Encounterological competence: an effective missiological tool for Christian participation in Nigerian politics

ABSTRACT

The call for Nigerian Christians to be actively involved in politics has gained momentum recently. Unfortunately, there is little focus on how Christians can appropriately engage their political space as Christ's witnesses. Encounterology is the interactions or encounters of the Christian faith, as witness, with other faiths. The writer argued that Christian politicians must be encounterologically competent to be the light amid the darkness of Nigeria's political space. Considering three perspectives of Christian relationships in a pluralistic context like Nigeria – isolation, assimilation and engagement, he presented engagement as a practical option for Christian politician to maintain their identity and remain effective in their holistic mission of bringing shalom to the world. As a Missiological tool, encounterology guides the Christian to have effective face-to-face, shoulder-to-shoulder, and back-to-back faith encounters with people of religious other who possibly have divergent ideas about politics and governance. He leveraged J. N. J. Kritzinger's seven dimensions of faith-to-faith encounter – personal agency, context analysis, ecclesial analysis, theology of religion, spirituality, practical project, and reflectivity, to explicate encounterological competence in the political space. Suggesting that politics is not for baby or weak Christians, he advocated that the leadership of churches and denominations must encourage and equip their members in this regard. He also advocated that theological schools must establish specific curriculums in this regard so that take theology beyond professional academy to the public arena.

KEYWORDS:

• Encounterology
• missiological tool
• Nigeria
• politics

Introduction

In the past, most Christians in Nigeria consider politics a ‘dirty game’ that is not meant for true or ‘born again’ Christians. Recently, the call for them to be actively involved has gained momentum. Unfortunately, there is little focus on how Christians can appropriately engage their political space as Christ's witnesses. This involves public theology, an interaction of theology with public issues of contemporary society, including politics where strangers meet as good citizens and good neighbours to deal with issues of public concern (Maluleke 2012, 80). They are strangers because of their social, religious, and political differences. Thus, public theology is aware of the pluralistic nature of society such as Nigeria, recognising the issue of diversity while addressing societal issues. It ‘seeks to provide resources for people to make connections between their faith and the practical issues facing society’ (van Aarde 2008, 1219–1220). It makes the aspiring Christian politicians to be sensitive to the fact that, though their task in the political space is the overall good of the society, rather than the agenda of their church, they are to carry out such task as Christ’s ambassadors.

Therefore, this paper examines encounterological competence as an effective Missiological tool for contemporary Christian politicians to achieve the purpose of their involvement in Nigerian politics. The writer argues that Christian politicians need encounterological competence to avoid unproductive extremes of isolation and assimilation. Instead, they can engage the religious pluralistic context of Nigerian politics for development and transformation. To this end, he considers the nature of politics in Nigeria against its pluralistic multi-religious worldviews and the preparation of the Christian politician as a Christian witness towards encountering individuals of other religions. Consequently, the writer maintains that Christian politicians must be encounterologically competent to be the light amid the darkness of Nigerian politics effectively.

Theoretical perspective

Christians or Christian groups may relate to their world in different ways that fall in the continuum between two extremes of assimilation and isolation, with engagement representing an ideal balance. When they tilt towards assimilation, they conform to the world and lose their unique Christian identity (Romans 12:1-2). Conversely, in isolation, they esteem their religion so highly that they do not engage the broader culture of the society. Engagement involves making religion an integral part of the context of the church. David Dockery captures this preferred option succinctly that, as a church, ‘we cannot forget the pull of the world or the pull to ignore God so evident all around us. As Christ's followers, we are not called out of this fallen world, but we are called to engage it and to sanctify the ongoing secular society in which we live’ (Dockery 2008, xiii-xiv, 3). Whereas assimilation negatively affects the identity of a Christian as isolation affects their mission, engagement is an incarnational model that allows the Christian to maintain their identity and fulfil their mission in the pluralistic context.

Dockery’s postion agrees with the focus of public theology, stressing how Christians can maintain their identity as Christ’s witnesses and fulfil their missions of bringing shalom to their pluralistic society. To this end, the call for Nigerian evangelical Christians to participate actively in the politics of their land is increasing by the day. Both academic and non-academic works abound to that effect. Such works motivate and encourage Christians not just to limit their roles to the civic duty of voting but also to be willing to join political parties of their choice, being able to nominate and be nominated for elective offices for national service. Deji Ayegboyin opines that since politics is integral to ecclesiological obligations, the church must take an active part and not maintain a standoff attitude. He states that, though Christian involvement may not be by church party, the church must aid interested members to serve as Christ's ambassadors in the political space (Ayegboyin 2008, 69).

Observably, while many Nigerian evangelical Christians avoid politics because they consider it a dirty game, their Muslim counterparts embrace it for different reasons, including what some Christians associate with the Islamic agenda for the country. On the contrary, it may be stated that the Bible does not separate religion from politics. Joseph, Nehemiah and Daniel are Old Testament examples of political participation. Jesus also reflected this position in His declaration in Luke 4:18–19. Similarly, Paul's refusal to give up his rights as a citizen in Acts 16:37–38 and 22:25 illustrates an indirect accent (Kantiok 2006, 1001). These biblical characters represented instruments for bringing shalom to the ‘dirty’ politics of their time.

John Stott asserts that since the church cannot deny the reality of religious plurality in the contemporary world, Christians cannot afford to be in cynic despair or naive simplicity but in engagement to make meaningful contributions and make their distinct influential witness felt in their various political jurisdictions. He further states that the Christian calling is not only for social service but also for social actions. For instance, a social action goes beyond the social service of caring for people experiencing poverty to improving and transforming the economic system through participation. Since direct partisan politics’ participation of the church as a body is debatable, the church must teach its members the importance of being involved at different levels, ranging from voting through being card-carrying members to seeking elective positions, as well as knowing the appropriate conduct for Christians in politics. The appropriate social service conducts include relieving human needs, philanthropic activities, seeking to minister to individuals and families, and works of mercy, while the corresponding social actions are removing the causes of human needs, political and economic activities, seeking to transform the structures of society, and the quest for justice (Stott 2006, 44–45, 72-–94; Lausanne Movement 1982). Thus, Christians must learn to deal with society's problems from the root. Active participation in politics is one such way.

Encounterology is the interactions or encounters of the Christian faith as a witness with other faiths (Mashau and Themba 2016, 45). It is a holistic, reflexive, and creative dialogue by which a ‘Christian enters a journey of mutual witness with a follower of another faith" (Magayi 2014, 142). Such a journey should be critical, creative, and interrogative since people of other faiths will always come with their own assumptions. As a Missiological tool, it contends against creating a sterile and unfruitful ‘distinction between the Religious Studies as a ‘scientific’ study of different religions (which does belong at a university) and theology as biased, ‘unscientific’ study of only one religion (which therefore does not belong at a university)’ (Kritzinger 2008, 765). The implication is that both must be in constant dialogue to create an appropriate platform for engagement without unnecessary biases. This idea agrees with the third option of engagement proposed above because it helps Christians understand areas of mutual misgivings between them and their neighbouring religious others.

An essential aspect of encounterology as a tool is that it recognises that a creative interreligious interaction requires a more contextual and inclusive theological method than an explicatio-applicatio scheme. Though explicatio-applicatio is simple and straightforward, its underlying assumption that a correct exegesis would lead to a suitable action may not always be so because it may not consider all other factors that affect religious identity and interreligious encounters (Kritzinger 2008, 767). The idea here is about the discursive nature of most religious traditions, such that using a universal standard for relating with people of other religions may amount to a mere stereotype. For instance, referring to all Muslims from northern Nigeria as fundamentalists is not only a grave stereotype; it is counterproductive in the political arena. This is why public theology refers to society as a ‘market place’ since there are different ‘products,’ including religious beliefs, theological positions and other ideaological worldviews (van Aarde 2008, 1219).

Encounterology considers the engagement of a Christian witness as a sandwich between the reality of the Christian faith, on the one hand, and the reality of their counterparts and other stakeholders with their unique identities, on the other hand. They are defined by both how their faith defines them and how people of other faith define them. Their unshielded face-to-face encounter also leads to faith-to-faith encounters that bring with them their theoretical beliefs and practical experiences. Thus, a two-fold exegesis of the Word of God and the life and culture of the people is necessary. Because of identity's dynamic and complex nature in such encounters, encounterology fits in appropriately because it considers all factors that shape their encounter. It uses seven dimensions to achieve appropriate identity engagement – personal agency, context analysis, ecclesial analysis, theology of religion, spirituality, practical project, and reflectivity (Kritzinger 2008, 767–769).

In a multi-religious context like Nigeria, the Christian witness in the political arena encounters the challenges of engaging Islamic and African traditional religious worldviews in rendering service to his community. They have faith-to-faith encounters due to their uncushioned face-to-face experience with the realities of the identities of their political neighbours. Unfortunately, different works have focused on motivating Christians to be actively involved in politics; there is a paucity of scholarly work on how Christian politicians are to engage the people of other religious and ideological worldviews as Christian witnesses in a pluralistic multi-religious Nigerian political space.

The Christian politician and Governance in Nigeria

The Dictionary of Politics and Government defines politics as ‘the theory and practice of governing a country’ (Collin 2004, 183). It involves bringing development to a particular geographical community. Development is about people and improving their quality of life, including the different areas of their needs such as food supply, clothing, habitable shelter, affordable education and good health care delivery (Nihinlola 2009, 162). It relates to efforts to shape a nation's future for economic and political stability. The governance structure often determines the nature of development, and most theories consider it with national economic growth, seeing the state as the primary agent. They use the internal social process within the society to meet the people's basic needs by appropriately using the nation's resources (Halperin 2018).

Shareia (2015) warns against ‘a common tendency to reduce the problems of development to economic problems’ (89). Development should be measured holistically, going beyond wealth accumulation and growth of national products to improving people's lives in totality. Consequently, it should result in high literacy rates and education levels, better health and nutrition, social cohesion and social skills, and more societal equality. The three focus areas of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) are critical. The first is human development for an individual's physical, emotional, spiritual and intellectual well-being. The second aspect is social development concerning interaction among members of the society, including health, education, freedom and security. The third aspect is sustainable development, a multidimensional perspective which covers economic, social and environmental development for individuals, society and nature, aiming at a future advantage (Abdul Aziz et al. 2015).

This understanding of development agrees with the African Union's ‘Agenda 2063: The African We Want’ (African Union n.d.). Thus, the hallmark of any good politician, including the Christian, is to pursue this goal of using the collective resources of the people to serve the people. Their proclamation, attitude and action must reflect this goal. Further, it is an aberration for politicians to base their manifesto on these legitimate duties. When politicians with this understanding of development come from different religious, ethnic, or ideological backgrounds in a pluralistic context like Nigeria, they are good citizens and good neighbours, pursuing common good of society. Yet, as strangers because of diversity of faith, tradition, and ethnicity, among other things (Maluleke 2012, 80).

Further, the concept of development discussed above agrees with the Christian politician's expected goal. The church's mission in the world is to bring shalom to it. This ‘refers to wholeness, completeness, and soundness. It is a holistic term extending to include spiritual peace (salvation), physical peace (healing), psychological peace (wholeness), and social peace (justice and freedom from war)’ (Moreau, Corwin, and McGee 2004, 13). Therefore, the Christians may consider the political system as a platform for bringing shalom to Nigerian society. Unfortunately, such a task is a tedious one because of the multi-religious backgrounds it involves.

It is noteworthy that the Christian politicians understand interfaith nature of their assignments since some politicians of other faiths are also interested in the good of the society. Consequently, as Christ’s witnesses, they must learn to associate with such people who may have different perspectives on similar issues so that they may not be accused of ‘religious tribalism’ (Mbillah 2020, 264). This requires skills in intercultural leadership because they need to be sensitive to worldviews of people of other faiths, cultures, and ethnicities who may also desire the best for their society. Their goal is to take people to the right destination (Madumbo 2020, 347, 365). The diversity of their faith, culture, or ethnicity makes them strangers while the pursuit of the common good makes them good citizens.

The Nigerian Christian politician will encounter worldviews that may not necessarily agree with his Christian perspectives of politics, governance and other related issues. These worldviews are in two broad categories, namely, the African and Islamic worldviews. As Africans, the Nigerian people view life holistically. There is no apparent dichotomy between the physical and the spiritual; no dividing line exists between the secular and the sacred (Ojo 2011, 25). For instance, there is no clear line of demarcation between religion and politics, and a forbidden diet, dress, and relationship are usually a result of some religious beliefs. This reality accounts for their view of God or gods in every sphere of life and can communicate with them. They also see the gods as the cause of accidents, sickness, deaths, misfortunes, failures, and successes of various degrees. Sometimes, they put some taboos in place to check certain nefarious activities or those that pose dangers to the individual or others in the community (Juma 2013, 93). These activities have a way of checking people's behaviours in society, including the political space.

By implication, the politician with an African traditional religious worldview brings his religious mindset to the political arena. That religion is vital in African life explains why people's endeavours reflect the fear of God, gods, spirits and ancestors. Such fear often coerces people to do what may lead to sustainable development in Africa (Mbiti 1982, 1). In politics, they bring in their gods and rituals to ensure faithfulness to the course of the community they are serving.

For instance, an Ifa priest protested that public officeholders should take oaths of office according to traditional rites (Daniels 2018). This request puts Christian politicians in a dilemma because swearing to gods is contrary to their faith, yet refusing to do so may place them at the risk of not being taken seriously. It calls for courage rooted in encounterological competence to scale the two hurdles together.

In Islam, the case is not just that there is no secular-sacred dichotomy but that in integrating religion and politics, the state must use its resources to further the cause of religion, even at the expense of others (Caner and Caner 2002, 35). Thus, to the Muslim politician, it is not only about building a mosque in the government establishment where he is a minority. He also uses state resources for his religious causes, including paying for people's hajj and removing zakat from the government income because he sees religion and politics as inextricably linked.

For Christian politicians, especially those holding a clear separation of state and church, it would be inconceivable to use the state resources for any use other than the corporate communal development of Nigerian society. More so, ‘Islam was readily adapted in many instances because of its compatibility, or at least tolerance of, traditional African religions,’ whose beliefs and practices look compatible with Islam (Encyclopedia.com n.d.). Therefore, the other two religious classifications seemingly agree, at least in some views, against the Christian perceptions of life issues.

From the above, the Christian politician may have a different religious worldview from his political allies, rivals, supporters, voters and pressure groups. As a missionary, who had served in northern Nigeria, I am familiar with certain occurrences in some states like Niger, Kebbi and Katsina, where outsiders may think that every person is a Muslim apart from the few Christians. However, a thorough investigation will show that apart from those who practise folk Islam, mixing Islam with traditional African religion, there are also people who are solely traditional African religion practitioners. Thus, the non-Christians blend so much that the Christians can see themselves as alone and odd. This is where they need to bring their theology to bear, associating, yet not compromising. They need a clear understanding and application of their faith in secular arena, not standing aloof but being involved to make things better (Agang 2020, 3).

From the above, the views and interactions of Christians and non-Christians on issues of corruption, empowerment, gender affairs and financial systems may be quite different. Consequently, people's expectations and evaluation of the politician will depend on what their religion considers good governance. The problem of Christian politicians becomes critical because they also relate to other government officials, the media, and citizens, among other stakeholders, whose faiths and worldviews may contradict Christian worldview on a particular issue. Public theology becomes a tool for setting Africa free as it holds the Christian politicians to biblical standards of leadership (Agang 2020, 11). Some stakeholders of neighbouring identity may have a different view on the same subject. They would likely judge politicians based on their viewing lenses. Christian politicians need adequate wisdom to handle such differences for their witness to make an impact. Thus, they must be competent enough to engage these faiths and worldviews of others.

From the foregoing, it is noteworthy that as Christian politicians conduct their activities with kingdom values and virtues, they will often elicit and encounter different reactions. Their resilience should be such that their persecutors may change their hearts, and those who are passive about the purpose of politics and governance may find genuine passion to pursue proper purpose. The persecutors include those who may not like the Christian faith or those whose corrupt practices, nepotism, and selfish ambitions, among others, have been hindered by the values promoted by Christian politicians. The passive ones include those who may not have enough courage to advocate for the truth as pursued by the Christians. They all may experience a change of hearts for the better, leading to total transformation of the system (2 Tim. 3:12; 1 Pet. 3:114–117; Matt. 5:13–16).

Encounterological competence in politics

The success of an evangelical Christian politician begins with the proper perspective on religion. This perspective will affect his outlook on the religious beliefs of other politicians. As in most part of the world, religious plurality is an undeniable fact with resulting multiple perspectives on issues (Mbillah 2020, 257). Two critical realities are fundamental to any thriving relationship in any pluralistic society like Nigeria. These include recognising the pluralistic nature of the society and that these multiple religions and worldviews have some similarities alongside their differences (Ceric 2004, 44–46). To deny the former is to be naive about the significant problem of the contemporary world, while to deny the second reality is to have no premise for meaningful engagement.

Further, intercultural interaction requires intercultural competence ‘achieved when the avowed identity matches the ascribed identity’ (Samovar et al. 2013, 229). According to them, the reality of the contemporary world is that rather than producing a homogenous global society, globalisation is creating an increased cultural diversity. Meaningful religious encounters require learning different forms of religion or responses to a religious faith under different contexts. It is easy to address people in a way that is different from how they feel about themselves. This identity challenge is also true in the multi-religious political context of Nigeria. When it happens, it creates tension that is difficult to classify because of its multiple dimensions – politics, religion and ethnicity.

To further complicate the challenge of Christian engagement with politicians of other religious backgrounds, their religions are often discursive due to various ideological, environmental and cultural factors. Talal Asad introduced the concept of discursive tradition to show that the realities of modern life have affected the old anthropological paradigms for studying Islam (Asad 2009, 3–5). This term applies to the practice of other religions, too. Their history, environment, experience and cultural dimensions affect their religious practices and response to people of other religions. Since the identities of the political others that the Christian must engage with daily are dynamic in this way, their interreligious encounters in the political space become challenging.

Given the above, Christian politicians must seek to acquire skills to make them competent in their encounters with people of other religious beliefs as they pursue their official assignments. This paper adapts Kritzinger's seven dimensions of encounterological engagement to Christian participation in Nigerian politics.

Personal agency

This dimension of faith encounters relates to the personal identities of the parties involved – the Christian politician and the other politician from another religious tradition. As a complex phenomenon, their identities depend on many factors, including personal attitudes, biases, prejudices, and differing statuses, which may affect their inter-faith relations (Kritzinger 2008, 771, 773). Hecht (2009, 139) conceptualises this identity complexity that Christian politicians must consider in their interfaith encounters. The theory posits that effective communication in intercultural or inter-ideological settings depends on multiple layers of people's identities.

The theory implies that changes in people's identity affect their behaviours and that the context also affects their identity. People's identity has four intertwining frames that integrate to make their encounter a complex whole. These are personal, enacted, relational, and communal (Jung and Hecht 2004, 265–267). The Christian witness must be sensitive that their counterparts from the other faith have a context-driven complicated identity that will affect their behaviours on the political platforms. The implication is that all Muslim politicians will not likely behave the same way.

For a successful political career, the Christian politician needs to be aware of his identity frames and those of others to minimise identity gaps that may result from distortion between their communication frames (Jung and Hecht 2004, 268–269). For instance, a personal-relational identity gap may result from their religious loyalty and the party's demands. Also, a personal-enacted identity gap may result from worldview differences among the religious groups represented in the political realm. In Nigeria, the party leadership may require some unbiblical rituals or swearing by some gods, such as Ogun, the god of iron, or Sango, the god of thunder. If a politician does not think ahead to know their response, they may not succeed as a witness of Christ in politics.

Context analysis

Understanding the contextual factors concerning their political space will guide Christian politicians in their encounters with politicians of other faiths. These contextual factors include social, economic and political realities that dictate how they view each other in their face-to-face and faith-to-faith encounters. It also includes issues of ethnicity, regional occurrences and cultural paradigms such as Geert Hofstede's cultural taxonomy – power distance, individualism versus collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, short-term versus long-term time orientation, and indulgence versus restraint. It may also include how their micro, meso, and macro levels operate (Kritzinger 2008, 771, 766-767).

Some contextual realities for contemporary politicians in Nigeria include party affiliations. They may be in different political parties, factions of the same party, or with divergent or similar political ideologies. All these, alongside intra-party or inter-party conflicts, will affect their interfaith encounters, and understanding them will guide the Christian politician in their engagement. For instance, understanding the power distance of the other politician will guide them against committing blunders that truncate their relationship with the politician of the other faith.

Ecclesial analysis

This dimension is an integral part of the contextual dimensions. However, it deals directly with their past histories. It considers the historical relationship between the faith community of the Christian politician and that of the politician with whom they have faith-to-faith encounters. Apart from their faith community leadership and institutional structures, their past relationships at the global or local level would often affect their interactions. Other factors include their orientations to society, including racial, gender, and class compositions (Kritzinger 2008, 771, 779-780).

For the Christian politician and their Muslim counterparts, historical narrations of the Crusades may be a global factor in their encounter. At the local level, the nineteenth century Uthman Dan Fodio jihad, the activities of the fundamentalists like the Boko Haram, and various utterances and body languages of some traditions from the two faiths may also affect their interactions.

Theology of religion

In theological reflection, the politician must consider how they interpret or re-interpret the Bible and their theological tradition in the light of their experience in the first three dimensions. They would also need to consider how their counterparts do the same in their experience and the teachings of their holy book. Apart from considering what their faith says about people of other faiths, this dimension ensures that their doctrinal statements do not conflict with their experiential affirmation as they engage in mutual witness. Mutual witness implies reasonable articulation of faith and listening to each other objectively (Kritzinger 2008, 772, 780-781).

This dimension helps Christian politicians re-affirm and articulate their faith more profoundly. As apologetic messengers in the marketplace of politics, they must be equipped to confront the numerous misunderstandings and lack of understanding facing the unique claim of the Christian faith that Jesus is the only way to God (Robinson 2014, 227). Ephesians 4:12 declares that leaders are gifted to equip the saints for such ministries. Harold Netland asserts that apologetics can serve as a tool for modifying people's worldviews to conform to the worldview of the Bible by resolving the questions of doubt and obstacles to faith (Netland 2000, 70).

The implication is that the Christian politician understands the peculiarities of his political circle; possible practices and worldviews may conflict with the biblical worldview and cause doubt or disbelief in the audience's hearts. Then, they use such knowledge to prepare and adequately live to give answers to the people like the witness of Christ (1 Peter 3:15). This saddles the Christian politician with an excellent task of intercultural and inter-religious gospel ministry, which requires adequate knowledge of his faith, especially in a society where people look for grey areas of Christian doctrines to bring confusion.

Personal spirituality

Spirituality refers to how individuals experience the reality of their faith. Such experience happens at individual and corporate levels, including their sacramental liturgy, seeking further understanding and more profound relationships, meditation, spiritual empowerment, and social justice. Christian politician must understand their spiritual practices against the backgrounds of what the religion other ascribes to the Christian faith. They must also understand how they may strengthen their spirituality and use it to enhance their inter-faith encounter with the religious other. To achieve this, they also need to understand the spirituality of the other (Kritzinger 2008, 772, 782, 783).

Sometimes, the Christian politician may be challenged by the spiritual commitment of their religious neighbour in the political space. Such spirituality may enhance their spirituality and foster their encounter with the religious other.

Practical project

This sixth dimension of encounterology deals with concrete faith projects in which their community faith engages concerning the people of the other faith. The projects from the two faiths may either be complementary, seeking to enhance people's lives or competitive, only seeking converts to their sides. It considers how far they are willing to collaborate with people of other faiths. It also focuses on the level of involvement of the Christian politician in question – their involvement in meeting this-worldly needs alongside the other-worldly hope. This understanding will enhance three postures of their encounter – shoulder-to-shoulder in community projects, face-to-face in mutual witness, and back-to-back on how they comment on each other when the other is not there (Kritzinger 2008, 772, 783-785).

Reflexivity

This reflexive dimension is a self-assessment effort that helps Christian politicians critique their faith-to-faith encounters with their religious neighbours. Through journaling and deliberate assessment of the other six dimensions, they consider how these have enhanced their inter-faith encounters, making them more sensitive to their religious other, learn from their past mistakes, relate with purpose, better wholeness, integrity, and depth. It requires retreat, honest assessment and deliberate planning toward bringing shalom to the world through the public space of politics (Kritzinger 2008, 772,786).

This dimension requires input from other stakeholders of Christian politics. These stakeholders include the church leadership of the politician, Christian members of the constituency that the politician represents, other Christian politicians, theological educators, and other opinion leaders. Their input includes objectively critiquing the activities and efforts of the Christian politician against the exegetical backgrounds of the Word of God and the political context of operations.

In sum, the effective Christian witness in the multi-religious Nigerian political context requires a high level of encounterological competence involving religious and cultural intelligence and the ability to adjust to unfamiliar settings successfully (Hong 2018, 20–22). For an individual to adapt successfully to a new context, they must be observant and sensitive to identify specific religio-cultural issues of concern in their political affiliations and know the appropriate adjustment away from their Christian religious norms to contribute effectively. An attitude free of prejudice and stereotyping can lead to such success (Samovar et al. 2013, 231). Therefore, the encounterologically competent Christian politician will respect them for their religious positions without losing their identity and the mandate to be the light in the darkness of the political world. Their lives of honesty, openness, equity, fairness, and accountability in a context permeated with politics of lies, bitterness, nepotism, diversion of state funds for personal use, and violence will prove to the stakeholders that they are light in the darkness.

Conclusion

Christians’ participation in politics and governance is critical to the church’s purpose to bring shalom to its society. It affords Christians opportunity of taking theology to the political space as Christ’s witnesses, meeting people of other faiths, but as good citizens and good neighbours, pursuing a common goal of making the society better. It is a noble ministry that requires encounterologically competent Christians who will effectively engage the pluralistic context of Nigerian politics, avoiding unproductive extremes of isolation and assimilation. They must understand their faith, the contemporary pluralistic religious context of Nigerian politics, and how to engage people of other faiths, cultures, and ideologies for societal development and transformation. Such a task is for Christians who understand their faith identity and mission as Christ’s witnesses, not weaklings. All Christians, especially those seeking some elective positions or seeking to be card-carrying members of some political parties, need to understand the political terrain of their jurisdiction, where they are expected to serve as competent witnesses of Christ. While they must hold firmly to their faith in Jesus Christ, they must seek to be relevant in their encounter with people of other religious experiences whose worldviews may not necessarily agree with the Christian perspective about politics and governance.

Thus, for Christian politicians to bring shalom to society through politics and governance, they must first have a clear understanding of their faith, holding firmly to the uniqueness of their faith in a multi-religious society. The implication is that leaders of churches, denominations, and ecumenical bodies should orientate their members on the spirituality of politics and its relevance to the mission of the Church in Nigeria.

Second, Christian politicians must understand the biblical perspective of politics vis-a-vis bringing shalom to their world. Leaders of churches and denominations need to intentionally encourage and equip their members to participate actively in the politics of their communities – ward, local, constituency, state, and national levels. Such encouragement and equipping should target encounterological skills for existing and potential aspirants so their involvement may bring shalom to their constituencies. Third, Christian politicians must constantly acknowledge, understand and respect other religious views in the political arena as they seek to engage them for the desired individual and societal transformations.

Finally, sequel to the above, theological schools and other ministerial training institutions must establish special programmes and contextualised curricula to equip individuals who want to participate directly in politics. There should also be curricula for leaders of churches to equip their members in this regard. Thus, the Christian stakeholders will understand how to play their roles in bringing shalom to their society through politics.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Benjamin Isola Akano

Benjamin Isola Akano, a faculty member of the Nigerian Baptist Theological Seminary, Ogbomoso, has his PhD in Intercultural Studies from the same institution. His area of interest includes intercultural communication, contextualization, and leadership development. He is married to Lola, and the marriage is blessed. Ben could be reached through the e-mail [email protected]; [email protected].