Why I won't give to Red Nose day and think you shouldn't either
'Now abideth faith, hope and charity and the greatest of these is charity.' Not anymore!! Ok, so the charity of 1 Corinthians 13 is more properly understood as love but you'd think that 21st Century post-modern paganism has adopted the King James Version of 1 Corinthians as its very own motto. Faith, well whatever you like, doesn't really matter, we're all very tolerant these days. Hope, well goodness no, we're just an accident of physics anyway so let's not get hung up on hope. Let's eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die - let's be realistic folks. But, Charity, ah, that's the great thing. If we have charity we're fine. We can be as immoral as we like and nobody can say anything about it - 'cos it's all for charity.
I don't think I have watched anything more disgusting than Red Nose Day TV at night. Sexual innuendo or blatant sexual humour were interspersed with pictures of children and communities devastated by Aids as well as other forms of deprivation. Ali G asks David Beckham if he would mind if he 'boned' his missus and the Beckhams giggle on the settee like weedy adolescents and we're all supposed to give money because this is funny and its for charity and therefore it's ok. Well it's not ok. It stinks.
AIDS, and the heartbreak associated with it, is a heterosexual plague in Africa. It is more than merely a health issue, it is a moral issue. There are moral issues to be faced in regard to sexual promiscuity that spreads HIV AIDS in Africa. There is a moral question about the Western 'cure' for AIDS - the condom and its promise of 'safe sex' that isn't necessarily safe, and there is a moral question about the promotion of charity on the basis of sexual immorality. It is hypocrisy to promote the cause of aid for a continent ravaged by a sexually transmitted disease through the promotion of sexual immorality. 'Chill old man', I hear you say? Well even if not all the material used in the promotion of Red Nose day is immoral, never-the-less it is pathetic that giving should be prompted through facile entertainment and not by deliberate choice or thoughtful response to need. This kind of giving is not about those in need, it's about us feeling good while we have a good time. It's the whimsical patronising of the poor by the arrogant liberal West.
No, I'm not against giving to charity. Quite the reverse. What I want to argue is that every person in the West who draws a salary should be regularly giving to reputable charities. Many charities are suffering, or rather the people they wish to help are suffering, because it's not trendy or the done thing to be committed to regular, meaningful giving. Apparently those of us in the West who already have plenty aren't prepared to give unless there is something in it for us. That's appalling. Many Christians aren't any different from the Red Nose punters. Uncommitted and unconcerned about the plight of the poor we throw the price of a bar of chocolate into the nearest TV driven fund raising venture bucket, or the annual TEAR FUND appeal and walk on by.
When it comes to the Judgement it won't be red noses we'll be wearing, it will be red faces.