In view of this, application of the philosophy of Ubuntu to the South African situation may look too abstract or rather idealistic in the sense that it may be seen as if it has portrayed a heaven-on-earth kind of situation. For if such philosophy is applicable, how can one explain the cases of rape, robbery and insecurity in South Africa? How can one explain the re-emerging negative effect of ethnic nationalisms (as was, at one time, propounded by Mongosuthu Buthelezi of Inkatha Freedom Party in the 1990s and its consequent fundamentalist attitude) in the political domain even after it had died with the demise of apartheid? And even within the rest of Africa, how can one explain the spirit of Ubuntu amidst the Rwandan genocide of 1994, the religious clashes between Muslims and Christians in Nigeria, the current Somalia conflict, the Liberian genocide, the political assassinations in the post-colonial Africa and tribalism which is the single major ideological threat facing Africa following the demise of apartheid? In a continent, plagued by war, hunger, genocide and disease, can Ubuntu be seen as the panacea for all these challenges? Conversely, it can be argued that these concerns can be addressed effectively by first adhering, strictly, to the ancient ideals of African hospitality, which portrays every
"neighbour" as part of the extended family, and hence treats him or her with compassion and understanding - a phenomenon that is compatible with Christ's hospitality, as can be demonstrated in the Christian Testament..
Nevertheless, from Mugambi's post-liberation works, it is clear that the new definition of what constitutes Africa and/or an African goes beyond race, creed, gender, ethnicity or nationality and possesses a commonality of spirit for all the peoples in Africa. It works towards the noble goal of building and rebuilding Africa for the present generation, and those to come. It is therefore a continent where theo-social prejudice is denied room to define Africa, a continent where people of all walks of life are called upon to rebuild the wall, as was in the case of Nehemiah (2:18).
definition that theology is a discourse about God, "a study of God, sometimes referred to as a science." He goes on to say, "Any 'God-talk,' any effort to speak about our understanding of God is theology" (Fashole-Luke 1974a: 100).
Mugambi contrasts theology and philosophy by arguing that theology presupposes revelation and "belief in absolute truth as the last justification for all explanations" while philosophy presupposes human reason as the "fundamental court of appeal in the explanation of mysteries and paradoxes" (1989b: 7). He goes on to argue that reason may be used in theology to explain some aspects of religious belief, but when reason fails to offer a convincing explanation, a theologian may conclude that God knows or "it is the will of God." In a similar situation, Mugambi argues, a philosopher would simply conclude that he or she does not know or simply admits that no answer is available now.
For him, theology implies that we "start from a given truth" towards theological articulation which will serve to interpret, elucidate or unveil. On the other hand, philosophy starts with presuppositions and thereby seeks to "help us to find out what truth is, so that truth is not the starting point, but the aim" (Mugambi 1989b:8). Mugambi's views agree with Roubiczek, who, in his analysis of existentialism argues that reason is not absolute but limited and that belief in absolute reason is unreasonable (1966: 1-17).
This calls us to find ways of thinking that can assist with day-to-day problems.
Mugambi offers a classic definition of theology as the "systematic articulation of human response to revelation within a particular situation and context" (1995: 19). He explains that each part of the definition, "is loaded and can be expanded in a whole book" as it contains several important implications (1995:19). Among these are that, theology must not be associated with literacy or high academic learning "even though such skills may greatly enhance theological expression." Rather, Mugambi associates theology with systematic reflection and articulation. Hence, as he says, there are good theologians who have never published. Among them, he explains, is Socrates, Jesus of Nazareth, Siddharta the Buddha and Muhammad. He goes on to "reconstruct" the traditional understanding of theology by stressing that in Africa, "there are numerous excellent theologians who cannot read and write" (1995:20). By this, he means that theology is done in every religion. In other words, every religious group has its own theology.
82
Mugambi's views, above, which appear in his post-liberation works, however, put us into problem especially when he talks of "excellent theologians" in Africa. While this may be true, one wonders what constitutes excellence. Is Mugambi trying to equate Jesus with Siddharta the Buddha and Muhammad? What of Christian evangelicals10 to which the present researcher belongs? Would they find it theologically correct to make a comparison between Jesus with other religious leaders, and how would they tackle the problem about the divinity of Jesus? If reconstruction involves making all religions and their leaders equal, then a further revision on the concept of reconstruction may be needed - as some African evangelicals may find it hard to subscribe to such a view. On the other hand, the Christian doctrinal affirmation that Jesus is truly human and truly divine (see Macquarrie 1966; 1979) may help us to see Jesus' relationship with Socrates, Siddharta the Buddha and Muhammad among other religious leaders.
Mugambi's classical definition (on theology) also implies that theology cannot be done in a cultural vacuum. Rather, it is always done in a cultural context. The work of a theologian, therefore, becomes that of responding to questions, which are (always) culturally conditioned. Mugambi cautions that, "when a theologian tries to answer questions which are not relevant to the people amongst whom he [sic] lives, the theology thus articulated is deemed irrelevant, and no one bothers or cares about the concerns of such a theologian" (Mugambi 1995:20). He goes on to cite the case of the Acoli language Bible translation that was done by white missionaries, which was evidently done with little or no regard to Acoli cultural conditions.11
Mugambi's definition implies that there is no possibility of a universal theologian, as theology is the "systematic articulation of human response to revelation within a particular situation and context" (1995:19-20). This view is shared by Kwesi Dickson (1984:4-5)
Anthony Balcomb explains that Evangelicalism is "broadly understood as that brand of Christianity, emerging from the Pietist stream of the Reformed tradition"; and whose emphasis is on "salvation through personal encounter with the risen Christ" (2004:146). As Balcomb further explains, this is intended to include "both Pentecostal/Charismatic movements" as well as those who do not identify with these movements but those "who believe in the need for personal salvation and Christian discipleship through adherence to scripture" (2004:146). It may also include a number of people in the "mainline" or ecumenical churches such as the Anglican Church, the Lutheran, the Methodist, the Roman Catholics and so forth (2004:146). As has been admitted elsewhere, the researcher has approached the entire study from an Evangelical theological perspective.
1 According to the writings of the Acoli writer, Okot p'Bitek, the missionaries asked the Acoli people irrelevant questions, and thus the Acoli gave inappropriate answers to inappropriate questions. This is what makes p'Bitek state that the Bible in Acoli is at many vital points, meaningless (Mugambi 1995:20).
who rejects the idea of the "catholicity" of theology. In Mugambi's view, a theologian must always be parochial in the sense that he or she must reflect from his or her own parochial experience. Mugambi does not however deny that there are theologians who are more conscious of the universality of theology than others are. Such theologians, Mugambi argues, may result from their encounter with other cultures. In this view, Mugambi encourages cross-cultural interactions amongst theologians as a way of creating theological consciousness amongst various theologians. By so doing, this will save theologians from "cultural arrogance" (Mugambi 1995:20). Unfortunately, this appears to undermine his view on "excellent theologians who have never written." For how can such theologians be classified as excellent without making contact with outsiders from their localities, let alone having an exposure through literacy?
Mugambi's definition also implies that it is inappropriate to associate theology exclusively with Christianity; hence, in his view there are theologians who belong to other religious traditions apart from Christianity (1995:20). Mugambi thus calls upon the Christian academy to avoid the arrogance of thinking that only Christians can theologise. Seen from this perspective, theologians ought to recognise the gifts of one another and appreciate one another's contribution for the glory of God's kingdom. As Paul the Apostle writes in Rom.
8:1, those who are in Christ Jesus (regardless of their denominational orientation) need no condemnation.
Mugambi's definition of theology has an ecumenical appeal in that it implies that theologians from the different Christian denominations and persuasions need not compete.
Rather, they ought to strengthen one another as they appreciate the different gifts of the Holy Spirit that God has bestowed upon each of them (see, 1 Corinthians 12). In their denominational arrogance and pride, theologians often scandalize and fragment the body of Christ making it impossible for it to be referred to as the true body of Christ. Failure to have an ecumenical appeal in theologising is to go against Christ's caution that a house divided against itself cannot stand (Matt. 12:25). It is important to note that Mugambi's
"inclusive" definition of theology appears in his post-liberation works.
Mugambi's understanding of theology, therefore, helps to open our minds as we address his understanding of African theology. This sub-section is crucial to understanding the stress that Mugambi places on the process of reconstruction, where he posits moving from
84
old frontiers (characterised by quests such as, the need to spread the Christian faith from one geographical region to another, the agenda of replacing "primitive" cultures with the
"higher" or "civilized" cultures of the foreign missionaries, and the missionary introduction of new rituals to replace the rituals of the converts) to that of new ones (Mugambi 1991:39-40). For Mugambi, such new frontiers require fresh definitions of theology, dialogue and co-operation between theologians and scientists, and the church taking science and technology seriously.
This section, has therefore prepared us to address his thoughts upon what African theology is. As in the previous section, the discussion will further help us locate Mugambi's place in African theology. In other words, does he have any unique contribution in African theology? Does he fit in the developmental trends in African theology?