godly or not, or even if they can be called a “Christian” — it’s a broad-scope label, and can be used to cover everyone from moderate Methodists to Southern Baptists to Catholics and Mormons and even those critters from Westboro.

      Like

      1. Oprah’s primary audience has always been women. Her beliefs, being primarily new age, are occultic by there very nature. And the reason why she is one of the worst things is because of the great amount of influence she has had compared to anything else in the entertainment industry. Just because she does some philanthropy (which always seems to be for her glorification), people, especially women, hang on her every word, whether it is the promotion of false religious beliefs, abortion rights, homosexual agenda, sexual immorality in general, Oprah is considered a de facto expert. It has been proven that every book Oprah promotes, no matter what horrendous philosophy or false teaching it promotes, always hits the top of the charts for sales right after she promotes it.

        I see my last comment had an editorial error. Instead of “and are almost as bad,” it should say “Men are almost as bad.” But Oprah’s primary audience is women, which is why it is primarily women who have been deceived into her ungodly teachings.

        It is our place indeed to judge what a person says or teaches as to whether it lines up with the Christian faith. We are to test all things. Oprah has consistently promoted anti-Christian teachings, denies that Christ is the only way, etc. By nature of what comes out of her own mouth we have to conclude she is not a Christian the same as we conclude any cult leader is not a Christian. You cannot be a Christian while teaching against Christian doctrine.

        By the way, Mormons are indeed not Christians, and neither are members of the Westboro cult; they teach against the basic teachings of the faith. Roman Catholicism, while an apostate organization, has the truth in their doctrine so that people can be true believers in spited of the church.

        Like

      2. I have nothing of value to contribute here (and I certainly cannot judge Oprah’s heart relation — or lack thereof — to the true God), but I do remember some years ago that she highly recommended Marianne Williamson’s books. Williamsons was/is a huge proponent of A Course in Miracles, which was ‘channeled’ by a ‘spirit.’ I do remember also during the interview with Williamson where Williamson said, “Jesus is A way, not the only way.”

        What all this might mean regarding Oprah’s “God,” I don’t know. Does she just sadly misunderstand biblical soteriology or is she, in fact, not a Christian ?

        http://www.equip.org/articles/a-course-in-miracles

        Re: the ‘unevangelized’: I believe there are several books out which present multiple viewpoints of the fate of the ‘unreached,’ and the contributing scholars offer rebuttals of the others’ essays. Good food for thought. (Iron sharpens iron.)

        Like

    2. It’s funny because in the video clip I just added, it’s clear that her stated objection is about the fate of the unevangelized, and we have an answer to that problem in Craig’s essay – middle knowledge. Why is Oprah being consulted on theology when she is not even familiar with middle-knowledge? Why trust someone who just hasn’t looked into these things even at a layman’s level?

      I suspect that what is really going on underneath is that it is all about wanting to be popular. That’s what drives religious pluralism – the desire not to offend.

      Like

      1. “the desire not to offend” – WK

        This hits the nail on the head. This is exactly correct. Not wanting to offend has been a result of the Age of Feeling in which we live, brought on by the baby boomer generation – the most morally foolish in American history. Saying all religions lead to the same place is BOGUS. If all religions lead to same place, why join one religion over another? What’s the point? Saying they are all the same is another way to paper over the very distinct problems each religions address and the claims they make and make one feel good about being a pluralist. If all religions are true and good, then true and good cease to have meaning. If good and bad, right and wrong are subjective, those words cease to have meaning! How do people not see this!

        Like

  2. If all ways lead to God, then what is the way that does not lead to God? Is there one?

    Then there is also “its all basically the same.” When I hear this one, what I’m inclined to think that the person was too lazy to do a little bit of research into the World Religions and too lazy to do just a little bit of thinking. No offense but its true.

    Oprah does have a lot of influence. However it is not something that can last a good conversation with depth. When I talk to people who give me the above lines, and ask a few questions, I find that they have not really thought through their views. I have been able to convince people otherwise.

    The other thing … a lot of people do not realize that to say something like “all ways lead to God” or “its all the same” is really an equal opportunity insult to all religions. A lot of people find religiously pluralistic comments to be quite arrogant – we are just not in their countries or around them to hear them.

    I have read stuff by Hindus who have found these sorts of remarks to be quite offensive arrogant. They would find Oprah to be arrogant. How dare you try to smooth things over and say our religion is just like the other religions?

    Ciao!
    Raj Rao

    Like

Leave a reply to Sarah Bonner Cancel reply