So wait- I shouldn't vote for you??

Just kidding. Good call. I think this was for them an experiment- crowd sourcing, letting those who watch determine who they would be watching.

But as in all our uses of technology- unintended consequences.

I think you are over reacting. Very few people were voting thumbs down in comparison to the number of people voting. And there are a number of reasons why someone might vote thumbs down, for instance, the speaker is heard too often already. The attempt is to give people a chance to see the speakers that they want to see. And the conference is free to give the most people the ability to see it. Yes there can be some negative response to a thumbs down vote. But there is probably more negative in your call for them to stop the voting than there really was in the voting itself.

Hey Skye,

Number 1. As friends and colleagues, why didn't you at least call or email us to ask the purpose of the list?

Number 2. We put a list out there to ask for suggestions to help us find people we may not know, or have otherwise surfaced. We think in that sense the list has been great.

As another commenter has mentioned above, we wanted to know who was "overexposed" or "underexposed" on speaking platforms that people like to hear.

We have learned that speakers are different from writers. You can have a great writer who is not gifted as a speaker. Or sometimes you even have a gifted speaker who doesn't come through on video well.

The twitter technology we chose to use only has "like" and "dislike" options. Unfortunate words but people get the idea. In fact, some folks with high "dislikes" have made us take a look at some of the controversy to see if we actually need to invite them.

And we never said we were picking people by popularity. We just are using it to gage interest in the suggested speakers. If you look at THE NINES, Aha! and SAGE speakers over the last year, you will see our continuing desire to find good ideas and people that others need to explore.

Dave Travis
Managing Director
Leadership Network

Skye,
John Meunier posted a note about your post on his blog - here is the comment I posted there:

Well, the key point for me is that it appears that I do not spend enough time on the Internet. I only recognized two of the names and I really am not sure that I would want to listen to either of them speak on leadership.

And without any references to go on, I wouldn’t be able to determine if the ones that are posted are a reasonable cross-section of the leadership.

Since I do not know who most of these individuals are, would it be worth my time to listen to them without some sort of “scorecard”?

And I am reminded of the time I attended a quality control seminar sponsored by my conference – 1/2 way through the seminar I came to the sudden realization that I wasn’t learning anything because I had heard it all before (the problem of growing up with a Quality Control Engineer for a father). How much of what these “experts” have to say is redundant and/or already known?

Dr. Tony

Skye
How can this be so offensive to you? It's all normal in the institutionalized form of church. Every time a pastor is "called" or voted into a church it's largely the same thing. The folks hear a sermon or two, a committee meeting or two with a man, a potluck dinner, and on this basis are supposed to decide if he is their "shepherd" or not. Thumbs up or thumbs down. There is no real mutuality in the decision. It's all so venere oriented show said to be "God calling". They don't really know much about the guy in his heart. There is no proof in this pudding. This routine will be repeated thousands of times in our country this year.

Should I mention how this same thing happens every Sunday sermon time with a large percentage of believers looking for their weekly dose of Bible spoon-feeding?

It's all part of the system. It's considered normal. There is plenty of revelation in our faces to show us a different way, but tradition is trumping truth with the paid "Bible scholars". It's all rendered meaningless. There is a much bigger problem underneath the thumbing.

I'm glad to see this kind of critique here, but honestly, I often feel like this site does the same thing by constantly highlighting the hip and the famous among US preachers. Our mass media forces us to narrow down practitioners of any art to a small handful that is dependable for news-response. This site does the exact same thing.

There is something uncomfortable about this process.

On a side note, and not to be too picky, but your statement, "Their fate was often determined by the emperor who gauged the crowd’s pleasure or displeasure. If he displayed a thumbs up the victim was spared; a thumbs down meant he was put to death", is probably not correct.

From The University of Kansas:
Prof. Corbeill, an "associate professor of classics, having slogged through hundreds of references to ancient Roman thumbs in literature and art, has concluded that the thumbs-up gesture was the kill signal. Moreover, Corbeill thinks that the raised thumb was probably in motion, reminiscent of gangsters ordering someone out of a room or of modern umpires declaring a runner out rather than safe.
When the crowd wanted to spare a gladiator's life, Corbeill said, its members closed their fists and pressed the thumb down on the index finger."

In my opinion, the survey was just bringing out from behind the curtain the process that happens in preparation for any seminar or conference.

Thumbs up to Leadership Network for allowing a lot of people to (possibly) take part in the selection process, when the process typically is left to a few people who had the funds or drawing power to put on the conference.

If we're going to continue to live in a Christian subculture which highly values, for some reason, conference after conference after conference, often with many of the same presenters, we might as give attendees some voice in the process.

this reminds me of the ordinary radicals website http://www.theordinaryradicals.com/ where they gathered a group of christian superstars and produced an award winning documentary. It didn't seem like they would know an ordinary radical if it hit them in the book endorsement.

This article was definitely a 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down' whichever one is the good one...

Maybe I'll just stick my thumbs in my eyes. What an exercise.

This is the first time I've ever felt sorry for Ed Young Jr. Dead last. Ouch.

A bit over dramatic comparing this to a Roman Emperor giving a thumbs down at the coliseum. Our value is based on our communion with God? Does the pagan not have value then? No, each person has value regardless of whether they believe or not. There goes any of us but for the grace of God. Value as a speaker or leader dependent on communion with God? Maybe, but how are you going to measure that?

Skye -

Really? Is that the best you could come up with - beating on Leadership Network for crowd sourcing their conference speakers through up/down?

I'm with Dave Travis (a rare thing!), have some common respect and not just go shooting from the hip. Time to dismount the high horse!

I agree with you Skye!

How'z 'bout the next big-time hip leadership conference doing some digging into nondescript small churches in the middle of nowhere and getting getting a church leader from said church to come to their hip leadership conference and speak to the crowd? I am tired of every time time I go to a Christian website and I keep reading how Mr. So-and-So big time author, speaker, writer, blogger, always talking about how they will be speaking at the next "Atmosphere" or "Get Hip" conference. Why not bring in some unknown leader from some middle-of-nowhere small church?

sheesh, between this and the Hansen tantrum about humor UrL is becoming positively dreary.

Take a deep breath and go have a beer...unless that's become naughty too. The beer, I mean. Breathing couldn't possibly be problematic.

CAPTCHA: electoral wisdom

NO WAY!!!!! :)

@Dan Lilledahl,

but that would mean the CT, UrL team would actually end up attending conferences that most people wouldn't go to and what's the fun in that?

Don't forget, name recognition helps the business of "Catalyst".

But so long as we draw the line on perceived "consumerism" via Twitter it's clear they'll feel ok about it...

I don't disagree with your critique, Skye, but there is a level of cognitive dissonance in it appearing here - as Rob Haskell suggests above.

The Nines is just the consumer church being the consumer church. For more of the same, take a look at the ads around this post and elsewhere on CT sites.

Dave Travis' question sums it up: "As friends and colleagues, why didn't you at least call or email us to ask the purpose of the list?"

Answer- because that's not what Jethani does. He shoots arrows from afar without asking questions or getting more information. He doesn't just give an opinion regarding actions--he also makes judgments on motives.

His statements are extreme. Likening the leaders of Leadership Network to the killing of Christians in the coliseum? Come on Jethani! Seriously, saying its' these types of personality contests that sent Jesus to the cross is really what you think? And then in the middle of this unfounded accusation to include a self-aggrandizing shameless promotion (and link) for the right kind of talk...of course by you. It's all rather tiresome.

It's okay to have an opinion. To disagree. And even to write about that disagreement. But don't presume to know someone's motives or to be able to see their heart. And if you think you do--be a man and pick up the phone and have a conversation before you write a blog post.

My opinion of Jethani (and Leadership Journal by extension) has dipped yet again.

The best part of it all are the people that entered their own name in to be a speaker.

Skye, I don't know that I agree with that knowing how people voted for you would be arsenic. I think that's almost a Christian concept which is woefully lacking in our churches at times.

As one who has been a pastor for a number of years I have found it extremely distasteful when anonymous critical emails arrive... or criticism is lobbed at the leadership via the mouths of others because "the sources wish to remain anonymous"... or people hide behind avatars and online identities when they play the role of Christianity's watchdog.

That's total crap in my mind. It's about time Christians began to use more frequently the principle Jesus laid out in Matthew 18. The church would be a whole lot better if we met face to face with those who have offended us, rather than talk behind their backs, or lob arsenic blog posts at them.

I really don't care one way or another about this whole "vote for your favorite speaker thing"... but I certainly don't agree with your criticism that the voters identities are revealed. And, based on Dave Travis' response, I thing the biggest biblical transgression going on here isn't what the Leadership Network is doing, BUT, is how you chose to respond to it Skye.

I will be curious if you will blog about how you called them up to apologize for such a mean and unChrist-like attack, and chatted things out like Jesus said we should.

I'm with "Observer" on this one. Gross to see this kind of infighting between church leaders.

This is the opposite of productive.

In your own words, take up your calling and model values worthy of Christ’s church. Take down this post.

I think the idea of looking for new speakers and giving the audience a voice is great, the execution wasn't.

Syke's observation that the option of Dislike, Thumbs Down, etc. was less than helpful and since I can see who gave me a thumbs down could even be a point of conflict...is right on.

Oh the irony of everyone saying that Skye shouldn't give a thumbs down to the group who put this together. How about we take a look at the process and let iron sharpen iron. The technology used wasn't the best choice...lots of talented minds in this space, ask for help and build something that works better.

So, I am on the NINES list. I am a nobody from nowhere who was an atheist and had a conversion that I didn't want or seek about seven years ago. My story is the subject of a book that was released last month. I have the sense I am supposed to share the story of God's grace in my life with people in and outside of the church. If I can do it through the NINES, I thought, that would be great. I even reached out to some friends and asked them to support me when a friend put my name in the mix. Then, one day while I was checking in on my "status", I inadvertently "disliked" myself. I laughed at myself out loud. "What an idiot," I thought, as I recalled a simple scripture of which I have been reminded time and time again as my journey with Christ has unfolded. Cease striving and know that I am God. I haven't visited the site since...

Soooo does this mean the annual Leadership Network / Leadership Journal picnic is off? Jus' wonderin'...

Hey all,

I was the one who chose to use the tool and actually set up the page. Here's how it happened:

I was reading a blog and saw that Robert Scoble was using Twtpic to get input on some good mobile apps. The first thought in my mind was that this would be a great way to try to get some input for some new speakers for this year's NINES.

Each year, we ask our staff to nominate people they think should speak. Plus we try to find people that have come through some of our programs through the year that we think need to tell their story. Last year was a good mix (I think) of more known speakers and relative unknowns that all had something important to say.

From the time I saw the application until the page was posted was probably all of three minutes. I sent out a tweet, and the rest is history.

The bottom line is: this worked like a charm. The main purpose of the page was to get some great new names that we could ask to participate in THE NINES. The list has generated almost 400 names at this point... far beyond anything I had imagined.

A couple hours into it, I realized that it was getting a lot of 'buzz'. Here were the unintended consequences:

1. Some people looked at it as a popularity contest. It was never meant to be that; but I understand how some people felt that way.

2. Some people thought that this is the way that we were actually picking our speakers. It's not. You'll find some of the top of the list won't make our cut; and some on the bottom will.

3. In hindsight, the thumbs up, thumbs down is not really the way I would do it again... it's the way the service sets up its page. But then again, it's the thumbs up/thumbs down that calculated the ranking that brought so many people to the page; and actually it was the ranking that probably helped us get nearly 400 speakers nominated.

I agree with one person's comment... take it with a grain of salt. We were just trying to crowdsource and get input. That, we accomplished.

Todd

PS -- we're looking forward to THE NINES this year. I think you'll find that we'll have a VERY diverse group of folks represented: big church; small church; men AND women; different ethnicities, etc. Put it on your calendar for 09/09. The site will be up in the next couple of weeks.

Way overboard on the reaction and the analogy. Here's a thought. Relax.

Overreaction seems to be the statistical reaction to Skye's concern, and in response to those who say, "kick back and relax"... as a certain Despair.com poster righteously points out...

"No single drop of water feels it's responsible for the flood."

Eternal diligence of our behavior is the price of being followers of G-d...slack off for just a second...and the problems pour in.
Skye is right...the world has popularity contests...so let them. We, those of us who call ourselves followers of G-d are...allegedly...suppose to be different from the world.

Of course, if you think the world has got it going on...then good luck with that, and come back and let me know how that all worked out for you.

There is a very fine line between a popularity contest and democracy in action. Seems to me that the complainants are describing two different parts of the same elephant.

Dear Skye,
Clearly you've not kept up with the times. All that matters is web traffic. Goal achieved, therefore, no harm, no foul. Reminds me of some very popular leaders in the church today who consistently reject criticism of method by pointing to their overwhelming success. Pew traffic. Web traffic. Character is highly over-rated.

Chris, as co-founder of The Simple Way community a committed Agnostic and director of The Ordinary Radicals film you mention-you should probably watch more than the trailer of any film before you talk about it. Hundreds of thousands of Christians, Athiests and everyone in-between have watched the film and I'm sure there's a copy out there you can borrow if you're not interested in picking up a copy for yourself.
Best wishes from Kesington, Philadelphia.
~jamie

If this "thumbs up/thumbs down" came about during Jesus time, most, if not all, of "the Twelve" wouldn't have an iota of a chance.

Peter was emotionally unstable and given to fits of temper. Andrew had absolutely no qualities of leadership. James and John placed personal interest above company loyalty. Thomas demonstrated a questioning attitude that would tend to undermine morale. Matthew would have been blacklisted by the Greater Jerusalem Better Business Bureau, if there's any that existed. James and Thaddeus had radical leanings.

Amid the excitement of such popularity contest, left out in the cold would have been "the Twelve" preeminent value - BEING WITH JESUS.

Is this same transcendent value being left out in the cold in the selection of our Christian speakers today?

@still:

I like your comment! Today some/most? churches seem to want to employ professionals instead of people God chooses. Lots of ordinary people get overlooked in the church because they are not "hip", they don't write books or have a popular//witty blog, or they don't have any extraordinary talents. Or, as another article here on CT.com demonstates, they don't have a spectacular conversion story.

This is not to say that people who are talented in the worlds eyes are automatically unfit for kingdom service. I just wish some churches would bring people into leadership who aren't so "visible" or "qualified" in the world's sense.

And I still think that many leadership conferences should bring in unknown saints from hicksville, USA and show that you don't have to be a "christian celebrity" to make an impact in the world.

Wow Skye - I agree with your premise, but your delivery sure leaves a sour taste - much like the sour taste it left when you blogged about Mike Foster and Jud Wilhite's book giving us inside information that was none of our business (who returned who's call and when apologies were and were not offerd.) Now, apparently, you pull a similar stunt with your friends.

Talk about the medium being the message.

Leadership Journal is the finest of its kind, in my opinion, so you must be doing a lot right, and no doubt, you can write, but you enjoy offering a stinging rebuke that feels more to me like a cheap shot to me. A phone call to your friends first would have made this blog post much more palatable to a guy who agrees with it.

Steve

Skye,
Thanks for posting this. I won't say all of Christian culture has become like an episode of American Idol but far too much of it has. It seems (to me at least) that we as Christ followers have become accustomed to determining who we should listen to based on whether or not we like them versus whether or not we need to hear the message. My personal prayer has been for God to allow me to hear the messages He wants me to hear from those He would bring to share them with me and resist the temptation to judge the person based on the worlds standards. Thanks Skye.
Assad

I'm not Protestant, I don't know many of the names being passed around here. But one thing I do know is that Skye's proposal is not what the people commenting are addressing.

Skye's proposal is that by voting for speakers like that, and living in a consumerist/materialist culture, we will eventually suffer curroption as human laxity allows us to become used to rellying solely on public opinion and/or acceptance to determine who is a good pastor or not.

He is not speaking about what the "church system" is now-but what it can become and whether or not the catalyst for that change is present in the actions of the Network.

Please people-think clearly and address what is being spoken of.

as a conference organizer, this is a bit appalling. I usually look for people that I think are saying what people need to hear, not finding people that are going to sell the most tickets. of course, our conferences don't get near the media attention that a conference such as this does, so it makes sense why they do it. Unfortunately, it makes me sick and is completely degrading, then again so is much of the christian conference industry.

thanks for this post, it takes guys like you in positions like yours to speak out against this absurdity

Just curious... Who said it was a popularity contest? Maybe its them attempting to discern the spiritual atmosphere of the church by inviting churches out there to research the speakers under consideration and vote for the ones that they feel it would be helpful to hear from. A pastor could log in and say, "We're looking to learn more about the ministry of the Holy Spirit," and pick somebody who's a powerful speaker on that topic so that they can receive the advice of a well-seasoned leader in that area. Or recovery ministries. Or using technology in the church. Or how to get your church out on the web. Or evangelism. Or... You name it. It doesn't persay have to be a popularity contest based on "the flesh", but instead it could just be an invitation for the spirit to cry out from deep to deep for the fuel it needs.