Decolonizing the Gospel of Love in Africa

Article

DecolonizingtheGospelofLoveinAfrica

WilliamI.Orbih

Citation: Orbih,WilliamI.2024. DecolonizingtheGospelofLovein Africa. Religions 15:519. https:// doi.org/10.3390/rel15050519

AcademicEditor:ChristopherMetress

Received:21March2024

Revised:13April2024

Accepted:16April2024

Published:23April2024

Copyright: © 2024bytheauthor. LicenseeMDPI,Basel,Switzerland. Thisarticleisanopenaccessarticle distributedunderthetermsand conditionsoftheCreativeCommons Attribution(CCBY)license(https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

TheologyDepartment,UniversityofNotreDame,NotreDame,IN46556,USA;worbih@nd.edu

Abstract: TheviolenceofmissionaryagentsonAfricanscontradictedthegospelofChrist’sredemptivelove,whichtheypreached.Inresponsetothecontemporarymanifestationsoftheviolenceand dehumanizationof“coloniallove”,thisarticleproposesthedecolonizationofthegospeloflove,both astheologicalhermeneuticandamoralimperativeintheAfricanChurch.IntheparableoftheGood Samaritan,Jesuscommandsustorecognizeeveryhumanbeingasaneighbor.Withinacolonial context,thismeansrejectingthedualisticlogicofcoloniallove,itssegregation,dehumanization, andviolence.

Keywords: coloniallove;Christ’slove;violence;colonialism;Christanethics;Africa

1.Introduction

ThisarticlestudieshowtheviolenceofmissionaryagentsagainstAfricanseffectively contradictedtheirgospelofChrist’sredeeminglove,perverting,intheprocess,thepower andbeautyoflove,whichChristopSchwobelaptlydescribesas“aconstitutivecharacteristicofChristianity”.1 AsWeanerG.Jeanrondlaments,“withintheChristianmovement,love hashadataintedhistory.Lovehasbeeninvokedinordertopunishchildren,topersecute non-believers,heretics,andrevolutionaries,toexcludeandevenburnwomenwhodared tochallengethepatriarchalorderinchurchandsociety”(Jeanrond 2010,p.26).Inmuch oftheAfricancontinent,whichwasevangelizedatthesametimeitwasbeingcolonized, whatwasproclaimedbytheactionsofthemissionarieswhosharedthesame“civilizing intent”withthecolonialadministratorscanbebestdescribedas“coloniallove”,which accordingtoCarolynUrenaisfoundedonanimperialistdualisticlogicandassuch“dangerouslyfetishizesthebelovedobjectandparticipateintheoppressionandsubjugationof difference”.2 UnlikeChrist’ssacrificialandtenderlove,colonialloveispretentious,racist, dehumanizing,andviolent.Locatedwithinandnourishedbythelogicofcoloniality,it,in turn,embodiesandperpetuatescoloniality’slogic,whichisessentiallyviolent.Whereas Christcamesothatwemayhaveabundantlife,coloniallovesegregateshumansocieties, stifleshumanlife,violateshumanbodies,andexertsdominationonhumangroups.

InresponsetowhatIwilldescribeascontemporarymanifestationsofcoloniallove, Iproposedecolonizingthegospelofloveasbothatheologicalhermeneuticandamoral imperativeintheAfricanChurch.Freeingthegospelofcolonialentrapmentsenergizesitto inspireaviolence-freeAfricancontinent,thatis,amongotherthings,acontinentwherethe humandignityofthemostvulnerablepopulationisalwaysrespected.Usingtheparable oftheGoodSamaritanasaparadigm,IarguethatJesus’“loveyourneighborasyourself” commandmentcallsustowidenourhorizons,whichinpractice,withinacolonialcontext, meansrejectingthedualisticlogicofcoloniallove,itssegregationanddehumanization,its violence,anditsnaturaltendencytooppress.

ThebackgroundtothistheologicalreflectionontheessenceanddemandsofChristian loveisahistoricalaccountofmissionaryactivitiesincolonialAfricaviarecoursetofictional andnon-fictionalresources.3 Inadditiontofictionalaccountscontainingintricatedetails usuallyglossedoverinnon-fictionalsources,asChinuaAchebeexplains,fictiongivesus “aheightenedsenseofourpersonal,socialandhumanreality”inawaynonon-fiction can(Achebe 1988).Usingbothhistoryandfictionthusaidsmeinemphasizingthemany

wayscoloniallogicandpoliticsmanifestedintheactionsofthemissionariesshapedand hamperedtheChristianmessagetheyproclaimed.Iamalsointerestedinsomeofthe concretewaysthecoloniallogicandhegemonycontinuetodominateAfricanreligious (Christian)ethics,manifestedintheongoingweaponizationofChristianethicstosilence women,genderminorities,andotherminorities.

Finally,whileIarguethathealingthewoundsinflictedonAfricanChristianityand societyduringcolonialevangelizationwillrequireinterruptingthecoloniallogicthathas setinmotiontheviciouscycleofviolencewiththelogicofChrist’slove,mydreamis modestratherthanutopic.ThisarticleisamodestappealtotheChurchinAfricato embraceitspropheticrole.ChristianityinAfricamustcontinuetoplayacrucialpartinthe ongoinghealingandreconciliationofamuch-batteredcontinent.Iam,however,convinced thatthisjourneyofhealingrequiresanawarenessofthecomplicityofChristianmissionary endeavorsincolonialAfricainmanyofthecontinent’senduringchallenges.

2.WhiteMissionariesandTheirBlackNeighbors:ColonialViolence

InAlanPaton’s CrytheBelovedCountry,aSouthAfricannovelwrittenduringapartheid, Absalom,sonofReverendStephenKumalo,ablackAnglicanpriest,“unintentionally” murdersArthurJarvis,awhiteman.4 Whatmakesthemurderparticularlytragicisthatthe whitemaninquestionwasamongthefewwhitesettlerssympathetictotheplightofthe blacknativesandcommittedtotearingdownthewallsofsegregation.Morefundamentally, hebelievedintheGod-givenhumandignityofblacksandwhite–blackequality.Hislove forthenativeswasneverindoubt;histragicdeathinspiredarevolutionofwhite–black love.WhatmakesArthurJarvisanunforgettablecharacterinAfricanfictionisthathe waswhatmanymissionariestoAfricaduringthecolonialera,unfortunately,werenot. WhilethemissionariesproclaimedtheessenceoftheChristianmessagewiththeirlips, theirheartsandactionsoftencontradictedthisholymessage.

ManyAfricannovelswrittenduringcolonialismandinthedecadesaftercolonialismofficiallyendedhighlightthiscontradictionthatoftenexistedbetweentheChristian messageofloveandtheattitudeofmissionariestowardsthenativestheypurportedtobe evangelizing.FerdinandOyono’sfirstnovel, Houseboy,isanexample.SaintPeterCatholic ChurchatDanganissegregated.Whilethewhitessitinmorecomfortablevelvet-covered armchairsnearthealtar,thenativessitontreetrunksinsteadofbenchesinthenave, supervisedandcontrolledbystick-wieldingcatechists(Oyono [1956]2012,pp.33–34).This segregationreflectstheEuropean–nativeseparationofthesociety.Violenceagainstblack bodiesisaconstantfeatureinthenovel.Fanoninsiststhatviolenceincolonialsettings servesacrucialsystematicpurpose,andthisistheproperstartingpointofanydiscussion ofhowmostmissionariesregardedandactedtowardAfricannatives.

Asthepsychiatristandforemosttheoristofcolonialismexplains,“Thecolonialworld isacompartmentalizedworld”(Fanon [1961]2004,p.3).Thisdivisionintothenativeor colonizedsector,characterizedbyhungerandeveryotherkindofwant,andtheEuropean orcolonistsector,flowingwithostentatiousluxury,isenforcedbyregularresorttoviolence oratleastvividthreatsofviolence.Accordingtohim,thisdivisionservescolonialism’s foremostagenda,whichistheexploitationofcolonizedlandandpeople,whileforestalling theretaliationofthecolonizedasmuchaspossible,containingitwheneveriterupts.“We haveseenhowgovernmentagentsusealanguageofpureviolence.Theagentdoesnot alleviateoppressionormaskdomination.Hedisplaysanddemonstratesthemwiththe clearconscienceofthelawenforcer,andbringsviolenceintothehomesandmindsofthe colonizedsubject”(Fanon [1961]2004,p.4).ForFanon,therefore,violenceisthechief instrumentusedtomaintaincolonialorderbykeepingthecolonizedsubjectinplaceand incheck.

Fanon’sargumentiswhatOyonobringsintoperspectivein Houseboy. Setincolonial Cameroon,Ondoua,thenovel’smaincharacterandnarrativevoice,livesandworkswith theEuropeancolonistsinDanganasahouseboy.Atfirst,heisahouseboytoFatherGilbert andlivesatSaintPeter’sCatholicMisson.ShortlyafterthesuddendemiseofFatherGilbert,

hemovestotheCommandant’sresidencetobecomehouseboytothenewCommandant. Fromthetimehelearnedtoreadandwrite,hehasmaintainedadiary,whichismostly fullofhisrecountingoftheincessantactsofviolencehewitnesses,beginningwiththe incidenceofFatherGilbertkickinghimwhenhefoundhimmimickinghiminthesacristy. HeinformsusthatFatherVandermayer,FatherGilbert’sassistantandeventualsuccessor, isnotjustverballyabusive;heisphysicallyviolentandtakesgreatdelightinhumiliating blackbodies.Thewhitepriest“lovestobeattheChristianswhohavecommittedadultery— nativeChristiansofcourse...Hemakesthemundressinhisofficewhileherepeatsinbad Ndjem,Whenyouwerekissing,weren’tyouashamedbeforeGod?”(Oyono [1956]2012, p.15).FortunatelyforOndoua,hemanagestoevadeFatherVandermayer’sdisciplinary brutalityuntilheleavesthemissionafterFatherGilbert’sdeath.

Leavingthemissiondidnotmeanescapingcolonialviolence.AttheCommandant’s residence,followingtheFatherGilbert’sdeath,Ondouacontinuestoexperienceandwitness European-on-blackbrutalities.Afterreceivingakicktotheshinthatsenthimsprawling underthetable,hereflects:“TheCommandant’skickwasevenmorepainfulthanthekick ofthelatefather,Gilbert”(Oyono [1956]2012,p.23).Ondouaalsonarrateshowacertain M.Janopoulos,thewealthiestmemberoftheEuropeancommunityandmanagerofthe whites-onlyEuropeanclub,despisesnativesand“likestosethishugeAlsatianonthem. Thiscausesagreatstampedeandamusestheladies”(Oyono [1956]2012,p.27).Onone occasion,OndouawasalmostavictimofM.Janopoulos’strangesport.“Icouldfeelthe Greek’sdogatmyheels.IshallneverknowhowImanagedtogettomyfeetandtoclimb uptothetopofthehugemangotree.ThereItookrefuge.TheEuropeanswerelaughing andpointinguptothetopofthetreewhereIwashiding.TheCommandantwaslaughing aswell.Hehadnotrecognizedme.Howcouldherecognizeme?AllAfricanslookthe sametothem”(Oyono [1956]2012,pp.27–28).

Despitethecontinuousphysicalandverbalabusehesuffersorwitnesses,Ondoua’s narrativevoicemanagestoremaincheerfulthroughoutthenovel;however,hisconstant experienceofcolonialviolencehasadrasticeffectonhisnascentChristianfaith.Hecould neverreconcilethesermonsonloveyourneighborasyourselfthatFatherGilbertand FatherVandermayeroftenpreachedatMassandtheactsofbrutalityincessantlymetedout bywhitehandsontheAfricannatives,includingbythesepriests.Thissadpoint,which Oyonoemphasizesandwhichmanyothernovelswithsimilarhistoricalsettingsmakeand whichisoftenglossedoverbynon-fictionaccountsofchurchhistoryincolonialAfrica,is howmuchthecolonialchurchanditsagentsreflectedmanyfeaturesofthelargercolonial societyinwhichitexisted,especiallypertainingtoviolenceagainstblackbodies,cultures, andhistories.Thismultidimensionalviolencetookplaceeverywhere,includingchurch rectories,privatecolonialquarters,publicoffices,andprisons.

Byfar,themostbrutalspateofcolonialviolenceOndouawitnessesisbyM.Moreau, theprisondirector,ontwoAfricanssuspectedofstealingfromM.Janopoulos,anditwas aninstanceofthecolonialstateandchurchcooperatingtobrutalizetheseAfricans.M. Moreaufloggedthesuspects,strippedthemtothewaist,handcuffedthem,andthentied themtoapole.Ashewhippedthemseverelywithhishippopotamus-hidewhip,which toreuptheirflesh,theygroaned.WhileM.Moreaufloggedthem,M.Janopoulosreleased hisdog,whichtoreattheirtrousers,andNdjangoulashatteredtheirskullwiththebuttof arifle.Ondouanarrateswhatashiveringeffectwitnessingthetorturehadonhim.

Ndjangoulabroughtdownhisriflebuttthefirsttime,Ithoughttheirskullswould scatter.IcouldnotholdmyselffromshakingasIwatched.Itwasterrible.Ithoughtof allthepriests,allthepastors,allthewhitemen,whocometosaveoursoulsandpreach loveofourneighbors.Isthewhiteman’sneighboronlyotherwhitemen?Whocangoon believingthestuffweareservedupinchurcheswhenthingshappenlikeIsawtoday (Oyono [1956]2012,p.76).

Yet,asOndouainformsus,thisisnotwherethestoryofthetwoAfricansuspects ends.Afterthistorture,theywillbesentto“Blackman’sGrave”,wheretheywillspendthe remainderoftheirdaysinpain.TheywillbeburiednakedandduringthefollowingSunday

Mass,theEuropeanpriestwillpontificateovertheiringloriousmemory,announcingtheir damnationwhilestillreceivingmoneytoprayfortheirsouls.“Howwretchedweare”, Ondouaheaves,asthroughouttherestofthestory,heisvisiblytraumatizedbythis experience.Oneimmediatelynoticesasignificantdecibelreductioninhispreviously cheerfulvoice(Oyono [1956]2012,p.76).

Oyono,throughOndoua’splayfulvoice,doesnotleaveuswithoutmanyclueswith regardstothemotiveoftheEuropeansinthenovel,thatis,thereasonfortheirbrutal treatmentofblacknatives.InadditiontoFanon’saptdiagnosis,thedesperationtopreserve thecolonialarrangementunchallenged,thereisyetanotherreasonfortheanti-black violenceofEuropeansthroughoutthenovel.Itisthenaturalconsequenceoftheverylow opinionthewhitecolonialactorshadabouttheirblacksubjects.Inonetellinginstance,M. Salvain,theschoolmaster,incursthewrathofeveryotherEuropeanattheEuropeanClub. Hiscrimewasdesperatelytryingtodefendthenativesfromthedemeaningstereotypes andunfoundedaccusations,includingsavageryandmoraldepravity.Hetriedhisbestto explainAfricanbehaviorwhileinsistingthatPariswasnotinanywaymorallysuperiorto Dangan.Inanearlierinstanceinthenovel,wehearM.SalvainbraggingabouttheAfrican studentsinhisschool.“YoungAfricanchildrenarejustasintelligentasours”,hesaidon thatoccasion,bemusingratherthanamusinghiswhiteinterlocutors(Oyono [1956]2012, p.32).Ignoringhisauthorityinthemattershespokeabout,“Everyonetoldhisownlittle AfricanstorytorefutehimanddemonstratethattheAfricanisachildorafool...”(Oyono [1956]2012,p.52).TheyalsoaccusedM.Salvainofbeingatraitor:“Eversinceyoucame intothiscountry,youhavebehavedinawayunworthyofaFrenchman.You’restirringthe nativesupagainstus.Youkeeptellingthemthattheyareasgoodasweare—asifthey hadn’tgotahighenoughopinionofthemselvesalready...”(Oyono [1956]2012,p.53). Itis,ofcourse,notdifficulttoseetheconnectionbetweenthelowopinionthemajority oftheEuropeanshaveoftheAfricannatives’mentalcapacityandmoralityandtheirready recoursetoviolenceindealingwiththem.ThetwoAfricanswhowereliterallybeaten todeathbeforeOndoua’sveryeyesweremerelysuspectedofstealing.Ondouahimself isarrestedtowardstheendofthenovel,putinjail,andtorturedseverelyforacrime committedbySophie,anacquaintancewhowasasecretloverofoneoftheEuropeans. AlthoughheclaimsnottoknowSophie’swhereabouts,asanAfricannativeheissimply unbelievable.WhilethenovelendswithOndouaabouttofleeintoSpanishGuineawitha much-brutalizedbody,theviolenceandbrutalizationthatheandmanycolonialsubjects endured,sadly,didnotendwiththem.

3.ColonialViolenceinthePostcolony

ForFanon,inadditiontoapervasivefeelingofself-alienation,anothermajoreffectof colonialismistheinternalizationofviolencebycolonialsubjects.Accordingtohim,itis throughviolencethatthecolonistfabricatesthecolonizedsubject(Fanon [1961]2004,p.2). Violence,thusinternalizedandemployedastheonlynaturalandadequateresponseto colonialism,provingtobethe“absolutepraxis”againstthatwhichisnothingbut“naked violence”,didnotmagicallyvanishafterofficialpoliticalindependence(Fanon [1961]2004, pp.23,35,44).WhileFanon,whodiedin1961,justatthestartofthegreatdecadeof Africanindependence,couldonlyguessthat“official”independencewouldnotlikely putanendtointernalizedcolonialviolence,MahmoodMamdanihasfoundthatinthe postcolony,“colonialvictims”almostalwaysinevitablybecome“postcolonial”killersor atleastperpetratorsofcolonialviolence.This,accordingtohim,isthemostaptwayto understandtheRwandagenocide.Hetracestheviolenceof1994tothepoliticalchangesin 1959occasionedbythesystematicchangeswroughtbycolonialismandcertainlynottothe precoloniallegacy.5 Forhim,thisisalsothebestwaytounderstandtheDarfurconflictin Sudan,whoseroothetracestocolonialism’smarginalizationandretribalizingofDarfur.6 Whilecolonialviolencehasoftenledtogenocidallevelsofhorror,whichMamdani studiesinhisworksabove,itmoreoftenmanifestsindiverseandmuchsmallerscalesin thepostcolony.AfictionalexampleiswhatweencounterinChimamandaNgoziAdichie’s

PurpleHibiscus,anovelonhowinternalizedcolonialviolencemanifestsinapostcolonial era.ToldthroughtheteenageeyesofKambili,wecanrightlydescribeitasherrecount oftheviolenceshe,herbrotherJaja,andBeatrice,theirmother,enduredfromEugene, herdad.Violenceishispreferredwayofenforcingpatriarchaldominanceoverhisloved ones.Thankstothis,hiswifehashadtwomiscarriages,hissonliveswithadeformed finger,andhisdaughter,ononeoccasion,isadmittedtothehospitalwhereshespends nearlyaweek.Apartfromhispronenesstoviolence,Eugeneisalsoatypicalexampleof athoroughlycolonizedAfrican.Hissister,Ifeoma,nicknameshima“colonialproduct” (Adichie 2003,p.13).Notonlyisheaproudproductofmissionaryeducationandadirect fruitofcolonialevangelization,hetenaciouslyembracesandpromoteshiscolonialheritage, makingregularrecoursetoviolencetodothis.

WhatisparticularlyimportanttousisthedirectconnectionbetweenEugene’scolonizedmindandviolenthands.AccordingtoAsempasah,havinginternalizedcolonial violence,Eugenetransformedhisdomesticspaceinto“anarenaofdespotism,violence, terror,colonialmimicryandcivility”(Asempasah 2020,p.277).LikeOndoua,Eugenewas ahouseboytomissionaries.Kambiliinformsusthathisroutineactsofbrutalityonhis familyareinspiredbytheviolenceheexperiencedatthehandsofthecolonialmissionaries helivedwithasahouseboyandgardener.Kambililearnsaboutthisafterherfatherburns herfeetwithboilingwateraspunishmentforthe“sin”ofnotinforminghimthatsheand herbrothersharedlivingspacewiththeirheathengrandfather,Papa-Nnukwu,whilethey wereonvacationintheiraunt’shouse.Afterpunishinghisdaughter,Kambili,for,ashe describesit,seeingsinclearlyandyetwalkingintoit,hegoesontoprovideherwitha justificationforhisbarbaricact.Herecountedtoherhowawhitepriestmadehimput hishandsinboilingwaterbecause“Icommittedasinagainstmybodyonce”.Headded, “Thegoodfatherdidthatformyowngood”(Adichie 2003,pp.196–97).Kambili,inthis instance,alsobelievedthatherfatherwasactinginherbestinterest.

Anothercriticalthemein PurpleHibiscus isthecuriousconnectionbetweenviolence andlove.Despitehisconsistentactsofviolence,shebelievedthatherfatherlovedher. Andthroughoutherchildhood,heronedesirewastofeeldeservingofherfather’slove. Sheisnotentirelywrong.Althoughheisviolentandbrutal,wecanrightlypresumethat Eugene,thepatriarchandbigot,lovedhisfamily.Heonlyemployedviolencetoenforce whathethoughtwasintheirverybestinterest.Thisechoeshistoricalinstancesofviolence inthenameofChristianitythroughoutChristianhistory.InChristianlove’sverylongand taintedhistory,asJeanronddescribesit,

lovehasbeenusedorinvokedinordertocommitwhatwetodaywouldconsider tobemoreorlessatrociouscrimes:inthenameoflovecorporalpunishment wasinflictedonchildrenuntilnotsolongago.Proverbs13:24wascitedas biblicalfoundationforthispractice.‘Thosewhosparetherodhatetheirchildren, butthosewholovethemarediligenttodisciplinethem.’Infidelshavebeen persecutedandkilledfortheloveoftruth.‘Witches’havebeenburnedoutof lovefortheirsouls.(Jeanrond 2010,pp.9–10)

Jeanrondaddsalmostimmediatelythatwithinthishistory,aperson’ssoulcouldbe lovedwhilethesameperson’sbodywasbeingtorturedordestroyed.

ThisisthelensfromwhichwemightbestunderstandthemotivebehindEugene’s violence.HeisnotviolentdespitebeingaChristian.Onthecontrary,hisviolenceis inspiredbytheversionofChristianityheinheritedfromthecolonialmissionarieshelived withandservedasahouseboy.WecanguessfromacarefulconsiderationofEugene’s actionsandpreferencesthroughoutthenovelthat,amongotherthings,themissionaries helivedwithdespisedAfricanculture,tradition,andevenbodiesbutclearlylovedand caredforAfricansouls.Forexample,heburnedhisdaughter’sfeettoprotecthersoulfrom goingtothesamehellhewascertainPapa-Nnukwu,whoblatantlyrefusedtoabandon thereligionofhisancestorsandconverttoChristianity,washeadingto.Whilehehated hisfatherandrefusedtocarefortheoldman,Eugenecaredfortheeternalsalvationofhis father’s“soul”tilltheendofthelatter’slife.Whenhereceivednewsofhisfather’sdemise,

hisonlylamentationwasthat“Ifeomadidnothavethesensetocallapriestbeforehedied. Hemighthaveconvertedbeforehedied”(Adichie 2003,pp.190–91).

AlanPageFiskeandTageShaktiRai’stheoryofvirtuousviolence,intheir2015bookof thesamenamecanalsohelpusunderstandtheconnectionbetweenEugene’sChristianity andhispropensitytoviolence(FiskeandRai 2015).Accordingtotheirtheory,mostviolence ismorallymotivated.Violenceisoneofthemoralwayshumanbeingsregulatesocial relationships.Mostofthetime,peopleareviolentbecausetheyfeelmorallyentitled, required,orevenobligatedtohurtorkillothers(FiskeandRai 2015,p.1).Theirpointis thattheperpetratorsofmostviolenceinanygivensocietyarenotsocialmisfits,immoral individuals,orevilgeniuses,asweoftenlovetoimagine.Instead,muchoftheviolence inanygivensocietyisperformedbyindividualswhofeelacertainobligationto“make relationshipsright—tomakearelationshipwhatitoughttobeaccordingtohisorher culturalimplementationsofuniversalrelationalmorality”(FiskeandRai 2015,p.xxii). Eugene’sviolenceisanaptexampleofwhatFiskeandRaistudyinthisresearch.

Eugeneisnotonlyperpetuatingtheviolencehereceivedandinternalized,hefeels obligatedtodosoandhasthebackingoftheleadershipofhislocalchurchthatconsistently failedtocallhimout.Andjustlikein PurpleHibiscus,inmanysadinstances,theAfrican ChurchasaninstitutionandAfricanChristianshavebeencomplicitinviolentandother dehumanizingactsagainstpeople,especiallyminoritygroups,onthebasisofethnicity, gender,sexualorientation,etc.Thepointisthattheseactsofviolenceareoftenconsidered morallyjustifiableandexpedientandconnectedtoaskewedunderstandingofChristian ethicsorthedemandsofChristianlove.Inotherwords,Eugeneisnotthelastofhiskind andthesilenceofhisparishinthefaceofhisviolenceisnotanisolatedcaseinthehistory ofChristianityinAfrica.

Onthecontrary,incontemporaryAfrica,manypeoplearepreparedtoemployviolent meanstoachieveendstheypresumetobepious.Forexample,theanti-LGBTQlawsin manycountriesinAfricahavetheoverwhelmingsupportoftheAfricanChurchandmany individualChristians.AcoalitionofChristian,Muslim,andGhanaiantraditionalleaders sponsoredthestringentanti-homosexualitybillrecentlypassedbyGhana’sparliament.7 Ghana’spresident,NanaAkufo-Addo,recentlydescribedGhanaasaChristiancountry whileinsistingthatgaymarriagewillneverbeallowedwhileheisinpower(Aljazeera News 2024).Ofcourse,violenceagainsthomosexualsisnotuncommonthroughoutthe continent;ChristiansandtheAfricanChurchareoftencomplicitinthisspateofviolence, whichmanyChristiansthinkofasnotonly“virtuous”butexpedienttobanishsexualacts thattheyinsistare“unnatural”andincompatiblewithChristianmorality.

However,mypointinthisarticleisnotjustthenumerousexamplesallacrossthe continentofthechurchremainingsilentoreven,inmanyinstances,activelysanctioning statelawsandactionsthatviolateanddenyindividualstheirfullhumandignity.Instead, myargumentisthatthecomplicityofChristiansandtheAfricanChurchindehumanizing violenceagainstminoritygroupsechoesthewayagentsofthecolonialchurchregardedand mistreatedcolonizedbodies.WhilepreachingthegospelofChrist’slovewiththeirtongues, theyoperatedonanimperialistlogicthatsubjugatesandviolatesbodies,stifleshumanlife, andexertsdominationonhumangroups.WhatEugene,thecolonizedproduct,witnessed inthelivesofthemissionarieshelivedwithandservedwasnotChrist’sredeeminglove butwhatIhavedescribedascoloniallove.Itwasthislovehepiouslyembodiedforhis wifeandchildren.

Followingtheobservationabove,IinsistthatAfricantheologycannotcontinueto ignorethesadfactthatthegospelofChrist’sredemptivelovewasfirstproclaimedin sub-SaharanAfricawithinthecontextofcolonialhate,racism,andviolence.Inmany instances,itwasweaponizedasacolonialtool.Idonotbyanymeansimplythatall missionarieswerehateful,racist,orviolentagainstAfricans,nordoIignoretheheroism andmanylaudablecontributionsofthemissionariestoAfricansociety.MarkShawand WanjiruM.Gitau,whoseinfluentialworkonAfricanchurchhistorywasfirstpublishedin 1996,attemptaverycommendablebalancedaccountofmissionaryactivitiesinpre-colonial

andcolonialAfricaandinsistthatwhilethemissionarieswerenotalways“heroicangels”, neitherwerethey“imperialisticdevils”.8

Itmust,nevertheless,beemphasizedthatthemissionary,inmorecasesthannot, embodiedandactivelycollaboratedwiththecivilizingagendaofthecolonialadministrators andthewiderEuropeansocietytheybelongedto.Thismeansthattheirideologicalposition waspro-empireandtheirbiaswasEurocentric.Thisalsomeansthatassadasitmaysound, manyoftheheraldsofthemessageinAfricadidnotoftenacknowledgethefullhumanity ofAfricans(savages).9 Onthecontrary,theypresumedthesuperiorityoftheirEuropean cultureandhistory.Thissignificantlyimpactedthegospeltheypreachedandhowthey treatedeventheirblackconverts.ChinuaAchebeprovidesahistoricalexampleofhow colonialists’anthropologicalassumptionswerereflectedintheirmissionarystrategies.

Inhisfamousessay,“AnImageofAfrica”,inwhichhevehementlyexposesandcriticizes theracisminJosephConrad’s HeartofDarkness,AchebebrieflynarratesthestoryofAlbert Schweitzer,whosacrificedhisbrilliantcareersinmusicandtheologyinEuropeand relocatedtoAfrica,wherehesetupamedicalmission.AchebequotesSchweitzeras saying,“TheAfricanisindeedmybrotherbutmyjuniorbrother”.AccordingtoAchebe, thisstatement,whichwasreflectedinthekindofmedicalserviceSchweitzerconsidered appropriatetohis“juniorbrothers”,exposedthattheultimatequestionoftheequalityof whitepeopleandblackpeoplewasnotjustrelevantthroughoutduringcolonialismbut formanyyearsafter(Achebe 1989).Thus,themissionarieswereasguiltyastheaverage liberalinthesystematicdehumanizationofAfricansduringcolonialism.

Mostimportantly,IarguethatthedehumanizationofAfricansbycolonialists,includingmissionaries,hasperhapshadanevenmoresignificantimpactonhowAfricans receivedthegospelandtheperennialimpactofthegospelonAfricansociety.Decolonizing missionaryevangelization,specificallythegospelofloveinAfrica,isanurgenttaskof Africantheology.However,bydecolonizingthegospeloflove,Idonotjustmeandenouncingthecoloniallogicandethosthatobscuredthegospel’smessagewhenpreachedby ChristianmissionariesincolonialAfrica,whichIhavedonethusfarinthisarticle.Bydecolonizinglove,ImeanrevisitingthegospelofChrist’sredemptiveloveandemphasizingthat Christ’scommandmentcallsustorejectthedualisticlogicofcoloniallove,itssegregation, anddehumanization.Iwillnowarguethatproperlyunderstoodandcontextualizedwithin Africansociety,themessageofChrist’sredemptivelove,expressedintheparableofthe GoodSamaritan,caninterrupttheviciouscycleofcolonialviolenceandhealthecontinent ofthewoundsinflictedonitbycoloniallove.

4.TheParableoftheGoodSamaritanandtheHorizonofChristianLove

AsThomasJayOordrightlyobserves,“Jesusnotonlylivedalifeoflove,healsotold storiestoillustratelove”(Oord 2010,p.15).Oord’sexampleisJesus’parableoftheGood SamaritanintheGospelofLuke(10:25–37).Itwasnotaquestiondirectlyaboutlovethat thelawyertryingtotestJesushadasked.Instead,hisinquirypertainedtotherequirements forinheritingeternallife.Jesusthrewthequestionbackathim,askinghimtoconsultthe law,hisareaofexpertiseasalawyer.Jesusaffirmshisinterlocutor’sresponse.LoveofGod andneighborarethetwofoldrequirementsforinheritingeternallife.Jesus’affirmation endedwithacounsel:“Dothis,andyouwilllive”,whichprovokestheunrelentinglawyer toraiseoneofthecontentiouspointsinJewishlawandwhathasalsobecomeacentral considerationinChristianethics:“Andwhoismyneighbor?”10

TheparableoftheGoodSamaritanwasJesus’elaborateresponsetothelawyer’s secondquestion.Theverybriefstorycanbedividedintotwoscenes.Inthefirstscene,a manonhiswayfromJerusalemtoJerichofallsintothehandsofrobbers.Theyrobhim ofhispossessionswhilealsobeatinghimup,leavinghimhalfdead.Whileapriestand, afterward,aLevite,whowerebothpassingby,sawhimbutrefusedtocomeanycloser tohim,aSamaritanwhoalsohappenedtopassbyapproachedthewoundedman.Filled withcompassion,hebandagedtheman’swoundsandtookhimimmediatelytoaninn.

Thesecondscenetakesplaceintheinn.TheSamaritanhandsthewoundedmantothe innkeeper,offeringtopaywhateverisneededtonursehimbacktohealth.

PeterN.RulerightlyobservesthecentralityofparablestothepedagogyofJesus,the rabbi,arguingthatwhileJesuswasnotthefirsttouseparables,hisuseofparablesasa pedagogicalstrategywasinmanywaysunique.Healsoexplainsthattheparableofthe GoodSamaritan,likevirtuallyallofJesus’otherparables,isembeddedinacommunicative event,afactwhichtheirdistillationfromoraltowrittenandfromtheoriginalAramaic, whichJesusspoke,intotheGreekinwhichthegospelswerewrittenmanydecadeslater, seemstoblur(Rule 2017,p.2).

Rulefailstoemphasizeinhisveryinstructiveanalysisofitsstructuretheimmediate successJesushadwiththisparablecomparedtoJesus’otherparablesintheGospelofLuke. Jesusdoesnotconcludewithanexplanationoftheparableaswefindin,forexample,the parableoftheRichFool(Luke12:13).Hedidnotprivatelyexplainthemeaningofthe parabletohisclosecircleoffollowersasweseeintheparableoftheSower(Luke8:4–15). Instead,bythetimeJesusfinishedtellingthestoryoftheGoodSamaritan,hispointwas cleartohisimmediateaudience.“Whichofthesethree,doyouthink,provedneighborto themanwhofellamongtherobbers?”heasked.Thelawyeransweredcorrectly,saying: “Theonewhoshowedmercyonhim”.Again,impressedbyhisinterlocutor’scorrect answer,Jesushadnothingtosaybuttoleavehimwithacounsel:“Goanddolikewise”. However,thatthelawyerwasableto,evenwithoutanyfurtherexplanation,decipherthemeaningoftheparablehasnotpreventedmultipleinterpretationsthroughout Christianhistory,includingthosethatMauriceRyanargueshavehaddireconsequences ontheChristianattitudetoJewsandJudaism(Ryan 2021,pp.2–4).Acentralelement inwhathedecriesasthe“traditional”Christianmisinterpretationofthisparableisthe contrastbetweenwhathasbeencapturedasthelegalistictendencyofJewishlawsversus Christiancompassion.Asheputsit,“ThecompassionateSamaritanhasbeenreadasa proxycharactertojustifythereplacementofJewsandJewishreligionbyChristiansand ChristianityinGod’splanofsalvation”(Ryan 2021,p.4).Accordingtohim,theparableis neitheraboutJewishobsessionwith“puritylaws”norisitaccuratetopresumethatthe priestandLeviteswerejourneyingfromJerichototheTempleinJerusalem.“Iftheauthor, forexample,wantedthevictimtobedeceased,thenhewouldhaveindicatedthatinthe story.IfthepriestwastravelingtotheTemplepreparingtoleadreligiousrituals,then thatwouldhavebeenindicatedbytheauthor.Ifpuritywasaconsiderationintheprocess ofdecidingwhethertorenderassistance,thensomeindicationwouldhavebeenoffered byLuke”(Ryan 2021,p.15).Also,whilethereindeedexistedstrainsintherelationship betweenJewsandSamaritans,Ryaninsiststhatantagonismbetweenthesegroupswas neitherdeepnorgeneral.JewsandSamaritanswerenotswornenemiesbutneighbors whosedifferencesdidnotstopthemfromcoexisting,albeitinwhatMartinaBohmcalls a“communityofconvenience”.11 Hearguesthatthis,combinedwiththefactthatthe woundedman’sidentityisnotspecifiedintheparable,makesitprobablyinaccurateto interpretthisparableasaboutlovingone’senemies(Ryan 2021,p.8).

Yet,althoughwearyoftraditionalinterpretationsofthemotiveofthepriestandLevite thatadvanceafalseoppositionbetween“legalistic”JewishLawandChristiancompassion, heneverthelessinsiststhataccuratelydiscerningtheirmotiveisvitaltounderstandingthe meaningoftheparable,eventhoughthestoryprovidesverylittleindicationofthis.In otherwords,iftheirreasonfornothelpingthewoundedmanwasnotbecauseofJewish–Samaritanenmityorconcernwithpuritylaws,whetherreasonableorobsessive,oreven alackofthedemandtobecompassionateinJewishlaw,thenwhatcouldithavebeen? Wasfearthemotivatingcharacteristicintheirdecisionmaking,asMartinLutherKingJr. arguesinahomily,whichRyancites?WereboththepriestandLevite“afraidthatifthey stoppedtheytoowouldhavebeenbeaten;forcouldn’ttherobbersstillbearound?Or maybethemanonthegroundwasjustafaker,usingapretendedwoundedconditionto drawpassingtravelerstohissideforquickandeasyseizure”(Ryan 2021,p.12).Takinga cluefromRyan’scriticalevaluationofthetraditionalinterpretations,Iwillimmediately

pointoutthatiffearunderlinedwhythepriestandLevitepassedbyontheothersideof theroad,itwouldhavebeenindicatedinthestory.

EvenRyan’spreferredinterpretation,whichheincludestowardtheendofthearticle, mustlikewisebesubjectedtothisscrutiny.Accordingtohim,thebehaviorofthepriestand theLevitereflectsthehumantendencytoseeandyettonotsee.CitingRubenZimmermann, heexplains,“thepriestandLevitearenotblind.Theysee—andtheydonotsee.Inour cultureoflookingtheotherway,wehavepreciselythisparadoxicalcorrelation.Wesee andwedonotsee.Seeingismorethanjustanobjectivesensoryprocess”.Again,wecan arguethatifthiswasthepointofthestory,someindicationwouldhavebeenofferedby theauthor.Onthecontrary,thestoryemphasizedthatthepriestandLevitedidindeed seethewoundedmanandonlyconsciouslydecidedtoavoidhavinganythingtodowith him—theypassedbyontheotherside.Themanwasnotatanypointinvisibletothem. Theydidnotseeandthenunseehim.Thepointofthestoryiswhattheydidaftertheysaw theman.Theyrefusedtohelphim.Thequestionthusremains:whydidtheynothelp?

Perhapsourbestchanceatdiscerningtheirmotive,thatis,whytheyrefusedtohelpthe woundedmantheyclearlyhadseen,istorevisitthedialoguethatprecedestheparable.While itwasJesus’responsetoalawyer’squestion,“Andwhoismyneighbor?”thefoundationof thelawyer’sinquiryabouttheidentityofhisneighboristheJewishlaw’sloverequirement, which,asJeanrondrightlyexplains,isbasedontheSinaicovenantandcapturedinthevery famousversefromDeuteronomyknownasthe ShemaIsrael (Jeanrond 2010,p.30).Shefurther notesthatinbothChristianandJewishpraxis,loveofGod,loveofneighbor,loveofself,and loveofGod’screationareintimatelyrelated.Whilethesedifferentattentionsinlovemustbe distinguished,theyshouldneverbeseparated(Jeanrond 2010,p.29).Thissecondargument isbasedonherreadingofDeuteronomy10:12–20,wherefollowingthecommandtofear,love, andservetheLord,God’ssovereigntyoverallofcreation,awesomeness,aswellasspecial carefortheorphan,widow,andstrangerisaffirmed(Jeanrond 2010,p.32).

Sheneverthelessnotesthatwhilethetwocommandmentsreferencedintheparableindeedbelongtogether,theyarebasedoncitationsfromtwoseparatepassages,Deuteronomy 6:5andLeviticus19:18.However,accordingtoher,theologicallyspeaking,moreimportant thanascertainingwhetherornotJesuswasthefirsttohaveintroducedthecombinationof bothlovecommandmentsisappreciatingthesignificanceofthisdoublecommandmentfor theproclamationofGod’sreigninthesynopticgospels.Inotherwords,thattheparableof theGoodSamaritanistoldimmediatelyafterthecitationofthedoublelovecommandment isfarfromincidental.Instead,thisiscrucialforinterpretingtheparable.

Thisbackgroundfurnishesuswithaneffectiveinterpretativehint.While,asRyan convincinglyargues,itisnotaboutlovingone’senemies,theparableoftheGoodShepherd isnonethelessaparableaboutlove,ormoreaccurately,aparableaboutthepracticeoflove. Thelawyer’squestiontoJesuscanthusberephrasedthus:“WhoismyneighborthatI mayshowlove?”Whenitisrephrasedthisway,thisquestionisapossiblewindowintothe interiorreflectionofthepriestandtheLeviteuponseeingthewoundedman.Whilethey indeedsawthemanandevenrecognizedthatheneededhelp,theyfailedtoregardhimas theirneighborandthushurriedawayratherthanhelphim.

Similarly,Jesus’response,thatis,theparable,canberephrasedthus:“Everyone isyourneighbor.Therefore,showGod’slovetoeveryone!”Jeanrondcorroboratesthis reading.“Thepointoftheparableisnotto have neighborsbutto become aneighborto others.ThepraxisoflovethatJesusproclaimedandlivedthroughhisactionsreachesout toallsortsofpeople:thefriends,theneedy,women,children,thepoor,thesuffering,the sick,thesinners,theforeigners,andtheenemies.ThepraxisreflectsGod’sgoodnesstoall andgathersallpeoplearoundGod’screativeandreconcilingpresence”(Jeanrond 2010, p.34).Inessence,theparableoftheGoodSamaritanexhortsustounderstandthemeaning ofGod’sloveanditsinclusivenature.

ForPopeBenedictXVI,inhis2005encyclical, DeusCaritasEst,throughtheparable, Jesusabolishedallthelimitsofthetermneighborwhileuniversalizingitsmeaning.

Untilthattime,theconceptof“neighbor”wasunderstoodasreferringessentiallyto one’scountrymenandtoforeignerswhohadsettledinthelandofIsrael;inotherwords, totheclosely-knitcommunityofasinglecountryorpeople.Thislimitisnowabolished. Anyonewhoneedsme,andwhomIcanhelp,ismyneighbor.Theconceptof“neighbor”is nowuniversalized,yetitremainsconcrete.Despitebeingextendedtoallmankind,itisnot reducedtoageneric,abstract,andundemandingexpressionoflovebutcallsformyown practicalcommitmenthereandnow(PopeBenedictXVI 2005,no.15).

Thisisperhapswhy,asRyanrightlypointsout,theidentityofthewoundedman isneitherindicatednornecessary.ItdoesnotmatterwhetherheisaJew,Samaritan,or neitheroftheabove.Whatmattersisthatheishuman,likethepriest,theLevite,andthe Samaritan,andinneed.

Thus,wecansaythatJesusinvitesustowidenthehorizonofloveonthisoccasion andinmanyotherplacesinthegospel.AsJeanrondemphasizes,thiswouldentailthe willingnesstobecomeandproveourselvesneighborstoeveryoneweencounter(Jeanrond 2010,p.35).Hisfinalwordstothelawyer,“Goanddolikewise”,isadivinecommandto hisdisciplestobothproclaimloveaswellaswidenthehorizonofthislove.Inotherwords, proclaimingGod’sloveiswideningourhorizonsandbecomingneighborsto“anybody requiringso”(Jeanrond 2010,p.126).As GaudiumetSpes urges, Inourtimesaspecialobligationbindsustomakeourselvestheneighborofevery personwithoutexceptionandofactivelyhelpinghimwhenhecomesacrossour path,whetherhebeanoldpersonabandonedbyall,aforeignlaborerunjustly lookeddownupon,arefugee,achildbornofanunlawfulunionandwrongly sufferingforasinhedidnotcommit,orahungrypersonwhodisturbsour consciencebyrecallingthevoiceoftheLord,“Aslongasyoudiditforoneof thesetheleastofmybrethren,youdiditforme”.(Matt.25:40)(VaticanII 1965, no.27)

WhatthismeansisthatChristianlovemustbefoundedonthebasicprinciplesof Christiananthropology,whichincludetheequalhumandignityofeveryhumanbeing, irrespectiveofrace,gender,orientation,orsocialstatus.AnotherbasicprincipleofChristian anthropologyisuniversalhumankinship(VaticanII 1965,no.24).

5.DecolonizingtheGospelofLoveinAfrica:Conclusions

ItisnecessarytoemphasizethattoproclaimGod’slovewhilerefusingtowiden ourhorizonistopreachanincompletemessageor,betterstill,tocontradictthemessage weproclaim.AsIhavealreadymentioned,thisiswhatoccasionedthecrisisoffaith experiencedbyOndouainOyono’s Houseboy.Thewhitemissionaries,justliketheother Europeancolonialagentsinthenovel,didnottreattheAfricannativesinthecompassionate mannertheGoodSamaritantreatedthewoundedmanbecausetheydidnotrecognizethe fullhumandignityofAfricannativesorrealizetheircommonhumanity.Theyregardedas neighborsonlytheirEuropeancounterparts,hencehadnoqualmsaboutacceptingtobe membersoftheEuropean-onlyclubofDangan.12 Andfailingtobecome(orseethemselves as)neighborstotheAfricannatives,theywereoftenasviolenttothem,astherobberswho stolefromandbeatuptheman,ornotgenuinelyconcernedabouttheirplight,aswerethe priestandLevitewhodidnotcometotheaidofthewoundedman.

TheunfortunatemanbeatenandrobbedintheparableoftheGoodSamaritancanbe anaptmetaphorfortheexperienceofAfricansinthehandsofcolonialactors,justasinthe sameway,theattitudeofEuropeanmissionariesisverysimilartothatofthepriestand Leviteinthestory.Wecanevenaddthatthemissionariesoftenprovedtobeworsethanthe priestsandLevitesintheparable,whohadnothingtodowiththeplightofthewounded manandonlyrefusedtocometohisaid.UnlikethepriestandLeviteintheparable, whosinnedbyomissiononly,themissionarieswereactiveagentsofcolonialbrutality. Inotherwords,theyoftencameinthesameboatasthecolonistsandsharedacommon Eurocentricworldviewandcivilizingintent,thusactivelycooperating.Thisentanglement betweenmissionariesandcolonialadministratorswasoftenveryintentionalandeven

mandatory.13 AndasJean-MarcElaequallynotes,evenwhencolonialadministrators“no longerpatronizedthemissions”,theycontinuedto“smooththemissionaries’way”.14 This, asIhaveemphasized,ultimatelyhamperedtheChristianmessageofthecolonizers. WithoutdisregardingthezealandheroicworkofmanyChristianmissionariesin Africa,thegospelofChrist’slovemustbepreachedanewonthecontinent.Healingthe woundsofcolonialloverequiresresistingtheviolenceofcoloniallovefoundedonthe dualisticframeworkwiththeexcessofChrist’sloveandaconsciouswideningofour horizontoincludeeveryhumanbeing.AsSaintPeter(1Peter2:21)says,Christ’ssacrificial deathisourultimateexemplarofthetruenatureoflove.OurChristianmissionconsists offollowinginChrist’sfootsteps,andtheradicalnatureofChrist’sloveistobeseenin Jesus’slife,whichincludestheindiscriminatewayherelatedtoeveryonearoundhimand eventheuniversaldimensionofhisdeath.Sadly,whilepracticingloveisimperativefor thechurchasacommunityandindividualChristians,asVincentLloydlaments,Christian tradition,whilerichinthelanguageoflove,isregrettablylessrichinthepracticeoflove (Lloyd 2020,p.120).AfricanChristiansmustbecomemoreintentionalintheirpracticeof love.Thismeansgivingtoothersthelovewehavereceivednotfromtheviolenthandsof colonialevangelistsbutfromChrist.15

Funding: Thisresearchreceivednoexternalfunding.

DataAvailabilityStatement: Nonewdatawerecreatedoranalyzedinthisstudy.Datasharingis notapplicabletothisarticle.

ConflictsofInterest: Theauthordeclaresnoconflictsofinterest.

Notes

1 Schwobel (1998–2001,p.307).Accordingtohim,“Thenotionofloveinitsmanifoldvariationsisindeedsosignificantthatit seemstoappearinalldimensionsofChristianity:initsdoctrinaldimension,initsworship-dimension,initssocial-dimension, itsethicaldimensionandinitsexperientialdimension”.He,however,clarifiesthat“assertingthesignificanceofloveforthe understandingofChristianitydoesnotmeanthatinotherreligionslovedoesnotplayanimportantrole”.Hesubsequently comparestheconceptofloveinChristianityto bhakti inHindutraditionsand metta inBuddhism.pp.307–8.

2 Urena (2017,p.86).WhileIamindebtedtoUrenafortheconceptandbasicdefinitionof“coloniallove”,mytheological adaptationandcontextualizationoftheconceptcanbestbeseenincontrasttoJosephDrexler-Dreis’“DecolonialLove”,which hedevelopsasatheologicalresponsetocolonialmodernityanddefinesas“awayloveismadeconcreteinhistorywithinthe struggletorevealandshatterthestructuresofcolonialmodernity”.Headdsthatdecolonialloveistheologicallypedagogicand “offersonebasisoftheologicalreflectionandonewayofshapingthecontentofadecolonizedimageoflove”(Drexler-Dreis 2019, pp.4–5).

3 ThereareatleasttwootherimportantreasonsadecolonialcritiqueofAfricanhistorybenefitstremendouslyfromcomplementing non-fictionalhistorywithfictionalaccounts.Ontheonehand,M.KeithBookerhighlightsAfricanliterature’srootedness inAfricanhistory.See Booker (2009,p.141).Ontheotherhand,PaulTiyambeZelezaobserveswhathedescribesasa crossfertilizationbetweenAfricanhistoryandliterature.ThisinterchangebetweenAfricanhistoryandliteraturejustifiesthe utilizationofbothsourcesinterchangeablywithinacademicresearchendeavors.See Zeleza (2007,p.12).

4 Paton ([1948]2003).Inhisnotetothefirst(1948)edition,Patoninsiststhatwhilethestorynarratedisnottrueandthecharacters andplacesarefictional,“consideredasasocialrecorditistheplainandsimpletruth”.Seep.14.Itisalsoimportanttonote thatthisnovelisnotwithoutcriticsamongdecolonialscholars.See NgugiwaThiong’o (1981,pp.91–92).ForNgugi,Reverend StephenKumalo,thecolonialtoolandherowhoeschewsviolencedespitetheracistviolencearoundhim,isanexampleofan AfricanwhohelpsEuropeancolonisersintheoccupationandsubjugationofhisownpeopleandcountry,asisthusproclaimed the“goodAfrican”bytheEuropeancolonisers.

5 Mamdani (2001,p.105).Atfirst,colonialismcreatedTutsi“privilege”incontrasttoHutu’ssubservience,andeventually,aHutu elitethatwasfullofgrievanceagainsttheTutsi’scolonialimposedprivilege.

6 See Mamdani (2009,pp.145–70).

7 See VOA (2024).

8 ShawandGitau (2020,p.275).Itwasearlierpublishedin1996underthetitle TheKingdomofGodinAfrica:AShortHistoryof AfricanChristianity

9 Wijsen (2015,p.190).Accordingtohim,“Nineteenth-centuryEuropeanmissionaries”,saysFranzWijsen,“sawEuropeasthe cradleofChristianityandcivilizationasopposedtothenon-WesternWorld,whichwasperceivedasunsavedanduncivilized”.

10 See Ryan (2021,p.2).

11 Ryan (2021,p.7),cites Böhm (2020,p.11).SheemphasizesnotjustthedifferencesbetweenJewsandSamaritansbutalsotheir manycommonalities.

12 WhileatDanganinOyono’snovel,membershipoftheclubwasopentoallEuropeans,irrespectiveofsocioeconomicstatus,in manyhistoricalcontexts,segregationwasnotonlyracebased,itwasalsoclassbased.

13 See Orobator (2018,p.37).

14 Ela (1986,p.17).HisexampleisFrenchCameroon.

15 AsPopeBenedictXVIputsitinhisencyclical DeusCaritasEst (PopeBenedictXVI 2005,no.14),“Lovecanbe“commanded” becauseithasfirstbeengiven”.

References

Achebe,Chinua.1988.TheTruthofFiction.In HopesandImpediments.NewYork:Doubleday,p.151. Achebe,Chinua.1989.AnImageofAfrica.In HopesandImpediment.NewYork:AnchorBooks,pp.10–11. Adichie,ChimamandaNgozi.2003. PurpleHibiscus.NewYork:AnchorBooks. AljazeeraNews.2024.Ghana’sParliamentPassesAnti-LGBTQBill.February28.Availableonline: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/ 2024/2/28/ghanas-parliament-passes-anti-lgbtq-bill (accessedon21March2024). Asempasah,Rogers.2020.ExileandpostcolonialnationalredemptioninBenOkri’sFamishedRoadandChimamandaNgoziAdichie’s PurpleHibiscus. AfricanStudies 79:267–84.[CrossRef] Booker,M.Keith.2009.TheAfricanHistoricalNovel.In TheCambridgeCompaniontotheAfricanNovel.EditedbyF.AbiolaIrele. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.141–57. Böhm,Martina.2020.SamaritansintheNewTestament. Religion 11:147.[CrossRef] Drexler-Dreis,Joseph.2019. DecolonialLove:SalvationinColonialModernity.NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress. Ela,Jean-Marc.1986. AfricanCry.TranslatedbyRobertR.Barr.Maryknoll:OrbisBooks. Fanon,Frantz.2004. TheWretchedoftheEarth.TranslatedbyRichardPhilcox.NewYork:GrovePress.Firstpublished1961. Fiske,AlanPage,andTageShaktiRai.2015. VirtuousViolence:HurtingandKillingtoCreate,Sustain,End,andHonorSocialRelationships Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Jeanrond,Werner.G.2010. ATheologyofLove.London:T&TClark. Lloyd,Vincent.2020.WhatLoveisNot:LessonsfromMartinLutherKing,Jr. ModernTheology 36:107–20.[CrossRef] Mamdani,Mahmood.2001. WhenVictimsBecomeKillers:Colonialism,Nativism,andtheGenocideinRwanda.Princeton:Princeton UniversityPress. Mamdani,Mahmood.2009. SaviorsandSurvivors:DarfurPoliticsandWaronTerror.NewYork:PantheonBooks. NgugiwaThiong’o.1981. DecolonisingtheMind:ThePoliticsofLanguageinAfricanLiterature.NewYork:JamesCurrey. Oord,ThomasJay.2010. ThePrimacyofLove.St.Louis:ChalicePress. Orobator,AgbonkhianmegheE.2018. ReligionandFaithinAfrica:ConfessionofanAnimist.Maryknoll:OrbisBooks. Oyono,Ferdinand.2012. Houseboy.TranslatedbyJohnReed.LongGrove:WavelandPress,Inc.Firstpublished1956. Paton,Alan.2003. Cry,TheBelovedCountry.NewYork:Scribner.Firstpublished1948. PopeBenedictXVI.2005.DeusCaritasEst.Availableonline: https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/ documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est.html (accessedon21March2024). Rule,PeterN.2017.ThepedagogyofJesusintheParableoftheGoodSamaritan:Adiacognitiveanalysis. TheologicalStudies 73:1–8. [CrossRef]

Ryan,Maurice.2021.RevisitingtheParableoftheGoodSamaritan. StudiesinChristian-JewishRelations 16:1–15.[CrossRef] Schwobel,Christoph.1998–2001.TheModelofLoveandtheTrinity. NeueZeitschriftfürsystematischeTheologieundReligionsphilosophie 40:307–28.[CrossRef]

Shaw,Mark,andWanjiruM.Gitau.2020. TheKingdomofGodinAfrica:AHistoryofAfricanChristianity.Cumbria:Langham. Urena,Carolyn.2017.LovingfromBelow:Of(De)colonialLoveandOtherDemons. Hypatia 32:86–102.[CrossRef] VaticanII.1965.GaudiumetSpes.Availableonline: https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/ vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html (accessedon21March2024). VOA.2024.GhanaParliamentPassesStringentAnti-LGBTQLaw.February28.Availableonline: https://www.voanews.com/a/ ghana-parliament-passes-stringent-anti-lgbtq-law-/7507293.html (accessedon21March2024). Wijsen,Frans.2015.MissionpracticeandtheoryinAfrica.In RoutledgeCompaniontoChristianityinAfrica.EditedbyEliasKifon Bongmba.NewYork:Routledge,pp.189–200. Zeleza,PaulT.2007.ColonialFictions:MemoryandHistoryinYvonneVera’sImagination. ResearchinAfricanLiteratures 38:9–21. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’sNote: Thestatements,opinionsanddatacontainedinallpublicationsaresolelythoseoftheindividual author(s)andcontributor(s)andnotofMDPIand/ortheeditor(s).MDPIand/ortheeditor(s)disclaimresponsibilityforanyinjuryto peopleorpropertyresultingfromanyideas,methods,instructionsorproductsreferredtointhecontent.