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.

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.

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.

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…

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

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.

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