Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Brexit and the Power of Stupid
One of my instructors once urged me to see the scores I received in his courses as showing what I could do well and some of the ghastly mistakes I could make in real life, that is, life outside of taking tests in school. His point was that the scores I received included some of the smart decisions that I could make in real life and some of the decisions that would be quite harmful if I made them in real life. Those were the days when education was not just about earning a letter grade but also about forming the person.
I bring this up not just to help us think about what grades might imply but also to raise the issue of the recent Brexit election that pulled Britain out of the European Union and whose consequences we are still to fully grasp. I understand that many people in Britain voted without knowing what they were voting for and are now regretting their votes. Imagine that the following question was asked in a civics test at school:
Which of the following will be the most appropriate thing to do before you cast a ballot for or against a particular issue?
a) Study the issue carefully before casting the ballot
b) Casting the ballot before studying the issue
c) Casting the ballot whether or not you know about the issue
d) All of the above
A student who selects b) would obviously be making a poor choice. This poor choice would only be reflected in the student's score that may or may not affect the student's overall performance in the course. However, when we raise enough people who would choose b) in real life, like it just happened in Britain, the value of the pound declines, stock markets tumble, and the whole of Europe and other parts of the world begin to live in fear. And this is not the first time the power of stupid is being manifested in international affairs. The sad thing is that it will not be the last.
I bring this up not just to help us think about what grades might imply but also to raise the issue of the recent Brexit election that pulled Britain out of the European Union and whose consequences we are still to fully grasp. I understand that many people in Britain voted without knowing what they were voting for and are now regretting their votes. Imagine that the following question was asked in a civics test at school:
Which of the following will be the most appropriate thing to do before you cast a ballot for or against a particular issue?
a) Study the issue carefully before casting the ballot
b) Casting the ballot before studying the issue
c) Casting the ballot whether or not you know about the issue
d) All of the above
A student who selects b) would obviously be making a poor choice. This poor choice would only be reflected in the student's score that may or may not affect the student's overall performance in the course. However, when we raise enough people who would choose b) in real life, like it just happened in Britain, the value of the pound declines, stock markets tumble, and the whole of Europe and other parts of the world begin to live in fear. And this is not the first time the power of stupid is being manifested in international affairs. The sad thing is that it will not be the last.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Marco Rubio's Reversal Justifies African Dictators
It was revealed today that Sen. Marco Rubio, the failed 2016 Republican Presidential candidate from Florida, would be running for re-election to fill a seat which he had promised to vacate. Before his formal declaration today that he would after all not vacate the seat, as he had promised, there had been insinuations for a while now. But the final straw that seems to have convinced him not to vacate the seat (outside private pleas from the Republican establishment) is the recent mass murder at a gay nigh club in Orlando, Florida. It was suggested then that the event had alerted him to the fact that there is something serious to accomplish in the US Senate, which he apparently did not know about when he made the promise that he would vacate the seat.
Well, he is not vacating the seat, after all. So how does this justify African dictators? It reminds me of many African leaders who had sworn that they would vacate the presidency at a particular time only to renege when the time came for them to keep their promise. The list is long - from Ellene Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia to Paul Kagame of Rwanda and Paul Biya of Cameroon. When it came time for them to leave power, they engineered the process and re-installed themselves. It is a new trend now in Africa. Looking at the African situation in isolation may lead one to think that such political engineering is an anomaly, an African situation. Marco Rubio, however, reminds us that it is not. Politicians are the same everywhere. There is something very addictive with power - once it is tasted, it is very difficult to walk away from it. Perhaps someone should come up with a political detoxification program.
Well, he is not vacating the seat, after all. So how does this justify African dictators? It reminds me of many African leaders who had sworn that they would vacate the presidency at a particular time only to renege when the time came for them to keep their promise. The list is long - from Ellene Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia to Paul Kagame of Rwanda and Paul Biya of Cameroon. When it came time for them to leave power, they engineered the process and re-installed themselves. It is a new trend now in Africa. Looking at the African situation in isolation may lead one to think that such political engineering is an anomaly, an African situation. Marco Rubio, however, reminds us that it is not. Politicians are the same everywhere. There is something very addictive with power - once it is tasted, it is very difficult to walk away from it. Perhaps someone should come up with a political detoxification program.
Saturday, June 11, 2016
Donald J. Trump and the Evangelical Doctrine of Imperfection
Growing up as a Baptist in Cameroon, it was drilled into us that a Christian ought to manifest certain moral attributes. While the grace of God was central in understanding the nature of salvation, it was also important that Christians lived the lives befitting their calling as followers of Christ. Drawing from many places in the New Testament, including the Book of Revelation, we were taught that our Christian Character has something to do with our ultimate salvation. That was about thirty years ago but that teaching is still significant to Cameroon Baptist life today.
When I came to America I realized that Baptists belong to that group of people called Evangelicals. While Evangelicalism is diverse in America, as in many other places in the world, I noticed that the people called Baptists have a very ambiguous attitude towards the importance of morality in the Christian life. (This may surprise some given that Baptists in America are seen as morally legalistic.) More especially, I noticed that the people called Baptists do not only belong to Evangelicalism, they are also part of the broader Protestant movement and Protestantism, I came to learn, is made up of people for whom Christian morality is not central. In fact, I came to read that it was a Roman Catholic thing to claim that morality has any significant role to play in the salvific process. For Protestants, however, emphasizing morality is being legalistic, focusing on the law rather than grace in the salvific process. While Roman Catholics have saints who are seen as people who had lived commendable Christian lives, Protestants scorned at saints. After all, Martin Luther had taught that we are saved by faith alone through grace alone not by what we do.
This undermining of morality in the salvific process congealed in a fatalistic view that we cannot expect perfection from anybody. In fact, does not the Bible itself say that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? How then can we expect anyone to be good? Thus developed a doctrine that hides behind the impossibility of perfection to promote license, as if the impossibility of perfection implies license. This doctrine of imperfection has become the hallmark of Evangelicalism in America where focus is now placed on what Christians are unable to do rather than what they can do.
It is this theology that brought us to yesterday, when an Evangelical group gathered to endorse Donald Trump, the racist Republican nominee for President of the United States of America. Evangelical leaders who have been endorsing Trump have been arguing that they may do so in spite of his grossly unchristian life style because they are not voting for a pastor but a president - as if the morality of a pastor is supposed to be superior to that of a lay person. Then yesterday one of their own argued that they are not voting for a perfect candidate, as if the opposite of a decent candidate is a perfect one. And so Evangelicalism wallows in moral incongruity in which in becomes difficult to hold anyone accountable for anything. (This has not stopped Evangelicals for choosing sides, though.)
If it is true that no one is perfect - by the way this is a claim that has to be tested - what then would be the difference between voting for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? Does the fact that no one is perfect not apply to both of them? What this does is that Christian morality becomes a coin toss. Do Evangelicals then have any good grounds for voting for Hillary Clinton rather than Donald Trump? Not quite. This situation is even compounded by the fact that Evangelicals teach that all sins are the same - whether one shoplifts from WalMart or murders someone there is no difference. Where Roman Catholicism has created a gradation of sins to help Christians put things into perspective, for Evangelicals, no sin is greater than the other.
It is in this state of moral confusion in which Evangelicals find themselves that they can't tell the difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. In this state of moral confusion, one even wonders how they may defend their protest against abortion, a sin that seems to be more than divorce to Evangelicals. It is this state of moral confusion that may be seen to be leading Evangelicals to defend racism and deceit in Donald Trump. This moral confusion is leading Evangelicals to amorality. It will take a long time for Evangelicals to recover from descent into moral wilderness.
When I came to America I realized that Baptists belong to that group of people called Evangelicals. While Evangelicalism is diverse in America, as in many other places in the world, I noticed that the people called Baptists have a very ambiguous attitude towards the importance of morality in the Christian life. (This may surprise some given that Baptists in America are seen as morally legalistic.) More especially, I noticed that the people called Baptists do not only belong to Evangelicalism, they are also part of the broader Protestant movement and Protestantism, I came to learn, is made up of people for whom Christian morality is not central. In fact, I came to read that it was a Roman Catholic thing to claim that morality has any significant role to play in the salvific process. For Protestants, however, emphasizing morality is being legalistic, focusing on the law rather than grace in the salvific process. While Roman Catholics have saints who are seen as people who had lived commendable Christian lives, Protestants scorned at saints. After all, Martin Luther had taught that we are saved by faith alone through grace alone not by what we do.
This undermining of morality in the salvific process congealed in a fatalistic view that we cannot expect perfection from anybody. In fact, does not the Bible itself say that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? How then can we expect anyone to be good? Thus developed a doctrine that hides behind the impossibility of perfection to promote license, as if the impossibility of perfection implies license. This doctrine of imperfection has become the hallmark of Evangelicalism in America where focus is now placed on what Christians are unable to do rather than what they can do.
It is this theology that brought us to yesterday, when an Evangelical group gathered to endorse Donald Trump, the racist Republican nominee for President of the United States of America. Evangelical leaders who have been endorsing Trump have been arguing that they may do so in spite of his grossly unchristian life style because they are not voting for a pastor but a president - as if the morality of a pastor is supposed to be superior to that of a lay person. Then yesterday one of their own argued that they are not voting for a perfect candidate, as if the opposite of a decent candidate is a perfect one. And so Evangelicalism wallows in moral incongruity in which in becomes difficult to hold anyone accountable for anything. (This has not stopped Evangelicals for choosing sides, though.)
If it is true that no one is perfect - by the way this is a claim that has to be tested - what then would be the difference between voting for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? Does the fact that no one is perfect not apply to both of them? What this does is that Christian morality becomes a coin toss. Do Evangelicals then have any good grounds for voting for Hillary Clinton rather than Donald Trump? Not quite. This situation is even compounded by the fact that Evangelicals teach that all sins are the same - whether one shoplifts from WalMart or murders someone there is no difference. Where Roman Catholicism has created a gradation of sins to help Christians put things into perspective, for Evangelicals, no sin is greater than the other.
It is in this state of moral confusion in which Evangelicals find themselves that they can't tell the difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. In this state of moral confusion, one even wonders how they may defend their protest against abortion, a sin that seems to be more than divorce to Evangelicals. It is this state of moral confusion that may be seen to be leading Evangelicals to defend racism and deceit in Donald Trump. This moral confusion is leading Evangelicals to amorality. It will take a long time for Evangelicals to recover from descent into moral wilderness.
Saturday, June 4, 2016
Boxers Who Changed the World
Do you know them? This was when boxers were more than just celebrities; they were fighting for a cause, the cause of human dignity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)