I might add a fourth factor to your list, and that's the cultivation of a "Celebrity culture" in America. You can't escape our obsession with celebrity and gossip... These "new bishops" are simply an reflection of cultural values in the church.

The subtitle of this article raises a fascinating question...is it the people or the publishers? I hope that part two actually addresses what role, if any, might be played by publishers looking for new stars.

It's important to promote a variety of resources for spiritual and theological development. The Mars Hill podcast is all the rage on iTunes (Rob Bell even acknowledges his digital listeners in his sermon). It's got some good points, but it's big because of word of mouth (with a helping hand from Bell's conference touring and his Nooma videos).
There are other podcasts, like lectures from Reformed Theological Seminary. I'm listening to a series by J.I. Packer about Puritan faith and theology. Seriously, where else can you access the God-given brilliance of a theologian like Packer for free! The key is to talk it up and make it more social, which makes it more accessible. Packer probably won't get the rock-star status that's been earned/bestowed on Bell, but his voice can be amplified and his reach extended by listeners who talk back rather than quietly consuming.

Chad,
Thanks for your reflections here. I am concerned about the consumer nature of the church culture these days.I would not be shocked to learn that there is some, or even a great deal of market pressure on who is emerging as a bishop. The part the causes me the most concern is theology done by what is popular.

Thanks,
Kevin

I agree with Chad. I believe that most of the Christian book publishers were started by handful of believers who saw a need to publish good Christian literature. This was followed by small Christian bookstores, usually started by some little lady on a shoestring. Owners of these small businesses were not in it for the money but rather for the glory of God and consequently they carefully guarded the theology of what went out of their doors. Unfortunately, most of these businesses have been bought up by large corporations who are not Christ oriented and for whom the "bottom-line" is the almighty dollar. Consequently the quantity far exceeds the quality and we are left with such embarrassing book titles as "Sex God" which is designed to sell books far more than to proclaim the gospel. It's the publishing equavalent to Christian TV. Lots of fluff and little subsantce.

I agree with Chad's line of questioning.

Here's some complete speculation...It seems that the potential for "theology by majority" might already have its own correction in a similar way as the Wikipedia model - where the public sphere has access to sermons/teaching and can contribute to deconstructing it in order to weed out the "chaff" (so to speak) and promote the wheat. I'm not sure this waters down theology as much as allows more access for iron to sharpen iron (easier access to discourse) and fewer pockets of uninformed (or duped) congregations (Theology 2.0?).

Case in point: Sex God is certainly a catchy title (I thought it brilliant/poignant), but I would challenge the previous poster's dismissal of it as fluff (has she read it?). I would cite the Jesus Creed review/discussion as it's linked by this blog.

I have a perspective regarding how "new bishops" are designated. And it comes down to two H-words: hype and hyperbole. If you can overstate your own case, and equally denigrate your opponents', you're favored by publishers and people alike.

But that of course says nothing of the wisdom (or lack thereof) of this kind of approach. Truth is usually not “over the top”, nor is it necessarily easily categorized, so as to make your opponent’s perspective easily rejectable.

But in our sound-bit sized culture this is often (unfortunately) all that people are looking for- and that’s just as true for the Christian community.

I'll likely say more about this later, but who decided that "Christ-followers" should replace "Christian" in our language?

Casey asked:

"I'll likely say more about this later, but who decided that "Christ-followers" should replace "Christian" in our language?"

I'd say that was a grassroots response to the fact that the term "Christian" in western, and specifically American, culture had become so watered-down in our contemporary context as to make it next to meaningless.

Believe it or not, many Americans see the term Christian more as one regarding a philosophical and political persuasion as opposed to a commitment to following the historical person known as Jesus of Nazareth.

Sad? Yes... Ironic. Oh yes... But true? Indeed.

In thinking about this who is to say that the Spirit is not working through book deals and conference invitations?
This idea that theology is done by democracy would make more sense if all of these "new bishops" had similar theologies. Mark Driscoll and Rob Bell are quite different theologically. If you throw in people like Joel Osteen, Matt Chandler, or Erwin McManus, you get an even different segment of the church represented.

What I think we are seeing is simply leaders emerging from the informal networks that are currently the fertile grounds for church planting and church growth. The mainline structures don't seem relevant to the younger generation.

In this sense "choosing our bishops" is no better or worse than having them chosen for us (by an institutional structure).

My suspicion is that it sells well because it resonates. It touches that part of our soul that tells us something isn't quite right.

We have had theology by majority already. Billy Graham, John Macarthur, James Dobson. These new "bishops" still dont have the ear of the majority like these men. "this new era of celebrity bishops" already exists. I don't see the new bishops leading "christian cruises". I would say that this is more of a reaction against "celebrity bishops". These few voices you mention are only the tip of the iceberg. There are many great pastors, authors and leaders who speak of the same thing. They have been made leaders of a movement that has no leader. Folks on the outside just needed someone to pin it on. This started before them and will continue after they are gone. Maybe they are just celebrities to those who are not as familiar?

so tell me...

whatever happened to the "priesthood of believers"?

to (mis)quote mickey dolenz, johnny fever, and the minutemen (among others):
"beeshups? ve don' need no stinkin' beeshups..."

mike rucker

I think the rise of the new Bishop's isn't going to be doing anyone any favors...I forsee further fracturing of an already crumbling church.
Perhaps, what is happening in the United States is what happened during the 4th to 10th century Europe in terms of the Church splitting up into so many "denominations."
I wonder when our own Religious Conflicts will begin...hmm, nothing says "I BELIEVE IN G-D!" like killing the apostate/heretic for the Lord, ain't that right, everyone.

I understood church to be a gathering of believers in a particular place, in which God placed people with gifts of leadership as "overseers" (sometimes translated bishops). These overseers are to care for the flock (1 Peter 5:1-4) of which they are part. A person who writes books, publishes DVD's etc. cannot be called a "bishop" because they cannot care for the flock as required by scripture. Overseer was originally intended for the local gathering of believers, no more. It is the unfortunate mating of the church with the secular power that led to the positions we now understand as "bishops".

FROM THE AUTHOR...

I think Christine's comment (It is the unfortunate mating of the church with the secular power that led to the positions we now understand as "bishops") carries a lot of meaning beyond the obvious. In the way church/politics mated in the early church to lead to the position of bishop, church/economics mate today to redefine the role. I wouldn't go so far as to say that this mating is entirely "unfortunate" -- there may be some good involved in the church adapting her systems and structures according to culture in order to be most effective. However, the ever-present danger is that adapting will become accommodating and that the tail of culture will wag the dog of the church (poor metaphor, but hopefully it communicates).

As for the role of publishers... my experience is that they want to capitalize (I mean that in the economic sense of the word) on a leader already having a following rather than help create a following for a leader. This is because it's easier to sell books by an author who has a wide network of would-be buyers. Yet, publishers certainly have the ability to propel leaders toward larger audiences. But at the end of the day, responsibility remains with those of us who are followers/consumers ... we must make wise choices when it comes to who we buy into.

And the comments that note that this "new bishop" thing isn't all that new are right on, in my opinion. Popular leaders of great influence have impacted the church for a long time. Media and market forces seem to have taken it to a new level and blurred the line between Christian and consumer.

Thanks for the discussion!

All traditions are not good traditions. One thing that the new leaders have is an ability to come across as relevant and current in their marketing and delivery of the word.

I understood church to be a gathering of believers in a particular place, in which God placed people with gifts of leadership as "overseers" (sometimes translated bishops). These overseers are to care for the flock (1 Peter 5:1-4) of which they are part. A person who writes books, publishes DVD's etc. cannot be called a "bishop" because they cannot care for the flock as required by scripture. Overseer was originally intended for the local gathering of believers, no more. It is the unfortunate mating of the church with the secular power that led to the positions we now understand as "bishops".

Wow, it took 12 comments before someone (thanks Christine) ever got around to referring to Scripture. You see, it's not our "Church" It's Christ's. We don't have the authority to do with it what we want, it isn't OURS. Follow the Bible or call it something else.

Are they truly following God's call or are they self-appointed? Are they consumer-driven or Holy-Spirit driven? I sincerely hope that they are more than the motivational speakers many new pastors seem to be that you see on TV. All flair and no substance. Telling the people what they want to hear rather than the cold, hard facts of the gospel - you know the conveniently overlooked need for repentance?

Theology by democracy is fine if you are Mormon, but it doesn’t work so well if you are a Christian. Christ never called the disciples together and said “Hey, I’m going to return to the father soon, and in my absence, you guys will need to decide what is right among yourselves. So whenever a tough question comes up, vote on it, or just do whatever will make the most people happy.”

At the same time, preaching a populist, and popular message will fill pews on Sunday morning. And if nickels and noses (or votes) are your metrics of choice then you will appear to be very successful, even if the comforting, impotent, soulless community you create isn’t particularly Christian, or can’t even be distinguished from the GOP.

The reason we allow faithful leaders to select bishops, and other leaders, is not to support some sort of hierarchal structure, or to piss off the populist baby-boomers, but to try to ensure that those who best know the message, and have a track record of standing up for it in spite of opposition from the populist mobs, are the ones put in positions to be most influential. We do not need the blind leading the sighted.

Coming from a tradition that has Bishops, I can say that they certainly are not (nor should they be) self-designated. The notion of a populist Bishop is an oxymoron at best. As regards the democritization of the faith, I am reminded of the time in which Saint Athanasius stood as a Bishop in exile and in hiding virtually alone against Arianism. "Athanasius contra mundi"- Athanasius against the world. We need more bishops like that. I cannot imagine being in a faith system without the oversight, leadership, perspective, and accountability provided by a good Bishop.

Wouldn't those writing books be more like apostles writing epistles than overseers/bishops?

As I see it, an apostle doesn't even need a publishing company if he uses the Internet. Now, if he wants to join/found a large org like CT, he might need a site and some ads to keep the site online, but he can go it completely alone if he wishes. With these apostles, the publishers are removed and all we have to do is test their words against Scripture.

So I think the best way to keep an apostle accountable is to keep the responsibility and motivation for his words with him and only him. Sure, he can have financial and social ties with a larger group (as the apostles of old did), but he should 1) hold a job down to support himself and 2) only accept money from the larger group for ministry. The group should hold him accountable for where ministry money goes.

I agree with the sentiments of Christine and John..."Bishops" is a poor term. The Scripture quoted by Christine refers to the role of an elderly person, to "manage public affairs and administer justice." To the ears of my heart, this new movement is not a movement of "bishops" but rather prophets. And G_d seems to raise up prophets when his people begin to stray.

I find it ironic how many say, "Get back to the basics" when historically, that's what these movements are about...correcting churches that has lost their way in bureaucracy and "oversight." (Yeah, I know, I know...spoken like a "true post-modern"....)