The Indecency of the World Cup in Qatar—Making a F-ing Difference?

I love Berlin! It is an amazing city. I have been here many times in the last decade. As I write this, I am sitting in my office in the Theology Faculty at the Humboldt University Berlin, looking out over the Spree river towards the Berliner Dom (Lutheran Cathedral) and Museum Island. I am here on an extended stay as part of a research sabbatical. But, of course, there is another side to contemporary Berlin. It is a city whose residents challenge convention and push the boundaries. Graffiti is a common sight as are some rather interesting fashion choices.

On my commute from home to the university, I cycled through a tunnel under the S-Bahn (elevated train) near Hackescher Markt, home to all the “cool” stores. Just as the Berliner Dom came into view, I was confronted by a mural by the “Football blackout for human rights” campaign that was pasted over the regular graffiti on the tunnel walls. It read:

“On Dec 10, I’ll marathon-kiss my queer partner in public instead of watching football.”

I think the text is deliberately intended to shock the reader. It is somewhat reminiscent of the famous Berlin mural by Dmitri Vrubel, often referred to as the Fraternal Kiss. It was painted along the Berlin Wall at the East Side Gallery with the inscription, Mein Gott, hilf mir, diese tödliche Liebe zu überleben [My God, Help Me to Survive this Deadly Love]. The famous mural depicts Leonid Brezhnev (Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, 1960–1964 and 1977–1982) and Erich Honecker (head of East Germany under Soviet rule, 1971–1989) engaging in a fraternal kiss. The mural is based on a photograph by Régis Bossu, depicting the two communist leaders engaging in such a kiss in East Berlin on 7 October 1979. There is nothing strange about two men kissing. It is common in many cultures. But the mural elicited quite a stir. Some found it indecent and shocking, and it generated a great deal of public debate.

I am guessing that the artists behind the mural I passed are hoping to create similar discussion. Well, I sat down to write this piece, so it is working to some extent at least!  Among the other slogans used by the “Football blackout for human rights” campaign are:

“Today I’d rather drunk-text my ex than watch football”

and “Today I’d rather masturbate all day than watching football.”

For me, the juxtaposition of what society deems “decent” (the Berliner Dom and the grand Museums) against the seemingly indecent slogans of the “Football blackout” campaign raised important questions about how we make sense of the world and construct our values. Let me explain why.

I started my sabbatical research in July 2022 by delivering one of the more important lectures of my career to date, my inaugural lecture as Professor of Public Theology and Ethics at Stellenbosch University (see, Counterpoint). In the lecture, I wrestled with “living more decently in an indecent world.” Since then, I have been speaking, teaching, and researching at some of the more “decent” Universities in Germany and the UK (Cambridge, Heidelberg, Bamberg, and Berlin). A lot of my conversations with students and colleagues have centered around the tension between the need for both decency and indecency in contemporary theology.

In my lecture, I was not advocating for a kind of “decent theology,” or “decency ethics.” I realize that what is presented as “decency” in some settings can be used to oppress sexual minorities, to stifle racial and ethnic diversity, or to “other” persons from non-dominant cultures.

Rather, I tried to imagine how a person might live a moral life, a good life, a life of greater justice that is directed towards the common good in the midst of many contemporary indecencies (such as poverty, racism, sexism, homophobia, and war). Moreover, I wanted to discern what we should do when these indecencies are held in place or strengthened by indecent systems and institutions, to the extent that—by means of economic, political, and religious systems—their actions and values, even in so-called “decent” societies have become indecent.

Consider the different treatment given to Syrian and Ukrainian refugees in Europe, or the religion that is used to oppress sexual minorities, or sport that is used to “purpose-wash” human rights abuses. We need a measure of decency to counter structural and systemic indecencies that humiliate and dehumanize people. The Israeli philosopher Avishai Margalit asserts that a “decent society is one whose institutions do not humiliate people.”

Though my focus then was on decency, I realize that we also need a measure of indecency to call into question some of what we have come to uncritically and unquestioningly present as “proper,” “acceptable,” and “justifiable” in contemporary politics, economics, and religion. I would characterize “oppressive decency” as a form of arbitrary, parochial narrow- mindedness.

To combat that, advocating for some measure of indecency in contemporary life is not without peril. Some groups may claim that their acts of racism, antisemitism, xenophobia, and homophobia further their version of what is good. In such instances we need to defer to greater decency—such as upholding our common humanity, fostering deep solidarity, and working courageously and tirelessly for universal justice. In short, we need to maintain a critical tension between both indecency and decency in our pursuit of the common good, and the lasting good.

So, my question is, what is the decent thing to do when encountering structural and systemic indecency in society? The decent thing to do may just be indecent by some contemporary standards.

The late Argentinian theologian Marcella Althaus-Reid suggested that in situations where systemic and structural oppression has been normalized, we need to develop an Indecent Theology that “troubles” some of these ossified and uncritically accepted “decent” beliefs and practices that lead to injustice and oppression. When her book was first published, it caused a major stir in “decent” theological circles. The South African queer theologians Hanzline Davids and Ashwin Thyssen argue that this “stir” is good as it “disrupts, transgresses, and erases stable binaries” such as heteropatriarchy, white supremacy, western supremacism, and the economic, political, and social systems that give these binaries the power to dominate and subjugate.

As I cycled away from the protest art in the S-Bahn tunnel, I was left wondering, for example, why I, and likely many other persons, have no moral problem watching the 2022 World Cup matches in Qatar, where there are indecent abuses of the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons, women, migrant workers, and many others. Yet, I feel morally challenged by an artwork advocating a “marathon queer-kissing session in public.”

The protest art helped me to realize that what I consider decent may in fact be indecent and that I needed a certain measure of indecency to help me to re-evaluate—literally to reconsider what I value or more pointedly re-evaluate what my values are based upon. Lisa Isherwood, the famous “body theologian” who uses our lived, embodied human experiences to think about God and relationship to God, wrote an appreciative (and critical) response to Althaus-Reid. Isherwood’s response is titled, Indecent Theology: What F-ing Difference Does It Make? She contends that indecent theology could help us to move towards a more honest, truth-telling theology.

So, I would like to invite you to dwell with those things that make you feel uncomfortable, that unsettle your sensibilities, that destabilize your social and historical values. What is it about them that makes you uncomfortable? What unquestioned values do they challenge? A bit of indecent theology might just be what is necessary to make a “f-ing difference” for the sake of a more decent world.

[I wrote this article for Counterpoint Knowledge. It was first published on 7 December 2022]

Professorial Inaugural Lecture: On living more decently in an indecent world - The virtues and vices of a Public Theologian

On the 16th of August 2022 I was exceptionally grateful to deliver my Inaugural Lecture as a Full Professor at Stellenbosch University.

The tradition of the Professorial Inaugural Lecture is that once one is promoted to Full Professor you have to make a 'profession'. It is generally assumed that some years or decades of research and scholarship will mean that you have something of meaning and value to say.

I took that very seriously. Wrestled for some months with what to 'profess'. Of course there was the pressure that the lecture's text had to be finalised in order to be prepared for publication! This was actually quite good - it meant that I had to read, listen, discern, and write! In the end I tried to discern what might be appropriate, fitting, and just for me to profess as a white, male, professor of Public Theology and Ethics in Stellenbosch South Africa in 2022? As it happened, the date that the University set for the lecture coincided with the 10th Anniverary of the Marikana massacre (about which I had done research and written previously). The mine workers who were shot in that terrible event had built their campaign around decency - what they were advocating for was a 'decent wage' (not just a 'living wage'). They wanted to earn enough to be able to undo the evils of colonialism and apartheid for them and their families. They were asking to earn enough to be able to undo the dehumanization of migrant labour, of inadequate education, of a lack of health care, and of ongoing poverty. They expected, that in a decent society they should be able to earn a decent wage. Sadly, 47 persons died indecently during that week's protests.

So in the end, the title of my lecture was:

Living more decently in an indecent world? The virtues and vices of a public theologian.

You can download PDF copy of the published lecture here.

The event was attended by family, friends, my wonderful colleagues, and members of the Rectorate of Stellenbosch University. It was such a special evening! I am so grateful.

You can watch the lecture itself here (or see the embedded youtube video below which will start playing at the start of the lecture itself, skip back to the beginning to watch the whole evening with inputs from special colleagues and friends).

We must make moral choices about how we relate to social media

My newest article on ethics and social media has just been published by The Conversation. You can read it below.

We must make moral choices about how we relate to social media apps

The Social Dilemma/Netflix

Dion Forster, Stellenbosch University

Recently a South African radio show asked, “If you had to choose between your mobile phone and your pet, which would choose?” Think about that for a moment. Many callers responded they would choose their phone. I was shocked… But to be honest, I give more attention to my phone than to my beloved dogs!

Throughout history there have been discoveries that have changed society in unimaginable ways. Written language made it possible to communicate over space and time. The printing press, say historians, helped shape societies through the mass dissemination of ideas. New modes of transport radically transformed social norms by bringing people into contact with new cultures.

Yet these pale in comparison to how the internet is shaping, and misshaping, our individual and social identities. I remember the first time I heard a teenager speaking with an American accent and discovered she’d never been out of South Africa but picked up her accent from watching YouTube. We shape our technologies, but they also shape us.

The potentially negative impacts of social media have again been highlighted by The Social Dilemma on Netflix. The documentary, which Facebook has slammed as sensational and unfair, shows how dominant and largely unregulated social media companies manipulate users by harvesting personal data, while using algorithms to push information and ads that can lead to social media addiction – and dangerous anti-social behaviour. Among others, the show makes an example of the conspiracy theory QAnon, which is increasingly targeting Africans.

Despite its flaws, the doccie got me wondering what our relationship should be to social media? As an ethics professor, I’ve come to realise that we must make moral choices about how we relate to our technologies. This requires an honest evaluation of our needs and weaknesses, and a clear understanding of the intentions of these platforms.

Tug-of-war with technology

Yuval Noah Harari, author of Sapiens, contends it’s our ability to inhabit “fiction” that differentiates humans. He claims you “could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven”. Humans have a capacity to believe in things we cannot see – which changes things that do exist. Ideas like prejudice and hatred, for example, are powerful enough to cause wars that displace thousands.

The wall between Israel and Palestine was conceived in people’s minds before being transformed into bricks and barbed wire. Philosopher Oliver Razac’s book Barbed Wire: A political history traces how this razor-sharp technology has been deployed from farms that displaced indigenous peoples to the trenches of World War I and the prisons of contemporary democracies.

Sophia Hammons as Isla in The Social Dilemma. The Social Dilemma/Netflix

Technology is in a constant psychological, political and economic tug-of-war with humanity. Yet, some of today’s technologies are much more subtle than barbed wire. They are deeply integrated into our lives – they know us better than we know ourselves.

I have thousands of ‘friends’ on social media – far too many to relate to meaningfully. Yet, at times I can be more present to people that I have never met than I am to my family. This is not by chance – social media platforms are designed to seek and hold our attention. They are businesses, intent on making money. Harvard University professor Shoshana Zuboff, who features in the documentary, explains in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism that social media “trades exclusively in human futures”.

We are the product

Zuboff says that social media platforms exploit our emotions and pre-cognate needs like belonging, recognition, acceptance and pleasure that are ‘hard wired’ into us to secure our survival.

Recognition relates to two of the primary functions of the brain, avoiding danger and finding ways to meet our basic survival needs (such as food or a mate to perpetuate our gene pool). These corporations, she says, are hiring the smartest engineers, social psychologists, behavioural economists and artists to hold our attention, while interspersing adverts between our videos, photos and status updates. They make money by offering a future that their advertisers will sell you.

Or, as former Google and Facebook employee Justin Rosenstein, says in The Social Dilemma:

Our attention is the product being sold to advertisers.

If our adult brains are so susceptible to this kind of manipulation, what effects are they having on the developing minds of children?

Trailer for The Social Dilemma.

The documentary also reminds the viewer that social media has a more subtle and powerful influence on our lives – shaping our social and political realities.

Fake news and hate speech

The documentary uses an example from 2017 in which Facebook use is linked to violence that led to the displacement of close to 700,000 Rohingya persons in Myanmar. Something that doesn’t really exist (a social media platform) violently changed something that does exist (the safety of people). Facebook was a primary means of communication in Myanmar. New phones came with Facebook pre-installed. What users were unaware of was a ‘third person’ – Facebook’s algorithms – feeding information that included hate speech and fake news into their conversations. In Africa, similar reports have emerged from South Sudan and Zimbabwe.

---

Read more: Netflix's The Social Dilemma highlights the problem with social media, but what's the solution?

---

Another example used is the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which also played out in Africa, most notably in Nigeria and Kenya. Facebook user information was mined and sold to nefarious political actors. This information (like what people feared and what upset them) was used to spread misinformation and manipulate their voting decisions on important elections.

What to do about it?

So, what do we do? We can’t very well give up on social media completely, and I don’t think it is necessary. These technologies are already deeply intertwined with our daily lives. We cannot deny they have some value.

However, just like humans had to adapt to the responsible use of the printing press or long distance travel, we will need to be more intentional about how we relate to these new technologies. We can begin by cultivating healthier social media habits.

We should also develop a greater awareness of the aims of these companies and how they achieve them, while understanding how our information is being used. This will allow us to make some simple commitments that align our social media usage to our better values.

Dion Forster, Head of Department, Systematic Theology and Ecclesiology, Stellenbosch University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Compassion Fatigue during the Coronavirus pandemic

Considering CompassionRecently I have begun to worry that some of us are facing 'compassion fatigue'.

It is understandable, given the immensity of the suffering that so many face, and the constant barrage of information about illness, economics, tragedy, corruption and our inability to 'instantly solve' many of these important concerns.

As I listen to friends, observe reporting in the media, and gauge my own emotional state, I sense that many of us have become 'numb' to the hardship and tragedy that the coronavirus pandemic has brought. Some have chosen to withdraw - those of us who have privilege have the luxury to do so. Others have begun to believe falsehoods, some even spread them - history will not be kind us. Some simply cannot care anymore. That is not our truest nature, and we should never let ourselves fall into something that we are not meant to be.

Please let us always remember that ultimately this is about people. It is about precious people. It is also about sick people who long to be restored to health, it is about vulnerable people who are afraid that they may get sick and not have the resources to recover, it is about people who grieve the loss of loved ones, and long to find comfort and meaning in the midst of loss.

It is about us, and we are human. You matter. You bear the image of a God - a God who is loving and life giving. And so does every other person - even the one's we don't know, don't understand, or don't agree with.

A few years ago I wrote a chapter for a book that was entitled: 'Affect, Empathy, and Human Dignity? Considering Compassion at the Intersection of Theology and Science.' (simply click on the title to download a PDF copy)

(it comes from, 'Considering Compassion: Global Ethics, Human Dignity, and the Compassionate God' edited by L.J. Claassens & Frits de Lange (eds.). Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications. pp. 3–16.

Maybe it can offer some encouragement, or perhaps an insight into this phenomenon called 'compassion fatigue'.

Please, let's not give up caring.

Populism and Religion outside the US: Research and Reflections

It feels like a lifetime ago - in November 2018 I presented a paper on a Panel on Religion and Populism at the American Academy of Religion.

It was one of the 'Wildcard' sessions that was recorded.

The panel was hosted by Prof Marcia Pally (New York University, Humboldt University), Prof Torsten Meireis (Humboldt University), Luke Bretherton (Duke University), Michael Minkenberg (European University), and myself - Dion Forster (Stellenbosch University). You can watch the presentations here: https://youtu.be/7lZzbCQeXP8

My paper is currently under review for publication.

Jesus was the first person to decriminalise sex work (John 8:7) - A conversation in public theology and Biblical ethics

The Central Methodist Mission in Cape Town has a tradition of hanging banners on the outside of their church building on Greenmarket Square in Cape Town. They use this as both a witness to their convictions on social issues (such as sexual identity, economic inequality, freedom of information, issues of injustice etc.) The banners are often quite controversial. I think that is part of their intention - to draw some attention to these important social issues, and invite conversation around them. Either because they are not discussed, or because they are not discussed in honest ways, or considered from a variety of perspectives, or the issues are not discussed and considered in public spaces.

This most recent banner is a case in point. Their prophetic statement is “Jesus was the first to decriminalise sex work (John 8:7)”.

This bold statement has generated a great deal of conversation among Christians and other interested parties! I posted a picture of the banner on my facebook page and asked for some comment. The comments flowed in thick and fast, and what was clear was that this is a controversial statement! Some were strong in their condemnation of the banner, stating largely that it either misrepresented a ‘proper’ interpretation of the narrative of John 8 (many citing John 8.11 as a qualifier). Others took exception to the moral association of Jesus decriminalising sex workers (labelling such persons as sinners, and saying that Jesus would never condone sin). However, this latter group were not always aware of the structuring of aspects of the Johannine narrative that contest those who hold social and religious power (such as the Scribes, and Pharisees) - indeed one possible interpretation of the John 8 narrative was that Jesus was unmasking unjust power. A powerless woman is to be stoned, while an equally adulterous man is not engaged.

So, this is a complicated issue that highlights just how important it is for us to engage such statements, as this one by the Central Methodist Mission, with a measure of informed objectivity on our own convictions and the convictions that others may hold. You can read the comments on on my facebook feed here: http://bit.ly/John8v7

Well, I think this is an interesting discussion! So, please do watch my video in which I try to highlight some of the issues at the intersection of different publics and different perspectives on public theological statements, as well as touching on Biblical hermeneutics, the social (and moral) imagination of Christian communities and societies, and also the prophetic intention of this Church. Please share the video, and please also share your feedback, ideas and comments! 

As always, I would love to hear your comments, suggestions, ideas, feedback and questions!

Please subscribe and like the video, and you will be notified of new posts as they come: http://www.youtube.com/dionforster

Thanks!

A matter of conflict? Politics and sustainable development? A reflection on my visit to Berlin

I am coming to the end of a magnificent trip to Berlin, Germany. I arrived here almost three weeks ago to speak at and participate in a number of events. The title of this blog post is 'A matter of conflict? Politics and sustainable development?' It seems, as I reflect on my time here, that I have given a lot of time to thinking about the relationship between an ethics of justice and an ethics of care - how do we work of a world in which no one has too much while anyone has too little? How do we transform economic, social and political systems for the common good AND at the same time care for one another and the environment. This is the 'site' of conflict, that intersection between justice and care. My colleauge Dr Carike Noeth is a specialist in this field of study (having completed a great PHD on the ethics of care (and justice!) last year. So, this has occupied a lot of my thinking.

Prof Torsten Meireis, a senior colleauge in Ethics and Public Theology - who is a Professor at the Humboldt Universität zu Berlin - invited me to participate in some events here in Berlin during the summer. It has been such a wonderful and significant visit. I have had the privilege of participating in a number of academic conferences, the G20 meetings in Potsdam, visiting and doing a lecture at Bamberg University, and working on a joint research project with Prof Meireis.

So, I arrived in Berlin on the 6th of June to participatein the first event which is a joint 'Summer School' program that is hosted by the Humboldt University, Stellenbosch University (where I teach), the University of KwaZulu Natal (UKZN), and the University of the Western Cape (UWC). Each year we meet in South Africa in February or March, and then in Berlin in June.

It was so wonderful to be here with South African and German colleagues - the event was arranged by Dr Clemens Wustmans from the Humboldt University and our topic was 'Religion, sustainability and politics'. The presenters included scientists, literary theorists, development specialists, religious scholars and theologians. 

In this picture you will see Prof Meireis. As mentioned I was in Berlin at his invitation. In part it was also to work on a joint research grant application for a project that he and I will collaborate on. The project focuses in the ethics of 'Welfare pluralism' in South Africa and Germany - in particular how notions of welfare are conceived and who participates in the conception and expression of these concepts (the state, civil society and the religious sector, the private sector etc.) I really hope that this project will be successful! It will be a great development for my academic career, and it will also mean that I will spend a lot more time with Torsten and time in Berlin! So, I will keep you updated on how that develops!

At the summer school I presented a paper entitled 'Thinking 'olive' instead of 'red' or 'green': Seeking to bring together sustainability and development discourses in Southern African Methodist Ethics'. The paper will be finalised and prepared for publication. In the meantime, here is a short Youtube video from my series 'It's not a lecture... Just a thought!' on this topic. You will also get to see some of Berlin and my beautiful Brompton Bicycle on this trip!

Then, on the 12th of June I went to the University of Bamberg where I did a public lecture with Prof Thomas Wabel who is also an ethicist and Public Theologian. The purpose of the visit (other than the lecture) was to hand over the 'leadership' of the Global Network for Public Theology from Stellenbosch (where we hosted the last global gathering in October 2016) to Bamberg where the next gathering will take place in 2019. Thomas takes over as the hosting chair, and I will serve (at the behest of Prof Nico Koopman) as the outgoing hosting chair on the international commitee. Bamberg was amazing! It is such a beautiful city! The lecture itself went well, as did the meetings. I was so surprised to see my colleague Prof Smanga Kumalo from UKZN and Seth Mokitimi Methodist Seminary (SMMS) arrive at the lecture! He had come to the city for some meetings and heard I was doing the lecture and so attended. That was very special. Here is a poster for the lecture, and a picture of Smanga and I before the event. The title of my lecture was ‘The (im)possibility of forgiveness? Nelson Mandela and the Politics of forgiveness in South Africa’.

The lecture is based on two large research projects that I have just concluded (if you see my youtube channel you will find details of both). They are, the research and work that I have been doing on Nelson Mandela and political theologies in South Africa, and my 2nd PHD (which I handed in at Radboud University on 14 May 2017!) which is entitled ‘The (im)possibility of forgiveness? An empirical intercultural Bible reading of Matthew 18.15-35’. In that research project I did a 3 year qualitative empirical study on how Black and White South African Christians conceptualize, understand, and express notions and processes of forgiveness in contemporary South Africa with its significant economic, social, political and racial divides.

The lecture went off well and there was a lively discussion afterwards. The President of the Bamberg University, Prof Ruppert, attended the event which was a great honor. Here is a picture of myself and Prof Thomas Wabel, where the 'GNPT' Batik cloth was handed over.

After returning from Bamberg I came back to Berlin to participate in the G20 Interfaith Meetings in Potsdam. This was a wonderful opportunity to further discuss the role of religion in the G20 nations in relation to sustainable development and migration - which are significant and important topics currently. What I found so interesting is the very important role that the G20 places upon religion and the religious across the world. The Pew Researcher (Brian Grim) spoke about their research that shows that 84% of global citizens identify that they are religious. This is significant. Of course we know that religion is often a source of conflict and social division, even abuse. Yet, at the same time it is also a great source of transformation, care, development and change. I was so grateful to be at this event thanks to my colleague and friend from Oxford University, Dr Peter Petkoff (pictured here).

Now I am on the last stretch of my stay in Berlin. Today and tomorrow I shall participate in the opening conference of the Berlin Institute for Public theology (of which I am a member). I will be speaking on Public Theology, globalization, politics and economics tomorrow. My paper is written, but I feel that I still need to rework it a little before I present. By Friday evening I shall be home with Megie, Liam and Courtney! I cannot wait. 

Trips like these are always so wonderful and significant. But, my goodness, there is nothing quite like being home with my family!

Is the Church failing the nation? On Minister Dlamini and South African social grants

In our 3rd year Public Theology / Ethics class today we discussed the notion of a just society in which all citizens have the right to have rights, and the resources of the nation are shared for the common good.

We considered that a just society is one where power is used to safeguard the rights of the least powerful, and where economic policy is implemented, not for the benefit of the privileged or the elite, but for the benefit and protection of poorest of the poor. 

John Rawls's theory of justice was discussed, as was God's preferential option for the poor. In particular, however, we pointed out that in a country where 83% of our citizens say that they are members of the Christian faith, denials of justice and the abuse of the less powerful are failures in our witness and work as the church! 

Minister Dlamini is a member of a Christian church. Has her denomination held her to account for her poor servanthood, for her failure to be a good steward of the trust of the South African people? Have the members of her family, her community, her Church, reminded her that a nation is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens, not its richest and most powerful?  

Christians in South Africa, we have so much work to do to witness to justice and work for the common good. We are called to do so - it is a responsibility.

I am grateful to be able to wrestle with these issues with colleagues and comrades in Christ. Thank you for your companionship on the journey!

Here is the article that prompted this post:

PAYMENT CRISIS 

Dlamini unwittingly gives grants support 

08 March 2017 - 06:57 AM Steven Friedman 

Poor people across the country owe a debt to Social Development Minister Bathabile Dlamini. Entirely by accident, she may have produced a national consensus in support of social grants.

Dlamini presides over perhaps the most disgraceful incident in the past two decades, an exercise in breathtaking contempt for 17-million people who receive grants. There are two possible explanations for the crisis her ministry has created for the grants programme.

Either it did not care, over several years, about making sure grants would be paid after the Constitutional Court overturned its agreement with Cash Paymaster Services — or someone sought to benefit financially from ignoring the order. Both explanations mean her department sees the people who are entitled to grants not as citizens with rights, but as a means to some other end. Which, of course, makes it all the more ironic that it has given grants an unexpected boost.

Before the grants story became national news, the programme’s only friends were a handful of academics, activist nongovernmental organisations and the poor themselves.

Elites here are divided on most issues, but not on prejudices against social grants, which are often derided as hand-outs that create dependency. The right complains that they place a burden on middle class and affluent people, who are expected to sustain others who lack their abilities. Many on the left, and within the governing party, see them as an embarrassing admission of defeat by a state that should be running employment programmes rather than giving money to the excluded.

Commentators across the racial and political spectrum join in this assault on grants, sometimes by spreading legends. A former ANC Cabinet minister claimed, without any evidence, that rural people avoided working the fields because they receive grants. A bank economist claimed that tens of thousands of women fell pregnant simply to receive grants: when asked for his information source, he said a friend told him.

Dlamini’s disaster may have changed all that. None of the commentators or politicians who have criticised her, which means everyone outside the ANC’s patronage faction, have questioned the need to pay grants. It could be a long time before it will again be fashionable to denigrate them. If the assault on grants ends, Dlamini’s scandal will be a disguised blessing for the economy as well as the poor. Grants are, with the programme to provide treatment for people living with HIV/AIDS, the country’s most important success story in the post-1994 era.

Research shows that, contrary to the urban legends, grants are not only a lifeline for poor people: they also help to kick-start local economies. Few people fritter grants away — they are more likely to use them to meet social needs. In some towns, before the grants programme was rolled out, men stood in line for a handful of mining jobs. After grants arrived, people were more likely to be standing in line at stores or, more importantly, buying and selling on the streets. No wonder that studies have found that grants are the most effective antipoverty tool introduced since democracy arrived.

One reason grants are effective is that the decisions on how to spend them are made by the recipients rather than policy makers.

One of the greatest blocks to development here is the gap between what many policy makers think poor people need and what the poor know they need. The more people are able to decide for themselves what their priorities are, the more likely is it that the money will not be wasted.

An end to the campaign against grants might also help the debate to focus on the real world. As this column has pointed out, millions of South Africans will remain outside the formal job market for a very long time, whatever we do and so they will require support to enable them to live productive lives.

Finally, the political costs of harming the grants programme may be severe. Research shows, predictably, that people who receive grants value them and would be angered if they did not receive them, so protecting grants is essential to maintaining a semblance of social calm. The fact that no one in the debate has denied that failure to pay grants would be a catastrophe suggests that this reality too is now accepted.

For all these reasons, if Dlamini’s indifference to those who receive grants has made them a source of national pride and their protection a priority across the spectrum, she will have made, despite her best efforts, a real contribution to the campaign against poverty.

• Friedman is research professor in the University of Johannesburg’s humanities faculty

The classroom - a room of class? On Theological education and justice

What is the purpose of learning and knowledge? Does it hold value in the world today? In what ways do we learn, and should we learn, for appropriate discipleship as Christians? What is the relationship between education and justice?

In this VLOG we talk about the different ways in which persons are formed for Christian life and consider some different approaches to theological learning. We look at the traditional knowledge, values and skills approaches (head, heart and hands) and discuss how each holds value. Moreover, we consider the different ways in which the discourse and discussion around Higher Education is shaped by the metaphor of geography (the models of the University as Athens, Berlin and Calcutta).

The papers that I mentioned in the show are:

Olivier, B. 2011. Ethical Challenges Regarding Globalization of Higher Education. US-China Education Review, 6(B):816–823.

Kinsler, F.R. 1978. Theological Education by Extension: Service or Subversion? Missiology: An International Review, 6(2):181–196.

This book by Stanley Hauerwas is a helpful resource on education and the ethical considerations, ‘The state of the University: Academic knowledges and the knowledge of God’

And, this book ('Doing Ethics from the margins') gives a wonderful insight into how the two-thirds world thinks about education and justice, as De La Torre points out, the classroom is indeed a room of class (one can very quickly, and sadly, see how class impacts and plays itself out in contemporary higher education. Who gets to study, when they study under what conditions do they do so, what is their previous educational background etc.).

Find out more about Stellenbosch University (where I teach) at:

http://www.sun.ac.za/english/faculty/theology

I'd love to hear your take on these thoughts! Leave a comment here, or on youtube.

An ethics of care? Gender, politics, justice and care

Is care tied to gender? What is an ethics of care? What are the political implications of care?

Today's VLOG is Part 1 of an interview with Prof Frits de Lange from the Protestant Theological University, Groningen on the Ethics of Care.

He introduces the topic for us, suggests some wonderful reading and we also get to see a bit of Groningen in the video.

My thanks to Prof de Lange for hosting us for a wonderful conference on Compassion, and for his willingness to be interviewed on his research specialisation.

In Part 2 of the video that will be released later this week Prof de Lange speaks to us about 'Loving later life: An ethics of ageing' which is his recent book. So keep an eye out for that. 

Enjoy the video - Frits is wonderful to listen to! I would love to hear your thoughts, ideas and feedback on this important topic!

Can you trust everything YOU read? The Bible and Christian ethics

The Bible is the most important source for Christians in moral and ethical decision making. It should shape both our beliefs and our actions. However, it is often abused and dealt with in a careful and responsible manner when it comes to Christian ethics.

In this VLOG I talk about a chapter I wrote in a book called 'Restorative Readings: The Old Testament, Ethics and Human Dignity' (Claassens and Birch, eds) see it here:  http://amzn.to/1Nvuw0w

My chapter is focussed around the notion of hospitality and the need to create some space for the 'other', in this case the 'other' of the text and the 'other' of different readers of the text.

I also share a chapter that I wrote in 'What is a good life: An introduction to Christian Ethics' http://amzn.to/232BPi5

This chapter shows that as Christians we sometimes forget that our gender, age, education, race, social class and a host of other factors shapes how we understand and read the text - and that our reading may not be the only one!

I'd love to hear your thoughts and ideas!

Remember, it's not a lecture, just a thought…

I’d love you hear your feedback, comments, questions and ideas!

Please subscribe and like the video!

Detrimental health? Just health and a just health care system

Prof Jean Pierre Wils delivered a paper at a biomedical ethics conference at Stellenbosch University in August last year (if I recall correctly). He made a deeply challenging and thought provoking point that contemporary ethics seems obsessed with just health care, but the more important ethical issue is just health. Simply stated, unjust societies contribute to illness among their populations. This is not just a matter of providing adequate health care, it is a larger issue, it has to do with gender, economics, access to a healthy diet, sexual and reproductive rights etc.

I was asked to write a paper in response to his paper - which I have done and it is currently under review for a special edition of the journal 'In luce verbi' in which his paper and mine will appear. I will let you know when they are published.

In the meantime I discuss the issue of just health care and the South African biomedical theological ethical context in this video entitle 'Detrimental to your health'. I'd love to hear your insights, thoughts and comments!