About 400 years ago, the status quo of the church in the Netherlands was threatened by the Remonstrant uprising, which was met with vehement reaction from Calvinists. The situation got out of hand when the parties failed to find an amicable resolution, which led Prince Maurice of Nassau to interject and call a synod to resolve the conflict. Maurice switched sides shortly before the start of the Synod to assure maximum economic and political gain. Due to this political influence, the outcome of the Synod was practically determined even before the first session started: the Remonstrants were defeated, Calvinism was imposed, and Maurice got his political victory. Regrettably the failure of the church to deal with an internal matter, led to interference by the state. Although the Synod of Dordrecht had its unique context and
This article looks briefly at the Synod of Dordrecht (1618–1619) and how events unfolded, leading up to the Synod and what the outcome was. What should have been a church debate, became an economic and political endeavour. Instead of the two opposing sides of Christian dogma working out their problems internally, each stubbornly stood their ground. A lesson that we learn from this is that differences of opinion cannot be resolved when an attitude of superiority is embraced. The outcome was that their dispute was resolved with the aid of an outside source: the state.
One of the pressing challenges that we face today is the call for the decolonisation and Africanisation of education in South Africa – also of the theology curriculum. This challenge juxtaposes two powerful opponents: Africa and colonialism. A lesson from Dordrecht is that there is no place for superiority and dominance, forcing one’s views down on another. It is important to find a resolution to the problem that includes best practices for engaging with those who have different views to our own.
It should be noted that the debate in Dordrecht was a doctrinal one about peoples’ beliefs. This was clearly a theological matter, which should have been dealt with by the church. Due to the stubborn unwillingness to make space for one another, the two groups were unable to resolve their conflict and the state intervened – for their own economic and political benefit. In the case of decolonisation, the matter is not dogma or religion, but rather culture and politics. Foundationally, these two situations presuppose different epistemic communities that are qualified to find the best solution in each case. Of vital importance, in both cases, is that the right role players must engaged to resolve the matter.
We start out with a literary study, examining the events and circumstances surrounding the Synod of Dordrecht. The failure of the church to deal with an internal matter and the subsequent involvement of the state are examined. This stimulates reflections on how the Remonstrant or Calvinist debacle could have been resolved better. Secondly, attention is given to decolonisation and Africanisation to better understand the intricacies of the problem. Thirdly, basic principles of cross-cultural engagement are examined, which can assist in resolving differences. Basic building-blocks of meaningful encounters between people with differing views are identified and related to a missional hermeneutic for change.
The outcome of the Synod of Dordrecht and the victory of the Calvinists were short-lived. The Remonstrants returned to the Netherlands, settled and planted churches under the banner of Arminianism. Four hundred years later, the matter is still passionately debated and still brings division. If we deal in the same way with the issues facing the theological curriculum, we cannot expect different results. A missional hermeneutic of mutual understanding and collaboration, based on the
One of the great markers of the start of the Reformation was when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg on 31 October 1517. In a similar fashion, the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618–1619 is one of the markers of the end of the Reformation (Dreyer
This period of roughly 100 years between 1517 and 1618 was characterised by political, economic and religious reforms and many statements of faith were formulated in the Reformed churches of Germany, England, France, Switzerland, Hungary and the Netherlands (Dreyer
Unlike these, the Canons of Dort was at the outset not a general creed of Reformed theology; it was a document responding to the Arminian Remonstrance of 1610 – the culmination of disagreements that continued throughout the preceding 100 years of Reformation. The debate was driven to a climax when Arminius was appointed as professor at the University of Leiden in 1603 where serious conflict arose between him and Franciscus Gomarus about the doctrine of election (Botha
Arminius died in 1609, but his followers delivered a remonstrance to the authorities, trying to coerce them into calling a synod meeting to discuss the need to update and contextualise the church’s existing creeds (Beeke
John Oldenbarnevelt, the pensionary (
Prince Maurice had no real interest or understanding of the predestination debate that was raging on, but decided to side with the Calvinists in 1617 purely for political gain. This was a significant political shift of power and he fired many Remonstrants from their political positions – some were even executed (Dreyer
To understand the events surrounding the Synod of Dordrecht, one must reflect on the Dutch War of Independence that lasted 80 years (1568–1648). The war started 2 years after William I, Prince of Orange, became the Netherlands’ leader. His army of 30 000 soldiers had significant victories over Spain (Thatcher
He was succeeded by Maurice of Nassau who was quite capable and was assisted by his mentor, John Oldenbarnevelt. As time passed the relationship between the two waned: Oldenbarnevelt preferred diplomatic negotiations with Spain, while Maurice had a deep-seated resentment against the Spanish. The breakdown in their relationship came to a climax in 1609 when Oldenbarnevelt, as
The growing Calvinist support for Maurice, led Oldenbarnevelt to side with the Remonstrants (Israel
On the economic front there were also powerful role players. A significant gap existed between the merchant class and the clergy, and commoners. Like Oldenbarnevelt, the merchants desired peaceful relationships with Spain, which would be beneficial for their trade relations – this brought them into conflict with Prince Maurice. The clergy strongly rejected peaceful engagement with Spain because of the threat of Roman Catholicism. They spent the preceding 100 years fighting the Roman Catholics; they were not eager to have to negotiate with them again. Most of the commoners sided with the Calvinists in this matter.
A national synod was the ideal opportunity for Maurice to secure victory over Oldenbarnevelt, the Remonstrants and the merchant class. ‘If Maurice was going to have a war it would be a war with Spain, not a Dutch civil war, and so the Remonstrant defeat would have to be swift and decisive’ (Gunn
Thirteen Remonstrant leaders were invited to the Synod to defend their doctrine. They hoped that the Synod would allow them to debate the matter with their counterparts. This was not allowed, which lead to clashes between the two camps. The Remonstrants bravely tried to defend their views, and during the 23rd session, Episcopius gave a lengthy, powerful speech (Bangs
The French Huguenot churches were also invited, but for political reasons King Louis XIII prohibited them from attending (Maag
On 01 January 1619, the States General intervened in the conflict and warned the Remonstrants to either cooperate or risk being ejected from the Synod. It was significant that this resolution came from the state and not from the church delegates who attended the Synod – implementing Maurice’s resolve to deal with the matter swiftly. When the Remonstrants refused to cooperate, they were dismissed from the Synod on 14 January 1619, leaving the Synod to proceed without any Remonstrant presence.
This is one of the weaknesses of the imperial, colonial mind-set: get rid of the opposition and decide for yourself what is best. Instead of two groups with dogmatic differences working towards a solution, one was expelled and the other made all the decisions. This is a disastrous approach to any negotiation – be it the Arminian or Calvinist debate, or the process of decolonising the curriculum.
The Synod lasted 128 days and 180 sessions. By the time the Synod concluded, the Arminians were condemned, and the five points of Calvinism were clearly defined. As a result, 200 Remonstrants were banished, Grotius was given a life-sentence (but managed to escape with the help of his wife), and Oldenbarnevelt was falsely convicted of treason and beheaded. Despite a public outcry against his execution, Maurice stuck to his decision; he could not afford his political rival to gather renewed support.
Notwithstanding the severe ramification of the Synod, it did not have a lasting effect: Maurice died in 1625 and his brother, Frederick Henry, took over. Calvinism was still the official religion of the Netherlands, but Frederick had a tolerant religious approach. He allowed the Remonstrants back into the Netherlands, which led to them planting numerous churches and teaching their views unhindered. Even abroad the effects of the Synod lost its impetus and King James I of England, who personally appointed their delegates to the Synod, later withdrew his support for the Synod’s decisions and prohibited the public preaching of Dortian theology (Strehle
The Arminian challenge, which the Reformed church faced in the 1500’s and the early 1600’s, shows similarities to the current challenge of decolonisation and Africanisation of education with its polarisation between different parties. Theological education is drawn into this discussion alongside other academic disciplines, necessitating a response. Learning lessons from the way in which the Arminian challenge was handled, can prepare the way for an Africanised missional hermeneutic that will prevent the same mistakes from being repeated. We now briefly turn to an investigation of the demand for a decolonised curriculum.
Niemandt (
… a new appreciation of mission from the margins, liberation theology and the associated discourses on decoloniality, the maturity of a theological consensus on the
These new missiological approaches directly or indirectly offer a critique on the current colonial or postcolonial structure of the theological curriculum.
Goheen (
Molefe (
Dissatisfaction was expressed about two matters: firstly, the lack of transformation in higher education; and secondly, the slow transformation after apartheid. Jacobs (
The current expressions of empire show that the core structures of oppression have been left intact, only to be translated in the context of a new set of historical factors. (p. 168)
Higher education entities are seen by many as the last ‘colonial outposts’ (McKaiser
Colonisation included political control and exploitation of resources (Mamdani
Bunting (
A decolonial curriculum calls for a negation of a Western-centric knowledge orientation and an embracing of various knowledge forms, including African, indigenous, Arab-Islamic, Chinese, Hindu, Indo-American, Asiatic and Western. This is an intercultural understanding of humanity where cultures and their knowledge systems are respected (Santos
… the re-invigorating of Africa’s intellectuals, and the production of knowledge which is relevant, effective and empowering for the people of the African continent, and more particularly, the immediate African societies that the universities serve. (p. 49)
Mashau (
On the question of whether we should choose between ‘decoloniality’ and ‘Africanisation’, it remains clear that the struggle of decoloniality is not divisive in nature. It is not necessarily an antithesis of coloniality but one that seeks to foster Afrocentric prescriptions to life in an uncompromising manner. African renaissance should remain at the heart of any decoloniality project. In addition, for us to understand issues raised, we should not shy away from engaging the black theology of liberation and discern from those voices from the margins as to how we should move forward in terms of racial reconciliation in this country. (p. 6)
Maluleke (
On Monday, 21 January 2019, basic education minister, Angie Motshekga, called for a ‘more “decolonised” education system in South Africa – saying the current system needs to be amended to allow for diversification’ (Businesstech
Mbembe’s views (
Nel (
In this context, the challenge and struggle for postcolonial missiology clearly seems to be asking the new questions about the postcolony, positioning the procedures in the current antiracist and imperialist struggles, and invoking all our histories, our moments of grace but also of disgrace. This might be the only way in which to exorcise those spirits that might otherwise keep haunting us all. (p. 12)
In conclusion one must note that the call from university students to decolonise the curriculum is not a uniquely African phenomenon. Similar calls have gone out from students in the USA and England (Wingfield
It is further of interest that decolonisation is also not a new concept in South Africa: on 31 May 1961, the Republic of South Africa came into being, which marked the beginning of a very definite process of decolonisation from Britain. The National Party came into its own in the 1970’s in this regard, implementing sweeping constitutional and political changes. Regrettably, this was imposed by the white minority on their black counterparts without negotiation or collaboration (Devenish
Africanisation of theology should ask how the gospel relates to and plays into local narratives and theologies (Niemandt
When challenges arise within a multicultural, multireligious society, we need to be sensitive to cultural diversity. Culture consists of all the things humans learn after they are born, which enable them to function effectively in their environment. We are all instructed from birth to conform to the patterns of behaviour that our society deems appropriate. By the time we become inquisitive, we have already been encultured, which determines our worldview and value system.
Studying cross-cultural perspectives have at least four benefits: firstly, understanding and interpreting ourselves in our own sociocultural matrix; secondly, understanding and interpreting those to whom we go in their sociocultural matrix; thirdly, understanding and interpreting the Bible, couched as it is in the cultural patterns of other times and places; and fourthly, understanding how best to communicate a message given to us in cultural forms other than our own to people who live by customs and assumptions different to ours (Kraft
Every society has its own cultural lifestyle. We cannot live without such structuring; at least, no group or people have yet been discovered without culture (Kraft
Racism is an example of a cultural interpretation of racial differences where a people with one set of racial traits sees themselves as superior to another group without those traits. Racism is therefore a type of ethnocentrism that, like other types, has no scientific validity. This fact, however, does not cause it to go away (Kraft
Popularly … westerners have looked at the cultures and the peoples of the Two-Thirds World and often called them ‘primitive’ or ‘underdeveloped’ because they don’t do things the same way we do. (Kraft
A story was told of four blind men who touched different parts of an elephant and then described the elephant. Which of them was wrong and which of them was right? All were responding to something real that they touched; technically none of them was wrong in their description, but none understood the whole elephant (Kraft
This is the problem: no matter how sincere and trustworthy we are, as human beings, we never see the whole picture as God sees it. We always see in part and dimly (1 Cor 13:12). Yet we often ignore this limitation and lock ourselves into specific understandings of reality, dogmatically asserting them as if we knew the mind of God. Then we come across somebody who sees it differently, and we cannot deny the possible validity of that person’s perspective. (Kraft
There is a simultaneous, continuous process at work in the persistence of culture and its progression: the desire to keep things like they are, and the necessity to adapt. People are always changing their cultures – what is important is knowing how and why it changes. The answer lies partly in the fact that culture refers to the structured customs of people; society refers to the people themselves. It is this pressure from people (societal pressure) that forces others to observe their customs, while the lack of such pressure leaves them free to make different choices. Culture has no power to press for conformity; the power lies with society (Kraft
Cultural change is common and natural, but when it changes too rapidly and on a large scale, it creates problems. It disrupts people’s sense of security and satisfaction with their way of life. Such disruption can lead to a sociocultural crisis, followed by breakdown. This is what happened between Arminians and Calvinists in the 17th century. The official church wanted to maintain the status quo and to defend their doctrine in obedience to Scripture (e.g. 1Tm 6:3; Tt 2:1). The challenge from the Remonstrants was just too radical for their comfort and the required change too drastic. This is also what happens in colonialism when one culture takes control of a geographical area and exercises control over its inhabitants.
Normally, cultural change happens at a slow rate, but in our present world the rate of change is rapid, and it keeps on accelerating – especially under the influence of ideas that come from the West. This leads to insecurity, particularly for those who favour slow change. Different types of cultural change can be discerned: firstly, revolutionary change is the most rapid and is sudden and disruptive; secondly, cultural drift is a slower type of change when minor cultural alterations take place over a long period of time; thirdly, a long-term trend is less extensive than cultural drift, as it only affects one or several aspects of the culture; and fourthly, short-term change may be called a style or a fad.
One of the most dramatic challenges is the historic accident. These are abrupt and unpredictable events – unguided and often widespread in nature. War is a good example. The colonialist takeovers of non-Western societies during the 19th century is another tragic example as well as devastating volcano eruptions, earthquakes, floods and fires. The process that people go through as they adapt to, and adopt parts of the cultural system of another people, is called acculturation.
When this happens rapidly, people tend to go through the following stages: initially, there is a negative attitude towards the new practices and its acceptance; secondly, there is then an increased acceptance by the more daring; thirdly, if the process continues, it leads to a wholehearted acceptance of the new, and quite a bit of the traditional culture is rejected; and fourthly, after some time in stage three, disillusionment sets in for those who gave themselves over to the new culture and became an elite group. They realise that they are not able (or allowed) to fully participate in the society that they tried to enter. Kraft (
The elite, who a few years earlier eagerly sought to identify themselves with the ways of the West in dress, education, food and politics, and who often deprecated their own culture and its achievements, now lead their people in a search to discover the essence of their traditional cultural forms. (p. 368)
One problem with colonial conquest is that it is carried out with an attitude of superiority. The colonists are the more powerful – the educated and civilised. They take over a territory from supposedly inferior beings, underserving of the freedom of choice. The worldview, culture and intellectual ability of the colonised do not matter – in fact these thing do not even exist in the mind of the colonist.
Maluleke (
Furthermore, we have noted that Rahab is without religion, without culture, without history, without soul and without self consciousness. Her invaders are human; she is ‘a thing that is, but only insofar as it is nothing’. Yet her invaders con her into thinking otherwise. With the invaders presence, she thinks that she graduates from nothingness into being something. And yet it is the very deal with her invaders which seals her fate as a ‘thing’ and a ‘non-I’. She is of course ‘a thing of value’ insofar as she is a tool of and for imperialism and colonisation. Rahab ‘possesses life, property, and body as if they were alien things’. She, her land and her people can therefore be invaded with impunity. Like Africa and Orientalism, Rahab is an
Worldview is at the heart of culture and entails the paradigmatic assumptions, valuations and allegiances that underlie culture. The ideal society would operate in a healthy manner with these functions carried out effectively and the entire society pervaded with a sense of equilibrium and cohesiveness (Kraft
We noted earlier that societies change. Often these changes take place too rapidly and on too large a scale. The result is that people’s sense of security and satisfaction is disturbed. This disruption can lead to, in the first place, sociocultural crises followed by breakdown – maybe war, natural calamity, or the imposition of the customs and worldview of some foreign entity. Secondly, it necessitates a search for regrouping; the ideal resolution of the crisis, and thirdly, the society’s survival of stage two and the subsequent formulation of a new steady state and a return to relative equilibrium. A simple model of this process of worldview transformation can be presented as follows:
People usually consider their customs and cultures to be correct, sacred, or even absolute. Still, it must not be imposed on others. Our Christian witness challenges both ourselves and other societies to live as Jesus did in what might be called ‘Kingdom normalcy’ (Kraft
After the Synod of Dordrecht, the Remonstrants were banned from ministry and from the Netherlands. This was the crisis that challenged their old steady state. In desperation, they later started their own church: The Remonstrant Brotherhood. This gave them some equilibrium in a new steady state. The Calvinists said the founding of the Remonstrant Brotherhood proved that the Remonstrants were never interested in unity, theological debate or finding common ground (Voogt
As if a victory for the Calvinists was not enough, the Remonstrants were killed and banned – almost completely obliterated. In South Africa, through colonisation, the inhabitants of the land were pushed aside and made subject to foreigners taking over their land. Colonisation is not interested in cohabitation; it wants to control, to take over, to rule and oppress. But to rule is not enough. Their subjects are dehumanised and treated like worthless ‘things’ in Maluleke’s terms. This is an untenable situation, and sooner rather than later one can expect an uprising by the oppressed to claim back their liberty and humanity.
When common ground is not found, and tolerance and mutual understanding is not promoted, it leads to animosity and hostility. The Remonstrants did not want to split from the church and tried their best to find a solution. When it became clear that they would not be heard or taken seriously, it drove them over the edge, and they started a church to express their beliefs. This is a crucial lesson for the current Africanisation debate. Far too long Colonialist and Apartheid authorities bullied their opponents into submission. Like the Remonstrants, they are now rising and rebelling against such injustices.
It is imperative for the church in South Africa, and especially the white church, not to respond to this challenge with the same defensiveness as 17th century Calvinism, but to engage with role players and to suggest directives on societal challenges and doctrinal issues, which are exegetically and doctrinally sound. This is even more critical in our postmodern era where there is a growing negligence or apathy regarding doctrine; Paul’s word to Timothy seems rather applicable today: ‘For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine’ (2 Tm 4:3). The church will do well to get involved and to encourage mutually beneficial conversations to take place. Where the church supported and established colonial supremacy, either directly or indirectly, it must now fight it as agents of the
Four hundred years after the Synod of Dordrecht, the debate between Calvinists and Arminians still rages on. Olson (
Before responding to the other, make sure you have studied their view and understand it as well as possible.
Do not assault a
Both sides should be willing to admit their weaknesses and shortcomings:
If we point out apparent inconsistencies in the other party’s views and argue that inconsistency shows weakness, we should not pretend that our own view is free of such flaws. (Olson
Both sides should refrain from making assumptions about the other – assumptions that might be speculative or false. This happens when one strings together some of their viewpoints and concludes that: ‘this is the logical consequence of their belief’ (Olson
Kraft (
Each culture is relative to other cultures. Every culture is tempted to idolise its culture and treat it as universally binding – to the detriment and harm of others.
Each party to a relationship must have their own voice and the right to speak without the threat of censure and with the assurance of being respected and valued; this implies forming voluntary relationships with people – often across cultural, linguistic and ethnic boundaries.
Expect new light to break through as a result of intercultural relationships. The biblical vision of redemption is that people of different races, languages and cultures will be gathered around the throne of God (Rv 5:9–10). Note that diversity is not suspended, but rather embraced (Arles
A new perspective (a renewed mind) leads to changes in our habitual behaviour. All sociocultural change starts with changes in the minds of individuals. As missiologists, we are interested in change; we want people to change in ways that will enable them to serve Christ better. It is important, however, that these changes cause as little disruption as possible. Therefore, we must learn as much as we can about cultural change: what causes change, what happens when people change their cultures, et cetera.
When we reflect on intercultural encounters, our model should be Jesus himself. He embodied the
He identified with his receptors. Just like Jesus was incarnated into the society that he wanted to reach, we need to be willing to enter sympathetically into the receptor’s way of life.
Jesus was receptor-orientated. His primary concern was that those who listen to him and watched him would have a decent chance to understand him and to respond to his message. He spoke a language they could understand and used cultural forms that they were familiar with.
He gave himself to his hearers in two-way communication: he did not do all the talking, but was open to questions and discussions.
His communication went beyond verbal communication. He demonstrated the message. ‘If you have seen me you have seen the Father’ (Jn 14:9).
Jesus did not have to demand respect, but earned it.
Jesus did not minister to people in general, but dealt with specific people. Although his message was for all mankind, he took the time to communicate it individually.
He also spoke into specific situations, contextualising his message.
He refrained from information overload.
People were challenged to self-discovery through his teaching. Instead of systematically transferring his whole message to people, he revealed it in smaller parts and allowed them to discover truths from there.
Jesus trusted his receptors and sent them into the world to continue with the preaching of the Good News (Kraft
Jesus can take over this world forcefully and rule with an iron sceptre if he wants to – he is in fact God. He must simply give the command and legions of angels will forcefully colonise the world. Yet, he gave up equality with the Father to become one of us; humbling himself even to the extreme of the cross (Phlp 2:6–8). And then he said: ‘As the Father has sent me, I’m sending you’ (Jn 20:21). The mission of God is our mission too.
The start of decolonising education in South Africa is the decolonisation of peoples’ minds (Dladla
Maluleke uses Francis Nyamnjoh’s book,
Maluleke (
Reflection on the decolonisation of the curriculum, and in our case, the theological curriculum, needs to be driven by a suitable missional hermeneutic that reflects on the theological curriculum, the Bible and the contemporary context. This needs to be a truly African hermeneutic if we want the decolonisation of the curriculum to succeed. Africa has a contribution to make: ‘African theological approaches have bidden farewell to hermeneutical innocence’ (Maluleke
… the reinvigorating of Africa’s intellectuals, and the production of knowledge, which is relevant, effective and empowering for the people of the African continent, and more particularly, the immediate African societies that the universities serve. (p. 49)
Students need African experiences: the teaching style, examples used, models, interpretations and concepts need to be Africanised. It is not only the source of knowledge that must be questioned, but also who researches and teaches it (Webbstock
If theologians wait for politicians to take the lead in finding solutions to the decolonised curriculum – as was the case with the Synod of Dordrecht – we are in for the same result. The church has an indisputable role to play and must take initiative in intercultural mediation. Decolonisation and Africanisation is nothing new: throughout the Bible and church history the church has grappled with the gospel’s reception and adaptation in different eras and contexts. If Maluleke is right that missions and missionaries promoted colonialism, then it is time for missiology to take responsibility for its part in this injustice and right its historical wrongs.
Although all theological disciplines communicate faith, what sets missiology apart is that it communicates faith across the boundaries of cultural meaning-systems to non-Christians – traditionally referred to as pagans or Gentiles. Missiology is the study of the church’s boundary-crossing: boundaries in both the temporal and geographical sense (Arles
… mission is not just a matter of understanding the other but also of transmitting the faith. Communication relates to faith from the perspective of the sender, hermeneutics relates to faith from the perspective of the recipient. (p. 57)
Intercultural theology is the exchange of thoughts and learning from one another – although this dialogue is mostly problematic and conflictive (Arles
What works against a missional hermeneutic, is that mission is no longer the heart of theological training – be it in the minority world or in the majority world (Mashau
Decolonisation of education, especially in South Africa, must start with an understanding of the colonial framework. Niemandt (
The intellectual control has been in the hands of colonial and postcolonial imperialists far too long. To be confronted with the colonial framework, we must listen to the voices of those who were on the receiving end of colonial oppression. We might not like what we hear; in wilful ignorance I made myself believe that colonialism was state-driven and that missionaries simply capitalised on this opportunity to bring the gospel to the
Her complicity with her invaders and conquerors; her awe for and submission to them, as well as her hasty and eager ‘settlement deal’ with them is mind-boggling. Surely, she cannot be real … Her behaviour, her actions and words, are all loaded with the logic of imperialism and the fantasy of colonialism. The deal she strikes with her invaders – as with all the deals between the conqueror and the vanquished – is a most hollow one. To save her life she sells her soul, her land and her people. She is therefore not equal to her invaders who only have to promise to spare her life and that of her family. (p. 505–506)
Maluleke (
When the white man first came to our country, he had the Bible and we had the land. He said, ‘let us pray to God’. We closed our eyes and joined him in prayer. When we opened our eyes at the end of the prayer, we saw that we now had the Bible and he had the land. (p. 512)
He (Maluleke
Indeed the Bible and Christianity have been powerful media in the hands of subjects of both the colony and the postcolony … The Bible has provided a common language between the coloniser and the colonised, the ruling classes and the rulers. Through it, the poor, the voiceless and those who represent them have managed to occasionally get through to the rich. But it has also strengthened and cemented relations between the rich and those poor trying to break out of poverty. (p. 517)
Black theologians have pointed out that ‘the Bible is not innocent’. What will always haunt us is that the Bible was used in conquest. Therefore, postcolonial mission is very difficult. Maluleke (
In the postcolony, religion, especially Christianity, is part of the problem. Christian mission, as experienced by many Africans since the 15th century has been part of the colonisation. The Bible is the colonial text
As humans, we are prone to conflict when it comes to self-preservation. Therefore, it is fitting to close with an important contribution by Kraft (
This is fruitful soil for a missional hermeneutic of
I declare that I have no financial or personal relationships which may have inappropriately influenced me in writing this article.
P.H.J.L. declares that he is the sole author of this research article.
This article followed all ethical standards for carrying out research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the authors.