By Ezekiel Nabieu
Continuing the series let me state that the “first” of the simple life must be a single-willed centering upon God; there is absolutely no room for variation on this point. No one dares to tell anyone else what the simple life has to look like. For he who is against us is on our side.
In the book of Matthew Jesus is still on the theme:
“Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” and pointing to the disciples he said, “Here are my mother and brothers. Whoever does the will of my heavenly father is my brother, my sister, my mother” - Matthew 12: 48-50
For Jesus, this loyalty of doing the will of God so entirely takes precedence over everything else that, as he says, the person who practices it comes closer to and rates higher with him than do his own mother, brothers, and sisters.
In the succeeding chapter of Matthew, Jesus stresses the great importance of undivided commitment by presenting twin parables regarding the kingdom of Heaven. Recall that this “Kingdom of Heaven” is God himself affirmed in his kingly ruling.
The kingdom of heaven is like treasure buried in a field. The man who found it, buried it again; and for sheer joy went and sold everything he had and bought that field.
Here is another picture of the kingdom of heaven. A merchant looking for fine pearls, found one of very special value; so he went and sold everything he had and brought it. - Matthew 13: 44-46
Finally, in Luke’s Gospel, there is a saying of Jesus that puts the matter as pointedly as any statement could:
No one who sets his hand to the plough and then keeps looking back is fit for the kingdom of God. - Luke 9:62
It is abundantly clear, first of all, that Jesus demanded as an exclusive priority that a person centre his life, loyalty, and valuations solely upon God. It is clear in the second place that his understanding of the simple life devolves entirely from this premise. Thus the doctrine of the simple life is indeed simplicity itself and can be very simply put: one is living a simple life when his ultimate loyalty is directed solely to God and when in consequence he lets every other concern flow out of, fall in behind and witness to this one. That simply it can be put and that simple it would stay – except for the inveterate human tendency that works both consciously and unconsciously to take advantage of the inward invisibility of that prime commitment in order to justify and secure for ourselves modes of living that do in fact spring from quite contrary motivations. Thus we must give attention to “all the rest”.
Quite certainly, “all the rest” Jesus had in mind consisted of the food, drink and clothing plus all sorts of other things a person can own as resources of pleasure and satisfaction, plus even other things which a person does not own but which nonetheless are also resources (such things as air, sunlight, scenery, music and friends, etc)
And we need to take careful note here – although the point will be elaborated – that Jesus in no way suggests that these “all the rest” items are inherently evil, that our lives would be more Christian and our commitment to God truer if we would eliminate as many of them as possible. Not at all. The simple life is not be equated with the least possible consumption of worldly goods and satisfactions.
No, the point is that these things can be good – very good – if they are used to support man’s relationship to God.
But although Jesus likely had in mind “things”, his basic principle can be applied as well to a different sort of sample out of the “all the rest”, namely to other motivations and rationales for simple living. We will look at a number of these in turn, but our conclusion regarding each of them will be the same. We will find that each has some real merit and value as long as it is kept subordinate to the ultimate motivation of loyalty to God but that none is able to stand by itself as an adequate or dependable motive for Christianity’s simple life.
HEDONISM
This heading may seem strange as the identification of an argument for the simple life yet it is perhaps the argument most prevalent today. And the term is accurate for what we are addressing. Hedonism is the pursuit of or devotion to pleasure. In this instance the argument goes that a life style that is marked by the conscious simplifying of one’s possessions, regimen, and relationships is conspicuously more satisfying and pleasurable than that which is devoted to luxury and diversion.
Now I firmly believe that this argument has a great deal of truth in it at least for many people in many situations. Even having granted this, however, it must be recognised that in our day, in certain sectors of our society this penchant for simplicity has taken on proportions of a fad and cult. Simplicity is given a big play in the media and peer pressure is brought to bear on people to conform to this style. It will be necessary to find out how long commitment to this style lasts. Undeniably fads have a way of dying out as quickly as they spring up.
There is however no way of guaranteeing to any given person that they would find the simple life enjoyable. It would seem the height of presumption to insist to a person that they are not smart enough to know when they are happy. I am confident that there are many people who would be happier if they didn’t have so much stuff to bother with but I am just as confident that there are many other people who would be perfectly miserable if they had to give up their prized stuff (whatever it may mean to the perfectly miserable)
Because of the very subjective nature of “enjoyment” then the hedonistic argument lacks anything in the way of obligation. If one finds simplicity satisfying one should of course live it. But if one happens not to then there is absolutely no reason – according to the terms of this argument why one should have any concern about the simple life. TO BE CONTINUED.
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO OUR SEPRARATION OF POWERS?
“Until philosophers take to government or those who now govern become philosophers so that government and philosophy unite there will be no end of the miseries of states” - PLATO: The Republic
In this seemingly cursed Republic of Sierra Leone, we are being emasculated, bamboozled, mesmerized, led up to the garden path, left in the lurch, all in one fell swoop by the All People's Congress (APC). Wae for do? Another leave of governance for them in 2017/18? Hm!
Thus it was that in a High Court ruling in connection with a petition against the election of the Paramount Chief of Bagbo Chiefdom, Bo District an injunction was made by a Judge in favour of the petitioners. Curiously enough after that ruling the Provincial Secretary of the South countermanded the injunction on radio. Where do we go from here?
According to Western governance which we had adopted lock, stock and barrel there should be SEPARATION OF POWERS and not a hotchpotch of governance after the fashion of the Kailahun Court Barry. The APC should admit that they are making a hash of governance. The people are left nonplussed. In good governance where there are three arms of government namely the Judiciary, Executive and the Legislature, it is the third one that should have pre-eminence. It is only the legislature that can impeach the Head of State and remove him if successful. What more power is greater than that? Was that countermanding not due to the lip-service to ORDERS FROM ABOVE? The people want to know.
(C) Politico 20/02/14
