The Cult of Personality

In the 1995 film, “To Die For,” Nicole Kidman’s character, Suzanne, says, “You aren’t really anybody in America if you aren’t on TV.” In an aside, another character quotes Suzanne with the following commentary:

Suzanne used to say that you're not really anybody in America unless you're on TV... 'cause what's the point of doing anything worthwhile if there's nobody watching? So when people are watching, it makes you a better person. So if everybody was on TV all the time, everybody would be better people. But, if everybody was on TV all the time, there wouldn't be anybody left to watch, and that's where I get confused.

Reality TV has intensified this notion that anyone can and perhaps even should be a celebrity as if the ambition of Suzanne to be seen is the pinnacle of human endeavor.  Rock group Living Color produced a song in 1988 called “Cult of Personality,” a biting critique of fame.  And while the message in the lyrics seems a bit muddled, the danger of idolatry is clearly noted.

Yet, without any sense of irony, our present culture seems to glory in idolatry – in the cult of personality.  But such idol worship makes a mockery of real life.  As Donna the Buffalo sings, “What does all this Hollywood really have to do with us?”

Reality TV has nothing to do with real life.  And if we seek to make real life anything like TV, then life becomes hypocritical, vacuous and superficial.  An actor I know recently told me that reality TV is just bad drama/comedy that has taken the place of good stories and acting.  And yet the American public either has an insatiable thirst for bad TV, or Hollywood is intent on making us into dumbed-down consumers of shallowness.

Real life is not a hunk of a guy having a harem of women clamoring for his attention.  Real life is not a competition to stay on an island.  In real life, the kitchen should not the setting for a competition.  In real life, we don’t consider the bad behavior of other people as a form of entertainment.

As a Christian, I cling to the promise of Jesus that he came that we may have life to the full (John 10:10).  There’s not much on TV or in Hollywood that hints at fullness of life.  I prefer the interactions of real people in real time - Taking a walk in a local park with my wife.  Playing guitar with my talented, musician children.  Preparing a meal and anticipating my guests’ pleasure.  Visiting the sick in an attempt to provide comfort and encouragement.  Providing shelter for those temporarily on the streets and having conversation with them as an acknowledgement of our common humanity.  Going to work each day and honoring the contributions of my fellow workers. 

Real life seems less spectacular than reality TV and the cult of personality.  But then, who ever said that a full life should be a spectacle?  Jesus, whose personality is certainly compelling, eschewed any sense of spectacle when he refused the Satan’s temptation to leap off the pinnacle of the temple in order to draw attention to himself.  His example is a counterpoint to the self-idolatry promoted in our present age.

I long for fullness of life for everyone.  Such fullness is not found in the range of the camera lens but in the day to day loving of one another.  May your life be so full.

I Make No Apology

            An apology is an act of contrition; to say “I’m sorry,” for a misspoken word or hurtful deed.  This essay is not an apology; it is an apologetic.

            Apologetics, in a formal sense, is a defense or argument by the accused – almost the opposite of an apology.  The word is derived from the Greek of the New Testament, apologia, as in Acts 26:2, when Paul makes his “defense” before Festus and Agrippa.  Over the course of time apologetics has come to mean a reasoned argument for the faith.

            When Paul makes the case for God in Athens, in Acts 17:22-31, he is perhaps making the first apologetic discourse, attempting to sway the Greek philosophers with reason.  Such defenses of Christian faith have continued throughout history by people such as Friedrich Schleiermacher in the 18^th-19^th century, or Lee Strobel more recently.

            There is a place for rational discourse in communicating about Christian faith.  But apologetics in its strict modern sense has certain obvious limitations.  Apologetics as the attempt to make faith reasonable is faced with what I think are insurmountable obstacles.

            For instance, what is reasonable about the death of Jesus on a cross as a means to salvation from sin?  What rational argument can anyone make for the resurrection?  The belief that there is a Creator who not only set the cosmos in motion but is also intimately engaged in the life of its creatures defies logical argument.  If apologetics is the attempt to remove all doubt and leave in its place rational certainty, then it will ultimately fail.  We cannot be certain, or else there is no need for faith.  Faith “is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). 

            At some point, we who wish to make a defense of the gospel (the good news of Jesus Christ), must give up on reasoned argument and make the case for faith.  

• Though it is not rational to believe that there is a God in heaven who is powerful enough to have created the universe, and yet who is concerned when the least sparrow falls, we nevertheless have faith that this is so. 
• Though it is not rational to believe that the hope of the world is a 1^st Century itinerant Jewish rabbi who met a cruel death and was consequently resurrected, we nevertheless have faith that this is so.
• Though it is not rational to love our enemies, to turn the other cheek to those who strike us, and to forgive those who persecute us, we nevertheless believe that this is the way to live.

            In our defense of the gospel, we who are Christian must eventually become unreasonable and make our appeal to faith.  “By grace you have been saved, through faith . . .” (Ephesians 2:8).

            Back in Athens, Paul had limited success in convincing his listeners with reason.  Just a few seem to have responded.  The Bible never mentions Paul using such a rational discourse again.  “We are justified by faith . . .” (Romans 5:1), Paul writes. 

            The truth is that there is very little about Christian faith and practice that makes sense.  It is the weakness of the cross which is the power of God.  It is the revelation of Christ to the least of these in order to shame the wise.  It is the proclamation of good news to the poor, recovery of sight to the blind, and liberty to the oppressed.  It is the assertion that the meek will inherit the earth.  None of this is rational.  But I believe it to be true.  Without apology.

God Does Not Lie

I guess she took exception to my article last week.  She was respectful, but her message on my answering machine can be summed up in these words, “God does not lie.”  I take it that she thought I was suggesting otherwise.  She must have misunderstood me.  What I had actually written was that our understanding of the Bible is not made clear by authoritative pronouncements but by respectful dialogue.  In a local church that means a Wednesday evening Bible study is more enlightening the more people feel free to express their own interpretations.  And interpretation of scripture that takes place ecumenically is probably more wholesome and closer to the truth than any one denomination can claim on its own.  In other words, the church together arrives at Biblical truth much better than any one of us does alone.

Still, the Bible does speak to individuals.  It was through my own reading of the Bible that I became convinced of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Word that became flesh.  Yet, I was helped along in my understanding of Jesus by other books I read, along with conversations with my father.  The Bible gained clarity as I listened to the opinions of others.

Opinions vary, for sure.  And there is no end to the varieties of Biblical interpretation on the World Wide Web.  Sometimes I grieve how much error there is floating around in cyberspace.  Of course, error is in the eye of the beholder.  By and large I agree with the Pope who is reported to have said that the internet is a gift from God.

While there are differences of opinion on how to interpret the Bible I am amazed at the amount of consensus there is regarding its basic message.  For all the extremes on either end of the interpretative spectrum most Christians agree on the essentials – God loves the creation enough to send us Jesus Christ to show us the way of salvation and continues abiding with us through God’s Spirit.  John 3:16 comes to mind.  I am also reminded of something my father said to me when my faith was in its infancy, “It’s not the parts of the Bible that I don’t understand that bother me; it’s the parts that I do understand.”

For all our difficulty in interpretation, the Bible is nevertheless clear enough for us to know when we are missing the mark (“Turn the other cheek.”).  And clear enough to give comfort to the troubled mind (“The Lord is my shepherd . . .”).

Fred Craddock is a famous preacher who taught preaching at the Candler School of Theology for many years.  He tells the story of coming into his office to discover his granddaughter with his Bible in her hands, holding it upside down and singing, “Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.”

She may have had the Bible upside down.  But she had it right.

My caller last week was right.  God does not lie.