1
“The kingdom of God will be taken away from you
and given to a nation producing the fruits of it.”
Matthew 21:43
Adam Kok was the ruler of the Griqua people of the central and eastern regions of colonial South Africa during the late 19th Century. He and his people converted to Christianity through the work of Dr Robert Moffat, of the London Missionary Society. This community, however, was confronted by the marauding gangs of Boer trekkers who were conquering territory from native tribes in their trek towards the hinterland. The Griquas were confronted by the imperative of war with the trek boers. It came naturally to them to pray to God for deliverance. But each time they went into battle they were defeated by the boers and they lost territory. Their land was being confiscated bit by bit, and many of Adam Kok’s subjects were becoming servants of the boers.
Completely exasperated and feeling let down by God, Adam Kok eventually prayed: God Almighty, we are about to face our enemies yet again. The battle ahead is the biggest yet. My best fighting warriors are ready and prepared. We pray that you should come to our assistance. Please note that this battle is for big men, not young men. Please do not send your son this time. Come personally.” I heard the story told so often by the late Joe Slovo, for many years leader of the South African Communist Party and liberation fighter. It was many years later that I discovered that in all likelihood, Joe Slovo would have got the story from one of Lourens van der Post’s short stories.
This is the heir; come let us kill him and have his inheritance...
Matthew 21: 38
The householder reasoned like Adam Kok. The tenants have ill-treated and killed all his emissaries; they are in breach of their contractual obligations, they have violated their fiduciary duties;the law must take its course. But the bailiffs were received with contempt and disrespect. His last resort was to send his son, because, he reasoned, “They will respect my son.” Instead, the son too was treated with contempt, and killed.
I am interested in the dynamics of reasoning in this story. The property owner father, in sending the son, thinks that, knowing it is my son, they will respect him. The wicked tenants, on the other hand, see the advent of the son as an opportunity, even as a provocation. “He is the heir. Come let us kill him, and have his inheritance.” The traditional arrangements of landlord and tenant are being subverted. The order and authority of the landowner are being challenged; the culture of subservience to the whim of the master is being undermined. The master is blissfully unaware that a bloody revolution is underway, and that the power play that constructed unfair advantage in favour of the landlord to which the tenants had to subordinate themselves, could no longer hold sway.
On the other hand, what the tenants might have missed is that whereas being heir may be a birthright, whether by appointment in a will or testament by the will of the owner of the estate, is a grave responsibility. Receiving the inheritance by whatever means requires responsibility. Obviously it means taking responsibility for the estate, its assets and liabilities, including estate duties. Sometimes it also means, managing the estate in such a manner that all those who are beneficiaries, including wives, children etc, continue to derive benefit. The acquisition of an inheritance is the assumption of responsibility. It would seem, on the face of it, that these unworthy tenants, who have not been able to abide by their solemn contractual agreements with the owner of the property, could not be trusted to honour their responsibilities as guardians of the inheritance. I would like to look at it differently; they are seeking a change in the ground rules. They are changing the prevailing power structure in favour of the powerless and landless.
My sense is that there is a similar revolution underway in British society today. The demographics of British society have changed dramatically even from the time I lived in England 15 years ago. There is, definitely, in the major urban areas, a visible presence of people of all colours. The changing face of our neighbourhoods has become irreversible. In the corridors at King’s, one hears spoken languages not just from all over Europe, but also Asian and African languages as well. In the trains and buses, people speak on their cell phones, listen to music in their iPods from across the globe. British business is being conducted in a variety of languages – and globalisation is changing the face of the economy. I also observe religious and cultural expressions of the new Britain, and one sees forms of dress associated with Islam, and British minorities are asserting their identities through a variety of cultural forms of expression.
But there is more to this phenomenon. Equally vocal and assertive are voices of dissent from the Dawkins and other militant atheists of our society, but much more a recasting of public discourse about the nature and character of our society, and its intellectual significations. In many ways Richard Dawkins and his ilk are rehashing outmoded debates about the philosophical claims of believing or of atheism from the very beginnings. None of that, however, has ever diminished the appeal of religious belief from people across the spectrum.
One however cannot make a case against religion by denying the fundamental truth about British society: that is that there are centuries of tradition, and culture that have built the kind of society Britain is; and at the very centre of it, is Christian belief and traditions. It is salutary to note that not even through seven decades of communist dictatorship in Russia has ever diminished that nation’s adherence to orthodox religion. It cannot therefore be surprising that 71,6% of respondents to the 2001 census declared themselves to be Christians; and that recent statistics show that there is a resurgence of church attendance in the Church of England, and the average weekly attendance at church of England worship services at 1,2m is much more than attendance at football stadiums, and certainly more than membership of all political parties, a recent Guardian report declared.
But we are also being told that 82% of those recently surveyed declared that religion causes division. Not surprising given the highly divisive adventure in Iraq led by George Bush and Tony Blair; not surprising given those who claim to act in the name of Islam, and sometimes as far as Israel is concerned, for the preservation of fears associated with religion, to bomb, maim, murder, and commit suicide, and others at the Twin Towers 9/11, London 7/7, Lebanon, East Africa. But we shall be mistaken is we ever believe that such acts are the full expression of religion for much that is good about religion does not command front page news.
In our text, I am interested in the saying of Christ that “the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it” (Matt 21:43). This suggests I think that we need to be conscious of and welcome the silent revolution that is underway. The fact is that multicultural and religiously diverse Britain is its joy and beauty; that public discourse must enhance intellectual engagement and promote better understanding; but that there are values that will always remain the foundation stone of this society, and that includes the religious and intellectual nature of this society, its history, norms, values and philosophy; its evolving democratic nature . It is to be expected that this social interplay will result in minority groups being more assertive, and the majority community adopting a siege mentality. But that need not be so.
Investment in quality human relations, the value of pursuit of knowledge, scientific activity that has put this nation among the best in advancing scientific knowledge must now serve to bring out the confidence in the future among all the people of these islands. A society so imbued in knowledge will be one that observes, listens, takes account of developments, applies learning, and values outcomes. Any society that undermines or seeks to subvert intellectual pursuit will soon find that all aspects of human activity lack sense and sensibility. The pursuit of goodness and wholeness should be normal for all societies, but that we need to have conversations about what constitutes “the good” in a diverse moral universe must not be allowed to be as elusive as mercury.
There was an interesting and perceptive piece in “theguardian” recently by Max Hastings. He believes that at the heart of the breakdown in society is the dearth of a culture of deference replaced by a culture of blame. Maybe deference of the Victorian sort has gone, but that there is no reason that respect for the others, or acknowledgement of those in authority should be in short supply. The result is “yobbish” behaviour so despised and feared by ordinary British folk. However, the paradise lost is the overwhelming lack of trust in all pillars of society. Indeed, Giles Fraser, Vicar of Putney had much the same to say about the Reformation consensus that is the Church of England. That a C of E Vicar was loved much to the extent that he was some buffoon around, makes others feel good, doesn’t disturb anyone, works only with a minimalist rule book. One suspects that educators have also fallen into the same trap – and the result is a nation in search of its values, its culture and its soul.
What happened to Adam Kok? He was defeated, and his lands annexed by the boer trekkers. The Griquas lost their ethnic and national identity through decades of relentless destruction and impoverishment. The new South Africa today is seeking to restore dignity to the Griquas and restore their nationhood. The boers fared no better. They were soon defeated by the British colonialists – and in the end no one was the winner – but years of inner destruction caused by white minority rule and apartheid nearly destroyed that capacity of God’s people to be human towards each other. So too in Britain today, while recognising the changes underway, all must embrace the responsibilities that come with change.
The emphasis in the text, is, with remarkable sagacity, on “fruits” not so much the rhetoric, the ideology, dogma or just the setting the outer perimeters of belonging. The fruits of the kingdom, I suspect, are the essence of our belonging together in a communion and fellowship of God’s people. It is no longer tenable for some to set the rules that others must follow and obey. Somehow the rules of the game have changed. Neither the landlord nor the wicked tenants ultimately had it in them to produce the “fruits” of the kingdom. Somehow the vision of Revelation 21 must be apprehended: “Behold I make all things new” (Rev 21:5).
Amen
N Barney Pityana, PhD DD FKC
Desmond Tutu Visiting Professor in Post Conflict Societies
King’s College London
Opening of Term Service
King’s College Chapel
10 January 2007