by When I was a kid, I loved reading books by pro athletes about their Christian faith (Terry Bradshaw: Man of Steel was my favorite), and hearing about athletes leading bible studies in the locker room. I think it made me feel that my faith, which often seemed intensely uncool, had a bit of coolness factor after all. I’m guessing that it’s this desire not to feel so uncool that has led to the disturbing effort to bail out actor Stephen Baldwin from his financial troubles.
I keep hoping that this “Restore Stephen Baldwin” website is a parody, but it doesn’t appear to be. (HT: Rod Dreher) For those who do not follow the Baldwin Brothers, or (more broadly) B-list actors who made their reputations in the 1990s, Baldwin starred in a string of mediocre films, then became a born-again Christian and has been admirably sincere and relentless in preaching the Gospel to hipsters, skateboarders, and Hollywood types anywhere he can find them. But apparently he has run into financial trouble, and now he needs his brothers and sisters in Christ to “publicly restore” him. If we do (by donating via Pay Pal “quickly”) Stephen’s “platform will increase allowing him to reach even more people with the Gospel and God will get all of the glory.” And why does Stephen need “personal wealth?” Because “Stephen’s influence is in Hollywood,” and “Hollywood worships money and without it you are seen as a loser and cannot be an effective influence to this group.”
Are Christians really that desperate to have a Hollywood actor claim to be one of us? And so thankful that he did that we’ll sacrifice to help him maintain his Hollywood lifestyle? Seriously?
The early Christians wouldn’t baptize actors. They had to quit the profession before they could join the Church.
Christian use of celebrities is a misguided attempt to influence the culture. You can see why Christians do so. Celebrities have an enormous influence. We make role models out of people with little spiritual maturity. We should not be surprised that many of them fall. It’s another attempt to make up for the break-down of the family.
St. Paul said that he made himself “all things to all people” in order to spread his message. My own view is that different people have different gifts, and they sometimes employ these gifts in an effort to reach people and to share their faith. For some people, their gift may be education or intellectual ability. For others it may be rhetorical ability, or personality. In the same way, if a gifted athlete wants to express his faith, and if he or she can reach some audiences by virtue of athletic renown, what is the harm in that? It’s impressive that he or she can adhere to a spiritual way of life in an unconducive environment. Same, I would think, for some Hollywood personality. For myself, I feel some satisfaction when I see or hear of someone who adheres in challenging circumstances to a demanding faith, whether it be Christian, Jewish, or something else.
Of course anyone may fall short. And there’s sometimes cause to wonder about the bona fides of someone who may use religion mostly for publicity. But even then, as St. Paul said of people who preached the Gospel from self-serving motives, “What does it matter? Just this, that Christ is proclaimed in every way, whether out of false motives or true; and in that I rejoice.”
Disclaimer: I say all this as someone who has never been “cool,” who never heard of Steven Baldwin before this, and who does not intend to contribute a dime to “restore” him.
The Stephen Baldwin question is an interesting one because, in addition to being a B-list actor, he is a B-list right wing pundit. So, it seems to me we have here the unfortunately common mix of religion, celebrity, and politics. Sigh.
There is also a form of Christianity that is reductionist to the point of being characterized by naked philosophical assent to a premise. “Do you believe X? Well then you’re a Christian.” This turns Christianity into some sort of polling data. And if you can influence the polls, “yay, we’re filling up Heaven!”