Connect with us

ARTICLES

The Nigeria-Biafra War: A fight to finish

By Prof. Peter Okorie (08033386262)
Author: NIGERIA TOO HARD TO HOLD
Two armies that fight each other is like one large army that commits suicide – Henri Barbusse

Published

on

The Nigeria-Biafra War: A fight to finish

Widespread militancy is often mistaken for militarization, just as bravado is sometimes mistaken for bravery. Militancy is the use of confrontational or violent methods in support of a political or social cause on the other hand, militarization is the process by which a society prepares or organizes itself for military conflict and violence. The State of Israel can be used to illustrate the difference. Israel is one of the most militarized countries in the world, there being no other option since it is bordered by hostile countries who deny its right to exist. But the Israeli society is one of the least militant. The use of violent public protests in pursuit of a cause is rare in Israel.

Secessionist Biafra was an example of a society where militancy was mistaken for militarization. Demonstrations and calls for war, was a daily occupation of the youth segment, especially student bodies. Army recruitment centres were overwhelmed by hundreds of thousands of volunteers. The regular army could not recruit up to 5% of the volunteers and a militia division had to be created to enlist a little more of the volunteers. Those who could still not join the militia were encouraged to join a third tier of military service – the Civil Defence. The willingness to fight is one thing; the capacity to fight is yet another. The bravest unarmed soldier would be defeated by the most cowardly soldier with a modern automatic rifle. An army needs automatic rifles, machine guns, endless stores of ammunition, mortar guns, artillery, assorted grenades, rockets, bombs, anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns, assorted vehicles, armoured personnel carriers, tanks, communication systems etc. The individual soldier needs several pairs of combat gear-boots, underwears, uniforms, steel helmets, bayonets, night vision goggles etc – as well as food and water cans, emergency first aid kit and personal communication devices. An army needs protection from attacks from the sea or major water bodies by assorted naval vessels; just as it needs air support by assorted aircraft – transport planes, fighters, bombers, reconnaissance planes – as well as helicopters for close ground support especially for immediate treatment of wounded combatants. These items, both in quality and quantity, grossly eluded the Biafrans from the beginning to the end of the war.      

There were three major reasons for the unpreparedness of Biafra for the war. The most obvious was the near total lack of pre-existing military infrastructure in Eastern Region of Nigeria. The East had only one battalion, the First Battalion at Enugu. The Western Region had a battalion in Abeokuta while Lagos had a garrison. The rest of the military facilities (over 70%), including training schools and Airforce infrastructure were all located in Northern Nigeria, specifically Kaduna-Zaria-Kano triangle. Kaduna-Zaria axis, roughly 73km apart, was the densest concentration of military facilities in the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. It had the Nigerian Defence Academy, Kaduna; the School of Aviation, Zaria; Nigeria Military School, Zaria; School of Artillery, Kachia; Nigerian Army Depot, Zaria; Kaduna Airforce base, as well as numerous barracks to house several battalions and their stores. Whether the British did this by design or default would continue to evoke arguments on British neutrality, or lack of it, during colonial-era Nigeria.

The second reason for Biafran unpreparedness was the attitude of a segment of the intellectual class in Biafra. While the youths demanded for guns to fight the war, some theoreticians among the elites argued that war, was unlikely. They argued that the North had already achieved its objectives of pushing the ‘troublesome Easterners’ away, not only from the North, but also from their positions in all Federal Government Corporations, Public Service, Universities and the Army. The East, over-burdened with over one million refugees, was no longer a threat to the North. This intellectual class mistook the chants of ‘Araba’ (secessionist calls in the North) by the marauding mobs during the pogroms as the authentic strategic objective of the North. Soon the mobs were enlightened on how challenging ‘Araba’ would be without support from revenues accruing from crude oil export from the East. Crude oil had not started accounting for over 80% of Nigeria’s export earnings, as is the case today, but it did not take an economic guru to see the rising trend in oil revenues.      

The third major reason, perhaps the most painful, was the initial reluctance of any major power to come to Biafra’s military aid. To the international community, Biafra was a temporary humanitarian crisis that could be resolved within the context of one united Nigeria. It was almost two years into the war, when the Biafran determined resistance won international respect, that some countries started airlifting military assistance. But it was a case of ‘too little, too late’. Biafrans misjudged, to their own peril, the humanitarian sympathy over the pogroms in the North as a signal of subsequent military assistance. It did not happen that way. For instance, Richard Nixon as a Presidential candidate in 1968 was a highly vocal sympathizer of the Biafran cause. But when he became US President in 1969, not much was heard from him again on Biafra.      

In summary, by the time news filtered into Enugu in June 1967 that Nigeria had amassed about eight thousand soldiers around Makurdi-Oturkpo axis on Biafra’s northern border in readiness to match on Biafra, there were only about two thousand soldiers on the Biafran side with rifles, a few mortar rounds and hardly enough ammunition to last a company for a week. In contrast the Nigerian side had abundant supplies of rifles, machine guns, grenades, mines, bombs, Soviet T-34 battle tanks, armoured ferret cars, anti-aircraft guns plus later brand-new MiG-17 and Il-28 Beagle (Ilyushin) jets from Soviet Union. It was an extra-ordinary imbalance. In a BBC documentary titled ‘Biafra, Fighting a War Without Guns’, Frederick Forsyth, who was several times in Biafra as a reporter, described how Biafran soldiers marched into war one man behind the other, because, they had only one rifle between them, and the thinking was that, if one soldier was killed in combat, the other would pick up the only weapon available and continue fighting.

Apart from the scandalous military imbalance, Biafra was also disadvantaged both geographically and politically. With a land area of about 78,612km2, Biafra was less than 10% of Nigeria’s land area. Also, based on the 1964 Nigerian census, the population of 12,388,646 for Eastern Nigeria was roughly one quarter of Nigeria’s population of 43,255,009. Above all, there was a psychological issue for the ethnic Igbo. The northerners used the term Igbo or ‘Nyamiri’ to describe all persons from Eastern Nigeria in the same way that Easterners referred to over 150 ethnic groups in the North as Hausa. An average Hausa man will say: Dukan su nyamiri ne (All of you are nyamiri). Some northerners in the far north even refer to some other northerners in the middle belt as ‘Nyamiri North’ because of the perceived similarities with the Igbo. Unfortunately, some ethnic minorities in the East felt that, the war against the ‘Igbo’ did not include them, which turned out to be a fatal miscalculation on several occasions during the war. In any case, members of the Igbo ethnic group felt some psychological strain from this. To worsen matters, the very first senior officer of the Nigerian army captured in the first week of battle was a Yoruba. In popular language, a Yoruba officer commanding Hausa soldiers to attack the Igbo; the psychological isolation of the Igbo was complete. However, as the war progressed this perception was corrected. The so-called minority areas in Biafra produced some of the most spectacular war heroes of the war. The Director of Biafra Military Intelligence, Bernard Odogwu, wrote: “I found out during the war that the most loyal Biafrans were more from the minority areas, followed by the people from the old Owerri province.” 

______________________

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)

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