Dave from Accounting is just as holy as King David

Apart from Jesus, the people in the Bible are no more our examples than the people outside the Bible. A person is not more worthy of being emulated simply because they had the “privilege” of being a character in Scripture.

God has surrounded us with relatives, friends and neighbours far more worthy of emulating than most Biblical characters could ever be. So look around, pay more attention to your fellow church members, not just as peers but also as inspirations.

Advertisements

Is it reasonable to believe in God?

beyond-reasonable-doubt.jpg

Christianity is often criticized for putting faith and “allegiance to God” above reason. Our arguments are dismissed for being circular, and we are ridiculed for refusing to consider the possibility that we could be wrong about the existence of God.

I think many of these criticisms are valid, and more Christians should be willing to admit when we have been less than reasonable.

But more on this later.

Many professing Christians simply don’t like to examine whether or not their faith is reasonable. Many of us are simply neither ready nor willing to “give a reason for the hope that we have”. Some of us feel it is not necessary, or it is too much work, or it is giving the devil too much rope.

Some are simply afraid of what they will find on the other side of this logical exercise, so they are not in a hurry to find out.

Reasonable objections

Richard Dawkins, a British evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist, once said in his popular book¬†The God Delusion: “A child is not a Christian child, not a Muslim child, but a child of Christian parents or a child of Muslim parents.”

Part of Dawkins’ point is that we are products of environmental conditioning and there is therefore no supernatural explanation for why some people choose to be Christians while others don’t. Every child is technically born an atheist and only later compelled to follow the religion of their parent.

Dawkins makes a valid point. Our environment plays a significant role in shaping our life choices. Even one of my favorite 20th century Christian apologists, Cornelius van Til, agrees with Dawkins to some extent. In an essay on why he believes in God, Van Til indulges an atheist friend who tells him that the only reason he believes in God is because everything in his past set him up for that inevitable choice: Born to believing parents, educated at a Christian school and confronted every day with Christian ethics.

Given these circumstances, it would seem Van Til had no choice but to become a Christian! In response, Van Til tells the friend, rather sarcastically:

How different your early schooling was! You went to a “neutral” school. As your parents had done at home, so your teachers now did at school. They taught you to be “open-minded.” God was not brought into connection with your study of nature or history. You were trained without bias all along the line.

Van Til does not deny that a large part of the reason he embraces the Christian worldview is because it is second nature to him. He admits that everything in his past “conspired” to lead him to choose God. But is that all there is to it?

The environment alone?

We can rightly say that many professing Christians today are not Muslims for the same reasons. They didn’t have a choice. However, while Van Til acknowledges the role the environment played in his becoming a Christian, he goes on to argue that this is not the only reason people end up believing in God.

If it was, the friend, raised by similar parents and attending similar schools, would have also been a Christian. Yet he is not. In other words, even though Dawkins logic may explain many religious people in the world, the problem with the logic is that it is not comprehensive. Dawkins restricts and limits the reasons why people choose a religion to environment and effectively closes the door for any other explanations. This is neither fair nor very scientific.

He would have been more reasonable if he said “the only reason I know of” rather than “the only reason there is”. He is putting too much confidence upon how much he, a mere human being, knows about all the reasons that may exist in the world.

Consider this implication: If the environment were all it took, then we would have no atheists walking among us. Everyone would be religious and following some god or another by virtue of being raised in a religious society. Dawkins would be a phony. But the fact that atheists exist points to something more than the simplistic “product of your surroundings” explanation for belief.

Evolution alone?

Of course, Richard Dawkins and his kith will quickly rush to evolutionary explanations for why some people don’t believe. They believe that those who do not believe are the anomalies, the mutants, the “fit” ones in this battle for survival and the ones to take humanity to the next stage of existence — a world without religion, if you ask Dawkins.

Dawkins’¬†general hypothesis for why people opt for religion is that “human beings have acquired religious beliefs because there is a selective advantage to child brains that possess the rule of thumb to believe, without question, whatever familiar adults tell them. Dawkins speculates that this cognitive disposition, which tends to help inexperienced children to avoid harm, also tends to make them susceptible to acquiring their elders‚Äô irrational and harmful religious beliefs.”

This explanation not only presupposes that evolution is true, but that evolution is the only explanation for all human phenomena. In other words, evolution is the supreme law or philosophy of the living universe and no other explanations exist for any behaviors on earth. This is quite a leap.

If I am not mistaken, I would say that, even if evolution as espoused by Darwin is actually true, the claim that it is the only explanation for belief in God is itself a giant leap of faith. In fact, the shift from seeing evolution as a description to seeing evolution as an explanation is a leap of faith.

Will the real believers please stand up?

I would argue that the environment, while a big factor in leading people to belief (or to claims of belief), is not the decisive factor when it comes to determining whether one’s belief in God is true.¬†There is still the little matter of whether a faith claim is genuine or not, a question that can actually not be answered by science but is confined to the realm of theology.

There are many people walking this earth today, claiming to believe in God and are even ready to give their life for this belief. Yet, they have never seriously interrogated this belief. They are simply, to use Dawkin’s word, delusional.

These are the people Jesus alluded to when he said:

Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?¬†Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’¬†(Matthew 7:22-23)

It turns out that the argument that some people are only Christians because they grew up in a “Christian” environment is actually a case for why some people are fake Christians. It has little to do with why anyone is a true believer. To this extent, then, bringing up evolution and environmental factors in debates about the reasonability of faith is largely an exercise at missing the point.

A reasonable faith

However, if the opponents insist on this line of argument, I would say that the environment criticism does in fact contribute to the reasonability of such a belief. It is actually reasonable for people who have been brought up surrounded by the Christian worldview to end up professing Christianity. It would be unreasonable to choose otherwise.

But just because something sounds and looks reasonable doesn’t make it true. There are still questions to be answered concerning the existence of God and the evidence for that supposed existence.

I do hope, though, that it is increasingly becoming clear that we don’t always need irrevocable proof to make reasonable claims and choices. Reason is a servant to whatever evidence is available and our ability to weigh that evidence. You are only as reasonable as your intellectual ability allows you to be. This is why it is reasonable for a child to cry when hungry (because he or she cannot speak) and unreasonable for an adult to do the same in a house with a stocked kitchen.

To be continued…

 

 

 

 

The Fake News on Fake News

I don’t believe there’s an unprecedented surge in FAKE NEWS in Kenya. Or at least the rise is not as big as it has been made out to be.

broken-news

I think what is happening is the same thing that happened with the apparent rise of police killings of unarmed black men in the US over the past decade.

With the police shootings, it turned out that they were only getting more filmed, so we were seeing them more on social media and TV. But the rate of new incidents was not necessarily on the rise.

In the same way, the rise in Fake News is only humanity coming to terms with the fact that balance and objectivity are a myth when telling stories. Human beings are wired to promote the stories (and facts) that confirm our biases and dismiss those that don’t. “Whose truth is it?” and “Whose team are you on?” matters more than “What is the truth?”

US President Donald Trump did not redefine Fake News when he started dismissing CNN and New York Times for reporting stories that seemed disloyal to him. He, in fact, defined Fake News as we are seeing it today. Fake News is news that I don’t agree with. Fake news is news that doesn’t support my cause. Those who shout “Fake News” are more often than not making a statement about relationship rather than a statement about reality.

George Orwell once defined journalism as “printing what someone else does not want printed.” He might as well have been talking about Fake News.

A time to weep… and reflect

Kenya’s 2017 General Election has revealed demons that have long captured our souls, and unless we deal with them, it doesn’t matter who becomes the president of Kenya.

elec

In my short stint as a reporter for the Daily Nation, I experienced many challenges. But that’s not news, being a journalist in Kenya is almost synonymous to facing challenges. Long hours, tight deadlines, elusive and uncooperative sources, covering traumatic events, working on public holidays… these are just a few of the shared struggles that come with the trade.

However, one of thing that caught me by surprise is when a few readers criticized a story I had written a few years back. This shouldn’t have been surprising, but I guess I was too naive not to see it coming. I had written a story that criticized opposition leader Raila Odinga. I don’t even remember what the story was about, I was merely quoting a press conference I had attended.

What’s in a name?

Soon after the story was published, my inbox was flooded with emails denouncing my story because “I was the wrong person to write about Raila Odinga”. The problem? My name. NGARE KARIUKI is not a name you want to see by-lining a story that even faintly criticizes Mr Odinga. My motives were questioned. My name was all the evidence needed to determine my motives.

This incident is etched in my memory because I had been so naive prior to writing that story. It never once occurred to me that I belonged to the “wrong tribe” when I went for the press conference. Ever since, I have carried the burden of my name with heightened vigilance.

I have learnt that it doesn’t matter that I grew up in Eldoret in a neighborhood surrounded by Luos, Luhyas, Kisiis, Somalis and Kalenjins. It doesn’t matter that my biggest worry during the post-2007-election violence was the fact that I could not speak Kikuyu and may have be mistaken for a non-Kikuyu when machete wielding Kibaki-supporters came calling.

All that mattered then was the fact that my name is Ngare Kariuki. That, it seems, is still what matters now. In the wake of the 2017 general election, the tribal tensions around the country are palpable. Whether consciously or not, it is almost inevitable that the people you will see defending Mr Odinga online are Luos, Kambas or Luhyas. On the other hand, those celebrating the Jubilee win will often be descendants of the slopes of mount Kenya.

Born this way

This brings to mind an important point that my friend Huston Malande raised recently in a thread on Twitter. He wrote:

“Politics is like football. People don‚Äôt choose their first team after performing a logical analysis of all available options. Even though I don’t watch football anymore, my first team was Manchester United. Why? Because my dad was a Man U fan.

And because I loved my dad, if Man U lost, the sadness I saw on his face made me sad too. One of my happiest moments with my dad was when Brazil won the world cup in 2002. We literally danced around the house!

This kind of deep emotional response and attachment is exactly what happened after the announcement last night, and it’s scary. Unlike professional football which is mostly detached entertainment, politics is very real and very close to home.

I live in Kikuyu … the whole place erupted as people took to the streets to celebrate, complete with Vuvuzelas and Akorino drums. D’you think the kids had any clue? Absolutely not! And yet, they’ll never ever forget how good it felt to join their parents in celebrating.”

You can follow this link for the rest of the thread. I have quoted the excerpt above because it hit close to home for myself and, I assume, many reading this. If we were brutally honest with ourselves, w support the candidates that we support because we were brought up by parents that supported their camp and became politically aware in a community where this political camp was normalised.

We know the camp we support “from the inside”, and we know about the other side from outside. We have no idea what it feels like to support the other side. We hold everything from the other side with lots of skepticism and great suspicion. In fact, we’d get a headache if we attempted to think of anything that the other side does right. We are simply not wired to embrace anything from the other side, no matter how reasonable or sensible it sounds.

Can anything good come out of Nazareth? John 1:46

A saint misunderstood

This is the challenge before many of us. In fact, for many of us, even if we were actually convinced of the problems in our political camp, we would excuse, downplay or explain them away, and in the event we accepted the problems, we would be quick to forgive and encourage reformation. There are no sinners in our camp, only misunderstood saints. Anything to propagate our camp.

This is why it seems almost irrelevant (and irreverent?) to point out that I actually voted for Raila Odinga in the just concluded election. You must understand that this is not even something that I can discuss with my own mother, because all through last week, she concluded every phone call with “tano tena!” So, I kept my divergent views to myself and only shared them with my wife and a few close friends who I deemed more “level-headed.”

But if I was pro-Raila, how come I am still reluctant to criticize him in public in the wake of the results?  You already know the answer. My name betrays me. I already belong to the privileged camp, even if only by association rather than by conviction. I am like a white man in the US supporting the Black Lives Matter movement. My privilege renders my support inconsequential. I am a bastard in this other camp. I am here to be seen and not heard, especially if my intention is to criticize the gods of our camp.

A time to mourn…

Which brings me to one final observation. With all the heightened emotions and tension in the country, especially on social media, a narrative that has fast risen to prominence is that of “letting the losers mourn in peace.” This is a noble and gracious call. It is never good to gloat over wins. Even winners in soccer matches do greet and sometimes embrace the losing team.

There is something to be said about our human need to “rub it in” when it comes to victories. Yet, this posture is never attractive. If your candidate won, I implore you to be considerate about the feelings of those who lost. But what if you are a Luo, you voted for Raila and you are not as deeply affected by the loss? I would encourage you to be gracious still. It is possible to be on the losing team without needing to tell our more affectionate teammates to “get over it.”

… and reflect

As for me, I am still trying to navigate my precarious position. I am not so deeply affected by Raila’s loss, largely because I don’t put my hope in human leaders. I am of the disposition that even at our most calculated choices on this earth, we are all just playing dice on the future. Only God is worthy of our hope and trust for the future of this country. Even the best human leaders are human at best. They are prone to wander from the goal. That is why I am not so crushed when my team loses.

But if you are more affected than I am, perhaps this is a good chance to re-evaluate your emotional priorities. Yes, our emotions are also within our control. The only difference is that we cannot control our emotions after the triggers are set off, the trick to controlling our emotions is to determine long before what we will allow to be our triggers and what we won’t.

Don’t get me wrong. Now is not the time to control the emotions that have been triggered by the recent events, it is already too late for that. The best we can do now is bandage those wounds and nurse them. But now is the time to re-evaluate what you value, where you put your hope, what keeps you up at night, and what you are willing to lose your cool over.

Sadly, I have seen many friends who claim to be Christians but have never even batted an eyelid when someone criticized God or blasphemed His name to their face. Yet, these same friends “lost it” when there was even a hint of criticism against their political leaders. Even when the criticism was coming from someone “from their own camp”, it didn’t make much difference.

This shouldn’t be.

It reveals that our problem is bigger than the outcome of an election, or who the next president is. It reveals that our problem is an idol problem. Our hearts have been captured by an idol that is willing to wreck everything we hold dear, friendships, family ties and even our jobs, for the sake of one utterly flawed human being.

‚ÄúAn idolatrous attachment can lead you to break any promise, rationalize any indiscretion, or betray any other allegiance, in order to hold on to it. It may drive you to violate all good and proper boundaries. To practice idolatry is to be a slave.‚Ä̬†
‚Äē¬†Timothy J. Keller,¬†Counterfeit Gods

Would Jesus Vote for Uhuru or Raila?

Kenya’s 2017 General Election is just a month away and I can’t help but wonder, how would Jesus vote?

kenya 2.jpg

If you are a Christian, you have probably wondered how you should go about choosing a presidential candidate. Who do you vote for when every name on the list seems tainted by past and present scandals? Does God approve opting for the lesser of two evils? And what about abstaining from voting entirely, would I be absconding my civic duties and thus disobeying Romans 13?

These are difficult questions. Okay, maybe they are easy for some Christians reading this; but I know enough people who find these questions paralyzing. I happen to be one of them. How does a Christian vote with a clear conscience when he or she knows she will be choosing a sinner either way? One more tough question: Should Christians only vote for Christian candidates?

A Democratic Kingdom?

Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill said in November 11 1947:

‚ÄėMany forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.‚Ķ‚Äô

His point is self-explanatory, but there are many times we have been tempted to think that a democratic government is the ideal form of government. Well, the truth is that even a perfect democracy has its flaws, and one of the biggest flaws of such a government happens to be the biggest flaw in every other government: it is made up of human being.

The problem with the world is that it is made up of sinful human beings. This means that no matter who we vote for, we can almost be assured that they will let the country down in one way or another. But even before I go deep into the depravity of humanity, another question must first be answered, is our way of choosing leaders (democracy) God’s choice way of choosing leaders?

In other words, have we considered that perhaps we are finding it difficult to decide who God wants us to vote for because we are already working within a system that is fundamentally flawed? The Bible does not event hint at the possibility that a democratic form of government is the biblical way. In fact, all we get from the Bible about the process of selecting leaders is what Paul says in Romans 13:1;

‘Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.’

The implications of this passage are staggering. In essence, the passage seems to imply that all forms of government, whether socialist, democratic, communist… have been instituted by God. God has ordained them in their respective times and places and we better get in line and follow the rules of the land in which we find ourselves. ¬†This also means that voting for ANY leader in a democratic process will not guarantee that life will be better under his leadership.

A Timeless Warning About Earthly Leaders

What, then, is the biblical way? Should we only vote for Christians? Or should we establish a monarchy (or even better, a theocracy)? Lest we forget, God was the first to raise an objection to Israel’s request for a human king when they entered the promised land.

So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king from him. He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots.

And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants.

He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men¬†and your donkeys, and put them to his work.¬†He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves.¬†And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves,¬†but the¬†Lord¬†will not answer you in that day.‚ÄĚ [1 Samuel 8:10-18]

Now read the warnings of Samuel about kings and think about the current leadership in your democratically constituted government. Look, for instance, at this part “…¬†He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants.¬†He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants…” Suddenly, thoughts of corruption, land grabbing and oppressive taxes begin to take shape.

What God said about a monarchy back then is the same thing He says about democracies today. Same frogs, different ponds. One may point out the fact that God still “chose” kings for Israel even though He fundamentally objected to the idea of a human king. He had His purposes for choosing both “good” and “bad” kings for Israel, but that is a topic for another day.

The Hope for Your Vote

It would appear, from the passage above, that God has never planned to have a human being on the throne of this fallen world. The fact that we have to choose earthly “supreme leaders” in the first place is a problem. In fact, it is a two-fold problem; we are choosing between fallen human beings, and we are fallen human beings doing the choosing.

How then shall we vote? Or shall we all then burn our votes and sit at home on election day because it won’t make any difference whom we vote for? Not so fast. We have established that no amount of diligence or research when choosing a candidate (which is important) will guarantee us a “good” government. What we need is a change of focus, a shift in our perspective. It turns out that the questions I started with are only difficult because we are approaching them from the wrong box.

The question that every Christian needs to answer when making a choice is this: Where lies my hope for my country?¬†Is your hope in the leaders? The manifestos that the candidates have published? Is your hope in the track record of the candidates? Their promises? Their sincerity? Their professional background?…

If your hope is in any of these things that are humanly cultivated, then it does not matter if you vote for the person who will bring the most good to the country. In fact, even if you do your due diligence, vote for the best candidate and that candidate lives up to his promises, this will in no way be the proof that you did the will of God in your voting decision.

If we are truly in Christ, we must make a clear distinction between God’s standards and the standards of this world. We must be in this world but living by the rules of another world, the world to come. This distinction can only be seen, not in our voting patterns, but in our voting attitudes. We must put our hope in the right place, and this place is: The fact that God is on the throne.

Even after I have done my humanly best, the choice I make must be submitted to God’s will. God is the ultimate decider. He is the one who will decide which leader we deserve at this season of our lives.

This does not mean that my “voting” is inconsequential, it only means that my “vote” is inconsequential. Yes, there is a difference between your vote and your voting. There is a difference between the act of marking an ‘X’ on the ballot paper and the attitude with which you mark that ‘X’. This is the difference between a Christian’s vote and the vote of any other citizen.

It means that two Christians may vote for opposing candidates and it never be a question of one making the right choice while the other makes the wrong choice. It also means that two Christians may vote for the same candidate and one of them ends up making the right choice while the other makes the wrong choice. The difference is in the posture of our hearts, the source of our hope. The rest is detail.

PS: If we really must put our hope on any human leader, then let that leader be the man Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us as the atoning sacrifice for our sin. He is coming back again, to fully rule the world He created and over the people He purchased with His blood. Are you a citizen of this kingdom?

PPS:¬†God willing, a¬†group of Christian friends will gather in Nairobi tomorrow evening (Friday, July 7) to discuss the topic: “Christianity and Politics”. I plan to attend the forum. Would you care to join me? Follow this link for more details: Meaty Forum

 

It’s Foolish to Pray for Kenya

praying-for-our-nation

The Kenyan General Election is around the corner, just 42 days away, and I am curious, when did you last pray for your country? If you did, what did you say in that prayer? Did you pray for any specific political leader? What did you say to God about President Uhuru Kenyatta? Did you pray for him to win? To lose? Did you pray for him to act on the rampant corruption in Kenya and were you specific about what he ought to do?

What about opposition leader Raila Odinga? Did you pray for his victory in the coming election or did you pray for his defeat? If you live in Nairobi, what did you tell God about Senator Mike Sonko? What about Governor Kidero? Did you pray against them or for them?

Prayer can be a touchy subject in the public square, especially where politics is concerned. An increasing number of people believe that Kenya does not need our prayers but our actions. Many Christians have been accused of being “too heavenly minded that they are of no earthly use.” When a Christian suggests prayer as one of the solutions to the problems facing our country, he or she is more often dismissed or ridiculed into submission.

Kenya is steadily becoming a secularised nation. Religion is becoming more and more unpopular among the intellectual and economic elites of this nation. Even when political leaders crowd churches with their entourage every Sunday, the act is received with great skepticism (and rightly so, more often than not).

We all know that they are showing up to church for “pragmatic” reasons, right? They are not really that spiritual or religious, right? Because how then do we explain the surge of politicians in churches in the weeks and leads leading up to the election only to be followed by their disappearance from churches to focus on “building the nation”?

It is therefore not surprising that many Kenyans think it both foolish and futile to pray for the nation today. Even some of the Kenyans who are believers in Jesus Christ and who pray regularly seldom pray for Kenya. They feel the country is “too far gone” for God to do anything about it. A growing sense of apathy has gradually scraped away politics from their prayer lists.

Christians have received too much bashing after their insistence on prayer that they have retreated to their caves. Some have been told that Kenya needs practical solutions and not impractical prayers. Many have therefore abandoned prayer rallies and joined lobby groups and other political activist causes in the name of being “more practical citizens.” Others became disillusioned by unanswered prayer that they resorted to prayer-less action rather than the cognitive dissonance of believing in a prayer-answering God who doesn’t actually answer any prayers.

It is easy to understand why anyone would quit bothering to pray for Kenya. It seems too foolish, too out of touch with reality, too impractical. And so, many have reasonably and rationally stopped praying for this country. Yet here I am, urging us to get back down on our knees and plead with God for the reformation of this country.

Here I am calling on all Christians to lift our leaders up to God in prayer, to pray for their decisions, their actions, an most fundamentally, their hearts. I am calling on all faithful Christ followers to pray for Kenyan leaders to do what is good for the citizens, to put country before self and, if it pleases the Lord, to save their souls.

I do not believe that the only way God can get Kenya out of the depths of corruption and hatred into shallower waters of the same is through the salvation of its leaders. Our leaders don’t ned to become Christ-followers for Kenya to get better than it is today. The God I serve has been known to cause great public choices even in those who curse his name in private. I pray for the former, even while I pray against the latter.

Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.”¬†Jeremiah 29:7

Looking at my country through the secular, modernistic, liberal lens that is in the telescope of many Kenyans today, praying for Kenya is indeed a foolish action. It seems counterintuitive. It defies all the apparent laws of logic and reason that rule the day. To steal from the words of Apostle Paul, praying for Kenya and its leaders is “foolishness to the Gentiles.” They don’t get it (and can’t get it), and that is why they will always ridicule and dismiss it.

But we, who are called by the name of Jesus Christ, know better. Or to be politically correct, we know different. We know that prayer is not the sole call of a Christian, but the fuel behind all of the practical callings of a Christian. Prayer is not an alternative to action, but the path to actions that are both faithful to the truth of God’s word and the reality of God’s world. Prayer is not a call to inaction but a call to right action, or rather, a call to actions that are not guided by the myopic needs of the flesh but the ultimate glory of God.

So yes, prayer is indeed foolish to those who do not know God. When the Bible says “the fool says in his heart there is no God,” those words sting the hearts of atheists. Those words are offensive to them because they think themselves very wise and their knowledge quite superior in a world without God. In the same way, Christians will feel offended when called “foolish” for believing in God, but we shouldn’t, because we know better different.

Christians should not be surprised when those who revile religion speak against prayer. Christians will always be misunderstood by non-Christians. The Bible has already said this. The nature and purpose and power of prayer will always be misrepresented by non-Christians. As Jude once said,

“These people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct–as irrational animals do–will destroy them.” Jude 10

So take heart, dear Christian, for your Father in Heaven saw this coming. Take to your knees, dear Christian, for only your Father in Heaven knows where your nation is headed. Don’t let the devil take away the only weapon guaranteed to bring real and lasting change to this country and, yes, this world.

I am Walter Menya

journalism-ethics-1-638.jpg

When the story broke on Sunday evening, the “facts” were scanty. I put the word facts in quotation marks because, as the story unfolded, the word would become less and less relevant to the narrative.

Sunday Nation’s reporter Walter Menya was arrested for apparently soliciting a bribe in order to “kill” a story implicating Kenya’s civil servants actively involved in Friends of Jubilee Foundation.

In a statement on Sunday, Inspector General of Police Joseph Boinnet said: “He has been demanding for money severally to kill the alleged story. At different times he has received a total of Sh35,000 through M-pesa (mobile money transfer) and today he was arrested receiving Sh20,000.”

Later, “unauthenticated” phone recordings revealed that the journalist was in communication with a Kennedy Koros who had apparently given him the story and wanted to pay Walter to publish the story “on the front page”.

This, mind you, was in direct contradiction to what Mr Boinnet had said earlier, that Walter was demanding a bribe to kill the story. But few people cared about the devil in the details of the story at this point.

Walter was eventually released two days later, although his laptop and flash disks remained in police custody pending a separate determination. The details of the reasoning behind that decision were also scanty. All we know is that the Director of Public Prosecutions Keriako Tobiko directed that the journalist be released on a free bond without being charged.

Since then, the conversation has mostly been about how the government is suppressing media freedom. For some reason, no one seems interested in the facts of what actually took place. They seem irrelevant.

What we know so far is that Walter Menya was “baited” by a Mr Koros, although there is currently no evidence that he actually received the alleged bribe. What Mr Koros did was clearly wrong, but what about what Mr Menya did? Who gets to tell the story of the fact that the journalist still took the bait even if he never took the actual money?

It is my personal belief that accepting a fake bribe is a statement about the moral and ethical culpability of the person taking the bait. To that extent, I think Mr Menya still has much to answer for, even if the law of the land is not the entity he owes that explanation.

To Walter’s credit,¬†he wasn’t being paid to kill a story or publish a fake story, contrary to the I.G.’s initial statement. He was being bribed to do his job. This is not something new. But it is something worth further pondering by those in the media fraternity.

In my brief stint in the newsroom (where I worked closely with Walter), I was severally approached by news sources who had legitimate stories with legitimate evidence and still wanted to give me money to write the story. Oftetimes the story was good and the evidence strong and I would have written it whether or not I was “incentivised”. This is what makes Walter’s situation so perplexing.

Some people may look at the fact that he seemed to accept the proposed money (if not the actual money) as proof that he would be willing to do the same to write a fake story or suppress a true one. But there is no way of knowing this. If someone wants to give me money as an incentive to do what I would have done anyway, I am not sure accepting that money is evidence of my susceptibility to moral or ethical compromise.

This is a tough ethical quandary. Journalists should not brush off or dismiss it so easily. This is also why I think I am Walter Menya in this story. I also believe many good journalists who would never take a bribe to kill a story or write a fake story would have taken this particular money.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, the episode has told us little, if anything, about the state of journalism in Kenya. It has told us practically nothing about who Walter Menya is and whether he should be trusted as a journalist. If anything, it has only revealed the extent some political forces would go to compromise good journalism.

I happen to think that this episode was a classic case of a red herring being used to distract us from the story that Walter Menya actually wrote. Perhaps the people behind Kennedy Koros figured out the story would be damaging to Jubilee, and the only way to distract people from making noise about it was to divert attention to the journalist’s ethical standing.

Someone probably figured out that the story would get out anyway, so why not be the one to give the evidence and compromise the one journalist who would write the story?

Clearly, its a jungle out there. I am sad that Walter had to go through all this. You didn’t deserve it, my friend. However, let this serve as a lesson to all of us with the opportunity to tell our stories on national platforms. It is easy to be a pawn in someone else’s elaborate scheme. May we be diligent enough to spot the bait and resist it when we can.