|

C. Krydz Ikwuemesi
Between Eden
and Golgotha
Ci=
tadel
Publishing Company, Enugu
2005
C. Krydz Ikwuemes=
i
=
Between Eden and Golgotha
First published in 2005 =
by
Citadel Publishing Co.
16, Nnewi
Lane, Ogui, Enugu, Nigeria.
=
© C. Krydz Ikwuemes=
i,
2005
All rights reserved. No part of this book should =
be
reproduced in any form without the express permission of the publishers.<=
o:p>
=
Typeset and printed in t=
he
Federal Republic of Nigeria
by Pearls&Gold,
08043120723
Cover design: Nnaemeka Egwuibe<=
/p>
Cover painting by the author
ISBN:
“God, if I worshi=
p Thee
in fear of hell, burn me in hell. And if I worship Thee in hope of Paradi=
se,
exclude me from Paradise; but Lord, if=
I
worship Thee for Thine own sake, withhold not Thine everlasting
Beauty.”
Rabia, the woman Sufi s=
aint,
in
M.V. Kamath, The Pur=
suit
of Excellence
“Why then do you =
mortal
men seek after happiness outside yourselves, when it lies within you? You=
are
led away by error and ignorance.”
Anicius Boethius (c. A.=
D.
480-524),
The
Consolation of Philosophy
“Other creatures =
are
content with what is their own, but you, whose mind is made in the image =
of
God, seek to adorn your superior nature with inferior objects, oblivious =
of
the great wrong you do your creator. It was His will that the human race
should rule all the earthly creatures, but you have degraded yourself to a
position beneath the lowest of all.”
Anicius Boethius, Ibid.
To
whom can I speak today?
The
gentle man has perished
The
violent man has access to everybody
To
whom can I speak today?
The
iniquity that smites the land
It
has no end.
To
whom can I speak today?
There
are no righteous men
The
earth is surrendered to criminals.
(Written about four tho=
usand
years ago in Egypt=
’s
Middle Kingdom by a man contemplating suicide).
M.V. Kamath, The Pur=
suit
of Excellence

C. Krydz Ikwuemesi, =
Image
Crisis of Christ, ink, 1991, collection of Gail Povey, USA.
Prologue
Ali Mazrui the Kenyan political philosop=
her
once wrote:
Long befor=
e the
religion of the crescent or the religion of the cross arrived on the Afri=
can
continent, Africa was at worship, its =
sons
and daughters were at prayer. Indigenous religions had a concept of divin=
ity
which was decentralized. God is not in heaven, or on a throne, or necessa=
rily
in the shape of Man … The universe and the force of life are all
manifestations of God … All over Africa
the processes of both synthesis and dissonance continue. Three visions of=
God
seek to capture the soul of a continent.4
What Mazrui sought to assev=
erate
was that religion was not imported into Africa.
Europeans may have taught Africans how to govern themselves on alien term=
s,
but they certainly did not teach them the concept of God or how to reach =
him.
Rather, what they did was to supplant African religious norms with theirs,
just the way they did in politics in a bid to colonise not just the polit=
ical
environment but also the psychological one. Up until now, the issue of
whether or not the imported religions have made a completely better socie=
ty
out of Africa remains controvertible.<=
o:p>
But the religions have succeeded in seve=
ral
respects. Most significantly, in the dying decades of the last century and
through the present times when social-political conditions became most un=
bearable
in most parts of Africa, religion prov=
ided
the opium with which much of the pain was usually vanquished. Beyond that=
, it
also became a veritable survival tonic in both the positive and negative
characterizations of the imagery. For while the “flock” placed
hope on religion’s salve for its (the flock’s) continued
navigation through the prevalent turbulence of the times, the
“shepherd” (the pastor) was sure that he had struck a gold mi=
ne.
Little wonder there are churches all over and the society has become
priest-ridden.
In <=
st1:country-region
w:st=3D"on">Nigeria, for instance, chur=
ches
are coming up at an alarming rate. The economic downturn of the 1990s led
many to discover the lucrativeness of religion. Today, religion is one of=
the
fastest growing industries in the country. Not only is this trend evil in
itself, considering the hypocrisy it entails, it is counter-productive and
dangerous for a nation – a continent – that yearns for
technological and social development. African churchmen – both real=
and
counterfeit – may well try to break the record of Jesus Christ in
miracle-making, but Africa certainly c=
an
neither sing nor dance its way through technological advancement. If Afri=
ca
must truly emerge as the continent of the third millennium as is now being
chanted by some its usually loud-mouthed leaders, her youth must be rescu=
ed
from religious fundamentalism and encouraged to readdress themselves to t=
he
art of living with rekindled optimism and a more liberal spirit.
But unfortunately, things h=
ave
taken a bad turn. Religion which should have provided, and had always
provided, the antidote has been inflicted with the same contradictions wh=
ich
attend society. In recent times, it has created more problems than it has
solved. The propagation of Islam, for instance, has brought war and famin=
e to
many lands and subjected people to sub-human treatment within the bonds of
Sharia. Christianity, in spite of its apparent liberalism, has been so
bastardised and commercialized that it has lost its primal essence. One
therefore wonders what alternative umbrella there is for man against
life’s acidic rain.
I am afraid there is none. =
The
emergence of latter-day saints5 of travesty in our community i=
s an
extension of the eternal problem of evil. Between E=
den
and Golgotha and beyond, man is isolat=
ed as
the lone evil in the material world. Evil emanates from him as does good.=
Now that all else, including religion, s=
eem to
be failing, it is perhaps time for man to return to Eden (to himself) and
thence begin a fresh journey to Golgotha – to salvation, redemption.
The following essay may clarify my position.
&n=
bsp; C. Krydz Ikwuemesi=
span>
&n=
bsp; Heavensgate,
&n=
bsp; January
2000

C. Krydz Ikwuemesi,
Come, let us make man in our own image, oil, 1998=
=
Between
Eden and Golgotha=
The existence of evil has g=
enerated
a lot of controversy and argument among philosophers. This argument, to m=
e,
is no longer attractive, because we are no longer in doubt as to whether =
or
not there is evil in the material world. The question now is whether evil=
has
thrived in society. But even this is no longer controvertible. For throug=
hout
human existence good and evil have engaged in a mortal combat over the
control of the universe. It has been a protracted battle, with the minds =
of
men as weapons of war. In recent times, it appears that evil is winning t=
hat
war, if it has not won completely. With an edge over good, it is redefini=
ng
the ethics of existence among human communities.
When this was first notice,=
some of
our liveliest philosophers proclaimed “the death of God.” But
they were wrong. It was not God that died – for he does not =
die.
It was Good, the radiance of God. And when it died, God, flabbergasted by=
the
ingratitude and subversion of a wanton creation, lost interest in the aff=
airs
of a world which was bent on going downhill. Of course, Nigeria, “our own dear
native land,” to borrow from a British housewife, was not left out.=
I must not succumb to the
temptation of turning this essay into a rhetoric on religion. But it cert=
ainly
cannot avoid that factor completely. A discussion on the dynamics of good=
and
evil as it relates to any society must draw on issues in religion one way=
or
the other. The discussion here is located at that delicate point which Eden is confronted with Golgotha, where the bandwa=
gon
and Babel of
religious thought beget a mixed bag and the mixed bag begets hypocrisy. Of
course, in such a situation, as we have now in Nigeria and many other plac=
es,
evil remains as cheap as is religious fundamentalism, I mean religious
fundamentalism in all its ramifications. However, I think that whatever
religious ideologies we may hold, we should exonerate God from the proble=
m of
evil. Although death, disease, and old age are evil which the Godhead may
have created as means of checking the excesses of man, God cannot be the
author of most of the evils which have beclouded the modern world. From g=
reed
and avarice down to robbery and murder, all are some of evil which man has
cultivated in the course of civilization. Through the inverted value syst=
em
which he has nurtured throughout the centuries, modern man paved the way =
for
the ascendancy of evil. Hence the issue of the glory of evil and not the
existence of it should engage the minds of contemporary thinkers.
It is this same concern tha=
t would
form the essence of my thesis in this exercise. Alongside some obvious
generalisations, the discussion draws on my geo-political environment and=
my
personal experiences therein.
hen God created the world, =
he
placed man at the apex of creation and blessed him with extra-animal
qualities. Even anthropologists who believe that man shares a common ance=
stry
with the apes also see man as representative of the highest development in
the animal kingdom. Thus man remains the masterpiece of God’s six-d=
ay
work of art popularly known as creation, the epitome of being. Man repres=
ents
a phenomenon, a phenomenon which he himself does not even understand.
Whether as a special animal=
or mma
ndu,6 man is supposed to be rational, reasonable, and inte=
lligent.
These, among others, are qualities which justify man’s position in =
the
natural scheme of things. Perhaps this is why Leon Battista Alberti,=
7
addressing man sometime in the 14th century, eulogised him thu=
s:
To you is =
given a
body more graceful than other animals, to you power of apt and various
movements, to you most sharp and delicate senses, to you wit, reason, mem=
ory,
like an immortal god.8
Like an immortal god! That was in 1400. And Alber=
ti could
have been right. For it was the following year, 1401, that saw the birth =
of
Masaccio,9 marking the real beginning of the Renaissance. No
doubt, Alberti must have been impressed with the kind of humanism that was
blossoming in Florence
at the time. The characteri=
sation
of man “as the measure of
all things” by
Protagoras must have held a certain fancy for Alberti. Little wond=
er
he and his fellow Florentines could afford to feel like immortal gods in =
the
15th century!
Although I would be flabber=
gasted
to hear anyone make such a claim as Alberti’s in today’s worl=
d,
man in spite of his obvious brutish tendencies continues to see himself as
the final word in creation. It is this feeling in its micro and misguided
manifestation, that is, at the group level, that induces an unhealthy
superiority complex where man as a concept becomes fragmented and some of=
the
fragments are considered more authentic than others. Slavery, colonialism=
, or
even the Jewish holocaust can be traced to such an attitude. Similarly, t=
he
Igbo holocaust in Nigeria in the late sixties, the “ethnic
cleansing” in Kosovo, and some of the recent ethno-religious upheav=
als
in Nigeria and other parts of Africa are veritable testimonies of manR=
17;s
affinity with the beasts despite his age-long claim to primacy.
Many people may prefer to l=
ook at
the problem of evil from the point of view of the Bible. Most of these are
the self-styled prophets (of doom) who would like to believe that we are =
in
the age of the fulfilment of the Scriptures. It is easy for such people to
find explanation for every
aberration in society in the Scriptures. They believe that the world has =
run
its course and that the various expressions of evil we witness are
manifestations of the death pangs of a cosmos about to be destroyed less =
by
its own folly than by the mounting fury of its creator. But I believe that
God in heaven, given all his attributes, cannot, by any stretch of the
imagination, want his pronouncements to be fulfilled through the
multiplication of evil. Otherwise, the meek and the just would also suffer
unjustly, as they are even doing in these wicked times. After all, God is=
an
all-loving, all-benevolent being whose love “passeth all
understanding”. This age of Kali cannot be the brainchild of
such a God. Apart from natural evil like death, disease, and old age, man=
should
accept every blame for the abysmally unattractive situation in which he f=
inds
himself today.
Even God cannot be totally =
blamed
for the so-called natural evil. After all, Genesis suggests that the original intention of the Godhead w=
as
that man should have everlasting life. But when the ancestors of man sinn=
ed
by disobeying God – his benefactor – God was so angry that he
cast him out of the Garden he had assigned to him. Some would argue that
being “just and faithful” God should have condoned that defia=
nce
by Adam and his wife. But it is perfectly logical that man decided to dis=
obey
his benefactor and his benefactor, in a fit of anger, cut off both materi=
al
and spiritual aid which he had hitherto enjoyed.
Whether myth or fact this i=
ncident
as narrated in the Bible marked the fall of man. It was not long after th=
at
that man committed his first evil outside the Garden. Driven by envy, Cain
one of the sons of Adam, murders Abel, his brother, in cold blood. It was=
the
mother of all evil. That incident is very significant because it was then
that mankind is supposed to have descended from its Olympian heights to
compete with the so-called lower animals.
It could be argued that God=
should
have changed his mind and restored man to his original position by reabso=
rbing
him into the mainstream of the supernatural. Or, that since he is a
“perfect orderer”, God should have eradicated every form of e=
vil
from the world right from the very beginning so that the universe would
attain perfection – the ultimate purpose of God. But interestingly,=
man
himself is evil on two legs, looking for every opportunity to manifest
itself. If old age and disease were to be eradicated from the material wo=
rld,
men, for instance, would still kill one another. So how could death, a pr=
incipal
evil in itself, be banished from the world? It is impossible, unless by t=
he
removal of death we mean the complete erasure of the idea of death as an =
end
to killing from both the cosmos and from the minds of men.
But even in the face of thi=
s logic,
accusing fingers are still directed against God as the “Cause of all
Causes”. In this capacity, God is believed to be the cause of the
universe, and if so, the cause of everything that characterises it, inclu=
ding
good and evil. In this connection, maybe God had fashioned out evil as a
deterrent against man’s wantonness which still persists in spite of=
the
presence of the presumed corrective evil. Or, maybe the intention was to
create the necessary vitality in an otherwise hyper-utopian world. In this
very sense, one can only say that evil has exceeded its limits and ought =
to
be curtailed or withdrawn by God.
Yet in the light of this ar=
gument,
one should also note the school of thought which believes that God, the <=
i>Cause
of the Universe, also has a cause. This argument, though
plausible, remains inconclusive because if God is caused by something els=
e,
that something else, is also caused by another cause. And it goes =
on
indefinitely without any conclusion on what the “cause of all
causes” is or should be. If we are ready to concede that God is=
not
the original cause, or that the universe is an evolutionary accide=
nt,
then it follows as a matter of logic that God is not the original author =
of
evil.
I believe that the problem =
of evil
and man are co-eval. There is no evil in the world, excepting man. To me,
disease, old age, and death are not evil but part of a natural order. Aft=
er
all, man is not just the spirit-soul, but also matter animated by the sou=
l,
and so is liable to aberration and occasional malfunction. People tend to
talk about evil as if it resides in houses or flies in the air all on its
own. Yet the truth is that evil is a psychological entity which resides in
the minds of men. When it is let loose in great numbers, as it has been i=
n Nigeria, it
quickly drives out good and enjoys a semblance of triumph.
The Nigerian experience rem=
ains a
classic exemplar. On all the occasions when the Nigerian military sacked =
the
civilian regime alleging corruption and the like, they only were able to
demonstrate Montaigne’s maxim that “In trying to make themsel=
ves
angels, men transform themselves into beasts.”10 For the=
Nigeria<=
/st1:place>
they finally left behind in 1999 was worse than the one they had met, say=
, in
1984. Not only were they avid students of Machiavelli, they literally tra=
nsformed
the Nigerian state into a hell on earth. Like miserable apostates of hell=
who
they vividly approximated, they reduced statecraft to a mere combination =
of
political divination and reckless machinations, and pitifully mesmerised<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> the people into cowards and z=
ombies.
That Nigeria=
st1:country-region>
seemingly survived this flourish of evil is one of the greatest miracles =
of
the 20th century.
But did Nigeria survive? Has it rea=
lly
survived the onslaught of political bandits and masquerades whose aberrant
collective conscience dictates and sanctions nothing but greed, avarice, =
and
high-handedness at the expense of the common good?
The Nigerian experience is,=
of
course, not an isolated case. Empires and nations have fallen apart in
history due to bad leadership and the often diabolic proclivities of the
political and economic elite. Some nations remain poor today not because =
it
is their destiny to be so. Even the Bible suggests that people and, by
implication, nations, are not created poor or rich. The ability to attain
wealth or poverty is in man’s will which God, I believe, has given =
him
the liberty to direct. A nation’s fortune, therefore, is the concre=
te
manifestation of the collective will of the people as directed by the few=
who
make up the leadership. In other words, when evil overcomes a nation or a
people, it is neither God nor the devil but the people themselves that are
responsible.
Personally, I believe that =
God is a
positive-minded being who spreads his spirit of positivism as far as his
power stretches. Perhaps it is on this principle that God originally anch=
ored
his personal purpose for the universe, giving man the freedom to explore,
but, perhaps, not to conquer the world. This proviso may seem surprising
especially in the face of the preceding argument. But it becomes logical =
when
one looks at the real meaning of God’s warning to Adam not to eat a
particular fruit in the Garden. Some people would argue that it was
God’s plan that man should live a simple life with the barest minim=
um
of worry like other animals. For in the forbidden fruit lay knowledge in =
all
its ramifications – the knowledge of life and death, of health and
disease, of joy and pain, of hunger and satisfaction, and of good and evi=
l.
Perhaps God had wanted to save from man the attendant burden of this
knowledge. Or, did he just prefer a simple-minded man?<=
/p>
It has been argued that the
biblical account of creation is nothing but a cleverly woven myth of Jewi=
sh
origin. It is not my intention to refute or advance this line of thought =
here.
But what I can say is that the world was originally woven around myriad
myths, some plausible, others outrageous, all seeking to explain the ridd=
le
of being. The Chinese, the European, the Indian, and even the Yoruba and
Igbo, all have their own myths about the origin of life, with each seekin=
g to
establish the authenticity of the culture which it represents. It could be
argued that what makes the Jewish “myth” popular is its
attachment to the holy literature of the Christian faith. For that reason=
, it
has reached millions of people in spite of some of the glaring illogicali=
ties
which characterise parts of its narratives.
But to this extent, I must =
concede
that myths in themselves are no scientific formulae or theories which must
dovetail here and there in their quest to define certain worldly phenomen=
a.
The role of myth is to find plausible answers to the question of existenc=
e as
well as infuse meaning into the cultural codes of a people. In looking at=
the
story of man from the point of view of the Bible or other non-scientific
sources – call them myths or whatever – we should always conc=
ede
this fact before we begin to juxtapose them with science in the dangerous
attempt to pulverize their meanings. Moreover, in spite of some illogical=
ities
found in biblical anthropology, we must also concede that some of its rec=
ords
may have moved away from the realm of myth especially in the face of rece=
nt
ethnographical evidence emanating from mere curiosity and organized resea=
rch.
Having come this far, I sha=
ll now attempt
a definition of God – as a concept – so as to steer the argum=
ent
away from the controversy of what happened in the garden at Eden. Literal=
ly,
God, or whatever name we may wish to call him, as an entity, cannot be
defined, given his acclaimed attributes. But I prefer to look at God as a
supreme force not just as a persona. It is this supreme force that=
is
the essence of the universe and the very life of it. Whatever names we ch=
oose
to call it can only be terms of convenience as it is too great to be funn=
elled
into a word. Many people tend to confuse their nomenclature for this great
spiritual force with its essence and practical implications. This situati=
on
readily explains the escalation of fanaticism, hypocrisy and downright
intolerance in today’s world.
In a lighter mood, though, =
I should
take the liberty to say that the term God is a derivative of Good, and th=
at Good
was the original name of the universe. Being the author of Good, <=
/i>God,
then, as an eternal being or super-cosmic force, had attained perfection
before he conceived the idea of creation. And when he did, he also wanted=
the
consequence of the exercise of creation (the Universe) to be perfect. But
unfortunately, his wish has been derailed or overtaken by events.
Atheists and other people c=
ontinue
to blame God for the problem if evil. A nineteenth century artist, Blake,=
saw
God as the greatest enemy of mankind.11 A highly visionary art=
ist,
Blake was known to have done a book which he called Urizen. I
don’t know what that word means. But according to Kenneth Clark, on=
e of
the most insightful art historians of all times, Urizen was “=
;the
embodiment of all that Blake hated – definition, restriction,
measurement, materialism.” He had conceived Urizen as the prophet of
this evil, “dialectical materialism”, with a painting of Karl
Marx “drowning in the waters of materialism”.
But Blake did not stop ther=
e. He
went on to show the “terrible’ result of Urizen’s
ascendancy in some other paintings, one showing “Newton on the high=
er
plane, embodying the evil power of the measuring mind” and the other
showing “Nebuchadnezzar on the lowest plane (signifying) material m=
an
reduced to a beast”.12 With these works, Blake was only
trying to make a point which we may find to be at variance with some
established religious dogma. First, with the picture of Newton, he tried graphically to conve=
y his
disgust for “order’ and “restriction”, two words
which could easily summarise God’s purpose for creation. Then with =
the Nebuchadnezzar he sought to pres=
ent man
as the helpless victim of the excesses of those two words13 or=
the
outright negation of them.
The
words “order” and “restriction” are very signific=
ant
here because of the controversy they, especially the first, have generated
among philosophers. It is often argued that the world could not have been=
the
work of a “perfect orderer”. The term refers normally to God =
who
is believed to have “measured”, “designed,”
“ordered”, and “defined” the world at the beginning of times. One is not in doubt as=
to
whether or not Blake believed in this theory. He did. But like most of his
kind, he chose to see God – that orderer – as the cause of bo=
th
good and evil in the material world. In fact, going by Kenneth Clark̵=
7;s
account, there is no doubt that Blake had his reservations about God. For=
in
one of his most celebrated works, he really had a crack at the Christian =
God
who, he claims, he had seen pop in his head through the window to look at=
him
(Blake) as a child.14 Although presented as Urizen the
Creator and aptly titled The Ancient of Days, the work represents =
an
attempt by a mortal to take on an immortal being who seemed to overwhelm =
his
comprehension; it was a swipe at “the measuring law-giving God of
Genesis whom Blake regarded as the enemy of mankind.”15 =
But
Blake is dead now – since the 19th century. Yet we still
have many modern Blakes who hold similar views concerning God. On the oth=
er
side still, there is the majority, the postmodern saints of travesty, who
would constantly push the buck of evil to the devil. While the latter-day
Blake would easily cry “Chim egbue m” (my god has kill=
ed
me), for instance, in the face of most calamities, including self-caused
ones, the latter-day saint of travesty would quickly classify every deed =
and
ill-luck as the “handwork of the devil.” In the face of such
blame-reversal, where can one place the reckless driver who

William Blake, Urizen. Kenneth Clark, 1973, p.1=
62
runs into a ditch as a resu=
lt of
his own recklessness? Or the hypocritical priest whose additional hobby is
sodomy? Or the masochistic one who poisons a perceived foe through the ho=
ly
communion? Due to greed and avarice, all aspects of life in the material
world are ridden with untold evil. The attempt by man to blame the
supernatural, of whatever characterisation, only contradicts logic and co=
mmon
sense.
The modern Christian, while
castigating the devil, has also created an image crisis for God. There are
one and a million views about God and his ways. Varying theories and
doctrines about God have been advanced over the years by Christians and o=
ther
religious groups. Hence, what we have today, going by the innumerable
doctrines, is a fragmented God – with as many fragments as there are
churches or even individuals. Some churches have become religious business
centres where God is sold over the counter according to each
member’s needs and financial strength. In doing so, these churches =
have
killed the idea of God which was put forth in the universe at the beginni=
ng
of times. They have compelled that peace-loving force to withdraw from mo=
st
churches, if not the entire world. And there are still those who love to =
wear
the God-label, while their hearts are hot ovens where evil is baked and
churned out at the slightest opportunity. These are the window-dressing b=
orn-again,
the enemies of movement who enjoy playing the Pharisee wherever they are.
Whenever they pray, they boo and jeer and kick at an imaginary devil, whi=
ch,
ironically, dwells in their own diseased minds. In these times when prayer
has literally become a variant of acrobatics among most religious sects, =
it
may be interesting to find out what Jesus Christ himself says about praye=
r,
for instance, in the book of Matthew (6:5-19):
“And=
when
you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and
pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by
men…But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray=
to
your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will rew=
ard
you.
 =
;
“And=
in
praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think t=
hat
they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Fa=
ther
knows what you need before you ask him.”

Kalu Okori=
e, The Son of God, graphite, 2003
Not only that. It is worth =
noting
that prayer is not just the act of kneeling down and making supplication =
unto
God for one’s immediate needs. Prayer is a pastiche of the generali=
ty
of man’s relation with his creator. Life as we live it is a prolong=
ed
prayer. When life’s prayer has been well said, it ultimately libera=
tes
the soul from the miserable cycle of birth and death and reunites it with=
the
eternal God for the continuance of a subliminal existence by transcendent=
al
means at the end of the physical life which Bertrand Russell aptly descri=
bes
as a “fitful fever.”
Prayer, according to Soren Kierkegaard, does not change God; it
changes the one who prays. =
In
other words, prayer changes our world, the world.

 =
;
 =
;
William Bl=
ake, The Ancient of Days,<=
/span>
Kenneth Clark 1975, p.164
The bastardisation of praye=
r is now
common among Nigerian Christians, especially the new-breed, who seem to h=
ave
taken to shameless Phariseeism.=
i> Not
only is everybody a “born-again” Christian; today, every young
man in the street is a prospective pastor. The number of Nigerian boys and
girls who attend church services and fellowships is quite intimidating. Y=
et
crime and other forms of immorality have not abated.
Beyond so-called cultism in=
the
universities, a good number of our youth find expression for their
hooliganism in ethnic movements which terrorise the environment in the gu=
ise
of agitating for self-determination. From the Niger Delta down to Lagos, Anambra State, Jos, Kaduna, Ife, and other p=
laces
where serious ethnic clashes have occurred in the recent past, the youth =
were
both the vanguard and the scapegoat. And yet Nigeria has the highest num=
ber of
pastors and churchgoers – most of them youths – in the world.=
The proliferation of church=
es and
the attendant hypocritical, if preponderate, spirituality in much of Afri=
ca,
as in Nigeria,
is a direct outcome of the failure of socio-political systems and
institutions in the continent. After the demise of classical colonization=
(by
which I mean colonization by external forces), most independent governmen=
ts
in Africa failed to meet the expectati=
ons of
their peoples. Rather than endear themselves to their peoples, the new cr=
op
of leaders constituted itself into oracles and began to build personality
cults around individuals. While greed and ostentation took a front seat, =
the
ideals of the common good took the last place in the group agenda. The tr=
end
has continued to shape the thinking of political thought in Africa.
In a country like =
Nigeria,
it has created, over the years, a rich-poor polarity among the populace
through a systematic and gradual decimation and elimination of the middle
class which is the elastic band of any culture or economy. As I have argu=
ed
elsewhere, this situation has occasioned a drastic loss of faith in polit=
ical
institutions and leaders. The emergent logic is, if the leaders of society
have become glorified prodigals, why not surrender to the “Lord of
Lords?” If the believed fleeting mechanism of society is surrendere=
d to
criminals wearing the cloak of political leaders, why not turn to the
reassuring promise of heaven and nirvana?
Thus a good number of peopl=
e turn
to religion and God with ulterior motive, seeking to achieve the same
material desires which the society could no longer guarantee. Not only do=
es
this make the people vegetate and live an uncreative life in the main, it
also foregrounds the anthropologist’s claim that religion does not
necessarily make people better human beings. In this regard, Nigerians ar=
e a
classic example, given the intimidating number of churches, church-goers,=
and
pastors. Ultimately, one is left to wonder whether religion in modern Africa has been a tool for emancipation or one for
neocolonisation, particularly in the last two decades, especially as it h=
as
raised more questions than it has answered in the social milieu.
Concerning the hypocrisy of
latter-day churchmen and church-goers, Gandhi finds some justification in=
his
assertion: “I admire Christ but not Christians.”16=
And
like Albino Luciani, the visionary but luckless Pope John 1,17=
I
wish earnestly that the picture painted of Christians (in Europe) by Sand=
hu
Singh would cease to be true. But, can it?:
One day I was sitting o=
n the
banks of a river. I took from the water a round stone and I broke it. Ins=
ide
it was perfectly dry. That stone had been lying in the water for a very l=
ong
time but the water had not penetrated it. Then I thought that the same th=
ing
happened to men in Europe. For centuri=
es
they have been surrounded by Christianity but Christianity has not
penetrated, does not live within them.18
Singh’s comment becomes even more =
apt
today when one reflects on what the modern world has made of Christianity=
and
other religions. The faith, like some other major ones, has been the vict=
im
of distanciation from the history and teachings of its founding fathers, =
the
Apostles, and benefactor Jesus Christ. Its pendulum swings dangerously
between a philosophy of life which it is and a mass movement which the
doctrine of men have caused it to become. And it is obvious that in our
world, that pendulum swings more to the latter side. The inner bankruptcy
which attends religion when it degenerates to a band-wagon mass movement
creates a situation of “too much God and no good”. In Nigeria, Africa=
st1:place>
and the entire world, the evidence and implications are there for all who
seek after the truth to see. Religion and pentecostalist arrogance have
become some of the factors that feed the terror that is at the heart of
postmodernity.
t is unfortunate that in sp=
ite of
all the religious fervour in these parts, evil is not ebbing. It continue=
s to
define social life and the fabrics of political structures. Nobody who was
praying for the progress of Nigeria,
with all its multitude of dashing pastors and brutally efficient believer=
s,
could have contemplated that a plague like Abacha, for instance, could be=
fall
Nigeria.
Yet, here we are, in all our holiness, licking the Abacha wounds which we
helped to inflict on ourselves and our children, even when we thump our c=
hest
with mock confidence and brag: “We prayed him out of existence!R=
21;
Yes, We prayed him out! But what did we pray in? Where can we now
effectively draw the line between Abacha’s Nigeria and what came after=
it?
It is no different. It is only an ugly continuum. And the most frightening
and annoying part is that most Nigerian leaders in the post-Abacha era wo=
uld
claim to be “born again.” What does it matter if they are sai=
nts,
when they lack humility, compassion, and the capacity to seek and defend =
the
common good?
The point being made is tha=
t the
situation in the society does not reflect the religious expediency in the
air. Religious revivalism in itself is useless so long as its ends are not
manifest in the practical workings of society for the common good of the
people. The reality is that in trying to curb evil in the world, religion=
has
inadvertently added to it. For religion to continue to be relevant in the=
new
millennium, it should not just play the role of a gateway to eternity or a
survival tonic against the harsh realities of being. It must also address=
itself
more realistically and vigorously to the rather capricious demands of a
grossly endangered universe.
The dogged but blind pursui=
t of the
kingdom=
of God by this generation of Nigeri=
ans
with little or no concern for the amelioration of society is only an evidence of the selfi=
shness
and animal in man. The =
kingdom
of God is in us a=
nd all
around us. It is not in church buildings, crusades, and fellowships. If we
cannot pursue virtues and values which promote peace, justice, and humani=
ty
for the benefit of ourselves and society, eternity will elude us as a mat=
ter
of logic. Religion for religion’s sake is a cesspool with gold fish swimming on the
surface.
Even for those who would de=
scribe
religion as “a deterrent against those who would do evil in
society”, that definition can no longer hold water. For as religious
revivalism increases, so also does the apparent triumph of evil, and one =
is
left to wonder how water went into the flute of the proverbial pumkin.
The answer is simple. It is=
because
there is no sincerity in the disposition of most of those who seek divine
intervention in their affairs. People run to churches and various evangel=
ical
ministries today either to gain promotion at their work places or to obta=
in
divine boost for their businesses or even to enable them buy such funny i=
tems
as cars and houses. Beclouded by their own materialism, they pass through=
God
but refuse to allow God pass through them. Otherwise, how do you explain a
situation where you have “born-again” presidents, vice-chance=
llors,
soldiers, managing directors, police chiefs, clerks, and market women, and
the society is not better off ?19
=

Kalu Okori=
e, In the Night, Darkly, 2003,
ho or what, then, is the ca=
use of
evil? Is it God, as some people would have us believe? Or, is it the devi=
l as
the latter-day saint would prefer to claim? I dare say that it is neither=
of
them. I look at God as a wonderful artist. No artist would like his oeuvr=
e to
rot away without care. It is impossible for God to subject the entire wor=
ld
– his very work of art – to such degeneracy. For if he did, s=
ome
of his well-known attributes would become questionable. And I take it that
the devil has retired from the world “after a long and honourable
career”.20 No one remembers him any more. Our
“bread-and-butter clerics of ample gait, stuffed with the toast of
rectory tea” have preached him out of existence.21 So wi=
th
the devil gone and the memories of his hell-fire forgotten, evil becomes a
heroic way of life in a society which he (the devil) would easily prod
forward with his three-pronged oyster-fork, if he were still in active
service!
In the light and darkness of the forgoing
premises, who then takes the praise and blame for some of the violations =
of
humanity that are rampant in the present world? As society is believed to
exist because of men,22 the consequences of its dynamics shoul=
d,
to a large degree, be the responsibility of men.
As I have indicated, it is =
not my
wish that this exercise should degenerate into a polemic in religion. But=
I
must go on to look at the churches more critically to highlight how some =
of
them have helped in the promotion of evil in these parts.
Not unnaturally, religion is
believed by anthropologists to be the product of men’s mind over the
years. Even some anthropological records have it that religion could have
been there before the appearance of the so-called homo sapiens on =
the
evolutionary scene. A school of thought claims, for instance, that
chimpanzees used to do “rain dance” which, it is believed,
represented a religious inclination of a rudimentary kind. With the adven=
t of
man and the evolution of society, religion was contrived as a deterrent
against those who would do evil in, or against, society.23
But I must say that the theory of evolut=
ion is
one scientific theory I have reservations about as I do biblical cosmogon=
y.
This is because both, though quite plausible, are ridden with slots which=
may
never be filled in the near future. I am not rendering both theories null=
and
void in any way. But there are places where they resonate with incongruent
ideas. For instance, beyond =
Eden,
it is not clear how the human race was generated from Adam, and no one has
explained why more apes have not evolved into men in our time.=
This is why I find it diffi=
cult
here to put all my eggs in any one basket belonging to either of the two
theories. Yet I must concede that when God created the world – howe=
ver
he did it – he did not create any particular religion along with ma=
n.
Man simply had to device a way of relating to the supernatural which God
aptly represents. There are simply no records in the Scriptures or related
literature of how or when God created or sanctioned any particular religi=
on
for use by man in relating with him. Yet men, in their lust for superiori=
ty
over one another, would always want to feel that their religion is superi=
or
to that of others. Having led to wars and massacres in many parts of the
world, this kind of misguided jingoism has transformed religion into a
necessary evil.
Only few rational people wo=
uld bear
to be confronted with the argument that all religions are inter-related a=
nd
aspire to the same ideal. Yet the central themes of every religion are
worship, adoration, and submission to its god – the ultimate benefa=
ctor.
What differ are the methods through which these goals are pursued by the
various religions. This means that religion could be described as a singu=
lar
destination with various access routes. It is bigotry for anyone to claim
that his chosen route to this destination is the safest. Such a feeling w=
ould
only represent intolerance – religion employed in the evil service =
and
boosting of the ego.
The God of the universe is =
one God.
Otherwise, there would have been more than one universe. I am unable to
understand why men should continue to fight for the legitimacy of one
religion over another. World religions in modern times are like labels pl=
aced
on God and those who place a premium on these labels are only making a Ba=
bel
out of religion and thus creating an image crisis for God and all the
interests he represents.
While hinting on the futility of this pr=
oblem,
perhaps, Xenophanes of Colophone (c.530 B.C.) said
But
if oxen (and horses) and lions had hands, or could draw with hands and cr=
eate
works of art like those made by men, horses would draw pictures of gods l=
ike
horses, and oxen of gods like oxen, and they would make the bodies (of th=
eir
gods) in accordance with the form that each species possesses. Aethiopians
have gods with snub-noses and black hair, Thracians have gods with grey e=
yes
and red hair.24
Xenophanes’ opinion above also sug=
gests
that God, after creation, and with the passage of time, gave every people=
a
messiah according to their own culture. This, perhaps, accounts for the
fundamental similarity in the contents of the teachings of all the great
prophets. Each prophet only blends his teachings with the central myth and
cultural codes of the society where he finds himself. Yet in contemporary
society, Moslems cannot see eye to eye with Christians and vice versa. The
same goes for other major religions. Generally, man, as homo-religiosu=
s, continues
to exhibit that sense of intolerance which he commonly shares with the
beasts. As a result, wars and other conflicts all over the world have been
religious where they were not fundamentally tribal.
I have discussed the triumph of evil in =
the
form of intolerance at the inter-religious level. At the intra-religious =
or
denominational level, the division is more palpable and often stronger. I=
n the
Christian religion, for instance, the central figure is Christ, yet Roman
Catholics and Anglicans do not agree. Since the historic Reformation, both
have been in a cold war over legitimacy. In spite of its several adherents
all over the world, Christianity, like most other religions, has not help=
ed
in the alleviation of evil. Rather, it has aggravated it and enhanced its
triumph through inter-denominational acrimonies. More than any other fact=
or,
intolerance among religious sects has been the cheapest assailant of the
significance of Eden and Golgotha.
In this bitter fight for legitimacy and,=
of
course, supremacy, the churches have impiously tampered with the teaching=
s of
Christ over time to suit their selfish interests. The reckless
misinterpretation of doctrines and biblical narrations remains as shockin=
g as
the politicization and commercialization of religion itself. The growing
unhealthy competition among Christians has assumed embarrassing proportio=
ns.
Some Christian sects even claim that they were established by Christ hims=
elf.
But the fact remains that Christ never founded any church on earth. It was
never his mission to found one. What we have as Christian churches are hu=
man
institutions which grew out of the solidarity of Christ’s followers=
hip,
by virtue of his very crucifixion. Unfortunately, this misconception has =
led
some denominations to discourage or even forbid their members from marryi=
ng
outside their fold. When my wife and I were about to wed, it was required=
by
my own parish of the Anglican Communion in Enugu that the marriage banns =
be
signed and announced in my wife’s parish of the Catholic Diocese in=
her
village. The Reverend Father there refused to sign or announce the banns =
and
we had to go on without the consent if his church. This reality becomes v=
ery
intriguing and curious when one considers that it is the same churches th=
at
would turn around and charge their members to “love thy neighbour as
thyself”! If we are forbidden from loving or marrying fellow human
beings for the simple reason that they belong to other religious sects, w=
ho
then is our neighbour? How can we do the will of God? <=
/p>
In his conceit, material man has turned =
the
churches into interest groups, if not transcendental political parties. T=
he
unvoiced maxim seems to be “If you don’t belong to my chur=
ch,
then you are evil”! We have created a fragmented world with equ=
ally
fragmented ideas and values. Even our idea of God is so fragmented: If=
you
do not hold on to my own fragment of God, then you are evil. But this=
is
madness. And I am sure that such promotion of evil does not impress God. =
What
could be so disgusting than that someone should fail a job interview simp=
ly
because he is not “born again” or simply because he does not
belong to a certain sect?
A friend of mine who was carrying out his
National Youth Service in Rivers State of Nigeria in 1993 happened to=
be
posted to one of the evangelical churches there. He was a graphic artist,=
and
the church needed one badly. Having presented his portfolio, the pastor w=
as
greatly enthused with his capabilities. But then he asked him whether he =
was
a “born-again”. He said no. The result was simple. He failed =
the
interview, because he was not qualified for it. In that split seco=
nd,
merit was thrown out of the window in favour of dubious religious labels.=
If
my friend had lied that he was a “born-again”, they would have
signed him on. They did not know that spiritual rebirth is not a state of
mind which one can assume and discard at will. Even if it were, the best
proof would be the individual’s outward character and not
self-proclamation. Spiritual rebirth is a volte face of the soul w=
hich
is ignited by a spark from the Almighty. Genuine spiritual rebirth
presupposes an unalloyed love for humanity irrespective of creed or ideol=
ogy.
It is not a label which can be put on and off like a soldier’s
epaulette. It occurs and resides deep down in the soul from where it
permeates the individual’s actions and behaviours in order to bring
happiness to everyone he/she comes across.
But the reverse is the case with our
contemporary churchgoers and church leaders. Instead of spreading happine=
ss
and prosperity, they perpetrate sectionalism and division within the human
race. Others continue to preach poverty and austerity as virtues of etern=
ity.
To these people, to be worthy of God’s mercies demands personal
shabbiness, impecuniosity, hyper-conservatism, and what Blake aptly refer=
s to
as “mind-forg’d manacles”. Consequently, they turn
spiritual rebirth into a burden instead of blessing. This is why most peo=
ple
would not hear of it, because they don’t want to vegetate wh=
en
the supreme God has given them the right to live.
In this way, the all-important spiritual
rebirth becomes evil to a world that is highly materialistic and
apprehensive. If you said, “Forget the world and come to my
church” you would be making two wrong demands. One, that the
individual should die psychologically. Two, that he should embrace your
fragment of God (your church). The right thing would be to use the world
(life) which God has placed at our disposal in glorifying him. We donR=
17;t
need to die a psychological death to be able to recognise the essence of =
God.
After all, God created man to explore and enjoy this life, albeit with
moderation and continence. For nothing in this world created by God is
intrinsically evil. Evil comes from the minds of men where it resides. The
evil nature of any particular thing derives from the use and abuse of it =
by
men in their crazy materialistic pursuits. It is a bitter irony, for
instance, for men to turn around and say that the acquisition of money is
evil, when money is, in essence, one of the facilitators of life and soci=
ety.
It is common knowledge that money in itself does not think. Nor does it
possess hands or knives or guns. It is simply there to facilitate exchang=
e.
In today’s world where the unimaginable is always happening, people
have engaged in untold thoughtless acts in their bid to acquire wealth and
power. In Nigeria<=
/st1:country-region>,
people have committed ritual murder as a means to opulence. Sometime in t=
he
late 1980s, for instance, a stevedore was caught under an overhead bridge=
at Onitsha in Eastern Nigeria<=
/st1:place>
making love to a mad woman in broad daylight. When he was apprehended and
queried, he confessed that he had been advised by a bush doctor to commit=
the
act so that he could become rich! There was even the more recent story of=
two
young men who where transformed into vultures as part of the requirement =
for
their enrichment ritual. Then it happened that the witch doctor who was
handling their case died in a road disaster when he went out to buy extra
work material, and they could not reclaim their human bodies. These sound
like fairy tales, but such things do happen, and they are evidence of how=
far
people can go for the sake of money. Is it not a paradox, then, that some=
of
us should blame money – these helpless pieces of embossed metal and
coloured papers – for our own greed and folly?
Our society today is replete with a lot =
of
prophets of gloom who always ascribe most of the terrible happenings of t=
hese
times to God in the sense that these things are signs of the last days. B=
ut
this is also an irony. It is reminiscent of that proverbial elder who spa=
nks
the child and quickly tries to “steal” the tears from his eye=
s.
For I believe that the world is like a banquet to which God has invited t=
he
human race. In their conceit, men have made a mess of that banquet, and G=
od,
the supreme host, is unhappy. But they prefer to blame the host – G=
od
– for the ugly turn of events. Even if the last days are here, I re=
fuse
to believe that they are the handwork of God. Rather they represent the
culmination of the collective tragedy of a generation which is grossly
inclined to vanity and wickedness.
I do not believe that God would want to
annihilate all creation – this feat of his imagination and divine
ingenuity. God is not human. But I cannot think of any artist who after
making a masterpiece, sets it ablaze. It cannot be the intention of God to
destroy his own oeuvre (the material world). Rather it is the evil done b=
y men
that will ultimately wear out the world. As I have mentioned earlier, it =
is
not impossible for evil to drive out Good – the original purpose of=
the
universe. This is, perhaps, what is happening now. When this is achieved
universally, it is not impossible that God – that moving spirit beh=
ind
the workings of the universe – may withdraw. If that happens, life =
as
we know it would loose its vitality and social conditions would become mo=
st
unbearable; irrational man would drown in the sea of his own folly, as the
“tigers of wrath” become more relevant than “the horses=
of
instruction”. But is it just possible that the mind of an all-loving
God would conceive such wanton brutality against a world which, according=
to
the Bible, he made during six days of sustained creativity?
What is happening now is that there are =
a lot
of self-styled prophets who derive joy in instilling fear in the minds of
people. To them, that is a way of curbing the spread of evil. But fear in
itself is evil. The use of one evil to curb or eradicate another, however,
can only be described as hyper-evil. The above fact also confirms the
ideology in certain quarters which purports that religion is opium for the
masses. And one is tempted to go along with such school of thought when o=
ne
considers that religion has been used, either by chance or by design, to =
wage
a psychological war against the have-not. They have been made to believe =
that
poverty has divine justification – a kind of transcendental investm=
ent
which yields divine dividends in heaven. I don’t know the basis for
this logic. But what worries me is that these people who preach heaven and
nirvana are never poor themselves. They live in expensive houses and ride
luxury cars. Yet they would want their congregations to live in penury. I
refuse to believe that the supreme God created millions of people only to
allow them to vegetate.
Although some of our churchmen recently
discovered the beauty of the message of prosperity with its potential to
boost the flock, the message has also been bastardised. Like that of doom
before it, it has become a weapon among holy mouths of these times, a kin=
d of
amplifier of the opium which religion can represent. The message of salva=
tion
is fast becoming unattractive to our new-breed churchmen. Everybody is ta=
lking
prosperity. The latter-day pastor wants to ride a big car, he loves to we=
ar
robes of brocade, live in a good house, and control mouth-watering bank
accounts. The only way he can keep his congregation’s mind at rest
while doing these, he believes, is by preaching prosperity and giving the
people the courage to hope that sooner or later they would become as
comfortable as he. Beyond that, the congregation should have neither memo=
ry
nor desire so that it would continue to till the land for holy, “di=
vinely-ordained”,
grabbing hands, a people whose only raison d’etre is their
auto-authentication and their capacity for soap-box antics and homiletic
tactics.
It is regrettable that people have conti=
nued
to encourage this situation. It is now fashionable for people to believe =
in
churches and pastors rather than in God. This is what I would rather desc=
ribe
as “churchism”. Yet it is arguable that the greatest relation=
ship
anyone can have with God is that anchored on one’s personal love and
appreciation of God. A relationship with God dictated by soi-disant, <=
/i>self-anointed
reverend ministers can only be as hypocritical as the workings of the min=
ds
of our latter-day saints, as suspect as the blessedness on their faces wh=
en
they hanker after the virtues of offering and tithe. For, in their own br=
and
of the Gospel, that poor widow who impressed Jesus Christ with her mite h=
as
lost significance. And why not? The god of latter-day “churchism=
221;
is a money-loving god. And he certainly loves a cheerful giver!
The pursuit by churchmen (and now women,=
too)
of indignity and ostentation in relation to financial matters has always =
been
a feature of “churchism”. The claim by some people in recent
times that the quest for material wealth is peculiar to the pentecostalis=
ts
could be fuelled by bigotry or orthodox fundamentalism. Some pentecostali=
st
pastors may be wont to flaunt their wealth with puerile recklessness, but=
the
smoke screen of austerity that has in the large part been associated with
orthodoxy does not translate to poverty. The church has always been the
richest of institutions, from the time of the graceful Holy Fathers down =
to
this era of dashing, postmodern clergy.
The church’s riches must have take=
n a
dramatic turn in 312 upon the equally dramatic conversion of Constantine =
I to
Christianity. As David Yallop has put it, “When the Roman Emperor
Constantine converted to Christianity and gave colossal wealth to the then
Pope, Silvester I, he created the first rich Pope”. Dante is believ=
ed
to be lamenting this situation in the closing lines of the Inferno:
Alas! Constantine, how much misfortune you
caused,
Not by becoming Christi=
an,
but by the dowry
Which the first rich Fa=
ther
accepted from you.25
With the passage of time, the
“misfortune” which Dante laments has plummeted. The “mi=
sfortune”
is nearly two thousands years old. If it has imaged religion as the
continuation of politics by other means, then the “misfortune”=
; of
the church is the misfortune of the modern world. In a sense, it is part =
of
the postmodern nihilism.
It is, perhaps, for the newly rediscover=
ed
potential of religion to spin money that many of our young men and women =
have
turned to pastoral work. Our society is fast becoming a priest-ridden one=
. In
a desperate bid to keep their hold on a society groping for new vistas, t=
hese
bread-and-butter churchmen have even adopted a rather corrosive approach.
Everything outside the sphere of the church is anathema. Every cultural
practice, including the more positive ones, is contra christus. Th=
is
is possibly why Africans validate their marriage at least twice. What we =
have
christened “traditional marriage” or even the statutory
one is never valid enough until the couple walks up a modern church altar
amidst singing, clapping and festivity in the classic European tradition
which is diametrically opposed to the very significant marriage that Jesus Christ attended in Canaan.
There is too much hypocrisy in contempor=
ary
society and it is in the church of today that that hypocrisy is more vivi=
dly
mirrored. Contemporary churchists=
reinforce the scepticism held about the great thinker, King Solomon, by a
school of thought, especially in his “Songs of Solomon”. It
believes that Solomon, even though he fell out of God’s favour, was
able to impress himself not only on his people, but also on future
generations, including our own. His charisma was infectious and he appear=
s to
be notoriously fortunate. For this
school of thought, this explains why up until now, the church still attaches to his “sal=
acious
poetry” a kind of profundity of meaning which it scarcely merits. T=
he
critics insist that compared to his earlier thoughts as encapsulated in
“Proverbs”, or even the Psalms of David, his visionary,
industrious, and more creative father, the “Songs” look fanci=
ful.
For them, beyond the “Proverbs”, Solomon comes across in most
parts of the “Songs” as a very imaginative and prodigious art=
ist,
albeit one who is merely pouring encomiums on an anonymous lover or mistr=
ess,
probably the queen of Sheba who has also been identified as the “qu=
een
of Ethiopia”. Interestingly, the “Songs…” remains=
an
integral part of the Bible and its contents are largely held to be
Solomon’s imagery for Christ’s relation with the Church. If t=
he
above postulations are to be upheld, the alleged misinterpretation of the
text can only be a synecdoche for the present situation where soi-disa=
nt pastors
often re-represent biblical texts and injunctions to suit their own
personal agenda and interests?
The self-serving exploits of postmodern
pastors represent just another dimension of evil. The word of God is no
longer the Good News it was intended to be, but a message of gloom=
and
doom. Our latter-day saints have created an entirely New God of their own,
something close to what Blake called the “False God of the
Enlightenment” – “the God of human reason.” Of
course, such a God is bound to be as erratic as the foibles of human natu=
re
and his laws will be as twisted as the mind of material man. It cannot be=
the
same God who, at the beginning of times, said to the whole company of hea=
ven,
“Come, let us make man in our image”.
If our fanatics insist that the current =
state
of affairs in the world is the will of God, one is certainly left with a =
cold
towel slung across one’s shoulders. I say this because I believe th=
at
man should be responsible for his actions. Even if God occasionally summo=
ns
misfortune upon men, he must have some purpose, and much of that purpose =
is
likely to be anchored on the actions of men which are more or less subjec=
t to
their own will. Pico della Mirandola “a typical man of the
Renaissance”, paints a fascinating picture of this possibility when=
he
critically envisions man in the following terms:
We
(God is speaking) have given you, oh Adam, no visage proper to yourself, =
nor
any endowment properly your own, in order that whatever place, whatever f=
orm,
whatever gifts you may, with premeditation, select, these same you may ha=
ve
and possess through your own judgement and decision. The nature of all ot=
her
creatures is defined and restricted within laws which we have laid down; =
you
by contrast, impeded by no such restrictions, may, by your own free will,=
to
whose custody we have assigned you, trace for yourself the lineaments of =
your
own nature. I have placed you at the very center of the world, so that fr=
om
that vantage point you may with greater ease glance round about you at all
that the world contains. We have made you a creature neither of heaven no=
r of
the earth, neither mortal nor immortal, in order that you may, as the free
and proud shaper of your own being, fashion yourself in the form you may
prefer. It will be in your power to descend to the lower, brutish forms of
life; you will be able, through your own decision, to rise again to the
superior orders whose life is divine.26
If man is thus imbued with the “po=
wer of
apt” and the ability for discernment, why should he not be responsi=
ble
for the cumulative implications of his actions? If the church can see only
the hand of God in everything, including the prevailing decadence all ove=
r,
then it raises a number of uncomfortable questions for itself. For instan=
ce,
where was the church when the world was going to pieces? Where were the
priests, the pastors, the monks, the nuns, the brothers – everybody
– when evil went up the ladder? Where were they when the youth taci=
tly
rebelled against accepted codes of behaviour? They were busy chasing rats
while their houses burned. They were pitifully embroiled in sectional
bickering; they were plundering, sacking, and raping Golgotha
for their own selfish ends; they were busy dissecting God on the
deplorable table of religious intolerance. When they finished and returned
home with the booty – their individual fragments of God – the
stack reality of Eden=
had re-emerged with its hassling implications and disconcerting
significance. And what could be more annoying than that some of our
self-styled saints now turn around to blame an imaginary foe, the devil, =
in
an attempt to hide their own folly? In all my experience, I have never
contemplated such hypocrisy, such falsehood. As I write this, I wonder wh=
at
Jesus Christ would make of the prevailing mess if he were to return now.
Without doubt, the situation is, in one word, unfortunate.

Martin
Okonkwo, It is Finished, grap=
hite,
2003
=
o:p>
Epilogue=
Religion, the great tru=
th
about man’s search for meaning, trespassed during the Middle Ages i=
nto
two realms not its own: factual knowledge and political power. The result=
was
ignorance and persecution.
Jonathan Sacks27
It is logical to conclude here that the
socio-political reality in Africa – nay, Nigeria – today is a =
direct
result of the African Middle Ages. Compared to Europe’s Dark Ages, =
Africa’s equivalent appears more sophistica=
ted in
the negative sense. It is true that the church has not acquired political
power in Nigeria=
st1:country-region>,
for instance, but religion’s grip on the individual and the family =
(the
most important unit of society) remains formidable. That way, religion ha=
s a
great influence on society and, by implication, the affairs of state.
Of course, some people may contend that =
the centrality
of religion to society and community is not strange to Africa.
Or, that the influence of religion in a modernising (not modern) state li=
ke Nigeria is
strongly located in the private domain. These claims may be true, but we =
must
concede that the public sector and government are made up of private enti=
ties
whose vision would certainly shape that of the collective. Religion in th=
ese
parts may not be a centralising state affair, but its overbearing influen=
ce
in the social milieu cannot be denied. There should be nothing wrong about
this fact if religion confines itself to the role of arbiter of
socio-spiritual values. But when people forcefully transform it into a
totalising – or even totalitarian – tool for social existence=
, it
runs the risk of “trespass” as Jonathan Sacks has said and yi=
elds
results that are dangerous to the perpetuation of society and societyR=
17;s
pursuit of truth and happiness.
There is no doubt that in Nigeria, religion has perme=
ated
the spheres of politics and factual knowledge. In the former, it may have=
to
compromise its principles for the advantage of its vanguard. In the latte=
r,
it plays on the transient nature of the intellect and scholarship and ima=
ges
them as frivolity and futility against the often intimidating and attract=
ive
logic of salvation and eternity.
Religion may not have taken up permanent
residence with party politics in Nigeria, but there is no do=
ubt
that it is politics unto itself. It is neither “a guardian of (soci=
al)
freedom”, nor does it “direct the customs of the
community”. In these parts, it encodes some objectionable shackles =
of
its own and is made to operate as a vehicle for nescience, for muffling of
customs and traditions that are equally central to the continuance of
society.
In any healthy society, religion would m=
erely
complement factual knowledge and politics without seeking to overwhelm th=
em
and become the sole social nutrient on which society feeds. But that is n=
ot
the case in Nigeri=
a
(and perhaps many African countries). Because religion has been bastardis=
ed
and commercialised, the churchmen and women of travesty wrongly position =
it
as a social burden rather than as a major aspect of the conscience of
society. The truth is that religion has been miscarried in these parts. T=
he
privatization of religion has led to untold crises which claimed so many
lives in Nigeria=
st1:place>,
for instance. It has also helped to provide cover for some of the evils a=
nd
injustices that attend “modernising” <=
st1:country-region
w:st=3D"on">Nigeria. This is a country =
where
an elected public officer would say that he wants to ask God whether he
should seek re-election to his high office, when already he has made
elaborate and fool-proof plans to rig himself back into that office. When=
he
eventually emerges winner (of course with the ignoble collaboration of the
electoral establishment), he organises a thanksgiving service in one of t=
he
cathedrals or mosques with bishops or chief imams presiding. <=
/span>
Today in Nigeria, when a governor or pre=
sident
or their wives attend religious services, they not only come late so that=
the
congregation would stand as they saunter in, stuffed with ample
“dividends” of an uncanny model of democracy, they also insult
God by coming with a retinue of uniformed, armed men. Of course, this is a
vivid paradox, as it rudely underscores the inequality of men (even in the
church) in contradistinction to the Biblical claim that people are equal =
in
the sight of God!
No doubt, this is a by-product of the
class-consciousness in Nigeria,
which has become so endemic and institutionalised. Government policies ov=
er
the years have merely advanced this situation, extending the rich-poor
divide, causing the have to continue to have and the have-not to continue=
not
to have. No sincere and honest civil servant in Nigeria can afford a brand =
new
car. Life in Niger=
ia
among the masses is lived along second hand lines. Second hand goods,
including cars, pressing irons, refrigerators, electric kettles, clothes,=
air
conditioners, televisions, and the like have found a dumping ground in Nigeria.
Though they are not that cheap in price, they have continued to provide s=
ome
succour to the poor masses in a country where greed and corruption have
obliterated the middle class, a country where a Federal Minister of
Communications once said that telephone was not meant for the masses, whe=
re a
president once insinuated that car was a luxury and that education and
teachers were not really of any use.
And yet the nation sings and claps! There are churches all over=
. Pastoral
work is the vogue because of the new moralizing (not moral) authority and
pecuniary gain it now assures. From the president down to governors and
councillors, all organise prayer sessions in the government houses. Yet t=
hey
would not open their hearts to the divine touch of God, if only that would
make them pursue good governance and recognise the responsibility and the
need to provide their people with basic human needs, including potable wa=
ter,
electricity, good roads, health care and the right to justice and equity,=
not
necessarily as so-called “dividends of democracy”, but as par=
t of
the inalienable conditions of any community which hopes to aspire above a=
nd
beyond a glorified zoo, a jungle, or an organised animal kingdom.
And yet the nation sings and claps! The education industry whic=
h would
have come to the rescue in this dehumanised situation is also embroiled in
its problems, both internally and externally made. In Nigeria, politics and soldi=
ery
are more important than education. The industry has been bastardised. As
Hanno Rauterberg, a German scholar and journalist put it, the schools
resemble “ruined factories” and the teachers and students have
thrown in the towel. From primary schools up to universities, all have be=
come
fantasy islands where anything happens. Government’s insensitivity =
to
the problems of education in Nigeria
has helped to chase away some of the best minds from the sector, while
attracting mediocre teachers and nincompoops in the form of teachers and
students. Even here our bastardised sense of religion has taken its toll.
There are born-again, fundamentalist teachers, principals, vice-chancello=
rs,
and students, yet the characteristic evils of the industry would not abat=
e.
Cultism, malpractice (in exams, faculty and staff promotion), poor fundin=
g,
inadequate infrastructure, all have defied eradication. In the universiti=
es,
I have heard of teachers who demand sex from their female students and mo=
ney
from the males to enable them pass in exams. I have heard of a teacher who
copied and reproduced his colleague’s B.A. thesis as his own M.A.
thesis. There was hullabaloo. It took the grace of God to ensure that eth=
nic
sentiments did not sway official opinion in his favour. I also know of ot=
hers
who have asked students to contribute money and furnish their offices as =
well
as those who collect as much as N10,000.00 before they read the th=
esis
of each of their advisees. Not only that. The thesis must be typed at
business centres owned by the lecturer(s) and such lecturers would always=
collect
some huge sums of money from their students as a pre-condition for accept=
ing
and grading assignments. I must not forget those, including professors, w=
ho
publish curious books which never sell outside the classes they teach. The
problem is not so much the sale of the books as their contents, which are
often poorly researched, poorly written and plagiarised material. I know
about professors who order books from Europe and the United States with the sole intent of
republishing them in Nigeria
with their names as authors. Added to this is the paradox that some of our
liveliest teachers are members of one “happy-clappy” fellowsh=
ip
or the other. They would even turn their classes into homilies. Yet they =
have
not the capacity to lead by example, as people on whom the future of soci=
ety
may depend. As John Stuart Mill has argued, the germs of a stable politic=
al
society is a system of education whose inalienable ingredient is
“restraining discipline” which inculcates in the individual
“the habit, and thence the power, of subordinating his personal
impulses and aims, to what were considered the ends of society”.29 =
p>
Certainly, the above examples do not pai=
nt a
picture of a healthy, progressive education industry, one which can lead a
nation to real technological and social advancement. If education in Nigeria has
degenerated into the privatisation of ignorance, who cares? It is very
difficult for a nation which has had the misfortune of having
bread-and-butter leaders to appreciate the need and use of sound education
based on liberal and empirical principles. When barbarians take over a
nation, it would be strange if they invest in qualitative education that =
can
give birth to a truly free society. But the problem with the Nigerian
education system is that the barbarians are not only outside; they are al=
so
to be found inside the system. In a truly human society where the syndrom=
es
of social implosion and explosion are constantly neutralized to ensure the
perpetuation of mankind, education is always the cornerstone. Investment =
made
therein is an investment in the future of the people. In this part of the
world, education may not be a luxury, yet it lacks constructive focus.
And yet the nation sings and claps! The people are not unaware =
of these
problems and ugly reality, but they are, perhaps, too chicken-hearted and
supine to rise to the challenges of their time. Rather, they choose to
vanquish the situation “in song and dance”. But it is not alw=
ays
that philippics and prayers have solved practical problems. At times, God
would not help those who would not help themselves. As Sacks (2000) puts =
it,
“The real danger to any culture lies elsewhere, in the inability to
recognise when it is in danger”.30 The problem with Nigeria as with much of Africa
is that of insincerity, dishonesty and lack of commitment to the common g=
ood.
This problem is fundamental and has been entrenched as a way of life.
As with the individual, it is easy for a
nation to learn habits, but very difficult (not impossible) to unlearn th=
em.
This is more so when these habits span generations and attain the status =
of
norms, when, in fact, they are inimical to society. In a moralising socie=
ty
like ours, evil is a way of life; religion is reduced to a mere umbrella
against the inevitability of retribution. Yet my people sing and clap!=
I may well end this epilogue with a quot=
ation
from Sacks, with whose words I began, where he recalls the words of
Jean-Jacques Rousseau:
Nations,
like men, are teachable only in their youth. With age they become
incorrigible. Once customs are established and prejudices rooted, reform =
is a
dangerous and fruitless exercise; a people cannot bear to see its evils
touched, even if only to be eradicated, it is like a stupid, pusillanimous
invalid who trembles at the sight of a physician.31=
I al=
so agree
with Sacks when he says that “A society in which we are afraid to w=
alk
in streets or parks, or to open the door to a stranger, or to engage in
debate with an audience which does not share our views has become a less =
free
environment, because there are fewer things we can do ‘freely’=
;,
without precautions.”32
What we owe posterity, ther=
efore,
may not be millions of cathedrals and a legacy of empty
“churchism”, but an honest, sustainable transformation of our
society into a truly humanised ecology where the lamb would never have ca=
use
to ask the tiger, in the words of William Blake, “Did he who made the lamb make thee?”<=
/span>
Notes
1.
See M.V. Kamath 2000. The Pursuit of Excellence. Newdelhi: =
Rupa
& Co. p.11.
2. An=
icius
Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy. London: Penguin Books, p.31.
3.<=
/sup> Ibid, p=
.35.
4.
Ali Mazrui 1986. The Africans: A Triple Heritage. London: BBC
Publications, pp.135-157
5.
The term “letter-day saints” is used rather derisively=
here
to describe the self-redeeming church-goers of these days and does not re=
fer
to any particular church or sect.
6. &nbs=
p;
Mma Ndu is the Igbo expression literally meaning “the
beauty of life”. It is also the full and longer form of Madu or Mmadu,
the Igbo equivalent for “human being”.<=
/p>
7.
Leon Battista Alberti was a genius of the Italian Renaissance,
distinguished in painting, poetry, philosophy, music and architecture. He=
was
also a renowned theorist.
8. See Kenneth Cl=
ark,
1969. Civilisation, London: BBC Publications and john Murray (page unk=
nown).
9.
Masaccio whose real name was Tommaso di ser Giovanni di Mone, was =
born
in 1401 and died about 27 years later. He has been described as an
“Italian painter of crucial importance in the history of Renaissance
painting”.
10.=
Kenneth Clark, op cit.
11.=
See Kenneth Clark. The
Romantic Rebellion, pp.161-169.
12.=
Ibid.
13.=
Ibid.
14.=
Concerning Blake’s
visionary nature, Kenneth Clark writes:
 =
;
Everybody
who writes about Blake begins by saying that he was a visionary. It is a
vague term. All artists, even the most realistic, start from some kind of
vision – that is what leads them to select what they need from the
infinite diversity of appearances. But with Blake the word vision has a m=
ore
precise meaning. He did not draw from nature because, as he said repeated=
ly,
his visions were clearer and more vivid than his optical perception of the
world around him. He saw these visions as a child; saw God put his head i=
n at
the window, saw the prophet Ezekiel sitting under a tree at Peckham Rye.
There is nothing extraordinary in this; many imaginative children have
similar experiences. What is exceptional is that Blake kept these intense
powers of visualization after the age of puberty. Exceptional, but not
incredible, because this can be paralleled in other forms of mental activ=
ity.
Some people have the gift of total recall and others can remember accurat=
ely
whole pages of figures; physiologically these endowments seem to me quite=
as
hard to explain as the accurate visualization of images.” (Kenne=
th
Clark, Ibid, p.147)
15.=
Ibid, pp. 161-169.<=
o:p>
16. If
Gandhi said this about Christians in his day, I wonder what he would say
about Nigeria or Africa of today, with the teeming number of Chris=
tians
of travesty, although the situation, of course, is the same or almost the
same all over the world. See David Yallop. In God’s Name, London: Corgi Bo=
oks,
1985, p.94.
17.
Albino Luciani is the original name of the charismatic Pope John P=
aul
I whose Papacy lasted for some memorable 33 days. In his investigative bo=
ok, In
God’s Name, David Yallop concludes that Luciani was murdered in=
his
bedroom in the Papal Apartments in the Vatican sometime between th=
e late
hours of September 28 and the early hours of September 29, 1978.
18.
See Yallop, Ibid. Singh could probably extend the significa=
tion
of his imagery beyond Europe if he were
living today. For many, Christianity has become a trump card that is play=
ed
according to the situation one finds oneself. Instrumentalist Christianity
(that is, Christianity as a magic wand) is in itself evil par excellen=
ce.
19.=
This scenario appears to b=
e the
bane of contemporary Nigeria.
20. I believe that contrary to contemporary popular
opinion (especially here in Nigeria) about the devil being immanent in the
world of today as the cause of all evil, Stephen Leacock seems to argue t=
hat
it is rather the “retirement” of the devil from the material
world that is responsible for the sorry state of affairs:
 =
;
The
devil is passing out of fashion. After a long and honourable career he is
falling into an ungrateful oblivion. His existence has become shadowy, his
outline attenuated, and his personality displeasing to a complacent
generation. So he stands now leaning on the handle of his three-pronged o=
yster
fork and looking into the ashes of his smothered fire. Theology will have
none of him. Genial clergy of ample girth, stuffed with the buttered toas=
t of
a rectory tea, are preaching him out of existence. The fires of his mater=
ial
hell are replaced by the steam heat of moral torture. This, even the most
sensitive of sinners faces with equanimity.
Now that th=
e Devil
is passing away an unappreciative generation fails to realize the high so=
cial
function that he once performed. There he stood for ages a simple and
workable basis of human morality; an admirable first-hand reason for being
good, which needed no ulterior explanation. The rude peasant of the Middle
Ages, the illiterate artisan of the shop, the long-haired hind of the fie=
lds,
had no need to speculate upon the problem of existence and the tangled sk=
ein
of moral enquiry. The Devil took all that off their hands. He had either =
to
“be good” or else he “got the fork”, just as in o=
ur
time the unsuccessful comedian of amateur night in the vaudeville houses
“gets the bird”. Humanity, with the Devil to prod it from beh=
ind,
moved steadily upwards on the path of moral development. Then having atta=
ined
a certain elevation, it turned upon its tracks, denied that there had been
any Devil, rubbed itself for a moment by way of investigation, said that
there had been no prodding, and then fell to wandering about on the hillt=
ops
without any fixed idea of goal or direction.
In order wo=
rds,
with the disappearance of the Devil there still remains unsolved the prob=
lem
of conduct, and behind it the riddle of the universe.=
p>
See
E.H. Winter and Reed Smith 1961. Learning to Write. Toronto: the Macmillan Company of Can=
ada
Limited, pp.106-107.
21.=
Ibid.<=
/i>
22.
According to Kenneth Kaunda, society is there because of man and n=
ot
vice versa. See Nnamdi Azikiwe, 1979. Ideology for Nigeria: Capitalism. Social=
ism or
Welfarism? Lagos and Ibadan: Macmillan Nigeria Publisher, =
p.70.
23. Al=
though
people are not born with religion, there is nobody without a religion.
Whether it implies belief or disbelief in God, religion’s greatest
function has been to provide a rein with which man can ride the crazy tid=
es
of life.
24. Co=
rinne
Brown Understanding Other Cultures (publication details unknown).<=
o:p>
25.=
David Yallop, Ibid, p.143.
26.
Jack Wasserman 1975. “Leonardo da Vinci”, Leonardo =
da Vinci, New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. p.55.
27. Jo=
nathan
Sacks 2000. The Politics of Hope, London: Vintage, p.146.
28.=
Ibid, p.234
29.=
Ibid.
30.=
Ibid.
31.=
Ibid.
32.=
Ibid, 204.=
i>
 =
;
 =
;
 =
;
 =
;
 =
;
 =
;
 =
;
 =
;
 =
;
 =
;
 =
;
 =
;
 =
;
 =
;
 =
;
 =
;
 =
;
 =
;
|