Saturday, September 29, 2012

Silver's Commentaries on Life, Politics, and Religion

In seeking to determine whether or not having a pilgrim’s perspective concerning one’s life on this earth has a positive or negative impact on one’s surrounding political environment, it is vital to attempt to define what “pilgrimage” is all about. It connotes to being in transit, on a long journey. In the deepest theological sense as obtained from the Christian perspective, it is about “being in this world, but not of this world.” It shows an element of a traveller who is on his way, but has not reached his/her final destination yet. It is not only a physical, but also a spiritual activity- a lifestyle to either live or leave. From the onset, I will argue that bearing a pilgrim’s outlook in regard to one’s journey while on earth has a very tremendous impact on one’s surrounding political environment. History is full of examples of courageous men and women pilgrims who have contributed invaluably in this regard. This is due to the following reasons. A pilgrim perspective makes one realize that he or she is answerable to a greater authority than earthly political leaders. In the Christian perspective, the earthly political establishments are under God’s authority, and He has enjoined them to do His will on earth. However, in case the said establishments act in a way that does not conform to His will, those with a pilgrim perspective have not only the duty, but also the obligation to advocate for sanity. The above point can be driven home by examples from the non-violence campaigns of Mahatma Ghandi, unarguably one of the greatest pilgrims in Britain-led India. He rose up to the great expectations of the day and advocated for Indian Independence, inspired non-violent civil disobedience movements, civil rights and championed for freedom not only in India, but across the world, and his legacy leaves on up to present day. Secondly, a pilgrim perspective to life gives one the humility to realize that his or her life on earth is just a means to a greater end (after life) and not an end in itself. Therefore, all that a pilgrim does on this journey is just in preparation of the greater life to come. In the Christian perspective, Jesus Christ uses a very challenging phrase, “the salt of the earth.” This ought to constantly remind Christian pilgrims of their role on earth-to restore saltiness (preservation). In Martin Luther King Junior, we see an example of a very inspirational Christian pilgrim who laid his life to take on the political powers of the day as he fought prevailing injustices of the day (mainly racism and the American-Vietnamese war). Using Non-violence activism, he managed to rally such a great following of fellow men and women who had understood the concept of pilgrimage on earth. (For example Jesse Jackson, James Bevel, James Farmer Junior, Mahalia Jackson to mention but a few) A life of pilgrimage gives one sense of purpose to be able to contribute positively to the rehabilitation of such a broken world. For instance, Mother Theresa was a very ardent preacher and practitioner of love without borders. She had observed that if we all loved (even when hurt by those we love), the world would be a better place to leave in. All these compassionate activities were based on her understanding that life was way much more than what we enjoy while on earth. If this can be practiced and upheld in the current local and global political environment, perhaps we could see fewer wars, less corruption, less injustice and reduced suffering for mankind. A life centered on pilgrimage makes one realize that his or her calling is about service to others, and not exploitation. One may not easily think of amassing material wealth that “will be eaten and consumed by moths and thieves”, but rather storing his or treasures in service of others for eternal reward. In Christianity, and human history, Jesus Christ offers a very perfect example of life of pilgrimage. He washed his disciples feet (a sign of service), and castigated the political class of the day for being unjust to the poor, orphans, widows and exploiting the needy. He lived a humble life-the son of man, who did not even have where to put his head! A pilgrim perspective towards earthly life gives one the boldness and courage to tackle injustice in a given political environment. By having a perspective about how things ought to be at the end of the journey, one is empowered to clear the way so as to reach his her final destination as a soldier who fought a good fight. The example of Martin Luther King Junior and his compatriots is a very humbling one. His conscience convicted him, and he believed in a cause-seeing the Negroes in America at equal status with the Whites. He believed that God’s will and wish for human beings transcended racial barriers. With this in mind, he set forth and rallied those who thought like him in Montgomery, Birmingham, Florida, Alabama, up to Washington DC in activism that would lead to a repeal of Racist Laws. He had believed in his pilgrim conscience that a man who breaks an earthly Law that conscience tells him is not right, does no wrong in the eyes of God. In “Beyond Vietnam”, Luther took on the then sitting Government for causing untold suffering and misery to the Vietnam people in what he termed as “history’s most cruel and senseless wars!” This is the true life of a pilgrim who had discovered that the human race is inextricably bound up in an intertwined strand of being, that when one of us directly suffers, all of us indirectly suffer. In a nutshell, having a pilgrim’s perspective concerning one’s life on this earth has a very tremendous impact on one’s surrounding political environment. However, it may come with very unbearable consequences (ranging from imprisonment to death), but when pursuing what is right and just (as opposed to political opportunism and manipulation of the people); it is worth paying the price.

Silver On Christian Political Philosophy

It is on few occasions in my academic life that I have been met with thought-provoking questions like ‘‘what role does God play in modern Politics?’’! I wish I could pause once more and ask again, what role does God play in modern politics? Or re-phrase the question and ask myself, is God relevant in today’s political landscape? After deep reflection, and brain-stimulation, I will proceed to express my humble opinion on this subject where men far wiser and more knowledgeable than me about theology, and political philosophy have spilled unquantifiable volumes of intellectual ink. In attempting to define politics, I came across as many definitions as there are political commentators! Definitions ranging from the plain ones like, the art of control or management of a nation or State or political party to the hilarious- like this one: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies! Perhaps true, but I would love to believe that Marx is wrong on this one. Another attempt I am constrained with, is making a time frame for ‘‘modern politics’’ or ‘‘contemporary politics’’ as distinguished from ‘‘post-modernism’’ (an era after the modern one). For purposes of clarity, this journal entry will center on present day politics in selected case studies. From the onset, I would argue that foundations of most countries were/are shaped by Godly principles, which informed and shaped, and in some regards, continue to shape not only their politics but also other spheres of social and societal evolution. For instance, the founding fathers of the United States of America were in agreement that; ‘‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator [God] with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…’’ (Emphasis mine) By affirming in the above words, they expressed their will and desire for the United States of America politics to be shaped and ingrained in Godliness. In Uganda, the national motto states, ‘‘For God and My Country’’ and the national anthem opens with very colorful verse, “Oh Uganda! May God Uphold Thee”! This was indeed the will of our founding fathers. More rituals like swearing solemn oaths like upon ascendency to political office were also incorporated in the national laws and have continued to be very colorful and most times, pompous political events. The irony is that, amidst all this theoretical Godliness, Uganda continues to lose about 500 billion shillings [about $300million] to corruption , and politicians (most of whom claim to believe in God) have been cited in bribery, vote rigging, violence, hate speech and many other ungodly practices in political campaigns and in discharge of their political duties. Sadly, this reflects the trend in other countries like Kenya, Nigeria, Apartheid-era South Africa, and so forth. Furthermore, lack of political will has been cited as one of the leading affronts to the fight against corruption and electoral fraud in Christian-dominated Uganda. Ironically, these are the same politicians who invoke God’s name when instigating hate campaigns like homophobia! Some political commentators have argued that the enlightment period greatly impacted the trend towards a more secularized political philosophy/thought and believed that God and Christianity were only relevant to Politics and governance only when they were favorable to the State or prolonged the stay of the ruling establishment/status quo. Such an argument would not hold water before Thomas Madison who would later remark on United States of America that; "We have staked the future of American civilization upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." To answer the question presented to me about the role of God in modern politics, I submit that God is becoming increasingly irrelevant in modern-day (largely secular) politics. Like the dirty game it is (according to some observers), the politicians will always look out for God and his message when it only favors them, and furthers their political interests. Just like in Samuel’s time, the people behind the politics of the day have rejected God and favored men. God has let us bomb ourselves with atomic bombs, bribes, lip-service, political extremism, terror, and so on as we exercise our ungodly politics till the final day when He will come to exercise His judgment. Godly political acts like honesty, peace-making, reconciliation, forgiveness, service, and many others seem not to augur well with today’s politics dominated by lies, deceit, war, vengeance, militarism, exploitation, imperialism, subjugation, and the list goes on. One would be pardoned for thinking that Nietzsche was talking about modern politics when he said that; ‘‘God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?’’

Silver's Commentaries on Law, Christianity and Political Philosophy

This journal entry seeks to answer two fundamental questions on Biblical interpretation. 1. Are all educated people capable of reading and interpreting the Bible? 2. Is it possible for the Bible to do more harm than good within a political culture? On the former, I would answer in the affirmative that all educated people are capable of reading the Bible. This is obvious and not so much disputed that a person who has attained a substantial level of formal education is ordinarily acquainted with the basics of grammar and literacy acumen. However, not everyone who can read the Bible can interpret it. Just like other technical books like Constitutions and statutes, the Bible has its own canons, maxims or rules of interpretation for instance, the rule of context. The Bible [God’s word in human words] was written within specific contexts. A live example Leviticus is believed to have been written within the Israelite cultural context, highlighting their culture, norms, traditions and beliefs. Therefore, it would take someone knowledgeable about the Jewish culture, and elements of ‘’theocracy’’, food, traditions, and rituals, Jewish festivities and seasons to contextualize the message. A literal interpretation without proper context may be misleading. My second submission is about the biblical canon of interpretation with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is described as “Truth” in John’s gospel, and all scripture is spirit breathed and inspired to teach, counsel, rebuke and train in righteousness (2Timothy 3:16). Therefore, the guidance of the Holy Spirit in indispensable in Biblical interpretation, and not every educated person has the Holy Spirit to guide them in discovering the truth of God’s Kingdom and will for His people, or word. The rule of “genre judgment” may also be too far more complicated for the less sophisticated reader. The Bible, without doubt, covers so many broad areas-ranging from historical books, poetic books, gospels, epistles and so on. All these books involve many technical aspects which need a more articulate and informed approach in regard to interpretation. For instance, the book of Song of Songs, on the surface may appear like a romantic love story of prose and anthology of a couple deeply in love, and yet it can be interpreted as the relationship between God and Israel or Christ and his church (the body of Christians) In a nutshell, the context of the Scripture in question matters a great deal in interpretation. Whereas most people are more concerned with the narrow/immediate context, the broader context is in my humble opinion more important. Just like no single Constitutional provision (in Law) should be interpreted so as to conflict with the other provisions, no single scriptural verse, or book should be interpreted in a manner that waters down the other teachings. The second question is a trickier one! But I will proceed and argue that the Bible [book] per se is incapable of doing more harm than good within a political culture, but rather, it is the misuse of the misinterpretation of the Bible that can ruin, and tear apart a given society or nation. It is how we read the Bible, interpret it and the beliefs we hold from what is preached or “mispreached” to a given polity that can cause harm, injury and turn humans into heartless vultures or obedient and conformist stooges! Researcher, author and socio-political commentator Sussannah Heschel, in her book, “The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany’’ takes us (readers) through a very macabre journey of how “poisonous theology” and propaganda were used by the Nazi regime in Germany to play out the scenes of what remains as one of the darkest chapters in the history of mankind, and on the conscience of the world. “Positive Christianity”, as practiced by the Nazi tyrants advocated for militant approach towards the Jews and Hitler (and his compatriots) was willing to exterminate them basing on his false and stage-managed anti-Jew propaganda based on Biblical (mis)interpretation and distortion. In another striking example from apartheid-era South Africa, David Paton in “Church and race in South Africa”, documents how some churches prompted racism through misinterpreted Biblical doctrine-some portraying God as “white” and the devil as “black” representing the respective races! In Uganda’s political and religious circles, depending on interpretation, the “Kill the Gays” (Anti-Homosexuality) Bill has attracted numerous debates. Supporters of the Bill think, and interpret the Bible based on “God’s original plan” of man having sex with woman in Genesis, while those against it support their assertions based on “God’s love” for the sinners, and His willingness to send his only beloved son to die for us on the cross. However, on a positive note, there are instances where proper interpretation (in accordance with God’s will) has mended fences. For example, teachings and proper interpretations on Love, tolerance, reconciliation and justice led to many reforms in Apartheid era South Africa. Through such just, fair and equitable interpretations, the Church is said to have united people from different races into a common faith with the same anti-racist beliefs. Some of these people were later instrumental in the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee that was set up to set motion for social justice and progress of South Africa. By and large, whereas it is true that it is possible for the Bible to be (mis)used to do more harm than good within a political context (just like in racism, apartheid, Nazism, Colonialism, Homophobia, and so on), it can also be an instrument of peace, justice, reconciliation and social progress once supplied with the proper interpretation devoid of extremism and opportunistic misinterpretation.