Because I'm kind of a Bono fan, not just as a rock star, but as a person, I feel the need to chime in here.  Deep down, I've always thought the RED campaign was kind of silly.  Buy red colored swag and we'll donate a tiny fraction of the proceeds to aid in Africa.  Red's not one of my favorite colors, so buying Red colored crud *would* actually be a sacrifice for me, cause I'd always have to look at the thing all the time.  They'd probably be more successful with a BLUE or GREEN campaign, or maybe all of them to cover their bases.  Maybe an additional GUESS WHAT COLOR? campaign for the colorblind.

 

Anyway, I felt that if companies were serious about African aid, they would certainly donate much more than just 10%.  Why not 20%?  Why not 50%?  Seriously, why not a percentage that's actually *significant*?  It seemed like a silly publicity stunt, and I was a little bit torn to see Bono spearhead the thing.  I felt a little bit better about the campaign after reading that the proceeds were actually a significant chunk of the profit on some items, and I realized it was naive to believe that companies would ever take a significant *loss* to help a cause.  That's just not what companies do.  They exist almost solely to make money.  And at the same time, the RED campaign made sense financially because it was sustainable.  Companies could justify cutting into their profits because the campaign might increase sales and make up the loss.  And because it's something that is sustainable, monetary aid would continue to flow into Africa.

 

 

Still, both the RED and ONE approaches seem entirely wrongheaded, if not for the amounts of aid they generate, but for the message they inadvertently send to those they appeal to:  "You don't need to sacrifice a thing.  Just be aware, make a lot of noise, buy more junk and soothe your conscience.  Sit back and watch the humanitarian aid flow."  RED seems to be trickle-down charity repackaged with a hip, red veneer, as if when Jesus tells us to love the poor and needy, he really meant that we should go buy a red iPod.  Riiight.

I guess I can understand the approach because our society has gotten extremely suspicious of anyone who asks for money, and perhaps from a practical standpoint, 18 milion generated from those who wouldn't otherwise give is better than no aid at all.  And perhaps Bono feels justified lending his support because it is *not* Christians he is appealing directly to, but our self-absorbed affluent Western world at large.  I think it would be a sad thing if the message he sends in these campaigns is the only message he's willing to send, but at the same time, Bono has done much more in living out his faith and using his power and position to engage the world than the article had time or scope to mention.  His partnership with the world looks pretty awkward sometimes, and him telling television viewers that they're not asking for their money alongside Brad Pitt makes me sigh and roll my eyes.  But in the end, Bono is there, using the platform God has given him.

 

Do I wish he would be more forthright about his faith?  Yes.  Do I wish he would be more confrontational about our Western excesses in his smooth, provocative, rockstar way?  Yes.  But Bono has developed more thought about poverty and understanding the situation and factors involved than most of us have developed thoughts about where Bono's done wrong.  He would probably be the among the first to say "duh!" to the points the author raised about what needs to happen in Africa.  I suspect that's why congressmen and politicians take him seriously as opposed to writing him off as another self-agrandizing rock star, and as for drowning out the voices of other organizations, I think it bears mentioning that Bono has also lent his voice and his hands to organizations like WorldVision (which is incidentally one of the partners in the ONE campaign).  Coincidentally it was in a WorldVision 30-Hour famine video that I discovered one of my favorite U2 songs for years was written about his experiences in Ethiopia.

 

Anyway, I think it's also easy for us Western Christians sit back and nitpick causes, movements, and campaigns before we lift a finger.  I don't think the author of the article is doing that, but it did seem a little unexpected to me that he would claim that there were organizations that did lasting work in Africa, then admit that he didn't know which ones they were-- implying that these organizations couldn't be heard over the din of Bono's ads.  I'm unconvinced that Bono's campaign makes it any harder for someone to research and find out who's doing the best work out there-- but I do agree that it may be distracting for our culture that demands everything to be convenient and spoon-fed, including knowing who to help and where to send the check.

The ONE campaign lacks in that it doesn't ask individuals to give more of themselves, and that it doesn't hint that we might need to restructure our lives around others.  And it may accidentally give the message that responsibility to the "least of these" lies in our governments hands and not ours.  But do we truly believe that there is something to be gained by actively deciding *not* to ask our government to help alleviate poverty with the money we entrust to it?  I personally have a hard time signing onto the ONE campaign because I'm convicted that I need to be giving and doing work with my own hands before I ask another to do it in my name.  I don't know if my feelings will change down the line.  But for me, I'm not sure there's anything to gain by defiantly refusing to buy RED products or doing the ONE thing.

 

I guess in the end, are we only doing a lot of thought about stuff?  Or are we getting in there with our hands and feet, and when necessary our checkbooks?  I know I'm usually guilty of the former (evidently).  If there's something redeeming about the ONE campaign, it's the song that bears its namesake.  And if you've made it this far, I'll buy you a copy of the song.  Just download it from iTunes and I'll give you a buck for your trouble.  This is the chorus: