Real Men

By David Fugoyo

Who are real men? Paul said, "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me” (1 Corinthians 13:11).

Real men don’t sit down and cry; they stand up and do something.

Real men don't give up life; they make every effort to make life continue.

Real men don’t hide behind difficulties; they appear in front of difficulties to deal with them.

Real men don’t tread their families for drinking; neither do they cheat on their wives.

Real men spend time with their families and they become a role model to their children.
Real men prefer their homes to bars, and their family members to night club friends.

Real men love their wives and children; they personify the love Christ had for the church.

Real men protect their families from any form of harm and danger; they are security providers.

Real men help in building their country.

Real men don't only think of today, but also for tomorrow.

Real men search for peace, not war.

Real men are those every young man would love to emulate.

Real men protect the young ladies around them and not spoil them.

Real men love God and facilitate for their dear ones to love God too.
Real men cry but to God.
Real men hate evil and love good.

Real men protect the nature.

Real men speak out truth.

Real men are considerate.

Real men are not hostile to God or to anyone.
Real men are not given to pornography.
Real men are not stingy. 

Real men forgive.

Real men are humble.

Real men strive to be like Christ.

Real men ask for forgiveness when they are wrong.

Real men are indeed loved by God and people.

Real men are needed.

Are you a real man?

Who are those in Need for Missionaries?

By David Fugoyo

The Great Commission is the call for every Christian to embrace the task of doing mission seriously. Many Christians over centuries have devoted their lives to be missionaries within their territories and outside the borders they are familiar with. However, the work of mission has been misunderstood for long time. Many think that the venue of doing mission is in continents such as Africa, Asia and Latin America. The reason for such assumption and thinking has been because of the idea and feeling that ‘the poor need the Gospel most,’ forgetting the sinful rich!

Today, when one hears of someone mentioning the word ‘mission’ or ‘missionary,’ what comes into one’s mind? The first impression is that mission field is somewhere in Africa, specifically in places like Darfur in Western Sudan, Somalia in the horn of Africa, or somewhere where there is sever poverty and where people die of hunger and diseases. The impression about a missionary is  that he is a white person from one of the rich Western countries. This kind of thinking has not only made the people of God misunderstand the meaning of mission, but it has also made them lose the vision of winning to the Lord sinful souls, including that of the rich.

Sin does not only exist where the people without access to medicine, clean water and food are. Sin is a disease that cut across cultures and social statuses. Today, it is the rich (in this context, those living in cities or places where there is no lack of basic needs of life) who struggle with pornography most because they can easily access it, they are surrounded by and struggle with many kinds of addictions and marital unfaithfulness. Sinners are also found in urban areas, and I can say their sin is also urban! Those sinners like any others are in need for salvation; they need freedom from the work of the Devil; they need to know the Lord and depend on him. When Jesus said, “Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you,” (Matthew 28:19-20), and when he said, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation” (Mark 16:15), he did not talk about the poor only, neither did he mean that the Gospel was to be preached to those in Africa, Asian and Latin America only. He meant “every creature.” The Gospel is for the rich and the poor, the black and the white, the educated and the uneducated, the healthy and the unhealthy.

Let the focus of missionary work not be Africa alone. Missionaries should also consider America and Europe. There is need for the work of God to be done in every continent and country. In fact, there is a global witness that the center of Christianity (Gospel) is shifted to Africa. If that is true, why should Africa still be seen as the only field where missionary work is to be done? My point in the whole article is that the Gospel be equally taken to the needy people who are found everywhere in the world, and that the need for the Gospel and Salvation not be equated with the need for food, clean water and medicine.

The Gay Bible

By David Fugoyo

Many have read in the resent past about the publication of the new version of the Bible meant to support the position of the gay people. The Bible will soon be in the Western Markets—especially, America—and will, of course, find its way to the rest of the world. The Bible will be published by Pink Cross Publishing Company in the USA.

The ultimate goal of this Gay Bible will be to defend and encourage homosexuality and lesbianism. It will do so by altering some narratives and facts in the Bible and change some names to match and suggest the support of the Holy Scripture of homosexuality and lesbianism. The main feature of the Gay Bible will be the alteration of biblical stories. Stories such as the Virgin Birth of Christ will be altered in a way that will deny the fact that Christ was born of a virgin. Joseph and Mary in the gospels will be named Josephine and Mary; Adam and Eve in Genesis will be named Adam and Steve; Samson and Delilah in the Book of Judges will be named Samantha and Delilah. All these alterations will be in favor of the support of homosexuality and lesbianism.

Despite the attempt to change what the Bible teaches concerning the relationship between a man and a woman, the truth of the Holy Scripture will remain intact. The points below will continue to serve as the hope of every true Christian.

·        The stories of Adam and Eve, Samson and Delilah, Joseph and Mary and others will not change because the names of the characters have changed to favor and encourage the practices of the homosexuals and lesbians.

·        The Gay Bible will remain for gays. There will be no way that this Gay Bible will replace the Bible that we have today. Only those, who, with or without the Gay Bible, believe and practice homosexuality and lesbianism will consider the Gay Bible to be the source of the information that is meant to enrich their relationship with God.

·        The Gay Bible will not be able to defend how many of the biblical characters came into being, since it claims that the parents of those characters were both from one gender. For example, the birth of Cain and Abel (Adam and Eve’s sons) will be obscure because the parents of Cain and Abel will be from one gender, according to the Gay Bible. The Gay Bible will have to change so many stories and facts from the Bible to make it suit its message.

·        Everybody, including gays and gay supporters, will know that the Gay Bible has altered many of the biblical facts and stories to suit the message it propagates.

The sole reason for the publication of the Gay Bible is to defend the position of those who have been seeing that homosexuality and lesbianism is approved of by God. The debate of whether homosexuality and lesbianism are accepted by God is one of the heated and strong debates in these days. It is not my mandate, at this time, to write on the debate. I have just considered the soon to be released Gay Bible and some few issues surrounding it. You are welcome to leave your comments and opinion on the topic.

What would War between Sudan and South Sudan mean?

By David Fugoyo

News about Sudan and South Sudan has occupied the media for number of days now. The contest over Heglig (Panthou) is the main reason of the current struggle between the two countries. The question of “in whose territories does Heglig (Panthou) lie?” is the cardinal question as far as the struggle or the talk about the struggle between Sudan and South Sudan is concerned.

My concern, in this article, is not to show or prove who the owners of Heglig are. My mandate here is to let the readers know why the war between Sudan and South Sudan would be very devastating. I would like to give an illustration to what I want to explain in this article.

My cousin, Kennedy, and I lived in one house and were very close friends in our childhood. We were a very strong team that vowed to fight our common enemies (whoever attacked and threatened either of us). I knew Kennedy’s points of strength and weakness; he also knew my points of strength and weakness. We fought with our neighbor’s kids and with our friends in school and in our residential area. However, whenever I disagreed with Kennedy and we decided to fight, the result was always ‘bloodshed’. None of our colleagues or friends was able to stop us from fighting. In most case, our colleagues and friends had to rush to our house to report to our parents that we were fighting. Even with the presence of both or one of our parents, Kennedy and I were willing to continue fighting.

There is no country in the world that knows Sudan as South Sudan does. South Sudan knows the weakness and strength of Sudan; it knows almost all the military strategic areas and the buildings and bridges that are very strategic in Sudan. In the same way, Sudan knows South Sudan more than any other country. Imagine if war breaks out between Sudan and South Sudan! Many strategic places in both countries would be destroyed, many lives will be lost. The war would also hamper developmental projects and plans in both countries. Given the fact that South Sudan has been viewing Sudan as the reason of its lack of development, and the reason of the death of millions of its citizens, war would add fuel to the already-existing antagonism between both countries.

The point of the immediate two paragraphs above is that the closer people are, the fiercer their conflict is. The going to war of Sudan and South Sudan would, therefore, be the worst option. The best option, if possible, for Sudan and South Sudan is to go for negotiation (dialogue). Even if the solutions to the outstanding issues between both countries seem to be impossible, negotiation is the best option.

I would conclude that war between Sudan and South Sudan would mean going back to anguish and to the days of devastation. It would mean going back to the days of lack of schools and good roads, to the days of hunger and sleeping in the cold, to the days of worries and families’ disintegration, to death. War should not be THE OPTION, if possible.

The New Age Movement: Beware, Christians!

By David Fugoyo

What is the New Age Movement?

It is hard to define what the New Age Movement (NAM) is due to its composition of assorted beliefs and theologies from various religions and philosophies. The NAM does not have a clear base and structured system, and that makes is difficult to be defined. However, “The New Age Movement (NAM)...is just what it is – a movement.  It is essentially a collection of eastern-influenced metaphysical ideologies, a hodge-podge of theologies and philosophies that are bound together by “universal tolerance” and moral relativism.  The NAM is the natural progression of humanism.” source of quotation.

“It is a theology of ‘feel-goodism,’ ‘universal tolerance,’ and ‘moral relativism’” (ibid).

 

“The new age movement is the most deceptive and damaging philosophy around today. It is entwined not only in witchcraft and satanism, it is prevalent in all denominations of what the world calls Christianity.” Source of quotation.

The danger of the New Age Movement is that it is a mixture of Christian theology and other theologies and philosophical ideologies, and it does not have any physical institution. Being almost shapeless, the NAM is easier than Islam and Buddhism, for instance, to enter in the Christian circles. Its presence is not easily noticed; and it, therefore, faces no resistance in its spread among any group, belief or ideology.

The NAM’s Teachings in Summery

• Man is in the centre of everything; all is about man not God or anything else. It is about the well-being, enjoyment and freedom of man.
• God is in everything including man and nature. So, man is God. Nature is God too.
• Human being has evolved biologically, and must now evolve spiritually.
• Man is separated from God not because of sin but because of lack of understanding the true nature and essence of God. Knowledge, therefore, is vital as far as being together with God is concerned.

Two Basic Beliefs of the NAM

1. Evolutionary Godhood

Man is now in the stage of spiritual evolution (the physical evolution took place). Since the evolution is continuously taking place, man will one day become like God (or Christ)—this is what the New Agers are hoping for in the future. After becoming like God, man will end up becoming God because man will eventually have all the qualities of God. What is realized in this belief is the man-centeredness—all is about man.

The NAM followers also believe in ‘reincarnation.’ Reincarnation is simply a rebirth—man will go under some sort of rebirth to be elevated and become God.

2. Global Unity

Unity is very central in the beliefs of the NAM. The unity will be between the following.

1. Man and Man

As man and man grow and becoming like God, they will have a mutual understanding, harmony and love which will make them have one purpose. Having one understanding and purpose will result in man having strong unity.

As far as unity is concerned, the NAM followers believe and hope for a one universal economy and one leader to lead the world. (organizations that stress unity and oneness).

2. Man and Nature

God is in everything he created, is the view believed by the Nam. Nature is one of the ‘everything’ God created. Nature is then part of God and it is to be respected by man in a mutual and cordial relationship—unity. There is need for harmony and strong tie (unity) between man and nature. Gaia (earth) is to be respected and revered by the people, stresses the NAM. (organizations that stress the nature). 

3. Man and God

Since man is evolving, he is improving in having divine nature; and soon, man will be God—equivalent to God—and he will be in harmony with God. The idea here is that man and God will have the same will and that God will not need to tell man what to do. Again, the free will of man is central in this belief.

Means of Spreading

The NAM has numerous vehicles through which it spreads. These vehicles include:

1. Music

Music is a very powerful vehicle for the spreading of the NAM. The fact that music is loved by the people from every culture and religion has made it easier for the NAM to get its roots into those cultures and religions. Songs that express the feelings of the singer and the situations he/she is in (e.g. songs born out of personal emotional experience such as love) is dominant in the music industry. Such songs are loved more than any others. The issue here is, those songs spread the message of “only me and my feelings” which is highly attributed to the NAM.

2. Movies

Movies are not different from music. Romantic movies, though not all of them are bad, are considered the evangelists of the NAM. You would watch a man trying his best to have a girl agree to fall in love with him; and he is ready to fight and even kill for the sake of the girl. The attention here—if carefully observed—is the egoism of the man. All attentions are on one person: the man and all that he (only him) wants. 

3. Internet

Internet is increasingly teaching people to embrace the NAM ideologies. For instance, more than 80% (my own assessment) wall posts on facebook are egocentric. They express the feeling of the poster, not necessarily social or religious sentiments.

4. Literature

Romantic books and magazines find a free and huge market worldwide. They are read more than any other types of literature by the common people because they (i.e. the literatures) address and feed egoism in people.

5. Fashion

What is fashion all about? Is it about the company, the type of dress, the color? Though many may claim that fashions are about the aforementioned reason, it is not entirely true. The truth is, most of those who buy and love fashions; they do it for their own sake. They don’t necessarily care about what others would say; they do what they see good—egoism. 

6. Pleasure

Pleasure, though not new, is the driving force behind the spread of the NAM. Pleasure is related to the individual rights to exercise whatever they want. Pleasure has given birth to so many practices such as pornography, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc.  

“Egoism” is what we see in all the abovementioned vehicles.

The NAM is calling for the following:

(1) New world order
(2) Universal credit card system
(3) World food authority
(4) World Health Authority
(5) World water authority
(6) Universal tax
(7) Universal military draft
(8) Abolishing of Christianity, Judaism and Islam
(9) One world leader

Dale Robbins @  this source.

It is clear from the above mentioned list that the NAM is calling for unity; the unity being called for by the NAM is not a mere unity, but a unity that is/will ultimately be dominated and controlled by one entity, body (organization) or person.

Basic Christian Responses to the NAM

Christianity in its teaching does not agree with most of the teaching of the NAM. What we need to know is that, a half truth is not equivalent to truth; in other words, half truth is not acceptable as truth. In fact half truth is more dangerous that lie or untruth.

My friend in Sudan once said, “Sugar is good and beneficial. However, when sugar is mixed with a little sand, no body really likes it.” In the same way, truth is good, but it is not good if it is mixed with untruth.

The NAM teaches that man is not separated from God because of sin but because of lack of knowledge of God. That is not true, because a mere knowledge of God leads only to religiosity. The Bible teaches us that people are separated from God because of sin (Isaiah 59:2).

The NAM claims that man has the nature of God and therefore man is free from sin. It is not true because the Bible clearly states that all have sinned.... (Romans 2:23).

Through the teaching of the NAM, knowledge of God seems to be the way of getting closer (Salvation) to God. The Bible in many places teaches that Christ is the only solution through whom we can get closer to God (be saved), (e.g. 1 Peter 3:18).

The Nam teaches that man and God are or will be compatible. Christianity clearly states that God is different from man and that there are things only God can do (Isaiah 44:24). That is the old lie of the devil that man will become like God in Genesis 3:5.

Though the NAM believes in reincarnation, the Bible rules out the idea because, “people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).

The issue of unity and having one global system under one leader is the indication of the truthfulness of the word of God; “Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).

Some Basic Differences between the NAM and Christianity

NAM	CHRISTIANITY
God is an impersonal force.	God is personal.  He is our Heavenly Father who loves us.
God is all and all is God.  He is part of creation, as are all of us.	God is the Almighty Creator of the universe, and all within it.  Man is finite, and one of God’s creations.
There is no sin, only misunderstanding of truth.	Rebellion from God is sin.  All have sinned, and all must be saved.
Man saves himself.	Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sins.  Only through faith in Him may man be saved.
Heaven and Hell do not exist.  They are states of mind.	There is a literal Heaven, and a literal Hell.
Jesus is a man who exemplified “Christ Consciousness, and the divinity that is man.	Jesus is the Son of God, and is part of the triune nature of God.

The table is adopted from this source.

From the discussions above, we see that it is possible for a person to be a NAM follower without actively engaged in a particular kind of organization or worship activities. The best way to know and avoid the NAM teaching is by knowing the Lord at a personal level and studying his word diligently.

Is it ‘biblical’ or ‘in the Bible’?

I have listened to many Christians who refer to issues in the Bible as ‘biblical.’ Though it sounds right, it is not completely right. The fact is, there is difference between ‘biblical’ and ‘in the Bible.’ In other words, not everything in the Bible is biblical. Something ‘biblical’ refers to what is prescribed by the Bible, or what the Bible seems to suggest, or what the Bible teaches; whereas, something ‘in the Bible’ refers to what is mentioned in the Bible – narratives or Bible stories constitute the bulk of this part.

The relationship between the ‘biblical’ and the ‘in the Bible’ can be likened to the relationship between prescription and description respectively.  Something prescribed is to be followed or implemented. Conversely, something described serves as an information or knowledge with no necessity of implementation. The following examples highlight my points on the two concepts posed above:

Examples of ‘biblical’

• To love one another – we are mandated to do so (1 John 4:7).
• To believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31).
• To live a holy life – it is a mandate for us to be holy (1 Peter 1:16).

Examples of ‘in the Bible’

• A woman caught in adultery (John 4).
• Peter’s denial of Jesus Christ (Matt. 26: 69-75).
• Saul’s persecution of the church (Acts 9: 1, 2).

A good reader of the Bible would understand that the three points under the first example are what we are to implement or apply in our lives if we profess to be Christians. The points under the second examples, however, are informatory. We can learn from them, but we do not have to do what they say – we do not need to be adulterers, to deny Christ or to persecute the church. In fact, doing what the points in the second example are about is to act against what the Bible prescribes.

From the discussions above, one should now not confuse one concept for another. If any statement made is meant to suggest an action prescribed by the Bible, then, one may know it is ‘biblical’. However, if it is information provided without any direct suggestion for the readers, it is what referred to as ‘in the Bible.’ I should not be mistaken that the narratives do not teach us. No! They do teach us, and we learn from them too.

Caveat

The points discussed above can be misleading if one does not pay close attention. If the terms ‘biblical’ and ‘in the Bible’ are confusing, one should think of them as the ‘prescribed’ and ‘described’ respectively. There are other issues in the Bible that could hardly be placed under either term/concept. For instance, the death of Christ; is it biblical or in the Bible? My answer simply is that it is in the Bible. However, if I am answering someone who has some feeling of doubt whether Christ died, I might say it is biblical – for the sake of stressing my point. Here, I would mean, the Bible teaches about the death of Christ.

Why I Support the Relocation of the Capital of the RoSS from Juba

The issue of whether or not Juba should continue to be the capital city of the Republic of South Sudan (RoSS) after the official declaration of the independence of RoSS has been contentious. Whereas some think Juba should remain as the capital, others support the relocation of the capital from Juba to elsewhere. Though each group has got its own reason and tenet of where the capital should be situated, I tend to agree with those who want a new venue to host the capital. My reasons for the relocations of the capital might not be identical with those who support the relocation.

My reasons of the relocation of the capital city of RoSS from Juba are, therefore, as follows:

• Juba is an old city. Being an old city, the difficulty of redesigning, rebuilding, and the expansion of the city are undeniable. The resent map/design of the new capital which the government thinks of building cannot be an applicable matter in the current Juba. Those who are familiar with the history of rebuilding, they know how difficult is to rebuild an old city. It is easier to build a new city from nothing, especially if the new city is intended to meet the qualifications of today’s modern cities.
• Juba belongs to the Bari people. Juba, traditionally, historically, and without denial, belongs to the Bari community. The land policy in the South Sudan renders the ownership of the land to communities, not the government. Any attempt to grab a piece of land in Juba by any other communities would be a clear violation of law and denial of the existence of the owners of the land – the Baris. In his article titled, Potential of Conflict in Central and Western Equatoria State(s), Dr. Sakia Baas reports the following interview held with a certain owner of a plot in Juba right after the election,

“We own a plot in Tong Ping since the 1980s. We have a certificate that shows the land is ours. In 2007, we wanted to develop the land. We found a brigadier-general and a few of his soldiers there. They said “we shed blood for this land. How can you say it is your land?” They were threatening us not to come back to this land.” 

• Juba has the history of ethnic tussle. Those who know the history surrounding Juba, especially in 1980’s would vividly recall the kokora incident. The incident was started by Equatorians who felt unhappy with other communities for reasons attributed to politics. Since Juba hosted the so called kokora, it is likely to host similar incident if tensions arise. Relocating the capital, therefore, will be a kind of therapy to the incident’s aftermath.
• Juba is the most developed city in South Sudan. Juba is the most developed city in the entire region of Southern Sudan. Leaving Juba for another location for the establishment of a capital city will allow development shift to another area as well – and that is a good thing!
• There is tension in Juba. This point is related to the points discussed above. The reader, by now, must have sensed what type of tension might be already existed, or will exist, sooner or later, in Juba. Reconciliation is one way of resolving the tension; however, what about the owners of the land? How will they be compensated, and who will compensate them? Which land will they call their? These questions and concerns reflect the tensions that might, sooner or later, come to surface in Juba.

Without letting my readers think I am writing in the line of tribalism, let me make it clear that, “Prevention is better than cure!”. To try and resolve an issue is better than to pretend that everything is ok. Personally, I am not from the Bari community but I feel and understand why they always complain when it comes to land issues in Juba. Aren’t they right when they complain?

My reader might ask, “Where should the new capital be established?” or “Which land/city in South Sudan that do not have owners?” These concerns and others are pertinent. The reason Ramcel was suggested as a suitable location to host the new capital is that is not situated in the heart of a community, unlike as Juba. Such places as Ramcel and others could be the better options.

The views above are my own reading of the situation in South Sudan, and it is meant to promote the better living for the communities, taking into consideration everybody’s right and recognition. It is not meant to stir up or bring about hatred and ethnic division.

Thanks