KUFUOR AND RAWLINGS: SWORDS AND SAINTS

Sunday, September 25, 2011 Dr. Frank Robert Silverson

Some events that transpired this week may potentially shape the political landscape of our motherland Ghana, and I would like to use this platform to contribute my thoughts on them. Before moving on to the main issue of interest, I would like to acknowledge all those following my writings and getting in touch. You all deserve a special mention, particularly Madam Esther Quaye of BoG on your imminent retirement on 2nd October, 2011.
What we witnessed on Wednesday, 21st September, 2011 at the University of Ghana during ex-president Kufuor’s foundation launch is indeed a laudable achievement. This piece assumes prior knowledge of that event and affords me the opportunity to give my personal opinion while drawing on possible repercussions for a wider spectrum of events.
Thomas Merton sets us off with a rather grave thought. He observes that: “Peace demands the most heroic labour and the most difficult sacrifice. It demands greater heroism than war. It demands greater fidelity to the truth and a much more perfect purity of conscience.” If anything is worth noting, it is that Merton reminds us that peace is never served on a silver platter considering the values enounced and attributes expected.
With some stories seeking to dampen the euphoria earlier generated by this ceremony of such poignant interest, I shall seek to concentrate my efforts on what was witnessed by all and sundry and astutely steer clear of any conjecture. My cardinal motivation remains that a seed has been sown and we have the choice to either dig it out or nurture it for growth and our own future benefit.
Well, so what is all the beef about, some may ask? Consider this statement from ex-President Kufuor: “…I am happy to see you, my predecessor in office, former president Jerry John Rawlings.” Was that uttered by Mr. Kufuor? Sure it was...This leads to my real thoughts for this piece: Swords and Saints.
A popular use of the word sword is to describe a weapon of various forms but consisting typically of a long, straight or slightly curved blade, sharp-edged on one or both sides, with one end pointed and the other fixed in a hilt or handle. Swords have also been used to represent military power, punitive justice, and authority. Furthermore, the sword embraces a cause of death or destruction. My focus here, though, remains the latter and also a less familiar representation of the word sword which defines it as symbolising war, combat, slaughter or violence. For the purpose of clarity, this article embodies the idea of sword as depicting death or a destruction agent.
In this modern age where modernity appears to be overshadowing barbarism to a point, no weapon does more damage than the mouth. Frankly, some mouths have gained the reputation of causing untold distress. Have you realised that truly some have mouths like swords?
In contrast, the word saint refers to any of certain persons of exceptional holiness of life, formally recognized as such by the Christian Church, especially by canonization. It may also be used to depict a person of great holiness, virtue, or benevolence. Furthermore, it can be used to represent a founder, sponsor, or patron, as of a movement or organization. This article embraces the notion of a saint depicting a person of virtue (a good or admirable quality or property).
Rawlings and Kufuor have been at swords' points for a while. This is firmly documented in the minds of many. It is not far-fetched to find evidence of them being fierce critics of each other. Without resorting to leaked evidence for corroboration of these two political giants crossing swords all this while, it remains no news to the ordinary man on the street that these two are not bosom buddies.
What is of striking significance though is that, Mr. Kufuor exercised wisdom by inviting Mr. Rawlings to his ‘private’ ceremony. Surprisingly, Mr. Rawlings honoured the invitation. This draws on King Solomon’s sagacity when he says: “A man's wisdom gives him patience; it is to his glory to overlook an offense”, [Proverbs 19:11 NIV].
Judging from the reaction of many to this story, it is understandable to believe that many did not expect to see those two sharing the same stage, and even more significantly, for the launch of Kufuor’s foundation. The story would have been different if this was a national ceremony. What a sight to see two fierce opponents joining hands together for a worthwhile project. They have demonstrated that they really have hearts of saints. However, do we expect to see them playing golf at Achimota soon? Probably not! Do we expect them to continue to exhibit mutual respect for each other, absolutely yes!
There are critics who may construe Wednesday’s action as a form of deception to mask deep-rooted issues. Dare I say that these critics were not taken in by such a laudable event? Such naysayers would argue that this was only to garner more or much needed political capital to remain relevant having found one’s feet on shifting sands. However, I am inclined to believe that the vast majority of Ghanaians would perceive events in a different light. They are more likely to see this event as a budding sign of political maturity and hence maintain a cautious optimism that this is not a nine days’ wonder.
Nevertheless, there remains a valid debate about whether we should dwell on the past or simply move on. One school of thought prefers to dwell on the past and argues about the rights and wrongs of yesterday’s actions. Martin Luther King, Jr. provides a powerful thought on which their argument may be deemed plausible. He argues that: “The past is prophetic in that it asserts loudly that wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows.” Such may also make reference to the ancient Roman religion and mythological god Janus who has two heads facing opposite directions. To this school, there is the need to look back before moving forward.
In sharp contrast though, others may argue very differently, believing that, “the distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion”, as suggested by Albert Einstein. They believe that one cannot effectively run a race whilst always looking backwards and would therefore subscribe to the view that this event is the dawn of a new day in history.  
Whichever view we adopt, as Oscar Wilde observed: “Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.” We can decide to dig out the issues of yesterday or accept the events of today as a signpost to future occurrences. Everybody has a choice to make and we need to exercise caution if we are to learn from Maya Angelou who notes that: “Prejudice is a burden that confuses the past, threatens the future and renders the present inaccessible.”
Today, political parties continue to cross swords, albeit verbally. Unfortunately, we observe that there are some that unabashedly ply the trade of insults, casting aspersions on rivals and lacing their speech with billingsgate. They may have a lot to learn from the new found Kufuor-Rawlings ‘fraternity’. Such people detract attention from discussing the real issues of value that would advance our cause as a nation.
Aside from political parties, some tribes in the country continue to cross swords. The animosity and hatred displayed by some tribes towards others is reprehensible and utterly execrable at worst. The question to ask is whether we are all not Ghanaians. Indeed, tribalism has adversely affected the progress of many a nation leaving the ashes of regret as its invisible remnant and backwardness as its palpable bequest.
On a personal level, how many times have we used our mouths to our own destruction and caused the death of bonds of friendship? Yesterday, we may have crossed swords, and although Oscar Wilde may be right in arguing that: “No man is rich enough to buy back his past”, I take the view that today, we have an opportunity to exhibit the signs of sainthood. We may come from different backgrounds with different professions, young or old, rich or poor, literate or illiterate, strong or frail, believing or unbelieving, partisan or non-partisan, southerner or northerner, yet we are one people; Ghanaians!!!
What a great example the two ex-presidents have shown for all to emulate. Let us set an example for Africa at large and show the world that we are enlightened by shedding off that old image of political barbarism and ethnocentrism and embracing the virtues of sainthood.
Probably by the actions of our two former leaders, we should consider extending the Founders’ Day to Founders’ and Presidents’ Day, where we celebrate not just our founders but all past leaders and presidents, dead or living, who have contributed to the development of the nation in one way or the other. Although I revere the dead very much, I also subscribe to the view that my lot today, is mostly influenced by the living.
I shall conclude this piece by referring to some lines in the last paragraph of Abraham Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural Address (March 4, 1861) which was partly quoted by President Obama (during his election victory speech in 2008). This should hopefully offer some words of wisdom. It reads: “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.”

I shall return with: IN GHANA I TRUST.
God bless our homeland Ghana...Let the black star shine out to the whole world.
 Dr. Frank Robert Silverson
Email: frsilverson@yahoo.com



CHURCH GIVING – COMPULSION OR CHOICE

Saturday, September 17, 2011 Dr. Frank Robert Silverson

Church giving remains a dividing issue amongst the believing and unbelieving. A number of people have their own entrenched views on the subject matter. I shall use this platform to attempt a scrutiny of the matter from an objective position.
Critics may advocate that I refrain from discussing subjects like these so as not to equip detractors of the faith with supportive arguments. However, I disagree with this view on the grounds that such subjects deserve attention, particularly if both sides are given a fair hearing. Hopefully, the arguments will act as a prelude to changing public opinion.

Considering the extreme views on the subject matter, I am quick to admit that this article would be in no position to address all of such views. The premise here remains whether church giving is an act of compulsion or one of choice. Most people’s views on the subject have vacillated in the past on whether it is a form of ‘compulsion’ or one of ‘choice’.
Proponents of the view that church giving is by choice, have grounds to argue as such. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 9:6-7 KJV that: “6But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. 7Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver”. From the preceding text, one can see a clear choice for people to sow sparing or bountifully with both choices having attendant results. Paul goes further to argue that giving has to be according to one’s freewill. It is up to you to purpose what you wish to give. Being rightly a choice, there should be no grudges in one’s willingness to give. Right from creation, God has given human beings a choice and church giving would be expected to form part of these choices.
Another notable portion of scripture can be found in 2 Samuel 24:24 KJV: “And the king said unto Araunah, Nay; but I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the LORD my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver” [Repeated in 1 Chronicles 21:24]. In these scriptures, David had a choice to give to God and he chose the option of giving something valuable and precious. There was no compulsion of any kind, just freewill giving.
Further argument of why church giving may be perceived as being a choice is provided by Proverbs 11:24 NIV which declares that: “One person gives freely, yet gains even more; another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty”. Additionally, Exodus 35:29 NIV makes an interesting observation. It records that: “All the Israelite men and women who were willing brought to the LORD freewill offerings for all the work the LORD through Moses had commanded them to do”. It is worth pointing out that although they had been commanded by God to give, this was a freewill offering. Notice also that those who were willing were those that gave, further corroborating the view that they had a choice. [See also 2 Corinthians 8:3-4 and Exodus 25:1-2].
If the argument can be sustained that church giving is a choice, then one wonders why many are made to feel that they are under a form of compulsion to give at all cost? The use of compulsion in this article is one that embodies the act of compelling, constraint or coercion to do something which may be deemed as contrary to one's will.
For some, Paul writing in Galatians 6:6 AMP that: “Let him who receives instruction in the Word [of God] share all good things with his teacher [contributing to his support]”, suggests that one is required to give for the upkeep of his teacher as well as the church. This should hopefully cater for the needs of the church to ensure that those that are labouring in the Lord’s vineyard are adequately rewarded for their efforts here on earth. Having said this, others argue that the strategies adopted to collect money in church at times leads one to doubt whether they really have any choice as far as giving is concerned. For some, churches focus too much on giving, leading to some members claiming to suffer from what can be termed ‘giving-fatigue’. Scriptures which have been used to assuage such ‘malady’ include Galatians 6:9 NIV: “Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.” [Shorter version, 2 Thessalonians 3:13 KJV: But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing].
A valid question that may be asked is whether it is because of the blessings that members would receive from giving or the personal enrichment of those that compel them, which explains why giving is very much drummed up in some churches. Moreover, this has led to a difficulty in differentiating genuine passion for the flock’s prosperity from the desperation of those that want to line their own pockets. The motivation for such ‘drum-up’ can be best described as being abstruse.
To avoid Paul and his associates sending some members into ‘giving-fatigue’ , they worked with their own hands leading him to write in 1 Thessalonians 2:9 NIV that: “Surely you remember, brothers and sisters, our toil and hardship; we worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone while we preached the gospel of God to you”. However, in today’s world, it would be a demonstration of ignorance to make a requisition of all ministers to work. The ministry as Paul puts it is truly a noble calling (see 1Timothy 3:1).
The main threat that some ministers of the gospel perceive as being an obstacle to giving appears to be fear. People are sometimes made to feel that fear is what has made them ‘stingy’ and that if they can overcome this fear, they can give any amount. A typical session to stimulate giving would therefore be targeted at dealing with fear issues.
One may also find him/herself in services where they are being compelled to give either for a prophetic word or just to fit in. It has almost become a form of competition or a show off. If one refuses to swim with the tide, they risk being stereotyped. There is pressure to keep up appearances, even in church. It so happens that pledges are always an option for the congregation. Unsurprisingly, a number of these pledges go without being redeemed.
Stories abound of how some ministers promise the amount of money they would raise whiles negotiating how much they would charge for a ministry appointment. This places pressure on them to say the right things to ensure they hit their target. How reprehensible for members to be wheedled into parting away with money so as to enable ministers to get a good percentage for their ‘effort’.
Even today, people are required to sow a seed before they see a man of God. It has almost become a form of ‘exchange’, where you give money for the ministration of the anointing. This has been justified with scripture from what Saul said to his servant in 1 Samuel 9:6-8 KJV: “6And he said unto him, Behold now, there is in this city a man of God, and he is an honourable man; all that he saith cometh surely to pass: now let us go thither; peradventure he can shew us our way that we should go. 7Then said Saul to his servant, But, behold, if we go, what shall we bring the man?...8And the servant answered Saul again, and said, Behold, I have here at hand the fourth part of a shekel of silver: that will I give to the man of God, to tell us our way.” The issue though remains that should this be made a pre-requisite for such consultations, there could be a potential exclusion of the have-nots.
With the collapse of some well-known banks and the financial meltdown, many church members do not trust banks, the news media or any government. Believe it or not, people would always want to find somebody or something to put their trust in. This makes some people an easy prey for wolves in sheep clothing to promise heaven on earth. The only requisition is for the use of their ‘faith’ embodied by how large a seed they can sow. It is sad that believers who should be wary of such predators have rather abashedly provided the environment for them to peddle their flagrant obsession. In 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, Paul warns undeniably about false apostles, observing that they are only imitating Satan himself. How depressing to know that such are still having a field day in today’s world, laughing all the way to the bank.
Further, some people have a convoluted notion that they can please God by their actions. Throughout history, people have tried to ‘buy’ God’s approval. Considering a popular translation of Karl Marx’s best-known quotation to the effect that religion is the opium of the masses, one can argue that if that is true, then nothing in religion works better than church giving. Clearly, some believers have forgotten about Hebrews 10:6 and Psalm 51:16, and ‘give’ to appease God for their actions. Unsurprisingly, today, people in the secular world also give to charity as a ‘guilt-silencer’. It remains unclear who is influencing the other.
It may well be that ministers of the gospel need to evaluate the strategies that they use when asking people to give. They may do well by avoiding compulsion manifested by placing undue pressure on the flock, while allowing them to exercise their God-given right of choice.
I shall return with Politicians – Machiavellians or Messiahs.

Dr. Frank Robert Silverson
Email: frsilverson@yahoo.com





THE REWARD FOR RISK – IS KWEKU ADOBOLI A PATSY?

Saturday, September 17, 2011 Dr. Frank Robert Silverson

Following the issues of the past week, one story catches my eye. As always, I shall attempt to relate it to the wider issues of life. Hopefully, I can draw some lessons that could help avoid the repetition of such. I am very mindful of the fact that the case of Kweku Adoboli is in its infancy and as such, I shall exercise much care in what I write. There are consequences for throwing caution to the wind and I shall do well to avoid such. After all, although Kweku has been charged, he has not been proven guilty and we would do well to avoid hastily pre-empting the outcome until he has been given a fair trial, which we pray he will.


In reflecting on this case, I cannot help but to ask questions that most people would be reasonably expected to ask when an issue like this comes to the fore. One may believe that there are some who would adopt a firm stance on a subject like this even when they do not have the full facts. In various locations, this subject would be discussed at length, and prudence suggests that people avoid jumping to conclusions until judgment is passed. To presume that being charged with an offence implies guilt is a classic miscarriage of justice. When stories like these break, it is very easy for most people to jump unto the bandwagon and act as moralist, screaming and hurling insults at the accused without a critical analysis of the subject in question. That is almost akin to kicking a man when he is down and writhing in pain.
Before we attempt to crucify the accused, we need to consider if he truly acted alone and how the bank’s internal controls and risk management procedures allowed a loss of such staggering proportions. Did he authorise every trade that he made by reason of self-regulation? Were there no audit trails or even trade records to be reviewed on a daily basis? Did the auditors not effectively carry out any compliance and substantive testing? Did the lure of the enormous bonuses awarded to the risk-takers in the market contribute in any way? Did the recent credit crisis not leave any positive footprints on the investment banking sector? Have we not learnt to institute the right controls after the case of Nick Leeson of the defunct Barrings Bank and that of Jerome Kerviel, the Societe General trader? The questions are uncountable and we wait with bated breath for answers to these and more. For now, it will serve us well to avoid speculation, the lynchpin on which the markets either thrive or fall on.
Some of the practices that go on in the City are not for the faint-hearted. The sophistication of strategies can only be termed as being abstruse to the wider public. In my previous article (Gambling – Addiction or Choice), I dealt extensively with the subject of gambling. What goes on in the City may be perceived as being a more acceptable form of gambling. How do you argue that activities like spread betting do not constitute gambling? Stripping the complex financial contracts of their cover, one may discover that at their very root is the notion of gambling, albeit in a much more sophisticated form or manner.
A further question that may be asked is how much profit Kweku may have made for the bank in the past under similar circumstances. For him to occupy the position he did suggests that he knew his onions. He must have been a bright chap by all standards. Had he began to assume an air of invincibility?
A contentious argument would be whether or not Kweku has been made a patsy i.e. the very idea that he is a person on whom the blame for something falls, in plain words, a scapegoat. The practice of taking risk for return is enshrined in the subject of finance and the correlation between the level of risk and the level of return has been taught in many a finance class. If this idea did not exist, it would be hard to see how investment bankers could be paid such salaries and bonuses that the average worker could only hallucinate about. Such practices now termed ‘casino’ banking have been going on for ages, and the very idea has become a cultural or institutional ‘thing’.
The highly debatable performance-based reward systems, including the bonuses in place, also deserve a mention. One school believes that workers should be rewarded based on performance. Amongst other reasons, they argue that this is a form of motivation for an employee to exceed set targets. They further state that this should reduce shirking on the job. On the contrary, another school vigorously posits that a performance-related reward system should be done away with. To this group, remuneration packages are based on what employees are expected to do and therefore the need for further remuneration need not arise. In their view, such performance-related reward systems amount to a double reward structure. There are no right or wrong answers and both schools of thought have firm arguments to corroborate their position.
For the case in question, one group of people would adopt a sympathetic view to the unfolding events. On the contrary, another group will reject such a position. For the former group, the view may be that Adoboli is only a patsy who works in an environment where risk-taking is an accepted culture, albeit ‘regulated’. They also view the performance-related system as contributing to this situation. The astronomical bonuses that one could make may almost be seen as being a form of temptation necessitating the incessant pushing of the boundaries. After all, the rich have not yet found a way to being satisfied with their wealth. More is certainly preferred to less. That said, some would argue against such a position, taking the view that if you take risk and succeed, the rewards accrue to you, therefore when things go wrong, you should bear the full brunt of the law. They note that people are inherently greedy, selfish and self-centred and would take risk to benefit them and when it goes awry attempt to court public sympathy.
Others debate this issue by reasoning that Kweku did not lose money because he was doing something wrong, rather that he was doing something wrong because he lost money. This suggests the idea of the end justifying the means. For some, the ‘alleged’ loss would have turned into a profit for others whose bank and shareholders will not care where that money came from.
To Kweku Adoboli’s credit though, he came out and admitted what he had done, if the stories in the media are to be relied upon. We have been told that the bank's monitoring systems had not picked up the losses and also that he is helping police with the investigations, which should help with his case. However, there are repercussions for the case in question. It is hard to justify whether anyone going through the legal systems leaves better off and I am yet to find a court that has fully restored a person’s reputation, no matter how hard they tried. Being tried both by the media and the court, it remains a miracle for one to emerge with his reputation intact.
One cannot help but to broaden the focus on an issue like this. What we fail to realise though, is that such issues may only be a wake-up call for us. It may be an opportunity for us to re-examine our own lives and see where we also need to make amends. From a broader perspective, such stories only serve to highlight the real state of our society. Today, we have become so materialistic and in search of so much pleasure, achievement and wealth that we end up grasping none. Many do anything they can to get what they want, a reflection of the pressure on people to keep up appearances. We have a need to be counted and appear to fit in. It is just a reflection of the society that we have created and live in.
Many times when one takes such risks and succeed, they are treated as a hero, yet when they fail, they become the villain.  This is similar to these bankers, who, when they make huge profits are seen as clever and competent. Should they fail, they are perceived as irresponsible rogue traders. One would ask what the bank would have done with him if all those losses were profitable trades. Would they have called the police? Your guess is as good as mine. I doubt if you have heard that somebody was arrested for making profit. What is acceptable risk is debateable. The question that we are all faced with is where one needs to draw the line. This requires much thought from us as a society.
The sad thing about history though, is that it repeats itself. As to whether this would be the last or whether any changes would occur after this episode and whether Kweku Adoboli would be perceived as a real patsy or not...it remains anybody’s guess.

Dr. Frank Robert Silverson
Email: frsilverson@yahoo.com




CHURCHES: COMMERCE OR COMPASSION?

Monday, September 12, 2011 Dr. Frank Robert Silverson

zooverano  / pixabay

 Lenny Bruce provides a thought-provoking statement that acts as a precursor to the discourse in this article. He observes that: “Everyday, people are straying away from the church and going back to God.”
This is a somewhat debatable statement depending on your school of thought. In poring over this quote though, one may reasonably argue that people may not necessarily be leaving the church physically, but emotionally detaching themselves from traditions amongst others, and seeking a deeper personal relationship with God. Further thought on this issue snowballs to me asking myself the question of whether the churches of today are for commerce, compassion or a hodgepodge derivative of both.
This issue seems to polarise opinion from both the saved and the unsaved and I may be accused of stirring up “a hornet’s nest” by generating such a debate. Notwithstanding what my critics advocate, I firmly remain unperturbed in my belief of the validity of the subject matter. My aim is not to equip critics of churches with ammunition to thwack every church but to seek a reassessment of our priorities which may have been misplaced. The realisation that I am in no popularity contest gives me grounds for neutrality.
It is reasonable to believe that my audience may have had their own opinions before discovering this article. However, my suggestion is for readers to peruse my position through the objectivity lens, if possible, to ensure a relation to the arguments made.
James 1:27 KJV sets the ball rolling by averring that: “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” From this passage, one can argue that in God’s original frame of events, churches (as an assembly propagating the religion of Christianity) are supposed to be towing the line of demonstrating compassion to a dying world. An insightful definition of compassion I have adopted is that; it is love in action. The epitome of such an attribute remains our Lord Jesus Christ.
 A classic case of such demonstration can be found in Luke 9:12-13. Jesus showed that He was not just interested in the spiritual well-being of His followers. Contrary to what the disciples were seeking, Jesus commanded them to feed the multitude. Today, there are ministries that are doing just what Jesus asked of His disciples. Such ministries truly deserve commendation and I am inclined to the belief of you knowing one or two of such.
Further, it is laudable and refreshing to note that in this dying world, there are churches that are embodying the love of God in action. At present, a number of them are positively contributing to the development of their communities and helping in the transformation of lives. Unfortunately, such good works may not get the publicity that it deserves as corroborated by the popular saying that good works are written on water. I bow my hat to all churches that are really showing the ‘compassion’ that is expected of them.
In sharp contrast to the above, this claim cannot be made by all churches. To make matters worse, Ecclesiastes rightly points out that: “...dead flies give perfume a bad smell...” [Ecclesiastes 10:1NIV]. This appears to be the situation with some churches focusing more on commerce than compassion if at all.
The use of commerce in this article elucidates the notion of trade i.e. the peddling of the gospel for personal gain. There appears to be a subtle avarice in some ministers of the gospel which percolates to the surface in a palpable display of unquenchable penchant for opulence, whiles the flock remain destitute.
Today, we see churches that are more concerned about style rather than substance. Such adopt all sorts of means, either overt or covert, to achieve their questionable objectives and would stop at nothing to obtain their filthy lucre.
In the days of Paul, the commercialisation of the gospel was ongoing leading him to retort that: “It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so out of love...The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely...”[Philippians 1:15-17 NIV].
It is amazing the lengths that some churches go to commercialise the gospel. Increasing global development has also bequeathed some churches with more sophistication in their approach. The result has been the techniques that aid their ability to turn their churches into ‘super-profitable’ business empires that even those in the secular world would be envious of. Perusing through some of the accounts of these churches is a real eye opener.
That said, it would be foolhardy though to suggest that churches should not accept any donations from their members. This would be against scripture as stated in Galatians 6:6 AMP: “Let him who receives instruction in the Word [of God] share all good things with his teacher [contributing to his support]”. Yet, such scriptures do not justify how far some ministers of the gospel go in turning their churches into commercial entities either in a brazen manner or in all subtlety.
It comes therefore as no surprise for Martin Luther to comment that: “For where God built a church, there the devil would also build a chapel.” This notion evokes the idea that some ministers of the gospel started out with God but have lost their way, just like Paul said of Demas in 2 Timothy 4:10 KJV: “For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica...”
L. Ron Hubbard was right about one thing: “If you want to get rich, you start a religion”. One may further add that perhaps you could consider the option of adapting or modifying an existing one. This is what makes the ‘Jesus Industry’ such a lucrative one for many to consider. The convulsion of scripture is the best weapon adopted by such charlatans to peddle their charade. Their gammon is many at times pushed through by their right to claim divine exemption from criticism. For most members, you do not have the right to question the activities of such as they are the closest thing to God. It is not surprising that St. Thomas Aquinas observed: “Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide will believe whatever the Church teaches”.
It is quite commonplace to discover the abuse of 1 Chronicles 16:22 and Psalm 105:15 KJV which reads “...Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.” This scripture is often used by some of these so-called anointed servants of God to dispel reasonable arguments from any thinking souls. How sad that scripture is used to silence any dissenting views.
Considering the modus operandi adopted by some ministers in running their churches, Samuel Butler may be vindicated when he says that: “Christ and The Church - If he were to apply for a divorce on the grounds of cruelty, adultery and desertion, he would probably get one.”
There is a need for all minister of the gospel to re-assess their priorities and take the needed action as required. It is not too late to make the necessary amendments. The question they should ask is whether they are in it to show compassion or for profit motives. We as church members should also realise that we have a role to play. For those of us who refuse to act, we may be deemed as guilty as those who fan the ‘profiteering’ of such ministries. As to whether this clarion call is heeded and we begin to see some changes or not, one can only hope in anticipation with bated breath.
Paul admonishes in Romans 13:7 KJV that: “Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”
To all those truly running your churches on grounds of ‘compassion’, keep your good work up, always remembering 1 Corinthians 15:58 GNT “So then, my dear friends, stand firm and steady. Keep busy always in your work for the Lord, since you know that nothing you do in the Lord's service is ever useless.” On the contrary, for those only interested in commerce, your fate has already been predicted from Matthew 7:21-23 KJV: “...And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
I shall return with my take on Church Giving: Compulsion or Choice. As always, comments are welcome for a healthy discourse.

Dr. Frank Robert Silverson



THE AKUFO-ADDO SAGA: THE ACCUSER AND THE ACCUSED

Friday, September 09, 2011 Dr. Frank Robert Silverson


The tranches of revelation being spurted out by Wikileaks make interesting reading. Today, I present my take on one issue that refuses to go away. In writing this piece I shall attempt to aspire for the elusive standard of pragmatic neutrality in view of the diverse readership.

Perusing the comments left by readers on numerous subjects, one may quite easily discern their political persuasion or ethnic connection without the need for any precognition attributes. What I advocate though is that readers adopt the view of patriotism devoid of political leanings to consider the issues I intend to raise.
Edward Kennedy once said: “Frankly, I don't mind not being President. I just mind that someone else is.” I am writing this article in view of who could become president in 2012. The magnitude of the issue thus justifies the time and effort invested.
The saga of the ‘alleged’ drug use of Akufo-Addo and whether or not it can be substantiated is worth discussing. In poring over this issue, one is likely to discover that there are more deep rooted issues than have percolated to the surface at present. The actions of the accused and his accusers are similar to a dramatisation in a theatre. The question one may ask is whether the accused’s actions are the quintessence of sagacity or the apotheosis of inanity.
Considering that these allegations have been levelled, the accused has the option of coming out and boldly accepting or refuting the claims, or shutting up shop on the matter.
What makes this issue of dramatic appeal is that under different circumstances, the accusers would have submitted concrete evidence to corroborate their assertions. From newspaper publications, we now have Wikileaks fanning the flames further. In view of the publicised intentions of the accused’s legal team to take local newspapers to court, it is quite amusing where that legal team would take Wikileaks.
In examining the options open to Akufo-Addo, I still wonder why this issue appears not to go away, if ever it would. I want to believe that the accused has chosen to remain silent for reasons best known to him. Such an option may have plausible grounds in the scheme of affairs to justify a choice like this.
As yet, no substantial evidence has been given by the accusers to convince the wider public of the veracity of their claims. They may serve as well if they could provide us with such conclusive evidence. Finding one’s self in politics or public office, there are bound to be all sorts of issues that would be raised inter alia lies, truths and half truths. It is not difficult in this age of free press for an editor to concoct a story that would damage the credibility of another. Libel cases have only followed as a prognosis of such. It could well be that a public official would have better use of his/her time than going to court to defend him/herself at the slightest rumour peddled. Many would doubt whether this issue of drug use though falls into that category. Is the NPP flag-bearer sending a message to the electorate that he values his time and would rather use it judiciously to capture the top job in the land than slug it out in court?
It could well be that Akufo-Addo is demonstrating what can be termed as a ‘tough- skinned’ approach and has not yet had his feathers ruffled enough and that is why he has remained reticent. However, this does not appear to be entirely the case in view of his legal team’s threats in July.
Considering that we have not heard the last of these Wikileaks exposé, I am sure more stories would emerge and it remains highly debatable whether loosely guarded information passed on in ‘confidence’ now made public, should form the grounds for conclusive argument.
In view of the fact that the accused himself has neither indubitably acquiesced nor denied the claims, one may ask whether this is the best option to take. The brouhaha created by this story suggests that this issue has to be put to bed once and for all.
Nana may consider coming out to clear the air if he is to take a leaf from President Obama’s trial by media. The controversy about Obama’s birth certificate was ignored or side-stepped when it first surfaced. However, as the conspiracy gained traction, the White House finally released the original birth certificate stating that the issue had become a sideshow.
What is obvious is that in today’s world, the electorate appear to be interested in every minute detail about those who lead them or foster ambitions of doing so, as in the case of Akufo-Addo.
When it comes to cross-examining those we hold to account, we usually adopt a sententious stance, as if we ourselves were the sacrosanct of men. It is amazing how we expect our politicians to aspire to levels of impeccable character standards that most of us would never attain in a million years. As if to portray the ersatz notion that politics is a ‘holy’ man’s job. However, we can unashamedly claim our right to such accountability measures and scrutiny by reason of our vote...our right to allow ourselves to be ruled by another. It so appears therefore that by such conferred suffrage, we are able to occupy such a position.
What Akufo-Addo should know therefore is that there is nothing like a private life for someone who wants to occupy the highest office in the land. Voters, in other words, ‘subjects’, would demand to know what they wish to know. Arguments about the rightness or wrongness of such are for another day.
There are credibility issues for failing to come out to clear the air. In the light of the high standards expected from leaders and the desire of the populace to hear from the horse’s own mouth on such an allegation, it is hard to argue how silence helps. It may so appear that people are concerned about how their lives would be improved by the person who leads them and would rather focus on such. In spite of that, it remains hard to argue how an air of suspicion about the proposed leader’s credibility would help him garner the votes needed to realise his ambition. One school of thought sticks obdurately to the belief that if you are accused ‘falsely’, you must come out and clear your name. According to this school, failure to do so only creates grounds for more suspicion to fructify.
The debate would rage on all day, and expect the position of some to vacillate from ‘coming out’ or shutting up shop. William O. Douglas sums this position better by saying that: “...The audience that hissed yesterday may applaud today, even for the same performance.” Whatever action Akufo-Addo takes, there are consequences...good or bad. Time will construe his judgement and onward action as either the quintessence of sagacity or the apotheosis of inanity.
God bless our homeland Ghana!!!

Dr. Frank Robert Silverson
Email: frsilverson@yahoo.com


Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)