- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (9/2)
- Next Post »A La Carte (9/3)
The Nameless One
- 09/02/09
- 25
Today we take a break from our regularly scheduled programming. I had something else to post today but wanted to put it on hold for a day or two so I can draw your attention to what I consider a very important article. It comes from Carl Trueman and is titled “The Nameless One.” In the past few months I’ve sat down again and again to write out some of my thoughts about the whole Young, Restless, Reformed movement we are experiencing today. But never have I quite been able to convey my thoughts on it as clearly and succinctly as I’d like. I’ve wanted to share both praise for what God is doing and misgivings for what I think we, the church, are doing poorly. Never was I able to strike the balance, so I just left it rotting in my drafts folder.
Trueman, though, has nailed it. Here is how he begins:
Over the last few months, I have been asked in numerous contexts what I think about the young, restless and reformed (YRR) movement(s) described in Collin Hansen’s book of the same name. I did do a quasi -review of this book some time ago, in which I argued that the existence of the movement seemed to indicate that all the hype surrounding the emergent business was probably overwrought and that there was no need for complete panic in Reformed circles.
In retrospect, however, there are a number of things which should give some cause for critical reflection on this new interest in Reformed theology. Let me preface this by saying that the more people reading the Bible, the better, as far as I am concerned; the more people going to church and hearing the gospel preached, the more we should all be rejoicing; and the more people studying the writings of Calvin, Owen and company, the happier we should all be. Only the modern day equivalents of the Scottish Moderates of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries would grumble and complain that more people are spending more time hearing more sermons, reading more scripture and studying more classic Christian literature. But just because a movement has good effects does not mean that we should be blind to its shortcomings and potential pitfalls.
It’s probably best if you go ahead and read the article. You can do so right here.
In my many conversations about all things YRR, I’ve said time and again that it is, in my opinion, a uniquely American phenomenon. Sure it has spilled over to other countries, but its roots are American and its “heroes” are largely American. And still I’ve wondered if it will take a non-American to explain it. Several times I’ve spoken to non-Americans about the phenomenon and they’ve always agreed that the U.S. cult of celebrity is at least one of the root causes of what we see in the church. I think Trueman captures some of this with these words: “One striking and worrying aspect of the movement is how personality oriented it is. It is identified with certain big names, rather than creeds, confessions, denominations, or even local congregations. Such has always been the way with Christianity to some extent. Luther was a hero, both in his own time and for subsequent generations, and he is hardly alone. The names of Owen, Edwards, and Spurgeon, to list but three, also have great cachet; and, if we are honest, there are things which we all find in their writing which are scarcely unique to them but which we are inclined to take more seriously because it is these men who wrote the words on the page.” Said even stronger, “The world has Brad, Anjelina, Tom, Barack, and so on; the Christian world has - well, I am sure the reader is quite capable of filling in the blanks. All too often we’re a bit too much like the church in Corinth, with its Christian competitive equivalents to pagan Sophists.”
If we see the YRR movement as essentially built upon and around celebrities (many of them as flabbergasted as anyone by their sudden rise to prominence) we begin to see other concerns. “The supply side economics of the YRR movement is also worrying here, as it can easily foster such idolatry by building up a leader’s importance out of all proportion to his talent. Let’s face it: no preacher is so good that his every sermon deserves to be printed or his every thought published; but some contemporary leaders are heading fast in that direction, and this can only fuel their cultic significance for those needing someone to follow. Come on, chaps, everyone preaches a disastrous clunker once in a while; and many actually preach them with remarkable and impressive regularity. The world therefore does not need to read every word you ever utter from a pulpit; and not every electrical impulse which sparks between the synapses in your grey matter needs to be written down, turned into yet another expository commentary, and sold for 15% net royalties at the local Christian bookshop.”
We are seeing as well that as Reformed goes mainstream, every publisher wants its slice of the pie. That raises this concern: “Carrying on from this danger of personality cults, part of me also wonders if the excitement surrounding the movement is generated because people see that Reformed theology has intrinsic truth or because they see that it works, at least along the typical American lines of numbers of bodies on seats (in Britain, we’d say `bums on seats’ but that phrase rather gains in translation).” “It works” (a.k.a. “it sells”) is enough of a reason for many of the publishers to make sure they are publishing books to appeal to the audience, for musicians to play up their Reformed connections, and so on.
Trueman’s final concern, the one that gave his article its name, is this: “Finally, I worry that a movement built on megachurches, megaconferences, and megaleaders, does the church a disservice in one very important way that is often missed amid all the pizzazz and excitement: it creates the idea that church life is always going to be big, loud, and exhilarating and thus gives church members and ministerial candidates unrealistic expectations of the normal Christian life.”
The article closes this way:
Ultimately, only the long term will show if the YRR movement has genuinely orthodox backbone and stamina, whether it is inextricably and inseparably linked to uniquely talented leaders, and whether `Calvinism is cool’ is just one more sales pitch in the religious section of the cultural department store. If the movement is more marketing than reality, then ten to fifteen years should allow us to tell. If it is still orthodox by that point, we can be reasonably sure it is genuine. Indeed, when torn jeans, or nose rings, or ministers talking about their sex lives from the pulpit become pass or so commonplace that they cease to be distinctive, we will see if it is timeless truth or marketable trendiness which has really driven the movement; and, even it proves to have been the latter, we should not panic. We will still be left with the boring, mundane and nameless people and culturally irrelevant and marginal churches - the nameless ones — upon whose anonymous contributions, past and present, most of us actually depend.
I do want to give glory to God for what seems to be a clear work of his hand. He is stirring people with old truths that, for so many years, had gone into serious decline. At the same time, whatever movement there is to Reformed theology seems to be driven more by personality than confession or creed. My overriding concern with YRR from the very start is that it is a kind of ecumenical Reformed Christianity, picking only the bits that appeal. So we take the soteriology and ignore the ecclesiology. We cherry pick the bits we want and put the rest aside. While there is not necessarily anything wrong with this, my sense of history is strong enough to know that this is rarely a mark of strength. What coordinates the movement, what truly holds it together, is less a common theology and more a common list of heroes and celebrities. And that is not a firm foundation; though fun while it lasts, I just do not see how it can stand the test of time.
I would love to hear your impressions of Trueman’s article once you’ve had time to read it.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (25)
Greetings, Tim:
I had just finished reading Trueman’s article, sending the link to a friend and printing it off for myself and another friend, when I visited your blog and read your comments. Bravo! I have found Carl Trueman’s commentaries most insightful, humourous and right on target.
My personal convictions regarding Reformed theology are a result of struggles with assurance over a number of years, and also as a result of personal study of the scriptures and the discovery of these precious truths. Your comments re his article are much appreciated. While my “discovery” of the formal teaching of Reformed theology is recent and mainly through the teaching of John Piper, I too share yours and Trueman’s concerns that we embrace this theology because it is biblical and not because of what a theological “star” proclaims.
Having said this, I do appreciate what I consider to be Piper’s genuine personal humility combined with his ability to preach/teach/apply the scriptures accurately while exalting Christ consistently. Hopefully this is not hero-worship!
I am currently reading J.I. Packer’s “A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life”. Chapter 11 on “The Witness of the Spirit in Puritan Thought” exactly describes my experience and also one aspect of how God works in this vital area of the Christian life. This application of reformed theology is one that I believe is not often dealt with. Packer’s analysis in my view is most descriptive and encouraging.
Tim, this was a great post. I have not read Truman’s full post, but you had me cheering right up till the end … then, just as I was throwing my hands up in jubilation, I realized I was vulnerable to a punch in the gut with this statement, which left me momentarily breathless: “So we take the soteriology and ignore the ecclesiology. We cherry pick the bits we want and put the rest aside. While there is not necessarily anything wrong with this, my sense of history is strong enough to know that this is rarely a mark of strength.”
I was not raised in a Christian home, did not have the benefit of early church influence, and, after coming to faith, have been reared and serve in a wonderful denomination, that is, however, not decidely reformed (but welcomes such folk). I have, however, over the years of searching and seeking to submit to the text of Scripture come to increasingly find myself described by what is called “reformed” theology. I have taken this not as a system, but as a conclusion based upon interaction with Scripture and from wrestling with God. I am in process and have not yet been able to fully suscribe to all things “reformed,” but just the other day described myself to someone as one who has come to realize I am reformed in my soteriology, but still studying and seeking to work out where I stand with many other parts of reformed theolgy.
I had thought this a sound and solid approach to theology, but now it sounds as if this is “not a mark of strength.” If I have misunderstood your intent with these words, please help me.
Again, I applaude the great thrust of your post. I am delighted to hear your words exposing our celebrity-cult sub-culture, etc. But as for me, I am going to keep searching my Bible first and continuing to search out whether indeed where it leads me is in conformity to what is described as reformed theology. I don’t think this either a cop out or a selfishly driven quest, but I trust, by God’s grace, one which seeking out His glory and truth.
I believe I read that the term “celebrity” became fashionable and was first used to describe preachers such as Billy Sunday. People swarmed the tent meetings to see his antics more than they did to hear the truth.
Were it not for the “Live Blogging” phenomenon (which you were instrumental in starting) most of us wouldn’t know anything of the sermon content at conferences but we would still have been informed of the books that were given away and the quality of the music.
Trueman’s article was good but I still believe, and always have, that the YRR movement would be better described as YRC (Young, Restless and Calvinistic). There isn’t much about it that carries a Reformed Worldview.
To be “Reformed” is to avoid even the hint of a personality cult. As Trueman said:”Luther never became rich, despite his great stature, and never headed up a ministry named after himself, or posted a fee-schedule for speaking engagements on his website. Far from it. He even had to take employment as a gardener and a carpenter to make ends meet during the Reformation; and neither Owen, Edwards nor Spurgeon ever enjoyed the good life to any great extent, with the latter even having his life arguably shortened by the battle for truth in which he engaged first hand,’
This movement, however, has had a good run. I think it’s been around for the last 10-15 years. Perhaps it will prove to be more than a passing fad.
Tim,I read Trueman’s article yesterday from the Reformation 21 e-mail and was pleased to see your post about it today. What hit me most was the discussion of what is essentially pastor worship which I suppose is the price we pay for access through radio or the web to, primarily, solid preaching that we wouldn’t hear otherwise. For those of us who have been in that local church Trueman describes listening to good but not breathtaking sermons, teaching Sunday school, leading small groups, etc. only to find that the next pastor that is called does not even preach good sermons but theologically questionable ones the thought of doing the church search and sitting through possibly good but possibly not sermons trying to determine if a church is solid is exhausting especially with kids in tow. We headed directly down to Bethlehem Baptist and John Piper and have been exhorted beyond our expectations. I do have to remind my kids (and myself at times) that it is not the pastor I am worshipping but the God who has placed in this pastor the love for HIs Word and ability to preach and teach from it with clarity, charity and grace. Our generation has been greatly blessed by the proliferation of avenues to hear solid preaching and teaching but I do agree with Trueman that our prayer should be that those opportunities strengthen the ties to solid, if sometimes unexciting, local churches, ministries and small groups and not promote a celebrity pastor culture in American Christendom.
I wonder if using the word “celebrity”-pastor is a bit misleading…I mean what person doesn’t hear that word and immediately want to distance themselves from it?
Is there anything inherently wrong with high-profile pastors in today’s world? Is it even possible to avoid having these faces in a world connected by blogs, twitter, etc?
I look and see a large group of “celebrity” pastors…but it seems to me their humility, accountability to gospel-faithfulness, Christ-centeredness, etc. doesn’t make them much of an Angelina-type celebrity. Can’t the gospel create a “sanctified-celebrity” of some sort?
Just some thoughts. I certainly hear the warning….and have heard many of the “celebrity”-pastors themselves warn against this very thing….but also wonder if it isn’t part of the complexity of being ambassadors for Christ in today’s world….
I probably wouldn’t have read this post or Trueman’s article if it weren’t for your celebrity status ;)
“Celebrity” preachers will always be around…they have been since the day of Paul. So I’m not sure their existence should concern us as much as their quality. I, for one, am very grateful that these are the “celebrity” preachers rather than the previous bunch of “celebrity” prosperity/”name-it-and-claim-it” preachers.
The ‘celebrity’ stuff is, indeed, odd to a non-American, like myself. But, having lived in the US for a good portion of my life, I have also witneseds the celebrity status of politicians there, as compared to politicians in my own country (Canada). So, there must a sociological reason for the existence of such a culture in the USA as compared to elsewhere.
It seems, to me at least, that evangelical Americans are doing with the Church what they do with their government. They pick a “team”, register with it (there is no such thing as registering with political parties in Canada, so votes are generally more fluid at election time), and stick with it through thick and thin. In fact, the idea that “my dad and his dad were Republicans/Democrats, so that’s what I am too” seems especially prevalent.
I fear that American evangelicals are doing the same thing to the Church, and that it is rubbing off on the evangelical Church elsewhere. The “I follow Piper”, “I follow Driscoll”, “I follow Bell” stuff is rather - and unfortunately - Scripturally familiar. It saddens me, because it is serving to divide the Church… particularly when those “I follow” phrases are spiced with harsh rhetoric from various blogs (not this one!), podcasts, or pulpits.
Whoever thinks “Calvinism is cool” is obviously not serving in a Baptist church in the Deep South.
I think Trueman exaggerates to make his point and while he has some valid warnings I think he is rather harsh in his critique. I’d also beg to differ when he makes the comment that Spurgeon didn’t suffer from a cult of personality in his day - I think he did.
The article also fails to comment on the humility of many of the men at the centre of YRR - Piper, Driscoll, Keller et al aren’t seeking to be centre stage but seeking to make a difference. It smacks of tall-poppy syndrome that we want to cut them down when we feel that they’ve grown too tall.
Where I agree with Trueman is when he says most of us belong to small churches (less than 100) where sometimes little seems to happen and not mega churches where every day new and exciting things seem to be happening. We must be very aware of, not the cult of personalities but more the cult of size.
There are many good warnings in the article but beware throwing the baby out with the bath water just because some elements aren’t to our taste.
Trueman: no preacher is so good that his every sermon deserves to be printed or his every thought published
And yet many of the “heroes” of the YRR movement get their every word picked apart by those who don’t like something and defended blindly by those who see their “hero” under attack.
This problem probably isn’t unique to the YRR movement, but man, has the movement elevated both factors into an art form!
E.G.
Could it be that the sociological reason behind Americans making celebrities of their politicians is, in essence, a replacement of the monarchy the Americian colonists rebelled against? Canadians still have their constitutional monarchy.
Could be that inherent in all people is the need to have a “king”.
I read Trueman’s and your article Tim and yea excellent observations!! I just wonder how it will go over with the reformed celebs. I’ve never been to these reformed conferences but the pastors and elders of my church have and I have been questioning with much guilt many of these guys in my own heart and this article releases me from some of that. This kind of hero worship can be disastrous and I have seen it first hand in the charismatic movement although these guys seem to have it a little more together in the morality area than many of those guys but the money, book sales thing and popularity thing is subtle I mean I have no problem with a guy selling a million books and making money but if they cant handel it it will destroy them. Also I would add this type teaching is not really exportable to other cultures I have missionary friends in Africa, Vietnam and India and other than the gospel this type of reformed teaching is non existent, and I would also add that it is virtually non existent in the black churches of America as well, you have a few exception like Tony Evans but he’s not really part of this reformed movement. But Trueman is the first person I have heard talk about this.Thanks Mike
I appreciate the celeb reformed preachers; Piper, Chandler, etc., who balance out the unreformed celebs and the damage they do to the church at large. The “center of gravity” of the body of Christ seems to be gravitating back to the true gospel, and I thank the Lord for calling up these willing servants.
God used Piper to change my life about 2 1/2 years ago. I never loved Jesus and Our Sovereign Father like I do today thanks to his faithful messages of the Word of God. Nobody can deny the work of Our Father in these men we speak of.
But I can understand how raising the issue of the cult of personality is a good thing; especially in regards to such effective communicators like Piper/Driscoll/Chandler/Keller/etc…
To this point: Ed Stetzer commented at Advance09 that we have to be careful that the conferences or how we look at the leaders of the movement does not turn into “ministry porn.” My wife and I loved that comment and it was a good admonition to everyone. We need to stay focused on our mission - proclamation of the Gospel in our Savior Jesus Christ. From the big events to the smallest congregation. God will use many people in many places big and small to complete His Plan. Let us stay focused in this!
Mike: you wrote “I mean I have no problem with a guy selling a million books and making money” … that depends on who you are talking about. As far as I know, Piper gives every dime to either the ministries at DG (including the Philippean Fellowship) missions, or other things. See this: http://www.desiringgod.org/AboutUs/SupportDg/Donate/TheCurrencyOfChristianHedonism/ Also, Driscoll has announced that every dime he gets from books goes to Mars Hill Seattle.
To their defense as brothers and sisters - we should all pray that each of these high-profile preachers and leaders remain faithful. The burden of responsibility and influence they carry is a load few can carry. O how easy it is to stumble. May God protect them from sin and the evil one.
Also, I will object to this statement: “Also I would add this type teaching is not really exportable to other cultures” This is an inaccurate statement historically. Andrew Fuller, Samuel Pearce, John Sutcliffe and William Carey (who spend 40 years in India and never came home) gave birth to the modern missionary movement in the 1700s followed by David Livingstone, Adoniram Judson, Alexander Duff, John Paton.
If believed correctly (that is, non-HyperCalvinistic) - reformed theology has and should feed missions. God has people in every tribe, nation and tongue. This is our call. This is our mission.
Grace be with you
#11 Renee: Hmmm, I don’t think so. Most Canadians barely notice the Queen, unless she (or her brood) happen to be touring the country. Americans, actually, seem to take more of a shine to the Royals than we do. There was way more outpouring of grief over Diana in the US than in Canada.
I think that the reason is more complex…
This article is rich, dense, and thought provoking. Trueman hits the nail on the head. His concerns are legitimate and ought to be seriously considered. Certainly, I find that a large number of young men are drawn toward the ‘reformed movement’ and yet have little understanding of reformed theology. I find a lot of seminarians tossing the phrase around to either sound ‘reformed’ or intellectually and academically astute when in reality they have little knowledge of reformed theology and its implications for life and the church. Young men love that which is new to them, that which is popular to others, and that which gives them a sense of academic or religious “one-up-manship” over others. There is a tendency with young minds to chase after fads and to pretend to be what they are not. There is certainly a tendency to desire to become like great men, as our sin nature already has a propensity to exalt self. There is little faithfulness among young men and much talk about being faithful. There is much talk of religion and theology and little experience of the same. There is much fame to be had (within reformed circles), yet what is needed is much humility and great faithfulness. Trueman’s article is excellent and should be heartily recommended.
Very good post Tim! It’s good to see young people respecting elders and following their example AS they follow Christ, YET the ‘hero worship’ comes when people are blindly following and defending over and against the Word. I pray above all that these guys aren’t approaching a ‘calvinistic’ understanding as another form of pragmatism (a reformed version of RickWarren and/or seeker sensitive movement) the whole movement WILL fail unless these men do more than read about dead men greatly used of God and more than watch men like Piper, Macarthur, Washer, Baucham BUT actually start with the same foundation which has always been the key: the personal pursuit of God (not fame)!
Although nothing spectacular I did make a youtube vid talking about this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZedhmcKCGxA
E.G., you may be right…it may be more complex.
I lived in Canada seventeen years - in 1981, I witnessed eastern Canadians get up at an ungodly hour to watch the televised Charles/Diana wedding. Canada’s population is only 10% of the US’ population - more loyalists per capita.
Yes JR these men preached the Gospel I’m referring to a hyper Calvinistic form of theology those guys you mentioned were against that form of theology and in some cases argued against it. In China there is a revival happening right now and it is more of a Charismatic-Pentecostal event. I have been profoundly impacted by men like Piper, Packer, Lloyd-jones and the such so don’t get me wrong but the body of Christ is larger and more expansive than we may think.Mike
Tim,I read this article at Reformation 21 yesterday.It is insightful. The idea of a movement of people who are ‘reformed’ needs to be examined thoughtfully, and without a using labels in order to marginalise or stigmatise. That being said, my opinion is that much of the modern ‘reformed’ movement is actually more strictly calvinist or modified calvinist (amyraldian, rejecting a ‘limited’ or ‘definite’ atonement) Bible teaching ministry.The general tenets of ‘reformed’ theology (confessionalism, regulative principle of worship, church leadership by elders, even mutually accountable congregations, though less so for reformed Baptists) are absent in many cases.What is usually present is a strong preaching ministry with a calvinist perspective on Scripture. Observed from afar, US citizens do tend to gravitate toward individual personalities. In a lot of cases this is a strength because the support of the entreprenuerial spirit has seen faithful ministries grow. Of course, on the odd occasion, everyone ends up drinking the cool-aid, so to speak. Whether the loyalty is to a Scriptural understanding or to particular individual’s personal style of proclamation can only be judged over time. I’d like to think that moving into that time that the more complete aspects of reformed theology will be examined and incorporated into the ‘YRR’ movement. Neo-pentecostal, revivalist and arminian forms of worship and church-life cannot nourish reformed preaching, but reformed preaching will lead to reform of these ecclesiastical features.BTW, Trueman’s comment on Barthianism was worth the whole article on its own!
Thanks Tim, for reposting this. I read it yesterday after finding it linked to from the White Horse Inn blog.
Trueman offers a very good reminder for all of us. I also share the sentiments,though, of those here who are pointing out the fact that many of the Reformed “celebrity” pastors are not charlatans but are indeed humble, godly men whose ministries are marked by faithfulness and which have been blessed by the Lord. I think of people like Sproul, MacArthur, Piper, Duncan, Mohler, Grudem, etc. Of course, these leaders can only control their side of the equation. Trueman’s warning still stands, however, because it is us lay people who will either use the resources that these men offer responsibly, or we will indeed turn them into rock stars.
Gary Ware - BTW, Trueman’s comment on Barthianism was worth the whole article on its own!
I thought that was hilarious as well! I knew there would have to be something cutting and pithy in this article it it was truly written by Trueman :-)
Good article, especially the comments about “ordinary” church life. As a pastor I see young folks moving from church to church to be where the latest “action” is. The thought of making promises and abiding with a congregation through the fat and the lean is lost on many, even as they buy the latest book on community (apparently small groups are only “cool” and efficacious if the are within the context of a much “larger group”.)
One person commented above that these men aren’t seeking this sort of status or spotlight. I believe that for some that is the case. It is a lot more difficult to do the “celebrity” bit when you are part of a larger denomination and officially answerable to other peers. So some of these men at least have limits to their “power”. That said, there are others who just can’t help but rattle off their statistics every time they step in front of a microphone or a keyboard. It’s awfully hard to think they aren’t viewing themselves as “somethings” when they have to take every opportunity to tell you about attendance, book sales, church plants, blog stats etc.
Anyway, beware of the “me monster” friends and always look to and point to Christ.
This is a very interesting and thought provoking article. I am fairly new to reformed theology as I was first exposed to it about 1.5 years ago. Spending most of my life in pentecostal/charismatic circles, the ministries of these so-called ‘celebrity’ preachers was like a breath of fresh air upon my first listen. I am challenged & encouraged to serve in the local body, remain faithful to the Word, make disciples, & die to myself by these men. There may be some who blindly follow these men and not the Christ that they are pointing to. They can’t control what people do, but they can be intentional about giving all glory to God and pointing men to the cross. These ‘celebrities’ platforms are a tool to be a blessing to the Body as a whole. Should the Body of Christ suffer because of some who follow the gift and not the giver of the gift? I think not!
I’d have to agree with Melissa’s post - “Reformed theology is not cool in Baptist churches in the Deep South” - I attend a Baptist church in Texas, and used to attend a non-denomination Bible church, but from my experience interacting with other believers who regularly attend church and mid-week Bible studies, the main conclusion is that most people don’t even know what Reformed theology is, and they don’t have much of a clue what theology their own denomination espouses. The first part of Trueman’s essay, qualifying his statements with the thought that he was happy that people were at least reading and discussing theology in some measure, rings closer to the truth in my experience. I work at a well-known para church ministry, and I’d be hard pressed to name fifteen coworkers who care about theology at all, and I can’t name one person who I attend church with who cares, either. I would welcome the chance to be part of a Young, Restless and Reformed community, even if it did tend to go overboard in celebrity worship from time to time.
Tim,
I was discussing this with someone who made a good point.
If we want to avoid celebrity culture, we need to examine ourselves & our habits—especially bloggers. Especially popular bloggers, like yourself.
If we link & quote & talk about our favorite teachers without critically engaging them, we enable the celebrity aura. (That means doing more than advocating discernment, and it even means more than practicing discernment in how we listen. It means demonstrating discernment, in how we speak and talk and blog about The Big Names.)
YRR critics are going to pessimistic about whether we’re already doing this, and how well we’re doing—but it’s certainly a good reminder to have. It’s a cautionary note that needs to ring loudly in our minds, if we’re serious about counteracting celebrity culture.