African Theology and the Paradox of Missions: Three Intellectual Responses to the Modern Missions Crisis of the African Church

Introduction

Our discourse on African theology and the paradox of missions begin with a passing reflection on an African classic in missions. In the opening of his magnum opus, Transforming Missions: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, David Bosch significantly exalted missions by his relocation of this enterprise from the fringe of modern Christian theology to its center. In some of his now memorable statements, for example, Bosch, following after Martin Kähler, described missions as ‘the mother of theology.’ ¹ In this perspective, missions, according to Bosch, is ‘the permanent item on the agenda of theology.’ ² Similarly, describing the entwining relationship of Christianity and missions, Bosch also said, ‘Christianity is missionary by its nature, or it denies its very raison d’être.’ ³

In spite of its immense insights on missions, the discourse on the paradox of missions in Africa is best illustrated by the ambiguity of this classic on missions, written by Bosch. For example, in this work, Bosch fails to see the missionary character of African theology because he did not treat the various discourses in African theology of the past five decades as a discourse in missions or even beneficiary to missions. Sadly, apart from the single reference to Mbiti on page 452, and the three references to Alyward Shorter, Justin Ukpong, and Mbiti in the bibliography, this magisterial and important work on missions shut out African theology from the discourses of missions. ⁴ Ironically, this work was written in Africa and it has been described as ‘the indispensable summa missiologica’ (in imitation of Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologia), and perhaps ‘a pinnacle of achievement’ in ‘ecumenical theology.’ Yet, it refuses clearly to connect and place the developments in African theology as important discourses in missions. ⁵ This suggests that Bosch divorced the discourses of missions from African theology, and technically placed African theology in an ideological limbo of ‘non-missions-friendly.’ ⁶ In more recent times, even the quest by Gwinyai Muzorewa to develop the African Theology of Missions, fails because it has not received a wider acceptance, and it has generally escaped the notice of mainstream African theology. ⁷ This further suggests the quarantine of missions from mainstream discourses of African theology.

This trend also reveals a disturbing direction for the African theological discourse especially in the light of the southward movement of Christianity to Africa and with missions playing a defining and central role. In his now popular trilogy, the Next Christendom in 2002, The New Faces of Christianity in 2006, and God’s Continent: Christianity, Islam, and Europe’s Religious Crisis in 2007, Philip Jenkins has brought to the fore the defining significance of global missions for the non-Western regions of Africa, Asia and Latin America. ⁸ If missions form an integral part of the southward movement of Christianity to Africa as suggested by Jenkins, and missions must inevitably sustain this same shift, what happens to the ‘Next Christendom,’ in Africa if it fails to be missions-driven in its discourses? ⁹

Understanding these trends, this article aims at reasserting the significance of missions to African theological discourses and to harness its past uncoordinated discourses on the ‘mission’ crisis that arose from the complications of Western mission activities on the African continent. ¹⁰ It persistently seeks to read or reread the past African theological discourses in the category of missions, and thereby treating the various theological discussions as ‘responses’ to missions. It shows the weaknesses and strengths of these responses and underscores the intellectual and practical insights these discourses offered in addressing the formidable missions challenges of the increasing troubled world inhabited by the African church. ¹¹ The article anticipates that these ‘responses’ would provide the African church with theological blueprints in order to engage rightly the present missions challenges. If ‘missions is the mother of theology,’ as earlier suggested by Kähler and Bosch, then by this article, I am trying to pay due honor to a ‘mother’ who has being largely neglect in African theological discourse.

African Theology and the Paradox of Missions

Tracey K. Jones Jr. has described the ‘colossal confusion’ surrounding ‘Christian mission around the world today.’ ¹² Bosch speaks of ‘a dangerous delusion’ by the church and that ‘a crisis-free existence for the church’ in missions is ‘an abnormality.’ ¹³ Similarly, John Piper underscores the deadly nature of modern missions as reflected in the violent persecution of the church, and thereby suggests the life of pain and even martyrdom for mission-minded Christians. ¹⁴ Despite the importance of these red alerts, my present interest did not immediately lie here, but to modestly point to the inherent paradox in missions and theology especially as practiced presently in Africa. As they now stand, it is not naivety on my part to hereby insist that a paradox exist between the discourses on African theology and missions. Often in African theological discourses, we have ignored and refused to address this paradox of mission in relationship to African theological discourses. It is pertinent to underscore this paradox between African theology and missions in order to help the African theology to express clearly its central commitments and task toward the actual doing of missions. Noting the missionary task of African theology, Tinyiko S. Maluleke observed,

African theology has from the 1950s on always been connected to the (African) church. To that extent, we could say that it has largely been ‘church theology’ done by church people for the sake of the church and its missionary task. ¹⁵

However, this relationship between African theology and its missionary task reveal certain important paradoxes. In retrospection, four paradoxes of African theology in its relationship to missions come to mind. First, there lies a paradox in the origin of African theology in missions and yet its intellectual discourses of the past five decades have not practically and fundamentally affected the actual practice of missions. Ironically, African theological discourse has often failed to provide practical theological/missionary resources for active missionaries of the church at the grassroots despite its origin in the quest to correct the problems emanating from the missionary crisis of the colonial and postcolonial periods. This critique may be too hard to swallow, especially in the prevailing conviction that its discourse is with the intention to make Christianity or the Christian gospel relevant or understandable for the African people. However, as the subsequent discourse would seek to show, this conviction has taken an intellectual turn that no missionary in the missions field of Africa, has actually benefited from these intellectual insights to incorporate the same into a practical manual for actual witnessing or evangelism. In fact, it appears that its discourses regardless of their origin from this context of missions, lack tangible relationship to the actual doing of missions in terms of evangelism and discipleship programs of the church. ¹⁶ Within this particular premise, one may agree with Tersur Aben that in its theological quest African theology is more an illusion than a reality. ¹⁷

Similarly, the conversions witnessed at this very moment on the African continent are not directly associated with the African theological discourses, but occurred independently and in isolation from its enterprises, thus pointing the distance between African academic discourses on missions and the actual engagement of the local church in missions. Even while African theological discourses are quick to point to the increase of Christian conversion and presence on the African continent, however, the part of the African academic discourse towards this growth is rarely underscored because it appears that an ideological chasm exists between its discourses and the actual missionary activities on the African continent. Interestingly, the conversions are not the product of the professional discourses of her intellectuals but the product of lay and non-academic persons who seek to assert the simple message of the New Testament church that ‘only Jesus saves.’ ¹⁸ This particular observation also reveals that the various activities of ordinary practicing Christians and evangelists in Africa is directly separated from the academic theological reflections of African theology, thus suggesting the possibility of the local church moving in newer directions and this same development occurring without the needed professional guidance and influence of the African theological discourses. ¹⁹

Thirdly, African theological discourse often lacks a mission mandate that is clearly articulated as the goal of its theological reflections. The mission concerns have not translated into carefully agenda for mission works which will aid and sustain the present conversions taking place on the African continent. Similarly, African theological discourses for the past 50 years lack active missionary identity which should be expressed in the passionate concerns for the salvation of the African non-Christian population. Unfortunately, this situation has not entirely taken place. ²⁰ However, one is not totally naïve to note that there are various concerns directly within its discourses on the spiritual, social and political context of the African church in seeing more vibrant African churches who are committed towards the carrying out of its pastoral work, nonetheless, these concerns for the missionary and pastoral context of the local church is not done with the vehement missionary passion clearly expressed. In a sense, African theology lives in the cozy world of scholarship and within the ivory tower of academics that despite the call to work at the grassroots yet it has not expressed fervent missionary commitments to the works of missions in this particular context. ²¹ Remarkably, it appears that the African theological discourse has endlessly preoccupied itself with discourses that have no direct relevance or significance to the actual contexts of missions despite its seemingly superficial or outward connection. ²² For example, the African theological discourses have preoccupied themselves with the subject of developing an ancestral Christology, but on the actual frontiers of African missions, African people have continually come to salvation without the aid of such ancestral Christology. In the past three decades, we could ask ourselves how many African Christians have become Christians because they have understood Jesus Christ as their supreme ancestor. Or, have the ancestral Christology helps to bring more Africans to salvation and faith in Jesus? I have not come across any study that suggests that this has taken place, and I dare to say that it is possible that this ancestral Christology is merely an intellectual exercise that has no direct benefit or relationship to the actual context of church’s missions. ²³ It appears that the past discourses of Christ as an ancestor for the African people do not reflect the true context of missions since many African Christians have continually come to salvation without the necessity of this ancestral Christology. ²⁴ It also suggests that ancestral Christology is directly irrelevant to the actual contexts of missions, however, the African theological discourses have continually hammered on this concern as if it comes directly from the missions of the African church or that these new ancestral Christologies at the end will enhance and enrich the actual works of missions at the local church’s setting. ²⁵ In my interview with the director of EMS (Evangelical Mission Society) of ECWA, which since its founding in 1954, had involved continually in local and foreign missions for more than five decades, and yet according to him, there are no indications that ancestral Christology is a major preoccupation of new African converts who came to salvation, thus suggesting that the actual context of missions is particularly devoid of the ancestral discourses which had characterized African theological discussions of the past three decades. ²⁶ It also reveals that African theological discourses are not a good starting point if one wanted to understand or keep abreast with the actual missionary activities and thinking on the continent. I also dare to say that African theological discourse appears misleading in its preoccupation with supposedly mission concern which does not directly reflect the actual happenings on the missions field. Even though one may suggest that EMS particular experience does not necessarily reflect the thinking and activities of different missions bodies in Africa, and it is often difficult to keep the actual records of mission outreaches that had taken place over this period in terms of recording of the different conversations between the missionaries and their converts, however, EMS has continually and actively carried out missions in Africa without the hurdle of an ancestral Christology as often argued by the African theological discourses. ²⁷ In addition, Matthew Engelke has shown that African Christians in their popular expression of Christianity wanted generally to break up with their pre-Christian and ancestral past. ²⁸ This further suggests that African theological discourses are mirage or lives in realms of intellectual preoccupation and illusions that have no direct bearing with the missionary activities of the African church. ²⁹ If, as suggested by Tizon, ‘theology has no life apart from mission,’ one wonders the basis for the present intellectual divorce between African theology and the actual context of missions. ³⁰ Interestingly, the different proposals for an ancestral Christology often lack an actual missionary or pastoral context which defined or occasioned the theological reflections. Unfortunately, the Christological reflections are divorced of actual missionary contexts because these innovative Christologies are often to satisfy and meet the intellectual curiosities of the African scholars but it has no actual or direct relationship with the missionary activities of the church. In this sense, the issues and concerns of the African theological discourses become primarily driven by the issues in the world of scholarship which is different from the concerns of actual missions. Importantly, this academic practice despite its appeals to the intellectual world hides a certain ideological illusion which merely engages issues for the intellectual sake and not primarily defined by the actual concerns of its immediate context. ³¹ Considering this trend, Harvie Conn has described the phenomenon as an ‘academic apartheid’ which isolates ‘mission from theology’ and ‘theology from mission.’ In this intellectual frame, missions is ‘marginalized’ and ‘theology abstracted’ in ‘a kind of non-South African academic apartheid . . .’ ³² It appears an ideological wedge is placed between theology and missions.

Defining Intellectual Responses to African Missions Crisis

In retrospection, looking at African theological discourse, one realizes the seeming neglects or passivity towards the fervency that biblical missions demand in its discourses. The treatment of missions as mere subject of academic convenience has already been highlighted particularly as seen in the apparent absence of concerns for conversions, active evangelism and discipleship despite the defining positions these concerns occupied in the New Testament church. ³³

At this point, I have to also concede that in spite of this passing critique, there is a sense that one can say that African theological discourses of the last five decades have been on missions. The interaction between African theology and missions becomes inevitable because ‘theology cannot exist without mission,’ or stated differently, ‘there is no theology which would not be missionary at the same time.’ ³⁴ In particular, I have undertaken to read and resituate the African theological reflections in terms of missions because of three important reasons. First, the theological reflections, or what I now termed, ‘responses’ of African theologians originate or was provoked by the various problems emanating from the conducts of missionary activities in Africa. In fact, it is the missions crisis that births African theological discourses, and the reflections in its discourses are apparently works which seek to respond to the efficiencies or inefficiencies of the theory and practice of missions by the expatriates. In this particular direction, I am seeking to underscore and resituate the mainstream theological reflections in Africa back to their proper missionary context. It is this mission template that gave the African theological discourse the practical, cultural, religious and intellectual resources needed in its postcolonial theological discourses. Remarkably, this original missionary context has continued to feature in the writings of the African Christians in their quest to either critique, correct or affirm the ‘ambiguous legacies’ of the Western missionaries of the 19th century. In underscoring the missionary character of the African theological discourses, some would generally disagree with this categorization and would rather see the works of the dominant personalities featured in this study primarily in the field of theology rather than missions. Unfortunately, this reading of these African personalities out of their missions contexts often do not allow us to draw the needed insights in engaging the present challenges facing the African church, particularly in the context of missions, because we have locked these personalities in the past and do not see how their reflections could open new insight to the contemporary challenges in missions. Similarly, the need to reassert the missionary character of these dominant personalities in African theological discourse becomes important because often restricted view of their works primarily in the sphere of theology naturally undermine and sabotage the holistic inclinations of their writings to provide answers to the African church in the light of the ineffective missionary theories and practices of the expatriates. It is this missionary problem and the attending problems of colonization that provoked and continues to provoke the contributions and definition of theological works on the African continent. This missionary root for African theological discourse justifies our present treatment of its mainstream reflections in the category of missions. Unfortunately, many easily forget or deliberately refuse to emphasis these missionary roots and seem to treat the evolving of African theological discourse in isolation. Since it is missions that sparked the various theological reflections on the African continent, it is only needful to see and understand these reflections in the same category of missions. In doing so, we aim at the recovery of the missionary character of African theological discourses and duly recognizing the fundamental role played by missions. In situating back these theological reflections in their proper missionary ‘Sitz im Leben’ we could also capture once again the importance of these theological reflections for the present missionary situation in Africa. Secondly, the reading or rereading of the mainstream discourses of African theology in terms of missions become imperative because of the active place these works give to the African church in its pastoral and non-pastoral ministry. The dominance given to the church in its discourses inevitably seek to either redefine, critique or clarify the missions of the church. In this connection, African theological discourses engage the missions of the church and saw its reflections as playing a part in helping the church to carry out its missions. Remarkably, the missionary character of African theological discourses must be rediscovered because its dominant quest to address the several challenges in the context of the local church falls within the matrix of church’s missions. Consequently, in its continuous task of addressing the various challenges in the context of the local church, African theological discourse works within the missions’ premises of the church. In its task to engage the social, political, cultural and spiritual matrix of the church, the African theology shares and engages in the same missions calling of the local church, and this reveals a missionary character. Lastly, there is need to reassert the missionary character of African theological discourses because despite its cultural interests, it draws its central motivation from themes and subthemes of missiological fields. For example, the African discourses have been eternally preoccupied with themes of inculturation, enculturation, contextualization and other such missions’ subjects reveal the missionary interest of African theology and also reveals mutual interests of African theology and African missions’ field. It is based on the preceding that I dare to read mainstream African theological discourses as discourses in missions. In particular, its discourses are consciously laced with missions themes that warrant the present treatment of the same as missions’ discourses. Unfortunately, when these discourses are removed from their missions’ context, they become merely floating theological treatise which has little or no immediate bearing on the life of the African church. It is in locating these mainstream reflections back to their proper missionary settings that the eternal importance and value of several of its theological reflections could be clearly seen. To bring this missionary agenda to bear on the African theological discourse, I have sampled out three defining ‘responses’ that in my judgment stood out in African theological /missiological responses in recent modern times.

Missions and Christian Identity in Kwame Bediako

Despite the centrality of non-formal theologies, mother tongue theologies, grassroots theologies, or market theologies in the writings of Bediako, yet the defining structure of Bediako’s theology cohere in the theme of Christian identity. In particular, this research interest primarily comes in the context of missions especially in the cultural encounter between Christianity and African traditions. ³⁵ Remarkably, Walls has pointed to the ‘radical conversion’ of Bediako which clearly defined the direction and interest of Bediako in the field of Christian scholarship. Concerning his ‘radical conversion,’ Walls notes, ‘[d]uring his time in France he underwent a radical Christian conversion – so radical that at one stage he thought of abandoning his studies in favour of active evangelism.’ Walls also added, ‘[h]appily, he was persuaded otherwise; the time was coming when he would recognize scholarship as itself a missionary vocation.’ ³⁶ In essence, Bediako saw his engagement in Christian scholarship as a ‘missionary vocation.’ Central to his thinking, is the understanding that a mission encounter between Africa and Christianity tallies well with the encounter of Christianity with Greco-Roman cultures. In his masterpiece, Theology and Identity, Bediako underscores this thought clearly. ³⁷ Not going into the details of this work, however, some passing comments need to be made. In this work, Bediako stresses the similarities between the missionary situations in the second century with the missionary situation in 20th-century Africa. For Bediako, there lies a radical continuity between African pre-Christian past and his new identity as a Christian. He rejected the discontinuity and encouraged the seeing of the African pre-Christian past as a stepping stone toward faith in Jesus. He suggested that Christian identity should be based on its Christian credentials as well as the African pre-Christian heritage. The response by Bediako to the mission crisis of the 21st century is for the church to harness the cultural matrix of the pre-Christian context in its formation of enduring Christian identity. This response of Bediako is also relevant in the midst of the present missions challenges of modernity and postmodernity which clearly sabotages the Christian confidence of our young men and women. It is also needful to stress the response of Bediako in the present missions context with its increasing identity crisis. This present identity crisis in the missions field naturally demands the need to reiterate the theological response of Bediako. The African church must key-in to the many cultural components which Bediako saw as important in the formation of Christian identity. Even though a missionary reading of Bediako has not yet clearly taken place, nonetheless, it is appropriate to see his contribution in this context. The intellectual packaging of Bediako’s thought often does not allow a reader into engaging his missionary commitment in this defining theme of Christian identity. However, the discourse in Bediako on Christian identity must engage or allow to engage also the present confusion of the African church’s missions identity. This emphasis is pertinent at the present time especially in the light of growing conversions witnessed by the African continent, which needs the African church to reiterate clearly her missions’ identity. The missions’ identity of the African church needs some formation because of the strategic nature of the African church for global missions. The many Christians in Africa need to form new missions identity in light of its strategic importance for global missions. Despite the many efforts of African missions bodies and individuals in the works of missions, it has not yet tapped into the many great opportunities or full blessings of the global missions because of the failure to create a biblical missions’ identity for the African church. Unfortunately, it is at this particular point that one sees the flaw of Bediako’s quest for a Christianity identity in respect to missions because it has generally fails to carve or translate for the Church a new missions’ identity, especially in the light of the southward movement of Christianity and the defining missions position of the African church in the matrix of this movement. Even though Bediako situated the African church within the global missions and attribute to her a defining importance, yet he did not clearly allows his discourses in Christian identity to translate into engaging the issue of African missions’ identity in the context of this southward movement. To be fair to Bediako, his theological discourses actually celebrates with great optimism the southward missionary transmission of the Christian faith and he duly emphasized like Walls, in this paradigmatic shift in the center of Christianity, however, he did not clearly address the issues of identity that this new missionary status conferred on the African Christianity in terms of missions. The radical continuity he emphasized in his discourses on the encounter of Christianity and African culture, and the optimism in the southward movement of the Christian faith to Africa fall short of defining the missions agenda of the church and thereby preparing the church to play a formidable missions role in global missions. The quest for a new missions identity for the African church becomes inevitable, because without such identity it will be difficult to harness and explore the whole or full significance of her new status as a dominant voice among southern churches. One may feel uncomfortable with the use of the present template of missions to understand the works of Bediako’s scholarship, but like our preceding discourse has already established the discourses of African theologians such as Bediako lost their immediate importance or relevance if entirely divorced from their missionary contexts which throw light as well as clarifies the task of their theology. It is in this sense appropriate to highlight and to also critique the missions imperatives and implications in the thought of Bediako and its inability to translate into a coherent missions mandate and identity for the African church. At the end, such flaw reveals a notably lacunae in the thought of Bediako which fails to knit together his several theological reflections into a coherent Christian identity that refuses to be trapped in the pre-Christian past but opens its doors to the possibilities of the future world in shaping the missions identity of the African church, thus preparing the African church for ministry in the new global missionary setting where the numerical significance of African Christianity is already assumed. In spite of these flaws and the sudden tragic death of Bediako, the contributions of Bediako in the context of African missionary crisis is unmistakable because he challenged the church to seek cultural resources in her pre-Christian past in order to knit for herself a Christian identity. This call for an African Christian identity, however, must go beyond the pre-Christian past towards the future where her new missions identity must be forged in the present recognition of her new status as a ‘Christian continent’ and fully reassert the ‘missiological significance’ of this new identity. ³⁸

Missions and African Ethics in Emmanuel Katongole

Distancing himself from the flaws of liberation and inculturation, Emmanuel Katongole seeks to address or give direction to modern and postmodern concerns which raise serious challenges for African Christian ethics. The works of Katongole, despite their diversities of interests, come to a point of unity in ‘social imagination’ of the African church. This engagement of the social imagination of African Christianity translates into critical engagement of moral and ethical concerns confronting the African church. Understanding the missionary character of the church to address social and ethical problems, Katongole engages issues such as the problem of violence and its connection to the memory of Idi Amin in Uganda, the philosophical and ethical issues underlying AIDS, the ethical and ideological problems of condomization, the ethical concerns arising from 11 September 2002, the ideological problems with postmodernity, Rwanda genocide, tribalism and racism, religious cults and other social problems emanating from the missionary context of African Christianity in its encounter with modernity and postmodernity. One unique and defining characteristic of Katongole’s works lies in its consistent analysis of its subject matters free from the often quick reference one often finds in African theological discourse to the African pre-Christian past. In fact, he hardly resorts to cultural contexts for the interpretation or the explanation of various African ethical challenges, but rather, he places these problems in the matrix of global politics and the intimidating agenda of Western nations. Katongole’s engagement of ethics in its social dimension is also a defining departure from the common practice of making ethical recommendations or moral recipes for good behavior at the end of ethical discourses. Katongole’s ethical persuasion draws its origin from the writing of Stanley Hauerwas, whose ethical thought has enjoyed wider acceptance and circulation in recent time. ³⁹ Hauerwas’ fundamental influence in Katongole is seen in his advocacy for a new concrete Christian community who tactically engages the dominant culture of the world as a ‘resident alien.’ The truth claims of the Christianity, according to Hauerwas in Katongole’s reading of him, should be ‘embodied in faithful lives.’ ⁴⁰ In this perspective, Katongole notes, ‘[f]or it is through such lives that one is able to see concretely what it means to conceive the world differently. Thus, the necessity of [being] witnesses . . .’ ⁴¹ The new ‘social reality,’ according to Katongole, also helps the Christian to look at the world differently, and forces to engage the dominant culture by interrupting the status quo rather than living comfortable within the dominant culture. It is a different way of looking at the world that translates the Christian person into an ‘embodiment of a new social reality’ which radically goes against popular and prevailing trends. Consequently, Katongole places ethics back to a new community who lived out by clearly exemplifying ‘a new future-a new social imagination concretely embodied.’ ⁴² In this sense, Katongole ‘think[s] about the challenge of Christian social ethics primarily in terms of social imagination.’ ⁴³

On actualizing the missions of the church as the ‘embodiment’ of ‘social imagination’ in real life, Katongole parts way with the sensational ‘Next Christendom,’ optimisms by Jenkins. He shows the problematic character in Jenkins’s conclusion that the next Christendom is going to be primarily Pentecostal in outlook. For Katongole, the Pentecostal character of the Next Christendom raises a disturbing concern, because Pentecostals normally divert the attention of their members from economic or political causes to spiritual causation and excessive hyper-spiritualizing of issues, which render their members unable to engage properly the political sphere because they lack the needed alternative social vision in order to transform the political structures of the society. This situation arises because the Pentecostals have not yet ‘embodied concretely’ an alternative social imagination that makes change possible by the interruptions of the status quo rather than the usual conformity to the prevailing political culture by the Pentecostals. According to Katongole, if this kind of Christianity continues and becomes the defining marks of the ‘Next Christendom’ then there is no hope for the continent of Africa in the long run. Consequently, he dismissed the effectiveness of Pentecostal missions in the social and political spheres of the ‘Next Christendom.’

On the other hand, the thinking of ethics in terms of its power to ‘interrupt’ or concretely engage the social and political processes is also further reflected in his other unusual proposals to address the missions crisis of the African church. For example, Katongole notes the need to develop a theology of greeting, and emphasized its power to challenge the racist tendencies of the dominant culture of the modern times. After narrating his personal ordeals of racism and the transforming power of participating in a mass in Malaysia where close hugging and greeting formed part of the worship, Katongole notes, ‘[t]hus, the more I have had a chance to reflect on this experience, the more I have realized its profound theological relevance, and the rich resource which greeting provides for Christian ethics in the context of race.’ ⁴⁴ Remarkably, Katongole knits his ethics to the context of worship. For example, in this same discourse on racism, he notes the significance of worship. Thus, he said,

Christian worship provides precisely such an opportunity, in the sense that within the practice of Christian worship a new unique community is being constituted in a manner that both challenges and offers a concrete alternative to the story of race and racism. ⁴⁵

To go into details of Katongole’s thought will detract us from the aim of the present discourse, however, engaging Katongole reveals that ethics should not be merely prescription but engaging and embodying the missionary ethos of a new social reality by a community who will dare to live concretely in the tenets of this new social imagination which challenges the dominant cultures of the society. ⁴⁶ In looking at Katongole, one disturbing flaw is that he ignores deliberately the cultural power of the pre-Christian past in helping the reprocessing of the social imagination as the church engages the human spheres in missions. It appears he mistrusts the pre-Christian social imagination which has largely defined the African ethical being to the very point of conversion. In this neglect, Katongole technically divorced the African Christian from the riches and contradictions that comes from this social memory. One would wonder how this is a new construction of social imagination with a missionary mandate to the social and political arenas possible without the attending complementary role of the African pre-Christian past. Unfortunately, the place of the pre-Christian social imagination of the African people is neglected and bypassed in the social ethics of Katongole, thus treating the African person in terms of a social tabula rasa, which needed to be imprinted with a new social imagination.

In addition, Katongole appears to reason as if the dominant culture is always evil and has no positive elements which may largely help the church in its quest for tactical engagement of missions. In fact, tactic engagement already presupposes living in an enemy-occupied region already, and the tactics here largely lie in the wisdom to use the resources of the enemy positively against him. This invariably suggests that there are positive things in the enemy’s territory to use for one’s good. ⁴⁷ Unfortunately, in the usage of ‘tactical’ engagement by Katongole, these positive aspects of the dominant culture is absent and rarely highlighted, hence making one to feel the morbid nature of the dominant culture and its power to carry out its mischievous schemes without any positive value. This last point leads one to see another problem of Katongole’s social ethics in the description of the missions of the church. One finds in Katongole a subtle pessimism which treats every positive thing with critical and biting skepticism. It is even more disturbing when one realizes that the positive elements of the present realities in spite of its negative aspects are often completely jettisoned or declared inadequate in order to construct the social imagination by his use of Hauerwas’ ethical hypothesis. In this sense, his reading of Hauerwas raises also a lot of serious concerns because Hauerwas writes from a context of postmodernity where the church in the West lives as a ‘resident alien.’ However, one wonders if the same ethical theory is relevant in the growing momentum of the Christian faith on the African continent, where Christianity is no longer a ‘resident alien,’ but it is now the ‘residing landlord.’

Despite these flaws, the response and contribution of Katongole to the crisis of the church’s missions is unmistakable. In particular, his engagement of African social ethics recognizes the many problems of the African continent. In fact, Katongole situates social imagination concretely in the mist of these problems. For example, he observes, ‘. . . one cannot pretend that the Church’s presence and mission has nothing to do with things like hunger and malaria. Yes, malaria, hunger, genocide, love, and innocence – as well as the tragic deaths of millions Africa[ns] . . .’ ⁴⁸ On the missions of the church, Katongole also observes,

African Church that had learned to define her mission and existence within the dialectic of Africa’s history, not as a mission of self-righteous dispensation of God’s judgment . . ., but as a mission of presence, of being-at-home in and with Africa —one of learning to listen great deal, and perhaps offer some salvation in the long run. ⁴⁹

Even though salvation appears to be an afterthought, the response of Katongole to the crisis of missions of the African church could be harnessed to continually speak to the African church, especially in his call for a new social reality which is embodied concretely in a community of faith that makes right Christian ethics possible, especially in the midst of a dominant culture which challenges its truth-claims. This defiant ethics of tactical engagement that is embodied in a concrete community of Christians has the inherent power to bring about the needed change particularly in the midst of the failure of Christianity on the African continent to fully embody concretely a new social imagination that will translate into ethical practices which will undermine or sabotage the dominant culture. Missions in Africa at this troubled moment must seek to heed the call of Katongole in terms of ethically and concretely embodying a new social imagination or consciousness which will make political and economic transformation possible against the dominant practice of corruption, economic backwardness, injustices and other ills of the African continent.

Missions and Reconciliation in John G. De Gruchy

In post-apartheid South Africa, great efforts by the government and social organizations are clearly dissipated in the healing of broken relationships between the Black and White communities. The atrocities committed during the apartheid regimes are publicly confessed and forgiveness is sought from the offended parties. This is particularly seen in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission headed by Desmond Tutu. It is in the context of this post-apartheid society and the missions crisis of the South African church that John W. De Gruchy makes his contribution to this crisis by developing a theology of reconciliation. De Gruchy notes the comprehensive nature of reconciliation. Noting this, de Gruchy observed,

[s]o it would be a theological travesty if we tried to give an account of the Christian doctrine of reconciliation in a way that confined it to the realm of personal piety and relations, or to the sphere of the Church. If there was ever a theological theme that had to be developed in relation to the world in all its agony and hope, this is that theme. ⁵⁰

Similarly, de Gruchy’s understanding of reconciliation is also extended to embrace the sacraments of the church. Concerning this relationship, he notes,

Reconciliation is not an ahistorical idea or an academic theory but a tangible experience of living together in community. Theologically speaking, this refers to the sacramental embodiment of the new humanity. Understood in this way, the Church is an agent of reconciliation, representing its embodiment in history. But the Church is by no means a paragon of reconciliation, quite the contrary is too often true. So the relationship between the Church as empirical reality and its struggle to be true to its sacramental nature is of critical importance. This leads us to a consideration of the place of the sacraments of reconciliation in the life of the Church: baptism, Eucharist and confession or penance. ⁵¹

For de Gruchy, ‘the Church is fundamental to the doctrine of reconciliation.’ ⁵² He underscores that the church is the embodiment of reconciliation on earth, and through its sacraments, the church must seek to practice arts of reconciliation. In the South African experience, de Gruchy rightly observed that the racial tensions provide the opportunity to practice or lived out this ministry of reconciliation. To enhanced ‘national reconstruction,’ he underscores the significance of reconciliation in this setting. Remarkably, de Gruchy footed his theology of reconciliation in Pauline thought and shows the close connection between reconciliation and restorative justice. Similarly, de Gruchy extends his discourse on reconciliation to also include the defining place of reconciliation between members of the Abrahamic faiths, namely, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Concerning the importance of reconciliation among the Abrahamic faiths, de Gruchy observes,

[t]he importance of this discussion needs no apology given the current global situation, of which the conflict in the Middle East is the epicentre. Judaism, Islam and Christianity have a special relationship to each other, and share a common prophetic responsibility as agents of justice and reconciliation in the world. ⁵³

De Gruchy reasoned that since these religions ‘drive from the same covenantal stem, represented by Abraham, and as such they should be a force for international healing rather than a source of continuing violent conflict.’ ⁵⁴ In particular, de Gruchy described the fault line in the relationship between Islam and the West. For de Gruchy, the ‘resurgent’ of ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ comes from the present need for negotiations or changes in Islam, primarily as a result of its encounter with postmodernity. He observes,

In some respects, the resurgence of militant forms of Islam during the latter decades of the twentieth century is a postmodern phenomenon. But postmodern in the sense that it is a strident rejection of modernity, the code word for the fruits of Western technology and secularism, and a decisive shift to affirming Islamic identity over against global conformity. ⁵⁵

This rejection of modernity and its westernizing agenda led to ‘vitriolic fury at the West’ and its ally Israel. Even though Muslims and Christians had stood ‘shoulder to shoulder in the struggle against apartheid,’ the South African church in the course of its history has not reflected its missions as an embodiment and agent of reconciliation. De Gruchy observed, the church’s role ‘as the embodiment and an agent of reconciliation was seriously compromised by colonial interests and by the denominational divisions that were planted in South Africa.’ He also noted that ‘[c]onverts often complained that the coming of Christianity introduced new divisions into African society, reinforcing ethnic divisions as a result of missionary strategy, and dividing communities along traditional and Christian lines.’ ⁵⁶ In this regard, the South African church has also played an active role by furthering, continuing and enforcing the existing divisions within the Christian communities rather than bridging them. However, according to de Gruchy, the South African church has also helped positively in unifying ethnic groups which had also led to the ‘emergence of African nationalism.’ Consequently, the South African church has played an ‘ambiguous role’ in the course of its history in either way of reconciliation and unity or divisions and schism. Significantly, de Gruchy emphasizes the need to engage the Islamic communities in dialogue which should aim at reconciliation. However, he notes the difficulty in carrying out dialogue with the Muslim world especially in respect to the sectarian character of the Islamic world. De Gruchy observed,

The problem for dialogue is, however, that the umma is not structured or institutionalized in the same way as the Christian Churches, and especially those that have a clearly defined hierarchy. This means that while the umma represents Islam globally, there is no official entity that can enter into formal discussions in a way that will have the support of the global Muslim constituency. ⁵⁷

In spite of this problem, de Gruchy underscores the necessity of dialoguing with the Muslim communities. According to de Gruchy, this dialogue should not be conversation between ‘dispassionate scholars, but of believers.’ ⁵⁸ Furthermore, de Gruchy turns his attention to address the important of Shariah to the Muslim communities and the difficulty it also poses to meaningful dialogue and reconciliation. On the importance of Shari’ah, de Gruchy notes the view by Muslims that Shari’ah needs to guide ‘the totality’ of the Muslim life ‘whether these concerns property rights, business, transactions, marriages or public morals.’ ⁵⁹ In this regard, the full implementation of Shari’ah in the public life demands the suspension of other legal systems. In South Africa, de Gruchy notes the difficulty in doing so because the constitutions of South Africa is ‘liberal in its ethos’ and hence do not warrant the Muslim communities the possibility of living under the Shari’ah legal system as clearly agitated by the Muslims communities worldwide. De Gruchy observes that the rise of Islamic militancy in the world comes to this particular reason, that is, they seek the implementation of the Shari’ah. Unfortunately, de Gruchy observes that this ideal of Shari’ah as symbol of unity for the Muslim has ironically turns violent hence leading to more divisions among Muslims. Similarly, de Gruchy also underscores the fundamental ideological problems in the continuous violence between the ‘liberal democracy of the West’ and agitation of Shari’ah to govern all of the public and private lives of Muslims. The opposing nature of this ideological conflict is evident with Islamic Shari’ah seeking to take over the public life and the liberal democracy seeking to exorcise religion from the public life. Consequently, often this conflict leads to the repulsion of Western liberality and further leading to violent clash between passionate Muslims who advocate the pride of place for Islam on the public domain. Noting the dilemma of the Muslims in the imposing liberal democracy of the Western world, de Gruchy also observed,

If the ideal society is one in which the Shari’ah governs all of life, the predominantly Western secularized understanding of law as a social construct is unacceptable. For this reason some Muslims question whether it is possible to live a truly Islamic life in the West . . . One way of doing this is to limit the scope of Shari’ah to personal life. But however done, the fact of the matter is that many Muslims find it increasingly difficult to implement strictly the traditional understanding of Shari’ah, just as non-Muslims find it unacceptable when they try to impose it on them. ⁶⁰

This dilemma of the Muslims become interestingly the dilemma of the modern world because it appears that the modern world is unwilling to handover its public domain to Shari’ah, or any other religious faith for that matter. It is important to note that the ideals of Shari’ah is one of the hurdles on the path of Muslim–Christian dialogue because it rejects the religious claims of other faiths and seeks to reassert its religious importance on the public domain. It appears that Islamic faith has not yet fully recognized the pluralistic context of the modern world and the necessity to understand itself within this pluralistic setting. The possibility of reconciliation in my reading of de Gruchy lies with cooperating with the progressive elements of modern Islam. In particular, de Gruchy made reference to the Muslim progressive such as Faried Esack, who has sought the reinterpretation of the Qur’an and Islamic traditions in the light of the present modern and postmodern challenges. ⁶¹ Esack also has spoken against a kind of ‘gender jihad’ which lies at the practices of Islam by many Muslims. ⁶² It was these kinds of progressive elements in modern Islam that de Gruchy hopes dialoguing with them would possibly led to reconciliation and genuine cooperation between Islam and other faiths. Unfortunately, despite its quest to place reconciliation as an agenda of the church and the need to rally the progressive elements of the Islamic faith to make this possible, de Gruchy’s mere call for reconciliation cannot be fully sustained because it ends lamely on just a call for mutual participation in social justice. The hinging of reconciliation also on the progressive elements of the Islamic faith also raises a point of concern since this aspect of Islam forms a negligible percentage and bulk of Muslims all over the world would wish for the full implementation of Shari’ah wherever Muslims are found. ⁶³ De Gruchy’s problem is understandable because the truth claims of Christianity are directly opposed to the truth claims of the Islamic faith, and any call for reconciliation has to negotiate between the exclusive claims of these two faiths. This is further complicated by the quest of the Muslims to implement Shari’ah that would govern all of life and its conflict with the Christian traditions in the West which historically had put ‘real’ and ‘ideological’ wedge between the church and the state. In the context of evangelical missions, and its exclusive claims for the gospel it becomes nearly impossible to co-opt Islamic exclusive claims in this same mold. In addition, the refusal to acknowledge the forces of pluralism and the growing Islamic fundamentalism make it increasingly difficult, or even impossible, for a genuine reconciliation to take place between Muslims and Christians. This renewed fundamentalism is recently seen in the bombing of churches in northern Nigeria, violence against the Christian South in South Sudan, and killings of Christians even in Kenya. ⁶⁴ This renewed fundamentalism makes de Gruchy’s quest for reconciliation seemingly impossible. ⁶⁵ One disturbing feature of de Gruchy’s reconciliation at this point is that it stops only at a call for reconciliation. Even though it makes references to individuals or societies who are working on fronts of dialoguing with the Muslim world, however, his own reflections did not go beyond a call for reconciliation. He fails to include the need for justice in order for this reconciliation to be meaningful, especially with the increasing massacres and destructions of lives and properties by fundamental elements of the Islamic faith. Ironically, even though the subtopic of his work underscores the importance of ‘restorative justice,’ however, in his discussion on reconciling with the Muslim communities, he ignored the place of justices for men and women who have suffered and continued to suffer because of the bid to bring about the realization of Shari’ah on the African continent. In this sense, we must move beyond this point by suggesting practical ways in order to concretely bring about genuine reconciliation between the Muslim communities and the hurting Christians who have often been the targets of the Islamic fundamentalism. Interestingly, the reconciliation envisaged by de Gruchy did not clearly delineate how one would engage in reconciling with radical Islam especially as now beginning to thrive in northern Nigeria, Sudan and Kenya. Looking at de Gruchy one realizes the validity of Robert J. Schreiter’s remark that ‘[r]econciliation is an intensely sought’ enterprise, ‘but elusive goal.’ This is because of

the sheer enormity of the task, so great that it seems well-nigh unachievable. For it is not only a matter of healing memories and receiving forgiveness, it is also about changing the structures in society that provoked, promoted, and sustained violence. ⁶⁶

In these various dimensions, de Gruchy fails to provide an effective theological response in terms of lasting reconciliation in dealing with violent church-bombing extremists such as the Boko Haram sect of northern Nigeria, or better ways to destroy the very ideological and real social structures that encourage or promote violence in northern Nigeria, South Sudan and Kenya, for example. ⁶⁷ It is increasingly difficult to deal or negotiate with the religious terrorist organizations under the banner of Islam who had vowed to wreck, maim and destroy Christianity from these regions. For instance, due to the increasing hostilities, evangelism and missions to Islamic states in northern Nigeria have grown cool, and most Christians have developed hatred for Muslims which increasingly makes the task of evangelism difficult to accomplish. The ethics of militarization of the church and its members in this context has been also hotly debated, however, it appears most members have become disenchanted with the reckless and ruthless killings of Christians that they had also in turn become violent in order to check the onslaught of these violent extremists. In this context of mistrust and frustration, the church and the Muslim faith have not yet began to dialogue and it appears genuine reconciliation has not yet taken place. Unfortunately, it appears no clear step has been taken either by the government or the church to initiate a reconciliatory process. For de Gruchy, justice is indispensable for any meaningful and lasting reconciliation, hence the government and the church must seek ways to provide justice for the victims of the merciless killings and see that justice is done for them. The perpetrators and sponsors of these deadly religious sects must be brought to justice and from thence we would possibly be able to chart the path of peaceful co-existence in northern Nigeria, South Sudan and Kenya. The missiologist must also think of new paradigm in engaging or initiating the reconciliatory process and must also place this quest in tandem with the task of reaching the Muslim world with the gospel.

Conclusion

The apt description for the missions’ situation of the modern times has rightly being described as a ‘Revolution in World Missions.’ ⁶⁸ At the center of this revolution is ‘Africa,’ and this location inevitably conferred on the African theological discourse its immediate importance. Understanding the implications of these trends, Walls has optimistically observed, ‘Christianity is at home in African religion; it is African religion. It is thus able to operate in Africa at some of the most important levels of consciousness.’ ⁶⁹ However, this important development is not primarily for the benefits of the African church, but also envisaged profitable contributions to the worldwide church. Importantly, the past reflections on the missions situations could provide us with the significant grid by which we could enhance the global or local conversations between theology and its wider missions environment. On the path to this noble objective, the preceding analysis merely describes the various responses of African scholarship in the past 50 years to the missions challenges of the ‘postmissionary’ and ‘postcolonial’ context of the modern times in view of cementing the delicate relationship between theology and missions. In particular, we must re-evaluate the legitimacy of each response and seek to enhance the same in order to address the missions challenges of modern and postmodern Africa. Admittedly, some of the responses may be improved upon or even refocused, but we have no luxury of jettisoning them or refusing to engage them in new and fresh ways. There is no need to ‘reinvent the wheel,’ so an adage goes, but we must redesign the ‘wheels’ of modern African theology in order to move it faster in the direction of the contextual challenges on the African missions fields. The responses must move also beyond its intellectual and academic borders to the ‘real world’ by making more practical the intellectual insights of these reflections in order to help the immediate needs of our local evangelists and missionaries at the local church levels in their quest of soul-winning and evangelism. It is only when this present gap is filled and the gulf is fully bridged that African theological discourse, against the Western secularization of the Academia or its imposing agenda, becomes a missionary agent of the church. It is the missionization of the African theological discourse and the need to impose on its discourses a missionary agenda that will determine the benefit of its enterprise to the local African churches. The increasing irrelevance of the African discourse on the local church setting shows the need to recover the missionary character of Christian theology in Africa. In particular, the new identity must be forged by directly engaging and practically providing missiological insights for the immediate good of the missions context of the local church in Africa and beyond.