The Audacity of White South Africans

South Africa, the so-called rainbow nation went through what disillussioned white people termed “Black Monday” a few days ago. This was a public protest in which the white people who were involved claimed that they were protesting in response to the farm murders that are happening in our country. Many of them claim that there is a white genocide in the country, the audacity. This effectively means that the white people who are convicted of this ideal believe that in South Africa, there is a coordinated, intentional and premeditated murder of specifically white farmers across the country. The holders of privilege today took the position of the vulnerable, the predator took the position of the prey[1], the oppressor cried oppression and the orchestrators of brutality for decades in this country, today took the position of fearing for their lives; the audacity.

Firstly let me put one point across, the murder of any person should be strongly condemned. However, any context consists of many narratives, some are hidden and some are intentionally not heard or ignored; these narratives belong to those in the margins of society, the poor. There is also a dominant narrative, this narrative normally belongs to those who are at the center, the ones who enjoy the fruits the given context has to offer. This dominant narrative looks down upon and finds the oppressed narratives to not be important and thus with it’s louder voice tramples and speaks over them. Black Monday is succintly a dominant narrative that is told by those who occupy the centre, those who enjoy the wealth of this country. This narrative prioritizes the killing of especially white farmers, giving priority to white bodies.[2] For decades black bodies have been murdered, cheapened and taken to be less than human. Black people are still at the end of many murders in this country, but their death is not important enough to take to the streets, as Itumeleng Mosala would say ‘black blood is cheap’.

Before I expound on these oppressed narratives, there is a fallacy that I also wish to dispel. There has been a narrative that black people can be racist, or at least have a racist attitude towards white people. This, in my opinion can only be explained by a lack of understanding of the term[3]. The operative terms when defining racism is racial superiority. It is the belief that members of a certain race are born with abilities and characteristics that are specific to them and this therefore inherently makes them a superior race. In our history, there is only one race that is guilty of this. Black hate for the white race is a response to their racism, but this response cannot be classified as racism. We have black folk who still struggle with an inferiority complex as a result of apartheid. We therefore do not believe in the inherent superiority of the black race, and thus by definition cannot have racially discriminative posture towards the white race.

Let us now get back to the different narratives. It is imperative that oppressed narratives be listened to in order to create a complete picture of what happens in these farms where ‘white genocide takes place’. Farms have and continue to be the places where one of the most violent manifestations of racism takes place. We all know this, and we choose to ignore it. It is one of the places where black workers are stripped off their dignity, but continue to work because they need to feed their families. Many oppressed stories came out in the previous week that can help us understand the retaliation[4] of black people in these farms. Johannes Baadjies, a farmworker was beaten to a pulp in Lutzville by his white employer[5]. As if this was not enough humiliation, the white employer offerred Johannes R400 to not tell the truth behind his bruised body and consequently not open a case[6]. A story also broke out concerning Tebogo Ndlovu, a young boy who was shot and killed by a white farmer, and in an attempt to hide or get rid of the body, it was fed to crocodiles. The crime that he committed for this gruesome murder is that he stole ten oranges. I came across this story on social media, and not on any published media platform. We have had white farmers who have ‘mistakenly’ killed black people because they thought they were monkey’s. In this Black Monday march, we had white people carrying the apartheid flag, which is a slap in the face of every person of colour in this country. There are many examples of these oppressed narratives that by definition are oppressed by the dominant narratives.

For how long were black people supposed to be mistreated in these farms? For how long were they supposed to lose their dignity? What is supposed to happen when people are tired of being beaten up? When they are tired of being killed and humiliated? What is suppossed to happen when white people publicly put up signs saying “No Boer No Pap”? Is black blood so cheap that when it spills life goes on but when white blood spills white people call for a national day of mourning and call it Black Monday? The audacity! By definition and historically, Black Monday refers  to specific Mondays where horrific events have transpired. It has therefore been used to designate massacres, military battles and also stock market crashes. Therefore “black” constitues the pain and suffering that is a result of these tragedies. We have come to accept the fallacy that our skin colour is a metaphor for evil, for pain, suffering and mourning. The white marchers used this generalization that we have internalized to march for white lives and calling it Black Monday. The evil here that causes the loss of white lives is the colour Black, the audacity!

As I conclude my opinion piece, the truth here is that black people experience a variety of different forms of violence in this country on a daily basis. Black people still need to contend with structural violence that manifests itself in poverty, inequality and unemployment which makes most of them spectators in the economic and political framework of the country. Black people are landless and are excluded from real economic opportunities. All of this violence that manifests in such a variety of forms might be too much to handle for many people. Afri forum and all those involved only concern themselves with the lives of the privileged and rich minority of this country who are directly and historically responsible for the situation the black nation finds itself in today, the audacity! It seems privilege is not something they are willing to give up anytime soon. They even had to march for it, reconciliation is nothing but wraith talk.

---

[1] Metaphoical language

[2] Which is really not something new

[3] The Oxford dictionary defines racism as a “belief in the superiority of a particular race”

[4] If it can be classified as this

[5] No article mentions the white farmers name

[6] Article can be found here: https://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/farmworker-offered-r400-to-drop-assault-case-2091771

#FeesMustFall: An Opinion

The issue of #FessMustFall has brought with it much controversy and thus brought the country to a standstill. This movement has often been characterized by what people have called senseless violence. This violence has mostly been palmed off to students have been standing up to a system that has and continues to exclude the majority of black[1] children from quality tertiary education. The Church has been caught off-guard, especially with regards to ways that it supports the call for free, decolonized education by the South African youth. It has often spoken along the lines, “We support the call for free education but condemn the burning of buildings”. I have thus associated the churches and most of society’s response to the student’s call as one that supports, but condemns.

I neither wish to speak on this issue from an economical nor a political lens, but rather a theological one. Theologically, liberation orientated scholars have often argued about the partiality of God, that God takes sides and is never neutral in situations teeming with injustice. Furthermore, God does not side with the powers that be, but rather with the victims of that power and/or the collateral damage that it leaves in its wake. Can then, fundamentally, the Church who is the chief manifestation of this prejudiced God, support but condemn simultaneously? Is the Church effectively saying that it supports the cries of the oppressed but condemns their attempt at breaking free from intentional structural chains? On which side of the coin do we as a Church belong? I understand that as part of the Church we cannot be seen to be supporting any kind of violence, but we are at least called to search beneath the surface to understand its causes. This assertion is primarily taken from the premise that students are directly responsible for the burning of buildings, which in reality is not an infallible fact. But let us assume that it is, does it then, in principle hinder the Church from supporting without condemning?

In his book, The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon argues that violence is the only means through which a colonized or an oppressed people can redefine or re-create themselves. In essence, Fanon argues that decolonization is always a violent event[2]. I therefore ponder if there is anything that can be known to be a peaceful revolution. Can people revolt without violence being the by-product thereof? If not, then where would the Church place itself, where would the Church locate justice that it would side with it? Would it be the unjust system that has disenfranchised black people for as long as we can remember, or the revolt that is an intrinsically violent protest against such exclusion from your own country’s resources? I ask again, in this context, can the Church that is a manifestation of this prejudiced God still afford to “support but condemn”?  

Upon the ushering of the new democracy, free education was one of the foremost promises made by the ruling party. This made sense because white and black people did not stand on equal footing, and due to the dispensation of apartheid, many black families would not be able to afford quality education. Therefore in order for the black child to be educated in such a manner that they can participate effectively in the economy of the country, education had to be free, it had to be a right and not a privilege. Twenty two years later no strides have been made to make good on the promise[3], and we find that all of this violence abounds, in principle because of something that was agreed upon twenty two years ago. I struggle when people pose questions such as “where would government get the money from?” when they have had twenty two years to figure that out. Perhaps the best way for us as the Church to understand these violent outbursts is to understand black pain. For how long were black people supposed to be obedient to exclusion, disenfranchisement and structural racism in tertiary education? Perhaps we need to ponder where justice lies between the powers that be and the victims of that power, such that we might side with it. We nevertheless join the struggle for free, quality, decolonized and Afro-centric education in our lifetime.

---

[1] It affects mostly, but is not limited to black students.

[2]Fanon. F. 1967. The Wretched of the Earth. London: Penguin Books. Pg. 27-29

[3] Apart from NSFAS which in essence is a loan, and bursaries which do not form a part of policy regarding free education.

Racism - Black and White South Africans in a Stalemate

Racism – Black and White South Africans in a Stalemate[1]

Racism is at the heart of the problems that South Africa as a nation faces in the democratic dispensation. This is a truth that many do not want to accept, people hoped that by pretending that it does not exist it will quietly dissipate by itself. From the political arena to religious platforms and even within communities, no active conversations about race exist; bar those with an accusatory tone. It is as if the country believes that when apartheid as a regime collapsed, so did racism. But what most South Africans are naïve about is that while apartheid was a form of governance that discriminated people based on colour, racism was (is) a state of mind. And while laws and systems of governance can be legislatively disintegrated, it is not as easy to deal with a person’s state of mind. The country wants to almost sweep the issue under the carpet, but centuries of oppression; first colonial then apartheid make that an impossible feat. This piece argues that racism has always been an issue among black and white South Africans. It has always been bubbling beneath the surface, something that people spoke about under their breath within their respective circles. Penny Sparrow[2] broke her silence, and she represents the opinions of many white South Africans. Velaphi Khumalo[3], in response to Penny Sparrow also represents the opinions of many black South Africans. Therefore I argue that black and white South Africans have reached a stalemate with regards to racism in South Africa. Both have reached a stage where neither is willing to budge from where they stand, therefore dialogue on the issue is of utmost importance.

Reconciliation was the gospel that was preached when South Africa had its first democratically elected president. Black South Africans had to find it within their hearts to forgive what apartheid had put them through. This was seen in the project of the TRC, the proponents of reconciliation almost pressured black South Africans into forgiving the atrocities of apartheid. One young black woman exclaimed: What makes me really angry about the TRC and Tutu is that they are putting pressure on us to forgive. For most black South Africans the TRC is about us having to forgive…the oppression was bad but what is much worse, what makes me more even more angry (sic) is that they are trying to dictate my forgiveness.[4]Because of how impatient reconciliation was, the forgiveness confessedby black South Africans was not earnest.They publicly expressed forgiveness but secretly nurtured resentment.  While white South Africans have expressed and continue to express regret for the atrocities of apartheid, it is also not true that all of them believe that they are equal with black people. If anything, the racist slurs that dominated social media conveyed that certain white South Africans do not want to share the amenities of the country with black South Africans. The comments have also showed that certain white South Africans have become apathetic about apartheid because they feel black people ought to be over it by now. For most white people, this is fueled by the belief that they did not take an active part in the apartheid regime, their ancestors did.

I therefore argue that black South Africans are still hanging on to anger and resentment because of apartheid. Not only because of the regime, but also because of its legacy that continues to give preferential treatment and thus unequal opportunities based on skin colour. Many of white South Africans show a lack of compassion by their insistence that black people are not willing to let go of the past. They feel that apartheid is now being blamed for every evil that happens in South Africa and are therefore tired of apologizing about the past. I contend that because of this, black and white South Africans find themselves in a stalemate. The country will not pay attention to this at its own peril. If the country is to heal, constructive and earnest conversations about race need to be created. We need not to be afraid to speak about colour, because currently, race almost seems like a taboo subject. All people; Black, White, Indian or Coloured, belong and are made in the image of God. The covenant between us and God is both vertical and horizontal[5], that while we have peace with God, we also must have peace amongst each other.We therefore need to have peace across our racial lines, and recognize each other as human beings, and not what colour our skin is.

---

[1] My reference to black and white bias in the article is neither statistical nor empirical, it is rather a phenomenological study.

[2] Referred to black people as monkeys. She commented that they flood the beaches and leave them in a dirty state.

[3] Stated that white South Africans needed to leave the country and that they should be treated like how Hitler treated the Jews.

[4] This was quoted from the Sunday Independent Newspaper, 6 December 1998.

[5] The symbol of the Cross.

The BMC - A Personal Opinion

The BMC – A Personal Opinion

The Black Methodist Consultation[1] has recently come under a lot of scrutiny. It has not only been scrutinized at the hands of white, but also black Methodists. People have displayed their opinions, mainly at a church body that defines itself along racial lines and how this should not be the case in the democratic dispensation South Africa finds itself in. Like everyone else, this presents my opinion on the BMC as it is currently. It is not my aim to discuss the relevance of such a body, but rather if the current form of the BMC is making a difference in normal black people’s lives. It is my assertion that the only thing people have a problem with is the word “black” in the BMC. This is because we are a country that still finds it difficult to speak about colour. This confirms that we are nowhere near a state of healing as all of us, white and black; still find it uncomfortable to speak about issues of colour. This, however, is not the focus of this piece.

The relation between the Black Consciousness Movement[2], Black theology and the BMC cannot be disputed.[3] Therefore, by implication the BMC adopts the philosophy of the BCM and Black theology presents the praxis[4] or framework that the movement employs. Black Theology is understood, by its proponents as the theological aspect of the BCM. Whether or not the BMC still consciously recognizes this, I am not convinced. Black theology has also come under a lot of fire for its insistence on using the term ‘black’. Black theologians have gone at lengths to argue that the term only secondarily connote skin colour. The term black carried with it huge socio-economic and political implications, therefore the name was used as a synonym. Black was (It still is!) synonymous with oppression, poverty, disease and barbarism. Loosely termed, Black theology is a theology of the oppressed, the poor and downtrodden[5]. Black theology also understands that traditional theology[6] has done its theology through the eyes of the elite and the powerful so as to keep to the status quo. Black theology does theology through a preferential option for the poor. Black theologians assert boldly that God is on the side of the oppressed. Because God is not neutral, theology cannot be neutral and consequently this means the same for the Church[7]. Secondly, during apartheid every other race in South Africa was not referred to by their skin colour, but rather as non-whites (non-people). Theologically, this implied that black people were negative images of whites, while whites were made in the image of God blacks were made in the image of whites[8]. Therefore the term ‘black’ was compulsory because it put in perspective the ontology of the black person in relation to God.

The BMC, in its current form fails to reach out to the normal black person. As a young boy, growing up in the township, I have never felt the BMC was a space I would even be welcome in. The truth is; the BMC is a formation of not just black people, but the black elite. The movement that claims it exists for the benefit of the black people does so through speech. They discuss the plight of the black person in a high tea. The paradox is mind-boggling. In order for the BMC to be effective, the bulk of its membership should consist of the black church, not the black elite and/or leaders. Mosala has argued that the reason Black theology had not become the property of the people “…may lie in the class positions and class commitments of its proponents.[9] I believe the BMC also finds itself in the same predicament. As long as it stays like this, it will continue being a lion without teeth and it will persist in being a ladder for black Ministers with respect to positions. With this being said, it is still my conviction that the BMC, as a lion with teeth would play an imperative role in society and the Church. In my judgment, the BMC needs to concentrate on the praxis, the framework, which is Black theology. They need to look at society from the lens of the oppressed, poor, outcast and the downtrodden. The movement must understand that this is who they exist for, the poor.

Black theologians have asserted that if you want to find God at work, go to the poor and the outcasts. The BMC needs to employ Black theology not only as a way of doing theology but as a framework. They need to allow people to learn that salvation is not an eschatological escape from this world to the next. It is not an escape from this life of oppression and hunger to a spiritual life of milk and honey. But Jesus liberates us now, from our social, physical and spiritual constraints. The BMC and ultimately the Church become catalysts for this salvation. The BMC must preach Christ the liberator, who came for the sick, downtrodden and oppressed. The BMC must remain a figure of Moses[10], and not that of Nehemiah[11], we cannot rebuild when there are people still stuck in the land of oppression.

---

[1] Hereafter referred to as the BMC

[2] Hereafter referred to as the BCM

[3] Ndikho Mtshiselwa puts this point across in his work. Mtshiselwa, N., 2015, ‘The emergence of the Black Methodist Consultation and its possible prophetic voice in post-apartheid South Africa’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 71(3),

[4] Praxis is a Greek term which when translated means “to work”

[5] Black theologians who make this assertion are to mention but a few, Simon Maimela, Bonganjalo Goba, Manas Buthelezi and Allan Boesak

[6] i.e. Western theology

[7] Maimela, S. 1986. Current Themes and Emphases in Black Theology. In: Mosala, I, J; Tlhagale, B. The Unquestionable Right To Be Free: Essays in Black Theology. Johannesburg: Skotaville Publishers. pg. 101-112

[8] Balia D.M. 1989. Christian Resistance to Apartheid. Braamfontein: Skotaville Publishers

[9] Mosala, I. 1986. The Use of the Bible in Black Theology. In: Mosala I. Tlhagale , B. The Unquestionable Right to be Free: Essays in Black Theology. Johannesburg: Skotaville Publishers. Pg. 175-204

[10] A figure of liberation (the Exodus story)

[11] A figure of reconstruction (the rebuilding of the Temple)

To Loot Or Not To Loot

The country has once again experienced a hate crime, a crime committed from a place of detestation. Some, however argue that this is not so, these are crimes committed purely due to people living in poverty, which is a result of unemployment. Whatever side of the argument one falls in, we have to agree on one point, it is still a crime. The looting of shops that are owned by people who are foreign but reside in our country is nothing short of shameful. Incidents were widely reported in Soweto, where many stores were looted, leaving shop owners with little to recover their businesses in order to provide for their families. A case has also been reported in Atteridgeville, Pretoria where a young boy was allegedly shot dead by a shop owner during the act of looting. A case was also reported in Durban, where two foreign men were shot dead when robbers were attempting to steal from their shop. In citing these events, I hope to illustrate that this is a sickness that is attempting to spread all over the country.

South African people, for some reason, believe violence to be an appropriate response to any situation. This can be seen in the xenophobic attacks, violent service delivery protests and the recent looting of foreign owned shops to mention but a few. I am of the idea that looting is a response, a response to what exactly I do not know. But South Africans responded in the only way they know how, through violence. Wessel Bentley[1] (2012:54) a South African theologian relates that the violent behaviour of South Africans cannot be separated from their past.  Bentley states that this country has a past that is not only violent, but also divided. One not only has to take into consideration the apartheid regime, but also the fact that South Africa, like most African countries, was subject to colonial rule. Succinctly put, South Africa is the epitome of a nation in conflict, we are a violent people. Bentley then asserts that as much as we have enjoyed the transition from an oppressive past to a democratic nation, we still are a people born of violence. Another African scholar, Chielozona Eze[2] (2005:2&3) who is of Nigerian descent takes an interesting standpoint when dealing with African states that have a history of violence and oppressive rule. He asserts that Africans in post-colonial Africa have no sense of responsibility. He argues that this is not particularly because of oppressive regimes (colonisation & apartheid) but the attitude that was and is adopted towards it. Elaborately put, the lack of responsibility refers to African leaders and Africans alike refusing to be held accountable or to have a sense of accountability. This is because, Eze argues, they believe that it is someone outside of their space or circle that has caused things to fall apart. This conviction leads Africans to believe that the people responsible for things falling apart should be accountable for picking up the debris. Someone out there is responsible, but the African is not. Eze continues to argue that since the African leader is not responsible for things falling apart, s/he is able to look at him/herself in the mirror while pilfering his/her nation’s wealth. This also means that the normal South African can violently kill, steal, loot and still be able to look at themselves in the mirror. This is a mess Africans feel they did not cause, and are therefore not responsible for cleaning it up.

Upon observation, I therefore argue that South Africans are not only violent because of their past, but the past makes them feel justified in their violence. African people need to free themselves of the hate that is oppressing them. The fact that they feel that they are not responsible is because of the hate that the past has conjured up. This makes them unable to look into themselves with a critical eye, to put their leaders and what they are doing to each other under critical observation. The sooner the African people realise that no one will save them but themselves, will be the day they free themselves of the hate, or as Eze puts it, resentment. Once this happens, they will cease to feel justified in their violence. Eze puts this brilliantly when he says “If African intellectuals can ever come to the idea of nation building it has to begin with letting go of inherited spirit of rancour against some foreign enemy, who is forever bent on demolishing Africa and whose nature is essentially evil; Africa has to free itself of resentment, and face the tasking demands of our global era” (2005:13).

---

[1]

Bentely, W., 2012. Is Love Enough? - Towards a Theological Ethic of Nonviolence in South Africa. Journal of Theology for Southern Africa, 144(142), pp. 53-68.

[2] Eze, C., 2005. Resentment and the African Condition: An Inquiry. Michigan: MPublishing. pp 1-21

Evil is Evil, Good is Good.

It was a rather dull Wednesday morning; I was alone and not feeling well so it was a difficult one. I then had the sudden urge to read the Bible and sure enough a scriptural passage not only pierced through my heart but it also had my brain running at full speed. It challenged me, the church that I am a part of and mostly the country and continent that I belong to. It was the kind of passage that jumps out the Bible and demands your attention. Perhaps let me share this scripture and how it challenged not only my thinking but my role within my community at large.

The scripture is found on the book of Isaiah 5:20-23 and it reads as thus: ‘Ah, you who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Ah, you who are wise in your own eyes, and shrewd in your own sight! Ah, you who are heroes in drinking wine and valiant at mixing drink, who acquit the guilty for a bribe, and deprive the innocent of their rights!” NRSV

This writer, supposedly Isaiah, sketched this passage within a certain context. The people of Israel and Judah had become self-absorbed and had forgotten what it means to live in community, especially since Yahweh is a communal God. Barnes relates that biblically, the term darkness denotes “ignorance, error, false doctrine, crime” whereas the term light denotes “truth, knowledge and piety”. Bitterness signifies sin (see Acts 8:23; Romans 3:14 & Ephesians 4:31). The implication of how this term is used in this passage implies that sin is bitter, and has a bitter outcome and holiness is sweet, and has a pleasurable outcome. The passage speaks of people who have become inflated with their own knowledge, one that leads them to cease from being led by the one who gives such knowledge. It also speaks of how the guilty were set free through bribes and the innocent robbed of their rights. I reckon that Israel and Judah became a society that was poverty stricken, disease stricken and violently tempered not because God had turned his back on them, but because of all the injustice that they allowed to creep into their society.

In South Africa, we live in a context where the majority of its people are Christian but often times one is tempted to think that God has relocated. This country has just undergone two trails where two men had brutally killed the women they claim to love. The first one, Oscar Pistorius was found not to have committed murder and thus charged with manslaughter. In the second trial Dewani was found not to be guilty of the murder of his wife. In December I had to bury an aunt who was murdered then raped, yes in that order. Recently in uMbulumbulu a 15 year old girl was found hanged on a tree wearing nothing on her lower body with evidence of sexual assault. Through observation, we have a nation that has come to accept such violence and is not angered by it. They are more angered by how the national soccer team performs, and many are angrier at the fact that we were knocked out of the AFCON. We are an angry nation, but sadly we are angry at the wrong things.

The poverty, crime, maladministration of funds, disease and unemployment remain the biggest challenges that should anger South Africans. But the national soccer team angers them even more. Haven’t we as a nation, defined good as evil, darkness as light and bitterness as sweet? Has not our police force and judiciary system failed the victims and the innocent but condoned and acquitted the evil doers? The task of the Church remains huge, but first it has to speak!!! Rev. Nyobole, the ex-General Secretary of Conference (MCSA) was conducting a workshop. In speaking about the witness of the church, he stated that the Church cannot relate to this government like they did to the apartheid government. This was because the current government is democratic and therefore belongs to the people. Due to this, he stated that when they have objections to certain things, the heads of the church request meetings with that department to express their concerns.

I still feel that this does not capture what witnessing is, corruption is public and the people feel its wrath. Crime, poverty and unemployment are also public. How then does the witness of the Church remain private? How is it okay that people who are affected by these challenges do not hear the Church denouncing them? The people who get to hear about these concerns are the propagators. I thus argue that it is the role of the church to audibly define good from evil, light from darkness and bitter from sweet. 

God-Talk and Violence

The world is being once again overcome by the violence that is being committed in the name of religion. Reading about these events and the opinions of certain individuals, it has become a passion to try to understand God in the midst of all of these tragedies. Interestingly, I have an uncle who is a staunch and outspoken atheist. He claims that religion is responsible for all of the wrong things in this world. It is thus not surprising that current events involving the Boko Haram have given him more than a leg to stand on. This article was inspired by a Facebook post that he put up. Its contents were as thus “I enjoy killing anyone that God commands me to kill, the way I enjoy killing chickens and rams.” This was a quote he took from Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau. He further stated that this was done in the name of religion and ended off his post by stating “…imagine the world without religion”

One cannot dismiss the terror that religion has unleashed on people, especially people in the African continent. To give evidence to this claim, one only has to look at the era of the crusades and how violence was interpreted as a means to bring honour to God. One can also cite the heresy that was apartheid, a system that insisted the superiority of a certain race over others. Unfortunately, this is a legacy (racism) that South Africa is still struggling with. One can never forget the tragic time in American history when the Twin Towers in New York came down and grief overcame the whole world, in the name of God. Contemporary cases are seen with the Boko Haram who are forcefully attempting to establish an Islamic estate in Northern Nigeria. Boko Haram is currently a terror that does not have any regard for human life, terrorising and killing in the name of God. Recently, the world was shook with the shooting that took place in Paris. Islamic extremists opened fire in a publication house that published satirical cartoons of Mohammed. A total of twelve people died from this gruesome attack, in the name of defending God. We live in an era where certain people who believe that the same God who created all things seen and unseen, and gives life to everyone that has it, somehow needs us to defend her. This is confusing.

These are the facts that non-believers of religion seem to be throwing in the faces of those who believe. But is it safe to assume that just because they kill in the name of God it then follows that religion welcomes violence? I concede that us, the people who believe in God are more repulsed and vexed at this situation than the atheists who “imagine a world without religion” as a peaceful one. Religion has been used as a tool for many years, mostly political. The examples cited above prove the likelihood of this assertion. Henceforth religion does not conjure up violence, but rather violence, oppression, discrimination and domination is a vision and religion becomes the vehicle upon which to arrive at that destination. We are irate because these people have hijacked our religion, our God and reduced what we revere to a tool to reach their evil ends. I confidently believe that no one who has been touched by the hand of God would consider taking a person’s life as something that would bring honour to God. A God of life, yes life, is a God that despite our doctrinal differences we believe in, a God of life.

With that said, I can think of few things that we can do in the name of God. We can respond to the terror that is in Boko Haram, bring safety and security to God’s people, in the name of God. We can work tirelessly to confront the challenge of poverty scourging through the African continent, in the name of God. We can respond to the diseases that kill our people every day, HIV and AIDS, the latest outburst of Ebola to mention a few, in the name of God. We can bring hope to the hopeless, in the name of God. As they kill in the name of God, let us heal and give life, in the name of God. A hijacked vehicle does not lawfully become the property of the hijacker. As long as we are steadfast in the work of God, God’s name will always bring a smile to God’s children.