The Politics of Division

I'm writing this for two reasons:

1. I am feeling indifferent

2. I feel that most of you are either as indifferent as I am, that you think you're not indifferent even though - to some level - I'm sure you are, or that you care so much about who lost or won this recent elections till you're now partisan to the divisions.

I'll explain. 

I don't know if I am right, because I don't have to be; but I just want to show us one thing: let God be true and let every other human being be a liar. So, on this one, I'm vouching for God. 

Romans 3:4 (ESV)  

By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, “That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.”

I once wrote here why God is always for God (I plead-pray that you read that one first for you to understand my point on this one.) And I still insist that God is currently not for any human agenda - governance, education, culture, nation, politics, media, entertainment, family, religion or economy - or whichever thing you call a mountain. God is for Himself. God is for the Church. God is for His own glory. Period. He is not here to satisfy and gratify our desires or to answer our prayers according to our own will or wishes. God is here to answer to Himself according to Himself in His own timeline, under His own rules and for His own glory. 

God (Jehovah) will work in ANY form of art, government, education system, culture, family, business, religion and media and somehow bring Himself glory. These things may be sacred or secular, but He will still do whatever He wants to do to give Himself glory. He is God. And He is unstoppable while at it. 

He can do it our way (in the manner we pray as His people) if it so pleases Him or in another way we don't know. But because He knows we love - so much - to receive glory for things we didn't do, He'd rather just do it His way. 

God knows we live to pride in our answered prayers, that's why He rarely answers them the way we would want Him to. He humbles the most prayerful of us by denying them things they have fasted for for days. He knows we love to exalt our righteous deeds above His mercies and grace, so He mostly overlooks our boasting when a "good thing" happens to us. He blesses both sinners and the righteous with the sun and the rain - and we can do nothing about it. He is God, and He is for Himself. 

He knows we always think that when "bad things" happen to us, we are either evil or are being punished for some sin, so He brought us His Holy Spirit to remind us of our righteousness in Christ. To remind us that IT IS FINISHED and we have no debt to pay whatsoever. In Him, all things happen for our good. 

He knows how warped our definitions of "good" and "bad" are. He knows we don't even notice the difference most of the time. He knows we are dumb. As dumb as stones. Or even dumber... because stones can praise. 

He knows we love to put our hope in human beings - even presidents and their regimes - even though He has already cursed everyone who does so (Jeremiah 17:5). He knows we know so little of the future, that's why He gives us hope when we are weary. He knows. He is God. He knows. He knows these things. 

He knows when we place too much trust in humans and their plans - no wonder we are so divided on which human will save us and our sickly Kenyan economy - forgetting that He is the source of all things. He knows. And by knowing all things the way He does, no one can claim to outwit Him or to be His favorite.

So if you ever think that any human president or political party can completely save this nation, you're very wrong and you're no longer on God's side. You're either alone or you are on that president's / party's side. You are as well in for a very big shock: you'll both fall. After three or five or seven or ten or fifteen years, you'll fall. Then after that, you'll have to transfer your hope to another human being. Who'll as well fall...

Because humans and human systems rise and fall all the time. 

But if you believe that God can use anyone to do His bidding in this land for His glory, you're joining His army of a people of faith - people who move mountains. A people who believe that they'll make it. A people who prosper. A people who'll make this Kenya a nation after God's own heart. 

*******

You see, our elections this year (2022) are filled with more religious drama than any other election I've witnessed in my current short life on earth. This is because; 

1. there has been so-called prophesies from God favouring or refuting both sides of the political divide - as if God is divided in His doings amongst men

2. there has been proof (as claimed by many fanatics of whichever side) that one side of the political divide is more spiritual and God fearing than the other - as if God judges the same way men judge

3. there has been strife as to whether whatever is happening is fulfilled prophecy - human or divine - as if God works the way men do 

Politics - just like the coronavirus - is the devil's stray arrow aimed at governments but unluckily (or rather, wilfully) striking the Church. He's killing two birds with one stone. And his stone is yelling more victory to him than anticipated. The faster we notice and see this, the better. The faster we rectify how we approach politics and politicians in this country as Christians, the better. 

But let's beware of the devil's bullet shot at governance but hitting at the Church. May our eyes be wide open and as skilled watchmen, let's blow the trumpet and alert Zion so that she is not attacked unawares. 

Right before elections, most of us on WhatsApp watched a clip from Hope FM (a CITAM radio station) where Bishop J.B. Masinde was saying something close to "we'll either get the leader we want, the leader we deserve or a leader after God's own heart". This, sure, did stir some waters. 

Watch the short clip here. 

Here is why this stirred our spiritual waters (and I wonder why we didn't discern his sentiments):

1. He meant that the choice of who will be our next president lied/lies in the people's hands. God is no longer choosing a leader for anyone, but He's giving us the leader we ask for through voting by the wisdom we currently have in Him or in ourselves. Kenya isn't a theocracy as Israel was for many years; Kenya is ruled by a constitution, and it being majorly secular, means that our way of electing a leader and justifying that election will first depend on what is stipulated in our constitution and then according to the wisdom bestowed on us by God to make godly decisions. If the election is fair and just, the leader is for all of us. 

2. Dissecting his words,

"A leader we want" would mean a leader we choose by ourselves according to our limited human understanding of our nation's past, present and future. He or she would be a circumstantial leader voted in by our volatile spiritual and emotional capabilities. 

"A leader we deserve" falls in the same category as above but also one given to us by our voting minus God's intervention or wisdom and one who comes as an answer to our sins or righteousness. 

"A leader after God's own heart" would be the one we vote in while fully depending on the wisdom God had given us to do so. It is unlikely for a secular nation to elect such a leader unless God's hand that shapes hearts compels people to do so. 

It is therefore error to try and fix God or the devil on either side of the political coin - even though God's finger is always everywhere in history and the devil is as well God's devil (Martin Luther). I don't know which of the three we chose, but if it's what is causing divisions amongst us, let's be reminded that it is of no eternal value. Leaders come and go, and nations rise and fall, but the Name of The Lord is to be esteemed forever. 

You don't have to know who I voted in to be my president, but be sure that I had my preference and I had reasons for that (you as well did.) I may have armed myself with such reasons out of data gathered from around me or from the wisdom of Scripture, but that does not make my candidate any better than another person's - especially on the basis of who God would choose for presidency in Kenya and who will accomplish His purposes for this season. 

Our combined / cumulated wisdom or foolishness brought us a leader we need to pray for. That's what matters. It's all our doing. We are all going to be victims or participants in what that foolishness or wisdom has brought us. After this, let's pray, let's advice and let's be more alert. Let us not open a door to the devil to divide us - especially those who confess Jesus as Lord - along utterly temporal political lines. 

But, again, in God's agenda, whether we are ruled over by a Nebuchadnezzar, a Cyrus, or a Artaxerxes; whether it's Herod roaming our streets or a Constantine is Rome's superior, God's chosen who know Him well will still do exploits in this land and experience everything that comes with that to the fullest. 

The righteous - just like in prophet Jeremiah's time (Jeremiah 29:28) - should now understand that they'll prosper wherever they are and under whoever rules because ours is not a Kingdom limited by/to human agenda and influence but one ruled by an eternal God. 

I rest my case.

Think about these things.

Morris 2.0

Stop the Killings!

Note:

These are my personal views on current murders of ladies in relationships that go wrong (in one way or another).

First, we shouldn't be seeking to blame anyone. I think seeking for a person to blame is a wrong approach. The good approach would be: why - in the first palce - is it happening?

And I can say this: it's a matter of identity crisis with both the young women and the young men in our society today. 

It is happening because people have transferred their identity from what God says they are to what society and themselves think they should be. 

Lemme explain:

1. Men (wanaume) struggle a lot with rejection and withheld honor. If a man has not established well in his heart and mind who he is, he is likely to go psychotic when denied what he was demanding for. Hii ndio Amerix huita "not losing your form", and it may be one of the few times I agree with him (that men should know who they are and establish who they are well before getting into relationships).

Getting your "form" (which in Christianity we call "identity") itafanya men to stop objectifying and victimizing women, stop them from becoming uncontrollably emotional and stop them from making unrealistic demands of their women. And this will stop the killings. 

Amerix offers a physical way of gaining "form" which is temporary; God offers a permanent way of gaining identity that is permanent: become like Jesus - who instead of hitting, insulting and hating people, loved people and minded His own business without caring what people said even after He was rejected by men and they refused to honor Him after all He had done for them.

2. Women (wanawake) struggle a lot with lack of money and the quest for attention. If a woman finds a way to meet her daily demands for money which will make her look a certain way and boost her ego to arouse more attention in men, she is likely not to think twice so long us she'll get the money and the attention. 

In most cases, money seems to be the thing that helps a woman build her identity or "the female form"... Which is mostly about how she'll look and how society will interpret her looks vis-a-vis other women in the society. She struggles with making herself to look in a certain way and wants attention while doing it. Men know it and offer the money to help her achieve her goal. 

Ladies should understand that God has said many things concerning their insecurities and offers a far better solution to them than money or people around them. That solution is Jesus. If a lady accepts Him, He will show her what real worth is and she will thirst no more for the attention she is seeking for from men. He will teach her to be patient with who she is becoming, to face Him and tell Him her needs, to stop depending on mankind for her validity and needs and to lean on His promises because Jesus is the only man that has never lied.

This will establish her identity on solid ground. 

***

Now, when a man that lacks identity meets a woman that as well hasn't believed what God says she is, what comes out is chaos: murder, violence, envy, jealousy, hatred, badmouthing, prostitution, orgies, immorality, lust e.t.c. All these sins come from a place of imbalance due to lack of "form" or identity in both men and women. 

It doesn't matter how it begun and how it's culminating, it's all about identity crisis.

The boychild should understand that his worth is not in being accepted by women but in being accepted (and never rejected) by God and ladies should know that their worth is neither in how they look nor how they're wanted and appreciated by people but in what God has said concerning them. 

When we establish this in every young person, then they won't kill or dictate and we won't be running around looking for love and money in the wrong places. 

Peace. 

Morris 2.0.

Of Rainbow Flags and Sociocultural Tolerance

We exist in a paradigm of madness. Epic madness. Cultural madness. Epic cultural madness that keeps escalating as the days go by. 

We live on the edge: we live in a season, time and age where we seem to love applauding freedom while, apparently, we campaign for and support bigotry. We carry separate black and white flags (not mosaics of black and white) and demand every other person to think we are accommodative; that we are both black and white. That is nonsense. Nobody can be both black and white - all at the same time. Nobody. That is being almost blind to color!

In this present global culture, one can be sure that whenever we crave to be understood as fully accomodative, we are mostly hot in pursuit for acceptance or out running away due to fear. We seek acceptance at all costs but at the expense of our morality and spirituality. We want to agree with everyone - EVERYONE - to agree with us. Even when we know we are stupid in whatever we are saying or supporting, even when we doubt it ourselves, even when we don't believe in whatever we would like others to believe in; yet still, we all want acceptance for our frailed ways that are deeply rooted in imbecility. This is not how a person saved by the priceless gift of God's Son should "adapt" to the world around him/her.

But is it necessary that PEOPLE should agree with us or that they should learn to tolerate us, or that we should agree with them? Again, is it good that we should tolerate people or push them to agree with us? Or even more, should we be so tolerant that we lack an independent opinion on any matter whatsoever?

*****************
The dictionary definition of tolerance is; a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior or the willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others. Tolerance seeks to get a balance between two worldviews without arriving at the same conclusion on a matter. Tolerance is fragile ground:

 It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

When you raise the issue of tolerance today, it is likely to bring about a discussion on the following  worldviews/philosophies; 

        1. Relativism (especially moral relativism)
        2. Secular humanism
        3. Postmodernism
        4. Christian universalism
        5. Secular humanism and
        6. Religious tolerance

The average Christian would argue that they have never heard of the above philosophies. They may even accuse me of being too wordy to no good end... But if we would simplify all the "wordiness" and say that Christianity is being attacked today from all angles of (a) world views (b) personal opinions and preferences (c) intellectual arguments (d) secular inclinations (e) social and cultural systems, I bet we would all agree that it is facing its own pile of challenges from today's sociocultural systems (the interaction of different elements of culture together with  is the patterned series of interrelationships existing between individuals, groups, and institutions and forming a coherent whole...)

So, with the argument that the Christian worldview (also called the Biblical worldview) is facing challenges (i.e. it is being debated against, being ridiculed, being "done away with" and being annihilated so-to-say) and opposition (i.e. being refuted, being downtrodden and being "edited" so-to-say) from various sociocultural systems, it emerges that we should consider how to interact, deal with and be gracious towards those around us.

The Bible instructs us to do the following while dealing with the world;

Colossians 4:6 (ESV): Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.

1 Peter 2:12 (ESV): Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.

and the following while dealing with fellow believers in Christ;

Ephesians 4:2 (NASB): ...with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love...

Both cases involve a certain degree of tolerance that is expected from the Christian.

*****************

When issues that require a certain level of tolerance arise today, we are caught in a web of first wanting to answer the following questions;
1. Are all people tolerant?
2. Are all people capable of tolerance?
3. Are all Christians supposed to be to be tolerant?
4. Are all Christians capable of tolerance?
5. To what level should tolerance (or lack of tolerance for that matter) be exercised?

The above questions help us in our struggle (or lack of struggle for those who have achieved such a level of grace) with wanting the Christian to become a more tolerant person (and not necessarily an accommodating person) towards current sociocultural changes in the world.

Note: I'll use the current wave of news and reactions since the Constitution of the American people legalized gay marriages in America (USA) this week to elaborate my point.

The rainbow pride flag representing gay pride. Source: Wikipedia

Tolerance would mean the following things to a Christian wanting to deal with such a big change in a sociocultural system:

1. That although we as Christians disagree with most of the things that happen in our cultural contexts (i.e. gay marriage because the Bible says so), we have every right and freedom to rebuke, correct and speak against them using the Christian worldview (because this is our platform and belief system) while not being judgmental of the perpetrators.
2. We should also try to bring to their senses "our Christian brothers and sisters" who choose to wave rainbow flags in support of sin. Read the following post to see one reaction from Kevin De Young of TGC towards Christians who are choosing to wave rainbow flags in support of the gay marriage ruling by the court in the US: 40 QUESTIONS FOR CHRISTIANS NOW WAVING RAINBOW FLAGS. 
3. We should pray for the perpetrators of such things. Yes, they will always rant and complain that Christians are extremely intolerant (forgetting that they too practice intolerance by denying us the freedom to talk about what we stand for and what we are against without pointing fingers); but that should not reduce us to a people who have not learned form our LORD on how to "bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them..." (Romans 12:14, ESV).
4. We should not pull out the "holier than thou" flag from where it has been lying since we got saved and start waving it in their faces! This, we should not do. But we should want to reach out to them as a people created in God's image and loved by Him that He died for their sins and ours (sins which include lying, gossip, homosexuality, anger etc - and of which most of us are guilty.)
5. We should not be accommodating towards sin and supporting it in any way lest we grow lukewarm and displease our LORD, but we should call out against and rebuke sin in love. Here is one great article to help us do so: Should We Oppose Sin and Religious Error? Does "Judge Not" Mean We Should Not Rebuke Evil?
6. We should remember that we cannot - if we are true disciples of Christ - agree with everyone on everything. (I guess, we should get used to this already because the world's volatility is escalating at a rapid pace.)

All in all, tolerance to a Christian is something we grow into as the Holy Spirit directs us. There are limits to every act of tolerance and a certain balance between rebuke and tolerance we should not only learn for the sake of the world but even for our own fellowships and congregations. May He lead us to do His Will even in these last days.

Bonface Morris.

Christian or Less Christian?

I have, in the past few days, met a few friends who've been telling me that they've been criticized (or have been being criticized) and accused in one way or another by a group of people (most being their saved friends) of being "less Christian" or "less saved".

I have so badly wanted – and so desperately desired - to know where such referrals are being derived from, and why they have to be used on such a beautiful creation as I was then talking to. In such a way of wanting to understand, I have realized a few things which I choose to address in this post.

……………………….

To begin with, I have been asking myself: so there is a certain group of people who are more Christian than others? Anyway, what is that even supposed to mean: when one declares for all beautiful Heaven and unveiled earth to hear, “I am more Christian…!!??”

In certain contexts, this may not be debatable at all, but in other numerous ones, it is incredibly unscrupulous as far as Christian doctrine is concerned.

………………………….

It is true that the phrases more Christian and/or less Christian come from an urge within a people in Christianity who want to think that various attributes, factors and loyalism within the Christian life contribute to more or less spirituality amongst saints; and that various actions and deeds make one to be more or less pious/righteous as compared to a few others around them - who knowingly or not are the yard stick for such attributes.

I don’t deny that every Christian should possess certain habits and attributes to prove to the world and saints alike that they are now born again (Matthew 3:8 (ESV) Bear fruit in keeping with repentance and Ephesians 4:1 (ESV) I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called,), but it is not true that all of us are able to achieve the same level of spirituality overnight. Also, putting in mind the kind of backgrounds we had before coming to Christ, and the different places where all we are from, it is impossible for the work of regeneration and transformation to Christlikeness to happen at the same rate within every Christian. The apostle Paul in Philippians 3:12 (ESV) “Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own” gives witness to this. We grow differently yeah, but we all seek to become like Christ in the long run.

From my observations, it is not normally spiritual maturity that is being measured in most cases when one is being referred to as more Christian or less Christian but an adherence to certain rules created by some of us and which we so wish to subject others to - weak and strong alike. It is then that we are justified to say that we are masters yielding a dogma which we use to enslave whosoever does not know, follow or obey it. This is evidentially seen in the Colossian church during Paul’s time when he warns them against such people; Colossians 2:8 (ESV) See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. But again if it is spiritual maturity that is being “measured” by such a people within us, and that spiritual maturity makes one more (or less) saved (or Christian), I reiterate that even THAT (the spiritual maturity) is a relative thing.

For instance, we may find masters of such a law claiming that once a lady wears a pair of trousers, even a very decent one in any case – and of course you may wish to debate the word decency as used here, which I don’t mind - or once a gentleman plaits his hair, they immediately cease to make any spiritual sense and become less Christian, less saved or worse still, apostate as they refer to them.

And these masters will want to make it a rule within a given congregation that if any lady wears a trouser, or a gentleman plaits his hair, they have denied the LORD. And if, they (these masters) are given more room to spread their yeast-like gospel (pseudo-gospel), even the weak and the new to the Christian walk will not attend church services in such a congregation or church for fear of being judged, prejudiced or maligned by them. Such a dogma is created to intimidate people into thinking that spirituality in a Christian context is a product of works/deeds and not of the work of grace by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is the very thing the apostle Paul addresses in Ephesians 2:8 (ESV) > For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast…

But I want to speak out boldly and say that in any case where these masters would so much want to use spiritual maturity as the determining factor for anyone to call another more or less saved or (more or less Christian), the following should be considered;  

a)      Spiritual maturity is a relative thing. It is different things to different people all over the Christian world. Only God has the right gauge for who is spiritually mature and who is not. We may blabber all we want, but this is the truth. (I share below a few signs of spiritual maturity.)

b)      At different stages of spiritual maturity, we all tend to view life through different eyes, thus the tendency to think of others as less or more saved than others at these times. This is a proven truth. (One who is still growing spiritually will abhor certain things about people of which they will tolerate once they are at a certain level of maturity.)

c)      It is not they that “know” and quote scripture that are counted righteous before God, but those that are doers of that Word which they have heard. Just because one quotes the Word, talks about it, prays and fasts a lot and so forth and so on, it does not qualify them as being more Christian than others: Romans 2:13 (ESV) For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified; James 1:22 (ESV) But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.

To add to this, every generation of these masters of a modified gospel has had its own way of defining “the more Christian” Christian, “the less Christian” Christian and of what is right and what is wrong. But they have altogether failed because whatever we think is right today, was so wrong a few decades ago. If those who existed then were to be put in today’s society, they may faint and die from “the supposed level of abomination that is present today.” It therefore indicates that this should not be the way we measure any society’s or congregation’s righteousness (that is if righteousness is something measurable by man), because man’s definition of what is or what is not righteous changes over time and within contexts (geologically, environmentally, culturally and socially.) Only God’s definition of holiness and righteousness is immutable.

For instance, when my dad was my age, the very musical instruments, types of singing and a dressing code we are so proud of today were termed as an abomination then.

Pastor Francis Chan is wrong in the following video when he says that lukewarm Christians are not saved: "Are Lukewarm Christians Saved". Salvation and being lukewarm are two separate things. Being lukewarm does not steal away one’s salvation, it only makes one a worldly Christian – the one the apostle John talk about in 1John 2:15 (ESV) Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him; meaning that we cease to walk in God’s love when we become lukewarm, not that our salvation disappears at the point we become worldly/lukewarm… (Oh, I know this is a million times debatable, but that is my take.)

They once were saved before they became lukewarm, right? They are Christians, right? They are lukewarm Christians, not lukewarm pagans, right? It is true that they are not devoted to Christianity as to make them devoted Christians, but that does not mean that they are not saved. They have become cold to the voice of the Spirit of God – they are disobedient children of the same house, not disobedient children of another house.

If we were to say that every born again person who sins ceases to be Christian the moment they sin, it would be like saying a child ceases to belong to a family just by eating from another family (that is if eating from another family is denied in that family in the same way sin is denied within Christianity.)

It is not like I am trying to defend a state of being lukewarm but that I am trying to open our eyes to Truth. A child that has wronged the father does not cease to belong to the family unless they are snatched away or adopted by another family; that is if God is the father to the child and the child is completely adopted into another family, that is when the child ceases to be Christian (a child of God). Based on the above argument, it may therefore be right to say a Christian is lukewarm but not less Christian, but it not right to say that lukewarm Christians have lost their salvation. No.

…………………………………..

Below are my various views on this matter with Biblical references where it deems necessary;

1. The church or Christianity is for the lost, for the lonely, for the misfits, for the outcast and the maligned, for the rich and the poor, for both the so-called acceptable and the unacceptable in society; it is for everyone in this world, for all seeking to embrace the Savior unto perfection – becoming like Him both in word and deed. The person called a Christian is derived from all kinds of people all over the world, and anyone qualifies to be called thus so long as they accept to terms and conditions I mention below in point number 9 below.
2. Christianity is a process of increasing sanctification – no one becomes perfect overnight, nor do we become like Jesus with the twinkling of an eye after confessing Him into our lives! (Philippians 3:12 (ESV) Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own; Romans 12:2 (ESV) Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
3. Being spiritual and being spiritually mature are two very different things. Being spiritual is relatively anything from adhering to worship towards a deity to having rules that govern a manner of worship; but being spiritually mature has to follow the rules in point number 7 below.
4. These two: a born again person and a Christian are one and the same thing; and we should put in mind that both refer to the changed person as a result of what happens in point number 9 below and not just lip service and a form of godliness. 
5. In such cases as when referring to a given person regarding the services they offer to the church or the community, I would suggest the following (using a rapper as an example); there is actually no difference between "a Christian rapper" and "a rapper who is Christian", "Christian rap" and "rap that is Christian". This is because even if the singer is a follower of Jesus Christ, there should not be an issue with whether he/she is “a Christian rapper” or “a rapper that is Christian”. If the transformation due to the presence of Christ in their lives is evident, you can call them anything you want, but that won’t change who they are. This is addressed a bit in this article.

6. It is actually abnormal to think a lady as Christian just because they dress in a certain way which we observers think is good. It is also wrong to think that because she wears in a certain manner, she is diabolic. (Are catholic nuns more holy and righteous before God than Joyce Meyer just because they wear “good clothing”? Who is this that determines what good clothing is anyway?) In this line of thought, it is also feeble of mind to think of all men who plait their hair, wear studs, have bling (sic), do tattoos and so forth and so on to be “less Christian” on the account of what we see. Heaven may tell you something else in the long run, by the way.
7. A spiritually mature person has the following abilities;

a)      The ability to distinguish good from evil: Heb 5:14 (ESV) “But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.”

b)      The ability not to judge except for offering positive rebuke/criticism and bearing with the weak in spiritual matters. Rom 14:1 (ESV) As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions; Rom 14:10 (ESV) Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 1Corinthians 13:6 (ESV) it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.

c)      The ability to love others as they love themselves in all things Matthew 7:12 (ESV) “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

d)     Spirit filled Romans 8:9 (ESV) You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

8. Nothing makes anyone pure or impure except for what they conceive that yields whatever comes out of them. Mark 7:18-23 (ESV) And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” ( Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person”; Acts 10:15 (ESV) And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.”
9. We are qualified to be Christians through the confession we make (Romans 10:10 (ESV) For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved) and birth by the Holy Spirit into the family of God after the confession is made (John 1:12-13 (ESV) But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God and Romans 8:9 (ESV) You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.)

Conclusion

Here is C S Lewis’s take on who is the person that should be called Christian (from Mere Christianity):

“Far deeper objections may be felt-and have been expressed- against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: ‘Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?’ or ‘May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?’ Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive…

“Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say ‘deepening,’ the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge.

It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.

“We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to "the disciples," to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual inward fashion were ‘far closer to the spirit of Christ’ than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological, or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian…"

Although there is a measure for spiritual maturity; although we should be careful when we use such a measurement against others so that we may not come out as thinking of ourselves as "more spiritual" than others, because by so doing, we may end up sinning.
(1 Corinthians 8:1-3 (ESV) Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God; Romans 12:3 (ESV) For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.)

Bonface Morris.

Mere Objectivity

I must first swear that this blog post was overwhelmingly inspired by a book that I am reading, then after swearing, which is objectively different things in different contexts and to different people, I want to try and make you see and believe in things in a certain way (and I'm not saying that I'm the author of such a determined way, but that I just hope that you see them that way.)
Well...
People quarrel. People do quarrel and disagree all the time. I quarrel. I disagree. A lot. Sometimes for the "right" reasons, but mostly for the "wrong" ones (take the quotes to mean that the words carry their own differences in weight in matters of ethics).
Most of us quarrel (or argue) so that to [just] prove a point, not that [that] point is the right one, but just because the [point] being proven is our point.
But truth is that we cannot universally have the same opinion about everything. We should not. At least in certain instances. This is because (I think) the moment we mutually agree about ALL things, is the very moment we disagree in one way or another with another peoples' agreement elsewhere. I think that we always agree to culture a certain degree of disagreement.

We should quarrel (methinks) because we have the right to objectivity - especially the kind of objectivity that peripherys our "rights" and "beliefs." But this is not a [good] reason to why we should incline ourselves towards thinking that we ARE to win ALL arguments all the time. It is not.
Consider this example »
Two men are arguing over whether a given dog should be fed at noon or in the evening. Of course the argument is not about whether the dog should be fed or not - because they both, to a good extend, agree that this dog should be fed - but about whether one's time of feeding, with regard to another's (or to the dog), is the most appropriate, and probably most effective (although such a probability only creeps in later).
Thus such an argument (the one between these two men feeding that dog) is likely to remain unproductive as far as what time of feeding the dog is the most appropriate; but may be useful because it tendons itself somewhere between two views that are mutually beneficial to a hungry dog... but none of the two should want to win because, after all, the dog is being fed.
And so in a related way, when it comes to religious and philosophical contexts, consider the following arguments and possibilities with regard to fulfilling a certain angst in the human population about understanding and worshipping God, but which unlike in the case of the dog, remain hanging on a fence - neither satisfying the origin nor the course »

1. The atheist freely argues that there is no God. He defends it. In fact he arbitrarily feeds on his defense (so to say) and thinks that this is the best way humanity should figure out life (and God). He thinks that he is feeding the dog well, but is he? Well, he is not.
2. The pantheist says that all roads that are belief systems on this earth lead to one unspecified "God" or deity. He too claims to be feeding the same dog, right? But with useless food.

3. The scientologist and other numerous (and actually useless) New Age religions (and belief systems) elevate man above God. They think that man has soared above the galaxies of belief in one deity and have therefore made him the king of deities. Their dog is overfed, isn't it? Yes, but with trash.

4. The gnostic thinks that it is impossible for there to have existed, amongst mortal beings, a touchable and visible God. Yes, and objectively so, he denies the preference for belief in a once-fully-mortal-and-fully-immortal-God. Mmmhuh? I don't think I want to say much about their dog, these ones, because he's gonna end up crippled.

5. The idealist, realist, naturalist, existentialist and secular humanist
are all drunk with belief that the singular plurality of supernatural influence on this earth does not exist, and parallel themselves against God in a rather "queer" manner. Their dog is in trouble because it eats the same food all day long - deficient and facing malnutrition.

6. The traditional man is the clueless but most concerning type. As far as Africa is concerned, because he either is mostly (and falsely) obeying a deity he calls "God" or he is obeying some misconstrued rules within his culture that battle to put him somewhere near a certain [known] God, he makes tough cuisines for his dog, but I guess it is still craving for more - it is never fully satisfied.

7. The Muslim and most Eastern cultures and beliefs run on slippery ground while trying to feed this dog - one path which I prefer not to tread upon today - which has influenced a great percentage of the "Theo-seeking" group of mankind. His dog is the sleepy and sickly one.

The Christian, being the one on the most extreme end - his own end - somehow being puppeted, and somehow puppeting belief (whatever that means), believes in a God who basically gives a book (the Bible) with instructions pointing towards a Savior for all mankind; a Savior who loudly and unreservedly SAYS or rather, PROCLAIMS for all to hear, that He and only He is the way to the only true God, the truth and the life.
The Judeo-Christian view seems to win for me - and I objectively, and also willingly, follow in its footsteps. And not entirely in the Judeo-Christian worldview (that is if it is a worldview at all), but in the Christian belief system, where our dog is well fed, healthy, happy and hopeful...

With the escalating views on religion and pseudo-beliefs, free-thinking has become a modern way of expression, and each one of us wants to have an opinion to put across. What we believe in has become what we live for. We have become so overopinionated that we (most of the time) don't even understand and/or know what we serially defend.

If all the above belief systems argue and quarrel about being objectively right, I might as well call it madness - maybe because quarrels clutter and breed it (madness).

But within such an argument over beliefs, how do we tell who is right and who is wrong? And where do we base our judgement of right and/or wrong? What is the determining factor? Christ? Christianity? The Bible? Not all of us agree.
If all that matters is that the dog should be fed, are we really on the right path? Should we objectively say that this dog (read, desire to serve a purpose and a given deity) will be okay no matter WHO feeds it, HOW it is fed and WHY it is fed? Should we say that we are all objectively right?

Well, philosophy teaches one law that is important to note: truth cannot exist relatively. It is either absolute or it is not truth. So no matter how "objectively right" we may seem to be in our arguments, only one of us is right. And if we have to apply the laws of logic in such a case, we find that there is no excluded middle in both cases - of feeding a hungry dog and in needing to be subject to a given deity. And no matter how objective we may want our beliefs to be perceived, they all can't be true at the same time. That will be contradictory. We are either feeding the dog with BAD FOOD or we are feeding it with HEALTHY FOOD. Period. No middle ground. It is either one of us is feeding the dog right and the rest are just a useless lot or nothing else.

Our belief systems point us in a certain direction and we defend what we believe because we have come to believe that it is true, regardless of whether we are right or not. Yeah, we have the freedom for argument and quarrel through debate, reason and the so-called dialectics, but truth cannot be changed by mere objectivity. It cannot be changed by "how we, on our own, view the world around us" but rather, by understanding and accepting it as it really is.

Truth is a substance of infallibility, and whether our "philosophies" accept it or not, we should consider once again understanding why Christ Jesus said, "I am the way, THE TRUTH and the life..." (John 14:6), and maybe jump over from "mere objectivity" to "What He said is the TRUTH."

Bonface Morris.