CHAPTER 2: EZRA-NEHEMIAH AND THE QUEST FORAN AFRICAN THEOLOGY OF RECONSTRUCTION RECONSTRUCTION
2.4 CONCLUSION
2.3.3 Summary
Karamaga's definition of reconstruction is not clearly formulated. He seems to take it for granted that we all know what is meant by reconstruction theology. He argues that we need to shift paradigms from liberation to reconstruction. But he does not give any justification for such a move. He argues that reconstruction is the most relevant theology for today as it will address both the religious and the socio-economic challenges facing our continent today. What we have said about Villa-Vicencio and Mugambi about the lack of isolating ideological issues within the text equally applies to Karamaga. He does not read the text carefully to make it a strong basis for his reconstruction theology.
All of these three scholars agree that there has to be a paradigm shift from liberation theology to reconstruction theology. They argue that reconstruction theology can be based on the post-exilic motif represented by Ezra-Nehemiah and/or other texts. However, we also noted that their approach to reconstruction theology or to the use of Ezra-Nehemiah is not based on a solid literary or socio- historical analysis of the text of Ezra-Nehemiah. Perhaps this is solely because all of these theologians are not biblical scholars.
The gist of our argument in this section is not to say that the readings of Villa-Vicencio, Mugambi and Karamaga of the Ezra-Nehemiah text is wrong. Our concern is that they fail to identify the ideology in Ezra-Nehemiah. So one would say their reading of Ezra-Nehemiah is 'different' in that it listens only to the voice and concerns of one particular group within a conflict which involves two parties.
Further, the three scholars use scriptures in a particular manner. Scripture is an indispensable source for Christian theology for a number of reasons. The fact that these theologians take the witness of Scripture seriously in their respective work, namely the use of such texts as Ezra-Nehemiah as well as other pertinent texts referred to in the works of these theologians, presupposes that they do not envisage theology, even in the new paradigm, to function without reference to the scriptures.
However, it seems to me that the fact that they all do not engage in an extensive reading and exegesis of the scriptures cannot really be regarded as a weakness. These scholars approach the subject of theology from the point of view of Systematic theology. Exegesis remains a primary concern for Biblical scholars. But having said this, Karamaga frankly acknowledges some of the limitations inherent in using Nehemiah as a central text for a theology of reconstruction (Karamaga, 1997: 190).
Mugambi (1995:166) notes with perception that in our use of Nehemiah as a basis for a reconstruction theology, we should read it critically, taking due regard of the hermeneutical, exegetical as well as theological limitations intrinsic to the nature of the book. So, although these scholars do not themselves engage with the Ezra-Nehemiah text in any depth, some of their comments invite a more in-depth analysis.
Having highlighted certain aspects of the three scholars's use of Ezra-Nehemiah in a theology of
reconstruction, we now want to explore some similarities and differences between reconstruction and liberationlinculturation theologies. First, we explore the differences between reconstruction theology and liberationlinculturation theology. The major difference between reconstruction theology and liberation theology/inculturation theology is that the latter emerged within the context of oppression and exploitation during colonialism and apartheid, whilst the former is emerging within the context of post-colonial social reconstruction. The different contexts out of which these theologies emerged also determine their different methodologies and focusses, to a certain extent. On the one hand, inculturation theology's focus would be on making the gospel relevant to the Africans within their respective cultures, which were undermined and demonised by missionaries during colonialism and apartheid. Likewise liberation theology's focus would be to make the word of God address the plight of the poor in the context of oppression and exploitation. Reconstruction theology, on the other hand, suggests proactive actions that would not only denounce poverty, but that would also remove it from society.
Second, we discuss the similarities. A rather primafaciae look into the reconstruction theologies of these theologians, and the vehemency with which the new motif is advocated, tends to give an impression that their respective stances espouse a complete break with the theme of liberation and inculturation in the African theological enterprise. Do we really need to jettison the subject of liberation in the pursuit of the ideal of reconstruction in Africa? A second look into the theologies of the said scholars reveals an amazing oscillation between liberation and reconstruction. For ~
example, Villa-Vicencio (1992:7ff) sees the attempt to break down the prejudices occasioned by race, class and sexism, as part of the task of a theology of reconstruction. As a matter of fact, Villa- Vicencio himself is quite frank about the mutual inclusiveness of the two motives in African theology. We need to note here that although Villa-Vicencio calls for a paradigm shift in theologising in Africa, methodologically, he still functions within the actual design ofliberation theology. In a sense, for Villa-Vicencio (1992:275), there is a sense in which reconstruction theology is a "new"
type of liberation theology. Hence the emphasis on such things as praxis, the priority of social analysis in, an inter-disciplinary approach to the task, as well as the relevance of contextuality in his theological method (Villa-Vicencio,1992:276).
Similarly, while Mugambi acknowledges the fact that both liberation and inculturation are now exhausted motifs for theologising in Africa, it has been argued that his methodological approach still functions to some extent within the precincts of the old motifs. Both reconstruction theology and liberation / inculturation theologies take theory and practice seriously. Moreover, they both stand within the basic liberation methodological frameworks. They both analyse the context and are creative and active.
Furthermore, we observed the same aversion of the continued hegemony of the liberation motif in African theology with Karamaga (1997: 190). However, when one reflects on the feasibility of such a clean break from the old metaphor, one is likely to conclude that a complete jettisoning of the theme ofliberation is not possible. It seems to me that Karamaga in this respect can be indicted, that he proposes a rather reductionist approach to the complex and often enigmatic problems facing Africa. It is doubtful in my view whether an exclusive option for the reconstruction motif can offer a comprehensive solution to the social ills of Africa even in the New World Order ushered in by the changes in the political situation of the continent.
Having analysed how Villa-Vicencio, Mugambi and Karamaga use Ezra-Nehemiah in their quest for an African theology of reconstruction, and noting that these scholars fail to identify and analyse the ideology within the Ezra-Nehemiah text, chapter 3 seeks to demonstrate that there is an ideology in the text, and then goes further to suggest that in order to properly use this text in a quest for an African theology of reconstruction, this ideology should be carefully analysed.