• We as a nation know much of religion but apply little

If it’s true that wisdom consists of the proper application of knowledge, then it’s equally true that knowledge without application is a form of ignorance.

History itself provides ample proof of this assertion, for much of the carnage and destruction which characterises the human species have been committed by those professing religious knowledge and secular knowledge. And what’s even more tragic, the Gospel of Love has been used by governments and dictators alike as an instrument of intimidation, corruption and gain. And in the name of the gentle Galilean Himself, wars have been waged and entire nations eradicated.

We as a nation know much of religion but apply little. We will argue for religion, fight for it, and even die for it, but few of us will live for it. We long for the immortality of another world yet find it difficult to live together in this one.

A knowledge of gospel principles, then, is no guarantee that religion will become a motivating force in the lives of men.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is not as much a philosophy of thought as it is a philosophy of life. It was not simply words and logic which characterised the life of Christ, but action and behaviour. His words were few; His deeds were many.

And what few words we do have of His provide only an outline for the application of love and charity. “The Sermon on the Mount” is nothing more than a call to brotherly love.

And, the application of that short sermon to the events of our modern world would solve forever the most destructive ills of mankind.

What Ghana needs now is not new ideas, but the application of the old truth, the adoption by mankind of the simple virtues contained in “The Sermon on the Mount.”

Such application would let mercy patrol the skies above the land we walk on; it would permit pureness of heart to administer the affairs of world leaders, and charity to preside in the great assembly halls of governments; it would suffer the peacemakers to walk the streets of troubled towns and reconstruct the rubble of devastated lands; it would allow those who mourn to comfort the sick and homeless of the slums and ghettos, and those who are poor in spirit to bring solace and shelter to the aged and unemployed. Such application would establish an unwritten law in every city and in every town of this nation the dear brotherhood of man.

Then and only then will brothers not lift up sword against brothers, neither shall we learn war any longer.

William Penn is credited with the statement that “If men be good, government cannot be bad.”‘ On first hearing, one may be inclined to challenge the idea altogether.  Certainly, there would seem to be many exceptions.

History records innumerable instances where the will and wishes of peoples have been swept aside.  But despite the seeming exceptions, the persistence of any condition suggests that it is made possible either by the positive promotion or the passive permission of a significant number of people.  No tyrant or misguided leader stands alone.

No false way persists without followers.  And the fact that there is a sufficient following is in itself evidence of a compromising condition on the part of the people.  The very existence of tyranny, of corruption, of abuse, of evil and excess, anywhere, anytime, is in itself an indication that somewhere along the line an alarming number has relaxed standards and vigilance.

Such things don’t permanently and flagrantly persist against the active and earnest opposition of a preponderant part of the people.  And William Penn’s statement is both disturbing and challenging because it places the responsibility right back where it belongs and takes some pleasure from the prevalent and age-old practice of blaming everyone else while sitting back and doing nothing about the practices that are complained of.

It challenges us to ask ourselves: What obligations and interests have we neglected?  What vital things have we been too busy to bother with?  What compromises of principle have we permitted?  What basic departures have we consented to for the promotion of our own particular purposes?  What situations have we complacently assumed someone else would correct?  At what abuses have we shrugged our shoulders?

Admitting all the exceptions, admitting all situations in which people are unwillingly imposed upon, still essentially, and in perspective, governments, cities, societies are largely a reflection of people.  And if there are abuses, if there are arrant evils, if there are flagrant departures from principle, we had better begin with an honest scrutiny of ourselves, and soberly look again at this sentence from William Penn: “If men be good, government cannot be bad.”

By Samuel Enos Eghan

Email: samueleghan@gmail.com