By Ezekiel Nabieu
In the first part of this series I said, inter alia, that the dialectic of the simple life leaves itself wide open for misuse by those who want credit for living it but are in no way inclined to change their life style.
In this second part we are going to examine the simple life as taught by Jesus and company - his disciples and other kindred persons. That is to say we will start with the teaching of Jesus in the Gospels but we will later move to some writing of Paul and then to the work of anonymous author of the early church.
However, even when dealing with the sayings that the Gospels attribute to Jesus, we are not going to make critical - historical judgments as to what represents “the very words of Jesus” and what represents the contribution of subsequent transmitters of the tradition. In point of fact our interest lies more in “the mind of Christ” than in the very words of Jesus”. Now we are convinced – although it is impossible to prove – that the very words of Jesus do lie in there somewhere as the root and source of the truth we are after. Nevertheless, we proceed upon the faith that, through the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit, the mind of Christ is revealed even in the dedicated efforts of those who came after Jesus. We will not even try to be scrupulous in maintaining the distinctions as to who is who among them.
The one most crucial statement regarding the simple life undoubtedly is that which concludes the long passage on the subject in the Sermon on the Mount: “Set your mind on God’s kingdom and his justice before everything else, and all the rest will come to you as well” – Matthew 6:33.
Here is the absolutely essential premise upon which thought, faith and practice must build if the result is to qualify as the simple life in any Christian sense. There is a “first” and there is an “all the rest”. The gospel never attempts to deny the reality or validity of the “all the rest”. Nevertheless a hard and fast distinction is to be maintained between them; no confusion can be allowed.
Do not store up for yourselves treasure on earth where it grows rusty and moth-eaten, and thieves break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. – Matthew 6: 19-21.
Your “treasure” is that to which you ascribe preeminent value. And what does “treasure in heaven” mean except the valuing of God himself and one’s personal relationship to Him? - Treasure, by the way, that is available to be enjoyed even before one is “in heaven”. And, we are told it is upon this treasure we are to put our heart before everything else.
We are considering this principle in its particular application regarding a believer’s relationship to his possessions to “things”. But Jesus himself applies it much more broadly – to the extent that it becomes apparent that this is indeed one of the major thrusts of his entire teaching ministry. The twelfth chapter of Matthew marks a second concentration on the theme.
Every kingdom divided against itself goes to ruin; and no town, no household, that is divided against itself can stand; - Matthew 12:25.
He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.
The latter saying is of special interest, because there is another saying, in Mark, which would seem to be a direct contradiction:
John said to him, “master, we saw a man driving out devils in your name, and as he was not one of us, we tried to stop him.” Jesus said, "Do not stop him; no one who does a work of divine power in my name will be able the nest moment to speak evil of me. For he who is not against us is on our side”. – Mark 9: 38-40.
Many scholars jump to the conclusion that we have here two different versions of the same saying. The problem then becomes determining which is the original, which is the way Jesus himself had it. I have no opinion on that matter but I think I see how both can be true – and how if the two are put together, they speak a greater truth than either could singly.
In the first, Jesus is making the same point that we have been finding elsewhere, namely, that life must centre upon a single loyalty. However we should give notice to a difference between this saying and the others. For the most part Jesus speaks of this loyalty being directed to God, although at times as here he speaks of loyalty toward himself. The remainder of the New Testament tends most often to affect the latter style and speak of loyal discipleship to Jesus.
Actually, there is no conflict at all between these two ways of putting the mater because throughout the New Testament, Jesus is presented as being the Christ, the anointed one, the one whom God has chosen as the agent of his presence among men. Thus, when someone wants to be loyal to God, God as it were, points to Jesus and says, “very good; and my desire is that you express your loyalty to me by becoming a true disciple of his”. And if someone chooses to make Jesus his Lord and dedicate himself loyally to him, Jesus says, “fine; but to be loyal to me you must be entirely loyal to God as I myself am”. There is no way that the two loyalties can get out of balance because they are in fact, one loyalty,
“He who is not with me is against me”: unless one has given his entire personal loyalty to Christ the overall effect of his activity will be to undercut rather than enhance God’s intention for man and the world. But notice that in the second instance (the one from Mark) it twice is specified that the outsider is doing his work “in Jesus name” and the emphasis surely is meant to imply that the man’s loyalty is centred on Jesus. Jesus then is saying to his disciples, “if this man’s action is motivated by a commitment of loyalty to me, then you have no right to try to dictate what form that commitment must take and through what means it must express itself. For he who is not against us is on our side”.
KEEP SANI ABACHA STREET FREE!
The headline is clearly stating that I am diametrically opposed to the media lone voice of Eddie Momoh supporting trading on Sani Abacha street. It was a well-written article substantiating his arguments with instances of street trading in developed countries.
He stated inter-alia that street trading is not unique to Sierra Leone. He cited Germany where there are streets designated exclusively to trading where vehicles are banned. He also cited Britain where there is the famous Liverpool Street Market and the Chapel Market among others.
Eddie Momoh argued that banning trading on Sani Abacha street is never going to solve the problem of tourism in this country. Let the women do their trade, he quipped.
What he seemed to gloss over is the inescapable fact that many of our political and bureaucratic leaders are notorious been-toes in their quest for per diems and are aware of all these things. In the first place the Freetown City Council has from time immemorial been incompetent in declaring certain streets as strictly pedestrian areas banning vehicular traffic along them. Secondly Sani Abacha Street is fortunately the thoroughfare in the central business district and should not be blocked by traders.
Did Eddie Momoh consider that there are many other streets in down town Freetown like Short Street, Free Street, Rawdon Street, Garrison Street etc on which traders ply their trade? Add to that the fact that the traders have been refusing to occupy empty markets and the arguments against them trading along Sani Abacha street is complete.
(C) Politico 17/02/14
