Xenophobia and Love: Negotiating Reconciliation between South Africa and Nigeria in Light of 2 Corinthians 5:16-21 and 1 John 4:16-21
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholars of biblical and theological studies, have engaged extensively with the issue of xenophobia in South Africa, but less attention has been paid to its impact on Nigerian immigrants and diplomatic relationships from a biblical and theological standpoint. This paper re-examines xenophobia through the lenses of 2 Corinthians 5:16–21 and 1 John 4:16–21, proposing a theological framework for reconciliation between South Africans and Nigerians. It argues that the violent xenophobic attacks are rooted in hate/the absence of love, and posits love as a site for reconciliation and a rediscovery of authentic African kinship. The study highlights the impact of xenophobia on Nigerian immigrants— comparable to the experiences of Mozambicans and Zimbabweans—and explores how these wounds may be addressed through a theology of love. Utilizing an interdisciplinary approach, this paper draws on media reports documenting xenophobic incidents against Nigerians, alongside existing scholarly literature. The selected biblical texts are examined through the lens of African biblical criticism, specifically the evaluative approach. How may love theology help in the realisation of reconciliation and good kinship in Africa?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".