MARTIN Luther a great writer is one of the people that had and still has great impact on the people in the world simply because of his ideas that he expresses in his writings.
To me, Martin Luther’s political Philosophy and style of writing is good and very inspiring. He shares his heart and mind about what he thinks of politics and I find my self drawn to his kind of thinking. For example I strongly agree with him when he says that the justification of man is by faith not the law before God. This is not only because the Bible says so, but even when I take a kin look at the political laws, they are not perfect. Infact they do not justify people but they simply condemn them.
I think Martin Luther expresses a great Christian political thought in his political philosophy and style of writing for example he acknowledges the need for political and economic development but he goes ahead to mention these should be done in a Christian manner that can glorify God. Therefore I think Martin Luther’s political philosophy is the best philosophy a Christian can ever have.
As I consider a future career in law, I find Luther’s writings very challenging to me as I will mention below:
In the first place, Martin Luther says that man is not justified by law but by faith in Jesus Christ. As an aspiring advocate, this opens my eyes to the fact that the law is not perfect and therefore someone’s virtue’s are not determined by law but by faith which develops good morals.
Luther emphasizes values and guidance. This challenges me to be equipped with the legal profession ethics and also be ready to uphold them. Under this, he talks about guidance and says that as lawyers handle clients, they should lead them to reconciliation. I find this challenging because most lawyers look at how much money they can get from a client’s case and they do not care whether the clients reconcile or not.
Martin Luther brings it to our attention that man belongs to two realms, the Godly and the civil realm. As a lawyer I get to know that people do wrong by nature of belonging to evil realm and not by choice. This therefore helps me to know how to handle clients and also help them change for the better.
In conclusion, I find Luther’s writings and political philosophy encouraging, inspiring, challenging, very Christian and worth taking up.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Should the Church’s involvement in Politics in Africa be passive or evaluative?, by Musede Paul J
MUSEDE PAUL. J
JOB11/1453
Suggested guidelines for the Church’s political involvement.
Should the Church’s involvement in Politics in Africa be passive or evaluative?
In this aspect church refers to both individual believers and the corporate body or institution.
Politics is about power. Its business is to manage and try to resolve conflict, not just over access to scarce resources notable in Africa, but also conflict of opinion of how society should be organized and about matters of the life in general. The manner in which power is acquired is bound to influence the way in which it is exercised.
In my view politics means all activities that are related to the governing and to the building of civil society.
There have been two approaches to the Church's involvement in politics in Africa. The passive approach of non involvement and regards politics as worldly business. The second approach is for evaluative critical engagement and regards politics as a spiritual affair.
As a guide in my discussion, I need to clarify on the essence of Christian church in Africa and is there something definitely African in the churches involvement in politics.
However I would suggest the following as regards the churches involvement. The church’s involvement in politics should be rooted in scripture. Although Christ’s church is beyond time and space, He called it to go into the world and, like him, be an active participant in the history of humanity. However, for the church not to be identified as just another political interest group, it should never allow its pulpit to be usurped by any political agenda. If it does, it endangers its role as the voice of God.
The church should be informed and involved in the issues of the day, and encourage its members to exercise their right to vote and hold political offices. Those who hold political offices should seek to be the best citizens possible, as a witness to the integrity of Christ and his gospel. St Augustine, in city of God called God fearing rulers blessings bestowed ...upon mankind
Godly nations come from Godly citizens, who come from Godly families, led by Godly parents. Here is where the church can do its greatest work focusing upon the redemptions of individuals and there families. Godly laws are important. They set an external standard by which people can measure morality. However godly and godly leaders are only as part of answers. If citizens are unwilling to submit to godly laws or to follow godly leaders, the nation’s moral foundations will deteriorate. What is needed are godly hearts, Only God can give a man or woman a godly heart.
Christians should involve themselves in the political issues of their society because it is their right and responsibility as citizens. But the church as an institution has a higher calling than individual Christians. The church is not to be drawn into the pettiness of candidates and issues unless a clear, compelling moral principal is at stake.
The church has a legitimate role in public policy debate. It has a right and duty to call attention to the moral and religious dimensions of secular issues, to measure policies against gospel values, and to speak out on issues involving social justice, human dignity and the common good.
Politics must be about the search for the common good, a commitment to the dignity of every person and reconciling diverse interest for the wellbeing of the whole of society.
Different perspectives of churches involvement are analyzed such as Henry Okullu makes clearer when He says, "the gospel of Jesus Christ is not a private religion, just tolerated by certain citizens. It must press its presence in the centre of societal life.
Conclusion
In my discussion I have highlighted the two approaches in the church’s involvement in politics.
The question one needs to ask is, to date has the church in Africa made great impact on the way the African countries are governed? Possibly not. There is therefore need for the responsive approach. This is the situation in which the church understands herself as part and parcel of society and then responds constructively in regard to every circumstance which church and society are going through. The church should not get involved passively.
JOB11/1453
Suggested guidelines for the Church’s political involvement.
Should the Church’s involvement in Politics in Africa be passive or evaluative?
In this aspect church refers to both individual believers and the corporate body or institution.
Politics is about power. Its business is to manage and try to resolve conflict, not just over access to scarce resources notable in Africa, but also conflict of opinion of how society should be organized and about matters of the life in general. The manner in which power is acquired is bound to influence the way in which it is exercised.
In my view politics means all activities that are related to the governing and to the building of civil society.
There have been two approaches to the Church's involvement in politics in Africa. The passive approach of non involvement and regards politics as worldly business. The second approach is for evaluative critical engagement and regards politics as a spiritual affair.
As a guide in my discussion, I need to clarify on the essence of Christian church in Africa and is there something definitely African in the churches involvement in politics.
However I would suggest the following as regards the churches involvement. The church’s involvement in politics should be rooted in scripture. Although Christ’s church is beyond time and space, He called it to go into the world and, like him, be an active participant in the history of humanity. However, for the church not to be identified as just another political interest group, it should never allow its pulpit to be usurped by any political agenda. If it does, it endangers its role as the voice of God.
The church should be informed and involved in the issues of the day, and encourage its members to exercise their right to vote and hold political offices. Those who hold political offices should seek to be the best citizens possible, as a witness to the integrity of Christ and his gospel. St Augustine, in city of God called God fearing rulers blessings bestowed ...upon mankind
Godly nations come from Godly citizens, who come from Godly families, led by Godly parents. Here is where the church can do its greatest work focusing upon the redemptions of individuals and there families. Godly laws are important. They set an external standard by which people can measure morality. However godly and godly leaders are only as part of answers. If citizens are unwilling to submit to godly laws or to follow godly leaders, the nation’s moral foundations will deteriorate. What is needed are godly hearts, Only God can give a man or woman a godly heart.
Christians should involve themselves in the political issues of their society because it is their right and responsibility as citizens. But the church as an institution has a higher calling than individual Christians. The church is not to be drawn into the pettiness of candidates and issues unless a clear, compelling moral principal is at stake.
The church has a legitimate role in public policy debate. It has a right and duty to call attention to the moral and religious dimensions of secular issues, to measure policies against gospel values, and to speak out on issues involving social justice, human dignity and the common good.
Politics must be about the search for the common good, a commitment to the dignity of every person and reconciling diverse interest for the wellbeing of the whole of society.
Different perspectives of churches involvement are analyzed such as Henry Okullu makes clearer when He says, "the gospel of Jesus Christ is not a private religion, just tolerated by certain citizens. It must press its presence in the centre of societal life.
Conclusion
In my discussion I have highlighted the two approaches in the church’s involvement in politics.
The question one needs to ask is, to date has the church in Africa made great impact on the way the African countries are governed? Possibly not. There is therefore need for the responsive approach. This is the situation in which the church understands herself as part and parcel of society and then responds constructively in regard to every circumstance which church and society are going through. The church should not get involved passively.
Under What Circumstances Would God Authorize War, by Mutungi Kenneth
Mutungi Kenneth.
J05B11/1355
Journal Entry: Under what circumstances would God authorize war?
A war that is sanctioned by God. God allows it for a special reason. He determines when and why to go to war.
This argument is completely un biblical.
we have heard, "Eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth" But Gods scripture tells us not to resist an evil person, that if some one strikes you on the right chick, turn to him the other also.
we have also heard that, "love your neighbor and hate your enemy" But the scripture is clear. It says; 'Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." {Mathew 5:38-39,43-44, NIV}
The word of Jesus seems crystal clear. He calls his followers to refrain from fighting enemies under any circumstances. Surely, then, he calls his followers not to participate in war.
However, throughout history, the majority of Jesus' followers have not taken this command seriously. They have found ways to justity taking part in war. The turning point came in the fifth century when Augustine of Hippo formed the doctrine of "Just war". Since then countless wars have been rationalized by Christians as "Just wars."
Arguments by Augustine as regards the doctrine of "Just war" led me to examine quite a number of questions. Thus:
1. "What about war in the old testament."
2. "What about soldiers in the new testament"?
3. "Paul in Romans 13 says we must obey the state"
4. "What about conducting war to defend ones country"
In responce to these questions, I found out that, they were very weak. And they can not justify war under any circumstances.
Many Old Testament practices are superseded in the New Testament. So we can not use the Old Testament alone for forming our doctrine of war.
Soldiers are followers of Jesus. For example the soldiers who came to be baptized by John the Baptist, the centurian who had great faith {Mathew 8:5-13, Luke 7:1-10},
In no case is there a hint that they were fighting battles. Soldiers also fulfilled peace keeping roles, akin to modern police. So this case does not carry much weight.
Since when did the law of the state take precedence over the law of God?
"We must obey the laws of God, not men". if the laws of the state conflict with Gods laws, we are called to disobey the state. Christians have no hesitation in saying that we should go aganist state laws on issues like abortion or racism. So why not war.?
The problem is; what is ones own country?
In Northern Ireland, both Repulicans and Unionists passionately believe that Northern Ireland is part of their country. In Palestine, both the Israelis and Palestine believe that the same part of land is "theirs".
Almost any war can be justified in defending someones' country.
I believe that, just like Jesus calls all people to follow him, so he also calls upon people to renounce war. Firist and foremost this is a call to all Christians, those who claim to follow Jesus to take the lead. As Christians we should ask our selves whether we have honestly followed his teachings.
J05B11/1355
Journal Entry: Under what circumstances would God authorize war?
A war that is sanctioned by God. God allows it for a special reason. He determines when and why to go to war.
This argument is completely un biblical.
we have heard, "Eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth" But Gods scripture tells us not to resist an evil person, that if some one strikes you on the right chick, turn to him the other also.
we have also heard that, "love your neighbor and hate your enemy" But the scripture is clear. It says; 'Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." {Mathew 5:38-39,43-44, NIV}
The word of Jesus seems crystal clear. He calls his followers to refrain from fighting enemies under any circumstances. Surely, then, he calls his followers not to participate in war.
However, throughout history, the majority of Jesus' followers have not taken this command seriously. They have found ways to justity taking part in war. The turning point came in the fifth century when Augustine of Hippo formed the doctrine of "Just war". Since then countless wars have been rationalized by Christians as "Just wars."
Arguments by Augustine as regards the doctrine of "Just war" led me to examine quite a number of questions. Thus:
1. "What about war in the old testament."
2. "What about soldiers in the new testament"?
3. "Paul in Romans 13 says we must obey the state"
4. "What about conducting war to defend ones country"
In responce to these questions, I found out that, they were very weak. And they can not justify war under any circumstances.
Many Old Testament practices are superseded in the New Testament. So we can not use the Old Testament alone for forming our doctrine of war.
Soldiers are followers of Jesus. For example the soldiers who came to be baptized by John the Baptist, the centurian who had great faith {Mathew 8:5-13, Luke 7:1-10},
In no case is there a hint that they were fighting battles. Soldiers also fulfilled peace keeping roles, akin to modern police. So this case does not carry much weight.
Since when did the law of the state take precedence over the law of God?
"We must obey the laws of God, not men". if the laws of the state conflict with Gods laws, we are called to disobey the state. Christians have no hesitation in saying that we should go aganist state laws on issues like abortion or racism. So why not war.?
The problem is; what is ones own country?
In Northern Ireland, both Repulicans and Unionists passionately believe that Northern Ireland is part of their country. In Palestine, both the Israelis and Palestine believe that the same part of land is "theirs".
Almost any war can be justified in defending someones' country.
I believe that, just like Jesus calls all people to follow him, so he also calls upon people to renounce war. Firist and foremost this is a call to all Christians, those who claim to follow Jesus to take the lead. As Christians we should ask our selves whether we have honestly followed his teachings.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
AFRICAN POLITICS AND POLITICAL PARTIES
AFRICAN POLITICS AND POLITICAL PARTIES
By Matanzima Peter Kasse
African political thoughts deal with people and not ideas. The chiefs’ traditional attire with its charms and symbolic object on his body and in his hands all show that the person of the chief is the main point of focus in the life of the nation and tribe. People love and adore him not because of his bright ideas but because he is the legitimate symbol of their unity and life, he is the guarantee of their life and well being. What happens with traditional leaders in one way happens with people who are voted to political posts and whoever thinks that those who win elections do so because of bright ideas and beautiful political plans does not understand African politics. In Africa people elect leaders because of what they represent, for them which becomes identified with their persons. In my view this is the reason party politics has not been accommodated well in African countries. Political parties rest on ideas not on concrete people as and experience has shown that vast majority of Africans instead of supporting ideas support people. And, instead of fighting ideas, they fight people, while people of the same political party tend to become friends and those who belong to opposing political parties tend to become enemies. While it is possible among people of other mentalities, it is impossible in Africa that husband and wife openly belong to opposing political parties and continue to stay together in peace. For politicians especially those in power, the leader of the opposition is an enemy to be eliminated is possible. He is not one who is seen as one who helps them not to abuse the power given to them by the people. There used to be a system in African traditional politics where the opposition was there but not for the sake of wrestling for power but to help him rule wisely and according to tradition which was the constitution. The council of elders, the drum as in Ankole, the queen mother, the traditional priests who used to transmit to the kings the divine will etc were all powers none of whom could become king but represented voices to which deaf ears to these powers lost both power and life. I call such people opposition because they used to be the representatives of the common people in front of the leaders, they used not to be chosen by the king or chiefs and their main wok was to prevent him from abusing power to the detriment of society. If a system can be put in place whereby this kind of opposition recuperated instead of resorting to systems which are only known without being understood fully, Africa will have a celebrated future.
By Matanzima Peter Kasse
African political thoughts deal with people and not ideas. The chiefs’ traditional attire with its charms and symbolic object on his body and in his hands all show that the person of the chief is the main point of focus in the life of the nation and tribe. People love and adore him not because of his bright ideas but because he is the legitimate symbol of their unity and life, he is the guarantee of their life and well being. What happens with traditional leaders in one way happens with people who are voted to political posts and whoever thinks that those who win elections do so because of bright ideas and beautiful political plans does not understand African politics. In Africa people elect leaders because of what they represent, for them which becomes identified with their persons. In my view this is the reason party politics has not been accommodated well in African countries. Political parties rest on ideas not on concrete people as and experience has shown that vast majority of Africans instead of supporting ideas support people. And, instead of fighting ideas, they fight people, while people of the same political party tend to become friends and those who belong to opposing political parties tend to become enemies. While it is possible among people of other mentalities, it is impossible in Africa that husband and wife openly belong to opposing political parties and continue to stay together in peace. For politicians especially those in power, the leader of the opposition is an enemy to be eliminated is possible. He is not one who is seen as one who helps them not to abuse the power given to them by the people. There used to be a system in African traditional politics where the opposition was there but not for the sake of wrestling for power but to help him rule wisely and according to tradition which was the constitution. The council of elders, the drum as in Ankole, the queen mother, the traditional priests who used to transmit to the kings the divine will etc were all powers none of whom could become king but represented voices to which deaf ears to these powers lost both power and life. I call such people opposition because they used to be the representatives of the common people in front of the leaders, they used not to be chosen by the king or chiefs and their main wok was to prevent him from abusing power to the detriment of society. If a system can be put in place whereby this kind of opposition recuperated instead of resorting to systems which are only known without being understood fully, Africa will have a celebrated future.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Suggested Podcasts
For those that would like to hear a full-bodied and blunt discussion about governance and foreign aid in Africa please go to: Cato Institute's Panel Discussion on Causes and Solutions to Underdevelopment in Africa
Also there are good podcasts offered through ITunes that cover African politics. I recommend subscribing to "This Week in Africa" from the BBC World Service and "Africa Past and Present."
Happy (free) listening.
Also there are good podcasts offered through ITunes that cover African politics. I recommend subscribing to "This Week in Africa" from the BBC World Service and "Africa Past and Present."
Happy (free) listening.
Student Post: Kaganzi Lester
KAGANZI LESTER
LAW AND CHRISTIAN POLTICAL THOUGHT
Wednesday 04/02/2009
QN: Do you agree with the use of Aristotelian thought by Christian philosophers? Are there any advantages or disadvantages that you can discern based on your readings?
Yes I agree with the use of Aristotelian thought by Christian philosophers. I particularly find that, Aristotle’s regard for the world as made up of individuals occurring in fixed natural kinds; each with an in-built specific pattern of development and growth towards proper self-realization as a true specimen of its type, ties in befittingly well with the Christian doctrine of intelligent design thus by implication making proof of an all powerful, all knowing, loving and limitless Christian God, a mere logical conclusion.
The notion of causality, as introduced by Aristotle demands for a balance between the empirical claims based on observation and sense experience, and formalism based on rational deduction. This appropriately balanced position strengthens the Christian doctrine of higher purpose and scriptural claims like, `all creation is ordered for the sole reason of worship of God. In this empirical climate, ideas like these are guaranteed to flourish as opposed to formalism.
I also particularly like and agree with the position of Aristotle when he contends that the “four causes” of; `matter cause’, ` efficient cause’, `formal cause’, and `final cause’; provide for better understanding of nature, man and everything around us. This approach of appreciation of nature, coupled with the pursuit of virtue, together with causality, provide a very realistic and inspirational grounding of thought which is by far more compatible with Christian doctrines of God’s purpose for man before and after the fall, right through the patriarchs and all the way to Jesus Christ and how he is the center of all scripture.
I would also like to point out the Aristotelian thought of the community or polis being greater than the individual as going a long way in fostering sacrifice, servant leadership and the idea of a higher calling; all of which are central to Christianity.
It is therefore no wonder that Aquinas managed to marry the two, Aristotelian thought and Christian doctrine, thereby fulfilling his teacher’s prophecy of “the ox will fill the world with his bellowing”. Even exceedingly so!
In my opinion Aristotelian thought is by far the most practical and thus more real philosophy on offer at the time, and that being so, semi-detached Augustinian philosophies really had no chance against it. And they befittingly were cast aside.
I think that Christian doctrines are more profoundly evident when examined empirically, thus a theme like all nature and the universe is created by one supreme being are evidenced by the obvious intelligent design and causality ripple effect. Other themes like the struggle for moral virtue cut across the two sides.
However Aristotelian thought imports certain weaknesses into the Christian philosophy; an example being the blatant ignoring of the creation story and the obvious disparities in the existence of other communities other than Adam’s descendants, which have haunted the church for long and this can partly be blamed on Aristotle’s ignoring of the subject.
I find Aristotle’s thoughts apologetic in nature when introduced in the religious sphere by Aquinas, to the extent that the Christian faith is viewed very suspiciously by other faiths.
Ideas like the sanction of slavery, dominion and killing a tyrant leader as solutions to the various relevant problems is not Christian-like and thus is a deviation from Christian doctrines and problematic at best.
Lastly I will point out that admitting inequality as natural is at variance with Christian philosophy.
In conclusion therefore, I would like to emphasize that the weaknesses notwithstanding, Aristotelian thought is by far the best philosophy for Christian philosophers as evidenced by the influence and popularity of Aquinas as one who excelled by integrating the two sides and succeeding at that.
LAW AND CHRISTIAN POLTICAL THOUGHT
Wednesday 04/02/2009
QN: Do you agree with the use of Aristotelian thought by Christian philosophers? Are there any advantages or disadvantages that you can discern based on your readings?
Yes I agree with the use of Aristotelian thought by Christian philosophers. I particularly find that, Aristotle’s regard for the world as made up of individuals occurring in fixed natural kinds; each with an in-built specific pattern of development and growth towards proper self-realization as a true specimen of its type, ties in befittingly well with the Christian doctrine of intelligent design thus by implication making proof of an all powerful, all knowing, loving and limitless Christian God, a mere logical conclusion.
The notion of causality, as introduced by Aristotle demands for a balance between the empirical claims based on observation and sense experience, and formalism based on rational deduction. This appropriately balanced position strengthens the Christian doctrine of higher purpose and scriptural claims like, `all creation is ordered for the sole reason of worship of God. In this empirical climate, ideas like these are guaranteed to flourish as opposed to formalism.
I also particularly like and agree with the position of Aristotle when he contends that the “four causes” of; `matter cause’, ` efficient cause’, `formal cause’, and `final cause’; provide for better understanding of nature, man and everything around us. This approach of appreciation of nature, coupled with the pursuit of virtue, together with causality, provide a very realistic and inspirational grounding of thought which is by far more compatible with Christian doctrines of God’s purpose for man before and after the fall, right through the patriarchs and all the way to Jesus Christ and how he is the center of all scripture.
I would also like to point out the Aristotelian thought of the community or polis being greater than the individual as going a long way in fostering sacrifice, servant leadership and the idea of a higher calling; all of which are central to Christianity.
It is therefore no wonder that Aquinas managed to marry the two, Aristotelian thought and Christian doctrine, thereby fulfilling his teacher’s prophecy of “the ox will fill the world with his bellowing”. Even exceedingly so!
In my opinion Aristotelian thought is by far the most practical and thus more real philosophy on offer at the time, and that being so, semi-detached Augustinian philosophies really had no chance against it. And they befittingly were cast aside.
I think that Christian doctrines are more profoundly evident when examined empirically, thus a theme like all nature and the universe is created by one supreme being are evidenced by the obvious intelligent design and causality ripple effect. Other themes like the struggle for moral virtue cut across the two sides.
However Aristotelian thought imports certain weaknesses into the Christian philosophy; an example being the blatant ignoring of the creation story and the obvious disparities in the existence of other communities other than Adam’s descendants, which have haunted the church for long and this can partly be blamed on Aristotle’s ignoring of the subject.
I find Aristotle’s thoughts apologetic in nature when introduced in the religious sphere by Aquinas, to the extent that the Christian faith is viewed very suspiciously by other faiths.
Ideas like the sanction of slavery, dominion and killing a tyrant leader as solutions to the various relevant problems is not Christian-like and thus is a deviation from Christian doctrines and problematic at best.
Lastly I will point out that admitting inequality as natural is at variance with Christian philosophy.
In conclusion therefore, I would like to emphasize that the weaknesses notwithstanding, Aristotelian thought is by far the best philosophy for Christian philosophers as evidenced by the influence and popularity of Aquinas as one who excelled by integrating the two sides and succeeding at that.
Student Post: Nabalende Lynda (St. Bernard)
Nabalende Lynda
Uganda Christian University
Of Gregory, Bernard and Wycliffe who would be best equipped to advise the church and the governmental leaders in Uganda today? Why?
In my opinion, I would choose Bernard as the best equipped for such advice because of the following reasons:
Bernard addresses the day today activities and the constraints that are taking place in the church and government leaders and how they have thrown away their responsibilities and he is not happy with them. He first acknowledges the supremacy and the universality of the laws but declares that their fiduciary and ministerial character must bee bounded by faith and righteousness, to bring good order not only in the church but also in governments.
The fact that leaders both in the church and government use their positions for their own financial gain, he poses a question to tem from the Holy Scriptures that ‘did Paul in his slavery aid men in the acquisition of mere financial gain? Yet his time was characterized by all kinds of people as those we are facing in Uganda today that would do any thing to get the kind of authority that Paul had. But he did not do it any way and provides a solution that truly shows that, this man for whom life was Christ and death was gain, made himself a slave to win more for Christ and not to increase the profits of avarice.
Bernard still wonders whether it wouldn’t be much more worthy of the apostolic office to be much more beneficial to a person’s own conscience and much more fruitful to the church of God if the different persons sited in these offices would listen to more of Paul’s statements like, ‘you were bought at a price, do not become the slaves of men’ 1 Corinthians 7:23 because he is one of the land mark leaders that the world has ever had.
Bernard still writes his advice to the church and governmental leaders based on scripture as pointed out earlier. He rages them to be wise and this not only applies to the leaders but also the people like us who will follow in the footsteps of these leaders. He quotes 1 Corinthians 6:5 in response to what the apostle thinks that, ‘is there no wise man among you who can judge between brothers?’ he also says that shame on us who let those who despise the church most to judge it. He believes we are the successors of Paul and we are usurping a contemptible office and wondering what is becoming of us. That is why he quotes a bishop who says, ‘no one who fights for God entangles himself with the secular affairs.’
I couldn’t agree with Bernard more, his ideas are the ideal advises to our church and government leaders. It cannot go without notice that our leaders in Uganda know what they are supposed to do in these circumstances and in case there are any who do not know, they do not want to hear it and the people they are supposed to serve end up being compromised.
That is why Bernard posses a challenge to us Christians to uphold the purpose of God and remember tat if we are given the right in heaven to even judge the angels in heaven, are these worldly things worth fighting for.
He challenges us lawyers to make it a custom to become involved in only cases where it is absolutely necessary (and this will not be in every case) and decide them carefully but briefly and to avoid frustrating a d contrived delay. He gives an example of a case of a widow that requires my attention like wise a case of a poor man and those who have no means to pay.
Uganda Christian University
Of Gregory, Bernard and Wycliffe who would be best equipped to advise the church and the governmental leaders in Uganda today? Why?
In my opinion, I would choose Bernard as the best equipped for such advice because of the following reasons:
Bernard addresses the day today activities and the constraints that are taking place in the church and government leaders and how they have thrown away their responsibilities and he is not happy with them. He first acknowledges the supremacy and the universality of the laws but declares that their fiduciary and ministerial character must bee bounded by faith and righteousness, to bring good order not only in the church but also in governments.
The fact that leaders both in the church and government use their positions for their own financial gain, he poses a question to tem from the Holy Scriptures that ‘did Paul in his slavery aid men in the acquisition of mere financial gain? Yet his time was characterized by all kinds of people as those we are facing in Uganda today that would do any thing to get the kind of authority that Paul had. But he did not do it any way and provides a solution that truly shows that, this man for whom life was Christ and death was gain, made himself a slave to win more for Christ and not to increase the profits of avarice.
Bernard still wonders whether it wouldn’t be much more worthy of the apostolic office to be much more beneficial to a person’s own conscience and much more fruitful to the church of God if the different persons sited in these offices would listen to more of Paul’s statements like, ‘you were bought at a price, do not become the slaves of men’ 1 Corinthians 7:23 because he is one of the land mark leaders that the world has ever had.
Bernard still writes his advice to the church and governmental leaders based on scripture as pointed out earlier. He rages them to be wise and this not only applies to the leaders but also the people like us who will follow in the footsteps of these leaders. He quotes 1 Corinthians 6:5 in response to what the apostle thinks that, ‘is there no wise man among you who can judge between brothers?’ he also says that shame on us who let those who despise the church most to judge it. He believes we are the successors of Paul and we are usurping a contemptible office and wondering what is becoming of us. That is why he quotes a bishop who says, ‘no one who fights for God entangles himself with the secular affairs.’
I couldn’t agree with Bernard more, his ideas are the ideal advises to our church and government leaders. It cannot go without notice that our leaders in Uganda know what they are supposed to do in these circumstances and in case there are any who do not know, they do not want to hear it and the people they are supposed to serve end up being compromised.
That is why Bernard posses a challenge to us Christians to uphold the purpose of God and remember tat if we are given the right in heaven to even judge the angels in heaven, are these worldly things worth fighting for.
He challenges us lawyers to make it a custom to become involved in only cases where it is absolutely necessary (and this will not be in every case) and decide them carefully but briefly and to avoid frustrating a d contrived delay. He gives an example of a case of a widow that requires my attention like wise a case of a poor man and those who have no means to pay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)