Answering: What If God Was One of Us?

An article was brought to my attention recently by a lady friend of mine. It is titled, 'What if God was one of us?' From a Christian perspective, it is believed that God became one of us. For it was testified by the ancients that God who is, "The Word became a human being and lived here with us. We saw his true glory, the glory of the only Son of the Father. From him all the kindness and all the truth of God have come down to us." - John 1:14 (CEV).

But the author of this article doesn't think in Christian terms, meaning the brotherhood of all men. No, she think in racial terms, she means what if God become an African in particular not a human in general. And not any type of African but the black one as the introductory image at her article suggest.  

I'd like to review some sections of her article and propose alternative ways to assess the situation. Let me start from the beginning of the article and go systematically through her different reflections.

1) Is Christianity Foreign to Africa?

"Moreover, Africa went as far as completely adopting the colonialists’ ways of life and belief systems: Christianity, for example. But there are many issues pertaining to the adoption of foreign religions in Africa, a few of which are examined here."

It is important to note that the author might be oblivious to the point that Christianity has been in Africa for almost 2000 years. It is in no way foreign to Africa historically speaking. Matter of fact, the Holy Bible was first canonized in two African towns, first in the council of Hippo (Algeria) in AD 393 and the same Bible canon was reaffirmed in the council of Carthage (Tunisia) in AD 397. Last I checked, both Algeria and Tunisia are African nations and formal members of the African Union. 

2) Christian doctrines are no Jokes

"God doesn’t subscribe to the worldly conceptualisation of the divine. In fact, human perceptions of God are merely perspectives conditioned by socio-politico-economical environments. God is neither Christian nor Muslim nor all these things because God is so big and elusive a ‘concept’ that it cannot be entirely grasped by our limited human intellect. That is essentially why religious doctrines end up reflecting the values of the society in which they operate, or from which they were borrowed."

This segment is what could be qualified as an anthropological critique of the major world religions. It is based on this rather simplistic assumption: religion doesn't shape society but rather the reverse is true, human sociological experience such as culture, politic and economy shape religion. And what is the evidence she gives for it? Well, none. No evidence. She simply makes a claim that 'religious doctrines end up reflecting the values of the society' but she gives no concrete example. Which religious doctrines does she have in mind? Which society is she thinking of? We can't tell. But we don't have to imagine what could have been the interaction between religious doctrines and society. History is filled with examples.

In his acclaimed book, "Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World", Tom Holland who is an agnostic writer of ancient history (i.e not a Christian), does take his reader from ancient Palestine to modern day and he points out how Christianity changed the behaviors (ethos) of cultures and ancient powers through the force of its doctrines. Here are just two examples, 

(1) the idea of universal human rights and the equality of every individual was developed not by the philosophers of the Enlightenment but by Christian canon lawyers in the 12th century. And this was based on the doctrine of Genesis and our creation in God’s image which will be emphasized repeatedly in the New Testament doctrinaire. To quote Holland in the chapter titled "Revolution", he said: "That the rich had a duty to give to the poor was, of course, a principle as old as Christianity itself. What no one had thought to argue before, though, was a matching principle: that the poor had an entitlement to the necessities of life. It was – in a formulation increasingly deployed by canon lawyers – a human ‘right’." 

 (2) the idea that every person has a right to his or her own body—and that therefore sex must be completely consensual—was a startling new concept that came into the world through Christianity. To quote a section of his book on the chapter titled "flesh", he writes: "A sexual order rooted in the assumption that any man in a position of power had the right to exploit his inferiors, to use the orifices of a slave or a prostitute to relieve his needs much as he might use a urinal, had been ended. Paul’s insistence that the body of every human being was a holy vessel had triumphed."

It is therefore incorrect to assume that religious doctrines, especially Christian doctrines, are mere reflection of existing socio-cultural phenomena. Au contraire, Christian doctrines were at time so foreign to cultures in which it was preached, and this from Palestine, passing through Greece to Rome. There is a reason those who became Christians were said to have been 'converted'. For religious conversion, the Christian type, is a profound change that goes beyond adherence to a new spirituality. The change also impact one's view of life, death, love, child development and else.

3) Are You Triggered by a 'White' Jesus?

"As a matter of fact, Christianity is a post-Christ religion that appropriated God to itself through civilisation, and, through the years, whitened “God”.  When Christ was taken to the middle east, he was not as white as depicted by Christianity today, for instance. Later, Christ was taken to Greece, which made him white and Greek-speaking. He was then taken to Rome, which made him Latin-speaking. He was then taken to England to allow King Henry VIII to marry as the church of England was renamed; then to Scotland, where he was a Presbyterian; and then to the United States, where he became an Episcopalian."

There is two important points worth being raised here:

The First one is theological in nature. Christianity is not a 'post-Christ religion', whatever that may mean. There is no such thing as 'post Christ' since he is still alive and celebrated as the risen one, hence Anno Domini (AD) and not After Christ, which implies that he still reigns. Christianity is the nomenclature under which the community of believers (i.e disciples) of Christ Jesus are categorized among world religion. Christianity may simply mean - the religion of Christians. And Christians is the name given to the disciples of Christ (Acts 11:26). The Lord Jesus has always had disciples and this during his earthly ministry before his crucifixion (Luke 10:1), during his crucifixion's as witnessed by the presence of St. John at the Cross with other Jesus' female disciples and his blessed mother, Mary (John 19:25); and after his resurrections from the dead (Acts 1:2-3; Acts 11:26). That community of disciples are what later was called Christianity after the event of Pentecost, when the Church was theologically birthed. The community preceded the label 'Christian'. 

Chinese Jesus at His Baptism

The second point is anthropologic in nature. It is easy to sympathize with the comment about the ever changing face of the Lord Jesus Christ depending on which continent one finds oneself. Truth to be told, I have personally grown looking at a dark-brown portrait of Jesus at the cross in the Catholic parish I've attended since my teenage years, that was 25 years ago. When I lived in South Africa for an extended period of 6 years, the portrait was that of a white looking Jesus on the cross. I have seen many depiction of Jesus which reflects a wide rage of nations. 

Native American Christ Shows Compassion

It is improper to play the race card with the different cultural depiction of Christ. It is rather better to realize that Caucasian Christians have shown a greater preference for a depiction of Christ that look like themselves. African are also doing the same as evidence by the Church I grew up in. So does the Hispanic population and the Asian population. Different communities are simply trying to identify themselves with their savior, hence projecting their cultural preference in their depiction of Christ. I think this is an acceptable practice by different nations as long as it doesn't degenerate into racial competition. The truth is Jesus was neither black, dark-brown, Hispanic, far-east Asian-looking or white historically speaking. Jesus was a Semite living in the near eastern region. His completion must have reflected those of his countrymen. The Lord Jesus portrayal should not become a divisive issue within Jesus' community as it is in the secular community. For in Christianity, "There is neither Jew nor Greek ... for you are all one in Christ Jesus" - Galatians 3:26 

It doesn't matter at the end which depiction of the Lord Jesus is chosen for illustration, for we, Christians, knows what the Lord expect of us in this global brotherhood of believers: "For there is no difference both of Jew and of Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call on Him" - Romans 10:12.

4) Is Christianity Good for Africa? 

"Africa is the only place where Jesus didn’t transform. Why? Africa, as a whole, missed that vital part and adopted an alien concept of God, which propagates other people’s values and interests. It is tragic! The consequences include the denigration of African culture."

As a much needed reminder, the 'concept of God' in Christianity is not alien to Africa, as history demonstrates. Christianity has always been good and valuable to all who where touched by the good news of the Gospel, and Africa is no exception. It is interesting to note that although skepticism has been expressed by the author who seems to believe in what she called the 'concept of God', another author who does disbelieve in the very existence of God, the British atheist Matthew Parris, has shown more optimism of the impact of Christianity in Africa. Matthew Parris penned an interesting article a decade ago and which was published by the TIMES titled, "As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God: Missionaries, not aid money, are the solution to Africa's biggest problem -the crushing passivity of the people's mindset".

Parris makes this observation: "Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good. I used to avoid this truth by applauding - as you can - the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It's a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it."

5) Is the Biblical Message Antithetical to African Heritage?

"Consider this. The bible is written in a way that paints everything associated with African indigenous practices as pagan while promoting Western Judeo-Christian ideologies and beliefs."

First, there is no such thing as a Western Judeo-Christian ideology in the bible. The Bible was written by Jews, not Westerners. The possible exception might have been Luke who simply reported the lives of its Jewish characters, after all Jesus and all his apostles were also Jews who lived in Israel. Whatever misgivings one has with the West, it is irresponsible to import such prejudice in one's reading of the Bible. This is an intellectually irresponsible behavior. 

Second, the Bible is not against nor hostile to African indigenous practices as long as those practices are not in contradiction with divine revelation. The Bible ultimately reveals to us God's only begotten Son as the way, the truth and the life. This means that he is the standard of maturity and perfection God expects of all humanity, and yes, this also includes Africans (Acts 17:24-31).

To put it in the eloquent words of CS Lewis in his book, "Mere Christianity": "if you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view. But, of course, being a Christian does mean thinking that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic—there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong: but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others."

6) Christianity, Colonialism: The Eternal Hot Topic

"Christianity justified Africa’s partition and initial colonisation; it was used as a double-edged sword to subjugate the masses while portraying the violent conquest of Africa as a divine mission. The arrogance of colonialism and European Christianity completely disregarded African indigenous knowledge systems and imposed their own systems at the expense of African indigenous religions."

In dealing with the spread of Christianity in Africa in the 19th century, it is important to take an objective look at the data of what really happened. For many, the story goes like this: western powers came to Africa masquerading as religious benefactors in order to rule over its indigenous population and take advantage of its natural resources. 

This is the predominant narrative among Africans even among educated Africans surprisingly. The truth of the matter is that history is filled with nuances, and it is never as white and black as we hear it in cabaret or in movies. In an academic work by Dr. Etim E. Okon, titled "Christian Missions and Colonial Rule in Africa: Objective and Contemporary Analysis", he remarked that African historians still hotly debate the correlation between missions and colonial occupation in Africa. The reason of the debate is due to the complex interactions of foreign actors on Africa land. There were three foreign group of actors who were actively engaged with natives: the missionaries, the traders and the colonial powers. These three actors had different objectives even though they also had at time overlapping interest. Collapsing these three groups into one category is the reason of much misunderstanding and discussions about Christianity roles in Africa's colonialism. For many, to introduce nuances is to ask for more rigorous intellectual effort, and who want to bother with nuances if they can simply judge people by the color of their skins (white) instead of the content of their missions? 

Dr. Okon comments: "Since missionaries, traders and administrators knew they were British residents in Africa with a common interest to protect; they cooperated and united as vital element in the attainment of their set goals. Missionaries in critical times of need, depended on traders for funds, and relied completely on administrators for physical security and protection. That was the logical root for A Gikuyu proverb that says 'There is no Roman priest and a European- both are the same!'"

Dr. Okon continues, "It cannot be denied that Christian missionaries paid the supreme price, at the risk of infection and even death to evangelize Africa, modem Africa owe so much to the sacrifices and resilience of good and dedicated missionaries. Christian missions in nineteenth century Africa represented a positive social force with tremendous vitality for the extension of the good part of European civilization to Africa. Missionaries did so much to redeem the negative image of European conquest and economic exploitation of Africa. It is poor historical thinking to erase the numerous and comprehensive achievements of the missionary enterprise because of human shortcomings and failures."

Here is a distant example that can help understand the situation in a different continent. When I was still in university, I remember reading the story of British missionaries trying to access China with great difficulty due to lack of resources in transportation. Fortunately, they found traders that were willing to accommodate them for their extended long maritime trips. Though missionaries disliked drugs and resisted opium on moral ground: after all drugs damages people physically and socially, they still saw the access the mercantile agents of opium had to China as an opportunity to get an easy access to the Far East in order to preach the Gospel. It looked like a beneficial opportunity at the time until Chinese authority started to link the missionaries with opium traders. After all, they seemed to reason, these missionaries came in the same vessels/boat that brought this destructive substances called 'opium' in China. They must be drug traders. This was a serious miscalculation on the part of British missionaries as they later found out to their horror. It is said that when the British Empire wanted to harmonize their relationship with Imperial China, the Chinese Prince Kung said to Sir Rutherford, British Minister in Beijing, "Take away your opium and your missionaries and you will be welcomed". The damage was done.

Maybe the lesson  for any future missionaries should be, be wise and careful with whom you associate, even if it is just a sheer material association that doesn't bind you in friendship. For your audience and your enemies may not have the charity to sieve through the nuances of who is who in that relationship.  

7) Is Christianity Sufficiently Practical for Africans?

"The question is, why was Africa’s “paganism” exorcised instead of transforming Jesus into its image as had been the practice elsewhere? One possible explanation is that indigenous African religions are mainly heterogeneous, often concerned with carrying out the obligations of the communal aspect of life. A transformed Jesus to African religious reality would have been preoccupied with the communal facets of life." 

First, anything that is opposed to the revealed image of Christ in Holy scriptures (Bible) and which has been authoritatively taught by Church tradition throughout the centuries can not be promoted by Christianity. It is not something particular Christianity has against Africa's 'paganism'. It is its modus operandi everywhere else, in all continents.

Second, Christianity doesn't promote a tailored made Jesus. It invites the world rather to be transformed to the image of Christ has already revealed (Ephesians 4:13). Why would the perfect be transformed into the imperfect, it should be the other way around. And since we recognize that we, mere mortals, are imperfect, it is just logical that we be open to resemble Christ and not vis versa. Although the moral and divine image of Christ doesn't change, Christianity practices nevertheless allows for enculturation which is how Christianity makes use of existing cultural features to vehicle its message.

Third, Christianity is very concerned with carrying out communal obligations of life. This is why missionaries have built schools (education), hospitals (health), got involved in social works as evidenced by the Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Caritas, Iris Global and else. We can also read in the Bible this exhortation, "Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." - 1 Timothy 5:8 

8) Is African Spirituality more advantageous than Christianity in Design?

"The essence of African indigenous spirituality does not seek to hold or maintain a uniform doctrine; on the contrary, African indigenous religions are dynamic, inclusive, and flexible."

I am not sure of which African spirituality the author is referring since Africans have diverse spiritualties and not one singular spirituality. There is an imprecision in her thinking here. Moreover why consider that having a vague, shifting and imprecise set of doctrine is something desirable? What is relatively malleable and subject to time and human caprices can not stand the test of time, precisely because it lacks that enduring quality of firmness that seems to be so maligned by the author. And this may also explain why 'this spirituality', whatever that might have been, has more or less disappeared for it was not built to last but it is sentenced to fade with time. Why then the complaint?

9) A Rejection of Colonial Education, but Why?

"the occupation of the African mind was essential for colonisation and explains why the decolonisation has been nearly impossible: our memory and minds were the first casualties of colonial education, and, since it has remained unchanged, the mind remains captive. This mental occupation has been as all-encompassing in determining the life of the African but in the opposite direction of African spirituality."

It is not clear what is the indictment the author is raising against the western education receive during colonial time. She doesn't say what it is exactly that keeps her and other African captive about that education. Hence it is difficult to know what is exactly the complaint. Is she complaining to have learned English as a language? Is she complaining to have learned how to Write? Is she complaining to have learned to use a Computer? Or is it that she sees no educational value in the use of standardized pharmaceutical products to relieve pain? It is really unclear what part of western education does she consider as maintaining her and other Africans captive? More importantly, it is not clear either what is she proposing to replace it with.

10) Concluding Word:

The author ends her article by mentioning what Africans are losing by jettisoning the 'ancestral spirituality'. The problem with her concluding words is that there can't be such a thing as an ancestral belief that is being really abandoned given that whatever the ancestors used to believe, that belief can't be the same thing she want us to believe today. This is the logical implication of having an ever shifting and impermanent set of doctrines as she advocated. 

She proposed that this ancestral African 'spirituality' is 'not written', is 'malleable', is 'dynamic', it is 'not uniform'; in brief it can not withstand the test of time. For what is not written will inevitably be changed with time or get lost. And the logical implication of a shifting doctrines is that whatever she sees today as 'THE African spirituality' (whatever that means), it must certainly be radically different from what our ancestors would have regarded as  'The African spirituality' due to the never ending evolution of doctrines through time. In other words, we are not losing anything really, we can't possible lose anything since nothing is supposed to have been preserved intact and uniform from the original spirituality.

I want to propose another way for those who are Christian and non-Christian, here is what is promised by Christ the Lord and which can be gained through a vibrant spiritual experience with Christ:

"Come to me, all of you who are weary and loaded down with burdens, and I will give you rest. Place my yoke on you and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble, and you will find rest for your souls, because my yoke is pleasant, and my burden is light." - Matthew 11:28-30 

"The thief comes only to steal, slaughter, and destroy. I have come that they may have life, and have it abundantly." - John 10:10

President Donald Trump and The Christian Dilemma

I was invited to share my view on a Facebook reflection about the current President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump. The Facebook reflection was more of a critic than a reflection. And though Trump was the visible subject of the post, Christians who have shown the modicum of support to him were the real target of the post. Since I am not an American, and that I live in Africa, I feel quite free to give my opinion on this matter since I don't have a bone to fight for on this matter, nor did the person who wrote the Facebook post since he is neither American and he also lives in Africa. We are both expressing our views since this is a free world (last that I checked!). Below are my thoughts on what I considered to be an incorrect appreciation on this matter on the part of the Facebook post writer. The Facebook post is in RED and my comments are in BLACK.


.....................

Interesting post. However, I have mixed feelings about your take on this matter. I would agree with some points and disagree with others. Let me share briefly a few thoughts!

1) "One of the mistakes we make as Christians is to stand behind a political leader who claims to be a Christian or who proves to be friendly to Christianity; hoping that they will bring back Christian values in the nation,"

I do not see why you call this a mistake. Is there anything in scriptures or in Church tradition that says that standing for or supporting a political leader who 'proves to be friendly' to Christianity is a MISTAKE?

I do not see anything remotely similar to your value judgment in the Holy Scriptures (Bible). I think the scriptures on the contrary require us to show respect to authority, even non-Christian authorities. The Lord Jesus did recognize Governor Pilate's authority as coming from above (John19.11), and so did St. Paul with regard to all political authorities (Romans 13.1).

"Every person must be subject to the governing authorities, for no authority exists except by God's permission. The existing authorities have been established by God, so that whoever resists the authorities opposes what God has established, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." - Romans 13:1-2 ISV

Those who believe that political authorities will bring or bring back Christian value to a nation are partly correct. In one sense, authorities can create a favorable atmosphere that allows godly values to be easily spread as St. Paul points out in 1Timothy2:1-4. But on the other sense, political authorities can not do anything beyond laying down a favorable condition that allows the gospel to spread, for the spreading of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God is the specific purview and role to be undertaken by believers and faith communities. Hence political figures, though imperfect, are simply regarded as allies for that purpose.

2) "and some even believe that they are serving the Lord by supporting such a person; and this, in my opinion, seems to be why American evangelicals support Trump."

Yes, your opinion on this is quite correct. Many Americans do support the current president of the United State, Donald Trump because they believe they are doing the work of the Lord by supporting someone who wants to prevent the unjust death of prenatal babies. You are right on the money on that!

3) "But this is one of the wrong ways to bring the Kingdom of God in a nation."

Actually, the scriptures seem to show the opposite. St. Paul has asked believers to pray for ALL those who are in authority so that citizens may live a peaceful life and that this will allow the spreading of the Gospel of the Kingdom.

"[pray] for kings, and for everyone who has authority, so that we might lead a quiet and peaceful life with all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to know the truth fully." - 1Timothy 2:2-4 MKV

4) "History proves that Christianity thrives where Christians are committed to a godly life, rather than loyalty to a political figure."

It is true that Christianity strives not because of political figures but because of Christians. And one of the godly things Christian can do is first to support authorities in prayers (1Timothy 2:1-4). The other thing could be not to stop those who help you gather for the Kingdom of God even if he is not part of your team (Luke 29.50).

In Luke 9:50, it is said, "Jesus told him, "Don't stop him! Because whoever is not against you is for you.""

It was true then, and it is true now. Christians shouldn't try to stop those who are not against them. Or to use your own expression, those who "who proves to be friendly to Christianity". If Trump has 'prove to be friendly to Christianity', as you pointed out, why would anyone try to disobey the word of the Lord Jesus by trying to stop him?

5) "To this, you add the fact that we have so many examples of people who come in a "Christian suit" and destroy lives and nations."

Well, this is true and it is sad. You find it in all strata of society: Police officers, Missionaries, Bible teachers, Theologians, Preachers, Pastors, Priests, Teachers, Scientists, Politicians, Businessmen, Parents, Friends, family members, Athletes, Judges, etc.

No one is perfect and we should be prompt to recognize it. And the very fact that we have multiple Church denominations within Christianity which contradict each other should be ample evidence that the malady is not on politicians solely, and we should thread the waters more carefully when we finger point obvious or imagined imperfection of others!

6) "It is beyond desperate, for Christians to think of having a political leader who's sympathetic to them as a win for Christianity."

Why think it to be desperate? Does the Bible tell us it is desperate and if yes, where is it written? As far as I know, the Lord Jesus said not to stop those who are with us, and we should heed his advice and continue to pray for all those in authority, including President Trump who is "sympathetic to them" according to your own words!

7) "Christian standards aren't based on who is being good to us, no matter how they treat everyone else, it is instead, about loving the Lord with all your heart, and loving others as yourself"

This is unnecessary to oppose these two important issues. Firstly, Loving the Lord with all our heart, mind, and soul and loving others as our neighbors is a non-negotiable for Christian believers in the Lord.

Secondly, Those who are in authority must be supported through prayers and by avoiding to impede their works if those works (policies) are not against us (anti-abortions, etc). Moreover, those established in authority must be respected due to the dignity of their office. St. Paul wrote his letters in a time when Christians were persecuted both by the Jewish authority and the Roman authority and yet he admonishes believers to give honor to authority not to speak derogatorily to them. This is the Christian way as exemplified in the New Testament Church in Scriptures!

Romans 13:5, "Therefore, it is necessary for you to be acquiescent to the authorities, not only for the sake of God's punishment, but also for the sake of your own conscience."

"Romans 13:7, "Pay everyone whatever you owe them—taxes to whom taxes are due, tolls to whom tolls are due, fear to whom fear is due, honor to whom honor is due."

Marriage: Are There Exceptions on Submission for Religious Purposes?

Today I am hosting a good friend of mine, Michel Mbonyinkebe, answering a question which was asked in a closed forum. His intervention was quite good that I took the liberty after consultation with him that his response should be turned into a short post for future references. I hope his reaction would clarify certain things you might have had as it did to people in that forum. I have translated his notes from French to English and made few adjustment and additional notes, but in essence and for the most part, I kept his commentary unchanged and true to the original interaction.
...
QUESTION:
"Yesterday I asked this question to my husband, 'how can a spouse deal with her husband if she find herself disagreeing with him doctrinally.' I meant, if the disagreement is about fake grace."


RESPONSE:
For me it is quite simple. Submission assumes that we recognize the existence of a hierarchy, a bit like in the army. We have to keep in mind that the same scriptures that exhort us to submit to God also requires of us to submit to each other, particularly in this case, a wife to her own husband.

"But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God." - 1 Corinthians 11:3 ESV

It is clear that St. Paul raises the question of hierarchy in the family unit with the expectation to offer harmony in the family, and submission has its role to play in maintaining the family system working. For what would happen if the household had two heads during a disagreement? A peaceful resolution would be hard to attain. Hence submission doesn't mean being in total agreement, but rather as the dictionary puts it, 'the action of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person.'

Piggy-bagging on the scripture shared above (1Co11.3), it is clear that in the family there is a higher authority above the couple, namely Christ. Wisdom dictates therefore that submission should be due to the perceived highest authority when a conflict appears between two authorities. This is common understanding which provide a bed-rock in distinguishing the level of submission. When it pertains to the nature of the Gospel of Christ, our submission should always bow to Christ himself when it is conflicted with what the husband claims. However, when it comes to matters of behavior that will not affect the worthiness of the Gospel, a wife is exhorted to submit to her husband. This latter one is also regarded as 'bearing fruits'. This implies that even in the depth of doctrinal disagreement within the couple, the partner (a.k.a the wife) should continue to express herself with meekness and all kindness. There is never a good reason to be unkind to your partner, even for doctrinal disagreements. I think this might have been what St. Peter had in mind when he said,

"Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct." -1 Pete 3:1-2 ESV

Wee see the same analogy being displayed on a different context by St. Paul when he spoke about political authorities,

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." - Romans 13:1-2   

This is more significant if we remember the political context in which St. Paul was writing. He was under an hostile political milieu that persecuted him for his Christian faith. The Roman Emperor had little patience for Christianity as it turned out, many believers were persecuted and many died including St. Paul himself. However, the hostility didn't prevent him to recognize the Roman Emperor authority, even in his disagreement with Emperor belief. Similar stories are reported in the book of Daniel under the authority of the Babylonian King. Although their faith ran counter those leaders perspectives on religion, they nevertheless remained noble in the way they conducted themselves in their disagreements. The first Christian community expressed that contrast this fashion:

"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than men.'" - Act 5:29 ESV 

The task of the Christian therefore is to learn to recognize authorities set by God without forgetting God own supreme authority in the process. The key as I see it:

1) Respect and submit to the hierarchy. And if there is a conflict about a higher principle (doctrine),

2) Keep the attitude noble and respectful while challenging the conflicted principle because you are equally submitted to God (who remains in the family unit the highest authority); but the final decision in the household will still be that of the husband even if your are not bound by conscience to embrace his views.

Last note: Some authorities are not chosen, but they are imposed on us. We do not chose to be under certain authorities but we find ourselves being under them such as a child being born in a certain family. There is nothing we could have done about it. 

But in marriage, modern courtship makes it so that each partners choose willingly to enter into a relationship that will bind both lovers into a hierarchical order of authority. Hence it is unfair to complain all the time to have a partner you have difficulty to submit to doctrinally at home when you've made the conscious choice in the first place to submit under his authority through marriage. I understand that people can change for the better or for the worse, but in any case this doesn't change that it was your choice to begin with, hence you will have to learn to love and submit through thick and thin.

The Side of Faith I Never Knew

Today's I am hosting a guest writer, Lisette Buki, who wanted to share something that she recently learned through a family tragedy she experienced. See he post below.
....

The Side of Faith I Have Never known

“I order you to ask Adede or Coco about me” wrote Kunda in a WhatsApp group she and I along with some of my female cousins shared. She accompanied her puzzling order with a teasing, smiley emoticon. Kunda, Coco and Adede are all my cousins by the way, and today I will share a story specifically about Kunda.

Since the message had a teasing emoticon, I didn't expect nor gave any seriousness. I wasn't expecting any sort of aggravating news, at least, not a bad one. I initially thought, perhaps she want to inform us that her family was moving to join her husband (who has been working abroad for months) or something similar.

Following on her request or should I say her order, I contacted Adede who informed me that Kunda was from the doctor’s office and she was diagnosed with a failing liver that couldn't be cured. I later learned that it was an aggressive form of liver cancer. She was about to go to India for a second medical opinion hoping to counter the initial diagnosis. I was so shocked, I said to myself, “this cannot happen to Kunda!”

Let me tell you a bit about Kunda. She was the type of person that makes you ask yourself: “Is she a human or an angel?” At time, some family members were belatedly convinced that she was an angel who was living with us without us knowing! (smile)

I personally met Kunda in my first year of college. First year students didn't have right to have their own rooms in Campus so the trends was to look for an older person kind enough to share their rooms with new comers. Since Kunda was an elder, she had the right to have a bed in college; she was willing to share her bed with me at the requested of my elder sister. She agreed and welcomed me. The big surprise came when I noticed that she gave away her whole bed for me and a friend of hers who had nowhere to stay. She spent the whole academic year with no fixed address spending her nights sometimes at her friends’ room and sometimes back in our room (technically still her room) when one of us were absent from Campus. This type of sacrificial generosity marked me profoundly.

Kunda didn't always have an easy life. She was a survivor from the 1994 genocide against Tutsi (Rwanda). She and her two sisters were the lone survivors. She lost her parents and brothers. After this tragedy, her and her sisters moved from family to family and were not most of the time treated with loving kindness.

It is in high school that she became a Christian and a journey of transformation began for her after that encounter with Jesus Christ. Since then, she had been a devoted Christian, serving the Kingdom of God as much as she could. Later in life, her husband and her 3 beautiful children were among her most prized possession and blessings. Personally, the main thing that amazed me about Kunda was her wisdom. She was only 4 years my elder but her wisdom was impressive! I have learned so much from her, I already miss our many discussion and her many profound and insightful advises.

Alright, back to my story! 

As I said earlier, I was so shocked and heart broken by the news of deteriorating health. “This cannot happen to Kunda!” I kept saying to myself. On her way to India she requested us, in our family WhatsApp group, to keep praying that she receive a contrary diagnosis from India. Being a Christian myself, I was convinced that Kunda could not die this early at the prime of her life and that somehow God will use the cancer to miraculously heal her. We immediately organized a fasting and prayer day for that request.

Unfortunately the diagnosis was equally confirmed in India. The team of doctors didn't even suggest a treatment, save one of them who wanted to try some alternative medical treatment. This alternative treatment came as good news. We thought that was a sign of God being at work! Kunda decided to take back home her alternative treatment in order to be closed to her family. As for us, we decided to continue to pray and fast for her once a week until the day she would be healed. The prayer group took a life of its own, growing beyond the confine of the family to attract friends and the extended family. Well, matter of fact, I came to learn that others people from all over the world had joined us in prayer.

Few months later, she went back to India for check-up on the effect of the treatment. Unfortunately, the doctors realized that the treatment didn't work as well as they hoped for. The only hope we had now was a miracle from the Lord. So we continued to pray for her. During this time of prayers, we received encouraging scriptures, ‘prophesies’, dreams, etc. From our interpretation of them, we were sure that she will be healed. Kunda, herself, was so sure that she will be healed despite the ravaging work of the cancer to her body, she resumed work until the day she was physically unable to continue. Days were passing by and day by day she was getting weaker and weaker. Her doctor decided to intern her at the hospital. A week after, I was informed that she had passed away and joined her Lord that she served with such love and loyalty. I couldn't believe the news. Then I remembered the thought I had few months ago while praying for her, “God was never late. The story of Lazarus proves it”. (The story of Lazarus can be found in the bible in John 11:1-46). I was encouraged. Even before the passing of Kunda, I shared the thought with her.

Here is our conversation:

Me: Hello Sisi. When I was praying for you this morning I had this thought: God is never late… the story of Lazarus proves it. I realized from Lazarus’ story that despite the fact that Jesus loved very much Lazarus’s family, and the cry for help from Lazarus’ sisters, he decided to stay 2 more days.  Later on in the chapter he gives the reason for waiting. We all know that God deeply loves you and your family. There might surely be a reason why God is taking time but let us remember that "He is never late". Meanwhile I pray that He strengthens you and your family

Kunda: Thx lovely sis to remember me in your prayers. Thank you also for the Word... Indeed I continue to trust in the Lord, keeping the faith waiting upon Him!  

So I thought to myself, “that is not over, God will resurrect her as he did for Lazarus”. My hope was back and I started praying for that to happen. To my surprise, I wasn't the only one in our prayer group who was convinced that God will bring her back to live. Besides, her husband decided that the burial ceremony would be on Thursday (it was the day we used to pray and fast for her healing) and that Thursday coincidentally fell on the 4^th day after her death. It reminded me the story of Lazarus. For me and my folks who wouldn't let her go, it was a sign that she would come back. So we prayed and prayed earnestly.

The day of the burial arrived and the ceremonies happened as it was planned. The body of Kunda was buried and the miracle so expected didn't happen.

The realization of Kunda’s death then deemed on me, “Kunda really left us to join our Lord”. I had mixed feeling about everything. I knew I will be missing her but I was especially sad that she was gone so young leaving a husband and three young kids. At the same time, I knew she was not suffering any more, she was happy to be with her Lord she serves so faithfully and God would take care of her family. I knew from Christian theology, the dead in Christ finally rest in the presence of their Master.

In addition to my mixed emotion, I was left with one main concern I couldn't rationalize post-facto: Kunda faithfully believed until her last day that she would be physically healed. Dying was not an option for her. She believed so much that she didn't even bother to prepare her family just in case she didn't get through the illness. She relied on the many supposedly confirmation she had received from herself and others people in prayers, dreams, comforting scriptures, prophecies, etc. 

So why the promises she believed to have received did not happen?

Is God a liar? What did really happen? Perhaps we were misled on the promises received? Or they were not true? Kunda and her husband were really open to know the will of God whatever it would have been, good or bad. They told us that from the get go in our early prayer meetings. This confused and discouraged me. I started asking around but I received answers that did not satisfy my queries. It became a heavy burden. I was getting no way. I couldn't figure out God anymore.

Thanks God, my confusion didn’t last for long. Two weeks after Kunda’s death, in a bible study group, I voiced my concern once again by popping the question. “Can God promise something, and it doesn’t come to pass?”

One of the members in the Bible Study replied by sharing with me this verse:

“³⁹ These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, ⁴⁰ since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.” Hebrew 11: 39-40

This scripture felt like a Eureka to me. I had read this scripture many times when praying for Kunda but never realized this portion of the chapter. It is possible that God promises you something but you do not receive it. However, from the same scripture it doesn't make God a liar since He gives you even better than the way you expected to receive the promise. “How come I never knew about it?”,

I felt so free and overwhelmed with joy. Kunda after all received more than what was promised her on this earth. ALLELUIA!

I still miss her for sure, but the idea that she received more than her physical healing brings smile on my face. I will keep that smile until the day I smile with her again and that will be for eternity.

This is the end of my story. Today I have a thought for all the heroes of faith who did not received what was promised to them but received even better according to Scriptures. 

A special tribute to Dr.Nabeel Qureshi, a brother in Christ and friend I have never met.

Why God: All Your Old Testament Killings and Decisions (Part 2)

Here is the second part of my commentary to the post that was entitled "Questions to God/Allah/ or whoever is in charge". See Part 1 here.

Question 3: According to the bible and many other books, You asked people to go kill others. Like when you asked Joshua to conquer Jericho remember? You had just given the 10 commandments where it clearly stipulates : Though shall not kill… Then you sent people to kill… Why not do it yourself? You could literally just snap a finger and have this whole earth gone in half of a millisecond. So if you Really needed that whole city gone you could have done it without having humans do that. So is there a reason they had to do that? Was it to prove to you that they were faithful? Was there no other way to test their faith?

In dealing with morality or the divine moral command issued to humanity, there is a principle that runs through out the Bible that could be framed as this, 'God does not contradict Himself'. In 2 Timothy 2:13, we read that "If we are faithless, He [God] remains faithful, for [God] cannot deny Himself." This lead us to the biblical text you mentioned which was spoken in mount Sinai by God to Moses stating in the book of Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill." Let me remark that the word used for "kill" literally means "murdering". The Greek version of the original text for the word 'kill' use the word "phoneuō" which means literally "to be a murderer". Many biblical versions of this verse keep that nuance such as this one from the Bible Basic English (BBE version), "Do not put anyone to death without cause." This defang the argument that those God ordered the execution or put to death in the Old Testament were about innocent killing. God never ordered a murder for it goes against the ethical construct He has advocated to the Israelite.

You raised two questions. Let me answer answer them by order:

a) Why order Killing

With this in mind, we are now capable of exploring the primordial example you raised about the killing that happened in Jericho as a mirror image of all the others. Historically, Jericho was not a citizen city but a military outpost. Those in the Jericho city were in modern language enemy combatant.  Moreover, Jericho was part of the Canaanite territorial land that God sent Israel to take over. Why then did God ordered the removal of the first inhabitants of the land while destroying their military forces? The answer for that is found four hundred years before the destruction of Jericho, for God informed Abraham that the land that his posterity will inherit was currently inhabited by a nation of Amorites which unfortunately were accruing their evilness and sins. It is clear from the text that God would only remove that nation from that land if  their evilness reaches a irredeemable peak and not anytime sooner than that. As Professor Paul Copan from Palm Beach Atlantic University put it and i quote, "God was willing to wait over 400 years because 'the sin of the Amorite was not yet filled up' (Genesis 15:16)".

From this historical perspective, God's command to remove the Canaanite including Jericho was based on a judgement and not on a capricious divine acts. The sins refereed above in Genesis of the Canaanites were as follow: Idolatry, Incest, Adultery, Child sacrifice, Homosexuality, Bestiality among other sexual deviations. An academic paper on it was written and can be read in full here. The punch-line here is that this was no innocent killing or murdering of the innocent, but rather a form of an old fashion capital punishment.

b) Why using Humans?

The subsequent question raised was why not do it Himself. Why use human being to serve moral judgement? The answer to this is not that God doesn't act to execute judgement Himself, He does sometimes. But in all culture and societies, God has always partnered with humans in order to bring law and order in any given society. We are reliably informed in the Bible that, "Let everyone put himself under the authority of the higher powers, because there is no power which is not of God, and all powers are ordered by God. For which reason everyone who puts himself against the authority puts himself against the order of God: and those who are against it will get punishment for themselves." - Rom 13:1-2

And this divine collaboration with humanity when it comes to executing judgement with the sword was forcefully expressed in this manner two thousand years ago:

 
"For rulers are not a cause of fear to the good work but to the evil. If you would have no fear of the authority, do good and you will have praise; For he is the servant of God to you for good. But if you do evil, have fear; for the sword is not in his hand for nothing: he is God's servant, making God's punishment come on the evil-doer"  - Romans 13:3-4 (BBE)

Question 4:While we are still on the Israelites, why did you leave them to be slave for so many years? Were they being punished? For what? And when you decided to save them , Why all that struggle? Like you knew the pharaoh wouldn’t believe the plagues you sent, You could have sent an angel to talk him, better yet, you could have talked to him you know, like you used to with Abraham. Annnd then when the Israelites were free, again you let them struggle to get to Canaan. You couldn’t have transported them , like in the Harry potter books, Poooof and reappear at the desired location?

a) How did Israel became slave?

Israel became slave for no fault of themselves. Actually, Israel as a nation grew and even prospered in Egypt under different Pharaohs because of the good memories of the service of a particular Israelite called Joseph offered to the kingdom of Egypt. But history being what it is, good deeds get forgotten with time and ignorance tends to precipitate unlearned leaders to take devastating decisions. This is exactly what happened in Egypt. Here is a brief account of it that might interest you in the Book of Exodus 1:8-11

"Now a new king came to power in Egypt, who had no knowledge of Joseph. And he said to his people, See, the people of Israel are greater in number and in power than we are: Let us take care for fear that their numbers may become even greater, and if there is a war, they may be joined with those who are against us, and make an attack on us, and go up out of the land. So they put overseers of forced work over them, in order to make their strength less by the weight of their work. And they made store-towns for Pharaoh, Pithom and Raamses." 

 b) Why did God took time before the rescue?

This is a difficult one since God's way of thinking is mind-boggling to us but when looked from the rear-view of history it all make sense, however without the benefit of hind-sight it just doesn't make much sense to us who makes our judgement mostly based with immediate information with no broader political, cultural, economical and geographical context.

Long before Israel came into existence, God predicted the outcome of the future enslavement of Israel to their founding father Abraham in a night vision.

"And [God] said to Abram, Truly, your seed will be living in a land which is not theirs, as servants to a people who will be cruel to them for four hundred years; But I will be the judge of that nation whose servants they are, and they will come out from among them with great wealth." - Genesis 15:13 

It would be preferable that Israel simply grew in power and wealth in Egypt until they were order to go to Canaan to possess it after the Canaanite sins had reached their paroxysm. However, God also predicted that their incubation process would not be painless as He correctly anticipated the advent of a new pharaoh who will not be kind to the Jews. Tactically, it probably would have made sense for God to do most of what you suggested but it would not have made sense from a strategic point of view. For when Israel left Egypt, they had learned so many lessons about wealth possession and dispossession, about being welcomed as a foreigners and what it means to be outcast as a foreigner, the value of having a land that you call your own and etc. All these lesson which could have never been seared in their national consciousness just through a good life. We can all relate to it as we know that most of the successful people tell us that it is through their hardship that they became who they are and that without that they would have never be nor accomplish a fraction of what they have. 

c) God's method works?

Finally, God's methods have more far reaching impact than the immediate feel good experience that we all crave but that have no redemptive value to our souls and future. Here is how God put it Himself about their walk in the desert instead of being pouff up like Harry Potter in Canaan. 

"And keep in mind the way by which the Lord your God has taken you through the waste land these forty years, so that He might make low your pride and put you to the test, to see what was in your heart and if you would keep his orders or not. And he made low your pride and let you be without food and gave you manna for your food, a thing new to you, which your fathers never saw; so that he might make it clear to you that bread is not man's only need, but his life is in every word which comes out of the mouth of the Lord. Through all these forty years your clothing did not get old or your feet become tired. Keep in mind this thought, that as a son is trained by his father, so you have been trained by the Lord your God. " - Deuteronomy 8:2-5

God is not in the magical business. He does miracles not magic tricks. God is interested in training us and only through diverse forms of experiences can He draw the best out of us and teach us meaningful lessons about life and His intended destiny for us. This logic is the same as the one used for humbling the hardened heart of Pharaoh through a series of miracles, and His prodigious miracles in Egypt is still spoken about up-to this day as a lesson on God's power and greatness. It also gave certainty to the witnesses that what was wrought wasn't just the results of sheer chance, or mere bad luck that had happened to Pharaoh or any other naturalistic explanation that could have crept in with time in the minds of the Israelite making them to doubt the existence of God's power.

"Has God ever before taken a nation for himself from out of another nation, by punishments and signs and wonders, by war and by a strong hand and a stretched-out arm and great acts of wonder and fear, as the Lord your God did for you in Egypt, before your very eyes?  All this he let you see, so that you might be certain that the Lord is God and there is no other." - Deuteronomy 4:3-35

 And Israel did also benefit of this divine reputation of what God did in Egypt later on as they were conquering their enemy combatant land. For all wars are waged both physically with material logistic as well as psychologically to weaken the enemy resolve. We have a testimonial of some of the Canaanite tribes who refused to fight against the Israelite and preferred to make an alliance with them so that they could live together. What do you think made that conquering easy? Hear the Canaanite from Hivites explain their reasons in their own words:

"And the men of Israel said to the Hivites, It may be that you are living among us; how then may we make an agreement with you? And they said to Joshua, We are your servants. Then Joshua said to them, Who are you and where do you come from? And they said to him, Your servants have come from a very far country, because of the name of the Lord your God: for the story of his great name, and of all he did in Egypt has come to our ears," - Joshua 9:7-9

We see through this that in the end that whatever God initiated in Egypt was working and made the conquest of the land easier, cost effective and less time consuming. God knows what He does even if at first glance it doesn't makes sense to our collective human brain. Allow me to end this with this quote:

"O how deep is the wealth of the wisdom and knowledge of God! no one is able to make discovery of his decisions, and his ways may not be searched out. Who has knowledge of the mind of the Lord? or who has taken part in his purposes? Or who has first given to him, and it will be given back to him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things. To him be the glory for ever. So be it." - Romans11:33-36

or as this other version puts it: 

"Yes, God's riches are very great! His wisdom and knowledge have no end! No one can explain what God decides. No one can understand his ways. As the Scriptures say, "Who can know what is on the Lord's mind? Who is able to give him advice?" "Who has ever given God anything? God owes nothing to anyone." Yes, God made all things. And everything continues through him and for him. To God be the glory forever! Amen."

P.S: I think that the reading of books like this could assist for detail on Holy Wars in the Bible.