CHAPTER 2: EZRA-NEHEMIAH AND THE QUEST FORAN AFRICAN THEOLOGY OF RECONSTRUCTION RECONSTRUCTION
2.3 KARAMAGA, A 1997: THEOLOGY OF RECONSTRUCTION
Mugambi's suggestion of shifting paradigms from inculturation to reconstruction, while he still includes cultural reconstruction as part of his reconstruction theology, may underlie the fact that the two theologies should complement each other rather than work exclusively of each other. The need for the two theologies to join hands together has been succinctly expressed by Pityana when he states, Theological discourse will continue to predominate in the shaping and construction of a new South Africa. Theology, therefore, must proceed from the social and religious pluralism of South Africa. Social critical tools will be necessary to analyse social dynamics. Culture is a critical element in that understanding of society. A critical and dynamic understanding of culture thus becomes essential for a meaningful theological discourse (Pityana,1995:288).
In the next section we examine Karamaga's use of Ezra-Nehemiah in his quest for a reconstruction theology.
theology "resistance" theology, Karamaga sees it as "reactionary". Like Villa-Vicencio and Mugambi, Karamaga sees liberation theology as no longer relevant today, instead he suggests that we shift paradigms to reconstruction, which will be able to address the socio-economic crises or challenges that Africa is faced with.
2.3.1 His use of Nehemiah
What is Karamaga's biblical basis for his reconstruction theology? Karamaga's use of Nehemiah is based on Nehemiah 2: 1ff(Karamaga, 1997: 190). But does Karamaga say anything about this text or any other text of Nehemiah other than just mentioning Neh 2: Iff? Not at all. Rather he seems just to mention this text and then goes on to talk about the reconstructive measures undertaken by Nehemiah. Karamaga argues that the process of reconstruction "has a theme of liberation"
(Karamaga,1997:190). Although Karamaga calls liberation theology a reactionary theology, his abovementioned statement of a link between liberation and reconstruction theologies may be undermining his aim of separating the two theologies. Perhaps Karamaga should be suggesting a complementary interaction between the two theologies rather than a total independence from each other.
Like Villa-Vicencio, and Mugambi, Karamaga sees Nehemiah as a proper role model for reconstruction theology
Nehemiah was able to mobilise masses to do the reconstruction. The Jews did the work with a morale that was unparalleled. Nehemiah was action oriented and his example inspired the reconstruction of the temple, city and nation (Karamaga, 1997: 190).
Clearly Karamaga sings a praise song to Nehemiah. Karamaga takes the text at face value i.e.
literally, and he does not bother to note that most of Nehemiah's actions were done at the exclusion of the people of the land.
While portraying Nehemiah as the role model on reconstruction, Karamaga, unlike Villa-Vicencio and Mugambi, acknowledges certain weaknesses in Nehemiah's reconstructive role: "He was a human being with faults for we learn that he excluded mixed marriages" (Karamaga, 1997: 190).
Nonetheless Karamaga maintains that "on the basis of this (Nehemiah's) biblical experience, we should look at our function in reconstruction" (Karamaga,1997: 190). So Karamaga's reconstruction theology takes Nehemiah as our role model for our reconstruction purposes today in our African context.
2.3.2 Critiques of Karama2a
Let us make the following observations about Karamaga's use of Ezra-Nehemiah and about his reconstruction theology. We make the following two observations about his reconstruction theology.
Firstly, Karamaga does not clearly explain what he means by a theology of reconstruction. Unlike Villa-Vicencio and Mugambi, Karamaga' s definition and methodology of his reconstruction theology has not been clearly spelt out.
We now make the following three observations about Karamaga' s use of Ezra-Nehemiah. Firstly, we need to observe that though Karamaga feels that Nehemiah has to be a role model, he is the only one, among the three discussed in this chapter, who actually acknowledges what he calls Nehemiah's
"weaknesses" in dealing with the intermarriage matter. Furthermore, Karamaga is the only scholar among the above three who focuses only on Nehemiah's reconstruction process, excluding Ezra. The question that needs to be raised is whether this is a deliberate move, and if so why? Does it suggest a lesser role for Ezra in reconstruction? His approach may be narrow as he only concentrates on Nehemiah without taking into consideration the role played by Ezra.
Secondly, unlike Villa-Vicencio and Mugambi, Karamaga uses only one exilic motif (Nehemiah) for his reconstruction theology, whereas both Villa-Vicencio and Mugambi uses Ezra-Nehemiah together with other biblical metaphors.
Thirdly, though his point of departure seems to be Neh 2: Iff, in his discussion of reconstruction theology, he does not seem to refer anywhere to this or any Nehemiah text. Like Villa-Vicencio and Mugambi, Karamaga appropriates the reconstruction metaphor without actually dealing with ideological issues raised in the text of Ezra-Nehemiah.
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.