By Ezekiel Nabieu
We ended the last edition by stating that the hedonistic argument lacks anything in the way of obligation because of the very subjective nature of “enjoyment”.
Fast forward the New Testament nowhere so much as hints that simplicity in and of itself, brings satisfaction. It is true that in connection with the parable of the rich fool, Luke 12:15 has Jesus saying “Even when a man has more than enough, his wealth does not give him life”. But that is not to say that the renunciation of wealth will give him life. Or read it in the Revised Standard Version: “A man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions”. This is not to say that his life does not consist in limiting of his possession. The immediate context of that saying – let alone the total context of the life and teachings of Jesus – makes it plain that a man’s life does consist rather in his relationship to God.
Similarly, Jesus' key statement definitely did not say “Set your mind on simplicity of lifestyle before everything else, and all the rest will come to you as well. Indeed if the hedonistic argument is allowed to stand as a self-contained rationale, it is a subversion of Jesus’ teaching for it in fact is being anxious about “what are we to eat? What we are to drink or what shall we wear? In its emphasis upon finding a stance that is most personally satisfying it is at one with those who have chosen the way of wealth and consumption – differing only in what one happens to find most satisfying among the things of the world. Yet a lust for simplicity, in and of itself, is just as seeking first the kingdom of God and can be as obstructive of the view of the stars as the lust for luxury can be.
Now the gospel does have a concern about man’s finding satisfaction and enjoyment but comes at this from an angle quite different from insisting that the simple pleasures of life are best. Rather it is, as the shorter Westminster catechism puts it so well: “man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.” Therefore I will enjoy the means of life that helps me towards the end of my ultimate enjoyment. But as to whether simplicity is enjoyable of itself the New Testament simply says “no”. And so if one does happen to discover for oneself that the simple pleasures are best, fine. Jesus already had suggested that many other things would come to you as well in living a simple life. What is certain is that a simple life is motivated by the enjoyment of God and will be much more satisfying and enduring than a fad that goes no further than the enjoyment of simple things in themselves.
SERVICE TO THE POOR
This argument takes two different approaches, either of which comes to pretty much the same thing. The one assumes that you have a level of income above what you actually need and that by simplicity your life can free money that can be devoted to helping the poor and other such worthy causes. The other approach that should be adopted by patriotic Sierra Leoneans assumes that they bring their incomes down to a level that can be shared much more widely across the board, thus making a witness and contribution to the equalization of wealth and an egalitarian society. The one approach comes through most strongly on philanthropy and the second on social justice and equality but there does not seem to be any particular conflict or competition between the two. They point very much in the same direction.
The first observation to be made is that this rationale is much more inherently Christian than is that of hedonism. There can be no denying that the New Testament displays a vital concern that one loves, serves and strives to ameliorate the conditions of the poor. Yet even though this is a strong thrust in the teaching of Jesus, it is made in such a way as to indicate that he did not give it, determinative, overriding priority.
For instance, Jesus' counsel to the rich young souls is “Go, sell everything you have, and give to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven; and come follow me” (Mark 10:21). Yet the total context (including both the incident with the young man and Jesus’ subsequent remarks to the disciples) and indeed even the wording of the counsel itself, make it plain that Jesus’ primary concern was not for the poor but for the spiritual condition of the young man himself. The “sell everything” is pointed much more strongly towards the “come, follow me” than toward the “give to the poor”. The young man’s possessions were obstructing his view of the stars and must be sloughed off in order to free him for God. However once he chooses to make that move the giving of those possessions to the poor becomes a very good way of disposing of them.
Perhaps an even more pointed instance is that from Mark:
Jesus was at Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper. As he sat at a table, a woman came in carrying a small bottle of very costly perfume, pure oil of nard. She broke it open and poured the oil over his head. Some of those present said to one another angrily, “why this waste? The perfume might have been sold for thirty pounds and the money given to the poor;” and they turned upon her in fury.
But Jesus said, “Let her alone. Why must you make trouble for her? It is a fine thing she has done for me. You have the poor among you always, and you can help them whenever you like but you will not always have me” Mark 14:3-7
TO BE CONTINUED
SLBC ARROGANCE CONTINUES UNABATED
It’s plain arrogance and nothing else. I presume that the SLBC Board should be involved in this matter of incorrigibility of the Director General and his officials unless he is being dreaded.
In more than one edition I have pointed out rightly among other things, that the News Bulletin as the most important programme on any radio station should be broadcast at fixed times and with fixed lengths. This has been ignored. Not only that. I have also been at pains to point out the grammatical error of its mediocre presenters. That has also been ignored.
The phrase always reiterated by a presenter on Tea Break to wit, ---“by keep sending” I said is wrong and I say so again.
Rightly did Bhoyyie Jalloh state: “The idea of an independent public broadcaster was a marvellous novelty, but this was soon to prove ill-conceived. While it was no surprise that the Act that set up the Corporation was flawed and weak in terms of probity, it was promulgated without thorough scrutiny by the wider media. Even where such contributions were solid at all, those artificial suggestion by the country’s media umbrella organization, SLAJ were jilted with some subtlety…..”.
That was published in this medium on the 14th December 2011. Over two years down the line the SLBC has maintained the status quo ante with impunity. If the SLBC Board proves to be redundant there is a supervisory information ministry that can rein in a recalcitrant Director General. We should not forget that the SLBC is contributing to the erosion of educational standards by broadcasting bad English which is being taken as good English by hapless learners.
Why do we have the BBC Media Action? It is precisely to come to the rescue of inept stations like the SLBC. It is a shame that while priding themselves as the first broadcasting station in West Africa it has to be numbered among the reactionary stations. SOS please!
(C) Politico 27/02/14
