Link to my new site

Here it is...click here.

I've moved houses

This happens to have been my last post here as I have moved to a new estate.
The new estate is still under construction and it might be a long while before it looks any more decent, but my next post should come from there.
A big thank you to the one blogger who has, over the past few days, helped me recover from the most terrible of hackings I have had since I began blogging in 2003 (at another site). 
Thanks for your time, expertise and generosity; the good Lord bless you!
And for my dear hackers, thanks for constantly reminding me that I'm not all that free at all!
Not even in my own country.

 

Live from Soweto & of Poi's goodbye

The session on the Beeb a few hours ago went well, albeit hurried.
The South African edition (running kitu 8:00pm Kenyan time) allowed the studio audience in Nairobi and Lagos good amount of time to say some things, though - as expected - the show was dominated by the South Africans.
I asked for a fair allocation of wealth and opportunities in the country; a well-structured political system unlike the existing corrupt ones that entrench old guards in power and ensure that youths remain "wingers" and also suggested that - with Nigeria on the West Coast and Kenya on the East Coast - an elaborate socio-economic agenda or blue-print be researched, initiated and proposed for adoption by the AU to advance the youth agenda. 
When the programme went international at 9:05pm (Kenyan time), the time was limited but I got to ask the South Africans if they were prepared to relax immigration laws to allow for the movement of manpower, knowledge and goods. 
Asked for my assesment of Kenyan-South African relations, I didn't commit myself, - I said the countries have had their bad and good times, but went back to the youth issue and suggested that capable, educated and driven youths in both countries (but particularly South Africa) needed to now acquire economic and political power in their desire to exert a redeeming influence on their societies and its issues over and above the troubles they have had with the older generation. 
The show was interesting....you can listen again by clicking on World Have Your Say: Live from Soweto (bottom right on the BBC website).

*****
Poi's goodbye and the continuing responses to her posts as well as Mental's should, in a large way, remind us of the vexing moral and spiritual questions of our day. 
Not knowing neither Mental nor Poi personally, my interpretation of the events has largely been on the basis of their posts and on that basis, I have formed some opinions of which those I have been in touch with regarding the same are already aware. 
One such opinion that I have publicly expressed is that, in the words of Thomas Paine, "reputation is what men and women think about us; character is what God and the angels know about us."  
Equally important, human praise and acclaim in this life is often empty and fickle at its very best so that having an eternal perspective of this life and its issues is both liberating and helpfully comforting in a fallen and hurting world.
Someday, I believe, all known and unknown history on the Poi-Mental matter - as indeed every other issue in our lives - will definitely culminate before the throne of the Most High Living God.
I pray He keeps those among us who call upon His name in Himself till then.

 

Yours truly on the good old Beeb

Tonight - on the 22nd I'll be part of a young audience to talk about the things that are important to them (young people) as well as "the future of South Africa".

On the 23rd, I should still be part of the same audience that will be discussing the political future of South Africa, South Africa as a "leader" for Africa, the importance of the 2010 World Cup as well as the day's news.

All that will be on the BBC's World Have Your Say.

If you - a Kenyan - have any thoughts you think are worth passing on, drop me an e-mail at Kenyananalyst@yahoo.com.

I'll try my best to condense all that as and when I receive your mail.

Thanks.

Jesse.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

I support Mzalendo!

I support Mzalendo..... Each of my blogs will have a link to it.... And I'll find other ways to spread the word too... Again, congrats Thinker and Ory...

P.L.O Lumumba - Yawa!!!!!!!

Forwarded by WANGARI KIHARA

"In promulgating your esoteric cogitations or articulating your superficial sentimentalities, and amicable philosophical or psychological observations, beware of platitudinous ponderosa. Let your conversational communications possess a compacted conciseness, a clarified comprehensibility, a coalescent cogency, and a concatenated consistency. Eschew obfuscation and all conglomerations of flatulent garrulity, jejune rabblement, and asinine affectations. Let your extemporaneous descanting and unpremeditated expatiations have intelligibility and voracious vivacity without rodomontade or thrasonical bombast. Sedulously avoid all polysyllabic profundity, pompous prolificacy, and vain vapid verbosity.

In short what Lumumba was telling his fellow commissioners in the review team is: "Be brief and don't use big words!!!!"

Choosing God's reign

By GERI RODMAN

"Men and Women, I call us this evening to repentance. We need to turn from the idols that enslave us, that demonize, dehumanize, and degrade us, and return to the living God. We need to turn from the illusory kingdoms of self to the very real and substantial Kingdom of God."

My two friends and I came from Canada to the Urbana Convention. We sat together in the middle section, just below the nosebleed seats. We three listened to John Stott, who expounded 2 Timothy each morning.

We three listened to missionaries talk about the power of God, about the love of God for lost people, about miracles and the supreme joy of being devoted to Jesus no matter what the circumstance.

When it came time to make a decision, we three were ready. We stood together and made a commitment to give our lives to mission and follow God's leading anywhere, at home or abroad.

Now, we are thirty-six years this side of Urbana 1967. For my friend Ted, the inspiration he received and commitment he made led him to be a career missionary. He is serving God's purpose in Europe and parts of Africa. He has been on the mission field for over thirty years.

The other friend who came with me was Mary, someone who had made it clear to her family, her friends and her church that she was going to be an overseas missionary. If there was a sure bet, Mary was it. Today, Mary is a top executive in her field. She has influence; she has affluence, and some very impressive toys. She rubs shoulders every day with some very powerful people. But she is not a missionary overseas, and she is not a missionary in her work context. God is not shaping her life choices.

When I left Urbana, with the passion and inspiration of my decision still very fresh, I had every intention of fulfilling it. I would finish high school, then on to university and then into Christian service. However, when I started at the University of Toronto a year later, I began to wonder whether it might not be a bad idea to put those commitments aside for a time.

I wanted to take just a little break – just enough time to savour some new friendships, some new thoughts, and a new worldview. I decided to take a little detour. That detour turned out to be longer than I'd expected. It would be eight years before I would once again consider the decision I made at Urbana.

Ted, Mary and me – we three! We heard the same message. We stood up with the same conviction and made a decision with passionate sincerity. But with such very different outcomes. How could that be?

Central to this question is what defines our reality?

I am a big movie fan. So of course I was there with the best of them on November 5 to see the latest installment of The Matrix. As much as I enjoyed the sequels, I found the first Matrix the most compelling. The main idea of the Matrix is that reality is not what it seems. What characters experience, what they see, touch, hear, taste and smell is not, in fact, true reality.

This is an engaging and disturbing premise for a story because we all base our lives on what we believe is real. And like the movie, "reality" often has more layers than what is first apparent.

Scripture says that when we let something or someone other that God define our reality, we are committing idolatry. We may think of idolatry as something people did in ancient times – nothing we’d do now – bowing down before statues and offering sacrifices to golden calves – we don’t do that! But idolatry is subtler, more insidious and a hundred times more pervasive than that. Idolatry has to do with what we worship, and what we worship defines our reality. It defines what we love, what we fear, what we long for, and what we aspire to. It affects how we pray and what we pray for. It shapes what keeps us up at night, what we do in secret and where we turn when we need solace and care. It is the thing that adds definition, color and nuance to our daily choices.

In the gospels, and I am sure you remember this story; a man comes to Jesus and asks him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" The man comes and questions Jesus because he senses that despite all that he is doing to lead a good life, something is missing. Like Neo, the main character in the Matrix, he has an intuitive sense that despite appearances, something is amiss.

This was a man driven to do the right things. When Jesus tells him to keep the commandments, he does all of them. Not one does he miss. And he has done them since his youth. How many of us could say that? Certainly not me!

Perhaps he was beginning to entertain the frightening notion that the reality by which he organized his life might not, in the end, secure the thing he wanted most.

My own restlessness, the sense of something amiss, started in high school. My life with God had been particularly marked by a few things: summers at Christian camp as a kid and my home church, which was a family-based church.

Camp was where I most understood the reality of Jesus. Hearing God's Word in the midst of God's creation; living with eight kids gave an opportunity to live out and see lived out, an obedience to Jesus in loving and serving others – and probably, for me, always asking for and receiving forgiveness. Jesus became real for me.

At my church, I knew adults of Christian faith, who were very sincere, and whose lives were deeply changed by the gospel. But the church struggled to engage the societal shifts of the 1960's and the social revolution. There were unwritten assumptions that there were certain things that Christians didn't do, certain questions that Christians didn't ask, certain topics that Christians don't talk about.

I concluded God's kingdom was narrow and had a lot of arbitrary rules of conduct. The rules, for me, made no sense, but I liked the people, so I began to live a compartmentalized life, and a hidden life. You can imagine my restlessness, my sense of unease, as I tried to live vacillating between these two worlds.

Idolatry entered in at that point. Other things other than God became more real for me. I graduated, and I was selected for a great job, which included working for the Olympics. The job paid well. I was in love with a great non-Christian man. We were talking seriously about getting married. We worked hard and we played hard, and we worked together in the same work. I had part ownership of a sailboat and a ski chalet, a sports car, and all the toys and gadgets you could ever dream of, and all the places you could ever fly to.

With the Rich Ruler, he was blameless by the rules of conduct. But he was missing the big piece of reality – relationship with Jesus. Jesus addresses his deep restlessness. Jesus invites him to decide to leave behind his idolatry of money, so that he could, with his whole self, follow after Jesus and participate in the Kingdom of God.

Likewise, Jesus invited me to deal with my restlessness. Ironically, I am probably one of a few Christians who was urged back to the faith by her non-Christian boyfriend. He asked me to go back to church and decide once and for all about God. He knew he didn't want Jesus and he didn't want a wife who followed Jesus. He liked our life the way it was.

Reluctantly, I started attending church. It was the closest one I could roll out of bed and go to. Providentially, an old friend spotted me and made herself a fixture in my life. She introduced me to her friends and Christian mentors. I found myself in a small group with her, asking all the questions I had stored up, and then some! I found that Marilyn and Shirley, although they were Christians, were actually pretty fun people. I enjoyed being with them. They weren’t afraid of my questions. They had their own questions about life and they brought them openly before God. They treated God as a friend. They hid nothing.

They introduced me to a missionary friend. As you can probably guess, I also didn’t like missionaries. She and her husband had helped found the IFES student movement in Colombia. She was so different than the stereotypes I had built up about missionaries – she was not narrow-minded, she wasn’t out-of-touch, or strangely religious. "Weird," as I called it! Instead, she was a "with-it" person, fun to be with, and anything but boring. And she would engage every question I had.

Above all, she and these Christian friends gave me a glimpse of life lived out not vacillating between two worlds. They broke my stereotypes; they had an attractive, intimate relationship with Jesus that I had never developed. Jesus shaped the way they lived, and the choices they made. They loved me enough to challenge the things that were idols in my life; things that limited my relationship with God.

Friends, who or what defines your reality? Is it the Kingdom of God, or is it the Kingdom of Self? Is it Jesus, his love, his purpose, his power, his very self? Or is it something else?

What makes up the Matrix of illusion and idolatry for those of us in North America? I want us to consider three general avenues of idolatry. And friends, I want you to know: I had to face these idols and how they expressed themselves in my life, to be free to really embrace the life of Jesus and his kingdom.

So I come to you tonight, not to burden you, but to be with you in this process.

The Idolatry of Self-Glory or Self- Fulfillment

Perhaps only a few of us would actually admit that our life ambition is to rule the world. Most of us wouldn't say that. But how many more of us dream of being set apart, of being noticed, of being Number One, or of being special or praised by this world? How many of us are caught up in the desire to project the right image, wearing the right clothes, being in with the right people or the right group?

How many of our thoughts gravitate to "will I be accepted, will I be happy, will I like the job I do? Will it entertain me, or keep my interest?" I loved the idea that I worked with the Olympics in Montréal. I loved being a part of a crack team, hand-selected by my boss! I loved that my future was going to be with the International Olympic Committee, and fly all over the world. I liked that.

For me, I needed to set aside my agenda for self-glory or self-fulfillment – the path I had decided I was on. So God took me to Colombia, where I spoke no Spanish. I couldn’t communicate. I couldn’t really do anything. I could just be loved by the people there, and enter a relationship with God. How many of us are swayed by the matrix of worldly honor, glory or fulfillment rather than Kingdom of glory?

The Idolatry of Self-Comfort

For those of us from Canada and the US, avoiding suffering and experiencing comfort can have an incredible power. Jesus promises us a life filled with joy, community, power, depth and persecution! Jesus promises to comfort us in our suffering; but Jesus does not promise us a comfortable life.

One of my students when I worked in California came to university with her life ambition being to acquire a husband with a good job, get some kids, and get a house in the suburbs, complete with white picket fence. While there was nothing wrong with wanting any of those things, she allowed her reality to be defined by the drive for security and comfort. And she had to give that over to God, to allow God to fill her with his presence.

Today, Susan and her husband work in an orphanage in Eastern Europe. They combat poverty, government bureaucracy and their own weaknesses. Her life is not comfortable, but it is rich, full of purpose and the very real presence of Jesus.

Our drive for self-comfort can also lead us into all kinds of addictions. Alcoholism continues to be a major health issue on North American university and college campuses, as well as gambling. As believers, we are not immune to this.

The widespread use of computers and the ease of surfing on the Internet have made pornography widely available and even acceptable for self-comfort. Women, as well as men, become pornography users and find themselves trapped in addictive behaviours, with sexualized imaginations that they feel helpless to control and get any healing from. Talk about a lifestyle of demoralizing hiddenness! Some of you are trapped in that lifestyle and feel helpless.

We also, in the area of self-comfort, look inappropriately for comfort in relationships. We justify moving beyond the boundaries that God has set. We begin to personally reset the boundaries of these relationships based on our feelings and need for love and intimacy; based on the fact that we might have been wounded or hurt or abused, and are looking for love. In our quest for comfort and ease, anything can become an addiction – video games, hours of anonymity in chat rooms, the shop-till-you-drop syndrome – you name it.

The Idolatry of Self-Empowerment or Self-Reliance

Perhaps the biggest object of worship among North Americans is money – not just money, but all the things that money can buy. I know – I had all the gadgets. Rampant consumerism, yes, but even more than that, the intangible things that money buys: the things that bring you in among the world's privileged, educated, and elite. Things that would create you to be an elitist.

And all of this occurs to the point that we feel entitled. We feel entitled to have choices, to have a sense of freedom, to live without limits and boundaries. It's not even enough that we have food: we would find it confining, boring, to eat the same foods at every meal. We like it that we can choose Italian, Chinese, pizza, hamburgers, or French, or go out for Thai food.

We feel entitled when we want to travel to distant countries and cultures – so that we might be people of broad understanding and experience. Never mind that some people in our world have such limited means that in a lifetime, they never go beyond the borders of their town.

We feel entitled to leisure time and to be entertained endlessly, to have prosperity in the present and security in the future. We may even set arbitrary hours we will work. Some of us won’t even work a full-time job, because we’ve decided we can have leisure when we want. We can have a reflective life when we want. And those might not be God’s decisions.

Men and Women, I call you this evening to repentance. I call you to soften your hearts. We need to turn from the idols that enslave us, that demonize us, dehumanize us, and degrade us, and return to the living God. We need to turn from the illusory kingdom of self to the very real and substantial Kingdom of God.

What does repentance consist of? I took an eight-year detour from the commitment and plans I made at Urbana. God was infinitely patient and loving, and caring with me along the way. He made repentance possible for me. Tonight, friends, he’s making repentance possible for you.

Relationship with Jesus was worth making the changes in my life. I had to pay a cost, but it was worth it and it is still is worth it. Because as you let go of an idol in your life, a void is left. And friends, Jesus wants to come and fill that void. Jesus came and filled the void in my life, as I began to lay some of these idols down. Because idols only fill the area of a deeper need.

There are three steps involved in repentance.

1. Decide to follow Jesus.

The Rich Ruler was asked to sell what he had, give to the poor, and to follow Jesus. I knew the decision for me was to choose for God and God alone – relationship with Him; to no longer straddle being a citizen of two worlds, two realities, and two kingdoms. I needed to break from my compartmentalized world. God took me to Colombia, South America, an unfamiliar place, where my faith was made even more alive with the friendship and love of Colombian university students. Over a period of time, I decided to follow Jesus with my whole life. I needed to be there, to be untangled from all the idols that were limiting my relationship with God.

2. Pursue healing of the consequences of idolatry.

Idolatry leaves appetites and values that need reversing, injuries and sickness that need healing. The process of healing from idolatry for me included me saying no to a marriage with a non-Christian boyfriend – which was one of the most painful things I did in my early twenties. He had already made the decision that from what he understood of God and His Kingdom, he did not want to buy into a commitment to God. And he sure did not want a wife whose relationship with God might interfere with his sense of marriage priorities. And so, we parted from each other. That parting was painful. But in the void that he filled in my life, God brought in his love and care for me.

3. Walk in obedience and community.

New decisions of commitment need to be lived out. We are no longer to take our orders for life from the matrix of self, from idols that claim to be reality. We look to Jesus, whose commands we begin to delight in. We love to be set within God’s boundaries. We are shaped by His Word and we begin to be led by the Spirit of Jesus. We walk in the Jesus Way, giving ourselves to participation in Jesus' Mission, in community with the companions that He gives us. He never leaves us alone.

In summary, there are three steps to repentance:

1. Decide to follow Jesus. And when you decide, tell your group or friends. Share it with someone. 2. Pursue healing of the consequences of idolatry. Some of you are gripped by some of the things I’ve said tonight. Start here. Have some friends pray for you. God to the prayer ministry rooms tomorrow. 3. Walk in obedience and community - commit to a fellowship that desires spiritual growth.

Friends, I did pay a cost to make these changes, but it was worth it, and it is still worth it all. I put aside self-glory, and my plans for fulfillment in God's hands. I allowed Him to bring fulfillment in my life, and he has more than done that. I put aside comfort found only in relationships and possessions, to be loved and comforted by Jesus. I put aside my self-reliance or independence to be relying on God and the community of God.

What are the idols that rule your life? How long will you run after idols and substitutions for Jesus’ love, direction and purpose? Respond now to him and turn them over to Jesus and embrace this true reality. I can tell you, if you’re afraid, take this step. I was afraid, and Jesus came and filled that void.

Remember three of us came to Urbana with good intentions to follow God. Two of us left trapped by false realities. Will you deal with God tonight? Will you put your life in His hands? Amen.

* I thank God for the gracious opportunity to have been part of the 20,000-plus audience listening to this in late 2003 at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

La Vecchia Signora Obasanjo

Nigerians have given him his dues....

Da Vinci Code lecture in London

With the launch of the controversial film this week, hear the lecture at the London Institute for Contemporary Christianity by Dr Ken
Boa on 'Unravelling the Da Vinci Code'.
CDs and Cassettes available for £5 incl P&P.
For your copy, please call LICC on 020 7399 9555.
To read
Mark Greene on The Da Vinci Code please click http://www.licc.org.uk/articles/article.php/id/130 

Pray, who will help "Mrs. Savimbi?"

I rarely blog about Kenyan and international politics, but apparently someone someplace still recognizes my passion for politics and history...and the memories I still harbour of some African historical figures. The late Jonas Savimbi has a place on that list, as I followed his personal, political and military life closely. Nothing, in consequence, beats my list of top fraud e-mails than this one that I just received from a person - probably a Nigerian - who is claiming to be his wife. Help her, if you may :-)

Subject:  Mrs. Nancy Savimbi (Angola Unita)

My Dear Friend

I am Mrs.Savimbi, the wife to the late Jonas Savimbi,   the late leader
of the national Union for The Total Independence of Angola (UNITA). My
husband was killed during combat action against government forces in
Mexico, Angola on the 22nd of Feb. 2002.

I am contacting you because of my need to deal with person whom my
family had no previous relationship.Since the death of my husband, my
family has been subjected to all sorts of harassment and intimidation with
lots of negative report emanating from the government of President
Santos about my husband.

The present government has also ensured that all our bank accounts are
frozen, and all assets sized.It is in view of this that I seek your
assistance in investing and managing the sum of Seventy five Million
United State Dollars in your country, being the very last of my family funds
in my possession and control unknown to the government.This money now
in question came as a result of Diamond Royalties that was paid to my
late husband from the Diamond mining within the areas in Angola being
controlled by (UNITA) for more than a decade.

The money was packed in a sealed trunk box and was depositd
Security/Finance Company in Spain.Right now, the present government has
intensified their probe on my family's financial resources; frozen all our known
foreign & local accounts, revoked Diamond licenses, and even detained
my son (Charles) on alleged flimsy charges just because my husband
before his death was the head of UNITA.Bearing in mind that your assistance
is needed to transfer this money, I propose a commission of 10% (Ten
Percent) of the total sum to you or your company for the expected
services and assistance.

Please reply me through this email address below for security reasons:
nancysavimbi@myway.com


I await your prompt response to commence the transaction process.


Mrs.Nancy Savimbi
nancysavimbi@myway.com

Photo credit / BBC Online

"Fans say goodbye to the West Wing"

The last season of my best political drama returned on NTV a few Sundays ago, but it's being aired for the last time in the US in just under 12 hours. I'm a little of both a Rep and a Dem at heart, so I'm not certain I'll join either side in reacting to the show's demise; what I'll do is that I'll be among the number that will miss everything good there has been about the show. I mourned John Spencer as though he was working for me (I was among the fans that rushed to write a tribute to him on the BBC website). And I watched with keen interest, in my free time during the Democract's in-house slugfests in 2003 and part of 2004 when I was still across the pond, as Martin Sheen stumped the vote for the liberals. The plot spoilers I have been getting from the US have not been enough to dampen my interest in the episode that's currently running on NTV. I have been waiting to see someone come up with more or less a similar thriller in Kenya...something that will transcend the somewhat faded Reddykyulass and Intrukalass attempt at political comedy. It is getting painful to laugh at our politics each day the Lord lends me breath. *Photo credit / BBC Online.

Full text of press releases following attack on Hope FM

I have just returned after spending much of the day at the Nairobi Pentectostal Church and Hope FM studios, interviewing folks and seeing for myself the extent of the damage after last night's attacks on the radio station. As it turned out, one of the guards killed had previously worked at the university I attended and had been one of my key news sources in my days as the Editor-in-Chief of a student newspaper; I left when they were washing his blood out of the enquiries room he was manning at the time of the attack. Consequently, I'm a little messed up emotionally to do a sober and objective story on this incident (despite the volume of quality info and photos before me from a variety of sources and the interviews I carried out), so I've opted not to write anything about the incident apart from just passing on the following press releases (the ones I could get). 1. FULL TEXT OF PRESS RELEASE FROM HOPE FM MANAGEMENT At around 10:30 pm on Friday 12th May, 2006, 93.3 Hope FM studio was petrol bombed by some masked armed men. After gaining entrance they tied and shot dead one of the guards manning the main gate, and injured two others, who are recuperating in the hospital. They then proceeded to the Hope FM studio and forcefully gained entrance into the studio. After a scuffle with the staff who were on their way out, they fired a shot, switched off the station and petrol bombed the facility. We thank the police, Group 4 Security, Patriotic Guards and the Fire Brigade who arrived immediately in response to the alarm and helped to contain the situation. The relevant government security teams are carrying out investigations. We would like to assure our members and the general public that the station is up and running. The plans to launch national coverage are also on course. We take this opportunity to express our deep felt condolences and sympathy to the family of our guard and wish a quick recovery to the two in hospital. We condemn the taking away of innocent lives and the wanton destruction of private property. We are deeply concerned by a culture of intolerance by those who may not agree with each other especially in the media. Killing the messenger does not and will not kil the message. Although the enemy meant to do evil, it is our conviction that the Lord will turn this evil around for His glory. CHRIST IS THE ANSWER MINISTRIES, 13 MAY, 2006. 2. FULL TEXT OF PRESS RELEASE FROM THE MEDIA OWNERS' ASSOCIATION Media Owners' Association condemns the act of violence against Hope FM, yesterday at 10:30 pm, that caused one death and injuries to innocent people; and we convey our sincere condolences to the family. We ask for people not to speculate on the reason of the attack and request the police and government to speed up investigation and bring to book those who have perpetrated this heinous act. We appeal to all religious leaders in the country to continue praying for the country and preach peace, tolerance, harmony and co-existence as brothers and sisters. We are civilized society and those who have orchestrated this act of thuggery should know they have no place in this country. At this moment, we appeal for calm and understanding among Kenyans. We should not take advantage of this sad event or engage in reckless sensationalism. MOA will continue to advocate the essence of media freedom and responsibility. Signed by: Kanja Waruru, MOA CHAIRPERSON. 13/05/2006 3. FULL TEXT OF PRESS RELEASE FROM THE KENYA UNION OF JOURNALISTS (THE WING LED BY MR. DAVID MATENDE; I SAW THE WING THAT'S LED BY MR. EZEKIEL MUTUA STANDING ALONGSIDE THE MEDIA OWNERS' ASSOCIATION). On behalf of the newly registered officials of the Kenya Union of Journalists, I wish to condemn the attack on the premises of Hope FM, carried out by armed thugs. We in the media are concerned about the rising number of incidents involving affronts on the media. We are further alarmed at the government's failure to act decisively on these cases, some of which its own agent have been behind. Whatever the station did to warrant this attack is immaterial. What concerns us is the way the law is disregarded with impunity. We hereby demand: a). An immediate statement from the Minister for Internal Security on the attack on Hope FM. b). The protection of all media houses and journalists against organized attacks by people who may not be happy with what the media does. c). Repeal of laws that hamper journalists' work including the Official Secrets Act. This Act has led to an intense friction between the desire of the government to control information and the media struggle to inform the public. Should the state fail to act on these demands, we will consider other avenues of making them listen to the media's cries, including organizing a strike. Meanwhile, the Kenya Union of Journalists wishes to congratulate Mr. Ezekiel Oira on his appointment as the Managing Director of the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation. We also wish to thank the outgoing Managing Director Wachira Waruru for his contribution to professionalising the state broadcaster, including hiring new talent. Mr. Waruru oversaw reforms at KBC that has improved news presentation and brought new programmes to make the station competitive. We wish him well as the MD of the Kenya Film Censorship Board. We hope Mr. Oira will continue the reforms introduced by Mr. Waruru who told the government that KBC will no longer be a propaganda tool, and that the station is there to serve all Kenyans and not just those in power. Thank you. Signed by: David Matende, CHAIRMAN. 13/05/2006

Nairobi radio station petrol bombed

Via Nationmedia Hooded men attacked a Christian radio station in Nairobi last night shooting dead a guard and leaving the studio partly burnt from a petrol bomb.

Hope FM, run by the Nairobi Pentecostal Church came under attack at about 10.30pm Kenya time, soon after a programme that discusses Christianity and Islam had been aired.

Two people were seriously injured and were rushed to the Kenyatta National Hospital. They both suffered gun shot wounds.

The programme's presenter Damian Moses Ndimbo escaped with a bullet grazing his finger after he fought off one of the attackers.

"He was pointing a pistol at my head and when he cocked I knew I had to fight for my life. I deflected his hand just as he pressed the trigger. I then kicked him, he fell down and I ran back inside shouting. The station technician sensed danger and switched off the lights," Ndimbo told Nationmedia.com.

Ndimbo said the attackers followed him inside but could not trace them with the lights off. "They then went to the main studio and switched us off air," he added.

The gang of four had shot two night guards to gain entry into the church compound and were busy splashing petrol onto the reception area when the presenter showed up on his way home.

The Nairobi fire brigade were called in to put off fire at the scene.

Police officer John Ngare, in charge of operations at Kilimani police station said a pistol has been recovered at the scene.

Mr Ngare said that the attackers appeared to have carried two jerricans of a liquid which they used to set the building ablaze. Police are still carrying out investigations.

The station’s reception area has been badly damaged with burnt furniture strewn all over. However, the fire did not get to the main studio.

*Nation has done such a good brief on it that there is no need for me to rehash the story. If I get any new angles to it, I sure will do something about it. As for the photos, my camera is off-duty...if I get them by any other means, you sure will have them here too.

The "Son of So Many Tears"

Via Breakpoint..... This upcoming Sunday is Mother's Day. It's the day when Americans remember and celebrate the contributions and sacrifices their moms have made on their behalf.

In honor of Mother's Day, I'd like to tell you a story about one mother whose devotion shaped not only her son's life but countless others, as well.

Her name was Monica. A Christian, she was married to a prominent man who wasn't a believer. He was unfaithful and even beat her at times. Monica's response was to go to church every day and pray for his conversion. She hoped that by setting a godly example, even in the midst of her mistreatment, she might win him over. And that's exactly what happened.

The suffering and anguish caused by her husband paled before what Monica's oldest son put her through. He lived a dissolute life, devoted to pleasure. He left one mistress and took up with another. His only son was born out-of-wedlock.

His lack of faith and rejection of Christian truth hurt Monica even more. He belittled her beliefs and seemed to go out of his way to embrace Christianity's competitors for the hearts and, especially, minds of his contemporaries. He later recalled how his being "dead [to] that faith and spirit which," as he put it, "[my mother] had from you . . . O, Lord" made her weep.

Still, Monica never gave up. The greatest preacher of the time, knowing of her prayers and tears for her son, told her that "it is impossible that the son of so many tears should perish."

That preacher, Bishop Ambrose of Milan, was right. At the age of 35, Monica's son, Augustine, became a Christian and was baptized, along with his son, Adeodatus, by Ambrose. A few months later, on the way home to Hippo with Augustine and Adeodatus, Monica fell ill and died.

Monica could not have known that her prayers and devotion would affect not only the life of her son but also the course of history. Her concern was that her son believe "the truth which is in Jesus."

This devotion to the spiritual welfare of her son is why Monica is regarded as the model for all Christian mothers. Like Susannah Wesley, her zeal for the salvation of her son had an impact far beyond anything she could have imagined.

But there's another reason why Monica's story should resonate with "BreakPoint" listeners and readers. Her concern was not only that her son give up his debauchery, as important as that was. Monica was determined that he embrace the truth of Christianity. She prayed that he would renounce false worldviews and put his sharp mind to the service of Christian truth.

And that's exactly what he did. Augustine championed the Christian worldview against the false alternatives of his day. Much of what Christians believe today was first and best articulated by Monica's son. His writings, the Confessions and the City of God, are considered classics, not only of the Christian faith, but also of all of Western culture and civilization. Those books have profoundly shaped me and my ministry.

While there can be only one Monica and Augustine, every Christian mother—and father, for that matter—should be concerned with their kids' worldviews. Praying for them and teaching them to seek after Christian truth is a solemn duty on our part and a contribution they will always remember, whether it is Mother's Day or any other day of the year.

*Photo credit / Wikipedia

Of Bird Flu in Djibouti and a bankrupt Pan-African Parliament

This post was inspired by Tanzanian blogger Msangi at a time when I had been rather lazy to catch up on the news. Click here for details of the post as published on my Swahili blog. *Photo credit / My mama (taken outside the house)

Behind the Da Vinci Code and other resources

Murder in the Louvre, a religious mystery. The movie, based on Dan Brown's controversial bestseller, opens May 19. Follow detailed coverage here. ALSO: a). Breaking the Da Vinci Code b). Thanks, Da Vinci Code c). How a ludicrous book can become an opportunity to engage the culture d). Get complete Da Vinci coverage: Sign up for Hot Topics Newsletter RELATED RESOURCES: a). Was Jesus married? Free handout answers 5 big questions b). Bible studies and courses c). Preaching tools FURTHER RESOURCES: Behind the Da Vinci Code The Gospel Code vs. The Da Vinci Code (with a free audio book) The Da Vinci Code: What is true and what is not? (with free downloads) From: Christianity Today

.

Salvation just became "easier"

Click here for details. I'm also keeping that link on my homepage (just underneath KENYAN & WORLD MEDIA) in the event that you or anyone else you know will need it in the days to come.

Phase 5 of responses to "The death of Satan"

By MATTHEW & CRYSTAL KEHN Let's start by saying this. The world is fallen, the Church is fallen, and all people are fallen. We must be careful to not judge others and find that we are condemning ourselves. Nathan told David a story, "There were two men who lived in the same town; one was rich and the other poor. The rich man had many cattle and sheep, while the poor man had only one lamb, which he had bought. He took care of it, and it grew up in his home with his children. He would feed it some of his own food, let it drink from his cup, and hold it in his lap. The lamb was like a daughter to him. One day a visitor arrived at the rich man's home. The rich man didn't want to kill one of his own animals to fix a meal for him; instead, he took the poor man's lamb and prepared a meal for his guest." David became very angry at the rich man and said, "I swear by the living LORD that the man who did this ought to die! For having done such a cruel thing, he must pay back four times as much as he took." "You are that man," Nathan said to David." David immediately burned for justice and found himself guilty. Many days I burn for justice in the world, in politics, in the desparate situations where people are being exploited and oppressed - but in the end find myself guilty. I think if we are honest about Bush, he has used his Christendom as a platform for votes and support on the basis of morality rather than a true, real and vibrant relationship with Jesus Christ. Jesus never came to make us moral - He came to give us His righteousness and calls us to pursue HIM not the Law/Morality. Christians who support him only on the basis of his 'faith' are falling prey to the neo-cons' desire for personal power through religious lingo (It happens in Kenya, Uganda and all over the world, people use Christianity for their own personal gain). Bush's Christianity is religion, law, morality - like the pharisees who thought they had it all together. It is not his faith that has affected his decisions, but his religion. One only needs to weed through history to see the fallen diplomatic policies that the US, not only Bush, has used to take advantage of others. For example: supporting and enabling dictatorial governments in South American countries. What strikes me most about the US's foreign policy is SELFISHNESS. Ethnocentrism spills over from every act and decision. "What does not benefit the US is useless!" Look again to the story of Nathan. The US is the rich man, most Third World countries are the poor man. We have seen this scenario many times throughout the history of the US. I have also seen it in my own life. My overwhelming selfishness is the root of all my sin. It creeps up from the very nature of who I am into all areas of my life. If I, being saved by Jesus as a sinner, judge and condemn selfish acts among others, I must first confess them myself. Therefore I now stand on the same side as Bush, the US, the rich man, and David. We are all fallen, the world needs Jesus Christ. Putting more "Christians" in politics and leadership of nations will not redeem the world. Redemption only comes when you put Jesus Christ as the Leader and President of your individual life. He asks you to count the cost, destroy your selfishness, carry the cross, be crucified with Him and follow Him for the rest of your life. I will journey with anyone who is on this road. *Editor's note: Matt and his wife are serving God in Uganda. I happen to have been roomies with Matt at college and also attended Urbana 2003 wih him at the University of Illinois (where again we shared a residence hall). He is a man who truely loves God and I treasure his reflections on matters of life and faith, our agreements and disagreements over the same notwithstanding. Backgrounder to this series of reflections Original article Phase 1 of responses to the article Phase 2 of responses to the article Phase 3 of responses to the article Phase 4 of responses to the article

Church in Zurich, Switzerland

Grace, a Kenyan living in Switzerland, has written in to say The Path of Life is a Church in Zurich which anyone visiting Switzerland might find useful. That has led me into starting 3 different rolls on my homepage for possible places in Kenya, Europe and the US that one could go to for Sunday services. I'll add to the lists under the rolls as and when I receive more suggestions from you; I'll generally be guided by the extent and proportion to which the Church you suggest is seeking to live out the faith through its vision and mission. Any congregation that resonates with my statement of faith will be a natural add-on.

Online Kalenjin music and dialogues

By KIP This is to inform you that there is a new episode on my podcast. Help me spread the word, if you may. Also visit the online Kalenjin discussion forum. Thanks.

Phase 4 of responses to "The death of Satan"

By A.M, American living in Kenya

Thanks, Jesse for the backgrounder. 
You know, I wouldn't disagree with criticisms of Bush's Iraq policy at all. 
My point was just that it's a different thing to say somebody's religion doesn't affect their politics (i.e. it has no  
real power in their lives) and to say it affects their politics but we don't agree with them (i.e. their religion has power in the lives but  
they've interpreted the mandates of their religion in a way we don't like.) 
I think many politicians both Kenyan and American fall into the first category. Islamic terrorists for most of us fall into the second.  
George W. Bush falls into the second for around half of the U.S. and most of the rest of the world, though as I have said not for me in  
terms of much of his domestic policy emphasis. 
For some people he is in a third category, that of people whose religion makes a difference in their politics and the difference is viewed as good. 
I did not mention in the previous message that one other thing I do appreciate is his insistence that for the first time in a long time in the U.S. political arena, faith based organizations should not have to give up their  
distinctives in order to be considered legitimate providers of social and medical services.

Backgrounder
Original article
Phase 1 of responses to the article
Phase 2 of responses to the article
Phase 3 of responses to the article

This also happens to have been my last assignment for now as a guest editor.  Thanks for reading.  
- Z.M. 

Elvis' struggles with God & other issues....

A few weeks ago Mama Mia blogged on Elvis Presley's spiritual side; that in large part inspired me to dig into my CD archives for an interesting presentation made on the legendary singer by Dr. Ravi Zacharias, one of the leading apologists in contemporary Christianity. Mama Mia has since had the opportunity to listen to the CD and should therefore be in a position to give you her own assesment of the content. But Dr. Zacharia's presentation does, in large part, remind me of the woeful tales of countless men and women of reknown who, down the ages, have in their later years or on deathbeds been confronted by the reality and supremacy of a Holy God they had denied all along at the height of their power, wisdom or other forms of accomplishment and, sometimes, even pain. In the MYSTERY OF EVIL AND THE MIRACLE OF LIFE, Dr. Zacharias (I'm quoting the CD jacket here) "examines how the Gospel comes in contradiction to our existential struggles - struggles of human wickedness and the hunger for something greater than this world. He traces the origin of evil and particularly the lure of sin placed before Adam and Eve when Satan made God's truth suspect....(he) examines our hunger for fulfillment of needs that God alone is big enough to fill and offers a challenge to surrender the human will to God's control." In excellent, well-polished arguments, Dr. Zacharias puts forth his case......here are some excerpts...be sure to get yourself a copy of the hour-long CD.....that way or by contacting his office. - "All human beings, whether studied or unstudied in philosophy, ultimately look for their lives to conform to reality as they understand it whether it is right or wrong. If they know that fire burns, they will avoid putting their hand there unless they are purely....suicidal. They want their lives and bodies to correspond to that which is real so that even if they don't use logic or reason, they want their lives to be consistent with reality." - "The reason there is a breakdown (in society) is not even so much that rational strength and the ability to think has been abandoned but our lives are beaking down because we don't understand what reality is all about...what I would like to show you is where this breakdown is coming in and how the Gospel is then coming in contradiction to the world of existentialist struggles...I think you'll find it extremely meaningful." - He then devotes some good amount of time to German philosopher F. Nietzsche and Irish literary icon Oscar Wilde, two very significant atheistic figures that died in 1900, though he is lots more detailed on the latter. You would have to listen to him so as to feel the passion, candour, intensity and wit with which he dissects Wilde the literary genius and debauched gay playboy. He does a critique of Wilde's well known novel - The Picture of Dorian Gray - and notes: "In his (own) life, he denuded the body, but in his novel.....he bared, I think, his soul." - He then quotes some dissilusioned scholars who, despairing at the frustrations emerging from the weaknesses of secularism, are now suggesting that "the world desperately needs a noble lie" so as to survive its troubles. He quotes one of them as saying "modern culture urgently needs a noble lie....a myth that links the moral teachings of religion with the scientific facts of life. Science has eroded the plausibility of the Judeo-Christian myths...including archaic views of the universe, a presumption that humans are at the center of existence, and the stories of Jesus' ressurection and Moses bringing the 10 commandments from the mountain...these are pure myths." Dr. Zacharias then goes on: "This tells you the unabashed seduction of secular thought knows having abandoned reason, existential life becomes unliveable....how are they going to solve the dillemma...dispel the myths of religion and all you are left with is despair which considers life in the universe meaningless." - Having said that, he then delves into what he considers to be the four struggles of existentialism (here is a general summary). a). The mystery of human wickedness: What does evil really mean? He argues that evil means you and I can define reality apart from God; that's the lie we have been tempted to live by (as Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden). They chose to make God a liar. Evil is the natural outworking of a lie; "it's as simple as that but also catastrophic." b). The marvel of humanity's hunger for worship: There's a deep longing within each one of us; there's a beyond in us that goes beyond the scope of romantic love, the stars, etc. There's a haunting sense of emptiness which no human or anything else can satisfy. It is at this point that Dr. Zacharias recalls a conversation he says he once had with one of the people related to Elvis Presley following the singer's death from a supposed addiction to prescription drugs, leaving his family distraught and the world of teenagers shaken that its icon had died. What was it that drove the man? The Elvis buddy is then quoted as saying: "All I know is that with all the women he had screaming for him and all the fame he had before him, (Elvis) was an extremely lonely man. He said that he cried with loneliness...the song that I believe he meant more deeply than any other but a song that he could not appropriateas as far as the outworld world knew is one I saw him singing in Las Vegas before a crowd of gamblers and drinking people....when he told them I want to sing to you you a song that deeply moves me....and he sang How Great Thou Art...and his audience was in spell-bound silence...many times when I bid him goodnight as I was the last one to leave him every night...he would be at the piano singing hymns. He really hungered for something greater than the world was giving him." Dr. Zacharias then proceeds, using Psalms 42:1-11 as a basis, to argue that "the hunger that even the blatant secularist has he cannot explain....it conflicts existentially and God fills it." c). The mastery of the human will - He argues that's where the collision really takes place. He gives two excellent illustrations of media mogul Ted Turner and Alexander the Great for a point to which you just need to listen so as to understand. Of the latter, he says that "the problem with Alexander the Great is that he was his own worst rival." d). The miracle of existence itself - He begins to wind up his presentation by quoting an atheist who has said that "the greatest gift in our generation to our children and posterity is that we have released them (our kids) from the fear of the supernatural." Dr. Zacharias then bemoans what he says is the overestimation of the power of miracles by Christians and the underestimation of the same by skeptics. He says: "Our hearts have determined to stay course in those paths....but there's a miracle the world is still looking for....not just an answer to origins but something that will change the enslavement within. The truth is true objectively, though appropriated subjectively. God's truth is the one we all yearn for from the deepest of our insides." He then winds it up by saying: "In this existential struggle, God's word is true. Let's do this generation a favour by defending this because the word of God conforms to reality and our lives must conform to reality too. May God bless you and I trust His word will become true in your life. If you don't know Him, I hope you'll find His definition of reality; if you know Him let's live for the truth. God bless you."

The other woman that I called "Mum"

This piece was largely inspired by WM's writing about her mum a few days ago.....as well as that of AK about one of her lecturers......it's about a woman I lost to cancer a little early in life, but one whose impact on my life has defied the passage of time. I met Mrs. R in my first term at elementary school. She had obviously seen better days but still affected an easy demeanor as she immediately put me at ease. "My son, I hope you realize that we are going to have to be good friends now that your parents have put you under my watch for the next three years," she said, her face laced with a warm smile. And there began an exciting relationship between us. A devout Roman Catholic teaching in a public school that was heavily influenced by trends in the local Catholic community, she never utilized this position of double priveledge to lord it over us towards Rome; Protestants like myself had our best of times with regard to religious instruction in the school, it was always either about the crucified and risen Jesus or no C.R.E at all. That, I would think, was one of her major contributions to my person for never again would I encounter such deep and solid Christian instruction in elementary school as I did under her tutelage. I'm grateful she never allowed our denominational differences to cloud over the Jesus we both shared an enduring interest in. Her second contribution would have to be her motherly, personalized oversight over me in her class of several pupils. Perhaps at no other time did I see this so well illustrated than once when I fell ill in her class and, on another occasion, some girls tried to distract me during her Maths class. For the illness, she took the liberty to end the class (a dangerous thing to do in those days of mutual national suspicion that could have seen her fired for ending her class even a minute earlier) and send for my Mum who was some 10 kilometres away; her gesture touched the sickly me so much that I yearned to heal faster and return to her class (of course my Mum would have none of that). For the girls, the romantic note they were throwing across to me fell flat on her desk.......the girl who had written it wanted to disappear from planet earth that very moment. Mrs. R opened and went over the poorly written love letter from the girl, looked at her and her large supporting cast, then calmly said: "My dear boys and girls, let's talk about this at break time." Come break time and the kids that we were gathered around her for a nice, gentle lecture on sexual education.....the girl harassed me no more. I do not recall other teachers ever doing what Mrs. R had just done for the entire time I went through primary school and high school; what I instead recall are the several lives and promising futures that quite literally perished under the care of some randy male and female teachers in the schools I attended. Incidentally, I registered my best performance in Maths under Mrs. R because the moment I left her tutelage (Standard 1 through 3), I fell into the hands of men and women who convinced me that Maths meant nothing but Mental-Agony-To-Harass-Students. Her third and not least important contribution in my life came in the way of education, - it was in her able hands that I developed an insatiable thirst for knowledge, skills and values; she gave me and everyone else in her class the very best. Her teaching was so good that we perfomed just as well; one of the most talked about myths and legends in that school to date is the academic rivalry among several families in the area that emerged as a result of pupils in Mrs. R's stream (East) battling it out with those in a Mrs. T's class (West). Thanks to Mrs. R, I ended up becominng a lightning rod for some of these rivalries....the records of which I hear remain ubeaten in some of the subjects that she had been careful to teach as so well. Sadly, Mrs. R succumbed to a deadly cancer we never knew she had just at about the same moment as some of us were celebrating our entry into high school; obviously the steely bit in her had denied us access to her inner pains and struggles all through. For those among us to whom she had become a Mum away from home, we had lost much more than a teacher. Her memory is still fresh in my mind and the classes she took me through are ever before me; I took to doing some volunteer teaching after my post-secondary education at another primary school in the subjects I enjoyed the most with her, if only to become the part-time teacher I think she had inspired me to become. Looking back, I think the pupil in me had enjoyed her too much to even consider giving anything back to her in the way of love, - a love that perhaps she needed all the while she taught us. But as her pupils are all the rage these days turning the country and world upside down the best they know how, I can think of no better tribute to Mrs. R to have survived her years of immense toil and little pay from the government of the day (a situation many other Rs still have to bear to date). *Publication of this piece was delayed a little because of the responses we had coming in on one of our earlier posts. Publication of those responses will resume sometime on Wednesday after another piece on the late Elvis Presley. - Z.M, Guest Editor.

Phase 3 of responses to "The death of Satan"

By KENYAN IDIOT You made my day today. I will choose to ignore the Americans and their Bush in this debate as they'll do and say anything to defend him: I saw that with my lecturers during their last general elections. But I will not hesitate to say that Bush's policies, at least those that I know of (the international ones), are nowhere near Christocentrism. To argue that the Iraq situation is a Christian motivation is a display of ignorance of the fundamental principles that guide christianity. Christianity is not defended with arms and neither does God need lawyers (am not downplaying the place of apologetics, for I'm an apologist) to chant His cause. He will and has always done it for Himself, over 2,000 years of Christianity is itself an attestation of that. If the "Christian" Bush is is concerned about the spread of Islam let him resort to prayer and Godly living and not war. And I think this is the point Jesse is putting across: that the so-called Christian leaders have failed to lead with the Biblical principles aptly put forth...and that some non-Christian leaders have done a better job. The bone of contention is about the leaders whose policies, decisions and actions have raised questions as to whether they are indeed Christians in the first place. These are the kind of "Christian leaders" Kenya has had. In Africa, we have the Chilubas and worldwide we have the Bushes, among others. The so-called-leaders were, in large part, elected on the platform of Christianity... that since they were Christians they would bring positive Christian change, only for them to add negativity to what is already a bad situation. I am an evangelical believer and do not believe in an utopia BUT still much can be deduced from individual responsibility such as the Christian Bush causing the massive loss of life in Iraq. *The writer blogs at Mapinduzi on various matters of faith. This was in response to the piece published on Christians and how they are engaging national issues in Kenya a few days ago by Jesse. The first and second part of responses by some readers to that piece can be found on this blog as well as Jesse's Swahili one. - Z.M, Guest Editor.

Phase 2 of responses to "The death of Satan"

This post has been culled from incoming comments and correspondence following an article by Jesse on this blog on Wednesday. The first part of the responses had already been published. In his absence, I bear responsibility for any content and / or editorial errors. - Z.M, Guest Editor.

*****

Jesse,

I am also born-again BUT I am of the persuasion of liberation theologians. I believe in heaven here and now, not tomorrow. I believe that Jesus came so that we may have life in full (politically, economically, socially, physically, mentally etc). For that reason, a leader who propagates separation of politics from religion will not be on my list of buddies. In Kenya we have seen many born-agains telling people to leave politics to the politicians. That to me shows they don't read their Bible well. Regarding Bush and his Christianity - speaking as an African, I say he attacked Iraq because he was a Christian. He saw that to stop the spread of Islamists who harm Christians for just being Christains, Iraq had to succumb to US might. However he did not envisage a situation where Musilims would interpret that for a crusade. The war in Iraq now is not about oil. It is Jesus versus Mohammed. Otherwise your analysis of the Kenyan scenario has hit the nail on the head.

-Pukks, Mozambique

*****

Bravo Jesse,

That was a nice piece. I hope the media fellows will quiz the Honourable members to-be and will use the forthcoming by-elections as a dress rehersal for the elections to come in 2007.

This can be done by inviting them for debates on a wide range of social and economic issues to assess their fitness as Honourable members of parliament. Some of them will be appointed ministers and will be answerable to not only their constituents but Kenyans as a whole. - M.O, Denmark

*****

Jesse, I like your write up; it's challenging and true. Hebu soma Amos 5:20-24, I kinda think it suffices for what I thought of the National Prayer day.

I pray that u become an MP nxt year, ama? It will be a turning point, I admire your convictions........

Take care n always praying for you.

- D.O, Kenya

*****

Jesse, Thanks for the work you are doing. Keep it up. Tuko pamoja. - J.K, Kenya.

*****

Jesse, I really appreciate these pieces. As I said, I look forward to being able to contribute on issues raised. Blessings Man! - K.K, Kenya

Phase 1 of responses to "The death of Satan"

This is the balance of thoughts received thus far which merited publication as articles on their own rather than as merely comments to the piece published by Jesse a few hours ago. Other comments will be published as they are received and considered. - Z.M, Guest Editor.

*****

Jesse, I would have to disagree about George Bush. I will not dispute that his foreign policy, except for the commitment to a large block of money to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa, is objectionable. However, domestically it appears to me that his Christianity has made a great difference in his decision making. He stands firmly against abortion, he has attempted to put into place stringent guidelines regarding embryonic stem cell research based on that conviction, he is pushing abstinence as a solution to HIV prevention, he has opened up immigration in the U.S., especially with regards to persons already living in the country illegally (though admittedly not Arab ones) more than any president in recent memory. Now, one can argue that he is not correct on some of his positions, but that his Christianity has impacted his domestic policy in a noticeable way is not arguable. Nor, may I point out, would most of his opponents in the U.S. make that argument. They would assert that he is wrong--possibly because of his faith--but not that his faith has not impacted his stands on issues. I do some research in the area of HIV/AIDS, and I can assure you that persons involved in that field do not think George W. Bush's faith has not made a difference--they think it has made a very strong, negative difference (I happen to be very appreciative of his stance on abstinence, though I'm less convinced that his administration's position downgrading the importance of the media in fighting HIV/AIDS is useful. But then again I would not think that position springs from faith convictions). That is the main reason why, despite the fact that it is clearly in the descendency, many persons on the opposite side of the political spectrum are excruciatingly vocal in expressing their fears that the conservative Christian ideology is taking over American politics. - A.M, American living in Kenya.

******

It's alright with you barbing at Bush; you were quoting.

Incidentally, I doubt very much that he would have made even the efforts he has to deal with things like AIDS in Africa, genocide in Sudan or (certainly) an attempt, however faltering, to bring about democracy in the Middle East without his Christian faith. That being said, there are many politicians of the type you describe here.

A good piece of advice on this matter is to compare the political action of Chuck Colson with that of Jerry Fallwell. Colson writes the Breakpoint web column, which always makes for good daily reading. I recommend it to anyone. - A.J, Pennsylvania, USA.

The death of Satan: How Kenyans have lost a sense of evil (and why they must get it b4 2007)

Let me first declare my interests in this matter, about which I had promised to write a few days ago: I'm a born-again Christian in the Reformed tradition, a son to an evangelical clergyman, a trained journalist with some experience in the local and international media, passionate about my faith as well as issues (politics included) that inform life on this planet. I also have a fairly good grasp of the Kenyan, African and global Christian landscape; gained through reading, travel and practical engagement in life with other believers. This piece has been distilled from my own thoughts on this matter as well as ideas I have gleaned from some Christian friends with whom I have been reflecting on this subject. I write this, therefore, with as much of a detached observer's skepticism as much as I'm doing so with an insider's determined anguish to redeem what I believe is a situation perfectly within our sights. At the time of this writing, I had it on good authority that a large number of Christian candidates will be contesting for parliamentary seats in next year's General Elections. Some of the prospective candidates are already in parliament, others will be doing so for the very first time; a good number of the latter are folks I either attended university with or have interacted with in Christian circles or in the media industry. In the new crop of candidates are folks I could vote for anytime anywhere, but in the same camp are folks I would rather we had others - like the Artur brothers :-) - running in their stead, democracy or no democracy. Alongside this development is the established thought in some circles, proved wrong in some constituencies and even on the presidential ballot in 2002, that there are annointed MPs for whom Kenyans should uncritically vote in 2007. The foregoing is the kind of thinking informing some of the rather weird consensus in some Christian circles that seeks to be the driving force behind some of the Christian parliamentary and presidential hopefuls. I have no problems with Christians, Muslims, Hindus or whoever else fielding candidates in the General Elections - it is within their legal rights to do so; what I'm opposed to is the possible emergence in the next Parliament of some legislators - falling in my category of persons I would rather die than vote for - who will be our bane. Those legislators-to-be have nothing, apart from their professed faith, to offer this country; they are in good company with several past and present Christian legislators and presidents whose work ethic could be called anything but productive. Those legislators-to-be have not engaged the real issues of the day in the way of a dedicated life of service and reflection; you'll find nothing to back up their talk either in any known political philosophy or paper trail documenting their contribution to the leadership of organizations or groups they have been part of.

Those legislators-to-be talk so glibly about social transformation but have never allowed their faith to - in the thoughts of Christ in the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12)- affect their world as they know it in any discernible way; their faith has been kept private and safe, never really pushing them out of their comfort zones much enough to disturb the status quo that puts the weak and vulnerable in our society at the mercy of the high and mighty.

Those legislators-to-be suffer from a terrible but conveniently nourished cognitive dissonance that allows them to live not as they believe, while at the same time hitting the campaign trail with the message of how much their salvation will help them transform our country. Those legislators-to-be have for their heroes the late Mzee Jomo Kenyatta, Daniel Arap Moi and President Mwai Kibaki and their large army of "Christian" political disciples - both in government and the opposition -; men and women whose record in private life and the conduct of public affairs is nothing to write home about. Those legislators-to-be will, gladly, use the state to promote Christianity while utilizing the same machinery to oppress those who will, in their estimation, be having nothing to contribute to "national cohesion, stability and development." As some Zambian pastors reportedly did when Christian President Frederick Chiluba came in, those legislators are likely to - for a social vision - ask for more land for the construction of churches, more freedom for "crusades" and, who knows, a declaration that Kenya is officially a Christian nation; all that while as Kenya goes down the gutter under whoever else they will have helped us annoint. As someone has so well noted: "The most powerful man in the world today (President George Bush) claims to be a born-again, evangelical Christian. Are his domestic and foreign policies any Christian? Where did we get the idea that if we had more Christians in positions of power and influence our nation would be more just and compassionate? We have 2,000 years of history to deny that." And do take this from him too: "If you have people who only think that the Gospel is about being born-again and going to Heaven when we die, pray that these people won't have positions of power in our country. Let's pray that we'll have Christians in those positions who we'll have taken time to develop a Christian, political philosophy and vision of the world. And for that you need much more than the Bible...or quoting Romans 13 and I Peter 2 as if that settles the issue. There's more than 2,000 years of profound Christian reflection on politics, beginning with that great North African called St. Augustine....rich 2,000 years of Christian political reflection, and often not done by evangelicals (and - I add - sometimes Christians in general)." These nicely dressed-up, dangerous wannabes, presenting themselves as angels of light, need not be handled with kids' gloves as has been the case in past elections. The Kenyan voter needs to refresh his or her sense of evil and vote out those who will be calling "Christ, Christ" in the campaigns and private strategy meetings yet have no real, known love for someone before whom all known and unknown history will someday culminate. He's someone whom if, as they claim, they truely believe in, would have informed their understanding of how best to make their lives a daily responsible answer to the question of God's call on their lives in our generation. *I'll see if I or anyone else can do a sequel to this. If you are interested in doing so, just holla at me via the e-mail address on my homepage. I'm terribly time-limited for now to do anything serious. By the way, a Swahili translation of this piece is available at my Swahili blog.

Basic Stott as a precursor to my piece

In this cover story from 1996, evangelicalism's premier teacher speaks on gender, charismatics, leaving the Church of England, the poor, evangelical fragmentation, Catholics, the future, and other subjects. This article originally appeared as the cover story for Christianity Today's January 8, 1996, issue. As "Uncle Stott" happens to be someone I agree with on a number of theological issues, I have it here as a precursor to some piece I intend to publish in the next few days on Christians' engagement with national issues in Kenya. It's nothing earth-shaking; I hope I find the time to have it here in the next few days.

By ROY McCLOUGHRY

John Stott joins together what most people tear asunder—or at least are incapable of holding together. He is a theologian of depth and breadth, yet he preaches and writes with clarity to a wide audience. He integrates social concerns into the mission of the church without ever minimizing his commitment to evangelism. Since he was ordained in 1945, he has ministered within a mainline denomination (the Church of England), while neither compromising his convictions nor diminishing his role as an evangelical thought leader. Engaged in parish ministry for 50 years at All Souls, Langham Place, in the center of London, where he now holds the title rector emeritus, his influence among evangelicals is of international proportions.

One of Stott's enduring legacies is as the key framer of the historic Lausanne Covenant (1974), which serves almost as an evangelical apostles' creed in many Third World settings. His faithful witness to the gospel in his writings and preaching has made him mentor and friend to a global community. The author of 34 books, Stott's primer on the faith, Basic Christianity, has been translated into over 50 languages, and 22 more are in progress.

Speaking of Authentic Christianity, an anthology of his writings from the past 50 years (forthcoming from InterVarsity), evangelical historian Mark Noll serves up this accolade: "I consider John Stott the sanest, clearest, and most solidly biblical living writer on theological topics in the English language." It is difficult to dispute this assessment.

More than his books, documents, or institutions, Stott's most important legacy to the church has been his wisdom. Thoroughly biblical, disarmingly open, shrewdly discerning, Stott's thought has helped guide the evangelical movement as it engaged social concerns, the charismatic movement, female clergy, homosexuality, and challenges to core doctrines. In preparation for Stott's seventy-fifth birthday, Roy McCloughry, associate editor of the British Christian magazine Third Way, interviewed this evangelical Solomon on these and many other topics. The discussion can serve as a measure of where we are as a movement—and where we need to go.

Your ministry stretches back over 50 years. How have you changed over that time?

I was very naive when I was ordained. I was more an activist than a thinker. I saw needs and wanted immediately to meet them, and this crowded out my studies.

It was in the early days of my ministry that I learned the necessity of stepping back, looking where I was going, and having a monthly quiet day to be drawn up into the mind of God and look ahead for the next six or twelve months. That was an enormous benefit to me.

You've covered an immense range of issues in your ministry—theological, social, doctrinal, and cultural. Has that been due to curiosity or to obligation as a minister?

A bit of both. Even before my conversion, I believe that God gave me a social conscience. When I was only 14 years old, I started a society at school whose major purpose was to give baths to tramps. I had a great concern for these homeless, dirty men.

We called it the ABC, because we thought they could understand that; having decided on the letters, we had to look around for words that would fit, and we came up with two: either "Always Be a Christian" or "the Association for the Benefit of the Community." It only lasted a few years, and we never gave any baths to tramps; but we did some other good works until the treasurer loaned all the subscriptions to his brother, who spent everything.

My father was a doctor and a very high-minded, high-principled person, though not a Christian. He believed in a national health service before it was even dreamed about. My mother, too, was very concerned for the maids in the doctors' homes who had nothing to do on their afternoons off. She started the Domestic Fellowship. So they both had a social conscience.

Evangelism and Social Action

Some people might divide your ministry into two halves, one focused on pietism and one concerned with the very broadest social, cultural, and economic aspirations of society. What caused this change?

I think it was reading the Bible. As I read and studied and meditated, my vision of God grew and I came to see the obvious things: that God is not just interested in religion but in the whole of life—in justice as well as justification.

I don't see any dichotomy between the "pietistic" and social realms. To me, they're two aspects of the same thing: a pursuit of the will of God. I have always been moved by the phrase "to hunger and thirst after righteousness"; righteousness covers both personal holiness and social justice.

Some people might say that your commitment to the justice of god, expressed in social terms, led to a watering down of your commitment to the gospel.

I think that's rubbish, honestly. I remain committed to evangelism. I have had the privilege of leading more than 50 university missions all over the world, and they spanned a period of 25 years until I felt I was a little out of touch with the student generation and too old.

I can honestly say that my social concerns have not diminished my zeal for evangelism. If anything, it's the other way round. What people could say is that I talk a lot about social action but don't do much about it. And that is true, because my calling is to be a pastor. Although I disagree with polarization between these two, I've often said I do believe in specialization.

Acts 6 is the obvious biblical basis for this specialization of roles: the apostles were not willing to be distracted from the ministry of the Word and prayer. In fact, the seven were appointed to handle the care of the widows. Both those works are called diakonia, "ministry"; both required Spirit-filled people to exercise them. Both were necessary, but one was social, the other pastoral.

Don't some people fear that renewed emphasis on social concern might muffle the call to evangelism?

There are a number of mission leaders, particularly Americans, who are frightened that we want missionaries to give themselves to social-political work, which is none of their business and would distract them from their primary role in evangelism. I have no wish for missionaries to change their role. There is a real need for evangelists who are not engaged in holistic mission because their calling is evangelism. I don't criticize Billy Graham because he simply preaches the gospel and doesn't engage in social-political work—well, he does a bit, but not much—any more than we don't criticize the Good Samaritan for not preaching the gospel to the man assaulted by robbers.

It's partly our existential situation that determines what we concentrate on, partly our vocation. Everybody cannot do everything, as I keep saying to myself.

In Issues Facing Christians Today (1984), you say: "evangelism is the major instrument of social change. For the gospel changes people, and changed people can change society." Isn't that really a ruggedly individualistic picture of social change?

I think that quote is from where I list four or five instruments for social change. I put evangelism first because Christian social responsibility depends on socially responsible Christians, and they are the fruit of evangelism.

Having said that, I would also want to make the complementary point that Christians are not the only people who have benefited or reformed society. We evangelicals do have a very naive view. Take marriage: people say, "They have got to be converted and then they'll have a good marriage." But there are Christians who don't have good marriages, and there are plenty of excellent marriages among people who are not Christians. Morality and social conscience are not limited to Christian people.

Why is the church so often the last to join a protest movement? The church in time might take the lead; and it may speak with the greatest integrity against jingoism or apartheid or nuclear weapons or the abuse of the environment. But these movements are often started by others.

Well, that has not always been true. The slave trade is a good example and Shaftesbury's reforms in relation to mental illness. Nevertheless, by and large what you say is true. Why? First, because we're busy; we're busy evangelizing and doing other things, mostly in the church. We don't always demand our liberty from the church in order to be active in the world.

Second, we have such a strong doctrine of fellowship and are so clear about our responsibility not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers that we have seldom learned that we can be "cobelligerents," to use Francis Schaeffer's well-known term, even if we are not in active spiritual fellowship with one another.

Some people might say that the church is simply very conservative. It only joins these movements for change under pressure from secular forces in society.

I wish it were always Christians who took the initiative in seeking needed social change. But I am still thankful when others take the initiative and Christians follow, even under secular pressure.

We must not set secular fashion and the Holy Spirit over against each other, as being always and inevitably incompatible. Public opinion isn't always wrong. What is wrong is to bow down before it uncritically, like reeds shaken by the wind. Why should the Holy Spirit not sometimes use public opinion to bring God's people into line? The Spirit seems to have done so on a number of occasions in the debate between science and faith.

What is the theological basis for Christian social involvement today? Is it enough to speak of being "salt and light"?

Start with the nature of God. God is interested in and concerned about more than religion: God is the Lord of creation and the covenant. God is the lover of justice, one who protects and champions the oppressed: this is God's nature. If this is the kind of God we have, then clearly God's people have got to be the same.

Second, there is the doctrine of human beings, of male and female made in the image of God—the unique dignity and worth of human beings. William Temple said, "My worth is what I am worth to God, and that is a marvelous great deal, because Christ died for me." And I would say that the ministry of Jesus in life and death exhibits the enormous value of human beings.

Then, I would want to back up this biblical theme with examples from history. Take Mother Teresa, for example, who sees a woman on the pavement of Calcutta with awful sores infested by live maggots. Mother Teresa kisses this woman and picks her up. She sees an intrinsic value in her.

That, surely, is what has motivated people. That is why the word humanization, which was first adopted in the World Council of Churches, is something we evangelicals ought to have taken up. Anything that dehumanizes human beings should be an outrage to us, because God has made them in his image. The whole concept of the rehumanization of human beings, and the deliverance of human beings from anything that dehumanizes, ought to inspire people, and has inspired people.

Mainline Churches

Do you still think the Anglican Church makes a good home for evangelicalism?

Yes, I think it's a good boat to fish from, but that's not the reason I'm a member of it.

There are three options for evangelicals in mainline denominations. The two extremes are to get out or cave in. The third is to stay in without giving in. The extremes are actually the easy options. Anybody can cave in: that's the way of the coward, the way of the feeble mind. To cave in is to stay in but to fail to hold on to your distinctive evangelicalism. You just compromise.

To get out is to say, "I can't bear this constant argument and controversy any longer." That also is an easy option. I know people have done it and suffered because they have given up a secure job and salary; but it's an easy option psychologically.

The difficult thing is to stay and refuse to give in, because then you're always in tension with people with whom you don't altogether agree, and that is painful.

But no Christian can give unqualified allegiance to any institution. What, for you, would be the signals that it is time to leave the Church of England?

I've always felt that it's unwise to publish a list of criteria in advance. Nevertheless, I'm quite happy to talk about them. I think one's final decision to leave would be an exceedingly painful one, a situation that I cannot envisage at the moment.

I would take refuge in the teaching of the New Testament, where the apostles seem to distinguish between major and minor errors. The major doctrinal errors concern the person and work of Christ. It's clear in 1 John that anyone who denies the divine-human person of Jesus is anti-Christ. So, if the church were officially to deny the Incarnation, it would be an apostate church and one would have to leave.

Then, there's the work of Christ. In Galatians, if anybody denies the gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone, that is anathema: Paul calls down the judgment of God upon that person.

On the major ethical issues: the best example is the incestuous offender in 1 Corinthians 5. Paul called on the church to excommunicate him. If you want me to stick my neck out, I think I would say that if the church were officially to approve homosexual partnerships as a legitimate alternative to heterosexual marriage, this so far diverges from biblical sexual ethics that I would find it exceedingly difficult to stay. I might want to stay on and fight for a few more years, but if they persisted, I would have to leave.

Evangelical Fragmentation

It seems that evangelicalism has fragmented into different groups, with different heroes, publishers, and cultures. How should we think of ourselves now?

I don't mind plurality as long as it goes hand-in-hand with unity. But I've given a great deal of my life to the development and preservation of unity within the evangelical constituency. I have never believed that our differences have been great enough to warrant fragmentation. I don't mind people founding their own societies and going after their own thing—again, it's an example of specialization—provided they still recognize that we belong to one another.

What are the current causes of evangelical fragmentation?

We fragment over what we regard as issues of principle, but often the real reason is personal, isn't it? When we're afraid, we withdraw into our own fellowships and ghettos with like-minded people where we feel secure. I'm aware of that fear in myself; it's part of our basic human insecurity. We're looking for contexts in which we can be supported rather than questioned.

I'm afraid that in some cases the cause of fragmentation is worse than that—it's a simple matter of ambition. There is a great deal of empire building among us. The only empire in which we should be interested is the kingdom of God, but I fear some people are building their own.

On issues of principle, what concerns you most?

The uniqueness and finality of Jesus Christ in an increasingly pluralistic world is one—the debate about whether we go for exclusivism, inclusivism, or pluralism. Then there's the homosexual question, and the whole subject of sexual ethics.

So the church must recover its prophetic voice and reject both the idea that ethics evolve and the notion that love obliges us to capitulate to the modernist view of things.

We need a voice that is essentially positive, not just negative—for example, on the family, or the joy of sexual intercourse, and so on.

I don't know why we are always caught on the defensive and are reactive instead of proactive. I don't think it is something in our make-up as evangelicals. I sometimes wonder if it is that God has not given us many leaders who are visionaries.

The evangelical renaissance of the last 50 years has really been one of biblical scholarship. What we have lacked is systematic or creative theologians. I believe we have one in Alister McGrath; I am sure in England we had one in Jim Packer before he left the country. But we have very few theologians who are really far-sighted and give us a vision that will unite, inspire, and enthuse us.

Does this lack of vision for the future have something to do with our perception of truth lodged in orthodoxy? Does this make it difficult to be creative and take risks?

Yes, there is something in that. Evangelicalism is fundamentally loyal to a past revelation, and because we are tied forever to what God did and said in the historic Jesus, we look back more often than we look forward.

In my debate with David Edwards [published as Evangelical Essentials by InterVarsity], I drew a distinction between the liberal, the fundamentalist, and the evangelical. The liberal, to me, is like a gas-filled balloon which takes off into the ether and is not tethered to the earth in any way. The fundamentalist is like a caged bird, unable to escape at all. To me, the true evangelical is like a kite, which flies high but at the same time is always tethered. This demands a particularly unusual combination of loyalty to the past and creativity for the future.

Eternal Punishment

You have fallen afoul of some evangelicals. Some of your reflections on the nature of eternal punishment were considered uncongenial to orthodoxy by some people.

In Evangelical Essentials, I described as "tentative" my suggestion that "eternal punishment" may mean the ultimate annihilation of the wicked rather than their eternal conscious torment. I would prefer to call myself agnostic on this issue, as are a number of New Testament scholars I know. In my view, the biblical teaching is not plain enough to warrant dogmatism. There are awkward texts on both sides of the debate.

The hallmark of an authentic evangelicalism is not the uncritical repetition of old traditions but the willingness to submit every tradition, however ancient, to fresh biblical scrutiny and, if necessary, reform.

How would you advise theologians to think creatively in the light of orthodoxy?

I don't think any of us is wise enough to express ourselves in a creative or questioning manner without first testing it within the Christian community. It is part of our loyalty to that community that we allow it to criticize or comment on what we may want to say.

Dialogue with Liberals

In your debate with David Edwards, you both seemed to reach a genuine understanding of and respect for each other's positions. Do you think that evangelicals can learn from the liberal tradition?

David Edwards, a self-styled liberal, is crying out for a certain intellectual and academic freedom that can move with the times and respond to what he continually calls "the climate of educated opinion today," without being tethered to anything more than the love of God manifested in Jesus of Nazareth. I don't think that's an unfair summary. But all the time he's pulling at the tether, and that's the great difference between us.

He would say that evangelicals have a poor doctrine of the Holy Spirit, because we don't think the Spirit is continuing to teach and to "lead us into all the truth." I believe that text, John 16:13, is the most misunderstood and manipulated text in the whole of the Bible, because every branch of Christendom claims it.

It's a key text for the Roman Catholic Church. "He will lead you into all the truth." Who is the "you" here? Roman Catholics would claim it refers to the bishops as successors of the apostles. The liberal quotes it, and the charismatic quotes it: "He'll lead me," they say. But even the most elementary hermeneutical principle would tell us that the "you" means the apostles. Jesus said, "I have much more to say to you, but you cannot bear it now." Who is he addressing? The apostles. "But when the Spirit comes, he will do what I have not been able to do; he will lead you into the truth which I wanted to give you but you weren't able to take it." It must be the apostles. We cannot change the identity of the "you" in the middle of the sentence.

So the fulfillment of that prophecy is in the New Testament. The major ministry of the Holy Spirit has been to lead the apostles into all the truth and to give us in the New Testament this wonderful body of truth that remains our authority. That does not mean that the ministry of the Holy Spirit has ceased. It means that the role of the Holy Spirit has changed from the revelation of new truth to giving us a profounder perception and application of old truth—from revelation to illumination, if you like.

Although I may be overstating it slightly, I want to say that God has no more to teach us than he has taught us in Christ. It is inconceivable that there should be a higher revelation than God has given in his incarnate Son. But although God has no more to teach us, we have a great deal more to learn. And although he has no more to give us than he has given us in Christ, we have a great deal more to receive.

Evangelicals and Catholics

Some people feel that evangelicals adapt, eventually, to changing circumstances, whereas Catholicism stands firm like a rock. Those who say there is a loss of authority in our world are tending toward Rome …

Or Orthodoxy.

Do you think there is something about Rome that is rightly attractive?

Yes. The true evangelical wants both liberty and authority. We want to ask questions, to think, to pry, to peer, to probe, to ponder. We want to do all these things, but within a framework of submission to an ultimate authority. But we're asking questions about our authority: what does it mean and how does it apply? So we experience an uneasy tension between liberty and authority.

I couldn't find a lodging place in either Catholicism or liberalism, because one seems to major on authority with little room for liberty, while the other emphasizes liberty with very little room for authority.

Authentic Christianity includes this quotation: "The word Christian occurs only three times in the bible. because of its common misuse we could profitably dispense with it." Since the word evangelical doesn't appear at all and is also misused, should we dispense with it, too?

We could, in theory, for the same reason. The words that are used in the New Testament most frequently are believer, brother or sister, and child of God. There isn't a word that the Bible itself gives us to which we have to be loyal.

But the reason I want to stick with evangelical is a historical one. It has expressed a recognizable tradition, to which I still belong (and am proud and thankful to belong), and I want to take my stand not only on Scripture but in that tradition.

Does it alarm you to hear people calling themselves "postevangelical"?

Yes. I don't know what they mean, but it does alarm me. If you are "post" anything, you are leaving something behind, and I want to know what it is. If it's our many faults and failures, fine, but that's not postevangelicalism, it's post-twisted-evangelicalism.

What are the weaknesses of evangelicalism?

We've discussed our rugged individualism and the difficulty we have in cooperating with one another. Another weakness is our dogmatism. Instead of remembering Deuteronomy 29:29, we are dogmatic about even the things that God has kept secret. We're often not prepared to admit a certain agnosticism, which is a very evangelical thing, if we are alluding to what God has not revealed.

We have many weaknesses. I'm sure there are plenty more if I were to go on.

Do you think that our emphasis on "the Christian mind" may have prevented us from fully affirming the wisdom to be found outside the church?

What you mean is: Should we pay attention to the wisdom literature of other religions?

And the wisdom of people with no religion?

Yes, we certainly should, even if with reservations and a desire to bring their thinking to the ultimate touchstone of biblical authority.

The key text is John 1:9, which says that the logos, the Son of God before the Incarnation, is the true light coming into the world and giving light to everybody. I believe that is the right translation—that he is constantly coming into the world. Indeed, he has never left it, because the world was made by him, and so he is in the world. He was in the world even before he came into it in the Incarnation, and as the logos he is giving light to everybody.

So, there is a certain light of common sense, reason, and conscience that everybody has, because they're also made in the image of God. To be sure, reason is fallen and fallible; nevertheless, it still operates.

For those two reasons, the divine logos and the human logos, if you like, we should listen respectfully to what other people are saying, even if at the end of the day we have the liberty to say, "No, that is wrong, because the Bible teaches otherwise."

God and the Poor

Authentic Christianity records you saying in 1981: "What will posterity see as the chief Christian blind spot of the last quarter of the twentieth century? I do not know. But I suspect it will have something to do with the economic oppression of the Third World and the readiness with which Western Christians tolerate it, and even acquiesce to it."

I did, I think, mention three blind spots. The nuclear horror was another one: evangelicals were the last people to make a statement about the immorality of weapons of indiscriminate destruction. I think the third one was the environment.

There is a great deal in the Bible about God's concern for the poor. Poverty—not poverty in the sense of simplicity, but in the sense of lacking the basic wherewithal for survival—is not really on our evangelical conscience yet. Partly because many people have not traveled and seen oppressive poverty with their own eyes, although they have seen the pictures on television.

Are we too ready in the west to accept the view that a successful church is also an affluent one?

Because some people see prosperity as a mark of God's blessing, even today, they can't come to terms with poverty. We have to have the courage to reject the health-and-wealth gospel absolutely. It's a false gospel.

Do you think the idea that God wants us to be comfortable because he loves us presents a threat to a cutting-edge spirituality?

Well, we're sitting in a very comfortable flat as we talk, and it's easy to say! But I do think that comfort is dangerous, and we should constantly be re-examining our lifestyle.

The New Testament is beautifully balanced on this. Paul avoids both extremes, not least in 1 Timothy 4 and 6. Asceticism is a rejection of the good gifts of the good Creator. Its opposite is materialism—not just possessing material things but becoming preoccupied with them. In between asceticism and materialism is simplicity, contentment, and generosity, and these three virtues should mark all of us.

It's not a question of rules and regulations about our income and how many rooms or cars we have. It's these principles of simplicity, contentment, and generosity over against covetousness, materialism, and asceticism that we have to apply to our living all the time. We need to give away what we are not using, because if we don't use it, we don't need it.

You've seen a great deal of poverty around the world. Do you perceive a difference between the Christianity of the poor and the Christianity of the rich?

Yes, I do. In the Old Testament, there is a fundamental association between material and spiritual poverty. Often, you are not sure what is meant by "the poor." But they tend to be those who are materially poor and who on account of that poverty need to put their trust in God with a greater strength than if they were rich and so self-dependent.

My own understanding is that in the Sermon on the Mount, which may have involved a concentrated period of instruction, Jesus said both "Blessed are you poor" (Luke) and "Blessed are the poor in spirit" (Matthew). I think there is a blessedness attaching to both. The kingdom of God is a blessing to the materially poor because it affirms their dignity and relieves their poverty; it is also a blessing, a free gift, to the spiritually poor. So, there is a sense in which poverty is an aid to faith and riches are a barrier to faith.

I want to add that all these terms—simplicity, contentment, generosity, and wealth—are comparative. There is no absolute simplicity or poverty. My little kitchen not only has running water but constant hot water. That would be regarded as the height of luxury in some parts of the world, yet we don't regard it as that, and comparatively speaking, in this country it isn't. We need to feel the challenge of Jesus to us in the light of our own situation and circumstances.

Is God's kingdom a blessing to the poor even if they do not recognize that they are poor in spirit?

No, I think the two blessings go together.

Do the poor tend to see themselves as poor in spirit?

Some do. Their material poverty helps them to see their need of Christ. Others, however, become bitter and can't listen to the gospel. What is the African phrase? "An empty belly has no ears." When they're that poor, they can't respond to the gospel. It's like the Israelites when Moses told them about the exodus: "They did not listen to him because of their cruel bondage."

Would you agree with liberation theologians when they say that the Scriptures were written against a background of poverty and are most truly understood when they are read with the eyes of the poor?

I'm very keen on cross-cultural Bible-study groups. We can help each other listen to the Word of God, but I don't think it is true to say that the poor necessarily have greater insights. We all come to Scripture with our presuppositions and our cultural defenses, and these may be very different from one another's. The liberation theologian and the Marxist also have their cultural defenses.

What we need to do in cross-cultural Bible-study groups is to cry to God to use each other in breaking through these defenses.

The Charismatic Movement

Can we turn to the charismatic movement? how Have your views changed since Baptism and Fullness?

Baptism and Fullness was the second edition; the first was The Baptism and Fullness of the Holy Spirit. I practically rewrote the book, principally because I felt I had been less than generous in my evaluation of the movement. I wanted to put on record that I had no doubt that God had blessed the charismatic movement to both individuals and local churches. It would be quite impossible and improper to deny that.

I do believe in the Holy Spirit! The Christian life is inconceivable without the Holy Spirit. The Christian faith and life depend entirely upon the Holy Spirit: the Spirit convicts us of sin, opens our eyes to see the truth as it is in Jesus, causes the New Birth to take place, bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God, transforms us into the image of Christ, is the earnest of our final inheritance, and so on. Every stage and every part of the Christian life is impossible without the Holy Spirit.

So I believe in the Spirit; but I still believe that some of the distinctive doctrines of charismatic Christians are not as honoring to the Spirit as they think they are, and are in fact mistaken.

What I find difficult is the stereotyping of Christian experience, that everybody has to go through the same two hoops. I don't see that in the New Testament. I see the emphasis on the New Birth; and the New Testament bends over backwards in its attempt to find adequate phraseology to define the New Birth. It speaks not only of rebirth but of re-creation and resurrection, and nothing could be greater than that. It seems to me we are bound to go askew if we put any subsequent experience on a level higher than the original one.

As for the gifts, I simply think that many charismatics focus on the wrong ones. There are at least 20 gifts identified in the New Testament, and these lists are so random that there are probably many more that were not included. But the Pentecostal still concentrates on the three supernatural gifts of healing, prophecy, and tongues.

The most important gift today, measured by Paul's principle that we should excel in those that build up the church, is teaching. Nothing builds up the church like the truth, and we desperately need more Christian teachers all over the world. I often say to my charismatic friends, "If only you would concentrate on praying that God would give teachers to the church who could lead all these new converts into maturity in Christ, it would be more profitable."

Could the development of the movement bring about an existential form of Christianity? Just as liberals read scripture in the light of its relevance to culture, could the charismatics read it in the light of its relevance to experience?

I think that's well put, and I want to endorse it. I wish I'd thought of it first!

Mind you, I don't want to denigrate experience. I don't want charismatics to say of me, as they often do, "He's a dry old stick." Because I'm not, actually. I'm a much more emotional person than people realize. I thank God that he hasn't made me a fish, cold and slippery. I'm very thankful to be a human being, with all the emotional passion and fervor, as well as intellectual concern, which that entails.

I do believe in emotion; I do believe in experience. The Christianity of the New Testament is undoubtedly an experiential faith, in which deep feelings are involved. But I want to combine clear thinking with deep feelings.

I find that mind and emotion are kept together very much in the New Testament. I have always loved, for example, the Emmaus walk: "Did not our hearts burn within us when he opened to us the Scriptures?" It was through their mind that their heart began to burn. We have to recognize the important place of experience, but our experience does have to be checked all the time against biblical teachings. Otherwise, it will become an ungodly and non-Christian existentialism.

Have you yourself had experiences of God that could be called "charismatic"?

I want to say yes to the first part of the sentence and no to the second. Certainly God has given me in his goodness some profound spiritual experiences, both when I've been alone and even more in public worship, when tears have come to my eyes, when I've perceived something of his glory.

I can remember one particular occasion when we were singing, "At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow." I did really break down, because I saw again the supreme exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of the Father. I have had other profound experiences that have moved me to the core of my being. But I wouldn't say that any of them has been a traditional charismatic experience such as speaking in tongues. And they have not been disassociated from the mind. In 1 Corinthians 14 Paul is all the time saying, "You mustn't let these experiences bypass your mind." The mind is involved, though the experience goes beyond it.

But I know what Paul meant in Romans 5 about the love of God being shed abroad in our hearts. I also know what he meant in Romans 8 about the Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.

The Toronto Blessing

What do you make of the Toronto Blessing?

I never want to criticize anything which people claim has been a blessing to them in terms of a greater awareness of the reality of God, or a profounder joy, or an overwhelming love for God and for others, or a fresh zeal in evangelism. It's not for me to doubt any of these things.

My major questions concern three areas. First, it is a self-consciously anti-intellectual movement. I listened on tape to the first person who brought the Toronto Blessing to Britain. This person said: "Don't analyze, don't ask questions. Simply receive." I think that is both foolish and dangerous. We must never forget that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth.

Secondly, I cannot possibly come to terms with those animal noises, and it grieves me very much that—as far as I know—no charismatic leaders have publicly disassociated themselves from them, as they should. The whole Bible tells us that we are different from the animal creation; it rebukes us when we behave like animals and calls us to be distinct. Nebuchadnezzar's animal behavior was under the judgment, not the blessing, of God.

My third problem concerns all the falling. Even charismatic leaders have pointed this out, that on the few occasions in the Bible when people have fallen over, they have all fallen forwards on their faces, and they have all done so after they have been granted a vision of the majesty, holiness, and glory of God. In the Toronto experience, however, people fall backwards without any previous vision of God.

Those three things trouble me.

Anti-Intellectualism

Evangelicals, too, have been accused of anti-intellectualism in two new books: Mark Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind and Os Guinness's Fit Bodies, Fat Minds. This trend seems to be more pervasive than just an existential or experiential form of the faith.

I agree. It has been characteristic of much evangelicalism (but even more of Pentecostalism). There are notable exceptions, and thank God for them.

I think we need to encourage each other in the proper use of the mind. Preachers are still the key people; the church is always a reflection of the preaching it receives. It is not an exaggeration to say that the low standards of Christian living throughout the world are due more than anything else to the low standards of Christian preaching and teaching.

If we can recover true expository preaching as being not only exegesis but an exposition and application of the Word of God, then congregations will learn it from us preachers and go and do the same thing themselves. We need to help our congregations to grasp and use the hermeneutical principles that we are using ourselves. We need to be so careful in the development of our evangelical hermeneutic that the congregation says, "Yes, I see it. That is what the text means, and it couldn't mean anything else."

The worst kind of preaching allows people to say, "Well, I'm sorry, I don't agree with you. I think you're twisting the Scripture."

Women's Roles

You seem to me to have changed your position on gender. Certainly, your later writings present a different view of the status and role of women. What has brought this about?

What has helped me most in struggling with this issue is a growing understanding of the need for "cultural transposition." This is based on the recognition that although biblical truth is eternal and normative in its substance, it is often expressed in changeable cultural terms.

The Lausanne Covenant described Scripture as "without error in all that it affirms." Our duty is to determine what it does affirm—that is, what God is teaching, promising, or commanding in any given passage. When we have identified this, we have the further task of reclothing this unchanging revelation in appropriate modern cultural dress. The purpose is not to dodge awkward teachings of Scripture, still less to foster disobedience, but to make our obedience contemporary.

If we apply this principle to the role of women, it seems clear to me that masculine "headship" (which I believe refers to responsibility rather than authority) is a permanent and universal truth, because Paul roots it in Creation. And what Creation has established, no culture is able to destroy. We have no liberty to disagree with the apostle Paul.

But we still need to ask, "What are the appropriate cultural expressions of this in the church today?" For one thing, we may drop the wearing of veils. Is it possible, then, that the requirement of silence is similarly a first-century cultural application which is not necessarily applicable today?

This, if I remember rightly, was the position we adopted at the National Evangelical Anglican Congress in 1977. We expressed the view that a woman could be ordained and so could teach men, but that an appropriate contemporary expression of masculine headship would be for her to belong to a local pastoral team, of which a man would be the head.

I still hold this view, although, of course, I know it has been overtaken by history.

The Future

You have said that Christians are optimists but not utopians. are you optimistic about the church? Do you feel that the next generation of leaders is adequately equipped?

Yes, I must reply in the affirmative. Elderly people always have difficulty recognizing the gifts of the young, or younger, but surely, as I look around, there are men and women of most remarkable gifts that God is raising up.

Yet we are not utopians. We cannot build the kingdom of God on earth. We are waiting for the new heaven and the new earth, which will be the home of righteousness and peace.

But meanwhile, I'm an optimist, because I don't think pessimism and faith are easy bedfellows. I believe that God is at work in the world; I believe that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every believer; and I believe that the church can be salt and light in the community. Both salt and light are influential commodities: they change the environment in which they are placed.

What advice would you give to the new generation of the church's leaders?

I'd want to say so many things. But my main exhortation would be this: Don't neglect your critical faculties. Remember that God is a rational God, who has made us in his own image. God invites and expects us to explore his double revelation, in nature and Scripture, with the minds he has given us, and to go on in the development of a Christian mind to apply his marvelous revealed truth to every aspect of the modern and the postmodern world.