Recent orders

Question 1 James Madison Avoidance of Tyranny

Question 1: James Madison Avoidance of Tyranny

James Madison believed that ambitions is no necessarily a positive trait but must get considered a powerful trait. As such, the existence of ambitions creates a mechanism of designing the government which uses the negative human traits to gain the same traits and to the advantages of the general public. As said by his ambitions, Madison depicts that the ambitions of human must get made by the same ambition to counteract ambitions. The counteractive mechanism means that each arm of the government should be made independent to enable the independent service delivery and the execution of duties (Taylor, 2021). Notably, the distinct and independent operations of each arm of government while connected to each otherworld create a democratic mechanism through which the service delivery to the citizens gets enhanced effectively. The reasons for the independent functioning of every arm of government get based on the provision of security against the gradual concentration of the powers under the same departments. The objective of the Madison goes on to get based on the provision of the constitutional mandate and the personal initiative that will resettle encroachment of the other bodies hence provides a defense against the commensurable attack. Therefore, the action of maintaining the ambition to counteract the ambition get based on the need of each arm of government to get independent hence not relying in any department for the service delivery.

James Madison describes the divisions between the two levels of governments which consist of the state and the central government. Also, the total centralization is due to the recognition of the differences between the state and the federal government (Taylor, 2021). As such, the federalism should contain the efficient government that should mandate the roles that are totally different from the states and the local governments. Through federal papers, Madison enhances the political structures that created the equitable distribution of resources in the executive, legislation and the judiciary.

Question 2: Definition of Democratic

The U.S. Constitution contains the American Government’s foundation, structure, form, and purpose. No government or individual is excluded from following the U.S. Constitution. It creates a federal democratic republic government form (Rossiter & Quirk, 2017). Hence, there is an unbreakable 50 sovereign States’ union. The U.S. Government is a democracy due to the people being involved in governing themselves. Also, the ability of the government to derive its present power from the population makes it a republic.

The Preamble of the Constitution provides that the Federal Government’s purpose is to safeguard the Liberty Blessings to our posterity and ourselves, promote the common welfare, give a common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, and establish justice. Thus, three primary principles that are the basis of the U.S. Government enable the achievement of this purpose. These principles include separation of powers, which involves government branches with varying powers; self-government, which involves government by the individuals; and inherit rights which involves rights that all individuals residing in the U.S. have.

A major Constitution aims the Convention drafted was to establish a government containing adequate power; hence it could act on a specific national level. However, the government was to be without significant powers that could result in the risk of fundamental rights (Shue, 2020). Among the ways this was achieved was to ensure the separation of government power into three branches. Then, balances and checks would be included in the powers; this would ensure that none of the government’s branches gained supremacy. Thus, the U.S. Constitution enumerates each branch’s powers while those powers that are not assigned to them are reserved to the different states.

Question 3: Fredrick Douglas speech

Fredrick Douglas speech was majorly about the ongoing slavery of the African Americans. He fought for the need of the government to abolish the slavery hence considered the American socialite. The speech was delivered by Douglas after his escape from the prion. The main reason for his escape was based I the promotion of freedom (Frank, 2020). The freedom was based on the establishment of he equal justice, citizenship and equal representations for the blacks. Therefore, the speech and the activism created the amendments of the constitutions to abolish the slavery.

The constitution in the 134th amendment depicts that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall have convictions in the United States. As such, the constitution restricted the slave trade. Following his retirement Madison advocated for the emancipation and forced colonialization (Frank, 2020). As a republican, Madison considered slavery as the violation of the republican principles. The slavery was human or property hence should be opposed and will diffuse with western expansion.

Madison opposed the slavery of African Americans in his careers. However, he later defended the westward expansion of slavery. According to him, slavery was a violation of republican principles through which the government never put the realistic programs to eradicate the slave labor (Frank, 2020). Also, slavery was dishonorable of the natural character hence should not get taxed. To act as an example slaves were well housed in Madison farms. Furthermore, he supported the central government top eradicate the slavery.

In my opinion, Madison acts as a legend through which the American government faced several measures towards eradicating the injustices. Also, the government work with the international organizations to creates a framework through which they can easily investigate the non-existence properties (Frank, 2020). Therefore, I support Madison move to create an enabling environment for the lab security.

Question 4: Federalism and Civil Rights

The relationship between federalism and civil rights has been complex and ever-changing in the America. Federalism is a system of government in which power is shared between the national and states. The Constitution mandates powers to federal government, while the states governments retain all mandates that is not given by national government. Civil rights are the rights of individuals to be treated equally before the law and to have equal access to certain freedoms and protections.

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s was a significant turning point in the relationship between federalism and civil rights. Up until this point, civil rights had primarily been a state issue. The federal government had passed a few laws. The Civil Rights Movement changed all that by showing a genuine interest in civil rights.

Today, the nature of civil rights is connected to federalism through the following ways. First, as the federal government has become more involved in enforcing civil rights and ensuring equality, the states have generally become less complicated. This has led to a decrease in the overall power of the states when it comes to civil rights issues. Additionally, the federal government’s involvement in civil rights has generally led to more uniformity in how civil rights are protected and enforced across the country. This has made it easier for people to move from one state to another without worrying about whether their civil rights will be respected. Finally, the federal government’s involvement in civil rights has also increased the overall power of the federal government when it comes to civil rights issues. This has made it more difficult for states to pass laws that would restrict civil rights or make it more difficult for people to exercise their civil rights.

Reverences

Frank, J. H. (2020). A brief history of Frederick D. Bennett’s entomological career. Florida Entomologist, 102(4), 763-766. https://bioone.org/journals/florida-entomologist/volume-102/issue-4/024.102.0414/A-Brief-History-of-Frederick-D-Bennetts-Entomological-Career/10.1653/024.102.0414.shortRossiter, C., & Quirk, W. J. (2017). Constitutional dictatorship: crisis government in the modern democracies. Routledge.

Shue, H. (2020). Basic rights: Subsistence, affluence, and US foreign policy. princeton University press.

Taylor, E. (2021). Cornerstone or Threat? Political Ambition and The Federalist. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=iTorEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=James+Madison+Avoidance+of+Tyranny&ots=anW9FImExI&sig=Qhij1alLodIXVZnHQUJ1SRUpeYU

History of Church Leadership

History of Church Leadership

Leadership is the process through which a party or individual, through influence, gets the cooperation of others on the verge of attaining a common goal. Leadership is an act of guiding people towards a pre-defined goal or the capability of doing so. It ensures there is coherence in a particular setting and offers a source of guidelines as to how some issues should be approached. In this text the history of church leadership will be looked into. It is so hard to look into the leadership in the church without referring to its true embodiment. From the scriptures in the Bible, Jesus was the real symbol of leadership in the church. He was the guiding factor that led people towards the love of God, forgiveness of sin and the eternity of life after life on the earth. He outlined the foundations of leadership as the character of a person, the totality of their influential power and the urge to accomplish a common purpose with the aid of supernatural realms of power. These fundamentals have evolved since then when compared to the current principles of leadership in churches today; the main focus of this text.

The New Testament Church

The New Testament form of leadership is among the most misunderstood concept among all the concepts in the Bible. The type of church leadership outlined in the New Testament is embodied in the principle of Jesus Christ as the head of the church. This principle is generally agreed to by most people but most of them do not really understand this concept. To mitigate this problem this text will outline the main guidelines of this principle. This principle dominates the New Testament but it is best outlined in the New Testament book of Colossians. From this book, the leadership of the church is seen to be dominated by three fundamental aspects of Christ’s leadership model. First, the New Testament lays emphasis on the fact that church leadership has Jesus Christ as its main source. According to Colossians chapter one verse sixteen, all the things that exist on earth and in heaven, including those that can be seen by the human eye and those that man cannot perceive with his eyes, all the thrones of leadership and authorities; they are all created through His power and for Him. This indicates that everything including the principles of leadership in the early church was meant to come from Jesus Christ and His examples (Alley, 2002). The second facet is that church leadership can only be sustained by Jesus Christ and only him. He is not just the source of leadership but also the constant source of the same; the force that sustains this leadership. Just as the molecules of a substance like water remain intact, the leadership of the church is kept intact by the force of the power and might of Jesus Christ; in the same way atomic bonds result in the formation of molecules. The leadership of the church, after being sustained by the power that is in Jesus Christ, then transfers the same unity and coherence to the church. The third facet of New Testament church leadership is that its main purpose is found in Jesus Christ (Alley, 2002). The main purpose of church leadership according to the new testament was the supremacy of Jesus Christ and it is aimed at exalting his name and his name alone since he is the head of the church body. The new testament leadership involved apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, bishops and elders but none of them were meant to feel any superior to another and the name of Jesus Christ was the pinnacle of the leadership; no one was closer to him or farther from him.

The Christian Era Church

In this era, the leadership of the church took a hierarchical approach. The role of the bishops was overseeing and this presented a platform for the development of a chain of command. This had the episkopi who were the general overseer, the presbyteroi acted as the elders and the diakonoi who were ministerial servants. The leadership in this era took a more political route hence disputes emerged from issues like the criteria followed in giving appropriate titles to the church leaders and the specificity of the roles leader should undertake. These conflicts led to the schism in most denominations since some churches could not find a unanimous way of handling the issues. The leadership of the church in this era was focused on ranks and titles and did not follow the fundamentals outlined in the new testament. Church leadership became a political position and in some churches, the leaders of the church had the final word in legislative matters; they acted like judges. The schism of most churches led to the emergence of churches like the Catholic and Orthodox churches that used the title of priest to refer to all the baptized and anointed but when looked into deeply, it is used to refer to bishops and presbyters; both of which are used synonyms to each other. Other churches abandoned the whole idea of bishops and only have elders. In later stages of this era, the concept of succession was applied; bishops succeeded other bishops after they “retired” and the role of every leader was clearly defined. The reintroduction of the role of deacons in the leadership hierarchy gave them the role of tending to the needs of the poor and the sick in the community. Towards the end of this era, the church had a defined system of leadership with very many bishops.

The Medieval Church

In this era, the church grew in numbers and ramified to almost all corners of the earth. The church and its leaders therefore gained more and more influence on the people of the world. The church continued being actively involved in the political world at that time; it played a major in medieval politics. The leadership of the church in this time was recognized as the government; church leaders were assigned legislative roles for example, the archbishop of the Canterbury played the role of the Chancellor of England. The church leaders had an amplified political say in the community then. The magnitude of this influence comes from the fact that the church represented the presence of the Sovereignty of God and his power on earth. The church had very specific rules and regulations for almost all activities and had very clear criteria for doing things. Moreover, the church was the only body or organization that had global recognition. It is the power exercised by church leaders then that made the people inclined towards following the doctrine and its laws. Disobedience of the church’s laws led to automatic exclusion from the church and/ or eternal condemnation in the society. The leadership of the church also provided the society with the only social events at that time. The church leaders were in charge of communal events like public holidays and festivals during which songs were sung by the choirs and instruments played by the members of the church. The leaders of the church acted like the government for the people were seen to owe the church “taxes” when looked at from a rational point of view even though it was referred to as tithes. The leaders of the church also created a welfare system through which it gave assistance to the poor in their times of need. Furthermore, the political nature of the church leaders was intensified by the fact that they had to pay their assistants; parish priests had to give wages to substitute priests in cases where they preached or supervised any event on their behalf. This increased the level of corruption among the church leaders since they used church structures for their personal benefits like using church lawns to graze their cattle (Alley, 2002).

The Reformation Era

The leaders during the reformation era were all very interested in the fact that the Catholic Church dominated the religious field. There was only one universal church and the leaders of this church had a very secretive life. This raised a lot of concern. The people who led the reformations were interested in making religion more relevant to the life of man since life had changed in terms of politics and technological advancements. They had a strong belief that the church had to be reformed. One of the people that led the reformations was a scholar by the name Desiderius who was very concerned by the fact that the church leaders then were very worldly and did not reflect the teaching of Jesus Christ. For instance, the church owned a third of the land in Western Europe. Being a scholar, he was not impressed by the fact that there was not a distinction between the scholars and the religious lot in the sense that the church leaders were applying their cognitive knowledge in matters of religion; they did not refer to the Bible which should have been used for spiritual matter rather, they depended on their mastery of life and doctrine and believed that what they said was wise and godly (Alley, 2002).

Martin Luther also reformed and was among the first protestant Christians. He refused to adhere to the words of the pope then when he asked him to stop attacking the church. Like any other reformer, he had a staunch belief in what his convictions gave to him; he believed in what he felt was the truth. His reformation clearly outlined the character of the leaders of the church since they threatened his life. This was contrary to what the Christian doctrine stood for; a commandment orders man not to kill. The leaders during this era were therefore not spiritually inclined but had taken the church as a political institution and they were ready to do anything to protect their reputation. The leaders of the church during this era were very selfish and deemed the members of the clergy as special and very different from the rest of the community (Carney, 2001).

Leadership of the Church over the Past three Centuries

The leadership of the church transformed into the type of leadership that does not integrate into the society. The leaders were pre-occupied by their roles in the church to the point that they did not really mind the activities of the community. This resulted to the instance where churches were full of people in the middle class of the economy but were found in lower class residential areas (Carney, 2001).

The leaders did not concern themselves with reaching out to the direct society but rather “expanding” the kingdom of God by building more and more church structures. They became money oriented a kept on preaching prosperity as opposed to the goodness and mercy of God which is the basis of the Christian doctrine. The main vision and mission of the church was totally lost and the church leaders did not even take time to pray with the congregation. Prayer was left to individuals and families; churches became all about contributions, marriages and funerals and the leadership was just a position.

Conclusion

The leadership of the church is currently trying its best to revert to where it ought to be but most of the church leaders in the church today have turned churches into businesses and tools for reinforcing social status. Most church leaders actively participate in politics and even vie for political positions during elections. They focus more on making their churches the biggest possible. However, some church leaders have stuck in the fundamental framework for church leaders as provided by the New Testament and the life of Jesus Christ on earth. They propel evangelism and preach the word of God’s love peace and sensitize their work on ministry. The future of church leaders therefore has hope in leading the church and its members the way Jesus has intended it to be.

References

Alley, J. K. (2002). The apostolic revelation: The reformation of the Church. Rockhampton, Qld: Peace Publishing.

Carney, J. E. (2001). Renaissance and Reformation: 1500-1620 : a biographical dictionary. Westport, Conn. [u.a.: Greenwood Press.

Clarke, A. D. (2008). A Pauline theology of church leadership. London: T & T Clark.

McNeese, T. (1999). The Reformation. St. Louis, Mo: Milliken Pub.

Watt, D. E. R. (2000). Medieval church councils in Scotland. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

The Huaorani of the Ecuadorian Amazon are a tribe of fearsome warriors, able to endure for centuries whatever hardship the fo

Savages

The Huaorani of the Ecuadorian Amazon are a tribe of fearsome warriors, able to endure for centuries whatever hardship the forest put in front of them. Having never been exposed to the outside “civilized” world until recently, the Huaorani lived their lives as their fathers had before them—getting everything they needed and wanted from the forest. They lived simpler lives of hunting and gathering, traveling as nomads wherever the forest took them. However, rich deposits of oil were discovered in the Amazon, and since then the Huaorani’s way of life has never been the same. Forced by the people of the outside world, or cowode meaning “cannibals”, to conform to their rules, their religion, and their politics, the Huaorani have been thrust into unfamiliar territory where their rules, their religion, and their politics are simply viewed as wrong and demonic. Because they have been forced to interact with the outside world, the Huaorani have had to develop relationships with many groups, most notably of which are the Christian missionaries and environmental groups. Each with their own reasons for being involved with the Huaorani, the missionaries and the environmentalists have had a major impact on the “new” life of the Huaorani.

Christian missionary groups have been in full force in the Amazon since the beginning of oil drilling. With Rachael Saint at the façade, missionaries have formed a relationship with the Huaorani. They believe that it is their divine duty to convert the Huaorani from their “…dark and demonic…culture” (Kane 40) and make the Huaorani’s lives better through God, Christ, and specialized education. But the relationship between the Huaorani and the missionaries is “…not of shared faith but of power and reward” (Kane 89). Many of the native people only believe in God and Christ because they have been forced to, or they truly do not believe in Christianity, only saying they do for special treatment or rewards. In fact, the authors says, after “…the several hours I spent with Dayuma (supposedly the most Christian of all the Huaorani), she did not mention Jesus” (Kane 84).

The Huaorani are a people born in raised by the forest and family—that is their religion. The idea of worshiping one singular man is preposterous to them. If America is the land of religious freedom, why do some religious leaders believe that they can superimpose their religious ideals on others in other countries? In those areas where the word of God has been heard, the Huaorani are not better off, in fact, they are far from it. Hunger, poverty, and sickness are just some of the ailments in these areas, due to the natives new dependency on cowode abundancia that their new “civil” ways bring. Attempts were even made to include the Huaorani culture in an educational movement that incorporated both the old and the new cultures—to form a “…genuine bilingual, bicultural education” (Kane 141). But it seems that the Christian missionaries do not believe in retaining any shed of the old Huaorani lifestyle—it might impede on the brainwashing of the Huaorani.

In many instances, the missionaries work hand-in-hand with the oil companies, both only caring about their own self interests instead of the interests and rights of the Huaorani. The “Via Auca zone is a legacy of the symbiotic relationship between American evangelical missionaries and the Company…Rachel Saint and other North American missionaries affiliated with the Summer Institute of Linguistics conducted a program with the aid of magic and trinkets—airplanes and mirrors and salt—lured most of the Huaorani into a small protectorate on the far western edge of their traditional lands” (Kane 27).

The situation with environmental groups in the Amazon can be easily summed in the words of Nanto, a Huaorani when he said, “How can these people speak for us, if we have never met them?” (Kane 21). The mission of the environmentalists began because “Ecuador had no environmental regulations for oil production, and no attempt was made to assess its environmental impact until 1989, when an American named Judith Kimerling came to the country and began to stick her nose into things” (Kane 70).

Although Kimerling’s heart was in the right place, everything comes back to money, and in that sense “It all gets back to oil” (Kane 115). Kimerling and her group CONFENIAE were genuinely interested in what was happening to the forest and the plight of the Huaorani. But once money was introduced into the equation, CONFENIAE, like so many environmental groups, performed an about-face, defending the oil companies in many circumstances because they say they provide schools and hospitals. What the environmental groups knew, but conveniently forget is that the drilling is “destroying the source of all life, the forest itself” (Kane 7). Groups like the NRDC are a great example of this type of thinking created by the oil companies and their money in which environmental groups support the obliteration of the forest. The NRDC which is “opposed to oil drilling in national parks in the United States”, but promotes it in Latin America.

For the most part, environmental groups have done little good for the Huaorani. Although they may have grand ideas of improving the plight of the Huaorani, the corruption of the oil industry eventually engulfs them. Only the Huaorani know what is best for them. And only the Huaorani know the forest and what is best for it.

In conclusion, the situation can not be summed up better than in the words of Jose Miguel who said, “Americans kill without knowing they are doing it. You don’t want to know you are doing it. And yet you are going to destroy an entire way of life. So you tell me: Who are the savages?” (Kane 75).

Bibliography: