THE CHURCH AND THE STATE OF THE NATION

Archbishop Nicholas Okoh

“Our unrighteousness is why God is allowing the church to be so attacked and lives of Christians are being lost. While we are examining the national aspect of it, we need to look inward to see whether our hands are dirty. If our hands are dirty, then we should repent so that God can have mercy on us and take away the reproach upon us.”


The Primate of Anglican Communion, Rev. Nicholas Okoh, was last week reported to have attributed the recent successful attacks on churches by the militant group, Boko Haram, to the unrighteousness of many Christians. He therefore said there was need for Christians to repent and seek divine assistance.

According to media reports, the Primate spoke at the Anglican Communion Cathedral Church of the Advent while receiving a Nigerian Red Cross delegation on a visit to the church.

He told his visitors: “Our unrighteousness is why God is allowing the church to be so attacked and lives of Christians are being lost. While we are examining the national aspect of it, we need to look inward to see whether our hands are dirty. If our hands are dirty, then we should repent so that God can have mercy on us and take away the reproach upon us.”

He wasn’t alone in this line of thought. Also last week, Sunday Tribune carried a piece headlined, “Church Leader Blames Insecurity jn Nigeria on Sinful Leaders.”  Written by Shola Adekola, the report quoted one Apostle Victor Ajayi, of Ona Iwa Mimo, Cherubim and Seraphim, Nigeria and Overseas, in a district of the church in Ipaja, Lagos, as saying that “the spate of insecurity ravaging the unity of the country has been attributed to the grievous sins committed by leaders in Nigeria”.

Positing that “all the crises presently affecting Nigeria are signs of end time as revealed by the word of God, he said, “it has been revealed that when the end is approaching, there would be many tribulations that are caused by our sins as we are witnessing through the activities of Boko Haram, kidnapping and armed robbery among others…All these are caused by our sins but God loves Nigeria. There are many sinners in our society that is why we are witnessing all these ungodly acts.”

Into the mix came a threat, (or is it a promise?), from the Southeast Zone of the Christian Association of Nigeria to close down unregistered churches.

The Nation newspaper attributed the story to zonal chairman and Anglican Bishop of Enugu Diocese, Rev. Emmanuel Chukwuma. His words, (as reported by Chris Orji): “We are worried about the activities of churches that are springing up in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, but are committing all forms of atrocities and soiling the image of Christianity…In the Southeast, we will shut any church that is not registered with CAN. Some of them have become the hideouts of robbers, kidnappers and other criminals.”  CAN plans to enlist the services of security agencies in effecting the shut-downs.

Do these reports signify a change of focus in addressing the National Question? Is a new awareness of the poor state of the hearts of Nigerian Christians, clerics, government and corporate leaders as well as the led (mostly men), going to begin to receive the required attention? Please let’s look at it together next time.

 

 

AGAIN ON THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BILL



Hon Tambuwal, Speaker,
House of Representatives

" While Obama’s views were still evolving, he signed an executive order providing funds to support gay lobbyists abroad. UK’s Cameron is on record as tying financial aid to respect for gay rights. South Africa already has a constitutional provision defining marriage more loosely. I shudder to think about it, but Nigeria may someday soon be counted in this hall of sodomy if the House of Representatives and then President Goodluck Jonathan do not move fast on this bill."

Leadership newspaper, it was that first jogged my memory about the loss of momentum in the drive to take a firm legal stand against homosexuality and the so-called same-sex marriage in this country. In its editorial of Monday May 7 titled, “House of Reps’ Silence on Same-Sex Marriage Bill,” the newspaper drew attention to the fact that Senate Bill 05, more fully known as “An Act to Prohibit Same Sex Marriages”, has yet to go beyond the first reading in the second chamber of the National Assembly.

The Abuja-based national daily expressed surprise that “more than five months after the Same-Sex Marriage Bill was passed by the Senate, Nigeria’s House of Representatives has not yet acted to take a vote on the bill, beyond the first reading to which the bill was subjected in the House just a week after being passed by the Senate”. It then urged “the House to expedite and conclude action on the Same Sex Marriage Bill. And, in doing so, we wish it would accept the Senate’s version so that the bill could be sent to President Jonathan for his assent without delay. Without prejudice to whatever it ultimately chooses to do, the House should refrain from “killing” the bill by its prolonged silence or simply inaction.”

Two days later, President Barack Obama of the United States of America, who had said that his views on the subject of gay marriage finally took a stand.  In a well promoted interview with American Broadcasting Corporation, ABC's Robin Roberts previewed on Wednesday evening edition of "World News with Diane Sawyer" and fully aired on Thursday’s "Good Morning America", Obama said: "At a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."

Obama was clearly stampeded into making the statement at the time he did because at least two key members of his administration had gone public with their conviction on the subject.  Vice President Joe Biden had been widely reported to have told National Broadcasting Corporation, NBC on Sunday that he was "absolutely comfortable" with couples of the same gender marrying. Also Education Secretary Arne Duncan answered an unequivocal “yes, I do” on Monday when asked on MSNBC's ‘Morning Joe’ if he supports allowing individuals of the same gender to legally wed."

As if to confirm the suspicion that for Obama, the decision and its announcement was all about his re-election bid, he played up the decision about 36 hours later, at a fund raising event  where he subsequently raised $15million. His words: "Obviously yesterday, we made some news…But the truth is it was the logical extension of what America's supposed to be. It grew directly out of this difference in visions. Are we a country that includes everybody and gives everybody a shot and treats everybody fairly? Does that make us strong? I believe it does.”  

Expectedly, Obama’s announcement is being celebrated by the gay movement internationally. The Guardian (London) carried a piece that’s typifies the celebratory mood of the group by one, Peter Tatchell, described as “a human rights campaigner, and a member of the gay rights group OutRage! and the left wing of the Green party”

It reads in part: “President Obama joins prime minister David Cameron and the new French president, Francois Hollande, in backing same-sex marriage. It's one of the great moral and human rights crusades of our age – and it's an unstoppable global trend. There is a growing momentum to end the ban on gay marriage in more and more countries, from Cuba to Finland, Uruguay, Nepal, Denmark, Brazil, Australia and Colombia.

“Obama's support will have a huge positive impact. It will boost the worldwide campaign for marriage equality and, through media reporting of his support, raise awareness of gay marriage among billions of people in every corner of the globe. Even people living under tyrannical, homophobic regimes will hear the message of gay equality. It is significant that Obama's change of heart was influenced by the sacrifices of US lesbian and gay military personnel and by discussions with his family and friends, including gay White House staffers and gay parents at his daughters' school. This concurs with existing evidence that people who know a gay person are more likely to support gay equal rights. (CONTINUES BELOW)

“Endorsing marriage equality was a brave move, given the upcoming presidential elections and the fierce, powerful opposition he will now face from republicans and religious conservatives…In some respects, however, Obama is merely catching up with the historical trend towards equality. Same-sex couples are already allowed to marry in Canada, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Iceland and South Africa, plus some regions in Mexico and Brazil. Denmark is expected to legalise gay marriage next month. Within the US, gay marriage laws have been passed in Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington. A majority of Americans support equal marriage rights for all.

“Obama's move throws the spotlight back on Cameron and recent wavering in the Tory ranks on this issue. The UK campaign for marriage equality has been spearheaded by the Equal Love campaign involving a twin-track strategy, both political and legal. We've succeeded in persuading the government to legalise gay marriage by 2015, although the prime minister is under pressure from a rump of homophobic Tory MPs to drop this commitment…”

 Now, check out the list of countries already in the gay lobby’s kitty again; all of them powerful and relatively rich. While Obama’s views were still evolving, he signed an executive order providing funds to support gay lobbyists abroad. UK’s Cameron is on record as tying financial aid to respect for gay rights. South Africa already has a constitutional provision defining marriage more loosely. I shudder to think about it, but Nigeria may someday soon be counted in this hall of sodomy if the House of Representatives and then President Goodluck Jonathan do not move fast on this bill.

As I had occasion to state here before, delay is dangerous. The same forces that truncated two previous attempts at the legislation are still alive and well. Indeed, if anything, they are waxing stronger, by the day.

WHAT MANNER OF MEN ARE THESE? (3)



St Saviour's Anglican Church, Otuoke

'Specifically, the head of the Anglican Church of Nigeria was quoted as saying: “The call by the opposition party is not only satanic and barbaric, but equally ungodly as it was a direct attack on Christianity in the country…capable of causing further religious implosion in the country already bugged down by problems that bothered on security… anybody who intentionally kicks against the construction of church building in any part of the country under any guise should have his brains re-examined...”'

Two recent incidents, I was saying, make me wonder what manner of men have led and continue to lead us. One was ex-military head of state and civilian president, Olusegun Obasanjo, who brazenly attempted to rewrite very recent history concerning his abortive attempt at life-presidency a few short years ago. He went on television and bold-facedly declared that he was never part of the move to amend the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to grant him another term. He even had the temerity to describe his Channels Television interviewer as mischievous!

The other incident is President Goodluck Jonathan’s admission that he solicited the help of the CEO of an Italian construction company handling several government contracts to renovate or rebuild the church in his home village of Otuoke. In fairness, “complained to” were his words. The statement made at the dedication of the new or renovated sanctuary has, to my knowledge, not been denied.

An incident as simple and straight-forward as that has helped to provide a window into the moral and even spiritual condition of the hearts of some of those who find themselves in position of power and influence in our land. And what I personally glimpsed from many of the published reactions, reported here in the last two weeks, is shocking, to say the least.

Most of the reactions remind one of a guy called Niccoló Machiavelli, who though did not invent the maxim, helped propagate that “the end justifies the means.” The arguments have gone mostly like this: since the end is renovation or rebuilding of a church, which is a good thing; it doesn’t matter if a contractor was cajoled into handling it of free-of-charge, in violation of the code of conduct for public officials and against basic morality.

I have also read and heard arguments about the church building being a corporate social responsibility project of the company. A corporate social responsibility project in the home church of the President and instigated by the President who has the power and influence to make things happen or stop from happening for the contractor. How nice!

However, what worries me most of all is that this is about a church building and the leaders of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) have risen in defence of the President. In defending the president and the building, they have come against those who have rightly called for further investigation into the matter, particularly the Action Congress of Nigeria, which had asked the national Assembly to start impeachment proceedings against the President.

Specifically, the head of the Anglican Church of Nigeria was quoted as saying: “The call by the opposition party is not only satanic and barbaric, but equally ungodly as it was a direct attack on Christianity in the country…capable of causing further religious implosion in the country already bugged down by problems that bothered on security… anybody who intentionally kicks against the construction of church building in any part of the country under any guise should have his brains re-examined...”

Even in righteous indignation, these words would still have been out of place in the mouth of the lowest of clergymen. Yet, this was none other than the Primate of All Nigeria. With the greatest respect, I wonder where the moral high ground to call politicians, who we accuse of “heating up the polity” to order, when Church leaders allow themselves the liberty of speaking like them.

But even more significant is the fact that there is nothing righteous about the indignation the church seemed to be expressing. Except in the minds of those who have read and internalised Machiavelli’s Prince, the God that we serve does care about means, as much as he does, the end. In other words, God would be concerned about the means by which St Saviour’s Anglican Church at Otuoke was built or renovated. He would be interested in whether any laws were violated, whether the process was moral etc.

Perhaps the story of Saul, the king in the 15^th chapter of the first book of Samuel would serve to drive home the point: “Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt. And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly… And Samuel said… the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed. Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the LORD, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the LORD? And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and have gone the way which the LORD sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God in Gilgal. And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams” (verses 7-9; 17 -22).   

This story, no doubt well known amongst us Christians as a powerful reminder of God’s insistence on obedience, is also powerfully illustrates that good and therefore welcome as sacrifice normally is to God (the end),  Amalekite fat obtained in disobedience (the means) disqualified it!  Church leaders of all hues and all who lead in every area of national endeavour, who name the name of the Lord, (mostly men) must always remember that God is a law and order God, who refrains from, and abhors, impunity. He expects no less from us. (CONCLUDED).

WHAT MANNER OF MEN ARE THESE? (2)

"I have read and re-read these reactions and as I stated in the first part of this serial, I am still wondering what manner of men are these? You would have thought that the starting point of any meaningful rebuttal to the call by Action Congress of Nigeria for impeachment proceedings to commence against the president, was a clear, unequivocal and believable declaration that President Jonathan did not“complain” to the CEO of the contracting firm."

I was saying that the direction the nation of Nigeria is headed is worrisome. And that the moral and spiritual condition of the men wielding positions of leadership and influence is the culprit. The in your face way which Olusegun Obasanjo, sought to rewrite very recent history concerning his ill-fated attempt at life presidency is already well known. Yet this man was a military general who had the privilege of ruling the Nigeria for about 12 of our 52 years as an independent geo-political entity.

Then there is the matter of President Goodluck Jonathan’s statement that a 2,500 seater church auditorium, built or renovated or both in his home village, Otuoke, by an Italian construction company doing business with government was done as result of his “complaint” to the managing director of the firm about the state of the structure. Till date undenied, to my knowledge, the fall out of that statement has once again revealed the calibre of people leading us, and most certainly the direction they are seeking to lead us.(CONTINUES BELOW)

We read the reaction of the Presidency itself and that of the construction company, Gitto Costruzioni Generali Nigeria Limited, last time. As I promised then here are some of the other noteworthy reactions:

Olisah Metuh (PDP National Publicity Secretary): “The strength of any viable democracy lies in the mettle of a credible opposition. The PDP welcomes this. However, where the opposition is irresponsibly engrossed in making a mountain out of a mole hill and ceaselessly creating an imaginary tiger in the neighbourhood, it leaves no one in doubt that it is committed to a hidden agenda that neither benefits the nation nor ennobles the people.

“Let’s therefore ask the ACN; ‘quo agendum?’ – whither your agenda?” Is it to destabilise the Federal Government and hasten the quest for a divided country? Is it to gain what the opposition in their collective whole failed to achieve in April 2011 presidential election? Or still, is it a vengeance for the inability of the opposition to win successive five governorship elections, the nullification of some of which were achieved via judgements with questionable trends?” …The the donation of a church building to a community fell under corporate responsibility and did not benefit the President in any way…”

Primate Nicholas Okoh, Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion): “The call by the opposition party is not only satanic and barbaric, but equally ungodly as it was a direct attack on Christianity in the country…capable of causing further religious implosion in the country already bugged down by problems that bothered on security… anybody who intentionally kicks against the construction of church building in any part of the country under any guise should have his brains re-examined...” (In Enugu, through Bishop Emmanuel Chukwuma Anglican Bishop of Enugu and Chairman of the South east zone of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN).

“It is not an issue, that church, I can renovate it myself, it was already built and the renovation of church can be done by either Gitto or anybody; people are looking for problem where there is none. The President doesn’t have to have a friend to renovate that church, since if anybody volunteered to do it, those people will receive blessing from God. Those who are pointing to the renovation of the church, let them search their midst, there are logs in their eyes, not the speck in somebody’s eye ”(speaking in Abuja).

Mr Konbowei Benson Friday, Speaker Bayelsa State House of Assembly: “…It is an insult to the Ijaw nation for the ACN to say President Jonathan should be impeached because a company rehabilitated a church in his village…ACN members who are Ijaws should take time to educate their national leaders on this issue.  ACN leaders should not mix politics with religion. It will create a very bad impression about their party around here, especially given the fact that the national leaders of that party and four of its five governors are Muslims. The members should also tell their leaders that Ijaw value their spirituality and also would not take insults from outsiders who like to make value judgements about others.

“We know that corporate businesses, including banks, rehabilitate roads in Lagos as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility. Will it be fair to call for the impeachment of the governor of that state simply because his government does business with the banks? We know companies in the South-West are more alive to their responsibilities because of the active media there. Whatever is sauce for the Lagos goose should be sauce for the Bayelsa gander.

“ACN, with its roots in the South-West should reflect on the importance the Yorubas attach to their cultural and religious development. For anyone to say Otueke people do not deserve anything from a company that has benefitted from the locality which is Bayelsa State is rather unfortunate. For the ACN to say we do not deserve this church is for it to say we should be spiritually barren. It means those saying this do not think well of us.

“Here in the Niger Delta, our grouse is that companies don’t show enough concerns to their host communities by way of CSR. These companies don’t give back to the communities from where they get jobs by way of projects. So, when we see a company like Gitto seeing to the spiritual development of Otueke people by renovating their church, we are happy with that company…” (through his Special Assistant on Media, Mr. Piriye Kiyaramo).

I have read and re-read these reactions and as I stated in the first part of this serial, I am still wondering what manner of men are these? You would have thought that the starting point of any meaningful rebuttal to the call by Action Congress of Nigeria for impeachment proceedings to commence against the president, was a clear, unequivocal and believable declaration that President Jonathan did not “complain” to the CEO of the contracting firm. That is yet to happen! It is therefore to be accepted that it did happen. Next is what weight to attach to any such complaint, constitutionally and, because it’s a church building and a notable church leader has rallied to the President’s side, scripturally. I shall attempt this, with emphasis on the latter next week. (TO BE CONCLUDED)

WHAT MANNER OF MEN ARE THESE?!

"Nigerian leaders, again I emphasise, mostly men, are manifesting the worst possible form of spiritual and moral atrophy. They have operated for so long without regard for truth, constitutionality and the greater good that they have not only become virtually unable to, but are also incapable of recognising and appreciating it in others."

I don’t know about you, but I am concerned about the direction this country is headed. And it’s all about the moral and ultimately, the spiritual condition of the men, mostly men, who have found themselves in leadership positions in our land.
 
The situation today reminds me of one story that I have had occasion to tell on this page before. According to the story, an after-dinner joke, actually, representatives of several nation-states bordering Nigeria were reported to have requested audience with 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; 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, Father, 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 you noticed the kind of leaders they have?!”

It’s funny, but please, don’t laugh. Nigerian leaders, again I emphasise, mostly men, are manifesting the worst possible form of spiritual and moral atrophy. They have operated for so long without regard for truth, constitutionality and the greater good that they have not only become virtually unable to, but are also incapable of recognising and appreciating it in others.

There are so many contemporary examples, including former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s disingenuous and satanic statement concerning his foiled third-term in office bid. He claimed that the fact that it was not an executive bill meant that he did not initiate it, and that also meant he never wanted it. Then he threw in the sacrilegious. If he wanted it, he would have got it. He would have got it (because) there is nothing he asked for from God that he never got. Now, that is something! This man was lying and calling God as witness! Did he think we have all forgotten that he said, in the heat of the “unsolicited” term elongation debate, that God was not a God of abandoned project? If that wasn’t passing the project off as God’s, I don’t know what it is? What kind of man is this?! Any wonder that Nigeria is like this, when a man like that ruled us for nearly twelve of our 52 years?

There are other examples, but the most unnerving is that about the building or renovation or both of St Stephen’s Anglican Church, Otuoke, family church of President Goodluck Jonathan, by an Italian construction firm. What makes it so worrisome is that the core issues of morality and constitutionality it raised are being buried in an avalanche of abusive verbiage, crass politicking and the worst form of ethnic and religious bigotry. To worsen matters, the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), through the Primate, no less, allowed itself to be drawn into the politics of it.

The President was reported to have, among other things, told his audience at the dedication of the church building that he personally complained to the CEO of Gitto Costruzioni Generali Nigeria a contractor handling some jobs for the Federal and Bayelsa state governments, about the state of the church. Smart guy that he is, the CEO took the hint. His company went to the rescue and the cute little church being dedicated is the result. (CONTINUES BELOW)

 
Dutifully, the Action Congress of Nigeria latched on to what is clearly a Freudian slip by a President I have long suspected has a problem with speaking outside prepared speeches. Its National Publicity Secretary, Lai Mohammed issued a statement asking the National Assembly to commence impeachment proceedings against the president for constitutional violations.

Citing the Code of Conduct for Public Officers which is an integral part of the constitution of the Federal Republic, the ACN said the president’s admission that he solicited and received assistance from a government contractor is a clear violation, which should be investigated and followed to its logical conclusion. Some other political parties, civil society groups and notable lawyers and public affairs commentators agree with ACN.

Predictably, reactions came from all the expected quarters. But, if anyone expected light from the reactions, it probably is still on its way. For, what came was a lot of heat, no illumination. Here are some of the reactions.

The Presidency: “Yes, a contractor who has worked and continues to work in Bayelsa State and other parts of Nigeria thought it fit, in fulfilment of its corporate social responsibility, to facilitate the renovation of the small church in the President’s home town of Otuoke. It takes a lot of desperation to translate this act of social responsibility for which there are innumerable precedents in our country into a crime for which the usual suspects are now calling for the ‘impeachment’ of President Jonathan…Examples of such corporate assistance to communities, cities and states abound across Nigeria. The President’s accusers are certainly not unaware of the fact that the famous Millennium Park in Abuja was donated to the city by a construction company, but we do not recall that anyone was ever accused of receiving the park or other similar communal projects as a bribe.”

The Contractor: “Gitto Costruzioni Generali Nigeria Limited (GCG) DID NOT build a new church at Otuoke for President Jonathan or any other person. The fact of the matter is that the Company, as well as friends and well-wishers of the community, were contacted during the burial of the late Pa Jonathan by the members of the community and parishioners of Otuoke to renovate the already existing church. To this end Gitto Costruzioni Generali Nigeria Limited (GCG) responded to this request based on its strong Corporate Social Responsibility culture. However due to the dilapidated state of the existing structure it became apparent that the risk of maintaining it was far too grave, hence Gitto Costruzioni Generali Nigeria Limited (GCG) was left with no choice but to reconstruct the church in its entirety.

I shall be quoting from a few others, including the most disappointing of them all; that from the Church next week. It suffices to say here that Reuben Abati, who authored the Presidency’s reaction in his usual elegant prose, did not deny that the President said he “complained” to GCG’s CEO, which if true must pass for solicitation or worse, intimidation. The company’s statement, on the other hand, spoke about being approached by “members of the community and parishioners of Otuoke.” Was the President one of them? Did the President lie against himself? What kind of man would do that? (TO BE CONTINUED).

REDISCOVERING MANHOOD (3)

"To hear many men tell it today, you’ll think both responsibility and accountability belong equally to men and women. But, if the Bible is true, and I certainly believe it is, the destiny of the world rest upon the shoulder of the men, with the able assistance of the women. That is the divine plan and that is why it is important that men rediscover manhood – urgently too. The world has a men problem and men must arise to help the world solve it. Christian Men’s Network Nigeria, of which I am a coordinator, is poised to be in the vanguard of this journey of rediscovery. Please, watch this space for how you can join us."

In spite of the unambiguity of the verses of scripture we read in arriving at what we saw as the God’s divine place for the man in the scheme of things, questions apparently remain. The most recurring of the questions arises from the creation narrative in the first chapter of Genesis, which tended to suggest that man and woman were created almost simultaneously and thus conferred with absolute equality in all things.

The relevant verses, which recorded the activities of our Creator God on the sixth day, read:

“And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:24-27).

 According to these famous verses, God, after five days of speaking things into being, creating plant life and populating the ocean, he came to the sixth and final day of creation and decided to populate the earth, as it were. And, according to this account, he began by ordering the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind and then, he “made the beast of the earth after his kind and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind…”

The Bible said God took a look at all that he had created, and he saw “that it was good”. Yes God saw that it was all good, but he also saw that it was incomplete. That explains what followed: “Let us make man…”, he declared, some have said, plausibly, in consultation with his creation partners, God the Spirit and God the Son. Then he proceeded to define how: “…in our image, after our likeness…”  In other words, let us make man exactly like us. And then he stated why:  that he may have the abilities which we have to “have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” In other words, God decided that his next creation must have the necessary equipping to take charge over the creatures that swim in the oceans, the ones that fly in the sky, as well as, those which creep or walk on land.

And he proceeded to do exactly that, as the famous verse 27 of Genesis1 faithfully reported in these words: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” But as a holistic reading of the creation account has shown, the latter part of this verse “male and female created he them,” was a bit premature in the narration. This is because, as Genesis 2 has demonstrated, all of this while, God had only the male in view! The man he created in the image and likeness of the Godhead; the man that he gave dominion over the rest of creation to, was the male; not male and female.. We have even seen that the female probably would never have been made, had Adam found a worthy helper among the other creatures that God presented to him for consideration (see Genesis 2:19-20).

Another question that has arisen is why bother about the whole issue in the first place with suggestions that this was just an exercise in male chauvinism. But far from it, I did state categorically the last time that “the truth that the man has preeminence in the divine order of things does not, in any way, imply that he is superior in any sense to the female. It does one very important: “it shows who is RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE for the overall headship of the new enterprise”. It also shows that in spite of the power and authority that  

God has devolved to him in order that he might play his role effectively, he is in fact incomplete without the woman.

This, unrecognized by most world leaders and institutions, is possibly one of the most important issues of our time. God in his wisdom decided to put someone in charge, handing him the responsibility to ensure that things run as he has planned it. That implies that it is that being that will account to him at the fullness of time. He also created a helper for him, one with the duty of helping him succeed. She has responsibility to help, not to take over and certainly, if she has any accounting to do, it is to the extent of her specific assignment.

 What all of this means is simple. If we agree that God cannot be as upbeat today, as he was when he completed creation and declared it “good,” he has the men to blame. To hear many men tell it today, you’ll think both responsibility and accountability belong equally to men and women. But, if the Bible is true, and I certainly believe so, the destiny of the world rest upon the shoulder of the men, with the able assistance of the women. That is the divine plan and that is why it is important that men rediscover manhood – urgently too. The world has a men problem and men must arise to help the world solve it. Christian Men’s Network Nigeria, of which I am a coordinator, is poised to be in the vanguard of this journey of rediscovery. Please, watch this space for how you can join us (CONCLUDED).

  

REDISCOVERING MANHOOD (2)



creation by Micelangelo

"In other words, God created the man as his choice to fill the vacuum that existed. Man was his manager of choice, his preferred partner in the emerging enterprise. God’s immediate directive to the man he had just created clearly reveals his mind."

You probably have heard the story too, but I’ll tell it anyway. It’s about an activist atheist. Yes, he doesn’t believe that there’s a God anywhere and he is boldly propagating his “faith” everywhere. He doesn’t stop at propagating it, he defends it and fights for it. You know, the way Gani Fawehinmi and Beko Ransome-Kuti used to defend and fight for human rights and civil liberties; and the likes of Joe Okei-Odumakin, Femi Falana and Festus Keyamo still do.

In his pursuit of a level holidaying ground for all “faiths” in the United States of America, this committed atheist went to court to demand that government at all levels be compelled to declare a day as public holiday for atheists. The status quo, he argued was unconstitutional, because it was discriminatory, in that Christians have many such days of public observance.

The judge, goes the story, ruled the petitioner out of order saying that there was indeed already a day widely recognized and celebrated as a day for atheists. He asked the atheist if he knew what April 1 and promptly came the reply, “all-fools day.” You got it, declared the judge, alluding to the Psalms where twice the Bible defined the fool as one who says in his heart that there is no God. Happy fools day to all atheist, then. Have a swell time preparing for hell.

Pardon the digression, please, but it’s just in the spirit of observances, to remember something as serious as our eternal destiny in as light heartedly as this.

Last time, I tried to show how very important men are to the divine plan of God. The man, Adam, had no part in it; it was simply the sovereign choice of God, the creator of the heavens and the earth

.

As we said a close look at the second chapter of the book of beginnings, Genesis, reveal the heart of God concerning the first man that he made, why he made him and his place in the scheme of things on the earth that he had just created.

Verses 4 & 5 identified a problem or challenge, depending on who is looking at it. And it is this: Everything else was in place, but there was nobody in charge! It says: “And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew… and there was not a man to till the ground.” Picture a well laid out estate with everything in place, sturdy structures, fine finishes, running water, breath-taking landscape, shopping arcade, recreational facilities and all, but no estate manager. That was the state of creation at that point.

Then in verse 7, God came up with the solution; he created man, a male: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” In other words, God created the man as his choice to fill the vacuum that existed. Man was his manager of choice, his preferred partner in the emerging enterprise. God’s immediate directive to the man he had just created clearly reveals his mind. In verse 15, the Bible records that “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.” Put another way, God placed the man in charge. He assigned him to mind the store, as it were.

Next we read in verse 8: “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” Got the picture? God had created somebody and assigned him to the job, but he took one look at him and decided that, for this wonderful creation of his to succeed in the assignment that he had just given him and others that were to follow, he would need help. And he proceeded to find help for him.

But as we said last week, God chose not to impose a helper on Adam. Verses 19 & 20 continues the story this way: “And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.  And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.”

As we noted last time, in God’s search for a helper for his man, he “made every beast of the field and every fowl of the air. He brought them to Adam, hoping that he might find one or the other of them suitable. But Adam did not find any. He gave them names reflecting his perception of each one, but found none he could call companion. This is noteworthy because had he found one amongst them, the cause of history might have been different. The other half of mankind today, known as woman, might never have been created!“

 This led inexorably to the last process in the creation story as reported in verses 22 & 23: “And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

 Flowing from all these is the truth that the man has preeminence in the divine order of things.

The import of this creation scenario, is neither to demonstrate that man, the male, is superior in any sense to man, the female; it is to show who is RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE for the overall headship of the new enterprise. It is not to show the man as an overlord, but to demonstrate that, irrespective of his power and authority, he is incomplete without the woman. (TO BE CONTINUED)