Book Review - God Has a Dream by Desmond Tutu

Desmond Tutu’s God Has a Dream: A Vision of Hope for Our Time is a short and compelling blend of theology and spirituality with politics.  Tutu wrote the book to demonstrate that God does not ignore suffering.  God’s response to suffering is transformation and His agents of transformation are people.  Tutu describes himself as a “realist” and bases his thoughts on the reality he witnessed through the Bible, history, and living during apartheid in South Africa   

Tutu, a retired Archbishop, begins with a theological claim: God is in control of creation, even when he seems absent.  God most likely appears absent during oppression.  God is responding, however, through transformation.  Surprisingly, this response begins by freeing the oppressor.  A sinful person needs to be free of corruption to be a free child of God.  For those already experiencing this freedom, transformation leads to forgiveness.  

 

The theological statement “God is in control,” has a political application.  Tutu suggests that God created people as free creatures and asks us to follow him.  The definition of person therefore includes freedom.  This means two things.  First, freedom must include the possibility of disobedience.  Second, creation means that oppression opposes natural law.  The tyrant’s failure is therefore in inevitable.  A properly functioning society responds to this inevitability by allowing people to experience creation-ordained freedom.

 

Tutu’s next theological claim is that God dreams of an inseparable link amongst people.  Equality is not enough because it allows people to ignore one another.  Transformation makes people interdependent.  God wants all human relationships to have the same characteristics as family relationships.  People do not choose their family members, but connection is permanent.  Family does not require absolute agreement but does require respect.  Family has a willingness to share.  

 

Again, the theological claim has a political dimension.  Injustice is impossible when human relationships resemble well-functioning families.  This would mean that the horrific circumstances we see as normal would stop.  Resource use would not be disproportionate, someone would not die every 3.6 seconds, and children would not starve. 

 

Tutu’s next point is that God’s love is unconditional and unearned.  There is an unsettling follow up: God loves our enemies, so we also have to.  Love for enemies comes through reconciliation.  Reconciliation includes forgiveness, which is an opportunity to start over based on the hope that the transgressor can change and allow a positive relationship with the victim.  Reconciliation also should include reparation if possible and necessary so that the transgressor will not continue to profit from wrongdoing.  Tutu applies this truth to political enemies.      

 

The final theological claim that Tutu makes is that we are God’s only tool for justice.  If we let God use us, justice will happen.  People will matter more than possessions.  We will cherish life.  We will protect people from hunger, ignorance, and sickness.  We will be gentle, caring, and compassionate.  To neglect justice is blasphemy because it turns the image of God into a victim.  Again, religion and politics intersect.  The gospel – normally thought of as a religious topic – confronts injustice.  Tutu’s stance against apartheid was primarily a religious act.  He stood with the weak because that is where God was standing.

 

The next two chapters of God Has a Dream suggest responses to these theological-political claims.  The first suggestion is to stop looking at how things appear and to start looking at how things are.  To do this, we need to learn from suffering by acknowledging that we do not always control suffering but do control our response.  Use love to help control responses, set aside jealousy, and consciously choose positive responses to bad situations.  Use humility to understand who you are and allow God to use you.  Use generosity to acknowledge that everything is a gift from God so you will respond to suffering with empathy.  Use courage to have a good response despite fear and threats.

 

The second suggestion is to allow for stillness.  Stillness allows you to hear from God, which lets you become more godlike and more aware of God’s presence.  Three things help lead to stillness: prayer, particularly in groups; reading the Bible and understanding why and how it is relevant today; and, looking for and accepting truth – whether from religion or science.  

 

Tutu concludes by noting that conflict comes from disputes over power.  Instead of disputes, Jesus suggests an alternate use of power.  Exercise power through service, compassion, gentleness, and caring.  In Jesus’ vision, power and servanthood are synonymous.  Suffering does not indicate that God does not have a dream.  Suffering indicates that we ignore it.  The only way to ensure that Jesus’ vision of power – that God’s dream – prevails is to live as if it will.  Power exists in people.  Other sources – government, business, organizations – only exist because of they are groups of people.  People choose to disobey God or obey God.  

 

Tutu provides readers with several social justice lessons.  I will focus on two ideas that I considered here for the first time and then ask a question about one of Tutu’s proposals.  

 

The first idea regards Tutu’s claim that equality should not be the ultimate goal for social justice advocates.  This is initially surprising, but his alternate proposal – family-like relationships – likely would better lead to justice.  I wonder how to develop this proposal on a grand scale.  Given the ongoing struggle for equality, it will be difficult to find something better.  It is also impossible to have close relationships with everyone.  I think a solution to this difficulty is to advocate for equality – even with the legitimate risk of ignoring one another – and live in relationship.  We can legislate equality.  Legislated equality could then be a foundation for a relational approach to justice.  

 

The second idea is Tutu’s claim that injustice is blasphemy.  I am an advocate for social justice because of my faith in King Jesus, but was again surprised by Tutu.  The claim is bold.  Despite not immediately impacting my advocacy for justice, it slightly reframes how I consider the importance of social justice.

 

My question regards the idea that freedom is a natural law (presumably like gravity).  Although it is interesting to think that oppression is in an ultimately unsuccessful fight against natural law (presumably like atmosphere fighting against gravity), I am concerned that this idea implies the notion that the world slowly but inevitably leads toward social justice.  He later wrote, however, that enough horror existed in the 20th Century that we should stop assuming that progress and cultural improvement is inevitable.  My concerns are now lessened, but the question remains.  Can these two ideas co-exist?  Is the inevitable failure of oppression’s fight against a natural law simply a heavenly-focused version of the earthly-focused idea of progress?  Am I simply misunderstanding him?