GAFCON & THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH (2)

Against the background that a sizeable percentage of the bishops represented at the Global Anglican Future Conference are not at Lambeth 2008, the question remains, will whatever is achieved at be too little too late? Or will Lambeth 2008 succeed where Lambeth 1998 failed. Will Rowan Williams avert the seemingly looming fate of being the Primate who presided over the disintegration of the Anglican Communion? Or will he be remembered as the one who pulled the Communion back from the brink?

By the time you read this, Lambeth Conference 2008, the once-a-decade gathering of Anglican Bishops from across the globe would have entered its fifth day in the beautiful ambience of the University of Kent in Canterbury.

Depending on what time of day you are reading, this assortment of clergy men and their from diverse climes would have had or are about to have breakfast, a drive in coaches to the Canterbury Cathedral for the official Lambeth Conference Service; returned from the service just in time for lunch; spend a free afternoon followed by a conference session during which they are introduced to the programme of the conference as put together by the so-called Design Group; have their evening meal and relax at a concert to be given by the Korean Choir.

The atmosphere would have been largely calm and tension-free on the surface. But underlining this would be the nagging question of the effect that recent events in the communion might have on the future of Anglicanism. And that would simply be euphemism for the effect of GAFCON on the Anglican Church and, I daresay, the Church in general.

The calmness, however, though a deliberate design of the chief host of the conference, might not necessarily be a put-on. This writer recognises the place of the hand of God on matters such as this when he is given the place of primacy that rightly belongs to Him. And irrespective of anyone’s perception of the Most Rev Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the Anglican Church, he is a deeply spiritual man, who seems to have put together his first Lambeth Conference with absolutely no personal agenda. He comes across as totally and absolutely depending on the Holy Spirit to speak clearly and unequivocally on the key issues – and not just to him, but to as many of his colleagues as He might chose. These much are discernible from the structuring and programme of the conference, as well as, the rhetoric of the man.

In a video message he sent across the Anglican commonwealth in April, the archbishop revealed his heart and his expectation of the conference which opened on Thursday, the bishops having arrived the day before.

“What I would really most like to see in this year’s Lambeth Conference”, he said, “is the sense that this is essentially a spiritual encounter. A time when people are encountering God as they encounter one another, a time when people will feel that their life of prayer and witness is being deepened and their resources are being stretched. Not a time when we are being besieged by problems that need to be solved and statements that need to be finalised, but a time when people feel that they are growing in their ministry. And for that to happen once again, we are going to need the prayers and the support of so many people around the world.”

He continued: “And that is why I have encouraged people across the Communion to prepare for the Lambeth Conference not only by praying for Bishops as they gather but also by sharing some of the material that has been provided for Bible study at the Conference - sharing in reflection on St John’s Gospel - so that Bishops and their people and their clergy will in the Gospel that will lay the foundations for what we hope to achieve at the Lambeth Conference. So please pray for the Conference and please share in that process of preparation, that reflection of God’s word in the Gospel of John that will open up to us the horizons that we need in order to be better Bishops for the sake of a better Church.” months ahead be going through the same kinds of processes of thinking and praying around St John’s.

All of these explain the structure of the Conference, made up of many small group meetings or “indaba” which in the words of the archbishop, are “groups where in traditional African culture, people get together to sort out the problems that affect them all, where everyone has a voice and where there is an attempt to find a common mind or a common story that everyone is able to tell when they go away from it. This is how we approached it. This is what we heard. This is where we arrived as we prayed and thought and talked together.”

It also explains why between Thursday and Sunday, the bishops would have spent considerable time at retreats praying and worshipping and generally just seeking the face of God for direction. Of course, in spite of Dr Rowan’s position that “Lambeth” is not a legislature, the Conference won’t be shying away from taking on the key issues, namely the threatened split of the Anglican Church which GAFCON forebode.
In the same April video, which predated GAFCON, he said: “At the heart of the whole Anglican Communion is relationship. We have never been a body that is bound together by firm and precise rules and that is often, as it is at the moment, a matter of some real concern and some confusion in our life as a communion. We don’t want at the Lambeth Conference to be creating a lot of new rules but we do obviously need to strengthen our relationships and we need to put those relationships on another footing, slightly firmer footing, where we have promised to one another that this is how we will conduct our life together. And it is in that light that at this year we are discussing together the proposal for what we are calling a covenant between the Anglican Churches of the world. A covenant. A relationship of promise. We undertake that this is how we will relate to one another; that when these problems occur, that this is how we will handle them together, that this is how advice will be given and shared and that this is how decisions and discernment can be taken forward.”

Emphasising the crucial role of a covenant within the Communion and therefore how it is arrived at, the Archbishop continued: “That is a very a big part of what we will be looking at this year but it is not everything because no covenant, no arrangement of that sort is worth the paper it is written on if it doesn’t grow out of the relationships that are built as people pray together and share their lives together over tow and a half weeks. And to try and underline, we have also decided that this year we are going to begin the Lambeth Conference with a couple of days of retreat, of quiet prayer and reflection. There will be addresses. There will be a lot of open space and open time where people can just be alone with God, to think deeply about what they want from the conference and perhaps have the opportunity to talk quietly with one of two others about their hopes and fears.”

The journey to a covenant would therefore take the bishops through such routes as reflecting on themes like: God's Mission and the Bishop's discipleship; Listening to God and each other; Celebrating Common Ground; Proclaiming the Good News; and Transforming Society. Other themes are: Discerning our shared calling; Safeguarding Creation; Engaging with a Multi-Faith World; Equal in God's sight; Living under scripture; and Listening to God and each other.

Against the background that a sizeable percentage of the bishops represented at the Global Anglican Future Conference are not at Lambeth 2008, the question remains, will whatever is achieved at be too little too late? Or will Lambeth 2008 succeed where Lambeth 1998 failed. Will Rowan Williams avert the seemingly looming fate of being the Primate who presided over the disintegration of the Anglican Communion? Or will he be remembered as the one who pulled the Communion back from the brink? We shall examine all the ramifications as this serial progress next week.

GAFCON & THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH

Yet, the coming on board of the Global Anglican Future Conference, which is what GAFCON stands for, is possibly one of the most significant issues of our time. Without exaggerating, it is of such moment as Martin Luther’s nailing of the 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany on October 31, 1517. This was what led inexorably to the Reformation of the Church and the birth of Protestantism.

It is one of the ironies of today’s living and lifestyle that the mundane gets maximum attention, while the important, the fundamental are relegated to the back burner. That is why the on-going developments in the worldwide Anglican Communion have yet to find space, to my knowledge, on the front page of any newspaper or magazine. That is therefore why, dear reader, you can be forgiven if your reaction upon reading the headline is this piece is ga-what?

Yet, the coming on board of the Global Anglican Future Conference, which is what GAFCON stands for, is possibly one of the most significant issues of our time. Without exaggerating, it is of such moment as Martin Luther’s nailing of the 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany on October 31, 1517. This was what led inexorably to the Reformation of the Church and the birth of Protestantism.

To understand this comparison, it is necessary to understand the import of the 95 Theses, its essence and its aftermath. Church History has it that Martin Luther, a Professor of theology at Wittenberg University who doubles as the priest at the town’s City Church therefore responsible for the salvation of the parish made one significant observation. He noticed that fewer and fewer members of the congregation were coming to him for confession. His investigation revealed that the people were going to neighbouring towns to buy what is known as Indulgences, particularly, the Peter's Indulgence.
What are indulgences, you may wonder. According to Wikipedia, Indulgences had a firm root in Roman Catholic theology which posits that “faith alone, whether fiduciary or dogmatic, cannot justify man; and that only such faith as is active in charity and good works can justify man. These good works could be obtained by donating money to the church.” In operating this theological concept, the Church even had a Papal commissioner for indulgences.
It was recorded that the from about 1508, trade in Indulgences rose very sharply because both the Papal Court and Bishop Albrecht von Brandenburg Germany's representative for the sale of indulgence were in great financial trouble.
This was the setting when a Dominican Friar, Johann Tetzel, was appointed commissioner for indulgences and sent to Germany, to sell indulgences to raise money to rebuild St Peter's Basilica in Rome. This was in the period 1516-1517.
It is this practice that had virtually become a substitute for confession, thus seemingly allowing people to “buy” their salvation. This was completely repulsive to Luther, who strongly believed that to receive the grace of God; you had to live a life of humility.
Tetzel’s ostentatious style of selling the indulgences in the region around Luther’s Wittenberg territory did not help matters. It was said that stories started making the rounds that “Tetzel could redeem the sins of the deceased.” He was also famously quoted as declaring that: “When the money clangs in the box, the souls spring up to heaven.".
Luther would have none of that! So, on October 31, 1517, he wrote to Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, to protest the sale of indulgences enclosing in his letter a copy of his "Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences," which was to become known as The 95 Theses.

Those who know would testify that since Luther saw his disputation as a scholarly objection to church practices rather than an attempt to confront the church the tone of his writing was largely mild, or Hans Hillerbrand put it, “searching rather than doctrinaire.” Which probably explained the covering note to the theses which reads: “Out of love for the truth and from desire to elucidate it, the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and Sacred Theology, and ordinary lecturer therein at Wittenberg, intends to defend the following statements and to dispute on them in that place. Therefore he asks that those who cannot be present and dispute with him orally shall do so in their absence by letter. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.”

A perusal of the theses, however, would reveal that some of the theses did have an undercurrent of challenge. Thesis 89, for instance, pointedly asked: “Why does the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build the basilica of St. Peter with the money of poor believers rather than with his own money?”
Church fathers took Luther’s concerns tardily, indeed with considerable levity. The man to whom the letter was addressed, Cardinal Albrecht of Hohenzollern, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, had personal reasons for ignoring Luther. Pope Leo X had given his consent to the archbishop to use part of the indulgence income to pay certain personal debts of his. So he didn’t as much as formally acknowledge the letter, even when its contents were circulating like wild fire. His tentative reaction was to set up a panel of experts to scrutinize the letter for heresy and then forwarded it to Rome.
Pope Leo was to respond over the next three years, with what he described as “great care as is proper." He deployed a series of papal theologians and envoys against Luther probably hoping the matter would die down of its own accord. This attitude was discernible from the fact that sometimes in 1518 he was quoted as dismissing Luther as, "a drunken German" who "when sober will change his mind".
While Rome fiddled, Luther's writings were circulating widely abroad. By 1519, he had garnered audience for his viewpoints in France, England, and Italy. As a result, students thronged to Wittenberg to hear him speak. His creative juice was flowing too. Three of his best known works, To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation; On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church; and Christian were published in 1520:
Church history has it that the Pope finally reacted on May 30th in 1519 by formally demanding an explanation from Luther who wasted no time in writing a summary and explanation of his theses to the Pope. Predictably, although the Pope was believed to have conceded some of the points to Luther, he simply could not accept the challenge to his authority implied by Luther’s exertions. He summoned Luther to Rome to on this score. Intervention came from Frederick the Wise, the Saxon Elector, who did not want one of his subjects to be sent to Rome to be judged by Italians. He prevailed on the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V who needed his support to arrange a compromise.
By the arrangement that resulted, the summons to Rome was cancelled, and instead Luther went to Augsburg in October 1518 to meet the papal legate, Cardinal Thomas Cajetan. In spite of long hours of debates and arguments, still nothing was resolved. While Cajetan held on to the opinion that the practice of indulgences had to be right, otherwise, God Himself would have revealed the fraud, Luther stood his ground rejecting what he saw as the ‘sanctification of history.”
As a result, the Pope formally warned Luther through an edict, called the papal bull asking him to recant 41 sentences extracted from his writings, including the 95 Theses, within 60 days or risk excommunication.
Although other attempts were made at resolution of the crisis, Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo X on January 3, 1521, about three weeks after he made a bonfire of the papal bull and other related documents in a public show of defiance on December 10, 1520. Of course that wasn’t the end of the story. One thing led to the other and the reformation resulted.
Now, I have taken you through this excursion into the life and times of Dr Martin Luther and the eventual birth of Protestantism, because of the parallels between what happened then and what has been happening in the Anglican Church in the last one decade or so which culminated in Jerusalem 2008, the Global Anglican Future Conference. (Continues Next Week)
.

FANIKAYODE, BLOOD-SUCKING DEMONS AND ALL THAT

The devil makes his home in any environment where justice and equity are aliens; he thrives in the bitterness that oppression brings out of the oppressed; he is lord where the poor are trampled upon and the rich are not averse to sustaining their wealth and privileges through unjust means. We should thank God that more of our citizens are running to the Churches, to the Lord Jesus Christ, for succour; but we must not underestimate the number rushing to the occult, to satan for help. That is the source of the kind of thing that Fani-Kayode spoke about.

These are truly interesting times in the life of our nation. For interesting, some might want to read trying or testy, or whatever else is their perception on the state of affairs in the largest black nation in the world.

As I write this, most, some say all, of Lagos, where I live and work, has been in complete darkness for about a week. To my knowledge, nobody has told us why; and when we shall have the privilege of having the occasional flicker we’ve become accustomed to back. As a result, we’ve had to spend some more on fuel for generators, drink tonnes more of fumes per day to supplement the “poor” water that have become considerably poorer and food that have become dearer.

No, I am not complaining; not one little bit. That is because, I’ve always known and stated it here that the flood of righteousness will come, some day soon; sooner than most of us are willing to allow for. That is why I disagree with respected journalist and one time ‘action Governor” of Lagos State, Alhaji Lateef Jakande who said recently that all probes are useless. You see, previous probes may have been so, but the current ones are certainly going to bear bountiful fruits. These are no man-orchestrated moves; these are the moves of God in His wisdom, to fulfil His promise in the Bible that there is nothing hidden that shall not be exposed (see Matthew 10:26). Incidentally, Atiku Abubakar, Action Congress presidential contender in last year’s election had to admit that there is a higher power involved in what is going on at the moment!

The other aspect of the goings-on that many of us are missing is that the speed with which these exposes are coming on, within the first half of Yar’Adua’s disputed four-year term is also prophetic. When a people’s conscience becomes dead, as in unable to respond to stimuli, they take the word and the ways of God with levity. The Bible’s book of Ezekiel recorded God’s reaction to such temerity when He found it among the children of Israel:

"Son of man, what's this proverb making the rounds in the land of Israel that says, 'Everything goes on the same as ever; all the prophetic warnings are false alarms'? "Tell them, 'GOD, the Master, says, This proverb's going to have a short life!' "Tell them, 'Time's about up. Every warning is about to come true. False alarms and easygoing preaching are a thing of the past in the life of Israel. I, GOD, am doing the speaking. What I say happens. None of what I say is on hold. What I say, I'll do--and soon, you rebels!' Decree of God the Master“ (Ezekiel 12: 22-25).

That is why those who thought they were going to have a breathing space; that before anything untoward happens they would have had time to cover their tracks, must be wondering what hit them. I’ve said it many times before and I am going to say it again, things are not ever going to be the same again in our land. God is on our case, and it therefore CANNOT be business as usual. And it applies as much to those in government (every tier and branch of it), as it does to those in business, in academia, in sports, every other area of our national life including, most crucially of all, the Church.

It must also be stated that, because God is in it, true justice will be done eventually in all cases. It doesn’t matter how much people, who have smelt blood and would want to go for the kill, clamour for some heads, the innocent will not be punished. Yes, there would be trials for some, here and there, but those who have not soiled there hands will not need bleach. If you think that is prophetic, it is.

I say this because, as I write this, Mrs Diezani Allison Madueke, Minister of Transportation was being tarred with the brush taking out of the Professor Grange/Obasanjo-Bello paint bucket. And I know that many can’t wait to hear that she’s been asked to resign and docked by EFCC like the crowd from the Ministry of Health (corrected). But, unless the investigations reveal other things from what we already know, this is simply a tea-pot storm.

One, the money said to have been withdrawn were for projects already approved, and which had gone through due process. Two, there are no evidences yet that the minister or any one else benefited personally from the steps taken. Three, even if she were to be in disobedience of the Executive Order that unspent funds be returned to the Treasury, she would only have violated the letter rather than the spirit of that presidential directive. After all wasn’t the directive issued to forestall fraud? But, this is not a defence of the minister, it is simply a declaration that, as things stand today, there is no comparison yet between what happened at the Ministry of Health (corrected) and that of the Ministry of Transportation. And even the courts are yet to rule in the Health (corrected) case.

Incidentally, two erstwhile Ministers in that ministry responsible for Aviation were also in the news during the week. You already know the story. Dr Babalola Borisade, the one we call “Boris” and Deacon Femi Fani-Kayode honoured the invitation of the Senate Committee investigating the transportation ministry. They were specifically asked to account for how the so-called Aviation Intervention Fund was spent and somehow they couldn’t agree on the arithmetic!

This is surprising, to say the least. I had the opportunity of interacting with “Boris” early in the life of the Obasanjo government. He was then a Senior Special Assistant and had led a small team to design the National Poverty Eradication Programme, NAPEP. (In retrospect, the nation would most certainly have benefited immensely had he been left to execute the programme). Back then, I found him quite a thorough person; with a knack for knit-picking in his attention to details. It is therefore not in his character not to be able to account for anything.

Femi Fani-Kayode, on the other hand, may be guilty of brashness and of being a trifle bit uncivil in the execution of his assignments, his forthrightness cannot be in doubt. For instance, till tomorrow, I believe that he was one of two or three people in the Obasanjo State House who did not know about their bosses’ third-term ambition until towards the end of the project! And the Deacon wore his faith on his sleeves, as it were, although his stay in government. Did he get his numbers mixed up?

I have stated all of these to make the point that whatever the case; no matter how susceptible many of us may have become to the revenge instinct, we must remain on the side of justice; God’s kind of justice.

Incidentally Fani-Kayode also got into the news for declaring that there was demonic involvement in the spate of air disasters that claimed many lives in this country before he got into office. Many have found that laughable. Many members of Moyo Oyatogun’s people’s parliament, Talk Back on Star FM radio, for instance, were very uncharitable in their reaction to the statement. And I am laughing. I am laughing at the ignorance of those who think life consists only of the things they can relate to by their senses. I am laughing at the suggestion that a “well-educated” man like Fani-Kayode should know better than to acknowledge the existence of the spiritual, including the satanic.

Fortunately one of the “parliamentarians”, as Moyo likes to address them, was “uneducated” enough to admit that the problems of this nation are spiritual. The earlier we face this truth the better. The devil makes his home in any environment where justice and equity are aliens; he thrives in the bitterness that oppression brings out of the oppressed; he is lord where the poor are trampled upon and the rich are not averse to sustaining their wealth and privileges through unjust means. We should thank God that more of our citizens are running to the Churches, to the lord Jesus Christ, for succour; but we must not underestimate the number rushing to the occult, to satan for help. That is the source of the kind of thing that Fani-Kayode spoke about. And he should know! He is a member of one of the most effective deliverance ministries in the land. (Apologies: GAFCON and the future of the Church will come later)

LEADERSHIP ON THE FRONT BURNER (3)

This brings me to the following words of Howard Jeter: “…Nigeria’s geography has insulated it from many of the world’s most devastating natural disasters;…(the) combination of factors – size, dynamism, talented and energetic population and abundant natural resources – places Nigeria in a position to emerge as a great economic and political power, not only in Africa but in the world.” Now, think about that! He spoke of a “geography” that insulates from disaster and a “combination of factors” that places Nigeria in a position for leadership, as if they were some accidental, fortuitous occurrence. No, they are not. Rather, they are the deliberate will of an omnipotent Creator who has a role for this great nation in His plans for His earth. Will KCNLD please factor these into its programming? A course on Spiritual Leadership Models will be a place to start.

Let me start this, the third in my serial on the leadership question in Nigeria, by making the obvious point that the very essence of this column is to draw attention to the kingdom perspective on any and all issues. For, as we like to boldly declare, there is a kingdom perspective to every issue and we ignore that perspective to our peril whether as individuals, institutions or nations.

That is why I ended the second part last week on the seemingly provocative conclusion that most of the intellectual discourse that’s going on, and which will continue, on the important subject of leadership is misdirected. We need to redirect our efforts and, if it is to make any difference at all, the Ken Nnamani Centre for Leadership and Development (KNCLD) must lead the way.

As you may recall, the four men, leaders of note themselves, who spoke at the May 6, 2008 launch of KNCLD agreed almost completely that leadership is foundational to development. They all seemed to agree with Ambassador Joseph Ayalogu, Executive Director of the Centre, who at a pre-launch event said, “it is only in the dictionary that development comes before leadership”.

The Chief Host, Senator (Dr) Ken Nnamani had set the ball rolling with his robust defence of the position that “leadership matters”, declaring unequivocally: “…it is incontrovertible that leadership makes the difference whether in the public or private sector. The quality of leadership sets countries and institutions apart.”

Event chairman, General (Dr) Yakubu Gowon couldn’t agree less. “At the heart of Africa’s problem lies the key issue of leadership and governance. The leadership question, particularly the lack of committed and selfless political leaders on the African continent, is largely responsible for their slow pace of development and growth.” Although he identified another critical factor in the development process as an atmosphere “devoid of tension and acrimony”, he pointed out that only the right leadership can bring about this atmosphere. The right leadership, in his opinion has to be “God-fearing, honest, visionary, transparent, and accountable to the people…”

Howard Jeter, a former United States envoy to Nigeria, who was Guest Speaker said he had always believed that leaders “are the distinguishing factor among nations and it is their actions, their vision, their commitment that determine whether their countries are rich or poor, at war or at peace, developing or decaying, models to emulate or pariahs to be avoided.” He however expanded the focal point beyond the political class pointing out that leadership starts in the family, the workplace and marketplace, in large and small villages, as well as, in the various branches and tiers of government.

In spite of his recognition of the crucial role of leadership in development, however, Jeter did not shy away from emphasising the importance of the led. Likening the leader to a conductor in an orchestra, he said: “he or she cannot make good music without a great and diverse orchestra… The leader, the guide can show the way, but a people will not reach their destination unless they rally around, support and follow their leader, their guide. A leader, no matter how strong, sincere and committed, cannot get to that destination alone without popular trust and support. Leadership is within and starts with each and every one of you…”

On his part, Ghanaian former Head of State, J.J. Rawlings who gave the keynote address on the theme, “Nurturing Transformative Leadership, Promoting Good Governance and Improving Lives in Africa,” described as compelling, the perspective that good leadership leads to good governance that in turn improves the lives of the people. He nevertheless canvassed the position that a leader is a product of society. His words: “Docile societies get dictatorial leaders; while transformational societies create transformational leaders. This view turns the argument upside down, by putting huge responsibilities on societal dynamics and not just on a mythical ‘transformational leader’”

Continuing, he declared: “A dynamic citizenry emboldened to demand their rights at every turn, will help steer the leader down a path of caution, care and responsibility. If this crowd of citizens were simply waving and hailing the leader, irresponsible leadership occurs…”

One of the conclusions that can be reasonably drawn from the four presentations is that leadership is the quintessential factor in a nation’s development; though he/she must be ready to carry along the led, if he is to succeed. It is also clear that nobody at the forum disagreed with the notion that transformative leaders are a class apart.

It is recognised, even if unspoken that while leaders may be born in monarchies and dictatorships, they are, largely made in democracies. Even in systems where leadership is something of a birthright, deliberate grooming processes are usually in place, which includes military and diplomatic training. It is the recognition that military training hones leadership skills that led to the applause that used to greet every coup d’ tat, apart, that is, from the failure of the political elite. The subsequent failure of the military in governance, as admitted by General Gowon, has however put a question mark on the value of military institutions as breeding ground for leadership. That is the real rationale for leadership institutions like KNCLD. And that is why this columnist welcomes it and would like to encourage all who can to contribute generously towards its funding.

But, permit me to warn: intellectualism does not a leader make; only character does.
Character is defined by values and values that endure are anchored on the spiritual.
While one does not want to join the egg-and-chick debate on which produces which - leader or follower; it must be emphasised that leaders emerge from societies, and while there are those who somehow step out of the norm, break away from extant value-free or value-vague ambiences to change things, they are the exception, not the rule. So, for any nation to have a free flow of real leadership, it must have a pool of leaders honed on enduring values; values that do not succumb to relativism, expediency and political correctness.

One of the founding fathers of the United States, George Washington put it this way: “And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail, in exclusion of religious principle.”

General Gowon came close to hitting the nail on the head when he said that good leadership must be “God-fearing..”. But he did not elaborate, and I like to believe that that is because he was only the chairman. Ex-President Rawlings delved on it too when he lamented that modern African societies had “bypassed the spiritual sanctity of the truth…” But again, he didn’t pursue the theme, possibly because it would have been “politically incorrect.” Jeter, coming from the home of political correctness itself simply didn’t go there at all!

In this respect, even Dr Nnamani, who referred to the servant leadership concept embraced by President Umar Yar’Adua also pandered to political correctness or intellectualism or both. He attributed this core quality of true leadership to some obscure experts whose names, I cannot remember. Christian that he is, he surely, has read in his Bible about the original servant-leader; the one who washed his disciples’ feet; the one his followers could wake up with sharp rebuke: ‘carest thou not that we perish’, and who woke up to rebuke the storm and not those who had rudely interrupted his sleep! (see Mark 4:38-39); the leader to whom his followers can say “what kind of question is that; don’t you see the crowd? (see Mark 5:30-32). The one who said, “And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: (Matthew 20:27);” If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all (Mark 9:35); And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all (Mark 10:44).

Perhaps he thought that, that was not an appropriate forum! And I say, no sir; every forum is God’s; the separation of the spiritual from the so-called secular is the mother and father of all lies! Man is first spirit before his is body! Nigeria might be a multi-religious State; it’s certainly not a secular one.

This brings me to the following words of Howard Jeter: “…Nigeria’s geography has insulated it from many of the world’s most devastating natural disasters;…(the) combination of factors – size, dynamism, talented and energetic population and abundant natural resources – places Nigeria in a position to emerge as a great economic and political power, not only in Africa but in the world.”

Now, think about that! He spoke of a “geography” that insulates from disaster and a “combination of factors” that places Nigeria in a position for leadership, as if they were some accidental, fortuitous occurrence. No, they are not. Rather, they are the deliberate will of an omnipotent Creator who has a role for this great nation in His plans for His earth. Will KCNLD please factor these into its programming? A course on Spiritual Leadership Models will be a place to start.

LEADERSHIP ON THE FRONT BURNER (2)

“A vision exists now of where Nigeria ought to go; will you follow, will you help or will you simply whine and criticize? To my mind, that is a crucial national question for Nigeria”- Ambassador Howard Jeter

As we were saying, the official launch of Ken Nnamani Centre for Leadership and Development afforded the eminent speakers the opportunity to discuss the place of leadership in the development of any nation.

The dominant thesis, as we recalled, was “leadership matters” and in the vanguard, expectedly, was the chief host of the event, immediate past President of the Senate, Federal Republic of Nigeria, Senator (Dr) Ken Nnamani. For him, leadership is so crucial that he is building a centre to teach it, research it and nurture it in whomsoever it is found. Event chairman and elder statesman, General (Dr) Yakubu Gowon agreed completely, endorsed the vision and urged all to support it.

The third of the men who had speaking roles was Mr Howard Jeter, one-time Ambassador of the United States of America to Nigeria. Although he recognised the role of the follower, he was also clearly of the “leadership is crucial” school. He recalled his first encounter with the suggestion that it could be otherwise. Many years ago, he said, “I read a book entitled, “Do Leaders Make a Difference?” I was perplexed by the title because the answer was so obvious. Leaders not only make a difference, I thought they are the distinguishing factor among nations (emphasis his) and it is their actions, their vision, their commitment that determine whether their countries are rich or poor, at war or at peace, developing or decaying, models to emulate or pariahs to be avoided.”

He also drew attention to the several levels of leadership that exist in any given polity. His words: “…Leadership is not a monopoly of the political class; it starts in the family, in the workplace, in villages, large and small; it starts in the executive, in the national assembly, and the judiciary; leadership starts in the states and local governments and in civil society groups throughout this country; and it starts in the market place where Nigerian business leaders have excelled as accomplished and competitive entrepreneurs; and yes it starts in the Niger Delta where self-styled militant leaders are depriving this country of 25% of its national revenue, at a time when global oil prices have reached historic highs…”

Making the critical linkage between leadership and followership in general; between political and national leadership, on the one hand, and the variety of leadership levels he had identified, on the other, Jeter told his audience: “A leader is like a conductor: he or she cannot make good music without a great and diverse orchestra, whether a great symphony or a bankable rap lyric or hip-hop. The leader, the guide can show the way, but a people will not reach their destination unless they rally around, support and follow their leader, their guide. A leader, no matter how strong, sincere and committed, cannot get to that destination alone without popular trust and support. Leadership is within and starts with each and every one of you…”

In what, for me, was a most solemn and challenging moment in his presentation, Ambassador Jeter referring to what he described as President Yar’Adua’s vision of making Nigeria one of the 20 leading economies in the world by 2020”, he said “A vision exists now of where Nigeria ought to go; will you follow, will you help or will you simply whine and criticize? To my mind, that is a crucial national question for Nigeria”

Jeter, his audience now considerably sobered by his solemn challenge, went on to share what he described as some of the very basic principles that he believes a good leader must follow. These are: He must be able to see clearly; must be able to hear; must be able to feel the pulse of his polity and must be willing to act.

Summarising these principles, Jeter recoursed to the words of Dr Macgregor Burns, whom he described as the exponent of transformative leadership: “Leaders (are people) acting - as well as caring, inspiring and persuading others to act – for certain goals that represent the values , the wants and needs, the aspirations and expectations of themselves and the people they represent…The genius of leadership lies in the way leaders care about, visualize, and act on their own and their followers’ values and motivations”

In all of these however Jeter made one very important observation that, I believe, ought to point Nigerians and their leaders in the one quintessential direction that we must go. He said: “…Nigeria’s geography has insulated it from many of the world’s most devastating natural disasters;…(the) combination of factors – size, dynamism, talented and energetic population and abundant natural resources – places Nigeria in a position to emerge as a great economic and political power, not only in Africa but in the world.”. I shall return to the great import of this observation later.

The Keynote Address delivered by Ghanaian former Head of State, J.J. Rawlings of course was on the theme of the event, “Nurturing Transformative Leadership, Promoting Good Governance and Improving Lives in Africa.” He opened by saying that he found the perspective, implied in the topic, that good leadership leads to good governance that in turn improves the lives of the people, a compelling one. This he said was because it brought home to him “vividly a connection between good governance and the improvement of people’s lives and livelihoods, as opposed to the apostles of good governance who focus on the right of a few to choose leaders whose sole duty is to preside over and plunder the wealth of the nation.”

Then, he threw in what looks like an antithesis: “Docile societies get dictatorial leaders; while transformational societies create transformational leaders. This view turns the argument upside down, by putting huge responsibilities on societal dynamics and not just on a mythical ‘transformational leader’”

He went on to give what he considered as four main pillars of this perspective as follows:
1. Traditional African societies had and still possess the ingredients for nurturing transformational leaders through advocates of sanctity of truth and open dialogue;
2. Good governance is a reflection of dynamic relationship between an emboldened citizenry and a responsive leadership, not just a benevolent leader;
3. Responding to the needs of ordinary African citizens consists of a constant reminder of our values and connection between governance and material needs for improved livelihood of our people;
4. Nigeria can show the way for the reconstruction of transformational society that will nurture transformational leaders.”


It is easy to glean from the above that while he appreciates the role of leadership, he seems to imply that a people get the leadership they deserve; since leaders emerge from among the people. His words: “A dynamic citizenry emboldened to demand their rights at every turn, will help steer the leader down a path of caution, care and responsibility. If this crowd of citizens were simply waving and hailing the leader, irresponsible leadership occurs…”

He pointed out that throughout history, ”whenever a highly organized group of citizens have established groups to articulate their interests and engaged leadership in real debates, we have seen transformation even in the remotest of villages. Workers organized to engage management; students organized to engage school authorities; communities organized to engage, sometimes, challenge their local government; political parties organized to demand constitutional rule. Whether we liked it or not, these movements have shaped, changed and transformed the political, social and economic landscape of Africa towards improved governance.” He then aked the critical question, “Will we credit these transformations only to the leaders?”

He is also enamoured of the African tradition which he described as a “tradition of truth.” He thus lamented that modern African societies have “bypassed the spiritual sanctity of the truth; neglected our long-cherished traditions of holding our rulers and leaders in check and succumbed to the public display of traditional ‘praise singers’”

The intellectual debates will of course continue for as long as mankind continues. But, I daresay that most of it is misdirected. The most important element in leadership and development is being, at best, marginalised. And that is the spiritual angle. I shall dwell on this next week.

LEADERSHIP ON THE FRONT BURNER (1)

It’s not easy to have five former heads of state sit together at one forum; have them sit patiently through about four hours of speeches, and thereafter, with their best smiles in place still, pose for photographs. No, not in these climes, unless you are Kenechukwu Nnamani. No, not unless you are that freshman legislator, who became Senate President after only two years in the upper chamber of Nigeria’s National Assembly, and presided with dignity and integrity, over the death of one the most devious, most devilish enslavement tools dressed in legislative garb, anyone ever conceived. They called it the constitutional amendment bill of 2006, but you and I remember it as the third term project.

Yes, the public presentation of the Ken Nnamani Centre for Leadership and Development proved one thing that’s most heart-warming. It confirms what I have always known; that Nigeria is a nation in search of true heroes, and that Nigerians will rally round them wherever and whenever they manifest. That explains why Alhaji Shehu Shagari, Second Republic President; war-time leader, General Yakubu Gowon; military president, General Ibrahim Babangida; his successor, Abubakar Abdulsalam and erstwhile Ghanaian Head of State, Flight Lieutenant Jerry Rawlings led the cheer at that Tuesday May 6, 2008 event. That explains the overall quality of the audience.

And so, the International Conference Centre venue of the Official Launching of the Centre and fund raising for its N3.5 billion Resource Centre Facility turned out to be a coronation ground of sorts for this politician of a different hue, an endorsement of the man and his vision.

The vision! Sitting in the audience with Rev Gabriel Ifeanyichukwu Irokwe, a member of the organising committee of “The Great Company Luncheon”, an event we are working on, I couldn’t but wonder about the vision. Couched in the pay-off line, “creating transformative leadership, improving lives”, the vision is simply saying we have identified the dearth of leadership materials in our land and we are set to do something about it. And I found myself wondering: what have we been thinking all these while! Why did it take this long before we realized the need to deliberately groom leaders…outside of the military, that is?

For a while, I lapsed into a reverie. In my mind’s eye, I could see one of those dinner settings in the late eighties or thereabout, where the likes of Dr Mike Omolayole, the management expert and top corporate player, used to regale select audiences with thought-provoking after-dinner speeches. I could virtually hear him render an anecdote that went somewhat like this: Representatives of several nation-states bordering Nigeria were said to have led a delegation to God to discuss a matter of urgent regional importance. Face-to-face with the Creator, they were said to have complained about the inequity of the distribution of natural, mineral and human resources in the region. You have given Nigeria much more than all of us put together, they were reported to have complained. "A huge population, vast arable land, variety of agricultural produces, access to the ocean and now even oil and gas" they protested. "But look at us; puny by comparison. Why, God, why?" As the story goes, the Creator was said to have looked at the delegates, a glint of amusement in his eyes and said: “yes, you are right; I gave them all of that; but have noticed the kind of leaders I gave them?!” I could see the audience burst into laughter, as they live out the words of the title of that satire by Peter Pan, “you gotta laugh to cry.”

Nudged back to the present by Pastor Gab who wanted me to join him as he acknowledged a smiling and waving General Gowon, as he came in to chair the day’s event, I wondered: if the leadership challenge had always been there, why had it not been addressed until now?

Finding solace in the saying, ’it’s better late than never’, I settled down to enjoy the privilege of being there to witness history in the making, and to benefit from a variety of insights I anticipated was going to be available. I was not disappointed. From the opening prayers to the very last word, there was something to glean, something to ponder. Venerable Okagbue, who led the Christian prayer, for instance, prayed God to "deliver our nation from cynicism and distractions". Make what you will of that. A former Speaker of the Federal House of Representatives, Alhaji Ghali Na’aba, who led the Moslem prayer, didn’t need any decoding. He acknowledged Dr Nnamani as the man God used to "save Nigerians from slavery".

Intellectual sparks soon began to fly. The host set the tone with a roundly applauded welcome address during which he gave the rationale for the establishment of the Centre of his vision as “leaders make the difference.” He recalled his experience as president of the senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria from 2005 to 2007, during the period which he described as memorable and daunting, he said he “longed for organised support and structured resources to help me cope with the burdens of leadership of the legislative branch of business, I did not find much institutional support outside the senate….” This experience, he said convinced him of the “extreme urgency and importance of a vibrant centre for leadership.”

Nnamani went on to defend the thesis contained in his one-sentence raison d’etre of his effort, namely that “leaders make the difference.” His words: “…How does leadership make a difference? What matters most, the leaders or the followers? What makes the real difference in human history: the great man of history, congenial moment or environment? There are so many questions on leadership begging for answers. But it is incontrovertible that leadership makes the difference whether in the public or private sector. The quality of leadership sets countries and institutions apart. Some of the countries that model innovation and prosperity in the modern world are young nations founded and nurtured by great leaders.” He went on to cite the examples of Sir Seretse Khama in Botswana, Lee Kuan Yew in the tiny city-state of Singapore, and Flight Lieutenant Jerry Rawlings in next door Ghana.

He drew from the experiences of the so-called Asian Tigers and Dragons; examined variables other than leadership identified by some as contributory to the prosperity of those nations but was unshaken in his stand. Buttressing his position with references to the works of a number of scholars, he concluded with finality: “Without great and persuasive leaders, the citizens of these prosperous countries would not have accepted those bitter pills that go with economic reforms. Without good leadership, good policies may not avail much. We need great leaders to lead positive changes.”

Three others had speaking roles at the event: General (Dr) Yakubu Gowon, chairman; Mr Howard Jeter, a former United States Ambassador to Nigeria who considers Nigeria as his home, Guest Speaker, and Flight Lieutenant J.J. Rawlings who delivered the Keynote Address. And all agreed almost completely with the “leadership matters” thesis; all except Rawlings who had a thing or two to say about the role of followers in the shaping of leadership. I shall return to this later.

General Gowon, in his Chairman’s Remarks lent his weight to the thesis. He attributed “the growing discontent by our citizens at the harrowing state of affairs in almost all the countries on the continent” to the fact that “…our leaders continue to engage themselves in endless, yet futile battles for supremacy in greed and destruction.” In his opinion ”at the heart of Africa’s problem lies the key issue of leadership and governance. The leadership question, particularly the lack of committed and selfless political leaders on the African continent, is largely responsible for ther slow pace of development and growth.”

General Gowon, conceded that 30 years of military dictatorship “did not deliver the much needed development and transformation of our continent”, but lamented that “vestiges of our authoritarian past still loom large on the continent. While Africa embraced democracy as a form of government, it is sad that African leaders have been les than democratic in their commitment to their citizens…Our citizens often have become hostages to a class of sit-tight, crafty/foxy pseudo-democrats with proclivity for looting, greed, corruption and maladministration."

He admitted that sustainable, all round growth and development requires the right atmosphere, one “devoid of tension and acrimony”. But he was quick to point out that only the right leadership can bring about this atmosphere. Such leadership, according to him, has to be “God-fearing, honest, visionary, transparent, accountable to the people…” (Continues next week)

FOR THE REAL MAN, REVELATION IS IT

When Deacon Gamaliel Onosode told me, minutes after he arrived at the Ikeja GRA venue of this meeting, “I am always teaching”, I should have taken the hint. I didn’t. So, I failed to prepare myself for what was about to happen. He had arrived two minutes before the scheduled time of noon and met the organisers still scampering around to put things in place. He sat patiently and prayerfully for what must have seemed like an eternity, for the programme to begin and took his place behind the podium. Then he began to teach…

Date was Saturday, April 26 and the meeting was The Real Men Luncheon of Christian Men’s Network Nigeria, which styles itself as “a ministry to men by men proclaiming the eternal truth that ‘manhood and Christlikeness are synonymous.’” It was the third in a quarterly series that had featured two other great Nigerians, Elder Felix Ohiwerei and Dr Christopher Kolade. Onosode had been requested to speak on the theme, “The Real Man.”

And so Onosode took the podium and began to teach. Not that I am a stranger to teachers and teachings. Far from it! The late founder of Christian Men’s Network, Dr Edwin Louis Cole used to describe himself as “teacher of men in how to be men,” and my senior pastor, Dr Chris Tunde Joda, who is also president of CMN Nigeria is, nothing, if not, a great teacher of the word of faith. But somehow, this corporate icon, this highly cultivated man took us all aback by the teaching loaded, first, in his preliminary observations and then in his presentation.

He began, innocuously enough, by thanking “one of the men who spoke earlier.” He was a gentleman, he noted, who remembered to apologise that the programme was starting late. Then he delivered what you might call the coup de grace in these words: Decent as it is to apologise for starting late, it is better never to start late. Time is a non-renewable resource. Real men must respect the movement of the sun.” He suggested that the organisers might consider stating the time of future events in terms like ’12 noon for 12:30pm’ to indicate that gates will open at noon, but the event won’t start until thirty minutes later.

Lesson Number One over, Onosode went on to address aspects of his biography mentioned by the secretary of the Ikeja chapter of CMN Nigeria, Dennis Onwuegbu who, in inviting him to the high table, recalled that he was one-time Presidential Adviser on Budget and a former presidential candidate.

He placed on record that he served as President Shehu Shagari’s adviser for only 75 days. This was during the president’s second term which began in October, but was terminated in December 1983, by the military in a coup d’tat.

On his attempt to run for office as President under the auspices of the All Peoples Party (APP) which later became All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), he recalled that his involvement in party politics at the time was received in three ways. There were those like Dennis who, by his own admission, shouted ‘hallelujah, a Daniel has come to justice.’ A second group saw him as ‘a fallen angel’ for daring to go into the dirty arena of politics. There was also the ‘wait and see’ group. So there were three groups: the hallelujah group; the fallen angel group and the agnostic group. Without delivering a judgement on which group was right, he declared his conviction that politics has an over-arcing influence on other areas of life wondering if it should be abandoned for the so-called dirty ones. He however recalled a number of incidents soon after that attempt failed at the party level. First, he attended a Christian gathering at which he had elected to seat somewhere in the audience.. But he was soon recognised, first relocated somewhere upfront and later relocated again and asked to lead one of the prayers. So much for ‘a fallen angel’ who had ‘tasted the forbidden fruit of politics,’ you’ll say. He also recalled that a prominent Church leader also soon publicly declared that he was in error in discouraging Christians from participating in politics.

Space constrains me from continuing on the many nuggets contained in even the preliminary observations of this man of God, so let’s go into the main message itself.

Onosode, who said he preached his first sermon in Ogbomosho, Oyo state, Nigeria in 1953 and had been a deacon for 42 years took his first bible text from chapter three of the book of Daniel (verses 12-30). He recalled how the three Hebrew boys, Meshack, Shadrack and Abednego took a firm stand against the evil of idolatory, even at the risk of burning in the burning fiery furnace of King Nebuchadnezzar.

He drew particular attention to verses 15-18 which reads in the King James Version like this: “Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands? Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.”

Onosode noted that the position taken by these young Hebrews was that there were no conditions under which they would bow to anyone but God. In other words, there was no compromise. This was the same courage and non-compromise Apostles Peter and John demonstrated early in their ministry. They had performed the miracle of healing the lame man at Gate Beautiful. For their success, they got a night behind bars and a trial before a council of Jewish elders. But their judges found it expedient to free them and perhaps as a compromise, delivered a kind of ‘go and sin no more’ verdict. The apostles thought differently and said so.

The bible passage quoted by Deacon Onosode (Acts 4:18-20), records it like this: “And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.”

He also recalled the courage of Daniel, the compatriot, friend and peer of the three Hebrew boys, who had to keep the company of lions for a night, because he wouldn’t fail to worship his God even for one day, nor worship Him in secret to please anyone
(See Daniel 6:10-28).

Onosode listed a number of other qualities the real man must possess. He must live a life of love. He must, like Paul, “take pleasure” in weakness because, “what you may be tempted to see as weakness gives God the opportunity to manifest his strength.” The real man must not allow threats of suffering or hardship to bend him because as Peter said, “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps (1 Peter 2:21). Therefore, the real man will not succumb to the threats to his pocket or his health.

Ye are the salt of the earth and the light of the world, he reminded his listeners quoting from Matthew 5: 13-14. and admonished : when the light becomes a mere mirror there is a problem. God wants us to be special wherever we are. We should do nothing to make us less. We must at all times live up to our status as light and salt. Therefore, the commandment in Exodus 23:2 that “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil…” must be taken to heart. So is the injunction to “fret not…” repeated again and again in Psalm 37.

Possibly the climax of Deacon Onosode’s ministration came during the interactive session. In answer to a question about how to resist corruption, he said the truth of Scripture that ”When a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him (Proverbs 16:7) plays out every time he came face-to-face with the enemy. He cited many personal experiences, how God gave him the words to speak and the opponent is disarmed. My conclusion here is this: whatever else he has, the real man needs revelation too.