You’ve probably heard the Gospel of Free Market: if a country wants to break the cycle of poverty and achieve economic growth and prosperity, it should deregulate, open up its market, welcome investors, and unleash the power of the private sector. Nationalisation is anathema; protection is heresy; subsidies are so passé. This pervasive neo-liberal orthodoxy is driven with unrelenting vigour by the “unholy trinity” of International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Ha-Joon Chang, the “heretic”, set out to challenge this orthodoxy in Bad Samaritans. The title, of course, is a play on the biblical story of the Good Samaritan – the man who went out of his way to help a man left for dead on the road by armed robbers. Here the parable is flipped: The Bad Samaritans are the rich nations, and they have gone out of their way not only to give, but to force free market orthodoxy down the throat of unsuspecting, and often helpless, poor countries. They use the “unholy Trinity” to great effect in this relentless crusade for free market.

Chang, though, is not all sound and fury. He is meticulous and rigorous in his attention to details. For good measure, to the extent that he is a believer in globalisation, he is hardly a revolutionary. He may be critical (of free market), but he is not a radical. His overall thesis is simple: the developed countries of the world are not honest about the policies and strategies they deployed on their way to greatness, notably infant industry protection, subsidies and the leadership role of government in industrial policies and other forms of interventions. It was only when these nations attained a high of level of technical competence, technological leadership and industrial competitiveness that they opened up their markets. On the contrary, the “advice” – and it is more than mere advice – they are giving to poorer countries today amounts to forcing a football team of 11-year-old girls to compete with the Brazilian national team on a “level playing field”. It is a level playing field of unequal competitors – a clear contradiction in terms.

The book is organised into nine chapters, in addition to the prologue and epilogue. The first chapter explores the myths and facts about globalisation; the second chapter provides a historical analysis of industrial policies of rich countries. In the next three chapters, Chang critiques – but by no means dismiss – free trade, foreign investment, and private enterprise. After this, in chapters six, seven and eight, he highlights some main obstacles that developing countries face in their struggle to remount the ladder of economic prosperity – intellectual property roadblocks; restricted access to international finance; and weak institutions. In the final chapter nine, he deals with the subject of false national stereotypes.
Chang begins with his homeland of South Korea. In 1961, the average South Korean yearly income stood at $82 per person, which was less than the average income of $179 per person in Ghana at that time. In short, South Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world. Within 40 years, however, the per capita income in South Korea has grown about 14 times in terms of purchasing power. “It took the UK over two centuries and the US around one and half centuries to achieve the same results”. So how did the South Korean “miracle” come about? Chang’s riposte is worth quoting at length:

(The) neo-liberal establishment would have us believe that, during its miracle years between the 1960s and the 1980s, Korea pursued a neo-liberal economic development strategy. The reality, however, was very different indeed. What Korea actually did during those years (and) decades was to nurture certain new industries, selected by the government in consultation with the private sector, through tariff protection, subsidies and other forms of government support…until they ‘grew up’ enough to withstand international competition (page 14).

The South Korean government was pragmatic, rather than revolutionary, in its approach. It did not, like the communists, reject the market; neither did it embrace free market blindly. It saw the market as an opportunity that can only be harnessed by means of appropriate policy interventions, led by the government.
There is a question, though: is South Korea an outlier, and an exception to the gospel of free market? Quite the contrary, says Chang, and here he throws a “bombshell”: the prevailing history of capitalism is one bad fiction, and today’s poor countries are the main casualties. For, as the rest of the book then sets forth, practically every developed country today became rich “on the basis of policy recipes that go against neo-liberal economics.”

Enter Great Britain. Until the time of the Tudor monarchs, Britain was “a relatively backward economy, relying on exports of raw wool to finance imports”. At that time, Belgium and the Netherlands were the leaders of the Woollen manufacturing industry, which was Europe’s high-tech industry at the time. In order to turn things around, the British government “used protectionism, subsidies, distribution of monopoly rights, government-sponsored industrial espionage and other means of government interventions to develop England’s woollen manufacturing industry”. These protectionist policies arguably reached its peak during the 21-year prime ministership of Robert Walpole (1721-1742). Export subsidies were given, tariffs on foreign goods were significantly raised, and British manufacturing industries were subsidised and encouraged to export.

The Americans followed Britain’s protectionist example when, in 1791, Alexander Hamilton submitted to the US Congress his Report on the Subject of Manufactures. The key measures proposed by Hamilton include: protective tariffs and import bans, subsidies, export ban on key raw materials, and regulation of product standards. Abraham Lincoln took this further in his presidency, earning the reputation as “the Great Protector”, on account of his strong advocacy for infant industry protection. Curiously, throughout the 19th century and right up to the 1920s – when the US was the most protectionist country in the world – it was also the fastest growing economy.


Chang does not romanticise protectionism and state-led industrialisation as the one magic wand that will solve all the problems of poor countries. He admits that “not all countries have succeeded through protection and subsidies, but few without them”. He also highlights some obstacles developing countries may face if they adopt protectionist strategies. Perhaps a weakness of the book is the absence of detailed historical analysis of failures experienced by some developing countries who adopted protectionist and import substitution policies in the past, notably some Latin American countries in the 1960s and 70s. Developing countries planning to adopt protectionist strategies could learn a few things from past pitfalls. Chang also recognises that it will be much more difficult today for these strategies to succeed if the “bad Samaritan” countries are not persuaded that it is in their own enlightened interest too – especially with regard to new and bigger markets – if poorer countries employ protectionist strategies to grow their economies before opening up their markets.

Seun Kolade is a Lecturer in International Development at the London South Bank University, United Kingdom.  You can reach him through seunkolade2014@gmail.com

Serious minded, conscious Christians know all too well that the caricature of the “god in the sky”- a certain feature of anthropomorphism- is long discredited, and doesn’t feature in their beliefs. And so is the dubious construct of faith as the enemy of reason.

In short, Christians believe that the universe was created, ex nihilo, by an infinite-personal God. Now of course there will be those who disagree with Christian beliefs, but what can hardly be gainsaid is the intellectual credibility of its ontological formulation and the practical sensibility of the Christian worldview.

The first intellectual and practical implication of Christian ontology is that the universe does indeed have a meaning, and humans have a purpose within it. Humanity is not a fortuitous concourse of atoms, but purposeful creations with the capacity to make morally meaningful choices, with the power to, in effect, make love or make war. Within this canvas, there is no space for moral nihilism. Yes, our perceptions of what is right or wrong may be blurred by cultural lenses or hampered by acquired biases and learned dishonesty, but these do not change the objective essence of right and wrong, good and evil. This objective reality is validated -dare I say only- within the framework of Christian theism. For, to use rather colourful examples, if the universe is meaningless, and human life purposeless, a man may well have his neighbour’s arm for dinner, and murder will be just another game.

The second implication of the Christian worldview is that, contrary to suggestions that it is intellectually sterile, it is in fact most intellectually invigorating. If the universe is meaningful, it is our exciting duty as humans to locate the meanings with the powerful tool of our rational minds. A meaningful universe is more stimulating than one without meaning, without order. The treasure chest is out there in the vast space, and we have been given the tool and the clues to find them.

The third implication is that faith is the essential foundation of all epistemology. To parody Descartes, we believe, therefore we know. In the world of natural sciences, no empirical knowledge begins without philosophical propositions and theoretical assumptions. This is as true of physical experiments as it is true of logical postulations . Faith is not the enemy of reason, it is its anchor, its launching pad. The engine by which it flies to places. This is why, in more sense than one, Christians say that “faith without works is dead”. True faith is working faith. Authentic faith is reasoning faith.

*To be continued*

Between honour and hero worship

The first, and probably the most fundamental, area of confusion has to do with the principles of believers’ relationship at two levels- with God, and with fellow believers. We conceive, and rightly so, of God as sovereign in power, “glorious in his holiness and fearful in praises, doing wonders” (Exodus 15:11). It is right that when we contemplate God in his perfect holiness we conceive ourselves as unworthy of his presence and favour, but the cornerstone of the Christian Gospel is that God, through his grace in Christ has made us worthy of his presence and his fellowship. If you think about this deeply enough, the new relationship with God is revolutionary, fundamentally changing the old order of things.

For the old order of things is that we have a different category of humans- priests and prophets- who acted as intermediaries between God and man. In that scheme of things, abuse was palpable and inevitable. Even without conscious intention to do so, the prophets and priests of the past, drew attention to themselves, elevated as they were to a higher realm of being that the rest of the people considered impossible to attain. In this state of things, the temptation to abuse the position is high, and there are many examples in Scripture of prophets and priests who led the people astray, with tragic consequences.

The Gospel of Christ changes all of this in its fundamental premise, to wit: you do not need any intermediary to initiate and grow in your relationship with God. Come straight in, God says. Now, the idea of “Daddy Pastors” seek to take us back to the dark dispensation of prophets and priests, by creating another order- a higher category- of Christian believers. It negates the cardinal principle of God’s grace in Christ, which simply declared that we all worthy, all equally worthy, as sons and daughters of God.

Now, of course, the Bible also speaks about respect and honour for leaders who serve among us. Not priests, but leaders. That distinction bears repeating. The idea of priests, in the Old Testament sense, runs contrary to the fundamental doctrine of the Christian Gospel. We have leaders though, and we are encouraged to honour and respect them. However, the leaders are not portrayed as another species of believers, of some peculiarly higher order, to be glorified or worshiped. The problem, as outlined in the first series, is that our default position as humans is to worship those who are specially gifted or placed in position of authority. Unless we know better, that is. What the new waves of “Daddy Pastors” have sought to exploit is this ignorance of what sort of relationship we should have with fellow believers and fellow humans, including leaders.

Humility, or mere subservience?

The confusion also extends to the conception of humility. Curiously, a constant refrain of self-aggrandising “Daddy Pastors” is “humility”. Predictably, they harangue their parishioners on the need to humble themselves by doing obeisance to their “Daddy Pastors”. Those who do not question authority, and are subservient to the leader, are held up as the best model of true humility. Those will so much as dare to think for themselves, or hold contrary views, are denounced as rebels and harbingers of disunity.

A fear of label

This fear of labels- of being branded as rebellious and arrogant- is one of the main reasons why many who should know better opted to play along. The denunciations fuel doubts and exacerbate uncertainty, making some to feel that they are probably in the wrong to raise questions or have different opinions on issues that are not even matters of biblical doctrines. It may even make some to start entertaining the idea that they may be opposing God by merely thinking for themselves and asking questions. It takes more than intellectual certitude to overcome this fear; you need spiritual maturity and emotional strength to be able to stand strong in your conviction and in your position, when a “Daddy Pastor” is going as far as threatening you with hell fire, and he has, say, the backing of majority in the congregation. The best your intellectual awareness alone can achieve in that circumstance is lead you out of the faith altogether. Even for the most intellectually sophisticated, without spiritual maturity, it is a big struggle to be, in effect, a social outcast in the midst of the believers.

Social sanction

This social sanction is arguably the biggest power at the command of “Daddy Pastors”, and they have used it with great effect to bend people to their will. With all your knowledge of Scripture, and your discernment of what is right and what is wrong, it is a difficult situation when you are cast as a heretic by fellow parishioners. Some will be afraid to as much as speak with you, for fear of retribution from the “Daddy Pastors”, who have reduced the rest of the congregation to the status of little children who are not allowed to think again for themselves. A lady has recounted how she was effectively banned from attending Ladies meeting in a church because she would not call the pastor’s wife “Mummy Pastor”. Ultimately, she had to leave the church. It is that tough.

I am aware that some of my good pastor friends will not be very pleased with this series. The “Daddy Pastors” among them are probably livid. But we have crossed the Rubicon on matters of Scriptural truth, and we are not done yet on this topic. Please watch out for the third instalment in this series. Thank you.

In his second epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul was quick to point out that, while he had the responsibility as a leader of the church to correct and rebuke erring believers, and encourage church discipline, he was still but a “fellow-worker”. It is not, he said, “that we have dominion over your faith, but are fellow workers for your joy, for by faith you stand” (2 Cor. 1:24, emphasis is mine).

Here was a man who had practically traveled the civilised world of his day, preaching the gospel, and seeing many turn to the faith. If ever a man would be tempted to lord it over others, it should be Paul. On the contrary, he recognised, perhaps more than any of his contemporaries that authentic faith could not be dependent on, or attached to, some towering personality. Indeed, later on in this epistle, he expressed his bewilderment that some believers of his day, as are many today, seem to have a curious affinity and preference for “false apostles” who manipulate, exploit and lord over them: “you put up with it if one brings you into bondage, if one devours you, if one takes from you, if one exalts himself, if one strikes you on the face.” For good measure, in that masochistic attitude and behaviour those Corinthians actually considered themselves wise.

Father in the Lord

We are on the topic of “Daddy Pastors”. This phenomenon has gained increasing popularity in Nigeria, but certainly exists in other forms elsewhere. It began with the more benign- at least on the surface- idea of “Father in the Lord”, several decades ago. This in itself is based loosely around a few scriptural passages in which, for example, someone like Apostle Paul refers to Timothy as his “son in the Lord”. It is also true that the Apostle Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians told the Corinthians that: “even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.” (1Cor. 4:15).

Now, more diligent students of the Bible will recognise that Paul was here using a metaphor to describe a relationship, and a responsibility, that exists between a mentor and a mentee. Indeed, these are the contexts in which he used the description, either in the individual instance of Timothy, or in the collective example of the Corinthian church. There is no sense at all in any of the passages that he intended this to be understood or conveyed as a title, with all the attendant ostentation and air of superiority. To be sure, there is nowhere in Scripture where Apostle Paul was referred to as “father”. More crucially, the Lord himself warned against arrogating, or allocating, the title of “father”: “do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.”(Matthew 23:9).

The psychology of idolatry

Why was Christ so explicit and emphatic in the instruction not to “call anyone on earth ‘father’? First, of course, he was not referring to biological fathers. In order to understand the basis for this instruction, you need to understand the fundamental psychology of idolatry, and how the Christian Gospel in a corrective to that. Throughout history, people have shown the propensity to elevate what they consider spectacular to the realm of gods, either in terms of things in nature, or with respect to specially gifted and accomplished people. This mindset can be observed in all the mythologies of the ancients. In modern times, this tendency manifests in the form of personality cults. Many of the Greek gods, for example, were once humans subsequently elevated to the level of gods on account of their spectacular feats. In Yoruba mythology, Sango was once a mortal king- Alaafin- of old Oyo kingdom, subsequently elevated to a god, following his death. He was reportedly acclaimed for having the powers to spit fire out of his mouth, and to bring thunder.

The Christian gospel is a corrective to the psychology and practice of idolatry. In short, it says you do not need any human intermediary in order to have a direct relationship with God, because God himself had come in Christ to break down the “middle wall of separation”(Ephesians 2:14), so that “you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God”(Ephesians 2:19).

Penchant for domination

Yet the propensity to idolatry in some has, throughout history, been aggravated by the penchant for domination in a few. It is a case of finding a willing victim for a ready criminal. The attraction is almost irresistible, and is akin to a sadist finding a masochist.

The evidence is, of course, not far-fetched. There is a constant temptation inherent in human beings to set themselves as superior to other human beings, and from that position to control and dominate. We can find many theories to explain this tendency, but not one to deny its existence. We will subsequently examine how this tendency is aggravated by fear, ignorance and culture, but now it suffices to say that religion has, throughout history, been abused by self-styled leaders to assert and maintain control over millions. Why does this phenomenon persist in this day and age? What effect does it have on society? And what can be done to stem the tides? Join me in the next installment of this series.

Author: Paulo Freire      Publisher: The Continuum Publishing Company                               Date: 1970

When Paulo Freire wrote Pedagogy of the Oppressed, the world was in the middle of fierce ideological war. The iron curtain was firmly shut, and the fire of anti-colonial struggle was burning wildly in the countries of Africa and Latin America. Nine years earlier, the Americans had invaded Bay of Pigs, and Frantz Fanon had published Wretched of the Earth, shortly before his death. It is therefore a telling commentary on the enduring nature of the work that Pedagogy of the Oppressed has continued to gain resonance and relevance today, especially outside its (apparent) immediate constituency of political philosophy and activism, to the world of theory and practice of education.

The book itself is organised into four chapters. In the first chapter, the author explores the nature of the historical struggle between the oppressed and the oppressor, making the case for the pedagogy of the oppressed. In chapter two, he analyses what he called the “banking model” of education, which is cast as the favourite method of the oppressor, by which they seek to “deposit” knowledge, define the reality of the oppressed and contain their ambition for freedom. This is contrasted with the “problem-posing model”, in which both the teacher and the student are recognised as co-creators of knowledge. The next chapter then explores in greater detail the “dialogic” method used in “problem-posing” education, and the various stages of investigation. In the final chapter four, Freire examines at length the struggle between mutually opposing dialogic and anti-dialogic model; the former an instrument of liberation, the latter an instrument of oppression.

Freire sets out the fundamental principle that “concern for humanization leads at once to the recognition of dehumanization, not only as an ontological possibility but as an historical reality”. Both humanisation and dehumanisation are real alternatives for people, the latter being a negation of the former. In a classical collision of opposites, dehumanisation affirms and validates humanisation by negating it. Dehumanisation is therefore a “distortion of the vocation of being more fully human”. In the noble struggle to regain their humanity, the oppressed cannot afford to become like the oppressor, but rather the liberator of both the oppressor and the oppressed. The oppressor is himself “dehumanized because he dehumanizes others”, but it is only the oppressed, and not the oppressor, that is capable of liberating himself and others. This, then, is the historical task to which the oppressed must commit.

To succeed in this task, the oppressed need a critical pedagogy, by which they can objectify the oppressor and the world of oppression in order to transform them. This praxis- this combination of critical reflection and action- must begin with a process of self-discovery, first as members of the oppressed class, but also as bearers of the “image of the oppressor” which they have internalised as a model of being. For it is this duality which makes the oppressed yearn for freedom, yet fear it. It is this internal contradiction that summons the oppressed to liberty, yet tempts them to become like their oppressors. The conflict for the oppressed, says Freire, “ lies in the choice between being wholly themselves or being divided; between ejecting the oppressor within or not ejecting them; between human solidarity or alienation; between following prescriptions or having choices; between being spectators or actors; between acting or having the illusion of acting through the action of the oppressors; between speaking out or being silent, castrated in their power to create and re-create, in their power to transform the world.”

Given that the task of transforming the situation of oppression involves struggle and resistance, is violence inevitable? To this Freire offered that violence has already begun with the establishment of “the relationship of oppression”. Even when it is sweetened by false generosity, “any situation in which “A” objectively exploits ‘B’ or hinders his or her pursuit of self-affirmation as a responsible person is one of oppression, and in itself constitutes violence”. For good measure, “any situation in which some individuals prevent others from engaging in the process of inquiry is one of violence”. Violence as such “is initiated by those who oppress, who exploit, who fail to recognize others as persons—not by those who are oppressed, exploited, and unrecognized. It is not the unloved who initiate disaffection, but those who cannot love because they love only them- selves…”

Turning his attention now to the Teacher-Student relationship, Freire says that the prevailing model of education is one in which the teacher is cast in the role of the narrator in an act akin to depositing in a bank. The student, on the other hand is cast as “container” and “receptacle”, uncritically absorbing, and then regurgitating, the teacher’s deposit of knowledge. In this model, “the teacher presents himself to his students as their necessary opposite; by considering their ignorance absolute, he justifies his own existence”. The students, submerged in this reality, calmly accept their fate as justifiers of the teacher’s existence. This type of “education” is therefore an instrument of the oppressor to make the oppressed accept and adapt to the situation of oppression.

Problem posing education is entirely opposite. In this model, both the teacher and the student are seen as co-creators of knowledge, learned as well as learning. Here, “the teacher’s thinking is authenticated by the authenticity of students’ thinking”. The student is therefore not merely subordinated to the teacher, but both the teacher and the student are jointly responsible for the process of learning and creating knowledge. While the teacher may have attained a higher level of consciousness of themselves and of the world, they can only help raise the consciousness of others in an ongoing process of dialogue, not by “depositing” knowledge in the student.

This dialogic process is in clear contradiction to the anti-dialogical method of the “banking” model. The one entails a practice of freedom; the other, of domination. “Banking education resists dialogue; problem-posing education regards dialogue as in-dispensable to the act of cognition which unveils reality. Banking education treats students as objects of assistance; problem-posing education makes them critical thinkers. Banking education inhibits creativity and domesticates (although it cannot completely destroy) the intentionality of consciousness by isolating consciousness from the world, thereby denying people their ontological and historical vocation of becoming more fully human.” In the dialogic process of problem-posing education there are “neither utter ignoramuses nor perfect sages. Only learners.

Paulo Freire says nothing in this book about which methods of assessment and examination is suitable for the “problem-posing” model, or indeed about how the dialogic method can justify the role of the examiner. Admittedly, this is an introductory, exploratory book, but there will be ongoing debates about whether or not “problem-posing” education can accommodate some “banking” elements, especially in the initial stages, say with respect to summative assessment of students. Nevertheless his central thesis is highly stimulating and thought-provoking, even if it is, in many respects, a re-invention of the ancient method of Socratic dialectics.

Transworld Publishers, 2000

276 pages

“The hour of capitalism’s greatest triumph is its hour of crisis”. This is Hernando De Soto’s opening statement in what has now become a classic of property rights. He starts with a brief description of the “triumph” of capitalism and the end of the cold war. “Capitalism”, he says, “stands alone as the only feasible way rationally to organise a modern economy. At this moment in history, no responsible nation has a choice”. So then, the “responsible” nations of former communist and third world territories embraced capitalism with considerable enthusiasm, following the fall of Berlin Wall. And wait for it: they came away with bitter disappointment. And how did the leaders and Capitalist America and Europe respond? With the same old “wearisome lectures: stabilize your currencies, hang tough, ignore the food riots, and wait patiently for the foreign investors to return”

Why has capitalism prospered in the West, and generally failed elsewhere? That is the Big Question De Soto sought to address in this book. Of course, 15 years after it was originally published, some of the claims are now dated, but the key ideas continue to gain traction in policy and development research circles.

De Soto empathically rejects the suggestion that “Third World” peoples are lacking in entrepreneurial spirit or market orientation. On the contrary, he says, the inhabitants of poor countries are highly entrepreneurial, and have such a ready grasp of technology that American Businesses, for example, are “struggling to control the unauthorised use of their patents abroad”. So then, again, why has capitalism failed so woefully in these poor countries?

De Soto’s big idea is “Property”, and with it the explanation of the inability of these poor nations to produce capital, which is in turn the “lifeblood of the capitalist system”, the means by which it “raises productivity of labour and creates the wealth of nations”. The curious paradox is that most of the poor already possess the assets to make a success of capitalism. By one estimate, “the value of savings among the poor is… forty times all the foreign aid received throughout the world since 1945”. The poor have things, “but they lack the process to represent their property and create capital. They have houses but no titles; crops but not deeds; businesses but not statues of incorporation.

At this point, De Soto introduces his “five mysteries of capital”, and these will be the titles of the next five chapters: The mystery of missing information; the mystery of capital; the mystery of political awareness; the missing lessons of US History; and The mystery of legal failure.

The author now turns his attention to the phenomenon of “dead capital”, and how this is caused and aggravated by the lack of legal documentation and formal representation of property held by the poor. In Haiti, for example untitled real-estate holdings were, as of 1995, found to be worth 158 times the value of “all foreign direct investment in Haiti’s recorded history”. At the time of writing, De Soto and his team estimated that the total value of real estate held but not legally owned by the poor was $9.3 Trillion, which was “about twice as much as the total circulating US money supply”! The poor face great obstacles to legally register their property and businesses. In Haiti, it takes an estimated 19 years to go through all the bureaucratic obstacles to legally own a land! And what is not formally documented, legally owned, cannot be taken to the bank. It is dead capital, and cannot be transformed into usable forms to facilitate or promote economic productivity. The vast assets of the poor, because they are not fixed in a formal property system, are very difficult to move in the market. Formal representation makes assets more fungible.

However, it is instructive that the capitalist nations of the West have in fact been through the often difficult process of transition from undocumented and informal arrangements to legally documented property rights, and this formal representation has been instrumental to economic. In Britain and the rest of Europe, the process took about three hundred years of tumult and turbulence, during which the great numbers of informal settlers and unregistered entrepreneurs came in constant conflict with the law. Ultimately, officials and kings came to the final recognition that the problem was actually with law, and not with the people. The extralegal settlers and businesses had come to stay, and the law needed to catch up and integrate them. Nowadays, the idea of fixed, formalised assets is taken for granted in Europe, and this is partly why the economic preachments of the West often fail to address the peculiar circumstances of the developing world, because certain fundamentals, including property rights, cannot be taken for granted in these poor countries. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, the vast majority of property held by the poor are untitled, not legally owned, and cannot be used as collaterals in banks, or in other legally binding business transactions. Millions of these innovative entrepreneurs are locked out of the mainstream, left to depend on scraps and crumbs in the informal sector.

The United States has, relatively more recently, gone through a similar process. If we set aside, for a moment, the tragic episode of land grab from native Indians, European settlers in North America were squatters who simply occupied tracts of lands, often secured by a few deadened trees at the boundaries. For a long time they were deemed illegal trespassers by the official governments of the colonies, and threatened now and again with evictions. After years of bloody conflicts between the squatters and the government, they ultimately came to formal agreements on legal documentation of the squatters’ holdings.

Paradoxically, a major obstacle to needed reform in poor countries today is the legal system that is not only unfit for purpose, but also resistant to change. De Soto does not like lawyers, obviously. He considers lawyers to be, by default, stubborn defenders of the status quo against the practical realities of human experience. In a sense, De Soto seems to be saying, by way of an old cliché, that the law was made for man, and not man for the law. A legal system that keeps majority of the population of out official mainstream is bound to fail, sooner or later. A functional law should reflect the reality of how people live, not hinder or stifle human enterprise and creativity. Lawyers should support, and not stand in the way of, necessary reform.

As compelling as De Soto’s arguments are, it is impossible to shake off the nudging feeling that the challenge is a bit over simplified, and that his prescribed solution is a little over-stated. The challenge of under-development may be more complex than antiquated property laws. There are other institutional and leadership challenges. Even at that, his central thesis is persuasive: get rid of artificial, antiquated barriers and give people the rights and opportunities to make the best of their assets. Then stand by and watch them make great, unprecedented contribution to “the wealth of nations”.

The modern nation of Nigeria was born in 1960 amidst fanfare. As of then, forty six years had elapsed since the British amalgamation, in 1914, of the Northern and Southern Protectorates of Nigeria. The nationalist fathers fought a good fight, and it is instructive that diaspora students were at the heart of those nationalist struggles. For example, in 1925, Ladipo Solanke established the West African Students’ Union in the United Kingdom, and by the early 1930s it has spread throughout Nigeria and the rest of British West Africa(Falola & Heaton 2008)[1] . These student organisations, along with other nationalist groups within and outside Nigeria, played significant role in the struggle for independence.

Our nationalist forebears dreamt of a nation freed from the shackles of colonialism, a nation ready to unleash its potentials and show the way for the rest of African countries, and indeed, the rest of the developing world. Pan-Africanism was on the rise. There was so much hope, so much enthusiasm, so much optimism for what lay ahead.

Alas, no sooner had the dream began than it turned into a nightmare! Admittedly, much of this was to do with the ideological battles that defined international relations following the Second World War, in particular the battle between revolutionary socialism and capitalism, which reached its peak in the Cold War. African countries, freshly emerging from colonial rule, were caught in the middle of this ideological war of attrition. But we’ll leave this for a moment.

For the main story of Africa’s dashed dream cannot be attributed solely or mainly to external forces, however significant those forces were. And yes, they were significant. When we consider the fact that the pre-independence nationalists also had a big challenge on their hands, and they ultimately managed to surmount them, we have to say that, in the end, in the same way that the pre-independence nationalist fathers are rightly praised for their valiant efforts, so also must their post-independence successors take responsibility for their failures.

A wasted generation

Make no mistake: their failures were hugely significant, not only in the context of their times, but in the light of what followed thereafter. For it is telling that the years immediately preceding and following independence witnessed more significant development and harmonious relationships between the constituent parts of the nation. Nigeria, then a confederacy of three regions, witnessed significant economic and human development as the constituent regions competed in healthy rivalry among themselves. What worked in one region was speedily replicated in the other. It was a period of hugely successful agrarian reform, and significant investment in public infrastructures across the various regions. But then the clouds of despair soon began to gather.

The political elite, unlike their pre-independence forebears, began to see political power, not as an instrument of popular liberation and citizens’ empowerment, but they began to reconstruct power as an instrument of personal aggrandisement and selective empowerment of their cronies and family members. In the pursuit of this selfish agenda, they resorted to underhand means to keep themselves in power. No region was spared from the desperate antics of these power seekers. Alliances were forged mainly on this premise – North, South, East and West. The embers of ethnic discord were being fanned with reckless abandon.

Then a section of the Nigerian army intervened, their intervention becoming more remarkable for its messy execution than the lofty idealism that may have underpinned it. A counter coup followed, attended by a most unfortunate pogrom of innocent citizens of Eastern extraction. Then the seven year old nation was plunged into a tragic civil war, which, according to some estimates, claimed about three million souls.

The civil war was a defining moment in the history of the Nigerian nation, and the problems leading to the war were precipitated and aggravated by a set of political elites that recklessly abandon the lofty dream handed over to them, leaving a big mess in their wake. The following decades have been, by and large, dedicated to clearing up that mess. Even now, the legacy of a missed opportunity seems intractable. For, these political elites, standing at a strategic point in history, had they been foresighted, focused, and visionary, they would set the right tone and agenda for the nation’s future. They would have properly institutionalised the military and keep them away from what has turned out to be disastrous interventions in politics and governance. Instead, they have inflicted great damage on the commonwealth, and actively collaborated with politically ambitious military to do more damage. As a member of that generation aptly puts it, they are the wasted generation. With some much opportunity to shape the future, they fluffed their lines. The dream they turned into night mare.

A new opportunity beckons

But we are not here, ladies and gentlemen, to lament and moan about the past, much as we seek to draw valuable lessons from it. We are here, on the other hand, to contemplate the new opportunity that is laid before this generation. With that opportunity comes an even bigger responsibility to get it right, not only in the interest of posterity, but also for the strategic survival of now.

The Cold War is gone. Even with all the recent rumblings in Ukraine and the conflicting interests of Russia and Europe, we know this is not some re-enactment of the Cold War between Western Capitalism and Revolutionary Socialism. China has embraced free market, tweaking it to suit its particular purposes. It has prospered greatly thereby. Globalisation presents a unique opportunity to the current generation of Nigerians to shape the future, and define what comes ahead. Yes, we have seen the forces of globalisation aggravating poverty and misery in some parts of the world, aided sometimes by ill-thought and badly executed interventions of international agencies like the IMF. We have also seen the other side of globalisation, exemplified by ordinary people in poor countries of the world seizing the initiative and spearheading programmes and intervention to expand opportunities for their people and free them from the shackles of oppression and poverty. The story of Grameen Bank, founded in Bangladesh, showed that ordinary people can dream and successfully execute and sustain original initiatives to fight poverty and promote real economic growth.

Yes, it is true that there are enormous challenges that stand in the way. Arguably, at the very top of this is the challenge of visionary and accountable leadership. As we have observed, Nigeria has been plagued for so long with corrupt and rudderless leadership.  It has gone on for so long that it has almost become the norm, and even among educated people, the bar has been set so low in terms of expectation from political leaders. I shall refrain from making any criticism or endorsement of one or the other political party, but it is clear to all that the coming election is potentially an important landmark rebooting and setting the nation aright. At this critical time, the nation will either fall off the precipice, with tragic and drastic consequences, or it will rise with renewed vigour on its certain march to glory. There is no middle ground.

Let me hasten to say, at this juncture, that the current obsession with one or the other political party misses the point of how the current generation should engage with the political process. I will go on and add, in response to those who have proposed this other alternative, that replacing parties with personalities does not cut it either. We have been told, in fairly elegant and eloquent terms, that people should vote for personalities that they deem capable of delivering outcomes, without too much focus on the parties to which they belong. I proposed a third way, and I will like to think it is a more excellent way.

This third way is fundamentally about citizens seizing the opportunity on setting the agenda for national development. It does not stop there, however, for, on various levels and at different points, citizens have tried to participate in setting the agenda for many years. What has been missing, in sufficient and adequate measure, is a nationwide, citizen led, grassroots-oriented system of rigorous and sustained monitoring of performance, post-election. Citizens should commit as much energy to mobilising for election as they do for setting agenda at local and national levels. More importantly, they should commit even more energy and resources to a sustained campaign and process of continuous monitoring and evaluation of performance based on set agenda.

 Organisation is key

Organising is key to all these. All movements for positive change in history have been underpinned by effective organisation of the masses of the people. This is the case up with the French, American and Russian revolutions. It is the same with the American civil rights movement of the twentieth century, led by the renown Dr Martin Luther King Jr. The success of revolutionary movements have always owed as much to the success of their organisation as much as to the galvanising power of the message. It is by means of effective organisation that the critical mass can be mobilised to overturn a repressive status quo and establish a new order for progress and prosperity.

Now, of course, there is nothing entirely new in this emphasis on the power of organisation. In so many ways, this association, in this university, is a testament and a reminder of positive things that can happen when people come together with well-defined objectives and clear sense of purpose. What I seek to do here is draw your attention to certain aspects of the current mobilisation for change that has hindered and weakened the collective clamour for positive change:

1. Disproportionate and superficial focus on social media activism: since its inception, and with its growing popularity over the years, social media has played a significant role as a consciousness raiser for Nigerians, especially those of the younger generation, including students and young graduates. The Arab Spring was also significant in terms of the way and manner it projected the enormous potential and powers of social media to bring about practical change on ground. However, one of the key lessons of the Arab Spring, and of similar campaigns and movements elsewhere, is that social media was revealed as an instrument and platform by which ordinary people can mobilise and actualise practical change. It was a means, and not an end in itself. Unfortunately, this important lesson appears to be lost on many Nigerian campaigners and commentators on social media. Perhaps it also feeds into our collective penchant for easy solutions. Social media continue to be a unique and important platform for raising consciousness and mobilising citizens, but unless and until the message is carried on and carried through into the streets and to real people on ground, including the vast masses of uneducated and impoverished citizens, little can be achieved in terms of the end aim for positive change. There is an urgent need for more efficiency in the way and manner energy is deployed on social media. The impact evaluation of social media activism must be directly linked to, and measured by, direct influence on people on ground, including those who have no access to social media.
2. Prevalence of ethnic and religious parochialism: one of the long standing challenges of the Nigerian nation is the challenge of ethnic division. Ethnicity was at the heart of the collapse of the first Republic, and it was the defining feature of the tragic civil war. It has been said, and for good reason, that the original formation of the Nigerian nation state was artificial, hasty and without adequate thought to the different histories, cultures and values of the constituent ethnicities. There are differences, but difference is not a bad thing. In fact, inherent in the idea of diversity is the fact of differences. Unfortunately, and on account of what is in effect a false start and very poor management at the outset, these differences have escalated into divisions, and the diversity has led to adversity- of pogroms, wars, militancy and insurgencies. Generations of Nigerians, including the vast majority of educated ones, have been nurtured in an atmosphere of mutual mistrust and suspicion. They have been fed half-truths and often malicious lies about other ethnic groups, and the power of the bandwagon is such that this miseducation is difficult to unlearn. There is, of course, the vicious cycle inherent in the fact that this attitude of suspicion is replicated between the various ethnic groups, and suspicion is sustained and aggravated by suspicion. Now, of course, I hasten to say that we must repudiate the simplistic and misguided notion that ethnicity does not matter. Indeed, it is the truth that collective identity cannot be built out of nothing. We must start by not just accepting, but also embracing, our ethnic identity, in order to be able to build a strong and lasting national identity. Part of this process also consists in celebrating the values and contributions of others. The strength of a nation-state consists in the quality of unique contributions by the constituent parts. We can proudly proclaim the uniqueness and value of our contributions, but there is no need to project an air of superiority. It is ironically a sign of insecurity for one ethnic group to project superiority of any sort over the other. Sadly, we see this play itself out as much in social media interactions as it on the arena of partisan politics. The current presidential campaign has, unfortunately, been poisoned by much ethnic division. We can, and must, do differently. We must do better.

3. Lack of robust, well defined agenda: another problem we have faced as nation is that, at different points when there have been campaign or clamour for change, the focus of the agenda, or the lack thereof, is breath-taking in its sheer superficiality and impertinent narrowness. In the end, so much energy is dissipated with little or nothing to show for it. And here again, in the current election campaign, we seem to be repeating the same mistakes of the past. For example, some have defined the new Nigerian project in terms of a change of personality at the helm of the nation. Others have defined it in terms of a change of party. There has been little or no attention on policies and manifestos. Where there has been any interest at all on ideas and policies, such have been remarkably superficial and short-sighted. There is a pressing and critical need to apply more rigour and thoroughness to our collective engagement with policies and ideas for positive change. And in this respect citizens should take the lead, not leaving it to politicians to serve self-half baked ideas and half -hearted promises.
4. Fragmented campaigns for change: The last few years has witnessed a preponderance of various new organisations and associations campaigning for change at various levels from local to national. Many new groups have been started or have been re-invigorated , in various forms from advocacy organisations to pressure groups and think thanks, or some combining two or more approaches and strategies. This is a good thing for our democracy, and there is room for many more. It is especially good and important that many of these groups are concentrating their efforts and projects at their local bases, thereby expanding the democratic space and enriching the values and practices of liberal democracy at the grassroots. The major problem with these local organisations, and sometimes these new national organisations, is that they are especially weak in mobilising bridging and linking social capital in the wider context of synergising for the national agenda. Some of these organisations also over estimate their reach and capability, and the energy of their endeavours is distinctly weakened by a lack of synergy. In order to achieve the goals of the Nigerian project, local and national organisations sharing similar ideas and ideals must come together in a grand synergy to achieve and maintain the critical mass for positive change. They, individually, need not dissolve or close down their organisations, which are, in many cases, providing particular local focus and delivering unique values in local and special contexts, but each organisation, in order to achieve relevance and deliver value to the national project, must begin to reconstruct and redefine their goals and objectives in terms of their relevance and contributions to the national project, and in terms of sustained alliance they are able to forge with other like-minded organisations, preferably under one umbrella.
5. Lack of long term strategy: Finally let us dilate for a moment on the question of strategy. One the perennial features of critical episodes in the history of popular activism in Nigeria is the way they reveal lack of long term strategy. It has become almost predictable, the collective behaviour of Nigerian citizens at these various critical moments in our national life. Check out the story of June 12 campaign, or even, more recently, the story of the anti-fuel subside campaign. Part of these stories is, as we have stated, the lack of well defined, robust agenda, but an equally important part is the lack of durability and resilience. And it is in this respect that the current, some say recycled, political elite, have now and again beaten change campaigners to it. For all their glaring, and far reaching failure to provide purposeful leadership for the nation, they do in fact understand the long game, certainly more than the average Nigerian. They bide their time, wait for the fervency of the activists’ campaign to die out, and then, like vultures, they resume their escapades atop the carcass. They have always, and successfully so, put their bet and base their plan on the energy of momentum of popular activism dying out. And now and again, they have turned out to be accurate in their prediction. The new campaigners must show sustained energy, durability and resilience to achieve their goals. We must stick with it in the long haul. The campaign for positive change in Nigeria is not a sprint. It is a marathon.

Conclusion: new approach, new mind-set

Let us now try and bring all these thoughts together in a final word. Nigeria’s past is a story of unfulfilled dreams, of failed promises and dashed hopes. We made a false start, and made an even bigger mess thereafter. But even in this apparently gloomy shadow we see signs of a great future. It is, for example, a worthy testament of the resilience and dynamism of its people that Nigeria has survived today, largely in spite of its leaders, who, as a member of the political elite recently stated, “do not give a damn!”

But the story to which we have today summoned our collective contemplation is not the one of a failed past but of a promising future. Nigeria has got the numbers, in terms of the people, the land and the resources to take on the world. However, these resources are but dry bones. Now we need to summon the sinews of concrete ideas and the spirit of an inspired and determined citizenry to inject life into these dry bones, and reap enormous progress and prosperity into the bargain.

There is a different vision and dream that lie ahead of us. Nigeria can be the arrowhead of an industrial revolution and economic transformation in Africa. More than that, it can become an economic power house in a real sense, with millions lifted out of poverty to prosperity, and the nation taking the rest of the continent on a sure and certain journey to prosperity. Nigeria can be the bastion of freedom, justice and equity, an example of great and noble things, a corrective to some of the tragic inequalities we have seen in even some of the developed countries of the world today. This is a realistic goal, and we can make it happen.

To do this requires a new mind-set and a new approach to doing things. We must consciously and conscientiously fight the deadly virus of ethnic and religious division. We must eschew nepotism, and fully embrace the noble ideals of accountability and transparency in all levels of public and corporate responsibility, from political office to civil service and the private sector. We must cultivate and maintain new attitudes of tolerance and respect for our differences with as much steadiness as we repudiate corruption and mediocrity with utmost vehemence.

This is Nigeria, another way.

Thank you very much for your attention and God bless!

Seun Kolade, PhD

Research Fellow, Centre for African Entrepreneurship and Leadership University of Wolverhampton E: Seun.Kolade@wlv.ac.uk<mailto:Seun.Kolade@wlv.ac.uk>

[1] Falola, T. & Heaton, M.M., 2008. A history of Nigeria, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

This paper was originally presented at the symposium organised by the Nigerian Students Society, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, on 10^th March, 2015.

Author: Michael E. Porter

Publisher: Palgrave, New York, 1998

855 pages

Unlike David Landes’ Wealth and Poverty of Nations, which was unashamedly an euro-centric take on the political history of development, and unlike Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel, the award winning anthropological history of development weakened by its far reaching environmental determinism, Michael Porter’s work may be less entertaining as a prose, but it is, I think, the more rigorous and more credible work of the three. Of course, as we shall soon see, it is not entirely devoid of ideology, even if the author was loathe to admit to any ideological bias.

As with books of this nature, the author begins with the standard repudiation of the old paradigms for explaining comparative, and disparate, development and under-development of nations. Porter’s central argument, quite persuasive on the face of it, is not so much that old explanations are fundamentally wrong, but that they are weak, inadequate to the task of a comprehensive, holistic explanation. For example, says, Porter, the explanations based on macro-economics is weakened by the fact that some nations, including Japan, Italy and Korea, had experienced significant growth in spite of budget deficits, appreciating currencies, and high interest rates. Similarly, the explanations based on cheap and abundant labour could not account for the giant strides of countries like Germany, Switzerland and Sweden. Also, if growth was based on abundant natural resources, nations like Japan and Switzerland should be lagging behind. Finally, Porter contends that neither government policy, nor management practices, offer a complete, coherent explanation for the progress and regress of nations.

Instead, Michael Porter introduces his central idea of competitive advantage, as opposed to the old idea of comparative advantage. The building block of this competitive advantage is the diamond of factor conditions, demand conditions, related and supporting industries, and firm structure, strategy and rivalry. Taking the firm, rather than the nation, as the main unit of analysis, Porter would return now and again to the diamond in his discussion of the competitive advantage of firms within nations. Thus, you will find some terms and themes oft repeated to support the central arguments.

The book itself is divided to four parts: Foundations, Industries, Nations, and Implications. The three chapters in Foundations were devoted to more elaborate introduction and discussion of his main concepts, including the four components of the diamond. In the following parts and chapters, he would take the readers through an extensive body of data obtained from a large study of 10 advanced nations: United States, Britain, Germany, Japan, Korea (South Korea), Switzerland, Sweden, Italy, Denmark, and Singapore. Considering this study was set in the mid and late eighties, it is curious that the Soviet Union, the second biggest economic and military power at the time, got only a very brief mention in page 1. Of course, this may be partly due to paucity of data and lack of access to the Soviet Union, but in terms of the key arguments effectively advanced in the book against the socialist model, it would have been useful to get a more detailed explanation of how that nation was, outside of Porter’s model, able to achieve competitive advantage for a long term, before and since the second world war.

Porter explains that basic factor conditions- natural resources and cheap unskilled labour are mainly relevant only in the earlier stages of a nation’s economic development. If a nation wants to upwards and onwards on the ladder of development, it needs to move first from basic factors to advanced factors- more educated and highly skilled work-force, and modern infrastructure. This is because, within the paradigm of competitive advantage, it is easier for other competing firms to replicate basic factors (for example by shifting production overseas, something American firms have done vis-a-vis China, or importing cheap raw materials), but advanced factors take much longer to replicate. Even so, right from this early stage, the four components of the diamond work hand in hand. The demand conditions are considered in terms both of quantity and quality. For the former, the sheer number of people within the nation where the firm is operating plays a big role, but this role is not as significant as that played by the quality, or sophistication, of this home demand. Put differently, better informed, sophisticated consumers positively influence the competitive advantage of nations by putting pressures on firms to innovate and upgrade their production. Less informed buyers invariably lead to firms’ stagnation and loss of ground in the global market. The third component of the diamond, related and supporting industry, feeds well into the factors and demand conditions, as spin offs and new start ups agglomerate in clusters to enhance productivity and improve national competitive advantage. This process is mutually reinforcing. For instance, progress in an upstream industry like Materials and Metals lead to spin offs in automobile industry. And as the automobile industry progresses, there is more demand for iron and steel. The fourth component of the diamond –firms structure, strategy and rivalry also integrates well into this. With respect to this fourth component, Porter was especially emphatic about the critical role of domestic rivalry for continuous innovations and upgrading of processes and products in a nation’s industry, and he is critical of mergers and acquisitions, as he is scathing about “counter-productive” government interventions by way of subsidies and protectionism.

Porter’s theory is that the competitive advantage of nations is essentially an aggregate of the competitive advantage of individual firms, across the whole spectrum of sectors, in the nation. Even when firms invest overseas, the home base (where the firm’s central management and R &D are located) play the most significant role in terms of contribution to the nation’s aggregate competitive advantage.

I found the book to be quite interesting and thought provoking, and I find most of its central arguments to be quite persuasive. However, I think Porter was hard pressed to underplay the role of government, and his lack of detailed treatment of the Soviet Union was a weakness. I am not convinced that, without more aggressive and focused government intervention at the early stages, nations of Africa, for example, can adopt Porter’s model as it is, and genuinely expect to achieve competitive advantage in the modern global market. Certainly, recent developments in Brazil and China (not covered in the book, of course), appear to show that more aggressive, even centrally planned, government intervention can in fact work well in a nation’s objective to achieve competitive advantage.

Introduction

One of big questions that have attracted the attention of people throughout the ages is the question of the significance of human beings in the context of the absolute, final sovereignty of the all-powerful, all-knowing God. Across the whole spectrum of religious, philosophical and ideological worldviews, people have sought now and again to address the question as follows:  if God is all knowing, surely he knows what we will do long before we do them. More than that, he controls, absolutely, what we do, what we will do, long before we do them, long before we even think of doing them. If this is the case, it is asked, how can we as humans be responsible for our actions, seeing we are, in modern parlance, acting only as we have been programmed to act by God?

Echoes from the past

One of the first ancient philosophers to address this question was Leucipus, born in the 5th century B.C. He asserted that everything is predetermined, that “nothing occurs at random, but everything for a reason and by necessity.” 1 This school of thought, since known as determinism,  has its bands of adherents among ancients and moderns alike. For example, one of major themes explored in Sophocles play Oedipus Rex was the concept of fate as decreed by the gods, and which humans could not escape.  Other thinkers argued the alternative viewpoint, encapsulated by Aristotle’s idea of Chance and voluntary action. He declared that “if it is manifest that a man is the author of his own actions, if we are unable to trace conduct back to any other origins than those within ourselves, then actions of which the origins are within us, themselves depend upon us, and are voluntary”2. The philosopher Epicurus also weighed in: “some things happen of necessity, others by chance , others through our own agency….necessity destroys responsibility and chance is inconstant; whereas our own actions are autonomous, and it is to them that praise and blame naturally attach.”2

We have drawn attention to these ancient references to reinforce the point that the question to which we have now turned our attention is a truly important one, but by no means new. And it is precisely because it is so important that it has been asked and debated and discussed over and again in the course of human history. Our principal point of inquiry today is the Christian position on this timeless question.  To address this we will examine, first, key Bible passages on the subject of Divine foreknowledge and predestination, then we shall turn our attention to the passages on human significance and moral responsibility. Finally, we will address the fundamental question of whether, or how, human significance can be accommodated within the overarching perspective of God’s supreme omniscience and ultimate sovereignty, and what will be the implication of that for the Christian doctrine of God, redemption and eternal judgement.

The Bible on divine foreknowledge and predestination

Several passages in the Bible, both in the Old and New Testament scriptures allude to the fact of God’s sovereign control of human history and his purposeful determination of individual destinies of human beings. We cannot here attempt an exhaustive outline of all relevant scriptures, but we can, to good effect, embark on an overview of some representative scriptures that exemplify the overarching ideas with regard to three key aspects: God’s control of history, his foreknowledge of human destiny, and eternal life and judgement.

God and the flow of history

The Prophet Isaiah declared, under divine inspiration, that God makes “known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come”3. In similar vein, in the New Testament, the Apostle Paul stated that God has from one man “made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.”4. To underscore this point about God’s sovereign control of nations and history, the Prophet Isaiah offered a more striking imagery, describing God as the all-powerful, all knowing one who sits “enthroned in the circles of the earth, and the people are like grasshoppers”5, and all the nations –superpowers and all- are “like a drop in a bucket; they are regarded as dust on the scales”6, in terms of their significance and influence.

The essential point of this is not to assert the absolute nothingness of nations, for even “dust” has its own significance, but to affirm the central truth that in the grand scheme of divine omniscience and eternal purpose, history, and nations’ apparent activities and influences on it, is but a minor subset of God’s ultimate purpose. Humans can do lots of things in time and space, but whatever they do, they cannot alter or hinder, but only foster and fulfil, the predetermined purposes of God.  In modern parlance, God holds the first and the last cards, controls the final outcome right from the start, and “no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end”7

Divine foreknowledge of human destiny

One of the oft quoted scriptural passages on divine foreknowledge of human destiny is in the Psalms, chapter 139. There, the psalmist proclaims, with a palpable sense of wonder, that God “know when I sit and when I rise, you perceive my thoughts from afar… before a word is on my tongue, you, LORD, know it completely8. He went on to affirm that God knows all about him, even before he was born: “My frame was not hidden from you, when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body;  all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”8.

This theme of God’s foreknowledge of human deeds and destiny runs through the rest of the Bible. In Jeremiah, for example, we hear God saying about young Jeremiah: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”9.

There are other examples, throughout scripture, of God revealing ahead of time, often through prophecies, about what people will do, long before they did them, and often times long before they were born. The examples of Josiah the King and John the Baptist quickly comes to mind, as well as those of Samson, Jacob and Esau, and Judas.10 In all these passages and examples, the constant refrain is that individuals, in the exercise of apparent free will, only serve to fulfil the predetermined purposes of God.

Eternal life and judgement

Beyond the realm of human deeds and destiny in the time-space confines of earthly existence, there is a bigger perspective of God’s final control of the hereafter. We shall return to this later, but this is one of key points that emphasize God’s supreme control of the ultimate outcome, the final end, of all humanity.  In this perspective, we gain the fundamental understanding that even if God does not always intervene in every specific time and case in the course of human history; say with respect to every evil that individuals do to their fellow humans, or in open defiance of God’s known will, the total sovereignty of God is by no means diminished. This is because, on the one hand, the active, defiant pursuit of evil is in itself inherently destructive to those given to it, at least with regard to their forfeiture of true peace and joy and fulfilment even here in time.

More fundamentally, with regard to eternity, God brings his judgment on the impenitent and the wicked. From such eternal judgement there is no escape, and no respite. It is a final monument to God’s sovereign will: “the wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God”11. “If anyone’s name is not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire”12. Concerning eternal life and salvation, one of the cardinal doctrines of Christianity is that as humans we are incapable, just by means of our good deeds and human efforts, to do enough to earn or attain eternal life13. The contribution of our free will in the process, by means of faith and obedience, is merely a response to God’s gracious offer.  God’s provision of eternal life is primary and decisive. Our part is only to respond, to accept or reject God’s offer of eternal salvation. Otherwise the exertion of our free will, however earnest and honest, is an exercise in futility.

The Bible on human significance and moral responsibility

We now turn our attention to the subject of human significance and responsibility. As we have already mentioned in the foregoing, free will is not an illusion. It is indeed real, but that reality, and the significance thereof, is like a “drop in a bucket”, like “dust weighed on scale”. In other words, our free will is significant only to the extent that it can gain God’s final approval, or incur his final judgement. It cannot -our free will cannot- change or alter God’s ultimate purpose. We are, in short, morally responsible, even if we are incapable of changing or altering God moral and cosmic order.

Judgement and moral responsibility of peoples and nations

According to the Bible, God judges peoples and nations according to their deeds, collectively, in time and history. Nations and peoples have  the capacity to choose to obey and follow God’s righteous ways and principles, and in the exercise of that choice they either incur God’s wrath or gain his blessings:  “See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction.  For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you… But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed…”14. In Isaiah, God encourages the people to be “willing and obedient” 15 in order to gain his approval and blessings. In Jeremiah God is described as a porter, and the nations and peoples like clay, and God declares that “If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed,  and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.  And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.”16

Judgement and moral responsibility of individuals

As it is with nations and peoples, so it is with individuals as well. We are, as it is often said, free moral agents, capable of submitting or acting against God’s will, but incapable of changing or altering God’s will. If we act against God’s will, we simply incur his judgment, his corrective measure to keep all in line. Everyone is responsible before God for him/herself, and no other: “The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.”17.

Again, we are told in clear terms that past promises of God are no license for licentiousness, sin or reckless impunity.  In this respect what God said to the priest Eli is particularly instructive: “I promised that members of your family would minister before me forever.’ But now the LORD declares: ‘Far be it from me! Those who honour me I will honour, but those who despise me will be disdained.”18

Finally, concerning eternal life that God has offered us, while it is true that we are absolutely not responsible for the provision – the offer- we still exercise the really important choice to accept or reject, with all attending consequences. On this point the Bible then asks, rhetorically:  “how shall we escape” responsibility and consequences, “if we ignore so great a salvation?”19 

Conclusion: Human significance in contexts

Let us now summarise the key points of this inquiry: human beings are significant and morally responsible, and this significance is perfectly compatible with and perfectly subsumed in, God’s sovereign will and absolute power. The significance of man can be better understood in the following cardinal contexts:

God’s character

It is sometimes suggested that if God is all powerful, does it really matter what we think of his fairness, with respect to, say, predestination of some people to eternal damnation, and yet others to eternal salvation, without any consideration of deeds or misdeeds? Can he not do as he wills, seeing he is accountable and answerable to no one?

Those who proclaim this idea of God’s infinite power imagine that they are doing God a great service20 with all reverential fear. Unfortunately, they appear not to recognise the essential point about God’s immutable character.  In other words, while it is true that God is answerable to no one, he is nevertheless bound to his own unchanging character. He must be God. He cannot be “false to himself”21. He cannot be anything other than God.  He is, and will always be, the embodiment of absolute good, of pure love, of perfect justice. The doctrine of predestination fundamentally affirms God’s sole determination of final outcomes, and does not necessarily preclude the exercise of human free will.  As the prominent Christian apologist C.S. Lewis aptly puts it, the gates of hell are, in a sense, “locked on the inside”22. People go to hell because they choose to rebel against God’s righteous ways and sovereign will.

Limited capability

One of the essential points that have become clearer in the course of our inquiry is the limitation of human will. Human free will is real, but it is severely limited. It is restricted, first, by the time-space limitations of our earthly existence. Much as we may will, we cannot live on (most, if not all of )the planets near to us in our solar system, let alone go outside the Milky Way to physically explore billions of galaxies yonder. As stated in the Bible passage explored earlier, nation-states themselves are, in the grand scheme of the universe, like ‘dust weighed on scale’.

Our free will is also limited by the humbling fact of our mortality. Our days are numbered, and that is it. On the average, “Our days may come to seventy years, or eighty, if our strength endures; yet the best of them are but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away.”23. We may be rich or poor, weak or powerful, build great mansions or live in bamboo huts, but death is our common denominator.  How much land does a man need? In the words of Russian writer Leo Tolstoy, “Six feet from his head to his heel was all he needed”24.

Eternal  destiny: salvation/damnation

One important limitation of the human free will omitted in the preceding section is the fact of spiritual depravity. We are- all of us humans- products of original sin incurred in the first man, Adam. In effect, whereas we may set up our standards and make our best efforts to be morally good, our will is utterly inadequate to attain God’s standard of holiness and attain eternal salvation.  All have sinned25 and we depend entirely on God Grace. Before his all-perfect purity, “all our righteousness are like filthy rags”13

We have a choice to make in this matter.  As humans, we can choose to accept God’s gracious offer of salvation, or we can refuse and explore other ideas or do our own thing. Whatever choice we make though, the outcomes are already determined. There are only two possibilities: eternal salvation, or everlasting damnation. Thank you very much!

First presented  on 30th April 2012 at Ilford High Road Baptist Church, Ilford Essex, United kingdom.

End Notes

1. Nichols (2011). The Great  Philosophical Debates- free will and determinism (http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=4235, page accessed on 10th April, 2012)
2. The Information Philosopher.  Free Will in Antiquity (http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/free_will_in_antiquity.html, page accessed on 10th April, 2012)
3. Isaiah 46:10
4. Acts 17:26
5. Isaiah 40:22
6. Isaiah 40:15
7. Ecclesiastes 3:11
8. Psalms 139
9. Jeremiah 1:4
10. See I Kings 13; Malachi 1; Luke 1
11. Psalm 9:17 (New King James Version)
12. Revelation 20: 15
13. For further reading on this, see John 6:44; Isaiah 64:6
14.  Deuteronomy 30:15-18
15. Isaiah 1:17
16. Jeremiah 18:7-10
17. Ezekiel 18:20
18. I Sam 2:30
19. Hebrews 2:3
20. In John 16, Christ highlighted the point that people can hold fast to very mistaken ideas of God, and even commits evils under such mistaken notions and ideas. The Jewish leaders who persecuted and even killed some of the early Christians are a case in point.
21. I Tim 2:13
22. 22.   This point was explored in some detail by C.S. Lewis in his book The Great Divorce. He stated, for example, that  “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened. ” Lewis is by no means saying here that God surrenders  in the end to human will, but just what we have been saying, that by the exercise of rebellious choice people effectively condemn themselves to damnation. 
23. 23.   Psalms 90:10 
24. 24.   Leo Tolstoy wrote the classic How much land does a man need? 
25. 25.   Romans 3:23