BiAS 7 – The Bible and Politics in Africa
of one small segment of humanity – the privileged white Western, hetero-
sexual male – can no longer masquerade as representing the diversity and
fullness of God’s creation. Through the tidal wave of publications from “the
Other” – those who are different by virtue of race/ethnicity, gender identity,
sexual orientation, religion, and hemisphere – God is indeed “troubling the
waters”(Anderson 2009: 28).I am arguing that the Africanization of biblical studies in Africa (cf
Abognurin 2005) should be informed by the lived realities of Africans
and how these interact with biblical texts. African raw materials, African
frustrations and hopes must be the “raw stuff” that is at the heart of
African biblical studies. African biblical studies must not begin from
lofty theories coined by scholars in Europe and North America. African
biblical studies must not be galvanized by what a specific passage might
have meant initially to its readers many years ago. No. African biblical
studies must grapple with what a specific passage says to contemporary
Africans in the era of globalization, HIV, gender and political oppression
and other challenges. This, then, will be relevant biblical studies for
Africa.
The myth of a neutral biblical scholar has been exploded. At any rate,
trying to remain neutral while dealing with a “dangerously loaded text”
is naïve. Hans de Wit has acknowledged that the bible is a “double edged
sword” when arguing that, “[I]ndeed, many readings of the old book
have led to death, exclusion, colonialism, discrimination and slavery. But
others have led to freedom, salvation, conversion and new life”
(2009:28). Similarly, in relation to HIV, Gerald West says that sacred
texts have been quite strategic. He says, “[T]hey have the capacity to
stigmatise, discriminate and bring death; and they have the capacity to
embrace, affirm and bring life” (2011: 159)
Against this background, it is therefore important for an African biblical
scholar to discern which readings lead to death and which ones lead to
life. To shirk this responsibility in the name of “protecting scholarship
and maintaining high standards,” is, I am afraid, simply a failure of
nerve. Why should a biblical studies scholar in a publicly funded African
university refuse to distinguish between death dealing and life giving
interpretations of the bible? Why should s/he hesitate to contribute
towards liberating readings of the bible in the face of debilitating read-
ings of the same?
The Africanization of biblical studies will entail African scholars giving
primacy to African religio-cultural realities in the process of interpreta-