Did Joel Osteen or Lakewood Church face criticism or praise for their Hurricane Harvey response, and why?
Executive summary
Joel Osteen and Lakewood Church were the focus of sharp public criticism in late August 2017 for an apparent delay in opening their 16,000-seat facility to Hurricane Harvey evacuees after the church initially posted that it was “inaccessible due to severe flooding,” a narrative Osteen later called a “false narrative” and disputed with photos and interviews [1] [2]. The controversy produced both condemnation—largely on social media and from commentators who contrasted Lakewood’s wealth and capacity with other faith communities that opened immediately—and defenses by Osteen and his spokesmen who cited safety concerns, flooding in the building and coordination with city shelters [3] [4].
1. What actually occurred during the storm
As Hurricane Harvey made landfall and dumped catastrophic rain on Houston, Lakewood Church initially posted that the building was inaccessible and directed displaced residents to city shelters; within days the church opened to receive evacuees and donations, with volunteers arriving and hundreds reportedly taken in as the facility began operating as a relief hub [1] [5] [3].
2. The nature and intensity of the criticism
The backlash was immediate and fierce on social media: critics seized on photographs showing the church’s exterior and questioned why a wealthy, high-capacity megachurch run by a billionaire televangelist was not being used as a sanctuary while mosques, businesses and smaller churches sheltered people, framing Lakewood as having “shut out” victims and branding Osteen a hypocrite [6] [3] [7].
3. Lakewood’s and Osteen’s rebuttals and explanations
Osteen and Lakewood officials pushed back consistently: they produced images they said showed standing water in basements and parking garages, argued the building had flooded in past storms and that using it prematurely would have risked evacuee safety, and noted the city had established large-capacity shelters nearby that initially met needs—claims Osteen repeated on national programs and in written statements calling the social-media story “false” [8] [4] [2].
4. Conflicting evidence, messages and media framing
Reporting shows the controversy was driven by an intersection of quick social-media outrage and evolving official messages: Lakewood’s public posts about inaccessibility and later about welcoming evacuees produced pictures and timelines that looked contradictory to outside observers, and news organizations documented both the criticism and the church’s subsequent mobilization—creating a narrative oscillating between neglect and belated service [6] [5] [1].
5. Motives, context and the role of reputation
Underlying the reaction were preexisting perceptions about Osteen’s wealth, televangelist prosperity theology and Lakewood’s national profile, which amplified outrage; spokespeople accused “haters” of manufacturing a narrative while critics argued that visible resources and past claims of charity made the church’s initial posture especially salient—an argument reinforced in later local coverage that shows the Harvey episode remained part of Osteen’s public reputation years afterward [3] [2] [9].
6. Aftermath, outcomes and enduring questions
By Tuesday after the storm the church was functioning as a distribution point—handing out water, receiving donations and housing hundreds—and Lakewood’s leaders said they had coordinated with Samaritan’s Purse and the city, though journalists and local voices continued to debate whether the delay was justified or avoidable; reporting documents both the concrete relief Lakewood later provided and the lingering skepticism among some Houstonians that the church’s initial messaging and timing damaged its standing [5] [1] [10].
Conclusion
The record in contemporary reporting is clear that Lakewood and Joel Osteen faced substantial public criticism for the church’s slow public move from “inaccessible” to an active shelter and supply hub, and equally clear that Osteen and his spokespeople defended their choices on safety and logistical grounds while documenting relief work once the facility opened; both the critical narrative and Lakewood’s rebuttals are supported in the news coverage, leaving the episode as a case study in how institutional reputation, rapid social-media narratives and emergency logistics collide during disasters [6] [4] [2].