PIRI KULARAJAH argues that Christians shouldn’t be critical of a fad just because it is a fad but apply an “active and constructive” approach to the way they view charitable social media campaigns like the ‘ice bucket challenge’…
From the moment a live, on-air ‘ice bucket challenge’ was performed on US television on 30th June, 2014, the phenomena has gained increased media attention and, thanks to social media, gone viral all over the globe.
For those not up to speed, the ‘ALS Ice Bucket Challenge’ involves dumping a bucket of ice water on someone’s head to promote awareness of the disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) – or motor neurone disease (MND) as it is more commonly known in Australia. The challenge involves nominated participants being filmed having a bucket of ice water poured on their heads and then nominating others to do the same.
|
|
PICTURE: © Jag_cz/www.istockphoto.com “Christians shouldn’t criticise a fad just because it is a fad. We need to be active and constructive in our critiquing. There is a time to speak-out and there is a time to encourage – a higher level of self-awareness is required to discern when to do what.” |
A common stipulation is that the nominated participants have 48 hours to comply or forfeit by way of a charitable financial donation. Whether people choose to donate, perform the challenge, or do both varies. The chill experienced by the participants as the ice rolls down their spine is designed to provide a glimpse of that experienced by some sufferers of ALS.
At the time of writing this article, it had raised more than $US100 million for the charity in the US alone. It has been described as “one of the most viral philanthropic social media campaigns in history”, but some, particularly some Christian groups, have questioned whether campaigns like this should really be looked at in such positive light.
The most widespread concern among Christians seems to be the motives of those giving. Do contributors care deeply about ALS, or do they just want to attract the esteem of others? This worry seems misplaced. Even if people have mixed motives for promoting a good cause, it is still good that they promote it. We are experiencing a lot of hate and violence in our world at this moment, so we should commend the simplicity of people pouring water on their heads and donating to a worthwhile cause. I am no more offended by people dumping water on their heads than I am by people updating their Facebook status to tell me what kind of cereal they had for breakfast or what their kids are getting up to. I am no more offended by people changing their profile pictures to represent a cause they believe in, even if they are just jumping on the bandwagon.
Another strong criticism of the ice bucket challenge is that there are alternative ways of spending charitable donations that would bring about greater good. ALS affects roughly two in every 100,000 people, and some have suggested that charitable donations could do more good if spent on things like bed nets to protect people from malaria. Fighting malaria is a worthy goal, but do we act wrongly by responding to the needs of ALS sufferers instead? It seems unfair to criticise someone who makes a meaningful contribution to an important cause that they care about just because some other cause is deemed more important. It risks turning them off the idea of philanthropic giving altogether.
I believe there is one legitimate concern that Christians should have. But I have not had this concern brought up anywhere near as much as the other ‘concerns’. This unease is that some of the organisations involved fund or support embryonic stem-cell research. This is when scientists take a female egg and a male sperm and fertilise the egg in a lab, and then after the new life begins to form, they remove the building blocks of life – embryonic stem cells. These embryos are experimented on and then discarded. They are created for the express purpose of destroying them for medical research. Stem cell research has shown great promise in the fairly new field of regenerative medicine. At conception, a baby has a unique genetic code, and all of the necessary building blocks for life, and the Bible attributes the properties of personhood to us from conception (Psalm 139:13-16, Luke 1:39-44). Because research on embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of a living human being, I believe it is against God’s will. No amount of promised ‘benefit’ to society or to medical knowledge can justify the killing of a human for spare parts. The end does not justify the means. It is never ethical – in fact, it is morally reprehensible – to mark people for death in order to conduct utilitarian experiments on their body parts.
Christians should be concerned about where their donations are really going. And while embryonic stem cell research should be of concern, a number of ALS-related organisations also focus on other areas of research like adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are obtained from living bone marrow, blood, brain tissue, skin, and body fat. Research on adult stem cells does not require the loss of life, has a proven track record, and therefore does not present the same moral difficulty to a Christian. A number of ALS-related organisations also focus on areas of occupational therapy for those suffering ALS. Christians can and should seek out avenues to donate to such areas of these organisations.
As the ALS challenge has grown in popularity, Christian responses on social media have taught me that goodness short of perfection is not welcomed. One would think, of all the people in the world, that Christians would be able to accept imperfect goodness. Yet, it seems we are incapable of letting goodness be goodness. Instead, we critique every single good deed from a theological perspective because we are unable to just let it be. Every good we do is not good enough and someone has to point that out, so why not Christians? We gladly talk about the waste of water on ice bucket challenges while wasting water in the shower. We talk about the lack of food in other places while tossing away our table scraps.
Should our response be like that of the disciples who were critical of others because “they aren’t with us or worshipping like us”? Jesus responded to that by saying, “Don’t stop them, for if someone isn’t opposed to you, they are for you” (Mark 9: 38-41). Perhaps we would be better served to encourage them to go and do more good. Perhaps we should take a step back and look at the bigger picture. We should encourage the millions that have dumped water to use that same energy to do good in their community by standing with the poor, the oppressed, the minority, the outcast, the immigrant, the lonely, the hurting, the young, the old, the widowed and the orphaned. Imagine what good we could do if we encouraged do-gooders to do more instead of criticising the good they are doing?
This is a good time to consider the effect that social-media activism is having on our culture – and ourselves as actors in it. I very much believe in this medium’s capacity for acting as a vehicle for good, yet I also recognise how instant connectivity is a double-edged sword, making it much easier for a ‘herd mentality’ to develop. Christians shouldn’t criticise a fad just because it is a fad. We need to be active and constructive in our critiquing. There is a time to speak-out and there is a time to encourage – a higher level of self-awareness is required to discern when to do what.
Piri Kularajah is a lay worker at St John’s Anglican church, in the New South Wales parish of Enfield & Strathfield.
