Cult of Personality: Emptying the Cross of its Power

2 months ago, I declared to a mate of mine that I would not post any more about what is now commonly known as 'Cult of Personality'.

I guess I'd already said my piece. And more than that, I found myself regularly being misunderstood. (Most of my correspondents thought that I was attacking their hero, and so they defended that hero, not realizing that my problem is *not* with their hero, but with we who lift them up! In many ways, they proved my point, but it never helped the dialogue!)

But I'm going to post once more, because I've just now read an article by Carl Truman from Westminster Theological Seminary. The article has put shape and insight into the very issue that I have found most troubling in our Mega-Church, Personality-Driven World. (H/T Justin Taylor)

Seriously.

I finally feel like I have an ally.

Here is it: "The Day they Tried to Recruit Me" By Carl Trumen.

Please take time to read the whole article. Trueman says of the Professorial world --

The cult of professor worship is perhaps the most dangerous and reprehensible cult in the theological world. (...) It is no respecter of souls: nothing so destroys a Christian leader, or his followers, than the mutual flattery involved in the uncritical adulation of a fan-base for a professorial rock star (and I use that term advisedly). Hence, while every instinct in me told me that the offer was a great opportunity to start up Team Trueman on campus, I chose to go against my fallen desires and immediately declined the offer.

But the bit that was most helpful to me is when Trueman made the point that the Rock Star Professor may 'negate the power of Christ' --

What is worse than this, of course, is that such people negate the power of the cross of Christ. Paul makes the point with ruthless effect in 1 Corinthians 1. To indulge in a cult of personality is not simply to miss the point of the cross; it is also to empty the cross of its power. That is why it is not simply incumbent upon students to guard against being sucked in to such idolatry. How much more is it incumbent upon the professors to avoid becoming the objects of such a cult? It is often said that you cannot enter into a pulpit and make yourself look like a great preacher and Christ look like a great savior at one and the same time. So it is in the classroom, on campus, at conferences: the professor, the theologian, cannot point to the power of the cross and simultaneously encourage a cult of personality. These things simply cannot stand together. Indeed, it is surely vital that the professor not only avoid creating such cults but also actively opposes them as they start to arise around him. To do less than this is, I fear, to empty the cross of its power and to lead others into idol worship.

Hear hear.

I have said something similar here:

It's even further nuanced by this: that when we always link to our favorite preacher, and then download, talk about, love, follow, go to conferences to fawn over, get a photo with, compare to, rate, hire because of fame, join a mega-church on the gifts of a single personality, make a Facebook group to express your appreciation for your favorite pastor-teacher, then… it may just be possible, without even realizing it, to 'empty the cross of it power'! It’s all in 1 Corinthians 1-2. 1:17 in particular.

What does it, in this text, mean to 'empty the cross of its power?'

I’m very nervous about the fact that even the good guys are going down the same route, in principle, as the followers of bad televangelists of the ‘80s: running after their favorite preachers. We just do it in style, and with good theology.

I could write as I have done before 'Discuss'.

But I'd prefer to ask: "Do you actually understand Truman's argument?" And if yes, then what do you think about it?

______________________________

Here is the original post I put up on this issue:
No, I'm not a fan of John Piper.

And here are some others:
Yes, I am a fan of Selwyn Sexton (3 Posts).
Trading Card for Evangelicals.
Jonathon Edwards and Tacos.

And here are all 14 posts with the Tag:
Corinthian Hoo-Haa.

________________
Pic on Flickr by Noniphon.

Evangelical Trading Cards

So get this. I took maybe 10 minutes trying to find the right graphic for that last post, and the Gulf War battle Ship was my best possibility. I had not realized that Christians in Context had already got a corner on the Trading Card idea. And only just recently, too. Of course, these guys are more positive than I am...

There is the two above (Luther and Melanchthon, and Karl Barth), as well as Augustine and Sproul.

You know what they say about great minds...

Or fools...

_____________________

A Lead Balloon: Trading Cards for Evangelicals

The 'Lead Balloon', for the uninitiated, was a column in The Briefing. It was always a bit cheeky, but behind it was always a serious thought. The tag line for a Lead Balloon was 'A idea slightly too outrageous to be taken seriously'. Gordo, in a rare moment of nostalgia, tried to revive the Lead Balloon in March 2007. On the back of my previous posts about Fan-Clubs within Christendom, I offer you my first ever Lead Balloon. Hope you like it...

When I was in short pants in the 1980s, we swapped "Trading Cards". Trading Cards were the size of a normal card. But on the front they showed a color picture of someone or something (baseball or cricket players; monster trucks; racing cars; vintage cars; fighter jets; cruise ships and the like). And on the back, they listed various impressive statistics belonging to the person or thing.

You could just look and collect them. Or you could play a game with them: You would shuffle the 'deck', hand out the cards, and as each card came to the front, you'd nominate the strongest of the statistics on the back. And if your person or thing was better in that particular statistic, then you'd take their card. The winner was the one who collected all the cards by nominating the strongest, fastest, greatest winners in their class.

Do you remember?

Well, here is my suggestion: We ought to resurrect 'Trading Cards for Evangelicals'!

I should tell you right now the catalyst for my idea: It came from Dallas, Texas (of course!). William McKenzie wrote an Op-Ed in December called: "Celebrity worship in evangelicalism a risk to the soul". McKenzie says:

If you spend any time within evangelicalism, you hear people speak in reverential tones about the pastor at this church, the seminar led by this speaker or the book by this author. It's easy to feel as if you need to hear that speaker, attend that church or read that writer to establish your credentials as a believer.

The number of icons and rituals within one of the nation's most influential movements is actually surprising. Evangelicalism prides itself on being decentralized. Whereas Catholics put a premium on popes, bishops, saints, stations of the Cross and various forms of hierarchy and rituals, evangelicals see themselves as needing no mediator between themselves and God.

That actually isn't the case. Evangelicalism suffers from a worship of icons.

Now, you may not agree with everything McKenzie warns about, but there certainly is an elevation thing going on with lots of pastors and preachers. Just go to a conference with a great speaker, and look at their Bio.

So I thought we could all come clean about our culture, and put together these 'Trading Cards'.

We wouldn't have to go very far for the pictures: there are professional shots already circulating because of all the conferences we get our heroes to speak on. These pictures are distributed widely in the Blogosphere: Every time a hero is quoted, we post a picture of that person. So pictures would be not be hard to find.

But what about statistics? What would the categories be? I have some thoughts:

• Size of person's Church
• Rate of Growth ('Fastest growing')
• Emergent Quotient (How Missional'?)
• Pagan Quotient (How 'Unchurched' is the city?)
• Charisma Quotient (How attractive is the person?)
  
• Ratio of Dogs to Christians in the City
  
• Number of Podcast downloads
• Number of churches planted
• Number of books published
• Number of books published each year
• Number of Fans on Facebook
  
• Rating in the 50 Most Influential Churches
• Rating in Time's 25 Most Influential Evangelicals
  
• Theological degrees and Doctorates
  
• Number of visits to the White House

Have I missed anything?

I guess my fear in the game would be this: It is not the way of the Cross. In the Scriptures, whenever a person is elevated this way, that hero almost always fell. But the 'way of the Cross' means that we will not elevate them in such a worldly fashion in the first place. They will have nowhere to fall, because we will not have elevated them.

So what does the Apostle Paul boast in? Galatians 6:14

But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

And what is on the back of the Apostle's 'Trading Card'? 2 Corinthians 11:30, 12:9-10

If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. (...) Christ said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

The problem with the game: it almost always ends badly.

So... will my balloon float?

:)

____________________________

Jonathan Edwards and Tacos...

Kudos to Stan the Man (a friend at NYU) for this insight on my previous Post:

I think at the core, it is not even about the personality around whom these people flock it is the comfort of having a community around this unifying element.

"Hey, do you LOOOOOVE John Edwards? I LOOOOOVE John Edwards too! Let's get tacos!"

"Hey, isn't John Piper like the best theologian EVAH?!?!!1! Yah, totally brah. He's such an awesome guy. Let's play video games."

And it's ludicrous because all of this is ignoring the one person who had the right to start a personality cult around himself, Jesus.

I have a few more thoughts about this topic. I even have a 'Lead Balloon' for you'all (Let the Reader understand). Just for fun. If you want...

__________________
Pic on Flickr by Ephemeron.

Sacrifice your Seat at the Sold Out Conference

Just exploring an idea...

You know the new form of Corinthian Hoo-Haa: Chasing after 'great' preachers, always linking to them, forming fan-clubs on Facebook, downloading and listening to the back catalog of every online sermon of your favorite preacher, sometimes just to hear what all the talk is about. This is especially real here in the US, since we are entering what one blogger called: "The Conference season."

I am on the record as being nervous about Christian Fan-Clubs, unless it is a fan-club for Selwyn Sexton. I base that on Paul's warnings in his two surviving letters to the starry-eyed Corinthians. (Of course, I think that most well-known preachers would certainly *not* want you to join their Fan-Club. They are mostly humble men who want to draw attention away from themselves.)

The reason that Christian people often give for this (following, downloading, quoting, loving, promoting) is that the gospel is being preached in a fresh and relevant way, and that lives are therefore being saved and changed.

And I, too, love that the gospel being preached in a fresh way. And I, too, yearn for lives to be changed.

Absolutely.

Praise God.

Here is a genuine idea, then, that hopefully combines your love for the Gospel, together with the challenge of sacrificial love. Here is an idea that I think captures the way of the Cross. Here is an idea that kind of tests whether our behavior is Corinthian:

If you have a hot ticket to a Christian conference with a gifted communicator, why not give up your seat to a non-believer? A not-yet-believer? Let's say that the conference you want to attend is completely sold out. Would you sacrifice your seat for a person who was not yet a Christian?

This is a genuine question. And I don't want it to be theoretical. If you think that this is right and godly, you could very easily contact the conference organizers, and say that your ticket is available if such a person contacted their office. Or let that be known in your church. You can get the Downloads afterwards.

I don't want to spoil a party or anything. I love going to these conferences too. But am I right that this could that be a gospel way forward?

________________
Pic on Flickr by Alistairh.

Does Church Shopping have an Upside?

Last week, Richard Mouw, President of the Fuller Theological Seminary in CA, wrote a piece in Christianity Today called "Spiritual Consumerism's Upside: Why church shopping may not be all bad." His idea is that 'church shopping' has an upside: that if we 'shop around', we might find our vocation -- a place God wants us to be -- not unlike the Catholics finding their calling within the RC Church. Read the article HERE.

The article bothered me for one simple reason: He seems to fail to realize how a metaphor works! I posted the following response on CT. But there isn't really space for dialogue over there. So we could have it here. Here is what I posted:

Help me to understand. With great respect (writing to Dr Mouw), it appears that you misunderstood the nature of a metaphor.

'Shopping' is almost always about me and what I want right now: I need a TV, I choose the one for me, and pay the lowest price. I need shoes, I shop around. I need a car, I haggle for the price. Precisely because its about me. That's why the metaphor 'church shopping' has been used so negatively for so long. That's why the word 'shop' and the word 'church' ought never be placed together!

What you are describing here is (in your own words) vocation. Vocation is not shopping. It's about finding God's plan and place so that a person may serve him and his world. What you are describing here as vocation is exactly right. We need to pray and seek to find the right place to promote the Kingdom. We need discernment in churches and discernment in theologies. Yes!

But surely a metaphor (like shopping) has to actually *mean* what it implies. That's how English works, does it?

(And this is worth a read too: Anthony Sacramone wrote a post on 'First Things' HERE. Anthony is an acquaintance of mine, and begins his critique: "With all due respect to Dr. Mouw, his thesis is just daft." and concludes: "But a day at the mall it [Church] ain’t." I might say that everything else in between is pure gold.)

So...

• Have you ever gone looking for a church? (That is, you weren't called out to serve in another church. For whatever reason, you were in a position where you had to go looking.)
• If you were honest with yourself, would you have liken it to 'shopping'? In what way?
  
• How would you spot consumerist tendencies in yourself (if you had them) and what can you do about it?

__________________

'How to destroy a church.'

I'm still taking a break, but I can let you know what's happening on Sunday, right?

I'vejust realized that I'm speaking on 'How to destroy a church' from 1 Corinthians 3.

I've don't think that I've ever done that before.

I hope no one takes my advice.

:)

_______________________

Yes, I *am* a fan of Selwyn Sexton (Part 3)

Read Parts 1 and 2 First (Scroll down)

Where does the story end up?

It ends in Wollongong, south of Sydney, later in 2001.

Selwyn Sexton and his wife Christine, met with Laurel and me. They had come back from Zambia for a season and he wanted to meet with us. Or rather, I wanted to meet with him. After all, I was the fan. Not the other way around. And that's what you do if you are a fan, right?

We drove the 2 hours south to visit with them.

Now, I am not the crying sort. But I came close to tears as I opened the door to the little cottage they'd been given for a vacation. Here was a man who 21 years ago, had shared the gospel to a group of fidgety kids. And he spoke Jesus without eloquence or sophistry, without dynamism or reputation. There was no marketing, and no hype. He wasn't bombastic or shocking. There was no warm up, and no music. I don't remember any particular wit or humor, or new insights.

But he spoke of Jesus and his atoning death, and the power of his Resurrection.

When we met him, he had a quiet strength about him. One that is carrying a cross without letting you know that this is what he is doing. He asked us questions, and showed us joy. We walked the beach and he spent several hours telling us how much he loved to teach people who to share Jesus. And then it hit me:

• His gift was not his gift.
• His gift was Jesus.

See the difference?

I thought of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:1-5:

When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.

What's the 'upshot' of this?

Well, first, I shall not be joining your Facebook fan group. But that's a relatively trivial 'upshot'.

Here is my thought: Craigs commented on a previous post: 'It's OK to have heroes'. He's is utterly right. We do. We really do. All kinds of heroes. But, with some cheek, and somewhat counter intuitively, I'm choosing Selwyn.

The Apostle Paul:

So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.

It's the way of the Cross.

______________________________

Yes, I *am* a fan of Selwyn Sexton (Part 2)

So where was I?

Ah yes. 2001. Camp. I'd sent an email out into cyberspace hoping that my word of encouragement would land in the inbox of someone to 'boast' about: one Selwyn Sexton.

Two days later, I received an email back. Mr. Sexton (in 2001) was living in ... get this...

Northern Zambia.

Northern What-ia?

You heard it, Northern Zambia. He and his wife had up stakes and moved to Africa with Sowers International to train local pastors how to preach. He had a home there, but was allowing a local pastor and his family live there because they had the need. So they lived basically out of a suitcase. He didn't live to preach himself, but he lived for the joy of hearing an African preach to Africans.

What does Jesus say?

"I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first."

Here is his Correspondence (I don't think he'd mind me posting it. It is is not really private.)

Dear Justin,

It was so good to receive your e-mail yesterday.

I was so very thrilled and humbled to hear of your progress in the Christian life. You brought back memories of that Mission at Eastwood Baptist and I remember, though rather vaguely, you and your friend coming to see me. I also remember sending you the follow up material and writing your name many times.

Thank you so much for thinking to write to me to share how the Lord has led you and blessed you over the years since that decisive day. Your letter has encouraged me greatly.

We are writing this from Northern Zambia and when we received the e-mail we were with our Senior Sowers worker and Christine read it out in his presence. He was also very encouraged.

We will be in Australia soon and we would like to meet you again some time during this period. We will e-mail when we get back to Australia to set a convenient time.

We trust you will have a wonderful time at the camp next week. We will be praying that the Lord will speak to many of the young people.

Thank you so much for sharing this great news. Looking forward to seeing you.

God bless, Selwyn Sexton

Part #3 tomorrow... From Africa to Australia...

______________________

Yes, I *am* a fan of Selwyn Sexton (Part 1)

The Scriptures are clear:

But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other.

So (while being incredibly thankful to God for the ministry and courage of Dr John Piper and Don Carson, Mark Driscoll, C.S. Lewis, Tim Keller, Philip Jensen, Peter Jensen, Ravi Zacharias, Kent Hughes, etc), I would now like to declare that I am, in fact, a fan of one Selwyn Sexton.

Selwyn Sexton.

I've repeated his name so that you all will remember it!

It is not likely a name you've heard of. I just now googled "Selwyn Sexton", and there were 7 listings. No podcasts, no webpages, no 'www.selwynsextonministries.com', no books, no facebook group, no fan-club. So chances are you haven't heard of him.

In 1979, Selwyn was perhaps a 40+ year old missioner and evangelist. He came to my school in Sydney and preached the Gospel. I sat there and understood the Grace of God: I was a sinner, and Christ had died in my place. I was 9. I could tell you were I was sitting when I heard about the Grace of God. So I 'signed up'.

In 2001, I was a Youth Pastor at Christ Church St Ives. And I was about to go away and model what Selwyn had modeled to me: Preach the Grace of God in the face of Christ. So I Googled his name back then and found an email address. So I emailed him. I've cut and pasted it here. This letter is dated July 2001:

Dear Mr Sexton,

You will have no idea who I am, but I wanted to write to you and thank you for your important part in my coming to faith in Jesus Christ.

Sometime around 1979 you came to my primary school in Eastwood [Northern Sydney, Australia] and explained to the entire school the truth of substitutionary atonement. You made it very simple - you used a simple illustration - and yet God used you very powerfully that afternoon. I understood for the first time that Jesus had died for me. I can remember where I was sitting and how I felt about it. I was then 9 years old.

You must have been involved in some outreach event with Eastwood Baptist church, because you invited any who were interested to know more to go to the Tuesday afternoon club. I decided to go, and you called for those who wanted to give their lives to Christ. My next door neighbour and I came to see you, and you prayed with us. I remember at the time thinking that I was bothering you. However, I prayed with you to become a Christian that day.

I was a child in the Sunday School at a good evangelical Anglican church in Sydney at the time that all this happened. I went to the Baptist Tuesday group for about a year and a half, and eventually was grounded in the Youth Group at the Eastwood Anglican.

Those moments were very significant for me. And I thank God for them. You are part of my testimony to this day. I went on to finish a BA at Sydney University. I was heavily involved in Youth Ministry at St Barnabas Church Broadway, and eventually studied the Scriptures full time at Moore Theological College. I now serve at the Youth Minister at Christ Church St Ives - a large and vibrant church on the North Shore of Sydney.

I am writing to you for two reasons: First, to thank you for your part. [I got your email address from a search engine]. Second is that next week, we are taking 100 or so 12-15 year olds away for a camp where we will be looking at the death of Jesus. I will be thinking specifically of that time when I first understood the cross 21 years ago - and my prayer for these kids is that they will experience what I experienced all those years ago.

I write this as an encouragement to you.

In Christ, Justin Moffatt.

So I am a fan to a part of the body that has 'lesser honor', so that the Body of Christ may be unified.

Tomorrow -- Part 2: From Sydney to Africa and back to Sydney.

In the meantime, is there anyone for whom you'd like to give honor (that may have lacked it in this world of celebrities)?

Comment here...

Or better still, find them, and write to them.

_____________________

No, I am *not* a fan of John Piper...

This is an exercise in nuance.

I was asked the other month if I was a 'John Piper fan'.

I said -- "Oh, no -- of course not." And then kept going: "I'm not, insofar that I don't want to be a fan of anyone but Jesus. Like many people, Desiring God really gave me a vision for joy and delight in the glory of God. That book alone shaped much of who I am, and still does. But, put bluntly, I'm not, and will never be, a Piper 'fan'.

I don't think that John Piper wants me to be a John Piper fan".

Then a few days later, I posted this link to a Piper sermon. And my correspondent read my Blog, and then emailed me:

I will enjoy reading your blog. Amazing clip from Piper. I inferred from our conversation that you were not a Piper fan. It appears to be the opposite (at least on this point).

And my response was this:

Re Piper: I think Piper is great and gifted by God. Desiring God really helped. I listen to and read Piper when I get a chance.

But, still, I’m not a fan. ☺

My point is nuanced (but not merely semantic): If someone asks me 'Am I a fan of Piper?' my answer is "No, of course not. I’m a 'fan' of Jesus". (I’m not really a 'fan' of him either. Jesus needs followers, not fans.)

And it's even further nuanced by this: that when we always link to our favorite preacher, and then download, talk about, love, follow, go to conferences to fawn over, get a photo with, compare to, rate, hire because of fame, join a mega-church on the gifts of a single personality, make a Facebook group to express your appreciation for your favorite pastor-teacher, then… it may just be possible, without even realizing it, to 'empty the cross of it power'!

It’s all in 1 Corinthians 1-2. 1:17 in particular. What does it, in this text, mean to 'empty the cross of its power?'

I’m very nervous about the fact that even the good guys are going down the same route, in principle, as the followers of bad televangelists of the ‘80s: running after their favorite preachers. We just do it in style, and with good theology.

In fact, 1 Corinthians 12 asks us to make much of the one who is given less honor, so that the Body of Christ will be united.

Are we not simply being worldly?

And so in the same vein, I am also *not* a fan of Don Carson, Mark Driscoll, C.S. Lewis, Tim Keller, Philip Jensen, Peter Jensen, Ravi Zacharias, Kent Hughes, etc. (As godly and as gifted as these men are.)

I'll listen to them and read, I'll learn from them and respect them, and I'll even obey when it is appropriate.

But I'm not, and will never be, a fan.

And I'm willing to wager that each of these men (since they all honorable men) would wholeheartedly agree. They would, I suspect, be uncomfortable with celebrity status, a 'fan-base' and a Facebook group.

Tell me if that's true.

______________

Pic of John Piper from Sola Lumina Captura.

What makes God look Glorious?

This video clip is John Piper at his God-given best: Strong, profound, pastoral and devastatingly simple.

These three minutes settle the matter for me: I will not give ground to the prosperity gospel, and I will speak openly against it. There is too much at stake. The alternative life (suffering in and for Christ) has a Power that the proponents of the prosperity gospel cannot and will not understand.

(Warning: there is a profoundly sad story mentioned at 1:30, for the sensitive).

H/T Christine

__________________

Rob Bell and Al Gore and Stardom

I balked at posting this. But I've decided to post and see what comes...

I've been having more thoughts about the New Media and Rob Bell posting. I feel like I'm coming close to being able to express some of the things that concern me. And by that, I'm not meaning the things that concern me about Rob Bell's theology (although that would be worth discussing).

My concern is about us turning a local church pastor into some sort of superhero. (And especially when recognition of that person comes in a short space of time without some level of rigorous testing.)

Try this for comparison:

I read THIS ARTICLE last week in the Sydney Morning Herald. I think its from the New York Times. It is about Al Gore, who (with respect to the environment) really is in academic turf, and yet he is speaking people's language around the world, and being treated like a pop star. Read this bit:

Although Mr Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in An Inconvenient Truth. [...] While praising Mr Gore for "getting the message out", Dr Vranes questioned whether his presentations were "overselling our certainty about knowing the future". "He's a very polarising figure in the science community," said Dr Pielke, an environmental scientist and a colleague of Dr Vranes at the University of Colorado. "Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr Gore."

Now, try this exercise: Change 'Mr Gore' to 'Mr Bell'; 'scientist' to 'theologian'; 'science to theology'; 'An inconvenient Truth' to 'Velvet Elvis'; Dr Varnes to Ben Witherington (who generously and appropriately praises and yet still questions some things that are said by Bell), and 'future' to 'Talmud'.

I may be wrong, but do you see how we now mirroring society? Am I onto something? The key line is this: "Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr Gore."

Something is not right. Something doesn't add up. And something has to be said or done before a culture of Corinthian Hoo-Haa becomes a problem for Christendom. Unless it has already happened.

I wonder if Tubeo is right when he commented on a previous post:

Can I drop another idea in here? A couple of years back there was a conference in Scotland (I'm pretty clueless about the details - maybe someone can fill me in here) where it was concluded that in western culture 'the famous' has overtaken 'the hero' (used in classical terms) for what we look to and marvel at.

Let me clarify: I am not arguing for an elite group of people who have the right to be heard. Not at all. Not at all. I am, however, nervous about having super-stars in Christendom. I think that it's too Corinthian.

Thoughts?

New Media and Rob Bell in the 00s.

I know its two weeks ago, but I want to write a point of clarification re the Bell v Packer post .

My aim was not to compare a previous generation (that had 'higher reading') to the current generation (that has 'dumbed down'). Not at all. Anyone who knows me knows that I have never been a particularly great reader, nor am I a thinker, and I'm certainly no academic. I had to marry one to feel better about that deficiency in my development. :)

And I also know plenty of students here in the US and in Australia who are profoundly careful and wise about who they learn from and who they read, as the comments pointed out.

I am asking, though, if there have been any significant shift in the last 20 years.

I guess I just wondered how and why it is that we place a good man like Rob Bell in center stage on academic issues. Why are we now turning to Mark Driscoll for 'Christology'? And Rob Bell for 'Jesus in his Jewish Context'? And Brian McLaren to tell us about 'Major Cultural Shifting'? I'm sure they all have good thoughts, and good popular ways of teaching those thoughts. But have we put these guys in over their own heads? I hope not. That would be no fun for them.

Maybe nothing has changed. But if it has, what has changed? I think that the answer is, in part, New Media.

Sam R wrote asks some questions about New Media HERE.

(I'm not out to criticize New Media. If anything, we need to get the guys who still use typewriters to start using their 'puters.)

I guess my point is not that we ought to be reading 'higher' (which could be simply elitism), but it is this: That local regular pastors are now being treated as though they are ground-breaking global scholars. And we are looking to these guys to 'repaint the faith' (to use Bell's terms), or to give us a 'new kind of Christianity' (to use McLaren's term). Of course, I have no problem with Rob Bell and Mark Driscoll et al doing what they do as a pastor in their local communities. They ought to pastor their churches by speaking the truth in love. And their communities can debate and speak personally with them about any new and fresh thoughts.

That’s how community works.

But with the iPod, its global. Anyone and everyone can 'choose' Bell while joggin' or catchin' the train. Heck, you can listen to Bell on your way to and from church on the same text that your own pastor just bumbled his way through! :)

But then do we leave behind the books and reflections of the people who, over decades of work, debate and study, have been proven and tested to 'know their stuff'?

Does that still sound elitist? I sincerely hope not, and I apologize in advance if it does...

:)

Jim Packer in the 80s, Rob Bell in the 00s?

Tell me the truth.

First, to understand this post, you must read THIS - It is Ben Witherington's post on Rob Bell's speaking tour. (You'll need a few minutes). Read the comments too.

Amongst lots of thoughts on reading that Blog, I have this one:

When we were at University, everyone I know read people like Stott, Packer, Carson and Wright and others like them to learn and explore difficult things from the Bible. If we needed to know what the Ancient Jewish traditions were, it was scholars we turned to -- people whose academic 'runs were on the board'. We 'listened' to them debate. And if we didn't read them, we talked and listed to those who had read and digested these guys. The scholars may not have been particularly creative writers or outstanding speakers. But they spoke the truth with some level of authority. They wrote the proverbial book on these subjects. And they showed all their 'working out' in endless footnotes and bibliographies.

Now, more and more people are turning to Rob Bell, Mark Driscoll and Brian McLaren and others to educate us about theology and 1st century Jewish history and how they relate to the interpretation of Scripture and culture.

I know that popular speakers have always made clear what the academics have said. We all went to Katoomba Conventions and loved it. We all had good pastors teaching us the Scriptures faithfully within community and in creative ways that we could understand.

But now its global.

At least three things have changed:

• We are getting to be impatient readers -- They've all read Blue Like Jazz and Velvet Elvis, but try handing a student today John Stott's The Cross of Christ. Too much theology for some.
• A distrust of authority -- Academics get it wrong all the time. If they can get it wrong, then it doesn't matter whether a person is proven to know their subject. Especially if they 'connect' with young people and 'connect' with culture.
• The invention of iPod and iTunes, togther with the 2 minutes it takes to download any old junk.

Am I right? And have we taken a turn for the worse? And is there any hope?

I'm not sure. All I know is that Ben Witherington III sat waiting in a packed house ready to watch Rob Bell speak about the history of Judaism and its impact on Christianity.

Methinks it should have been the other way around.