By Mohammed Adamu
Elsewhere in several previous pieces I had discussed, especially when the Lars and the Ganas were steeped in spiritual stupor of, the ‘divine’, the ‘providential’ and in one or two titles of this column, even of the indefensibly zodiacal.
Gana especially was the one who, from the unempirical, talismanic realm of ‘luck’ and ‘good omens’, tried spiritedly to take us to the plains of ‘providence’, ‘divine intervention’, force majeure (or act of God) and such other spirito-political fetishes that have since failed to stick in the realm especially of the ‘existential’.
And with apologies to spiritually-minded pro-Jonathans, should it not sound spiritually funny -to any with even a passing apprehension of matters metaphysical- that logic is fraudulently strained to prove the existence of the divine or the providential in the candidacy of Jonathan and by implication its absence in those of others?
Although now it appears Clark is only one of the few last surviving unyielding disciples of this claim of the ethereal – i.e. after the Ganas and the Lars may have since sobered up to the practical realities of the role of cause-and-effect as a primordially-existent determining variable in the affairs of man.
Last week in explaining why he was passionate about Jonathan, all that the ethno-centric, reactionary Clark could cite was not Jonathan’s fine credentials and antecedent-merit, but his ward’s ‘divine qualification’ and ‘providential capacity ’.
And I have been asking this question ‘whose prerogative is it to define the ‘divine’ from the ‘dubious’? Is it the person scheming to profit from the divine or those who do the scheming on his behalf? I had asked especially in the piece titled “On Jerry Gana’s Divine ‘Good Luck”: “..does God issue the divine by regular interference or intervention or is the divine, primordially, already at work?”
And which raises the question: “is God the un-interfering mechanistic clock Master?; – some kind of cause-and-effect God Who has pre-set events in timeous motion of tik, tak, and Who Has keyed humans therefore as Time’s subjects willed divinely to move with it (not to be halted by it)…; or is God the Manipulative Chess-Master constantly playing and changing the rules of the game to amuse Heaven?”
Is He some kind of God of ‘divine intervention” who, by implication, whenever He is not divinely in ‘intervention’ is therefore metaphysically absent in the affairs of man?
The perception of God as a Manipulative Chess-Player reveals a ‘Supreme’ ‘constantly interfering with His own ‘divine pre-set to whimsically decide matters in the realm of earthly happenstance. A belief in such God unwittingly leads to the belief in an anthropomorphic, humanoid, pranks-playing God Who plays knights and pawns with his creations; and it is in this dubious perception of God and of ‘divine intervention’ that the Clarks and the Ganas try desperately to justify the concept of ‘finders’ being justifiably ‘keepers’ because their pranks-playing humanoid God of ‘divine intervention’ “has done it” for them!
But the truth is: the Almighty is more an ‘as-you-make-your-bed kind of justice-rendering, cause-and-effect, Mechanistic-Clock-Master-God Who divinely pre sets that ‘finders’ must seek ‘owners’ than He is a luck-provident kind of boju-boju Manipulative-Chess-Master-God Who wants to be celebrated (as miracle-working) by the ‘fortunate’ ‘lucky’ cheat He has allowed to get away with a lie and Who therefore is divinely in desertion of the victim ‘whose God’ is perhaps less ‘miracle-working’. We should ask for example: was Abacha, like Jonathan, ‘divinely lucky’? Or was Shonekan ‘divinely forsaken’? If Abdussalam’s regime’s perfect dénouement was proof of its ‘divine installation’, was Ironsi’s junta’s anti-climax therefore a sign of ‘divine disapproval’? Was Buhari’s ‘corrective aberration’ divinely inspired and was Babangida’s ‘celebrated advent’ thus outside of God’s omniscience? Or was Shagari’s ‘democratic government’ then, by implication, ‘divinely overthrown’ and therefore justified?
Truth is: Jesus’s ‘what a man soweth, that he shall reap’ sounds to me more like ‘as you make your bed’ -some kind of divinely pre set ‘cause and effect’ thing! But if you say that Jonathan is the ‘anointed’ of God, you have to tell us who the ‘visioner’ is or was. Is it Clark or is it Joe himself? Did the lord speak to Clark or did Joe speak to the lord? Either way why should we believe any when we are told ‘even the Devil can cite the scripture to prove his case?’ The Christian Bible says that God had sent as many prophets known to the world as were many He had sent unbeknownst to man. Yet Jesus warns: false ones shall arise ‘who will show you great wonders; if it were possible to deceive even the very elect’. So I ask again: ‘how do we know ‘the divine’ from ‘the dubious?’ Don’t tell me: ‘by their fruits ye shall know them.’
It is no proof of the ‘divine’ that mere mortals go about selfishly proclaiming God’s will on matters that rest squarely in the realm of the unknown. What happens to ‘divine covenants’ if God is portrayed as un-steadfastly inconstant and bias? Or that the genuinely ‘divine’ manifests itself in a ‘covenant-repudiating’ God; or that God, to be ‘providential’, should urge humans to breach covenants as between themselves! Shouldn’t we ask Clark: ‘how do we know the divine from the dubious; the messiah from the mason; prophets from puppets or emissaries from errands? And these he cannot do with regard to Jonathan or his candidacy if righteousness, godliness, un-covetousness, truthfulness etc, are truly the paths to the ‘divinely spiritual’!