In my home country, the African Theology of Liberation was named Black Theology or The Theology of Liberation or Liberation Theology. The three names are derived from the title of the book of James Cone – namely, A Black Theology of Liberation – an African American theologian in the US.61 Black theology was then imported from the US by a South African scholar whose name is Basil Moore.62 It was overwhelmingly welcome by several black South Africans – among whom we can count Simon Maimela, Bonganjalo Goba, Desmond Tutu, Alan Boesak, Tinyiko Maluleke, Takatso Mofokeng, Frank Chikane, Barney Pityana, Buti Tlhagale, Itumeleng Mosala, and Manas Buthelezi63 – because of its relevance. Alan Boesak attributes this passionate welcome of this Black Theology of Liberation Theology – by local theologians – to the Black Consciousness Movement in South Africa. He claims,
Through black consciousness black people discover that they are children of God and that they have rights to exist in this world. Black people discover that they are part of history and that they share this history with
157
God, which means that they are responsible to act as human persons. The situation in South Africa did not happen just accidentally. It did not just come about. The situation was created by people. It is a system that is still being maintained by people through various methods.64
The situation which did not happen by accident to which Boesak is referring is the situation of the oppression of black people by whites. Apartheid was the name of this oppressive situation, and it was structurally created by the whites of South Africa with the specific aim of denying blacks the socio-political and economic rights which they had. Boesak describes this situation a little further by saying,
At the very top of the social ladder in South Africa we have the white South Africans. They have everything: all the economic, social, and political privileges. They vote and they have a very high standard of living. Next there are the coloured South Africans: the Asians, the Indians, etc. This is a clear, politically recognised category in South Africa, whether one is “colored,” or “Cape coloured,” or “other coloured.” At the very bottom of the social ladder is what the government calls the Bantu, the African people.65
Expounding on the disadvantages of those at the very bottom of the social ladder, Boesak continues,
Those at the bottom of the social ladder have almost nothing in South Africa, have no property rights nor the right to live with their families or children. They have to carry passbooks. But the “coloured,” because they have some white blood, share white people’s culture to a large extent and speak their language, either Afrikaans or English. We listen to their music and we share their religious concepts. We are therefore civilised and have more rights to more things than the Africans. I may own property in South Africa, but an African cannot. I may live with my wife and children, but an African cannot. This special situation has been a creation of the white people, who tell us who we are and where we belong. They call us the “brown” people. Black consciousness says this is nonsense.66
‘Divide and rule’ was the name of the game played by the apartheid regime, as it succeeded in creating divisions among the people it ruled, so that they could not unite easily to combat the racism inculcated by the same regime. Boesak is saying that his people, the ‘coloureds,’ were given certain political privileges – like, for example, being part of the so-called ‘Tricameral Parliament67 – so as to prevent them from being united with Africans in their struggle against the apartheid. Black Consciousness, according to Boesak helped the ‘coloureds’ to discover the dirty tricks of the divide and rule strategy used by the racist regime to keep its subjects apart from one another. Liberation Theology then reflects from
158
the point of view of faith on the new consciousness the oppressed should have about themselves, namely that they are Children of God. Boesak explains further to say,
When I discover that God has made me a human being though I am not white, it means that I have a right to be here; I have a right to exist. I am not less in his eyes. I believe in him. He has sent His Son for me. And when the word became flesh, God became a human being. He became like me. He shared the same feelings that I share. When I begin to understand this, we begin to ask the question, “What am I then?” White law says that I am not a human being. What do you do when you are black and you are a Christian and the people that oppress you say that they are also Christians? 68
I interpret Boesak to be saying that while the Black Consciousness Movement helps the victims of apartheid to discover their new consciousness, on the one hand – by means of questions asked above – the Black Theology of Liberation helps the same victims of racism to answer the same questions, on the other. In other words, Black Theology of Liberation reflects seriously – from the point of view of faith – on the oppressive situation of Blacks, as analysed and articulated by the Black Consciousness Movement. For him it is important to emphasize that Black Theology is a situational theology because of its focus on the situation of the Blacks, and all other oppressed people of South Africa. Indeed he strongly maintains that,
Black liberation theology is a situational theology. All theology has always been situational; it has always been theology in context. The only new thing that we have discovered is that it is theological foolishness (and I am not sure whether that is equal to sinfulness) to say that what is good in Germany as discovered by a good German Reform theologian is also good for the situation in North America and therefore also good for the situation South Africa. Each theological concept develops within a particular context, and our theological thinking—the way we read the Gospel, the way we understand the Gospel, the way we interpret the Gospel, the way we interpret our situation in the light of the Gospel—has everything to do with what we eat and how many times a day we eat, what salary we earn, whether we own a home, whether we live happily with our family, and so on. The situation in which we live, the context in which we live, profoundly influences the way we do our theology.69
I totally agree with Boesak when he says that the situation in which we live profoundly influences the way we do our theology; but I think he needs to explain himself further, because – left in that form – that phrase might find itself subject to lots of erroneous interpretations. In other words, does the situation necessarily justify the way we do our theology? No. Charles Villa-Vicencio expresses this point much better. He says,
159
Many have argued that religion is by nature a legitimation of ruling-class ideology. Others have promoted it as a spiritual resource for revolutionary change. An objective analysis of the history of religion in the West seems to suggest that it can be both. It is a multifaceted, many-levelled, complex, and ambiguous reality. Gregory Baum suggests, for example, that it is possible to read the bible as a textbook on the pathology of religion – giving rise to hypocrisy, idolatry, group-egotism, and collective blindness. On the other hand it can also be read as a textbook on the therapeutic nature of religion – overcoming the maladies of society by being a source of social and political renewal.70
The mention of the bible in the analysis above, surely serves to prove that Christianity is one of those religions which can be used for the good, or the oppression of the populace. Villa- Vicencio tries to apply his research to the situation in South Africa. He claims,
The role of the white Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk (NGK) in South African politics illustrates this phenomenon in a pertinent manner. Today it is the church of the political establishment. It provides political legitimation for apartheid, while its leaders repeatedly attack the World Council of Churches (WCC), the South African Council of Churches (SACC), black theology, and liberation theology for allegedly using religion for political ends.71
Which of the two groups is doing a good job? Is it the NGK which is theologically promoting the apartheid government’s official policy of racial discrimination, on the one hand, or is it the alliance of the WCC, the SACC, and black theology which is theologically upholding the cause of justice for the poor, on the other? Theologians on either side of the divide are surely basing their respective theologies on the socio-political and economic situation in South Africa. In other words, both parties are doing situational theology. Which of the two situational theologies is legitimate? On which grounds do we legitimize the one or the other? Our answer was surely not going to be easy, had we not discovered – through the help of Villa-Vicencio – that the theological support of the apartheid was just a sheer self- contradiction from the part of the NGK, which earlier on firmly stood by the side of the poor and oppressed Afrikaner workers. As a result, C. D. Brink, a renowned NGK theologian in 1947 rebuked the authorities of the NGK by saying,
The aim of the church is to bring about social justice. Justice must be done to the poor and the oppressed, and if the present system does not serve this purpose, the public conscience must be roused to demand another. If the church does not exert itself for justice in society, and together with the help she can offer also be prepared to serve as champion for the cause of the poor, others will do it. The poor have their right today: I do
160
not ask for your charity, but I ask to be given an opportunity to live a life of human dignity.72
What a powerful statement of Liberation Theology emerging from an NGK theologian! It is the same NGK which in the 1970s, condemned the same liberation language – done by black theology and its allies mentioned above – as nothing else but pure political ideology disguised in religious garb. What a contradiction in terms! In my opinion, if a theology is self- contradictory, then that theology is false.
Coming back to Boesak, I would suggest that already at the level of definition he should explain to his readers what kind of situational theology he is dealing with; meaning that, in addition to the emphasis that black liberation theology is contextual, he should also mention that the same theology is partisan: it prioritizes the upliftment of the lives of the poor, while it prophetically condemns every facet of injustice which prevents the poor from achieving their socio-political and economic rights. It is also important to mention that, unlike the NGK liberation theology, the black theology of liberation does not change its partisanship: meaning that when the oppressed become the new oppressors – in the new dispensation73 – black theology will always be on the side of the newly oppressed. Desmond Tutu strongly thinks that it is the kind of questions asked by the oppressed which pressurize the black theology of liberation to speak a partisan language. The oppressed ask, Tutu holds,
“Why do we suffer so?” “Why does suffering seem to single out us blacks to be the victims of a racism gone mad?” Another way of putting the same anguished cry is, “God, on whose side are you?” or even more disturbingly for some people, “God, are you black or white?”74
Liberation Theology proceeds to wrestle with the question of God, contends Tutu, after listening to the cries of the oppressed cited above. In other words, Liberation Theology investigates if it still makes sense to believe in God in the face of political injustice and economic exploitation. After this inquiry, Liberation theology – helped by various liberation accounts in the bible – comes back to the oppressed and assures them that god is on their side. Continuing to encourage the oppressed not to lose hope in God, Tutu says,
He is a God in charge in his universe. He is not impotent despite all appearances to the contrary, despite the fact that evil and injustice seem to be on the ascendant. He is the Lord, the all-ruler of the book of Daniel and the revelation of St. John the Divine. Nothing that happens can ever catch him off guard... He has not fallen asleep, or gone on a journey, or turned aside to relieve himself so that our cries rise to an empty void; our cries do not fall on deaf or unheeding ears. No, our God has heard and seen our affliction and has come down to deliver us. And He is strong to save. Our people here in Southern Africa need to here this.75
161
Thus, Tutu, guided by the scriptures – like every other proponent of the Theology of Liberation – shares his faith with the oppressed of Southern Africa: he strongly believes that – just as He liberated the Israelites of old – God will liberate the oppressed of Southern Africa, in spite of the injustice which seem to continue unabated.
Like Boesak, Tutu strongly believes that liberation theology is, and should remain a contextual theology. Its purpose is to focus on the liberation of a particular area at a particular time, and when this task has been satisfactorily exhausted, Liberation Theology must make way for future theologies which will seriously attend to future people’s joys and sorrows. Tutu strongly maintains that,
More than most theologies, it [Liberation Theology] accepts that there can be no final theology, that all theology is provisional and cannot lay claim to a universal validity, for any relevant theology must accept the scandal of its particularity, which, after all, is the price of its relevance. And no theology can easily transcend the limitations and the conditioned- ness of those who theologize... There is no one true way of theologizing. Even in the bible there is a rich diversity of theologies, all existing check by jowl, theologies that may complement one another, though they may also be quite incompatible. Liberation Theology claims it is part of this rich diversity; it glories in its limitations and it is ready to leave the stage to its successors once it feels it has fulfilled its task.76
Having thus explained the limitations of Liberation Theology and the conditioned-ness of its proponents, Tutu concludes this impressive explanation – in the next paragraph – in a rather contradictory way. He writes,
But we should not canonize the determinations of yesteryear and so make the awful mistake of identifying theology with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Theology is temporal, the Gospel is eternal. Our understanding of that Gospel, of that divine revelation will change constantly. That is what theology is about.77
I don’t understand the distinction between theology and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If the distinction refers to the authority the Gospel of Jesus Christ has over all theology, then I totally agree with Tutu, for the scriptures – including the Gospel of Christ – constitute the soul of theology.78 This means that the Gospel of Christ – as articulate and written by all the New Testament authors – serves as a standard by means of which we judge the legitimacy of any Christian Theology. However, every New Testament author is a theologian. Jesus Christ is the Good News or the gospel about which these authors are writing. Each is writing in his style, from the faith point of view – to a particular community, at a particular time – about Jesus Christ. None of them is writing a biography,79 none is writing a history of Jesus Christ:80 each is writing a Christology, which is a theology – or an understanding from the
162
point of view of faith – of the Christ. And clarifying the manner through which these New Testament Christologies are supposed to work harmoniously with one another is James Dunn who argues that,
Christology should not be narrowly confined to one particular assessment of Christ, nor should it play on against another, nor should it insist on ‘squeezing’ all the New Testament conceptualisations into one particular ‘shape’, but it should recognize from the very first the significance of Christ could only be apprehended by a diversity of formulations which though not always strictly compatible with each other were not rendering each other invalid.81
My understanding of Dunn is that the New Testament christologies are theologies like any other; they are situational theologies like any other. They are also written for a particular situation, and for no other. In other words, their authors never, for example, had the South African Sharpeville massacre of 1961 in mind when they wrote their Christologies. The symbolism utilised in these Christologies is extremely difficult to understand, exactly because it was not for everybody but the intended listeners of that particular theology. As a result, it is not easy to study the New Testament theologies without exegetical assistance. The same applies to Old Testament theologies. Richard Gula concurs. He says,
The biblical view of revelation from a critical perspective is that God reveals divine love through human words and historical experiences of people, pre-eminently in Jesus. Historical experience implies limitedness— chronological, geographical, linguistic, cultural, socio-economic, philosophical, religious, etc. the bible is subject to these limitations in a way that all of experience is. Because of their being subject to historical conditioning biblical texts must be interpreted in order to be applied to a contemporary situation.82
The contemporary condemnation of the biblical practice of slavery – resulting from the critical study of the New Testament biblical theology83 – only shows how humanly limited biblical theology is, and how much it needs to be interpreted before it is in a position to be applied to our own situation. Albert Nolan, also relying heavily on critical exegesis, discusses the use of violence – from the New Testament perspective – and he discovers that,
All we can be sure of is that Jesus decided that in his circumstances and in his time the use of force to seize power for himself (or for anyone else) would be harmful to man and therefore contrary to the will of God. The saying ‘Those who draw the sword would die by the sword’, which Matthew found somewhere and inserted into the story of Jesus arrest (26: 52) is not, and was surely never meant to be a timeless truth. In some