have usually read with increasing interest and a few quandaries Mr. Awodele's past write ups on Nigeriaworld. I hesitated responding particularly to the one he wrote a few weeks ago comparing the story of Joseph with that of Africans vis a vis African Americans. His current piece entitled "Can Someone With Liberal or Progressive Ideology Be a Born Again Christian?" leaves me with little choice but to wade into the discussion.
Mr. Awodele's topical question and subsequent arguments essentially underscores the fact to be a liberal or progressive in ideology rules you out from the kingdom. Under the caption "Christianity" he stated and quoted a few biblical requirements for being a Christian, spanning passages in the Old Testament to the New. He underscored the place of "obedience" and "righteousness" in the life of the believer. This particular exegesis of the scripture fails at a few levels:
First, Mr. Awodele's analysis fails to see the historical trajectory of the church and state from church's inception from the first century to the birth of liberalism in the eighteenth century. A few issues should be addressed. In between the period of Christ's ascension to heaven and the period of liberalism under discussion, certain events had taken place in church history: ecclesiastical organization that was not necessarily patterned after the first council in Jerusalem; the conversion Constantine, which some would argue has done a lot to the politicization and "liberalization" of the church from the fourth century; the Hellenistic impact, which was even evident during the time of Apostle Paul - his preaching to the Epicureans showed that he himself had some strains of Greek philosophy. Then is the era of the church fathers many of whom wrestled with organization of the church as it faced new cultures, new paradigm of seeing things, and new "ideologies" so to speak.
When one of them wrote to the effect that "Athens has nothing to do with Jerusalem" - can one really surmise that Origen was not tainted by the learning of Greece? Does that disqualify him? What about St. Augustine? His battle with the Donatist Movement in North Africa basically had a high strain of Romanism, Latinization, and the prevailing ideology at the time. He could be rightly termed a liberal trying to stamp out the fundamentalist movement in North Africa. Will this disqualify the Bishop of Hippo from entering the Kingdom of God? From Mr. Awodele's account, it would seem that any Christian who dares to use his mind to think liberally or progressively will incur the "get ye behind me" wrath. I do not subscribe to this, and I venture to say that it would take a very jaundiced reading of the scripture to arrive at such.
Second, Mr. Awodele gave an excursus of liberalism, using "Wikipedia" and democratic party platform as mouth organs of liberalism. He then gave us an unnamed source of breakdown of conservatives, liberals, and independents before delving into another Wikipedia study regarding the opinions of liberals regarding "major issues" the country was facing. Mr. Awodele's segment on liberalism is fraught with two problems: 1. He uses a broad stroke to paint all liberals by stating, "liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity." Is this only applicable to liberals? I do not know of any conservative who does not subscribe to this tenet, does that make them liberals? We are then treated with a single source to back up assertion on liberalism. It would have been ideal here if the author goes back to history of liberalism starting with the likes of John Stuart Mills, Jeremy Bentham, and others whose work will remain indelible to democratic practice, the notion of freedom, equality, women's struggle and political emancipation. 2. Mr. Awodele's usage of the word liberal, it needs to be underscored, has basically lost its steam in this day and age, and that is why you seldom see this invoked in political dialog or discussion. Political weasels who have used the term liberal have changed course over the past couple of years substituting that to "socialism" now.
The author's references to two studies, one unnamed and the other by Pew should be taken with a grain of salt. Here I would invoke Mark Twain who asserted that, "there are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics." In this day and age of Internet, anybody can use any data to support or represent a given point of view however skewed that point of view may be. Let it also be said that Internet sources are not necessarily the final authority on social research and methodology - it could be reviewed, modified, revamped by anybody with the minimal ability to type and redact. It has no authoritative peer reviews.
Third, the author went to compare and contrast liberalism with biblical principles and issues of homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion, creationism and the care of the poor. The questions that immediately come to mind are: Is it possible to be a liberal and not support homosexuality, not support gay marriage, not in favor of abortion or evolution, and be well a champion of the poor? I know not a few people who are of this bent. Does this disqualify them from not being the kind of Christian the author is espousing? We are then treated with the author's description of the "missing link" between liberalism and Christianity. I quite honestly find Mr. Awodele's analysis here very troubling. It is simply disturbing that he is so concerned with the missing link between liberalism and Christianity and does not remotely see the "missing link" between conservatism and Christianity. Where were the conservatives during historical epochs in this country and in many parts of the world? What stance did they take on issues of racism, sexism, care for the poor? Where are conservative Christians during the Civil Rights movement? What about their concern for the poor? What about Jesus' standards in separating the sheep from the goats in Matthew Chapter 25?
What was the conservative Christian response during the dark days of apartheid in South Africa? Some of us are aware and still remember the "constructive conservative engagement" position taken by some of the names mentioned by the author. When any key leader, be he or she conservative or liberal is on the wrong side of history, when they make pronouncement that are antithetical to prophetic words of God, when they choose to "play golf" with Pharaoh, by their associations with the rich, powerful, and famous, it is a prophetic ministry and tradition that commands believers to call a spade a spade without caring whose ox is gored. Examples abound: Amos, Micah, Nathan, Isaiah, to name a few. Dr. King Jr. had a good letter written to both liberal and conservative Christians when he was in Birmingham jail; basically challenging those who had taken side with the power elite to denigrate, dehumanize, and disenfranchise a particular segment of the population.
Finally, Mr. Awodele's piece appears to lump liberals and liberalism into a particular pigeon-hole. One can love God with one's spirit, soul, and mind and still be a candidate for Christ, in fact, this was enjoined by the Lord Himself. We are all what we are by the grace of God, no works of hours could atone for our sins, neither is it sufficient to take us to heaven: only to Him we cling. A Christianity that sees itself as completely sanctified and sinless in these sinful days is one that needs to be careful of spiritual arrogance, and intellectual frozenness. Mr. Awodele strikes me as a good man - he means well, and there is no doubt he loves the Lord, but a couple of times, I believe he has dabbled into issues that are just too complex, and has resulted in him being brazenly "ideological" and dogmatic. One wonders what label Jesus would have had in the first century: liberal or conservative? I doubt any of his followers or listeners would have pigeon-holed him as such. He strikes me more as a "radical" than any of those other appellations. And being a radical is more potent than these two appellations.
Peace and Blessings
advertisement
