In the first part of 'A Response to “We Are the World: The Spirit of the World”- On the Mark or Way off Key?' I brought to light a misguided criticism from the Later Days Minsitry blog regarding their attack on the song “We Are the World” and the argument that there is nothing positive from the secular world. There sheer volume of problems I found with this post warranted a continuation of this reponse.

There were other criticisms that also miss the mark or border on absurdity such as the complaint that we “must come together as one” is to absurd to even bother commenting on, how could anyone complain about that? Then again, the author also complains about love....really? Did not Jesus, whom this author claims to follow, reiterate the command that we are to love one another? How then can you condemn a song for telling us to do just that? He also, somehow, takes offense to the idea that life is the greatest gift that we can give to another, apparently he has never read the words of Jesus who states that “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13.

Next on the list, is his ludicrous interpretation of the song's point that in joining together to create a better world we are “saving our own lives”. Come on, this is really kind of common sense, is it not? The author claims that this line is getting rid of the need for God as savior (funny, they sure keep mentioning God a lot in the song if they were trying to make Him obsolete). But, the salvation that the Bible speaks of is a spiritual, eternal one, not saving us from our own stupidity. One of those pesky little things about free will, if we poison our own well, we end up very dead, to spite the state of our souls. That is what this line is about, making responsible choices for ourselves and the rest of the world instead of engaging in behaviors, such as war and greed, that end up hurting us all.

So, what about that whole “stones to bread” thing? Ok, I can give him some leeway on this one. Was it a poor lack of Biblical knowledge when they were writing the song, or perhaps a throw back to Psalms 104 where God brings “forth food out of the earth” and water from the rocks as with Moses? Was it, perhaps, poorly worded to accurately depict the example they were after? Sure, I will give you that but I hardly think the intent was to eliminate God, after all, had that been the purpose of the song, why even mention God at all or give Him credit for being our creator and calling us to love one another?

The author could have chosen any number of charity concerts by artists whose lyrics are a glorification of violence and the drug culture, demeaning and objectifying women, or other such offensive diatribes to illustrate the point that evil begets evil. But by choosing a positive and sincere attempt to follow God's command of love and charity, the author is sabotaging his own agenda. You can never attract anyone to your cause until they step out of their own mode of selfish materialism, yet when they do, you want to attack them, not for their previous wrongs but for trying to do right? How is that suppose to even make sense let alone attract anyone to convert to your way of thinking?

While there are certainly plenty examples of things of the world being contrary to the way and will of God, this top song of the 80's “We Are the World” is not one of them.