seeing God at work
i have been thinking about seeing God at work in the world. i think he's surprising in where and how and through whom he's working. i have been thinking about the movement to end poverty in Africa started by a singer and some of his cronies. that this movement could become popular and chic and very grass roots....how could God not be in this?
posted by Aaron Perry at
2:35 AM
6 Comments:
How could God be in a movement "designed" to keep dictators in power and soothe Western guilt complexes while leaving the poor, poor?
and who says we don't "interpret?" if this indeed is what happens, then i'll reconsider.
But ap, it already has happened. Remember USA for Africa, LiveAID, Let them Know It's Christmas, We are the World, along with innummerable Christian and other charitable organizations? Did they fix Africa? If so, why are we doing it again? If not, why are we doing it again? Catch 22!
Africa is, in terms of its natural resources, the richest continent on the planet. Its people are poor not because they need wealth given to them, but because they need to get rid of the absurdly wealthy corrupt politicos, "generals," "colonels," "imams" and others that arrange to steal them blind. Africa doesn't need money. It needs just and stable government, access to trade without bribery, and the freedom of its people to keep the wealth they produce. Stuff we take for granted.
Mindlessly giving money actually prevents this from happening because our charity actually keeps the Mugabe's and Khadaffi's and even not-as-bad-as-the-rest dictators like Mubarak in power. They'll take care of their bank accounts while we take care of their poor, thus actually perpetuating and indeed worsening the poverty of the vast majority of Afica's inhabitants.
But hey, if you feel better because you're "doing something to change the world," you go for it, brother man. Cause at the end of the day, it's all about your feelings. ;)
there is so much wrapped up in the simplicity of your post that i have to unpack it. first, you are committing a genetic fallacy by saying that the resurgence of awareness is defeated automatically by its failed predecessors. not necessasily so.
second, you're absolutely right that stable gov't is needed. that africa's situation hasn't improved for two generations (at least) may also show that its solution may even go beyond the work being done--and having been done. but again, this does not discredit the work started.
third, i would contend that money is being given "mindlessly." you are of course correct that supplying the wealthy with resources worsens the situation of those in genuine need. if african aid turns out to be another oil for food scandal, i will again reconsider what i've written, but i won't rule it out of hand.
i haven't done much to change the world except have a blog. and that is about my feelings.
Regarding your response:
(1) Simple ain't simplistic. I think Kierkegaard said something like that.
(2) Had I said: Bob Geldoff and Bono came up with this; they are dumb; therefore this is dumb, I would have committed the genetic fallacy. That, however, I did not say.
What I did say was that the litany of failed "money for nothing" programs, otoh, is sufficient evidence that another will follow in the same footsteps. This is not a genetic fallacy bc it is not an argument from logic. It is an argument from history. On this point--I really do hate to say this--Paul Martin is 100% correct and Bono is not.
(3) Since you admit the factuality of my middle two paragraphs, I will assume you are, after a moment of incorrect bluster, granting my argument. Thank you.
Are you feeling better? ;)
PS I love your blog. Why don't you check out mine at cheaptaxes.com?
re: 1), you are correct. i didn't mean simplistic; i meant simple.
re: 2), you are not. you have set up an unreachable target in your middle paragraph that i hoped you would pick up on when i mentioned your fallacy (it's still there). the fallacy is not found in grouping it with failed historical efforts. it's grouping it with efforts that have failed to "fix africa." you have closed the debate by beginning with the standard of God's kingdom and any measure under which is deemed failure.
re: 3), i grant your argument in possibility. the long term and rather ambiguous work needed in africa regarding its governance is beyond my creativity and life-time, likely. should this work have *no* benefit then you will be shown to be right. i doubt you will be, but i admit its possibility.
i feel the same. your blog sucks. :)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home