If “celebrity” requires a compelling narrative, then it also requires telling and hearing that narrative. A good story means very little if
no one hears about it or cares about. If a tree falls in the woods….
So, while we may rightly decry any celebrity-seeking we see among evangelical pastors, simply pointing fingers at “rock star” and “celebrity pastors” without thinking through the multiple contributors to the phenomena seems rather simplistic. Pastors have responsibility for thinking about the narratives they create or accept, but we also need to identify the responsibilities various media outlets and media contributors have.
Who Is “the Media”?
The phrase is ubiquitous. Everyone from politicians to Wall Street protesters to average Joes at the office point fingers at “the media” for creating this or that misrepresentation or problem. Sometimes it reminds me of the nefarious but vague “they” and “them” routinely cited as having this or that complaint about the church and pastors. “They” don’t want to sing as many songs. “Some people” are unhappy with the sermons. If we pursue corrective love it will upset “them.” One can lose his mind and ministry attempting to identify and satisfy the phantoms and shadows hiding behind plural pronouns.
So it is with “the media” in discussions about celebrity culture among Evangelical Christians. Who are we talking about?
The answers are many. I’ll define it simply as those who control the creation and dissemination of narratives about people and events for public consumption. We may include in this definition traditional media roles like journalist, author, television anchor, editorial director, publishers and so on. And we think of the traditional outlets like television, print, and radio.
But we also have to include other creators of media for our purposes: conference organizers, church media departments, and almost anyone with an iphone and internet access. A significant part of the media influencing contemporary evangelical celebrity narratives includes youtube clips, twitter, blogs, and the like. It seems most viral videos have their start with the amateur, not the professional. We have seen “the media,” and it is us.
The democratization of media in our day far surpasses any other era of human history. This means those controlling and influencing media have a significant part to play and we have to broaden our understanding of who contributes to the media and therefore potentially contributes to “celebrity culture.”
While the world of secular celebrity separates the roles of celebrity and media, contemporary Evangelicalism blurs the distinction. ”The media” very often belongs to the pastor or church. Savvy marketing and media departments become ready agents for “getting the message out.” In godly hands, “getting the message out” means getting the gospel out. In more worldly or at least careless hands, it means getting the person’s name out. What was a precious commodity in secular circles of celebrity (publicity) has become an ordinary church ministry among some Evangelicals. Without question this fuels both the perception and the reality of celebrity culture inside Evangelicalism. We may be victims of our own control and access to media.
Media Interests: It Makes Cents to Make Celebrities
We’ve witnessed over the last two decades (at least) increasing sensationalizing and entertainment orientation of most media forms, even on so-called news and journalism programs. Once upon a time, most journalism focused on getting the facts correct. The narrative depended heavily on truth-telling.
But nowadays, it seems the media emphasizes telling an entertaining or compelling story–increasingly without regard to propriety and facts. What matters is public attention, sales, hits, comments, downloads, growth, and audience entertainment. Driving these metrics upward essentially involves having certain faces on the cover or placard, or mentioning certain names in the post or tweet. Such strategies do not automatically convey “celebrity,” but they frequently do.
In such an environment, we can expect strong temptations toward crafting stories that wittingly or unwittingly create celebrity. This temptation rests upon a symbiotic relationship between the celebrity and the media. The two live together in a persistent mutualism, each enriching the other. The celebrity provides the narrative that sells media production, while media production reinforces celebrity status. ”Celebrity provides magazines, television, newspapers, books, and increasingly the Internet with stories and stars; these media in turn provide celebrity, having no screen of its own, with a veritable multiplex to reach the public” (Gabler, p. 11). ”The media have devised a semiotics of celebrity in both word and image” (Gabler, p. 4), while the celebrity masters the crafts of drama and intrigue. In other words, the media have developed signs and indications for revealing who the celebrities are, while the celebrity seekers bolster their narratives for consumption. We even have a colloquial phrase for the media’s role in all of this–“the celebrity treatment.”
We see annual publications of “the largest churches in America” or “the fastest growing churches in America.” With such lists, Evangelical print magazines and websites read like the current copy of Money or Fortune magazine. Fundamentally, such stories tap into the mother archetype of celebrity narratives–self-made man, boot strap success, from rags to riches. Most people love these stories and so consume the media that provide them.
The bottom line becomes the bottom line. Celebrities make sales and most traditional media need these sales to remain solvent. It’s in traditional media’s best interest to market celebrities.
All These Young Whipper Snappers: A Brief Case Study in Media Narratives, the Celebrity Status They Help to Confer, and the Needed Resistance
Of course, we see other well-rehearsed narratives at play in our discussions of celebrity in addition to the archetypal rags-to-riches story. For example, we can hardly read a blog without reference to the “young, restless, and Reformed.” The reference is so commonplace we simply use the initials “YRR” nowadays.
But we’d be helped to remember that the phrase comes from the media–an article written in 2006 by Collin Hansen for Christianity Today. The article was so well received, Hansen later expanded it to book length treatment. In true journalistic fashion, the article and the book focuses on representative figures like John Piper, Joshua Harris, Mark Dever, and Al Mohler and key events that contribute to the YRR phenomena. Before we could think our way through the euphoria over the idea that our little corner of the Evangelical world could be called “young” and a “movement,” we had a narrative about the present and the future of Reformed Christianity.
What’s the narrative? It’s complex like many plots. But I suspect we can reduce it to something like “this ain’t your grand-daddy’s Christianity” or “your father’s Reformed theology.” It’s another youth tale, another coming of age story, one part appropriating what’s gone before and one part rejecting the old ways for an up-to-date take on faith and life. It’s replete with a youthful aesthetic and tone: edgy to angry; sometimes dark in color and humor; often irreverent; plaid shirts, dark jeans and boots. Certain younger pastors create, embody, or embrace that narrative and aesthetic. Even some older pastors adopt this basic gestalt. Meanwhile, a youthful media finds it interesting and compelling and relays the story.
Suddenly, some things that would never find a hearing among your father’s generation gain a media outlet and a teeming young public that buys the narrative. We miss the point altogether if we think the celebrity dynamics of YRR can be reduced to clothing, certain crude behaviors, or the like. Insofar as there are celebrities of this type, the true issue is the underlying narrative and why some find it attractive enough to confer celebrity status on certain individuals.
If we understand the narrative and the media’s fascination with it, we can militate against its celebrity-making effects. For example, John MacArthur offered a fatherly word to the YRR crowd. The series of posts (here, here, here, here, and here) met with immediate quibbles and rejoinders about beer and clothing, and the obligatory refrain, “Things are different today.” Some in the YRR crowd basically said, “It’s like my dad doesn’t get me.” The exchanges between MacArthur and the YRR revealed something very important. If it’s celebrity we wish to undermine, we can’t trump a youth-exalting “this ain’t your daddy’s religion” celebrity-making narrative with a “boy, I’m your father; I’ll take you out and make another one that looks just like you” posture toward the aesthetics and behavior.
We must respond not so much to the celebrity aesthetics but to the underlying celebrity narrative. We actually have to found a more effective counter-narrative. We have to tell a different tale about what makes for mature Christian living and ministry. I assume that was MacArthur’s intent. But he didn’t address the problem with a counter-narrative. He used a fatherly-older-man-counseling-younger-men approach. Consequently, the basic YRR narrative remained intact and those who embrace it along with its exemplars remained unchanged.
The problem was not in what MacArthur did say or even in how he said it. The weakness, imo, was in what the posts did not say. They didn’t go far enough. They didn’t undermine the basic media narrative making YRR something of a celebrity story. MacArthur possesses great potential for offering a counter-narrative based in part on his own steadfast and faithful ministry over 40-plus years. Such a counter-narrative might influence and redirect elements of the YRR narrative.
But the key media issue is: Would such a counter-narrative gather as much media attention? If we’re going to work against any latent or expressed tendency toward celebrity-making in Evangelical circles, we’re going to need an Evangelical media committed to creating alternative narratives that undermine celebrity.
Media Responsibility
Has the media shown a real ability to police itself or to help with counter-narratives? I’m not sure. One hopes that Christian media–whether the traditional variety or the amateur with the iPhone–would apply distinctively biblical sensibilities in its reporting. One hopes that Christian media would work against the seemingly intractable symbiosis between celebrity and media, even at the cost of lower sales, fewer hits, and the like. One hopes.
In a world where the media might take some responsibility for addressing “celebrity culture,” what would said responsibility entail? Perhaps Philippians 4:8 provides the best overall biblical guidance: “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.” Perhaps the media can apply this admonition to its business of telling and disseminating stories. Here are a few suggestions from a media dunce:
1. Human Interest v. God Interest Stories. The “human interest story” is a staple in the media diet. Even articles about complex economic theory depend upon the human stories to make them “tangible” with the reader. The human drama builds interest and identification. But what if Christian media sought to create “tangibility” with God rather than man? What if media persons accepted responsibility for telling “God interest stories” for Christian consumption? For example, how could the YRR story be told in a way emphasizes the providence of God rather than the key influences of men? We need “God interest stories” desperately. We need to tell stories about people in such a way that draws the reader or viewer to God himself, enabling us to identify and empathize with God. Of course, this is just another way of saying be God centered in media content. Put God at the hub of the narrative and point to Him. Write “non nobis, Domine” over every story.
2. Selection of Narratives. Media responsibility begins with selecting the narratives told and promoted. Should media persons look for controversy or faithfulness, the sensational or boring, the new and innovative or the tried and true? Any of these may be appropriate, but it is crucial that these decisions be undertaken with the underlying celebrity-making implications of the narrative in mind. Does our media coverage meet the sniff test of Phil. 4:8? Do our narratives appropriately honor without mythologizing human subjects?
3. Selection of Figures. Media responsibility also includes selecting which persons to feature. The writer or videographer determines who will receive “air time” or “copy space.” That decision either aids or hinders notoriety and celebrity. On what criteria should figures be chosen? By who is popular or “hot” at any given time? By the person’s reputation for controversy or “colorful behavior”? From a Christian perspective, should this person(s) have a wider audience? Are we marketing the praise-worthy or praising the unworthy?
4. Lead with Ideas More and People Less. I learned this at the policy think tank I worked with while in Washington, D.C. The group was fierce about the necessity of making substance and content the main thing and personality irrelevant. We wanted ideas with cache beyond our political bubble. We were willing to sacrifice “by” lines and publication credits to get it. It took some dying to self to work in that environment, but I’m convinced it was worthwhile. There were no celebrities in our office, just people committed to the work and hoped for results. When the ideas are more important than the persons, lead with the ideas. When the people are more important than the ideas, that’s an idea in itself–lead with that. Media can help us think about the fundamental ideas and ideals instead of inviting us to ogle at people.
5. Make Morality Obvious. It’s not always easy to decipher the moral meaning of celebrity narratives. Remember the O.J. Simpson case? Some people interpreted that story as a tale of injustice. Others saw it as a victory for the oppressed. The public isn’t always unified in the honor or contempt it shows toward the well-known. Sometimes the media’s storytelling lacks a voice that imposes moral values and meaning on the narrative. That’s an important function for Christian media. We need a media that not only prompts thinking, but prompts a certain kind of thinking and reflection that assumes and aspires to Phil. 4:8. To get that, we need a media ready to risk moral interpretation and the fallout it will sometimes produce. We need a media less enamored with description and more committed to truth, beauty, and righteousness.
6. Guard the Gate. To put it simply: Don’t give media attention to heretics and buffoons. Why aid in celebritizing people who would destroy the souls of followers? One wonders why some authors like Brian McLaren continue to get book contracts from so-called “Christian” media. What possible good comes from wider dissemination of false and spiritually unprofitable works? Christian media has a stewardship, a trust. That stewardship includes, I would think, guarding against the publication of sub- and anti-Christian material and guarding against the promotion of persons who produce such work. We need the media to guard the gates against celebrity-seekers of every sort. Before we hit “post” or upload the video, we have to ask: Am I guarding the gate against things that violate Philippians 4:8?
Is It Really the Media’s Fault?
Yeah, to some extent. Who could argue otherwise? According to a 2007 Pew Forum study, an overwhelming majority of Americans (84%) think the media provide too much coverage of celebrities–especially celebrity scandals. Over half (54%) who think there’s too much coverage of celebrity scandal blame the media for the problem.
For me there’s a more important issue to consider than whether or not ”the media” is the boogeyman we make it out to be. That problem: Many of us are the new media. It’s our fault, then. If we don’t attend to the stories we tell about people, then we’re culpable for the creation of a celebrity culture that undermines our best biblical ideals.
