3. IDEAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BIBLE AND AFRICAN CULTURES
(a) The Dialogic Model of Bible-Culture Relationship
Unlike the dialectic model that antagonizes the Bible and culture, the dialogic model holds that the Bible and culture are compatible. This compatibility regards the essential values of the biblical and cultural traditions and may not be applicable to all their accidental features. True enough, some essential values of the Bible may not be found in African culture, and vice versa, but that does not mean that they are incompatible. In the language of formal logic the essential values of the biblical tradition and those of African cultural tradition may be contrary but not contradictory. How do we know that? We know it by intuition tested against the facts of personal experience. It is the unanimous conviction of all African Christian theologians that one can be fully Christian without compromising the essential values of African culture, just as one can be fully African without compromising the essentials of the biblical message. In order words, it is possible to be authentically Christian and authentically African at the same time. In fact, African theologians do not see this as merely a possibility but as an imperative that leaves no other option. As a result, many African theologians have implicitly and explicitly called for dialogue between the Bible and African cultures. A typical example would be Benjamin Ntreh who wrote in 1990 that "there ought to be a dialogue between African religious traditions with the traditions of the Bible."(1)
(b) Theological Basis for a Dialogic Relationship
Intuition and experience apart, what theological justification do we have for the dialogue of give-and-take between the Bible and African cultures? Is the Bible, by its very nature amenable to a dialogic relation with African cultures? Are African cultures, by their very nature open to enter into such a symbiotic relationship with the Bible? My answer is yes to both of the above questions.
The suitability of both gospel and culture to enter into the dialogic relationship of give-and-take is based on what has been described as "the open-ended character of culture, and the transcending and transforming character of the gospel".(2) Culture is open-ended. It is not fixed. It can always grow. Because of that, culture is usually seen to be more disposed to enter into dialogue than the Bible is. The problem is that Christians sometimes perceive the Bible to be so heavenly, so encyclopedic, and so authoritative that it has no time to dialogue with anybody. But is the Bible's purported intolerance in the minds of Christians who hold it to be so, or is it in the nature of the Bible itself?
Competent authorities tell us that the Bible is in fact amenable to every culture. First, from the Eastern tradition, a Greek Orthodox bishop avows that "The gospel, while retaining its eternal and divine character, finds it not difficult to be incarnated into the concrete cultural body of any time."(3) And from the Western tradition we have the words of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in a recent document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church for it (and this reminds us that another name for the dialogue we are advocating is inculturation):
The theological foundation of inculturation is the conviction of faith that the Word of God transcends the cultures in which it has found expression and has the capability of being spread in other cultures, in such a way as to be able to reach all human beings in the cultural context in which they live.(4)
Finally, Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa gives us a reason why African cultures may and must enter into partnership with the Bible. More than most other cultures of the world, African cultures are perceived to have a real affinity with the Bible:
Many of Africa's religious insights had a real affinity with those of the Bible. In many respects, the African was much more on the wave length of the Bible than the occidental ever was.(5)
With such a cloud of witnesses from right, left and centre, we can be assured that there is a compatibility between the Bible and African cultures. African theology could, therefore, go on and bring them together in dialogue.
(c) The Gains of Dialogue: Mutual Enrichment
There is need to talk about the expected gain for the Christian gospel and for African cultures of dialogue since dissenting and hesitant voices are discernible from both quarters. There is fear and suspicion in some African circles that African culture is bound to be the loser in the event of such a dialogue. Going from Africa's experience at the hands of some of its early and present day evangelizers, such fears may not be totally unfounded. Adherents of African Traditional religions express the concern that accepting the Christian gospel would uproot Africans from their cultural roots and so make them less African. As a matter of fact many Africans who have swallowed the Westernized gospel of the missionaries line, hook and sinker, have indeed ended up like fish out of water, uprooted from their God-given cultures. Such people we had earlier described as one dimensional Christians. But the conviction and experience of most African theologians is that the gospel, understood and consciously embraced in the context of dialogue with African cultural values does not uproot Africans but rather makes them better human beings and therefore better Africans.
The gospel should have a transforming effect on Africans and their cultures in such a way as to bring out the best in them. These sentiments are re-echoed by the Riano Statement which asserts that "The gospel transforms people and cultures to bring to fruition the possibilities inherent in them."(6) The gospel should act as catalyst towards fuller development and blossoming of people's innate potentials.
What about the gospel? What does it hope to gain from entering into dialogue with African cultures? Much, certainly. Just as a seed that takes root on new soil bears new fruit and thus perpetuates itself, so is the gospel that takes root in a new culture. Like the proverbial seed of wheat, unless the gospel, falling to the ground of culture, dies it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.
Positively, African cultures have universally viable and authentic, God-given values that they can share with or contribute to the universal understanding of the Christian gospel. As the PBC document reminds us, "Every authentic culture is, in fact, in its own way the bearer of universal values established by God."(7) That the Bible is the Word of God does not imply that the totality of the Word of God is contained in the Bible. Aspects of the Word of God are found in cultures established by God through creation. In a word, what is to be gained by the Christian gospel and African culture in the event of dialogue and possible re-integration is mutual enrichment and new life for both. This is corroborated by the PBC directive which states:
This is not, as is clear, a one-way process; it involves "mutual enrichment." On the one hand, the treasures contained in diverse cultures allow the Word of God to produce new fruits and, on the other hand, the light of the Word allows for a certain selectivity with respect to what cultures have to offer: harmful elements can be left aside and the development of valuable ones encouraged.(8)
As the PBC statement reminds us, this mutual enrichment is a two-way traffic in two senses. Firstly, it is a symbiotic relationship between gospel and culture. Secondly, each enriches the other by a dual process: a positive one of encouraging valuable elements, and a negative one of discerning and checking harmful or outdated elements in the other. Let us not forget that we are talking about mutual service. The Bible and African culture should help each other both in nurturing what is relevant and promising as well as in pruning out dead-wood that has become obsolete.
It is easy for us to admit that there are obsolete elements in African cultures. Are we equally prepared to admit that there are such obsolete elements in the Bible as well? Of course, there are. John Paul II was clear about this in his address to members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1979 when he said that in the Bible there should be a "distinction between what is obsolete and what must always keep its value".(9) In so doing he was only reminding them of the teaching of Vatican II that the Bible contains some teaching that are "imperfect and provisional".(10) The Bible and African culture could act as each other's mirror for greater self-awareness and self-improvement. It might have been fashionable at one time to speak in terms of "the variants of culture and the constants of revelation".(11) Today, with the growing recognition that both gospel and culture are endowed with both constants and variables, it is no longer as simple as that.
(d) The Dialogue: Its Goal and Procedure
By now it should be clear that dialogue between the Bible and African cultures is another name for inculturation. Now, what is the goal of inculturation? Where do we hope to arrive through this dialogue? What do we hope to achieve?
Theologians have employed many terms and images to refer to the dialogue of inculturation. In the past some spoke of adaptation and appropriation. Today, terms such as contextualization, taking root, marriage, and incarnation (if one might attempt to arrange them in an ascending order of intensity of dialogue) are still in vogue. This diversity of terminology betrays a certain diversity of emphases in the envisioned goals and procedures of the project of inculturation. Sometimes they confuse rather than clarify the issues. In the Glasgow Consultation, some uncertainty arose at some point as to whether inculturation seeks "to marry the values expressed in the texts with the values of African culture" or whether it meant "appropriation of the text from the perspective of one's own culture".(12) Recent teachings and opinions on the subject of inculturation shows that theologians and churches are adopting a more and more dialogic stance on the issue.
Inculturation is no longer understood uni-directionally the way Muzorewa seems to have understood it in 1985 as simply "to present the gospel in a more intelligible manner to Africans."(13) In line with Paul VI's clarion call in Kampala in 1969: "You may, and you must, have an African Christianity," inculturation is seen today as an option for an African expression of the gospel. This should come as a surprise to no one since the inclusion of four canonical gospels in the Bible is testimony to the fact that we have no direct access to the one pure Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. All we have are culture- and time-conditioned versions of the Gospel. The gospel exist only as embodied in various versions all of which are equally authentic expressions of the one reality. Inculturation is nothing short of an attempt to evolve an African expression of the gospel which will at the same time be fully evangelical and fully African. Julius Lipner had enough insight to say this way back in 1985:
the gospel, while remaining one must make itself many, taking different forms as it finds a home in different cultures, faithful to its original identity yet transformed by its new context, even as the risen Lord was the same yet different.(14)
At this point something must be said on how to go about incarnating the gospel in Africa. It is little use knowing what to do without know how to do it. The PBC has outlined a procedure for inculturation which I find very acceptable:
The first stage of inculturation consists in translating the inspired Scripture into another language. ... Translation has to be followed by interpretation, which should set the biblical message in more explicit relationship with the ways of feeling, thinking, living and self-expression which are proper to the local culture. From interpretation, one passes then to other stages of inculturation, which lead to the formation of a local Christian culture, extending to all aspects of life (prayer, work, social life, customs, legislation, arts and sciences, philosophical and theological reflection).(15)
According to this scheme, the three-step agenda is for inculturation in Africa would be: (i) African translations of the Bible, (ii) African interpretations of the Bible, and (iii) Formation of African Christian cultures, which includes African Christian theological reflections. Granted that there is some circularity about the proposed procedure (since there can be no African translation without some African theology), it still gives us serious food for thought in a situation where many African cultures have no local Bible translations and an African biblical hermeneutic is still a dream.
Are there dangers to watch out for in the inculturation process. Yes, as in every momentous venture. We must avoid, on the one hand, an overly dialectic approach that locates all the unchangeables in the gospel and all the changeables in the culture, and on the other hand, an overly dialogic approach that relativizes even the "kernel" of the gospel. With regard to the latter, Prof. Wambutda's caveat is in order: "The kernel of faith must be used as an umpire to call a halt when we go too far in our contextualisation."(16) The PBC's directives on this issue is even more comprehensive:
Total fidelity to the person of Christ, to the dynamic of his paschal mystery and to his love of the Church make it possible to avoid two false solutions: a superficial "adaptation" of the message, on the one hand, and a syncretistic confusion, on the other.(17)
(e) Conditions for Constructive Dialogue
Before we end this paper, I will like us to say something about preparing oneself to be able to engage constructively in gospel-culture dialogue. My submission is that to be able to engage meaningfully in the dialogue a deeper appreciation of African cultures and a deeper grasp of the biblical message are required.
An ancient Oriental fable illustrates the dangers that await the inculturation theologian who has only a shallow grasp of the dynamics of culture. Once upon a time a monkey and a fish were in a huge flood. The agile monkey was able to save itself by grasping a tree branch and pulling itself to safety. Happy at last, the monkey noticed the fish fighting against the massive current and, deeply moved by the plight, he bent down to save it. The fish was not happy, for it bit the monkey's hand. Whereupon the monkey, being terribly annoyed at the fish's ingratitude, threw the fish back into the water.(18)
Gerald Arbuckle told this story in his Inculturation Handbook and concluded with the observation that
We evangelizers and theologians can act very much like the monkey -- full of goodwill, but with little sensitivity to what culture is or how it "operates". The results of our amateurish, half-hearted efforts at inculturation can consequently be pastorally disastrous. To be thoroughly involved in the dialogue between the Gospel and cultures, we need a lot more than the goodwill of a monkey!(19)
How relevant his observations are to all African theologians involved in the dialogue of inculturation! Theologians sometimes presume a lot, thinking that the fact alone that one is born or lives in Africa qualifies one automatically to speak for Africa. Important as that is, it certainly is not enough. African theologians need to go back and re-read the oral literature of African cultural tradition written in the semantics of indigenous African languages in order to acquire "a genuine African outlook". Then and only then can they qualify to speak for Africa. Muzorewa was quick to observe this way back in 1985 when he said:
One of the criteria is that African theology be produced by theologians with a genuine African outlook. It cannot be produced just by the fact that the author is on the continent. African theology is not defined merely by geography.(20)
The other side of the coin is that the theologian of inculturation must have a deeper grasp of the biblical message. Just as every serious African theologian has, to some extent, to be a cultural anthropologist, so also he or she needs, to some sufficient degree, to be a biblist. This calls for hard work on the part of the theologian, but I do not see any other way around the problem, if one must be faithful to the biblical tradition. As the PBC rightly observes,
To attempt to bypass it [biblical exegesis] when seeking to understand the Bible would be to create an illusion and display lack of respect for the inspired Scripture.
............................................................................................................................
Proper respect for inspired Scripture requires undertaking all the labors necessary to gain a thorough grasp of its meaning.(21)
This does not mean that every prospective African theologian be required to do a specialized course in exegesis, but it does mean that every African theologian should have enough biblical background to be able oneself to go to the biblical text and read it in a way that is at the same time faithful to the biblical tradition and relevant to the African experience and interest. Aylward Shorter has rightly predicted that
an African Theology will derive from an African reading of Scripture. Clearly, if African theologians are to enjoy any originality, they must go themselves to the source of revelation, and must make the Word of God the key to their understanding of their own problems and priorities as Africans.(22)
4. CONCLUSION
In our treatment of Bible and Culture in African Christianity, we first examined two paradigms for conceiving of the relationship between the Bible and African cultures. We saw that the dialectic tendency which dichotomizes the Bible and African cultures is the dominant, operative model in African Christianity. By glorifying the Bible at the expense of African cultures, the model fails to appreciate the true nature neither of the biblical tradition nor of cultural reality. We saw that the dialectic approach produces the fruits of negativity.
The dialogue paradigm, as we saw, seems to be more in consonance with the true nature of both gospel and culture of openness to universality. Its promises are those of mutual enrichment for both gospel and culture alike. To enter into this dialogue we need to have as aim to unify, as much as possible, the African Christian world-view and experience. Examining a recommended procedure for such a dialogue, we saw that in some cultures in Africa, we have yet to take the first firm steps toward inculturation, namely, translation of the sacred texts into our African languages. Moreover, the crucial question of an African biblical hermeneutic remains to be adequately addressed.
Finally we addressed the challenging question of conditions for constructive dialogue. We saw that there exists an inevitable need for African theologians to deepen their knowledge of African cultures as well as the Bible in order to be faithful interpreters of both traditions in a theology at the service of a Christianity that is authentically biblical and authentically African.
Notes and References
1. Benjamin A. Ntreh, "Towards an African Biblical Hermeneutic" African Theological Journal, 19/3 (1990): 249. To list all African theologians who have advocated dialogue between the biblical and the African traditions would be to compile a directory of all practicing African theologians. If there are general agreements among African theologians, this would be one of them.
2. "Gospel and Culture: the Working Statement Developed at Riano Consultation" in International Review of Mission LXXIV/294 (1985): 264.
3. Anastasios Yannoulatos, "Culture and Gospel" p. 189.
4. "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, in Catholic International 5/3 (1994): 143.
5. Desmond Tutu, "Whither African Theology" in E. Fasholé-Luke et al.(eds), Christianity in Independent Africa (London: Rex Collins, 1978), p. 366.
6. "Gospel and Culture": Riano Working Statement p. 260.
7. "Address of John Paul II to the Members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (26.4.79)" in Paul Beauchamp et al., Bible and Inculturation (Inculturation: Working Papers on Living Faith and Cultures III) Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University, 1983, p. 143.
8. "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" p. 143.
9. "Address of Pope John Paul II to the Members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (26.4.79)" in Paul Beauchamp et al., Bible and Inculturation (Inculturation: Working Papers on Living Faith and Cultures III) Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University, 1983, p. xii.
10. Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) n. 15.
11. "Address of Pope John Paul to Members of PBC"II, p. xiii. Emphasis mine.
12. "Interpreting the Bible in African Contexts" p. 45.
13. Gwinyai H. Muzorewa, The Origins and Development of African Theology, Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1985, p. 95.
14. Julius Lipner, "'Being One, Let Me Be Many'" p. 160.
15. "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" p. 143.
16. "Interpreting the Bible in African Contexts" p. 34.
17. "Interpreting the Bible in African Contexts" p. 34.
18. See D. Adams, "The Monkey and the Fish: Cultural Pitfalls of an Educational Adviser" International Development Review 2/2 (1960): 22-24.
19. Gerald A. Arbuckle, Earthing the Gospel, p.1.
20. Gwinyai H. Muzorewa, Origins and Development of African Theology, p. 95.
21. "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" p. 147
22. Aylward Shorter, African Christian Theology, London-Sydney-Auckland-Toronto-Johannesburg: Geoffrey Chapman, 1975, p. 30.
