Should I watch Kony2012?

I am not inclined to after reading the following two articles

Kony2012: What's the real story? in the Guardian

Joseph Kony is not in Uganda (and other complicated things)
which was reprinted in the Weekend Australian

A goal of the video is to get the US government to continue to support using their military to support the efforts of the Uganda military to track down and kill Kony. Such endeavours have a terrible history. Often they result in arming and empowering tryants who themselves commit atrocities: Osama Bin Laden and Manuel Noriega were both originally funded by the CIA for "nobel causes".

The video seems to be largely a fund-raising tool for a "charity" which has poor governance and uses only a fraction of its fund for activities of direct benefit to needy children.

To me this is a new web-based colonialism. In past eras Africa was mined and stripped bare of natural resources and dignity to fuel Western economies.
Now Africa is being mined to fuel the moral indignation and self righteousness of a new generation of Westerners who yearn for meaning and purpose as they seek to be fulfilled by "changing the world" while sitting at their computers.

Was Barth an experientialist?

Andrew Reid's notes for the Apologetics unit of the Moore College Correspondence course helpfully gives three broad distinct approaches to apologetics: presuppositionalism, evidentialism, experientialism. Practically, these respectively lead to an emphasis on proclamation, persuasion, or personal testimony.

I found it curious that Reid classifies Karl Barth as falling into the last category of experientialism. I think that on some level Barth has more common ground with approaches with an emphasis on proclamation. He had reservations about apologetics in general. There was no reason to not be confident about the truth of the gospel. Theology does not have to justify itself. He considered that theology had a role to play in the university (even in the secular public university) because it called into question the presuppositions of other academic disciplines. But there is great irony with classifying Barth as a presuppositionalist because that puts Barth in the same camp as Cornelius van Til, the doyen of presuppositionalism. He was one of Barth's harshest critics, diminishing Barth's influence in conservative North American circles.

Theology is a modest happy free critical science!

In my theology discussion group this saturday we are reading the first three chapters of Karl Barth's Evangelical Theology: An Introduction [my choice!].

Theology is a "science" [wissenschaft = a discipline of study] because it seeks

"to apprehend a specific object and its environment in the manner directed by the phenomonen itself...to understand it on its own terms and to speak of it along with all the implications of its existence." 

page 3

Evangelical theology is modest theology, because it is determined to be so by its object, that is, by him who is its subject. 

page 7

theology is, for all its modesty, in an exemplary way a free science. This means it is a science which joyfully respects the mystery of the freedom of its object and which, in turn, is again and again freed by its object from any dependence on subordinate presuppositions. 

page 9

evangelical theology is an eminently critical science, for it is continually exposed to judgment and never relieved of the crisis in which it is placed by its object, or, rather to say, by its living subject.

page 10

 Evangelical theology is concerned with Immanuel, God with us! Having this God for its object, it can be nothing else but the most thankful and happy science!

page 12

What has the Academy to do with the Church?

This question has a long history, going back to Tertullian (160-225), who famously asked, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" It is interesting to read the quote in context, which I would not claim to really understand.

Whence spring those "fables and endless genealogies," and "unprofitable questions," and "words which spread like a cancer? " From all these, when the apostle would restrain us, he expressly names philosophy as that which he would have us be on our guard against. Writing to the Colossians, he says, "See that no one beguile you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, and contrary to the wisdom of the Holy Ghost." He had been at Athens, and had in his interviews (with its philosophers) become acquainted with that human wisdom which pretends to know the truth, whilst it only corrupts it, and is itself divided into its own manifold heresies, by the variety of its mutually repugnant sects. What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? What between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from "the porch of Solomon," who had himself taught that "the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart." Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief.

Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum 7.9
[On prescription to heretics, a helpful introduction is here].

The context seems to be that Tertullian was arguing against heretics having the right to use Scripture in their arguments, rather than against Christians making use of philosophy and reason.

Effective strategies for helping the poor

I previously posted about some Christian economists perspective on the ten best strategies for helping the poor.

It is interesting to read a response from someone working at the grass roots about the relative effectiveness of some of these strategies. It highlights to me the importance of context, education, follow up, and community based strategies. I think this is one of the reasons why Compassion's child sponsorship programs work so well.

How do you answer children's questions about science and faith?

This is not easy. First, you need to be clear in your own mind.

Today my wife Robin and I are giving an elective, "Science and faith: what kids need to know" at Ignite, an annual conference in Brisbane for people involved in ministry to children. Here are the slides from our presentation. The main goal is to give teachers a framework for to think about the issue themselves. Hopefully they can then adapt this to communicate the ideas at the appropriate level to children. This is not easy.

We welcome feedback.

In previous years we have given an elective about using science experiments as a platform to teaching truths about God.

Testify, persuade, or proclaim?

The last post considered three forms of apologists, that have been dominant in the western world. In simple terms one might characterise the respective strategies as:

Simply proclaiming the Gospel

Using historical evidence to persuade others of the truth of the Gospel

Giving personal testimony about the Gospel.

Advocates tend to claim that one of these strategies is better or the only one that is Biblically based.

However, I think in different contexts one may be more appropriate than another. In some ways, a natural progression with an audience is to testify to create interest, to persuade to establish plausibility, and finally to proclaim.