Monday, October 22, 2007

Do the ends justify the means (round 2)?

The "ends justify the means" debate is clearly a challenging one, with difficult examples in both Scripture and the Church. I loved a quote Dave included in one of his posts:

"American-style evangelicalism has been thoroughly McDonaldized, mimicking the popular fast-food chain. Consumer-oriented marketing principles have been embraced to attract and satisfy more and more people in order to sustain ever increasing egos, visions, budgets, staffs and buildings. In this type of environment almost any conceivable program is justified as a legitimate means to a desired end. Yet this is nothing but unrestrained pragmatism. Such a perspective is open to criticism because even if something works it does not necessarily make it right, true or conducive to forming genuine Christ-followers."

Here are a few examples of the "ends justify the means" debate that I found over the past couple of weeks:
  • Joel Osteen leads a church in Houston that has upwards of 50,000 weekly attendees. He has written the international best seller Your Best Life Now, just released his new book Become a Better You, and the TV broadcast of his sermons are seen by millions around the world. People flock to Osteen to tell him how God has used him to change their lives. He was dubbed "America's Pastor" on a recent episode of 60 Minutes. Osteen has some staunch critics, saying his lack of theology makes him nothing more than a motivational speaker, but should we not respond with Philippians 1:15-18: "...Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in Truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice?"
  • Many churches are using Halo, a violent but popular video game that has a Mature (17+) rating, to attract teenagers to church. Critics argue that adult leaders are giving teens access to inappropriate material but should we not also recognize that, not only does Halo provide an outlet for fellowship, it brings kids into church at an impressionable age?
  • A survey conducted by McKinsey & Company highlighted the increasing social consciousness of corporate CEOs. The CEOs discussed issues such as the increasing demand and limited supply of natural resources and the urgency to act, but the motivation is clear. The CEO of a consumer packaged goods company said "Water is the biggest issue for our company right now -- the ability to do business in water-stressed areas is critical to our growth." Corporations may act in search of profit but is that a bad thing if they help relieve the suffering imposed by a lack of sanitary water?
If lives are truly being transformed through sermons light on theology or through discussions about Halo's depiction of the battle between good and evil or through corporate environmental conservation, should we not rejoice?

What should our response be as businessmen? Should Christ-following artists work to create games like Halo because of the fellowship they provide? Should Godly retailers sell books that promote self esteem more than Scripture because of customer demand? Should Christian employees use profit potential to push their companies to protect the environment?

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

One quick thought...Just because God chooses to use something does not mean that He approves of it. The hardening of Pharaoh's heart was obviously sinful, but God chose to use it for His glory and to proclaim His greatness. Does that mean that we should encourage people to harden their heart? Not at all. (You could also consider Romans 6:1) I think we should praise God that He uses many different things to bring people to Himself, including Joel Osteen, but we must also seek an accurate presentation of Truth.

I know that doesn't really touch on the business side of things, but that came to my mind. Thoughts?

October 31, 2007 8:32 AM  
Blogger Hudson's Dad said...

I believe Paul was rejoicing in the fact that Christ's name was being talked about. He clearly disagrees with the motive of those proclaiming Christ with pretense. I've seen Osteen a handful of times, and he rarely mentions Christ, but I think that there's a parallel here. It's great that the Bible and God the Father are being discussed (somewhat discussed) by Osteen, but I'm not happy with the motive and the content.

I want people to know the truth, but hearing the name of Jesus is powerful still to me whether in truth or in a curse. I think Paul's point is similar.

Halo is a poor substitute for living according to the greatest commandment and the second that is like it. I tried to think of any sort of Biblical parallel, but couldn't think of one. Usually, it's Jesus or the disciples seeking out the lost and going to sinners' rather than enticing them in.

And this got me thinking about a parallel with Halloween. Should we as believers, walk around and hand out candy rather than waiting for kids to come to our homes? Probably not the greatest parallel.

October 31, 2007 9:10 PM  
Blogger Broun Stacy said...

I would like to take a jab at the Halo argument only because that "strategy" (i don't hesitate from using that term) for "reaching kids" is becoming more and more pervasive by the second. A good friend of mine works for Lifechurch.tv.
Lifechurch.tv is one of the fastest growing churches in the fastest in the country. If you are unfamiliar with the structure of the church they have "virtual campuses" that are loosely connected to the original in Oklahoma city. They do "door to door" myspace evangelism and have incredibly sharp well produced and will stop at no expense (I'm sure Halo is integrated)
Now my intention is not to knock Lifechurch necessarily but what I am knocking is an uncritical approach to the embrace of technology as THE medium through which to communicate the solid truths of Scripture.

Certainly no would argue the ability of a sovereign God to use any means He desires to communicate anything to anybody. However i agree with Neil Postman who has written an incredible critique of the influence particulaly of Television in "Amusing Ourselves to Death". I'll share a quote with you...

"A new technology sometimes creates more than it destroys. Sometimes, it destroys more than it creates. But it is never one-sided. The invention of the printing press is an excellent example. Printing fostered the modern idea of individuality but it destroyed the medieval sense of community and social integration. Printing created prose but made poetry into an exotic and elitist form of expression. Printing made modern science possible but transformed religious sensibility into an exercise in superstition. Printing assisted in the growth of the nation-state but, in so doing, made patriotism into a sordid if not a murderous emotion. Another way of saying this is that a new technology tends to favor some groups of people and harms other groups. School teachers, for example, will, in the long run, probably be made obsolete by television, as blacksmiths were made obsolete by the automobile, as balladeers were made obsolete by the printing press. Technological change, in other words, always results in winners and losers."

Now i don't think you even have to go as extreme as Postman but what if by Definition! Television, Games, etc were incapable of communicating these truths in their fullest, truest, and intended sense? I don't know if i agree but why is no one asking these questions? Has everything become entertainment so that your local teenager can no longer tell the difference between Halo and A sermon (maybe a good one about the truths found in Halo)? What do you guys think?

November 01, 2007 9:59 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home