June 2026

The Danger of the Single Story, Part 1: Creation In a 2009 TED Talk, entitled The Danger of a Single Story, Nigerian novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie says, “How to create a single story: show a people as one thing, only one thing over and over again, and that is what they become… Power is the ability not just to tell the story of another person but to make it the definitive story of that person.” “Start the story with the arrows of the Native Americans, and not with the arrival of the British, and you have an entirely different story. Start the story with the failure of the African state, and not with the colonial creation of the African state, and you have an entirely different story.” “The single story creates stereotypes, and the problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue but that they are incomplete. They make one story become the only story.”[1] I would argue that we have developed single-story thinking about the Story of God. We have created an unnatural divide between social justice and proclamation.[2] We have fallen into the trap of single-story thinking. We have defined ourselves, our churches, and who we associate with, depending on where we land on these issues. Early on in your association with the church, you had better decide on whose side you are; otherwise you will likely get eaten alive. At one point, there seemed to be a lessening of this divide, but in the last five years, many gains have been reversed. Instead, we have seen an intensification of these dichotomies and a hardening of the battle lines between “gospel” people and “justice” people. The biblical story is not single-dimensional, and by making it one, we have robbed it of some of its power, immensity, and ability to captivate our hearts and minds. The biblical story is a bigger, fuller, richer, and altogether more beautiful story than either side in this unnecessary dichotomy can adequately portray. We need to break out of this single-story mindset and instead embrace the gospel (story of God) as a multi-faceted, all-embracing story of restoration, grace, mercy, and justice with the death and resurrection of Jesus at the centre of the story. The Biblical Story is a bigger, richer, fuller, and altogether more beautiful story than either side can adequately portray. I am convinced that evangelism, proclamation, mercy, and justice are all integral to a proper understanding of the gospel. We need, therefore, to break out of the single-story, single-dimension mindset and instead embrace a multi-faceted, whole-of-life, story of restoration, grace, and mercy with the cross of Jesus firmly planted in the centre of the story. Creation It is impossible to read the Creation story and not see the centrality of God’s Word within that story. God speaks the world into being – “let there be…” (1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24,).” He speaks words of abundance, “eat from any tree in the garden” (1:29-30). He speaks words of order, separating, designating, and naming (1:4-5, 7-8, 10, 12, 14-17, 22, 25). He rules by his word “you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” (2:17) Time and time again throughout the first two chapters of Genesis, we see that God’s Word is integral to his creation purposes. But God’s word is not simply a word that is an end in and of itself. It is a working word. A word spoken to accomplish something. The word is not the goal in and of itself but is spoken to accomplish some very specific ends. God’s Word Creates a World of: Shalom: The biblical word for this idyllic world is shalom. Roughly translated, it is the Hebrew word for peace. But the English word “peace” hardly does it justice. Shalom carries far more weight than simply the absence of conflict or a sense of inner tranquillity. Derived from the verb “to complete” or “make sound” (šālôm),[3] shalom carries the sense of wholeness, completeness, and security, “embracing both the physical and spiritual dimensions and relating not only to the individual, but also to entire communities and relationships among persons.”[4] Author and activist Lisa Sharon Harper further defines shalom as “when the image of God is recognised, protected, and cultivated in every single human.” Shalom is when all the interconnected relationships of the created order, between God, humanity, and creation, are working together to bring flourishing and healing to all of creation. It is crucial, however, to recognise that these relationships do not exist in isolation but are given concrete expression in religious, political, economic, and social structures and systems. The right working of these systems and structures, thus, forms an essential aspect of what constitutes shalom in God’s world. This systemic or structural aspect of shalom is often not given sufficient consideration. Shalom is thus both personal and structural, individual and communal, material and spiritual. Not a Single Story The story of creation, as told in the book of Genesis, is far from being a single story. Word and deed, material and spiritual, structural and personal, individual and communal, all form a dynamic interconnected whole, each integral to the state of shalom and flourishing in God’s created world. There is no discernible dichotomy between word and deed in the Genesis narrative. Next: Did the fall introduce a fundamental shift in the dynamic of God’s world and in how God relates to his world? Do the events of Genesis 3 introduce a fundamental dichotomy into God’s creation, such that God only relates to humanity in a spiritual sense now? [1] Adichie, C.N. (2009). The Danger of the Single Story. [TED Talk]. Available at: https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story/c. Accessed 18/6/2026. [2] In truth, the dichotomy is between proclamation (evangelism or Bible teaching) and anything else in life or Scripture. [3] Smith-Christopher, D.L. 2000. Peace. In: Freedman, N, Myers, A.C. and Black, A.B. (eds.)  Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, p.1021. [4] Myers, A.C (ed.). 1987. Peace. In: The

Some Things are More Important Than Football I have been sitting with this for a while now. Too scared to fully formulate the thoughts, never mind speak them out loud or capture them in writing. Articulating these thoughts will require a decision on my part. A decision I don’t want to make. At what point do fans completely boycott watching the FIFA World Cup? I realise there has been a big movement to boycott attending in person. But what about the rest of us? Do we simply sit back and enjoy the spectacle, all the while complaining about the injustices to black and brown players, officials, and fans? This is even before we mention the USA’s support for the Palestinian genocide and the repealing of the Civil Rights Act in their own country. If there is one thing you know about me, if you have spent any amount of time with me, it is that I love football. I can talk about football for hours. Ask the guys at the print shop across the road. I am honestly agonising over this decision. Can I, with any integrity, support the World Cup in the USA? Can I contribute to making this World Cup a success, sending a message to bigots and tyrants everywhere that, at the end of the day, they will get away with their behaviour? That football is more important than the lives of Palestinian children, the dignity of African athletes, or the civil liberties of black Americans. Can we allow Trump and his sycophant Infantino the opportunity to claim the moral victory of a successful World Cup, knowing that it is built on the backs of murdered children, white supremacy and detention centres? Hit ’em Where it Hurts The anti-apartheid movement taught me that the biggest weapon against injustice is that which affects the pockets of the wealthy. FIFA makes billions (projected to be $4.2 billion for this World Cup) in broadcasting rights alone. In the short term, a TV boycott will not significantly affect FIFA’s revenue, as broadcasting rights are generally sold up front and are non-refundable. [1] But the impact on future revenue could be significant. In 2026, broadcasting networks will lose billions if no one watches the adverts, causing sponsors to pull out of future events, merchandise sales to plummet, and broadcasting rights to be slashed for future World Cups. The USA should already have lost the right to host the World Cup. If FIFA will not stand up against injustice, then we must help them find their backbone by hitting them where it hurts most. When financial gain is threatened, you will be amazed at who suddenly finds a conscience. Prophetic Imagination As a theologian, I have been heavily influenced by Walter Brueggemann’s concept of the prophetic imagination. Defined as “the fostering of a capacity to see the world as it is but to move beyond that to imagine the world as it might be. A society shaped and transformed by God’s vision and values for this world.” [1] Prophetic Imagination, Brueggemann says, has a two-fold focus: namely, critique and energising. The prevailing systems and powers have numbed us to the pain and death of the systems and narratives of oppression and injustice loose in the world. The kind of attitude that says, “Stop making such a big deal about it, and just enjoy the football.” Numbness and death prevail. The Old Testament prophets, Brueggemann argues, used startling images, words and actions to disturb Israel’s illusion of the prevailing status quo, exposing the prevailing powers and systems as unable to deliver on their promises and claims, cutting through the numbness and death and provoking an alternative vision of reality. Protesting the Kiffness My mind first began to turn towards this form of prophetic imagination late last year in relation to South African artist The Kiffness‘ scheduled concert at Kirstenbosch Botanical Gardens, in Cape Town. The artist, whose real name is David Scott, was accused by activists of supporting the genocide in Gaza and inciting Islamophobia. This, together with his previous comments supporting right-wing causes, spreading misinformation about race laws and the presence of a white genocide in South Africa, led to protests outside Kirstenbosch in the weeks leading up to the concert. [2] The protests, perhaps somewhat predictably, caused many self-proclaimed “defenders of free speech” [3] and those with views similar to Scott to rally around him, selling out the concert in the process. As disappointed as I was by the attendance and as much as I agreed with the protests, I could not argue that the protests had made the concert an overwhelming success. What could the protesters have done differently? Was there a better way to protest that did not benefit Scott or make him a martyr for free speech? What would prophetic imagination look like in this context? If protesting the concert taking place only fuels support for Scott, then let the concert go ahead… But what if protesters and those who oppose Scott all bought multiple tickets to the concert (I realise this is not always financially feasible)? What if they bought most (or all) of the tickets? And then just did not pitch. What if Scott’s moment of triumph is a handful of people spread out across a large venue? What if the only two people planted a large Palestinian flag on the grass right in front of Scott and then left? What if social media were filled with images of Scott standing alone on the stage before the largely empty venue, with only a Palestinian flag for company? What a powerful, silent critique of the prevailing systems and narratives of numbness and death. Scott remains free to exercise his free speech, but there just won’t be anyone to hear it. Like Scott, the protestors are free to exercise their rights to freedom of assembly (or not)! Scott would still get paid, so no making him a martyr either. But Scott and his narratives will stand naked and

How Did “good evangelical theology” allow apartheid? In 1857, the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa debated for the second time, the first being in 1829,  whether “persons of colour admitted as members of the Church should be served Holy Communion equally with born Christians” (Elphick, 2012: 43). Both Desirable and Scriptural: After much debate, the synod declared (Ibid) that while it was both “desirable and scriptural that our members from the Heathen should be taken up and incorporated in our existing congregation, wherever that can be done; but where this rule because of the weakness of some should stand in the way of the advancement of Christ’s cause among the Heathen, the congregations raised up, or to be raised up, from the Heathen shall enjoy their Christian rights in a separate building or institution.” This is a paid post. To unlock the rest of this post, become a paid subscriber or purchase only this post on Patreon

Does the Bible Need to be Decolonised? From the time the Bible was collated as a collection of sacred books in the 4th century C.E., those who claim to follow its teachings have been responsible for untold destruction, pain and devastation in the world.[1] The Christian response has usually been to argue against the genuineness of the perpetrator’s faith or the deficient exegesis of those same interpreters. However, we choose to justify these actions, the fact remains that the Bible stands at the centre of a long history of violence, subjugation, and oppression. The 4th century C.E. “conversion”[2] and political manoeuvrings of the Roman Emperor Constantine saw the church move from the margins of society to the centre of power and wealth. In the process, the interests of the church were increasingly aligned with those of the empire. Captured by the values and adopting the tools of empire, the church began steadily amassing ever-increasing power and wealth for itself, usually at the expense of the poor and marginalised. The following centuries saw the church consolidate its power through political manoeuvrings, coercion, violent conquest, economic injustice, and forced conversions. Greed and a lust for power were justified using the language of extending the kingdom of God. From the brutal conquest and plundering of the Americas by the Spanish conquistadors, to the bloody “liberation” of Jerusalem by the Crusaders in the 11th-13th centuries, to the slaughter of the indigenous population of North America under the guise of American “manifest destiny”;[3] to the apartheid era baptism of white supremacy and ruthless suppression of anyone deemed “non-white”. [4] This is a paid post. To unlock the rest of this post, become a paid subscriber or purchase only this post on Patreon.

What is theology at walking pace? Theology at Walking Pace is about the slow meditative, contemplative turning over of ideas, the slow picking apart of problems, and the meandering journey toward the possibility of an answer. Theology at Walking Pace embraces a theological method that is slow, contemplative, contextual, relational, and historical. Thinking like walking is slow and time-consuming work. You need time to grapple with complex ideas, engage with diverse opinions, read widely, mull over, and allow thoughts to slowly marinate before serving them up for consumption. Walking allows you the time to process not only what you are seeing today, but also what you saw yesterday or the day before. Theology, like walking, is deeply contextual. There are few more contextual activities than walking. Traveling in a car allows you to pass through a community with little to no interaction with or conscious thought about that community. But walking requires you to inhabit that community – even if only briefly. When you walk, you have to be aware of your surroundings, you are forced to notice people, overhear snatches of disparate conversations, and take in the sounds, sights, and smells of your context. Walking invites you to notice a myriad of insignificant, and yet infinitely fascinating things. Things are easily missed with even the tiniest incremental increase in speed. Theology, like walking, is relational. Walking provides endless potential for conversation, with an old friend or even a stranger who just happens to cross your path. Walking allows the tentative crossing of deep cultural and economic divides through a greeting or a nod of the head. Theology, like walking, is historical. Walking means following in the footsteps of others, whether on a city road or a wilderness footpath. There are few genuinely original paths to walk. Good theology draws on the richness of the great traditions while developing a theology that speaks to the present and forges a path into the unknown future.