Chapter 9 covered by Phil Cunningham as part of our Group Blogging Project discussing the book Flickering Pixels by Shane Hipps. If you need a quick overview to what Flickering Pixels is about, please go here.
Chapter 9 of Shane Hipps book Flickering Pixels is talking about the difference between true character vs how the media makes people look, either through TV or specifically photographs. I know, I know, this explanation doesn’t make you wanna go out and buy the book right away, but let me continue.
OK, here we go with the meat of this post. The thing that struck me the most was in the second paragraph where Shane pointed out that:
[f]ormer generations had heroes, people who are well known for remarkable feats of bravery, brilliance, creativity or self sacrifice,” but that today, celebrities are well known just for being well known.
He used the example of Fabio and Paris Hilton. Most of us don’t know why they are famous, we just know that they are famous, well Fabio may be famous for this.
Shane continued with the example of the pastor of the mega church. He or she is preaching live at one location while there are a few other locations watching him or her live, but on a screen. Shane pointed out that the video shows the talent of the preacher, not necessarily his or her character. Not that it is a bad thing to preach via satellite, people need to learn, but are we drawn to pastors or leaders because they are famous or because of their character and the content that they are delivering?
I teach at different YWAM schools and programs. Now I could easily just show up at these events, give my thoughts and ideas, pray and leave, or I could do these same things, but stay and hang out. Teaching and leaving doesn’t show the students my character, it just shows them my talent (or lack there of) and my heart. Now it is much easier for me to teach and leave, but if I want to be authentic and if I want people to learn more from me than just what I have to say then I need to hang out.
What struck me about this chapter was the whole idea of how the media is wanting us, or has created a way to show us people not as they truly are, but as they want us to see them. We were created in the image of God, our creator. Society and our culture it trying, and succeeding in communicating that we need something more, we need to touch up what God has created. Basically telling us that we are not good enough and encouraging us to work on our shallow, surface things and not our character.
How have you seen this played out?
Do you follow people because they are known, or because you know them?
What reason are we giving people to follow us?
dewde says
I pretty sure me, and the rest of the Internet, know why Paris Hilton is famous.
Just sayin.
::: goes back to read rest of article :::
peace|dewde
http://dewde.com
dewde says
I think that facebook and twitter have given mega-church pastors more opportunity for us to "know" them. Which is good. However, it is still very controlled and you stil only see the "public self" and not the "private self".
This is why if I do something really lame or dumb like yell at my wife or be a jerk in general, I try and blog about it or put it on twitter. Because I want my online friends to accept me and know me for who I actually am.
peace|dewde
phil cunningham says
Yea, I agree. I mean, I am not wanting anyone to throw up all over the place in these forums, but just to be real and keep me involved in their lives, not just the shallow or fun parts.
Susan_Stewart says
The sentence you quoted is the only one I have underlined in this chapter.
Haven't we seen this played out in the last 24 hours with two celebrities deaths? Farrah Fawcett's death evoked a little more than a passing comment. "How sad." Little or nothing was noted about her life. Well, I did hear a couple of comments about Ryan O'Neal wanting to marry her before her death. I don't know that Ms. Fawcett did anything that would be consider heroic. But, for the most part, she lived her life quietly. It wasn't even to the status of celebrity in recent years.
Michael Jackson's death on the other hand stopped the world. Live news coverage. Vigils. Endless replaying of Thriller. His death was compared to John Kennedy's assassination. Jackson had fame and celebrity, but was he a hero who deserved this kind of worship? Is Jackson being elevated to this level because of fame or infamy?
Media, along with images produced (did anyone see the suppose "last photo of Jackson"?), created this stature. Sadly, Jackson's fame was not based on a character or activities that are worthy of emulation. Does anyone want their child to grow up and be Michael Jackson?
Who are the 21st century heroes? In fact, who are 20th century heroes? Folks, we even have a president who is an image rather than a person. Who is there for me to point my grandchildren to and say "Watch that person to learn about good character and good living?" I don't think that person will be anyone famous.
Adam_S says
Again I mostly agree with you. But as with everything there is more than just what is on the surface. Your examples for instance. Micheal Jackson has been famous for years for being a freak. If he hadn't been arrested and had endless surgeries, his death might not have been the same. But I keep hearing from friend after friend that Michael Jackson was their first purchased music that they grew up listening to him. He changed the face of pop music. His later years didn't completely wipe that away. Farrah Fawcett was a TV star, but I am too young to really remember her (and I am 36). She has been sick with cancer for years. Obama certainly is an icon as well. But almost 15 years ago when he was a guest lecturer in a grad class of mine I went up and talked to him about a problem I was having with the state (he was my State Rep at the time). I remember then going home and talking to my wife about how he was going to be president some day and I have followed him closely ever since.
Even with fake celebrities like Paris Hilton, there is some real content under the gloss. I agree that the definition of hero has changed. But there are many people that you can point to and tell your children and grand-children to emulate them. They are the ones actually working to change people's lives. Look to organizations like International Justice Mission that get people out of slavery. Or a friend of mine Jim Larson, that in his late 40s moved his wife and youngest child to Thailand and has spent the last 6 or so years working with girls sold into prostitution. The guy who started Land of a Thousand Hills coffee so he could help support the Rwandan church in its efforts to bring about reconciliation. (He buys coffee above the normal price directly from farmers organized by churches in Rwanda, then give $3 of every bag back to revolving loan funds for the farmer, revolving loans for the community and direct aid for orphans and widows in the communities.)
I could keep going on. The issue isn't a lack of people to emulate, but a focus on fame more than change. Past generations had fame as well (in many ways the systems of nobility were a type of fame). One of my issues with this book is that it keeps trying to idealize the past. The past wasn't ideal and even if it was, we can't go back there. It is the past. The real issue is how do we help people in the current find real meaning. Part of that is helping people de-construct the media and I appreciate that part of Hipps book.
A good example of someone using fame for good might be Jamie Lee Curtis' photo shoot a year or so ago, when she had a picture without any make up or touch up to show a real woman, and then also had a fully made up shot to show how un-real the media really is. That isn't heroic, but it is helpful
SCBubba says
Great points Susan. I'm in the same boat with respect to my children. The people that our culture puts on pedestals are not the people that I want my children emulating or looking up to. I enjoy music but a good voice, talent with an instrument, or ability to dance does not speak to who the person is. Neither does someone's skill at a sport or ability to act.
I applaud Phil for his desire to let the kids at the schools get to know him (and for him to get to know them). I admire Chris for how he uses his blog to help show his daughters and then his friends who he is.
I'm saddened that the "common" is not valued in our culture only the extreme/outrageous/different. And then only because it is those things.
To get to Phil's questions, I try not to just follow fame. I try to look for people that I think are modeling the things that I find important. I try to make sure that I find important what God has made important. It doesn't always work out for me.
The only reason I try to have for anyone to follow me is that I try to follow Christ. Anything beyond that is shooting for fame…
Phil cunningham says
Man I feel like Michael Jackson is taking this whole post up, it does give some more content to the chapter. Thanks Bubba for getting back to my questions on it, haha. I was thinking about that passage that you mentioned where Paul say's "Follow me as I follow Christ."
Adam_S says
Sorry for helping to take over your post 🙂
At root I think it is important that we look for people to follow in a way that mirrors what Paul was saying. And then be a person that lives up to being emulated.
I still don't know that media has done much more than make people famous over a wider area. Proverbs talks about not following the wrong people a lot. So having bad heroes is not new. It is just that media means that our heroes are no longer limited to people that we can know in person. Media allows people to be idealized because we don't see them every day, we just see the best of them. That is where media has changed things.
Jay says
It's an interesting perspective. If you look at somebody like Andy Stanley for instance, he would be considered like a "rock star" in the evangelical sense. Now, I follow Andy Stanley. I don't know the man personally, but I do know him through his books, his small group studies and from watching him preach. I remember seeing Andy fill in for his Dad from time to time on 'In Touch' in the mid 90's and thinking, "This guy is really good." That being said, it wouldn't surprise to know there are those in the Christian community who follow Stanley largely because of who he is and how well known he is.
As Chris does, (and as I try to do as well as others) Pastors (especially those who are relatively famous in one way or another) should remain vigilant in maintaining a spirit of transparency and authenticity. They need to tell us when they screw up (not all of the time) so people can be reminded that they are humans too and make mistakes and sin like anybody else. If they did more of that, I don't think there would be as much "shock" as there sometimes is when you see a Pastor fall morally like we've seen recently.
sredden says
Jay,
The problem is that in our celebrity-obsessed culture, we don't let our celebrities (even if they are our pastor) be normal humans. We afford celebrities great esteem and privilege (as Shane points out, for sometimes dubious reasons), and over time, this begins to shape the decisions people make. Consciously or subconsciously, subtly or not-so-subtly, their focus is drawn toward maintaining and improving their image to perpetuate or grow their celebrity. This can lead to disastrous decisions.
I saw Ted Haggard speak at Q recently and was struck by how his life illustrated this point. Ted, like all of us, has inner demons that he has struggled with for a lifetime. But as his celebrity grew as a pastor, it isolated him from finding help to overcome these struggles. He said that over the years he went to people close to him at his church to share his struggles, but they couldn't accept that he had struggles or offer him any help. They told him to pray more or to spend more time working at the church to distract him from his struggles. As his private struggles and poor decisions became public, it became clear that he had spent inordinate amounts of energy managing his image and hiding his struggles to maintain his celebrity. It was amazing how joyful that he seemed to be now that he doesn't have to carry that weight, even given the hell he's been through. It also became clear that the leadership around him at New Life had also made very poor decisions in an effort to manage his image. In the end, the whole thing toppled like the house of cards that it was.
What is the answer? I'm not sure there is an easy answer. This is a tension that we all must manage, but for those of us who work in ministry, I think John 3:27-30 is helpful:
"To this John replied, "A man can receive only what is given him from heaven. You yourselves can testify that I said, 'I am not the Christ[j] but am sent ahead of him.' The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom's voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. He must become greater; I must become less."
We must always decrease so that Christ may increase. Our image and our celebrity must take a back seat to the priorities of following Christ and leading others in that pursuit. If you want a really good example of what that looks like, take a look at http://ysmarko.com/2009/the-end-of-ysmarko/
-Stephen
p.s.
For full disclosure, I worked under Andy's leadership at North Point for seven years and think he does an incredible job of fighting his own celebrity. One of the things that made following him so compelling was his humility and seeing up close that he really lives the things he teaches others to pursue. Though I didn't know him well, I knew that he had people close to him who would challenge him and tell him the truth. One of the things he regularly taught us was that in ministry all we had was our moral authority – authority derived from our words and actions aligning. He instilled a healthy fear in all of us (which I believe he carries himself) that we were all just a decision or two from compromising our moral authority and thereby our ministry. Given the scope and weight of Andy's ministry influence, I can't imagine the weight that must be to carry for him.