Umberto Eco, in the preface to the American edition of his book, Travels in hyper reality, said he liked to teach to expound still imperfect ideas and hear the students’ reaction. He called it a “difficult game” because it didn’t always work that you were reassured when you met agreement or had doubts when faced with dissent. Then he says something I found truly profound;
“Sometimes you have to follow the opposite course; Distrust agreement and find in dissent the conformation of your own intuitions.”
That for me epitomizes the nature of Luther’s political philosophy. Martin Luther, for all intents and purposes, was a man who spent pretty much all his life swimming up the proverbial stream. He was a monk who married a nun and then spent the rest of the tie causing all manner of mayhem in the Catholic Church.
I think it’s difficult not to like Luther. He is the kind of rebel you root for and hope his cause is furthered. It seems like he got tired of all the theory and rhetoric of the Catholic Church and decided to come up with a better plan.
His philosophy is based on the idea of dual membership, as ‘O’ Donovan and O’Donovan puts it. The idea is that every Christian is subject to the temporal law and sword, that this is something within the will of God. He talks about Romans 13 that goes on at length about being subject to governing authority and 1Peter 2:13-14 which pretty much reiterates Romans. He says that it is God’s will that temporal authority be used to punish wickedness and protect righteousness.
Luther believes that temporal laws exists or at least needs to exist because of how few Christians there actually are. He talks about true believers having the holy spirit who makes them good; convicts them of sin and righteousness so to speak. He supports this with 1Timothy 1:9; “The law is not laid down not for the first but for the lawless.”
In the same breath, this renegade teaches the Christians to be followers of the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount. He clearly demonstrates the fact that Christians should be in the world but not of it – salt and light. He agrees entirely with Christ in Mathew 22:21 when He says, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”
He goes on and on about different things; church and state, conduct of believers and the like. Not unlike Eco, he was expounding on his still imperfect ideas and learning through experimentation. Regardless of how much I like the guy though, we don’t see eye to eye on every count. I don’t think one should pick and choose the parts of the Bible to believe in just because some contradict your beliefs. His dislike of the book of James, because in it James talks about faith without works being dead, is one of the things I disagree with Luther on.
There is a song by Maroon 5 titled ‘Moves like Jagger’ and it surprisingly got me thinking about Martin Luther. The song title and the lines of the song pretty much give you the impression that, Adam Levine, the guy singing it, is cool or awesome of whatever such word you’d use to describe him because he associates himself with Mick Jagger. Everyone knows Mick Jagger and the Rolling stones and how profound their music is and so by drawing a comparison between himself and Mick, he is saying to everyone, “I am that good!”
I think of Luther and the greatest compliment I can give him is; he has the moves like the apostle Paul. In a lot of ways, they are like the same person. Paul, formerly Saul, became this ‘rebel’ after seeing the light on the road to Damascus and started a remarked journey fighting the very institution he had once so fervently represented. Through his letters, he helped the churches see for themselves how remarkable the gifts of salvation were and how they should live know the inheritance they had.
Luther, the Paul of the reformation, pretty much followed in his footsteps. He taught faith where the Catholic Church taught the law, the spoke up for what he believed even though doing that was dangerous and he made a major difference with his writings.
So, what are my thoughts on Luther’s political philosophy and writing style? He was radical and passionate and driven: A true game changer with moves like Paul.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Does God have dominion over the world? by Ruth Achilla
The first couple of times I read the question, I was stumped. I mean, how am I supposed to respond to that? I am a Christian and I believe in God and all so the right answer is certainly. Then, I thought about it and tried to figure why I was so sure.
The philosophers certainly thought He did. Irenaeus quotes Paul’s letter to the Romans which basically states that people should be subject to those in authority because they are ordained of God who is pretty much the last point of call in the power hierarchy – the supreme who everyone has to answer too ultimately.
Something else that Irenaeus said caught my attention. I mean it’s all very well that God put a bunch of people in authority over the rest of us. That has been said over and over but the idea that He put the devil under the power of men I feel is profound. The truth is, not only does God have dominion over the world; He has no qualms sharing this sovereign power with men. Talk about a God who is not threatened! The way God exercises His power and authority is a far cry from most of the leaders that I have seen around. There is always the lingering fear of being usurped and so instead of sharing their authority as God does, they often hoard their power and everybody suffers as a result their insecurity.
I think that God’s dominion is evident in the fact that He is just. He cannot stand sin and that causes a rift between Him and man. At the same time though, He is aware of our weakness and because of this, He sends His son to bear all our sin and unrighteousness upon himself. He does this because He is a fair judge. I think in every judgment, the ‘accused’ should have had a choice. By sending Christ, God gives the world the choice for good and for life. In the end, judgment has to be passed because the one who effects the sentence has to see it carried out. As Augustine of Hippos says, “remove justice and what are Kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a large scale?” Judgment, I think, is His way of saying, “I am keeping tabs on the lot of you, so be good.”
In the end of course, like the children that we are, not everyone listens and He has to punish the disobedient. This is the responsibility that comes with His authority over the world.
Then at the same time I think, He has all this power, right? He is the one who put our leaders in place and so on. If He really does control everything, He kind of is making a mess of running things. The political scene right now is going to the dogs and our belief systems are warped. Very few people seem to be living as He intended at all but He still lets that happen even when everything seems to go from bad to worse.
The truth is, so many things about the way God runs things are impossible for me to understand. Often times I find myself comparing the way God runs things to the way a ‘good’ leader would. When you really think about it, there is no way you can draw comparisons. God’s ways are a labyrinth of complexities that the human mind cannot even begin to conceive.
I was listening earlier today to a song by Cece Winans and the lyrics kind of stood out to me. She sung;
I am the I am, I am all that you need
I can Yes, I can and no it ain’t too hard for me.
Do you know do you really believe?
Every day, every night of your life… I am.
So I thought; we could throw arguments back and forth all day and spend endless hours deliberating over all the things that are representations of His dominion but in the end, it’s His air we breathe. You really cannot do better than that!
The philosophers certainly thought He did. Irenaeus quotes Paul’s letter to the Romans which basically states that people should be subject to those in authority because they are ordained of God who is pretty much the last point of call in the power hierarchy – the supreme who everyone has to answer too ultimately.
Something else that Irenaeus said caught my attention. I mean it’s all very well that God put a bunch of people in authority over the rest of us. That has been said over and over but the idea that He put the devil under the power of men I feel is profound. The truth is, not only does God have dominion over the world; He has no qualms sharing this sovereign power with men. Talk about a God who is not threatened! The way God exercises His power and authority is a far cry from most of the leaders that I have seen around. There is always the lingering fear of being usurped and so instead of sharing their authority as God does, they often hoard their power and everybody suffers as a result their insecurity.
I think that God’s dominion is evident in the fact that He is just. He cannot stand sin and that causes a rift between Him and man. At the same time though, He is aware of our weakness and because of this, He sends His son to bear all our sin and unrighteousness upon himself. He does this because He is a fair judge. I think in every judgment, the ‘accused’ should have had a choice. By sending Christ, God gives the world the choice for good and for life. In the end, judgment has to be passed because the one who effects the sentence has to see it carried out. As Augustine of Hippos says, “remove justice and what are Kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a large scale?” Judgment, I think, is His way of saying, “I am keeping tabs on the lot of you, so be good.”
In the end of course, like the children that we are, not everyone listens and He has to punish the disobedient. This is the responsibility that comes with His authority over the world.
Then at the same time I think, He has all this power, right? He is the one who put our leaders in place and so on. If He really does control everything, He kind of is making a mess of running things. The political scene right now is going to the dogs and our belief systems are warped. Very few people seem to be living as He intended at all but He still lets that happen even when everything seems to go from bad to worse.
The truth is, so many things about the way God runs things are impossible for me to understand. Often times I find myself comparing the way God runs things to the way a ‘good’ leader would. When you really think about it, there is no way you can draw comparisons. God’s ways are a labyrinth of complexities that the human mind cannot even begin to conceive.
I was listening earlier today to a song by Cece Winans and the lyrics kind of stood out to me. She sung;
I am the I am, I am all that you need
I can Yes, I can and no it ain’t too hard for me.
Do you know do you really believe?
Every day, every night of your life… I am.
So I thought; we could throw arguments back and forth all day and spend endless hours deliberating over all the things that are representations of His dominion but in the end, it’s His air we breathe. You really cannot do better than that!
What role does God play in modern politics? by Ruth Achilla
My first reaction to the question was a desire to revise it. I thought it should be, ‘What role should God play in modern politics?’ The way I see things, the political scene right now has been so secularized, it’s nearly impossible to imagine God actually participating actively in such a broken down system.
Strangely, a few countries like Uganda throw in a few lines about God in the National anthem. We even have our leaders swear on the Bible as they assume office but in truth, the way political offices are run makes the absence of any true commitment to God painfully obvious.
Let’s go back in time a little, to when God was the central point of the political scene. In Genesis 1:26 (paraphrased) God says, let’s make man in our own image and let them have dominion over the earth. Undoubtedly, it’s clear that God is not anti leadership and he wanted man to have a major role in the creation process.
God seemed to desire a partnership with man and also He shared his power with him. Well as the story goes, man fell and the dynamic shifted from the partnership and fellowship that has earlier existed to there being a few handpicked ‘judges’ who were God’s mouth piece. Then in 1Samuel 8, the people demand for a thing because they want to be like everyday else. By making this demand, God said to Samuel that the people had forsaken Him and betrayed Him after everything they had been through together.
Fast forward back to the present and you realize that things have not really changed from the time of the Israelites and Saul. There is still that constant search for the new revolutionary ‘king’ to lead them only new, the ‘them’ is us and we are repeating the same mistake over again. I think what we do not realize is that God really is not a dictator. I mean he could have a political overhaul in the blink of an eye and throw all the corrupt leaders out of cabinet if he wanted to. He does not do that. As Jesus said to Pilate before his crucifixion, all the authority that Pilate had was God given. This is reiterated in Romans 13 which teaches that there is no authority except for God and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Contrary to what a lot of people think, God is not the man in the sky, looking down on us; irrelevant, archaic and removed from the scheme of things. He actually is responsible for the leaders because there can be no authority that He has not appointed. I think, what we need to understand finally is that to operate with authority, we have to be under authority. There has to be a willingness on our part to stop sideling Him and imagining that God will be pacified by insincere demonstrations of commitment and loyalty. What he wants, like Amos says, is righteousness and justice, not sacrifice.
I think that the role of God is hindered in modern politics not only by the controlling, corrupting thirst for power but also a refusal by leaders who could make a difference to take the leadership reins and restore the partnership that existed before with God.
God is not at war with man, neither is He a weakling with a low self esteem who needs flattery to make Him feel better about Himself. No, He is sovereign and He already has all the power. I think what He is saying to us is when we have a choice, we should choose right.
Strangely, a few countries like Uganda throw in a few lines about God in the National anthem. We even have our leaders swear on the Bible as they assume office but in truth, the way political offices are run makes the absence of any true commitment to God painfully obvious.
Let’s go back in time a little, to when God was the central point of the political scene. In Genesis 1:26 (paraphrased) God says, let’s make man in our own image and let them have dominion over the earth. Undoubtedly, it’s clear that God is not anti leadership and he wanted man to have a major role in the creation process.
God seemed to desire a partnership with man and also He shared his power with him. Well as the story goes, man fell and the dynamic shifted from the partnership and fellowship that has earlier existed to there being a few handpicked ‘judges’ who were God’s mouth piece. Then in 1Samuel 8, the people demand for a thing because they want to be like everyday else. By making this demand, God said to Samuel that the people had forsaken Him and betrayed Him after everything they had been through together.
Fast forward back to the present and you realize that things have not really changed from the time of the Israelites and Saul. There is still that constant search for the new revolutionary ‘king’ to lead them only new, the ‘them’ is us and we are repeating the same mistake over again. I think what we do not realize is that God really is not a dictator. I mean he could have a political overhaul in the blink of an eye and throw all the corrupt leaders out of cabinet if he wanted to. He does not do that. As Jesus said to Pilate before his crucifixion, all the authority that Pilate had was God given. This is reiterated in Romans 13 which teaches that there is no authority except for God and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Contrary to what a lot of people think, God is not the man in the sky, looking down on us; irrelevant, archaic and removed from the scheme of things. He actually is responsible for the leaders because there can be no authority that He has not appointed. I think, what we need to understand finally is that to operate with authority, we have to be under authority. There has to be a willingness on our part to stop sideling Him and imagining that God will be pacified by insincere demonstrations of commitment and loyalty. What he wants, like Amos says, is righteousness and justice, not sacrifice.
I think that the role of God is hindered in modern politics not only by the controlling, corrupting thirst for power but also a refusal by leaders who could make a difference to take the leadership reins and restore the partnership that existed before with God.
God is not at war with man, neither is He a weakling with a low self esteem who needs flattery to make Him feel better about Himself. No, He is sovereign and He already has all the power. I think what He is saying to us is when we have a choice, we should choose right.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Does freedom of religion improve the political well-being of a country? by Sarah Rubombora
In many ways, I would say that freedom of religion is important for any country’s political well-being. The statistics presented in Pew’s report reveal the dangers of not having specific laws allowing freedom of religion as well as an established social practice of adhering to those laws. Human beings are complex creatures and when bunched together on basis of faith it is harder for them to live in peaceful co-existence with each other. Freedom of religion is one of those ideas intended to stop the marginalization of one religious group in favour of another with each having the freedom to worship. It is interesting how even when freedom of religion is recognised by state law, its implementation does not necessarily translate into peaceful co-existence or an accepted adherence of those laws by the society in which they exist.
The BBC news recently featured a story of Egyptian Coptic Christian protests in the capital against the oppression they were receiving by their Muslim counterparts. Instead of being heard, their peaceful protest was brutally suppressed by the military interim government who reportedly drove an army truck into the crowd of protestors. Egyptian Law does not prohibit Coptic Christians from practicing their religion but among the people of Egypt who are mainly Muslim, there is a growing consensus that Egypt should fully assert its Muslim identity. This leaves little room for religious tolerance of competing religions especially Christianity.
However, it would make sense if a state chose a religion to adhere to based on its majority following among the people. It would give clear boundaries to those of contrasting religions on how far they can go to assert themselves in a society that does not appreciate their views or presence. It would also avoid a long line of battles that would stem from the inevitable bias of government towards the dominant religion. There would be a lot more peaceful co-existence based on the people’s values. Not everyone can be made happy, but by pleasing the majority a government can go a long way to bringing maximum happiness to its people.
Having a State religion favoured by majority of the people and implemented by the government is important. Pews report put forward an interesting discovery of how countries that have gone to great lengths to implement freedom of religion and non-discrimination such as the United Kingdom and France have ended up on the opposite side of the scale by oppressing the very religions they are trying to streamline. Nurses in Britain can be dismissed from their jobs if they pray with patients and France has the ban on wearing Muslim headscarves in schools. Rather than pretending to be neutral, states should just go with the majority and be fair by recognising the need for other religions to have a voice even if it is not the dominant voice.
Freedom of religion from the perspective that everyone has equal benefits and freedom from being not openly opposed is unrealistic. If Pew’s report only recorded religious intolerance from the period of mid-2006 to mid-2008 in the age of democracy, global co-operation and the United Nations with its numerous Conventions and agreements that actively promote freedom of religion, it should be clear that it cannot always work the way it is codified in law. The political well-being of a country rests on the ability of a government to recognise the needs and wants of its people and find a peaceful way of implementing and maintaining those desires.
In Countries with two or more dominant religions, an emphasis on recognising each religion in various aspects of governance and maintaining a proper balance especially in areas where people of those religions mix will be the test of success in such a country. Mutual respect must be demanded but in recognition of dominant religions and clear boundaries for where those religions have an upper hand in society. Christians and Muslims in Uganda have gone as far as creating an Inter-religious Council that allows Ugandans of the dominant religious groups to have a say on what laws should be put in place against human sacrifice and against homosexuality. This kind of co-existence improves the political well-being in a State and achieves what freedom of religion is meant to achieve on a more realistic scale.
Freedom of religion may attempt to improve the political well-being of a country but it does not always achieve this because it fails to recognise the need for recognition of dominant faiths within society and respect for their position. Its call for non-discrimination and peaceful co-existence is important and needed but it is doomed to fail in implementation where streamlining all religions is the method used. There has to be a recognition of dominant religions by governments as a starting point and from there a culture of respect and peaceful co-existence fostered from that source. People want peace, they do not want to be made to believe one thing or the other. However, if respecting the beliefs of another religion while freely and openly practicing one’s own is the way one can attain such peace in an ever-changing world, then majority of people will choose peaceful co-existence to religious and political conflict.
The BBC news recently featured a story of Egyptian Coptic Christian protests in the capital against the oppression they were receiving by their Muslim counterparts. Instead of being heard, their peaceful protest was brutally suppressed by the military interim government who reportedly drove an army truck into the crowd of protestors. Egyptian Law does not prohibit Coptic Christians from practicing their religion but among the people of Egypt who are mainly Muslim, there is a growing consensus that Egypt should fully assert its Muslim identity. This leaves little room for religious tolerance of competing religions especially Christianity.
However, it would make sense if a state chose a religion to adhere to based on its majority following among the people. It would give clear boundaries to those of contrasting religions on how far they can go to assert themselves in a society that does not appreciate their views or presence. It would also avoid a long line of battles that would stem from the inevitable bias of government towards the dominant religion. There would be a lot more peaceful co-existence based on the people’s values. Not everyone can be made happy, but by pleasing the majority a government can go a long way to bringing maximum happiness to its people.
Having a State religion favoured by majority of the people and implemented by the government is important. Pews report put forward an interesting discovery of how countries that have gone to great lengths to implement freedom of religion and non-discrimination such as the United Kingdom and France have ended up on the opposite side of the scale by oppressing the very religions they are trying to streamline. Nurses in Britain can be dismissed from their jobs if they pray with patients and France has the ban on wearing Muslim headscarves in schools. Rather than pretending to be neutral, states should just go with the majority and be fair by recognising the need for other religions to have a voice even if it is not the dominant voice.
Freedom of religion from the perspective that everyone has equal benefits and freedom from being not openly opposed is unrealistic. If Pew’s report only recorded religious intolerance from the period of mid-2006 to mid-2008 in the age of democracy, global co-operation and the United Nations with its numerous Conventions and agreements that actively promote freedom of religion, it should be clear that it cannot always work the way it is codified in law. The political well-being of a country rests on the ability of a government to recognise the needs and wants of its people and find a peaceful way of implementing and maintaining those desires.
In Countries with two or more dominant religions, an emphasis on recognising each religion in various aspects of governance and maintaining a proper balance especially in areas where people of those religions mix will be the test of success in such a country. Mutual respect must be demanded but in recognition of dominant religions and clear boundaries for where those religions have an upper hand in society. Christians and Muslims in Uganda have gone as far as creating an Inter-religious Council that allows Ugandans of the dominant religious groups to have a say on what laws should be put in place against human sacrifice and against homosexuality. This kind of co-existence improves the political well-being in a State and achieves what freedom of religion is meant to achieve on a more realistic scale.
Freedom of religion may attempt to improve the political well-being of a country but it does not always achieve this because it fails to recognise the need for recognition of dominant faiths within society and respect for their position. Its call for non-discrimination and peaceful co-existence is important and needed but it is doomed to fail in implementation where streamlining all religions is the method used. There has to be a recognition of dominant religions by governments as a starting point and from there a culture of respect and peaceful co-existence fostered from that source. People want peace, they do not want to be made to believe one thing or the other. However, if respecting the beliefs of another religion while freely and openly practicing one’s own is the way one can attain such peace in an ever-changing world, then majority of people will choose peaceful co-existence to religious and political conflict.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
What role does Christianity play in the Constitutions of Majority Christian African Nations? by Kakuru Timothy
It appears that having a majority Christian population these days is about as influential in the making of a constitution as religious leaders speaking out on violence. I find it odd that the states that boast a rich heritage in the Christian faith eventually seem to, in well-meaning be led down the most unchristian path.
Today, A constitution is not considered democratic unless it enshrines the Fundamental Human Rights that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights dictates – however these have long departed from the concept of Christianity to just stemming from some “inalienable right.” Since the Western world deems the structure of a democracy to be a suitable solution to all the social problems that mar the face of Africa, African states have vehemently strove to adopt it. Even faced with histories so tainted by, repugnant culture, civil disobedience and cultural inequalities based on population demographics that render democracy a comic show of hopeless bravado; democracy is the choice. And what shouts “democracy” more than a state led by a constitution put together with the support of the population? Apparently, nothing!
Uganda, Kenya and South Africa are just some of the African countries that have over the course of history been described as Christian and have adopted Constitutions based on democracy believing earnestly in the ability of democracy to change an ailing nation for the better. However, the question is; has Christianity played a role in the Constitution making process? These three countries are used as a case study;
Uganda is an East African country with over 88% of its population Christian. In the constitution making process of Uganda, the Uganda Joint Christian council played a role to reflect the sentiments of the religious population of Uganda. The human rights attributed to the constitution and also the freedoms granted for worship all reflect a Christian sentiment. However, some provisions such as that of the state being able to authorise the termination of a life may be deemed as against Christianity. In the Odoki Commission (the study carried out to determine the content of the constitution), the Chief Justice as he then was found that a majority of Ugandans supported the death penalty as a form of punishment as it was part of culture for someone who had killed a person, to also themselves be killed. Therefore, it appears that the majority of Ugandans which certainly includes Christians preferred to be ruled under customary norms at the expense of the Christian understanding of the sanctity of life.
South Africa. With its history of Apartheid rule characterised by a racial discrimination so intense that people were actually jailed for having sexual intercourse with those of a different race enacted its constitution in 1996. Although there was an intention at adhering to what are considered Christian principles, the underlying motive behind the enactment of this constitution was making sure that the atrocities that were committed against people during the apartheid rule were never repeated again. This is why the constitution is so preoccupied with human rights. Although human rights are a Christian sentiment- after all, viewing every human as equal in the eyes of God and as a neighbour is as Christian as we can get, I believe the South African constitution goes overboard with the human rights to the extent that it side-lines morality for those rights. Although Christianity can be credited for bringing morality and human rights to the foreground when making a constitution- it has taken backseat to the numerous “freedoms” and inherent rights in South Africa, getting more and more away from religious principle even though (as of 2001) an apparent 79.8% of all South Africans are reportedly Christian.
In The Republic of Kenya, Just like in South Africa, the constitution was drafted and enacted after political turmoil that left many Kenyans injured and others killed. it appears the newly enacted constitution had a strong opposition from the Christian community. A joint statement signed off by leaders from 30 different Christian groups and denominations claimed that “the good has been mixed with evil sections that affect the moral life and rights of this country in irreversible and fundamental ways.” In a country where 78% of the population is Christian , I would expect that if ever Christians had a say what went into their countries Constitution- Kenyan’s Christians would be them. On 4th August 2010 the people of Kenya voted for the Constitution which in promulgation brought into legality abortion, despite the Church leaders crying themselves hoarse over the matter. I found this frankly exasperating and I’m sure so did the church leaders who vehemently opposed this law.
Is Christian morality back seated for what is regarded as freedom of individuals? It appears so, our law promulgators cannot entirely be blamed for they enact laws they know the population will support and follow- and in the case of Kenya, laws voted for by the people. Where disaster has claimed lives and livelihoods, erased peace and restricted freedoms the result appears to be a nation seeking unbounded rights. I find it hard to distinguish these countries constitutions from hedonistic societies. It is apparent to me that although a country has got a large Christian community- where it has gone through disastrous strife, the “conservative” Christian restrictions enshrined in morality are foregone for the freedom which the people have been deprived. In this way Christianity is given second place to freedom of choice even when the deciding country is majorly Christian.
Sources
http://www.southafrica.info/about/people/population.htm
http://www.christianpost.com/news/kenyan-christian-leaders-stand-together-against-proposed-constitution-46117/
Today, A constitution is not considered democratic unless it enshrines the Fundamental Human Rights that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights dictates – however these have long departed from the concept of Christianity to just stemming from some “inalienable right.” Since the Western world deems the structure of a democracy to be a suitable solution to all the social problems that mar the face of Africa, African states have vehemently strove to adopt it. Even faced with histories so tainted by, repugnant culture, civil disobedience and cultural inequalities based on population demographics that render democracy a comic show of hopeless bravado; democracy is the choice. And what shouts “democracy” more than a state led by a constitution put together with the support of the population? Apparently, nothing!
Uganda, Kenya and South Africa are just some of the African countries that have over the course of history been described as Christian and have adopted Constitutions based on democracy believing earnestly in the ability of democracy to change an ailing nation for the better. However, the question is; has Christianity played a role in the Constitution making process? These three countries are used as a case study;
Uganda is an East African country with over 88% of its population Christian. In the constitution making process of Uganda, the Uganda Joint Christian council played a role to reflect the sentiments of the religious population of Uganda. The human rights attributed to the constitution and also the freedoms granted for worship all reflect a Christian sentiment. However, some provisions such as that of the state being able to authorise the termination of a life may be deemed as against Christianity. In the Odoki Commission (the study carried out to determine the content of the constitution), the Chief Justice as he then was found that a majority of Ugandans supported the death penalty as a form of punishment as it was part of culture for someone who had killed a person, to also themselves be killed. Therefore, it appears that the majority of Ugandans which certainly includes Christians preferred to be ruled under customary norms at the expense of the Christian understanding of the sanctity of life.
South Africa. With its history of Apartheid rule characterised by a racial discrimination so intense that people were actually jailed for having sexual intercourse with those of a different race enacted its constitution in 1996. Although there was an intention at adhering to what are considered Christian principles, the underlying motive behind the enactment of this constitution was making sure that the atrocities that were committed against people during the apartheid rule were never repeated again. This is why the constitution is so preoccupied with human rights. Although human rights are a Christian sentiment- after all, viewing every human as equal in the eyes of God and as a neighbour is as Christian as we can get, I believe the South African constitution goes overboard with the human rights to the extent that it side-lines morality for those rights. Although Christianity can be credited for bringing morality and human rights to the foreground when making a constitution- it has taken backseat to the numerous “freedoms” and inherent rights in South Africa, getting more and more away from religious principle even though (as of 2001) an apparent 79.8% of all South Africans are reportedly Christian.
In The Republic of Kenya, Just like in South Africa, the constitution was drafted and enacted after political turmoil that left many Kenyans injured and others killed. it appears the newly enacted constitution had a strong opposition from the Christian community. A joint statement signed off by leaders from 30 different Christian groups and denominations claimed that “the good has been mixed with evil sections that affect the moral life and rights of this country in irreversible and fundamental ways.” In a country where 78% of the population is Christian , I would expect that if ever Christians had a say what went into their countries Constitution- Kenyan’s Christians would be them. On 4th August 2010 the people of Kenya voted for the Constitution which in promulgation brought into legality abortion, despite the Church leaders crying themselves hoarse over the matter. I found this frankly exasperating and I’m sure so did the church leaders who vehemently opposed this law.
Is Christian morality back seated for what is regarded as freedom of individuals? It appears so, our law promulgators cannot entirely be blamed for they enact laws they know the population will support and follow- and in the case of Kenya, laws voted for by the people. Where disaster has claimed lives and livelihoods, erased peace and restricted freedoms the result appears to be a nation seeking unbounded rights. I find it hard to distinguish these countries constitutions from hedonistic societies. It is apparent to me that although a country has got a large Christian community- where it has gone through disastrous strife, the “conservative” Christian restrictions enshrined in morality are foregone for the freedom which the people have been deprived. In this way Christianity is given second place to freedom of choice even when the deciding country is majorly Christian.
Sources
http://www.southafrica.info/about/people/population.htm
http://www.christianpost.com/news/kenyan-christian-leaders-stand-together-against-proposed-constitution-46117/
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Links to Student Op-Ed Pieces
Here are links to two pieces written by students of the Law and Christian Political Thought class.
Both pieces are imaginative Op-Ed articles on the "Walk to Work" controversy written in the voice of prominent Christian philosophers from the past.
This piece is written in the voice of Thomas Aquinas by Atukunda Rachael Zaramba.
This piece is written in the voice of Martin Luther by Turinawe Patrick
Both pieces are imaginative Op-Ed articles on the "Walk to Work" controversy written in the voice of prominent Christian philosophers from the past.
This piece is written in the voice of Thomas Aquinas by Atukunda Rachael Zaramba.
This piece is written in the voice of Martin Luther by Turinawe Patrick
What political model is the “most Christian” in sub-Saharan Africa? by Sarah Rubombora
Editor's Note: This student journal entry references the article Democracy and Consensus in African Traditional Politics A Plea for a Non-party Polity by Kwasi Wiredu which is available on the Internet via this Link
What political model is the “most Christian” in sub-Saharan Africa?
This depends on what one considers ‘Christian’ in application to a political order. Based on our last class, I would consider freewill or the ability to choose to be part of a system or support a candidate of one’s choice to govern is that factor on what is Christian in a political model. In that case what/whichever system grants one the most ability to choose without fear or coercion is the “most Christian” political model. I would add another element of a system that upholds moral choices and does not advocate for violence as a ‘Christian’ political model.
I consider there to be three types of political systems in sub-Saharan Africa namely actual/authentic democracies; dictatorial democracies and autocracies. I consider actual democracy to be the “most Christian” political model, only if it contains a representative based Parliament whom citizens vote into office. The aspect of freewill is most evident in that system of politics because from the start, the people get to choose who they want to lead them or make laws on their behalf.
On the other hand, Wiredu’s proposition of a non-partisan, consensus driven political model would naturally take the lead over democracy if it were applicable. It lacks, as he says, the winner takes all approach and caters for the needs of the minority or marginalized groups in society. From a Christian perspective I think of the nature of Jesus and His total disregard for society norms and hierarchies. He is hailed by Christians and non-Christians alike for His down-to-earth approach to human lives and His ability to cut across age, sex, social standing and find common ground on the principles of God. Wiredu would have applauded this bringing together of people and would believe that his model of political order best exemplifies the nature of Christ which is the basis of Christian living.
But, like Wiredu, I do not believe that with all the mix and tension of different cultures and beliefs in modern day societies, that his political model can work. There are too many conflicting interests and those who benefit from the top-down political orders with perks such as power, wealth and recognition are unlikely to welcome a ‘more Christian’ way of politics. But I believe that democracy, if well implemented, is the best example of a Christian political model in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Functioning democracies in countries such as South Africa and Botswana place emphasis on granting their citizens rights and freedoms. Even though there is a clear separation between the church and the state in such countries, the freedom to choose leaders and ideals that are largely symbolic of the moral structure of Christian ethos make democracy a worthwhile choice.
By Sarah Rubombora
What political model is the “most Christian” in sub-Saharan Africa?
This depends on what one considers ‘Christian’ in application to a political order. Based on our last class, I would consider freewill or the ability to choose to be part of a system or support a candidate of one’s choice to govern is that factor on what is Christian in a political model. In that case what/whichever system grants one the most ability to choose without fear or coercion is the “most Christian” political model. I would add another element of a system that upholds moral choices and does not advocate for violence as a ‘Christian’ political model.
I consider there to be three types of political systems in sub-Saharan Africa namely actual/authentic democracies; dictatorial democracies and autocracies. I consider actual democracy to be the “most Christian” political model, only if it contains a representative based Parliament whom citizens vote into office. The aspect of freewill is most evident in that system of politics because from the start, the people get to choose who they want to lead them or make laws on their behalf.
On the other hand, Wiredu’s proposition of a non-partisan, consensus driven political model would naturally take the lead over democracy if it were applicable. It lacks, as he says, the winner takes all approach and caters for the needs of the minority or marginalized groups in society. From a Christian perspective I think of the nature of Jesus and His total disregard for society norms and hierarchies. He is hailed by Christians and non-Christians alike for His down-to-earth approach to human lives and His ability to cut across age, sex, social standing and find common ground on the principles of God. Wiredu would have applauded this bringing together of people and would believe that his model of political order best exemplifies the nature of Christ which is the basis of Christian living.
But, like Wiredu, I do not believe that with all the mix and tension of different cultures and beliefs in modern day societies, that his political model can work. There are too many conflicting interests and those who benefit from the top-down political orders with perks such as power, wealth and recognition are unlikely to welcome a ‘more Christian’ way of politics. But I believe that democracy, if well implemented, is the best example of a Christian political model in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Functioning democracies in countries such as South Africa and Botswana place emphasis on granting their citizens rights and freedoms. Even though there is a clear separation between the church and the state in such countries, the freedom to choose leaders and ideals that are largely symbolic of the moral structure of Christian ethos make democracy a worthwhile choice.
By Sarah Rubombora
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Student Blog Entry: Matsiko Godwin Muhwezi on RIchard Hooker
It is no mean feat to analyse Richard Hooker’s political philosophy as set out in the Law of Ecclesiastical Polity because it is marred with a lot of paradox. He seems to jump from one opinion to a blanket stereotype of its context as if he does not want to take sides. That is what makes it hard to infer the relevance of his philosophy into contemporary Uganda.
When Hooker posits that nature itself teaches laws and statutes to live by, what rings a bell is that since he was greatly influenced by Aristotle, he is a disciple of the natural school of law. On this sort of queue there is not much relevance because with the Constitution as the supreme law of Uganda and the parliament as the chief promulgator, we lean more to the positivist side.
Yet still, if I take his presupposition literally, Hooker suggests that in nature there are laws that extend to us by some sort of osmosis and become second nature. This assertion accounts for the humongous public support for the Anti-Gay (Bahati) Bill of 2009 and the recent anti-Mabira give away movement. The vehemence with which Ugandans unite for such movements despite our ethnic disparities speaks volumes on how nature influences our politics.
Hooker’s Commonweal philosophy is also one that has to be taken with a pinch of salt. He writes that civil society fulfils the nature of man more than any private kind of solitary living. By this he suggests that man is always craving for fellowship and this can be seen in the string of kingdoms that Uganda had long before colonialism. It is however simplistic to assume that with a commonwealth it is always bliss. In Ankole for example the people rejected the reinstatement of their former kingdom because of the inhuman treatment they had suffered against the tyrant kings such as having the king’s spear rest in a human foot!
Another problematic aspect of Hooker’s political philosophy is his classification of the law. He rightly categorises primary laws as those grounded upon sincere nature and secondary laws as those based on the depraved nature. He however abstains from submitting on the contents of the Law of nations. In contemporary Uganda, there is a web of international law seeping its way into our jurisprudence. This for example consists of the green revolution which has given birth to our environmental law. Since it is not easy to distance the law of nations from the law of war and since the primary law such as that of embassage is patronised by political and economic interests, his classification of the law is wanting in a way.
I also find it hard to comprehend the notion that we always consent to the laws that exist. Hooker writes that only wise men should be admitted to law making, that we assent to the laws through our predecessors. Not only is it questionable that our legislators fall into the intellectual ambit that Hooker contemplated but also whether we consent to the directives from sovereign authority. The army of Uganda is wrought with arbitrary legislations and the array of torture cases that are disguised in anti-terrorism legislation leave a lot to be desired.
Furthermore, hooker is unconvincing when he says that laws never change without reason and that such a reason never comes by because the source code remains. This does not even register in the biblical context. For example when Jesus was asked about divorce in the Law of Moses, he said that such a law was merely an accommodation of the callous hearts of the Israelites but that the threshold had since risen. In our political environment, when political ambitions change, laws follow suit and this is clearly evident in the amendment of our Constitution to remove term limits and adopt a multi-party system.
Lastly, Hooker’s advocacy for Ecclesiastical polity has failed to be reflected in Uganda. He writes that the church as a society should adopt Councils General for administrative purposes independent of secular government like the earlier Apostles did. In the Roman Catholic Church there is a semblance of this but that is all there is. Just as his philosophy caused problems with Queen Elizabeth 1 in her capacity as the then head of the Church of England, today the Anglican Church is called the Church of Uganda and enjoys extreme patronage such as when Bishops get cars from the government on their inauguration. It is therefore not a breather to attempt at creating a divide between church and state. After all, with Hooker’s latitudinarian approach, the law has to ultimately be obeyed whether evil or sacred and so even in Uganda our secular law takes precedence over church polity of any sort.
When Hooker posits that nature itself teaches laws and statutes to live by, what rings a bell is that since he was greatly influenced by Aristotle, he is a disciple of the natural school of law. On this sort of queue there is not much relevance because with the Constitution as the supreme law of Uganda and the parliament as the chief promulgator, we lean more to the positivist side.
Yet still, if I take his presupposition literally, Hooker suggests that in nature there are laws that extend to us by some sort of osmosis and become second nature. This assertion accounts for the humongous public support for the Anti-Gay (Bahati) Bill of 2009 and the recent anti-Mabira give away movement. The vehemence with which Ugandans unite for such movements despite our ethnic disparities speaks volumes on how nature influences our politics.
Hooker’s Commonweal philosophy is also one that has to be taken with a pinch of salt. He writes that civil society fulfils the nature of man more than any private kind of solitary living. By this he suggests that man is always craving for fellowship and this can be seen in the string of kingdoms that Uganda had long before colonialism. It is however simplistic to assume that with a commonwealth it is always bliss. In Ankole for example the people rejected the reinstatement of their former kingdom because of the inhuman treatment they had suffered against the tyrant kings such as having the king’s spear rest in a human foot!
Another problematic aspect of Hooker’s political philosophy is his classification of the law. He rightly categorises primary laws as those grounded upon sincere nature and secondary laws as those based on the depraved nature. He however abstains from submitting on the contents of the Law of nations. In contemporary Uganda, there is a web of international law seeping its way into our jurisprudence. This for example consists of the green revolution which has given birth to our environmental law. Since it is not easy to distance the law of nations from the law of war and since the primary law such as that of embassage is patronised by political and economic interests, his classification of the law is wanting in a way.
I also find it hard to comprehend the notion that we always consent to the laws that exist. Hooker writes that only wise men should be admitted to law making, that we assent to the laws through our predecessors. Not only is it questionable that our legislators fall into the intellectual ambit that Hooker contemplated but also whether we consent to the directives from sovereign authority. The army of Uganda is wrought with arbitrary legislations and the array of torture cases that are disguised in anti-terrorism legislation leave a lot to be desired.
Furthermore, hooker is unconvincing when he says that laws never change without reason and that such a reason never comes by because the source code remains. This does not even register in the biblical context. For example when Jesus was asked about divorce in the Law of Moses, he said that such a law was merely an accommodation of the callous hearts of the Israelites but that the threshold had since risen. In our political environment, when political ambitions change, laws follow suit and this is clearly evident in the amendment of our Constitution to remove term limits and adopt a multi-party system.
Lastly, Hooker’s advocacy for Ecclesiastical polity has failed to be reflected in Uganda. He writes that the church as a society should adopt Councils General for administrative purposes independent of secular government like the earlier Apostles did. In the Roman Catholic Church there is a semblance of this but that is all there is. Just as his philosophy caused problems with Queen Elizabeth 1 in her capacity as the then head of the Church of England, today the Anglican Church is called the Church of Uganda and enjoys extreme patronage such as when Bishops get cars from the government on their inauguration. It is therefore not a breather to attempt at creating a divide between church and state. After all, with Hooker’s latitudinarian approach, the law has to ultimately be obeyed whether evil or sacred and so even in Uganda our secular law takes precedence over church polity of any sort.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
Speech from Robert Cochran on "Christ, Law and the Legal Profession"
The following is the text/outline of a speech delivered by Professor Robert Cochran of the Pepperdine University School of Law at Uganda Christian University on May 31, 2010:
Christ, the Law, and the Legal Profession
I think that it is important that everyone have a vocation, a calling. We all are called by God to serve him in all that we do. The scriptures say that “whether we eat or whether we drink or whatsoever we do, do all to the glory of God.” If that applies to things as mundane as eating and drinking, it certainly applies to the work that we spend much of our lives doing. John Calvin put it this way: all of the world should be a theater to the glory of God. Two topics: Christ and the law; Christ and lawyers.
Christ and the Law
Harsh encounters with law
Jesus earthly life is bookended by significant encounters with the law as it is commonly perceived today--the exercise of power by one in authority. He is born in Bethlehem because “Caesar declared that every man should return to the city of his birth to register to be taxed. Lk. 2:1 Jesus suffered his earthly death when he was crucified by the Roman authorities. He had additional encounters with the law during his life. Herod sought to have him killed shortly after his birth, chasing Jesus and his parents to Egypt. Herod had Jesus’ cousin John the Baptist killed for denouncing Herod’s incest and adultery. In all of these encounters, law plays a negative role, as an instrument of injustice.
Inaugurating the reign of justice
“[In the NT] Jesus is identified as inaugurating the reign of justice.” Wolterstorf
The prophets both foretold the future and spoke about justice. These two roles merged in their prophesies of the coming Messiah. In one of the best-known prophetic passages, Isaiah said:
Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen one in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him
and he will bring justice to the nations. . . .
In faithfulness he will bring forth justice;
he will not falter or be discouraged
till he establishes justice on earth.
But Jesus was born in a manger and died on a cross. How is he to establish justice on the earth?
Ambiguity Towards Law
Jesus not only had harsh encounters with Roman law, he had harsh encounters with Jewish law. The Romans had given a certain level of legal authority to the Jewish leaders of the day (a sort of a federal system, as we would call it in the United States, where the US government exercises some authority, but gives other authority to the states).
During his ministry, there was substantial controversy about Jesus’ relationship to the Jewish law, also called the Mosaic law.
Jesus was both supportive and critical of law. On the one hand, he said that he would not remove the smallest part from it. He healed lepers and had them go to the civic authorities. He followed the Mosaic law, law as a good thing. Jesus kept the Sabbath, not as interpreted. A law abiding family. Took all steps required by law. Lk. 2:21-22 Though tempered with mercy—Joseph wanted to divorce Mary quietly rather than disgrace her, or worse—have her killed because of what appeared to be her adultery. Mt 1:16
He condemned those who were most scrupulous in obeying and enforcing it. As At times Jesus showed great flexibility as to the law. In apparent violation of the Mosaic code, Jesus healed on the Sabbath. When the Pharisees condemned his disciples for picking and eating grain on the Sabbath in violation of the Mosaic law, he responded: ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.’ He said “Man is not made for the Sabbath; the Sabbath is made for man.” This recognizes a strong tendency as to all of law. Human law tends to treat man as being made for law. Government officials tend to treat man as being made for law. There is a danger that lawyers will treat man as having been made for law. Instrumental value of law.
He condemned a group that was about to stone a woman to death under the Mosaic code for committing adultery: ‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.’ He rejected the Mosaic laws concerning clean and unclean food. In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus contrasted his teachings, which dealt with the attitude of one’s heart (don’t be angry, don’t lust), with the external strictures of the Mosaic law (don’t murder, don’t commit adultery). Nevertheless, at times, Jesus affirmed his commitment to the law, saying that he came to ‘fulfill’ (literally ‘fill up’) the law.
It is probably best to see Jesus’ role as one of pointing to the true purpose of the moral law, which was to transform hearts to the point where we will want to obey the moral law scrupulously.
The Law is Secondary, but Important
The central theme of Jesus’ moral teaching was that what humans need is a change of heart. Law controls only the external. Civil law restrains wrong behavior. It will never succeed in changing the heart. Grace and truth does. (Law came by Moses; grace and truth by JC).
Murder - 21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment.
Adultery - 27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Change the heart and you change behavior. Lk. 6: 43. “The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.”
Kingdom of God
Repent for the kingdom of heaven is near. Mt 4:15
Summary of him: “preaching the good news of the kingdom” Mt. 4:23
Lord’s Prayer: “your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”
“Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things (food, drink, clothing) will be given to you as well.” Mt 6:25-34
The Kingdom of God is not primarily about law. In "The Divine Conspiracy" Dallas Willard emphasizes that the Kingdom comes in by changing hearts, not through force. But, of course, law is all about force. Indeed, the more the Kingdom comes, the less we will need much of law. The Kingdom of God is centrally about the changing of hearts. The changing of hearts may drive you to become in law because of your love of neighbor.
Jesus, the Mosaic Law, and the Role of the Legislator
What are Christians to do with the Mosaic law? Christian positions range everywhere from dispensationalists who believe that the Mosaic law applied only to ancient Israel and has no relevance for Christians today to theonomist postmillennialists who believe that the Mosaic law is the ideal toward which our law will evolve as the Kingdom of God emerges.
In what may be Jesus’ most helpful teaching regarding the civil law, he addressed the only section of the Mosaic law that discusses divorce. The section of the Mosaic law does not specifically approve of divorce, but mentions it in a context where a husband finds that his wife is displeasing because there is “something indecent” about her.
As numerous commentators have noted, the meaning of this section was hotly disputed in Jesus’ time among Jewish legal scholars. Though the only explicit regulation is the prohibition of a man remarrying his ex-wife following her second divorce, the provision appears to accept divorce where the wife ‘has become displeasing to [the husband] because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce.’ Shammai argued that under the Mosaic code, adultery was the only basis for divorce. Hillel argued that the code permitted divorce for almost anything.
Here is the account of Jesus’ discussion of the matter:
Some Pharisees came to [Jesus] to test him. They asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?’
‘Haven't you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?” So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.’
‘Why then,’ they asked, ‘did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?’
Jesus replied, ‘Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.’
Jesus pushed the Pharisees beyond the controversy, back to God’s original purpose that marriage be permanent, quoting two sections of Genesis. Nevertheless, he concluded by appearing to accept the Mosaic rule, basically adopting Shammai’s interpretation that ‘marital unfaithfulness’ is the only basis for divorce.
For our purposes, the important part of the exchange is Jesus’ reference to the Mosaic law: ‘Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.’ In this passage Jesus did not question the validity of the Mosaic law, but he noted that its rules deviated from the moral ideal. Only a few verses previously, Jesus identified the ideal as the permanent union of husband and wife and noted that Moses allowed divorce ‘because your hearts were hard.’ Knowing all too well our fallen human nature and consequent inability to conform to the ideal, he approved of positive law that did not impose the ideal.
It is likely that Moses envisioned the harmful consequences that would arise if no divorce was allowed: husbands would abandon wives and take other women without benefit of divorce; husbands would father illegitimate children; it would be unclear whether abandoned women were free to re-marry; prospective husbands would risk being accused of adultery if they married abandoned wives; abandoned wives and children would be destitute; inheritance rights would be unclear and inheritance disputes would generate conflict; children of new relationships would not be provided for at death; and hostile couples might remain together, causing harm to each other and their children. In light of these consequences, Moses allowed divorce.
Many commentators speak of the Mosaic divorce legislation as a grudging acceptance of divorce, as if it is an unusual deviation in the positive law from the moral ideal.
Hebrew law does not institute divorce, but tolerates it, in view of the imperfections of human nature….
Divorce is a bad custom which has grown up amongst a degenerate people, and the Mosaic law tolerated it as an accommodation to a low level of moral concern.
Though I do not disagree with these statements, I think that they are wrong to imply that the Mosaic divorce legislation is somehow unusual. It is not the exception. Many elements of the Mosaic code should be understood as positive law drafted in light of human hardheartedness. Two early church fathers, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, went so far as to argue that much if not all of the Mosaic law should be seen merely as a concession to the hardness of human hearts.
This view, that Jesus affirmed Moses’ creation of best-practical-alternative laws, may provide a basis for understanding some of the troubling aspects of the Mosaic code. For example, the Mosaic code need not be taken to have morally approved of slavery, any more than to have morally approved of divorce. Jesus’ reaction to slavery provisions in the Mosaic code might well have been similar to his reaction to divorce: ‘Moses permitted slavery because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning – it is not the ideal.’ Augustine argued that in the beginning, it was not God’s intention that people be under the authority of one another. According to Augustine, man was appointed to rule over the rest of God’s creation (citing Gen. 1:26) but not one another. ‘God wanted rational man, made to His image, to have no dominion except over irrational nature. He meant no man, therefore, to have dominion over man, but only man over beast.’ Augustine appears to have accepted the reality of man ruling over man as a result of the fall, but Jesus’ comments on divorce suggest that it is appropriate for legislation to seek to get back to God’s ideal. Under this view, if the social circumstances are such that people would accept a rule that is closer to the divine ideal (on divorce or slavery), the wise legislator should pursue it.
Jesus might also have said similar things about some of the harsh punishments of the Mosaic code, possibly including capital punishment. Such punishment was a prudential response to the situation of the time – a nomadic people for whom the possibility of life imprisonment was impossible – but in a different situation the law might more closely approach the ideal; the death penalty might be abolished or reserved only for the worst of crimes. This is consistent with the recent Catholic position on the death penalty.
Jesus’ comments on the Mosaic divorce law suggest an enormous opportunity (and responsibility) for judges and legislators. They must prudently and creatively craft laws with eyes fixed on both God’s ideal and on the practical reality. The task of the Christian legislator or judge is to identify God’s ideals and to determine how to advance those ideals in light of the current social situation.
Last week, I gave a series of lectures in Rwanda on family law. They face a pragmatic challenge of this sort. Right now, the law requires parents to approve of marriages. The parents of many brides require a substantial dowry before they will give their permission. Should the law abolish the requirement of parental permission? Right now, many couples are opting to live together without the protections of legal marriage, because the young man cannot afford the dowry. Would it be better to abolish the requirement of parental permission if more young people would marry? But if we make entry into marriage easier, that is likely to lead to more divorce. You can see that what is called for is wisdom in light of the biblical ideal and the hardness of human hearts.
Some have criticized modern lawmakers for failing to enact ideal biblical standards. On the issue of divorce, one commentator has said: ‘Brethren and fellow-citizens, I believe that our lawmakers are to blame for allowing [no-fault divorce] laws to exist as they do, and not bringing the law of divorce in these United States to the scriptural standard.’ But if my understanding of Jesus’ teaching on the law of divorce is correct, the positive law should not necessarily adopt the moral law. The law should seek the ideal, but should do so in light of its practical impact.
Modern divorce law is an area where Jesus’ model could be applied. The ideal – permanent union – has not changed, nor has the hardness of people’s hearts or the danger that a rule prohibiting divorce would yield worse results than a rule allowing it. In the 1960s and 70s in the United States, legislatures in almost all jurisdictions moved from a fault-based divorce system to a no-fault divorce system. The law now provides little or no deterrence to divorce. Divorce can be obtained easily by either party based on any or no reason. As several studies have shown, the victims of easy divorce are most often women and children, who have become modern analogues to the Old Testament’s widows and orphans. The hardness of human hearts may warrant laws that discourage divorce without demanding the ideal of permanent marriage. Thoughtful lawyers, legislators and law professors wrestle with alternatives to easy no-fault divorce, proposing longer waiting periods (especially for parents of young children), counseling requirements and covenant marriage legislation – which allows couples to agree at marriage to certain impediments to divorce.
Jesus’ comments regarding the Mosaic divorce law suggest that lawyers, legislators, judges, and citizens have a high calling. They do God’s work as they prudently seek to identify laws that will move us toward God’s ideals in light of the practical problems of human sin in the current situation.
Love of Neighbor
At one point, ‘an expert in the law’ ‘tested’ Jesus with another question, ‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’ Jesus answered that the first is love of God and added, quoting the Mosaic law, ‘the second is like it: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.’ Later, another lawyer, seeking to ‘justify himself,’ asked concerning this second commandment, ‘Who is my neighbor?’ Jesus responded with the story of the Good Samaritan, in which the hated Samaritan serves as the role model, caring for the needs of a man who has been beaten and robbed.
To many, the command that we love our neighbors seems odd. Nowadays, love is generally thought of purely as an emotion, something beyond our control, but the Greek word translated as ‘love’ is agape, an act of the will, a matter that is subject to the control of the individual. We are to treat our neighbors as we would want to be treated.
There are two messages here for the Christian in the field of law. The first concerns the purposes of the law. Jesus identified one of the ideals toward which the law should reach, suggesting that the Mosaic law expressed what it means to love our neighbors. The Mosaic positive law required the Jews to show love toward their neighbors in some respects. Just as parents teach their children to love each other by requiring them to go through the motions of forgiving, sharing, etc., it may be that requiring citizens to behave well toward one another will serve to teach them to love. Requiring farmers to make the crops at the edges of their fields available to the poor may teach them to love the poor and to be generous to them. Calvin notes that the purpose of the Mosaic positive law was ‘to preserve that very love which is enjoined by God’s eternal law.’ In Calvin’s view, ‘every nation is left free to make such laws as it foresees to be profitable to itself. Yet these must be in conformity to that perpetual rule of love.’
A second message is that lawmaking itself should be an act of love toward the neighbor. Jack Sammons implies this possibility in his discussion of the story of the Good Samaritan. Without diminishing the importance of the Samaritan’s individual acts of care – saving the injured man, binding his wounds, and taking him to an inn – we should recognize that those who develop laws can also serve their fellowman through legislation. Legislation might deal ‘with the underlying problems of the dangerousness of passage to Jericho, or the need for medical care to travelers in distress, or, for that matter, the hardhearted financial shrewdness of innkeepers.’ The development and enforcement of wise laws can be among the most loving acts in which a person can engage.
Jesus’ Call for Justice
Once you have had a change of heart, your love of neighbor is likely to lead you to be concerned about justice because of your love of neighbor.
“Dikaiosume” is one of the New Testament words for justice. At times our translators translate it as meaning justice, at times as righteousness. A look at other texts from that time illustrate the ambiguity of its meaning. In Plato’s Republic is translated “justice.” In the most common translations of the Sermon on the Mount, it is translated righteousness. “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.” Should this be, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice”? The common translation actually runs counter to the thrust of the Sermon on the Mount, which argues that the heart attitude is more important than a focus on right actions. Righteousness is primarily a trait of personal character—today carrying a negative connotation. Justice refers to an interpersonal situation; persons are related to one another in a certain way. Righteousness—“personal moral rectitude.”
The next place Dikaiosume is used is “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake. Note the very different sense of this if it is ““Blessed are those who are persecuted for justice’s sake.” Nicholas Wolterstorff, in his wonderful book, Justice: Rights and Wrongs, states the following: “Apparently, the translators were not struck by the oddity of someone being persecuted because he is righteous. My own reading of human affairs is that righteous people are either admired or ignored, not persecuted; people who pursue justice are the ones who get in trouble.” 111
Christ and the Legal Profession
What is a lawyer? A lawyer is someone who speaks for someone who can’t speak so well for himself. It may be in court or it may be in business negotiations. The lawyer is a servant, doing something for someone that he can’t do for himself. This is a worthy calling. Beyond assisting the individual client, service as a lawyer typically does at least one of two other things. It helps to secure justice in a country—as lawyers argue their cases, judges and juries are able to make wise decisions. Number two, it helps to establish commerce within a country, as lawyers help to create deals that will employ workers and provide services. You might say that practicing law is an expression of love, whether the lawyer recognizes it or not. Practicing law helps people.
In these respects, almost any lawyer is doing a good thing most of the time. But where should being a lawyer and a Christian make a difference? In my view, it makes a difference in at least three places. I will illustrate with a couple of examples from my practice.
Choice of clients – Sidney. A companion of the guilty.
Care for clients – Sidney. Go beyond what is expected.
Counseling of clients – Divorce lady. Settle. Consider the consequences.
Christ, the Law, and the Legal Profession
I think that it is important that everyone have a vocation, a calling. We all are called by God to serve him in all that we do. The scriptures say that “whether we eat or whether we drink or whatsoever we do, do all to the glory of God.” If that applies to things as mundane as eating and drinking, it certainly applies to the work that we spend much of our lives doing. John Calvin put it this way: all of the world should be a theater to the glory of God. Two topics: Christ and the law; Christ and lawyers.
Christ and the Law
Harsh encounters with law
Jesus earthly life is bookended by significant encounters with the law as it is commonly perceived today--the exercise of power by one in authority. He is born in Bethlehem because “Caesar declared that every man should return to the city of his birth to register to be taxed. Lk. 2:1 Jesus suffered his earthly death when he was crucified by the Roman authorities. He had additional encounters with the law during his life. Herod sought to have him killed shortly after his birth, chasing Jesus and his parents to Egypt. Herod had Jesus’ cousin John the Baptist killed for denouncing Herod’s incest and adultery. In all of these encounters, law plays a negative role, as an instrument of injustice.
Inaugurating the reign of justice
“[In the NT] Jesus is identified as inaugurating the reign of justice.” Wolterstorf
The prophets both foretold the future and spoke about justice. These two roles merged in their prophesies of the coming Messiah. In one of the best-known prophetic passages, Isaiah said:
Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen one in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him
and he will bring justice to the nations. . . .
In faithfulness he will bring forth justice;
he will not falter or be discouraged
till he establishes justice on earth.
But Jesus was born in a manger and died on a cross. How is he to establish justice on the earth?
Ambiguity Towards Law
Jesus not only had harsh encounters with Roman law, he had harsh encounters with Jewish law. The Romans had given a certain level of legal authority to the Jewish leaders of the day (a sort of a federal system, as we would call it in the United States, where the US government exercises some authority, but gives other authority to the states).
During his ministry, there was substantial controversy about Jesus’ relationship to the Jewish law, also called the Mosaic law.
Jesus was both supportive and critical of law. On the one hand, he said that he would not remove the smallest part from it. He healed lepers and had them go to the civic authorities. He followed the Mosaic law, law as a good thing. Jesus kept the Sabbath, not as interpreted. A law abiding family. Took all steps required by law. Lk. 2:21-22 Though tempered with mercy—Joseph wanted to divorce Mary quietly rather than disgrace her, or worse—have her killed because of what appeared to be her adultery. Mt 1:16
He condemned those who were most scrupulous in obeying and enforcing it. As At times Jesus showed great flexibility as to the law. In apparent violation of the Mosaic code, Jesus healed on the Sabbath. When the Pharisees condemned his disciples for picking and eating grain on the Sabbath in violation of the Mosaic law, he responded: ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.’ He said “Man is not made for the Sabbath; the Sabbath is made for man.” This recognizes a strong tendency as to all of law. Human law tends to treat man as being made for law. Government officials tend to treat man as being made for law. There is a danger that lawyers will treat man as having been made for law. Instrumental value of law.
He condemned a group that was about to stone a woman to death under the Mosaic code for committing adultery: ‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.’ He rejected the Mosaic laws concerning clean and unclean food. In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus contrasted his teachings, which dealt with the attitude of one’s heart (don’t be angry, don’t lust), with the external strictures of the Mosaic law (don’t murder, don’t commit adultery). Nevertheless, at times, Jesus affirmed his commitment to the law, saying that he came to ‘fulfill’ (literally ‘fill up’) the law.
It is probably best to see Jesus’ role as one of pointing to the true purpose of the moral law, which was to transform hearts to the point where we will want to obey the moral law scrupulously.
The Law is Secondary, but Important
The central theme of Jesus’ moral teaching was that what humans need is a change of heart. Law controls only the external. Civil law restrains wrong behavior. It will never succeed in changing the heart. Grace and truth does. (Law came by Moses; grace and truth by JC).
Murder - 21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment.
Adultery - 27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Change the heart and you change behavior. Lk. 6: 43. “The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.”
Kingdom of God
Repent for the kingdom of heaven is near. Mt 4:15
Summary of him: “preaching the good news of the kingdom” Mt. 4:23
Lord’s Prayer: “your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”
“Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things (food, drink, clothing) will be given to you as well.” Mt 6:25-34
The Kingdom of God is not primarily about law. In "The Divine Conspiracy" Dallas Willard emphasizes that the Kingdom comes in by changing hearts, not through force. But, of course, law is all about force. Indeed, the more the Kingdom comes, the less we will need much of law. The Kingdom of God is centrally about the changing of hearts. The changing of hearts may drive you to become in law because of your love of neighbor.
Jesus, the Mosaic Law, and the Role of the Legislator
What are Christians to do with the Mosaic law? Christian positions range everywhere from dispensationalists who believe that the Mosaic law applied only to ancient Israel and has no relevance for Christians today to theonomist postmillennialists who believe that the Mosaic law is the ideal toward which our law will evolve as the Kingdom of God emerges.
In what may be Jesus’ most helpful teaching regarding the civil law, he addressed the only section of the Mosaic law that discusses divorce. The section of the Mosaic law does not specifically approve of divorce, but mentions it in a context where a husband finds that his wife is displeasing because there is “something indecent” about her.
As numerous commentators have noted, the meaning of this section was hotly disputed in Jesus’ time among Jewish legal scholars. Though the only explicit regulation is the prohibition of a man remarrying his ex-wife following her second divorce, the provision appears to accept divorce where the wife ‘has become displeasing to [the husband] because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce.’ Shammai argued that under the Mosaic code, adultery was the only basis for divorce. Hillel argued that the code permitted divorce for almost anything.
Here is the account of Jesus’ discussion of the matter:
Some Pharisees came to [Jesus] to test him. They asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?’
‘Haven't you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?” So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.’
‘Why then,’ they asked, ‘did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?’
Jesus replied, ‘Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.’
Jesus pushed the Pharisees beyond the controversy, back to God’s original purpose that marriage be permanent, quoting two sections of Genesis. Nevertheless, he concluded by appearing to accept the Mosaic rule, basically adopting Shammai’s interpretation that ‘marital unfaithfulness’ is the only basis for divorce.
For our purposes, the important part of the exchange is Jesus’ reference to the Mosaic law: ‘Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.’ In this passage Jesus did not question the validity of the Mosaic law, but he noted that its rules deviated from the moral ideal. Only a few verses previously, Jesus identified the ideal as the permanent union of husband and wife and noted that Moses allowed divorce ‘because your hearts were hard.’ Knowing all too well our fallen human nature and consequent inability to conform to the ideal, he approved of positive law that did not impose the ideal.
It is likely that Moses envisioned the harmful consequences that would arise if no divorce was allowed: husbands would abandon wives and take other women without benefit of divorce; husbands would father illegitimate children; it would be unclear whether abandoned women were free to re-marry; prospective husbands would risk being accused of adultery if they married abandoned wives; abandoned wives and children would be destitute; inheritance rights would be unclear and inheritance disputes would generate conflict; children of new relationships would not be provided for at death; and hostile couples might remain together, causing harm to each other and their children. In light of these consequences, Moses allowed divorce.
Many commentators speak of the Mosaic divorce legislation as a grudging acceptance of divorce, as if it is an unusual deviation in the positive law from the moral ideal.
Hebrew law does not institute divorce, but tolerates it, in view of the imperfections of human nature….
Divorce is a bad custom which has grown up amongst a degenerate people, and the Mosaic law tolerated it as an accommodation to a low level of moral concern.
Though I do not disagree with these statements, I think that they are wrong to imply that the Mosaic divorce legislation is somehow unusual. It is not the exception. Many elements of the Mosaic code should be understood as positive law drafted in light of human hardheartedness. Two early church fathers, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, went so far as to argue that much if not all of the Mosaic law should be seen merely as a concession to the hardness of human hearts.
This view, that Jesus affirmed Moses’ creation of best-practical-alternative laws, may provide a basis for understanding some of the troubling aspects of the Mosaic code. For example, the Mosaic code need not be taken to have morally approved of slavery, any more than to have morally approved of divorce. Jesus’ reaction to slavery provisions in the Mosaic code might well have been similar to his reaction to divorce: ‘Moses permitted slavery because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning – it is not the ideal.’ Augustine argued that in the beginning, it was not God’s intention that people be under the authority of one another. According to Augustine, man was appointed to rule over the rest of God’s creation (citing Gen. 1:26) but not one another. ‘God wanted rational man, made to His image, to have no dominion except over irrational nature. He meant no man, therefore, to have dominion over man, but only man over beast.’ Augustine appears to have accepted the reality of man ruling over man as a result of the fall, but Jesus’ comments on divorce suggest that it is appropriate for legislation to seek to get back to God’s ideal. Under this view, if the social circumstances are such that people would accept a rule that is closer to the divine ideal (on divorce or slavery), the wise legislator should pursue it.
Jesus might also have said similar things about some of the harsh punishments of the Mosaic code, possibly including capital punishment. Such punishment was a prudential response to the situation of the time – a nomadic people for whom the possibility of life imprisonment was impossible – but in a different situation the law might more closely approach the ideal; the death penalty might be abolished or reserved only for the worst of crimes. This is consistent with the recent Catholic position on the death penalty.
Jesus’ comments on the Mosaic divorce law suggest an enormous opportunity (and responsibility) for judges and legislators. They must prudently and creatively craft laws with eyes fixed on both God’s ideal and on the practical reality. The task of the Christian legislator or judge is to identify God’s ideals and to determine how to advance those ideals in light of the current social situation.
Last week, I gave a series of lectures in Rwanda on family law. They face a pragmatic challenge of this sort. Right now, the law requires parents to approve of marriages. The parents of many brides require a substantial dowry before they will give their permission. Should the law abolish the requirement of parental permission? Right now, many couples are opting to live together without the protections of legal marriage, because the young man cannot afford the dowry. Would it be better to abolish the requirement of parental permission if more young people would marry? But if we make entry into marriage easier, that is likely to lead to more divorce. You can see that what is called for is wisdom in light of the biblical ideal and the hardness of human hearts.
Some have criticized modern lawmakers for failing to enact ideal biblical standards. On the issue of divorce, one commentator has said: ‘Brethren and fellow-citizens, I believe that our lawmakers are to blame for allowing [no-fault divorce] laws to exist as they do, and not bringing the law of divorce in these United States to the scriptural standard.’ But if my understanding of Jesus’ teaching on the law of divorce is correct, the positive law should not necessarily adopt the moral law. The law should seek the ideal, but should do so in light of its practical impact.
Modern divorce law is an area where Jesus’ model could be applied. The ideal – permanent union – has not changed, nor has the hardness of people’s hearts or the danger that a rule prohibiting divorce would yield worse results than a rule allowing it. In the 1960s and 70s in the United States, legislatures in almost all jurisdictions moved from a fault-based divorce system to a no-fault divorce system. The law now provides little or no deterrence to divorce. Divorce can be obtained easily by either party based on any or no reason. As several studies have shown, the victims of easy divorce are most often women and children, who have become modern analogues to the Old Testament’s widows and orphans. The hardness of human hearts may warrant laws that discourage divorce without demanding the ideal of permanent marriage. Thoughtful lawyers, legislators and law professors wrestle with alternatives to easy no-fault divorce, proposing longer waiting periods (especially for parents of young children), counseling requirements and covenant marriage legislation – which allows couples to agree at marriage to certain impediments to divorce.
Jesus’ comments regarding the Mosaic divorce law suggest that lawyers, legislators, judges, and citizens have a high calling. They do God’s work as they prudently seek to identify laws that will move us toward God’s ideals in light of the practical problems of human sin in the current situation.
Love of Neighbor
At one point, ‘an expert in the law’ ‘tested’ Jesus with another question, ‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’ Jesus answered that the first is love of God and added, quoting the Mosaic law, ‘the second is like it: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.’ Later, another lawyer, seeking to ‘justify himself,’ asked concerning this second commandment, ‘Who is my neighbor?’ Jesus responded with the story of the Good Samaritan, in which the hated Samaritan serves as the role model, caring for the needs of a man who has been beaten and robbed.
To many, the command that we love our neighbors seems odd. Nowadays, love is generally thought of purely as an emotion, something beyond our control, but the Greek word translated as ‘love’ is agape, an act of the will, a matter that is subject to the control of the individual. We are to treat our neighbors as we would want to be treated.
There are two messages here for the Christian in the field of law. The first concerns the purposes of the law. Jesus identified one of the ideals toward which the law should reach, suggesting that the Mosaic law expressed what it means to love our neighbors. The Mosaic positive law required the Jews to show love toward their neighbors in some respects. Just as parents teach their children to love each other by requiring them to go through the motions of forgiving, sharing, etc., it may be that requiring citizens to behave well toward one another will serve to teach them to love. Requiring farmers to make the crops at the edges of their fields available to the poor may teach them to love the poor and to be generous to them. Calvin notes that the purpose of the Mosaic positive law was ‘to preserve that very love which is enjoined by God’s eternal law.’ In Calvin’s view, ‘every nation is left free to make such laws as it foresees to be profitable to itself. Yet these must be in conformity to that perpetual rule of love.’
A second message is that lawmaking itself should be an act of love toward the neighbor. Jack Sammons implies this possibility in his discussion of the story of the Good Samaritan. Without diminishing the importance of the Samaritan’s individual acts of care – saving the injured man, binding his wounds, and taking him to an inn – we should recognize that those who develop laws can also serve their fellowman through legislation. Legislation might deal ‘with the underlying problems of the dangerousness of passage to Jericho, or the need for medical care to travelers in distress, or, for that matter, the hardhearted financial shrewdness of innkeepers.’ The development and enforcement of wise laws can be among the most loving acts in which a person can engage.
Jesus’ Call for Justice
Once you have had a change of heart, your love of neighbor is likely to lead you to be concerned about justice because of your love of neighbor.
“Dikaiosume” is one of the New Testament words for justice. At times our translators translate it as meaning justice, at times as righteousness. A look at other texts from that time illustrate the ambiguity of its meaning. In Plato’s Republic is translated “justice.” In the most common translations of the Sermon on the Mount, it is translated righteousness. “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.” Should this be, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice”? The common translation actually runs counter to the thrust of the Sermon on the Mount, which argues that the heart attitude is more important than a focus on right actions. Righteousness is primarily a trait of personal character—today carrying a negative connotation. Justice refers to an interpersonal situation; persons are related to one another in a certain way. Righteousness—“personal moral rectitude.”
The next place Dikaiosume is used is “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake. Note the very different sense of this if it is ““Blessed are those who are persecuted for justice’s sake.” Nicholas Wolterstorff, in his wonderful book, Justice: Rights and Wrongs, states the following: “Apparently, the translators were not struck by the oddity of someone being persecuted because he is righteous. My own reading of human affairs is that righteous people are either admired or ignored, not persecuted; people who pursue justice are the ones who get in trouble.” 111
Christ and the Legal Profession
What is a lawyer? A lawyer is someone who speaks for someone who can’t speak so well for himself. It may be in court or it may be in business negotiations. The lawyer is a servant, doing something for someone that he can’t do for himself. This is a worthy calling. Beyond assisting the individual client, service as a lawyer typically does at least one of two other things. It helps to secure justice in a country—as lawyers argue their cases, judges and juries are able to make wise decisions. Number two, it helps to establish commerce within a country, as lawyers help to create deals that will employ workers and provide services. You might say that practicing law is an expression of love, whether the lawyer recognizes it or not. Practicing law helps people.
In these respects, almost any lawyer is doing a good thing most of the time. But where should being a lawyer and a Christian make a difference? In my view, it makes a difference in at least three places. I will illustrate with a couple of examples from my practice.
Choice of clients – Sidney. A companion of the guilty.
Care for clients – Sidney. Go beyond what is expected.
Counseling of clients – Divorce lady. Settle. Consider the consequences.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Thoughts on Luther, by Brenda Nahamya
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)