Which politicians or political groups publicly criticized Joel Osteen and why?

1. Political backlash tied to perceived Trump sympathies

Some political critics and online commentators denounced Osteen when he described Donald Trump as “a good man” in an interview, a comment that fueled accusations he was endorsing Trump; Lakewood Church publicly denied he had endorsed any candidate, and fact-checkers cautioned the remarks were being misused as an endorsement claim ^{[1] [4] [5]}. Reporting frames this controversy as political because Osteen is a high-profile religious figure whose words can be read as useful to partisan actors, even when his camp says he won’t officially endorse candidates ^{[6] [5]}.

2. Outrage after Hurricane Harvey: politicians and public voices criticize inaction

During Hurricane Harvey (August 2017) Osteen was criticized by political figures, journalists and social-media commentators for initially saying Lakewood Church was “inaccessible” and not immediately opening the former arena as an evacuation shelter; national outlets including NPR, ABC and Good Morning America covered the blowback and his later decision to open the church after intense public pressure ^{[3] [7] [8] [9]}. Critics framed the episode as a moral and civic failing by a tax-exempt megachurch that could have sheltered thousands, and the debate took on political tones about responsibility and privilege ^{[10] [11]}.

3. Criticism from other Christian leaders and theologians

Religious and political overlap appears in critiques by fellow Christian leaders and theologians who challenged Osteen’s theology and public role: Reformed theologian Michael Horton called his message “heresy” on national television, and other Christian writers said his prosperity-gospel emphasis and upbeat, nontraditional sermons diminished classical doctrine—criticisms that carry political weight because they shape how religious voters and leaders view his civic influence ^{[2] [12] [13]}. Church leaders’ public rebukes often urged congregants to question Osteen’s authenticity and public morality ^[13].

4. Wealth, prosperity gospel and the politics of inequality

Political critics—ranging from progressive commentators to journalists—attack Osteen’s visible wealth and prosperity-gospel preaching as politically relevant: they say a message that links faith to material reward and a lavish lifestyle conflicts with traditional Christian social concern for the poor, making him an emblem of religious figures who are politically influential yet unconcerned with economic justice ^{[14] [11] [15]}. Rolling Stone and other outlets explicitly connect his theology to broader political currents, arguing that prosperity theology overlaps with contemporary conservative politics ^{[15] [11]}.

5. How Osteen and his church responded—nonpartisanship and damage control

Lakewood Church repeatedly emphasized nonpartisanship and denied formal political endorsements when controversies surfaced; the church issued statements after the Trump comments controversy and defended their Hurricane Harvey decisions while eventually opening facilities to evacuees ^{[5] [9]}. This response strategy aims to defuse political criticism but has not stopped commentators from treating Osteen as a politically consequential figure ^{[1] [3]}.

6. Competing perspectives and limitations in the record

Reporting shows clear disagreements: some religious leaders and political commentators find Osteen’s theology and choices disqualifying or hypocritical ^{[13] [3]}, while defenders argue his ministry spreads hope and that attacks reflect intra-Christian disputes or social-media outrage ^{[13] [14]}. Available sources do not mention specific named members of Congress or political parties uniformly organizing a sustained campaign against Osteen—coverage centers on media figures, theologians, local politicians/activists and social-media critics rather than an identifiable bipartisan political group (not found in current reporting).

7. Why this matters politically

Osteen’s influence comes from a large, national audience and an institutional megachurch; critics argue that when such figures are perceived as aligning—substantively or rhetorically—with political actors, their religious authority becomes a political force that shapes voter attitudes and civic expectations, especially on disaster response and social-justice issues ^{[15] [3] [11]}. Defenders counter that he avoids endorsements and focuses on inspirational ministry, but critics see the combination of wealth, theology and visibility as inherently political ^{[5] [14]}.

If you want, I can compile a timeline of specific public statements and the outlets or figures who made the criticisms, with direct quotes from the cited reporting.