THE CLERGY`S WALKOUT AND SUBSEQUENT VOW ON OBSTRUCTIONISM IS UNCALLED FOR.

The government's willingness to seek consensus with the clergy on the draft constitution has finally been rewarded by the latter`s abandonment of the discussions. I say “rewarded” because the electorate now knows that the clergy was never in the first place interested in consensus talks. That is why from the very onset, the clergy ensured that the discussions were intermittently bogged down in procedural wrangling. And as largely anticipated, after pulling out of the talks, they have vowed not to relent in their obstructionism of the country`s efforts in the promulgation of a new constitution.

Clearly, their actions are a testament to the fact that seeking consensus with a person so much consumed in conservatism and dogmatism can only be an exercise in futility. You see, since time immemorial the clergy has always been intolerant to emerging fountains of knowledge to the extent that many people fervently wished that the good Lord should deport the lock-step clergy to Hell for not listening and sometimes preaching and praying in “strange” tongues.

As early as the seventeenth century, some liberated clergy got the drift. They too started questioning the place of dogmas in the Christian church. The conservatives viewed as dissenters. But to the so many people who understood and embraced their preaching and teaching on nature, morality and theology, they were latitudinarians (derived from the words attitude and latitude). This is because they saw the import of allowing some freedom in attitude, beliefs, behavior and interpretation in religious matters. They sought to reconcile fundamental Christian ethics with the new rationality of Renaissance philosophy, science, and humanism. Because of the extent of their liberalism they were often condemned as atheists.

Many of us would have hoped that history would have provided the clergy with such important lessons. However, it looks like the vital historical lessons have never been learnt. It is painful today to see many of the clergy still clenched in the rigor mortis of dogmas. Their views on science are still antagonistic. They forget that in God`s own wisdom, human beings were abundantly blessed with knowledge with which to make human life more comfortable. Fortunately, such clergy are increasingly being isolated because no longer are the faithful a faith -fool lot.
Unlike in the yonder days, where dogmas where formulated (especially during the time of doctrinal controversy) in order to clarify the orthodox teaching in the face of emerging challenges, today’s world is sufficiently informed as to decide what is best in the interest of humanity. Like Horace (65-8BC), we wish to remind the clergy that much as they wish to drive out nature with a pitchfork, nature will constantly be running back. The best we can do is to take advantage of our God given knowledge to be able to live harmoniously with nature.

Even though I am extremely disappointed with a section of the clergy whose school of thought is far removed from the realities of today’s world, I am however cognizant of the fact that the law does not grant me the license with which to express my inner most feelings. In this regard, I have decided that I be sufficiently philanthropic as to reward them (clergy) with a pacifier. They could suck on it until the referendum exercise is dispensed with. In so doing, they will at least keep their mouths closed. In return they will immensely benefit from their silence. This is because they will have an ample time to re-work on their perception. I want to believe that they are not oblivious to the fact that the public has increasingly viewed them as purveyors of nothing more than crooked religious voodoo.

TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis