U2 and the Unfashionable Cross
Featured, Social Justice — By Richard Dahlstrom on October 30, 2009 at 12:00 amIt seems like everyone I know has been to, or is going to, hear u2 live in October. They’re out on the west coast doing a tour, and so Christians between 20 and 40 are making the pilgrimage.
Before I continue, I’ll offer the caveat that I love u2. I just returned from running stairs and Bono was my companion because, after the 10th set of sprints it’s true: I still haven’t found what I’m looking for. Their music, lyrics, and leverging of fame for social good are all inspiring and exemplery. Still….
My concern resides in our age old tendency to reshape the gospel so that it matches our own personal ideals and passions, with the result that we create a mythical moral high ground to stand on, and thus stop growing. Right now social justice is fashionable. There’s good reason for this, and it’s a welcome swing of the pendulum from the old days, when missionaries would (at least according to missiological legend) hand out tape recorders, the Bible on tape, and tracts, before handing out food, “just in case someone perishes without knowing Christ.” We’ve come a long way from that, but just as that was fashionable then, wells in Africa are fashionable now.
The risk we run, with any fashionable expression of the gospel, isn’t that it becomes entirely untrue, but that it becomes a distortion. We might, for example, consider ourselves exemplary Christians because we have joined the One Campaign, sponsor a child with World Vision, and skip lattes on Fridays, giving the money to economic development work in Africa instead. It’s all cool, all popular, and has every risk of being cross-less, both in the sense that Jesus is moved from the center to the margins, AND in the sense that we’ve no practical expressions of self-denial. I’ll explain both:
1. Jesus moved to the margins simply means that we take St. Francis word literally, to a fault. He’s the guy who said, “preach always, use words only when necessary”. I always want to add a third phrase to his timely remarks: ”…and words will usually be necessary”. This is because everything we do, we do supposedly as a means of heralding the arrival of a soon-to-come new government, with the new reign of a new king. How strange would it be to bring the ethics of the new king, and the blessings, but conspicuously, even intentionally ignore the centrality of that King’s presence as the source of all hope. And yet this seems to happen all the time in the new and fashionable social gospel.
2. The cross lacking IN us means that we’re running the risk of defining the outworking of the Gospel in terms of things we’d do anyway. ”Sure, I’ll sponsor a child, buy fair trade coffee…” While that’s great, and fits in well with U2’s theology, what’s missing is the reality that Jesus will also ask of each of us, in specific ways, acts of self-denial. Maybe our sexual ethic will need to change. Maybe he’ll ask us to not just write a check, but move to Africa, or the inner-city, or South Dakota, and His calling doesn’t align with our passions. The overwhelming testimony of scripture is that Christ is seen most clearly when we lose something. Moses leaves the desert to follow God’s calling. Peter leaves his nets. Paul subjects his will to God’s and changes his missionary strategy. People died for this, and it’s the self-denial piece that sets this apart from fashionably cool social justice. Jesus said it pretty clearly: ”unless you deny yourself and take up your cross and follow, you can’t be my disciple”
We like to talk about passion, justice, culture, relevance. It’s the stuff not only of Christian magazines and web-sites, but of billion dollar bands. But the cross? Other than the ones hanging around our necks, I fear it’s fallen on hard times, both as a central message, and as an existential necessity for we who claim to be disciples.
That’s all… except to say that Joshua Tree is still my favorite.
This post first appeared on the author’s blog.
18 Comments
While I understand your point and agree to an extent, it’s a bit unfair to bring U2 into this for three reasons.
First, they’re a rock band, not a ministry. They have never claimed to be in the business of evangelism. Isn’t it enough that the biggest band in the world is open about their faith and raises millions for noble causes? Do we need them hand out Bibles too? Compared to most rock bands, they’re saints. They could just play music and get rich, but they choose to do more. And they catch a lot of shit for it.
Second, they were into social justice long before it was even called that. I became a fan of U2 in 1982. Pop music was superficial and self-indulgent, while Christian music was so preoccupied with evangelism that it was hard to find a song about anything else. It’s not like they jumped on a bandwagon. If anything, they provided a much needed corrective to both popular music and Christian culture.
Third, there is no U2 theology, and I think Bono would be the first to admit that. Bono’s beliefs, in particular, are pretty straightforward Nicene creed. I doubt any of the guys would say that they are trying to define Christian theology or promote certain values as more or less Christian.
I saw them Sunday night. There was all the social justice stuff, but Bono also sang two verses of Amazing Grace at the beginning of Streets. On the last tour, he quoted Psalm 116: 12-14 at the beginning of Streets at every show. The tour before that, he thanked God and lead the crowd in a chorus of hallelujah at the end of “Walk On.” That’s not a big deal for a typical Christian, but it’s a very big deal for a secular rock and roll band. Maybe we can cut the guys some slack. It’s very easy and a bit trite to pick on U2 nowadays. You could have easily made this same argument about Relevant Magazine or some other group that, unlike U2, uses “Christian” as part of their brand name. This feels like you just picked the biggest target.
Of course, it’s possible I’m somewhat biased. Sunday night was my 10th time seeing them. Met my wife at a U2 show. MIght that call my objectivity into question? Naaaaah.
And Achtung Baby squashes Joshua Tree like a grape.
I don’t know if the author of this piece was necessarily calling out U2, but more of the U2 culture: People who live a Christianity that is defined by marginal changes in their lifestyles that benefit others. Almost, as if Bono’s life is the standard which we are trying to live up to, rather than trying to follow the example of Jesus’ self-sacrifice.
You are correct about Achtung Baby, though.
That last sentence is heresy, Stephen.
Stephen, I disagree that that U2 is secular band and not a ministry, on both counts. The more I examine the lyrics, I am convinced that somewhere in the neighborhood of 90-98% of their songs are intentionally Scriptural in some way.
It’s a ministry in the sense that they are doing exactly what God has called and equipped them to do.
Having said that, I agree with you that we shouldn’t hold them accountable for the way that many fans have taken on their causes without making Jesus the center.
Just a little knit-picky, but in response to “they were into social justice long before it was even called that,” social justice was called that as far back as the early 1800s, a term coined by Jesuits.
I like how Imago Dei expresses this… Social Justice has to flow out of our worship and proclamation of Jesus.
Very interesting and thought provoking. While I need to process it a bit to see if I am in full agreement, I do agree that often Christ is lost in the name of social good. I’d encourage you to check out this campaign we are working on:
http://thefallcampaign.bloodwatermission.com/why/
My friend Pat Goodman is the one relating the reasons for the campaign in the video. I see this as a good example of Christianity and social good working the right way, for the right reasons. That said, I would value your thoughts…
By the way, as a truly fanatical fan of U2 I really enjoy reading a variety of opinions about their work. Great writing.
I heard someone say recently that “giving isn’t supernatural unless its sacrificial.” I would say that is giving of any kind, i.e. your time, money, etc. I am hospitable by nature, it is a genuine part of my personality. However, I have been challenged recently by this statement. Am I only hospitable to people that I like? or I enjoy spending time with? Is it ever sacrificial? Im still working that out!
I think the writer is saying we may be trying to be more socially aware, and maybe it is a fad (even if its out of good intention), but are we only willing to give when it is comfortable for us?
yes, Annie, I think you captured the intend of ‘the writer’ accurately. I’m simply saying that, in our rejoicing over any and all efforts to feed the hungry and care for sick, we need to remain perpetually open to the shaping hand of Christ, who will no doubt change our reference point from what we’ve determined to be righteousness, to what he determines. That’s what he did with the rich young ruler. That’s what he did with his disciples. That’s what he’s doing with the sermon on the mount. If I get addicted to my culturally conditioned reference points of righteousness, I’ll run the risk of closing my heart to God’s higher calling, all the while feeling good about what I’ve done which, however laudable it might be, might have conveniently bypassed the cross in my own experience.
Good thoughts, Richard. I’m probably fuzzy on the U2 facet, but it does seem like social justice is and has been the next thang. I see Micah 6.8 as a crossbeam of sorts – the extended arms are ‘do justice’ and ‘walk humbly’, but the center, the heart is ‘love mercy.’ If the heart’s not there, then all our activity will be much ado about something, but it may not be cruciform. Hard to know…hard to know.
Interesting article.
IMO, it begs the question “Who are we following?”
I think we are witnessing an amazing and effective movement in social justice in Africa right now. And it’s being accomplished by the disciples of Bono, some Christian and some not. They are emulating the one they are following, and in this case, that’s a rock star. Should we really be surprised, or even disappointed, that they are equally as (or more) concerned with where they left their $200 sunglasses, or when the new Mac will be released, as they are with vaccines for babies in Rwanda, or clean water for Kenyans? Bono is obviously invested in music, fashion, art, and pop-culture, as well as Africa, and the One campaign… Why would his followers not do the same?
I think the same arguments for sacrifice and self-denial made against the hipster who satisfies his “giving and serving” quota by sponsoring a kid through World Vision, can be made against the Granny who does the same by rocking babies in the church nursery once a month. While her expression of the Gospel certainly isn’t fashionable, is it any less distorted? The marginalization of Jesus doesn’t seem to me to be anything new, and certainly wasn’t introduced into the church by U2.
I would venture to say that the cross IS the central message for those who are followers/disciples of Jesus, and merely admirers of Bono (or anyone else for that matter).
Thanks for sharing your perspective, Richard.
I get your call to denial and bigger sacrifices, but i think you belittle small sacrifice. “We might, for example, consider ourselves exemplary Christians because we have joined the One Campaign, sponsor a child with World Vision, and skip lattes on Fridays, giving the money to economic development work in Africa instead.” He then says these things have …the “risk” of being cross-less. I think of the sheep and the goats. Jesus didn’t say, “whatever you did for the least of these (AND what you told them about me)” The people in Christ’s example didn’t even realize they were doing it “in his name”
U2 is the most boring band, generic, overrated band on the face of the planet. Other than that I agree with what you’re saying about the gospel being more than social justice. But I do think Jesus was very concerned about this aspect, given the circumstances of the time of his life. His solution was a different kind of Bread. But he also multiplied loaves and fishes too.
sorry that i can’t remember the source, but i once read an interview with Bono in which he was asked what would be his greater legacy–U2′s music or his social justice efforts.
Bono’s response surprised me, because he said he hoped that U2′s music would leave the greater legacy. my first instinct was that human life (and therefore social justice) should be more important than music. but i think now i understand what he must have meant.
i am convinced that the entirety of U2′s catalogue cries out to God–at times basking in His grace and blessings, and at other times lamenting the “not yet” of our current situation. still other times, U2 mocks man and his feeble attempts to fill the void left by his separation from God.
if i were Bono, i think i would want those lyrics to be my legacy, too. Richard must be right–the words are just as important as the actions. i think Bono gets that concept, but i’m not sure i always do.
If you know Jesus and love Him, social justice flows out. Because you actually care about the world. People are the heart of God. If it takes a rock star, a princess, or a nun to wake people up to the fact that as disciples of Christ we share the responsibility, so be it. Prophets come in all shapes and sizes, what we do with their messages is another thing. He who has ears, let him hear………..