Student opinion – We need to talk about celebrity pastors
Nearly two years ago, Carl Lentz, a pastor well known for his streetwear and close-knit relationships with celebrities, was fired from Hillsong Church. His firing was a result of “being unfaithful in (his) marriage,” according to an Instagram post he made following his firing.
That same year — 2020, a year already full of woes — Ravi Zacharias (1946-2020) was investigated posthumously regarding reports of sexual assault. A monthslong investigation launched by his ministry, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, concluded that allegations were true and far worse than originally believed. A beloved theologian and apologist for decades is now seen as a vile, unfaithful and hypocritical man.
The American church is one riddled with scandals, and celebrity pastors are largely at fault for such heinous events.
Typically, “celebrity pastor” is considered a negative term by traditional Christians and a paradox for non-Christians. Surely the religion that instructed a reluctant convert to “sell your possessions and give to the poor” (Luke 12:33–34) isn’t conducive to a multimillion-dollar net worth primarily built on preaching the rest of the Bible.
That’s why a “celebrity pastor” is a poisonous paradox. Not only does he supplant the true requirements of a pastor to “shepherd the flock … not for shameful gain, but eagerly” (1 Peter 5:2) and to live “above reproach” (1 Timothy 3:2), but he forsakes the command to connect with God’s church and shepherd them personally.
Some aptly titled celebrity pastors have remained faithful to the call of shepherding the flock and living above reproach, such as Timothy Keller, Dane C. Ortlund or David Platt, and their celebrity status often comes by virtue of bestselling books.
Despite some good examples of popular pastors-turned-public figures, it is safe to assess that celebrity pastorship is antithetical to the structure of the church in the Bible. Some might argue that the Bible’s church structure was different due to the geographical limitations that the New Testament era placed on it. To that, I argue that the church should be contextualized to the societal and national norms but should not leverage them as a vantage point for an individual. The earliest ecclesiological purposes of the church were to enable the people to “devote themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship” in Acts 2:42.
A pastor consumed with the everyday requirements of being a celebrity willingly creates distance between himself and Christ’s beloved church. In 2016, Jonathan Merritt attempted to interview Steven Furtick about his pastorship at Elevation Church, but he refused. His Religion News Service article still noted some celebrity and cult-like traits exhibited by the church, the most disturbing of which, Merritt argues, is the infamous “Furtick coloring sheets” once passed out in Elevation’s Sunday school programs.
A major concern with cases like Furtick or, in the past, Lentz and Zacharias, is their functional immunity toward accountability and accusation. Popularity is both a distraction and a shield. People will often defend the name of a celebrity before they heed a victim’s account. Pastors in positions of increased power and influence are still held to the standard of 1 Timothy and other Bible passages, but a lack of accountability can decrease positive impact and increase infidelity.
Celebrity pastorship is anti-biblical, impersonal and mostly harmful. Instead of allowing American culture to influence Christianity, pastors should rely on the Holy Spirit for Christian influence on America, forsaking the fleeting pleasures of celebrity status for the joy of shepherding God’s own.
Bower is an opinion writer for the Liberty Champion. Follow him on Twitter