Of Truth, Scandal and the Church...

So the whole internet-sphere, blogosphere and social media sphere has been awash with the confession of one Ese Walter. For those who somehow haven’t read it yet, it’s here. This is the most recent of all the scandals that the ‘church’ (by this I mean the entirety of Christendom not a particular church or denomination) of recent has been plagued with and it seems to be getting more and more common sadly.

What’s my take on the issue? I think the first question on everybody’s mind is: Is it true? At first glance, I am inclined to believe the lady’s story. I mean no sane human being knowing the sort of backlash that would likely ensue especially given the society and culture and environment she is in, knowing the condemnation sure to follow will release such a tale and go so far as to publicly identify HERSELF even have her account publicly accessible and her photo shared. Ese would know the names she would be called and the curses coming her way yet she still went ahead. That alone is enough to make me think she is telling the truth. Of course, in UK there have been cases of women accusing men of rape and going so far as to have these men arrested only to be proven false, so this is not conclusive enough.  And let’s not forget the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife’s false accusation.

Now, assuming Ese Walter is speaking the truth, the next question is: Did she handle the issue the right way? Is publishing a story publicly ‘naming and shaming’ (so to speak) the right thing? Before I comment let’s see what Jesus prescribed. Matthew 18:15-17

1       1. Private discussion. Vs 15: “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his     fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.”

2    2. Witnesses. Vs 16: “But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the         mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.”

      3. Calling Out. Vs 17: “And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” It is worth noting that the original Greek word used for church in this verse is ekklēsia, from a compound of ek ex and a derivative of kaleo; a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church. (just for the record according to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, calling out means To cause to assemble or to challenge to a duel. In essence the entire Church (in essence the entire body of Christ is entitled to know the truth... the heads can decide whatever action to take)

If, therefore, Ese is telling the truth in her confession, I am convinced she has gone about it the right way using Jesus’ words above.

Next question:  To respond or not? Some have said the accused should respond. Well, let’s remember the in Bible…and in life… everyone is different. That one person responds immediately doesn’t mean another should. I mean Jesus responded to the Pharisees a lot, and yet when he was about to be crucified, he refused to respond to the same Pharisees and to Pontius Pilate. Mind you, in this instance, I don’t believe he needs to consult an oracle to know that he needs to respond if the story is false. Then again, I am not God so…..

I think a very crucial issue for Christians is how do you as an impartial observer respond? No, I don’t believe in the ‘Pastor X for life propaganda and he can do no wrong and she is a sl**, she is bringing curse on herself, all those accusing are cursing themselves’ but I don’t support the ‘good for him, ehen the truth is out, I’m not surprised, that XChurch sef’ crusaders who seem to be almost gleeful in their response. SO what then should our response be? The Bible says this:

Proverbs 24:17 - “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles,”

Matthew 7:1 - “Judge not, that you be not judged           “

1 Corinthians 13:6 - “It [love] does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.”

I believe the appropriate response should be to wait for a response from the accused to be furnished in due course. If necessary all facts pro and against should be shown. As for me, I hope it is not true, not because I worship at COZA, I don’t, but because whether we like it or not, we are all part of the body of Christ and when one part fails, the rest feel it. 1 Cor 12:26-27: “If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honoured, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.”

If it turns out to be true, I am still sad and hope that the pastor in question gets help and settles it with God until then I don’t feel it appropriate for him to have a leadership position in church. If proven true, the response should be along the lines of ‘it’s sad but it is helpful that the truth is out lest others be led astray.’

Whatever the case, I don’t believe anyone should automatically decide to condemn a church or stop attending unless God specifically convicts you too, after all one man does not a church make. Whatever the truth let’s remember that the Bible says there is nothing done in secret that will not be revealed. Until then, whatever we do, whatever church we attend we should always make sure we cross-reference whatsoever words a pastor speaks with the word of God. No man is above reproof and no, not one of us is above sin; we are all guilty one way or another.

Ultimately, rather than use this as a chance to advance an anti-church agenda or play the blame game, this should be a reminder to each of us to look inward and ask God for the grace to keep ourselves until we are called home. Remember 1 Cor 10:12, ' Therefore let he who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.' 

SANTA who?

So today, I decided I wouldn't be teaching my children to ‘believe’ in ‘Satan Lucas a.k.a. Santa Claus’. Nice rearranging of letters, don’t you think?

You see since the beginning of time, satan has been looking for ways to upstage God. In fact that was what got him in trouble in the first place. Isaiah 14:13-14

For you have said in your heart:

‘I will ascend into heaven,

I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;

I will also sit on the mount of the congregation

On the farthest sides of the north;

 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,

I will be like the Most High.’

The greatest fallacy he wanted to perpetuate and still wants to ‘being like the Most High.’ There is only one Most High and no-one else. Notice that in his arrogance he still acknowledged that there was only one Most High. Thus he didn't say I will become THE Most High, just that he would BE LIKE the Most High.

Even the Bible in 1 Peter 5:8 refers to him as ‘like a roaring lion...’. Remember that Jesus is THE LION of the tribe of Judah. In the Garden of Eden, he tried to upstage God’s creation and make them become his. That didn't really work and didn't sit well with God. So he changed tactics. Let’s ruin the bloodline. He sent the ‘sons of God’ otherwise referred to as the fallen angels (there’s a whole bunch of Bible theology discussing that which I won’t go into) to mate with human beings and thus defile human blood. Gen 6:2-4. Vs 4 says ‘There were Giants...’, as a result of satan’s meddling there were Giants. Let’s take a closer look. The Hebrew word for Giant as used in Gen 6 vs 4 is ‘nephı̂yl’ or ‘nephil’ (nef-eel). I believe this is where the discussion about the ‘nephilim’ originates. But I digress. The word is nephil, and it means ‘a feller, that is a bully or tyrant. So these ‘nephil’ may or may not have been giants stature-wise, but they were bullies, this we can be certain on. So as a result of satan’s work, bullies were born. So what did God do? Sent a flood and wiped every last one of them out!

So with all these and I'm sure many more examples of satan’s attempts to upstage God it was inconceivable that he would let the birth of Jesus go unsullied. Nope that opportunity was too good to pass up. Hence the birth of ‘Santa Claus’ aka ‘Satan Lucas’. All I have done is rearrange the letters in the names. So ‘Santa Claus’ that everyone including me alludes to when we celebrate Christmas, we are actually without realizing it celebrating satan himself.

I was reading an article about a ‘man of God’ and I came across a comment that said santa and satan, now for the life of me I cannot seem to find said comment, however, it got me thinking. And I started looking at my Bible, it can’t be a coincidence that the names can be rearranged. You see, first Christmas became commercialised, gifts galore etc. Then it became X-Mas. A mass not celebrating any known entity (Christmas i.e Christ’s Mass). Then it became be good or Santa Claus won’t give you any gift etc.

Now, why did I get ‘Lucas’in the mix. Lucas means bringer of light. Lucifer means, yup, you guessed it ‘bringer of light’. Lucas is a variation of Lucius which is a variation of, again you guessed it Lucifer. It would have been too obvious if he rearranged Lucifer, so he had to do it a little subtly. For those who choose name their children Lucas or Lucius or Lucia or Lucy etc, this is no way a commentary on their names. However, I think I’ll steer clear of using that name on mine. So Santa Claus, actually means, Satan Lucas, that is the accuser (Satan) and bringer of light (Lucas). What do you know Santa brings gifts for kids that have been good and canes for kids that have been bad. Hmm...coincidence? Me think not. Now these days more people know about Santa during Christmas than about Jesus or should I say more people acknowledge Santa than Jesus. Yup, the deceiver at work, trying to take away attention from the word of God. As always, the Lord will always bring to light the machinations of the evil one and expose to those who ask God for wisdom and his (the deceiver, devil) plan always fails.

All I am saying, people, is if you do not know and are not entirely certain of the origin of anything, be careful. Anything that takes away the meaning of Christmas and draws away from the birth of Christ CANNOT BE GOOD, I do not care what you say. Don’t get me wrong, I am not against celebrating Christmas as the birth of Christ, neither am I against gift-giving, (if you are taking notes, I would prefer a deep purple Lamborghini with purple upholstery and silver lining PLEASE); what I am against is replacing the celebration of Jesus during Christmas with celebrating ‘Santa’(visiting Santa at grottos etc). When did it become acceptable to sing ‘Santa Claus is coming to town’ at Christmas instead of ‘A child is born in Bethlehem’ or ‘Noel Noel born is the King of Israel’?

#Just my thoughts and study. Please feel free to disagree and provide biblical proof. Have a blessed new year all!

The FINAL HOURS: OBAMA vs ROMNEY, who said what.

I am firmly in Obama's camp. The US economy today is not good, agreed. But it hasn’t been quite what it used to be well before Barack Obama was sworn into office as the 1^st Black President of the United States. Unemployment is too high for comfort, well I think if you ask anyone they will tell you they prefer that 1000 jobs are saved rather than creation of 200 jobs. Lots of politicians these days simply tell people what they want to hear and sadly, people are not so smart as to actually analyze what is being said. Let’s look at their views on a few of the key issues:

EDUCATION: Romney says, use money earmarked for poor and underprivileged students and instead subsidize the cost for Rich people’s kids to go to private school thereby saving costs for...the RICH. Obama says, no, if you can afford to go to private school pay for it yourself, we will instead build up our Public Educational Institutions so that they are of comparable standard to Private ones. How? Ensure free/ affordable education for all so that people who eventually come back to teach the next generation are actually well educated. Sensible, I think. Also, educate people well, they will eventually set up their own business thereby CREATING JOBS.

FOREIGN POLICY: Obama says let’s end this war in Afghanistan, the work is done, let’s get our boys out and bring them home. Romney says let’s keep fighting, we’re cowboys. Mitt Romney, quick question, are any of your children in the Army, Navy, Airforce? I thought so. Moving on, Obama says we will partner with Syria to get Assad out (much like they did with Ghadaffi)...with minimal loss of American lives for a fight that is not ours. Romney says, come on let’s go get Assad, like the cowboys we are, shoot first, ask questions later (this seems to have been Romney’s style for much of this campaign). Let’s start a war like we did in Afghanistan with Saddam Hussein and loose unnecessary American lives. Obama says I will tactfully deal with China in a way that stops them encroaching on our ground and see how we can take some ground back. Mitt Romney says lets shut out one of (if not THE) world’s largest and still growing industrial and technological economies. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Romney says instead of spending money to create jobs, let’s build ships.....FOR REAL? Mitt Romney to EARTH, calling Romney to Earth...HELLO haven’t you heard, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Only by doing so will you learn their weaknesses and be able to manipulate or checkmate them so to speak. It’s called being diplomatic. The fact that I don’t like Adolf Hitler doesn’t mean I should go shoot all Germans down. No, I may not like Adolf Hitler’s attempt to exterminate Jews but who says all Germans liked it. SO cut off ties with these countries and thus cause more hardship for the poor and underprivileged and again, the RICH are fine. Seriously now, Mitt Romney GET out of that Bubble you’ve been living in. If anyone is wearing Rose tinted glasses, it’s you.   

EMPLOYMENT: The Republican party criticises Obama’s administration that much has not been done. They seem to expect miracles of this mere man. Let us not forget that the high unemployment that Obama's term has been marked by is due to a deep recession that began under President George W. Bush. Yes, Obama is stuck fixing another person’s mess. So basically the Republicans under Bush created this unemployment mess, Obama’s been trying to fix it and they – the Republicans – are not satisfied with his progress? Pot Kettle anyone? Also don’t forget that Obama has proposed a solution to reduce unemployment, one that for reasons best known to them, the Senate comprised mainly of ‘Republicans’ has refused to pass. Sabotage anyone?

WELFARE: In addition, Mitt Romney and the Republicans don’t care much for people who either due to circumstances, fate and through no fault of their own are forced to rely on welfare. He said, and I quote:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

So Mitt, what about the good people of New York, New Jersey etc who have been devastated by Sandy, many of whom will now have no choice but to rely on welfare. Or what about the many servicemen and women who have given their lives and limbs to fight a war that is not theirs personally to fight but who out of patriotism have sacrificed and who now have to rely on welfare. Or those who have worked hard all their lives and still need help supplementing income in their old age. Hmmm? Yes, there are people who are lazy and rely on income but I sincerely doubt that they are up to 20% of the American population let alone 47%. That speech, to me, smacked of a rich person who has never had to suffer hardship and frankly a pompous self-conceited person. Mitt as a Mormon, if you truly are that, you should remember that Jesus in the Bible said the people he would receive are those who ‘fed the hungry, clothed the needy and gave shelter to those in need’...in other words welfare. Some of what you say makes me question your faith.

IMMIGRATION: Very briefly, let me touch on immigration. Obama sees the potential in people, long story short, based on his background. Mr. Rich wants only the best to come to USA, who doesn’t want the best for their country? Can he not see what this sort of attitude cost UK and still is when they started reducing occupations because they wanted only the best and now they are looking for people to fill in those gaps because people started leaving. Making getting student visas tough, Universities complain because like it or not most ‘1^st World’ countries make their money from people who come from ‘3^rd world countries’ seeking better. The modern form of slavery....well willing slavery in a sense any way (and before anyone kicks up a fuss, I confess I am in a sense, guilty of this). Seriously, have they not seen time and time again stories of people who were told they wouldn’t amount to anything becoming incredibly successful? Mitt your policy on immigration smacks of someone living in a bubble and totally unaware of what is going on around him.

As far as I am concerned, Mitt Romney and the Republicans are a government of the rich, for the rich and by the Rich. May God help the Unites Dtates of America if Mitt Ronmey wins this election ‘cos y’all are gonna need a heapin’ helpin’.

THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE – OBAMA Vs ROMNEY

I will confess, I didn't watch the First presidential debate but I happened to watch the second and third debates and thus my interest in American politics was piqued. I thought I’d give a brief commentary about my view of the candidates and their performances. I will be focusing on debating style and to an extent the substance of their responses.

In a debate, one of the most important aspects is portraying to your audience why your point of view is more right and applicable to the situation and therefore better than your co-debater’s point of view. One of the most effective ways of doing this is to pick up on a point your co-debater has made, pick it to pieces and show why it is wrong in the circumstances and then show why your own is right. This was what President Obama did and what Mitt Romney wrongly viewed as President Obama attacking him. No, dear Mitt, Barack was simply using one of the most basic tenets of debate. One used by Mitt in the earlier debates albeit more aggressively, it is surprising how short your memory sometimes is Mitt.

While their responses especially in the third debate were more balanced and eloquent, I would opine that Obama’s use of this method gave him a slight edge over his opponent, an edge that may just prove costly to the Romney camp. I will use a simple example. Person A likes Orange and Person B likes Mango, now in order for either person to get me to go for either Orange or Mango they have to tell me what one has that the other doesn’t. What advantage one has over the other. That is the same principle used in debate and one that President Obama used to perfection in the last debate.

With regards to responses, Mitt Romney did a poor job of presenting himself. I noticed several occasions when Obama would point out a failing or something Mitt had previously opposed and 5 or 10 minutes later Mitt would ‘take the opportunity’ to stress his support of or clarify the issue. The debate to me took on a feel of a boxer who keeps getting hit, goes back patches his wounds, gets hit again, goes back etc. It was just like a child whose parent points out areas of improvement and the child goes back to improve as each area is mentioned. Mitt Romney seems to me like a man who lacks conviction and direction. He is unstable and will change his mind and go with whatever he feels is the trend du jour. This is not what you want to see in a leader.

In terms of how they answered, both candidates were on a level playing field. However, in terms of technique and the substance of their responses, Obama had a clear edge. If Mitt did not keep going back to try and cover his tracks he may have had a fighting chance. But too many contradictory statements and gaffes have marked Mitt Romney to me as a man that can not be trusted. If I were American I would cast my vote for Barack Hussein Obama. ‘The devil you know’ they say, ‘is better than the angel you don’t.’

The London 2012 Olympics Opening Ceremony...a question of culture.

So, the long awaited London 2012 Olympics is under way. Gold medals are already being won and controversies have already cropped up. I just think some of these controversies are sour grapes but that’s not what I’m discussing today. I’m looking at the Olympics opening ceremony.

Now, I will agree a few bits didn’t quite interest me such as the readings and some of the music. However, credit to where it is due, I think Danny Boyle (Emmy award winning Director of Emmy Award winning movie ‘Slumdog Millionaire’) did a fantastic job. From the changing scenes, to the lighting effects and the fireworks, Mr. Bean and the Queen’s arrival and of course the delicious sexy dish that is David Beckham on a speedboat. it was stunning in quite a few bits. I fully applaud his effort to pay tribute to the people who while the in most vital of professions are often the most underappreciated – the National Health Service (NHS), Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) even the Creator of the world wide web...who I must confess I never knew was British. For me by far the most poignant and significant of moments was the choice to hand over the torch to the ‘next generation’ to light the cauldron. That showed to me that Danny Boyle ensured that the people who mattered participated.

While I agree that it could potentially have been a bit more entertaining in bits, certain statements I have heard about Brits lacking culture actually make me laugh out loud. Let’s look at it this way, what makes up culture:

• Family, social classes (occupation, rank, status): Most family structure today is father, mother and children except for same sex couples, and of course extended family. Then the social classes. Every single country in the world has upper-class families, middle class and lower class families). Guess who pioneered this? Well the first ever documentation of the term ‘Middle class’ was in James Bradshaw’s 1745 pamphlet Scheme to prevent running Irish Wools to France. Guess what nationality he was....shock, horror – British.
• Rules of behaviour: there are so many ‘polite’ things you must do. For e.g everyone stands for the singing of the Hallelujah chorus the world over, guess why? Well, according to Wikipedia, <<the custom of standing for the "Hallelujah" chorus originates from a belief that, at the London premiere, King George II did so, but there is no convincing evidence that the king was present, or that he attended any subsequent performance of Messiah; the first reference to the practice of standing appears in a letter dated 1756.>> A British tradition among many that is replicated the world over.
• Language: This one is obvious ‘innit’? Majority of the world speaks the British traditional language ‘English’, it only fairly recently that French started gaining prominence but still not on par with English. Also the ‘normal’ shirts and skirts and trousers you usually wear if you were not aware are typical English attire. Most of the ‘so-called pop music’ you listen to is composed by British musicians...the Beatles, Sir Paul McCartney, Elton John, Spice Girls etc. That is their traditional music that is listened to the world over.
• Religion: Well most people again are Christians and quite a few nations e.g US and Nigeria’s constitutions and anthems among others are based on Christianity. If you were not aware Christianity was spread by the British missionaries.
• Forms of government: again quite a few countries including Nigeria base their constitutions on the British constitution.
• Economic systems: Well every country has a stock exchange, office/ blue collar work etc. That’s based on ancient British ‘customs’. Banks are typically British.

(Now before you ask ‘what of the US?’ note that the US of A was colonized by England...yes. The true owners of North American land are the ‘Native Americans or ‘Native Indians’. Pretty much all you see in America is English and amix of other cultures)

Also, culture is changed in a variety of ways one of which is technology. Were you aware that one of the greatest technological advancements of all time (arguably the greatest) – the world wide web – was designed by a British Man?

What am I getting at? Look around you. Without realizing it, you live, speak, eat (sometimes), operate and act British. This somewhat unassuming island that is UK has pretty much succeeded in indoctrinating the world in British culture – even USA – and the world does not know it. So next time you go accusing the British of having no culture, take a deep long look around you, yep, you are living English at least 50% of the time. I have to doff my hat to their ancestors they were smart. So stop being ‘ethnocentric’ (judging other cultures by the standards of yours). Their culture may not be as flamboyant as some but it has shown itself to be the most adaptable and widely known and accepted. #Food for thought.

(And for those who want to bring the slavery argument here, no-one forced your ancestors to trade their people in for goods, did they? Yes some were kidnapped/ captured but much as is done today all that was needed would have been some way of ensuring better preparedness against the captures and if necessary for war much like the Native Americans fought not just lying down and giving up. You see one can not take from you what you don’t give them authority to. Even a thief or a robber coerces you to give up authority by force before he can steal. It is easy to blame them but please tell me why the ancestors didn’t plan and fight back? Oh yeah...GREED.)

For me, London 2012 opening ceremony was a show to celebrate the best of British. The wonderfully bonkers, sometimes funny (I have always loved Mr. Bean), imperfect as is everyone, seemingly understated compared to others but still deeply cultured country that is Great Britain. I may not subscribe to everything that is British, but I do respect the nation for the strides it has achieved and urge them to vote in somebody else as the Prime Minister post-haste!

Someone...(or someTHING) has the Olympic spirit!