The Parable of The Two Sons

We know the story. It is one of the popular ones that the Lord Jesus told. It is popularly called the parable of the prodigal son. However the man in the story had two sons. Granted, a greater part of the story is narrative of one son (as is this descriptive), it is evident that both sons did not understand the love of their father. I think it should be called the parable of the two sons. And the reason I think so is that the Father still has these two sons.

We have the younger son who feels under appreciated. He does not like the system of the father's house. He feels there is too much wealth in there and too little of personal wealth. He is not happy working for his father, giving so much of his time and resources only to get back so little in tangible terms. He feels he is advancing the course of his father's house at his own expense. He is not happy that many of his father's top servants have so many resources he does not have access to.

Of all the things going on in the house, it is the way money is being spent that matters most to him. His eyes are on the inheritance. Souls are being saved, people are being healed, a lot of charitable work is being done, but he keeps wondering 'how much does the father have?', 'how much do the servants have?', what is happening to all the money being made on a daily basis? How much was spent on this or that, and then he compares that to his pocket money and the amount spent for his last party with his friends. And he is angry.

He is angry at the servants. He is angry with his father. He is angry with his brother- he thinks his brother is gullible to keep serving and serving without any tangible personal wealth. He wants to get his own share of the wealth, and he wants it now. As far as he is concerned, he stands a better chance of living a good life, outside the house than in it. Anytime he is offended, he would leave the house for a few hours, or a day or two, spending that time with his friends, telling them all the things wrong with his father's house.

Do allow more directness since we are talking here about real people -people who are so angry with the church and church leaders. Who take every opportunity to throw stones at her, and them. Who feel that the money in God's house is too much. Maybe some of his servants in charge of certain aspects of his business have certain privileges that they don't have access to yet, and they are angry with the servants, angry with the other sons, and just want to leave the church.

........You find fault with the servants, you find fault with the father, you find fault with the whole system of worship, you believe your brother is gullible to just keep serving and serving without any tangible personal wealth. You have more faith in what you can do for yourself than what your father's house can do for you. You have more faith in yourself than you have in the church. You have left the church, and are using every opportunity in personal life and on social media to tell your friends all the imperfections of the father's house. You find it easy to throw stones at the church. You have many bad stories to tell- both real and rumored.

You are the prodigal son....

The father is God. He loves you. Whenever he looks at his whole estate with his heart. He does not see the wealth, he does not see the buildings, he does not see the servants, and he does not see the splendor. All he sees is you. My son, oh- my son! (What manner of love the Father has bestowed on us....). You are his inheritance, under construction. He is building you with blocks of character and the right spirit, buildings of sagacity and tenacity, perseverance and large heartedness....you are his real estate! But you are leaving....you have left the house, for some minor reason or the other.

The father is asking you to come back home, and sit at the table like a son, and serve because you love him. He is asking you to do it for him, not for the inheritance, not to outdo the servants, or your brother. He is asking you to make Him the reason for everything you do in His house. He is telling you to serve him not because of the work, but because of the relationship. He is telling you that all that he has belongs to you, and yet you are more to him than all that he has. He would demand many things from you, do this for me and do that for me, but it is not because he wants your service, it is because he wants you to be a part of what he is doing.

He has servants, who are serving without knowing him, but he wants you to serve him because none of his servants are heirs, the business does not belong to them- it belongs to you. He is asking you to believe in him as he believes in you. He is telling you that the house may not be perfect, but the father of the house is perfect. He is saying that the seemingly imperfect house has more to offer you than the seemingly perfect world. He is telling you because the head of the house is perfect, but the head of the world is not. He is telling you that if you can see the big picture, you will find the peace that can never be found outside. He is asking you to love him as he loves you, and that you will learn many things by leaving the house, but that the best part will be hidden from you. It is in the house you learn perfection. Perfection is not learned by being surrounded by ideals, it is learned by being surrounded by imperfections. He is asking you to come back home.


He is saying a day in his courts is better than a thousand elsewhere. Ask Esau, he was a hunter and he went out daily to hunt game, but the blessing was in the house. And ask Jacob, he had his eyes on the inheritance and would scheme to get it, but all would fail until he would come to terms with God.....but that is another story. The Father is saying to you 'where you are staying is not good, come back home'. He is asking you to come back home. He is waiting for you to return.

He is asking you to come and sit in the house like a son and do what you do because of him and not because of anything else. There is nothing he will not give you. He may not give you now because he loves you, and sees what you do not see, but if you ask for it out of turn, he would give it to you to show you that he values you above all he has, that losing all his wealth cannot be compared to losing you. And when you have lost your way and you stumble back home, head bowed, he would still receive you.

Take your eyes off the money, put your eyes on me. Take your eyes of the materials, gaze upon Me. Keep giving, keep loving. These are my people, and this is my house. It is not complete, but I am building it, it is not perfect, but I am washing it, it is not ideal, but I love it. My house does not consist of things or money, it consists of people. It is the people in the church that matter to me, not the things. One day, the house will be perfect, and those who have stayed in it would laugh with me. You are missing out on what I'm doing for you. Come back home.

Would you?

The other son....

He is angry. He is angry because his father throws a party when the erring son returns home. He would have preferred that his father ignore or punish him for a while and then relegate him to a very junior position for his unruly behavior and greed, instead of celebrating his return with such flare and fanfare. He has served his father and gone on many errands for him, some of them difficult, but never has his return been greeted with such jamboree. He is sullen and angry as he tells his father this.

Here is a son fresh from the dirt, grateful to just be in God's house. You've been serving a long time now. He's just getting ready to give some fresh praise, not a familiar praise, but real heartfelt thanksgiving. You have your style of worship, and dancing, and singing. He is surprised at the embrace, and overwhelmed by it, he does not count himself worthy of the father's love, eternally grateful for it. You are comfortable in your service record and spiritual resume, to the point that you think God owes you now. He's not giving a 'you know, God is my ole time buddy', but a 'God is awesome, wow praise'. You've forgotten where he brought you from, and how he brought you out. Every meeting time, heaven knows what you are going to do...it's the same old measured praise. To be frank, heaven is bored with your familiarity, it's been a long time they really danced over there. It is heart music that moves them, and heart music is muted by a sense of entitlement.

The father loves you not because of what you are doing, but because you are his son. He loves what you are doing, but he loves you because you are his son. If you are faithful, he will love you, and if you are not faithful he will love you. When the two sons stand before their father, the greater question in his heart is sonship, not service, and he wants the greater question in your heart to be fatherhood, not service. Service is good, and has its reward. Those who have served from their hearts will find out at length and at the last day, that God is not unrighteous to forget their labor of love, and that he is a rewarder of they that diligently seek him. Everyone is accepted in the beloved, but not everyone will be given equal responsibility in the age to come. Thats where service counts.

However, God loves all His children because He is love, and if you approach God based on what you are doing for him, you will never understand what He has done for you. Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God! When two sons stand before the father the primary question should not be one of service, but one of sonship, when two Christian brothers meet, the primary question should not be one of service, or denomination, but one of fatherhood. You are missing out on the party going on inside the house. Go in and celebrate with your prodigal brother.

Is this a Christian brother? And is she a Christian sister? Is God his father? If so, embrace him. How large his church is, how many cars he has or does not have, how many jets, how much wealth he does or does not have, how many divorces, how much controversy surrounds him, how much make up surrounds her face, whether he is travelling around the world or not, whether the pastor likes her more, or whether his leg space is a one room apartment, are not the primary questions. If he is your brother, brother- embrace him, sit with him, eat with him, or her.

The father is asking you to open your heart, to your brothers and sisters. He is telling you that your personal race consists mainly of others. He is asking you not to run them over. There might indeed be a speck in his eye, but it is illogical to make removing it a prerequisite for embracing him- (there's a pun there). He is asking you to extend hands across denominational lines, and embrace your brother.

Would you?

Would we?

Nigerian English

There is such a thing as Nigerian English. It is the particular variety of English spoken by Nigerians in Nigeria, and it differs significantly from standard British English. This is important because English is the most commonly used language in the world, for communications, scholarship, business, international relations and diplomacy, education, science and information technology, and entertainment. Nigerian English is not the same as Pidgin. Pidgin is not English- it sounds like it, being mostly derived from English words, but the words have been so modified and other words added, that the product rather than being an English variant, is another language entirely.

Nigerian English on the other hand is an English variant, just as is American English. It is said to have several sources, the major one being linguistic improvisation- the wholesale replacement of local language expressions with English words, which produces expressions that are understood by Nigerians but not by other English speaking people. If for instance, I said I wanted to call on David on my way to the market, one might ask what I was calling on him for. If however, I said I wanted to branch (at) David's place....even though there is no such legitimate English use of the word "branch", my meaning is unmistakable, being a modified form of the Yoruba "ya" i.e. "Mo n lo s'oja; sugbon maa ya odo David".

Another example is a greeting used for people working- "well done." It is simply a translation of "ji si ike" or "saanu da aiki" or "eku ise." Well done in English proper means either "bravo!" or well cooked food. The English do not salute workers in that manner; just as they'd be a tad perplexed if when they tripped or lost their footing, you said "sorry" to them. "Sorry?" They say something like "Be careful", "Watch it", which would be perceived in Nigeria as inconsiderate.

This illustrates the fact that many African cultures are informally relational in a large family, community based manner.
There are many unique Nigerian sociocultural thoughts that English is not well suited to. Therefore we translate or anglicize our local languages in an attempt to produce what is meant. This is why folks say that African languages are deeper than English, and that English does not have the words to express certain things. Well, that is only partly true. In matters that are truly African- a foreign language would have need of modification.

This modification is however common to all languages. An Englishman would find it difficult to to explain the parliamentary system of government, or the anatomy of the brain, or matters that are derived from English custom and lifestyle in Igbira or Hausa, because these are not original Nigerian thoughts. They were probably studied and derived in Grecio-Roman through Latin to English languages- so English has lexical and syntactic coverage of such concepts. On the other hand- a typical traditional marriage ceremony, or cultural festival will find English short.

I read somewhere that Professor Wole Soyinka's citation when he was admitted into the Royal Society of Arts, read something like "Mr. Soyinka is a prolific writer in the vernacular English of his own country", and that he did not like that. However that was fairly accurate. Chinua Achebe defended his literary contortions of English language to express uniqely Nigerian thoughts by saying "any language that has the cheek to leave its primordial shores and encroach on the territory of other people should learn to come to terms with the inevitable reality that it would be domesticated"

Nigerian English is not that which is spoken by the uneducated. It is spoken by graduates, English teachers, researchers, professors, television show presenters, newsreaders. Most of what we hear and read in the dailies, classrooms, and at the workplace is not communicated in standard British English. It takes personal effort to learn proper English, or should I say standard British English; because there is nothing wrong with domesticating a foreign language so long as we abide by the basic rules of its grammar. If the Americans are allowed to get away with things like "different than" and "on the weekend" (instead of "at the weekend"), maybe we should be proud of our "Long time!" or "Long time, no see" ("It's been quite an age") and our "Say me well to your sister" (my warm regards to your...")

I also read that when a Nigerian told his colleagues in a foreign country that he "bagged" his degree in a certain university, one of them had asked him, "Sorry, what did you say you did to your bachelor's degree?" We bag degrees here, they earn it elsewhere. They however bag whatever they catch in a hunting expedition. We also "barb" hair only here in Nigeria. Elsewhere, they have a haircut. To "barb" in English means to supply with barbed wire. Therefore barbers do not "barb" hair, except of course, in Nigeria. We also have "hot drinks" at room temperature, instead of "hard drinks", and "minerals", instead of "soft drinks", or (the American) "soda".

Another interesting word is "tout"- which is used as "hooligan" or "tough-guy". Although there is an element of boldness embodied in the meaning of the word, it does not approximate to hooliganism by any means. Rather, "Tout" and "Marketer" are similes. Therefore for instance, we have "touts" in the banks, but not our banks. Call a salesperson a tout, and fists may be employed to remind one of geography. A person cannot be 'a' mediocre', or 'a talkative' or 'a destitute'. They could however be mediocre or a-talkative-person. Those are adjectives, rather than nouns. And to say that something is outrightly wrong is outright wrong. (hope we saw that; outright is an adverb, it is not an adjective).

Words like "flash", "flashing" and "flasher" are also unique to us. The closest one might find out there, is "buzz" (but not "buzzer", which is a device that alerts you with a buzzing sound)" "You buzzed me" but not "That guy is a buzzer!" Another one is "I'm coming, I want to ease myself" Your British or American friend might not understand a word of that sentence. The "I'm coming expression" is quite common, and seems inappropriate because the speaker is usually moving away from you. "I'd be right back, I need to use the restroom" is more standard. Another example is "I've been trying your number since morning", even though the speaker started making attempts in the afternoon.

We have words which do not exist in any English dictionary, such as "watchnight", "sendforth", "naming ceremony" and "disvirgin". The closest to that last one in the dictionary is "deflower". We also say things like "Go and baff" ("Go have a bath" or the American "take a bath" or "Go bathe"), " He chooked me" (jabbed or poked). Chook is an English word, but it refers to a type of chicken or so. More examples are "godfatherism", "mannerless" instead of "ill-mannered", "letter-headed paper", instead of "letterhead", "vandalisation" instead of "vandalism" and "complimentary card" instead of "business card".

The matters of pronunciation and stress have not been broached. There are 23 different vowel sounds in English, which we tend to collapse into our six or seven! Speaking with a British accent does not equate with speaking proper English. Many English persons who do not speak standard English. One can make a fine job of properly articulating the language with a well polished Nigerian accent. [The b in subtle, climb, climber, dumb, dumbest, comb, debt, and indebtedness (indetidnis); the t in castle, the p in receipt, and the s in debris (dei-bree) are silent. The ch in chalet, sachet (sa-shey) and champagne (sham-payne) is pronounced 'sh'. Brochure is 'brow-shor', not 'bro-kio'. Excited is 'ik-sai-tid', not 'eg-zai-ted', cruel is 'kroo-ool', cause is 'koz', women is 'we-men', pizza is 'peet-sa' and bouquet is 'bu-kay']

In British English, "I would suggest" means "do it", not "think about it". "That was quite good" means it was a bit disappointing, and "that's not bad at all" means "that's very good". "Oh incidentally/by the way" refers to the primary purpose of discussion, and not some unimportant detail. "That is very interesting" means "that is clearly nonsense", not "that is impressive", just as "that's a brave proposal" means "you've lost your mind", and not "you have got courage". "With the greatest respect" means the addressed is perceived to be stupid, and "You must come for dinner", is polite speech, and does not mean you're being invited. "I have a few minor comments" means you should rewrite completely. "You want to leave now" is not a question or a suggestion. It means "leave now". Bear in mind that when Britons speak thus, it is without facially evident sarcasm or irony. They speak these with a straight face, as though the statements were to be taken literally. Alas! We know better. It is British (pseudo) politeness- (some foreign workers are taught to recognize this manner of speaking in their first few weeks in Great Britain).

In conclusion (not conclusively), it is recommended that standard British English be learnt alongside Nigerian English, as both are useful. In fact if you speak standard English in Nigeria, it is likely you will be misunderstood, misquoted, and probably frustrate others and be yourself frustrated. Almost none of us Nigerians are exempt from this variant of English, and there is no need to shy away from it, as long as grammar is respected. However, for the international scene, listening to British news stations, and reading standard English literature such as the English classics may keep us from saying something like "they have taken light", and "it is doing me like eating rice!"

Cheers

Tithes III.

Jesus often taught about money. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me, said Jesus to a rich man (Luke 18:22). He said the same thing to his disciples (12:33). He praised a widow who put two coins into the temple treasury, because she gave all she had (21:4). In the new covenant, God gave all that He had, if we do not do likewise, we do not understand New Testament, neither have we received it, nor are we under it. The prodigal son received so much and spent it all for His pleasure, what did He profit Him? He ended up with the pigs. The older son was waiting for His father to reward Him for faithful service, what did it profit Him? He did not know that all things His father had were freely His to use. He missed it. The prodigal one probably knew, but did not know the purpose of his father's wealth. He missed it too. Neither was walking in their father's love. The older son is the faithful tither, the younger son is the non-giver. Neither understood the heart of the father. Neither was a love-giver. (Luke 15:11-32).

Until the New Covenant is understood in the context of God's love, all we have is new wine poured into old wine skins.(Luke 5:37) Strife and divisions and burdens of all kinds. For God so loved the world that he gave(John 3:16)...that is where it begins, and how it works. You can give and not love(1Cor 13:3), but you cannot love and not give. It is impossible. Love is the basis for giving in the New Covenant. Love is the principle in the New Covenant. God wants us to be givers. The highest motivation for giving is love. He wants love to be at the back of our giving, not giving so that we may receive, but giving because we have received. Freely have we received, we freely give. If we give because we are asked to, because it is an obligation: today, in Christ- it profits nothing. It does not bring a blessing, Christ has brought that, and it does not remove any curse, Christ has done that. It does this: absolutely nothing. This is how the church thrived in Acts of the Apostles.

We find it difficult to impossible to cater to the needs in our churches, but the early church did not (Acts 4:34&35). Freewill giving will do far more for the course of the gospel, if we understand that this is what we do in the New Testament out of love from our hearts, than tithe will ever do for the work of the ministry. And this is what God wants us to do in the New Covenant. We cannot give by obligation and by freewill at the same time. I think one reason why there are so many needy people in Church today is because we tithe first and give second. A lot of people feel they have fulfilled their obligation to give after their tithes have been paid, and will sit with and fellowship with those in dire need within the same church without a care.  Tithing will always come in the way of giving. A few will do more than tithe, many of us more or less stop there. It is our main giving, and offerings consists of really small amounts. And the needy? We mostly pretend everyone is fine, at best we give very little for this purpose. "I've paid my tithes, I am free of obligation".

That is the way of the law. The thing about the law is that it specifies the least one should do just so that one will be blessed (thou shalt), and so that one will not be cursed (thou shall not). The law is the minimum placed on men who are unregenerated so that there will be order in the world, and God can bless it (Gal 3:19). A very good example is revenge (Matt 5:38). When a person hurts another, vengeance is usually not fair. If someone insults one, one is likely to insult them until one is satisfied, irrespective of what they said. So God says 'an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth!' Think about that for a moment, how do you take a tooth back? Folks who lose a tooth after being punched in the mouth do not carefully retaliate to make sure only a tooth of the assailant is lost! They hit back until the other fellow loses all their teeth, so God is saying 'Hey, only one eye was hurt, i know if i told you not to bother, id take care of it, you wouldnt listen, but don't over do it- an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, stripe for stripe, burning for burning!'(Exod 21:24&25) That was the law, it gave the minimum to an unregenerate man in order to keep God from destroying him before the blessing came in Christ.

When Christ came and changed our hearts, we knew within ourselves what God wants, we didn't need the minimum- we could now go the extra mile. We didn't need the 600 instructions trying to balance out each other in explaining to us what God wants- we cut through to the chase and fulfilled the law in Christ,  or rather, He does so in us. So the law requires us to write a bill of divorcement, we know that in Christ it will never be necessary. It is not a boast, if we stay in Christ, it will never come to that. Marriage is wholly renewed and redefined to what it was in the beginning. Lustful looking is adultery, but man cannot help it- so God says in the law do not commit it, and says nothing about looking. Christ gives heart to the law. A man will not commit adultery if he will not even look lustfully at a woman. That is Christ.

Therefore we Christians ought to provide for our families, give to the work of ministry and the ministers of the gospel and to those in need and to the poor, to those that ask as long as we are able, and as far as God has prospered us. This is what the word of God says. Giving to the poor is one thing, and giving to ministers of the word and the work of ministry is quite another. Both ought to be done. A woman used very expensive oil to anoint the Lord. Some began to murmur and analyse the offering as waste. They said the oil could have been sold and given to the poor.(Mark 14:3-9). First Jesus rebuked them and showed us the difference between giving to the Lord directly and giving to the poor. He said wherever the gospel is preached, what she did would be mentioned. Second, the critic's motive was corrupt (John 12:6), and I dare say that is largely the case today. Many who speak against giving in the church do so with a bitter and angry spirit. A wrong spirit is a wrong spirit. It is full of bitterness and anger, it feels wronged. Such spirit cannot be trusted. A right spirit acts and speaks in love, seeks to build up, not to pull down, is genuinely concerned with error, and never insults. The Scriptures affirm that the THE LORD HAS ORDAINED that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel (1 Cor 9:14). There is nothing further.

Finally, one might ask "Why not tithe and give?" What will the essence of that be? What does tithing do that giving will not? Why do we seek to be under obligation? Tithing is not required in the New Covenant, none of the churches practiced the same. Abraham and Melchizedek are a shadow, Christ is the Substance. We do not become justified by old testamentary patterns, rather believing in Christ gives meaning to what things they did hitherto. However, one doubts that this will change the common notion about tithing, nor does one intend for it to. As it is written-No man having drunk the old wine straightway desireth the new: for he saith, 'the old is better'(Luke 5:39). Yet still, people who entrust their lives to Jesus Christ do not worry about whether tithing is commanded or not in the New Testament. They want to give as much as possible to support the gospel and to support the poor. They want to give regularly, willingly, sacrificially, cheerfully, and generously or bountifully as a result of their relationship with God, not a way to earn it. And if it is an ordinance in the churches, by all means tithe and give. So tithing is lawful, but giving is expedient. Tithing is lawful, but giving will edify the body. Tithing is lawful, but do not be brought under its power. (1Cor 6:12; 10:23).

Agape.

Tithes I.

The tithe is a tenth of all income and is the most well defined form of giving in the church of Christ today. It is that part of the income that is given to God. The teaching of the tithe is as follows (1) It belongs to God, and is to be removed from earnings before other necessities are attended to- a sign of honor for Him.  (2) It is compulsory instead of voluntary- a requirement of God, and not a suggestion (3) It is the part that sanctifies the rest of our income and prevents unnecessary loss. This form is largely sourced from the law of tithes in Moses, and the book of the prophet Malachi.

When it comes to giving, we have different categories; first- tithers. Tithers are very few. Many Christians agree with tithing in principle. However, the record almost always shows few give a tenth of all income regularly. Then, we have non-tithers: Christians who give regularly and generously, but do not tithe, because they find no basis for it in the New Testament. A third group is the non-givers: Christians who give sparingly or who do not give at all, because they consider all giving in the churches as an enrichment scheme perpetrated by the pastorate or clergy.

It is to this last category, I now make appeal- this mini-treatise attempts to present a round table question styled approach to the matter of tithes, albeit with a definite conclusion- and is mainly for categories 1 and 2. If any comments or contributions would flow forth, kindly refrain from invective and undue criticism. All commentary deemed unnecessarily castigatory in part or in whole will be stricken from record. Writer discretion is therefore advised, and apology offered in advance for they who cannot help it.

Non-tithers (vide supra) have two related issues with the tithe as delineated in the first paragraph. First, they consider tithing to be a thing of the Old Covenant, and count the abolishing of that covenant in Christ inclusive of the end of such system of giving, and irrelevant to the church of Christ. Second, there is no mention of the tithe as a specific form of giving in the New Testament. In the early church period, giving was so well done that every one was well catered for. We find no mention of tithe in Acts of the apostles, who being Jews were well acquainted with the same, nor in any of the epistles do we find the tithe being practiced by Christians.

[Certain characteristics of the tithe in the Old Testament are worth mentioning. First, money was never tithed. Not ever. The only place where money is mentioned in relation to tithe was as a means of lightening the size of tithe for the sake of travel. At the point of arrival, the money was used to purchase tithable resources which were then used for the required purpose. Tithable items included only produce of the land(crops) and livestock. Second, there were three (3) different kinds of tithes-one for the Levitical priesthood, another for religious festival where all God's people came together to feast before the Lord, and yet another tithe was collected for the poor. Thus the tithe giver under the law gave about 25% of his yearly income or resources. And giving 10% today is doing less than even the law required. Third, a tithe was not required of everyone, the poor were exempted- rather the tithe was partly for them. Fourth, there is no more levitical priesthood. That ended with the coming of Christ. Today, every child of God is a priest of God, and Christ is our High Priest]

Nevertheless tithers hold the practice of giving a tenth to be an unchanging principle in God untarnished by the coming of Christ and the ushering in of a New Covenant. Tithing is not about the law really, but about faith. Here we are taken from Moses to Abra(ha)m who on returning triumphant from the war against 4 kings from whom he rescued his captive nephew Lot, gave a tithe of the spoils of war to Melchizedek, the priest of God (Genesis 14:20). It was a rather deep encounter, and is alluded to in Hebrews 7. The key here is that if Abraham paid tithes where there was no law, it was an act of faith, and we who are of Abraham- ought to without obligation, do likewise. It shows we acknowledge God as the owner of all things- the possessor of heaven and earth.

[Now one observation about the Abraham account is worthy of mention: He did not tithe of his personal possessions but from the spoils of war. In fact, being a different kind of man, he did not consider the spoils his property by right, though won by conquest. After he gave tithes, the rest (the 90%) give or take a few items, was returned to the King of Sodom. Abram took nothing for himself. The scriptures give no other specific mention of Abraham tithing out of his own personal wealth. However one can only wonder where Jacob learned the practice from when he vowed to give a God a tenth of his prosperity if God would bless him- he must have seen his folks do likewise. It is highly possible that it was common practice in the family of the patriachs.]

A deeper consideration is that Melchizedek received tithes- Well, Melchizedek is shown of Scriptures to be living, and a type of Christ. Therefore tithing is not a dead practice pertaining to an obsolete levitical priesthood, but rather an eternal principle with God's priesthood for all time. He received a tithe from Abraham, and Christ receives tithes from Abraham's seed. Melchizedek received tithes long before Levi was born. In fact Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek, so tithing is not about the law of Moses or the Old Covenant, but about a principle in the priesthood of God. This is a very strong assertion worth careful consideration.

Nonetheless, the question is whether a practice of Abraham translates direcly to a practice in Christ. Are Abraham's works enough evidence for legitimacy of tenancy of a thing in the real estate of Christianity? Do we begin to understand the Substance by looking at the shadow? Do we interprete the New in light of the Old, or the Old in the light of the New?  Do we become Christ's because we are Abraham's seed, or are we Abraham's seed because we are Christ's? Do we look to Abraham to understand Christ, or to understand how to relate with God in Christ? Or do we looking at Christ see the fulfilment of what Abraham was doing, or what God was trying to do in him? If we do not understand this, what he did out of faith might become law to us, and this is precisely what is considered in the next part.

Tithes II.

God instructed Abraham to circumcise every male in his household. It was a seal of the faith he had in God that separated himself and his family to God, a sanctified and blessed people, through whom God would bless the whole earth. The rest of the world was referred to as the uncircumcised. Although circumcision became a law in Israel, as did the tithe, it preceded the law of Moses (John 7:22). Nevertheless, physical circumcision has no bearing to the church of Christ whatsoever. It caused so much controversy in the early church that it would take a man with unique revelation of the nature of the gospel of Christ-Paul the apostle- to stay the bondage such an original act of faith in Abraham, but now an enforced relic of the law of Moses, would bring upon Gentile believers in Christ. (Let students of the word note that when Paul argued that the promise could not be annulled by the law which came 430 years after, he was arguing against circumcision, and not for it- even though circumcision came with the promise 430 years before the law.)

Therefore concerning the tithe, it is this revelation of Paul that we must now turn to, for it comprises the bedrock of New Testament truth- the grace of Christ, salvation by faith in Christ Jesus alone and the sufficiency of Christ for all things pertaining to life and righteousness. Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. In Him, the law is accomplished. Nothing else profits anyone save faith in Christ Jesus for righteousness before God. This is what Paul discovered. (Galatians 2,3)It was the liberating truth that we call the grace of God. In Christ, circumcision would mean nothing. Peter received the revelation of the Messiah. Paul understood Christ. John received the revelation of the Word. The Messiah redeems, the Christ regenerates, so that the Word spoken from the beginning will be fulfilled.

If the land is under a curse (and it is), are those in Christ not free? If I were to give tithes so that the curse on the land, and the devourer will be rebuked, is that Christianity? Am I not under a law? and is Christ not become of no effect to me? (Gal 3:7-14)If the tithe sanctifies the rest of my income? What is the blood for? Is it enough to claim that the gospel delivers from sin and hell but not from the forces that control the earth? Do we need something else for that? Is giving to God so that the land will be blessed not like sacrificing bulls and goats so that the soul will be atoned for? Is it not what they did repeatedly, that Christ did once? If he sanctified the heavens with His blood, why is something else needed to sanctify our possessions? Does His priesthood require daily or monthly or yearly sacrifices? These are questions that need answering. (Hebrews 7:21-28; 9:22-28)

There is an Old Covenant and there is the Law of Moses. The Old Testament is more than the Law of Moses. It includes the Adamic, the Noahic, the Abrahamic and the Mosaic Covenants. It is true that the tithe is not just about the law, but about Covenant. The question is- which Covenant? The Lamb of God was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8), but before the fullness of time came, sacrifices were offered to atone for the soul. They were offered in the law, but preceded it in Abel. Abel offered, and God acknowledged him for it (Heb 11:4)but today Christ is the slain Lamb, and His blood speaks better things than the blood of Abel (Heb 12:24)! These relationships in Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Moses, Barak, Jephthah, David, are a shadow; the substance-Christ was coming. Indeed they rejoiced to see this New Covenant. Abraham did, and rejoiced (John 8:56). Oh, David saw it mightily, and even partook of grace, but the fulness was not, until Christ (Acts 2:25-36), God having provided something better for us, so that they without us should not be made perfect! (Hebrews 11:40)

Why is this covenant better? It is because it is fool proof, tamper proof, being made of God in Christ on our behalf. Neither did we make it, nor can we break it. It is finished in Christ. He is indeed our High Priest, but He is both Priest and the Sacrifice- the Lamb of God. He is the Firstfruit, the Firstborn from the dead, and of every creature. He is our Sanctifier, the First Part that sanctifies the whole. He is the Seed. He is  our Sabbath-rest. This was done before Adam was formed, which the Old Covenant foreshadowed until the fulness of time. There is an Adamic covenant but Christ is the last Adam, and all that God started in Adam ended in Christ's death. Christ redeemed us and justified us from all things. Nothing can be added thereto or taken therefrom.

It may seem like one is trying to unduely spiritualise things, but that is exactly what being circumcised in the heart sounded like to the Jew Christians- "....in the heart??! What does that mean? Excuse me!" (or Excise me!).And every student of the word would agree that Christ has justified us from all things (Acts 13:39), and with Him we have all things (Romans 8:32). We are blessed, and cannot be cursed. Not if we stand in Christ. So what do we do about giving? Some people act as if Christ liberates us from the law so that we can do as we please. That is false. Christ liberates us so that we can be free to serve him, The New Testament is not about faith alone or works alone, but faith that works, and real living faith- it works by love. which is the last part of this matter.

A Matter For The Conscience.

Thalidomide is a drug that was used in the late 1950s to treat morning sickness. In early pregnancy, several women experience the irrepressible urge to throw up. For some, it's a minor symptom felt while cleaning the mouth on waking. Others go on to vomit one, two or more times. A few experience intractable vomiting so bad that they need to be admitted in the hospital a few times in the first three months of pregnancy for suppression of nausea and replacement of fluid losses (rehydration).

For the latter group, thalidomide was a wonder drug. Take the medication, and see nightmare vanish from sight. If you have ever had any form of food poisoning, where you had to vomit repeatedly (and probably stool), retching violently...you might understand the need for a drug like thalidomide. There were other drugs that could suppress that discomfiting urge, but this one gained widespread use because it was very effective. It was also a good sedative.

Well, doctors do not prescribe that wonder drug anymore. A woman with morning sickness may just have to make do with Phernegan or Maxolone. In fact, thalidomide has since been banned, except for a select number of illnesses. You cannot get the medication over the counter today. You see, what was not known at the time was that the medication had a most alarming and distressing side effect, on the unborn child.

Thalidomide is a teratogen. It harms unborn babies by disrupting their growth. The incidence of babies with short arms was noticed to suddenly increase. Some were born without arms- as though the hands were joined directly to the body. Blindness, deafness, and other bodily disfigurements were caused by thalidomide. Over 20,000 babies were affected. The number of stillbirths and miscarriages and unrecorded cases are not known. It took several years to trace the increased incidence to the advent of the antiemetic- thalidomide, and the drug was immediately withdrawn. Nearly 5000 survivors of the thalidomide era are alive today.

The interesting thing about thalidomide is that it is racemic. The physical chemists know what this means: chiral carbon, stereoisomeric molecules- enantiomers. A racemic substance contains two identical units (molecules), that exist in equal amounts. The subunits are exact mirror images one of the other, much like identical twins or like the two palms of your hands. They are so alike that they are differentiated by how they reflect light. When plane polarised light falls upon thalidomide molecules, half reflect the rays to the right (like your right hand)- these half are the dextrorotatory molecules; and half reflect light rays to the left (like your left hand)- the laevorotatory ones.

Enough of chemistry. These two can be separated. If the chemists who did the early work on thalidomide knew this, they would have separated the two identical fractions, laevo- from dextro- and a keen follower would already have guessed why. One half was responsible for suppressing morning sickness i.e the good effect of the drug; and the other half that was the evil twin. The drug was not separated into pure enantiomeric forms or anything. The whole thing was banned. Maybe it is because either half retains the ability to interconvert in-vivo (inside the body), and laevo could 'twist' to become 'dextro' and vice versa; maybe not- the drug was discarded from obstetric pharmaceutics in entirety.

This is nonetheless, not about thalidomide; but about duality-something that seems to have one purpose or meaning, but when observed closely will be seen to be more complex-the other meanings or implications having or bringing consequences that had not been envisaged. The fact that thalidomide cures morning sickness today is not enough to compensate for disfigurement of children tomorrow. Bottomline: throw the drug away.

Another story is the 19th century American Civil War- Abraham Lincoln, the most renowned American president give or take a few, such as Benjamin Franklin- fought to preserve the Union, and he broke the backbone of slavery by the same stroke. The south was to secede from the northern states, to form a new nation. America said no. What was the major issue? Blacks were free in the north, but slaves in the south. The south would not give up slavery and wanted slavery expanded into free states; all the other reasons they drummed up to secede were balderdash. That was the main grouse. The Union consisting mainly of republican northern states refused to expand slavery into free states because they viewed it as untrue to the spirit of the Constitution. They knew that without expansion, slavery would suffer a gradual but sure extinction. When Lincoln, a republican, was elected in the fall of 1860- certain southern states, drawing their conviction from the Constitution, seceded and declared themselves a Confederate, separate from the Union.

The unity of a nation was at stake. It was an impossible situation- save the Union, by allowing the south to keep their slaves and expand their agricultural economy thereby as they see fit; or insist on abolishing slavery and risk losing the south. See, Lincoln hated slavery with a passion. Nonetheless, he was now president and had a duty to perform. Fighting to abolish slavery was a matter of conscience, and fighting to save the Union was a matter of presidential duty. An activist would face the one, a politician the other, but a great leader is answerable both to the law of the land and to conscience.

The majority could be wrong; the law is imperfect. Everyone ought to abide by it; however, one of the greatest demands of leadership is to recognize when conscience calls for a higher level of decision making than provided by the its blind counterpart. Men with open consciences have done more good in this world than the entire battery of the legislative and judiciary- which systems can only be made to deliver justice if this third invisible component is alive and uncorrupted in the occupants of such offices. Abraham Lincoln was a great leader, who saw the destiny of the United States as paramount: a great undivided nation where all men were free- and he held true to the test of duality, literally killing two birds with one stone.

Allow this illustration a little more stretch of paper: real politicians would not have belabored the issue of slavery, it was not a politically expedient stance. And real activists would not have bothered with the Union- they would have counted the obstinacy of the other party as good riddance to bad rubbish. Either party might have started out with noble intentions, but the difficulties and oppositions that would follow would streamline them to do what was either politically expedient or what appealed to conscience. The man on the seat at the time was prepared to take the unusual path. It was a difficult and many a time lonely path, filled with criticisms and misunderstandings and plain oppositions from allies and foes alike. People only returned to cheer him post civil-war and of course, post-mortem.

Nonetheless this is neither about the whys and wherefores of a foreign civil war, nor slavery, nor morning sickness. Rather, it is about Section 29 (4) of the Nigerian Constitution. On 16 July 2013, Nigerian senators gathered to consider recommendations made to them by a committee tasked with reviewing the country’s Constitution. One of the recommendations made by the Senate Committee on the Review of the Constitution concerned section 29 of the Constitution which refers to situations in which Nigerian citizens may renounce their citizenship. Section 29 stipulates that citizens must be of full age to do so. The section adds that “full age means the age of eighteen years and above” S.29 (4)(a), and specifies that “any woman who is married shall be deemed to be of full age” S.29(4)(b).

The Committee recommended to senators that section 29(4)(b) be deleted from the Constitution. In an initial vote a majority of senators voted in favour of deleting this section. This vote, however, was challenged by one Senator on the grounds that the deletion of the section 29(4)(b) discriminated against Muslim women, who are considered “of age” once they are married. The Committee's recommendation was put to vote for a second time and on this occasion it did not receive two thirds of the votes required by the Constitution to make a change to the same. The issue caused a stir in the nation, widespread criticism from various quarters.

Those who read laws, make laws and modify laws keep pointing out that the senators did not vote to legalise child marriage in Nigeria. The clause in question has been part of the Constitution since 1979, and its scope has always been limited to the question of renunciation of citizenship. The law seeks to give married girls a certain liberty. Some thought it was an unnecessary addition to the body of written provisions, that it should be removed; and it was. One senator spoke up, saying married females less than 18 ought to be given specific mention, adding that his religion had a provisional niche that recruited such citizens. The issue was revisited, and 29(4) was left in place- for now.

We have females who are underaged by the general (constitutional) definition of 18 years, but who are married, and have no more the status conferred upon the underaged- therefore the Constitution here refers to them as 1.of full age and 2.able to renounce their citizenship (as can other full aged nationals). Such girls are specifically allowed to retain such rights as to renounce citizenship. And that is in itself a good thing. Period. It does not refer to unmarried girls who are in a culture that betroths them. Rather, it refers to the said category of citizens, and seeks to mention their assess to certain rights specifically.

Why therefore has the child,not bride campaign begun in earnest? Is there smoke without fire? The senators' decision to retain the clause, particularly in view of the arguments that convinced them to do so, has been considered by many as an implicit legitimization of child marriage. Now, behold the duality: on the one hand is a political matter where the issue of citizenship is concerned, and on the other hand is a humane matter, where the issue of age is concerned. Is it not evident that where the law is finished, conscience is just stirring? Is it not clear that this provision is enantiomeric? And while it purports to cure one matter, there is a very real and deleterious side effect, that must be identified in the laboratory of leadership?

One may say that removing or leaving that clause has nothing to do with underage marriage, that the senators did not have the matter of age before them; and by law they would be right, but not by conscience. Taken superficially, the matter is finished politically- Taken in whole...a different and closely related matter is immediately evident. The contentious clause begins by saying 'married females shall be deemed of full age...' And conscience hears nothing further...that matter has to be dealt with, it is the very ?laevorotatory half of the 29(4), and the problematic twin. While it may cure the morning sickness of married girls less than 18 years, there is an implicit provision that causes much disfigurement and prevents youngsters from reaching out with full length limbs, in order to grasp destiny. The whole clause ought to be dealt with, separating one implication from the other does not solve the problem; for like our stereoisomers from the 1950s, both implications are interconvertible.

When, in the final analysis: the politics has long forgotten the matter, and activism has been doused by the passing of time, and distracted by more heated matters in the kiln of our national drama; it is my hope that we shall have true leaders, whose philosophies espouse a national identity with frames though built by law, has foundations of conscience, who thus have the temerity to control the forces that divide us, maintain the democratic principles that should be the bedrock of the nation, and achieve a victory for those unspoken for.

Jerusalem Syndrome

Jerusalem is an ancient city in Israel and of great importance to many people. It is considered to be holy by the Jews, especially the Western Wall, which is all that is left of the Temple destroyed by the Romans. Muslims come to the Dome of the Rock, the third holiest place in the Islam faith. The Via Dolorosa, a path where Jesus is said to have traveled carrying the cross, and the Holy Sepulcher are top on the list for Christian pilgrims.

There is the story of a middle-aged American who decided he was Samson, and that the Western Wall needed to be moved. He spent time in the gym and then came to Israel to move it. The Israeli authorities had him admitted in a psychiatric hospital. One ill-advised hospital personnel told him that he wasn't in fact Samson. "Samson" smashed through a window and escaped the hospital. However, a nurse found him at the bus stop and praised his superhuman strength. Then he stared to cooperate.

One man got into trouble with a hotel because he had received instructions to prepare the last supper. A woman sobbed at the altar of Golgotha hours everyday, for the death of her son Jesus. Another invited everyone for her son- Jesus's birthday. Israeli police come across several John the Baptists running around in animal skins trying to baptize people!

Well, if you decide to visit the Holy City, be well apprised of a certain condition that affects about 100 tourists per annum. It is called the Jerusalem Syndrome and was first described in the 1930s by an Israeli psychiatrist by the name Heinz Hermon. Sufferers tend to believe they are some old time biblical character sent to do something in Jerusalem. Jesus, Moses, King David, Elijah, the Virgin Mary, and at least one Mary Magdalene, among others have been recorded.

The followers of major religions: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, and from different backgrounds are affected, the majority being North Americans of protestant Christian orientation in their 20s or 30s. Men have a slightly higher percentage. Unmarried folks are more affected. Many tourists and pilgrims have ideas and funny thoughts that neither cause disturbance nor rise to the level of the so-called syndrome, for which there are recognized stages:

STAGE 1-The afflicted tourist becomes agitated, nervous and tense.

STAGE 2-The person declares a desire to split away from his or her group and tour Jerusalem alone.

STAGE 3-The individual has the need to be clean and pure and will obsess about bathing and cutting fingernails and toenails.

STAGE 4-The person prepares a long, white, ankle-length, toga-like gown, often using a hotel bed sheet.

STAGE 5-The person feels the need to shout or sing psalms, verses from the Bible or religious hymns.

STAGE 6-The person marches to one of Jerusalem's holiest places, often along the Via Dolorosa or near the Western Wall.

STAGE 7-The psychotic traveler delivers a sermon at the holy place- usually a plea to others to adopt a more simple and morally chaste way of life.

It has been debated as to whether it is a distinct form of psychosis or a re-expression of previously existing mental illness. Most of the people who have experienced the Jerusalem Syndrome like "Samson" above, had a pre-existing mental condition, made worse by the peculiar historic and religious ambiance of the city. A small group, and by far the more interesting, comprises those known to be previously mentally balanced, with no psychiatric history.

A typical episode is said to last for five to seven days. Cases run from people who start preaching in the streets of the city to more bizarre behaviour. Doctors don't tell "King David" that he isn't King David -- it doesn't help to invalidate the patient's notion of himself and his mission. Most do not require any form of treatment. They just need to be taken out of the city and back to their families. Once the people are out of Jerusalem and around their families and people who know them, they return to normal. They walk right back into their lives, and not a trace of mental illness seems to follow them.

There are no adequate studies to prove the syndrome proper (that is in those who have no pre-existing condition). They are reluctant to fill out surveys and would generally prefer to go on living their lives as if the incident never happened.Some have to be observed closely for dangerous tendencies in trying to fulfill some end-time prophecy or the other. About about 40 percent are deemed in need of admission, tranquilizers, and mild anti-psychotic medications.

Therefore, on your first or next visit to that great city- a friend or family member who starts withdrawing from the group might probably be jet-lagged or down with the flu. However, keep a high index of suspicion and observe for de novo agitation or tension. It has been said that once they get to the bed sheet stage, there's no stopping them.

That having been said; it is possible to have a real spiritual epiphany, when one stands in the earthly Jerusalem and especially in those places where the Lord is said fulfilled the salvation of God for all of mankind. If your mind and heart happen to be overrun beyond this innocuous emotional experience- simply call to mind what is written in the scriptures in Galatians 4:22-25 and Hebrews 12:18-24 or read Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and gain spiritual knowledge, so that no matter how high the shadow towers, you will not slip from the grasp of the Substance.

P.S. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association is like a dictionary that provides a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders. It is used or relied upon by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, the legal system, and policy makers in America and around the world. The current version, published on May 18, 2013, is the DSM-5 (fifth edition). Jerusalem Syndrome is not listed in the DSM IV or the DSM 5.