Connect with us

ARTICLES

The Nigeria-Biafra War (4)

By Prof. Peter Okorie (08033386262)
Author: NIGERIA TOO HARD TO HOLD

Published

on

The Nigeria-Biafra War (4)

An Army officer at war once wrote to his wife that peace would be boring. It is in this relatively lighthearted mood that this book attempts to highlight a few key events in the course of the war, not to refresh fading bitter memories on both sides, but to remind the younger ones that warfare is not glamourous as most movie directors tend to portray it. Men sang as they went into battle, not for joy, but because they have already pledged to pay the supreme sacrifice, should the need arise. Thus many of the songs are in defiance or in mockery of death. Many Biafran war songs were typical of this ideology:

Oh my friends, I’m going tomorrow
Oh my friends, I’m going far away
If I happen to die in the battle field
Never mind we shall meet in heaven
So, brother don’t you worry
Oh my sister, don’t you worry…

Aware of its overwhelming military, political and geographical advantages, the Nigerian government downgraded the Nigeria-Biafra war to a police action that would crush Biafra in two days. Col. Ojukwu in turn re-assured Biafrans that ‘armed with grim determination, no power in black Africa would be able to subdue Biafra’. Surprisingly such a timely morale boosting encouragement was misunderstood in some quarters as a boast. In saying this, Ojukwu was saying nothing new in military history.
Military history is replete with several David-and-Goliath style clashes where the aggressor, despite his over-whelming superiority in armaments, still succumbs to the asymmetric resistance of the underdog defenders. In the battle of Stalingrad (now Volgograd) in Southern Russia, one of the bloodiest battles of the second World War took place between August 1942 – February 1943. The poorly armed Russians persevered leading to an estimated 2 million total casualties. The powerful German war machine surrendered.

France had a similar experience in Vietnam. After the climactic confrontation in Dien Bien Phu between France and the less equipped Viet Minh communist revolutionaries between March and May 1954, the French surrendered. Again the poorly equipped Algerian National Liberation Front doggedly resisted the French Army for over seven years, between 1954 and 1962. The French gave up. As previously mentioned, in 1972, two years after the Nigerian war, the Pakistan Army invaded East Pakistan to stop its secession. Though the Pakistan Army within a few days captured Dakka, the capital of East Pakistan, the war eventually got bogged down in an unwinnable guerilla war. The Pakistani Army was defeated and Bangladesh became independent.

The US Army, the most powerful in the world, suffered similar fate in the hands of Viet Cong guerillas in Vietnam. After a prolonged war of attrition, the Americans withdrew in 1975, following which North and South Vietnam re-united as a people: a monumental triumph of the will of the people over colonial boundaries! The US would have suffered a similar fate following the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Unlike the first Gulf War (1990/1991) during which the US and her allies used five weeks of aerial and naval bombardment to soften the Iraqi military establishment before ground battle, the US led force in 2003 just conducted aerial bombardment on 19 March, 2003. The Iraqis hunkered down in their bomb shelters, expecting a prolonged bombing interval before the ground war as usual.

The American did the opposite. The next day, to some extent testing their new doctrine of full spectrum dominance, they simply crossed the Kuwaiti border into Iraq, taking the entire country in about one month. Nothing could stop the US armoured columns. The Iraqis knew this and fled to fight for another day. For the US invading force of about 192,000 to lose only 214 men in taking Iraq, it was the height of textbook military excellence. But in the ensuing resistance, the Iraqi insurgents killed over 4,000 US soldiers in the next few years. But for counter insurgency measures like cutting off military supplies to the resistance from mainly Syria, as well as the formation of the Anbar Awakening especially through efforts of Gen Petreaus, the US would have again been bogged down in an another unwinnable stalemate.

More recently, and still ongoing, the intervention of the powerful Saudi Army in Yemen since 2015 has not succeeded in turning the tide of war against the underdog Houthi rebels. Saudis have got bogged down in a stalemate from which they will ultimately feel relieved to withdraw in defeat.

Back home here in Nigeria, over three years after Boko Haram was pronounced ‘technically defeated’, the insurgency group continues to pick both soft and hard targets alike, and striking at either with increasing audacity. Only recently, they attacked a Governor’s convoy, probably not to hurt the Governor, but to demonstrate their reach. Remember that terrorism is a balanced combination of violence and intimidation! In summary, when an aggrieved party is motivated enough to defend itself and is receiving the necessary supplies to sustain the fight, it is extremely difficult to subdue such a group.

Col. Ojukwu was therefore not boasting when he stated that ‘armed with grim determination, no power in black Africa could subdue Biafra’. The military planners in Lagos were fully aware of this. You can take all the major cities and man all the road blocks but you will still not win the war as rebels take control of the countryside. The occupying force would never have an hour’s respite. The only way such a resistance can be overcome, or forced to the negotiation table, is to cut off completely all its needed supplies – armament, food and new recruits. The Nigerian government worked hard to choke off all these three key requirements for war. The first Federal Government move was to impose a complete air, sea and land blockade of Biafra. Next, they secured co-operation of President Ahidjo of Cameroon to seal off Biafra’s eastern boundary, as already mentioned. Not to take any chances, they militarily occupied these boundary areas, as Cameroon could not be fully trusted as a former colony of France which was sympathetic to the Biafran cause.

Coincidentally, these boundary areas, especially around Ogoja and Abakaliki fell within the most fertile lands in Biafra. Their loss was the beginning of the food crisis in Biafra, wich turned out to be the factor that contributed most to the defeat of Biafra. In addition, especially in the second half of 1969, when the war had started showing signs of a stalemate, the Russian MiG-17s and Ilyushin jet fighters and bombers started attacking indiscri-minately all flights into Biafra, including relief flights. At that point a Nigerian leader openly asserted that starvation was a legitimate instrument of warfare. The Federal Government’s main strategy in dissuading new recruits into the Biafran Army was to portray the Biafran resistance as ‘Ojukwu’s rebellion’. Some non-Igbo Eastern Nigerians fell for the divide-and-rule propaganda. The first conversation of Nigerian soldiers overhead by this author in the final days of the war was in Igbo language. Those Nigerian soldiers were probably Nigerian Army recruits from the coastal areas of Biafra.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

ARTICLES

The Life of Exile And the meaning of Redemption (5)

By Fr. Dr. Gilbert Alaribe

Published

on

The Life of Exile And the meaning of Redemption (1)

And yet there is something extraordinary about their lives. They live in their own countries as though they were only passing through. They play their full role as citizens, but labour under all the disabilities of aliens. Any country can be their homeland, but for them their homeland, wherever it may be, is a foreign country. Like others, they marry and have children, but they do not expose them. They share their meals, but not their wives. 

They live in the flesh, but they are not governed by the desires of the flesh. They pass their days upon earth, but they are citizens of heaven. Obedient to the laws, they yet live on a level that transcends the law. Christians love all men, but all men persecute them. Condemned because they are not understood, they are put to death, but raised to life again. They live in poverty, but enrich many; they are totally destitute, but possess an abundance of everything. They suffer dishonour, but that is their glory. They are defamed, but vindicated. A blessing is their answer to abuse, deference their response to insult. For the good they do they receive the punishment of malefactors, but even then they, rejoice, as though receiving the gift of life. They are attacked by the Jews as aliens, they are persecuted by the Greeks, yet no one can explain the reason for this hatred.

To speak in general terms, we may say that the Christian is to the world what the soul is to the body. As the soul is present in every part of the body, while remaining distinct from it, so Christians are found in all the cities of the world, but cannot be identified with the world”.

The Christian life is a pilgrimage of faith. The nomadic existence of a Christian is not like the wayfaring of a perennial wanderer, of the man or woman who has opted for the open road, of willed homelessness. The Christian does indeed incarnate/instantiate home ‘in the world’; yet he is not ‘of the world’. 

The Christian as a resident alien

The theme of the continuing exile of God’s people in the world was one that the author of the New Testament book, The Letter to the Hebrews, gives renewed attention and urgency. The author – like possibly many Jews of his time – rereads Israel’s history, from Abraham up to the time of audience under Greek and Roman influences, as one of incomplete possession of the land (cf. Thiessen, 2007). Israel’s history is thought to have been frozen in the period of the exile, as evidenced by the continuing subjugation of God’s people to foreign nations. Though Joshua led the people of Israel to the Land of Promise, he did not succeed in leading them to the Land of Rest (Hebrews 3 – 4). Through a radical explication of Psalm 95 the author is certain that while the promise of the land was fulfilled, the blessing of rest was denied as a result of the disobedience of the people. The envisioned end of Israel’s continuing exodus and wildereness wandering (Hebrews 11:1 – 12:3) will be when God’s people draw near to the heavenly Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:22 – 29). As a result, a rest-less-ness, a condition of ongoing exile and persistent search for the road homeward, remains an ongoing existential experience for God’s people in all generations.

Hauerwas and Willian, evoking mostly the sentiments of the anonymous author of the Letter to Diognetus, and as well the words of Paul in his Letter to the Philippians, describe the conditions of the Christians in the contemporary world as that of resident aliens. At the personal level, Paul had enjoined the Philippians: “work out your salvation in fear and trembling. It is God who, for his own generous purpose, gives you the intention and the powers to act” (Philippians 2:13). At the collective level, and because the Christians in Philippi were surrounded by a deceitful and underhand brood, Paul commands them to ‘shine like bright stars in the world, proffering to it the Word of life.’ (v.15). As residents, and yet lacking in citizenship rights, the Christian community was not to model itself according to the world, but must continually raise its sight heavenward: “Our homeland is in heaven and it is from there that we are expecting a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 3:20). The description of the life of the Christian minority in Philippi as a ‘colony of heaven’ was something that Paul knew his hearers will understand: “A colony is a beachhead, an outpost, an island of one culture in the middle of another, a place where the values of home are reiterated and passed on to the young, a place where the distinctive language and life-style of the resident aliens are lovingly nurtured and reinforced” (Hauerwas & Willimon, p….).

In our mostly secular world the Church no longer dominates social life, nor is it ascribed any fundamental role in the society. There is always the temptation for some Christians to hide and withdraw into some cocoon where they may feel ‘secure’ and ‘aloof’. But – even as resident aliens – can the Christians really dispense with the world, any more than the soul dispense with matter? Just as the soul is never so enfranchised as to be able to reject matter, so the Church must continue to seek out ways to become a contagious force, ‘the salt of the earth’ and ‘the light of the world’ (Mathew 5:13 – 16). And, accordingly, Hauerwas and Willimon occupy themselves extensively with the question about the models of exchange between the Christian Church and the world around it. How best can the Church relate with the world around her in a way that is unapologetic but credible? How can she witness to Christ in that world, and become a leaven for the transformation of culture? What does it mean for the Church to be a ‘colony of heaven’ in the mainstream world around it, with all the changes in social living, and the vast array of languages and cultures encountered in the mostly secular, plural world of today? What adventures of faith and outreach await the Christian community as it attempts to embody Christ’s model of living that is credible in the world of today?

Church and culture: Faith Journeys

The intention here is not to delve into philosophical debates, but to recognize the spectacular journeys of faith, and the extraordinary mission, the Christian Church in every age must undertake in order to become a leaven for the world around it. In my Volume One (Alaribe, 2015), I commented on the words of Gorres about the two awakenings that must happen in today’s world: the awakening of the church in the souls of men (Gaurdini), as well as the awakening of the world in the souls of men, and in the heart of the Church (Gorres). Both awakenings are faith journeys requiring encounters with the wilderness at various levels. For the Church to reach out to the world, it will require that the shells in which previously the missionary zeal of Christians had slumbered, be burst open with a new vision and a new ardour. When the Church awakens in the heart of men, and brings to fruition in their lives the virtues of heaven, then the kingdom of heaven – long the object of prayer – will make its entrance in the affairs of men. Again, when the world awakens in the souls of men and in the heart of the Church, then piety will no longer be something otherworldly, but a reality that takes seriously the ebb and flow of daily life.

To allow for the possibility of believing at the same time and fundamentally – believing each through the other – in God and in the world, was one of the major themes captured in a letter of Pere Teilhard de Chardin to Pere Victor Fonoynont: “I would like to be able to love Christ passionately (by loving) in the very act of loving the universe. Is it a wild dream or a blasphemy? Besides communion with God and communion with the Earth, is there communion with God through the Earth – the Earth becoming like a great Host in which God would be contained for us?” (p. 245 of The Religion of Teilhard de Chardin).

Continue Reading

ARTICLES

The Nigeria-Biafra War (5) The Battle Begins – Year 1967

By Prof. Peter Okorie
Culled from “Nigeria Too Hard to Hold,” By Prof. Peter Okorie
(Copies available at Assumpta Bookshop Owerri, OCS Building,
IMSU. Cost N3000. Contact: 07036465863, 08037061402)

Published

on

The Nigeria-Biafra War (5) The Battle Begins – Year 1967

By July 1967, Nigeria was battle ready with over 8,000 soldiers massed around Makurdi-Oturkpo axis, armed to the teeth, and supported by dozens of ferret armoured cars and heavy artillery. Biafra barely had three battalions, albeit poorly equipped, when the war started. On July 6, the Nigerians attacked the barely one month old Republic, predictably from two main axis: Ogoja and Nsukka. In the Ogoja sector, three Nigerian battalions attacked Obudu and Gakem. There was one poorly equipped Biafran battalion to stop them. Similarly at the Nsukka sector there was one poorly equipped Biafran battalion to stop two Nigerian battalions.      

In some professional armies, there is a joke shared with young army recruits that God usually fights on the side of the bigger battalions. This statement is not borne out of any atheist inclination. Very far from it! The joke is a way of warning soldiers that the outcome of battles is determined by the quality of weaponry and training, not righteousness of one’s cause, or luck. In such armies, when a soldier sends a radio message to his commander that he is in trouble, the usual reply is: trust in your weapons and training. Yes, there may be occasional lucky breakthroughs where a chance direct hit on a strategic enemy target could change the course of battle, as was the case in Abagana in Biafra. But these were occasional events. As children say: not everyday is Christmas.       The attack at both Ogoja and Nsukka sectors followed a similar pattern: prolonged artillery bombardment of Biafran positions, next advancing ferret armoured cars spitting fire 180 degrees arc, followed by the infantry, often in compact phalanx and chanting war songs. A defending army, without bazookas or any anti-tank weapons under this circumstance, has no option than to allow the heavy frontal armoured column to pass and thereafter engage the infantry at the flanks. In both sectors the Biafran forces inflicted heavy casualties on the Nigerian Army and captured considerable military supplies from them. A captured Yoruba officer confessed that their intelligence reports grossly under-estimated the Biafran defences. However the Nigerians continued to reinforce and advance. In about a week of fighting it looked as if the Biafran resistance had collapsed. The defenders, already outrageously out-gunned, now also ran out of ammunition. Ogoja was lost on 12 July followed by Nsukka on 14 July. A long awaited shipment of weapons to Biafra mysteriously arrived Port Harcourt but the much needed artillery and bazookas listed in the manifesto were not there. Aware of the precarious shortage of weapons and ammunition, the Federal forces opened up new fronts to thin out and exhaust the Biafran defenders. They landed three battalions in Bonny with only one platoon of Biafran soldiers there to stop them.      

In a manner, akin to the German style Blitzkrieg (lightning war) the supposedly ‘dying’ Biafra took over the Midwest region of Nigeria on 9 August, 1967. The expeditionary brigade of 3,000 soldiers and militia fanned out in three axis: one north-wards towards Auchi to protect the northern flank; a second battalion southwards to take over seaports in Warri and Sapele; and the third battalion, the main force, to move straight to Ibadan where they would be joined by local forces for the onward march to their final destination – Lagos.

The expeditionary force, called Liberation Army, was led by Brigadier Victor Banjo, a Yoruba. Brig. Banjo was one of the Nigerian army officers detained in Enugu in connection with the January 15 coup. It was assumed that, as a Yoruba, Banjo was bound to appeal more to both the Mid-West and West, including Lagos, thus making it feasible to galvanize forces to remove Gowon from Lagos. If the expedition was led by an Eastern officer, the old narrative of Eastern (Igbo) domination would re-surface. The Chief of Staff of the Liberation Army was Lt. Col. Adewale Ademoyega, one of the five majors of January 15 coup, who was also detained in Enugu. Like Brig. Banjo, Col. Ademoyega was one of the first six graduates that enrolled as an officer in the Nigerian Army. He earned a degree in History in the University of London. Both Banjo and Ademoyega were soldiers of outstanding intellect and bravery.      

For inexplicable reasons, rather than follow the initial battle plan of going straight to Ibadan and thence to Lagos, Banjo paused in Benin for several days where he made speeches. In some quarters this was seen as a deliberate sabotage. In other quarters it was argued that he needed the break to ‘connect’ properly with the West and that the speeches were meant to assure the West that he (Banjo) was the person leading the Liberation Army. It took several days of persuasion and, eventually, a meeting with Ojukwu before the Liberation Army continued its westwards advance. By 16 August, they had crossed Ogosu River after inflicting a defeat on the Federal army there. Despite resistance by the Nigerian Army, the Biafran forces continued to advance, capturing Ore on 20 August. The defeat of the Federal forces at Ore led to the Yoruba slogan – ‘O le ku, Ija Ore’ (it was tough at Ore battle). The Nigerian army had to blow up the Shasha bridge at Mile 82 Lagos-Ore road to stop the advance of the Liberation Army. Thus the element of surprise had gone. The federal forces re-organised and started fighting back.

Over two thousand years ago, Sun Tzu in The Art of War wrote: 

The condition of a military force is that its essential factor is speed, taking advantage of others’ failure to catch up, going by routes they do not expect, attacking where they are not on ground.

This means that to take advantage of the unpreparedness or lack of caution on the part of opponents, it is necessary to proceed quickly, as hesitance would spell doom. The Liberation Army hesitated at Benin and lost the initiative. Had this expeditionary force followed its initial battle plan, Col. Gowon would have fled Lagos, and the One Nigeria project would have either been abandoned or made much more difficult, if not impossible altogether. Biafra would have been an illustration of Sun Tzu’s dictum of the classic ‘To win without fighting is best’.      

 The quickly mobilized 2nd Division of the Nigerian Army led by Col. Murtala Muhammed was charged with the responsibility of re-capturing the Mid-West. It promptly attacked from two sectors: Ore and Okene. The Ore sector remained stable but the Okene-Auchi axis collapsed. Fearing being cut off from the Auchi direction, the Biafran force at Ore eventually had to withdraw eastwards. Enugu fell on 4 October, 1967. Two days later, the Nigerian Army took Asaba and would have crossed into Onitsha if not for the partial destruction of the River Niger Bridge. Nevertheless the Nigerian Army still decided to attack Onitsha.

Emboldened by its successes so far the 2 Division under Col. Murtala planned a frontal attack on Onitsha by crossing the River Niger. The invasion commenced on 12 October. After intensive artillery bombardment as usual, which was assumed to have thoroughly weakened Biafran defensive positions, the Nigerian armada left Asaba all headed towards Onitsha. The boats were systematically sunk one after the other by Biafran defenders resulting in heavy casualties on the invaders. A senior commander of the Nigerian army at that period described the tactics of a frontal attack on the enemy at the opposite end of the river as one of the blunders of the Nigerian Army during the civil war. It was reported that a home made Biafran rocket had its first ‘kill’ of a Nigerian naval boat.

But a large number of Nigerian troops still managed to land in Onitsha. Instead of pressing their military objectives, they started celebrations in Onitsha market. This gave Biafrans time to organize a counter-attack led by Joe Achuzia and Major Assam Nsudoh.

oe Achuzia from Mid-West was at that time a volunteer militia while Major Nsudoh was a regular soldier from the so-called minority areas of Biafra. These officers were admired for fighting alongside their men. It was the kind of man-to-man fighting Biafran soldiers craved for. Almost all the invading troops were either killed or captured. Onitsha was completely cleared. Biafran troops captured a lot of Nigerian stores including a brand new Panhard Armoured Car, a badly needed fighting vehicle in Biafra then. The armoured car was later named ‘Corporal Nwafor’ in honour of the brave Biafran soldier who died after immobilizing the vehicle.

 The victorious battle at Onitsha was highly significant. It was the first time Biafran troops recaptured a Biafran city. The 2nd Division lost so much in men and materials in the first invasion and it was assumed they would not try it again. But they went ahead and tried two more times and they were again defeated in the two attempts. At the end of the battles, a majority of the estimated 5,000 attacking force were either killed or captured. After the battle Joe Achuzia was commissioned into the Biafran Army as a Major, thereafter rising to a Brigadier at the close of the war. He later became one of the most successful Biafran commanders and was nicknamed Hannibal for his exploits. He was known for his versatility in asymmetric confrontation, his passionate desire to fight shoulder-toshoulder with his men; and intolerance for cowardice among his men. Prior to joining the Biafran Army in May 1967, Achuzia had been an engineer with the Shell Petroleum company based in Port Harcourt and married to a British wife. He was a founder of the Militia in Port Harcourt.

Over ten years after the civil war, ever loyal to his former boss, Achuzia was a conspicuous figure in the super mammoth crowd that came to welcome Ojukwu from exile in June, 1982. He was also present in most events which this author helped organize for Ojukwu’s burial ceremonies in 2011/2012. Seeing the calm looking veteran, it was hard to reconcile that this was the fire spitting warrior who was ‘Hannibal’ to some or ‘Air Raid’ for others. Hannibal was a Carthaginian General and statesman who commanded Carthage’s main force against the Roman Republic during the second punic war. He is still today widely considered one of the greatest military commanders in world history. Hannibal the Carthaginian was a familiar character to the ‘boys’ in the Biafran Army, as the primary school history textbook in use at that time had a spectacular drawing of Hannibal crossing the alps to battle using elephants as carriers. 

While Biafra was still savouring the victory at Onitsha, the Nigerian Army entered Calabar on 18th October. It was again a case of one poorly equipped Biafran battalion against six or more well equipped Nigerian battalions amply supported by over half a dozen ferrets, saladin armoured cars, mortars and artillery guns. At the end of 1967, Biafra had lost Nsukka, Nkalagu, Enugu, Ogoja, Bonny and Calabar. Biafra had also lost the whole of the Mid-West. But while the Federal soldiers stayed in the main towns, Biafran fighters were all around them in defensive positions. The deadlines on ‘crushing’ Biafra had not materialized. Though a lot of grounds had been lost, the fighting morale remained high. There was an all-pervading optimism that once Biafra secured a steady source of weaponry from a world power, she would recapture all lost grounds.

Continue Reading

ARTICLES

The Life of Exile And the meaning of Redemption (4)

Published

on

The Life of Exile And the meaning of Redemption (1)

Redemption remains always a difficult enterprise that engages individuals and groups at several levels. Not a few of the slaves living then in Goshen, groaning under their burden, and crying out for help from the depths of that slavery (Exod.2;23), trusted that hope was still on the horizon. Even Moses was uncertain of his suitability for the job: “Who am I to go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?” (Exod.3:11). The cumulative of critical encounters, actions and reactions of the principal actors in the drama affirm the truth that human agents can always cooperate with divine grace to create in human history outlets of revitalization, reversals and accelerations.
Israel on a journey homeward

The books that capture the story of liberation of Israel from exile, and that make available to future generations of God-seekers the challenges on the homecoming journey, are especially Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua. When God initially announced his intention to Moses of rescuing the enslaved people from Egyptian bondage in Exodus 3:8, it was with a promise that Moses will lead Israel to a country rich and broad, to a land flowing with milk and honey. Canaan was the divine destination for God’s people. Its beauty and attractiveness are pictorially made evident by using the imageries of milk and honey. In some sense these imageries evoke the picture of Eden, the garden of abundance, pure delight and enjoyment that harboured our First Parents – Adam and Eve.

Any ordinary reader would expect the ensuing journey from bondage to redemption to be an upbeat experience brimming with excitement. The people had great dreams and high expectations at the delights of Canaan. But redemption was a costly enterprise. Redemption remains for every generation an altogether dramatic and tenuous experience. To negotiate the journey to Canaan, Israel had to spend 40 long years wandering in the treaterous wilderness. There were many reversals on the journey of Israel’s redemption: At Sinai the loose multitude that left Egypt with Moses underwent a wholesale transformation of identity to become ‘God’s people’; yet no member of that generation that witnessed the sacred events on the mountain survived the bewildering conditions of the wilderness. At emergency junctures throughout the journey the people witnessed many mighty works of God; yet stories of disappointments and failures abounded in almost equal measure. Many times Israel was in awe of the wonders of God in the wilderness; but as often, Israel grumbled against God and showed lack of faith. We are left to wonder: why did God not make the story of redemption easier for Israel, so that God’s people could just stroll into the land of their dreams and settle? How could a journey to the Promised Land almost turn into such a national disaster?

Such was the portrait of the journey of redemption by the books of the Pentateuch. The journey homeward for many people in our time may not be evolving any differently. For many the path to their own freedom winds through roads that open up to frontier experiences where the wayfarer becomes altogether a pathfinder. For others the personal and collective sacrifices needed for the journey will entail the discarding of the medley of inessential details and surface charms that encumber the soul. For every believer the journey will ever remain a formative experience shaping both personal life and destiny.

The two Tensions of Human Existence: the dweller and the wayfarer
Between the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy Israel made about 42 stopovers on their way to Canaan. A journey that looked so straightforward at the beginning became increasingly long and circuitious. Seldom was Israel allowed to travel in any obvious, direct, path (Exod.13:17 – 18). Indeed every journey of redemption remains hazarduous, and as the wayfarer veers off into uncharted territories, innumerable trials and tribulations test the limits of courage. Occasionally Israel was fickle and short-sighted, and so complained and revolted against God and Moses (Numbers 11:4; 14:1 – 2; 21:5); other times, disheartened because of the challenges on the way, Israel was tempted to stay rooted in one place, to attempt no further progress, and even to turn back in terror (Exod.14:10 – 12). But again and again the command was prompt: march on (Exod.14:15), move on from here (Exod.33:1). Other stop-over stations for Israel served as resting posts, places for refuelling, for resolving communal disputes, for awaiting guidance from God. And so the entire exodus itinerary consisted of periods of halting, and of wandering: “Whenver the cloud rose from the Tent, the Israelites broke camp, and wherever the cloud halted, there the Israelites pitched camp. At Yahweh’s order, the Israelites set out and, at Yahweh’s order, the Israelites pitched camp. They remained in camp for as long as the cloud rested on the Dwelling” (Numbers 9:17 – 18). Two generations of Israelites spent their lives on the road, pilgrims living between the stations of resting and the experiences on the open road.

Kohak (1996) has rightfully noted that the ‘dweller’ and the ‘wayfarer’ are among the more perennial metaphors of our humanity. Both are metaphors of incarnation, of human presence. On the one hand, life becomes actual only if it consents to dwell, to commit itself to flesh, to a time and a place. To be human is to be in the world, to be a dweller. On the other hand, to be actual life must equally learn to transcend the present in memory and imagination, to transcend space in love and vision.

Both metaphors are captured in the Bible: In the words of Jesus, his disciples are to be ‘in the world’ but not ‘of the world’ (John 17:14 – 15). The disciples of Jesus must be ‘in the world’, citizens of a country, at home within their particular historical time and place. Nonetheless, Life will cease to be meaningful if it is submerged in its embodiment, a slave to the fads and fashions of the times. To be meaningful, the Christian life must stand ‘out of this world’ and be able to feel the seduction of the horizon. And so the Christian must be ready, every moment, to transcend sedentary existence: “Anyone who comes to me without hating father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, yes and his own life too, cannot be my disciple. No one who does not carry his cross and come after me can be my disciple” (Luke 14:26 – 27).
The strategy for living differs for both the dweller and the wayfarer:

“Dwellers are strong in sinking roots, wayfarers in travelling light. Dwellers seek to stay with their love, wayfarers know the task vain and cut their anchor rope before time and tide can drag them down. Perhaps their respective ways of experiencing time are the key. The dwellers’ time is as cyclical as the eternal return of the seasons. There is nothing new under the sun, and unto its circuits the wind returneth. There each end is also a new beginning, each death a new birth. The time of the wayfarer is linear, as the endless open road. There are no returns; there are no replays. Time is irreversible, ever new. What is left behind is gone forever. Wayfarers must travel light and never look back. Their strength is detachment as the strength of the dwellers is rooting” (Kohak, p.38 – 39).

The Christian life displays these two tensions of human existence. The Christian is in the world, has a home somewhere, and at some point in time; and yet the Christian is not of the world – his or her place is not exhausted by his or her belonging to a particular tribe, nation or place, at any particular point in time. The anonymous author of the Letter to Diognetus captures these two tensions of the Christian existence in the world:

“Christians are indistinguishable from other men either by nationality, language or customs. They do not inhabit separate cities of their own, or speak a strange dialect, or follow some outlandish way of life. Their teaching is not based upon reveries inspired by the curiosity of men. Unlike some other people, they champion no purely human doctrine. With regard to dress, food and manner of life in general, they follow the customs of whatever city they happen to be living in, whether it is Greek or foreign.

Continue Reading

LEAD STORY JUNE 13

Advertisement
Advertisement

Like us on Facebook

Advertisement

Trending