Skye,

Thank you for a cogent two-part article on fame and the Evangelical industrial complex. Having worked for a few years within that system, I can understand how it happens. My question is, "Who is going to be the one to break the cycle?" Who among the publishers will decide to pursue, in addition to the "money-makers," a few projects of lesser-known but equally valid perspectives? I would argue that CT, and Out of Ur, has the resources to execute such a search. I would invite you to consider methods to challenge this celebrity paradigm. One practical step was suggested by Leonard Sweet in "The Gospel According to Starbucks," and that is finding ways to give fame away. What would happen if we invited pastors who sold books to become a patron for another voice and throw their weight behind someone new, rather than the echo chamber effect you write about? I love these words, and I would love even more for these words to take flight in the publishing world (one that you are more a part of than I am). Thank you for your continued ministry.

Reader,

Thanks for your view that CT, Leadership, and Out of Ur could be an alternative to the celebrity-driven evangelical industry. And I think we already are. It has been our editorial policy at LJ to seek out voices of wisdom from all streams of the church- including small, rural churches. Sure, we have some big names in our pages from time to time, but we also champion lesser known voices with something to say. Years ago we published an unknown youth pastor with a sharp mind and pen. His name was John Ortberg. And of course Philip Yancey got his start as an editor for Campus Life and Christianity Today.

So, I'm proud to say that we have done, and are doing, our part in finding the voices the church needs to hear from that the industrial complex often ignores.

Skye

Skye,

Thank you for your response. And I agree with your assessment of LJ and Out of Ur for the most part. One reason I come back to Out of Ur is the variety of voices that are published. Therefore, my comment is to encourage the work that you already do and to keep encouraging your publication(s) to match the great attitude that articles like yours espouses. Again- blessings to your work, and I (one of those small church pastors) look forward to keeping Out of Ur as a prime resource for life and ministry.

Your two part series was spot on Skye. Thank you for digging below the surface of the celebrity culture and not just complaining about it but actually addressing much of the how/why.

The biggest struggle I have with the celebrity culture is that so few actually see it as a problem. It is not just the dominant force in evangelicalism as an industry, but it is a dominant force in how our people think about spiritual formation. There seems to be a base line assumption that we should all find the celebrity pastor we most relate to or enjoy, absorb everything they say or write and hope to find a church that kind of matches up. The celebrity culture has actually done a lot of damage to ability of the local church to effectively do discipleship.

I really appreciate your thoughts and observations. This coming from a no name youth pastor with a finished manuscript and a lot of frustration with the whole Christian publishing world. I am encouraged that others (even in the industry) see what I have experienced. By God's leading (and my frustration) I am seeking ways to epublish my book and basically give it away. I am not trying to be the next celebrity youth pastor or make a bunch of money, I just want to fulfill what God has asked me to do. Your words are encouraging to me, thanks for writing!

Thank you, Skye.

"...but engaging historical authors and perpetually relevant human issues is an antidote to the shallow celebrity culture we current bathe in."

This is not a substantive antidote to the "shallow celebrity culture". Is there no basis for "rebuke, correction, and instruction in righteousness" so these highly "gifted" leaders can get on with that which is not shallow and celebrity oriented?

"Seek God's wisdom about what voices and ideas to allow into your life and church. Allow the Holy Spirit to lead you and not just the marketing departments of the industrial complex."

I guess it's just watch out for yourself. Anything else might be seen as the judging or condemning, or being negative.

I find it amazing at what foolishness can go on in the household of faith, and not one paid, marketed spokesmen or cheerleader has any spiritual fortitude to examine even one systemic element to see if it was based on twisted, shredded, or ignored scripture.

Yes, read dead people. I have to disagree with Tim: Reading, say, John Chrysostom or Oswald Chambers or Augustine can be a VERY substantive antidote to the evangelical industrial complex, since much of what that complex represents would have been anathema to them. I have learned more from dead writers than from living writers.

"And what are we to do about it?"

Flee. Find a post-evangelical path and take it. Preferably, find a historic tradition and become part of it, support it, strengthen it. They all have their problems too, some of which an evangelical may have a hard time tolerating. But it's worth it. Get back to Word and Table worship, a rich sacramental theology, time-tested practices like keeping the Church Year, a non-separatist mentality that keeps you involved with your neighbors and in your community, and neighborhood churches with pastors who do real shepherding. Leave the show and start living real life again.

Further heart-breaking evidence which reinforces your solid assessment:
http://www.theologyforwomen.org/2012/02/our-review-of-real-marriage-by-mark-and.html

Paul, Yikes!

Regarding that link, if we don't believe pastors like this are disqualified for ministry (per the Scriptural qualifications for elders and deacons in the Epistles), then we have a much more serious problem than a celebrity industrial-complex issue. We have not understood *at all* what it means to be Christians, let alone pastors and leaders! Sorry to be so forceful, but that's how I see this.

Rob
Skye says "...or even the historical fact that celebrity preachers have always existed. " Even the oldest of dead writers were a part of celebrity driven church. You have celebrity orientation as long as there has been one man dominating the "Worship" gathering with one-way communication where God has specifically asked for all believers to participate in mutual, one another driven expression. (Heb. 10:24,25, and others) They might abhor this degree of celebrity, but they were a part of that same system to a lesser degree. All this does not mean they have nothing to say of value for today, but it does mean they would not have a solution to this situation. It seems many try to make claims that older writers are closer to the truth because they were closer to the apostles in time. This is a grossly inaccurate claim (not that you made it).

The N.T. is where the true correction and and instruction is found. Taking seriously the Apostle Paul and the specific actions and ministry priorities he very passionately took to reject the flesh driven pull of celebrity would kill the celebrity dynamic quickly. Today's "leaders" have read every word, but they throw Paul under the bus at these points. I've even heard them on the radio chuckle with glee as they do this. Though they might posture that they don't like it, their actions betray that they love it.

Tim, it's true (as it was in the Old and New Testaments) that there have always been prophets, priests/shepherds, and teachers who have risen to a place of prominence and some renown by God's appointment within the narratives of the community of faith (including since NT times, i.e., throughout the history of the Church). You take your crusade against clericalism not a little too far sometimes, and not least of all in this case by equating such "celebrity" with that driven by modern marketing and consumerist forces (and let's not forget modern mass media where so often image, and not reality, prevails). Those historic biblical "celebrities" and those in Church history that have been deemed "Saints" became such because they were personally known by their heroic godly lives and Scripture-saturated mindsets and teaching. Many of those historic giants of the faith (if you will) became such exactly because they evidenced the gifts of the Spirit, not the least of which was extraordinary humility and Christlike sacrificial love for all people and especially the household of faith.

You think you follow the Scriptures so dreadfully closely, but you seem very blind to their teaching about the place of appointed leaders in God's Church and their narratives that are full of heroic figures of faith (who held positions of authority in politics and in the community of faith, both through office and also charismatic gifting). You go so far overboard on this issue, I can't personally take most of your posts seriously anymore--even though I believe there are times you make a good point.

I don't think anything will shut down the "complex" as you describe it. However, as more orthodox, biblical, gospel driven, mega-pastors are waking to the Internet/facebook twitter age, the "complex" is at least providing more balance to the messages out there. I think televangelism started this, creating a sense extremism to mega-pastors, but the Internet is leveling the playing field somewhat. At least the balance seems to be moving towards equilibrium in the future. Our Christian beliefs are so diverse, it would be expected that each belief would have their heroes. So the more knowledge out there, the better. No doubt economics would drive it to a large degree.

Not sure about all the hypothesis of how Christian Publishing works - but I do believe the internet is a game changer for sure. Now everyone has access to the info that once we had to totally rely on the "experts" to provide.

Don't most people blindly follow others because they are successful - not because of what they stand for or what they believe???? We want formulas - not relationships.

If you blindly follow a blind man - you'll blindly fall into a pit. I guess I got tired of yelling for someone with a ladder. Now I stand watching from a distance with a ladder in hand.

Luke 16:13-15
No household slave can be the slave of two masters, since either he will hate one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can’t be slaves to both God and money.” The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and scoffing at Him. And He told them: “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the sight of others, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly admired by people is revolting in God’s sight.

Seems most who take the “Title” Pastor/Reverend desire “Celebrity.”
To be well known. That simingly innocent “Title” comes with something
“A Little Bit Extra.” Power - Profit - Prestige - Honor - Glory - Reputation.

ALL those things Jesus spoke against.
ALL those things that become “Idols” of the heart. Ezk 14:1-11.
ALL those things that are highly esteemed among men...
but are an abomination in the site of God. Luke 16:15.

And the Bible warns us to “hew down “the graven images” of their gods.”
But, we make the “Title“ Pastor, reverend, a “graven image.” An “Idol.”

“A Graven Image”
On Diploma's and Denominational licenses, placed on office walls.
On business cards handed out, books, Conference Ads, tracts.
On office doors, secretarys desks, church letterhead.
On Sunday morning bulletins, church street signs, etc, etc...

And anyone who reads them knows who “the Pastor” is. Yes?

Isn’t that - marketing self? Seeking “Celebrity?” Seeking to be known?

Isn’t that - He who speakes of himself seeks his own glory? John 7:18 KJV.

What is popular is not always “Truth.”
What is “Truth” is not always popular.

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall “hear My voice; “
and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
John 10:16

One Fold - One Shepherd - One Voice - One Leader

{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

Contrast all of that with -

Is 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of suffering who knew what sickness was. He was like one people turned away from; He was despised, and we didn’t value Him.

Or how about:

2 Cor 11:23-27

Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers.
I have laboured and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked.

One thing's for sure - we'd not let Paul or Jesus near one of our Christian conferences

Karen
"You take your crusade against clericalism not a little too far sometimes…"

Thank you for naming the foundational erroneous beliefs underneath all celebrity on a world level or on a local level- clericalism. If you do not get what the scriptures say about ALL believers being saints and called or clerics, then you have missed the Word of God at these points. Biblical leadership has nothing in common with clericalism or leaders appointed based on seminary degrees, or alleged gifts for dominating the expression of truth when the saints gather, or even the fabled doctrine of apostolic succession. All appointing of elders was done in a local body for a local body and to reproduce more local bodies.

Of course there have been men over the centuries full of faith, wisdom and suffered much. They wrote about many powerful element of growing faith, but if they said anything to confront the gross errors of clericalism, it has not come through. If they did, it was thrown under the bus just like the teaching of Paul on these issues. 90% of Paul's teaching on the use gifts of the Spirit and the filling of the Spirit are rendered meaningless by the clerical system of dominating leadership, no matter what brand name of church is on the door. (The translators who use ruling for the gift of ruling or elders who rule well are grossly out of line with the N.T. context of "not lording over the flock")

Clericalism is a school of thought or a lens through which all scripture is reinterpreted (and translated) to justify it's practice. If you ever come to the place where you can give yourself permission to hear God's voice outside this box, there is much more to rejoice about and give praise to God for His wisdom in designing His household.

Jerry
Well done with the Word.

Tim, we likely would agree on far more than we don't. Authority in Christ's Church does not equal lording it over. Properly, the bishops and pastors of Christ's church should operate in a way analogous to the loving and godly father in a family (who also knows how to properly honor his own elders).

I see, however, clearly in the Scriptures an appropriate authority (as responsibility, not overlordship) invested in the biblical offices of bishop, pastor/priest and deacon, etc., to teach and shepherd Christ's flock (as undershepherds to Christ Himself), and consequently I also see a truth in the reality of "Apostolic Succession" that I believe you cannot see because of the strongly prejudiced lens through which you view Church history. That's okay. I can agree to disagree with you on that.

It certainly doesn't help that those invested with senior responsibility and authority in the various churches throughout history have sometimes scandalously abused their positions.

Many politicians, as well as non-politicians, claim to be both devout Christians and also great admirers of Ayn Rand. Are they aware of her most controversial views: Her hatred of religion; her hatred of altruism; her contempt for the poor and the weak? I don't think the two worldviews are compatable. What do others here think?

Karen

"I also see a truth in the reality of "Apostolic Succession" that I believe you cannot see because of the strongly prejudiced lens through which you view Church history. "

Church history is not inspired by God. Only the Word is. I should not need to know any church history to have a complete understanding of God's design for leadership in His church. Have you added the lens of selected church history pronouncements to your reading of God's Word in order to agree with "apostolic succession"?

"It certainly doesn't help that those invested with senior responsibility and authority in the various churches throughout history have sometimes scandalously abused their positions."

Sometimes? I think it is more like quite frequently and in every generation. It certainly does not help your claim. It really helps me to see that when God's Word is corrupted yet said to be "God's will" , that the results will show corruption regardless of the claim. The corruption is evident in every brand name, big or small, local or world wide, that props up clericalism as God's will. Your inability to take into full account this systemic "scandalous abuse" makes you a part of it's continuation. The corruption matches up where the system exists. The notion that one man dominates the expression of truth when the saints gather is celebritising and scandalous enough on it's own.

I have been bamboozled in the clerical system long enough to know the tricks these authority filled bishops and pastors play to hide their spiritual inauthenticity and duplicity. The posturing is phenomenal, "white washed sepulchers", just like the Pharisees. Alas God's grace is more phenomenal than all of it. He will purge it all in His time.