Category Archives: Articles Written
A Bible-based reason why a person of faith who opts to or is tempted to strike a recalcitrant tone towards the Corona Virus targeted government mandated social distancing edict should play along instead
Besides common sense and sheer prudence, here is an O.T. (Old Testament)-based reason why individual believers, church leaders, and religious congregations who opt to or are tempted to strike a recalcitrant tone towards the government mandated social distancing edict should play along instead:
Current measures to level and then bend downward the curve of the fatalities or the number of positive diagnoses of this highly infectious COVID-19 parallel, if not imitate, Leviticus 13 divine instructions on how to guard against community outbreak of leprosy (aka Hansen’s disease), a similarly infectious disease though non-fatal.
A positive diagnosis in the case of COVID-19 indicates detection of vira-RNA. Positive markers of leprosy consists of any of the following: a sore that runs more than skin deep and has hair on it that turns white or yellow (Lev 13:3; 29-30); a white swelling “in the skin that has turned the hair white and if there is a raw flesh in the swelling” (v. 9); a rash that has spread in the skin (v. 8); a white swelling or a reddish-white spot that supplants a boil or a burn on the skin, is more than skin deep, and the hair on it has turned white (vv. 19-20; 24-25); a swollen sore on a male’s bald head or forehead that turns reddish-white (vv 43-44).
Individuals who test positive for corona virus and do not need hospitalization are called upon to seal themselves tight at home in total self-isolation. Curiously Leviticus instructs lepers to not only wear torn clothes, let their hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of their face (wear a mask?), cry out, “Unclean! Unclean!,” but also live alone outside the camp (Lev 13:45)
Alongside folks who have tested positive, untested individuals—untested due to lack of a sufficient number of testing kits– who experience symptoms of or have been exposed to someone with the corona virus must self-isolate for 14 days. Coincidentally Leviticus prescribes a specific number of days of quarantine for people exhibiting symptoms that have the potential of morphing into full blown leprosy. An individual with a white shiny spot on the skin that does not appear to be more than skin deep and the hair in it has not turned white is subject to a total of 14 days of isolation if after the first seven days the sore is unchanged and has not spread in the skin (Lev 13:4-5, cf. vv31-32). Seven days of isolation is prescribed when a white swelling or a reddish-white spot that has supplanted a boil on the skin has no white hair in it, is not more than skin deep and has faded (v. 21, cf. v. 26)
To What Extent Does the Catholic Practice of Beatification and Canonization such as that of Sister Irene “Nyaatha” Dovetail with or Depart from the Scriptures
Introduction
Even-though it’s been on-going as far back as a millennium ago, it took Africa’s first beatification ceremony conducted on May 23rd 2015 in this non-Catholic’s “backyard” for him to snap to attention. Of special interest to us amidst the extensive media coverage (print and otherwise) both locally and internationally in the weeks leading to and including the climactic moment when the Papal Legate delivered the relevant papal decree of His Holiness Pope Francis I was the mention of terminologies that seem to echo the Scriptures. Now that the rhapsodies of joy have dissipated and the concourse of Catholic faithful has melted away from the grounds of Dedan Kimathi University of Science and Technology (Nyeri County, Kenya), the site of the beatification ceremony, this sounds as an opportune time to pose and then seek to answer the following question: How does the use of the terms “blessed,” and “saint” within Catholicism compare with the Bible?
Use of the term “Blessed” and “Saint” within Catholicism Compared with the Bible
Use of the term “Blessed” within Catholicism Compared with the Bible
The etymology of “beatification” is traceable to the twin Latin terms facere (”to make”) and beatus (“blessed”). To be the subject of an inquest on the possibility of being recognized as or made blessed, the candidate in view must first of all be deceased. So for instance the beatification of Sister “Nyaatha” (formerly Aurelia Giacomina Mercede)
commenced with an initiation of an inquiry by the Episcopal authority in 1984, a little over half a century after her death in Gikondi. The Episcopal authority in this case was Ceasar Maria Gatimu. , the then Bishop of Nyeri Diocese (now the Metropolitan Archdiocese of Nyeri). The deceased candidate must then pass the muster of a three-pronged inquiry.
First is scrutiny for reputable or famed sanctity evidenced by the presence of virtues of heroic degree. The heroism must appear as a constant feature in the life of the candidate; a few heroic actions do not suffice to establish the manifold excellence of life which constitutes sanctity. On the other hand, numerous heroic acts of each and every virtue are not required. There must be many heroic acts of Faith, Hope, and especially Charity, but heroic acts of the other virtues are required only in so far as the individual had opportunities to exercise them. While there is no rigid rule as to the length of time during which the candidate must have persevered in the practice of eminent virtue, the period must be sufficient to justify the practice being described as permanent and habitual.
Second is proof of miracles associated with the candidate posthumously, the number of which range from two to four depending on whether the evidence of practice of virtues is sure or based on hearsay. If the miracle(s) is (are) of a medical nature, the opinion of two physicians is sought to prove that (a) the malady was a serious one; (b) the cure was not due to natural remedies; (c) it was instantaneous or at least sudden; (d) it was permanent.
Third, processes de non cultu is instituted to prove that the decrees of Urban VIII regarding the prohibition of public worship of the departed individual being considered for beatification have been obeyed.
A fourth inquiry is necessary only if there are writings attributable to the candidate. The object here is to discover, firstly if the writings contain anything contrary to faith or morals, and, secondly, whether they furnish any indication of the character, the virtues or the defects of the writer.
The declaration “Blessed” in the Bible is the English translation of (a) passive (pual) participle of ברך (or its Greek equivalent, εὐλογέω) (b) the adjective εὐλογητο and (c) the particle אַשְׁרֵי or the adjective (μακάριος). Just as the Catholics name those of their own who have been declared beatified (e.g., Pope John Paul II, Miriam Teresa, Mother Teresa), so does the Bible. Named Biblical characters who were regarded as blessed include Abraham (Gen 14:19), Asher (Deut 33:24), Jael (Judges 5:24), Abigail (1 Sam 25:33), Boaz (Ruth 2:19), and Simon Peter (Matt 16:17). Different from the Catholics, however, is the absence of a layered process leading to the declaration– no promoter of judicial inquiries required to set the ball rolling; no series of meetings tasked with vetting responsibilities. Additionally the “avenues” through which people can be declared blessed are relatively numerous– anybody qualifies as blessed if for instance he or she is insulted because of the name of Christ (1 Pet 4:14; Matt 5:11), perseveres under trial (Jam 1:2), engages in peacemaking (Matt 5:9), practices meekness (Matt 5:5), makes the Lord his or her trust (Ps 40:4; 84:12; Jer. 17:7), or shares one’s food with the poor (Prov. 22:9). Performing a miracle is not listed as one of the entry points to becoming blessed. Neither is death considered a prerequisite for being considered blessed.
Use of the term “Saint” within Catholicism Compared with the Bible
As per the Catholics, the road to canonization is through beatification. To be considered for sainthood, therefore, one must first of all have been beatified. Once declared blessed, all it takes is verification of one more miracle at which point the Vicar of Christ readies himself to utter the canonization formula following the ringing of the bells of St Peter. The formula calls for the inscription of the name of the blessed-now-turned saint into the Roll of Saints and universalizes the veneration of the new saint.
“Saint” appears as the equivalent of קָדוֹשׁ in the Old Testament (cf. the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon) and as the rendering of ἅγιος in both the Septuagint and the New Testament (cf. Mounce Greek Dictionary). Most of its occurrence is in the New Testament with the earliest instance there being Acts 9:13 (cf. 26:10). The saints in that chapter are described as those who call on the name of the Lord (9:21). And since, according to Acts 2:21 (cf. Rom 10:13), it is those who call on the name of the Lord who will be saved, the saints are analogous to believers. Similarly “saints” in 1 Cor. 6:2 refers to believers considering that they are contrasted with unbelievers in v. 6 and the ungodly in v. 1. The same is true of “saints” in Ephesians 1:1. Of them it is said twelve verses later that they “were included in Christ” when they “heard the word of truth, the gospel of salvation.” Having “believed” they “were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit.” (v. 13). Reference to “saints” as “brothers” (2 Cor. 1:8) or “sisters” (Rom 16:1) is further proof of substitutability with believer(s) since the terms also describe the relationship between believers (cf. Matt 12:49; Acts 1:16; 9:17; 15:36) and not just blood or genetically connected relatives.
Sainthood in the Scriptures, therefore, is not the purview of a select few but is in actuality synonymous with a Christian. Further none of the references on “saints” suppose that the individuals in view are named as such posthumously. For sure the individuals who died in the hand of Lady Babylon in Rev. 18 perished as saints (v. 24) and were not so declared after their death.
Conclusion
To our initial question of whether the Catholic Practice of Beatification and Canonization dovetails with or departs from the Scriptures, we conclude that the overlap starts and stops with the vocabulary. Meaning-wise, it turns out that the shared vocabulary is at best homonymic (same spelling, different meaning) and at worst contradictory.
Our Response to Pastor Robert Jeffress Public Endorsement of Mormon Romney over Christian Obama
As an ex-attendee of the First Baptist Church of Dallas during the tenure of Pastor O. S. Hawkins, I have continued to remotely track happenings within this ecclesia such as pastoral turnovers and tearing down parts of the church’s architecture to allow for the construction of a new mega million sanctuary. Recently the current pastor, Rev. Robert Jeffress, piqued my attention by two sets of utterances pertaining to political endorsements.
His first set of comments were voiced at the Values Voter Summit in Washington on October 2011 when he was called upon to introduce Governor Rick Perry, a presidential candidate in the Republican primary. In the process of the introduction he unapologetically and enthusiastically endorsed Rick Perry over Governor Romney on the grounds that Perry among other things was (a) “a conservative out of deep convictions” as opposed to Romney who he evaluated as “a conservative out of convenience” and (b) “a born-again follower of Jesus Christ as opposed to Romney who he considers “a good, moral person” but nevertheless a member of a “cult.”
By the way one of the reasons that Mormonism is considered a cult is its attitude towards the Bible. As much as Mormonism recognizes the Bible, it holds the Book of Mormon either at the same level or higher. Quoting Nephi, one of the fifteen mini-books that constitute the Book of Mormon, “we should not assume that the Bible is all we need… we should not think that the Bible contains all God’s words; neither need we suppose that God has not caused more to be written.” Incidentally, in its discussion of a people group referred as the Lamanites, the mini-book Nephi speaks of this people group as being white at some point but then developed a black skin color as a result of God’s punishment. It is also in the same mini-book that intermarriage between Black and White is discouraged.
The second set of remarks were reported today (April 18th 2012) by the Associated press. In endorsing Romney over President Obama Jeffries still maintains that Mormons are not Christians. Even so he urges Christians to support the presumptive Republican presidential nominee because Obama, whom he acknowledges is a Christian, “embraces non-biblical principles while Romney embraces biblical principles like the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage.” The implications here are three-fold: (a) Obama’s stance on marriage and Life of the unborn is unbiblical (b) Obama does not embrace any biblical principals whatsoever and (c) none of Romney’s stances can be evaluated as unbiblical.
I see eye to eye with the Pastor on his implication that President Obama does not embrace the sanctity of marriage. A case in point is the President’s unwillingness to defend DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) in court. DOMA, passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996 defines marriage as a legal union of one man and one woman. Under the law, no state or other political subdivision of the U.S. may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social security survivors’ benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns.
The President has demonstrated the audacity to stand up to the Supreme Court on its ruling on Citizen’s United v Federal Election Commission and recently on the Court’s arguments about the healthcare. Unfortunately when it comes to abortion he is willing to go along with Roe v Wade—even commemorating its anniversary. As such we are in agreement with the Pastor that Obama is certainly not anti-abortion notwithstanding the executive order he signed banning the use of federal money to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest, or if the life of a woman is in danger. The signature was a trade-off for support for the healthcare overhaul bill from Democratic abortion rights opponents’ in the House of Representatives.
We question the veracity of the remaining two implications, viz., Obama does not exhibit any biblical principals whatsoever and none of Romney’s stances can be evaluated as unbiblical. There is an established biblical precedent for a leading figure of a nation to acknowledge national faults. Daniel 9 comes to mind where in verse 5 Daniel, who was both a functionary in the upper echelon of the Babylonian Government and a luminary in the Jewish circles, admits without any reservation or qualification that his people had “sinned and done wrong, and acted wickedly…” Ezra, another leading figure among the Jews in Exile, expresses similar acknowledgement (9:6). The so-called Apology tours that Romney ridicules and assumably would not engage in judging by the title of his book, “No apologies: A case for America’s Greatness” mimic the acknowledgments of the faults of a nation by both Daniel and Ezra except that these two expressed these admission in the context of private confession before God whereas President Obama has owned up to America’s fault in public speeches.
A read through the Bible confirms the characterization that God above is very much pro-poor people. Through His Word, the Lord calls on us to (a) provide for the needy (Deut 15:11)—not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted towards them (Deut 15:17); treat them fairly and justly—not withholding their wages (Deut 24:14); defend their rights (Prov 31:19)—not oppress them (Prov 14:31); be considerate of them (Lev 14:21). Failure by a society to be similarly pro-poor people attracts divine condemnation and is considered wicked (Prov 29:7). But to a society that shows generosity towards the poor, the Lord promises compensation (Prov 19:17) and blessing (Prov 22:9), surplus (Prov 28:27). I find it very curious that Governor Romney’s website does not address poverty considering that the jobless rate will never approach zero percent. The White House website, on the other hand, includes a link on poverty and within it reminds us for the American Recovery and Reinvestment act which included broad investments to alleviate the poverty made worse by the economic crisis.
In the end it is our conclusion that since Pastor Jeffress twin-implications that Obama does not exhibit any biblical principals whatsoever and none of Romney’s stances can be evaluated as unbiblical are false, Christians should ignore his heed that they support Mormon Romney over Christian Obama.
Periodic Evaluation of Philip Ochieng’s Assertions about Christianity or His Interpretations of Aspects of the Bible
His Assertion that Christianity is a “Cult of darkness and damnation”
“Why do I grin every time a high priest of the ‘mainstream’ Christian churches admonishes his followers not to associate themselves with any ‘cult’? We have recently heard a great deal of such sanctimony after a Ugandan cult murdered l,000 followers in the name of salvation. Is it merely that such churches – all of them imported from Europe and America – do not know what the word “cult” really means? The truth is that, with its more than a billion followers all over the world, the Christian Church is the largest cult on earth” (Philip Ochieng, “its a cult of darkness and damnation,” Daily Nation, April 16, 2000)
The ills against humanity at large that have been executed under the banner of Christendom will forever stand on the way of positive Christian witness. The biblical quotation “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” has never been so apt. The co-orporation between the missionaries and the colonist or the admixing of missionary efforts with imperialistic mentality was one such blunder. Endorsement of slavery in America or racism in South Africa by so called “Christians” was yet another big mistake. Decimation of Amerindians and Aborigines, nurturing of Hitler, activation of the Inquisition–these would all be sad examples if their association to Christendom is legitimate.
However we need to remind ourselves of the definition of a Christian. What is the mark of a Christian? Borrowing from the words of the author of Christianity himself, “a tree is known by its fruit.” A bad tree could have the word “good” scribbled all over its bark but it never ceases to be a bad tree since it consistently yields bad fruit. To use another analogy, you don’t judge the book by the cover; you evaluate a book on the basis of its content.
Ochieng’s association of Christianity with the Greek mystery religion Dionysos
Way back in the 60’s a scholar by the name of Samuel Sandmel stood before an audience of his own peers and delivered what has come to be considered a celebrated address by New testament theologians. The speech was entitled “Parallelomania.” By parallelomania Sandmel means that “extravagance” among practitioners of the religiongeschichte schule (or the school of comparative study of religions) “which first overdoses the supposed similarity of passages and then proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying literary connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction.” It is my humble submission that Ochieng’s treatment of the relationship between Christianity and the Dionysos mystery religion oozes with the “pus” of parallelomania. It is not incontrovertible that the mystery religions (whether they be those of Demeter and Kore; Kabeiroi; Glykon and Alexander; or Dionysos) postdate Christianity in which case it may just be that these religions borrowed from Christianity and not the way round. Take for instance the Bachic practice of tearing animals to pieces (sparagmos) and eating the flesh raw (omophagia ) as a way of assimilating the Dionysian power. According to Justin Martyr this ceremony of drinking and eating by the Mithraic mystai was a diabolic imitation of the Christian Eucharist. The backdrop of the Christian Eucharist would have been the Passover which was inaugurated way back in 15th century BC. But even if one were to contend that Christianity (and for that matter Judaism) did indeed borrow (and I believe it did sometimes), would one have to conclude per force that Christianity wound up as paganistic? I don’t think so. Whatever borrowing that took place was Christianity’s incarnational attempt to communicate through the stock vocabulary of its times.Thus when Moses applies the Baal-related (Baal was a canaanite God) epithet “Rider of clouds” to Yahwheh (Deut 32:13) his intent is to communicate the superiority of Yahweh in terms that his audience would have been familiar with.
What about the question of Christianity been cultic?.
I guess it depends on which side of the fence one is speaking from. According to Bob Larson (in his book Cult, p.17) one of the characteristics of a cult is the perpetration of the idea that “those outside are viewed as spiritually inferior, creating, therefore, an exclusive and self-righteous ‘we’ versus ‘they’ attitude.” It is not hard to envision how an outsider would look at this words and conclude that Christianity is in many ways cultic. But this would not be the first time, either, that Christianity was perceived as sectarian (cf. Acts 24:14).
Lastly, Is it legitimate to link Christianity with the terms “darkness” and “damnation.”
Of Christ himself it was said that “in him was life, and the life was the light of all people; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. “ He in turn informed his disciples that they were the light of the world. Concerning those who belong to Christ the book states that “they is no condemnation” (Rom. 8:1). So how then shall we conclude, is Christianity a cult of darkness and damnation? God forbid!
How the Church Should Vote During the August 4th Referendum of the New Constitution
Introduction
A juxtaposition of the newly published (in May 6th 2010) proposed constitution now the subject of the August 4th referendum, and its antecedent, which, though it dates as far back as 1963, has predictably undergone several amendments even as recently as 2008, surfaces three conjectures. First, the overlap between the two documents mainly at the topical and to some extent at the substantive level may suggest dependence by the “committee of experts” on the current document for organization of material and the committee’s recognition that there are aspects of the current constitution that apply or must apply today. Second, the introduction of new material in the proposed constitution or the evidence of alteration of the current constitution reveals the determination of the “people of Kenya” (through the committee) to set the country on a new path of thought and praxis for better or for worse. Third, omissions of certain aspects of the current constitution in the proposed constitution betray the judgment by the committee that the omitted material is outdated, irrelevant, or no longer acceptable. A clear example of omission due to archaicism is the section on who qualifies as a citizen after 11th December 1963 (articles 87-89). Other examples of omission are: (1) exceptions to the prohibition against forced labor (73.3) (2) exceptions to protections of freedom of movement (83.3) (3) prorogation and dissolution of parliament (59.1-4) (4) the whole of article 15a which has to do with the position of the prime minister (5) minimum age limit of a presidential candidate (2b).
Overlap Between the two Documents (i.e., the 2008 version of the 1963 constitution and the May 6th 2010 proposed constitution)
Chapter 1 of the current constitution (hereafter abbreviated as cc) and chapter 2 of the proposed constitution (here after abbreviated as pc), share the same title (“the Republic”) presumably because Kenya has never ceased to be a republic. The committee has all the intentions of maintaining the three branches of government; thus the retention of the chapters on the executive (chapter 2 of cc and chapter 9 of pc), the legislature (chapter 3 of cc and chapter 8 of pc), and the judiciary (chapter 4 of cc and chapter 10 of pc), Even though worded slightly differently in pc, the chapter on human rights (chapter 5 of cc and chapter 4 of pc), testifies to the committee’s recognition that as long as there are humans there will always be the need to protect their rights. Other chapters that share the same title are: citizenship (chapter 6 of cc and chapter 3 of pc), finance (chapter 7 of cc and chapter 12 of pc), public service (chapter 8 of cc and chapter 13 of pc), and land (chapter 9 of cc and chapter 5 of pc).
Besides topical overlaps, there are contents of cc that reappear in pc. Some re-appearances are verbatim. Some, even though reworded, retain the same meaning. A few examples will suffice: (1) the Kadhis’ courts (article 66 of cc and article 170 of pc) (2) immunity from prosecution for a sitting president (article 14.1-3 of cc and article 143.1-3 of pc) (3) term of office of president (article 9.2 of cc and article 142.2 of pc), (4) contingencies fund (article 102.1 of cc and article 208.1-2 of pc) (5) Kenya shall remain a democratic state (article 1.1a of cc and article 4.2 of pc) (6) reasons for deprivation of citizenship (article 94:1-2 of cc and article 17.1-2 of pc) (7) freedom from discrimination (article 82.3 of cc and article 27.1-8 of pc) (8) protection from inhumane treatment (article 74.1 of cc and article 29d of pc) (9) protection from slavery and forced labor (article 73.1-2 of cc and article 30.1-2 of pc) (10) protection of freedom of thought or religion (article 78.1-4 of cc and article 32.1-4 of pc) (11) freedom of expression (article 79.1 of cc and article 33.1 of pc) (12) freedom of association (article 80.1 of cc and article 36.1 of pc) (13) protection of right to property (article 75.1-7 of cc and article 40.1-4 of pc) (14) presumption of innocence, access to an attorney, adequate time for defense (article 77.2 of cc and articles 49-50 of pc) (15) unsound mind, imprisonment, and bankruptcy as disqualification to run for parliamentary elections (article 35.1b-d of cc and articles 99.2 e-g of pc) (16) missing eight parliamentary sessions as grounds for being required to vacate a parliamentary seat (article 39.1d of cc and articles 103.1b of pc) (17) the qualifications for the speaker and the deputy speaker (article 37.1/38.1 of cc and articles 106.1 of pc) (18) the requirement that a presidential candidate receive a minimum of twenty five percent of the votes in at least five of the eight provinces (article 5e of cc and articles 138.4b of pc) (19) existence of a judicial service commission (article 68 of cc and article 171 of pc) and (20) consolidated fund (article 99 of cc and article 206 of pc).
Introduction of New Material in the Proposed Constitution and Alteration of the Current Constitution
It is inescapable to any reader of pc that it not only departs in a major from cc, but arrives with new material altogether. New material include: (1) the preamble which, in citing among others the environment, human rights, culture, ethnicity, seems to be a broad summary of the content of the constitution (2) designating only three holidays (Jamuhuri day, Madaraka day, and Mashujaa day) as national days and empowering parliament to designate other national days (9.3-5, N/B Moi Day is no longer recognized as a national day and Kenyatta day has been renamed “Mashujaa day” probably to discourage the tendency of presidents to name national holidays after themselves) (3) promotion of Kenyan culture through the media, traditional celebrations, literature, etc (11.1-3) (4) citizenship rights for a child found in Kenya and who appears to be eight years old or below but whose parents are unknown (14.4) (5) the declaration that life begins at conception followed immediately by allowing abortion in certain situations (26.2-4) (6) freedom of media (34:1-5) (7) access to information (35.1-3) (8) social rights that include a prohibition against receiving emergency medical treatment (43.1-3) (9) rights to language and culture but with a prohibition against involuntary subjection to a cultural rite or practice (44.1-3, female circumcision may be in view here) (10) family law that recognizes that marriage is between two people of the opposite sex (45.1-4) (11) consumer rights (46.1-3) (12) right to remain silent and the requirement to be brought to court within twenty four hours (49.1) (13) rights of persons in custody (51.1-3) (14) rights of children (53.1-2), the disabled (54.1-2), youth (55), minorities and marginalized people (56), and older members of society (57) (15) state of emergency (58), Kenya human rights and equality commission (59) (16) whereas cc only addresses public or trust land, pc additionally discusses community land (63.1-5) and private land (64) and also establishes a National Land Commission (67) (17) environmental and natural resources (69-72) (18) a whole chapter on leadership and integrity (chapter 6, articles 73-80; article 79 instructs parliament to enact legislation to establish an independent ethics and anti-corruption commission) (19) a chapter that addresses the electoral system, an independent electoral and boundaries commission, and political parties (chapter 7, articles 88-92) (20) there shall now be a bicameral legislature (senate alongside the national assembly) which by the way originates not in the United States but in the ancient Libyan (African) city, Cyrene (articles 96 and 98) (21) a set general election date (101.1, second Tuesday of August) (22) right to recall a member of parliament (104.1-2) (23) time frame within which someone can file a lawsuit questioning the validity of a presidential election and the number of days the supreme court has to offer a ruling (140.1-2) (24) a parliamentary vote is part of the process of removing a president out of office due to incapacitation (144.10) (25) impeachment of the president (145.1-7) (26) qualification of an attorney general nominee spelt out and appointment has to be approved by parliament (156.2-3) (27) establishment of a supreme court (162.1) (28) the appointment of the chief Justice requires the recommendation of the Judicial Service commission and the approval of parliament (166.1) (29) set qualifications for the chief justice (166.3, fifteen years of judicial experience either as a practitioner or an academician) (30) retirement age of a judge set at 70 and a term limit of ten years set for the chief justice (167.1-2) (31) a chapter on devolved government (articles 174-200) (32) revenue funds for the county government (article 207), partly raised from taxes (article 209, income tax, value added tax, excise tax, custom duty), managed by the commission for revenue allocation (article 215) officer of the controller of budget and auditor general split with each of its heads subject to parliamentary approval and must meet certain qualifications (articles 228-229) (33) establishment of a salaries and remuneration commission (article 230) (34) a whole chapter on national security (articles 238-247) (35) a whole chapter on the running of commissions and independent offices (articles 248-254)
Examples of alterations are: (1) dual citizenship is no longer grounds for revocation of Kenyan citizenship (article 16 in pc, cf. 97.1-3 in cc) (2) the number of days that the president has to respond to a bill requiring his signature reduced from 34 to 14 (article 46.2-4 of cc and article 115.1 of pc) (3) quorum raised from thirty to fifty (article 51 of cc and article 121 of pc) (4) composition of the parliamentary service commission (article 45B.1 of cc and article 127.2 of pc, must include women and non-parliamentarians) (5) the speaker, not a minister, is third in command if the presidency is vacated (article 146.2b in pc, cf. 6.2b in cc) (6) the presidential running mate automatically becomes the deputy president as opposed to the president nominating a vice president (article 148.1 in pc, cf. 15.1 in cc) (7) ministers to be renamed cabinet secretaries and these will no longer be members of parliament; parliament will have to approve the secretaries (article 152.3 in pc, cf. 16.2 in cc) (8) the minimum number of judges that can constitute the court of appeal raised from two to twelve (article 164.1a in pc, cf. 64.2 in cc) (9) excluding the chairperson and the deputy, members of the public service commission reduced from eleven to seven and appointments subject to parliamentary approval (article 233.2 in pc, cf. 106.2 in cc)
Open letters to the Church Components of the “Yes” Camp (aka green team ) and the “No” Camp (aka the red team)
Open Letter to the Church Component of the “No” Camp
The red team can be viewed as a venn diagram made up of two overlapping circles.
One circle represents part of the church. Leaders of this group include the leadership of the Catholic Church in toto (case in point: copies of the Pastoral letter dated 15th April, 2010 and signed by His Eminence John Cardinal Njue on behalf of the 25 Catholic Bishops who include among others Philip Sulumeti, Anthony Muheria,, and Jackson Kosgey), leadership of NCCK led by chairman Rev Charles Kibicho, the leadership of the Anglican Church of Kenya led by the ACK House of Bishops, and a number of Evangelical leaders such as Bishop Willy Mutiso of the Evangelical Alliance, Bishop Gerry Kibarabara of the Gospel Assemblies of Kenya, Bishop David Oginde of Christ is the Answer, presiding Methodist Bishop Stephen Kanyaru, Bishop Winnie Owiti from the Voice of Healing and Salvation and Bishop Barija Kirongah. This group is irked chiefly by the abortion clauses (though some members of this group would include the Kadhis court clause) and will only support the proposed constitution if this clause(s) is (are) amended.
The other circle represents those who are rejecting the proposed constitution for reasons other than the two clauses. Some members of this group are motivated by politics (case in point: the Daily Nation report that three Rift Valley MPs—David Koech, Isaac Ruto and Elija Langat—promising to support Cyrus Jirongo for 2012 presidential bid if he “helped shoot down the constitution”).
The overlapping section represents the group whose basis for rejecting the proposed constitution does not stop with the two clauses. Members of this group include Ruto and Moi. The latter has cited others reasons such as taxation, foreign interference in the implementation of the proposed constitution, and the clause that requires that cabinet secretaries be non MPs. The former has uttered several claims such as the proposed constitution allows gay marriage, the land laws in the proposed constitution are dangerous, and regions like Ukambani are not fairly represented in the section about devolved government.
Dear Church,
Your reason to distrust the government to amend the constitution after it has been passed is founded on your experience with a government that turned you down during your negotiation talks. You offered suggestions such as the president promising to use executive order to amend the constitution and the suggestion was not taken up. Because of you Kenya may be saved from going the American way where permission to abort is now stare decisis (or settled law).
My beef with you is that you have not done good job of distinguishing yourself from the group that rejects the proposed constitution for reasons beyond the two clauses. In the event that the “no” side wins you may find that you have to support amendments other than the two clauses to avoid being viewed as letdowns or deceivers or traitors.
Open Letter to the Church Component of the “Yes” Camp
The green team could similarly be viewed as a two-circle venn diagram but in this case one circle is a subset of the other.
The inner circle represents (part of) the church that is as bothered as the rest of the church by the two clauses but prefers to pass the proposed constitution and then seek amendments later. The leadership of this subset includes the Anglican Bishop of Southern Nyanza Diocese Rt. Rev. James Kenneth Ochiel, Bishop Pius Mukoto of the African Church of the Holy Spirit (quoted as saying that “gains made so far in the acquisition of the proposed constitution cannot be down played, ignored and dragged through the mud, especially by the church for flimsy reasons”), Other prominent church leaders in support of the proposed constitution include retired cleric Timothy Njoya
The outer circle represents the group that has opted to sacrifice the concerns raised by the abortion clause at the altar of the superiority of the proposed constitution. The primary leaders of this group are Raila and Kibaki.
Dear Church
Bravo for highlighting the superiority of the proposed constitution compared to the current constitution. Indeed Kenya is facing the classical situation of baby and bath water or the presence of one rotten egg in a pack of many good eggs. The baby must be saved. The good eggs must be preserved.
My question to you is: how sure are you that the government will amend the two clauses you are concerned about? Didn’t parliament (including Raila and Kibaki who were present) pass the draft constitution without a single amendment on the week of July 5th 2010? How sure are you that things will be any different?
Conclusion
In light of the government’s untrustworthiness on the question of amending the constitution to the liking of the church, the church should vote no. At the same time the church leadership should assure its members that it has all the intentions to pass the amended proposed constitution. Kenya with an unamended proposed constitution will cause God to turn his face away from us. Kenya without the amended proposed constitution will have to live with the regrets of a lost opportunity.
THE HARDENING OF PHARAOH’S HEART: THREE SOURCES OF HIS OBDURACY
For a more detailed format of this article,cut and paste this address: http://www.preciousheart.net/ti/2009/index.htm and then scroll down until you find my name
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to discover what light the account of Pharaoh’s obduracy sheds into the wider debate on the interplay between God’s Sovereignty and Human Free Will. Does the former override or occur apart from the latter or do the two occur in concert or in amalgamation with each other? To put it differently, our goal is to figure out what insight the story brings to the question of how free humans are to express their desires or wishes in the midst of the outworking of God’s agenda.
That the narrative would be cited in discussions related to Free Will and Divine Sovereignty should not be surprising. Its pertinence to the debate has been recognized as far back as the era of the Church Fathers. Reacting to those who suggest that Pharaoh was of an “earthly nature” and therefore possessed no propensity to obey, Origen argues that if Pharaoh was indeed of an earthy nature and thus altogether disobedient to God, “what need is there of his heart being hardened, and that not once, but frequently? Unless perhaps, since it was possible for him to obey.” A couple of paragraphs later he offers the illustration of the effect of the sun on wax and mud (the wax melts, while the mud hardens) to support the notion that the prior wickedness of Pharaoh made him prone to a hardened heart. Augustine cautions against taking away from Pharaoh free will simply because in several passages God says, “I have hardened Pharaoh;” or, “I have hardened or I will harden Pharaoh’s heart”:”It does not by any means follow that Pharaoh did not, on this account, harden his own heart. For this, too, is said of him, after the removal of the fly-plague from the Egyptians, in these words of the Scripture: “And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also; neither would he let the people go.” Thus it was that both God hardened him by His just judgment, and Pharaoh by his own free will.
An understanding of what the story teaches in regards to the relationship between God’s Sovereignty, expressed in his hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, and Free Will, expressed in Pharaoh hardening his own heart, depends a lot on how thoroughly and carefully we exegete the eighteen Pharaoh-related statements that carry a Hebrew form that our English versions translate as “harden(ed)” in particular and the contexts in which these statements are found in general. The need for a thorough analysis of these statements before drawing a conclusion was first recognized and then carried out by G. K. Beale. Since then it has now become standard practice by any serious exegete of the Pharaoh story as it pertains to the hardening to take into consideration all the statements. We are not about to become an exception.
Exegesis of the Statements on the of Hardening of Pharaoh Within Their Context
The Boundaries of the General Context (Exod 2:23-14:31)
Considering that Pharaoh is a central part of the story, it makes sense that his entry into and exit out of the scene should mark the beginning and end of the narrative respectively. If that be the case Exod 2:23 ought to serve as the beginning point of the narrative since it announces the passing away of the Pharaoh from whom Moses fled and presumably signals the succession of the obdurate Pharaoh. The end of the fourteenth chapter of Exodus serves as the tail end of the narrative in light of its reporting of the drowning death of Pharaoh’s army which would have marked the fading away of Pharaoh militarily.
Exegesis of the Statements Within their Particular Contexts
1. The Call of Moses and his return to Egypt (2:23-7:7)
(a) Verse 4:21
The verse consists of an instruction by the Lord to Moses while the latter was en route to Egypt from whence he had fled to escape punishment for murdering an Egyptian (cf. 2:11-15). The instruction itself comes on the heels of an epiphany (2:23-4:17) during which the “the God of the fathers” revealed his plan to activate a covenantal promise of liberation made to Abraham some four hundred years prior (Gen 15:13-15, cf. Exod 3:6-9) and assigned Moses the role of an emancipator (Exod 3:10). Initially Moses was unwilling for one reason or another to step into this God-assigned role. But after a series of measures by the Lord that included assuring him of a warm reception by the elders of Israel (v18), foretelling for his benefit Pharaoh’s switch from refusal of to wonders-driven ultimate submission to the demand to free Israel (vv19-20, cf. 6:1), endowing him with the ability to perform signs that would engender belief among the people (4:1-9), providing him with a spokesman in light of his excuse that he was not eloquent (4:10-17), Moses was on his way to Egypt.
The instruction to Moses was that he would see to it that he performs before Pharaoh all the wonders that the Lord had placed at his disposal. The “wonders” in view here are different from are the three signs (4:2-9; cf. 29-31) that had been placed at Moses’ disposal during the epiphany in the sense that the signs were geared towards eliciting belief among the elders of Israel while the wonders were to be displayed before Pharaoh.
Besides the instruction, the verse also consists of a prediction as indicated by the imperfect verb “acchazeq.” The verb itself, when associated with the noun “lev” (heart), is best translated as stubborn or heard-hearted. That the stubbornness will defy reality is deducible from the observation that the syntax of the prediction is a disjunctive clause. The expected normal reaction towards the sign would be surrender. But that was not to be so in the case of Pharaoh. He was to react to the contrary–stubbornly. Furthermore, the stubbornness would not only manifest itself in him refusing to let Israel go (4:21), but would characterize his reaction throughout his encounter with the divinely engendered wonders. Thus the order of the cyclical occurrence would be a display of a sign, followed by a God-engendered obstinacy, which will manifest itself in Pharaoh’s refusal to permit Israel to leave.
On the question of the relationship between God’s role and human involvement, this verse emphasizes the former in its assignment of God as the subject of the verb and the human (Pharaoh) as the object. Nevertheless the suppression of Pharaoh’s role in the hardening process in terms of his own desires or intent must be regarded for now as only apparent until the outworking on the prediction is fully analyzed.
(b) Verse 7:3
The disjunctive clause with which the verse commences contrasts the preceding and succeeding actions. The preceding action constitutes a command directed to Moses and Aaron to require Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave (v2). The succeeding action centers around the verb “qsh,” which when it occurs in conjunction with “lev” and is in the hiphil stem carries the causative meaning of “to cause to be hard” or “to harden.” The subject of the verb is the Lord and the hardening that he predicts he will cause will afford him the opportunity to unleash more signs and wonders. The predicted outcome of the unleashing of the signs and wonders is two-fold: (i) Pharaoh will yield to the demand to free Israel and (ii) the Egyptians will recognize who God is (vv 4-5).
As was the case with 4:21, the order of events here is also cyclical but unlike 4:21 the order here is reversed: hardening of heart, which here takes the form of Pharaoh refusing to listen to Moses and Aaron (7:4), will be followed by a sign. Much like 4:21, this verse highlights God’s role in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. Nevertheless it would be premature to rule out the human aspect until the various fulfillments of the prophecy are analyzed.
2. The Plagues followed by the Exodus (7:8-14:31)
(a) The initial sign: turning a staff into a snake (7:8-13)
Noteworthy is the phrase “as the Lord had said” at the end of verse 13. In its occurrences, whether as a mark of a heeded divine instruction or a fulfillment of a divine prediction, the phrase is customarily coupled by a succinct rehearsal of the original prediction or instruction.
In the case of the verse 13 occurrence, the rehearsal constitutes of two related responses: the hardening of pharaoh’s heart and his refusal to listen to Moses and Aaron. No one doubts that the original prediction of these two responses is traceable to either 4:21 or 7:3. For sure the record of the lopsided outcome of the contest involving staffs turning into snakes in favor of Aaron (vv9-12) and the mention of Pharaoh’s unwillingness to listen to Moses’ request to let the people go in verse 13 recalls the prediction in 4:21 where the performance of a sign is followed by an unbelievable stubbornness that manifests itself Pharaoh’s unwillingness to let the people go. At the same time the mention of Pharaoh’s unwillingness to listen recalls the language of 7:3-4 in particular.
The difficulty is the “exact correspondence” that elsewhere characterizes the phrase fails to materialize when it comes to the subject of “chzq” in 7:13 and 4:21. Whereas God is the subject of the verb in 4:21, he is not the subject of the intransitive verb (chzq) (v 13). What are we to make of this incongruity? Should we, as suggested by Fleener, associate the phrase more tightly with Pharaoh’s refusal to listen and the fact that his heart was hardened and de-link the phrase from the idea that God is the agent of the hardening? Or should we, as Chisholm does, link the phrase with “Yahweh’s hardening activity”?
Our suggestion is that we acknowledge the incongruity, as Fleener does, but, unlike him, link the phrase, not with the idea that God is the agent of hardening, as Chisholm does, but only with the idea of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart and then let the context identify for us the agent of the hardening. In the case of v 13, the author is less interested in highlighting the agent of the hardening and more interested in describing the condition of Pharaoh’s heart following the sign of the staffs turning into snakes.
(b) The first plague: bloody waters (7:14-24)
The opening statement (v 14) of this section coupled by the refrain “as the Lord had said” which appears alongside the dual response of a hardened heart, indicated by the intransitive verb (khvd) in verse 14 and “chzq” in verse 22, and unwillingness to listen (v 22) render this section a fulfillment of 7:3 where defiance attracts more signs. The duplication of the sign of bloody waters by the magicians serves as catalyst for Pharaoh’s dismissal of Moses and Aaron assuming that the waw consecutive in the waw consecutive plus preterite, “yechezaq,” carries a causal nuance. As in the case of 7:13, the author is not necessarily interested in explicitly identifying the agent of the hardening. Not to belabor the point, the presence of the refrain should not automatically be interpreted to mean that God is the agent of the hardening whether directly or ultimately. The context must be the basis of such a determination.
(c) The plague of frogs (7:25-8:15)
As was the case with the sign of the bloody waters, the magicians replicated the plague of frogs which we should assume was set in motion following Pharaoh’s refusal to yield to Yahweh’s ultimatum (8:1-4). The difference is this time around Pharaoh did not sit back while his subjects fended for themselves and the plague continued on unabated. At the commencement of the plague, Pharaoh requested Moses and Aaron to entreat the Lord for relief. Moses honored the request and the Lord terminated the plague. This termination certainly propelled Pharaoh to harden his heart. But once again the appearance of the refrain “as the Lord had said” ought not to be the basis of the conclusion that God did or did not play a part in the hardening process. Unlike the narrative of the initial sign (7:8-13) and the first plague (14-24), the context provides a clue or two that suggest that God played a role in the hardening as much as he is not the subject of the hiphil infinitive absolute “hakhbed” (8:15. 8:11 in MT). For instance, one could argue that God offered the respite in order to give Pharaoh a reason to renegade on his promise to Israel leave.
(d) The plague of gnats (8:16-19)
Until now the contest between the agents of Pharaoh (the magicians) and the agents of Yahweh (Moses and Aaron) had ended in a draw more or less. Sure, the contest involving staffs turning into snaked ended as more than a draw. But until now the outcome had not been a clear, hands-down win for God. Not only were the magicians unable to replicate the plague of gnats, they attributed it unequivocally to God. The expectation would have been for Pharaoh to buckle. He did not. His heart hardened. Once again the presence of the refrain (8:19, 8:15 in MT) ought not to be regarded as indicating that the hardening is attributable to God.
(e) The plague of flies (8:20-32)
As was the case with the sign of bloody waters, Pharaoh begs Moses to offer an intercessory prayer and then renegades by hardening (yakhbed) his heart (8:32, 8:28 in MT) when the plague of flies, limited only to the space occupied by the Egyptians, dies down. Those who rely on the presence of the refrain alone as intimation that God was involved in the hardening would be at a loss here since the refrain is absent. Looking to the context reveals that Pharaoh indeed hardened his heart. At the same time God played a role in the sense that it is he who answered Moses’ intercessory prayer.
(f) The plague of animal pestilence (9:1-7)
Like the sign of flies, the livestock pestilence was directed only at the animals that belonged to the Egyptians. The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (9:7) despite this plague fits the prediction uttered by the Lord in 4:21 and 7:3. Unlike the sign of the flies, the author is less concerned with the agent of the hardening and more interested in stating the condition of Pharaoh’s heart.
(g) The plague of boils over animals and humans (9:8-12)
Herein we find a perfect match between the antecedent of the refrain (“just as the Lord has spoken”) and the rehash of the antecedent. The antecedent normally takes the form of a prediction, which in this case is spelt out in 4:21 and 7:3. The rehash coupled with the refrain mark the fulfillment of the prediction. We consider the antecedent and the rehash a perfect match in the sense that Pharaoh’s heart is hardened and that God is the agent of the hardening as is evidenced by the fact that he is the subject of the piel form of “chzq.”
(h) The plague of hail (9:13-35)
The plague of hail resembles the plague of flies in terms of target and Pharaoh’s response. The plague does not affect Goshen. Pharaoh pleads for Moses’ interposition and when the prayer is positively answered, goes back on his word by hardening his heart (9:34). Once again God’s role in the hardening is evident not so much in the refrain (9:35) as it is in the fact that he answered Moses’ prayer on behalf of Pharaoh for relief from the plague.
(i) The plague of locusts (10:1-20)
More than recalling 7:3 by tying the God-engendered hardening of Pharaoh’s heartand the signs, verse 1 explicitly presents the latter as the reason for the former through the use of the particle “lema’an.” Furthermore, the statement offers two other reasons as to why God unleashed the plagues.
In verse 20 God’s role in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is explicitly laid out. At the same time, the positive answer to Pharaoh’s pleading that the locust plague be terminated would have contributed to the hardening.
(j) The plague of darkness (10:21-29)
Once again the hardening (10:27) is attributed directly to God though the use of the piel verb and God as the subject. Could the mildness of the plague (darkness in the whole of Egypt except Goshen) also have contributed to the hardening?
(k) The plague of the death of the firstborn (11:1-12:33)
If 11:9 recalls 7:3 through a shared verbal form (rvh) that has God as the subject, 11:10 echoes 4:21 by its use of both the piel form of “chzq” and its rehearsal of Pharaoh’s refusal to let Israel go.
(l) Journey from Egypt (12:34-14:31)
Pharaoh’s pursuit of Israel even after he permitted them to leave is attributed to a God-engendered hardening of the heart.(14:4, cf v8) God’s role in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is clearly spelt out in his re-routing of Israel (v2). At the same time the hardening is described in terms of human motivation and desires. In this case, Pharaoh is motivated by the sight of a people seemingly trapped in the wilderness (v 3) and driven by the desire not to lose a source of labor (v5).
III Conclusion
The eighteen statements that carry a Hebrew form that our English versions translate as “harden(ed)” and the context in which these statements are housed reveal the following in regards to the relationship between God’s Sovereignty, expressed in his hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, and Human Free Will, expressed in Pharaoh hardening his own heart. Pharaoh’s obduracy is one among several biblical examples where the unfolding of God’s purpose occurs, not apart from, but in amalgamation or in concert with, human desire, inclinations, or reasoning. In other words, as much as God’s superintendence is irrefutable, the outworking of his purpose incorporates or more precisely, fans human motivation, desires or wishes. For instance, Pharaoh’s pursuit of Israel even after he permitted them to leave is attributed to a God-engendered hardening of the heart (14:4, cf v8). God’s role in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is clearly spelt out in his re-routing of Israel (v2). The sigh of a people seemingly trapped in the wilderness (v3) surely fanned Pharaoh’s effort to acts in order not to lose a source of labor (v5). Another example would be the instances where divinely engendered hardening is coupled with God’s termination a plague following Moses intercessory prayer on behalf of Pharaoh. The termination most assuredly served as a catalyst for Pharaoh’s reluctance to let Israel go (cf. 8:15, 31-32; 9:34;10:19-20).
Granted, there are instances within the eighteen statements where the hardening is attributed exclusively to God or to Pharaoh. An example of the former is the plague of boils over animals and humans (9:8-12). Examples of the latter are the numerous God-given ultimatums that Pharaoh simply ignored. In the final analysis, the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is traceable to three sources: Pharaoh himself, God, and divinely directed outcomes that propelled Pharaoh towards the direction of obduracy.
Bibliography
Beale, G. K. “An Exegetical and Theological Consideration of the Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart in Exodus 4-14 and Romans 9.” Trinity Journal 5 (1984): 129-154.
Breshears, Gerry. “Who hardened Pharaoh’s heart?” In Evangelical Theological Society, 10. Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1988.
Chisholm, Robert B. “Divine Hardening in the Old Testament.” In Evangelical Theological Society, 29. Philadelpia, 1995
________________. “Divine Hardening in the Old Testament.” Bibliotheca Sacra 153 (October-December 1996): 410-434.
Fleener, Joe. “Paul and Divine Foreknowledge: Did God Determine Pharaoh’s Heart?” In Evangelical Theological Society. Lancaster, PA, 2003.
Gunn, David M. “The “Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart”: Plot, Character and Theology in Exodus 1-14.” In Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature, ed. David M. Gunn and Alan J. Hauser David J. A. Clines. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 19, 72-96. Sheffield, 1982.
Holmyard, Harold R. “How did God harden Pharaoh’s heart.” In Evangelical Theological Society, 2000.
Piper, John. The Jutification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983.
http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/30042000/Letters/Letters1.html
Christianity is not a cult of darkness
The article titled “it’s a cult of darkness and damnation” notwithstanding, I cannot remember reading any of Philip Ochieng’s articles without feeling enthralled.
He is one very insightful writer, quite engaging. And that’s admirable. For once, this great admirer of Ochieng’s writings is having to cross the line to occupy the critic’s seat.
Dismissing the article altogether would be tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
If one were to contend that Christianity (and for that matter Judaism) did indeed borrow from its surrounding milieu (and I believe this was so to some extent), should one have to conclude per force that Christianity wound up as paganistic? I don’t think so.
What about the question of Christianity being cultic? I guess it depends on which side of the fence one is speaking from. Thus whereas Bob Larson, a Christian apologist, would be pointing his finger elsewhere in his definition of a cult as characterised by the perpetration of the idea that “those outside are viewed as spiritually inferior, creating, therefore, an exclusive and self-righteous ‘we’ versus ‘they’ attitude,” an outsider could snatch his words and apply them to his own religion, Christianity.
This, however, would not be the first time that Christianity would have been labelled sectarian (cf. Acts 24:14).
Lastly, is it legitimate to link Christianity with such terms as “darkness” and “damnation?” Not if we take the words of the Bible seriously. For, of Christ himself, it was said that “in him was life, and the life was the light of all people; the light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not overcome it.”
Christ, in turn, informed his disciples that they were the light of the world. Concerning those who belong to Christ, the book states that “there is no condemnation” (Rom. 8:1). So how should we, then, conclude, that Christianity is a cult of darkness and damnation? God forbid!
Nicholas Odhiambo,
Dalas Theological Seminary,
Dallas, Texas.
Nicholas oyugi's Weblog 