SEPARATION MANDATE (THE DEPARTER)
ABSTRACT
Any possibility that it was ever part of the good God’s plan for those he ordained to have dominion over his creations and be joined together as one flesh—to someday come to the point where a division or parting would occur? To come to that state of lacking unity? Of sorting one person from another? Of parting company? Even when things went south in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve wouldn’t come apart on account of the ugly situation that deprived them of the first Canaan ever, no thanks to Eve who warmed up to the devil’s shenanigan. Yet, isn’t the same occurrence why many Adams and Eves of today—cast each other aside in bitterness and anger over such shortcomings?
For starters, Adam never filled Eve in—on God’s precept regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. How was she supposed to survive Satan’s devilish wit? A being who was next to God in the blissful paradise of divine beings, but tossed down to uninhabitable regions of formless and darkness engulfed earth like a used toilet paper—to watch mortals relish the life of grandeur that had been forfeited him eternally because of his rebellion. A being filled with nothing but hate and bitterness. What could have made him miss the chance to outplay an uninformed weaker vessel like dear Eve? Ever wondered why he made no attempts at pulling off that trick on Adam despite having watched him have fun all that while before Eve came on board? It’s simple: Adam was informed. Enlightened.
Take some time to ponder how long Adam had been on Earth alone before Eve showed up. The Bible says that a thousand years is like a day to God, meaning that seven thousand years is like seven days to God. And, seven days is a very short time. For God, who a thousand years is like a day to—to acknowledge that Adam’s aloneness had been long overdue, the gentleman must have spent millenniums in loneliness. A millennium is a thousand years (one day before God). Guess how many millenniums would come across to God as “a long time?” Thirty? Sixty? Hundred? Or we’d rather not go there? Well, the devil possibly watched Adam relish the Garden for what must have been millenniums without trying to lure him into error with temptations and sweet enticements.
These days, newly married couples hardly go beyond nine months before welcoming their first issue. That is to say—the bride most likely conceives on the wedding night. In worst-case scenario, during the honeymoon. Anything beyond that is likely a deliberate resolve by couples to delay conception and take time to satisfactorily gratify each other sexually, especially if Chasity had been the order of the day during singlehood. Or perhaps; if there’s conception issues. But conception issues are only synonymous with fallen humanity. There was nothing like that in the Garden of Eden. And there was nothing like Chasity as long as Eve hadn’t come on board. So Adam couldn’t possibly have been sex-starved. And Eve, having come on board, did not need to spend millenniums before consolidating her holiest matrimony. The same for Adam. The couple didn’t even need time to get to know each other.
Hence, they must have gotten to it the moment Adam awoke from his deep slumber to behold his bride and proclaim her bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh. He should have—with the same speed—filled her in on God’s precept regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Why didn’t he? And he wasn’t even there when the serpent showed up. Where went he? Even Eve, having known none other to be a conversationalist in the Garden besides Adam and herself, failed to get curious over the identity of the foreign body that seemed to be privy to deific details that her godlike husband had never mentioned to her. So she took a shot at savoring those details for the supposed vantage that was to come through that degustation? Even roping her husband into it? Seriously?
But then, who says Adam couldn’t do better than let himself be roped into that act of disobedience by one who was supposed to learn obedience from him? Was her speech too enticing for him to not have yielded? Was her flattering lips too seductive for him to resist? Was Satan’s antics too profound as to suspend mannish reasonability on his part? Or was it because the deceit was routed to him through Eve? Definitely because the deceit was routed to him through his darling wife. If not, Satan would have long outplayed Adam before Eve showed up. But as drastic as their situation became after their disobedience cost them the garden, they couldn’t bring themselves to toe the path of many 21st-century couples who find themselves in such a mess. Perhaps because they were the first couple and just had to leave that good example for those who would come after them. Possibly so, arguably.
But in this 21st century, many such messy situations have been followed with infamous separations that turned out affording separated couples a state of affairs that can best be described as “Canaan.” Yes, Canaan is a land filled with milk and honey, a land promised to the former Egyptian slaves by God if they’d as much as commit to him devotedly. They did, and the promise was delivered to them. How then does separation, which God hates, afford separated couples Canaan? The scripture says that “God hates divorce.” Thus, it would be expected of divorced couples to become subject to penury on account of a disregarding of that edict. But in truth, many couples have only gotten to experience Canaan after parting ways with their once beloved happily married spouses—who turned out to be devils. Of course, devils only rob men of Canaan. Hence, to enter Canaan after parting ways with a devil is not supposed to come off as strange. What should come off as strange is choosing to pitch one’s tent with a devil. Could it be that one who does so—secretly welcomes the devil’s sweet offers?
-----
INTRODUCTION
A dictionary definition of mandate refers to it as a document giving an official instruction or command. As is well-known, instructions and commands are expected to be carried out by those to whom they have been advanced. Then again, instructions and commands have sources from whence they emanate. Most definitely, the instructor or commander is bound to be of superior authority to the instructed and commanded. The highest authority is God…for those who believe in God, and God’s instruction and command regarding marital separation falls into the category of “do nots.” In essence, once united in marriage, separation is forbidden. Isn’t it said of wives in Proverbs 18:22 that “he who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord?” Isn’t it every wife’s desire to marry a faithful man who’d pilot the affairs of the family with due diligence? And of such men, doesn’t Proverbs 20:6 assert that most men will proclaim their own goodness, then thus questions: “but a faithful man who can find?” Why then would a faithful man, having found a prudent wife from God (a good thing) and obtained favor from God…settle for a separation? For a divorce?
To answer that question, taking a critical look into the qualifiers of “man” as “faithful” and the qualifiers of “woman” as a “prudent wife” will be of the essence. Proverbs 20:6 says that “most men will proclaim every one his own goodness: but a faithful man who can find?” It, therefore, means that what qualifies a man as “faithful” is “his own goodness,” not his proclamation of his own goodness. For women, in addition to being a “wife material” which, when found by a man, entitles the man to divine favor, Proverbs 19:14 adds that “…a prudent wife is from the Lord.” This also means that what qualifies a woman as a prudent wife who entitles a man to divine favor when found—is her prudence…which only comes on grounds of her legit placement in God. Having become clear on who a faithful man and a prudent wife from the Lord is, is it possible that both, having tied the nuts, would someday come to the point where a division or parting would occur? To come to that state of lacking unity? To the point of sorting one person from another? Of both parties parting company?
Well, it is specified at the start that many couples have only gotten to experience Canaan after parting ways with their once beloved happily married spouse. But it didn’t end there. It was also specified that those couples who only get to experience Canaan after parting ways with their once beloved happily married spouse—had at some point found their spouses to be nothing but devils, hence taking to their heels to safeguard their lives. That’s divorce nonetheless, which God hates. What can be said about God’s hate for divorce in cases like that? For starters, God wouldn’t give his beloved daughter’s hand in marriage to a devil, neither would he give away his faithful sons in marriage to a devil. How then is it that—couples—having vetted each other as beloved partners worth each other’s loving devotion for the rest of their lives, part ways upon the discovery that one partner, or both—as the case may be—are devils who must be alienated from each other forever?
Without referring to the bible, believers have been choked with sermons about how it is the highest order of taboo to tie the nuts with a non-believer. So a believer who goes ahead to tie the nuts with a non-believer is certainly not a believer because, according to Psalm 42:7, “deep calleth unto deep…” But such persons justify their secularism by tagging their mutual attraction to the likes of them as a “mistake.” However, there is no mistake that is beyond remedy, and this particular mistake has its remedy within the pages of the scriptures. 1st Corinthians 7:13-15 says: “And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.”
It is clear from that text that—only unbelievers are required to take their leave if they can’t cope with believing spouses. What about believing spouses who can’t cope with unbelieving ones that are set to stick around to the detriment of the believing spouse? That scripture has been explained to indicate that both spouses must have tied the nuts as unbelievers. Then at some point, one turned a new leave, hoping on the other to follow suit in due course. But as 1st Corinthians 7:16 queries: “how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?” This question was put forward to believing spouses who wouldn’t let go of unbelieving spouses that are ready to walk out of the marriage rather than turn a new leave. But nothing is said of believing spouses who can’t put up with unbelieving spouses that just wouldn’t leave the marriage despite not wanting to turn a new leave. Are believing spouses just supposed to put up with unbelieving spouses despite the unbelieving spouses being thorns in the flesh by choice?
Since God is the highest authority and the Psalmist accounts of God’s word in Psalm 12:6 as pure words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times, then it should make mention of what believing spouses who are sick and tired of their unbelieving spouses ought to do when their unbelieving spouses refuse to turn a new leave but settle for being thorns in the flesh by choice. Well, the apostle of apostles, Paul, had encountered this manner of “dead end” in a marriage-related issue. And he remedied it with his own opinion, which he reckoned as being inspired by the Spirit of God at work in him…and God, who had placed a curse on whoever adds to his word, unleashed no curse on Paul. Doesn’t that go to prove that Paul’s opinion was indeed inspired by the Spirit of God? What was this opinion in the first place? It was an outright abolishment of procreation, for, procreation can only come legitimately through marriage; which God had instituted in the beginning and commissioned to know no end. Yet Paul came on board and most concernedly advised against it.
His concerns are amply captured in these three scriptures: 1st Corinthians 7:8: “But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: it is good for them if they remain even as I am…” To complement it, he adds thus in 1st Corinthians 7:26: “I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress—that it is good for a man to remain as he is…” And just before anyone could deem his words as the jargon of an over-righteous man of the cloth who had begun mixing God’s word with his self-righteous opinions, he posited in 1st Corinthians 7:40 that “he thinks he also has the Spirit of God.” Did he say he thinks? That would presuppose that he wasn’t sure. But you be the judge. Would you say he didn’t have the Spirit of God…being that till eternity, Paul’s words will serve as tools by which God’s truth and image are relayed? Also, do we not have the likes of Paul in this present generation?
-----
DOs AND DON’Ts (INSTRUCTION)
The Bible is full of DOs and DON’Ts. But these DOs and DON’Ts aren’t do-or-die affairs. God himself, having presented Moses with innumerable laws to relay to Israel which was to serve as the map upon which their entire existence would be navigated, had eventually reached out to them through Joshua to make known to them that they could choose to not base their lives on those laws. However, there were consequences to that, to be borne by whoever wouldn’t base their lives on those laws. But the ultimate consequence would be damnation…after the final judgment. Nonetheless, a man had the chance to redress his steps and abide by those laws before it was too late, and there are several cases of those who did. In line with the subject matter at hand, would a resolve by believing spouses to separate from unrepentant and devilish unbelieving spouses—be deemed a violation of God’s instruction in Mark 10:9 that “…what God has joined together, let not man separate?”
To answer that question, was Paul’s admonition to the singles to remain unmarried—a violation of God’s instruction in Genesis 2:24 that “…a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh?” You already know the answer… “no.” Why not? Because Paul vetted himself as having the Spirit of God? Not necessarily. But because, for over two thousand years now, God hasn’t discounted that opinion by Paul as he did the prophecies and dreams of certain Old Testament prophets whose dreams and prophecies he disassociated himself from, attesting that they weren’t from him. In essence, if there be a man like Paul to sample an opinion that permits believing spouses to separate from unbelieving, unrepentant, devilish spouses who are thorns in the flesh by choice, then it wouldn’t pose violations to God’s marriage-related instructions.
What if there isn’t such a man? Is the believing spouse not licensed to become such a man for himself…or herself as the case may be? After all, it is he who wears the shoe—that knows where it pinches. Therefore, if there isn’t such a man to sample such an opinion to the remedying of the situation, the plagued believing spouse can be that man for himself…or herself—as the case may be, and if it happens to be against God’s instruction, he/she will bear the consequence. Do you happen to know such a believer? One who’s managed to station himself or herself on the Lord’s side but has his or her unbelieving spouse determinedly being a thorn in his or her flesh? Of course, you do. They are littered all over the world…stuck in unholy matrimony to bear the burdens it superimposes. But as earlier stated, there is no problem without a solution…or solutions. Such fellows can get unstuck!
Sometimes it doesn’t even have to be a believer and an unbeliever. It could likewise be two souls who became unequally yoked together, and 2nd Corinthians 6:14 says “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” Though that text refers to non-believers in Christ, the literal meaning of unbeliever extends to include those who don’t share the same convictions. In Amos 3:3, it is asked: “Can two walk together unless they are agreed?” That goes to show that—couples—though having vetted each other beloved partners worthy of each other’s loving devotion for the rest of their lives—can come to the point of parting ways the moment their views/perspectives differ and they cease to be agreeable. That wouldn’t be considered a divorce or separation. Rather, it would be a step in the right direction…one endorsed by certain modern preachers…one that can launch a man into Canaan.
Then again, Canaan doesn’t come cheaply. It must have sounded so sweet to the ears of the Israelites when Moses showed up and filled them in—on God’s intention to remove them from the house of slavery and take them to Canaan, a land flowing with milk and honey. What they didn’t know, was the rigors they’d come across on their way there. Wasn’t that why some of them missed Egypt and desired to return there? Wasn’t that why all of them didn’t make it to Canaan? They couldn’t stand the heat that was unleashed on them by the pagan nations they encountered on the way. But the likes of Caleb and Joshua deemed those pagan nations as nobodies who posed no threat to their possession of the land of Canaan. No wonder Joshua was made to take the lead upon Moses’ demise. In the same vein, certain marital separations can be likened to the tussle that ensued between Israel and those pagan nations. And just like Israel, many couples separated and made it to Canaan.
But separations that must ensue for Canaan to become a reality to many folks—aren’t limited to marriage. Lots of folks need to be separated from lots of entities, known and unknown, for Canaan to become their reality. After all, wasn’t it in the year that King Uzziah died that Isaiah saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple? So Isaiah, prophet as he was, couldn’t see the Lord because of the aliveness of a King who was ordained King by the Lord? And as long as the King was alive; Isaiah couldn’t see the Lord despite his diligent communion with God? He couldn’t even prophesy his way to catch sight of God? What about Mary Magdalene? So she had the potential to be the first person to catch the sight of the risen Christ? Yet, as long as she was possessed with seven demons, she wasn’t deemed anything more than a bloody dirty whore? Aren’t we thankful for separation mandates that remedy such anguishes and make Canaan a reality?
-----
SEPARATION
In bible days, Canaan was only regarded as a land flowing with milk and honey. But in this 21st century, a lot of matters are synonymous with Canaan. And in this 21st century, a lot of entities are synonymous with the pagan nations that stood in Israel’s way of making it to Canaan. That is why—those who are synonymous with Israel and on their way to Canaan, must be ready and endeavor to fight those entities tooth and nail until Canaan is secured…even though that fight involves separation. In this case, it is not just separation in the sense of the word. It is separation as a mandate. Recall the definition of mandate cited at the start? A document giving an official instruction or command. This piece can be considered a document giving an official instruction or command to separate. But the mandate to separate, whose instruction or command is it? Who is separating? Separating from who?
Three entities must be at play for a separation to ensue: the one separating—who can be referred to—as the departer. The one being separated from—who can be referred to—as the rejected. And the one who keeps the departer and the rejected apart…who can be referred to—as the separator. In many cases, the departer could be the separator, not needing a third party to foster the separation. Suffice it to say that the departer is known as much as he knows himself. But the rejected is unknown, yet has been something of a devilish unbelieving unrepentant soul who’s been only but a thorn in the flesh of the departer, hence his departure.
The departer seeks to separate from hidden and abstract entities that have constituted his circle right from childhood and are bent on constituting that circle endlessly…to his detriment. These entities have been solely responsible for the many bitter plights of the departer which no one could address. Did I say address? How does one address what they can’t even comprehend? Imagine being plagued by entities that problem solvers can’t even comprehend! How does one resolve that? But as Ecclesiastes 9:11 says: “…time and chance happen to them all.” Time and chance finally happened…for the comprehension of the issue and how a resolution to it can be routed. Uninterestingly, that resolution comes not from problem solvers despite their comprehension of the issue. It is the departer who must necessarily endeavor to address the issue squarely or become a sort of protégé to one who comes to the saving. What is it going to be for this departer? Anyone to come to the saving? None that the departer knows of…perhaps opportunists well-positioned to pose as saviors the jiffy the departer drags himself out of the mud he’s always been in, calling out to "saviors."
First and foremost, if they’re awards to be bestowed on singles on account of their singlehood, the departer would, like the famed footballer, Lionel Messi, be bestowed with several trophies… just that, while Messi got bestowed with Ballon d’Or, the departer would be bestowed with Ballon d’Single. What does that imply? The departer has been a pitiable failure when it comes to relationship and intimacy, and that has nothing to do with his inability to score himself a partner comparable to him. It has been the doing of the said entities which have constituted his circle from childhood. Such company may have been ignorantly welcomed during childhood and deemed imaginary friends. But childhood is the only sphere of life where it thrives, as it is completely antagonistic to the endeavors of adulthood…like relationships and intimacy. Thus, they make deliberate efforts at keeping children from becoming adults. The departer separates himself from these entities because the endeavors of adulthood have been age-long cravings that no entity whatsoever is permitted to stand in the way of.
The departer separates himself from unseen teachers that sponsor his insanity, unseen mentors that only require him to do as they say, unseen directors that direct him everywhere except where he ought to be and yearns to be, unseen friends that shut him out of true friendship in reality, unseen affairs that determinedly shut him out of intimacy, unseen God or gods that have closed the heavens over him, unseen spouse or spouses that have shut him out of marital settlement and wish to rule it out completely, unseen saviors that exploit his need for a savior, unseen leaders that lead him to the congregation of the dead, unseen acquaintances that use him for games, unseen watchers and spectators that take delight in those games, unseen lovers that have closed the gates of intimacy against him, unseen handlers that make a dog out of him, unseen programmers that make a robot out of him, unseen number 1s that make number 2s out of him, unseen patrons that make a puppet protégé out of him, and everything unseen/abstract that have made his reality one hell of a misery.
The departer seeks to separate from the voices in his head which only give him instructions that make for the compounding of his misery, from unseen entities that sponsor his rejection in a bid to remain with him and solemnize something unholy with him. So the departer finds himself in a pool of fresh beautiful maidens carefully carved by God to offer sweet delights to male senses, and entities with him shut him out of taking delight in those maidens because the introduction of a maiden or maidens into his life would mean the extinction of those entities? So be it, then! To those entities, the departer commands, be gone! How about very illusionary entities that impose themselves on the departer to the point where the departer considers the traits imposed on him by those entities as his originality? And those impositions wouldn’t include his mingling with opposite sexes. Why? Isn’t it original for a man to seek to mingle with a woman? How come that is not part of the originality?
-----
THE MANDATE
Age sixteen remains a memorable one for the departer. That was the year he popped the ice! By that I mean, got deflowered…if that terminology fits the description when addressing male figures. Or, is the departer female? In that case, it would fit. But it wasn’t a memorable experience because it was on grounds of commercialization, not mutual affection and desire…not to mention love. Since then, the departer has sought to replicate memorable versions of that experience that would be on grounds of mutual affection, desire, and love…to no avail…no thanks to abstract and unseen entities that only seek to make a sort of reverend Father out of him for their pleasures and delights, whatever those pleasures and delights may be. So, all the devices the departer can boast of as accounting for his obvious high self-esteem—can be said to have been routed to him by those entities who only need him to put them to use for their exclusive delights…and perhaps the viewing pleasure of audiences.
But that has accounted for the departer’s appalling deprivations which have ranged from monetary to romantic; primarily, then freedom of movement and adventure, entitlement to personal choices, even the choice of a spouse! These entities, noticing the departer to have come of age with his mind set on adult endeavors, carved out techniques by which to keep him continually deprived of due adult endeavors while subjecting him to childish caricature. And he is sternly required to love and accept the situation by not just settling for childish caricature but to make a lover out of it—since he craves adult endeavors. The departer is not one to play to anyone’s gallery…even though it will cost him his life. He’d rather die than play to the gallery of one who makes sports with him in the name of whatever! Therefore he calls for separation from all he can’t see which are responsible for his misery.
He is as determined to separate from those entities as those entities are determined to not separate from him. Why do they not want to separate from him? To continue teaching him jargon? Giving him directives that lead him everywhere except where he wants to be? To be a God to him that he owes his worship? And even tithes and offerings? The departer is set to depart, and depart he will, from those who robbed him of youthful exuberance, robbed him of early education, robbed him of the reward of his services in the house of God, prevented him from standing before eminent persons on account of his gifts and talents, robbed him of intimacy and ultimately marriage, even shutting him out of real encounters with the one true God who gives him life so that he does not become privy to the many wickedness meted on him by them on account of a real encounter with the true God.
By God, I mean the giver of life, not some entity somewhere superimposing godship on itself yet not in the least bit able to perform anything extraordinary…except hiding in the shadows to dictate the course of another man’s life and destiny. That is what the mandate aims to tackle by separation. Wasn’t the departer just 10 years of age when the wave of those entities first hit him hard and cause him to call upon Jesus without even being taught about Jesus? Wasn’t it two years later—in junior-secondary days—that the next wave hit him harder, plunging him into solitude and rejection that took him a whole academic session to bounce back? Wasn’t it upon his bouncing back—that he lost tenderness and made it into the League of Outlaws? He managed to have a teenage girlfriend…one he never hugged. Did he even woo her? Hell no! A friend of his—helped him out—against his consent! Yet the affair was acclaimed the best…little did they know that he barely even shook hands with her. Perhaps that’s what made it the best? Even in adulthood, that’s the kind of affair he is expected to nurture?
What about in his senior-secondary days when multiple girls seemed to be all over him on account of his levelheadedness? He did manage to give a hug then. Did I say he gave a hug? Hell no! He was hugged…and that’s as far as he’s gotten on the basis of feminine "affection." But not anymore! Back then he considered those failings ill luck. But he knows better now. There are forces that are determined on keeping it that way, and he’s outgrown those forces and is intentional about dismissing them from his life and the course of his destiny, hence his embracing of this separation mandate…thanks to the initiator of the program. Even in moments when the departer makes an effort to alienate himself from these entities, they make their presence all the more felt—to put it to him that they are going nowhere! They make it clear to him that they are in his life to use him for sports and caricature, and he has no option but to settle with that reality. But the departer has a surprise for them this time.
A mandate is a document giving an official instruction or command. It was said in the beginning that, for there to be an instruction or a command, there has to be an instructor or a commander. So, this separation mandate, on whose instruction or command is it based? This mandate is very personal. Matthew 9:36 talks about multitudes scattered abroad as sheep having no shepherd. In 1st Kings 22:17, a prophet drew Jezebel’s puppet's attention to the same plight, declaring that “he saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd…” The remedy to that situation, as relayed to Ahab by the prophet, was this: “And the Lord said, ‘these have no master. Let each return to his house in peace.’”
The departer’s departure can be likened to his return home in peace. No entity is expected to follow him home except one that seeks to rob him of that peace. And that is not a situation the departer welcomes any further. He is set to welcome new concrete experiences into his life that will blot out his miseries forever! But what sets of new concrete and real experiences will blot out his old abstract experiences? The old experience of romantic failures sponsored by abstract entities, what new concrete experience will squarely tackle it? The old experience of his marriage being determined by abstract entities, what new concrete experience will tackle it? The old experience of being richly gifted yet short of occasions to commercialize those gifts, what new concrete experience will tackle it? The old experience of an abstract entity demanding forced love from the departer, what new concrete experience will tackle it squarely? Any ideas?
-----
GOODBYE YESTERDAY (CONCRETE OVER ABSTRACT)
The truth is, the departer has come to full consciousness of these abstract entities and has done his bid to shut them out of his life. But he is yet to come to the full body of knowledge that would make for the complete absolute shutting out of those entities. As it seems, the more he presses hard to see to the shutting out of those entities, the more those entities impose their weight on him, resisting his efforts and putting it to him in black and white that shutting them out is a fight he’s likely to lose. The departer, something of a daredevil, has avowed to either shut them out or die trying. In essence, his life accounts for no meaning until the abstract entities are shut out, giving room for concrete experiences that will make for his long-deprived aliveness. His determination and dare-devilishness have made for 50% of his progress in that endeavor thus far. The other 50% rests on the concrete experiences that will shut out abstractions irredeemably. What will the first of those experiences be?
The wise ones usually advise killing two birds with one stone. The departer has been in the habit of killing multiple birds with single stones. Given the extent of his deprivation, he cannot imagine subjecting his welcoming of new concrete experiences to slow sequences. So he adopts his old habit of killing multiple birds with a single stone. As earlier accounted of the departer’s deprivations, it was said to have ranged from monetary to romantic; primarily, then freedom of movement and adventure, entitlement to personal choices, even the choice of a spouse! Truth be told, all these sum up to one mega deprivation: “money,” and as seen in Ecclesiastes 10:19: “…money answers everything.” Doesn’t everything include romance? Movement? Adventure? Choices? Even spouse? It is only a poor person that gets subjected to deprivation. Like they say, “Money talks, trash stops!” So the primary new concrete experience the departer welcomes is “money…” then romance, intimacy, and love.
That way, the poverty of yesterday would have departed. The
rejection of yesterday would have departed. The puppetry of yesterday would
have departed. The vile dictations of autocrats would have departed. The
involuntary celibacy of yesterday would have departed. The caricature of
yesterday would have departed. The blind intellectual guess games would have departed.
The philandering of yesterday would have departed…except for one who chooses to
relish the delights it affords…to the detriment of none other but self.
The abstract presence of yesterday would have been departed from. The fake love
and fake lovers of yesterday would have been departed from. The phony
acquaintances of yesterday would have been departed from. The exploiters of
yesterday would have been departed from. The near-success syndromes of
yesterday would have been departed from. The difficulties in romantic endeavors
of yesterday would have been departed from. Dreams that aren’t from God—the
giver of life—would have been departed from. It would be goodbye yesterday
indeed!
The moment it’s goodbye yesterday and the abstract is tossed down the bin, what becomes of the highly welcomed today is readily guessable. The easy and legit money? Cheap romance? Priceless intimacy? True love? Unfeigned acceptance? Boundaries that cannot be breached? The absence of vile dictators? Peace and tranquility? Freedom of movement and adventure? Worship of the one true God, giver of the breadth of life, and monarch of the universe? Absence of deceivers in whatever form? Absence of exploitations. And all the good stuff that makes for the good life? How awesome it would be! To make eye contact without those with whom eye contact is made—shying away as though taking a hike from an alien. To grace a gathering of people without being singled out and treated as a predator. To come to a point where there are no dictations regarding where to be or not be per time, whether from tangible or abstract beings that ride on thoughts to dictate.
©Jezuzboi, 2023
Comments