The Self Accepting Liberal

If you had told me, ten years ago, that I would be listening to Black Eyed Peas’ Shut up as I begin to write this post, I’d have laughed at you, and taken a bet three times higher than I knew I could ever afford to honour. I’d have believed you outright on the writing, for I knew I was beginning to develop the ability to do so, but on the music? Get a life. Me? Listening to “worldly music”? Not in a million years. You might have wanted to spice the story up even more by saying there will be a song, featuring Eminem that I will like very much (Dr. Dre’s I need a doctor is now playing). I couldn’t stand Eminem back then. Let alone any rapper that wasn’t Christian. And at that time, it was either Gospel Gs or T-Bone. The rest filtered in later.

And why am I speaking hypotheses ten years in retrospect? Over the last few days I’ve been reading, discussing, and thinking about two things closely related to the Christian walk: Being Liberal and Self Acceptance. Let’s look briefly at the first.

What does one mean when they say they are ‘liberal’? Usually, we’ll relate this to them having an attitude that generally accepts even that which would not ordinarily be accepted by the opposite of a liberal – a conservative. Consequently, a liberal is more likely to be found in a bikini at the beach than a conservative. (excuse the example).

I probably should not belabour the ‘principle of the liberal’ too much. It is after all, a concept used in common parlance, whether with regard to ones political leanings, creed, and even sexual preferences. Let us now turn, briefly too, to the issue of self acceptance. The devotional my family is using this year set me thinking about this about a week or two ago. For a few days, it focused on themes like ‘loving yourself’ (get your mind out of the gutter), taking off our masks, seeing ourselves as we are, and self acceptance. Basically, we were encouraged, with reference to the bible and theology, to love ourselves for who we are, the way God would in spite of all he knows about us.

I find room for a wide interpretation of these concepts. Does it mean that the sinners we are (yes, we all are, according to Christianity at least), should let ourselves be, regardless? Let me rephrase this. If I have an inclination to the bottle, should I love me as I am, and make little or no effort to change, because God loves me as I am? I know this argument can be stretched to such matters as controversial as sexual orientation, but let us not go there just yet.

And where do the two concepts – liberal and self acceptance – converge? In my opinion, at the point, if it exists, where the outside meets the inside. The 'liberal' being your attitude to the actions of other people, and the inside being your attitude towards your actions. A liberal person is comfortable, in general, with the way of life, or actions of another person. A person who accepts themselves is, so to speak, comfortable in their own skin. And I dare say, usually it follows that a person who has accepted themselves, warts and all, is more likely to be liberal, to be more accommodating of others, than someone who is conservative.

I love music. That’s no secret. Growing up in high school, the environment was such that if I tapped my foot to a non-Christian song, I would be chastised, by both my Christian and non Christian friends. Consequently, I found any music that was not, strictly speaking, Christian, to be.... well... offensive. For a very long time, even ‘inspirational’ music did not quite cut it. Somewhere along the way, it became acceptable. With time, I would listen to oldies without ‘vulgar’ words. Then I got an excuse to listen to the music from my childhood. Over time, some contemporary music became okay, and long story short, I listen to it all now. Even Eminem, Tantric and Disturbed. And that’s not saying very much.

As I became more and more comfortable with the music (self acceptance?), I found that I also became more accepting of the actions and lifestyles of others. And not just with regard to music, but to various aspects of life. In the end, if Me ten years ago met Me today, the younger one would be disappointed, though the older one would understand. All I would say to the younger me, maybe, is that you never really will understand someone else’s love for escargots until you understand and accept your own love for grasshoppers. I can never purport to be without weakness, for to do so would be to claim that no other man is, an admission I know I am not willing to make.

How did my love for music transform into the ‘weaknesses’ of my neighbour? In case you have not already made the connection, the appreciation of my own blemish is the impetus for my ability to live with that of my neighbour. All I’m saying with all these words – is that if there is one thing – and there are many, that I have learnt from my experience in life, is that self acceptance is essential for the ability to be liberal. And no, you cannot really live with your neighbour, unless you are, at the very least, accommodating.

Before you berate me for my sacrilegious expressions, kindly note, being liberal is not the source of all evil. On the contrary, and it has been argued (even proved) that conservatism, in many cases, is a source of conflict, mostly internal, but many times, also external, drawing in those around us. Feel free to engage me on that one, but for now, accept yourself, regardless of what you are, who you are. It is the beginning of you accepting your neighbour. For if they did not accept themselves....

What's my role?

I wrote this paper in the fall of 2006, for school, and reading it recently, in light of what is happening in the world around us, notably Libya and the Ivory Coast, I thought it might be helpful to question what drives our intervention in the affairs of others. It might also help answer some questions on our identity and role in this world as individuals. Of course, four and a half years down the road, perspectives are bound to have changed, so feel free to challenge here and there. Some of the views I held back then, are not necessarily the same I hold right now, but I’ll post the paper largely unedited. Incidentally, it is also that period that the world remembers the genocide. We might still be in the week of mourning, I’m not mistaken.

Identity and Role: Reflections on the Rwanda Genocide.

In September of 2006 I was invited by the Uganda Studies Program on a trip to Rwanda, where we had, among others, the opportunity to learn about the 1994 genocide, its history, causes and effects. The effect the genocide had on the people of Rwanda and on the minds of people all over the world is by now common knowledge.

During the trip, we received lectures on several aspects of the genocide, and these were very educational. By far the most enlightening were those concerned with the roles of different people, bodies, organisations and nations in the genocide. These were edifying not because of what they taught me, but because of the questions they set me asking. For me, this trip played a fundamental role in changing my outlook on life, especially with regard to what my role is in society, and what I’m called to do as a human being. From the first talk, and even as early as when I was doing preliminary reading on the genocide, a chain of emotions started running through me. These got more intense as I read about the role of the church, the politicians, and the rest of the world, especially the west, in the genocide.

My mind was buffeted by questions the answers of which seemed to evade me. These were questions I might have not asked myself had it not been for this trip, or if I had asked myself, they would not have helped change my life as they did on this trip. Questions like: What am I called to do? How am I supposed to do it? For whom ought I do it? What am I able to do that I’m not doing? What difference would it make if I did it? What difference does it make when I don’t? What about what I’m doing that I ought not to be doing? Am I living up to my expectations with regard to God and Society? When I see what is going on: Do I look on, or lend a hand? Do I act out of love for God and man? Am I bothered at all? When I do something, do I do it wholeheartedly, or do I do it for what I can benefit out of doing it? How often do I think of my luxuries before the essentials of the needy? Do I put those around me on my priority list, or is life just about what concerns me? What happened to “love thy neighbour as thyself”? Do I love myself, or even God?

These questions, in my opinion, boil down to the question, ‘what is my role in society?’ In this treatise, I will approach the question of my role with regard to three aspects of my life: as a Christian, as a Professional, and as a leader. I will look at three differing philosophies, namely, one western, one African, and the Biblical Christian teachings on what my role in society is. In answering this question, I will ask each philosophy three further questions, because I believe that the way we answer them is central to how we view our role. These questions are:

1. Who am I in relation to society? 
2. What is my role in society (or on earth) 
3. How do I execute that role? 

Having answered the first two questions, I believe we can then be able to answer the question of how to perform our role in society. It is my sincere belief that depending on our worldview, our approaches to our role in society are greatly influenced by our fundamental beliefs about our position in society.

The question, ‘who am I?’ has been the basis for philosophical argument for centuries. And yet, I dare add my voice to McFarland’s, it is impossible to answer this question satisfactorily.[i] Attempts to define human beings (beyond the scientific) often end up at dead ends because they invariably entail the exclusion of significant categories of individuals on rather arbitrary grounds. They also tend more or less explicitly to measure a human being in terms of conformity to some norm or standard – an approach that necessarily treats the differences between people as irrelevant to their identities as human beings.[ii]

Over the centuries, it has proved difficult to reconcile the uniqueness of each individual with the fact of our universal existence. For instance, it may be argued that all people are created equal, but this again is not tenable because providence (or God) has it that each human has different abilities that often put one at an advantage over (or disadvantage in relation to) another. Nonetheless, different people with different worldviews and philosophies have attempted to define humanity, or more precisely, to answer the question, ‘who am I?’.

The western philosophers have taken it upon themselves to answer this question in light of the individual, and some extreme cases push for the recognition of the individual as the most important element of community. On his part, Boethius defined a person as “the individual substance of rational nature,”[iii] but this definition, like Descartes’ (“I think therefore I am”), leaves out, for instance, infants and other people who, by way of mental inability, are unable to be classified as ‘rational.’ For some, such as Oxford biologist Peter Atkins, “people are worthless, there is no point to them… no purpose in them… people are just things that emerged from slime, sort of ‘dragged themselves up by their own bootstraps…’ ”[iv]

In Africa, ones identity can easily be mistaken as being unimportant. While most western philosophers believe that ‘with me I don’t need us’, the Africans believe ‘without us, I am not.’ If I travelled to a rural African place, like my village in Karonde, deep down in the resplendent hills of Kanungu, I would have very little individual identity. I would be identified by my father’s name, and if his name was not recognised, by my grandfather’s, in spite of the fact that he’s been dead fourteen years now. If I travelled from my village to another, my extended family’s identity would also diminish, and I would identify myself as omutimbo, which is the clan I belong to. If I travelled across the country and identified myself by name, it wouldn’t come as a surprise if my new acquaintance asked me what tribe I belong to, or what clan my name belongs to, or even what totem my clan holds in order to see if we are ‘related’. So, in Africa, identity is not about the individual, but about the larger community the individual is a part of.

As a Christian, my identity has less to do with what I am, where I belong and with whom I relate, but has more to do with the purpose for which God created me. The Bible says mankind is “God’s chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God…”[v] Some scholars argue that humans are created in the image of God, and that it is God’s image in them that enables humans to create, relate, reason and know the difference between right and wrong, and have the liberty to decide what to do. Still others believe that mankind without God is not, and that we therefore need God to bring out our real self.

McFarland argues that given the differences in humanity (individual uniqueness) we need to change our methods of defining man. Focus should be shifted from trying to define who a person is, to an analysis of persons in terms of who makes us persons.[vi] He argues that once this switch is made, our status as persons, instead of being understood as a function of some thing supposed to inhere in our physical or psychological makeup, can be reconceived as the result of someone acting toward us in a particular way. The activity of this someone may be a factor that all persons share in common, but it remains external to the individual. As a result, it is possible that every person may be constituted as a person differently, since it is the relation to this someone, and not the individual qualities that may shape or be shaped by this relationship, that counts. This way, it is possible to appreciate both the universality of mankind and the individuality of man.[vii]

Having attempted to define who we are in relation to fellow man, it is now possible to try and find out what our role in society (or community) is or ought to be. I would like to agree with McFarland on identity, and with the Bakiga on my position in relation to community, for, what use is life if I am to live it alone? In line with this, the rest of this paper will proceed on the premise that we are created by God for a purpose in our community.

For my role as viewed by the western world, I turn now to the line of my profession and ask, what is the role of the lawyer in society?[viii] Every school of jurisprudence has grappled with this question, and the answers to the same have been the words by which the schools have grown to be called. In all these schools, one common thread is to be seen, that the lawyer is a custodian of something, a maker or protector of a certain thing (x)[ix] which, when protected or made, ensures the smooth running of affairs in society.

But on a deeper level, I opt to follow the teachings of the natural law school. The general thesis of their teaching is that law exists in a hierarchy: God’s law at the top (the divine or eternal law), natural law second (morality), and then finally, man made law (human or positive law). The naturalists assert that man made law should be custodial of natural law, which, which in itself is a reflection of God’s law.[x] According to St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica, Law is

“nothing else but a certain dictate of the practical reason in the prince who rules a perfect community. It is clear however, supposing the world to be governed by divine providence that the whole community of the universe is governed by the divine reason. Thus, the rational guidance of created things on the part of God as the prince of the universe has a quality of law. This we can call the eternal law.”

According to him, all things are subject to divine providence and are measured and regulated by eternal law. Rational creatures are subject to divine providence in a special way as they participate in divine providence itself; in that they control their own actions and the reactions of others. Thus, they have a certain share in the divine reason itself and derive therefrom a natural inclination of such actions and ends as are fitting. It is this participation in the eternal law by rational creatures that is called the natural law.

The naturalists further contend that human reason has to proceed from the precepts of natural law as though from certain common and indemonstrable dispositions to the more particular dispositions and such particular dispositions arrived at by some effort are called human laws, provided that the other conditions necessary to all law have already been noted or observed. Aquinas argues:

“The validity of law depends upon its justice. But, in human affairs, a thing is said to be just when it accords a right with the rule of reason, and the first rule of reason is the natural law. Thus all humanly enacted laws are in accord with reason to the extent that they derive from the natural law. If a human law is at variance in any particular way with the natural law, it is no longer legal but a corruption of law.”

Therefore, for purposes of this paper, good law should be in agreement with natural law and God’s laws, and therefore, a good lawyer must necessarily be one who enforces the law as it is given by God. From this, it can be deduced that the lawyer’s voice is one of immense power. What a lawyer says or does is to be heeded by everyone. Thus, the lawyer can sway the society either way by what one chooses to or not to do.

From the traditional African community, I would like to learn the qualities of a leader. Again, I will turn back to my homeland, and seek answers in the ways of the Bakiga. In this warrior tribe, leaders were expected to be valiant men of strength, influential, rich and possessive of the ability to lead the communities they headed in every way. A leader had to have the courage to venture into the unknown, unsure of what is to be found on the other side thereof; the courage to clear forests in spite of the fact that that forest was the natural habitat of more animals than they could name. They wielded great power, but were at the same time expected to play a fatherly role as the head of their family, clan or tribe. These leaders had to be “no nonsense” and at the same time tender, loving and caring; commanding and encouraging; fear provoking yet at the same time fear removing. Their presence was seen as the epitome of safety and comfort. Where they were, everyone was safe and at the same time vulnerable.

This unique ability to command awe and peace at the same time is what set leaders apart. And this was just one of the many qualities that set one apart to be a leader. Not just the fact that he is born to a family of leaders. No, it was the merits the community saw in him, the blessings of his forefathers upon him to be a leader. Because the entire community looked up to him, he had a huge burden on his shoulder to ensure that he takes good care of everyone. He has to ensure the sovereignty of his territory is kept inviolate, and that all his subjects are in good health. It is incumbent upon him to ensure peace amongst his subjects and between his subjects and the subjects of his fellow leaders. His is no easy task, but again, it is his ability to achieve it that makes him a leader.

We can now deduce that the role of the leader in the African (at least among the Bakiga) society is as much in what he does as it is in his ability to do it. Let us hold that at that point for now, and proceed to find out what the Bible teaches regarding the role of a Christian in society.

For the Christians, it goes without saying that life in Christ does not mean life in isolation. Throughout the book of Acts, we see that in the New Testament times, the brethren lived as a community, caring for one another and ensuring that all the brothers were well catered for. Even long before the days of the Christians, we learn that God places upon mankind a responsibility to look after His (God’s) creation.[xi] Man therefore is a custodian of nature (and, as the Natural Lawyers believe, of nature’s or God’s law), but what about his role in relation to man? Did God not intend, in creating a companion for Adam, to make him a socially responsible being? Now I am not being so bold as to question the mind of God, but these are questions we often ask and whose answers we fear to get.

I believe God wants man to be responsible for fellow man. In Genesis God creates marriage, and that in itself creates a responsibility upon man to raise a family, to take care of one another. As early as the days of Moses, the Jews were commanded to love their neighbours as themselves,[xii] and Jesus repeats this command to the early church. This, I believe calls for great social responsibility, but it also raises the question, what is love? This in itself is a potential subject for several books to be written, but I’d like to suggest that love is the language God has been trying to speak to man since creation, and when we just won’t listen, it is the one in which he screams at us. My perception of God is that he is a benevolent father that will do anything to make sure I stay on the right path. My role therefore is to ensure that I work at spreading His love in all I do.

It is my opinion that if I write a little more in this direction (of God’s love and ministry) I will open another string of questions (although that is one of the goals of this paper). But I feel it important to note that man’s role goes as far as reaching out to our neighbours in love. 1 John 5:7-21 admonishes us to love one another, for our love for our neighbour is an expression first of our love for God, and that we dwell in him.

It is therefore clear that all three of our sample philosophies support the notion that man has a role to play in his society. Question now remains, how do we play our role? This seems like a slightly abstract question to ask, but is it not a reality that often, we feel like we ought to do something, but we just don’t know what. And even when we do, we don’t know how. I’m sure very many will agree with me on that. I’d like to take particular interest in the case of Africa, only this time I will not look necessarily at ‘professional’ abstract philosophers, but at the views of people in the real world in touch with the real world.

I recently had a discourse over tea with a few of the Americans I had travelled with to Rwanda. Of all the academic and philosophical discussions I’ve had in the last several weeks this was by far one of the most enriching. My American friends intimated that after the Rwanda experience, they felt they needed and wanted to help, but had no idea what they were supposed to do. Some felt that they should probably come and use their school learnt skills in a bid to help foster development, but this felt like it was taking work away from the Africans who could probably do a much better job than them. So for a moment it seemed like the best should be to make money and send it to Africa so that the Africans can get themselves on track. But again, this is difficult for two reasons. First, it is not easy to find an African you are comfortable trusting with large amounts of money, and second, there is the issue of the insecurity felt in letting someone else do something you feel only you can do perfectly.

This last issue opened a Pandora’s Box. The question arose: does Africa need western solutions to her problems? One of my friends, almost like she’d read my mind, commented that the west needs to learn that ‘our solutions just cannot work for everyone we want them to work for.’ That struck me as one of the most brilliant statements since ‘let there be light.’ What we all need to learn, not just as the west, but every single human being, is that the solutions we have to offer are not necessarily the best.

It is important to help, and noble to desire to help, but our help loses meaning if it turns out to be some form of colonialism. In helping, we ought not to expect returns; helping is not a business. With all due respect, it is my opinion that the west has erred in this regard. When relief is given (as in the case of tied aid), but with instructions on how to use it, it defeats the purpose of its donation. You might as well (and this has been done) send people to ensure that the relief is used in the proper way. In doing this, we have so often lost focus of the purpose for which the relief is needed, and concentrated more on how it is to be used.

When we read the story of the good Samaritan,[xiii] for example, we learn that when we help those in need around us, we should do it as a service unto God and not just to man, since man is a physical representation of God on earth.[xiv] The lawyer Jesus tells the story of the Good Samaritan asks a question, who is my neighbour? If he had asked a fellow lawyer today the same question, he would have got an answer somewhat like this:

“The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.”[xv]

But, you should note, I object to this being taken as a definition for neighbour. I think that ‘my neighbour’ should receive a wider definition, and that my neighbour should receive better treatment than what can only have its basis on a legal obligation.

But this does not give the inquisitive mind solutions, questions are still flying: what do I do, and more importantly how do I do it? I believe we all need to open up our minds as we attempt to help those around us. We have a role to play, but I believe that role is not to be dictated by us, but by the circumstances we feel we need to alleviate. Many times in our lives, we ‘walk’ into situations with many ‘brilliant’ ideas and even more ideas on how we should implement our ideas in the circumstances. I feel what we should do in our professions, as leaders and as Christians, is not give help on our terms. The question, ‘how now shall we assist?’, can only receive, in my humble opinion, one response: come just as you are, with what you have, thinking not of such abstract things as perfection and accountability, and be willing to do what the people in need ask you to, even if it is a task as simple as giving a shoulder to cry on. What we do, I believe, weighs much less than what we are willing to do, especially if we do not do it with a willing and glad heart.






[i] Ian A. McFarland, Difference and Identity: a Theological Anthropology, 2001, The Pilgrim Press, Cleveland


[ii] Ibid, p2


[iii] The Theological Tractates and The Consolation of Philosophy, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973, 84-85


[iv] Understanding Christian Worldviews, UCU Core Courses Textbook Series, 2006/7 Edition, pg 15


[v] 1 Peter 2:3 (NIV)


[vi] McFarland, supra 9


[vii] Mr. Thy Edit: This will be subject of another post. My understanding of identity might have changed over the last few years


[viii] This I do because the law taught and practiced in Uganda today is largely, so to speak, imported.


[ix] Where x can be law, morals, interests of the ruling class, etc.


[x] M.D.A. Freeman, Lloyd’s Introduction to Jurisprudence 1985, London, Sweet and Maxwell


[xi] Genesis 26:1-30


[xii] Leviticus 19:18


[xiii] Luke 10:30-37


[xiv] Cf. 1 John 5:7-21


[xv] Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson, [1932] A.C.562 at p 582

Dreams

The text below is not my own. It is from xkcd 137. Yea, I read xkcd. Every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. This particular strip did catch my eye though. Fits in with the theme of this blog, which I know I have been away from for a while. But also, it reflects what many of our lives are like. Mine inclusive. If you go to the comic itself, you will realise I've changed the last words, I'm not really into obscenity. Besides, "I'm taking my life back" sounded better.

The infinite possibilities each day holds should stagger the mind. The sheer number of experiences I could have is uncountable, breathtaking, and I’m here sitting, refreshing my inbox. We live trapped in loops, reliving a few days over and over; and we envision only a handful of paths laid out ahead of us. We see the same things each day. We respond the same way, we think the same thoughts. Each day a slight variation on the last. Every moment smoothly following the gentle curves of societal norms. We act like if we just get through today, tomorrow our dreams will come back to us.

And no, I don’t have all the answers. I don’t know how to jolt myself into seeing what each moment could become. But I do know one thing. The solution doesn’t involve watering down my every little idea and creative impulse for the sake of some day easing my fit into a mould. It doesn’t involve tempering my life to better fit someone’s expectations, it doesn’t involve constantly holding back for fear of shaking things up.

This is very important, so I want to say it as clearly as I can:

I’M TAKING MY LIFE BACK!!!!