“Jesus had no servants yet they called him Master; He had no degree but they called Him Teacher; He had no medicines yet they called Him Healer, He had no army yet was feared by Kings, He won no military battles yet He conquered the world; He committed no crime yet they crucified Him, He was buried in a tomb but lives today!”
This is from one of those emails I received this week asking me to circulate it among friends. I take the liberty now of circulating this among the entire readership of the Barbados Advocate and I ask you, as I am still doing, to reflect on it. Jesus’ life, as I understand it, is an example for us to follow and His teachings are a guide to our role here on earth.
He pushed at the barriers of perception and thought and acted outside of the box (to use an over-worn phrase) not only to get His message across but to encourage and sustain his followers. This was not a quotation of His. This is a very valid comment on the power of the man.
A man is the sum total of his parts – his physique, his socialization, his education, his family, his profession and all of the other things that make him into who he is. Jesus is unique in that regard and I am not suggesting or recommending that any of us mere mortals will reach the stature which the quotation claims for Him and with which believers agree.
For us ordinary human beings, it is not and should not be our “profession” that makes us what or who we are. There are some who earn great respect and honor from us in this society whose profession is seemingly irrelevant. They earn that honour and respect by virtue of their conscientious commitment to excellence, their respect for others, their patriotism and their consistent moral positions.
Remember, Jesus was a carpenter. Interestingly also, a medical doctor is not uninfluenced by his religious experiences, what is happening at his home on the morning he left for work or his political aspirations. Yes, there are immutable, scientific rules to his profession. But every doctor has his own unique personality and life experiences which influence his work and his life. His advice, one presumes, can be compartmentalized into what is scientifically proven and tested and what he knows from his personal delivery of his skill. But, this is seldom done.
Any successful professional gives you his best overall judgement. It is also for us to analyse whether we can accept his judgement or whether is is coloured by moral and other issues of sufficient weight as to throw doubt on his sincerity and capability.
This goes for accountants, actuaries, nurses, attorneys at law and the whole gamut of “professionals.” Likewise the fisherman I wrote about and his neighbor the agricultural labourer, whose intellectual contributions to nation-building cannot be questioned and should be accorded more honour.
Sorry, but I am not one of those who can see a man today and have a conversation with him about some social issue outside of a primary school while dropping our respective children and then be comfortable with him adopting an opposite position on a radio call-in programme the following day because he is now speaking as a professional. That is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
These mind-games are being played with greater regularity in Barbados and will not redound to the credit of those who perpetrate them. But they seem especially relevant to the profession of economists. Now everyone – including economists – bashes economists. Some question whether it is a profession at all. I grew up hearing the first batch of authentic Barbadian economists – Wendell McClean, Frank Alleyne and Michael Howard – all of whom were/are economists who have done great credit to their profession.
They had different paths and different political – no doubt even social viewpoints – but they were men who were known by their high commitment to scholarship and nation-building. They did not have to wear their profession on their shoulder. They were content that they and others in the profession were synonymous with their views.
When you said Wendell McClean that meant something. You did not have to say “economist” or “professional economist” or “expert in public finance” for anyone to know who you were talking about. Wendell McClean’s views on a political platform were the same as those he expressed on call-in programmes, in the supermarket and, no doubt if you were fortunate, in your living room. He lived his professional integrity. That meant it was part of his personal integrity.
Likewise Frank Alleyne and Michael Howard. I do not single these out to disparage others but I speak of these men because they were the economic combatants of the 1980’s.
Today, a strange bifurcation has developed between a man’s professional views and his personal views. An economist will tell you, “Sunday I am speaking as a professional economist!” Now, is that supposed to make him more believable, relevant or honest than speaking for himself? One radio station recently advertised that it was constituting a panel and that Mr. Clyde Mascoll was going to be there as a “professional economist” and I said to myself, “as opposed to what?” A political grass-hopper? A man who left leading the DLP one day to become a Minister in the BLP within hours?
Did that radio station think that we know none of this? And that our opinion of Mascoll is not coloured by his political antics? Do they believe – and does he – that he is more believable when he says ”I am a professional economist?”, rather than the man Owen Arthur said for the public record that Clyde Mascoll was only six or so Budgets ago?
Probably they believe their own propaganda. It has now become fashionable for former Prime Minister Arthur to say in his speeches to the Arthur-faithful in the BLP, “I am speaking to you now as an economist…” In what capacity then was the man who said he only brought economic skills to his leadership of our nation speaking before? And should the Arthur-faithful ignore everything he said before that? In which capacity is he saying he is more truthful?
It is truly regrettable that to be heard, persons now have to put away one cap and cover themselves under another. So, in the political realm when I say the economy is collapsing you can take that with a grain of salt because ‘this is politics’. But when I put on my university voice and I declare myself ‘a professional economist’ you must hearken my message. What utter nonsense! Is such political gamesmanship really necessary? At this juncture of our country’s development…I think not.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.