Is the fact that this once popular phrase has fallen into disuse significant? The expression means stubbornly or recklessly determined, and its implication is a course of action destined for disastrous failure. One might ask: “Are we hell-bent?” If so, it is sobering to be reminded that the definition of hell is distance -eventually eternal – from God.
Becoming more and more confident in our ability to solve problems ourselves and to manage affairs without divine assistance is increasingly easy for us. Just as easily, this confidence can become hubris – the same human weakness to which scripture attributes the rise of our problematic existence. We begin to think that we do not need God, to deny his existence, or in the very least to consider his guidance superfluous. We believe we have a privileged understanding of reality, an understanding that dangerously flirts with the ancient heresy of Gnosticism.
This tendence of deliberately turning a deaf ear to the divine is found even among well-meaning folk. Consider the time-tested proverb ‘the road to hell is covered with good intentions ’. Good intentions alone do not necessarily bear good fruit. In fact, they can be harmful. One example, for instance, would be a well-known, prestigious private grade school – one which boasts of being rooted in traditional values – advertising that it is an ‘all gender’ academy. The school’s intention to be inclusive is admirable; its message, however, could be harmful to its young pupils. This determined decision to do one ‘good’ (inclusion) at the recognized expense of ignoring another ‘good’ (the biblical specification about two sexes) may be hell-bent.
Philanthropy, or at least philanthropy arising from religious commitment, tends to accept as a guide not just moral but also religious imperatives. These philanthropists check their decision to ensure that they are not ‘recklessly determined’ and that they are consistent with a discerning understanding of the divine will. In other words, this kind of philanthropy is not devoid of an awareness of God. Three examples from the New Testament illustrate this linkage between this philanthropy and God.
The first is Jesus’ identification of the two great commandments. It is instructive that the first of these is our obligation to God and the second our obligation to our neighbor. Service to others subsists in service to God. We serve others because in doing so we serve God.
The second is found in the much quoted 25th chapter of Matthew’s Gospel where Jesus speaks of the final judgement where ‘the sheep’ and ‘the goats’ will be separated. Alluding to service to the poor, Jesus said: “What you did to the least of these you did to me”. This proclamation has two points. One is the imperative to serve the poor. The other (and often forgotten) is that in serving the poor we are serving him, i.e. we are serving God.
The third example appears in the agony in the garden the night before Jesus’ execution. Jesus admits that he would have ‘this cup pass’, that asks that he not undergo what awaits him. Yet, he accepts the will of his Father: ‘Not my will, but yours’. Religiously oriented philanthropy carries out God’s will, not ours.
Putting God first, serving him in serving others, and complying with his will are the components of religiously rooted philanthropy. There is nothing recklessly determined or hell-bent about it. Otherwise the Kingdom would not advance.