I suppose many if not all of you have heard about the “American Idol: Idol Gives Back” special yesterday where over $30 million was raised for various causes, not the least of which included HIV/AIDS, poverty, malaria, and education. People from New Orleans to the Appalachian Mountains of Eastern Kentucky to the disease-ridden countries of Africa were spotlighted as a call for the power and influence of American Idol to do something about the many world crises that trouble the concerned conscience.
At the same time I was watching this, I was completing my paper on Carl Henry called “Surgeon for Social Change: Carl F. H. Henry and the New Evangelical Conscience.” Sixty years ago Henry nailed his uneasy conscience on the door of modern Fundamentalism, and since that time evangelicals have done much to develop a world program and strategy for social change. I hope to share some of the work Henry had done for almost six decades in bringing the evangelical world to realize the social implications and imperative of the Christian message. Probably no other Christian has done more to call for evangelical engagement on social issues than Henry.
So this past week we saw one of the biggest and most publicized thrusts for humanitarian aid the world has ever sponsored. It should be noted that all the organizations that benefited from this campaign are secular in nature, and never at any point did the spokespersons point people to a supernatural grounding of benevolence and social justice. Indeed, their worldview and sociological framework was altogether natural and at the same time anti-supernatural. With all the talk about showing love to the oppressed, impoverished, and diseased, the Giver of life, the Source of love and justice, and the Healer of diseases was never mentioned.
Now, it should be said that I applaud the efforts American Idols and the celebrity culture of America are doing for the sake of such humanitarian causes. But I have wondered what the evangelical world thinks about such global social issues. Are the social concerns of fighting HIV/AIDS, curing malaria, providing meals to the impoverished, and supplying educational material important enough for Christians to pioneer creative and leading avenues for social change? Where, on the level of evangelical priorities, do such social issues lie in the program of Christians today?
I have much more to say on this matter, but have to leave it at that for now. But let me conclude with this question,
“Should the love of idols be a more inspiring motivation for social engagement and world betterment than the love of Christ?”
I am of the opinion that all good, regardless of who commits it, is of the Hand of God. I can’t help but see the Healer at work in all of this. Good works don’t necessarily need to be done by Christians in the name of Jesus Christ to be a good work done by God. I say let the Good Work of God be done and make it a separate crusade to evangelize. A work being good is not dependent on whether or not a sermon is attached to it.
Dan,
Man it’s good to see you on P&P. 🙂
I agree that it is great to see people, Chriatian or not, pick up the call to “love their neighbor” and give tangible expressions of that in monetary contributions. However, every organization that involves itself in the work of helping in whatever causes does so with certain principles and presuppositions. The Christian’s understanding of justice and love, of benevolence and mercy, of service and giving, is bound up in the character of God, in the revealed truths of Scripture, and in the person and work of Jesus Christ. As Christians, the message we should be bringing to those dying of AIDS for example is not just we can offer medical aid to prevent premature death, but present to them the One who overcame death through his death and resurrection. We should also, for example, not just go to people with diseases such as malaria and offer them cures which only will benefit their body, but offer them the cure for the diease of sin as Christ is the Great Physician.
Such caring for the soul as well as the body is something non-Christians cannot offer. Furthermore, the framework of beliefs/principles in which they practice their work is fundamentally on non-redemptive grounds. For those who cannot offer anything for the life to come, they can only hope for their “best life now.” But suffering or not, the Christian can tell people there is life after death and (a certain) hope beyond the grave where sin has been defeated and where justice and righteousness reigns.
Anyway, that’s just some of what I’ve been thinking. Due to the fact that we are all created in the image of God and that common grace is extended to all men regardless of whether they are believers is an important reminder that “good” work can be done in that sense. I will say, however, when you mention that when a good thing is being done, a sermon does not need to be attached to it, it is a little misleading, don’t you think? For in the very doing of that good work, you are proclaiming something to that person. You are in a sense preaching a sermon. Yet that implicit message ought to be made explicit through the communication of what and why that good deed is being done. Some will say, “This is given for you on behalf of the good people who watch American Idol.” Others will say, “This is given you on behalf of ___________” (insert celebrity name). So there’s a sermon in any case. For the Christian, however, the sermon says, “This is give for you on behalf of Jesus Christ who can not only satisfy your body but your souls as well.”
Make sense?
I’m just impressed that you could write a paper while watching that.
Well, sort of. I actually was completing my footnote file. I have a horrible way of writing papers. I read everything I can in the short time I have; then I type up the footnotes I marked as relevant to my paper topic. In this case, since Sunday I have typed 389 footnotes which totaled 84 pages in all. I then had to go categorize them, provide some structural outline with pagination, and then begin sorting them in a microscopic manner. So I am constantly condensing my research and analysis. Then of course comes the paper.
So during Idol, I was going over what Henry was saying on the very issues before my eyes on Idol. It was like Henry was whispering in my ear . . . or something like that.
I think you’re on the right track here. Put this in terms of what glorifies, not everything that is pleasant to us glorifies God. Furthermore, God is often glorified by that which is not pleasant to us. For example, American Idol is pleasant to us, but it glorifies the “idols”, I would argue, rather than God. Also, the cross is certainly not pleasant to us, but it glorifies God. If my oldest son were killed, perhaps I would be tempted to question how God could let a “bad” thing like that happen? But how do I know it’s bad? It’s merely unpleasant to me. My son no longer has to deal with a sinful world and he would be disposed to the hand of a gracious God for judgment. Is that so bad for him? What glorified God when the expensive oil was poured over Jesus’ head? The argument that the oil could be used to help the poor is easily one that we would hear – or even make ourselves. However, Christ quickly dismissed the argument. God’s economy is not our own. If we seek the Kingdom of God and his righteousness first, the rest will be added – and I would observe: according to His will.