

























183 

13 

THE DIALECTICS OF “AUTO-GUIDED” 

FORMATION: THE SEMINARIAN AS AN 

AGENT OF FORMATION 
 

Anselm K. JIMOH Ph.D. 
Department of Philosophy 

SS. Peter and Paul Catholic Major Seminary 
P.M.B. 5171, Bodija, Ibadan. 

jimohanselm@gmail.com 
  
Abstract 
Formation is an intricate phenomenon involving the interaction of the 
different agents of formation. At the centre of this interaction is the 
formandi/seminarian who is, himself, an agent of his own formation. 
The input of the formandi is fundamental to the overall output of the 
formative process since the output of the formative process is a synthesis 
of the inputs of all the different agents of formation. Understood in this 
sense, formation is a dialectics. The formandi, being the central focus of 
formation, and at the same time an agent of his own formation, his 
response and/or disposition to formation either compliments or negates 
the inputs of the other agents of formation. Therefore, the formandi can 
single-handedly make or mar the formative process. The dialectical 
dynamics of formation is not just between the other agents of formation 
and the formandi (external), it also internal, as the formandi struggles to 
resolve his personal ideas with the quadruple requirements of priestly 
formation. This paper adopts the method of critical analysis to evaluate 
the dialectics of auto-guided formation, it investigates how the formandi 
interacts with the agents of formation towards achieving the character of 
another Christ, and concludes that the extent to which the formandi is 
properly formed depends on the extent to which he positively disposes 
himself to formation. The aim of the paper is to encourage the formandi 
to dispose himself appropriately towards formation and get the 
maximum output from his programme of formation. 
 



184 Formation of the Human Person in the 21st Century 

Keywords: Agent of formation, Auto-guided, Dialectics, Formandi, 
Formation.  
 
Introduction 
Priestly formation is meant to equip a candidate aspiring towards the 
Catholic priesthood through a continuing conversion of heart, mind and 
soul that would enable him carry on an effective ministry in serving God 
and the people. It is a demanding and intensive programme of human, 
spiritual, intellectual and pastoral formation that requires the interaction 
of different agents of formation, viz: the formators, the fomandi, the 
environment and the curriculum of formation. These agents interact 
continually to shape the fomandi into the character of a priest as an Alter 
Christus; one who acts in persona Christi capitis and in nomine ecclesia. The 
central focus in the formation process is the candidate who is undergoing 
formation – the seminarian or formandi. His disposition towards 
formation, which involves his docility or indocility, is key to how he is 
formed because formation is a “give and take” phenomenon. When the 
given is not taken, there would be no formation and the way and manner 
the given is taken determines the extent to which the formandi is 
formed. Herein lies the dialectics of auto-guided formation. 

The present paper relies on existing literature on the subject and 
adopts the critical analytic, conceptual and hermeneutic approach to 
examine the dialectics of auto-guided formation. That is, how the 
formandi interacts with the agents and factors of formation, which 
includes himself, towards achieving the character of another Christ. The 
paper elucidates the idea of priestly formation as a basis to examine the 
concept of auto-guided formation. It carefully but critically interrogates 
the role of the formandi in his self-formation. Based on the analysis 
herein, it concludes that whether a formandi is appropriately formed or 
not depends on how his docility. The primary aim of the paper is to 
encourage the seminarian to positively dispose himself towards 
formation and get the optimal from his programme of formation. 

 
Priestly Formation 
Even though priestly formation is not the primary focus of this paper, it 
is nonetheless, important to expound the concept of priestly formation 
because the concept of auto-guided formation, which is the primary 
focus of this paper, takes its meaning and modus operandi within that of 
priestly formation. Priestly formation is a very important and demanding 
task aimed at developing the priestly character. It is a holistic, integral, 
and inclusive process that involves the human, spiritual, intellectual and 
pastoral development of the candidate in formation.1 It requires the 
seminarian to open up for a personal encounter with the Lord and be 



Section 1: Ecclesiastical/Theological Perspectives And Seminary Formation    185 

transformed by the Lord.2 The new Ratio Fundamentalis Institutionis 
Sacedotalis (RFIS) n. 35 describes it as a process that implies the 
configuration of the seminarian to Christ, who is the head, the shepherd, 
the servant and the spouse; bringing the seminarian into a mystical 
identification with the person of Christ as described in the gospels. 
According to Carlos Wong, Archbishop Emeritus of Papantla and 
Secretary for Seminaries, Congregation for the Clergy, it is “the process 
of internalisation, in the proper sense, a priestly lifestyle, which aims to 
ingrain the values that are proper to life and to priestly ministry in the 
personality of the candidates for the priesthood.”3 Paraphrasing Evangelica 
Testificatio n. 32, Bishop Donatus Ogun of the Diocese of Uromi, 
describes formation as “the honest confrontation with the self of the way 
of life of Jesus Christ, His teaching and example. It is about building up 
of the inner man, it is the care you have for the inner man which will 
help you to recognise, in the midst of so many different and attractive 
possibilities, the most suitable way to live your vocation.”4 

The Second Vatican Council’s (VC II) Decree on Priestly 
Formation: Optatam Totius (OT), clearly identified the basic principles of 
priestly formation, and the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Pastores 
Dabo Vobis (PDV) by Pope St. John Paul II provides a blue print for 
priestly formation in the circumstances of a fast-paced digital world.5 A 
simple summary of PDV, in the words of John Anaigwu would be: 
priests need to be “balanced people, strong and free, capable of bearing 
the weight of pastoral responsibilities.”6 Specifically, PDV n. 43 states 
that, 
They [seminarians] need to be educated to love the truth, to be loyal, to 
respect every person, to have a sense of justice, to be true to their word, 
to be genuinely compassionate, to be men of integrity and, especially, to 
be balanced in judgement and behaviour. 
PDV nos. 43 – 45 identify the human, spiritual, intellectual, and pastoral 
aspects as the four basic components of priestly formation. And further 
emphasised that the human formation is the basis of all priestly 
formation because it is the human person that becomes the priest. The 
spiritual formation is the centre that holds and provides life to the being 
of the priest and his function as a priest. Intellectual formation, which is 
apparently the most visible, transcends the acquisition of degrees in 
Philosophy and Theology to include educating the priest to be 
“knowledgeable in all human sciences and even the history and culture 
of the nations within which they are expected to minister.”7 Such a 
holistic education recognises the positive development of the IQ and 
aptitude of the seminarian and equip him to respond appropriately to 
enquiries from the faithful who seek guidance and counsel to resolve 
their faith and moral crisis in the face of new scientific and technological 



186 Formation of the Human Person in the 21st Century 

discoveries that tend always to remove God from the picture.8 According 
to OT n. 4, the trifold of human, spiritual, and intellectual formation 
aims at making the priest a pastor. One who is a true shepherd of souls 
after the example of Jesus Christ; trained in the ministries of the word, 
worship and sanctification, and shepherding just like Christ who did not 
come to be served but to serve (Mt. 10:45 and Jn. 13: 12-17) and win 
souls by becoming servants of all (1 Cor. 9:19). The pastoral formation 
has both the theoretical and practical aspects. The former is acquired in 
the classroom in the seminary, and the latter is acquired on the field 
(dioceses) during apostolic work and pastoral year. The apostolic work 
and pastoral year periods provide the opportunity for seminarians to 
learn the praxis of the ministry through exposure to parish life and 
setting. Needless to say, as Anaigwu impressively analysed, that the 
practical aspect of pastoral formation seems to be riddled with abuses 
these days judging from the way it is handled by priests in the dioceses. It 
has been misconstrued as a time for probing the seminarian, getting a 
wage-free houseboy, and at times, considered an unnecessary burden on 
the priest or parish.9 

Priestly formation takes place essentially in a seminary, therefore, 
it can also be described as seminary formation. It differs from the regular 
secular education, schooling or job training, hence it is not called 
seminary education but seminary formation. “It is an activity of 
cooperation with the grace of God where by God Himself works in the 
man to form him into Christian man and sharer in the Priesthood of 
Jesus Christ.”10 In the seminary, the formation of the seminarian is 
integrated with the wider ecclesia understanding of the Church. Thus, 
Bishop Ogun says, “it is in the discovery of who the church says He 
[Christ] is you [the seminarian] are then able to meet him and say ‘here 
I am, send me.’ This is the purpose of Catholic formation in our 
seminaries.”11 Based on the foregoing, it behoves on the seminarian to 
open-up and entrust himself to the Church in his formation while he 
recognises the fact that he is primarily responsible for his own 
formation.12 This last point introduces the core of this paper; the 
seminarian as an agent of formation, which is to be properly understood 
within the notion of auto-guided formation. 

 
Auto-Guided Formation 
The concept of “auto-guided” is compounded from the dual concepts of 
“auto” with the prefix (auto-) and “guide.” The former (auto-), from its 
Greek root translates as “self” and often used in the formation of 
compound words like autograph, autobiography, automatic, etc. The 
latter (guide), as a verb means to indicate the way, and as a noun, it 
describes someone who shows the way to others. Literarily therefore, 



Section 1: Ecclesiastical/Theological Perspectives And Seminary Formation    187 

“auto-guided” would be self-guidance or to guide oneself, which implies 
that the seminarian guides himself in his formation. The way it has been 
applied in seminary formation since its evolution a little over two 
decades ago, implies more than just self-guidance or to guide oneself. It 
means that the seminarian forms himself following the guidance of 
others. These others are his formators and the other agents of formation. 

The Holy Spirit is principally the agent of formation and all 
other agents of formation are mediators through whom the Holy Spirit 
forms the seminarian. The other agents of formation include the 
following: (i) The Bishop, who is ultimately responsible for the entire 
formative process. (ii) The diocesan community and the presbyterate, 
which constitute the privileged environment for the transmission of 
priestly values. (iii) The educational community of the seminary, which 
consists of the formators, lecturers and employees. (iv) Diocesan priests 
who play a vital role in the interactions with the seminarians during the 
latter’s apostolic work and pastoral year experience. Even though it is not 
usually stressed, the laity and women play special roles in the 
seminarian’s discernment of his priestly vocation, so they are also agents 
of formation. These human agents of formation should help the 
seminarian to open himself up personally and profoundly to the 
sanctifying action of the Spirit by helping the seminarian to take his 
formation seriously and assist in sustaining him to make his ‘Yes’ 
response to the Lord every day.13 

The role of the formators and lecturers in the seminary as agents 
of formation within the context of auto-guided formation is 
ineliminable. Therefore, it is important to emphasise it, even if just 
briefly. They constitute the “guidance” aspect in the process of 
formation, for by their way of life, instructions, and lectures, they guide 
the seminarian. In this wise, the seminary must be adequately staffed. To 
be adequately staffed does not just mean quantity in terms of the number 
of priests on the formation team or lecturers in the various departments. 
Neither does it just mean academically intelligent formators and 
lecturers. It means having qualitative formators and lecturers. Qualitative 
here describes priests who in the honest judgement of their Bishops are 
tested and trusted; “priests whom their Bishops can vouch for in terms of 
commitment to responsibilities, sound doctrine, spiritual, moral and 
social maturity, priestly decorum, intellectual soundness, economic and 
financial discipline, with ecclesiastical personality.”14 The same applies at 
its own degree to the lecturers employed to teach the seminarians. They 
must be of good moral standing and ideas, matured and disciplined in 
their choice of expressions, dress code, and should have respect for the 
Church’s teachings and hierarchy, as well as be able to keep their 



188 Formation of the Human Person in the 21st Century 

personal opinions to themselves when they deliver their lectures. 
Inappropriate guidance would lead the seminarian to malformation. 

All said, the seminarian is the first person responsible for his own 
formation. PDV n. 69 asserts that, “we must not forget that the candidate 
himself is a necessary and irreplaceable agent in his own formation: All 
formation, priestly formation included, is ultimately a self-formation. No 
one can replace us in the responsible freedom we have as individual 
persons.” In the same wise, the new RFIS n. 130 emphasises that: 
Each seminarian is the protagonist of his own formation, …and is called 
to a journey of ongoing growth in the human, spiritual, intellectual and 
pastoral areas, taking into account his own personal and family 
background. Seminarians are likewise responsible for establishing and 
maintaining a climate of formation that is consistent with the values of 
the gospels. 

In the above statement, the new RFIS directs attention to the 
formative attitude of the seminarian, which is the personal input or self-
guidance inclusive in the notion of auto-guided formation. The personal 
input of the seminarian requires that he must be “available and docile to 
learn from the various circumstances of his life, in all the dimensions of 
his personality.”15 The concepts of “availability” and “docility” are 
imperative here. A seminarian who lacks availability just goes to the 
chapel, the class, the play field, the refectory and the library because he 
should be there according to the horarium but does not personally and 
actively participate in what goes on at these places. Consequently, he just 
goes through the activities without the activities going though him. In 
other words, even though the seminarian is guided, he refuses to apply 
himself to guidance – he has been given formation by the design of the 
horarium but he has not taken formation. It is one thing to be guided 
and another thing to apply oneself to guidance. A seminarian’s 
unavailability implies his lack of formation because he refuses, ipso facto, 
to be formed. 

Availability and docility are complementary. To be docile is to 
open oneself to learn. A seminarian who goes to class with his mind 
already closed to whatever the lecturer would say cannot learn. Such a 
seminarian sits in positions where he cannot be noticed, stares at the 
lecturer all through the lecture with the grimace that may be translated 
into “finish and leave joor,” he takes no notes in class, asks no questions 
and avoids been noticed to be asked a question. Sometimes, he is reading 
through some other materials of interest to him that have no relevance to 
the lecture going on. Such a seminarian is not docile and he is lacking in 
the aspect of self-formation. Even when the aspect of the guidance is 
there, the seminarian would be malformed. 



Section 1: Ecclesiastical/Theological Perspectives And Seminary Formation    189 

The availability and docility of the seminarian enables him to 
achieve the fundamental openness required to advance the necessary 
freedom to allow oneself to be accompanied and to receive positively the 
help of his formators. Seminarians that are selective of the formator they 
want to listen to are doing harm to their self-formation. In the same vein, 
formators that play to the gallery with seminarians; who would overlook 
formative issues because they do not want to disturb the seminarians or 
make them think they (formators) are “wicked” (to use the common 
term of seminarians), are not only obstructing the self-formation of the 
seminarians but also neglecting their role in the dialectics of auto-guided 
formation. 

 
Dialectics of Auto-Guided Formation 
Dialectics refers to “a method of philosophical argument that involves 
some sort of contradictory process between opposing sides.”16 It is a form 
of reasoning that involves a dialogue of arguments and counter-
arguments that results in a synthesis of advocating propositions and 
counter-propositions. It is an inquiry into the truth of opinions with the 
aim of seeking a resolution or reconciliation. As a philosophical method, 
it is a discourse between two or more discussants who hold different 
opinions, but aim at establishing the truth of their positions through 
reasoned arguments. Within Hegelianism – Georg W. F. Hegel’s system 
of thought, with which dialectics is mostly associated – dialectics has a 
specialised connotation; it describes the contradiction between ideas that 
ultimately determines the relationship between the ideas. It consists of 
three stages of development. The first stage is the thesis or statement of 
an idea, it gives rise to the second stage, which is a reaction or antithesis. 
The antithesis negates the thesis. To resolve the negation of the thesis by 
the antithesis, the third stage, which is the synthesis is produced, thus, 
the synthesis resolves the differences between the thesis and the 
antitheses. It is in this sense that dialectics is understood as “the tendency 
of a notion to pass over into its own negation as the result of conflict 
between its inherent contradictory aspects.”17 This is exactly the sense in 
which Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels popularised it in their social and 
economic analysis referred to as dialectical materialism. It is characterised 
by the interaction between the thesis and antithesis in the production of 
the synthesis. 

By the dialectics of auto-guided formation therefore, I mean the 
interaction between the formation-given, which constitute the thesis of 
the dialectics, and the formation-received, which is the antithesis, in the 
production of the formed – that is, the output of the resolution between 
the thesis and antithesis – is the synthesis. The formation-given is the 
input of all the agents of formation, moderated by the formators, in the 



190 Formation of the Human Person in the 21st Century 

formation of the formandi. The formation-received is the way and 
manner the formandi receives the inputs of all the other agents of 
formation. In particular, it describes the formandi’s positive or negative 
disposition (availability and docility) towards formation. The formed is 
what the formandi turns out to be at the end of his formation. The thesis 
alone (formation given) cannot constitute the synthesis; the way and 
manner it is received, which is either favourably or nonchalantly or 
rejected (antithesis) determines the end-product of the formed, which 
would be either properly formed, malformed or not formed at all 
(synthesis).  

In the dialectics of auto-guided formation, the seminarian’s role 
as an agent of his own formation is crucial to how he is formed. If the 
seminarian is positively disposed, he will be open to the inputs of the 
other agents of formation and he would allow himself be guided by such 
inputs. He would mould himself; intellectually, spiritually, pastorally and 
humanly, into the character and person of Christ, following the template 
of the formation-given. With determination and commitment to be 
properly formed, he would courageously confront the negativities that 
constitute antithesis to the formation-given. These negativities include: 
not wanting to be told what to do, wanting to be like other young men 
outside the seminary, wanting to sleep a little longer in the early hours of 
the morning rather than having to get up for morning prayers, 
questioning the rationale for manual work and the necessities for the 
mandatory lectures, dress code, etc. On the hand, the seminarian that is 
not positively disposed, would not only lack the determination and 
commitment required to confront these negativities, but would 
rationalise and justify them. Consequently, he would react, in one way or 
another, against the inputs of the other agents of formation. Even though 
formation is given, the seminarian would be malformed because of his 
negative disposition and lack of openness to accept the inputs of the 
other agents of formation. Because he disagrees within himself with the 
manner of formation, he would not be properly formed. 

It is germane at this point to consider some of the possible 
attitudes towards formation by seminarians. There are, at least, four 
easily discernible possible attitudes that a seminarian can have towards 
formation. 
i. Lack of interest towards formation. 
ii. Pretentious interest towards formation. 
iii. Uncommitted interest towards formation. 
iv. Genuine interest towards formation. 

For those in group one, there is nothing about the seminary that 
interests them; they grudgingly do everything, from going to the chapel 
for prayers to going out for games. They are interested in such things 



Section 1: Ecclesiastical/Theological Perspectives And Seminary Formation    191 

that give them pleasure or make them free, for example, outing and 
lecture free days. Whatever the formators say does not make sense to 
them, they just stare at the formators and say “Thank you Fr” when the 
formator is done talking to them. Deep in their heart, they mean “Leave 
me alone.” Their minds are made on what they want to do and how they 
want to be priests, they are in the seminary to count the years as they roll 
by and get out there for ordination. From the day they finish their oral 
B.Th. exams, chapel is a no-no for them. They go around with an air of 
freedom thereafter. Seminarians like these cannot be properly formed 
because they lack the basic fundamental disposition of availability and 
docility. 

For group two, they are of the same category in terms of 
disposition as those in group one but sneaky and more dangerous. They 
are very good seminarians in the presence of their formators and anyone 
who matters as far as their seminary formation is concerned. When no 
one is looking they do everything they should not do but which is 
actually what they desire to do. They can have a very strong negative 
influence on their fellow seminarians, which makes them dangerous. 
They are like the biblical wolves in sheep’s clothing. 

The third group have the genuine interest in being formed, but 
on their own terms. They listen and participate in formation activities 
and programmes as it is convenient for them. When it is not convenient 
for them, they participate all the same but without any attention at all just 
to be counted as present. Seminarians in this category have a fair idea 
what the priesthood should be, but more often than not, their idea is 
orientated towards their “ideal priest” who is usually not Jesus Christ as 
it should be but one priest somewhere that they admire so much, for 
whatever reasons. If their ideal priest is one of those striving to do the 
right thing, those in this category have chances of being well formed, but 
if he is one of those doing his own thing in the priesthood, they are not 
likely to be well formed. 

The fourth group involves seminarians who are wholeheartedly 
positively disposed towards formation. They actively participate in 
formation activities and programmes with the genuine intention of 
getting the maximum results in terms of acquiring knowledge and the 
priestly character after the mind of Christ and the Church. They are 
attentive in class and eager to learn. They do not hide in the crowd 
because they have no intention to break the rules and regulations of 
formation. They feel free with their formators and share their worries 
with the hope of being assisted to overcome their difficulties. Those in 
this category are, unfortunately not many. 

Those in groups one to three would hardly ever see themselves 
to be wrong, they always consider themselves victimised and would 



192 Formation of the Human Person in the 21st Century 

always justify themselves. If they are accused of any wrong doing, 
especially those in groups one and two, they are quick to tender and 
apology – “I am sorry Fr”, what they are sorry for, you do not even know 
because they have not accepted that they were wrong. It is usually an 
indication of seminarians who are not ready to learn or improve. If for 
any reason, they are expelled from the seminary, they consider 
themselves as victims of injustice. Those in group four are, at times 
unfortunate to be expelled but even then, they never hold grudges 
against the seminary or any of their formators. 
 
Conclusion  
The aim of this paper is to analyse the dialectics of auto-guided 
formation and emphasise the fundamental role of the 
formandi/seminarian as an agent in his own formation. No matter the 
formation given and the wholesome role of all other agents of formation, 
the seminarian is only formed to what extent he makes himself available 
for formation. Where he lacks the requisite docility towards learning and 
polishing his character to conform or configure himself to the person of 
Christ, the activities of the other agents of formation will have no 
positive impact in his formation. Aniagwu avers that we should always 
note the contradistinction between “formation given” and “formation 
received.” He asserts that it is not always the case that the formation 
received corresponds to the formation given and the reason for this lies 
in the quality of the response of the seminarian to formation.18 I am not 
unaware of the claim by some liberalists that we are in an age where 
youths have a high tendency towards unrestrained freedom and would 
want to do what they want, when they want and how they want. Based 
on the excessively permissive nature of today’s society, they argue that 
seminarians should be allowed some latitude. I am not taking a position 
on this in this paper, however, I insist that allowing seminarians latitude 
or not is not a primary issue, what is primary is the disposition of the 
seminarian towards formation. Irrespective of societal and environmental 
influences, a seminarian that does not make himself available with the 
required docility for formation would not be properly formed. 
Therefore, the seminarian should evaluate how he forms himself under 
the guidance of the other agents of formation. The measure a seminarian 
puts into his own formation determines the effectiveness of the measure 
his formators and other agents of formation put into his (seminarian) 
formation. PDV n. 69 affirms this with the words, “the actions of the 
different teachers become truly and fully effective only if the future 
priest offers his own convinced and heartfelt cooperation to this work of 
formation.” 
 



Section 1: Ecclesiastical/Theological Perspectives And Seminary Formation    193 

Endnotes
                                                      
1 John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1992), 

43ff. 
2 T. H. Akaabiam, “Seminary Formation,” The Aquinas’ Journal 5 (June 2012), 1. 
3 Jorge Carlos Patrón Wong, “Foundations of Priestly Formation,” 

www.clerus.va>clerus>Dox, PDF, 1. (Accessed 2/9/2019). 
4 Donatus Ogun, “Being True Disciples in a Changing World,” Homily delivered at 

the SS. Peter and Paul Catholic Major Seminary, Bodija, Ibadan on the Occasion of 

the Celebration of the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul and Installation of the 

Ministries of Lector and Acolyte (June 28, 2019). 
5 John K. Aniagwu, Faith and Social Action: Perspectives on the Church and Society 

(Iperu Remo: Ambassador Publications, 2011), 214. 
6 Aniagwu, Faith and Social Action, 213. 
7 Anselm Jimoh, “Priestly Formation in the Face of Contemporary Challenges in 

Nigeria: Lessons for Consideration in Auchi Diocese,” in Diocese of Auchi at 10: 

History, Growth and Perspectives edited by J. A. Onimhawo and F. E. Ikhianosime, 31 

- 53 (Ibadan: Safmos Publishers, 2013), 44. 
8 Jimoh, “Priestly Formation,” 44 – 45. 
9 Anaigwu, Faith and Social Action, 222-223 and Jimoh, “Priestly Formation,” 46. 
10 “What is Seminary Formation?”, https://vocationsboston.org, 2. (Accessed 

2/9/2019). 
11 Ogun, “Being True Disciples in a Changing World.” 
12 “What is Seminary Formation?”, 3. 
13 Wong, “Foundations of Priestly Formation,” 3. 
14 Jimoh, “Priestly Formation,” 48-49. 
15 Wong, “Foundations of Priestly Formation,” 2. 
16 Julie E. Maybee, “Hegel’s Dialectics,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 

https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=hegel-

dialectics. (Accessed 29/2/2020) 
17 “Dialectics” in http://www.britannica.com/topic/dialectics. (Accessed 3/9/2019). 
18 Aniagwu, Faith and Social Action, 211. 

 


