In this chapter, I argue that there is a strong connection between theism and African reli- gions. I maintain that African religions understand God as personal and that they affirm God’s involvement in the world. However, I also argue that as there are varieties of Afri- can religions, from the Pharaohnic religions of African antiquity to the traditional reli- gions of sub-Saharan Africa, to the Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity of the north, and the Islamic and missionary Christian faiths, so also there are varieties of theis- tic beliefs across the African landscape. In all the varieties of African religions, however, the uniqueness of Africans is in their pragmatic approach to the matter of spirituality.
Africa
To get a handle on our topic, we must first try to clear a conceptual thicket by paying attention to the terms of the discourse: Africa, religion, and theism. This is, of course, a difficult task. How does one define Africa, for instance? Africa is a point on the map, a geographical expression. Africa is also a concept, with a meaning that resonates beyond its boundaries, and an idea that is embraced by millions of people. That idea could be a source of a sense of dispossession, or it could provide a sense of hope in the future. Africa is, of course, a political entity, an aggregation of states in various degrees of politi- cal development, still bogged down by biting poverty, sub-national crisis and sectarian strife (Mudimbe 1988).
Each of the foregoing approaches to defining Africa has its use, depending on the ultimate purpose of the discourse. But in a less empirical sense, Africa is something more than all of these. It is a spiritual entity that embraces more than a fair share of the world’s spirituality. Africa is more Christian than the Holy See and discerning observers have identified what might be termed Reverse Evangelism, a phenomenon of Africans in the forefront of Christian evangelizing work in Europe and America. Africa is more Islamic than the Holy shrines of Mecca and Medina. And, of course, Africa is the land of a pri- meval traditional spirituality, the birthplace of the gods. In a sense, as Kwame Nkrumah surmised in Consciencism (1964), we may legitimately talk about the triple heritage of Africa: tradition, Islam, and Christianity. The question: “Which of the three heritages is most authentically African?” is indeed a difficult one as it raises the further tricky ques- tion of which Africa is most authentic. But how is such a question to be addressed sat- isfactorily? Is the African antiquity of the Pharaohs inauthentic? Or is there an authen- tic traditional Africa? What does the term “traditional” describe? Is “modern” Africa a product of foreign imposition? These are pertinent questions especially as we concern
ourselves with African religions. A saving grace, one that desirably limits our incursion into the depth of these questions, is that our topic is broad enough to deal with all fac- ets of Africa and its religions. Were we to be limited to African “traditional” religions, it would be a conceptual muddle. For the question “What defines tradition?” becomes problematic. Is it indigenousness? We’d be hard-pressed to conclude that Christianity in its Coptic variant or Islam is not indigenous to Africa. To avoid such a conceptual morass, we will approach the topic by focusing on the manifestations of religion in differ- ent epochs of Africa and examining the varieties of theistic doctrines and practices.
Religion
But first there is a need to come to grips with religion itself. What is it that is at the core of all its variants? This question is important in view of the fact that there have been arguments and counter-arguments about the status of African religions. It has been denied that Africans have a religious experience; it has also been argued that Africans are notoriously religious (Mbiti 1969). Obviously if both contentions appeal to the same notion of religion, at least one must be false. But what if they appeal to different notions of religion? Is there a way we could say that both still define religion? Does religion admit of relativity?
There is a core to religion, having to do with its source, its object and the attitude it invokes. One source of religion is a sense of vulnerability and dependence. I look at the immense space around me; I feel a sense of emptiness; I feel apprehensive; I feel vulner- able; and I need assurance. The sense of vulnerability naturally craves the presence of some power or powers stronger than me to lean on. This is a beginning of a religious experience. A second source of religion is a sense of wonder and awe that commends to us the idea of a being as the author of the universe who is worthy of our recognition and worship. A song writer communicates this sense of wonder in appropriate lyrics:
O Lord my God, how I in awesome wonder Consider all the works thy hand has done I see the stars/I hear the rolling thunder The universe thy holy hands hath made Then sings my soul/O Lord God to thee How great thou art
How great thou art
Then sings my soul/O Lord God to thee How great thou art
How great thou art.
Appreciating the wonders of the universe, attributing its origin to the work of God, and therefore recognizing the greatness of God, even in the absence of either fear or a sense of vulnerability, is also a bona fide basis for religion.
Theism
Theism is constituted by belief in the existence of God, but it also includes the belief that God is the source and sustainer of all things, the belief that there is meaning to everything that is imposed by God, and the belief that the realization and fulfillment
of the ultimate meaning of all things is possible only through God. Theism affirms the reality of God and God’s involvement in the world. While agnosticism is skeptical about the possibility of having knowledge of God, theism affirms the possibility of knowing God. While pantheism identifies God as the totality of the universe and inseparable from it, theism understands God not only as personal but also as transcending the world and being separate from it. Finally, while deism understands God as having no interac- tion with the world, theism affirms God’s involvement with it.
The origin of theistic belief could be traced to the natural and primordial urge to locate in some being or beings the ultimate explanation for the reality that confronts us. The immensity of the local mountain, the expanse of the neighborhood river, even the density of the rain forest or the dryness of the desert, suggest that there must be a real- ity that underlies them, especially when such a reality appears to have a grip on one’s being. It is in this sense that God serves as the meaning and purpose of all things. As such, the motivation for theistic belief is human, even if there could be differing levels of understanding of the idea of such an ultimate reality.
On one level of understanding, God might be seen as an abstract concept that is postulated only as an explanation of what there is ultimately, as most philosophical, as opposed to religious or theological, accounts of God assert. On a second level of understanding, God might be understood as a personal being in the sense that God is conceived of as having personal relationships with human beings, and participating in their affairs in a manner similar to ordinary human interactions. Here God is made in the image of human beings and, thus, as having properties that are only idealized forms of human traits. Polytheistic beliefs exemplify this level of understanding and a major difference exists between such beliefs and the monotheistic, Judeo-Christian belief in a God who is also personal but infinite. On this monotheistic conception of God, God is not only one and personal but also all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent.