Humility & Courage:
A Challenge to Religion

Ebrahim Rasool

Leader of the African National Congress, Western Cape

One of the problems with the transformation process is that it is often only understood as something external without recognising the parallel need for internal transformation. Let me offer a parable, probably familiar to many, to illustrate this.

One dark night, you are walking down a street and see another person crouching by a street light. Approaching this person, you ask if they need any help to which the other replies that they have lost their car keys and are searching for them. Both begin searching but with no luck. When you ask whether the other is sure that the keys were lost in this particular area, the other replies, ‘Oh no, but this is the only area where the light is shining’. This story raises the question: Are we ready and prepared to step out of the relative comfortable spaces, the spaces ‘where the light shines’, in our journey for transformation?

In the work of religious communities for the transformation of society there are a number of issues to consider. Firstly, we note that the basis of the relationship between government and religious communities draws from the Apartheid context. Within that context it was primarily a relationship of struggle and opposition, with fairly clear objectives. From the date of the first democratic election the nature of this relationship dramatically altered, at least in practice. From that moment on, we see religious community leaders speaking of a ‘critical relationship’ to government, with often accompanying crude terms like ‘moral watchdog’. The assumption behind this language is that government is weak and corrupt on the one hand, and that religious communities are innately good and moral on the other. This is not entirely helpful nor entirely honest. This assumption did nothing to set the scene for good relationships now.

This initial stereotyping suggests that what is needed is a mutual humility in the process of societal transformation. What may this humility entail? Firstly, it means recognising one’s limits. Often political personalities try to appear more powerful than they are. But in the work of building a caring and gentle society, it is necessary to own one’s limitations. Politicians need to recognise that not all has been accomplished that should have or could have. This is not to doubt the political will of those in positions of power but perhaps is a more realistic appraisal of external factors involved. What may be needed is a ‘good dose of humility’ in order to see who else can also help in the process.

On the other hand, religious communities may also need to take a look at their own positions and attitudes. Religious communities have perhaps tended to internalise this idea of innate goodness and have assumed their relevance within society in an unquestioning manner. But perhaps one needs to recognise that their relevance must be a matter of continual debate and questioning in an increasingly complex society. It is not adequate nor helpful to assume this relevance is ‘God-given’ and so cease to engage in the process of problematising the relevance of religious communities within each contextual moment. /end p. 38/

However, humility is not enough on its own. If this process of internal examination, done in a spirit of humility, is accomplished, it must move on to courage. Courage must shun both popularism and absolutism. The temptation to be involved in popular issues tends to create a short lived surge of activity and more often than not leaves a legacy which is problematic.

Absolutism prevents religious communities from asking difficult questions of themselves and their relationship with other sectors of society. For example, is the engagement with government only to be conceived of in competitive, judgmental terms? For if religious communities moved away from the proposition that they are wholly in the right and government wholly in the wrong, surely more creative ways of interacting may open up between the two. Likewise, absolutism discourages religious communities from being constantly self-critical. But do not religious paradigms need constant questioning; for example, is ‘charity’ enough in our present context? Or are religious communities leading or lagging behind on the issue of women and gender equality?

To ask these questions critically and honestly, may encourage religious communities to seek a greater attitude of humility in their engagement in the issues facing society. And for religious communities, this is especially the case with words and concepts such as ‘truth’.

From humility, courage is needed in order to be open and honestly self-critical and self-aware about the ambiguous identity of one’s own religious community. Such open and honest reflection allows for partnerships and co-operation in the work of transformation.

Paradoxically, humility may be the way to open up relevant roles for religious communities to play in the ongoing process of transformation of this society. /end p. 39/