REBEL HEART (INSUBORDINATION)
The year 2007 saw the Nigerian singer, Egberi Papa One of Bayelsa—storming into the music scene with reckless abandon on the wings of many hit tunes off his first album titled, “True Story,” one of those tunes with the title, “Dem Mama.” Having gone through thick and thin and suffered many rejections to get to the spotlight, the singer didn’t deem a soul worth standing on his way forward for any reason whatsoever! To usher listeners into the radicalism embodied by the diverse tunes in the album, he gave an introductory remark that sent chills down the spines of many, prepping the ears for what was to come. The vibe of that remark hit the right nerves of those who are conversant with Pidgin English…and perhaps, the interpretation did the same to those who don’t. The remark says:
No time!
Even if time dey, no space!
And if space dey, no chance!
What if chance come dey?
Omor no vacancy!
In simple and clear terms, the singer only meant to put it across to potential haters that he’s come on the music scene as a moving train and not prone to stepping on the brakes for nobody! His words proved to be no bluff, as he indeed put oppositions in their places, both musically and otherwise, even taking reckless shots at the political class for misdeeds that few freedom fighters have dared to dare! In the track titled, “Dem Mama,” the singer conveyed the following striking lyrics most bravely:
Nigeria na my country yo
Bayelsa na my state iyo
This na reality
Wey e bin happen for Bayelsa oh
Nineteen Ninety nine oh
I swear I no go forget am oh
When them kill the people oh
And make the children them orphans oh
Any time wey I think am oh
Water dey pour from my eyes oh
Somebody say make I leave am oh
But I say me I must talk am oh
I say them don kill dem mama eh
Them don kill dem papa eh
I say dem don kill dem mama
Them papa dem mama dem papa dem mama eh
I say they don kill dem mama eh dem papa eh ah
Dem mama eh ah
Wetin we go do iyo
Do iyo
Say do iyo
I don die oh
Poverty no good at all oh
Every day for Nigeria
Na so the people dem dey die oh
Eeeehhh our government oh
Na why una make us dey cry oh
Oooh every day for Nigeria
Na so the people dem dey die oh
They say that “first impression matters.” But the singer wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about launching into the scene with a welcoming first impression, not minding what bad effects such effrontery could pose to his music career. Incidentally, it posed no harm whatsoever to his music career. Rather, it made him a musical sensation in the order of no other. Didn’t the industry so adopt his sound such that many new Naija tunes that got dished out—had Timaya written all over them? His insubordination even extended to holy grounds where a lady who jilted him ran to—to take refuge and shield herself from the violence he was sure to mete on her if he happened to get his hands on her. Even so, having been let in—on privileged info regarding her whereabouts, he had stormed the church on a Sunday morning to take his pound of flesh nonetheless. But it was a wrong move that boomeranged and was never repeated because, as it turned out, the bygones he’d only let go by guns—had been let to be bygones…or was it? No fracas involving the two has ensued, neither has there been a reconciliation.
The incident with the talented singer and his estranged lover only serves to usher in the manner of insubordinateness that this piece aims to call attention to. Who invades a mega church on a Sunday morning to fish out a target and throw the church’s chairs at the target for absconding with his car? One of such persons, as you already know, is the said singer. Another of such is the one here accounted of…no known name, no known origin, no known ancestry, nothing at all known of him, except that he’s got a heart that is neither deceitful nor desperately wicked; but seems programmed to rebel against deceitfulness, wickedness, and the many vices that scriptures bastardize squarely. There are a number of dictionary definitions of the word, rebel. One is that a rebel is one who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority. This rebel, truth be told, rebels against constituted authorities…but not for no just causes. Isn’t it said of the singer above that he took reckless shots at the political class for misdeeds that only a few freedom fighters had dared to dare?
That’s the kind of rebel this piece tends to glorify amiably…one who breaks sick conventionalities of status quos by renouncing former bizarre allegiances, breaking established injurious customs, and exhibiting great independence in thought and action…a path only a few have mustered the courage and guts to toe. The bible no doubt enlightens in 1st Samuel 15:23 that “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.” While this account is no attempt at playing down on eternal words, it, however, takes a stand with the rebel…not on grounds of sinfulness, as that would be witchcraft, but on the basis of unapologetic resistance against organizations with set systems of rules that are in antithesis to the concerns and humble demands of the not-so-privileged. What’s to come of this rebel’s endeavor? Whose purpose will it serve? Maybe all. Maybe none. But surely; himself. After all, like Timaya, the rebel has no time, space, chance, nor vacancy for anyone!
-----
INTRODUCTION
Like Timaya, the rebel may tend to be taking one and all by a storm with his reckless emergence on the scene…having journeyed through thick and thin to get to the spotlight with introductory remarks that hit the right nerves of many, with unimpressive first impression, with unapologetic stubbornness and insubordination that is not supposed to appeal to public expectations nor individual rationale. He’s bringing to the table what comes off—at first impression—as irreligious orientations and stances that, amazingly, happen to integrate with religious stances and beliefs, though not a very welcomed development to certain of the religious class. But, of what concern is that supposed to be to a rebel? A rebel who holds the Colossians 3:22 conviction that bondservants ought to obey their masters in all things according to the flesh as much as the Colossians 4:1 complementation that masters ought to give their bondservants what is just and fair, knowing that they also have a master in heaven? This rebel is no insurrectionist who sets up oppositions to authorities aimed at creating conflicts in which one faction tries to wrest control from another. He’s simply given to a bastardization of absolutism.
Hence, as public attention focuses on the rebel in expectancy of watching him refuse acceptance of constituted authorities, codes, and conventions to his detriment—in which case due punishment would be meted on him, what’s rather witnessed is an ignited revolt on his part against unrecognized agencies instituted by wanna-be masters to foster whatever doesn’t serve the interests of anyone but themselves. What’s again witnessed is his firm resistance to systems of conducts that do not allow for the liberty that the Spirit of God entitles the believer to. 2nd Corinthians 3:17 says that “…where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” The rebel revolts against systems of rules that do not allow for that liberty, even where the Spirit of the Lord is. It is not uncommon for the public view of a rebel to be limited to him as one who takes part in armed rebellion against constituted authorities. Wasn’t that what ensued in South Africa between Nelson Mandela and the apartheid government that made the nation a living hell for her Citizens? How much of a rebel did the statesman turn out to be at the end of it all? Any chance that this rebel could turn out to be a rebel in the order of Nelson Mandela?
Could that be judged by his stiff opposition towards seen and unseen entities who withhold truth and freedom from freedom seekers in contrast to Jesus’ words in John 8:32 that “…one shall know the truth, and the truth shall make him free?” How about his unwillingness to allow himself be subjected to the semiotics of semioticians who would rather communicate meaning through signs and symbols that require intellectual guesses to derive the meaning that is being communicated? Wouldn’t it be easier to communicate in clear terms? Wouldn’t the wise King Solomon take sides with the rebel in line with his own teaching in Proverbs 2:11 that “…understanding shall keep thee?” And in Proverbs 21:16 which says that “the man that wandereth out of the way of understanding shall remain in the congregation of the dead?” The rebel, though not very bright upstairs in the estimation of many, knows enough to not give into the dictates of stoic philosophers and intellectuals who would only deal him states of affairs which, in their estimation, is befitting of one who’s not too intellectually sound.
Truly, one stays the same year in, year out—except for the books they read and the people they meet; not to mention the poor enlightenment of such fellows. But here’s the rebel, enlightened enough to not let a soul trample on his rights without having read a pile of books nor met the acquaintances of diverse individuals. Yet, some five to seven years ago, he was no rebel. What can be said to have accounted for his change? Could it be the incessant oppression of readers and intellectuals who have come to lightly esteem his species? Well, the rebel would not be lightly esteemed…not by readers, not by intellectuals, not by men of wit, not even by certified masters…as long as the honors awarded such masters only serve to undermine the intellectually underprivileged. Nelson Mandela paid for such welcomed rebellion with twenty-seven years imprisonment, four years of unopposed presidency, and a legacy that can be said to be bound to outlive that of any other South African president. If this rebel is anything like the South African statesman, he will surely have to embark on a long walk to freedom which might not necessarily include imprisonment…but certainly, immunity and conquest.
-----
SAUL: MAN AFTER REBEL’S HEART
“For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He also has rejected you from being king.” Those were Prophet Samuel’s words to the erring King Saul after he took laws into his hands, outrightly undermining the prophetic office of the one who anointed him king: a rebellious and insubordinate course of action which stripped him off the kingly cloak that identified him with royalty, though he had emanated from the slums. Nothing about rebellion should come off as appealing under normal circumstance. Though God was aggrieved that his own people—who he delivered from the house of slavery to be solely his—had at some point required a king to reign over them, he still had Samuel pick a nobody and make him head over his people. All that was required of Saul for his reign to be successful as that of David—was his genuine devotion to the God who had brought him out of the miry clay, set his feet upon a rock, and established his steps. But rebellion set in at some point, and it was game over!
Saul’s rebellion and stubbornness cannot be accounted of—as having been a byproduct of witchcraft. Until he paid a visit to the witch of Endor, nothing of dark spirituality was ascribed to him—like the many kings who came after—whose accounts are laden with testimonials of idolatry and apostasy. So, was his being laudably democratic as to take the people’s concerns to heart and let them gather plunders and the best things in order to offer them to the Lord—the reason he was rejected from being king over Israel? Would it have been better if he had done like his successors who completely sold themselves and the nation of Israel out to idolatry and apostasy? It is said that the plunders and things which Saul let the people gather and offer to the Lord—were supposed to be utterly destroyed. Hence, gathering them was deemed a disobedience to the voice of God who had ordered that those things be utterly destroyed. But was that so terrible as to bring the king to a place of utter disrepute?
It was for the same reason that the distressed king got infested with demons which made the rest of his existence a living hell. But thanks to David, the man after God’s heart whom God had sought out and anointed king after Saul, his situation stood a chance with temporary remediation that would possibly have become permanent if Saul hadn’t eventually eyed David and attempted to snap life out of him. The aftermath of Saul’s “rebellion” plagued him till death (and accounted for that death to a large extent). Upon his death, David came onboard and outperformed Saul in all wise…little wonder the women had thoughtlessly endangered the little boy’s life by proclaiming him more of a conqueror than Saul in the presence of Saul, arousing jealousy in the heart of the gallant king. If there’s one thing that found no brooding place in Israel during David’s reign, it was rebellion and all that can be associated with it. But it isn’t accounts like David’s that seize the attention of this rugged hood rebel. It is accounts like Saul’s. Was his being laudably democratic as to take the people’s concerns to heart and let them gather plunders for God—reason enough to bring the king to a place of utter disrepute?
Even the very meritable demonization of witchcraft seems to fall short in dealing out disrepute to its practitioners these days…despite the rebellion and stubbornness that comes with it which the bible frowns at. But Saul was no wizard. Not exactly rebellious. Arguably stubborn. He merely missed the mark like several of his kind whose names still made it into God’s good books. How come a little error on his part saw him being stripped of all honor and beauty and splendor? Because he didn’t know as much as beckoning on God to turn the wisdom of Ahitophel into foolishness after murdering a man and carting away with the man’s wife? Because he wasn’t gifted enough to take out mighty giants with a single sling of the stone and get rewarded with the king’s daughter as wife? Or because he knew not how to say the Lord’s Prayer? He possibly fell short due to his poor prowess in the singing of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. Otherwise, he would have been nicknamed the psalmist and light of Israel…in which case his foul flaws would’ve passed for the conventional err of humans, bound to be fixed by divine forgiveness. Do they not say that to err is human and to forgive divine?
But the rebel is not given to such sentimentalities. He would rather take a stand with the mafias who hold that “sentiment is for suckers!” Before mention is made to the rebel of how to err is human and how to forgive is divine, a start off with how men ought to do to others as they wish others to do onto them would come in handy. Did David, even in the slightest chance, deem his excommunication of Uriah as the conventional err of humans? Or his deliberate and consciously planned takeover of Uriah’s wife as one of those errs that’s bound to be fixed by divine forgiveness? What then becomes of such endeavors when the likes of the rebel sit over such matters to mete out justice and sentence? Would his adherence to scriptural edict to give torment and sorrow to the queen of Babylon the great in the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously—a downplay on divine forgiveness? Doesn’t Revelation 18:6 say to render to her just as she rendered to men? And to repay her double according to her works? And to mix double for her in the cup which she had mixed? Or, had the God who possibly inspired the saying that to err is human and to forgive divine—lost touch with that virtue when he wouldn’t forgive the fornicating queen but required that she pay duly for her crime?
The rebel is not given to religiosities and exploitable modus operandi that are potent in serving as means by which exploiters and cheats eat their cakes and have it back…especially at the expense of the likes of the rebel who are contemptuously considered fools that need to be suffered by the wise. So it becomes understandable when the rebel takes a firm stand against belief systems that leverage on sets of rules that point to his resistance to victimization as rebellion and stubbornness associated with witchcraft which, according to 1st Samuel 15:23, is as iniquity and idolatry…capable of fostering the rejection and dethronement of kings, notwithstanding if they’d been enthroned by God himself. After all, wasn’t Saul so admirably enthroned by God to shepherd Israel? Wasn’t the same Saul, on different occasions, deemed as “one of the prophets?” But he was dethroned by the same God on account of “rebellion” that comes off on first impression as service to the people. How ironic! And then there was David to take over—with more grievous shortcomings that, in all wise, fell short in being deemed rebellion, stubbornness, and insubordination…not to mention witchcraft. Interesting!
-----
DAVID: MAN AGAINST REBEL’S HEART
Labeling Saul a man after the rebel’s heart and David a man against the rebel’s heart does not just show off the rebel’s persona as being repute-worthy. It somehow puts him in a position that portrays him as some god…if not over anyone else, at least over the characters of Saul and David as depicted herein. But the rebel seems to be projecting that persona to diverse characters all-round, particularly those, who as earlier stated, pass as persons or agencies instituted by wanna-be masters to foster whatever doesn’t serve the concerns and interests of anyone but themselves. In the real context, Saul can be said to have been such a man, yet, as is obvious herein, seems to find favor with the rebel. In the real context also, David can be said to not have been such a man. He was generous, always putting the concerns of the people before his. Yet, as is also obvious herein, seems to find no favor with the rebel. Why so? Even to the point of labelling a man acknowledged by God to be after his heart, as being against the rebel’s heart? Then the rebel doesn’t just have scores to settle with the man after God’s heart. He clearly has scores to settle with the God whose heart the man after God’s heart was after.
Topping the list of those scores would be a sermon on Saul and David. The preacher had made it crystal clear that David didn’t just outperform Saul in terms of laudable deeds, he equally did so with foul deeds. However, while David enjoyed boundless mercies in greater measure than consequences for his foul deeds, Saul’s first shot with a shortcoming saw him being tossed down the bin. The rebel loves that sermon. And one of the areas his rebellion centers on—is why David got spared despite his many iniquities while Saul faced strict judgment that endured as long as he lived, culminating in his great fall on the battlefield which David thus lamented over: “the beauty of Israel is slain upon thy high places: how are the mighty fallen! Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph.” And instead of such lament being issued out over David for his many misconducts, what is noticed is a sort of reward in the form of remorse that saw him writing out multiple psalms, hymns and spiritual songs that Jesus says—not a jot or one tittle shall pass from the law till all be fulfilled, though heaven and earth pass away.
Hence—is the rebel’s grievance with the likes of David and the likes of David’s admirers ushered in. Lots who bastardize the rebel’s quest—are likely to comprise more of moralists and religious kinds. It was earlier stated that the rebel is bringing to the table what comes off—at first impression—as irreligious orientations and stances that, amazingly, happen to integrate with religious stances and beliefs, though not a very welcomed development to certain of the religious class. For that reason, the rebel settles to leverage the very weapons these religious lots employ to take deadly shots at his kind. Wasn’t it David who, in Psalm 94:6-7, bastardized the proud, wicked, and workers of iniquity for their slaying of widows and strangers and their murder of the fatherless? According to him, they had said: “the Lord does not see, nor does the God of Jacob understand.” Such devoted expressions of righteousness readily show him off as a man after God’s heart indeed…just as many of his kind these days. But wasn’t it the same David who slayed Uriah (a possibly fatherless man) and made his wife a widow? Or, was he of the illusion that, contrary to his words, the Lord was not seeing him? That the God of Jacob wasn’t understanding him? Yet he had the people’s hearts. He was the people’s choice!
How about his condemnation of lots who devise evil by law and gather together against the righteous in Psalm 94:20-21? Hadn’t he, in Psalm 94:22, ascribed praises onto God for having been his defense against those lots? Yet David gathered together with Joab to devise evil by law against the righteous man, Uriah, who, being a disciplined soldier, had refused to visit his wife on David’s demand (as though he knew the ulterior motive behind that demand). As a consequence, David murdered him by proxy by ordering all of Uriah's comrades to abandon him in the midst of battle—so that he ended up getting killed by an opposing army. None made psalms/laments over that. Instead, David continued to remain the people’s choice! The same David had, in one of his sweet psalms, made reference to certain groups of familiar ill-wishers who had done him great wickedness behind his back…one so terrible that even the said ill-wishers weren’t proud of mentioning amongst fellow evildoers, not to mention the one upon whom the wickedness was perpetrated.
They probably feared he'd clap back! In addition to fearing he’d clap back, they feared they’d not stand his retaliation by reason of the gravity of vengeance he’d mete on them, given the magnitude of their wickedness towards him. Yet they perpetrated that wickedness on him nonetheless, proclaiming in confidence that he won’t be alive to learn of what they did. So, basically, they had murdered him in their hearts. Preachers have explained that Abraham actually murdered Isaac, though an angelic intervention had seen him holding back his sword. The murder had taken place in the heart. If not, he wouldn’t have proceeded to the point of almost carrying it out in reality. Of Ananias and Sapphira who kept back part of the price of the land they sold to themselves (all of which were to be laid at the apostles’ feet), hadn’t Peter, in Acts 5:3, thus questioned the man: “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?” His heart had to be first of all tempered with—for the lie to proceed out of his mouth. In the same vein, those who drew confidence from the hope that David would die before the revelation of their wicked acts toward him hit the limelight—had concluded his death and funeral arrangements in their hearts.
What’s more striking is that those lots comprise those who make up the likes of David’s devotees: like the women who endangered David’s life by thoughtlessly proclaiming him more of a conqueror than Saul in the presence of Saul, arousing Saul’s jealousy. Like those who genuinely recommended David to Saul when the Spirit of the Lord departed from him and a distressing spirit from the Lord troubled him. In their recommendation of David to Saul, hadn’t one of Saul’s servant thus spoken of David: “look, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, who is skillful in playing, a mighty man of valor, a man of war, prudent in speech, and a handsome person; and the Lord is with him?” But when the women turned Saul’s heart against David and he placed a bounty on him, who constituted the host of bounty hunters that relentlessly sought him out to deliver him to Saul for execution? It was his very own devotees…the ones accounted of in 1st Samuel 18:16 which says: “but all Israel and Judah loved David, because he went out and came in before them.” When Saul put a hit on David, who but all of Israel and Judah who loved him—set out to seek and deliver him up for execution? Wasn’t he left to wander the earth with vain troubled men who were in debt and discontented with life?
What’s the difference between those men and the ones who Saul had been so concerned about as to let them gather plunders and the best things in order to offer them to the Lord—reason why he was rejected from being king over Israel? It was made known that the plunders and things which Saul let the people gather and offer to the Lord—were supposed to be utterly destroyed. If those plunders are comparable to the vain, troubled, indebted, discontented men who became David’s acquaintances when Saul banished him to the Cave of Adullam, that goes to show that those plunders were no good indeed. Hence, the grievance with Saul was that he prolonged the lives of stuff that had been marked for death. And it cost him his throne. And all these unfairness stem from none other than persons who constitute the objects of the rebel’s grievance, accounting for his rebel heart, stubbornness, and resistance to authorities that have come to account for his insubordination.
-----
INSUBORDINATION (NO TIME)
The rebel delves out of the confines of religious perusals to address real-time wickedness and unfairness perpetrated on the trusting and unsuspecting by insincere couples, artful lovers, shady siblings, fake friends and acquaintances, ingenuine partners and colleagues, hypocritical leaders, false followers, and even familiar strangers! How does a pimp take it upon himself to ensure the Chasity of an adult who he is not responsible for in any wise??? Just so the involuntarily chaste person doesn’t also relish the delights of sweet eroticism??? What does the pimp stand to lose from that??? So a pimp wants to turn a new leave and wouldn’t let the ready and willing next in line toe that path because??? Since when were servants not allowed to become as great as their masters??? Or, the young shall not grow again??? It’s one thing to read the “Fifty Shades Series” and covet the “Christian Grey” dominant character to enact on the “Anastasia Steele” submissive character. It’s another thing to wield what it takes to embody that character…like, being a young billionaire!
In line with that, what’s the deal with low-budget Christian Greys who exact dominance on the likes of Anastasia Steele despite not having a dime to their names??? The ugly part is their insistence on exacting that dominance all the same—no matter the resistance, recalcitrance, and insubordination on the part of the one required to be submissive. How lit is that??? The rebel’s grievance doesn’t end there! How about role players who hide behind masks to sponsor the torment, abuse, deception, and misleading of those marked by them to play the circus clown—who have no idea whatsoever of that endeavor??? How about being a truth seeker, in the midst of truth wielders, who wouldn’t share the sought truth with the truth seeker but exploit the yearning for truth to make a fool of truth seekers??? Even to the point of bringing the truth seeker to a place of disrepute like Saul??? For seeking the truth??? How about dabbling into the affairs and marital destiny of another by means of dark spirituality???
And to mention that the rebel isn’t supposed to call these to question by means of insubordination since he isn’t considered worthy of diplomatic endeavors??? Since his loyalty is only expected to amount to robotic allegiance??? To puppetry??? To childhood??? It is on this premise that the rebel’s “unwelcomed” insubordination becomes “welcomed” by the likes of him who do not sit well with the biblical position that “living dogs are better than dead lions.” I’m talking about lots who would rather be lions…whether living or dead. So the rebel defies authorities that wouldn’t live and let all live. He defies set systems of rules that are hell-bent on subjecting all and sundry to one-way-fit-all belief systems. He even defies spiritual powers that keenly impose Chasity and singlehood on marriageable adults on account of whatever…be it ancestral covenants, tradition, spiritual union, arranged marriage, promised spouse, and whatever places an adult’s relationship and marital endeavors beyond the jurisdictional limits of the adult. He further defies influences that are insistent on ordering the course of people’s lives, keenly standing in the way of others taking their destinies in their hands. If all of the rebel’s grievances were to be shared, even the whole wide world wouldn’t have room for the documentation that would relay his concerns—hence his calling the curtain at this point—on this very occasion.
-----
CONCLUSION
Having read thus far, can the hood rebel’s rebellion, stubbornness, and insubordination, like Saul’s, be safely accounted of—as not being a byproduct of witchcraft? Of Saul, it is said that—until he paid a visit to the witch of Endor, nothing of dark spirituality was ascribed to him—like the many kings who came after—whose accounts are laden with ugly testimonials of idolatry and apostasy. The rebel, without playing down on eternal words, seems not to be frowning at existentialists school of thoughts on matters here addressed by him…as long as it makes for the emancipation of those concerned. And if there is one thing that’s synonymous with existentialists’ school of thought, it’s apostasy. Atheism.
Therefore, is the rebel’s tolerance and accommodation of existentialists’ modus operandi that make for emancipation over religious stances that impose unwelcomed restraints—a subtle endorsement of apostasy? Why should religious stances impose unwelcomed restraints that choke the restrained? Isn’t it said of Jesus in Luke 4:18 that the Spirit of the Lord was upon him to not just preach the gospel to the poor but to also heal the brokenhearted, proclaim liberty to the captives, proclaim recovery of sight to the blind, and to set at liberty those who are oppressed? Can that question be said to have answered the question? To not answer for any, I’ll simply end by saying: you be the judge!
-----
©Jezuzboi, 2023.
Comments