9 Thoughts on Celebrity Pastors, Controversy, the New Calvinism

1. The term “celebrity pastor” is decidedly pejorative. I don’t know anyone who would be happy to own the phrase. That doesn’t mean we can’t use it. But it means we should not attach it to pastors in a knee jerk way. A Christian with some combination of influence, social media followers, books, a large church, and speaking engagements may be a public Christian or a well known individual, but let’s not use “celebrity pastor” unless we mean to say he relishes the spotlight, has schemed his way into the spotlight, and carries himself as being above mere mortals. Does this fit some popular preachers? Probably. Does it fit all of them? By no means.

2. Having said that, let us beware of the many devilish dangers that can beset us in this internet age. Have there always been Christians mired in controversy? Have there always been popular preachers? Have there always been charlatans in the church? Yes, yes, and yes. These things are not new. What is new is the myriad of ways we can channel our pride, feed our pride, and keep numerical count of our pride. I don’t think I’ve read a negative post on celebrity pastors or the evangelical industrial complex that doesn’t touch on legitimate issues and very real dangers. This is not a throwaway point. We need warnings. I need them too.   Continue at Kevin De Young

See also: For What it's Worth

Evolutionists Running Scared

The anti-creationist website Panda’s Thumb has an item about the upcoming debate between Bill Nye (the “Science Guy” of TV fame) and me. AiG released information about this February 4 debate yesterday on our website.

It didn’t take long before social media went nuts when Christians and non-Christians began to find out about this debate.

But there is a common thread through the social media posts from secularists others—they want Bill Nye to cancel. Why? Well read this post on the Panda’s Thumb website:

Bill Nye to debate Ken Ham?!

Let us hope not, but a reader just sent me the following from Mr. Ham’s Facebook page:

‘Well the big news for 2014 as we begin this new year is that in February, at the Creation Museum, I will be debating the well known Bill Nye The Science Guy! In the next day or so we will post more details including how you can buy tickets to this event. It’s quite rare these days for such a well known evolutionist to publicly debate a creationist–so we do expect a lot of media interest. For now, I just wanted to let you know about this–keep watch for details!’   Continue at Ken Ham

This Is Not Worth Quacking About

Did A&E know what would happen when it suspended Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson? Whether it was intentional or not, they are cashing in on trillions worth of free advertising.

Perhaps it’s really about LGBT rights at the cable and satellite television channel, half owned by Disney-ABC. But then there’s also the almighty dollar. Conceding to the LGBT agenda is increasingly what’s most profitable, what saves most face, and what brings least financial repercussion. And even more profitable is a firestorm that mobilizes the nation’s mass media and social media into doing more free promotion for the show and the network than anyone could ever pay for.

If it is a calculated move, we’re falling for it, hook, line, and sinker. And in trying to raise the question, even this post must slide halfway into the same trap. I’ll try not to mention the show and network by name again and lend any more help to the campaign.    Continue at David Mathis

9 Lies the Media Likes to Tell About Evangelical Christians

I realize that “the media” is not a monolith. So I’m using the word generally here.

However, I keep seeing the following narrative played out in scores of interviews, commentaries, and pundit discussions across the TV news networks, magazines, and the Internet.

So while there are certainly exceptions, I’ve identified nine common lies perpetuated by people in the media. Granted, there are enough vocal evangelicals to bolster each of these stereotypes, so the media isn’t completely responsible. But nuance is necessary here. Thus this post.

Lie 1. Evangelical Christians are intolerant. “Intolerance” is the new clay word that is used to strong-arm an entire group of people who dissent from the conventional wisdom. Thus if a person believes that Jesus is the only way to receive eternal life (as most evangelicals do), they are deemed “intolerant” because the conventional wisdom is to believe that eternal life doesn’t exist.  Continue at Frank Viola

HOW TO SHARE THE GOSPEL ON YOUR WEBSITE

Hello again from your friends at Church Plant Media. We’re here with a few more ideas for your church website content. With Advent upon us and Christmas quickly approaching, we wanted to encourage our brothers and sisters in Christ to share the gospel online. As we all know, this is the time of year when people are the most likely to attend your church service and visit your church website.

In his book, Gospel Deeps: Reveling in the Excellencies of Jesus, Pastor Jared Wilson writes, “The gospel’s content—Jesus’s sinless life, sacrificial death, and bodily resurrection—is deep and multifaceted… Or we may say that the gospel is a diamond—it is… one precious jewel with many different facets, each with a brilliance and vision of its own.” With this in mind, we acknowledge that there are as many different ways to share the gospel as there are facets on a diamond. But even the beauty of a diamond can be conveyed with simplicity.   Continue at Tim Challies

Why I Object to Screen Preaching

Is it okay for a preacher to speak to a Christian gathering via a screen? Or is it important that he be physically present with them? In an earlier article I suggested in passing that "it matters for the preacher to be physically present to preach in the assembly of the church." That remark prompted both a comment that numerous churches (including several led by TGC Council Members) now function as multi-site gatherings in which the pastor preaches from a screen, and a request that I write another piece exploring this question more deeply. So here goes. Let me say at the start that I want to stand by what I said. But I want to nuance it.

Two Invalid Reasons

Before I get to the heart of my case, we need to clear away some debris from our thinking. There are at least two invalid reasons why we may object to preachers on screens. The first is downright worldly: envy. It's never crossed anyone's mind to suggest I should preach to several congregations via screens because, well, my preaching is not of that quality. Would that it were! As a pastor infected with the disease of ministerial envy and pride, I can feel irritated when others' preaching is so good that people want to see them even through a screen. I'm ashamed of my attitude, and I ought to be ashamed. I write from the UK, where the Christian scene is so small that we have (to my knowledge) no multi-campus churches and no preachers sufficiently well-known for this setup to be requested. So, in my perverse British (nay, English) way, I instinctively don't like the idea. That dislike is worldly and needs to be cleared out of the way.

The second invalid reason is cultural conservatism: I don't like it because I'm not used to it. In the same way, I don't really like using an electronic diary; I use one, but it feels wrong. But this is simply because I'm getting old (in my 50s, no less, and how geriatric in our culture) and am in danger of becoming a cultural dinosaur. No doubt a previous generation didn't feel the telephone was a natural instrument to use. The fact that it doesn't feel right isn't an argument against it; indeed, it may simply be a challenge to me to adapt and get used to it.

It cannot be absolutely wrong to preach by a means more remote than immediate bodily presence. The apostles wrote letters and clearly regarded them as a valid and authoritative way to communicate. Paul even instructed the church in Colossae to read his letter out in the church of the Laodiceans as well (Col. 4:16).    Continue at Christopher Ash

When God Judges a Culture

“The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave…” ~ Genesis 18:20

With the gay marriage question before the Supreme Court, the media (social, news, or otherwise) outlets of our culture have seen an explosion of activity and strong opinion in both directions.  At the core of this issue is the notion of homosexuality itself, and such always seems to draw minds to the story of God’s judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis.  God determined to rain his judgment and wrath upon the culture of those cities because of the greatness of their sin.  A hint of this sin is seen in Genesis 19 when two angels in the appearance of men go into Sodom and Lot welcomes them into his house, only to have men from the city surround the house and demand to forcibly have sexual relations with them (or in other words…to rape them).

The term sodomy itself shows the history of our religious culture’s connection of the events in Genesis with homosexual activity.  Yet a simple reading of the Genesis account shows that this wasn’t merely an issue of prevailing homosexuality itself.  Rather the perverseness of the men’s actions goes to something much deeper—an active abuse of others for the sake of self pleasure.  Furthermore, Ezekiel 16:46-50 shows how the greatness of their sin came in the totality of their unrighteousness and not because of a single issue—they were also prideful and prosperous yet neglected the poor and needy.  God says, “They were haughty and did an abomination before me.  So I removed them, when I saw it.”  Continue at Mike Bergman

Every Pastor's Job Description

Many of my favorite people are pastors. I grew up the son of a pastor and the grandson of a pastor. And after more than four decades of my own pastoral ministry, and many years of training young men for their own, I think I have a good understanding of a pastor’s heart—both his joys and his struggles.

These days, my heart aches for pastors.

It aches because today their job is as difficult as it has ever been. We live in an anti-authority culture—one that has lost all respect for people in positions of authority and influence. The modern mindset is to tear down everybody and everything. It’s a destructive culture, driven by fierce pride and runaway self-esteem. It seems very few pastors are run out of their churches over bad sermons or ineffective ministry—usually, they’re run out by a person or a group contending for power and authority.

That difficulty is compounded by the intimidation of massive media ministries and celebrity preachers on TV, the Internet, and in flat-screen churches all over the country. Pastors today are told they need to embody an entrepreneurial spirit—that they need to grow their churches the way you would grow a business. They hear a lot about needing to impact the culture and engage the community, and they get all kinds of pragmatic advice on how to accomplish that. They’re told they need to reach beyond the church and revolutionize society. In fact, it seems much of the modern pastor’s work is supposed to take place outside the church.   Continue at John F. MacArthur Jr.

27 Murders After Breakfast

A deepening sense of sadness is growing within me this week. It is a sadness which is welling from my spirit for the families who are heart-broken by Friday’s shooting.  The grief and loss they are dealing with is beyond expression.

I am also saddened by some of the foolishness being seen on social media.  Amidst the heartfelt sympathies, there are glib comments, arguing over silly issues, and a hardness shown by those with a point to make that is disturbing (both liberal and conservative.)

I am saddened for our country.  How can we live in a land where these things happen?  As a pastor, I know the spiritual reason. But really, how does someone murder 27 people after breakfast?  How do we have a society where such an act can happen? I mean – the building was secure, safety procedures were being followed.  But this young man was so intent on slaughtering children that he blasted his way through a door and window to begin the killing spree.  Why?

It would be so easy for me to slip into my “preacher-mode” here; and, in a sense, that would be appropriate.  And to some extent, that is what I’m doing.

But would you please think with me…

Why?

Is it guns?

Is it video games?

Is it the fervency to remove God from anything “public”?

Is it a lack of education?

Is it liberal fanatics?  Or conservative?

Is it?

If all of these were “fixed” to the degree society found acceptable, would that prevent further massacres? Would it?

I don’t think so.  In fact, I know it wouldn’t. No, definitely No. No matter how much I wish the solution was that easy, fixing those things is not the answer.

Our problem is not a lack of education or social civility.  It is not a lack of police or the proliferation of weapons. It is not entrenched political beliefs at either end of the spectrum.  It is also not a biological problem that can be fixed with chemicals.   Continue at Shawn Barr

See Also: The lessons from Newtown are not Political

Using Common Media for Church Growth

(My first published article, in Christian Renewal!)
Spotts, Michael. “Using Common Media For Church Growth.” Christian Renewal, May 18, 2011, 25-27.

In discussing the best use of social media in relation to Church growth, it’s neither as a veteran church planter nor seasoned missionary that I’m able to address the issue. I speak instead from the vantage of an avid user and beneficiary of certain aspects of modern networking. For the past eight years, my work in photography and Web design has revolved around an online presence. More meaningfully, the Internet served as the gateway to my own membership in a Reformed Church, but I’ll come to that later. What I would like to do is open up a conversation on the differences between different types of media for growing local bodies of believers.

USING NEW TECHNOLOGY IS NOTHING NEW

When it comes to turning communication technologies into means of extending the evangel, Solomon’s words ring truer than ever — “there is nothing new under the sun.” For two millennia the Church has capitalized on every advance in the art. From the transition of scrolls to portable codices, and the printing press; the transatlantic jaunt of sermons by telegraph in the late 1800’s, up to the present transmission of text-message invitations to evening services, we have adapted developments in media to suit the purposes of the Great Commission.

THE RIGHT AND WRONG USE OF COMMON MEDIA

For purposes of this discussion, I’ll distinguish between two sorts of media, ordained and common. Ordained media pertains to the instituted means by which God ordinarily speaks to His people, namely, Word and Sacrament. Common media, on the other hand, involves every form of communication common to man, which can be used to bring people into contact with the Church in her ordained ministry. No doubt, harnessing common media for Christ’s sake sometimes leads to miscommunication about what constitutes true Christian life.  Continue at Michael Spotts

Legitimate Exceptions for Abortion?

Justin Taylor has put together an article entitled “Exceptions for Abortion?” which contains much wisdom about this very sensitive subject. He writes:

I assume by now that most readers are aware of the controversy regarding comments by candidate Richard Mourdock, who is running for Senate, regarding rape not being an exception for abortion. In a recent debate, when asked about the issue, he responded:

This is that issue that every candidate for federal, or even state, office faces, and I too stand for life. I know there are some who disagree and I respect their point of view and I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have [for abortion] is in that case [where] the life of the mother [is threatened]. I struggled with it for a long time, but I came to realize that life is a gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something that God intended to happen.

President Obama, through a spokesperson, “felt those comments were outrageous and demeaning to women.”

There are many angles to this story, including media ignorance, media malfeasance, political clumsiness, bioethics, and Christian witness.

Many members of the media pounced on the story, reporting that Mr. Murdock said that rapes were intended by God. Al Mohler has an important commentary on this today. He writes:

The controversy over his statements reveals the irresponsibility of so many in the media and the political arena. The characterizations and willful distortions of Mourdock’s words amount to nothing less than lies.  Continue at John Samson

10 Questions a Pro-Choice Candidate Is Never Asked by the Media

The media almost always give pro-choice politicians a pass when it comes to questions about abortion. The questions that reporters ask rarely get to the heart of the issue—the humanity of the unborn. Moreover, reporters nearly always fail to ask tough follow-up questions of pro-choice politicians. This state of affairs has long been a frustration to pro-life people who are watching the media scrutiny only going towards one side. That is why I love Trevin Wax’s fantastic post over at his blog titled, “10 Questions a Pro-Choice Candidate Is Never Asked by the Media.” His list of questions includes this:

“You describe abortion as a “tragic choice.” If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?”

This is brilliant list, and I would add at least one more question to it. Here it is:

When President Barack Obama was State Senator in Illinois, he voted four times to deny lifesaving care to babies that are born alive after botched abortions. Do you believe that doctors should be required by law to provide lifesaving care to babies born alive after botched abortions?

If the question is posed to President Obama himself, here’s how I would like to see it asked:   Continue at Denny Burk

Reforming Youth Ministry

For too long we have blamed the rebellion of our young people on such things as our school system, broken homes and the influence of the media. As a pastor and youth worker I refuse to point the finger at society anymore. I am not saying the declining morality of our society and the break down of our family structure has not affected our kids. It definitely has had a large impact, but part of the blame is a little closer to home than we like to admit. It is time we stop pointing the finger at our world and point it right back at the church. 

J. I. Packer wrote, "Disregard the study of God, and you sentence yourself to stumble and blunder through life blindfolded, as it were, with no sense of direction and no understanding of what surrounds you. This way you can waste your life and lose your soul." Without a proper understanding of God, our youth will "stumble and blunder" their way to hell. What truths do we want to instill in our kids when they attend our church youth groups? Sex, drugs, peer pressure, dating and other such topics are OK, but are we really meeting our kids' needs or are we just applying a Band-Aid to a gaping wound? If our church youth group is not attempting to teach our kids the attributes and actions of God our Father, then it is we who are at fault for the rebellious acts of our young people.

Paul reminds us, "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one (Rom 3: 10b-12)." If no one is seeking after God, why are we afraid to offend the non-believer with our message? If no one is seeking after God, then the students in your youth group are there because God has drawn them (Jn 6:44). Unless God changes their heart, there will never be a true outward change.

We must be faithful to preach it!

 

The Holy Spirit will help your students with even the most difficult passages (Jn 14:26). We must be faithful to study and present the complex truths of God's Word and allow the Holy Spirit to use it and apply it to their life. We must be faithful to preach all of God's Word on their level!

It is time we teach our students the heart of God's Word. I am not talking about Christianity 101, but the no-holds-barred approach to the truth. It is time our youth groups tackle issues such as: the holiness of God, the total depravity of man, divine sovereignty, justification and sanctification. Some people feel these issues are too lofty for our young people, but I think it is the cure for which we have begun searching. Until we begin to tackle a proper study of God and the deep, rich truths of His Word, we are guilty of sentencing our kids to a life with no direction and no understanding.   Continue at David Fields

The Emergence of Digital Childhood — Is This Really Wise?

The easiest way to infuriate the young is to lean into nostalgia. Nevertheless, it’s hard not to be nostalgic for a childhood in which the basic equipment for elementary school was pretty much limited to notebooks, pencils, and an occasional ruler. Those days are long gone.

Verizon Wireless recently released a national survey of parents. The study revealed that the average age at which parents give their children their first cell phone is 11.6. Do sixth graders really need a cell phone?

Well, hold on. The same survey indicated that ten percent of parents give their children a cell phone between the ages of 7 and 9. A recent Nielsen Company study indicated that the average age for a first phone in many families may be as low as 9.7.

 Most parents said that safety is their concern. But how many 7-9 year-olds are waiting on the curb at the mall for mom to pick them up? Maybe I don’t want to know the answer to that question. In reality, few second-graders need a cell phone for safety in that sense. Something else is going on here, and the net result is that children are being pushed into the digital world at ever-earlier ages.  Keep Reading >>>

“Like the Air They Breathe” — The Online Life of Kids

Media Matters

Why is it that as a culture in the developing world, we put our heads in the sand and vociferously protest there is no connection between the media we consume and our actions? Yet, other studies show that when television is introduced to new areas of developing nations, there is a measurable change in behavior. Do we think we are somehow immune to the effect of media in our own nation? Do we think we can allow people the fantasy of degrading and brutalizing others (especially women) and argue that this thought life will not eventually affect behavior?! Read the rest HERE