Speaking as someone who heads a Christian aid organization, our fundraising may well benefit from celebrities raising public awareness about world poverty since the proverbial rising tide lifts all boats. If Simon, Ryan, Randy and Paula decide to assist our cause, why should I complain? Pure self-interest should have me cheering them on.

Even so, something about it doesn't sit right with me. It's not the self-serving aspect of rich and famous people jumping on board as advocates for poor people. Self-promotion is business-as-usual for Hollywood, and therefore too obvious to be a surprise.

I am concerned that this growing "celebritization" of charity has a dark side. A problem crops up when the rich decide to make poverty their project—making it a fashionable project only aggravates the problem. The crux of the issue is power—particularly the disparity of power that exists between those who want to help, and those identified as needing help.

To expand on this, I would begin with three brief observations from the Bible. First, the Lord shapes people to be used in his service, with humility as a prime requirement. Second, Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God as "good news to the poor" and called his followers to a costly discipleship marked by fellowship in his sufferings. Third, the Bible's attitude toward money, and the power that goes with it, is cautious. Money can be used for good, but is also the source of much evil and unnecessary anguish. In either case, it is a mere instrument, not an unadulterated good in itself.

Allying fame and poverty inherently oversimplifies the deep issues involved.

I enjoy American Idol. The personalities involved seem like good-hearted people (even Simon). But their suggestion that a shortage of money is the critical issue in the fight on poverty is rejected by every reputable agency involved. Billions are being poured out, yet many problems that afflict Africa and other regions remain intractable. What's wrong with this picture?

What is the sub-text when celebrities push to help the poor? "We (who are rich) have the power to change the world." The experience of our organization concludes that this kind of thinking is flawed, and despite all good intentions can actually damage the very people who need help.

People who live in circumstances of poverty are not incapable of helping themselves. They have enormous (albeit often untapped) capabilities, but they are often hindered by deep feelings of powerlessness. What is required to help people in great need without reinforcing their self-perception that they have no capacity to address their own needs through their own resourcefulness? A short answer is "wisdom." A longer answer is "coming alongside as humble servants, not riding in like celebrated saviors."

One of our organization's senior leaders visited an impoverished village that needed clean water. They were aware of the need, and asking for help. He had enough money to pay for a well to be built. He found himself reaching into his pocket, but his training told him otherwise. So he asked them what it would take for them to build a well, and joined them in thinking through the problem. One man drew a picture of the bricks that would be needed. Others joined the discussion. In less than an hour, the villagers outlined what they would need, and set a goal of building the well within six months. But their projection was off target. The well was successfully finished in less than two months.

This is not to say that outside aid is never needed. But it is too often assumed to be the answer, because money is the most obvious (and often easiest) thing we have to give. By resisting the urge to merely give money—and to implicitly accept the perception of those villagers that they were incapable of helping themselves—my colleague helped them discover something money cannot buy—a greater sense of their own ability, dignity, and control over their lives. That is the deep issue of poverty that money cannot solve.

The subtle idea that "we must help them because they are incapable" also flirts with an old pernicious attitude—the notion of the "white man's burden." Having a proper conscience about helping one's neighbor is very different from thinking that we who are rich must rescue them who are poor because they cannot help themselves. If that is the case, then perhaps we really are superior after all. Noblesse oblige?

The concern I feel about celebrity spokespersons is summed up in photos featuring tall, handsome (mostly white) men and women walking in a sea of undernourished black children. These images rekindle stereotypes of white strength and black weakness that ought to have been discarded by our culture long ago.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of humble and dedicated people serve daily in religious and secular relief organizations, bringing hope, lifting dignity, and empowering change among the poor. Celebrity campaigns may, one hopes, create a rising tide that lifts all agencies and individuals who are helping the cause, but there is a danger to this glitzy answer. Marx famously accused religion of being "the opiate of the masses," but the entertainment industry now holds that cultic role. Celebrity priests call for a kind of easy, feel-good generosity that eases a vague sense of guilt among the affluent.

What is really needed are people coming alongside, in suffering and self-sacrificial service, to empower people with a new sense of their own capability and dignity. When focus is put on raising money, the simplistic idea is spread that poverty can be solved if the affluent just give a little, without anyone having to sacrifice or suffer. At the very least, this grossly oversimplifies the problem.

I want to register a plea for a more effortful, deeper understanding of the human situation of poverty and the remedies that must be applied. If celebrities want their fame to make a difference to the poor, they are more than welcome to pitch in.

But the real leader in the campaign against poverty is Jesus, who defined the issues—and the price to be paid—two thousand years ago. He rejected the allure of wealth and fame, became as nothing and laid down his life so the outcast, overlooked and ordinary might gain everything—most of all their proper dignity and worth as God's children. He still sets the standard.

Last night, American Idol sponsors, Coke, AT&T, and Ford donated 5 cents for every caller who voted for their favorite Idol contestant in hopes of raising $5 million for world relief work. Current rates for a 1 minute ad spot for the program commands $1.4 million. American Idol has been promoting Idol "Gives Back" since the beginning of this programming season.

Oprah's confesses past failures when she thought money alone would solve problems for young girls in need

Winfrey says candidly that when she has tried to help kids in this country, "I have failed." Attempting to mentor a group of girls from her adopted hometown of Chicago, "I took them on ski trips, we had etiquette classes ... you'd teach them how to do their makeup, we'd read and talk about books. And when they went home, they were criticized and beat up because their families said, 'Who do you think you are?' " The failure taught her "you can't just give people money, new homes, new stuff and think that you're giving them a new life."

Winfrey says she also has learned a lot from trying to remotely parent 10 school-age South African children, whom she has supported and overseen since 2002. Beyond a mention in the December issue of her magazine, "O", she has said little about it publicly, believing the children are safer and happier out of the public eye. She says her partner, Stedman Graham, was supportive when she called from South Africa to report 10 new dependents. She bought the children a big house, hired caretakers and sent them to boarding school. She visits several times a year.

"If I didn't have a day job, I absolutely would have made a different decision," she says of her long-distance parenting. "I didn't bring these kids over here [because] my lifestyle is not such that I could devote all my time to these children, and that is what would need to happen."

But a continent away, Winfrey says, she couldn't apply the stern hand needed to keep them on track. On a visit this summer, when she found the kids more absorbed with their cellphones than their school work, she scolded them in language she won't offer for publication.

But she paraphrases, her voice rising to a frustrated growl as she acts out the lecture: " 'Everybody talks about unconditional love. My love has some conditions. I showed my love for you by providing you a home, by providing somebody to take care of you, putting you in private schools. ... So this is the condition: You have to give me what I've given you. I've given you my best, and that's what I want from you. I want your best. And turn off your cellphones when I'm speaking to you!' Everybody's sitting there with their heads down. They got it."

Members of local church make big impact by giving money and time in partnership with Kenyan villagers

Thousands of churches across the country have learned that giving money is an essential but inadequate ingredient of lasting change for people in need. Working alongside people to effect change organically requires money, focus and cooperative effort.

In one southern California church, members returned from a mission trip to Kenya after seeing firsthand some of the 14 million children orphaned by the AIDS virus. They created a non-profit organization called the Baraka Foundation that is centered in the East African Village of Makobe, Kenya. The goal is to establish a working model that can be duplicated throughout Africa. The orphan children are victims of the African AIDS pandemic which has put a significant strain on the remaining people in Makobe. The mission of the Baraka Foundation is to house, clothe, protect, educate, and nurture this particular group of orphaned children while equipping them to become educated, responsible adults.

In the 6 years since they first encountered the almost extinct community of Makobe, the members of the Baraka Foundation have worked alongside Kenyan citizens to bring the community back to life. Financial and human resources have been directed toward building an infrastructure for the community that includes fresh water, remodeled school facilities and a children's home that houses 21 AIDS orphaned girls. Baraka Foundation intends to provide for their educational needs through college.

World Vision still sets the standard for world relief and development efforts

World Vision, founded in 1950 by Dr Bob Pierce in response to the needs of Korean War orphans, is now a multinational, multipronged relief and development organization. In 2006 World Vision raised 2.1 billion in cash and goods for its work in 97 nations.

World Vision projects can be grouped into two major areas: 1) long-term sustainable community development focusing on meeting needs identified by the community itself, like clean water, education, health care, agricultural improvements and public hygiene, and 2) short-term emergency relief, such as providing food, shelter and medical care to victims of natural or man-made disasters. Most relief projects are designed to transition smoothly into development activities.

Community development projects are specifically designed to be permanently sustainable with locally available resources, technology, materials and leadership. Families and individuals share in project leadership, responsibilities and activities from the start and are well equipped and motivated to continue in these roles when World Vision departs.

America the charitable: a few surprises

Some experts see charity as a defining trait of the US, more than consumerism or business. But those forces may be intertwined.

For example: As personal incomes rise in a given county, the income of nonprofits seems to rise even faster, says Rob Grunewald, an associate economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, who has analyzed counties in 47 states. This suggests that not-for-profit activities are what economists call a "superior good," something people want to buy more of (or donate more to) as their incomes rise.

But ties between charitable ventures and the economy hardly end there.

In his new book, Dr. Brooks points to evidence that charity is no mere peripheral activity. It pays off for society in ways that may transcend the rates of return on many traditional investments. Why?

It's not just that charity helps those on the receiving end, says Brooks, an economist at Syracuse University in New York. It also strengthens the cohesion of society at large. Moreover, it appears to make the givers themselves more successful, possibly because the activity transforms them somewhat into better or happier people. Whatever the reasons, he finds that higher income tends to push up charity - and that greater charity tends to push up income.

C.S. Monitor

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.