THE ROLE OF THE CHURCH IN THE WORLD TODAY

Having decided to dwell on this topic, it is my strong wish to borrow leaves from Hans Kung for a holistic grasp of my intent. In discussing the Church as the Kingdom of God on earth, this German theologian enumerated a five-finger significance of the Kingdom of God on earth (the Church). These are:

1.     The kingdom of God is eschatological; that is, the fully realised, final and absolute reign of God at the end of time which as an event is now at hand (MK 1:15).

2.     The kingdom of God is a powerful sovereign act of God himself, not something that can be realised by the faithful adherence to the law. It is the Father that exclusively invites. God alone can dispose.

3.     The kingdom of God is a purely religious kingdom, not an earthly, natural and religio-political theocracy. It is not situated in a place and time, but simply God’s rule the reign of the king.

4.     The kingdom of God is a saving event for sinners, not a judgement of vengeance on sinners and godless men. God’s mercy and forgiveness are preached to all and are made visible in Jesus’ actions: the revelation of God’s love for sinners is a sign of the coming reign of God (Kung H., The Church (creative Print and Design Wales, Ebbw Vale, GreatBritain 1968), p. 47-54).

The kingdom of God demands a radical decision for God, not a demand for men to follow a new improved moral code. It must be either God and his reign or the world and its reign, no two ways about it. Repentance (metanoia) is involved which is made possible by faith. It is the necessary and fundamental condition of entry into the reign of God – Repent and believe in the Gospel (MK 1:15). The Church by virtue of her proclamation of the message of Jesus as the Lord also preaches the messages of the kingdom of God in a concentrated form. Hence, she must become the voice of Jesus himself. The Church must take over the radical demands of Jesus, must preach them and must practice them. The same divine demands which Jesus had preached under the heading “the kingdom of God”, the Church now preaches under the heading ‘Jesus the Lord,’ because this same Jesus fulfilled all the demands of the kingdom of God and is the kingdom Himself (autobasileia). The Church preaches the same as Jesus preached. The reign of the kingdom is the reign of Christ. The kingdom of God fulfilled, realized and personified in Christ remains the horizon of the Church and the focal point of its own life and which she strives to bring to the world. For the Church to become a credible herald, witness, demonstrator and messenger in the service of the kingdom of God, then she must carefully and constantly repeat the message of Jesus not only to the world or others, but also to her members. The Church’s credibility depends totally on its remaining faithful to the message of Jesus. In other words, the different perspectives of the preaching of the kingdom of God through Jesus become ecclesiological imperatives.

In the first place, Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom of God as a decisive, future, final event at the end of time has some inevitable consequences. The Church should not make herself the focal point of its preaching of the last days; its task is to point from the fulfilled reign of God in Christ to the coming reign of God towards which she looks as the crucial consummation of her mission. In doing this, she should not pretend to be an end in itself or appear to claim the glory which rightly belongs to God. It must not give the impression that man’s decision is for the Church, rather than for God, or that man exists for the Church, rather than the Church for mankind, and hence for the reign of God. If she fails to do this, then she will grow tired and weak and will have no future. But if she does this conscientiously, she can survive for it has not demanded too much from itself, and will not be surprised when shaken by obstacles and doubts in her temporary state.

In the second place, Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom of God as an all-powerful act of God himself has again unavoidable implications. The Church must not try to create the kingdom of God by herself; for only God creates it for the Church. And the Church must put its whole trust in God’s act, not her own. If she fails to do this, she is bound to failure and destruction because of the lack of unselfish and trusting faith in God’s decisive action. But if she adheres to this mission, she will be able to gather together and build up, for strength will be given to its humility and confidence. If the Church allows herself to receive the final victory which can only come from above independent of human actions, then she can be confident and faithful, and by so doing change the world.

In the third place, Jesus preaching of the kingdom of God as a purely religious reign has some pertinent repercussions. The Church should never, whatever the circumstance may be present herself as a religio-political theocracy. Her role must be a spiritual diakonia. She must perform her ministry in the guise of a servant, the service of God as a service to men, the service of men as a service of God. She must know that she is called to the selfless service of humanity, of its enemies and of the world.  If she fails to do this, then she loses her dignity and rank and the very justification of its existence. But if she does this and is without pump and majesty, she will find in her significance her true greatness, which is in the cross of Christ, for only in losing her life can she gain it.

In the fourth place, Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom as a saving event for sinners has some significant outcome. The Church should never behave as if she is a menacing, intimidating institution devoted to preaching doom and inculcating fear nor the declaration of war, but should preach the message of salvation, the joyful good news, and the message of peace. The Church exists for the sinners and the godless men, not for the righteous, and hence must forgive, heal and save. Is she fails to recognise that she is composed of sinful men and exists for sinful men, then she must grow hardhearted, self-righteous and without compassion, deserving neither the mercy of God nor the confidence of men. But if she recognizes and does this duty, she will have the grace of holiness ad righteousness which she cannot create for herself. The Church must then not look down self-righteously on publicans and sinners, for he who humbles himself shall be exalted.

In the fifth place, Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom of God as a radical decision for God has some undeniable effect. The Church must never be distracted by anything from her radical decision for God. She must turn away from worldly message and desires in metanoia and accept the coming reign of God, so that it can turn next in love to the world and to men. She must not shut herself off from the world in a spirit of asceticism, but must live in the everyday world, inspired by the radical obedience of love towards God’s will. If she tends to forget to whom her obedience is due, trying to play the master, then she must end up enslaving and enchaining herself. But if she does all expected of her in total obedience to God, she will totally become free; free in imitating the service of Christ, the service of God by which she can truly serve men, and by the service of men by which she serves God.

Ezekoka Peter Onyekachi

NIGERIA AND THE CHALLENGES OF LEADERSHIP

NIGERIA AND THE CHALLENGES OF POLITICAL LEADERSHIP

As I was travelling in a tricycle in the company of two passengers along the Wetheral road in the city of Owerri, Nigeria on the 21^st day of January, 2013, I met a vista. Prior to the Port Harcourt road junction, peering leftward, I saw an inscription boldly written on a bill board: Politicians think of the next election, but Leaders think of the next generation. Suddenly, the lady nearest to me pulled out deep smiles for me. I was immediately shouldered about the circumstance, and as the man I should be I returned the smile. I had to ask her the reason for which she gave to me such a smile. She immediately retorted: but you smiled first? I then realized that while trying to revolve my neck for more views, my face had radiated an involuntary smile as a result of the inscription, for at first sight, I felt pleased with the inscription. A discussion abruptly broke out among the three of us concerning the Nigerian politics and the leadership challenges and mentality, when I had explained to them the context of the involuntary smile. Wonderful the statement might appear, and although pleased at first sight with the inscription, I extracted some distorted ideas hovering around the practice of Politics in this country.

I believe and hence, insist that one of the major reasons for any patriotic person enrolling in any political party is to make the society better, for posterity sake. Politicians are meant to think of the common good and of the next generation, not the next election. It is in the midst of these right thinking politicians that leaders are selected. In this sense, for whatever motif the bill board was put there, the inscription becomes a product of a corrupt political mentality, and hence no applause is accruable to it. More so, this write-up acknowledges the richness of this passionate field analysis of our Nigerian Politics and leadership by the three of us. Nevertheless, we have employed more answer-seeking questions to help us grasp the major coverage of our topic: What is Political Leadership? What are the challenges in the Nigerian Political Leadership? What are the people’s expectancies in their choice of leaders? In what ways can the challenges be overcome? This is the background and scope around which I write.

‘Political leadership’ is a combination of two words, one acting as the noun and another as an adjective. Even though the noun makes full meaning on its own, the addition of the adjective affects its meaning; it is this affection that we are to explain. Leadership in our context is the capacity of someone to direct, conduct, guide, counsel, and instruct another in a particular course. This capacity must be merged with authority. The added adjective political offers it the fuller meaning. This exercise is an art of governing persons in a defined polis (city state); for politics etymologically is traced to the root word politike which is the science of the city state or the polis and its members (cf. Onyeocha I. M., 1994: 9). Hence, Political leadership embraces the totality of the governing personnel who lead the people according to a particular system towards a shared goal; indeed, it embraces the science or art of how society is organized or run.

It is glaring that political leadership in Nigeria is dismal. Going along history line, this society has always been plagued by rogue leadership dominated by treasury (financial and asset) looting and electoral mismanagements, political god-fatherism and brigandage, partisanism and endemism, ageism and masculinism; indeed, simply put political corruption. These are so stretched that Nigerian political leadership has been made synonymous with corruption. In the words of Izu Marcel Onyeocha, “Nigerian politics is one of acrimony, dissension, division, sectionalism, and political sleight of hand”; what one sees is mostly cheap, largely uncoordinated, free-for-all jungle politics of hassle and intrigue, and which does not hold any promise neither in intent nor in its unfolding, and as a result, there seems to be little attention paid to the implications of politics for the progress and growth of the country (1994: 14) In such situation, descent and public-spirited individuals are disparaged and discouraged from participating in the resultant dirty politics. Even the few with altruistic motifs who venture are seen being compromised; thereby joining the bandwagon.

Our lives in Nigeria have in recent times been berated by a worsening security situation, manifested in sporadic bomb blasting, armed robbery, arson, politically motivated assassinations, massive youth unemployment and acrimonious poverty. Many are under-nourished; economic, education, health and social infrastructures are collapsing and fizzling. Our leaders rather than feed and tend the flock in their charge, choose instead to feed themselves on the sheep and the milk, to dress themselves in their wool, and abandon the sheep, putting their lives in danger (cf. Ezek 34:1ff). As far back as 1988, the African Leadership Forum had outlined challenges that confront African nations; viz., capacity building, food security, external debt burden, international trade and payment relations, efficiency of trade investments, regional and sub-regional economic integration, consideration of expenditures on arms and armaments, and concern for the very poor and the vulnerable groups in the process of structural adjustments (The African Leadership Forum, Report of the Discussion Group on Economic and Social Issues confronting African Development Ota: Nigeria, 24^th Oct – 1^st Nov., 1988). It is then disheartening that these problems (and even more) still today stare us in the face. All these are serious challenges and happenings that confront political leadership in this nation. Who is that leader that will lead us away from all these? Who will lead us to conquer these fortresses? Leadership intent is now located in the ambience of self aggrandisement. Politicians must base their enrolment in their political parties on the proper intention and end of leadership.

Nigerians are in dare need of leaders who are sincere with their promises; who can listen to the masses; who can suffer with the masses and so give in their best. Yes, “we long for the most elusive quality in our leaders –the quality of authenticity, of being who you say you are, of possessing a truthfulness that goes beyond words” (thanks to Obama B., 2006: 66). How can citizens live in their country without the benefits of just wage, justice, security of life and property? How can citizens live in their country without the benefits of standard education, stable power supply, good roads, and of good housing scheme? Where efforts were made to provide these amenities, they were mostly poorly executed with no reasonable outcome or not done at all or left half-way for next administrations to inherit and overlook. We need leaders who can encourage and motivate the citizens to actively participate in manufacturing or agricultural processing by the building of industries and appropriate incentives. We need initiatives that could ignite this country’s industrial structures, infrastructures and superstructures as happened in China and other countries. We need leaders who can transcend ethnicity and religion, and employ more those ideals that will make for national unity. We need serious policies that can assist in converting our abundant human and natural resources to beneficial purposes.

To overcome these challenges, there must be a general mental reorientation. In the Trouble with Nigeria, C. Achebe had stated that Nigerians are corrupt because the system they live under today makes corruption easy and profitable; and after 28years, still repeating these same words in the There was a Country, he reiterated that corruption in Nigeria has grown because it is highly encouraged. “The problem of corruption and indiscipline is probably worse today it’s ever been, because of the massive way the Nigerian leadership is using the nation’s wealth to corrupt, really to destroy the country” (Achebe C., 2012: 249). He therefore presented a solution: if you commit a crime, you should be brought to book. Hold people responsible for misconduct and punish them if they are guilty; examine the issue of accountability which is a strong argument in the fight against corruption (Achebe C., 2012: 251). Those who pilot the affairs of the country must sit up and sincerely tackle the corruption monster attacking our collective national destiny and aspirations, so as to block this stagnation and deterioration of our economic progress and political revolution. Our election must be free and fair. The youths ought to be incorporated adequately into governance, and there should be no gender/age/ethnic discrimination. Let him/her who has the best workable motif lead.

Every citizen of this nation must show patriotism in his/her relation with the nation, especially during election, by participating actively and voting the candidate of his/her choice according to his/her moral judgment. We must not leave this nation to be successful; thus a check ought to be made in our manner of emigration, so as to discover those disincentives that repel citizens away and the incentives that draw them towards other nations. In this discovery, a head way can be made. We need to sit tight in this country and make it better. We must help the government and leaders to serve us well, by not involving ourselves in those crimes and practices (such as armed-robbery, sanitation and environmental rules, disobedience to the laws, etc.) that will raise tension in their governance. There should be an all-embracing co-operative nation-building that can develop higher education on a large scale, raise the standard of living, increase social interaction, maintain postal services and communications, coordinate economic activities, recognize the right of the people and the authority (apologies to Izu Marcel Onyeocha, 1994:12). Indeed, we must go back and live out the words of the second sentence in the third stanza of our National Anthem where we pray that God assists us to build a nation where no person will be oppressed. Surely, this is the country that we can truly call ours.

Ezekoka Peter Onyekachi

CAN I DO WHAT I LIKE?

CAN I DO WHAT I LIKE?

Human beings are faced with numerous uncertainties. We are faced with certain urgent cases of which conclusions must immediately be made for the continuation of life struggle. Such urgent cases, on the one hand, may either concern one’s relationship with fellow rational beings (i.e persons –human and divine alike); and on the other hand, may either concern one’s relationship with other living beings (animals and plants) or with non-living entities (naturally situated and man-made). After such conclusions have been made, we are taken to be men of ourselves.

Yet, if any complication arises from such a decision, we are said to be master-minders of our problems. Thus, the effects and the consequences of the decisions are solely to be reckoned with us. We choose what we want and discard what we do not want. In the world of affection, we see ourselves being attractive to certain persons and are repulsive to certain others. We observe ourselves being attracted to some people and yet to some others, we abhor. We tend to be inclined to some people; to some others, we loathe.

In the state of love and hate, we observe ourselves in a position to approach whom we want and ignore those we don’t want. If we are agreed to embark on an expedition of disclosing our minds to such persons, it may, on the one consideration,  go with it a certain feeling of despair, and on another consideration, may go with a strong conviction, for one may feel that the other also cherishes him or her. This approach if successful does not affect only one’s life, but also the life of the others who are within the pyramid of one’s love. Whatever we choose in life affects others. This is where the feeling of anguish creeps in.

Continually, on another sphere, are what we do in life already fashioned? That is, are we made a priori to go through a particular pathway in life? Are our choices already made by some other person and then we only conform our wills and actions towards the choice? Let us consider this example; a child was asked what he wanted to be in the future when he must have become an adult, he exclaims: I want to be a medical doctor. Is it that that is what life has got for him prior to his physical existence or is he really the originator of such aspiration? Consequently, such tensions arise: Is my life pre-destined or my future already determined? All these are the confrontations which life mounts before us.

Furthermore, everybody is an individual person and as such possesses a subjective life for an objective reality. What a trembling condition!! He remains responsible for his actions and choices. What an anxiety!! Parallel to this, the French philosopher, Jean-Paul Satre in a lecture in 1946 titled Existentialism is a Humanism avers that when we talk about the responsibility of man, we do not mean that man “is responsible only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men.” That is, in the choices we do make in life, they do not just affect only the individual but the entire humanity. Man chooses not just for himself but for entire men. Thus, we need to ask ourselves: am I really the man whose actions serve as consequences for matters of regulation to all men? There is dignity in choice making.

Nevertheless, amidst this dignity and prior to the choice making, there is the presence of anguish (angst), just as the existentialist philosophers would always write. This is what the Danish philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard regarded as the ‘anguish of Abraham’, which Abram experienced at the command to sacrifice his own son. Anguish here implies in simpler terms that in life when an individual is confronted with decision-making, he/she cannot but choose between different options -to do or not to do, to act or not to act; and prior to the execution of the choice, there is an intense feeling of fear. This hinges on the rationale that the individual is aware that his choice will not just affect only himself , but also the rest of mankind. Thus, he has the obligation to be responsible in his choice. Upon this anguish, man finds himself in despair due to the fear whether what he is laboring for will actually see the light of the day. There exists the probability whether what one thinks and does will actually happen as one proposes.

Considering all these dusts surrounding decision making, some people are inclined to quietism and then recline back to such statements as ‘it is not my fault; it is my nature’, ‘I have already been determined to be poor’ or to put in Igbo dialect, ‘Omewere ma Chi ekweghi...’ The spirit to dare seems to have been lost. There is therefore a pressing need to recover such a spirit. Quietism or to render in a psychological terminology, schizo-typal personality trait is not an optimistic way of meeting life, but a timid way.

As a theologian, am I free to do whatever I want or to say whatever I deem fit concerning God and the Church? As a philosopher, am I free to follow any pattern of logic in my way of presenting facts and arguments? Some situations present serious challenges to us. One last thing- if you find yourself between the devouring devil and the deep blue sea, what will you do? You will certainly not tell me that you will remain undisturbed in that position.

Ezekoka Peter Onyekachi, CCE