The Word of God, Controversies and The Gospel

The Word of God

Does God speak today?

People even Christians say He spoke through the prophets and nowadays he does not speaks that way but he speaks with us through his word, the Bible.

In theology school they teach each other to interpret the Bible, they study different religions and philosophies in the end most preachers coming out of come out having forgotten what its all about and even most come out believing there is no God and perform their duty of Preacher to ensure that the community lives in harmony with each other. Not bad, but in the end when someday somebody comes and says religion is useless these people will be number one to stand for that.

There are so many divisions among us these days Moslems, Jews, Christians, etc and among Christians their even more subsets of Christian communities each believing their way is right. Some even have their own Bible.

I went to the Bible Society the other day to looking for a certain tumbuka Bible (the one my grandfather translated). They did not have it(maybe because it was done by one person and they perceived it not to be good enough to an extent the bible society had no copy) . I asked them what it would take to reproduce it. I got insight how they do things there. They are theologians. They have studied Greek, Hebrew maybe, the languages the bible was written.

I have heard how my grandfather translated the Bible to Tumbuka. He had to go to secluded place not in contact with any human. When they bring him food, they would break a twig to notify him that they have brought the food. Maybe that is why Moses was alone before God for 40 days being given the Law. The way we understand things depends on what environment we have been, what we hear, see and feel. Being in contact with the world during translating the Bible is very fatal if we are doing it the fresh: as if translating a book. I asked them if they pray when translating. The answer shocked me: They said the word was already inspired when it was being given to the prophets who wrote it so they did not need to pray again to translate.

I noticed that they go to their respective churches in this period of translation and they read news papers, they get in contact with people like me. In fact, I found them translating when, I was talking to them. And what we discussed certainly influenced their translation. I believe and I pray for good. For in the end they saw the importance of depending on God even when translating.

Controversies

Why are they there? Why do we differ and fight over issues in the Bible? I now understood it comes from our canal minds. I was given a bible in which they wanted to prove that there are some bibles which are obviously incorrect. This was when I asked how the process goes from translation to printing to publishing. The Bible was the one the Jehovah Witnesses use. It was a passage in John 1 where it says "In the Beginning was the word. The word was with God. And the word was God". This Bible said "the word was a god."

It suddenly came to me somebody had said in the Greek version there were three words used for “God” on this very verse. What if the three words were supposed to be interpreted as:

“In the beginning was the word. The word was among the gods and the word a god.”

That separates Jesus personality being the Son and God being the Father and their relationship being one as a family. There are verses that talk about gods in heaven: The Psalm Jesus quoted( Psalms 82). And another Psalms quoted by Paul in Hebrews 10:5-7(Psalms 40:6-8). These verses show Jesus as some other personality other than God himself who speaks to the other gods in Heaven in Psalms 82 and also in Job 1.6.

And the oneness: Jesus also says if we obey God then we are one with Him and the Father but physically we are not one. Food for though. Am I bringing another controversy?

I thought probably men translating the Bible thought: gods? a god? Jesus, a god? So they imposed their own interpretation according to the way we have always understood it. So now John 1 came to be as it is. The Jehovah witness maybe having their own agenda (maybe to bring confusion not believing that what they are putting it the correct way) interpreted it this way to portray Jesus as a god as their particular source text said. And with this discrepancy now comes the question: who is right?

Our conversation went on. Most of the times I am prompted to open on the Bible, some passage stands out and it talks about the situation that I am in. This time I opened the Jehovah Witness Bible and came to a verse somewhere in Isaiah where it says "these people have forgotten their God" and something like "they are doing things with their own way". Silently, I prayed for God to confirm it if it is Him speaking since it is coming from a bible that is seen not to be truthful. (we had been arguing about my question whether they should pray when I came across this Isaiah passage). I had just finished praying this when I was being told they don't need to pray again when translating as the scripture was already inspired. Now to speak about the controversies!

We people have been given one command if not two: A new commandment I give unto you that you love one another as I have loved you. The other being Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul... In other words, Love God and Love your neighbor(Matthew 22:37-40). Pray for those you perceive as enemies. Do no harm to anyone even if they harm you. That’s the Law, the prophets, the sermon on the mountain, the gospels and the epistles. The Bible the word of God.

I was watching a Moslem Preaching on TV today that reminded me of all these things.

In todays churches we tend to overlook others who are not perceived to be believers

when we are in church. But when we go out of church they are our next door neighbors and we chat, we help each other out some life problems, we lend each other things because when we get out of church the message is not about who is a sinner and who is not. We protect each other from thieves. We go to each other's funerals to comfort each other. We love each other. It is not because we are of the same church but it is because we are neighbors. This is life. It is then better if God is in our lives than when He is at church.

There have been situations the church have rejected people because of their sins. But these rejected people are very dearly loved by their families and their friends. When they have died their families have cried for them. And even if these families have been faithful in the church, the church has most of the times shunned the funeral. And we could ask who needs the presence of the church at such a funeral. Is it the person who has dead or the parents who need to be comforted for the loved one they have lost?

When it comes to love I would rather be in the presence of my brother who is a sinner but helps me because I am his brother whether I have done wrong or not than the church who loves me only when I seem to be doing right (I could pretend anyway).

This family love, neighbor love, is what we need. This is what the word teaches. This is the word of God.

After all we are all sinners who are all going to heaven only because Jesus has paid the sacrifice for sins. And I believe if God is to make a choice among all sinners, He would chose those who loved their neighbors even though they did not know Him.( Romans 2:11-16; Matthew 12.7; Matthews 25:31-46) Since what pains God is the destruction of His creation and even more the hurting of another human being because of another(Cain and Abel: he punished Cain for Killing Abel but even then He put a mark on him that nobody kills him; The flood: He was hurt that the world was so sinful but in the end He vowed with himself that never again will he destroy all creation and men because their sins however sinful they might become. Genesis 6:5-8 & 8:21-22 ). When He dead on the cross it is said that Jesus went and preached to these people that they too might be saved at the end of the world.

In the Last days, it is said, the Spirit of God will teach the children of God about the will of God such that no one will need to teach another which is the way. It is said again, Jesus would ask the Father to send the Holy Spirit who will lead us into all truth. If we don't read the word but always depend on the interpretation of man we will always have controversies that divide us. Again if we read it without the guidance of the Holy Spirit we will always be in error as there are Bibles which have been interpreted with the canal mind. Still my comfort for such Bibles is that God works everything together for the good of all those who love Him. And also Some verse by Paul which says the Gospel cannot be bound by the chains of man.

The Gospel

The good news will always speak: That our sins have been paid for. That all of us are welcome before The Loving Father, however bad our sins might be. Even those who have backslidden and fear that they have sinned against the Holy Spirit (For this is the greatest/unforgivable sin). I would say, for I believe this is the way things are, have this hope:

If the prodigal son was accepted by his father who might not even have been a righteous man, how much more will the Father in Heaven, Loving and Righteous, accept us and loves us if we turn back to him. And Jesus the elder brother who gave his life that we might be saved?

And there is this mystery:

We say, “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”. If God is the Father, and Jesus the Son and Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit(overshadowing the virgin Mary). Who is the Holy Spirit? And is there love that is greater than the Mother's love?

My thought. Even if this might be wrong Hebrews 6:10-12 encourages us not to give up doing good and not lose our hope of being saved in the end. The persistent knocker gets help from an evil King how much more a loving Father? A humble and contrite Spirit God does not despise.

For I am convinced that nothing can separate us from the love of God. (Romans 8:31-39).

Can sin? While we were yet sinners Jesus died for us. Do we keep on sinning then? Hell, no! We are even ashamed of our sins why should we go back to it(somewhere in Romans)? Or we could say do you like falling down? If you keep on falling deliberately one day you will hurt yourself so much that you will not recover(It is better to fall accidentally and not to recover. It easy for people to feel sorry for you and help. It will take extra effort when you fall deliberately. Out of love they might still help you though but there in no guarantee).

The message is:

Take heart when you fall

Dust yourself up and go.

And again I must say it is not for us human beings to know who has fallen deliberately or not that is why we must always love even those who hurt us.

So then this is the word of God:

1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, your soul and your mind.
2. Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Its message is Love: Of God for us, of us for God, of us to our neighbors; God's comfort and healing for our hurts; To show us the way and to lead us to a place of rest at the end of it all.

Why Muluzu is Not Eligible to stand for Presidency - The Constitution

The conditions regarding the eligibility of a presidential candidate to contest in a general election are in Chapter VIII of The Constitution of Malawi in Section 80 subsections 6 and 7.
The arguments about Muluzi's eligibility that there is no law that bars him from standing for presidency come from their interpretation of Section subsection 6 and Section 83 subsection 3.

Section 80 subsection 6 says:

Notwithstanding any provision of this Constitution to the contrary, a person shall only be qualified for nomination for election as President or First Vice-President or for appointment as First Vice-President or Second Vice-President if that person-

1. is a citizen of Malawi by birth or descent; and
   
2. has attained the age of thirty-five years.
   

They interpret the statement "Notwithstanding any provision of this Constitution to the contrary" as "even if there is another provision of the constitution the bars him from being nominated" the person qualifies for nomination if he satisfies... 1 and 2 above

If this is the correct interpretation then we are not supposed to have section 80 subsection 7 which gives conditions of ineligibility as it becomes useless due to subsection 6.
Lets reread the subsection 6 again in paraphrase:

Regardless of any provision of the constitution a person shall only qualify for nomination of the if He is a Malawian Citizen by birth of descent and is 35 years old and above

And it should be interpreted as: if a person is not a Malawian Citizen or is younger than 35 years Old then there is no constitutional provision that qualifies him for the election as president or vice president.

In other words because I, Kondwani C. Hara, being a Malawian Citizen by birth and descent, but 25 years old, I am not eligible to stand for presidency this year nor will I be qualified in 2014 when I will be 30. And I don't have to seek another constitutional provision for me to qualify myself. However since in 2019 I will be 35 years old and turning 36 years old I will be qualified to stand.

This interpretation gives room for the person to be tested for eligibility using other provisions of the constitution. Like subsection 7 for example. And also Section 83 subsection 3 which disqualifies Muluzi as follows:

The President, the First Vice-President and the Second Vice-President may serve in their respective capacities a maximum of two consecutive terms, but when a person is elected or appointed to fill a vacancy in the office of President or Vice- President, the period between that election or appointment and the next election of a President shall not be regarded as a term.

Their interpretation seems to be based of the application of "consecutive terms" only other than the whole subsection. They argue that since Muluzi has served two consecutive terms and has had a break then he can serve another two consecutive terms and maybe this also means he can serve an unlimited number two consecutive term after breaks.

Suppose we might ask:
Q1- how many maximums of two consecutive terms can a president serve?
A1-The subsection say is "a maximum of two consecutive terms". And 'a' means one.

Muluzi has already served one maximum of two consecutive terms. Thus by this subsection he is may not serve another another maximum of two consecutive terms even if these terms follow each other or after a break.

Q2-Can a president serve another one term after serving a maximum of two consecutive terms?
A2-I think maximum of two answers this question since one more term makes three.
Q3-Suppose a president has served one term and has not been voted for another term can he serve another term after the term he has not served?
A3-I think consecutive terms answers that. In other words his eligibility to serve expires after the two consecutive terms first of which he was president.
Q4-Suppose a candidate has contested in two consecutive terms but not been chosen as president, can he serve as president?
A4-I think he may or might not according to further interpretation and wishes of the people. But in the sense of the current provision it seems he may since he has not served before as president of the country.

In my opinion of Q4 he may not as this brings the same injustice at party level which the subsection tries to solve at national level. I think that it is best that the constitution of a party or any organization as long as it is in Malawi and is of/for Malawian people it has to conform to the Constitution of Malawi(which seeks to protect its citizens) otherwise it is illegal. For instance a child should go by the rules of his father as long as he is in the father's house but if the father's rules are that the child should not go to school then the rules of the father are illegal by the Constitution of Malawi which which wishes that every child be given a chance to go to school.

So section 83 subsection 3 should be interpreted as

A person can only serve as president for ten years(two 5 year terms) which are consecutive in his lifetime; unless he was serving as a successor to another president in the event of which he may serve the ten years plus the years which he has been successor.

For the sake of Peace and stability Muluzi does not qualify for nomination for election as president. Since even if he qualifies and has been he elected He MAY NOT SERVE in his respective capacity because this violates Section 83 subsection 3 of the Constitution of Malawi.

The current president, who

shall hold office until such time as his or her successor is sworn in. (Section 81 subsection 1)

and had sworn or affirmed that He

will well and truly perform the functions of the high office of President of the Republic of Malawi,
and that he will preserve and defend the Constitution,
and that he will do right to all manner of people according to law without fear or favour, affection or ill-will(Section 81 subsection 1)

he will have the duty, whether he likes it or not, to defend the constitution as sworn or affirmed and the power to declare that the elect president, who

shall hold office for five years from the date that his or her oath of office is administered

MAY NOT SERVE as president.

If a constitution of another country allows him to stand then that constitution has to be tested if it is in line with the wishes of The People of Malawi who adopted this constitution who:

recognizing the sanctity of human life and the unity of all mankind;
guided by their private consciences and collective wisdom;
seeking to guarantee the welfare and development of all the people of Malawi, national harmony and peaceful international relations;
desirous of creating a constitutional order in the Republic of Malawi based on the need for an open, democratic and accountable government;

adopted(and may cease to adopt) the current Constitution of the Republic of Malawi.

Our wishes as citizens of Malawi are for peace and stability during these elections. Muluzi contesting causes unnecessary breach of peace and instability. It also infringes upon other people rights who may rightly serve as president if they are elected. In the event that he wins the constitution does not allow him to serve as president and the current president will be called upon to defend the constitutional provision Section 83 subsection 3 of the Chapter 8 of The Constitution of Republic of Malawi, which he swore or affirmed under oath to defend and protect without fear of favour or ill-will. This will cause more unnecessary instability.

Let the courts rule that Muluzi violates a law relating to election of president being a person who has already served a maximum of two consecutive terms.

References:
http://www.sdnp.org.mw/constitut/intro.html
http://www.sdnp.org.mw/constitut/chapter8.html