Saturday 22 June 2013
Tuesday 18 June 2013
Why is there so much suspicion between Kenyans and Nigerians?
All over the world nations are known to love other nations
but also hate others in the same measure. The relationship between India and
Pakistan can not be branded as one of brotherly love. Since the violent partition
of British India in 1947 these two nations have fought numerous military wars over
their shared Kashmir region. Though the two neighbours share economic links,
common history and culture and more closely their geography, their relationship
is one of open hostility and great suspicion.
Consequently, India has found more close allies far from it
borders. One of them is Israel; The Times of India (2010) reported that the
military and strategic ties between the two nations extended to joint military
training and space technology. It was also reported that India was Israel’s
largest defence market, accounting for almost fifty percent of Israeli sales. Two nations far apart with no common heritage
and history but in fact with different cultures and religions become best of
friends because of their shared concerns in fighting extremism.
Other examples of strong ties include United Kingdom and
Portugal. Information acquired on British archives and government websites show
of a relationship that dates back to the Middle Ages. In 1373 the Kingdom of England signed the
Anglo-Portuguese Alliance, the oldest alliance in the world still in force.
When the Cubans and the Americans talk of each other fire
comes out of their mouths. Russians and the Americans have a long-standing
history of strained relationship. Nations treat each other differently, I once
heard of an English friend saying that France would be a better nation without
the French. Whether that is true or not I can not tell and I better stay away
from their politics.
Kenya has had an equal measure of relationship with her
neighbours. As the largest economy in
East Africa and with the strongest regional financial and transportation hub
Kenya is seen at least by all her neighbours as a bully. Ask a Ugandan or a
Tanzanian about what they think and they will paint a grim picture of Kenya and
Kenyans. While that is going on, Kenya asserts herself as the regional policeman and saviour
whose destiny and salvation lies solely on her own hands!
I have read a bit of
history about relationships between nations and people but there is none involving
Kenya that intrigues more than the one we have with Nigerians. The mention of
the word Nigeria or worse still Nigerians to a Kenyan they would raise red
flags. We mimic their accents; we make fun of their lifestyles and everything
about them. (I’m coming home ooh, Igwe, uuhm, Ni Mnijo bana)
My hair had grown a disturbing length and I needed it
trimmed. Looking around for a barber I could hardly get any one willing to cut
it for fear that they were going to mess it and in any case many wondered why I
would want to do away with it anyway. Another reason I had stayed away from the barber
was the cost issue-one shave would cost an equivalent of what it would cost to
feed a family of four for three days back home so why waste it! Anyways I set
myself in a mission to look for an African barber and guess who was available
to do it- Just Guess.
I walked in, sat down and waited for my turn. Signalling
with his hand the next available barber ushered me to the seat. I told him how
I wanted to have my hair cut and as usual I started to bargain for a ‘better deal’.
The mentioned of ‘lower ‘ pay brought everything to a standstill.
The man
started talking to his other other members of staff about my ‘proposed’ pay. Then I
thought I should interject and asked- Are you talking Ghanian? Oooh I’m proudly
Nigerian but of course I’m speaking broken English! I thought so-I answered.
For the rest of my time with those lovely Nigerians, we were
asking ourselves why we love and hate each other in the same measure but I am
afraid to say there was nothing conclusive.
Two countries, over 2000 miles apart which shares very
little in common if any be it language, border, heritage or economic strength but treat each other with great
suspicion is hard to understand.
Thursday 13 June 2013
God as an absolute subject
The notion of God as
substance was grounded in a view of the world as cosmos. God is placed at the
centre of an ordered universe. With the rise of the scientific method, however,
human persons begin to see themselves as at the centre of the world. As they
gain more and more knowledge of how it works, they have the means of exerting a
higher level of control over it. At this particular point the centre changes
from supreme substance to a human subject.[1]
In this situation in
which the human experiences herself as subject over against a world of objects,
it is natural that those who believe in God would see the divine as an
archetype of themselves. God is the infinite, perfect and absolute subject.[2]
God is then seen as subject, with perfect reason and free will, and is in
actual fact the archetype of the free, reasonable, sovereign person, who has
complete disposal over himself.[3]
Seamands argues that if
there is any doctrine relevant to our identity and calling as servants of God
it is the doctrine of Trinity, because it defines the grammar of the Christian
faith. It gives us the audacity to speak of God who is revealed as the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit in the Scriptures as well as setting our Christian
understanding of God apart from all others and makes it not merely theistic.[4]
Moltmann in his
doctrine of Trinity is opposed to the idea of a ‘monotheistic’ or ‘monarchical’
doctrine of God because it reduces the real subjectivity of the three persons.
He argues that the doctrine of Trinity should be understood as providing a
vision of God view as a union of three divine persons or distinct, but related
subjects. Out of this he develops a social doctrine of the Trinity intended to
overcome both monotheism in the concept of God and individualism in the
doctrine of man into developing a social personalism and personalist socialism.[5] Moltmann
follows the Eastern Cappadocian Fathers in developing their concept of Trinity
but they both balance the threeness tendency of social Trinity by speaking of
perichoresis.
[1] Moltmann, The Trinity and the
Kingdom of God,13
[2] Moltmann, The Trinity and the
Kingdom of God, 13
[3] Moltmann, The Trinity and the
Kingdom of God, 15
[4] Seamands, Ministry in the
Image of God, 11
[5] Alister E. McGrath. Christian
Theology: An Introduction (Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell,
2011), 258
God as a supreme substance
According to Moltmann
the understanding of God as a supreme substance finds its roots in Greek
religion and in their philosophy.[1] They understood the universe as an orderly,
harmonious whole that was governed on the basis of eternal laws. At the heart
of life in the universe are the gods, with whom human beings live harmoniously.
The divine supreme substance at the centre of all this is one, necessary,
immovable, infinite, unconditional, immortal and impassible.[2]
Against the enemies of
the church, that is, persecutors and heretics, Tertullian developed his formula
una substantia, tres personae which
means one indivisible, homogeneous divine substance that exist as three
individual persons. He developed this theology after the nature of Christ
debate was at stake.[3]
At the council of Nicea
in 325 it was affirmed that the son is homoousios
(one substance) with the father, a doctrine championed by Athanasius,
Bishop of Alexandria (295-373). He argued that the re-creation of human nature
in the image of God requires a fully divine mediator, and the victory over
death requires the death and resurrection of the Lord of life himself. In his
support for the theology of salvation was the idea that the one divine ousia (substance), infinite, simple and
indivisible, is at once Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. All three are
distinct, and yet all three share in one divine essence. [4]
Gunton criticises
Augustine view of God's unity as resting on a singular substance. He says that
while Augustine rests God's unity on a singularity of substance it is not
enough as it has to be singularity beyond substance otherwise God becomes
neutral. Substance he argues is not personhood but a thing and therefore lacks
the ability to create unity of will and purpose.[5]
[1] Moltmann, The Trinity and the
Kingdom of God, 10
[2] Moltmann, The Trinity and the
Kingdom of God,, 11
[3] Peter McEnhill and G. M. Newlands. Fifty Key Christian
Thinkers (London: Routledge, 2004),27
[4] McEnhill, Fifty Key Christian
Thinker, 36
[5] Colin E. Gunton. The Promise
of Trinitarian Theology. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991),38-42
The concept of the Person among the African people.
In his book African Religions, Benjamin
C. Ray indicates that African people will always be thought of first of all as
a member of a particular family and will be defined through that lineage.[1]
Mbiti agrees with him when he says: “The individual is conscious of himself in
terms of ‘I am because we are and since we are, therefore we are.’”[2]
I agree with this because when I am at home I will always be called by more
than one name. There is an African proverb that says, ‘a beautiful child has
more than one name’, a clear indication that those names help to show your
lineage and connections within your family.
I would normally be called Irungu
wa Mwangi na Waithira kuma mbari ya acera muhiriga wa aciku (Irungu son of
Mwangi and Waithira from the clan of Acera in the lineage of aciku). Benjamin
compares this view with the Western concept of identity and points out a major
difference. He says from a Western view someone’s identity is defined by a private
self, which is independent of family bonds and local roots.[3]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)