The Beautiful Concept of Ubuntu

For decades I have greatly admired the life and work of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, but the only blog post I have made primarily about him was seven years ago on April 30, 2014 (see here). It was from him that I first learned about ubuntu, a beautiful word/concept. 

Image with this online article about ubuntu

The Meaning of Ubuntu

Two American men published a book in 2010 with a one-word title: Ubuntu! On the second page, they explain the meaning of ubuntu as the

ancient African philosophy that draws on the fact that we are one human family. We are brothers and sisters, traveling this earth together. When one man [or woman] is poorly fed, all are malnourished. When one is abused, we all feel the pain. When a child suffers, the tears wash over us all. By recognizing the humanity of one another, we recognize our unbreakable bond—our unbreakable link to the whole of humanity.

“I am because we are” is a popular brief definition of ubuntu. As Wikipedia correctly says, in a more philosophical sense ubuntu means “the belief in a universal bond of sharing that connects all humanity.”

(Interestingly, Ubuntu is now the name of a PC operating system, which is said to bring the spirit of ubuntu to the world of computers. A while back I created a Google alert for ubuntu, and there were far, far more links to the Ubuntu OS than to the African philosophy of ubuntu.)

Tutu’s Emphasis on Ubuntu

Ubuntu is a basic principle that has been long practiced by Desmond Tutu, born in 1931 in the Union of South Africa. Before he was 30, he was ordained as an Anglican priest. In 1984 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

After Tutu had served 12 years as the Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, in 1994 Nelson Mandela, the newly elected South African president, appointed him as the head of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Here was his great opportunity to put ubuntu into practice—and he did.**

A TED talk back in 2013 pointed out that ubuntu “became known in the West largely through the writings of Desmond Tutu.” That marvelous concept has also become more widely known in the West because of his children and grandchildren.

Here is the link to a 95-second explanation of ubuntu by Mpho Tutu, the daughter of Desmond Tutu, who is also an Episcopal priest.

And Mungi Ngomane, Archbishop Tutu’s granddaughter and Mpho’s niece, is the author of a delightful 2020 book entitled Everyday Ubuntu: Living Better Together, the African Way. 

From https://mungingomane.co/

The Healing Power of Ubuntu

It is significant that President Mandela sought to create a peaceful society in South Africa by appointing a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

There could have been great bloodshed and ongoing animosities. But, based on the concept of ubuntu, he (and Archbishop Tutu) emphasized both truth and reconciliation. Reconciliation between the minority Whites and the majority who were Black, could not be achieved without attention to truth.

In his new (2021) book Desmond Tutu: A Spiritual Biography of South Africa's Confessor, Michael J. Battle refers to “Tutu’s beautiful concept of ubuntu theology” (p. 9).

The first book by Battle, an Episcopal theologian born in 1963, is titled Reconciliation: The Ubuntu Theology of Desmond Tutu (1997, 2009). In the racially and politically divided nation of South Africa, Tutu strove valiantly for reconciliation. But he also emphasized the importance of truth.

“Truth-telling is the path to healing, Tutu tells U.S. audience” is the title of an online article posted in April 2002. That is even more important to recognize now in this racially and politically divided nation of ours.

There cannot be political reconciliation as long as the Big Lie about the 2020 election continues to be spouted and supported.

There cannot be racial reconciliation as long as the Whites in the U.S. cannot understand and affirm that Black Lives Matter.

Implementing the beautiful concept of ubuntu could help mightily in creating a just and peaceful society.

On the back cover of Mungi Ngoname’s book, which I highly recommend, are these memorable words:

By embracing ubuntu, we live in hope of overcoming divisions and becoming stronger together in a world where the wise build bridges.

_____

** Click here to see/read “Ubuntu—The African Concept The World Really Needs Right Now,” a 7/7/20 article about ubuntu as practiced by both Mandela and Tutu.

TTT #30 God’s First and Last Word is Always Grace

This blog article is the 30^th and last one based on my forthcoming book Thirty True Things Everyone Needs to Know Now (TTT). I will be informing you later when the book becomes available, but please give consideration now to the following matters taken from the final chapter of the book.

Introducing Grace

Before writing that final chapter, I read Philip Yancey’s outstanding book What’s So Amazing About Grace? (1997) for the third time. I consider Yancey’s book one of the most significant books I have read over the last twenty years. 

In the first chapter of his book, Yancey calls grace “our last best word,” and laments the “shortage of grace within the church” (p. 14).

I fully agree with Yancey’s assessment, so I decided to write about grace for the last chapter of TTT. We need to be reminded constantly that for the Christian, or for anyone for that matter, God’s first and last word is always grace.

I have been reading and thinking about God’s grace for most of my adult life. One of the first good books about grace that I read maybe almost sixty years ago was penned by R. Lofton Hudson, a Baptist pastor and counselor. His book was titled Grace Is Not a Blue-Eyed Blond (1968).

Sometime before writing his book, the author was talking with a man who attended church only occasionally. Hudson asked him “What do you think of when I say the word grace?” The man’s quick reply, “Why, Grace is a blue-eyed blond!”

Well, probably not many people identify grace in such a manner, but many may need to have a deeper, more nearly adequate understanding of grace and the importance it has, or should have, in our lives.  

Concluding with Grace

After dealing with the issue of “grace vs. works,” sola gratia, and what some have called “grace abuse,” I concluded the last chapter in TTT when the assertion, “still, grace is God’s first and last word.”

Although probably not original with him, several years ago I read the following words boldly proclaimed by Archbishop Desmond Tutu:

There is nothing we can do to make God love us more.
There is nothing we can do to make God love us less.

That, truly, is the meaning of grace. And while it is necessary for us to recognize, and to beware of, grace abuse, we should always remember that the God’s first and last word is always grace.

The pivotal significance of grace is seen in the life and work of Jesus Christ.

In the first chapter of John we read, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” (v. 14).

And then, ^“Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (vv. 16-17).

Toward the end of the first chapter of his book Grace Is Not a Blue-Eyed Blond, Hudson declares, “Primarily, grace is a face, the face of Christ and of Christian acceptance.” (p. 22).

Yes, because the Christian faith begins and ends with Jesus Christ, for the Christian—and for all the people of the world— the first and last word is grace.

Let’s never forget that, for it is certainly one extremely important true thing that everyone needs to know now.

[Here is the link to the entire 30th chapter of TTT.]

The Problem with Being a Centrist

Does calling for a radiant center in politics mean that people of good will should be, or seek to be, centrists? Is being a centrist always a positive thing? Is there anything negative about being a centrist? These are some of the questions I began to think about after posting my Feb. 8 blog article and reading the thoughtful comments made about it.

WHY BEING A CENTRIST IS GOOD

Assuming that being in the “radiant center” as proposed in that blog article makes one a centrist, the positive things about such location must be considered.

Centrists are persons who don’t like extremism and want to live in peace and harmony with all people as much as possible. That’s good.

Centrists are persons who want to accept, and be accepted by, people who disagree with them and who promote inclusion over exclusion. That’s good.

Centrists are persons who appreciate and affirm truth, beauty, and goodness wherever it is found, no matter the label or the location. That’s good, too.

WHY BEING A CENTRIST CAN BE BAD

Sometimes being a centrist is not a good thing, however. That is particularly true when, or if, centrality means neutrality in the face of injustice.

In one of his oft-quoted statements, Desmond Tutu said, 

In the 1930s, what benefit was it to the Jews for many (most) Germans to be centrists rather than being on the left opposing Hitler and the Nazi fascists?

In the early 1960s, what benefit was it for many (most) white Americans to be centrists rather than being on the left opposing the Jim Crow laws supported by the segregationists on the right?  

In the 2010s, what benefit was it for many (most) “straight” people to be centrists rather than being on the left supporting the civil rights of LGBT people buffeted by prejudice and discrimination by those on the right?

And looking toward the future, if human habitation on this planet is in jeopardy because of effects of global warming, as it most probably is, what benefit is it for citizens of the world to be centrists rather than being on the left and in vocal opposition to the global warming deniers on the right?

If being a centrist means not taking a stand against injustice and against the mistreatment of people or the environment, then clearly that is not good.

ANOTHER WAY OF BEING A CENTRIST

Soon after posting the Feb. 8 article on the radiant center, I realized that I had mixed metaphors in talking about the center. That realization was partly due to reading Mennonite theologian Ted Grimsrud’s Feb. 7 blog article titled “The Left/Right Schema Must Go” (see here).

Grimsrud stressed the importance of holding to “core values.” This means that the center is the core, not the position between the right and the left on a linear spectrum. This is what Easel Roberts was suggesting, I came to realize, with the image of the merry-go-round—and what I had missed by staying with the right/left schema.

So, moving toward the center, which represents core values, is another way—and a good way—to be a centrist.

But, alas, that doesn’t seem to solve the problem of the division (“polarity”!) so prominent in contemporary society. Why? Because people disagree on core values. For example, conservatives (people on the right) see their opposition to abortion (“killing babies”) to be an immovable core value. But people on the left see women’s reproductive rights (“pro-choice”) as an important core value.

So, being this kind of centrist is also a problem.

Charity is Not Enough

Right now, on June 9-10, Bread for the World is holding its 2014 National Gathering as well as its 40^th anniversary celebration.

Most of you are probably familiar with this humanitarian organization. Bread for the World is a non-partisan, Christian citizens’ movement in the United States. Its goal is to end hunger.

Rather than feeding the hungry directly, however, it describes itself as a collective Christian voice urging the nation’s decision-makers to end hunger at home and abroad.

Bread for the World was launched in 1974 under the leadership of Art Simon (b. 1930), a Lutheran pastor in New York City. From 1985 to 1997 his older brother, Paul Simon (1928-2003), was Democratic U.S. Senator from Illinois.

The Simon brothers co-authored “The Politics of World Hunger” the year before Bread for the World was initiated.

David Beckmann, also a Lutheran minister and missionary as well as an economist, has been president of Bread for the World since 1991.

Beckmann and founder Art Simon together wrote “Grace at the Table: Ending Hunger in God’s World” (1999). That book is now 15 years old, so many of the statistics are somewhat dated. But what they write about the problem of, and solution to, worldwide hunger is still true.

Many of us make charitable contributions to organizations that directly help needy people. And giving to such charities is certainly commendable.

But “charity is not enough,” to cite the title of Beckmann and Simon’s 21^st chapter.

They emphasize that “effective help for hungry people walks on two legs—the leg of charity and the leg of public policy” (p. 149). Bread for the World is related primarily to the latter.

Decisions made by Congress can and do help hungry people more than the combined efforts of all the charities in the country. On the other hand, some decisions have a negative impact. That is the reason Bread for the World engages in extensive advocacy activities.

Such activities are also called lobbying, a term that often has a negative connotation.

Nonetheless, Bread for the World is up front about what they do. In their appeal for funds they state clearly, “Bread for the World members lobby Congress on behalf of hungry and poor people, so gifts are not tax deductible.”

Yesterday, those who attended the first day of the National Gathering at Georgetown University Hotel and Conference Center spent from 10 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. “worshiping, listening, and learning together.” The theme was “Working Together to End Hunger and Poverty by 2030.”

Today, June 10, is Bread for the World’s “lobby day” for this year. The day will be spent mainly on pre-arranged visits to members of Congress on Capitol Hill. 

However, perhaps even charity and advocacy together are not enough. Attention needs to be given also to why people are hungry. This is where things begin to get sticky.

Consider again the oft-cited words of Archbishop Dom Helder Camara of Brazil: “When I give food to the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.”

Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, though, rightly said, “When people were hungry, Jesus didn't say, ‘Now is that political, or social?’ He said, ‘I feed you.’ Because the good news to a hungry person is bread.”

Won’t you join me in supporting the work of Bread for the World?

_____

Note (added 11/23): Art Simon died on November 14, 2023.

The Forgiveness Challenge

As I wrote about in my previous blog article, Nelson Mandela was elected president of South Africa on April 27, 1994. He was the first black president in that country that had long been dominated by the white minority.

At the time of Mandela’s election, there was still considerable anger and resentment among the blacks because of the decades of abuse and mistreatment under the cruel system known as apartheid.

There was also considerable fear and anxiety among the whites, who were no longer in control of political power. They had every reason to fear violent reaction by those who for so long had been victims of injustice. And there was unrest that did result in some violence.

However, President Mandela took a conciliatory attitude and led in the formation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in 1995. Mandela chose Desmond Tutu to be the head of the TRC, and he was an excellent choice.

Tutu (b. 1931) was ordained as an Anglican priest in 1960. He served three years as the Bishop of Lesotho in the late 1970s and then as Bishop of Johannesburg in 1985-86. Tutu was then installed as the Archbishop of Cape Town (one of the three capitals of South Africa) in 1986, a post he held until 1996, the year he turned 65.

Tutu’s work for peace, justice, and reconciliation began long before 1995. In fact, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984, while Mandela was still in prison and the majority population of South Africa was still under oppressive white rule.

But in his tireless opposition to apartheid, Tutu advocated only nonviolent means for change.

Tutu’s new book “The Book of Forgiving: The Fourfold Path for Healing Ourselves and Our World” was published just last month. It was co-authored with his daughter Mpho. She is also an Anglican priest who now lives in Virginia.

Having just read their splendid book, I highly recommend it—especially if you have any lingering feelings of anger or resentment toward people who have hurt you in the past.

The Tutus’ “fourfold path” to forgiveness includes (1) telling the story, (2) naming the hurt, (3) granting forgiveness, and (4) renewing or releasing the relationship.

I am not sure what all it is going to involve, but beginning on May 4, the Tutus are leading the “Tutu Global Forgiveness Challenge” on the Internet. I have signed up—along with people from more than 120 other countries—to receive the daily emails and other information about forgiveness.

If you are interested, the address for learning more about the Forgiveness Challenge, as well as for signing up, is https://ForgivenessChallenge.com. And while you will probably be encouraged to buy their book, that is not required and signing up for the online activity is free of charge.

In promoting the challenge, their website declares, “The Forgiveness Challenge will help you discover how the act of forgiving can bring more love and peace to your life. When enough of us forgive–we can change the world!”

I think that is quite true. That is the reason I am writing about this—and encouraging you to respond to the forgiveness challenge.

Although Desmond and Mpho Tutu are Anglican priests, their book is not explicitly religious. It is based on a deep understanding of human psychology and verified by the experiences they have had, especially his experience with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

And it is by no means just about South Africa. It is for all who need to forgive—and to be forgiven by others.