GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
1.9 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The main research framework is based on prophetic theology which can be understood by considering three specific themes.
The first theme is the Kairos theoretical tradition. In the present research, this tradition is interpreted on the basis of views expressed by Le Bruyns, Boesak, and Albert Nolan. It is seen as one of the prophetic theologies. The views are concerned with the contextualisation of liberation theology in the situation of suffering, oppressed people. The Kairos tradition entails what the liberation theology stood for in the 1960s and ‘70s. Le Bruyns describes Kairos theology as a form of liberation theology applied in South Africa and beyond (Le-Bruyns, 2014:460). Many scholars consider the Kairos document as the classical text produced by the Institute for Contextual Theology in South Africa. It may be seen as a "paradigm" of contextual theology (Kaufmann, 2001a:97.). It is concerned with tyranny, reconciliation, rights and justice.
The second theme is the pedagogy of liberation theology. In Gustavo Gutierrez’s interpretation of the theology of liberation, the Gospel of Christ must liberate the people from poverty and oppression. Theology should move beyond theoretical concerns to actions aimed at liberating the oppressed (Boff, 1989:9). Gutierrez is of the opinion that Jesus himself must be revered as a liberator (1983:13). Paulo Freire, in his pedagogy of the oppressed, discerns in human beings a power that springs from the weakness itself of being oppressed and that enables them to free themselves from the power of the oppressor. Thus, everyone can fight for his/her own liberation. It means, that no one must continue to see him- or herself as a victim, because self-victimisation perpetuates the control of the oppressor. By affecting their liberation, the oppressed allow themselves to be fully human. Oppression is dehumanising and deprives men and women of dignity.
Urging liberation, Freire writes: Who can better understand the necessity of liberation?
They will not gain this liberation by chance but through the praxis of their quest for it, through their recognition of the necessity to fight for it (2005:45).
17
Freire (2005:48) warns the oppressed against accepting their fate. In order to affect release from oppression, Freire proposes a pedagogy that has to be forged with, and not just for, the oppressed as they become fully conscious of their situation. With the awareness of being oppressed submerged by the reality of their situation, liberation takes on the appearance of a utopia to be achieved. It is against this background that Fanon criticises the views of Senghor and Césaire when he emphasizes the de-alienation of the victim as well as the perpetrator of racism and develops the notion of ’black skin and white mask’ (Fanon-Mendès, 2012:9). Both the oppressed and the oppressor are alienated and stuck in what they perceive as their comfort zone. In Fanon’s (1977:62) thought, freedom is a political ideal as are justice and equality. But freedom is by him regarded as man’s supreme goal. It means that a man cannot exist without freedom. Fanon defines man in terms of freedom. For the sake of freedom, he encourages violence as a way to destroy the colonialist scheme for the indigenous people. He recognizes violence as a seed put into the head of the native by the oppressors (Fanon, 1977:86). In his book on Frantz Fanon and the psychology of oppression, Hussein stipulates that Fanon interprets violence as a liberative force to be used in situations where all other means have failed.
Many scholars differ on Fanon’s view that violence originates in the mental state of oppressed people. He himself was committed to the Algerian war of liberation, surely in a reflection of his wish to see people freed from oppressors. Fanon failed in his conception that reason must prevail and change the oppressor-oppressed relation. Hence, he finally came to accept that “only violence could transform the oppressive order and occupied psyches” (Bulhan, 1985:139-140). By then Fanon accepted revolutionary violence as a way to freedom. Formulating social and political thoughts, Fanon (1977:121) argues that violence is “a cleansing force which frees the colonized from his feeling of inferiority and humiliation and restores him to the fullness of himself as a man”. However, this violence should be accompanied by political education. His words reflect the kind of person Fanon was. In the words of Emmanuel Hansen. “Like all revolutionaries, Fanon was sometimes impatient, brusque and arrogant toward people whose commitment never went beyond the talking stage. He also tried to impose on others the same discipline that he imposed on himself” (Fanon, 1977:51). However, violence as a possible way to affect liberation, plays no part in the current research as violence does not always lead to people being set free from complex situations. In the case of oppression in the present-day DR Congo,
18
dealing with the Kairos necessitates trying to understand social realities of discriminated members of society in order to promote social justice. Latin America and the Caribbean region were in the ’60s and ’70s the frontline of liberation theology with churchmen and politicians trying to grasp the biblical notion of salvation, which constitutes freedom from all kinds of oppression, injustice and unrighteousness. Unfortunately, in the ’80s and ’90s liberation theology came under attack from conservative Protestants and Catholics (Soares, 2008 : 480-484). Contemporary Protestant churches play a very ambiguous role in Brazilian society. However, in the ’late modernization’ the country experienced a new culture of Protestants participating in public space (Buttelli, 2017:34,43). The second international conference on Protestant Church polity, held in South Africa in 2014, considered the highly relevant problem of how church polity may contribute to good governance in both church and society in the 21st century (Buda, 2014). This theology appears to be welcomed in the African context as the oppressive situation of the black continent continues. The liberation theology in question offers as key points a preferential option for the poor who are oppressed by contemporary Pharaohs, and the incarnation of our misery by Jesus who set us free. Even in times of oppression God is in control and the church must be both a sign and an instrument of liberation (Boff, 1987: 43-63).
Liberation theology was in the context of Latin America what the Black Liberation Theology and the Kairos theology were in the context of South Africa.
The third theme of prophetic theology consists in the liberating model of Jesus. The ministry of Jesus advocates for those who are oppressed and voiceless. The church being the body of Christ and made up of his disciples, has to act upon, and share, the vision of its Master. ’Therefore, if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed’ (John 8.31- 36). In the Gospel of John, Christ reminds us that Christian love should be the motivation for, and the mark of, every act of the believer (John 13:35). Jesus himself promises us that the Spirit of our Father will speak for us when we are hauled before the earthly authorities and give us courage, insight and guidance (Davies, 2011:62). In the early beginning of the church, Jesus was seen as the inspiration of an egalitarian movement involving the powerless (Alexander, 2010: 84). Announcing the coming kingdom, he addressed injustice and poverty (Miller, 1977:83). This indicates a preferential option for the poor and acting upon this option, ’without excluding others’. This theology means ‘to
19
speak on behalf of’, in public life. Citing Barth, Le Bruyns emphasizes the need to see the deepest existential questions of the people (Le-Buyns, 2016:1). Without this, theology is, in the view of this researcher, at risk of becoming no more than a simple philosophy, a dead river and good, but empty, discourse. In agreement with Nolan, this study wishes to consider God as the one who suffers in, and through, the victims of injustice and oppression (Nolan, 2009: 35). In every age, theologians contextualise their period in relation to contemporary ways of thinking. Engaging in such a way with one’s time of life, poses some challenges such as a disregard for mystical roots, overstressing political aspects, subordination of considerations of faith to considerations of society, absolutisation of liberation theology while downgrading the theologies of others, lack of concern for deepening dialogue with other churches, and disregard on the part of liberation theologians (Boff, 1987: 64-65). In his liberating method, Jesus is considered as a political revolutionary because of his message (Hendricks, 2006: 5). In this context, the theology of humanism has to be taken into account. Many other types of humanism (sometimes referred to as secular which increases confidence in human power), search for a way to withdraw God from human affairs, according to Auguste Comte who himself developed positivism as a worldview to replace religion. Examples of types of humanism include academic, scientific, Marxist or socialist, rationalist and religious ethical approaches. Not any of these humanisms is founded on Christian principles (Shaw, 1982:
32,33). Christian humanism differs from secular humanism in that it seeks the source and the goal of human power in God and understands the human experience in the light of Jesus Christ. The humanism referred to in the present research is rooted in the Gospel of Christ who desires the wellbeing of humankind and wishes human life to be ‘human’.
Humanism has in the past been rejected because, when the word ‘humanism’ entered the English language, it was associated with the ancient Classical un-Christian understanding of the word (Shaw, 1982: 23). According to John W. De Gruchy (2006: 31), a Christian humanist believes that the salvation in Christ is not aimed at making us more religious, but at restoring human wholeness and wellbeing. And, furthermore, the church is called upon to be the sign of a new humanity in which dehumanizing behaviours do not occur. This Christian humanism consists in taking theology, after academic issues have been considered, out of the university to become part of the common life of people (Kaufmann, 2001b:23).
20
Brueggemann (2001c:1) in his book “The prophetic imagination”, presents the church with new insights into the role of the prophet today. He highlights the prophet’s task seeing an alternative future, rather than being absorbed and numbed by the dominant culture of the present (Grey, 2014:7-11). The prophet has to give us glimpses of the future that no one can imagine. Brueggemann wrote “The prophetic imagination” to show how the ancient Israelite prophets brought about social transformation. These prophets made a profound contribution to society. Brueggemann uses the story of Exodus where prophets did dig to find the taproot.
Shelton (2013: 170) looks upon Brueggemann as a reflection of the Hebrew prophet for the contemporary age. Writing about the prophets in Israel, Brueggemann sees them as marked by the reference to YHWH, the uncompromising God of Israel, the sovereign one, seated in Jerusalem but international in significance. Brueggemann focuses on Isaiah who expresses prophetic criticism of economic exploitation (Isaiah 3.1-4.1; 5.7-10) (Horsley, 2008:30). It is the role of the church to rethink its own identity, its peculiar memories, and its poignant hopes that must be affirmed in prophetic oracles which anticipate the coming time of shalom (Horsley, 2008:38). The church must be distinguished in a discipline to avoid that it is co-opted in the discipline of the empire.
Being distinct from empire, the church will recover its public voice and attest to alternative rule in the world. Horsley (2008:39-40) calls the ancient prophets ‘poets’. As poets they must tell the truth and convey hope.