Abstract
The article engages the theological methods that are commonly used within the disciplines of practical theology and missiology. These methods are the practical interpretive method of Osmer and the praxis cycle as used and discussed by J.N.J. (Klippies) Kritzinger. Through a postcolonial analysis, I discuss how such theological methods could be appropriate or how it might fall short of radically addressing issues of the poor amid oppressive structures in postcolonial contexts. The most striking finding of the article is how it showcases between the two theological methods: The praxis cycle’s first dimension of ‘self-identification’ and ‘self-knowledge’ (identification) as unique between the two. It is the questions of who am I, what are the power-relations, who are our interlocutors, what is mine and the ‘other’s’ ideological position? These are imperative questions especially for the liberation of those whom the researcher encounters.
Contribution: The purpose of this article is to assist researchers in theology to become critical in their use of theological methods, especially when the research is intended to address the powerful oppressive systems in society that allows access to power and privileges to some people, but at the same time cause others to be treated as non-subjects or persons.
Keywords: Osmer; praxis cycle; theological method, JNJ Kritzinger; postcolonial missiology.
Introduction
The discussion on postcoloniality has been around for some time at South African Universities. At most faculties of theology, this has received proper attention.1 It was also at the root of the recent (2018) #FeesMustFall and #RhodesMustFall student protests that were rampant at South African Higher Education institutions. In the studies on missions as well as practical theology, the concept of contextualisation2 has indeed been instrumental in the processes of decolonisation of the curriculum in theological education and research. Nevertheless, Maluleke (2000:20) cautions against the romanticisation of the discourse on contextualisation and urges theologians to revisit its methodological tools so that it becomes suitable to address challenges (political, economic, cultural) within a postcolonial context.3 In fact, Ukpong (1987:163) would argue that contextualisation can be used either as part of an indigenisation model or as a socio-economic model. But perhaps this is where the issue lies, because the socio-economic model can be either also used in terms of a development approach or a revolutionary approach. It is the revolutionary approach that is directed towards political liberation. This explains therefore Maluleke’s concern. Maluleke (2000:22) argues that if theologians want to enhance the agency of African Christians, they would need to pose critical questions in terms of the theoretical and methodological tools, which they inherited from scholars who followed a westernised approach. Failure to do so might further work with the cultural, religious, and economic forces of death that stifle their agency, perpetuate oppression and marginalisation of the Africans.
It is at the backdrop of these concerns, that I find it crucial to explore at least two theological methods (there are others);4 that of the one developed by Osmer, namely the practical theological interpretive method, and the praxis cycle as used by JNJ (Klippies) Kritzinger. In the analysis, I employ a postcolonial critique to question how useful these methods are in the broader pursuit of decolonising theological curricula, but also Christianity in Africa and societal transformation in postcolonial contexts in particular.
Maluleke (2000:23) argues that there is the need for an African theological methodological framework. He believes that the current theological frameworks and methodologies have become inadequate, and that we need to critically engage it. In the 1980s, Mosala (1989:4) argued that there are theological methods that demonstrate a genuine interest to address the conditions of the poor, but fails to show an ‘ideological and theoretical break’ because it remains trapped in the frameworks of the very oppressors from whom they want to be liberated from. Mosala (1989:4) was of the opinion that a theological method that does not engages the social, cultural, political and economic world, will not be sufficient to address challenges in Africa. This would infer that a theological method should be more than focussing on biblical hermeneutics, but contextual hermeneutics as well. Because many of these theological methods do engage with the Bible, it should also be done from a postcolonial approach, seeing that the Bible itself is a ‘site of struggle’ (Mosala 1989:4). The Bible should therefore be critically studied, to expose its own non-liberative aspects, otherwise the Bible might also become an instrument of oppression (Mosala 1989:4). This is important because even these theological methods under discussion have components of theological and biblical reflection and analysis, and following the above-stated spirit of Mosala (1989:4) would enable researchers, to break with oppressive hermeneutics.
Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2018:4) centres his argument in a similar vein as Maluleke’s engagement on agency and particularly the epistemic agency of Africans that should be unfettered from the West. His argument is mainly that to be decolonial is to become aware and allow Africans to be generators of knowledge production. Because of its broad theological-methodological approaches, the oppressed and marginalised, and powerless, are not necessarily prioritised in knowledge production processes as the following analysis would demonstrate. These methods, deal with Africa as if it is a tabula rasa, and Africans are creatures of discovery. According to him, methodologies should purposefully centre African knowledge systems as legitimate means to interpret the world (Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2018:4). According to Boaventura de sousa santos, Boaventura (2007), postcolonial methodologies should not reduce human beings; the researcher or research-subjects; to non-beings.
The aforesaid contribution of Maluleke (2000), Mosala (1989), Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2018) and Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2007), purports a good basis for this analysis. Their arguments suggest that it is indeed crucial for methodologies that is ‘general’ in conceptualisation and categorisation, to express its positionality and conceptualisation unambiguously so that it is evident how the colonial matrix of power, being and knowledge are at play in the contexts in which a resolve is sought. Therefore, this contribution is aimed at such an analysis of the theological methods in question.
A postcolonial critique
Before defining what would be understood under a postcolonial critique, it is important to underscore my understanding of postcolonialism, which I argue to be all cultures that were in one way or another affected by colonial processes (Ashcroft, Griffiths & Tiffin 1989:2). This also includes Pears’ (2010:133) argument that the term postcolonialism is about a set of theories and approaches, that is interested in analysing the power-relationships in the world, through coloniality of power, being and knowledge, but addresses and works towards radical transformation. Therefore, the reason for this study is to establish how these two methodologies are able to assist researchers to address those oppressive systems and colonial matrix in relationships and societies, unearthing its effects and impact through allowing access to power and privileges to some people, but at the same system allow others to be treated as non-subjects or persons (Pears 2010:134). It is argued that in postcolonial contexts research methodologies should address the systems, with which we have become comfortable, to come to see the world in unjust ways. We also need methodologies that not only aim to bring the disenfranchised and powerless in a liberating space but also to be liberated (Pears 2010:139–140). It is at this juncture that it becomes important to no longer accept the postcolonial conditions, but move into a postcolonial critique by contesting procedures and methodologies, which keep these systems and colonial matrix of power in society intact (Sugirtharajah 2003:33). Taking up this challenge, Pears (2010:144) would argue that the Bible has a crucial role to play in such processes to refute all ideologies upon which oppressive systems are built. A cautionary note, that a postcolonial critique in this article is not entertaining the binary of ‘black colonised and white colonisers’ but addressing the myriad manifestation of colonial legacies that is prevalent in postcolonial contexts (Ashcroft et al. 1989:200).
A description and analysis of the theological methods
Richard R. Osmer (2008): A practical theological interpretive method
Osmer (2008:32) argues that the purpose of his theological method is to interpret ‘… the texts of contemporary lives and practices …’. His intended readership, for his monograph is ministry students (MDiv) who would enter the ministry as well as those who are already congregational leaders. Therefore, at the end of the book he mentions that the primary aim is to propose a method that would be instrumental for initiating change in congregations. He believes that a congregational leader is exposed to various situations, often not a crisis but will have to respond to everyday challenges in a congregation. It might be confronting the leadership, the staff or ordinary members. Therefore, congregational leaders should be present as priestly listeners, to be able to respond to the question: ‘What is going on?’. This is the first stage of his method, which is known as the ‘descriptive-empirical’ task. What is of paramount importance in this task is the ‘thoughtfulness’ of the congregational leader. This implies that a leader should not approach a situation ‘head over heels’ and make hasty conclusions but should consider and discern what congregants are sharing or reluctant to divulge (during his priestly listening). This calls for the congregational leader to observe and deeply reflect on what is happening, if he and/or she would want to understand what is going on (Osmer 2008:31–78). Although this stage is also where the congregational leader gather as much data and/or information of the situation as possible, the emphasis is placed on the quality of the attentiveness of the congregational leaders to the people and the events in their everyday lives (Osmer 2008:33). Osmer (2008:39) refers and discusses at length the notion of ‘spirituality of presence’ to explicate the posture of the congregational leader in this stage. It is here where he argues that congregational leaders would employ numerous empirical methods, among others, focus groups, interviews, field notes for observations and other data collection methods, in the quest to understand through the voices of the people what is going on (Osmer 2008:39). It might seem that he would understand this first stage as showcasing an ‘emancipatory praxis of liberation …’ but this is only mentioned at quite a later stage, in fact almost towards the end of the book – as an ‘after-thought’ of the first stage.
After the leader of the congregation has determined ‘what is going on’ she or he interrogates why it is happening. This is known as the ‘interpretative task’ (Osmer 2008:79–128). Osmer utilises the metaphor of a ‘map’ and ‘map readers’ to reflect on the role of the congregational leader (map reader) to decide on a suitable theory (map) that would explain why the phenomenon is taking place. He cautions that each ‘map’ (theory) only reflects certain features and is designed and crafted for specific purposes. It is the role of the congregational leader to determine how the ‘map’ (theory) will be able to assist them (or not) to discern and understand the phenomenon. Therefore, he suggests the consideration and employment of a wide range of theories because the phenomenon is complex and cannot always be explained through the lens of one particular theory. It might also be that multiple theories are needed, as not always one theory is sufficient to explain the phenomenon, but that a combination of a few would unearth and develop a better explanation on the phenomenon. Therefore, it is the task of the congregational leader to explore theories that are useful to explain the phenomenon.
The idea of ‘thoughtfulness’ (during the descriptive-empirical task) and ‘search for relevant theories’ (in the interpretive task) resonates with the task of a medical practitioner who would ‘listen to the symptoms’ that have been explained by his patient, and then rely on some ‘wisdom’ (theories and/or experiences) to address the situation. It is, therefore, possible to utilise the wisdom (experience) of others that is within the form of ‘theories’ and build from experience to comprehend the unfolding phenomenon. The ‘thoughtfulness’ that Osmer (2008:91) refers to has to do with one’s reflection on different ‘interpretations of experience; how they are similar and dissimilar’. He also argues that wisdom requires a person to respect the different contexts and that one’s ‘arguments’ might not be relevant for another. Wisdom is to perceive theories as contextual (Osmer 2008:96). Although it is salient for congregational leaders to place the phenomenon into the different ‘patterns of life’, Osmer also suggests it be placed within the context of the ‘redemptive wisdom of Christ’. It is to imagine how through the ‘wisdom incarnate’ (Jesus), and his life on earth, those involved could imagine their life differently. It is to do the same as Jesus in his day was able to allow his followers to perceive the world differently than they perceived their life before his incarnation. Jesus was able to ‘reoriented his hearers’ (Osmer 2008:100) and this would be the task of the congregational leaders; to allow themselves to understand phenomena through the ‘kingdom of God’ narrative (Osmer 2008:101). He also concentrates in this stage on the worldview of the congregational leader not only underscoring their commitment to truth in the Bible but also accepting that one’s reality, and that in the world remains fallible. Therefore, the need to test multiple theories in the search for certainty. The truth lies in the continuous search for meaning in the ‘truth’ which is elusive. Therefore, the ontological (worldview) perspective of Osmer’s research paradigm for his method could be articulated as critical realism. He argues that the metaphysical realm will always leave us with uncertainty and that the only certainty that we have is our interpretation(s) of reality. Although we can live with some sort of certainty and consensus, Osmer is even open for robust disagreements.5 This is especially evident in the existence of different theories in theology itself. Therefore, Osmer argues that a good theologian will utilise theories outside of theology as well (e.g., Arts and Sciences) to make sense of why the phenomenon is happening.
The next stage is called the ‘normative task’. This entails a process by which the congregational leader uses the information that is collected to discern why it is happening, to ask now what should (ought to) happen. Osmer (2008:149) refers to Don Browning’s thesis that there are embedded norms and values inherent to the practices of a community. Therefore, he argues that it is crucial that the congregational leader commences with those norms and values that underlie the action (practice) and that causes the phenomenon to emerge.6 He suggests three pathways to determine what should be happening (Osmer 2008:131). Besides other normative texts that may exist, he prescribes the Bible as also a normative text by which people organise their lives. However, as suggested earlier, the Bible should not be interpreted uncritically, when seeking and establishing what ought to happen. Nevertheless, the congregational leader should be in dialogue with the previous theories in relation to the subscribed theology. This he refers to as a ‘theological interpretation’. It is evident that Osmer places his emphasis on ‘present’ situations. What is theology to speak within the ‘here and now’ and states, ‘Prophetic discernment is the task of listening to his Word, and interpreting it in ways that address particular social conditions, events and decisions before congregations today’ (Osmer 2008:135).
However, he aligns this with ‘prophetic discernment’ that would imply that a congregational leader should have ‘divine pathos’ – a passion against the ‘sin, pain, and evil of creation’ (Osmer 2008:137). Osmer (2008:138) illustrates this discernment by using Bonhoeffer’s act in 1943 to decide to join an underground movement that would conspire and plot for Hitler’s assassination – which in the end cost his life. It is here also where the specific hermeneutic of the ‘community’ is important. Osmer argues that within the process of judging what should happen (normative), it would be salient to be critical about the hermeneutical interpretation that the congregational leader would employ as part of such a quest. In this regard, he makes four suggestions. The first one is based on the standard theological hermeneutic on the phenomenon. What do theologians agree on as the preferable norm in such a situation? On the second one he suggests an ethical interpretation. The congregational leader determines what ought to be done – concerning ‘others’. It is an ‘ethic’ that considers ‘equal regard’ – a perspective that allows the congregational leader to view all human beings as having equal moral worth and human dignity (Osmer 2008:131). In the third instance, Osmer (2008:132) suggests that when the congregational leader determines the ‘normative’, they should also be exploring what is ‘good practice’. The congregational leader should explore and study other congregations or past actions of communities that would be regarded as a model for ‘good practice’ specifically related to the phenomenon being studied. In the final (fourth) stage, Osmer (2008:176) refers to the process of ‘leading change’ within congregations. It is here where the congregational leader in the light of all the research, is able to lead the congregation towards change. Osmer (2008:176) then refers to different aspects of leadership (task competence, transactional leadership and transformational leadership) and present a suitable model; that of servant leadership.
JNJ (Klippies) Kritzinger: Praxis cycle
Kritzinger is known for his use and further adaptation of the praxis cycle (praxis matrix) as a method for doing theology.7 Although there are others who have contributed to the cycle,8 I use his academic contributions related to the four dimensions of the praxis cycle in this section.9 To discuss the gist of it, I analysed three of Kritzinger’s academic contributions to be able to engage meaningfully with the praxis cycle or matrix from his perspective.10
Kritzinger (2008a:773) argues that the praxis cycle is an ‘activist’ response, to mobilise action groups towards transforming societal contexts. Therefore, from the onset, the method involves a strong involvement (insertion) of the agent. Kritzinger (2008:767) contends that the benefit of this act in the research process, is that it allows the researcher to transcend doctrines, or documents, and engage first the community, even if there is a need to become acquainted with the language, culture and economy. Kritzinger contends that the community and the people involved in the mission encounter should be ‘heard’ from the onset through ‘collective’ participation. It is apparent in Kritzinger’s approach that there are ‘cultural’, ethnic and religious dimensions that are common constructs within most communities. He cautions on the ‘othering’ processes that should at all cost be circumvented within mission encounters.11 Therefore, as part of the first stage of insertion, the person becomes part of the community and develops his understanding of the community. Kritzinger (2002:157) argues that the cycle is directed towards the poor and their challenges and relevant for liberative and transformative purposes, because it not only incorporates both a hermeneutic of suspicion (exposing injustices) but also a hermeneutic of trust (it builds and mobilises people for transformative and liberative service). It connects those on the streets (margins of society), embrace rather than exclude and aims to understand relationships among human beings, showcasing Christianity as a ‘radically-egalitarian’ one (Kritzinger 2002:169).
Kritzinger explains that in the first stage of ‘insertion’ or ‘agency’ is where one asks: ‘What happens in the encounter between ourselves and others?’ Here one asks questions about identity (Who am I?), social identity (among whom do I insert myself in society?), but situating our insertion also as a political act (Whose needs and whose proposals determine my agenda?) (Kritzinger 2002:157). This dimension therefore is about reflexivity, and is interested in what happens between ‘both’ the agent and the person whom they enter into dialogue with. He asserts, ‘Such an approach takes us beyond “othering” into an ethos of “one-anothering”’ (Kritzinger 2002:157). Kritzinger suggests ‘personal transformation’ as a quest towards mutual transformation and an ‘attitude’ that would translate and facilitate transformative action. He cautions against making the other as our objects – but what we could learn from the other (Kritzinger 2008a:770).
It is in this context that Kritzinger argues that the research process should not only constitute a moment of ‘self-identification’ but also of ‘self-knowledge’ especially in the encountering of the ‘other’. These two components imply a moment in which the participants (researcher and participant[s]) will have the opportunity to not only open-up themselves to themselves but also one-another, not merely to understand (the historical roots our prejudices) but towards compelling action (Kritzinger 2008a:773). This seems indeed critical for an interactive theological-practical method in mission. This is particularly crucial in a context where the ‘other’ has been formed into identities other than who they ‘really’ are, and where people were coerced to conform and were often co-opted in the mission agent or organisation’s agenda. Self-directed questions, are also including the church as Kritzinger (2002) states:
In the first place perhaps, we should see Christ’s mission as that of questioning the church itself. Before we can work shoulder-to-shoulder with Christ to continue his mission on earth, we first need to face the probing questions he directs at us … Mission is – and will always remain – a challenge to the church. (p. 166)
The second dimension of the praxis cycle is the analysis of the context. The mission agent(s) during this step is tasked to reflect specifically on how the community or mission agent(s) are reading the signs of the times or what their discernment was relating to the socio-political and socioeconomic realities in context. In the discussion on context analysis, Kritzinger (2008b:776) is deeply conscious about the ‘racial’ context and the influence that the ‘structures of society’ would have on the religious praxis in society. Therefore, his resolve that the praxis cycle allows the researcher, or participants in mission to spell out to themselves and others, where they come from in terms of the macro-structures of society, and how this influences (power-relationships?) their relationship (self-identification) is crucial in this dimension (Kritzinger 2008b:77). The praxis cycle is therefore able to not only unearth the influence of the structures of society in shaping cultural identities but also foster inter-cultural, and inter-religious dialogue (Kritzinger 2002:161).
The third dimension of the praxis cycle is to reflect theologically on what is happening. How does the community read their Bible? Are the way they read their Bible related to the context or is it in contradiction? Kritzinger explicitly refers to the reflection on biblical texts and scriptures but especially notes the past interpretations of the Bible that would lead to the oppressing of the most vulnerable (e.g., women, children, slaves etc.) (Kritzinger 2002:164). He also mentions that the Bible should also be approached as an ancient document that has oppressive features and that such interpretations led to the myriad forms of oppression (especially within and from Christian-driven institutions).
It is only through the use of the other dimensions of the praxis cycle that the researcher, or mission agents, are able to develop some strategic resolve for societal challenges. In the fourth dimension, strategic mission’s focus is on the distinct strategies that the community might have developed or adopted in trying to transform the situation in church and society. Therefore, Kritzinger (2012:241) argues in favour of ‘contextual-transformation methods of liberation theologies’ that will ‘change the circumstances’ that people are faced with. Furthermore, he calls it a cycle that is directed towards transformative action (Kritzinger 2002:147). Kritzinger’s (2002:167) and Kritzinger (2012) use of the praxis cycle focusses primarily on ‘power-relations’.12 This raises immediate questions about church structures, which are often revolving around ‘power-relations’ and therefore Kritzinger (2012:241) raises critique against the church to develop ‘unconditional and non-manipulative relationships that grow through mutual questioning and listening’.
A comparative analysis of the theological methods
The research methodologies employed in theology should be intentional in its approach to address the crucial concerns of structural and systemic oppression that societies are struggling with. This presupposes that in most cases theological methods were developed without or little consideration for postcolonial conditions aimed at liberation of the oppressed as well as positioning the oppressed and marginalised at the centre of the methodological processes. Practical and Mission Theologies in terms of epistemology are known as praxis-based methodologies. However, it is still arguable whether these methodologies at its core can make any significant difference in the lives of the oppressed and the marginalised in society. Taking the lead of West (1993:14), it is of paramount importance in a postcolonial society that a method purports to transform the conditions of the oppressed and the marginalised and engage in substantive social and historical analysis of society and critically investigate the forces that oppresses their agency.
Kritzinger (2002:150) seems to be quite upfront with the purpose of the praxis cycle arguing that it is ‘designed for groups of people who covenant together to make a difference to their society’. The notion of praxis for the praxis cycle itself is clarified as ‘… an action that is collective, transformative, and that integrates thinking and acting, praying and working’ (Kritzinger 2002:149). This suggests that the mission agents are immersed within the community and the ‘thinking and action’ happens simultaneously with the community. This is an important component to work with the ‘masses’ to address the postcolonial conditions. The praxis cycle is not only about ‘making sense’ and to serve the interest of the academy but also to change the livelihoods of the displaced, poor and oppressed. In fact, it should empower the former subject of colonial apparatus and lead and foster processes of decolonisation (Ashcroft et al. 1989:203). However, it is not apparent that Osmer’s (2008) method is not only structured in such a way – beyond ‘sense-making’ but also beyond the boundaries of the church, or interest of the church, as the only place where problems emerge and should be addressed. It is also beyond the idea that problems not only exist with human relationships but also among humans and the rest of the cosmos.
A postcolonial epistemology requires the knowledge of the marginalised to come to the centre. It means that theology should commence from there, as well as the answer should be sought within that community. Kritzinger’s praxis matrix focusses explicitly on the poor and oppressed and how the systems and structures maintains the status quo. The praxis cycle is aimed at the ‘agency’ of the oppressed, poor and the marginalised and to work towards their inclusion and empowerment, as well as the value placed on those subjugated knowledge systems and voices (Kritzinger 2012). This raises the question of the value that is placed within theology on using African scholars as pivotal interlocutors. This being said, in the South African context, you might have those who were against apartheid, but not necessarily appreciated the African person as a potential contributor to knowledge (Mignolo 2011:52). There is indeed a valuable link between the two. This is what Mignolo (2011:52) argues compels for epistemological disobedience.
In fact, even practical theologian Bush (2016:149) argues in similar vein that Osmer’s normative task is not primarily an emancipatory praxis, but primarily about making sense of the societal challenges at play. In fact, Osmer’s theological method not only makes room for other forms of knowing, or interrogating the power connections but also ecclesial power dynamics, as examples of what emancipatory methods, and praxis would include. Mignolo (2011:2) argues that these are necessary components, in the quest to re-imagine, and to build a democratic, just and non-imperial or colonial society.
It might be prudent to work through the different dimensions and/or stages or phases of the two methods in terms of the discussion to provide a more in-depth critical analysis. Therefore, it seems that the most significant aspect between the two methods is that the praxis cycle starts with agency, questions of self-identification of the person that is being encountered and also compelling self-knowledge of the researcher. The description of ‘what goes on’ as part of Osmer’s first step is different from the praxis cycle that focusses on people and their relationship with others – unearthing the ‘power’ connections. Therefore, Kritzinger (2008a:768) refers to an ‘inter- …’ approach of involvement in the first step of the praxis cycle. During the first stage, in comparison with that of Osmer, Kritzinger argues that the dimension of insertion and identification addresses the biases of mission agents from the outset. In this first stage of the praxis cycle, Kritzinger (2008b:768) contends the importance of addressing ‘essentialist’ identities, whether it be religious or ethnic.13 This indeed shows that the content and semantics of the praxis cycle should not be inherently directed towards over-simplification, generalising the other and broad categories of people. Therefore, Kritzinger (2002:156) observes that the cycle is interested in our interlocutors during the research process. The first dimension of the praxis cycle compels the actors participants to reveal, who are their primary interlocutors who shape their identity, and acknowledges whose identities they are shaping. We are influenced and often work from such an identity, shaping others. It is also in the insertion stage that we are compelled to ask whom are we not in conversation with? Who is interrupting our conversations?
For Osmer, his interlocutors are those in the congregation and the functional structures of the church. This is evident in most of the case studies and anecdotes that he refers to in his book. A bibliography search would not deliver any results on African authors and communities and the kind of problems that Africans would experience in a postcolonial society. However, as an American surely there should not have been a lack of anecdotes of oppression within denominational structures, and outside the traditional, one mono-racial and traditional church paradigm that seems to be the basis of his theological method. However, one should indeed go beyond his own reference and ask how others might be able to use it. But if there is not an explicit compelling hermeneutical step, which would necessitate the identification of power-dynamics between people, would this be left to chance?
Furthermore, in the ‘descriptive-empirical task’ Osmer (2008) suggests an ‘attentiveness’ and ‘priestly’ listening. However, it does not necessarily address the ‘power’ that is imbued in particular relationships. Kritzinger (2008b, 2012:234–235) addressed this issue when he deals with those who do fear to speak, because they are overwhelmed by power dominance. Therefore he suggests, despite, merely focussing on ‘listening’ there should be mechanisms in the methodology that are able to create a space in which people are able to speak out against the powers, be without any fear and not being bullied into silence. The question that could be raised is: How might ‘priestly’ listening and ‘presence’ within Osmer’s (2008) method, be sufficient within a postcolonial context of South Africa, where it needs more than listening, but a symbolic positioning of former ‘oppressors’ on the side of the oppressed? (Freire 1993:23) Freire (1993:23) argues that to transform the former structural relationships between the oppressor and the oppressed, the oppressor should not engage in paternalistic treatment of the oppressed, but to fight ‘at their side to transform the objective reality which has made them these “beings for another”’.
In Osmer’s (2008) ‘interpretive task’, he argues that ‘wisdom’ for the researcher could be sought through investigating God’s wisdom in Jesus Christ and how he ‘reoriented’ his listeners. What is not said, but equally important here is that Jesus was subversive within the imperial rule of Rome. Osmer urges the interpreters of the phenomena to showcase the ‘wisdom of God’ that might be in contrast to the various ‘patterns of life’. There is room within the ‘interpretive task’ to come up with possible theories, including postcolonial and an African or black perspectives on phenomena. However, it is vital to consider Osmer’s statement seriously, ‘It takes wise judgement on the leader’s part’ when he refers to how someone would interpret Olivia’s (who is a fictitious name in his case study) alcoholism problem. However, this is often a risky road to travel in academia; with academic freedom that allows epistemic violence to thrive on a day-to-day basis. The interpretative task of Osmer agrees with the contextual analysis dimension of the praxis cycle and argues that the researcher needs to search beyond theological source for interpretation. Kritzinger (2012:241) includes in this dimension the collaboration of theologians with experts, in the fields of medicine, economics, biology, education, psychology and all actors in society who are committed to transform realities. Whereas Kritzinger and those using the praxis cycle are viewing the world through the lens of power relationships (contextual analysis), and the primary influence of structures of society, it seems as if Osmer (2008) views the world as if there are no power relationships. There is no sign in his interpretive stage that he would bring the congregation, in which the crisis takes place, in conversation with issues concerning power-relations or with addressing multi-cultural congregations and the development of inter-religious, inter-cultural dimensions as an interplay with the various phenomena within churches. It does not ‘prescribe’ and give clarity on how those using the method should consider this aspect.
In Osmer’s (2008) normative task, the congregational leader should search for the ‘moral norms’, especially for an ethic of ‘equality’ of human worth and dignity. This is in itself crucial, also one that would be able to provide room to address ‘social’ inequalities and all forms of oppression. The use of Bonhoeffer as an illustrative point of ‘prophetic discernment’ as the essential task of congregational leaders in the quest for the ‘theological’ responses to challenges is significant (Osmer 2008:138), especially within a postcolonial context. Nevertheless, the only time that Osmer (2008) comes close to the African context, in particular, is when he refers to the ‘emancipatory praxis of liberation and feminist theologies’ when he makes the argument of ‘cross-disciplinary dialogue’. This is in no way to say that Osmer’s content is not sufficient, but it comes across more as a ‘brush over’ and not as prioritising postcolonial contexts and conditions. Dean et al. (2019:18) affirm this in their analysis of Osmer’s work, arguing that he is ‘… more interested in the church’s significance and potential for a changing world than in the increasingly polarised skirmishes that have preoccupied mainline congregations throughout his career’. They lament that issues of class, race or gender does not even form a core part of his theological method. Whereas in the praxis cycle, specifically Kritzinger’s comment on the critical use of the Bible shows that it takes the Bible also as a ‘site of struggle’. However, a brief point to be made is that Osmer’s methods would focus on the transformation of the church; whereas it is clear in the praxis cycle that it transcends the church. Quite interesting is that the church itself is not been identified as a ‘site of struggle’, and to be subjected to self-criticism. I do not discuss the last stage or dimension of both methods, because it is basically informed by the processes that has been followed before.
Conclusion
This contribution shows that both approaches have merits, but that the praxis cycle is more explicit in its applications, its structures and its language to address the postcolonial contexts meaningfully. A theological method engineered on postcolonial contexts, would lay bare the ‘power-relations’ and the hegemony that is still prevalent. The praxis cycle uses the ‘language’ but also shows how during the research process it is committed towards the emancipation and liberation of various forms of oppression. There are indeed spaces for this when Osmer proposes the use of different theories during the interpretative stage, as well as discerning power-relations when doing ‘priestly listening’ during the descriptive stage, as well as the normative stage, when it asks for prophetic discernment. But the reluctance to call these ‘-isms’, for instance in society by name, makes one reluctant to believe that this is encouraged or prioritised. However, a most significant finding between the two theological methods is the insertion and identification dimension of the praxis cycle, and the reflexivity of the researcher and the researched, and the unearthing of the power-relations. This reflexivity could unearth the assumptions, and historical roots that influence the encounter and action – which would compel both parties to confront the uncomfortable historical and structural dimension influencing their collaboration, which is not considered explicitly in Osmer’s theological method.
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
Author’s contributions
E.B. is the sole author of this research article.
Ethical considerations
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.
References
Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G. & Tiffin, H., 1989, The empire writes back. Theory and practice in postcolonial literatures, 2nd edn., Routledge, New York, NY.
Braxton, B.R., 2003, ‘The role of ethnicity in the social location of 1 Corinthians 7:17-24’, in C.B. Randall (ed.), Yet with a steady beat: Contemporary U.S. Afrocentric Biblical interpretation, pp. 19–32, Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta.
Bush, J.E., 2016, Practical theology in church and society, Cascade Books, Eugene, OR.
de sousa santos, B., 2007, ‘Beyond Abyssal Thinking: From Global Lines to Ecologies of Knowledges’, Review 30(1), 4–89.
Dean, K.C., Bertrand, B.D., Drury, A.H. & Root, A., 2019, Consensus and conflict. Practical theology for congregations in the work of Richard R Osmer, Cascade Books, Eugene, OR.
Freire, P., 1993, Pedagogy of the oppressed, Penguin Classics, Johannesburg.
Holland, J. & Henriot, PJ., 1982, Social analysis: Linking faith and justice, Orbis Books, Maryknoll.
Kritzinger, J.N.J., 2002, A question of Mission – A mission of Questions, Unisa Press, Pretoria.
Kritzinger, J.N.J., 2008a, ‘Faith to faith – Missiology as encounterology’, Verbum et Ecclesia 29(3), 764–790. https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v29i3.31
Kritzinger, J.N.J., 2008b, ‘Liberating whiteness: Engaging with the anti-racist dialectics of Steve Biko’, in C.W. Du Toit (ed.), The legacy of Stephen Bantu Biko. theological challenges, pp. 83–113, Unisa Press, Pretoria.
Kritzinger, J.N.J., 2012, ‘Overcoming theological voicelessness in the new millennium’, Missionalia 40(3), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.7832/40-3-31
Maluleke, T.S., 2000, ‘The rediscovery of the agency of Africans: An emerging paradigm of post-cold war and post-apartheid Black and African Theology’, Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 108(3), 19–37.
Mignolo, W., 2011, ‘Epistemic disobedience and the decolonial option: A manifesto’, Transmodernity: Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World 1(2), 44–66. https://doi.org/10.5070/T412011807
Mosala, I.J., 1989, Biblical hermeneutics and black theology in South Africa, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S.J., 2018, Epistemic freedom in Africa. Deprovincialization and decolonization, Routledge, New York, NY.
Osmer, R.R., 2008, Practical theology. An introduction, WB. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Pears, A., 2010, Doing contextual theology, Routledge, London.
Sugirtharajah, R., 2003, Postcolonial reconfigurations: An alternative way of reading the Bible and doing theology, Chalice Press, St Louis, MI.
Ukpong, J., 1987, ‘What is contextualization?’, Neue Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft 43(3), 161–168.
West, C., 1993, Race matters, Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
Footnotes
1. This includes, for example, the Faculties of Theology at the University of Pretoria, Bloemfontein, Stellenbosch, and the University of South Africa.
2. Ukpong (1987:163) points to the coinage of ‘contextualisation’ to be during the early 1970s during discussions and forum of the Theological Education Fund, which at first were directed towards the formation of people for church ministry, but then taken up in conversations on theological models.
3. Maluleke (2000) refers antagonistically to a ‘white contextual or liberation theology’.
4. See for instance the one of Browning, Heithink, and others.
5. Then he argues that ‘they are clearer about the reasons for their differences and may have revised their original position because they engaged in rational communication with others’ (Osmer 2008:102).
6. This is useful for the argument of this article that the reasoning for current actions and situation would be interpreted in the light of a ‘postcolonial’ hermeneutic. It is here where the researcher should start in terms of the argument of the author.
7. See in particular his adaptation of the pastoral cycle used by Holland and Henriot (1982) in his article A question of mission – A mission of questions (Kritzinger 2002).
8. For instance, the Catholic theologian, Madge Karecki at the University of South Africa developed the first-year module for missiology that introduced the praxis cycle to analyse mission practice.
9. Although he would speak of the matrix, his first four would more or less strictly relate to the dimensions of the praxis cycle. Only these will be used here for the purposes of this article.
10. In the Festschrift for Willem Saayman, Kritizinger discusses this method under the title, A question of Mission – A mission of questions (2002). The other article Faith to faith: Mission as encounterology (2008) in which he uses the praxis matrix is to discuss how Christian theologians should respectfully engage adherents of other religions. Kritzinger (2008a) proposes initially the four-staged model of Holland and Henriot, which starts with insertion, context analysis, theological interpretation and strategic planning. What is important is the ‘spirituality’ of the mission agent that is at the core of the method. He refers in his article Faith to faith: Mission as encounterology (2008) to an ‘interactive theological-practical method’ with the praxis cycle extended and renamed as the praxis matrix.
11. This is especially the case when he addresses in his article Faith to faith: Missiology as encounterology (2008) the way Christians engages other religious groups.
12. He emphasises the notion of power-relations in relation to the praxis-cycle quite compelling in ‘Overcoming theological voicelessness in the new millennium’ (Kritzinger 2012).
13. He utilises the argument of Braxton (2003:21) that repudiates the assumption that there exists anything such as relatively fixed identities to be able to define one ethnic group against another.
|
Email this article (Login required)
