Apologetics in Africa: An Introduction

Divided into four major sections, this textbook provides an in-depth exploration of the biblical, philosophical, cultural, and practical concerns facing African Christians as they proclaim and defend the gospel in Africa. Written by a diverse group of pastors and scholars, it provides a much needed interdisciplinary and contextualized approach to apologetics. It also seeks to bridge the gap between academic research and ministry practice, touching on such topics as hermeneutics, biblical criticism, church history, the nature of evil, religious inclusivism, Muslim-Christian engagement, eldership rites, domestic violence, cults, and the digital age. Biblically robust, contextually relevant, ministry-oriented, and accessible, this is a remarkable resource for enriching the life and ministry of Christians in Africa and beyond.

• Language: English
• Publisher: HippoBooks
• Release date: Feb 1, 2024
• ISBN: 9781839739675

Book preview

Part I

Biblical Issues

1

Is the Bible Reliable?

Biblical Criticism and Hermeneutics in Africa

Elizabeth Mburu, PhD

Langham Literature Regional Coordinator Anglophone Africa and Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament at Africa International University, Kenya

Abstract

The Protestant tradition has historically offered the church a high view of the Bible. Yet in different periods of the church’s history, different movements have challenged the reliability of the Bible. This chapter will approach the reliability of the Bible from within two perspectives. The first will consider the classical questions within the discipline of apologetics such as the canonicity of the Bible and its uniqueness among other sacred texts. The second section will approach it from a hermeneutical perspective. Within the continent, prominent pan-Africanists have claimed that the Bible was used as a tool of oppression. The hermeneutical approaches to the Bible will help the African ministry leader to develop confidence to engage with the Bible for the transformation of individual lives and communities in Africa.

Keywords: Canon, Hermeneutics, Historical Criticism, Liberal and Post-Liberal Theology, Translation

1. Introduction

Although the Protestant tradition has historically offered a high view of the Bible, its reliability has been questioned by different movements throughout church history. This chapter will consider the question of the reliability of the Bible from two perspectives – classical and hermeneutical questions. Among the questions asked could be termed classical questions. Is the Bible reliable? Can we be certain that it is ultimate truth? Do we have confidence that the text was faithfully transmitted and that our translations accurately reflect what the authors originally wrote in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek? The first section will consider the classical questions within the discipline of apologetics such as the canonicity of the Bible, its transmission and translation, and its uniqueness among other sacred texts. It will begin with a brief Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment overview of the development of sceptical readings of the Bible. It will then address the issues of canonicity, transmission and translation of the Bible. The second approach will be from a hermeneutical perspective. Several prominent pan-Africanists have claimed that the Bible has been used as a tool of oppression in Africa. The various African hermeneutical approaches to the Bible will help the African ministry leader to develop confidence to engage with the Bible for the transformation of individual lives and communities in Africa.

1.1 A Brief Historical Overview of Sceptical Approaches to The Bible

There are two ways of reading the Bible. The first views the biblical witness as reliable and therefore true. Scholars like Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Bengel and Wesley struggled to interpret the Bible in a reasoned and intellectually responsible fashion. The second way in which we can read the Bible is with a modern sceptical reading that focuses on doubts about the reliability of the biblical message. This is reflective of historical criticism. For instance, many scholars have suggested that large blocks of material in the Gospels lack historical credibility. Hence, the Gospel records of the words and deeds of Jesus are judged to be unreliable. This arises from the tensions resulting from different versions of certain events in the different Gospels, and the alleged fabrications that surface at some points. This scepticism has grave implications for the interpretive task. This first section of this chapter is focused on Western theological movements since the Enlightenment and how these have shaped Christianity. Moreover, while sceptical readings are not generally an issue in the church in Africa, such trends have begun to grow and must therefore be understood.

1.2 The Enlightenment Roots

The age of scepticism was ushered by the period known as the Enlightenment, or the Age of Reason. A major characteristic of the Enlightenment was the distrust of all forms of authority and tradition where matters of the intellect were concerned. Instead, there was an emphasis on scientific inquiry, reason and observation. It emphasized the elevation of human reason, which was seen as sufficient to penetrate the mysteries of the world,[1] as well as a passion for human welfare. Because of the influence of scientific discoveries, such as those made by Sir Isaac Newton, people believed that all life could be understood with reference to itself.[2] The Enlightenment stressed an overwhelming optimism about the human ability to achieve understanding through reason unattached and unaccountable to any ancient authority.[3] It greatly affected the way theology was approached in the church, especially because reason played such a prominent role. This renewed interest in the ability of human reason, as opposed to divine revelation, set the foundation for religious liberalism. In addition, pluralism gained ground in this age since all religions were understood as leading to the same ultimate reality. While some of the great thinkers of the Enlightenment were opposed to the church, the fact that most were deists made it possible for many of the ideas of the Enlightenment to be incorporated into theology.

Many deists evolved into pantheists and atheists. Men like John Locke,[4] and men like George Berkeley,[5] who denied special revelation, and David Hume,[6] who built on both Locke and Berkeley, concluded that miracles did not exist since objective truth could not be known.[7] They exemplify the agnosticism and the scepticism that characterized the theological arena during this time. Reason was elevated above faith, tradition and biblical authority found themselves out of favour, such that the only natural outcome was the rejection of the Bible and everything supernatural. This was enhanced through the writings of the secular humanists.

According to Enlightenment leaders such as Immanuel Kant, thinkers in previous centuries had been confined to an intellectual nursery by several harsh spinster nannies.[8] These were the church, the Bible, creeds, tradition, old scientific theories, the emperor and the pope. But now humanity had grown up and could think and explore on its own. This kind of thinking had a tremendous impact on Christian doctrine. First, this thinking denied the doctrine of original sin, stressing that this was an oppressive idea. Second, this thinking denied that humanity was fallen and that both humanity and the world were affected by sin. Natural disasters revealed that God did not exist or was not involved in the world. Third, this thinking denied the divine inspiration of the Bible and relegated it to the realm of human literature. Fourth, this thinking denied the deity of Jesus Christ, claiming that he was not the incarnate Son of God but merely a superior moral teacher. Fifth, this thinking denied Christ’s atoning, sacrificial death on the cross, arguing that he did not die in our place but rather as an example of self-sacrifice.[9]

1.3 Liberal Theology

Liberal theology, one of the most crucial developments within Protestantism, was the natural outcome of the Enlightenment and can be traced back to the developments in human knowledge that took place during this period. One such example is Darwin’s theory of evolution. Liberalism tended to be flexible in that it aimed to bridge the gap between Christian faith and modern knowledge.[10] As Olson notes, [l]iberal theologians were convinced that human culture had taken a quantum leap forward with the Enlightenment and that the very existence of Christianity as more than a privatized folk religion depended on updating it to square with the best of Enlightenment’s ‘modernity project.’ [11] Modern cultural norms defined the shape of Christian beliefs and attitudes to Scripture. This meant that some beliefs were abandoned (e.g. the doctrine of original sin) and others were reinterpreted (e.g. Christ was seen as an exemplar and not divine in any sense). Liberalism called for a grounding of faith in common human experience. While Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Schleiermacher, Albrecht Ritschl, Adolph Von Harnack, and Horace Bushnell, all contributed in various ways to liberal theology, the household name in liberalism is Paul Tillich. He was an American theologian who emphasized the need for interaction between the Christian faith and culture.[12] He recognized that existential questions arise from culture, and that these must not only be heard, but dealt with as well through theology.[13]

Liberalism, in general, held that reason and experience were paramount in religion, such that any beliefs had to be tested against both reason and science. Hence, miracles and the supernatural, falling into the category of things that cannot be proven, had to be rejected. This naturally meant that the core doctrines of the Christian faith found no place in liberal theology. The Bible was not regarded as inspired but was seen as an ordinary book that reflected high ethical standards and that displayed the evolution of human religion through the Old and the New Testaments. Consequently, liberals saw modern thought as a necessary tool of interpretation and most of them gave it a guiding and even controlling authority in determining the essence of Christian truth.[14] Since the Bible was not regarded as an authoritative, infallible book, but rather was understood as the subjective writings of the experiences of others, it had no dogmatic value. Being subjective in nature, it denied the existence of any absolutes either in truth or morals. Hence, rather than the world conforming to biblical standards, liberal theologians taught that Christianity must be relevant and hence must be adapted to the modern world, to the world of human reason and science. Liberalism denied sin and its highly optimistic worldview meant that humankind was not only basically good, but also capable of doing good.[15] Because of this essential goodness, human beings were thought to have the ability to better the world through their efforts. Thus, the kingdom of God was not to be found in some distant future, but in the here and now, and was to be achieved through the application of biblical principles (social gospel). For liberal theologians, Jesus was not God, but merely a good teacher and the ideal man.

Another direction in which liberalism went, and that eventually influenced how the Bible was read, was that of Georg Hegel. His philosophy attempted to bring the concept of evolution into history and religion. For him, history should be defined as the meeting of two opposing movements whose contradictions must be integrated or unified.[16] Christian doctrines were to be understood not literally, but as symbols. In their higher criticism of the Bible, both F. C. Baur and Julius Wellhausen were strongly influenced by this Hegelian philosophy. They questioned the previously accepted authorship of biblical books. Baur, in particular, had a great influence on biblical criticism.[17] He denied the historical accuracy of the biblical accounts, seeing them more as myths than anything else. The documentary hypothesis, which questioned the authorship of the Pentateuch, finds its roots in Hegelian methodology.

1.4 Neo-Liberalism and Post-Liberalism

Liberalism evolved in two major ways, that is, neo-liberalism and post-liberalism. Neo-liberalism (with proponents such as Harry Fosdick who was strongly opposed to fundamentalism) rejected the subjectivism and the idealistic philosophy of older liberalism.[18] While higher criticism and the denial of inspiration continued to be a major tenet of their theology, the Bible was taken more seriously. Humans were still regarded as basically good (the doctrines of original sin and total depravity were rejected) but the optimism that dominated the older liberalism was dropped. Neo-liberals accepted the divinity of Christ, but this was not at the level of orthodoxy. In addition, while Christ’s death was important for humankind, it was in no way understood in terms of substitutionary atonement.

Post-liberalism, a movement that gained popularity from the 1980s, has also raised various issues against liberal theology. Proponents of this school of thought have objected to the Enlightenment concept of a universal rationality and the liberal presupposition of a common religious experience. Thus, it strives to return to tradition, emphasizing historical and social continuity. It is characterized by an anti-foundational approach, as well as a communitarian and historicist emphasis. The major theologian associated with this movement is George Lindbeck, the proponent of a cultural-linguistic approach to theology.

An early reaction to liberalism was neo-orthodoxy, also referred to as New Reformation Theology or dialectical theology.[19] As a result of the loss of faith in liberal theology (catalysed by World War 1), neo-orthodoxy begun to take over from liberalism. Karl Barth, a Swiss theologian trained in liberalism, is generally heralded as the father of neo-orthodoxy.[20] He was an advocate of Søren Kierkegaard, a Danish philosopher and theologian who emphasized the value of experience as opposed to the cold orthodoxy of creeds and doctrines. Barth rejected his liberal training and developed Kierkegaard’s views. He taught that God was transcendent, and hence an objective knowledge of him was impossible. However, to him, God could be known subjectively, through one’s personal experience. For Barth, the Bible was to be understood as a witness to the word, as opposed to the objective word of God. Barth spoke of the revealed word, the written word and the preached word. Most importantly for him, it was only as one encountered the word of God through the Bible that it became the word of God.[21] Since Jesus was the only revelation of God, Barth rejected general revelation and emphasized the centrality of Christ in theology. Many critics of Barth note a strong sense of universalism in his theology.

Another household name as far as neo-orthodoxy is concerned is Rudolf Bultmann. He is famous for his insistence on the demythologization of the Bible and the irrelevance of history.[22] For him, the Bible was unreliable since it consisted of the subjective views of the early church as opposed to objective, factual truths about God and Christ. He used form criticism, approaching the Bible as he did any ordinary piece of literature. Form criticism (German Formgeschichte) focuses on the earliest stage of the origins and transmission of the Gospels, that is, the stage during which various portions that later became part of the written Gospels were transmitted orally. The term form criticism was first coined and used by Old Testament scholars such as Herman Gunkel.[23] Later it was adapted for New Testament studies by scholars such as Karl Ludwig Schmidt, Martin Dibelius, and Rudolf Bultmann. Form critics argue that the laws of transmission that apply to the oral transmission of other folk and religious traditions in general, can also be applied to the Gospel material. Hence, historical reliability and age of the various pericopes can be determined using these laws. Other key theologians in the neo-orthodox school included Emil Brunner (crisis theology), who reacted to the liberal view of christology, and Reinhold Niebuhr, with his work on social ethics.[24]

Neo-orthodoxy holds that the Bible is not to be regarded as the objective infallible word of God – it is not revelation, but a witness to revelation, and hence fallible. Since Jesus Christ is the focal point of God’s revelation, humans do not meet God in words (Scripture), but in an experiential encounter with Christ. Events of Scripture, particularly the resurrection, should not be understood as history, which is itself verifiable and without error, but as story. Because of this approach, it is not necessary to insist on the historicity of the biblical accounts. Many of the biblical accounts are therefore mythical in nature, but this does not affect their validity and higher meaning. Transcendence is emphasized over immanence, such that we can only know God by an act of faith that is wholly subjective in nature. These were some of the views in the school of neo-orthodoxy.

1.5 Modernism and Post-Modernism

Modernism, first applied to Roman Catholic theologians, runs parallel to liberalism. However, in modernism, the findings of science as well as the importance of history are stressed. Modernists tended to have a highly sceptical attitude toward traditional Christian doctrines and hence leaned in the direction of Enlightenment thinking. They fostered a positive attitude toward radical biblical criticism, and stressed the ethical, rather than the more theological, dimensions of faith.[25] Unlike other theological movements, modernism tended to incorporate a wide range of ideas and hence the term should not be seen as referring to a particular school of thought. Within the Protestant arm of the church, modernist attitudes were also changing the shape of theology. Hastings Rashdall, and his particular brand of an exemplar or moral approach to the atonement, is one representative of modernist thinking in England.[26] In the United States, reactions to liberal thinking pushed many to re-emphasize a conservative approach to theology. While modernism waned after the first world war, it resurfaced and gained momentum, probably reaching its peak in the early