Abstract
The depictions of the mental images of God in religious discourses on race, gender and sexuality are global phenomena, which are often marked by controversy. In Africa, Christianity has, since its inception, presented a particular narrative about God’s image that bolsters exclusivist perceptions defining who has and who has no place in the household of God. Thus, these narratives inadvertently contributed to the creation of unsafe spaces for certain categories of people in society because of their race, gender and sexuality. This article looks at the historical presentation of God’s image by the 19th-century missionaries in Africa. Conversely, it analyses how such a presentation contradicted the African images of a Supreme Being and how it further contributed to the creation and perpetuation of unsafe spaces for black people, women, and LGBTQ+ people in contemporary African church and society. Then, it discusses how the African concepts of race, gender and sexuality challenge the norm and call for a transformed presentation of the images of God that resonates with the theology of Ubuntu, the divine revelation, and their manifestations in the images of God that are freeing.
Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: The study has interdisciplinary implications as it engages theology and missiology with the intersectionality and interdisciplinary discourses of race, gender, sexuality studies and the African philosophy of Ubuntu. This is critical in ensuring the prophetic voice of Christianity, which does not shy away from addressing contemporary societal issues.
Keywords: the image of God; race; gender; sexuality; black; women; LGBTQ+; decolonial; freeing; Ubuntu.
Introduction
Against the backdrop of Genesis 1:26–27, this article presents an argument about the depictions of the mental images of God in religious discourses about race, gender and sexuality that need to be transformed. The article explores how this task can be achieved by re-reading Genesis 1:26–27 as a point of departure in the re-imagination of the images and concepts of God that are based on Ubuntu [humaneness] and are freeing. According to Genesis 1:26–27 (NIV):
Then God said, ‘let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over all the creatures that move along the ground’. So, God created mankind in his own image; in the image of God, he created them, male and female he created them.
To begin with, the article discusses the researcher’s positionality and the aim of the study. Subsequently, the discussion on race, gender and sexuality in religious discourses in Africa follows. Then discussion on the image and concepts of God comes after that. Again, that is followed by the depictions of the images of God in religious discourses. Moving forward, the article presents the discussions on the images of God in pre-colonial Africa, the depiction of God in religious discourses, the historical presentation of God’s image by the 19th-century missionaries in Africa and subsequently analyses how such a presentation contradicts the African images of a Supreme Being and how it further contributed to the creation and perpetuation of unsafe spaces for black people, women, and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) people in contemporary African church and society. The article further discusses the re-imagination of the image of God that is embedded in the theology of Ubuntu, as presented by the notion of God’s images that are freeing.
Positionality and aim of the study
An author’s identity in connection to a research topic is described in the positionality statement. According to Savolainen et al. (2023:1331), the goal of positionality is to acknowledge that all research projects are carried out by subjective human beings with preconceived notions about the world based on their upbringing. Thus, the statement highlights the cognitive limits and opportunities of researchers and helps readers understand how such circumstances may have influenced the findings and conclusions given in the study (Savolainen et al. 2023:1331). I am a black African theological scholar in the subdiscipline of missiology who focuses on how theology and mission relate to racial, gender and sexual issues. I place more emphasis on the aspects of being humane than on the binaries often projected in gender and sexuality constructs. It is my view that these constructs impede people from realising their full potential as godlike beings. Furthermore, I view people of all races, genders, sexual orientations and gender identities as being made in God’s pluriverse images.
Therefore, the article has not attempted to present the hermeneutical, in-depth theological discussion, etymological and historical backgrounds of the biblical passages referred to in this study. Again, it has also not attempted to provide an in-depth analysis of these passages of scripture and of the term ‘imago Dei’ (the image of God) because of the scope of this study. Other scholars interested in the field of biblical studies and Old Testament (OT) scholarship, such as Lioy (2024) and Middleton (1994), among others, have done commendable work in this regard. Therefore, rather than reinventing the wheel, I have only drawn insight from these scholars to make a missiological sense of their work in relation to the current study. My interest when I read these biblical passages in the context of this study is to delineate how these scriptures are often used in biblical discourses to propel or obstruct the mission of God on earth when used to depict the image of God in the presentation of the gospel.
Aim
This article examines the liberative elements of the mission of God, which sees everyone, whether black or white, woman or man, and gay or ‘straight’, as created in the image of God and as worthy to receive the gospel message that is entrenched in the love of God. The same message finds its roots in the biblical passage John 3:16: ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, so that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life’ (NIV). Furthermore, the article argues that the notion of an exclusive God often promulgated in religious discourses nullifies the all-embracing nature of the love of God.
Race, gender and sexuality in religious discourses in Africa
The intersectionality of race, gender and sexuality has marked religious discourses in different African spaces. The article acknowledges that there are multiple marginalisations, such as disability, geopolitics, etc., that constitute intersectionality in society. However, focusing only on race, gender and sexuality in this article does not entail disregarding these other issues, but it was only research interest and the scope of the article that has allowed only a few issues to be addressed. According to Mbiti (1970), Africa is notoriously religious, and thus the claim that religion permeates every aspect of African life, from birth to death to the afterlife. Thus, African religiosity has made it impossible to have a purely African secular discourse that does not carry religious connotations. Remarkably, even though Africa has, over the years, been marked by its religiosity rooted in the African premise of the existence of a Supreme Being, the advent and remarkable growth of Christianity on the continent has brought in a new paradigm. Christianity is now viewed as the fastest-growing movement, which can arguably be a dominating institution in the debates about moral dilemmas such as abortion, same-sex practices, the use of contraceptives, polygamous marriages, etc.
According to Ayegboyin and Ogunewu (2022:118), Africa had roughly 575 million Christians in approximately 2,208 denominations in 2008, with a further projected increase of church membership by 633 million in 2025 and a further projection of about 1.25 billion increases in 2050. Therefore, the use of the term ‘religious discourses’, although applicable to diverse religions of the world and African religions, has been used in this article to refer to Christian and biblical discourses because of their dominance in Africa, as displayed by Ayegboyin and Ogunewu (2022). These discourses range, among others, from the use of the Bible to perpetuate racial subordination of blacks in Africa; the Christian teachings that emphasise the subordination of women; the gay-bashing preaching in the pulpit that emphasises the perceived sinfulness of homosexuality (Madigele 2024); and the use of and references to the Bible by ordinary people in the streets, scholars of religion and theology, and religious, political and traditional leaders to emphasise the ideology of an exclusive, white, heterosexual, male God. However, it should be borne in mind that just as there is no one monolithic block of belief in African religions, there is also not only one form of Christianity, and all Christians do not believe and express their belief similarly.
Nevertheless, the use of certain words in the New International Version of the Bible (NIV) of Genesis 1:26–27 can challenge the exclusive presentation of God’s image. These words further raise pertinent questions for this study. Although from an exegetical point of view, it might be apparent that the use of the divine plural is not a grammatical plural, a layman reading the NIV version of this scripture might interpret it otherwise. To begin with, does the use of the plural form, e.g., ‘Let us’ and ‘Our image’, suggest the pluriverse nature of God? Is God black or white? Is God male? Also, does the use of the pronouns ‘his’ and ‘he’ infer God’s masculinity? Again, does the statement ‘he created them’ imply that God not only created Adam in God’s image but also that Eve was created in God’s image? Furthermore, what do the reference to ‘male’ and ‘female’ in Genesis 1:27, which speaks to biological sex, and the use of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in Genesis 2:22, which speaks to their gender, tell us about the image of God regarding gender and sexuality? Is God gay or straight?
Interestingly, the narrative purported in most religious discourses within the Christian circles for ages suggests that only Adam was created in the image of God. This assertion is made because all the consulted sources used in this article only speak about Adam, and none of them depict Eve as created in the image of God. Consequently, an impression has been given that since only Adam was created in the image of God, Eve has been portrayed as inferior to Adam (men) and Eve (women) and thus exclusively blamed for the origin of sin (Parks 2024:23; Rockwood 1987). Thus, Genesis 2:22, which asserts, ‘Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib that he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man’, has often been used to justify the assertion. However, Genesis 1:27 contradicts this view by claiming that, ‘In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them’ (Gn 1:27) (NIV).
Thus, Middleton (1994) opted for a gender-neutral stance by using the term ‘human beings’ rather than ‘male’ or ‘female’. Middleton (1994) opines:
For nearly two thousand years now the Christian tradition has singled out Genesis 1:26–27 for special attention. These biblical verses constitute the locus classicus of the doctrine of imago Dei, the notion that human beings are made in God’s image. (p. 8)
The use of the term ‘human beings’ by Middleton is congruent with the African notion of Munhu (the Xitsonga word for a human being) and its derivatives Vumunhu (Tsonga), Botho (Sotho), and Ubuntu (Nguni), which are loosely translated in English as ‘humanness’. This notion is embedded in the African (Nguni) adage ‘Umuntu ngu muntu nga bantu’ (loosely translated, ‘a person is a person through others’) (Gathogo 2022). This means that human beings coexist as equals regardless of the colour of their skin, race, gender or sexual orientation. The next section looks at the image and concepts of God.
The image and the concepts of God
The notion of the image of God cannot be confined to a single interpretation. Thus, the interchangeable reference to God’s image (singular) and God’s images (plural) in this article is a conscious decision. It speaks to the ongoing process where society grapples with the notion of understanding the idea of the existence of a God by using God’s concepts in addressing their contextual issues and in their definition of their relationship with a Supreme Being. According to Counted (2015), there is a pragmatic distinction between God’s images and God’s concepts. In highlighting this element, Counted (2015) asserts that:
God concepts are often used to down-regulate God images. God concepts are indicators of a relationship experience with God. God’s concepts play around with the attachment language categories as the individual tries to experiment or socialise with God in relation to their contextual and emotional situation. (p. 1)
Although the usage of the term ‘Image of God’ in this article stems from the traditional premise that argues that in the beginning God created human beings according to God’s image, not images, the general understanding is that in that one image of God, there are multiple manifestations of God’s images, yet without any contradiction. Therefore, the emphasis that in God’s image, God created them both male and female forms the core of the discourse that challenges the notion of the exclusive interpretation of God’s image as male, therefore implying that although there are observable physical differences between males and females (Modise & Wood 2016:291), they were both fundamentally created in the image of God.
Therefore, arguing from this premise, one should not be oblivious to the fact that human attempts to understand the Divine are often marked by hermeneutical errors and distortions. Thus, this position is presented with the full awareness of several positions that the term ‘Image of God’ can carry. According to Middleton (1994:9), Ricoeur’s position was that (Middleton 1994):
When the theologians of the sacerdotal [or priestly] school elaborated the doctrine of man that is summarised in the startling expression of the first chapter of Genesis –‘Let us make man in our image and likeness’ – they certainly did not master at once all its implicit wealth of meaning. Ricoeur justifies his own explication of this ‘implicit wealth of meaning’ by adding that each century has the task of elaborating its thought ever anew on the basis of that indestructible symbol that henceforth belongs to the unchanging treasury of the biblical canon. (p. 9)
Against the backdrop of Middleton’s argument, it is apparent that there is no exclusive interpretation of the image of God. Consequently, this provides room for diverse interpretations that are fundamentally based on the contextual analysis of the situation. Each generation understands the image of God based on the contextual analysis of their times and geographical context. Lamentably, the 19th-century presentation of the image of God by missionaries in Africa did not consider African epistemologies and religiosity; on the contrary, Western epistemologies dominated the constructions of God’s image by creating hierarchies that determined which forms of knowledge counted as valid. This is like what Mignolo (2019) referred to when speaking about the enduring enchantment or the epistemic privilege of modernity. This refers to the dominance, arrogance and superiority complex of the Western forms of knowledge, Western religions and white supremacy.
Thus, the epistemic privilege of Western forms of knowledge has pushed to the periphery other interpretations and understandings of the image of God, especially those from the undermined people in Africa. Although African religions are generally regarded as monotheistic in that they acknowledge the existence of one Supreme Being (Metz & Molefe 2021), their belief in this Supreme Being is not universalised, and the images of the Supreme Being have multiple imaginations. However, the universalised and exclusive Eurocentric image of God has further contributed to the marginalisation of other categories of people in society because of their race, gender and non-normative genders and sexual identities. Indeed, the same narrative has propelled the misconceptions that Africans did not know God prior to the coming of missionaries in Africa (Mawere & Nhemachena 2022:211), God is a white God (Kim 2024), God is male (Talabi 2023:339), and that which created the notion of a ‘Heterosexual Africa’ (Epprecht 2008). However, it is important to trace the understanding of God and God’s image in pre-colonial African discourses about religion, race, gender and sexuality.
The images of God in pre-colonial Africa
Africans knew God and had their own images of a Supreme Being long before the arrival of the missionaries on their continent. There is ample scholarly evidence that debunks the myth that Africa did not know God before the coming of the missionaries; among these scholars are Nhemachena and Dhakwa (2022:107) and Masuku (2023). In the same vein, Paris (1995) argued that:
[M]issionaries who introduced the gospel to Africa in the past 200 years did not bring God to our continent. Rather, they were brought by the presence of God already demonstrated by African religiosity and their communal ethic of Ubuntu. Instead, God brought them. (p. 29)
So, Africans had their own understanding of God and the image of God long before the arrival of the missionaries. What is interesting, though, is that the African images of God were often downplayed by the missionaries and regarded as barbaric and backwards. This was done to propel the notion of a monotheistic, monopolistic, heterosexual and white male God.
However, the images of a race-less God, male God, female God, genderless God and a God possessing both genders of male and female were a common phenomenon in Africa. Taringa (2004:174), among others, speaks of God as Musikavanhu, which is a popular metaphor among the Shona people of Zimbabwe that depicts God as both male and female. This understanding of God does not restrict God to a single gender. In the same vein, Taringa (2004:178) further argues that ‘the traditional Shona metaphors for God are much less sexist than the way in which God is portrayed in current African Christian theology. African Christian theological reflections tend to be based on Christianity and Judaism, which tend to imagine God in male terms’. It is thus the imaginations of God as exclusively white and male that are problematic. This is because this ideology contradicts the African views of race, gender and sexuality.
The African understanding of race, gender and sexuality differed from that which was portrayed by Christian missionaries. Africans see a human being with the lenses of an individual who is part of the community, while Western concepts of gender distinctions are universalised and individualistic. Again, Africans embrace pluriverse genders and sexualities without emphasising gender norms. This is indicated by their understanding of a Divine Being who can be both male and female, yet without any contradiction. In the same vein, this is not being oblivious of the fact that there are other African depictions of God as purely male or female; however, this is to highlight that depicting God as both male and female is a common trend in Africa. In essence, the African depiction of God was not dualistic but rather pluriverse and diverse (Taringa 2004).
The depiction of the image of God in religious discourses
The image of God is often depicted in religious discourses with controversy within different global secular and religious spaces (Corbett 2021). Christians have, over the ages, debated the meaning of God’s image in discourses pertaining to religion, race, gender and sexuality issues. Indeed, the intersectionality of race, gender and sexuality is always inevitable in discourses about religion and culture. Research indicates that this intersectionality is a global phenomenon that has always been intertwined (Schnabel et al. 2022:272; eds. Starkey & Tomalin 2022). However, the skewed depiction of the image of God in religious discourses is displayed within the Christian circles, among others, by the missionary obsession of presenting a monotheistic, monopolistic, monogamous God who is also a white heterosexual male. This has happened since the inception of Christianity in Africa, when Africans, their genders, sexualities, and their conceptions of a Supreme Being were downplayed by the Christianisation and civilisation agendas. These agendas aimed to universalise these important aspects. Lamentably, this universalisation of God, race, gender and sexuality became the norm in African religious and cultural discourses.
This is like what Porter (1993) lamented about when asserting that:
[I]f God is projected in the image of one sex, rather than both sexes, and in the image of the ruling class of this sex, then this class is seen as consisting of the ones who possess the image of God primarily. (p. 487)
Lamentably, this distorted image has shaped the common understanding of an exclusive white, heterosexual male God. This universalising view of God contradicts the narrative that has inadvertently contributed to the creation of unsafe spaces for certain categories of people in both the church and society. Succinctly put, the white, heterosexual male God has declared certain groups of people, such as black people, women, LGBTQ+ people in Africa, unworthy of the love of God.
The 19th century missionary presentation of the image of God in Africa
The 19th century missionary enterprise was instrumental in creating the controversies about the image of God in Africa. When the missionaries arrived in Africa, they presented a monotheistic God who could only be depicted in one image. Consequently, one of their missionary mandates was to discredit the African view of a Supreme Being who had multiple images. Although the missionaries who came to Africa to propel the Christianisation, civilisation and imperialisation agendas were aware of the presence of God in Africa entrenched in the religiosity of Africans and their concepts of a Supreme Being, their mandate was to demonise African religiosity and the images of God that existed in Africa before their arrival. According to Ofuasia and Ibiyemi (2024:98), the aim of the Western missionaries was to establish how the traditional Africans understood God, as well as whether their idea of God met the Western ‘standard’. Thus, the standard of the true God was majorly affected by the existence of a monotheistic, white, heterosexual male God. Therefore, any definition of God that did not meet this standard was regarded as paganism, heathenism and un-Christian.
Thus, African religiosity, cultures and concepts were declared barbaric, and their traditional practices, way of dress, and marriages were repressed and deemed to be uncivilised (Tonono 2020:177). African experiences were regarded as homogenous, something that could be easily generalised. In the same vein, the account of Africans’ social lives and their views on gender and sexuality were simplistically disregarded and downplayed by the narrative that claimed that Africa was a homogenous and heterosexual entity that was marked by lasciviousness and devoid of morals.
Thus, Oduyoye (1997:493) observed this misconception when purporting, ‘Writing about Africa is a hazardous enterprise’, and those who write about Africa should be warned against careless generalisations. In the same vein, Paris (1995:7) warns, ‘The immense diversity of cultures there prohibits any generalisations whatsoever about Africa’. Therefore, generalisations about Africa and Africans have contributed to a skewed image of the image of God that created and perpetuated unsafe spaces.
The creation and perpetuation of unsafe spaces
Unsafe spaces within African societies are created and perpetuated by relegating certain groups of people to the periphery. This often happens when narratives about the image of God are used to discriminate against people based on their race (black), gender (women), and sexual orientation (LGBTQ+). Therefore, the marginalised categories of people in society often find themselves in what Fanon (1967) calls the zone of non-being, which declares people below the line of the human as subhuman or non-human; thus, their humanity is questioned and negated. This has happened because, over time, the image of God in Africa has been depicted as that of a white, heterosexual male. Consequently, anyone who does not fall within this definition is deemed as the ‘other’ and is then pushed into a marginalised zone as an outcast who is not created in the image of God. Fanon further refers to people who are marginalised as the wretched of the earth (Fanon et al. 1963); their wretchedness is caused by being declared as non-beings when judged against the presented image of God.
This presentation portrays God’s image as a white, heterosexual male, and it has played a paramount role in the creation and perpetuation of unsafe spaces within African societies. Again, this image is embedded in the racial, patriarchal and homophobic view of the image of God embedded in the colonial matrix of power. Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2022) describes the colonial matrix of power as power structures that are braced up by racial, sexual, ideological, epistemic, cultural, religious, aesthetic, military and patriarchal dimensions. Therefore, it is often common that God’s image is depicted in religious discourses to create and support unsafe spaces in society. Lamentably, the reference to God’s image in these cases is usually not innocent, as it is fundamentally used as a deciding factor in the debates about who is created in the image of God and who is not.
On the other hand, the same depictions are used to reinforce religious alienation, racism, sexism, classism and discrimination against those who are deemed to be different because they are either black or women or because of their non-normative gender and sexual identities. Morris (2019) observed this reality when he argued, ‘In Trump’s America, “religious liberty” is code for protection of white, Western cultural heritage’. This heritage is embedded in the American conceptualisation and depiction of God as a white heterosexual male (Roberts et al. 2020 [author’s emphasis]). However, this narrative is not peculiarly an American phenomenon; on the contrary, the same 19th-century missionaries who came to Africa were also fixated with white supremacy and the ideology of the civilising mission (Tonono 2020:176). These dimensions manifested and still manifest in Africa in the form of the depiction of God’s image that is undergirded by racial, sexist and heteronormative underpinnings, which still depicts God as white, male and heterosexual.
Racial discrimination
The colonial ideology of a white God continues to render black Africans and the black body as a contested space. The rise of movements such as ‘Black Lives Matter’, which does not only lament the brutality of white police officers in America, which was sparked by the brutal murder of George Floyd by a white policeman, Derek Chauvin (Pillay 2022:293), but also depicts the same realities in Africa, in particular in South Africa, where the story of the Marikana massacre (Pillay 2022:299) and news that flooded media platforms happened during the second week of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ‘lockdown’. On 10 April 2020, soldiers of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) and officers of the Johannesburg Metro Police Department (JMPD) murdered Collins Khosa (Pillay 2022:295).
These stories and other countless unreported incidents indicate, among others, that racial discrimination is a social ill that keeps raising its ugly head even in what have been termed the post-imperial, post-colonial and post-apartheid eras. Blacks are made to doubt their beings by a narrative that presents God as white. This is what Tonono (2020:176) calls ‘the Black erasure’ that is marked by the desire of white supremacists to erase the history and culture of black Africans.
Sexism
On the other hand, the image of a white male God continues to propel the patriarchal ideologies that see women as objects of oppression. According to Tonono (2020):
Not only was missionary education focused on men, but it also afforded men a superior status in comparison to women. The African elite men of Let Us Make Men, who emerged from missionary schools, manipulated the new and borrowed patriarchies of Europe to create the most formidable of masculine imperialism. (pp. 180–182)
Therefore, sexism is rooted in the societal hierarchies that are constructed by patriarchal structures. Thus, women bear the brunt of being marginalised by the patriarchal society that emphasises the maleness of God and demands subordination from women. For this reason, African womanist theologians speak of the triple or multiple oppression of women in African society. They contend that women suffer because of gender, race and class (Kobo 2018). Indeed, African women are oppressed because they are women; they are also oppressed because they are black and poor. In the same vein, black lesbian women and transwomen have an added layer of oppression, which makes them suffer worse because of their sexual and gender identities. This has rendered both African secular and religious spaces unsafe for women in contemporary African society.
Thus, the number of women who are killed by their spouses and those who suffer from what has been termed ‘corrective rape’ rises drastically each year in Africa. According to Gaitho (2021:335), ‘Despite this dearth of information, one source placed the annual number of victims of corrective rape in South Africa at [at least] 500’. Although the statistics might not be accurate, they do, however, indicate the brutality of society and how African spaces have become unsafe for women. Although religious discourses cannot be singled out as the only cause of this brutality, the use of the Bible to reinforce the subordination of women and the hegemonic position of heterosexuality has contributed drastically to the problem. Diko (2023) asserts that:
[T]he oppression of women and young girls in the biblical texts, with special reference to the Old Testament, mirrors the oppression of women and young girls in the South African context. (p. 612)
Thus, it is the use of biblical discourses that promotes sexism in Africa (Ngcobo 2024:4).
Heteronormativity
Heteronormativity entails the ideology that heterosexuality is the only correct, normal and acceptable form of sexual orientation in society. Thus, this notion has been hegemonised, and the other gender and sexual identities that do not fit into the norm are either marginalised, demonised or ostracised. Therefore, the notion of same-sex practices disrupts not only the long-embraced heteronormative religious fundamentalism, but it also challenges patriarchy that is anchored on the notion of ‘the rule of the fathers’. Indeed, the idea of boy-wives and female-husbands challenges the idea of male supremacy (Epprecht 2008:202; Murray et al. 2021). According to Ndjio (2012):
It is not only men behaving like women who allegedly undermine African manhood or males’ superiority. The tanto uses, mannish lesbians who overtly exhibit the signs and symbols of masculine power, also put at risk the male sexual supremacy. (p. 625)
Thus, heteronormativity is a technology of power aimed at protecting patriarchy in society.
On the other hand, the rise of corrective rape in countries like South Africa, which is defined by Gaitho (2021) as a:
[H]ate crime that entails the rape of any member of a group that does not conform to gender or sexual orientation norms, where the motive of the perpetrator is to ‘correct’ the individual, fundamentally combining gender-based violence and homophobic violence. (p. 329)
Indeed, those who do not subscribe to the normative gender and sexual norms are regarded as not created in the image of God and thus are regarded as deviant. Mkhize and Mthembu (2023:381) argue that colonialism, religious and legal norms introduced the narrative that seeks to police sexuality and gender, and they are sponsored by Western and American evangelical groups and anti-gay rights discourses. Thus, religion, particularly Christianity, finds itself at the forefront of presenting a heteronormative image of God in Africa. Lamentably, this has led to the exacerbation of marginalisation of black people and women and the abuse of people having same-sex attraction in Africa. This narrative must be challenged to the core by the reimagination of the images of God in Africa.
Reimagining the image of God in Africa
The reimagination of the image of God in Africa is enshrined in the notion of God’s love as purported by John 3:16, ‘For God so loved the world’. Thus, a clarion call is made to reimagine God’s image through embracing the theology of Ubuntu (Van Klinken & Chitando 2021) that manifests in the images of God that are freeing (Oduyoye 1997:498). This act can be a decolonial wave that challenges the epistemic privileges of Western thought and white privileges (Mignolo 2009). Again, this can bring to Africans the realisation that the depiction of God as a white heterosexual male is a fallacy. On the other hand, the notion of ‘heterosexual’ Africa is proven wrong by the historical account of Africans told through oral tradition, folklore, songs, dance and stories about the pluriverse nature of African genders and sexualities that were embraced by society. Furthermore, this reimagination is like what Reddy and Sandfort (2021) called:
[T]he growth of fresh and critical thinking that interrogates heteronormative logics and examines the material realities and experience of gender-diverse people to challenge the parameters and assumptions of African sexualities and gender diversity. (p. 5)
Therefore, this can be a contemporary African bravery that challenges the oppressive narratives of whiteness, maleness, and heterosexual God and that calls for the new and transformed ways of imagining God. This move has been propelled, among others, by the realisation that race, gender and other identities are merely social constructs (Stewart & Brown 2023) and, thus, God cannot be confined to their limitations. Thus, the new images of God present God in a new way and form to a society that is faced with challenges and yearning for transformation (Van Klinken 2021). This transformation can begin by embracing the theology of Ubuntu.
The theology of Ubuntu
Ubuntu is a concept of acceptable relational living, which is measured by one’s relationship to family, community, the environment and the Divine powers, that is, ancestors and God (Dube et al. 2016). This type of theology moves from the premise that the communal co-existence of societies resembles the freeing images of God. Succinctly put, God is reflected in the humane way members of society treat each other, especially in the treatment of the vulnerable groups such as the elderly, women, children, people with disabilities, and people having same-sex attractions and diverse gender identities. Magezi and Khlopa (2021:4) call this notion an act of ‘prizing communal relationships with other people’, which refers to the recognition of the value and importance of living in harmony with other people, even though they may be holding different views from us.
Thus, the theology of Ubuntu questions our actions against community members who are created in the very same image of God just like us. It stems from several African religious leaders, philosophers, scholars and theologians, such as, among others, the late Professor John Samuel Mbiti and the renowned Nobel Prize winner, the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Mbiti’s contribution to the development of the theology of Ubuntu was captured by Gathogo (2022) when he opines:
John Samuel Mbiti’s (1931–2019) ubuntu theology was ‘officially’ launched in 1969 when he released his authoritative book, African Religions and Philosophy (Mbiti 1969). Although he did not use the word ‘ubuntu’ in this book or generally in his published works, his use of African proverbs did not escape his local Kamba proverb, Mundu ni mundu nundu wa andu, or his neighbouring Kikuyu saying, Mundu ni mundu niundu wa andu, which compares with Nguni speakers’ dictum, Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu’ – that is, ‘a person is a person through other persons’ [Est homo per alios homines]. (p. 4)
Mbiti’s emphasis on the importance of human relations within a communal setup presents the notion that preserving human life is more important in our understanding of the nature of God. This is reflected in his Ubuntu theology, which is ‘dialogical, inclusive, community-driven, humane, just, and methodologically contextual and reconstructive in its motif’ (Gathogo 2022:4). Thus, in its dialogical nature, Ubuntu theology seeks to enter a dialogue with members of society, to understand their experiences, and then use those experiences as a point of departure in the understanding of the image of God. Again, its inclusiveness, community-driven nature and human nature do not allow room for discrimination based on perceived differences and constructions of race, gender and sexuality. Finally, its contextual and reconstructive motif provides a space for Africans to have the freedom of using their own images and concepts of God without being judged by Western standards.
Another stalwart of the theology of Ubuntu was Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Tutu’s theology of Ubuntu (Van Klinken & Chitando 2021) that is embedded in the African adage, ‘I am because you are’. This kind of theology is human-centred rather than God-centred. Succinctly put, it places human beings at a point of departure in doing theology. This, however, does not imply the replacement of God or the failure to acknowledge human weaknesses; on the contrary, it emphasises grace and mercy instead of judgement and condemnation. Put differently, the theology of Ubuntu values the preservation of human life that serves as experiencing God in humanising relationships, as Oduyoye (1997) observed. This theology can be experienced through the images of God that are freeing.
The images of God that are freeing
The theology of Ubuntu, which brings a new perspective of God’s image, is traceable in the images of God that are freeing and that, according to Oduyoye (1997:498), ‘depict unity and wholeness’. Thus, according to Oduyoye (1997:499), God must be [re]experienced as the source of humanising relationships of love, truth, and justice, of mercy and kindness. These virtues of God can be used as tools in defining the liberative images and concepts of God. Again, these reimagined images of God can be depicted not using the linking verb ‘is’, which is often limiting and inadequate. However, the preposition ‘as’ can provide a better way of understanding the multipronged and pluriverse nature of God that cannot be degraded to race, gender and sexuality constructions.
Therefore, Oduyoye’s argument about experiencing God can serve as pointers to the image of God ‘as’ rather than the image of God ‘is’. Conversely, this form of experiencing God is not limited by the restrictions of race, gender and sexuality; on the contrary, it embodies the church that goes beyond preaching the love of God to the one who demonstrates the love of God by embracing all people irrespective of race, gender or sexual orientation. This can be made possible by embracing the image of God as love, truth, justice, mercy and kindness. Indeed, the image of God as love embraces both black and white women and men, gay and straight, by erasing the binaries. Also, the image of God as truth annihilates the discriminations in society that are often entrenched in lies about one’s superiority based on race, gender and sexual orientation. Again, the image of God as justice represents the prophetic character of the church, which cannot afford to remain silent amid injustices brought by discrimination in society.
Furthermore, the image of God as mercy is aligned with the theology of Ubuntu; it is the human being that matters, not the enforcing of conservative moral codes. The recent example that epitomised the reimagination of the image of God as the God of mercy is that of the Right Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, who attracted national attention during her sermon when she made a direct appeal to the current American President, Donald Trump, to have mercy and compassion for people who are afraid, such as ‘gay, lesbian, and transgender children in Democratic, Republican, and independent families’, immigrants, and those escaping persecution and conflict (The Guardian 23 January 2025).
Budde’s appeal to Trump was not merely a sheer, spectacular fronting or a desire for attention. On the contrary, it was a brave act that stood against the populist, oppressive narrative that was promulgated by Trump in the guise of representing God’s position on trans people. Thus, Budde’s action resonated with the bold statement made by Tutu when he declared in 2013 in a statement that made global headlines that he would rather go to hell than to a homophobic heaven (Van Klinken & Chitando 2021:1). This statement epitomised the theology of Ubuntu par excellence and reflected the images of God that are freeing. Finally, the image of God as kindness also speaks to human relations that call individuals to be kind to one another in the prospect of building a unified society. All these elements of the images of God that are freeing present an inclusive God, who does not discriminate against anyone based on their race, gender or sexual orientation, as all are created in God’s image.
Conclusion
This article argued from the premise of Genesis 1:26–27. It looked at religious discourses on race, gender and sexuality in Africa. Subsequently, the article discussed the notion of the image and concept of God that presents a pluriverse nature of God. That was followed by the depictions of the images of God in religious discourses and the discussions on the images of God in pre-colonial Africa and the historical presentation of God’s image by the 19th-century missionaries in Africa. The article argued that the exclusive depiction of the image of God in Africa contributed to the creation and perpetuation of unsafe spaces for black people, women, and LGBTQ+ people in contemporary African churches and society. Therefore, in conclusion, the article made a clarion call for the reimagination of the image of God. It was then argued that this act can mark a decolonial turn in the form of the theology of Ubuntu, which manifests the images of God that are freeing.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Prof A.F. Kobo for support and encouragement
Competing interests
The author declares that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Author’s contribution
T.S. is the sole author of this research article.
Ethical considerations
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The author confirms that the data supporting this study and its findings are available within the article and its listed references.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Ayegboyin, I.D. & Ogunewu, M.A., 2022, ‘The advent, development, and impact of Christianity in Africa’, in R. Sooryamoorthy & N.E. Khalema (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the sociology of Africa, pp. 117–134, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Corbett, L., 2021, The god-image: From antiquity to Jung, Chiron Publications, New York, NY.
Counted, V., 2015, ‘Understanding God images and God concepts: Towards a pastoral hermeneutics of the God attachment experience’, Verbum et Ecclesia 36(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v36i1.1389
Diko, M., 2023, ‘Intersectionality and the oppressive incidents of women in the Old Testament and the South African context’, Old Testament Essays 36(3), 612–634. https://doi.org/10.17159/2312-3621/2023/v36n3a5
Dube, M.W., Modie-Moroka, T., Setume, S.D., Ntloedibe, S., Kgalemang, M., Gabaitse, R.M. et al., 2016, ‘Botho/Ubuntu: Community building and gender constructions in Botswana’, Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Centre 41, 1–22.
Epprecht, M., 2008, Heterosexual Africa? The history of an idea from the age of exploration to the age of AIDS. Ohio University Press.
Fanon, F., 1967, Black skin, white masks, Grove Press, New York, NY.
Fanon, F., Sartre, J.P. & Farrington, C., 1963, The wretched of the earth, vol. 36, pp. 3–317, Grove Press, New York, NY.
Gaitho, W., 2021, ‘Curing corrective rape: Socio-legal perspectives on sexual violence against Black lesbians in South Africa’, William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice 28, 329.
Gathogo, J., 2022, ‘John Mbiti’s Ubuntu theology: Was it rooted in his African heritage?’, Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae 48(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.25159/2412-4265/10292
Kim, G.J.S., 2024, When God became white: Dismantling whiteness for a more just Christianity. InterVarsity Press.
Kobo, F.A., 2018, ‘A womanist exposition of pseudo-spirituality and the cry of an oppressed African woman’, HTS Theological Studies 74(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v74i1.4896
Lioy, D., 2024, ‘The imago dei: Biblical foundations, theological implications, and enduring significance’, Verba Vitae 1(3–4), 45–72.
Madigele, T.J., 2024, ‘African liberation theologies and the flourishing of the LGBTIQ+ community in Botswana’, in E. Chitando, O.B. Mlambo, S. Mfecane & K. Ratele (eds.), The Palgrave handbook of African men and masculinities, pp. 751–766, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Magezi, V. & Khlopa, C., 2021, ‘The tenet of ubuntu in South African ethics: inclusive hospitality and the Christian ethical disposition of effective pastoral care in Africa’, Stellenbosch Theological Journal 7(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.17570/stj.2021.v7n1.a14
Masuku, M.T., 2023, ‘Mistakes of western Christian missions in Africa and related response, mid-19th to 20th century’, Verbum et Ecclesia 44(1), 2746. https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v44i1.2746
Mawere, M. & Nhemachena, A., 2022, ‘The knowledge about and worshipping of the heavenly God in precolonial Africa’, in A. Nhemachena, O. Mtapuri & M. Mawere (eds.), Sovereignty becoming pulvereignty: Unpacking the dark side of slave 4.0 within industry 4.0 in twenty-first century Africa, pp. 207–216, Langaa RPCIG, Cameroon.
Mbiti, J.S., 1970, African religions and philosophies, Heinemann, Oxford.
Metz, T. & Molefe, M., 2021, ‘Traditional African religion as a neglected form of monotheism’, Monist 104(3), 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1093/monist/onab007
Middleton, J.R., 1994, ‘The liberating image? Interpreting the imago Dei in context’, Christian Scholars Review 24(1), 8–25.
Mignolo, W.D., 2009, ‘Epistemic disobedience, independent thought, and decolonial freedom’, Theory, Culture & Society 26(7–8), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409349275
Mignolo, W.D., 2019, ‘The enduring enchantment (or the epistemic privilege of modernity and where to go from here)’, in Unbecoming modern, pp. 228–254, Routledge.
Mkhize, S.P. & Mthembu, A., 2023, ‘Unpacking pervasive heteronormativity in sub-Saharan Africa: Opportunities to embrace multiplicity of sexualities’, Progress in Human Geography 47(3), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325231166402
Modise, L. & Wood, H., 2016, ‘The relevance of the metaphor of God as father in a democratic, non-sexist and religious society: An African Christian perspective’, Stellenbosch Theological Journal 2(1), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.17570/stj.2016.v2n1.a14
Morris, A., 2019, False idol: Why the Christian right worships Donald Trump, viewed 15 March 2025, from https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/christian-right-worships-donald-trump-915381/.
Murray, S.O., Roscoe, W. & Epprecht, M., 2021, Boy-wives and female husbands: Studies in African homosexualities, State University of New York Press, Albany, New York.
Ndjio, B., 2012, ‘Post-colonial histories of sexuality: The political invention of a libidinal African straight’, Africa 82(4), 609–631. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0001972012000526
Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S.J., 2022, Empire, global coloniality, and African subjectivity, Berghahn Books.
Ngcobo, S.L., 2024, ‘The conquest of black African women: A collusion of church and coloniality in Africa’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 80(2), 9034. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v80i2.9034
Nhemachena, A. & Dhakwa, E., 2022, ‘Missionaries that “muted” God: Gagging the voices of African sovereigns while enslaving and colonising Africans’, in A. Nhemachena, O. Mtapuri & M. Mawere (eds.), Nhemachena: Sovereignty becoming pulvereignty: Unpacking the dark side of slave 4.0 within industry 4.0 in twenty-first century Africa, p. 103, Langaa RPCIG, Cameroon.
Oduyoye, M.A., 1997, ‘The African experience of God through the eyes of an Akan woman’, pp. 493–504, Crosscurrents.
Ofuasia, E. & Ibiyemi, S.O., 2024, ‘An inquiry into the “Maleness” of God in African Traditional Religions: The Igbo and Yorùbá as illustrations’, Journal of Africana Religions 12(1), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.5325/jafrireli.12.1.0086
Paris, P.J., 1995, The spirituality of African peoples, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN.
Parks, S., 2024, ‘Eve in early Jewish and early Christian reception’, in Constructions of gender in religious traditions of late antiquity, p. 23.
Pillay, S.R., 2022, ‘Where do Black lives matter? Coloniality, police violence, and epistemic injustices during the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa and the US’, Psychology of Violence 12(4), 293. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000419
Porter, B.F., 1993, Religion and reason: An anthology, St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY.
Reddy, V. & Sandfort, T., 2021, ‘African same-sex sexualities and gender diversity: A framing note’, Sexualities 24(1–2), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460720914597
Roberts, S.O., Weisman, K., Lane, J.D., Williams, A., Camp, N.P., Wang, M. et al., 2020, ‘God as a White man: A psychological barrier to conceptualizing Black people and women as leadership worthy’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 119(6), 1290. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000233
Rockwood, J.E., 1987, The redemption of Eve. Sisters in spirit: Mormon women in historical and cultural perspective, pp. 3–36, New Mormon Studies.
Savolainen, J., Casey, P.J., McBrayer, J.P. & Schwerdtle, P.N., 2023, ‘Positionality and its problems: Questioning the value of reflexivity statements in research’, Perspectives on Psychological Science 18(6), 1331–1338. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221144988
Schnabel, L., Abdelhadi, E., Ally Zaslavsky, K., Ho, J.S. & Torres-Beltran, A., 2022, ‘Gender, sexuality, and religion: A critical integrative review and agenda for future research’, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 61(2), 271–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12781
Starkey, C. & Tomalin, E. (eds.), 2022, The Routledge handbook of religion, gender, and society, Routledge, London.
Stewart, D.L. & Brown, S., 2023, ‘Social construction of identities’, in Rethinking college student development theory using critical frameworks, pp. 110–125, Routledge.
Talabi, O.O., 2023, ‘Writing the polyphonic African queer future: Reflections on Akwaeke Emezi’s Freshwater’, Journal of the African Literature Association 17(2), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/21674736.2023.2228073
Taringa, N.T., 2004, ‘African metaphors for God: Male or female?’, Scriptura: Journal for Contextual Hermeneutics in Southern Africa 86(1), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.7833/86-0-946
The Guardian, 2025, Bishop, who angered Trump with call for mercy says she will not apologize, 23 January, viewed 15 March 2025, from https://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi5xar7mIyMAxUOV0EAHfveGZcQFnoECCoQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2025%2Fjan%2F23%2Fmariann-edgar-budde-trump-sermon-defense&usg=AOvVaw08PLTkzHBNX73pM9N6ALwl&opi=89978449.
Tonono, S., 2020, ‘“Let us make men in our own image”: The mission station as a site of black emasculation in nineteenth-century South Africa’, Journal of Asia-Pacific Pop Culture 5(2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.5325/jasiapacipopcult.5.2.0171
Van Klinken, A., 2021, Reimagining Christianity and sexual diversity in Africa. Oxford University Press.
Van Klinken, A. & Chitando, E., 2021, ‘Race and sexuality in Desmond Tutu’s theology of Ubuntu’, in Ecumenical encounters with Desmond Mpilo Tutu: Visions for justice, dignity, and peace, pp. 99–108.
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
