Famous: adj. More people know me than know you.
That’s all the word means. To me.
Yet this group clamors to be called it and that one questions the very concept and others lambast fame as inherently evil.
More people know that girl’s face, or song, or parents or “leaked” sex tape than know you.
More people know that guy’s movies, haircut, books or policies than know you.
That’s all celebrity is. Celebrity in and of itself is inescapable. In a group, no matter how large the group, someone is better known than the rest. He or she is “famous.” Just like in every group, no matter how supposedly egalitarian, someone is listened to more than the others. He’s the leader. And someone has more money or property or animal skins. He’s wealthy.
Celebrity, leadership, wealth are all relative terms and cannot be avoided right? They just happen right? Am I missing something? If I’m not then I have some questions this afternoon.
So when, if ever, is fame a bad thing? And why do we respond in the ways we do to the famous? When you meet someone famous how do you react? Why? Why, if the only difference between them and you is the number of people who know their name? Is that the only difference?
euphrony says:
Ya know, Shaun, I was actually thinking along these lines this morning. I’m preparing for a review of my projects (along with others in my group) to be presented to our corporate CEO. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard us told in the last few weeks that these people don’t bite and that we should not be scared or intimidated by them. Funny thing is, I’m not. Not at all off balance in the prospect (or fact) of meeting them and having them review my work.
I see things like you said in the last paragraph – they’re people just like me, but more people know their names. I’ve met some of the leading minds in my field of work, and chatted with them casually and without hesitation because despite their accolades, they’re just people using their God-given gifts. I’ve gone to concerts and after stood around to meet the artist; not to say I’ve met someone special but to pass on a personal thank you because I enjoyed their music and their work.
The cult of personality is an absolute mystery to me. (Now I’ve got Living Color’s song running through my head. Great.)
Melinda says:
I think a very curious thing is watching people clap after a song in praise and worship, or listening to people cheer when a preacher says something anointed. I will watch the person singing or giving the word, and unfortunatly there are more people who believe that the cheers and hand clapping are for them instead of God. That is when fame is a bad thing.
I respond much better to “Famous” people now then when I was a teen. I remember when I was 15, my sister and I were really into heavy metal music and we had the chance to meet Zakk Wylde (guitar player for Ozzy Osbourne). We walked 3 miles to the record shop and walked in, I saw him standing there and had a panic attack. He was FAMOUS! I ran out of the store and hide in the alley behind some garbage cans. My sister talked to him and got his autograph. I had bestowed great honor onto these musicians and received nothing in return. Now I honor God, and stand in awe at his works. I hope that when I stand before Him I wouldn’t hide behind the garbage in my life, but that I am now worthy because of the Blood of Jesus. Although there are some preachers that I’ve gotten to meet that I get a little nervous around, but that’s because I’m afraid that they are going to see who I am and not like me.
shaunfan says:
Fascinating posts on internet monk’s and Brant’s blogs. I really like the insight you gave in your reply on monk’s blog. As far as celebrity, as you might expect I need to reference song lyrics.
Barenaked Ladies released a satirical song called “Celebrity” http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=3530822107858493158.
Naturally BNL somewhat became “celebrities” or famous from the song “One Week”. Then, they talk about “getting in first and getting in free”, “And there’s an emptiness that’s eating me”. I think that sums up celebrity pretty well.
So, I agree with your thoughts. I think more celebrity creates more emptiness like the song says, “All that you will see is a celebrity”. That’s the biggest downside of fame, removal of the real person factor. Thanks for keeping it real Shaun.
Brant says:
That some might be known more than others is not a problem, and will happen, as you say. That’s okay. Some will be good at some things, others other things, and we all need each part of the body. It’s okay to say, “Shaun Groves is a freak-talented musician, who also happens to be a freak-talented writer, and freak-talented visual artist”, etc. – that’s just facts.
But celebrity is not okay. And, as shaunfan quotes above, “getting in first and getting in free” is not okay in the church. It’s anti-Christian.
Celebrity culture is at odds with a Christian ethic, and shouldn’t be just uncomfortable, but called out for what it is. You cannot square Jesus’s teaching and behavior with a belief that some are more important than others, because they happen to be good teachers or big Visionary Leaders, or musicians or whatever.
Celebrity culture in the church should be thoroughly and completely repudiated. As far as I’ve noticed, Shaun, you actually do use your gifts, in part, to repudiate celebrity culture.
But it’s very obviously the case that some are more important than others in our contemporary church culture, and the church culture itself subtly advances this idea at every turn, particularly for people with “up front” gifts for big-time weekly presentations.
Of course, it’s not almost hilariously un-subtle:
http://www.charismamag.com/fireinmybones/Columns/show.php
inWorship says:
My concerns come from the industry more than those who are famous. The industry decides for us who is famous and who should be heard or seen. That bugs me. I know I have a lot to learn, but it seems strange to me that there is a better selection of Christian books at Barnes and Noble than at my local Christian book store. I am confused. If there is something I should hear or see that would benefit my Christian walk, wouldn’t someone in a Christian bookstore want me to see or hear it? Of course, imagine the marketing schemes put into place so that everyone(who has something good to say) is heard.
Being famous and being a celebrity have to be 2 different things. We all have our 15 minutes of fame…right? To live our life to keep that 15 minutes is to attempt celebrity. Some gain that, other don’t. It’s the intent. When we have our 15 minutes, what do we do with it? If we never have our 15 minutes our we living as if we do anyway?
Celebrity is what we make it. I think Celebrity is what happens when we exalt someone or something to the position that we want to be in, with the hopes that we can be there as well.
Nancy Tyler says:
I like the way Paul balked at his celebrity status in 1st Corinthians 3:
.
.
“For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men?
What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.”
Noelle says:
Wow. A lot of good comments. The only thing with celebrities is that as your fame goes so does your power or influence. But, with that comes, or should come, a lot of responsibility b/c ppl are going to follow. Being a Christian celebrity (or any celebrity) isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it’s what you do with the what you’ve been given.
Brant says:
…but there shouldn’t be celebrities in the church.
That is, unless “celebrity” means, purely and singularly, “well-known.” But that’s not the entire picture of celebrity.
To be a celebrity is to be “celebrated”, or as one dictionary would have it, “widely honored and acclaimed”, with synonyms for the state of celebrity as “eminence” and “stardom”.
So yes, one should not be “celebrated” for being a good musician, or good-looking, or a big-shot leader or author, any more than the weirdo, smelly lady in the next pew. But they are, and this is not okay, it’s evidence of a sell-out to the culture that forfeits the Kingdom.
Some will be well-known, but celebrity doesn’t fit where the exalted are humbled, and the humble exalted. If that’s not the way the church culture operates, the church knows nothing of the Kingdom.
shaunfan says:
Brant, as always you have a way with helping me understand a great point. I completely agree that famous is one thing, and in and of itself is okay, but celebrity is that next level of being “celebrated” which in and of itself is NOT what we are called to do as Christians. I am Shaun’s “fan”, and I appreciate and love to appreciate his “freakish talent” (Great quote I copied below by the way), however I serve God and others alongside Shaun and with his prodding. Anything more would be like worship of a false god.
“Shaun Groves is a freak-talented musician, who also happens to be a freak-talented writer, and freak-talented visual artist”, etc. – that’s just facts.-Brant Hansen
brody says:
Brant’s a famous blogger… and I’m celebrating him right now… with some Doritos Guacamole Chips….
ya.
hoo.
MammasBoy says:
People derive their fame from many sources: position/power, talent, money, etc. It many cases it is natural and good to attach honor to this. For instance, it is good to award hard work/talent at school/work or to honor one’s parents. Other times, this can devolve into a devotion that exceeds the good and results in a backlash from folks who see the excess.
It seems odd to me that in a culture that has lost much of the sense of honor it used to hold for certain people because of their position (e.g., teachers, parents), we have developed a parallel celebrity culture that takes honor to an entirely new, unhealthy level.
I also find it interesting to compare/contrast Jesus’ railings against the scribes and pharisees as a group with his command to obey them that preceded it (Matt 23) and with Paul’s excuse/apology for insulting the high priest in (from my perspective) more respectful terms than Jesus’ used (Acts 23). Knowing when/how to express disagreement while maintaining legitimate honor for those in authority over us can be a challenge.
MB
Lane says:
I think it’s consumerism that puts the twist in celebrity culture. Having something to buy changes things. A person might be famous, as you use the word, and have it deservingly. It can be a good thing in that way. But consuming something changes it, necessarily.
Consumerism values ignorance over knowledge, image over substance, etc. etc.
It’s why someone can put the face of Che Guevera on a t-shirt and have no idea who that is and what he did.
Or why the gospel becomes name-it-claim-it.
For instance.
Brant says:
MB—“Honor” is a nice thing, seemingly. Yet Jesus warned us against it.
Yes, in one sense of the word, we should certainly honor our parents, or hold some achievements (curing disease) in higher regard than others (getting busted for DUI.)
But there’s no precedent, as far as I can tell, for putting certain people in the church in positions of honor. In fact, we’re flat-out warned against it.
It’s interesting to me (and since you’re Catholic, I would imagine you’d disagree) that even Peter, presumed first leader of the church, isn’t treated in any special way at all. In Acts 15, for instance, there’s an issue with a whole gathering of believers to work it out. Peter speaks, among others, but doesn’t even have the last word, and there’s no indication at all he has honor and some kind of eminence. He’s one of the leader-servants.
Jesus made it clear: If you want to be honored, don’t be a big-shot speaker or visionary. Be the foot-washer. Be on guard when people honor you—something’s amiss.
Vicki says:
About a year and a half after moving to the Nashville area, I was talking with one of my relatives at a family get together in another state, and one of the first things she asked me was, “Are there any celebrities in your church?” I knew what she meant because she is big into CCM. I had to say,”No,” and she was obviously disappointed. It made me uncomfortable that she would even ask such a question. When my husband and I were looking for a church home, seeking out one with “celebrity members” never occurred to us. But I’m guessing that there are plenty of folks out there like that relative who come to Nashville with that as their number one priority when visiting churches. It makes me sad.
Cali Amy says:
I heard a survey recently that said most teens when asked what they value most in life said, “fame.”
Over health, money, family, friends, good grades, getting into a good college, whatever.
I was surprised. What happened? I honestly don’t get it, but I was a teenager 10 years ago and don’t remember it being anything like this. Is it really YouTube (anyone can be famous) or is this just an extension of “it’s good to be popular” that teenagers have always had?
Anyway, the church has celebrity, the church has the “cool kids”, and the church most assuredly has cliques. It is very hard to love the way Jesus loved, and taught us to love. I guess change starts in our hearts…making sure we ARE loving that smelly woman, talking to her and inviting her over for dinner just as much as the cool new worship leader. You know?
MammasBoy says:
Brant,
While, I appreciate your willingness to engage in respectful discussion and appreciate your tone above, I think there is more to this topic than you’ve put forward.
“But there’s no precedent, as far as I can tell, for putting certain people in the church in positions of honor. In fact, we’re flat-out warned against it.
It’s interesting to me (and since you’re Catholic, I would imagine you’d disagree) that even Peter, presumed first leader of the church, isn’t treated in any special way at all.”
Two things.
1) How do you know Peter wasn’t treated “in any special way at all.” This seems to be an argument based on a lack of evidence, more than anything else. For the most part, we really don’t know what specific honor Peter was shown because his daily interactions with people aren’t recorded. What evidence we do have can certainly be interpreted to say that he did receive special honor, much more than the average Christian. I certainly have a different take on Acts 15 than you (as have the vast majority of Christians over the centuries). That doesn’t by itself make my interpretation right, but it should give one pause before dismissing it.
2) Regarding honoring folks, Scripture several times tells us to do so, even in the NT. Honor parents, honor the emperor (seriously), honor widows, etc. And you know who is supposed to get DOUBLE honor? Elders who RULE the church well.
“Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;” I Timothy 5:17
Of course elders who rule the church should infuse their rule with a spirit of humility and service and guard against pride. They will be held to a higher standard than the rest of us. However, that doesn’t do away with God’s command that we honor those in authority over us, both outside and inside the Church.
I’m not saying I disagree with everything people have written above. Much of it is very good. I have focused on one aspect of honor to the exclusion of others because I didn’t see it represented very well in the above thread. Balance is needed here because Scripture speaks neither in a solely approving way of honor, nor in a solely disapproving manner.
MB
Kyle says:
All this “fame” discussion makes me think of Bono quote:
“Celebrity is ridiculous and silly and it’s mad that people like me are listened to — you know, rap stars and movie stars. You know, rather than nurses and farmhands and others. But it is currency. Celebrity is currency, so I wanted to use mine effectively.”
Now, i’m not the biggest Bono fan in the world but, I wonder if this is some of what Paul was thinking when he was telling people to “do as he did” or imitate/celebrate him. He was (in a sense) using a God-given status of “celebrity” in the right way, by pointing to God.
Maybe “celebrity” isn’t “good” or “bad”, sort of like money isn’t “good” or “bad” it’s all how you view it and how you spend it. I mean burning $100 bills when you could use them to care for others is just as bad as keeping them in your greedy little pocket. Maybe “celebrity” is the same way.
Brant says:
MB—Totally agree on different senses of honor. There’s no question that we’re to honor one another, for instance, in important ways. I meant to get at this by using honoring our parents as an example, but I didn’t do a good job of stressing the different aspects of this.
Honor of a sort is great, and then there is another sense in which we are warned against it, and it sure seems the “celebrated” person sense. This is my contention with regard to celebrity culture. We are flat-out not to treat some as more important than others. Our celebrity culture does this.
I appreciate Kyle’s point about Bono, who’s twisting it to his (and, wonderfully, others’ advantage, which is the coolest. But, like he says, the culture of celebrity is ridiculous. Ridiculous and unfair and uneuqal is decidedly not neutral, especially for a church culture.
I rightly predicted you’d disagree with me on Peter. You’re a intelligent Catholic, with intelligent reasons for being Catholic. I have many reasons for not being Catholic, among them the absence of evidence, in my estimation of Peter-as-Holy Father-His-Holiness-Pope in, say, Acts 15. Folks can read for themselves and see if there’s anything pope-like going on there. I can always be wrong.
If we want leaders to lead without pride, as you say, perhaps(?) we shouldn’t be calling him “His Holiness” and asking him to live in splendor. I’m not picking on the Catholic Church here, there are American evangelical analogues, to be sure. We’re going to disagree along the usual lines, and I’m okay with that.
MammasBoy says:
Brant,
You said, “I have many reasons for not being Catholic, among them the absence of evidence, in my estimation of Peter-as-Holy Father-His-Holiness-Pope in, say, Acts 15. Folks can read for themselves and see if there’s anything pope-like going on there. I can always be wrong.”
When I said that I had a different take on Acts 15 than you, it had to do more with what conclusions I would expect to draw from the passage than a real difference on whether either of us thinks Acts 15 presents a case for papal supremacy (especially since you don’t give all the credit to James for the council’s decision, as my pastor did numerous times growing up). I was responding to the specific assertion “It’s interesting to me… that even Peter, presumed first leader of the church, isn’t treated in any special way at all. In Acts 15, for instance, there’s an issue with a whole gathering of believers to work it out.“
My point was that the assertion that Peter didn’t receive any special honor in the early church with Acts 15 presented as evidence is one made from sparse/arguably nonexistent evidence. For one, as an apostle, he was present at the council of Jerusalem, which most believers weren’t. Acts 15 wasn’t just a “gathering of believers” it was a gathering of the *Leaders* of the early church. It wasn’t a decision by democracy, it was a decision by the leadership in union with the Holy Spirit. At least they said that their decision was the same as the Holy Spirit and expected believers to trust them on that.
Acts 15 gives an account of the first ecumenical council. Sure, Peter took the lead at that council and was the first one to make the case for not requiring circumcision of the Gentiles, but like you said he was just one of several bishops at that council. If you look at later Church councils from Nicea to Vatican II, you will find similar patterns. The pope often plays a prominent role, but his voice isn’t necessarily the best remembered nor the most influential. In many ways, Peter played a more influential role at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 than numerous popes have done at later councils. Acts 15 isn’t considered by Catholics to be the basis for papal authority, but for the authority of the bishops to act in unison at a church council. You see, Jesus and the apostles never taught that after the apostles died the Church could never again be able to decide doctrine at a church council. I’m happy to be part of the Catholic Church which is still able to function as the NT church did with the bishops acting at council.
Regarding titles for the pope, you forgot another common one, Servant of the Servants of God. To a Catholic, these titles are indicative of the position and function of the pope, not necessarily of his personal character (though recent popes have been amazingly holy people). In that sense they are a *prophetic reminder to the pope of who he should be.* These titles aren’t exclusive to certain popes, but given to all while they live. You see, people love the pope because of the position he holds. We don’t honor the pope just because of some talent or characteristic that he possesses. The pope is a father figure, not a rock star. As Rodney Stark would recognize, that’s the beauty of organic movements like the Catholic Church. Any number of people could take the current pope’s place and lead just as well, receiving the same honor, recognition and authority, etc. It’s not about the person!
This is the weakness, I think of the CEO style of leadership that much of nondenominational American churches are based on. So much stock is put in personal talent, etc, that churches find it difficult to continue with the same gusto once a particular charismatic pastor passes on. They like to say it will continue and sometimes another leader is brought forward to take their place, but the organizations themselves are heavily dependent on charismatic personalities to lead.
In addition, prayer is a tremendous protection against sin, even against the sin of pride. If the prayer of a righteous man avails much, how much more the prayers of millions of righteous people. And that’s what people are doing for the pope every hour of every day of every month of every year of his pontificate. In nearly every mass in every Catholic church and in millions upon millions of homes, the pope is being lifted up in prayer before almighty God, pleading for His favor and protection upon the pope.
Seriously, Brant (or anyone else), can you imagine what would happen in your own life if 10 or 20 tremendously holy people began praying for you every hour of every day? Try multiplying that a million and you will get a feel for the kind of heavenly aid the pope receives. Throw in somebody who is assigned to be your confessor, hold you accountable before God and dispense God’s mercy to you in the manner of John 20:21-23 and you will further understand the kind of support and accountability he has.
Lastly, being the pope isn’t something most Catholics would wish on those they love, and the current pope is a good example of that. Ratzinger had asked JPII to appoint someone else to head the CDF numerous times and was always refused. He continued on in his position in Rome *out of obedience,* but it was well known that he had been trying for several years to return to his academic roots in Germany and end his life in quiet study and writing. The papacy is a position given to somebody often at the end of their life when they are ready to cut down on the amount of work and travel that they do. It is a position for which there is tremendous pressure and no real break and which one holds until death. Even misinterpreted words ripped entirely out of context may result in the death/martyrdom of people associated with your faith (as happened to a nurse/nun in Africa when the Pope’s remarks at the University of Regensburg were ripped out of context by ignoramus reporters and further used to incite Muslim riots around the world).
In conclusion, while it is true that you, “rightly predicted (I’d) disagree with (you) on Peter,“ you mostly got the substance of the disagreement on Acts 15 wrong. It also appears to me that you misunderstand the nature of the honor Catholics give to the pope.
MB
Talena says:
I have had a few opportunities to meet “famous” people. I usually decline by choice, simply by not availing myself of the opportunity. Why? I figure they have enough people vying for their time and attention, and would rather just go home to some quiet time after their public show is over. I don’t know if it’s just the Canadian in me, but I just respect their right to privacy. They wouldn’t remember my name if I introduced myself, so why bother them? It won’t make me any more important to say I shook their hand once. They are just a person who puts their socks on one at a time in the mornings, just like me.
There are a few famous people I would like to meet, but not to ogle them. They are my song-writing heroes, and what I really want to do is go for coffee and pick their brains, to learn what they know and glean any little thing I can that might help me improve my craft. To learn from those famous leaders.
So, you wanna go for coffee, Shaun? Oh, wait. I see by the stain in the bottom-right corner you’ve got your cup already…