What's in a name?

We have just encountered the celebration of a special season for those of a certain faith here in Uganda. One might initially think that I am talking about America’s Thanksgiving season, which has just passed and is often viewed synonymously with what God has done for a nation.

I’m actually refering to Idd-al-Adhuha, which is the Muslim’s celebration of Ibrahim (Abraham) being asked by God to offer his son Ismail at an alter on a mountainside somewhere in today’s land of Israel, close to Jerusalem. Thankfully, Allah provided a ram as an alternative to Ismail. Muslims celebrate this by sharing meat; one third for their own family; one third for relatives; and one third for the poor. This commemorative feast also launches Muslims into their new year. It’s a four day festival. Idd means festival, and this one is different to Idd-al-Fitri, commemorating the end of Ramadan.

At first glance, this might be regarded to be so similar to the Jewish story of Abraham’s predicament with his son on Mt. Moriah, that one might be tempted to think that we have so much in common and we should agree with the ecumenical sentiments; that at least three faiths lead to the same God. That Judaism, Christianity and Islam all lead to the same divinity, though carrying differing names; Jehovah, God and Allah. We might think that there is a minor discrepancy in the stories; one son being named Isaac and the other, Ishmael. So, what is the problem with differing names in each story?

Amazingly, mount Moriah is almost certain to be in the same range of mountains around Jerusalem on which a certain Yeshua (Jesus) died as the slain lamb of God. On the same mountainside, where this time God did not offer any alternative, since there was none available. No other could provide righteousness for a people who put their faith in this better son of Abraham, son of David, son of Man. “But where is the lamb” asked Isaac, to which Abraham replied, “God himself will provide the lamb” and “on the mountain of the Lord, it shall be provided” (Genesis 22: 7, 14). When Jesus walked into the Jordan river to be baptized by John, he declared, “Look, the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

What is the difference between the two sons of Abraham? Are they not one and the same person in two different faiths and holy writings; the Qur’an and the Bible? Well, in at least one of these books, their unique identities are unmistakable and host dramatically different destinies. There is no doubt that Jehovah affirms both Ishmael and Isaac as fathers of nations. There is also no doubt about God’s compassion towards Ishmael’s mother and his designed future for her son (Genesis 21: 13, 17f). Nevertheless, it is Isaac who becomes the heir of divine promises (21:12). Furthermore, those who put their faith in Jesus are clearly distinguished, not as sons of the “slave woman” (Hagar), but rather as sons of the “free woman” (Sarah), of a new and better covenant, and of a life in the promised Spirit of God, not in the laws of religion (Galatians 4: 21-31) .

We can certainly enjoy this festive season of thanksgiving for the special son of Abraham, Isaac, and his greatest descendant, Jesus, the most potent sacrifice of all, whose meat we eat and who continues to pour out his Spirit of joy on all those who pursue this Truth (John 6:53).

Desperate for the Diaspora “Kyeyo”

One bold fact shared on Independence day 2009 by our respected president, under his comments about the economy, was the amount of money entering the country from the Ugandan Diaspora – a staggering $500m, estimated to reach $700m by the end of the financial year (if I heard him correctly). This may not seem much when measured against the mighty West, but it is a significant proportion of the national GDP.

More staggering to me are the reminders in the Monitor newspaper the following day, under a section dedicated to relationships, of the great procession to the marital grave by those separated through “Kyeyo” (“graft”). Instead of marriage achieving its intention of grafting people together on a single, fruitful plant, people (men mostly) separate from their partners and children for years, offering very little in the way of counsel or regular communication, for the sake of that elusive pot of gold in Europe or America that is supposed to transform their lives forever. Poor communication often stimulates justifiable mistrust back home, while the grafter sometimes enjoys a second partner in their new-found “promised land”.

Instead of being fulfilled as a present household leader, men sacrifice God-given opportunities to grow their children and nurture their marriage, for a distancing financial security. The most financially secure person among them is the one abroad and definitely not the children or the partner, who put their trust in God, and wait for the next Western Union message to keep them afloat for a few more weeks. The humanitarian solution would be their reunification in the new land of promise, since Africa is apparently destitute and diseased, often considered a large proportion of the “Third World”, and a last option for any immigrant.

I fully understand that money is important and the cost of living is far from cheap in Africa. However, I am trying to understand what principles a Christian should adopt, which God might bless; and what principles he might not bless, according to my reference manual (the Bible). I fail to understand from a pastoral perspective why separation through long-term economic migration would be the best solution for any family, however difficult things might be at home. I cannot find an Old Testament example, nor a trace of justification in the New Testament for a husband and wife separating long-term (help me if you can). Furthermore, faithfulness is not simply a form of chastity in Biblical terms. Neither is fatherhood an economic term.

By its very definition, fatherhood is a pastoral term, and a role that requires close proximity to its subject, to whom he is required to administer direct contact and attention. The husband, even in a horticultural sense, requires a close proximity to his garden in order to offer personal, tender care. God, who is both our father and our husband spends time attending to our needs in all respects. Perhaps God himself is not seen in a relational sense by some, but is regarded simply as the provider. Surely this minimizes the presentation of his character as the father who gives us “everything we need” for life and who carefully attends to the vine for its fruitfulness (2 Peter 1:3 and John 15). We would be Deists if we thought God was a distant father and husband, whose only regard was for our economic needs and only responded when we cried loud enough, to which he responded by tossing a loaf of bread every now and again. What kind of God is that? Definitely not the one I serve, talk to, and live for.

If we continue to argue the merits of “grafting” from an economic perspective, I remain troubled. If I argue for reunification in the “promised land”, I would be very unpopular with then nationalists. Maybe there is another angle? Africa has experienced a cyclonic brain drain in the last twenty years that has left African nations and economies bereft of skills and personnel in vital areas such as the health sector, educational services, social services, security services, never mind corporate business. But, we surely must cease to blame this Exodus for a problem only resident participants can resolve.

On a recent visit to Rwanda, a young lady impressed me with a statement: “We Rwandans never used to think much of ourselves, and other nations despised us wherever we lived. But when we finally came home, we realized that we were the only ones who could make a difference in our country; and that is what we are aiming to do, no matter what other people think of us.” There is no doubt that nation building is costly on its indigenous participants, but who else is responsible to do it? The truth is that no-one but Africans can rebuild Africa in the long-term. Foreigners have tried, but they leave when it gets too hot and the indigenous people are left unprepared.

I will stick my neck out as an idealist and suggest that if all the Diaspora who are sitting on the fences of North America and Europe, demanding a better government back home, were to courageously return to their respective countries with the knowledge, experience and skills acquired, intent on making a difference, Africa would be transformed within the following twenty years. May I continue with my idealism and suggest that we need national leaders at all levels genuinely pursuing Nation Building. This would be a stronger position than to boast about income from the Diaspora. That is simply another dependency on external forces.

How can a nation be built on the presidential statements and plans of one man? That is impossible. We need a people committed to transformation at all levels of society, from a minister of government to a primary school teacher. We need people with transformational vision at all levels of leadership. We need people with honourable values. We need real Christians from among the 80% religious adherents of the populous, who will stand up for what the Bible actually teaches and not what they can get out of God for themselves alone. We need husbands and fathers who put their family first, by being present, injecting integrity first-hand. We need nurses who will put the health of their patients first. We need doctors who will keep to the hypocratic oath no matter what. We need procurement officers who will not pay out money for things they never bought. We need policemen who will not compromise the law to meet personal needs. We need businessmen who put their customers first and not their personal wealth (certainly that is a tall order). We need city pastors who will put their people first and not make ministry their personal property. We need those at every level and in every sector, who will keep to their sincerest promises, “for God and my country” (Uganda’s motto), even when it hurts (Psalm 15).

Kingdom Clash

It is much more peaceful in Kampala today, since the Kabaka (King), Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II, decided against his preferred intention, to go to Kayunga. He has only postponed, not cancelled his planned visit. So, what did cause the recent eruption of violence in the city of Kampala?

The problem is complicated. Basically, it is a clash of powers between the cultural leaders of a major people group, the Baganda, and Uganda’s central government. The presenting issue is one of security, when the safety of the Kabaka is deemed to be under threat, due to his planned visit to a sub-people group of Buganda, called Banyala, who no longer want to be subject to the King's rule. The Kabaka insists on going to survey this part of his kingdom, but the government says he cannot go due to safety risks. The Banyala are said to be ready with pangas/machetes for his visit (a multi-purpose 12-inch knife). The president ordered a military road block to stop entry to the area by a Buganda delegation earlier this week (one day before the riots). This is considered to be heavy-handed, since they would prefer a security escort, rather than a blockade. It also rubs salt into the festering, prideful wound of subordination that the Kabaka and his rulers are nursing. People came to Kampala and started protesting against this impingement upon their considered right to freedom of movement; most especially that of the King’s movement among his people.

The contention for the Central Government is that the various Kings and their Kingdoms in Uganda are not supposed to have any political ambitions. The constitution established in 1995 has a specific entry preventing cultural leaders from pursuing political ambitions. It was intended to save the country from future chaos similar to that ensued in the early days of independence, when there was a serious clash between president Obote and the Kabaka, Muteesa II, leading to the king’s exile to Britain. These “cultural” kingdoms were only re-introduced in 1993, since those problems in 1967. Cultural leaders were consulted when drafting the constitution and consented to this principal at the time. Kings are simply not allowed to get involved in political matters (according to the 1995 constitution, section, 246, 3 (f)). The Kingdom’s media house, CBS (Central Broadcasting Service) is renowned for being outspoken against the president of Uganda and was shut-down this week for inciting the protests.

Despite Buganda’s political restrictions, the kingdom has its own sub-system of government, directly related to land management throughout the kingdom. They have a parliament in which sit representatives from their 56 clans. It is a huge geographical area they claim dominion over. There is also a long-standing demand by the Buganda kingdom for “Federo”, or the creation of a federal state system of government (like Nigeria). The King and his kingdom have political ambitions for self-autonomous rule and this incident heightens the disagreement and serves an opportunity for the Central Government to be undermined by the instability; justifying their wish for a change of rule. Another problem is that the capital city sits within the Buganda kingdom and they claim the right to rule the city.

Riots are being carried out by disgruntled, poor young adults who have a reason to fight and little political motive, but who conveniently serve the purposes of Big Men. There could be other hidden factions (such as an opposition party) stirring the pot and arousing violence, in order to destabilize the city and undermine the government’s ability to rule, and accelerate their own political intentions. Democracy is certainly not in the minds of the perpetrators of violence, who prefer the baton, stones, bullets and burning rubber to the functional ballot box, where the choice of leadership should rightly be made.

From a biblical point of view, this is an example of “spiritual forces of wickedness in heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:13) working behind the scenes to manipulate society towards conflict, chaos and all manner of evil. Clearly a destabilized society gives room for anyone with a score to settle to hijack the opportunity to carry out violent and murderous acts behind the scenes. Politics is never simple, and power is the pursuit of the wicked in all camps.

Let the righteous stand up, since God’s “intent was that now, through the Church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Ephesians 3:10f).

We pray that the King of Kings will intervene according to his higher purposes. Certainly He will rule in the long run and the wicked at all levels will get their just deserts, whether in this life or the next. Without repentance and submission to THE KING, there is no remission for such sins. In the meantime, the undermining of those who lead this nation is not God’s will, since “everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but those who do wrong.” (Romans 13:1-3). If the Roman Empire with its iron-handed leadership and military brutality was believed to be appointed by God, what about the present Ugandan Government? Should we not be in prayer “for kings and all those in authority”, not in partisan fashion, but “that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Saviour, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:2-5)?