Why sorcery accusation related violence is so hard to talk about
by Anton Lutz
I find it very hard to talk about Sorcery Accusation Related Violence (SARV).. Maybe you do too. It is hard enough to think about it, but it is even harder to talk and write about it. Why is this?
It comes down to three reasons:
- We see the world very differently.
- We don’t want to offend one another.
- We want to get these conversations right. Because it matters.
Let me explain.
Different worldviews
Looking at the picture above, you’ll see that it shows three different people: the Chief, the Pastor and the Scientist.
The Chief represents a supernaturalist way of seeing the world. He believes there are many gods and many spirits, both good and evil. He thinks that the sun and the moon are gods. He believes in ghosts and vampires and Santa Claus. He thinks spirits can enter physical beings, turn into cats and bats, even control or harm humans. He thinks the sorcerer in his village is communicating with the spirits and bringing a curse upon enemies and blessings upon friends. This way of seeing the world is very useful. It helps us organise our societies and families. It gives us a bad spirit to blame, and a good spirit to thank. It shows us why the sun rises and why the seasons change. It helps us deal with conflict, accidents, sickness – even death itself.
The Pastor represents a religious way of seeing the world. He believes there is only one true God. There are spirits, both good and evil, but these are created by God and will someday answer to God. He believes in souls, but not in ghosts, vampires or Santa Claus. When he sees a sorcerer, he sees a false prophet who is luring people away from God using tricks. This way of seeing the world is very useful. It helps us organise our societies and families. It gives us a “bad guy” to blame, and a God to thank. It shows us why the sun rises and why the seasons change. It even helps us deal with conflict, accidents, sickness and death itself.
But when the Pastor looks at the Chief, he thinks that the Chief is just sadly mistaken about many things. There are not many gods. The sun is not a god. There is only one true God, who created the sun and all things by His Word. The Chief is a nice guy, but he’s just wrong about many of his sincerely held beliefs. When it comes down to it, most of what the Chief believes is non-Christian. It’s imaginary, heathen and heretical. No one can believe the things the Chief believes and be a true Christian. He thinks that those who are not Christian will go to hell. It’s sad but true, so he thinks.
The Scientist represents a secular and scientific way of seeing the world. She demands evidence before she will believe things, including evidence for God or gods or even Santa Claus. She has seen evidence for germs and electrons, for physics and mathematics, for psychology and geology, but zero evidence for sorcery or witchcraft. For several centuries, the Scientist and her colleagues have used these principles of evidence and the scientific method and have created many important things, like the telephone, the internet, vaccines, artificial intelligence and much more.
When the Scientist looks at the Chief and the Pastor, she thinks that both are just sadly mistaken about many things. They have great stories, but lack the evidence to prove their claims beyond a reasonable doubt. They are nice guys, but they’re just wrong about many of their sincerely held beliefs. When it comes down to it, much of what the Chief and the Pastor believe is supernatural – unproveable by definition! They live by faith, not by sight. No one can believe claims about the supernatural and be a real Scientist, so she thinks.
Of course, however, there is overlap between these three different worldviews. Let’s look at how that works briefly as well.
Both the Chief and the Pastor agree that there are spiritual forces of good and evil in the world. What these spiritual forces are, how fast they can zoom around, what they can do, how dangerous they are, etc., that is up for debate, but that they exist is definitely true!
The Pastor agrees with the Scientist that mathematics, chemistry and physics are very important when it comes to flying airplanes. They agree that sick people should go to hospitals, get vaccinated, and listen to what the doctors tell them. They agree that blaming some poor person in the community and torturing them to death is evil and crazy.
All three of our friends agree that we want to live in safe, happy and healthy communities.
But how does this play out in a situation where some people in a village have accused a woman of using her sanguma to kill another woman’s child?
The Chief says “It’s probably true, because we know the real reason people die is because of sanguma, not viruses. Yet, for the sake of our safe, happy and healthy community, please don’t torture her too badly or the Pastor and the Police will come make a lot of noise. Just do it enough so she won’t hurt anyone else.”
The Pastor in the village says, “Viruses and medicine are real but sometimes there are spiritual attacks, too. The woman is a daughter of God and you people who call yourselves Christian should be ashamed of yourselves for hurting her! You should know that if you torture her enough to get the evil spirit out, it will just go into one of you! Leave the woman alone and we will watch her. If she survives, she wasn’t a sanguma. If she dies, that’s God’s judgment.”
The Pastor in the town says, “Viruses and medicine are real but sometimes there are spiritual attacks, too. The woman is a daughter of God and you people who call yourselves Christian should be ashamed of yourselves for hurting her! Also, Satan has been filling your heads with lies and tricking you into committing crimes. Leave the woman alone and maybe take her to the hospital instead. If we all say sorry, there’s no need to involve the police. Next week I will come counsel you on why it’s a bad idea to listen to Satan’s lies.”
The Scientist says, “This is what happens when superstition is allowed to live on into the 21st century. There’s no such thing as a sorcerer, or a sanguma spirit, or a Satan, or a God’s daughter, for that matter. It’s all stories. The fact is that viruses kill people and it’s very sad and next time get vaccinated. Leave the poor woman alone and take her to the hospital. She is a victim of crime and her human rights have been ignored. Next week I will come counsel you on why it’s a bad idea to uncritically believe ancient stories and disregard the law, science and education.”
These are dramatically different worldview options that I have sketched out here, and many of us will find ourselves agreeing with various points but hesitating to put ourselves in only one of these three worldview camps. Our beliefs are complicated!
So, how do we talk to other people about what we believe and why? Coming on too strong, they might just close their minds to what we are trying to show them. If we hide what we truly believe, then how are we being effective communicators? What are the common stands that we can all agree on, even when we stand on such different foundations?
The reason all of this is stressful is in two parts, I think. There is the psychological stress of wanting to be liked and respected. If we stand up and preach what we believe is the truth, there are always going to be people who disagree and let us know. That’s not fun.
In addition to the psychological stress, I think we all realise that SARV education is actually important. It matters to victims and their families what the community believes.
Will they be attacked again? Will they be safe? It depends on what the community believes.
Will pastors be ready to preach a message of change and hope and truth? It depends on what they believe.
Will the police be willing to risk their lives to save someone from being tortured? It depends on what they believe.
Getting our messaging correct really matters. And regardless of where we are on the range of worldview options, the people we are talking to and working with will be in different places from where we are. But somehow we still have to move forward together.
Three ways forward
- Agree on the basics.
- Challenge your own beliefs.
- See things from someone else’s perspective.
What can a Chief, a Pastor and a Scientist agree on? They can get endlessly tied up in who has enough invisible anecdotal evidence, scriptural backing or prior probabilities. This is not a new problem and it turns out humans have invented a solution. It’s called the Law. The Law does not care what you believe. It only cares whether you have done as it demands.
In our conversation about SARV, the people accused of sanguma and how they get treated by their community, the Law is crystal clear. Regardless of what you believe or how deeply you believe it, it is illegal to accuse someone of being a sanguma. It is illegal to assault them, torture them and even illegal to murder them. It is illegal to deny them access to healthcare. It is illegal to threaten them or their caregivers. I think you get the point.
So this is the question, Mr Chief, Mr Pastor and Ms Scientist, do you stand with the Law of Papua New Guinea, or do you not? You may not like it. You may not think that the law takes your particular beliefs into account. You may think that you have a Bible verse that shows why the Law is mistaken. But, it turns out, the Law is impartial to beliefs and the Law has been decided. The only way to change it is to elect MPs who believe what you believe and will go to Parliament and go through the process required to change the Law. In the meantime, our answer can only be one of two options:
Yes, I stand with the Law, or
No, I intend to break the Law.
What other basic values could we all agree on? Could all Christians agree that Jesus asked his followers to love and serve one another, including their enemies? Would the Scientist and Chief agree that this would be a good idea? If the Christians are busy loving everyone, will the Chief still be able to get away with attacking some people? I bet even the Scientist would be willing to help the Pastor look after people who get attacked in the name of superstition.
Humanity’s worldviews will probably remain diverse for the foreseeable future. But that doesn’t mean we have to mock and hate one another.
Think about this: if the Scientist was born in the same village that Chief was, and raised the same way, wouldn’t she believe the same things as Chief? And if Chief was born and raised in the way that the Scientist was, he would be an agnostic scientist too. Yes, we are different, but we are all the same as well. We are all trying to figure out how to be the best humans we can be.
Maybe we could have a bit more compassion for each other, and try to see things from other people’s points of view. Who knows, when Chief looks through the microscope and sees the germs that made his children sick, maybe he’ll realise there was no reason to accuse the sanguma woman. And when the Pastor remembers that Chief never learned to read or write, he’ll be a bit more patient with him. And of course, dear old Scientist could do with a reminder that making fun of people or telling them they are wrong is rarely a good way to help them. “There but for the grace of God, go I.”
In my next blog post, I’ll be talking about sorcery tactics.