Re-reading the Exceptional Clause… Unless and/or Except!

Too tired to think clearly right now but the thought on exceptional clauses has just occurred to me. This may fall under the “if then…” kinds of clauses – you know those hypothetical situations! For the purpose of illustration, I will cite one from the Bible. Here are the sayings of Jesus in:

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 5:31-31

The statement “…everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” can also be restated in the form if x then y. In which case it will look like this:

If you divorce your wife (apodosis), you make her commit adultery (protasis).

The other one is:

If a man marries a divorced woman (apodosis), he commits adultery (protasis).

In other words, the hypothetical statements spells some form of Kant’s categorical imperative in a rather inverted sense. If Kant were to give a statement, it would look like this:

A Man should not divorce his wife because he makes her an adulteress, and also no man should marry a divorced woman for he will become an adulterer.

The general idea is the prohibition of divorce. Thus Jesus frowns upon divorce. He continues with this thesis in Mathew 19. Responding to the Pharisees in verse 6, he says “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Again we see a complete prohibition on divorce. However, the Jews are not just letting go of the argument like that, so they invoke Moses. in verse 7, they ask “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” To which Jesus responds “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.”

The Pharisees were looking for a way to accuse Jesus of changing changing the Law of Moses, which he had said he came to fulfill. In Matthew 5: 17,18 he had given an assurance of his intentions in respect to the Law:

¹⁷ “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Which law is this that the Pharisees are citing? Deuteronomy 24:1-4 reads:

“When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the LORD. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance.

This is the provision that the Pharisees enjoyed. There were three different rabbinical schools that interpreted the passage differently – some more liberally than others, but nonetheless still to the detriment of the woman. Therefore Jesus tells them that it was because of the hardness of their hearts that Moses provided an imperative: giving the woman a certificate of divorce.

But Jesus is hereby stirring the water. Putting a stop to the status quo. He now says that divorce is impermissible. However, in what seems to be a statement of finality, he gives one condition for divorce… just one: except for marital unfaithfulness. Thus to any man who divorces his wife makes the woman commit adultery. The only time he doesn’t make her commit adultery is when the woman is already guilty of the offense.

A closer look at the text does not say that the man should divorce the wife if she commits adultery. It only mentions that divorcing a woman except for the case of adultery makes her an adulteress. In other words, Jesus’ focus is on what the divorce does and not an exceptional situation that makes divorce ideal, or even a fickle possibility.

Divorce made the woman an adulteress because she was freed to marry another man and having a conjugal relationship with another man other than her previous husband defiled her. On the other hand, if she was already an adulteress, the divorce would therefore not add anything to her status in so far as sexual purity is concerned since her adulterous behaviour would have preceded, or even necessitated the divorce. Therefore the man would not be contributing in making her an adulteress by divorcing her.

However, not making her an adulteress by the way of divorce does not signify an authorization to divorce her.

But another dilemma presents itself. Jesus says “whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

It seems as if a woman’s involvement in sexual immorality is a permitted ground for divorce. The word μὴ (except) is a particle of negation.

Jesus therefore continues with Moses’ provision for divorce, not as a prescription but as an acknowledgement of its reality especially in relation to the depraved human condition. He however introduces the exceptional clause as an affirmative action to protect the women who previously would have been divorced for any reason or even none, as long as she was given a certificate of divorce.

Though Jesus sustains Moses’ ruling, he makes sure that the spirit of the law is given prominence and not just the letter. It therefore appears as if there is an amendment to Moses’ provision in Deuteronomy 24. But that reading is far-fetched, what has changed is not the provision but the understanding of the provision. The intent of the content has been given its true meaning thereby breathing a new life. Once again, Jesus is releasing the oppressed thereby fulfilling the prophecy… he came of the downtrodden after all!

So the hypothetical imperative – the reversed categorical imperative has in fact some exceptional provisions. Those who take an entirely deontological position like Kant may be pushing too much, while those pursuing the utilitarian position are also getting way too much to the left.

This is just one case of the application of the exceptional clause in situational ethics. There are many others and I invite my readers to discuss them in the comments section… maybe we can start by making sober inquiries into the exceptional clause in the abortion clause in Kenya’s newly-voted constitution.

Till death do us part!

Discipline is Paramount

As predicted, the Kenyan media was not going to let Kenyans enjoy the recent successfully conducted referendum in peace. Somehow drama had to be sought, and if it wasn’t found, it had to be created – after all, don’t we all know that controversy sells?

And they did not have to try hard, for as usual, Kenyan politicians do not disappoint. Watching various news clips and reading different papers, the main debate in Kenya’s politics was whether those who opposed the draft constitution should be included in the implementation process. This debate was further narrowed into a political debate, as to whether or not the ODM Party should discipline its wayward members. Before it was noon, the debate had shifted to a moral debate, as to whether or not the ODM party would be acting right should they decide to discipline the rebel MPs.

This is the question I seek to answer here: Is party discipline a reversal to the single party error? I want to argue that it is not only right for ODM to expel Ruto and his team, but that that it is also immoral for Ruto to cling to the party and that his expulsion is urgent.

So, is ODM becoming a dictatorship?

Two schools of thought are advanced in respect to this question. The first School of thought argues that a party is an institution with sets of values that are adhered to and that discipline is paramount.

The other school of thought counters this, saying that Kenya is a democracy and that disciplining of errant members of any party is an affront to the democracy that Kenyans have fought for. Citing the KANU disciplinary committee, then chaired by Okiki Amayo, they argue that ODM is going back to the old dictatorial single party era of one Daniel arap Moi.

It is very true that the single party era was such a tyranny. It was impossible to think about, leave alone, whisper a divergent opinion. That the repeal of section 2(a) was a significant step towards what is a vital historical accomplishment in Kenya’s political history is an undeniable fact and that a return to the previous situation would be disastrous cannot be debated.

It is, however, instructive that we put things into perspective. The situation in the 80s and 90s is far different from today. In the single party era there was no room for divergent opinion. No forum – party, society or club was allowed to sing any song other than the praise of baba Moi. The media, the clergy the civil society and politicians were all muzzled. There was no way, whatsoever, that one would imagine opposing anything “Moi.”

Today Kenya is not only a multi-party state. It is in fact a coalition government made up of multiple partners… it may not even be far from the truth to insinuate that Kenya is the only state that has the whole opposition in government – with the exception of only one hopeless party, KADDU.

All these parties have their own manifestoes to which individual members subscribe to. Thus in a multi-party democracy, people are free to either register or join political parties that embrace their views and values. They are also free to leave the same. This is standard and is practiced world over. Just like people are free to join Churches they find comfort in. If a Church preaches what one deem contrary to his beliefs and values, then he is free to leave it. Of course, there is room for proposing reforms – but reforms are only tenable when the problem is not the doctrines but rather the infidelity to the doctrines.

Politics can be viewed from the same perspective. If one hold on to the five pillars of the reformed tradition like I do, it would be foolish to impose such positions on the Catholic Church. In fact, It would be immoral for such a person to antagonise the operations of the Church claiming that they are not embracing my divergent opinions. How so, especially in a democratic society? Well, institutions in democratic societies have codes that bind and govern them. In Churches they come in forms of constitutions, doctrinal statements, catechisms and confessions. There are also membership covenants that bind one another towards an agreed course.

These covenants are both broad and specific. Broad enough to allow persons to apply the truths in culturally acceptable ways without definite and rigid prescriptions from the Church but also narrow enough to maintain consistency and fidelity to biblical and historic Christianity. These membership covenants are not signed by coercion but by mutual agreement. They are however, binding.

The Churches also have the place of discipline. Wayward members who live in sin and ignore the calls to restoration are excommunicated. This is both biblical as well as legal. This helps maintain order and harmony as well as oneness of purpose.

Political parties have constitutions as well as manifestoes, or platforms as they are known in the US. Members ascribe to political parties that meet their value criteria. While the constitution determines the legality, the manifesto is the real contract that the party has with its voters. Members join the party because they believe in the values of the party as spelled in the manifesto. Politicians are therefore judged upon their delivery of the contents of the manifesto. On the other hand, the (party) constitution ensures fidelity to the manifesto.

A member is free (as provided by the constitution) to raise concern if he senses infidelity to the constitution and/or the manifesto. However, if he finds that he no longer holds the same party position, he has two options: call for an amendment of such positions or opt out of the party. Opting out of the party is called defection and it has politically ramifications.

It is however, adulterous stay in a party whose positions are antithetical to yours. It is also unethical to insist maintaining party membership on the one hand while jeopardizing its operations on the other hand. Usually, such people are disciplined since they are no longer useful to the party.

It is therefore misleading to say that ODM is being dictatorial should it decide to discipline its recalcitrant members. Members have only two options, either toe the party line or find other like-minded parties.

If I was ODM, I would expel Ruto and his lot for they are becoming a liability to the party and it is no longer tenable to maintain their membership.

C.S. Lewis gives an analogy about the moral Life. He compares Morality to a fleet of ships. Assuming that there are three dozen ships sailing from one point to another across the Atlantic Ocean, there are three conditions that must be met for a successful voyage. The first condition is that every ship must run properly. If one or more ships break down, the successful completion of the ship’s task will be jeopardized. Secondly, the relations between ships must be in proper order. Lack of order may lead to collisions. Finally, the fleet must be headed for the right destination. It makes no sense for Ruto to stay in the fleet if it is not heading his way. It is also not sensible for ODM to keep Ruto et al in the party if they are not heading to the same port. Imagine if the ODM fleet is heading to Baltimore while Ruto is heading to the Port Harcourt. The voyage will be considered unsuccessful.

So here we go, good leadership demands that Ruto is shown the door urgently so that the party can concentrate on implementing its policies rather than nurse the ego of one man. It is time…

Next time we will look at the analogy of politics as a marriage and the problem with the nature of democratic politics is that it requires massive seduction and deceit….

The Highest Good and the Means of Attaining it

I first posted this article 4 years ago on my Mapinduzi blog which was hacked by you know who… I have been rethinking ethics and yesterday having re-read William Frankena, I decided to re-post this this article to help me think through virtue ethics….

The whole article is fictitious. However, I believe that it captures the world views so presented. The names are not exact representations of anybody in particular, with exception of Kidha who is myself. If it by any chance corresponds to your name, I am sorry but I didn’t mean you. Now get on and read for yourself, the verdict is yours.
Persons of the DialogueKidha (Christian Philosopher) who is also the narratorOloo Aguambo (ancestral representative)David Humes (Atheist)Abdul Osman Min Mandela(Muslim Philosopher)

And others who are mute auditors
The scene is laid in the house of Abdul Osman Min Mandela; and Kidha narrates the whole dialogue the day after it took place to Gustafson, Dejong and Kibor (My university lecturers).
I went down yesterday to Mavivye with Oloo the son of Aguambo, that I might offer my prayers to Jehovah; and also I wanted to see in what manner I would most sensibly live my life.
Kidha: It is very encouraging that all of us made it in time as agreed. Let us continue being good stewards of the same by starting our discussion straight away. I will start by posing this question to Abdul Osman. What do you perceive as the highest good a human being can hope for?
Abdul: It all goes without saying, being a righteous and God-fearing man through submission to Allah because he only is God. It is in his power to bless us or to destroy us.

Humes: That isn’t all you would call the highest good, I suppose.

Abdul:Certainly.

Kidha: That seems too cheap an idea for me to buy. Please clarify what submission to Allah means to you.
Abdul: Islam has laid down some universal fundamental rights for humanity as a whole, which are to be observed and respected under all circumstances. To achieve these rights Islam provides not only legal safeguards but also a very effective moral system. Thus whatever leads to the welfare of the individual or the society is morally good in Islam and whatever is injurious is morally bad. Islam attaches so much importance to the love of God and love of man that it warns against too much of formalism. Sura 2:177 of the Holy Quran gives a clear and beautiful description of the righteous and God-fearing man. He should not only obey salutary regulations, but he should also fix his gaze on the love of God and the love of his fellow men. We are given four heads: Our faith should be true and sincere, we must be prepared to show it in deeds of charity to our fellow-men, we must be good citizens, supporting social organization and, our own individual soul must be firm and unshaken in all circumstances.

Aguambo: What a vague and misconceived understanding of the highest good! It sounds quite highly unattainable? Indeed, that is not what I would prefer to hold on as my highest good. Rather, the highest good is to live in harmony with my ancestors. Since they are never visible, reverence for them is portrayed in the way we live with others. This lies in the philosophy that I am because we are. I need to be happy and make my ancestors happy. The joy of everyone else is the joy I want to have. Happiness is only happiness when everybody else shares the same feelings with the others. It is rather happier to mourn with the mourners than to rejoice with those who rejoice if at all the option of mourning is available. This is so because the consciousness of mourning once conceived in the mind remains disturbing even while you seek pleasures in other ways as rejoicing. Thus, the issue of rejoicing is pushed aside because it will obviously fail to materialize as a genuine act and feeling. Therefore, in order to make the rejoicing a reality that is felt in act and mind undisturbed, the sharing of sorrows with those in sorrowful moments is given the first priority as a prerequisite to enjoying happy moments with those who are happy. In other words, it is a moral obligation for every individual to know the weight of one another’s burden and this is only possible through carrying of one another’s burden. This is not an issue of choice but an obligation. Whoever fails to obey is administered to the necessary disciplinary actions equal to his conduct. This is done by the relevant authorities: the ancestors: also called the living dead. The punishment is often severe and ranges from inflicting pain on the offender to even causing his death.

Humes: Abdul echoed some sentiments that to me are improbable to think of. How do you expect me to think of a God who does not exist? What slightest evidence do you have for the existence of Allah?
Abdul: There is more evidence than I can give for the existence of Allah. The simplest that I believe you quite easily understand is that of the way he delivered the Quran to Mohammed through angel Gabriel.
Humes: Wait a minute a minute. Do you mean to talk about what my good friend Kidha would probably call miracles? The transgression of the law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or the interposition of some invisible agent? Forget it. That is very a cheap and an untested theory. Miracles don’t really occur. It is that you people have just mistaken natural events for supernatural events. These people who talk of miracles have distorted or misinterpreted what they have observed. Either, their senses are poor. Or their emotions are worked up, or they need a miracle and thus project their inner wishes into some otherwise ordinary events. These things you call miracles can be perfectly explained by ordinary laws of nature, which have not yet been discovered. After all, there is much about the world we do not yet understand. Therefore no events need to be explained by appeal to the supernatural, no matter how much they go against what we know as the law of nature. The simple reason is that it is intrinsically impossible for natural laws to have exceptions3. To wind up dear friends, I feel that anyone who accepts the report of miracle as true and thus believes in God, must do so on the basis of pure faith and against what his reason and the evidence tell him.

Aguambo: You sound very rebellious and unreligious Humes. Who made you? You haven’t told us your highest your highest good too.
Humes: Nature. I was able to develop a belief system based upon respect for truth and knowledge, questioning all assumptions backed by a sense of morality because of the culture I have grown up in. I am not a rebel; I have not rejected huge chunks of our society’s basic values despite the fact that we live in a culture that pays lip service to respecting the rebel. I have adopted a subculture that respects freedom of thought as being one of the highest values. This has been relatively pain-free for me compared to for example, a white woman from Mississippi taking up Islam or a Peruvian becoming a Hindu. Indeed I can claim some credit for my choice of atheism. But that does not matter, the truthfulness of a proposition is not affected either way by the number of people who adhere to it or the level of sacrifice they endure to propound it. You could martyr a billion nuns and they would still be just as misguided. The highest good is a mental tranquility, freedom from disturbance. Pleasures of the mind, the joy of beauty and friendship are most preferred to me above all.

Kidha: Your objection on the existence of God based on miracles is rather shallow. My counter – objection is based on the fact that your approach seems to be purely arbitrary. How do we know that miracles are impossible? If it is merely a dogmatic assumption, what reason is there to accept it? Who are we to legislate what reality can and cannot do? It would have been better if you asked how we account for it. Still, I beg to prove to you that God exists by saying that the very concept or idea of God implies his reality. If a person can clearly conceive of God, then he ought to be able to understand that God must exist. Even for the fool who says in his heart that there is no God, I say that to deny the existence of God, the fool must understand the idea of God. God must exist at least as an idea in the understanding of the fool. And to Whom God is I say he is the greatest conceivable being: that which none greater can be conceived. It is greater to exist in reality than merely to exist in the understanding. Since God is the greatest possible being, it is impossible for God to exist only in the understanding of the fool. For in that case, a greater being than God could easily be conceived, namely, a being that exists both in understanding and reality. Having explained the existence of God, I beg to give an explanation of the highest good a human being can hope for. Man’s highest good is to know God and enjoy fellowship with him forever. Love, then, is the highest virtue, for it is the kind of love (agape) that has its source and its end in God himself.

Abdul: Kidha is partially right on the issue of God. However, I beg to differ with him in one or two points of his belief in God. I believe in one God called Allah. Allah is united and is only one. He is not three as portrayed by the Christians in the name of trinity. This is the jargon that I fail to comprehend, how one God is said to be three and the three is one at the same time, as Kidha supposes it to be. It beats the logic and is self-contradicting unless he can convincingly argue it out; I strongly feel that his understanding of God is ill advised and misconceived.
Aguambo: I don’t see us progressing in this discussion if we keep at this pace. Moreover, I have a commitment elsewhere so I must be out of here in the next one hour.
Humes: It seems as if everyone’s perception of the highest good takes totally different directions. Perhaps we can redirect this dialogue by posing the question: how can a person achieve this greatest good? Aguambo, you may want to bring around the conversation?
Aguambo: Just as I had indicated earlier I wish to assert that being happy and doing good to everyone else. Do good do for yourself; do bad do for yourself so goes an old saying in my village. The only way to achieve the highest good is by living interdependently with others. Living as if you depended on everyone and as if everyone depended on you. Making everybody feel happy whenever you cannot avoid it. This way the ancestors will be happy and you will be guaranteed good life both now and later when you become an ancestor. By being good you secure yourself chance of being a good spirit when you graduate from the ancestry.

Humes: Knowledge, as I had stated earlier is the highest good one can hope for. The idea of God does not have a place in my thinking.
Abdul: I do not understand what you mean.

Humes: Then I must make you understand; and perhaps I may be more intelligible if I put the matter in this way. It is obvious that we have no perception of God by means of our senses. We are to imagine that we could discover effects from their causes by the mere operation of reason, without experience. We should let the ideas of the world exist in their own right. It is simpler and more empirical.

Aguambo: That too I do not quite understand.
Humes: I fear that I must be a ridiculous teacher when I have so much difficulty in making myself apprehended. Like a bad speaker, therefore I will not take the whole of the subject, but will break a piece of in illustration of my meaning. Everything is reduced to the subjective experience of the moment and the fading memory traces of past experience. Ideas of God, matter, casualty or self have no foundation in sensory experience. Thus, there is no justification in believing them. We cannot help in life believing in many things. The point is that there are no solid reasons for accepting any of those beliefs. We need to make use of our common senses.
Kidha: Pardon my intrusion sir, I’m questioning whether this world you are describing would have any element of truth in it.
Humes: It will certainly be a truer world. I mean people would have a truer view of the world. I think it would probably be a better world. I think people would be less ready to fight each other because so much of the motivation for fighting would have been removed. I think it would be a better world. It would be a better world in the sense that people would be more fulfilled in having a proper understanding of the world instead of a superstitious understanding.

Kidha: Don’t you feel like a vacuum when you live like you depended on your own.

Humes: I feel no vacuum. I mean, I feel very happy, very fulfilled. I love my life and I love all sorts of aspects of it, which have nothing to do with my science. So I don’t have a vacuum. I don’t feel cold and bleak. I don’t think the world is a cold and bleak place. I think the world is a lovely and a friendly place and I enjoy being in it.
Abdul: So how do you prepare for this highest good?
Humes: You prepare for it by facing up to the truth, which is that life is what we have and so we had better live our life to the full while we have it, because there is nothing after it. We are very lucky accidents or at least each one of us is – if we hadn’t been here, someone else would have been. I take all this to reinforce my view that I am fantastically lucky to be here and so are you, and we ought to use our brief time in the sunlight to maximum effect by trying to understand things and get as full a vision of the world and life as our brains allow us to, which is pretty full.
Abdul: Actually, according to the Quran and Sunnah a Muslim has to discharge his moral responsibility not only to his parents, relatives and neighbors but also to the entire mankind, animals and useful trees and plants. For example, hunting of birds and animals for the sake of game is not permitted. Similarly cutting trees and plants that yield fruit is forbidden unless there is a very pressing need for it. Thus, on the basic moral characteristics, Islam builds a higher system of morality by virtue of which mankind can realize its greatest potential. Islam purifies the soul from self-seeking egotism, tyranny, wantonness and indiscipline. It creates God-fearing men, devoted to their ideals, possessed of piety, abstinence and discipline and uncompromising with falsehood. It induces feelings of moral responsibility and fosters the capacity for self-control. Islam generates kindness, generosity, mercy, sympathy, peace, disinterested goodwill, scrupulous fairness and truthfulness towards all creation in all situations. It nourishes noble qualities from which only good may be expected.
Kidha: I wonder whether you will agree with this different remark that occurs to me?

Aguambo: What may that be?
Kidha: Faith. The means of attaining the highest good.
Humes: How does that work?
Kidha: Christian faith turns on the reality of God’s existence, his being there. It also turns on an acceptance of the fact that man’s dilemma is moral and not metaphysical. Each person must face these two things on his own level as a matter of truth. A Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas, What must I do to be saved? They answered: Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shall be saved, thou and thy house. The answers of Paul and Silas were not spoken in a vacuum. Because of the earthquake and the way Paul and Silas behaved in the prison, the jailer had a reason to be aware of the existence of a personal God – one who acts in history, answers prayers, and gives men reality in their lives. True Christian faith rests on content. it is not a vague thing which takes the place of real understanding, nor is it the strength of belief which is of value. The true basis for faith is not the faith itself but the work, which Christ finished on the cross. My believing is not the basis for being saved. The basis is the work of Christ. Christian faith is turned outward to an objective person: Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved. Once the truth of God’s existence is known to us, and we know that we have a true moral quilt before a holy God, then we should be glad to know the solution to our dilemma. The solution is from God’s side not ours.

Humes: It was clear from the onset. You Christians would always take the slightest opportunity to make others feel how most right you are. You are going round and round. Please tell us how faith achieves the highest good.

Kidha: I was coming to that. Every nation without a rule is like a tree without the roots. I had to build a basis for my belief, otherwise without the roots, like a tree, it would collapse. As man is faced with God’s promises, Christian faith means bowing twice: First, he needs to bow in the realm of Being: “that is to acknowledge that he is a creature before the infinite Personal Creator who is there. Second, he needs to bow in the realm of morals that is, to acknowledge that he has sinned and therefore he has true guilt before the God who is there. If he has a true moral quilt before an infinite God, he has the problem that he, as finite, has no way to remove such quilt. Thus what he needs is a non-humanist solution. Now he is faced with God’s prepositional promise, believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved. In conclusion, I am saying that salvation is the means of attaining the highest good. From salvation other great promises that accompany it will follow. But without salvation, whatever they are may be more of fantasies to you because they are unseen but just hoped for.

Aguambo: You have just complicated issues and I suggest that you should not be let off to continue with such unpolished sentiments. A man of your age should leave in reality. Talk of confirmed things like the experiences often had with the ancestors and not just what you think will cool your head off the many worries that escalate from you incompetence in managing your daily affairs. You are just escaping from responsibility.
Kidha: Why am I especially not to be let off?
Abdul: Why? We think that you are lazy, and mean to cheat us out of a whole chapter which is a very important part of the story; and you fancy that we shall not notice your airy way of proceeding; as if it were self evident to everybody, that the matter of goodness and its attainment have all things in common. Faith is quite illusionary. You are in a dreamland. You must simply be good, do most good and least evil and you then anticipate the highest good in heaven if at all Allah deems it appropriate.

Discussing Homosexuality in the Kenyan Cyberspace: My Truth, Your Truth, Whose Truth?

Sometimes exploring the worldview of my fellow countrymen is a delight… sometimes it is nothing but pain and sometimes it is insightful. Most of the time it is a mixture of both…. bringing with it both hope and despair. This is the latest impression I got on the subject of same sex relationships as dialogued by various Kenyans in a Daily nation article titled “The dilemma of lesbian schoolgirls” dated Tuesday August 10th, 2010.

Read for yourself and feel free to leave your thoughts under the comments.

1. 1. Submitted by mad_genius Posted August 11, 2010 06:12 PM

Most of the views here are biased and wholy based on personal opionions. Truth of the matter is that lesbians/gays are sick. Homosexuality is like alcoholism. There is no genetics involved. If homosexuality was genetically driven, then we could offer the same argument for the chicken lovers from Western province. We should stop trying to cleanse a mental disorder with scientific fleeting creativity.

1. 2. Submitted by NMEhart Posted August 11, 2010 05:48 PM

As scientist I know this kind of behavior is not a conscious choice. It is part of one’s genetic code and is not reversible. It is sad to see this kind of misinformation published. It leads to the downfall of democracy to enable bias of this sort to continue. I suggest the authors research peer reviewed literature on the subject before they write such an inflammatory article that leads to act of hate and violence.

1. 3. Submitted by ruddebwai Posted August 11, 2010 05:39 PM

You will see someone doing a follow up with “evidence” that homosexuality is genetic. Yet its very simple, if adam and eve or whoever you believe was first was a homosexual there would be no reproduction.

1. 4. Submitted by reffecca Posted August 11, 2010 05:33 PM

Please Kenyans. Lets Stop being Apes of the Wazungus. Homosexuality is OUT!Parents Love and Guide your children and Teach Them to say NO to these high school Mentally Disturbed Pychos!

1. 5. Submitted by mamboz Posted August 11, 2010 05:31 PM

Views that homosexuality/lesbianism is learnt and can be casually worn and discarded at will, it is unafrican or is a form of sickness are harmful myths. Abundant information exits in Kenya to dispel these myths. In 1990, after many years of research, the WHO declared that homosexuality was not a mental illness. Instead help her to boost her self esteem and confidence. A support group may also help.

1. 6. Submitted by mamboz Posted August 11, 2010 05:31 PM

Views that homosexuality/lesbianism is learnt and can be casually worn and discarded at will, it is unafrican or is a form of sickness are harmful myths. Abundant information exits in Kenya to dispel these myths. In 1990, after many years of research, the WHO declared that homosexuality was not a mental illness. Instead help her to boost her self esteem and confidence. A support group may also help.

1. 7. Submitted by odhiamboondoro  Posted August 11, 2010 05:19 PM

I find the mean score mania argument as nonsense. The society must critically address its morality; the basic problem here is globalisation , the internet and exposure to sexually explicit messages and lifestyles holywood and otherwise even on our Tv screens. The more we gloss over the real cause the more we decay. Me thinks tendency to lesbianism, homosexuality and masturbation is attributed to early exposure to these media. We reap what we sow.

1. 8. Submitted by Selfless Posted August 11, 2010 04:59 PM

Did I hear someone mention that schools should be opened to churches?? don’t get me started…….or have we already forgotten the priests saga!! I don’t believe religion, brainwashing and such controlling measures is the answer to society’s problems.

1. 9. Submitted by Joliea  Posted August 11, 2010 04:03 PM

“all human beings are born free and equal in rights and dignity…” live and let live. i wonder if nation does follow ups. i’d want to know if rose still is ‘ex-gay’ after 5 years.

10. Submitted by jfeo Posted August 11, 2010 03:31 PM

Could someone do a study to compare the prevalence of homosexuality between mixed (boys + girls) schools and non mixed schools. This will help determine whether it’s lack of the opposite sex that leads to homosexuality or it’s an innate aberration. Whatever the case homosexuality should be acknowledged as an abnormal sexual behaviour.

11. Submitted by kj52 Posted August 11, 2010 03:24 PM

And thanks to the new constitution, we will allow these bahaviours coz it is ‘the social right of every Kenyan citizen’, although they can’t get married. And by the way, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to show that homosexuality is congenital; it is purely an ACQUIRED(learnt) trait. And the fact is, what is learnt can be unlearnt.

12. Submitted by dmg82 Posted August 11, 2010 02:22 PM

We are living in a time when the world has chosen relativism over God’s word. We want to be liberal and do as we wish and look for someone/thing to blame when our way fails. Get back to the basics THE BIBLE.

13. Submitted by Isaya Baraza Posted August 11, 2010 02:19 PM

I partly agree with the analysis of the two phsycologists. However the main cause of Homosexuality and lesbianism is what is under the surface. We have lost our cultural values, christian values and parental values. If a practising Bishop can marry a same sex partner, how do we expect our young girls and boys to think? If Governments enact laws to accommodate same sex marriage, how do we expect the spoiled youths to react? This what I call below the surface.

14. Submitted by TukaeNaUjanja Posted August 11, 2010 01:47 PM

Wacheni watu wajienjoy…life is too short to follow all the norms, rules,routine bla bla bla. And those attacking western media etc quoting verses in the Bible, isn’t the Bible itself supposed to be a western thing? if the west brought the bible and u accept it as the standard of truth, this latest ‘knowledge’ is also truth!!

15. Submitted by gumo Posted August 11, 2010 01:35 PM

@GraceAnyango and etc, Can someone explain this to me. In a gay relationship, why does one partner play the opposite sex? I will believe this gay thing if two hairy muscular men would come forward and say they are romantically attracted to each. My small mind tells me, if indeed its in the genes, the more masculine the more attractive a partner is to a gay man.

16. Submitted by The_Reformer Posted August 11, 2010 01:01 PM

Acquire behavior? I agree.If you grew up in a society without some behaviors,you would not acquire them.Most of these gay stuff in heavily western influenced.In the west it has become the norm to the extent that it taught in schools. How come these gay try to imitate male/female?

17. Submitted by IGICHINGA Posted August 11, 2010 12:50 PM

we need to open up our schools again for the gospel; its sad that many schools have locked doors to church and more sad the nation is going that way, the results will definitely be sour, some schools don’t allow students to attend services even on Sundays saying its a waste of time but outcome is FILLED MINDS EMPTY HEARTS

18. Submitted by ynkonge Posted August 11, 2010 12:32 PM

@GraceAnyango, homosexuality is either an acquired behavior (which can be changed) or a disease (that can be cured), it is not innate. If it were, we’d see the same trend in other animals. But we don’t. What some people prefer to do is not necessarily the right thing, or because they are created so. Don’t publicly display your ignorance.

19. Submitted by oletiptip Posted August 11, 2010 11:36 AM

the internet is to blame, and introduction of mobile phones in schools(which i think should be banned).in our days porn was so rare i remember we only had a beaten up picture of a nude lady we couldn’t even make out the figure, but today all u have to do is just browse tons of porn on ur phone, and u just have to vent ur sexual energy. The sad part is try banning phone in schools and the parents are up in arms.

20. Submitted by KenyanSamenya Posted August 11, 2010 11:31 AM

@ 3mth of age, my father died. My mum took my dad role -discipline- denying me woman tender touch. My only sister teamed up with my mum, leaving me on the receiving end. My primary school packed with equally harsh women didn’t help the situation. As a result, I grew up believing all women brutal and harsh. Despite feeling attracted to girls during my teen years, I was still skeptical of them. As a result I turned to men for solace and love, and have been practicing homosexuality all my life. The way we bring up kid affect them

21. Submitted by mainajosure Posted August 11, 2010 10:57 AM

i dont know why i find gay women okay to live with, in the society unlike gay-men. i know most people would agree with me. b.t.w am a very straight guy.

22. Submitted by Okonjiebole Posted August 11, 2010 10:55 AM

I am sure our teachers and parents and other stakeholders are reading this.

23. Submitted by kavukua Posted August 11, 2010 10:41 AM

Many parents have very little time for their children if any and they have sent them to boarding schools at a time that boarding schools should be abolished. Things will not be any better with article 53(2) in the new constitution. kuilove sorry we are in new Kenya your days your parents could be firm to guide you even punish you within reason, with article 53 (1) including the punishment you may not have the privilege to guide your child or punish. Let’s take heart and trust in God.

24. Submitted by kuilove Posted August 11, 2010 09:48 AM

I agree with bobcat. I can’t believe parents negotiate with their kids over certain issues. When sec sch were on a rampage, burning down their classes etc., I attended a prayer meeting in one of them. Couldn’t believe that parents were pleading with kids to ‘promise that they will not go on strike like the other sch?’ Promise?!! In my days, you knew right from wrong, not becoz parents warned you with dire consequences. Aah, for crying out loud!Parents do your part.

25. Submitted by rofi Posted August 11, 2010 07:41 AM

All young people as a stage in growth, undergo a ‘confused’ period where attraction to same sex occurs to varying extents. I personally do not believe that lesbianism is an issue in our schools and I see this report as alarmist.

26. Submitted by mbalino Posted August 11, 2010 05:46 AM

It is time our education system got overhauled the judiciary way. Karegas and Riaras have outlived their usefulness. We need a new education management that closely monitors both public and private institutions to enable them focus on thw whole person and note exams… something like a balanced score card for learning instituion. Who will help out there?

27. Submitted by bobcat  Posted August 11, 2010 04:20 AM

What we need is for parents and clergy to acknowledge that they have failed, not to blame the constitution and the west. Teach them for they know not what to do.

28. Submitted by AfricanAmerican Posted August 11, 2010 02:47 AM

Homosexuality usually comes from some perverted adult, hidden somewhere in a school or church, that abuses a young, impressionable child. These sexually-confused victims should be prayed for, and told that no matter what your impulses or wants, that doesn’t make it OK to act on them. There is right and wrong. We must deny ourselves to do the right thing, even it is a lifelong fight.

29. Submitted by mwanoo1 Posted August 11, 2010 02:38 AM

This feature is based on the writer’s proposition that homosexuality is an acquired behavior. I recall that she wrote a “commentary” in DN in which she “argued” that homosexuality was against the wishes of God, Bible and African traditions. Well, these have lately become very commonplace “arguments” to make about homosexuality. The experts u quote in this feature are misled and if they know the truth, they are just playing to the gallery.

30. Submitted by wkithi Posted August 11, 2010 12:49 AM

This is the problem of copying too much junk from western societies such as the US and Europe. The unfetterd access to pornography is to blame. There is always a tragic story behind porn. The actors and actress don’t live glamorous lifestyles as this junk purports to show.They are usually broken and wounded souls who go through so much. It is a lifestyle NEVER to be copied.

31. Submitted by GraceAnyango Posted August 11, 2010 12:12 AM

lesbianism is not curable because it is not a disease. Some women 5-10% are just lesbians, they prefer women rather than men. This ideas to cure lesbianism are from the last century and outdated.

32. Submitted by olegaita66 Posted August 10, 2010 11:39 PM

What are these experts talking about,most of us weren’t taught what sexuality we were.Homosexuality in Kenya is a result of exposure to the western media and pornography period.Just burn everything western media garbage and this evil will be gone.

My najivunia u-kenya moments

The last few days have seen Kenya put itself on the global radar for good reasons. We just won the World Junior Athletics Championships that was recently concluded in Canada and now we have just started to harvest more medals for the continental championships.

As if that is not enough, a Kenyan professor just got knighted the other day – you should hear my dad claim common ancestry with the poor fellow. But again, who am i to object? Don’t we all know that our ancestry can be traced to a single source? I mean, factoring the infinite regression, for the Darwinians, it is in some remote and primitive organism – quite undefined… but they say so and we must allow them to wallow in that confusion. For the creationists, it is in Adam and Eve. So, my old man is right after all… they are related. But I digress…

All Kenyan All the Time

Kenya rarely features on the international scene for noble reasons. So when it begins to show its face up there in quick successions, there is reason to be proud. I don’t mean far-fetched relations like claiming that the US president is also Kenyan just because his father was… No! I mean small great things like when McDonald Mariga scores a goal for the Milans and then dedicates it to his Kenyan fans.

I simply like it when Kenya is on the news for the right reasons. It just rubs on everybody – even the gatekeeper with his $ 50 monthly salary is just proud enough at those Najivunia Ukenya moments. Somehow, we forget our victim attitude (no doubt, the political class have created that mentality as well as reality in some of us) and embrace the creator – the conqueror emotions. We feel like everyone else was just created to envy our feel-good attitude. We almost expect the whole world to stop and pay homage to our heroic episodes. Actually, we privately (in our dreams) summon the world to watch us.

On Tuesday last week, I met this Ethiopian at a friend’s place and the only thing he thought he should tell me about Kenya (my country, which I know better than anything else) is that Ethiopia will always beat us in long races. He added that only once did Kenya beat them and that it was only because Paul Tergat physically held back Gabre Sellasie. Now, I don’t have the intricate facts right but I don’t remember anything like that. I didn’t know how best to respond and since I also did not want to appear to contradict a fellow guest (something I am notorious for), I sheepishly smiled it away in unspoken dis-agreement. I am sure he slept well that night.

Well, one week is not gone, and something in me wants to call him back and show him what Kenyan athletes are made of. But again, it will not change anything. Privately, I will rejoice at what the boys and girls from the highlands are doing – making me proud. How I wish, our politics and governance took the same shape… oh, how I so wish. But again if only wishes were horses…

*****************************

So yesterday, I was getting a little bit excited when Nyayo and Baks started exchanging tirades with each other – now i’m not. I think it is getting out of hand. Leave that to Ruto, Nyongo and Kiraitu – its their way of life.

The other day Kibaki gave his first ever official media interview since he became president. I don’t know what that means – maybe it is a good thing… probably not!

***********************

I just feel good today. I can’t quite put a finger onto the real inspiration but I feel good anyway. At such times of my high, I think of family first, then friends. I so want to share such good moments with my folks and siblings… i’ll probably call them later on. Then I also want to share such moments with my friends – so tonight  i’ll make dinner with and then take a walk with super nyako. The problem is I can’t explain why I feel good – maybe it is just a phenomenon. I will leave it at that… just a good feeling – everyone is entitled to one.

************************

Devotions… I guess when things are good, they are good and when things are bad they are just that, bad! Trying to be a morning person doesn’t work for me. I secretly admire those who wake up early in the morning to spend time with Yahweh. The few times I have done it its been so sweet. The only problem is that I can’t seem to get myself to bed before 1 am, yet night devotions don’t seem to spark the same magic as the early morning one does.

I am a coach and can help other people to plan their lives… its too bad that I have failed to coach myself into being an early morning person. But since I want it so bad, I will do everything it takes – maybe get myself a coach.

My neighbour and friend, Diana was right… said my early mornings will just revert to late nights again and so it did… but I won’t give up. So tonight, i’ll hit the bed at 10pm.

Still, I feel some unexplained goodness about my kenyanness. Some feeling of ecstasy… or some kind of birth pangs. I am anxious that something good is about to happen, whatever it is! I probably should sing my way out… “Jabulani jabulani Africa….” maybe not… perhaps, “Kenya Kenya, Kenya taifa letu…” Something like that.

Let he who boast boast in the Lord.

I Choose to be an Obnoxious Skeptic

Sometimes I think I am just a plain rebel. Sometimes I just feel like I want to spoil the party. I am quite sure it may be attributed to the sinful nature in me. However, I am hesitant to entirely think that I am all the time sinful, rebellious and a spoiler of the party. There comes a time when it is just annoying to follow the fashion, the culture and other prevailing popular dictates of society at given times.

The excitement level has increased significantly with only a week left for Kenyans to vote for or against the new law on the August 4^th referendum. This excitement is discernable from general conversations to media activities – mainstream, alternative and social. The alternative media, particularly the blogosphere, is notorious for its aggressive approach to the debate.

A spot check on kenyaunlimited reveals at least five different bloggers who posted on the katiba. Ka-investor and Misterfix both sought to enlighten their readers on the activities of uchaguzi.co.ke, which apparently, has put up a technology platform that allows citizens and civil society to monitor and report incidences around the electoral process. Others have giving their opinion include Mzalendo and Kenya Democracy project.

As usual, some commentators are the usual busybodies, saying these and that without giving thought to the verifiability of their claims. But again, such is the nature of this world. Some writers, however, are very thoughtful and consistent, displaying evidence of thought, study and research.

Commenting on the devolved counties, Mzalendo wonders: “However, it is not in doubt that there will be a significant additional burden of Government added by the implementation of devolution in this manner. It remains to be seen whether the benefits of the devolution of the services listed above to county level will outweigh the costs of that devolution or not.” Not left behind, as usual, is Kumekucha who gave a prediction of YES winning the contest with a very big margin.

It is instructive to note that the blogosphere has been outdone by the social media, to be specific facebook and twitter. A few hours ago, I received a new follower on twitter named KATIBAdotME. This fellow has taken the trouble to list what he thinks are the contentious issues. He does this clause by clause and briefly explains what he thinks is the bone of contention. For instance he writes:

Contentious # 7: Article 156: Attorney-General – Argument: Terms of dismissal of Attorney-General referenced from Article 132 but undefined.

Facebook is particularly infamous for its daily preachers who make very definite, yet inauthentic remarks either praising those supporting their positions or castigating persons whose positions differ from theirs. Very little support, if any, is given for holding a position, and if it is done, a shoddy job it would be.

I write today to dispel this unnecessary excitement that the campaigns have birthed. My concerns are twofold: First is that the referendum results will not be appealing to both sides at the same time. There will be a loser and a winner and like in good sportsmanship, it is incumbent upon the participants to embrace good practice in accepting defeat as well as accepting victory. This advice is given upon re-visiting the results and aftermath of the country’s last general election.

My second reason, and this is where I put most emphasis, is that vote for YES or NO will not magically change any life in a significant way if individual attitudes and characters are not changed. In 2003, with the change of guard in the State House, Kenyans were identified as the most optimistic people in the world. The then transport minister, John Michuki introduced what came to be known as michuki rules. Kenyans we enthusiastic and excited – some even made a few citizens arrest. Today, the Michuki rules have been relegated to the category of fairy tales – the kind that I will tell and retell to my yet to be conceived son, Plato!

Before the election, my dad had petitioned me to trim my hair and I promised to cut them when KANU was dislodged from power – a promise I fulfilled. Of course things went back to business as usual until a job interview for the position of a Youth Pastor compelled me to cut them down once more. Needless to say that now the new rule in my life is that which desires that I leave them as long and as “shaggy” as possible – what with the supernyako firmly convinced that it is a good style – my mom and dad’s opinion notwithstanding. But I digress.

Three or four years ago, Nairobi City Council put traffic lights and zebra crossings in the central business district. Driving at night with friends, we repeatedly ignored the lights as long as the traffic was light and there was no “danger” of collision. Men, or should I call them boys, still urinate on fences and walls, openly ignoring the graffiti reminding them not to “Kojoa hapa.”

I will not go into the gains and loses of this law – and they are a myriad – since the excitement I am referring to implies that they have been sufficiently addressed by their creators. I contend, however, that a change in attitude is the only way Kenya will see prosperity. Devolution, for instance, will bring more money from the central government to the devolved counties. That probably sounds like a good thing – the increased expenses notwithstanding. Yet still, such devolved units may just be another way of decentralising corruption. This is especially so if when Kenyans go to vote for their governors, council representatives and senator, they end up recycling well known thieves and thugs.

Well known thieves and thugs are easily identifiable yet most commonly voted since they are the same persons that bribes Wanjikus. Well, from simple logic, it should be obvious that people who give bribes have a general flaw in their moral character. One should ask: If he can openly bribe me (Showing that ugly moral flaw) in public, what can he not do in secret? Rape? Murder? etc – and that is what they have always done to Kenya and Kenyans. Another commonsensical question, even though I have since gathered that common sense is not common to all is, if he is seeking this office so as to represent and serve us, why is he bribing us?

In other words, a person bribing you to vote him in is actually disclosing his intentions. This has always happened right before our eyes. We vote and will continue to vote thugs, and when they do their thing, i.e. thuggery, we complain. Why should Kenyans chastise their politicians for doing what they do best? We can create a new homogeneous society if we want to. Today, Raila and Kibaki are have a common purpose and have been working together to achieve it yet they were the objects of our wrath and anger and for whom we viciously turned against each other.

Today, the Kikuyu and Luo are friends because they are commonly voting YES. The enemy has become the Kalenjin who was the Luo friend yesterday.

I dare spoil the party for those about to celebrate on the 5^th because I know that even if Moses brought us a fresh tablet with the commandments reduced to only two, we will still fail to follow it. Nevertheless, we must have this law to at least save us from each other and from our own selves. This law has no salvific power. It will however, give a fresh beginning to some wise people and a head start to good thinkers.

Remember, the law may stop you from killing your brother but it will not deal with the anger in your heart. The law may prohibit abortion (if you want it to) but it will not stop illicit sexual behaviour. It may even regulate sexual behaviour (if you want it to – as is common with Islamic law) but it cannot deal with the lust in your heart.

So again, here we go. The new law will bring you so many good things but it will also not bring you any thing that is particularly good. I know that Christ, however, brings you the best thing. He helps you to forgive, and deals with your greed and anger. Christ saves you from your friends, family and self. He even saves from the American dream. Trust me, I know it. The law doesn’t but Christ does.

Since this is not a life and death issue as we love to put it. I admonish fellow Kenyans to cast their vote in peace and be ready to accept the verdict whether YES or NO.

We Need an Honest Intellectual debate on the Homosexual Question

Sometime in 2002, while interning at the Word of Truth Ministries, my friend and director of the organisation, Reuben Kigame asked me a question that was far removed from my normal ideas. He asked what my response would be to a gay person who demanded to be ordained as a clergy.

Though taken aback, this stimulating conversation, alongside other interesting socio-philosophical questions bore in my heart the curiosity and thirst for intellectual nourishment on such issues.

Two years ago, I got a bashing from a section of the online Kenyan community for writing about homosexuality. Like, the sleeping dog that I was in 2002, many of us still are uninformed of the true facts and reality of this phenomenom. Yes, we have been ignorant until the recent developments in the UK concerning the two Kenyans brothers woke us up.

I suggest that we must wake up and smell the coffee. Like any emerging idea in a civilization, we cannot just sit and wish this thing away. Only an honest debate will give us direction as a people.

So much has been written about the same sex union ever since two ex-Kenyans tied the knot in the UK. I have read most of the articles, sometimes with bemusement and sometimes with pity… sometimes even with rage and disdain for the “perverts!”

I have looked at the arguments given for and against the whole circus and I must say that very few, if any, were intellectually stimulating.

While the pros purport to wear the intellectual hat, all I see is a faulty left wing attention-seeking apologist. In their submissions, they appear to call for sobriety and tolerance, while in their concealed sarcasm; they try to depict their antagonists as ignorant, religious and unprogressive folks who are outdated in their thinking.

The anti-gay, on the other hand, has projected their opponents as perverts, arguing for religion and culture. In the characteristic hypocritic pharisaic styles, they see no other “sin” bigger than that of homosexuality. Accordingly, therefore, even a self-confessed flesh peddler, otherwise known as a commercial sex worker, would not hesitate to cast aspersions on the characters and persons of the gay persons.

May I declare at the onset that I disapprove any same sex relationship just as I would disapprove any other illicit sexual behaviour or any other ethically retrogressive behaviour.

Even though my first convictions against homosexuality is informed by my orthodox religious heritage, I must say that in public policy and debate, we render the whole conversation redundant and without meaning if we peg our policies on religion and morality.

I say so with a straight face given the obvious nature of pluralism, which has seen an exponential growth in our century. In our day and time, religion has been portrayed as rigid, intolerant and outdated, while morality is depicted as utterly arbitrary. These two are often assumed to be the only two possible reasons anyone could have for expressing the slightest disapproval of homosexual behaviour.

Facts, science and scholarship, on the other hand , are often assumed to be firmly on the side of those who would treat homosexuality as simply a normal healthy variant of human sexuality.

I submit that these assumptions are false. Diligent scholarship has proved that what we have been fed on as facts are actually myths. Straight from the tip of my hand, I can come up with six overhyped myths about homosexuality. It has been erroneously argued that people are born gay; ten percent of the human population is gay; homosexuals are seriously disadvantaged by discrimination; homosexuals are harmless; that children raised by homosexuals suffer no harm and that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals are.

These are myths. Take for instance the first myth that people are born gay. If this were true, it would advance the idea that sexual orientation is an innate characteristic, like race; that homosexuals, like albinos, should be legally protected against “discrimination;” and that disapproval of homosexuality should be as socially stigmatized as tribalism and racism. However, it is not true. The research shows no convincing evidence that anyone is “born gay” and suggests instead that homosexuality results from a complex mix of developmental factors.

Evidence abounds to dispel the other myths. Let us openly study this issue with an open mind and make honest, indiscriminate proposals, free from religious, moral and political bias before this subject comes up to our parliament for legislation. At the rate at which the UN is advancing its policies, it is just a matter of time before the religious order will be required by law, to preside over same sex unions – what will be their authentic response?

The Making of a Constitution: The Jesus of Kenyan Politics

The Jesus of Kenyan politics is a vote-wealthy mythological figure whose favours are aroused by the mere pronunciation of his name. It seems that a misreading of the gospel “whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you… ask and you will receive…” (John 16:23b – 24 ESV) has become a “salvation” to many.
“The name of the Lord is truly a strong tower; the righteous man runs into it and is safe” (Proverbs 18:10 ESV) is undoubtedly, a proposition of truth. However, only the righteous find salvation in this name. The salvation is not a political, social or economic, even though it has implications to these aspects of life. This salvation is specifically spiritual and counts for eternity.  More…

What is Reformed Theology?

Liberal, Catholic, Dispensational, Pentecostal, Evangelical, Reformed… with so many different theologies out there, where you do start? Beginning this series about Reformed Theology, Dr. Sproul examines the distinctive doctrines that set apart Reformed Theology from the many theologies that have developed before and after the Protestant Reformation. To view video, click here…

Adapted from Ligonier Ministries: http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/what_is_reformed_theology/introduction/

Of the Perseverance of Saints…

A good summary of the main three views regarding perseverance:

1. Classic Arminianism• One must persevere in faith to be saved.
• True believers can lose their faith….
• Those dying without faith in Christ are condemned.
“The believer who loses his faith is damned.”

2. Antinomianism• One need not persevere in faith to be saved.
• True believers can lose their faith.
• Those who lose their faith are saved, since they once believed.
“The believer who loses his faith is saved.”

3. Classic Calvinism• One must persevere in faith to be saved.
• True believers cannot lose their faith, since it’s God’s gift.
• Those dying without faith in Christ are condemned.
• Those who “lose” their faith never had it to begin with.
• God will preserve true believers and they will be saved.

Here’s a quote made today from Dan Fisher – “I’ve heard it said that the most arrogant person on earth is the person who believes that salvation can be lost, but still believes himself to be saved. If you ask an Arminian “who deserves the blame if he loses his salvation?”, he will say that he himself does. If you ask him “who should get the credit if he perseveres to the end?”, he is therefore required to answer the same. To say otherwise is logically inconsistent. If God truly deserves ALL the glory for our perseverance, we will never ultimately or finally fall away because God CANNOT fail. To be an Arminian, you either have to believe that God does not have the ability to hold onto us (at least not in every instance), or else that we must contribute in some sense to our own salvation (since we might lose it if we don’t). As I see it, a denial of the doctrine of perseverance requires one to reject at least 4 of the 5 Solas–salvation would NOT be by grace alone, through faith alone, through Christ’s work alone, to the glory of God alone. This is serious doctrinal error indeed.”

“There is one grace of the Holy Spirit you cannot counterfeit…the grace of perseverance.” – Gardiner Spring

Original Source: http://www.reformationtheology.com/

Of Four-Point Calvinism

By J.W. Hendryx

Within the Dispensational theological camp there are quite a number of so-called four-point Calvinists. This means that while they fully embrace most Calvinistic soteriology, such as the biblical doctrine of irresistible grace, yet they believe Christ died with the same universal intent for all humanity. To put it another way, unlike traditional full-orbed Calvinists, they do not believe Christ died (redemptively) for the elect only. With the notable exception of the MacArthur Dispensationalists who are five point Calvinists, most others in that camp (such as those influenced by Dallas Seminary) reject the doctrine of limited atonement. Well… what I would like to demonstrate today is that rather than giving reasons why they are wrong, I am more inclined simply to call them inconsistent, for I believe it can be easily demonstrated that most of them already believe in limited atonement without consciously knowing that they do. Here’s why:

Four point Calvinists will all agree, along with us, that irresistible grace, faith and repentance are gifts of God granted only to the elect. But four-point Calvinists somehow fail to connect the dots because they have not apprehended that these benefits as part of the redemptive work of Christ. We must consider that God does not give us generic grace apart from the work of Christ but all spiritual and redemptive blessings derive their potency from Christ and Christ alone (Eph 1:3). Therefore any belief in a “Christless” irresistible grace or gift of faith is absurd. I am led to believe that perhaps many of them have simply never thought of this. The result is that it should be plain to all that Christ died in a way (redemptively – to procure irresistable grace) for the elect that He did not for the non-elect.

If only the elect receive the gift of the Holy Spirit who irresistibly draws His own people (John 6:63, 65, 37) that they might believe the gospel …. and the same Spirit is never given in such a way to the non-elect (which four-pointers will affirm), then the only conclusion one can reach is that there is a benefit in the death of Christ which was never intended for the non-elect. By maintaining four-point calvinism one must separate the benefits from the Benefactor. In other words, the only way to consistently believe in four-point Calvinism is to erroneously conclude that irresistible grace is a grace given to people apart from Jesus Christ; something I would bet that none of them are willing to do.

Look with me at John 16:7. Here Jesus tells his disciples, “But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.”

Here the distribution of the Holy Spirit is spoken of as one of the benefits of His death and resurrection. We all agree (4 & 5 pointers) that the Holy Spirit’s illumination and effectual grace is given to the elect only. Therefore the new heart granted by Jesus which produces faith & repentance is also part of the package of benefits granted for the elect and not the non-elect. To separate our desire and ability to believe the gospel from Christ Himself, who gives these gifts and benefits, makes no sense at all. I must conclude therefore that four-point Calvinists are not thinking Christocentrically with regard to the benefits of the atonement.

Four-point Calvinists will admit that justification and sanctification are works of Christ applied by the Spirit. How is it then that irresistible grace and illumination are viewed separately from Christ? They admit the former as a redemptive benefit of Christ but somehow overlook the latter as from Christ, who Himself grants his Holy Spirit. In fact, all gracious benefits of redemption find their origin in Christ… and it is Jesus, the very Author of these redemptive benefits and graces, who procures them by His life, death and resurrection. Thus, the capacity for faith (Phil 1:29; 2 Tim 2:25) is just like any other redemptive benefit that was purchased by Christ on the cross. He bestows no grace upon us which was not also procured by His merits.

Christ is the author and finisher of our faith (Heb 12:2) and He is a full and perfect Savior to us. Unless He had acquired faith and repentance for us, no one would ever have been united to Christ and made a partaker of salvation. Christ is the cause of all spiritual gifts bestowed on us. Four-pointers cannot therefore both grant the reality of irresistible grace and deny a particular atonement. One is dependent on the other. Irresistible grace and limited atonement are really speaking of the same blessing but looked at from different perspectives … two sides of the same coin, so to speak. The gift of the Holy Spirit that the elect might believe and the work of Christ are, therefore, inseparable. They are always joined together in the Scripture (Rom 8:9; John 16:7). Therefore salvation does not come to any others than those to whom the Holy Spirit was given in Christ.

Since we agree that the gift of the Holy Spirit is given only to the elect, there is no reason to believe why the gift of the Son should be more extensive. Plainly, and all agree, the Holy Spirit is given to none other than the elect, to irresistibly draw them and grant them life (John 6:63-65, 44). This benefit of infalliby drawing the elect is never given to the non-elect. Therefore, Christ died redemptively for the elect but not the non-elect. This is irrefutable.
Unless someone is willing to separate the benefit of irresistible grace from the work of Christ (i.e. tout a Christless grace) then there should be no argument left against the biblical validity of limited atonement.

Some many ask, is there any sense in which Christ died for the non-elect?

Most Reformed persons do believe that there are indeed aspects of Christ’s atonement which benefit all persons. So there are ways in which he died for the non-elect. For instance, God’s wrath is now averted toward those who should be immediately judged, and God patience is revealed toward them because of Christ … and this also includes the non-elect.

As an example of one who historically believed this, Francis Turretin in his masterful work on the atonement wrote:

“We do not inquire whether the death of Christ gives occasion to the imparting of some blessings even to the reprobates. Because it is in consequence of the death of Christ that the Gospel is preached to all nations, that the gross idolatry of many heathen nations has been abolished, that the daring impiety of man is greatly restrained by the word of God, that multitudes of the human family obtain many and excellent blessings, though not saving gifts, of the Holy Spirit. It is unquestionable that all these flow from the death of Christ, for there would have been no place for them in the Church, unless Christ had died. The question is, whether the suretyship and satisfaction of Christ were, by the will of God and purpose of Christ, destined for every individual of Adam’s posterity, as our opponents teach, or for the elect only, as we maintain. ” Francis Turretin The Atonement pg. 104

Also, I would like you all to consider one more thing with regard to the atonement. Can someone consistently say that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of who would be saved and then teach that God punished Christ for the purpose of redeeming every single man that ever lived? Do you really think that God can intend to do something HE KNOWS cannot possibly come about? If God already knows and determines who will be saved (as we all agree) He would be ‘wasting his time’, so to speak, trying to save persons He knows will never come to Him. It is clear that we cannot paste such ignorance on God. Surely we should credit God with having as much sense as we do. What human being would make a great but useless and needless sacrifice? To think that Christ died redemptively for people that He already knows will never believe, would be making God out to be smaller than the Scriptures teach. And if He knows already who will be saved would it even be possible to think of the Holy Spirit as trying equally to save all men? This line of reasoning acts as if He had no knowledge of such things. Consider the dire consequences of this inconsistent position.

——————-

This week I have written a trio of essays dealing with some errors in the Church. The first essay was about the error of pietism in sanctification; the second essay the error of free will in salvation and a misapprehension of God’s love; and the third essay (today’s) is about an error on the question of “for whom did Christ die”.

During reflection, I noticed a pattern emerge in each of these errors. They share in common the result of not understanding that all spiritual and redemptive blessings are to be found in Christ. Rather, each of these erroneous views have found ways to draw from their own resources to accomplish some spiritual act, apart from the grace of Christ. These theological errors are directly related to not placing Christ at the center of their understanding and exegesis. The essay on Pietism, for example, showed that perfectionism is false and that to be biblical, our sanctification must be gospel-driven, i.e. the Law should still always drive us back to Christ, not always to be obsessing on our own spirituality. The essay on the Drowning Man likewise revealed that like a good parent would never simply watch his loved ones get eaten or drown from afar hoping they will use their free will to save themselves (from oncoming traffic), but rather their love is such that it goes after and saves His loved ones, making certain that they do not perish. If human parents so willingly risk their lives, much more our Heavenly Father.

Today’s essay also points out a pervasive error, but this error, unlike the others, is not fatal but simply one of inconsistency. I believe I have demonstrated (hopefully to everyone’s satisfaction) that those who call themselves four-point Calvinists may be surprised to hear that they already believe in limited atonement, perhaps without knowing it, and the reason they do not believe this also comes from failing to see Christ and His work at the center of their exegesis and understanding of what He did to procure our salvation.

Adapted from: http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/03/there_are_no_fourpoint_calvini_1.php#more

Survey Finds Africa is Most Religious Part of World

Researchers say they’ve found the most religious place on Earth — between the southern border of the Sahara Desert and the tip of South Africa.

Religion is “very important” to more than three-quarters of the population in 17 of 19 sub-Saharan nations, according to a new survey.

Read more

Abortion and the Bible

by Jonathan Hall Barlow

Abortion is perhaps the most highly debated social issue of our time. With more than 27 million abortions that have occurred in the period from 1973 to 1991, almost everyone has an opinion on the issue. The abortion issue has been used as a symbol of independence in the feminist movement, and has been clouded by many other issues such as rape and incest. However, in order to obtain a Biblical view of abortion, one must rake away the muck which obscures the main questions about abortion, and concentrate on the issue’s essence.

The primary point of conflict in the entire abortion debate is the question of when life begins. If indeed life begins in the womb, then no one could disagree that the fetus (latin for ‘little one’) is a human being, and is subject to the rights (God’s laws concerning humanity) which befit a human being. First, the Bible establishes that God recognizes a person even before he or she is born. “Before I was born the Lord called me” (Isaiah 49:1). Exodus 21:22-23 describes a situation in which a man hits a pregnant woman and causes her to give birth prematurely. If there is “no serious injury,” the man is required to pay a fine, but if there is “serious injury,”either to the mother or the child, then the man is guilty of murder and subject to the penalty of death. This command, in itself, legitimizes the humanity of the unborn child, and places the child on a level equal that of the adult male who caused the miscarriage. Scriptural support abounds for the humanity of the unborn child. “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made . . . your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be” (Ps 139: 13-16). The Bible, in fact, uses the same Greek word to describe the unborn John the Baptist (Luke 1:41,44), the newborn baby Jesus (Luke 2:12,16), and the young children who were brought to Jesus for his blessing (Luke 18:15).

Perhaps the most stark Biblical revelation of the humanity of the unborn comes in Jeremiah 20, during Jeremiah’s cry of woe in which he laments that he wishes he had never been born, “Cursed be the man who brought my father the news, who made him very glad, saying ‘A child is born to you – a son!’ . . . For he did not kill me in the womb with my mother as my grave” (Jeremiah 20:15-17).

In the aforementioned verses, and in countless other verses, the Bible does indeed establish that an unborn child is just as much a human in God’s eyes as we ourselves are. This indicates that the command “Thou Shall not Murder” (Exodus 20:13) certainly applies to the unborn as well as the already born. Thus, when we read Genesis 9:6, the full realization of what it means to murder comes in to focus, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” Murder is an abomination in the sight of God because it is the unauthorized killing of a being made in His own image, and a blurring of the creator/creature distinction (cf. Romans 1).

Though the question of when life begins is important to many, the question more representative of today’s view is “what quality of life mandates preservation?” Has the fetus gained a quality of life worthy of preservation? This is a dangerous question, indeed. For who among us, the already-born, can decide such a question? Do we apply this question to every human being? Does a fetus, or even an infant with down syndrome have a quality of life equal to that of a perfectly normal one? These questions lead only to some sort of genetic elitism, and shouldn’t even be asked in good conscience. Perhaps the biggest irony encountered when examining those who wish to make abortion a social justice issue is that much of social justice is aimed at giving help and justice to those who are unable to speak and do for themselves– the meek. Yet, from the same mouth that says we must protect the homeless, the penniless, animals and the environment comes words which speak of killing an unborn human! This contradiction must not be overlooked, lest we fail to see the cruelty, the degrading of humanity, and the violation of God’s righteous decrees supported by those who hide behind the auspices of choice-advocacy.

Mother Teresa, perhaps one of the world’s most renown champions of the underprivileged said in a recent address in Washington, “If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill each other? … Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.” Also, the logical result of the desire for “abortion-on-demand” is infanticide and euthanasia — killing a newborn if it possesses physical or mental anomalies, and killing those for whom the living find it inconvenient to care. When human life is cheapened to the point that even the womb, a symbol of tranquility and peace, becomes a place of death; even the already-born will begin to respect each others’ lives a little less.

Biblical Christianity does not just offer judgement of the issue, and then retract. Certainly there are some tough situations in which women find themselves, and the Christian community offers many outlets for aiding these women who often can’t afford a child, or who don’t have a very good situation in which to raise a child such as Bethany Christian Services . Adoption of these babies is perhaps the most obvious. Another alternative is for a family to provide room and board for a mother while she has her baby. The Christian view would be that a woman should never have to make the choice between her baby and herself. In fact, there is even a waiting list for people who wish to adopt children afflicted with Down’s Syndrome.

Yes, the Word of God gives us a clear and understandable statement of God’s consideration of the unborn child to be a human being subject to the protections of his righteous law.

Bibliography

1. Francis A. Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop, Whatever Happened To The Human Race?

2. Peter Barnes, Open Your Mouth For the Dumb, Abortion and the Christian.

3. Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto.

4. Steven A. Carr & Franklin A. Meyer, Celebrate Life, Hope For a Culture Preoccupied With Death.

Source: http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html

Just Pass That Draft Constitution

Many issues have become unnecessarily contentious on the draft constitution that was passed by parliament last week. No doubt, there are genuine contentious issues that ought to have been addressed earlier, and for this it is only befitting that the CoE takes the blame for their indifference to the views by the Clergy.

Having said that, I must add that Kenya is not looking forward to getting even with those who have ignored them and consequently done them considerable harm. On the contrary, Kenya seeks to progress. With the vision 2030 already behind schedule, time is not a luxury to us anymore. The whole citizenry must ask these two questions: First, what is the highest good we can get from our being Kenyans? Secondly, How can we achieve this highest good.

It may be disputable but I contend that the highest good is to seek a life of peace, love and unity. This was the rallying call of our second president who unfortunately abandoned his philosophy and led the country astray. As to how to get there, we have the opportunity for a new beginning. An opportunity for forgiveness and a forging of a greater tomorrow in unity, love and respect.

This calls for discernment. We must look ahead and see the possible obstacles on our way towards this pursuit of the highest good for ourselves in and for our country. The possible obstacles are the voices of discord. Voices that pit people against each other and those that arrogantly proclaim their seniority above other citizens must cease.

No doubt there are ideological issues that cannot be brought into one basket no matter what. The Christian faith, for instance does not blend well with Islam – if either is followed to the latter. However, in the modern world there is room for accommodation and respect of people holding divergent opinions even if we see inherent philosophical flaws in them. Tolerance and accommodation does not necessarily imply absolute agreement. It means that as a Christian, I can be pitiful of a Muslim whom my faith tells me is on his way to hell. I can pray for him but still respect his choice to match to hell.

After all, doesn’t the good book teach that the Lord knows his sheep and that nobody will snatch his own from him? Kenya has bled from years of mismanagement and here we are presented with an opportunity to right some of these wrongs. I don’t certainly foresee a Marxist utopia. Neither am I that myopic to see an excellent Kenya soon after we get a new constitution, for I know the problem of man is the sinful nature. Man in his natural state has an inherent drive towards sin and different individuals in varying circumstances have varying propensity towards sin and evil.

Yet still, the draft’s fundamental reforms will averagely increase the livelihood of Kenyans to a reasonable level. The new draft has significantly improved on many issues that have been retrogressive to our nation. Even though it has not addressed some of the issues as I may have desired, it is still a good draft. I am only one person and cannot claim the property laws of the toddler – as if everything is mine. Some of the issues could have been addressed as acts of parliament (especially the contentious ones).

Both the Church and the medical professionals have genuine concerns on the abortion debate and a consultative dialogue would be the best way out of the impasse. Seeing that CoE did not factor this, and seeing that we have been overtaken by time and other events, including the nature of the self-propelling reform process we must be objective enough to admit what history has brought to our doorstep thus far.

If I had my way, the Kadhi court issue and the abortion issue would have been provided for as Acts of Parliament. That way, there is no danger of overloading the constitution with issues that change every time with the changes in the global social trends. It was insensitive to entrench unnecessary controversy into the constitution. All is not lost, however. We have an ultimate formula for a win win-win situation. Voting yes in the referendum then subjecting the contentious issues to parliamentary amendments is the way out.

There is a way out for those willing. The new draft offers two important avenues for dealing with this. My favourite one is the recall clause for the MPs. This is the guarantee we have that if we pass the draft and if we are united in purpose, they will do everything we want them to do. This is a guarantee we can take to the bank. The second one is that the people can demand an amendment through a popular initiative. Again, if the Church deems it appropriate to get the draft amended, then they can count on their followers to do just that.

For now, let us pass the draft to give the people of Kenya the sovereign power to govern their own selves. From there on, with power in the hands of the people, let them direct their destiny – they can do just either or both of the two above and still have a new working constitution. In this way, the sovereign people of Kenya can have their cake and eat it. How sumptuous!

Who Cares About Rosemary?

After another day in Kisumu of car repair and banking on Tuesday I planned to return home to Uyoma before dark. Have done far too much driving after dark and this day i wanted to get home to enjoy the evening from 5 to 7 is quiet and cool as the sun sets.

I arrived around 2pm at a place called Lieta, east Uyoma, to visit Hezron, one of my students who will graduate from Teachers Training college this Friday in Migori. As I drove to his hut near lake Victoria over the volcanic rock debris we call a farm road, I knew I had a tire plug (hot patch) coming apart so was cautious so as to not break another tire on the sharp rock and boulder strewn path.

Sitting under a shade bush, ocassionally playing catch (a round fruit serving as the ball) with one of Hezron’s 5 sisters named Joyce, we enjoyed a 4 hour converstion mostly about the Deity of Jesus from Colossians 1 and 2. Chapter 2 is especially helpful in leading the people to understand the admonishment from God to recognize danger in being taken captive by the empty deception of human tradtion. Of course, then God gives us the remedy to this deceptive slavery as He says we are “complete in Christ”. Why do we need “empty deception” when we can be complete in Jesus?

As 6 pm approached I begged to leave as it takes 45 minutes to cross the peninsula to my hut. I made plans to further discuss the possibility of attending Hezrons graduation, then said goodby to all the kids, 5 sisters and 2 brothers, 2 wives and baba Jakim.

I was pleased at myself for getting outa there before dark and knew for sure would be home and sitting comfortably on my veranda by dark with tea. The weaver birds make much noise in day time but by evening they quiet and i can enjoy a time of peace. Those were my plans.

As I passed the worst of the rocky path there is a stretch of soil, smooth, so began driving a bit faster toward the main road, coming around a bushy corner careful to watch for students, donkeys, etc.,,,, I saw a body lying on the path.

For sure this person appeared deceased as I squeezed by and came to a stop. This was a woman, partially naked, eyes sunken deeply in her face, thin to the point of starvation. She was alive. People had been walking by, school kids coming home, no one had helped, and now I needed someone to help communicate with the lady. A man on a bike soon came along and together we found out her name, that she had intended to go to a rural hospital about 60 minutes away by bicycle. Her brother was taking her by bike but decided to drop her here in the middle of the path to die. Apparently she was just too much for her brother to carry.

I really did not want to stop and change my plan to be home before dark. Well, that argument with God did not last but a few seconds as I got out to check this body on the ground. Once again as is common, my plan was not God’s plan. At least not tonight.

First I needed a translator and one who knew the area so I returned to Hezron’s home and picked him to help. Upon returning to the lady in the pathway we found some school girls and a couple ladies who helped place the woman in my car for a ride of approx 12 km to Madiany hospital.

There were two distinct concerns in mind at this point.

#1. Madiany is not my favorite place to take those in need (from past experience) and even as we traveled Hezron confirmed this is not a good place for the sick to be taken. Yes it is a hospital, but… one to be avoided. I knew a better one far from this womans community but determined Madiany was ok to start with. If she survived this night we would see what to do next.
#2. Clearly she was close to death. With death comes life eternal. Where was this suffering woman going to spend eternity if she died tonight. For sure I was not letting her out of my car until she could understand how necessary for her it was to turn to Jesus, ask him to save her and take her to be with Him when she died.

I tried to visit with her as Hezron translated into mother tongue. Arriving at the clinic again wanting to help her understand how close to death she really was and how she could simply turn to Jesus she agreed that she needed Him and simply prayed, “save me Jesus, take me to heaven when I die”.

We were able to admit her, get her into a bed, and before leaving she asked me to pray with her again.

Will you pray for her today and for my decisions concerning her care? I am very short of funds, the family will not help her, and yet I fully understand that once I placed her in my car she was mine to care for.

God is sovereign. He placed her on the pathway at that particular time. Age 21 to 24, her husband and one child deceased.

This is Rosemary Atieno.

Thanks for praying. In Christ.
Steve K. Arduser

Steve Arduser is serving with the rural communities in Kisumu in Western Kenya.

The Return of Calvinism

The original article by Josh Burek can be found on the Yahoo website.

Snow falls resolutely on a Saturday morning in Washington, but the festively lit basement of a church near the US Capitol is packed. Some 200 female members have invited an equal number of women for tea, cookies, conversation – and 16th-century evangelism.

What newcomers at Capitol Hill Baptist Church (CHBC) hear is hardly “Christianity for Dummies.” Nor is it “Extreme Makeover: Born-Again Edition.” Instead, a young woman named Kasey Gurley describes her disobedience and suffering in Old Testament terms.

“I worship my own comfort, my own opinion of myself,” she confesses. “Like the idolatrous people of Judah, we deserve the full wrath of God.” She warns the women that “we’ll never be safe in good intentions,” but assures them that “Christ died for us so we wouldn’t have to.” Her closing prayer is both frank and transcendent: “Our comfort in suffering is this: that through Christ you provide eternal life.”

It is so quiet you can hear an oatmeal cookie crumble.

IN PICTURES: Calvinism at Capitol Hill Baptist Church

Welcome to the austere – and increasingly embraced – message of Calvinism. Five centuries ago, John Calvin’s teachings reconceived Christianity; midwifed Western ideas about capitalism, democracy, and religious liberty; and nursed the Puritan values that later cast the character of America.

Today, his theology is making a surprising comeback, challenging the me-centered prosperity gospel of much of modern evangelicalism with a God-first immersion in Scripture. In an age of materialism and made-to-order religion, Calvinism’s unmalleable doctrines and view of God as an all-powerful potentate who decides everything is winning over many Christians – especially the young.

Twenty-something followers in the Presbyterian, Anglican, and independent evangelical churches are rallying around Calvinist, or Reformed, teaching. In the Southern Baptist Convention, America’s largest Protestant body, at least 10 percent of its pastors identify as Calvinist, while more than one-third of recent seminary graduates do.

New Calvinism draws legions to the sermons of preachers like John Piper of the Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis. Here at CHBC, the pews and even rooms in the basement are filled each Sunday, mostly with young professionals. Since senior pastor Mark Dever brought Calvinist preaching here 16 years ago, the church has grown sevenfold. Today it is bursting at the stained-glass windows.

Yet the movement’s biggest impact may not be in the pews. It’s in publishing circles and on Christian blogs, in divinity schools and at conferences like “Together for the Gospel,” where the rock stars of Reformed theology explore such topics as “The Sinner Neither Able Nor Willing: The Doctrine of Absolute Inability.”

“There is a very clear resurgence of Calvinism,” says Steven Lemke, provost and a professor at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

The renewed interest arrives at a crucial inflection point for American religion. After reviewing a landmark opinion survey last year that showed a precipitous decline in the number of people who identify themselves asChristian, Newsweek declared ominously that we may be witnessing “the end of Christian America.”

In some ways, Newsweek may have understated the shift. Five hundred years after Martin Luther posted his 95 theses challenging the Roman Catholic Church, some religion watchers see not just a post-Christian America but an unraveling of the Protestant Reformation itself. Their alarm is rooted in surveys that show a watering down of Christian beliefs.

Now come the New Calvinists with their return to inviolable doctrines and talk of damnation – in essence, thePuritans, minus the breeches and powdered wigs. Is this just a moment of nostalgia or the beginning of a deeper revolt against the popular Jesus-is-our-friend approach of modern evangelicalism? Where, in other words, is Christianity going?

• • •

When people today hear the name John Calvin, they think mainly of predestination – the controversial idea that God has foreordained everything that will happen, including who will and won’t be saved, no matter what they do in life.

What people often forget is that the 16th-century French theologian transformed Western thought both by what he taught and how he taught it. His 700-page “Institutes of the Christian Religion” became the reference manual for Protestant faith. And his detailed and explanatory style of preaching – he spent five years expounding on the book of Acts, verse by verse – became an example for generations of clergy.

Detractors, and there are many, see Calvin as a harsh theocrat who punished heretics (including one who was famously burned at the stake) while molding the city where he preached, Geneva, into a model of his fatalistic and hopeless ideology.

But supporters view him as a man who recovered God-centric Christianity, set the stage for religious freedom, and encouraged countless believers to read the Bible for themselves.

“Like it or not, he is one of the great minds that shaped our modern world,” says Gerald Bray, a professor atBeeson Divinity School in Birmingham, Ala. “Ideas of democracy, open-market capitalism, and equality of opportunity were aired in his Geneva and put into practice as far as they could be at that time.”

Calvin’s influence on America’s founding is unmistakable. The nation’s patriotism, work ethic, sense of equality, public morality, and even elements of democracy all sprang in part from the Calvinist taproot of Puritan New England. When Calvinist preacher Jonathan Edwards told worshipers in 1741 that they were loathsome spiders held over the pit of hell by the gracious hand of an offended God, he wasn’t speaking a heretical creed but the basic vocabulary of American faith. It wasn’t until the 19th century that Calvinist doctrines waned.

By most logic, the stern system of Calvinism shouldn’t be popular today. Much of modern Christianity preaches a comforting Home Depot theology: You can do it. We can help. Epitomized by popular titles likeJoel Osteen’s “Your Best Life Now: 7 Steps to Living at Your Full Potential,” this message of self-fulfillment through Christian commitment attracts followers in huge numbers, turning big churches into megachurches.

At the same time, a strict following of the Bible, which Calvinists embrace, hardly resonates the way it once did in American society. The Barna Group, a California-based research firm, recently did a survey to find out how many US adults hold a “biblical worldview” – for instance, believe that the Bible is totally accurate, that a person cannot earn their way into heaven simply by doing good, that God is the all-powerful creator of the universe.

The result: a steeple-thin 9 percent. Among 18-to-23-year-olds, it was 0.5 percent, fewer people than might show up at a Lady Gaga concert. Even among “born again” Christians, it was only 19 percent.

In a separate report, Barna found that more than 6 in 10 born-again Christians say they are customizing their faith, not following any one church’s theology. “Americans are increasingly comfortable picking and choosing what they deem to be helpful and accurate theological views and have become comfortable discarding the rest of the teachings in the Bible,” the report notes.

The blunt implication: Scripture is no longer the sheet anchor of American spirituality.

This, of course, was the Roman Catholic warning to early reformers five centuries ago: If you break away from the church, orthodoxy will spiral into fancy. By emphasizing sound doctrine and the naked gospel, New Calvinists want to restore what they see as stability to Protestant faith.

Indeed, CHBC has a sister organization called “9Marks,” which strives to promote “biblically faithful” churches across denominational lines.

“A lot of people think religion is something you piece together [from] ideas you think are sweet and that you personally find beneficial,” says Mr. Dever. “No. It’s like a doctor’s report…. It’s an objective reality. It’s just what is.”

More broadly, the Calvinist revival reflects an effort to recast the foundation of faith itself. From conservative evangelical churches to liberal new-age groups, the message of much modern teaching is man’s need for betterment. Not New Calvinism; its star is God’s need for glory. And the gravity of His will is great: It can be denied, but not defied.

“God either knows everything, or He knows nothing at all,” says CHBC member Jeannie Hagopian, a young mother from South Carolina.

• • •

As morning light filters into a fourth-floor room on a Sunday, students huddle on tiered seats, listening to a lecture on substitutionary atonement. The teacher poses a tough question, but a hand shoots into the air, eager to answer with a recitation of the week’s memory verse from I Peter 3:18: “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.”

Scholars and seminarians call this systematic theology. Kindergartners at CHBC just call it Sunday school.

Their parents are downstairs, absorbing seminars, prayers, and a Scripture-saturated sermon that add up to five hours of worship over the day. Just before noon, the adults jot notes as they listen to an hour-long sermon on II Samuel 5-9. These chapters cover King David’s glorious reign over Israel, but Dever doesn’t skip the tough verses, such as when God strikes Uzzah dead for trying to steady the ark of the covenant.

“Friends, have we sinned like Uzzah?” he asks.

Such statements are meant to prick the hearts of his listeners. Yet he often follows up the hard questions with reassuring comments like: “You and I should not draw a breath today, without living for the praise of God’s glory.”

This pattern – convict worshipers of their sin, then show them spiritual elation – has a gripping effect on the assembly. After the service, churchgoers linger for an hour, hugging and sharing heartfelt conversation. “I’ve come to believe and understand that God is not fundamentally about me; He’s much bigger than that,” says Dan Wenger, a government employee. “The teaching at this church has helped me to see that in context of the whole story of the Bible, not just the parts that make me feel good.”

Dever acknowledges that people might well ask, “Why would God make anybody who is going to go to hell?” His answer captures the essence of New Calvinism. “I don’t know,” he says. “I didn’t do this. I’m just trying to tell you what I think is true, not what I like.”

Membership at CHBC isn’t for the faint of holy. Classes on theology and Christian history are required before joining. At the “Lord’s Supper” once a month, members stand and recite an oath that ties them to one another. In addition to Sunday worship and Wednesday night Bible study, they spend hours each week in small-group study or one-on-one “discipling.” They say those sessions – a time for confessions, encouragement, and prayer – are the most challenging and rewarding feature of church life.

“Christian fellowship is so much more than hanging out with friends,” says Claudia Anderson, a magazine editor. “It involves spiritual intimacy, support, learning, counseling, and stunning acts of kindness.”

Christopher Brown, a lawyer, concurs. “I came for the theology but stayed for the community,” he says. “As Americans, we’re so individualistic. But the New Testament rebukes this ‘rugged individualism.’ We’re not saved to be lone rangers.”

The BlackBerry-wielding Millennials who worship here say they crave teaching that challenges them – “preaching for PhDs,” as one puts it. Ask them what books they’re reading, and they won’t mention “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” They’ll reel through names of 17th-century Puritan preachers like a pack of baseball cards.

“The resurgence of Calvinism indicates that America hasn’t changed so much as some might suppose,” says Collin Hansen, author of “Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists.” “American Christianity has splintered in myriad directions since the Puritans settled New England. But the God they worshiped – attested in the Bible, sovereign in all things, and merciful toward sinners through the self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ – still captivates believers today.”

• • •

What captivates outsiders, however, is that New Calvinists are restoring the doctrine of predestination – God choosing from the outset whom He will and won’t save – to a land that long ago shifted toward a “No Child Left Behind” view of salvation. Taken to its logical end, predestination means God has always regulated everything, even evil.

This belief bothers many Christians. “The shooting at Fort Hood: Did God foreordain that? 9/11? The Holocaust?” asks Professor Lemke, who’s also a Baptist pastor and critic of some, though not all, points of Calvinism.

In 2008, the Southern Baptist Convention put on a John 3:16 conference to counterbalance tenets of Calvinism, including predestination.

What critics see as a grim and fatalistic doctrine, however, Calvin saw as good news: that God’s purposes can be fulfilled despite man’s sinful ways.

“To him, predestination was a liberating belief because it says that God can choose anyone, however humble, and use him to overturn the great men of this world,” says Professor Bray. “It makes real change possible and puts ordinary people like you and me in charge of seeing it happen. What could be better news than that?”

Many followers agree, adding that Calvinism is not fatalism: You are responsible for you behavior.

“Calvinism is ‘big picture’ Christianity,” says Allen Guelzo, the author of “Edwards on the Will: A Century of American Theological Debate.” “It is less interested in asking why God lets bad things happen to good people, and asks instead whether there have ever been any genuinely ‘good’ people.”

For all its controversy, predestination is something New Calvinists accept as part of their take-it-all-or-leave-it approach to the Bible.

“Today we have more Bibles and more study guides to Scripture than ever before, but people know the text itself less and less,” says Bray. “This is disastrous. Calvin’s deep and expository approach to it is therefore more necessary than ever.”

At CHBC, several members say they became authentically Christian only after a friend studied the gospel with them verse by verse. “As I studied the Bible, I saw that God has every reason to send me to hell,” says Connie Brown, a kindergarten teacher. “God broke me down – and renewed my heart.”

New Calvinists talk about their sin a lot. Despite that – or rather because of it – they exude not guilt but great joy. Their explanation: If we play down our sinfulness, we’ll play down our gratitude for the magnitude of God’s love and forgiveness.

Many members were drawn to CHBC precisely because they had yearned to be “convicted of their sin” again and grown frustrated with “watered-down preaching.” School vice principal Jessica Sandle says she came after the pastor at her former church read a book on growth and became consumed with filling pews. “So he stopped talking about sin, and why we need God,” she says.

Another congregant, who declined to be named because he is running for office, was searching for something more substantial as well. “I went to other churches and I came away feeling good, but I came away hungry, too,” he says. “They [the sermons] were mercifully shorter, but they’d leave the gospel out, and I wouldn’t be convicted of my sin…. Here, your deficiencies are laid bare.”

Ultimately, Calvinism’s contrast with chummier, Jesus-is-my-friend forms of evangelicalism may highlight a more fundamental change in the world of faith. Bestselling religion writer Phyllis Tickle sees the interest in Calvinism as the first phase of a backlash against the dominant religious trend of today: the rise of “Emergence Christianity.”

Emergence Christianity, which she identifies as a once-every-500-years religious shift, is less a doctrine or a movement than a postmodern attitude toward religion itself. Loosely organized, it values experimentation over traditional rules and Christian practice.

“When things go through this upheaval,” Ms. Tickle says, “there’s always those who absolutely need the assurance of rules and a foundation.”

Or, as Ms. Hagopian puts it with uncompromising Calvinistic clarity: “The dominant philosophy of American Christianity is so far removed from biblical truth. Life is not hunky-dory.”

Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World

I recommend this book to every Christian living in the 21st Century. This great book edited by C. J. Mahaney breathes fresh contextual insights to the question of worldliness.

C. J. Mahaney et al simply but eloquently gives us practical application to John’s all time message to Christendom “Do not love the world or anything in the world” (1 John 2:15). In the strongest terms possible, he argues that the apostle “forbids worldliness in no uncertain terms.”

He asks the questions: what does the passage mean to a Christian – what does it mean to me – not to love the world? Probably one of the exciting things to me is the way he asks the questions I ave been hearing almost daily for the last fifteen years or so that I have been a believer.

He goes on? “Does it mean I can’t watch MTV or go on an R-rated movie? Do I have to give up my favourite TV shows? Is it okay to watch a movie as long as I fast-forward the sex scene? How much violence or language is too much?”

He continues… “are certain styles of music more worldly than others? Is the rap or indie music that I’m loading onto my ipod okay? How do I know if  I’m spending too much time playing games or watching youTube clips online? Can a Christian try to make lots of money, own a second home, drive a nice car, and enjoy the luxuries of modern life? Am I worldly if I read fashion magazines and wear trendy clothes? Do I have to be out of style in order to be godly? How short is too short? How low is too low?” In other words, how do I know if I’m guilty of the sins of worldliness?

C. J. Warns that the book does not aim at setting legalistic restrictions or enforce unrealistic rules. He also takes issues with those who argue that they have to be like the world in order to witness to it as well as those who argue that a person’s relationship with God is a private issue.

For whatever reasons we may give for our compromising flirting with the world, the author(s) argue(s) that this passage cannot just be ignored without consequences. It is God’s word, and not just “an outdated command or remains of an over-scrupulous tradition.”

Indeed, all are susceptible to the sin of worldliness. It is not a “threat confined to a specific group of people.” Believers are reminded that there is no immunity based on age or position, or ability to absorb the world without its affecting us. To concretise this point he cites the example of Demas, a companion of Paul who later, not only fell in love with the world but also led to his desertion of Paul, as recorded in Paul’s second letter to Timothy 4:10.

Worldliness is here defined as “the love of this fallen world – loving the values and pursuits of the world that stands opposed to God… and more specifically as “to gratify and exalt oneself to the exclusion of God.

The authors gives their admonishments on specific issues that elevate our propensity towards worldliness.  The media, music, stuff and clothes are carefully considered. Finally a last chapter explains to us how believers should love the world.

This book is a perfect read for all believers. It is a prompt reminder to consistent believers, a warning to the wavering and encouragement to those returning to the fold. I can’t emphasize much the need to read this wonderful commentary on worldliness.

Of Kenya, the Church, Abortion and the Law

This is hard to write about. Questions going through my mind as I begin this daunting task are “am I compromised? Is this how God sees it? Am I right? Is Pragmatism a desirable philosophical position? What is the Ideal?” etc.

A brief background to this would suffice. About two years ago I was poised to take my place as a fellow with a conservative think-tank in Washington DC. As I prepared to leave my beloved motherland I was more than elated. I was not merely flying out just to take another MBA or a Degree Course like “many others!” No! With undue pride – of which I am deeply in repentance – I was convinced, and still am, that I was out to acquire the necessary expertise and experience necessary to address the emerging trends in my beloved country. In other words, I was confidant that upon return home, I would be apt to offer professional guidance on significant issues affecting Kenya and beyond.

Before I left Kenya I made a case for my intended sojourn in the “land of the free and the home of the brave.” Notice my quotation marks. One day I will explain my dilemma on the quoted statement. I urged the Church to pray with/for me as I engage in this noble task and as I prepare to “save Kenya.” You must not help noticing this audacious Messiah complex – neither do I. Yes, I was optimistic about SAVING KENYA but not any more. No amount of Politics or structural adjustments and changes can save a nation. I was wrong and I say so with regret.

Some of the issues that I mentioned that needed address and still do include: the abortion industry, the emergence of same sex marriage, pornography, sperm donation and in-vitro-fertilization, illicit sex trade (which my Proposed MTheol – Applied Ethics was about) etc. Not so many questions were asked but so many applauses came my way which only went a long way in cementing my then growing pharisaic mentality. Feelings like, what are they doing about these issues, good-for-nothing Christians filled my heart.

But one medical student did not let my words in Church go unchallenged. Teresa Bonyo calmly asked me whether I was right in totally rejecting abortion. My answer was but of course! Or how else would you interpret the sixth commandment – Do not commit murder? At this point I must say that this position has not changed even an inch. I must add though that my position was not as well researched as I had previously assumed. This is the background upon which I left my beloved motherland as I prepared to engage in public policy “the Christian way!”

Studying and working at an influential think-tank at the centre of the World’s political capital is no mean achievement. I was housed just one block from the Senate offices and two blocks from the nation’s capital, and the library of Congress. I also had the rare opportunity to engage with some of the finest minds in both liberal and conservative ideologies. I witnessed the first hand debates on the issues then closer to my heart – abortion, war, homosexuality and stem cell research. So much about the glamour of DC – did I mention my two visits to the White House? As if that is important at all!

Well, among many other issues I studied and debated on the Capitol Hill was the issue of abortion. Soon the debate intensified, not just from mere abortion to abortion on demand. I noted that even though there were genuine citizens out there who are genuinely concerned about the sanctity of life – both of the mother and the unborn baby, the strongest and most influential forces on this debate are people with political, economic and shear ideological agenda. There is the social conservative wing that is irked by the liberal money making machine called the Planned Parenthood – the very one that is also said to be funding the activities of Marie Stopes Clinic in Kenya. Marie Stopes, it is rumoured, silently advocates for abortion under the guise of female reproductive health. I have no credible evidence – just stating what I have heard from the walls.

The other political force is the liberal group whose cause is to daunt people with “impressive” scholarship as well as sound messianic. They are of course heavily funded by the money minting Planned Parenthood. So don’t lose the sight on the economics of this debate. Then there are the general perverts of the society who want to have sex without responsibility. This group argues that people can do what they want with themselves and this includes termination of pregnancy. Closely supported by this group is the feminist movement that seeks to “empower” the womenfolk. Honestly, I think they are dis-empowered by such movements – but that is a debate for another day.

Finally, there are the religious zealots. This is the category in which I fall under. This group’s inspiration is an idealistic philosophy that claims that truth is absolute. Fundamentally, they draw their ideology from Scripture – the true word of God. Key to this position is the word imperative, which is indeed a command. Thus “thou shall not commit murder” is not a suggestion but a command which comes with consequences. To cement this position, we have also argued convincingly from history that nations on decline have always shown their imminent demise by the way they have treated their unborn. Citing the experiences of ancient Greece and Rome, I could not agree more.

But also amongst this group are the moralists who seek to legislate individual morality. This section of people I view as legalists who don’t understand the fallen as well as transient nature of mankind. They also miss the distinctive role of the cross and ultimate redemptive agenda of the Messiah. Unfortunately, from my reading of a greater section of the Kenyan Church, this is where they belong in the current debate. The other group of course understand that the Bible commands purity in all spheres of life and that our purity is a response to grace. That the regenerate soul responds to what the triune Godhead has declared as good. This view therefore sees man as inherently depraved and utterly in need of salvation.

Heavily influenced by both Platonic idealism and Kant’s categorical imperative, I have oscillated between the two groups before finally settling on the latter. When I erroneously held the former, I misled myself to believe that if people cannot individually seek their salvation then they can be saved from themselves. Thus legislating morality is their only solution. Since decisively moving from that complicated pharisaic attitude, I have found it noble to preach the grace of God and His righteousness – that through the sufficiency of the death of Christ, salvation comes to those who will believe. A concise understanding of this fundamental truth will easily blot the abortion debate out of our daily menu.

Ironically, some of the groups that decampaigns abortion ostensibly on the grounds of the sixth commandment also defend the just war theory citing the same Bible and seeing no contradiction. On the other hand, the liberal group that massages the abortionists’ ego are way up in opposing the just war theory arguing that the universal human right to life must be upheld. What they fail to answer is why then do they find it appealing to advocate for abortion on demand – the unnecessary taking away of the unborn. I find an audacious contradiction in this school of thought as well.

I must admit that there is merit in the argument that the helpless in the society needs to be defended. The unborn, like the widows, orphans and other marginalised persons deserve our support by all means. What I don’t buy is that this should be done through legislation. I believe that individual conscience and convictions on the sanctity of human life would go a long way in defending the rights of the unborn than the endless war and debates on its legislation. Debates that are heavily influenced by forces that be and they that use the common man as pawns and fodder for their hidden war carefully concealed as attractive well-meaning legislative agenda.

Christ declared that adultery did not only constitute of the act but also the premeditation of it thereof. Thus we have all largely agreed that we cannot help people or even ourselves from being adulterous if the conditions of their hearts do not want that help. I mean, I can be confined in a Monastery but will still be as lustful. Lessons from St Anthony and St Augustine come handy in this. St Augustine confessed his struggle with lust – he couldn’t let go of his mistress. Upon comprehending the gist of the Gospel message from Bishop Ambrose of Milan, this great theologian and scholar – to be struggled with embracing the Gospel because the practical implication was a change of attitude and behaviour – something he wasn’t quite yet ready for then.

By implication, I argue that if a woman, in her heart desires to take away the life of her unborn – even with a legislative barrier, as a Christian, I will not have helped the condition of her heart. We may detain her in some place until safe delivery of the baby but in her heart murder has been committed. Well, according to Jesus’ moral philosophy she who premeditates murder has murdered just like he who premeditates adultery. What Christian leaders need to address more strongly is the condition of the human heart in response to post modernism and its ideologies and not on legislative imperatives, whether hypothetical or categorical.

Then there is the case of the medical practitioner. I think they are put in the most awkward positions. What should they do when they are not in a position to save the life of both the unborn and the mother without risking the life of either? Should professional discretion be allowed in determining which of the two should be saved? Where is murder in this case? What about a legislation compelling a doctor to aid in abortion against his/her conscience?

Let us take a hypothetical scenario. Assuming that conditional abortion, as stipulated in the proposed Kenyan constitution is effected. Then a doctor, who by religious convictions or otherwise does not accept abortion of any kind as legitimate practice, is on duty. Assuming also that the mother’s life is in danger and this doctor is the only surgeon who is able to save the situation (saving here implying an administering abortion). Should the doctor maintain that his conscience would not allow him to perform the duty and in so doing let the woman die? If he does so, should he prosecuted for negligence and consequent murder? Or should he defy his conscience, save the mother and live to regret having killed the helpless child?

What if the draft is amended to forbid abortion for whatever reason and we are faced with the same scenario where a woman’s life is in danger. What should the doctor do? Should he save the woman and face prosecution for securing an abortion? Should he allow the woman to die because abortion is impermissible? If this happens and the woman dies, how will the doctor live with his conscience knowing that he could have saved her life? Should the doctor face prosecution for negligence?

I don’t have answers for these questions. I am however inclined to argue that some professional discretion should be upheld in the law. These hypothetical situations are real life issues that the advocating Kenyan clergy cannot ignore. As they say no to abortion – which I do too, they must say also give reasonable answers to these demanding questions.

I think it is easier for a Catholic priest like Arch-bishop Njue to insist on no abortion legislative policy and feel nothing since they don’t have spouses – at least legitimate ones, neither do they create life. Perhaps, God should put the wife of one of those people at the NCCK into a situation as hypothesised above so that we can see how the husband practically deals with the situation – whether to let the wife or the baby or both to die if only either or only the wife could be saved. God forbid but wouldn’t it be more practical than calling endless press conferences on No reforms if abortion is permitted.

I think the entire draft has significant flows but not significant enough to deny the people a “good” governing document. In any case, it is comparatively better than what we have today. It is therefore my proposal that it is passed and that necessary amendments are made later on. Maybe the abortion clause can be removed and provisions made for in an act of parliament. Otherwise, denying the citizens this vital document just for trivial dogmatic and ideological as well as political conveniences is chasing the wind.

Two years ago, I would have argued like John Njue et al but the only thing that does not change is change itself.

Thus, I conclude – abortion is a violation of the sixth commandment, it is sinful and will ultimately be punished by a just and righteous God who abhors evil. However, I will not compel anybody against their will not to sin. I will also not cheer them into sin but will also not embrace their sin. I will lovingly but categorically summon them to a life of righteousness and allow them to make their decisions. However, those who argue with me along this line must find a convincing reason why murderers should be apprehended while abortionists set free… Hard nut eh!

Sensus Plenoir versus the Grammatical-historical Hermeneutic

What does the term “sensus plenior” mean?

“Sensus plenior” is a Latin term which means, literally, “fuller sense,” or “deeper meaning”. The term “sensus plenior” is used to refer to those passages which, at their most obvious level speak of one person or event, but which also have a deeper meaning hinted at through that specific event in question. In other words, “sensus plenior” is the term which acknowledges that some historical persons and events in the Old Testament are really “types,” and that the passages treating of those persons and events speak not just of themselves alone, but also of the “antitypes” (i.e., the fulfillments of the types) which they foreshadow.

A good example of a case in which the principle of “sensus plenior” must be applied is Moses’ striking the rock in the wilderness, so that water flowed out to nourish the people. This passage relates a very real historical event, and its most basic level of meaning refers simply to a physical rock that flowed with physical water; but this event was also a type of how Christ, the Rock of our Salvation, was struck with the rod of divine justice, and henceforth there flowed from his wounded body the forgiveness and spiritual life that we need. In other words, there is a “sensus plenior,” or deeper meaning to this event than just the real, historical occurrence. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul gives express instruction for us to see a “sensus plenior” in this passage; and a little later, he says that all the things recorded in the Old Testament were written as “types” for our instruction (1 Cor. 10:11), thus giving us warrant to see a “sensus
plenior” in all the scriptures.

Is a grammatical-historical hermeneutic opposed to sensus plenior?

Although it is a common sentiment today to deny that a literal, grammatical-historical hermeneutic could allow for any sensus plenior in the text of scriptures, because it would violate the principle of each text having only one meaning, the simple fact is that this understanding is based more upon a naturalistic, or literalizing hermeneutic, than the grammatical-historical hermeneutic of the Church Fathers and Reformers. But more to the point, this denial of sensus plenior is in direct contradiction to the testimony of the scriptures themselves, as to how they should be read and understood. Throughout the Old Testament, the bible gives explicit indication that the historical events and persons recorded, although they must be read “literally” as actual events in time and space, very often signify something deeper, that has to do with God’s eternal design; for instance, Jacob and Esau’s struggling together in the womb, although a real historical
occurrence, is expressly said to indicate the future struggle of the nations of Israel and Edom (Gen. 25:22-23); and so also with many other things.

Furthermore, the New Testament teaches both by clear declaration and example that the whole Old Testament has a spiritual and Christ-centered meaning, to which all the recorded historical occurrences point (cf. 1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 8:5; Luke 24:44-48; and also Gal. 4:21-31; 1 Pet. 3:20-22; Mat. 2:15; 12:39-40). Moreover, the prophecies which had to do with Israel, the tabernacle, and so on, had a deeper meaning, involving Christ and the Church, and were ultimately fulfilled according to this deeper meaning (cf. Acts 15:14-17; Heb. 8:8-13; 10:14-22; 2 Cor. 1:20); the Psalms, although they often had an immediate reference to David, still had an ultimate reference to Christ, the seed of David (cf. Mat. 13:35; John 13:18; Acts 2:25-32; Heb. 2:11-14); and so with every part of the Old Testament (e.g. Eph. 5:30-32).

Often, those who argue against any sensus plenior in scripture indicate that, to allow this deeper sense would be to open up the bible to fanciful allegorizing, according to the whims of the interpreter; but in fact, the principle of sensus plenior, or in other words, the typological understanding of every part of the Old Testament, is vastly different from fanciful allegorizing, for it is rooted in actual, concrete history, and tethered always to Christ and his redemptive work alone; these principles, which are borne out everywhere in New Testament expositions of Old Testament scriptures, will keep all interpretation from wandering astray from the truth.

Source: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/plenior.html

Which Way for Kenya?

By Prof Stuart Fowler

This article is a response to an article titled “What Kibaki and Raila can do to check diplomatic onslaught“ by ELIAS MOKUA NYATETE, published on the Daily Nation on the Wednesday November 4th, 09.

I wrote to my friend Prof Fowler concerning the article. This is what our communication looks like.

Fowler -

This article was written by a Kenyan who is currently at the University of Melbourne. What is your take on the content?

Dan

I seem to be spending most of my time with issues of Kenyan politics at present! I am not sure whether I have already told you about my own experience of political life. Anyhow, I will go ahead with a brief summary.

Some decades ago I was Research Director of Justice in Broadcasting. which was a small organisation of individual Christians with prominent non-political roles in society. At the time broadcasting in Australia was regulated by a government appointed, independent commission which held public hearings to which anyone could make a submission. Our aim was to ensure that the regulation was just, since we saw doing justice and supporting the socially weak as a fundamental Christian calling.

We were up against some powerful commercial interests, including News Corporation and Australia’s richest man both of which had large broadcasting interests. It was a real David and Goliath contest, except that we were not able to topple the Goliaths but, by God’s grace, we did make a difference. Shortly before the organisation ceased operations I phoned a senior manager of one of Australia’s largest companies, told him who I represented saying “I do not know whether you know about us”. His response was: “I know enough to know that you are listened to in Canberra” (as I am sure you will know this is the national capital).

I learned a lot about practical politics from that experience.

So what is my take on the Nation article. While the writer says some things that make good sense, I do not think that either of his alternatives are viable.

On the first one, who is going to choose this cabinet composed of people of integrity? Who is  going to vouch for this integrity?

Even if these obstacles could be overcome practical political administration is a specialised activity. Just because a person is a university professor, head of a company, church leader is no guarantee that this person could do a good job as a Cabinet minister. The seasoned politicians in parliament would most likely twist this Cabinet in any direction they want.

On the second alternative, while there is certainly merit in something like thisthough like the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission I think it should be presided over by Kenyan leaders of integrity outside politics. But, I have two qualifications:

1.      The South African experience was not as effective as it was made to appear in dealing with that country’s history of conflict and injustice. The present government has conceded that it will not be able to make its 2014 deadline for the transfer of just one third of its farming land to the black majority. The gap between rich and poor is much bigger than that of Kenya. Kenyans need to stop looking to South Africa as a model. It simply is not. ANC has been in power continuously since 1994-15 years-with little restraint on how it uses this power. Any democracy based on what I call the conflict model, as distinct from Switzerland’s consensus model, needs a strong opposition that is a viable alternative government to check abuse of power. Without such a check abuse of power and corruption is inevitable.

2.           It would do nothing to solve the issues of governance in Kenya.

As I see it, the roots of Kenya’s problems lie in legacy of the years of British occupation. I  believe that today’s generation needs to be well informed about Kenya’s political history in order to understand the present , and move forward to a new era of effective democracy.

When Kenya gained its independence it lacked leaders with political experience. They knew how to resist the occupation, but there is a big gulf between resistance and governance. In this latter area they were all novices. Consequently they took over the colonial structure of governance with only minor changes. The of title of Governor was changed to President (after less than six months as Prime Minister) and Legco became the Parliament. While the Parliament had more power than Legco, and was certainly a representative body (which Legco was not), the primary power was in the Presidency. To understand the present, therefore, we need to go back to the Kenyatta years.

For many years no-one dared to speak of Kenyatta other than in heroic terms. He should be credited with some important achievements. Mostly on the economic front, but also in healing social divisions:

1. He laid the foundations for Kenya to become the second most industrialised nation in Africa.
2. He supported the development of a strong tourist industry. He did this on the grounds that Kenya, unlike a number of other African countries, has no significant mineral resources so it must make the most of what it does have.
3. He strongly supported agricultural development on the grounds that Kenya must be able to feed its people.
4. He healed the divisions that occurred during the struggle for independence by saying: “We can never forget what the British have done, but we must forgive and embrace them as friends”. While he did not directly say so, this also healed internal divisions since Kenyans were divided in the independence struggle. Some valiantly fought the British occupiers, while others supported the colonial government including joining the armed “Home Guard” an unpaid but officially recognised force. The latter were generally Christians following the teaching of missionaries that they must support the colonial government on the basis of Rom 13. It is ironical that these same missionaries taught their converts that they must reject the traditional African governing authorities on the grounds that they were pagan-this despite the fact that when Paul wrote the governing authorities to which he referred were those of pagan Rome.

At the same time there were two important flaws in these achievements:

1. Industrialisation was heavily dependent on foreign investment. The law was changed more than once at the urging of large foreign companies in order to give them favoured treatment. This might not have been a bad thing if similar incentives were given to Kenyan investment but this was not done.
2. In healing divisions he failed to give due recognition to those who had risked their lives and often sustained injuries in their fight for independence. These people helped him to gain the power he had yet he turned his back on them. This can only be regard as a glaring injustice in his rule.

Kenyatta was a charismatic figure but also an autocratic President, intolerant of criticism and maintaining a tight hold on power. Not content with his already wide powers, in 1967 he had the Constitution amended to further widen his powers as President making himself almost certainly the most powerful President of any elected government in the world. In 1969, when Jaramogi Oginga Odinga formed the Kenya People’s Union as he was fully entitled to do under the constitution.

The ruthless nature of his rule was shown in practice by two intertwined events in 1969:

1. The assassination of Tom Mboya, a Cabinet Minister, gunned down on Moi Avenue, Nairobi. Mboya’s abilities and charismatic presentation undoubtedly made him a potential threat to Kenyatta. The man who pulled the trigger, and who was convicted and hanged, Nahashon Isaac Njenga Njoroge asked the police after his arrest: ”Why don’t you go after the big man?”. Since there was never any inquiry held (which in itself is strange in the case of the assassination of such a high proflle cabinet minister) no-one can say with certainty that Kenyatta had some involvement. However, among the Kenyan people there was a widespread perception that he was. There was a mass demostration against Kenyatta when he attended Mboya’s funeral. And a short time later when Kenyatta, at the invitation of Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, opened the Nyanza General Hospital, there was again a mass protest in which 10 people died when Kenyatta’s security detail fired into the crow
2. On the basis of major policy differences, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga shortly before the assassination of Mboya and the following mass protests, had quit KANU and established a new political party, the Kenya People’s Union (KPU). This was done entirely within the law and constitution which allowed for multiple parties. Two days after the Nyanza protest Oginga and his colleagues in the leadership of KPU were arrested and detained and KPU was banned by Presidential decree. The detainees were eventually released but the ban on the party stayed. In doing so Kenyatta made it clear that, under his rule, Kenya would be a de facto one party state regardless of the constitution.

There were several other prominent political figures who died in suspicious circumstances at that time including Pio Gama Pinto,  J.M. Kariuki,  C.M.G. Argwings-Kodhek and Ronald Ngala. In the case of Argwings-Kodhek it was officially treated at the time as a car accident. However, subsequent investigations initiated by his family provided substantial evidence is that he died by a bullet with substantial evidence that the bullet was fired by a member of the Vide-Presidential security detail.

Finally, in relation to the Kenyatta years, it was characterised by a clear and increasing Gikuyu bias. Kenyatta was the one that allocated large tracts of land in the Rift Valley to Gikuyu (one of the issues in the 2007 election riots) surrounded himself with Gikuyu in every important position and fostered a culture of corruption that enriched prominent Gikuyu figures who held public office. He appropriated for himself the largest tract of land held by one person in Kenya and it is suggested that the combined Kenyatta family land holding is equal to the size of Nyanza.

Rather than uniting all Kenyans as one people, regardless of ethnicity, it was Kenyatta who sowed the seeds of ethnic division and conflict which are now bearing fruit. Moi, as Vice-Presdent was the token figure appointed to give some semblance of ethic inclusion to the administration. But Moi was appointed because he was seen as no threat, and also had no power. In the final decade of his rule Kenyatta was very sick and left matters of state to his trusted Gikuyu elite-Moi was a figurehead. In fact, it was not unusual for Gikuyu in the security forces to stop the Vice-Presidential car in which Moi was travelling in order to search it, or to have him wait at the gates of State House before getting a clearance to enter.

In any case, the Gikuyu elite felt secure in their power because they had a well developed plan to kill Moi as soon as Kenyatta died so that Moi would not become President as the constitution provided if a President died in office. That failed, because Kenyatta was in Mombasa when he died and all the plans assumed he would be in State House.

The present generation focus a lot of attention on the Moi years, But I knew Kenya first in the Kenyatta years, and Joy once was “honoured” with a seat on the official platform at a rally at which Kenyatta was the speaker. Nothing was more repressive than the Kenyatta years. When the President was travelling on the highway, all traffic was stopped at least two hours before he was due. Criticism of his rule was not tolerated.

In those years, as well as the early Moi years, while I taught courses on social issues it would have jeapodised the lives of my students and the existence Scott if I had encouraged any critical analysis of Kenyan politics. I can still recall the open fear in the eyes of a NEGST lecturer when he learned that I had in my position a clandestine copy of a banned journal critical of the Kenyan President. As it was I had no difficulty taking it out of the country in my luggage, though if I was a Kenyan found in possession of it the story may well have been different.

I am not an apologist for Moi, but he did regularise Kenyatta’s de facto one party state by changing the constitution to make it a de jure one party state. Probably this was because of concern that he needed to defend his position as President from the powerful Gikuyu clique who effectively exercised the powers of government in the later Kenyatta years. The 1982 coup and subsequent revelations would have confirmed that he was right in such a concern.

Moi did also allow open criticism of his rule in his later years. Some of this may have been due to the influence of Dr Titus Kivunzi in his term of AIC Bishop. I know that he was unique in that role. He refused to ask Moi for favours (though he could well have used more money) because, as he said to me: “I cannot be a faithful pastor to him if I am taking favours from him”. Kivunzi, has no understanding of politics but I believe it likely that he did influence Moi to make some changes in the direction of freedom and inclusion on moral grounds.

The reason I have written in so much detail is that it is my conviction that the only effective measure to get rid of the corruption and ethnic rivalry in Kenya’s government is by a radical constitutional overhaul. The problem is that those in power would have to authorise such an overhaul and I cannot see them letting go of the power they now have. As for outside intervention, I know of no country in history that has become a viable democracy by the intervention of another country. Those who think that the US will intervene constructively are whistling in the dark. The US needs Kenya as an ally at this point of time, and for some time to come.

I do not think there is any short term solution to Kenya’s governance problems. The problems, rooted as they are in the Kenyatta years, are too deeply rooted. My Facebook interactions encourage me by seeing the beginnings of a grassroots movement in that direction. In the end, however, I think real change will come only by a peaceful revolution. By this I mean a popular outcry that is so loud and widespread that politicians dare not ignore it. To achieve this I believe there is a need for some non-political, multi-ethic grouping to become active in making Kenyans at the grassroots aware of the possibilities for Kenya to become a model democracy; a country where both petty corruption and mega-corruption is minimised and not a daily reality, and where the voice of the people is truly heard by those who govern. (Every government has within it a measure of corruption, but it can and should be contained)

Such a strategy will require courage and perseverance but what is at stake requires this, or something like it. Even the shots that are now being fired, while praiseworthy, remain like throwing pebbles against the stone wall of a fortress.

Hope this is some use. It is the best I can do, and I will be happy if someone can come up with a better idea. But it MUST be realistic; a vision and not a mere dream.

Greetings from us both

Prof Stuart Fowler lecturers at Faculty of Management and Commerce in the University of Fort Hare in South Africa