» Review: GOOD Magazine

In a riveting sermon, PCA pastor Tim Keller once explained why it is that traditional evangelism doesn't quite work with "post-everythings." Their parents belonged to a generation that wanted to be good people. But they, said Keller, belong to a generation that wants to be free, not good. So when presented with the idea that no one can be good enough for God, leading to an explanation of sin and redemption, the post-everything would simply respond - what's good? How do you define good?

Then, perhaps to signal a return to form, that ineradicable image of God borne by humans emerges and the result is GOOD - a magazine, essentially, for people who want to do good things. Green architecture, food for the poor, AIDS drugs for the third world, ending poverty, third world debt relief, global warming - these are the issues that a good person engages in order to demonstrate that he or she cares about things that really matter. From the "about" page, GOOD's editors write,

We see a growing number of people tied together not by age, career, background, or circumstance, but by a shared interest. This revolves around a passion for potential mixed with fierce pragmatism and creative engagement. We sum all this up as the sensibility of giving a damn. But to shorten it, let's call it GOOD. We're here to push this movement and cover its realization.

The subscription price even goes wholly towards charity; like most magazines, GOOD survives on advertising revenue, not subscription fees. The magazine itself has an engaging layout, good graphic design. Some of its "extras" are bit too obviously geared towards commodifying an indy lifestyle, with recto featuring a photograph of a hipster and verso showing his "gear." But like anything created by God's fallen image bearers, this magazine has positives and negatives.

First, the positives. GOOD generally represents a practical, entrepreneurial approach to charity and social involvement. GOOD is not a magazine that encourages its readers to pay more taxes and let someone else do the hard work of fixing problems in the world. If anything, the post-everythings are at least somewhat post-big-government and realize that responsibility ultimately lies with persons, not impersonal bureaucracies. Another healthy emphasis is on innovation. Believing that humans can innovate in order to solve problems is a smart bet, and can end up producing spin-off effects - technologies that clean up the problem and, in the end, create more improvement in society than it cost to innovate them. Flipping through the pages of GOOD, one must battle the tendency towards cynicism that most mainstream crusades generate. GOOD isn't about buying a Red Ipod, it's about battling genocide in Darfur. But it is also about wearing hemp clothing and feeling good about one's eating habits and the origin of one's coffee beans. A final good - after every day of creation, Yahweh proclaims all that he has made to be "good." Creation is good - it is still good - and the moral rebellion of humans does not change that fact. In fact, creation is so good, that we are to anticipate a new heavens and a new earth - a physical home for our resurrection bodies. Christians have as much of a motivation to do "GOOD" in this world as anyone. And that leads us to the weaknesses of GOOD.

The negatives. Ultimately, doing GOOD for good's sake is a kind of moralism that has no real spiritual power. If we help others, there is a momentary glow, but it can often turn to doubt - did I help that person altruistically or did I do it to feel good? If I did it to feel good, does it count as "good"? Further, to return to Keller's freedom diagnosis - adherence to a set of rules for goodness is a kind of slavery. Imagine the kind of "over righteousness" that one must adopt in order to examine every ingredient of every bit of food one eats, every beneficiary of every dollar one invests, every laborer who created the goods one uses. While not unworthy investigations in themselves, the quest for perfect sourcing of all one's goods can be a kind of slavery. And finally, it can lead to a kind of hypocrisy - one adopts enough of the badges of "GOOD" in order to be part of the GOOD crowd. Hemp clothing, or a hybrid car. These things can become symbols of a secular phariseeism. Christians draw their spiritual power from the Lord of life, Jesus, who already lived as a perfectly good human and died in self-sacrificial love. Spiritual power comes from being in union with him, and then out of love for him, proceeds an inexhaustible supply of motivation for doing GOOD. And, perhaps, even wearing a bit of hemp clothing. RN