dimanche 20 décembre 2015

TASKS OF A THEOLOGIAN IN AFRICA TODAY


Abstract
     African Christian theology has many tasks today. This is evident both from a reading of the history of African christian theology and from the wide variety of current understandings of its nature and task.  Some theologians today contend that the task of African theologian is to provide a clear and comprehensive description of the African Christian faith. Other theologians emphasize the importance of translating faith into terms that intelligible to the African cultures.  For others, African christian theology must be defined as thinking about important issues from the perspective of the faith of African Christians. And still others insist that theology must be reflexion on the praxis of Christian faith within an oppressed community.
     Therefore this paper seeks to provide briefly some definitions, different approaches to contextualization as a process of theologization, the history of Christianity in Africa. We will proceed to explore the need for an African theology, its models and how it is taught to African Christians; the problems confronting African Christians today throuh different cultural values. We will conclude with the general guidelines on formulating the tasks of African Christian theologians.

Introduction

     The last decades have seen a flood of materials on African Christian theology. It has generally been assumed that there are three major theological currents that have emerged in Africa in the last two decades: inculturation theology, liberation theology and black theology. But the theological and ecclesiastical landscape has changed in the last decades. The existence and nature of so-called “African theology” in Africa is no longer clear. Instead, the theology of the mainline churches in Africa has moved beyond its missionary origins.
     It seems urgent for African Christians to `own' their theological reflection, rather than borrow it from others. This means taking seriously their African heritage. This requires the theological quest in the broader context of political, educational, literary, and religious factors in Africa. But, it is however not easy to determine exactly what African Theology is. In the response to the question on this subject, we would like to understand the various possible ways of definitions attributed to the “African theology”.
    
Perceptions of  “African theology”

     What is African theology? African theology refers to a particular school of African theologians who have attempted to articulate Christian theology from the perspective of the African cultural context. Although there are very old Christian traditions on the continent, in the last centuries Christianity in Africa has been determined to a large extent by western forms of Christianity, brought by colonization and mission. This also means that the theology in Africa was strongly influenced by Western theology. But, later, in the field of academic reflection, African Christian theology emerged in the 1950s: it acknowledged the need to incarnate the Gospel, using the best insights of African cultural values compatible with the gospel.  In this perspective, some African theologians try to define “African theology” .  During ACC meeting in Abidjan, some African theologians claimed that: "By African Theology we mean a theology which is based on the Biblical faith and speaks to the African 'soul' (or is relevant to Africa). It is expressed in categories of thought which arise out of the philosophy of the African people.[1]"  John Mbiti wrote this : “"I will use the term 'African Theology' without apology or embarrassment, to mean theological reflection and expression by African Christians[2]". For Muzorewa, after looking at these definitions, concludes: "All these definitions attempt to respond to a mandate to construct a biblically-based and relevant theology that speaks to the spiritual needs of the African people. The implication is obvious. Imported theologies did not touch the hearts of the African believers because they were couched in a religious language foreign to them: hence the quest for a relevant African theology. Furthermore, the cultural factor means that it is best that only African theologians undertake the task.[3]
     This changed mid-20th century when African Theology as a theological discipline came into being. This movement began to protest against negative colonial and missionary interpretations of the religion and culture in Africa. Realizing that theology is a contextual phenomenon, African Christians begun to read the Scriptures using their own cultural lens, which of course resulted in some interpretations that did not always agree with how Western theology interpreted things. African theology is engaged to shape Christianity in an African way by adapting and using African concepts and ideas. Representatives are scholars such as Idowu and Mbiti, who gave an analysis and interpretation of the African traditional religion and point to its relation to the Christian faith.
     The evidence shows that there are currently at least four basic types of African Christian theology today: inculturation theology, liberation theology, Reconstruction African theology and prosperity theology. On the other hand, the Churches of God in Africa have grown significantly in number. The pastoral zeal of their leaders and the piety and activism of their members have prompted them to react in a faith-inspired way to the profound social and political changes which characterize modern post-colonial Africa. 
It is within the framework of this general orientation that in African Christian theology, attempts are made to reconceptualise the Christian faith adequately in response to the demands of specifically African contexts and experiences. In order to arrive at such a contextual conceptualisation, African theology has had to develop its own specifically African criteria for theological constructs. Such criteria emerge (often implicitly) from the ways in which African theologians argue for the inadequacy of traditional Western theology, and from the innovative proposals which they themselves put forward as alternatives. The African Christians try to "own" their theological reflection. rather than to borrow it from others. This means taking seriously their African heritage. It examines the theological quest in the broader context of political. educational, literary, and religious matters. According to Mbiti, the chief yardstick for determining the validity of any Christian theology purporting to be African was its 'Biblical basis'. For him, "nothing can substitute for the Bible" As with African Traditional Religions and other aspects of African culture, the Bible has enjoyed a respected status and place in African theology. "Any viable theology must and should have a biblical basis", declared Mbiti, more than a decade ago. Similarly, Fashole Luke declared that "the Bible is the basic and primary source for the development of African Christian Theology". To underscore the significance of the Bible in the construction of African theology, Mbiti also says: “Nothing can substitute for the Bible. However much African cultural-religious background may be close to the biblical world, we have to guard against references like "the hitherto unwritten African Old Testament" or sentiments that see final revelation of God in the African religious heritage”.

Four basic types of African Christian theology

Inculturation Theology

. The first and the oldest of these is African inculturation theology, simply referred to as African theology. Briefly stated, this theology is an attempt to give African expression to the Christian faith within a theological framework. It involves a conscious engagement of European Christian thinking and African religious thought in serious dialogue for the purpose of integrating Christianity into the life and culture of African people. 
     Furthermore, inculturation theology is a form of contextualization. The context into which the Gospel is placed in this case is usually the traditional African culture. The non-formal inculturation of the Gospel in the African context is as old as the African church. The preaching and praying and singing of African Christians throughout the history of the African church are forms of the inculturation of the Gospel. Often these forms of inculturation are in the local African language. That is why, Anglican priest John Samuel Mbiti rightly states that “aided by the biblical revelation and faith in Jesus Christ,” Africans built their approach to Christianity on a foundation that already existed in traditional African religions. However, African cultures that have adopted Christianity view religious practice and salvation quite differently from European cultures. Mbiti holds that a respectful understanding of the differences can help to ensure the viability of the Christian church in Africa.
 But the formal inculturation of the Gospel into the African context began in the middle of the twentieth century. “The real starting-point of African theology came from a European Franciscan missionary in the Belgian Congo, Placide Tempels[4].” In 1945 his Bantu Philosophy was published in French. But “the first African who can be called an African theologian was Vincent Mulago, a Catholic priest from the then Belgian Congo[5].” The year 1956 saw the publication of his Ph.D. thesis in French on the “Bantu Vital Union.” In the same year Alexis Kagame published his “The Bantu-Rwandan Philosophy” in French. That year also saw the publication of a collection of articles under the title Des Prêtres Noirs s’interrogent, or “Black Priests Ask.” Formal African inculturation theology began in Francophone Africa. But Anglophone Africa soon followed suit. The 1960s saw a flood of materials on African Christian theology, both in the French and English languages (European languages!) and both by Roman Catholics and Protestants. In 1969 the All-Africa Conference of Churches in Abidjan said that “African Theology is ‘a theology based on the Biblical faith of Africans, and which speaks to the African language.
     The inculturation of the Gospel was done to make the Gospel relevant to the African situation. In 1983, Osadolor Imasogie wrote, “Christianity, for many Africans, remains a foreign religion. . . . It is only when incarnation takes place that Christianity ceases to be a foreign religion[6].” Even Byang Kato said, “Contextualize without compromise.[7]” But the results of this inculturation exercise have been mixed. At times the result has been pure syncretism or a return to African traditional religion. Gabriel Setiloane said that “we have learnt nothing new about religion from the missionaries. . . . But we Africans are bringing something to Christianity: a view of Divinity much higher, deeper, and all-pervasive.[8]” Bolaji Idowu concluded his book on African Traditional Religion by praising a “faithful remnant whose loyalty to the religion of their forbears will continue steadfast.[9]
     Unfortunately, the African culture is changing rapidly. The African culture is becoming more urbanized and westernized. Many of our young people are far removed from the traditional African religion. It seems that inculturation theology is neglecting the pressing social issues in our society.

Liberation theology

The second is African liberation theology, which, though a late starter, having appeared only about a decade ago, is becoming very popular in most parts of Africa. There are three subcurrents in this theology. One is based on the indigenous socioeconomic system, the second takes after the Latin American model, and the third involves a combination of elements from both approaches. They seek genuine human promotion in the context of the poverty and political powerlessness of Africa, and take the form of Christian reflection within the context. Like black theologians, the liberationists believe that the gospel has a liberating message for Africans in their state of poverty, oppression, and exploitation[10].  Though young, these theologies unquestionably excel in terms of output.
     Instead of focusing on the traditional African culture, liberation theology is passionately concerned with rectifying the glaring injustices in our society. Liberation theology began in this continent in South Africa, taking the form of Black Theology. Alan Boesak and Desmond Tutu are two early representatives of South African Black Theology.
     In the 1970s Black Theology came to South Africa. In 1972 Essays on Black Theology was published in Johannesburg but was banned by the government before it reached the bookstores[11]. In the 1970s Desmond Tutu and Allan Boesak were leaders of the Black Theology school of thought. But John Mbiti accuses Black Theology of reductionism. He wrote, “What I view as an excessive preoccupation with liberation may well be the chief limitation of Black Theology. . . . Black Theology cannot and will not become African Theology. . . . Black Theology hardly knows the situation of Christian living in Africa, and therefore its direct relevance for Africa is either nonexistent or only accidental. . . . African Theology is concerned with many more issues, including all the classical theological themes, plus localized topics[12].
     In the subsequent years, liberation theology moved beyond racial issues. Socioeconomic liberation has become a major concern of liberation theology. Allan Boesak even accuses James Cone of reducing liberation theology to the racial issue. Instead, Black Theology should focus on total liberation. “It focuses on the dependency of the oppressed and their liberation from dependency in all its dimensions—psychological, cultural, political, economical, and theological.[13].
     For Bénézet Bujo the main problem is “the mass poverty of Africa.” Although some church leaders have spoken out on behalf of the poor, “it must be said that the church of Africa has been a silent church.[14].  Jean-Marc Éla supports Bujo’s call for economic liberation[15]. There are other forms of liberation theology in Africa. Feminist theology is an example. Mercy Oduyoye, for example, focuses on the unique situation of women in Africa, including their oppression[16].
     Liberation theology is a theological response to the problems of poverty and injustice in our society. Liberation theology is a cry for justice. Liberation theology stands in the tradition of the Old Testament prophets and of Jesus Christ himself. Unfortunately, liberation theology has often been one-sided.
     We conclude that African liberation theology is a contextualization of the Gospel into the context of injustice and poverty within Africa. It is a cry for justice in our unjust world. We must recognize the presence of massive corruption and injustice in many Christian countries and states on this continent. We desperately need justice in Africa. But this should not be done to the neglect of the liberation of the individual from the guilt and effects of sin.

Reconstruction theology

     Reconstruction theology in Africa has been the latest theological project coming out of Africa, beginning in 1990 it has gradually established itself and from 2003 a number of publications have come out on the subject. Since the early 1990s theologians have been looking for new ways to interpret the gospel in Africa, in light of the changing circumstances in the continent. Prominent among the themes that have been suggested is the “Reconstruction Paradigma”. As Dr. Jessy N. K. Mugambi of the University of Nairobi says, this interpretation seeks to elaborate from the scriptures the aspects that portray God and his people re-creating a new world order. Reconstruction Theology then offers the Christian basis for recreating anew the African social economic reality from a scriptural perspective.
      Reconstruction theologians however approach pertinent issues, such as food crisis, child abuse, the AIDS pandemic and poverty in a unique and inspiring way. On the food crisis they use the Biblical basis of passages where God feeds his people in the Old and New Testaments as a proof that God wants people to have enough to feed on. While the Israelites were in the Desert, God gave them enough to eat until there was some left over. The same experience is repeated with Jesus and His disciples, where out of only five loaves and two fish, there was a total of 12 baskets of left over after the disciples had had to their satisfaction. Mugambi suggested that African Christianity should shift her theological gear from the paradigm of liberation to that of reconstruction. He suggested that:

Reconstruction is the new priority for African nations in the 1990s.The churches and their theologians will need to respond to this new priority in relevant fashion, to facilitate this process of reconstruction. The process will require considerable efforts of reconciliation and confidence-building. It will also require reorientationand retraining [17]..

     Thus, Mugambi contended that, in the New World Order,ii the figure of Nehemiah, unlike that of Moses, gives us the mirror through which we are enabled to spot our mission to remake Africa out of the ruins of the wars –“against racism, colonial domination and ideological branding[18]”. He further contended that the shift from liberation to reconstruction which, to him, began in the 1990s, and involves discerning alternative social structures, symbols, rituals, myths and interpretations of Africa’s social reality by Africans themselves, “irrespective of what others have to say about the continent and its people[19]” (Mugambi 1995:40). The resources for this re-interpretation, he argued, “are multi-disciplinary analyses involving social scientists, philosophers, creative writers and artists, biological and physical scientists[20]” (Mugambi 1995:40).
     But, A Kenyan theologian, Joseph Wandera, was critical of Jesse Mugambi’s work. He said:

There is still so much deconstruction to be done before reconstruction can start. There is a saying among the Africans that ‘we should chase away the wild cat before we begin to warn the chicken against wandering carelessly’. Africa still suffers from marginalisation of all kinds, including its theology[21].

     Anyway, these Reconstruction theologians do recognize the need to include findings and expert help from other academic disciplines in solving the numerous African problems. Indeed it is this willingness to dialogue and work with other African experts, that these theologians usher in hope for a theology that can truly work for human development. Important questions relating to how the barriers of language and content of the various disciplines will be broken need to be answered. 

Prosperity Theology 

     Prosperity theology is a major African “Christian” theology that is usually neglected in the academic textbooks. Often Prosperity theology is joined together with African evangelicalism[22]. Since Prosperity theology is so dominant in Africa, it needs to be treated as a separate African Christian theology. It is defined as the teaching that believers have a right to the blessings of health and wealth and that they can obtain these blessings through positive confessions of faith and the “sowing of seeds” through the faithful payments of tithes and offerings.
     The context of this contextualized theology is again the modern African context. The context is the contemporary—and often urban—Africa with its social and economic problems like poverty, unemployment, school fees and barrenness.
     Prosperity theology holds to some of the same presuppositions as African evangelicalism. It believes in the power of prayer and the possibility of miracles. It believes in the power of Jesus to meet the daily needs of individuals. It also believes in the power of Jesus to overcome evil spiritual powers.
     But Prosperity theology differs significantly from African evangelicalism. Prosperity theology assumes that every Christian has a right to be prosperous. Prosperity theology assumes that God will make every Christian prosperous if the believer does the right things.33



mardi 15 décembre 2015

PROMETTRE ET ACCOMPLIR : UNE DUPLICITÉ DE DÉCONVENUE?


Le décalage entre la promesse d’une personne et la réalité de l’accomplir transpire souvent d’un grand écart. Et la question récurrente est la suivante : Alors pourquoi tant de personnes croient aux promesses des autres et se retrouvent un jour déçues ? La nature humaine doit être ainsi faite. L’humain a besoin de  croire et d’espérer.

     C’est pourquoi, d’ailleurs, les hommes politiques qui sollicitent les suffrages de leurs concitoyens ne sont pas, on le sait, avares de promesses, de ces promesses dites, justement, « électorales ». Au point quaccoler ladjectif « électorales » au mot « promesses » qualifie demblée le dire de la promesse de menteur, qui nengage gre celui qui les énonce. Doù la formule, bien connue, fréquemment appliquée à la sphère politique : « Les promesses nengagent que ceux qui y croient. » Son cynisme a peut-être quelque mérite, analytiquement parlant.

Définition

     C’est quoi promettre ? Promettre, c'est formuler, contracter explicitement un engagement garantissant à autrui l'obtention d'un résultat ou la réalisation d'un acte, dans un futur plus ou moins proche. Promettre, c'est, de ce fait, créer chez autrui un état d'espérance, alimenter une attente, qui peut s'avérer être un dommage supplémentaire et engendrer une profonde désillusion quand le résultat visé ne se produit pas. Dans ce cas,  à quoi bon promettre, si on n’est pas en mesure de la réaliser ?  Promettre semble être à la fois un acte naïf et irresponsable, vain  mais par ailleurs l'absence de promesse ou d'engagement apparaît tout aussi inquiétante, opportuniste et lâche. Les deux attitudes (promettre ou se prémunir à tout prix) semblent tout autant vouées à l'échec l'une que l'autre. La confrontation entre l'assurance qui caractérise la promesse et l'incertitude effective du futur nous conduit dans un premier temps à voir dans la promesse une sous-estimation de la complexité des choses, une surestimation de sa propre force et sans doute une forme de naïveté, ce que semble sous-entendre la formulation même du sujet : « A quoi bon? », qui exprime bien cette idée de vanité, de résignation.
     On pourrait à ce niveau effectuer une distinction entre le voeu et la promesse. Lorsque je fais un voeu,  je suis le seul à le connaître et il n'engage personne d'autre que moi. Il semble donc plus raisonnable d'affronter l'incertitude du devenir à partir de cette posture plus intime et nécessairement plus humble que de se risquer à faire dépendre autrui de mon acte. 


La valeur d’une promesse humaine


     La plupart des promesses  n’ont pas l’intention d’être tenues par celui qui les fait, ni ne sont espérées ni d’être respectées par celui qui les entend. C’est pourquoi, si des promesses ne sont pas prises au sérieux aujourd’hui, nous devrions trouver très facile de nous identifier avec les Israélites de l’ancien temps, qui  étaient dans l’impossibilité de tenir leurs promesses envers Dieu. En Deutéronome 23.21, il est écrit : « Si tu fais un voeu à l’Éternel, ton Dieu, tu ne tarderas point à l’accomplir: car l’Éternel, ton Dieu, t’en demanderait compte, et tu te chargerais d’un péché ».
     Nous voyons ainsi que la procrastination, la négligence, l’ignorance, l’indifférence ou tant d’autres  choses peuvent nous conduire à faire des promesses vides à Dieu. La chose la plus importante à noter c’est que, ceux qui font des promesses vides à Dieu sont aussi ceux qui font de fausses promesses à l’homme. Nous devons comprendre en effet qu’il est préférable de ne pas faire des promesses du tout si nous n’avons pas l’intention de les garder. Pourquoi faisons-nous parfois des promesses que nous n’avons pas l’intention de tenir? Pour plaire aux autres, pour se vanter, montrer qu’on est capable dans une situation où en fait nous ne sommes pas assez habiles ou nous sommes carrément incapables… Pourtant, Jésus dit : « Que votre parole soit oui, oui, non, non; ce qu’on y ajoute vient du malin » (Matthieu 5:37). Pourquoi? Parce que le fait de ne pas tenir nos promesses révèle notre manque d’intégrité.


Les promesses de Dieu


De nombreux exemples de promesses de Dieu sont évoqués dans la Bible. Mais Dieu est celui dont les promesses ne faillissent pas : « ce que Sa bouche dit, Sa main l’accomplit » (Habacuc 2.3). C’est dire que la Parole de Dieu et ses promesses ne reposent ni sur nos émotions ni sur nos sentiments. Elles ne sont pas « oui » et pas non plus « amen » en nous mais en Jésus : « Pour toutes les promesses de Dieu, c’est en Jésus que se trouve le « oui », et c’est aussi par lui que nous disons « amen » à Dieu, pour sa gloire » (2 Corinthiens 1.20). En d’autres mots, notre incrédulité nous empêche d’accepter les promesses de Dieu, mais nos doutes n’empêchent pas Dieu d’accomplir Ses promesses. 

     D’ailleurs, en Nombres 23. 19, il nous est écrit : « Dieu n'est point un homme pour mentir, Ni fils d'un homme pour se repentir. Ce qu'il a dit, ne le fera-t-il pas? Ce qu'il a déclaré, ne l'exécutera-t il pas? ».  En d’autres termes, ce Dieu est un Dieu de Parole ! Ce qu’Il dit, il le fait, il respecte scrupuleusement sa parole. Dans notre société, peu de paroles sont tenues, peu d’engagements sont respectés, beaucoup de promesses rarement honorées, mais Dieu est celui qui peut répondre à cette attente, et il en est le seul. Quand on réalise qu’il tient ses promesses, notre foi grandit, et la conséquence immédiate est que nous allons tenir de plus en plus et de mieux en mieux notre promesse envers Dieu et ceux qui nous entourent.

Au final, nous devons conclure que l'engagement pris par la promesse est souvent pensé en termes de sincérité, et donc considéré comme pleinement moral, alors même qu'on peut le tenir également pour la racine du contrat social. Pourquoi, en effet, respecter les règles de la vie en société, sinon parce qu'on sait que tout le monde en fait autant, ou du moins s'est engagé à en faire autant ? Le fait de vivre en société ne repose-t-il pas aussi sur un engagement de chacun? 

La promesse semble donc engager la responsabilité de celui qui la fait. Responsabilité à faire ce que l'on a dit que l'on ferait. Mais si ma responsabilité est engagée, n'est-ce pas parce que s'engager, c'est s'engager vis-à-vis de quelqu'un d'autre ? Peut-on en effet s'engager tout seul, ou soi-même ? Ce n'est pas sûr : à quoi pourrait-on bien s'obliger soi-même ?

En ce sens, on comprend que faire une promesse n'est pas anodin, puisque cela engage ma responsabilité pour le futur.

Dr Jimi ZACKA

Théologien, Anthropologue