Theological paradigms and conservative Afrikaners

Papers published in the HSRC publication Paradigms and progress in theology (1988) reject foundationalistic theology and recom m end a holistic theological ap ­ proach. In this process contextual theology, which em­ phasises the distinctiveness of individual nations, is ac­ cused of being the ‘domination paradigm’ and is even called a heresy. This article aims to show that the holis­ tic theological approach is also guilty of foundationalis­ tic reasoning and intolerance. Furtherm ore, the need for a balanced theological paradigm for the conserva­ tive Afrikaner believer, who desires an own land for the Afrikaner nation is shown. Contextual theological re­ flection has not only a criticising function, but also a le­ gitimising responsibility. The balanced contextual theo­ logical paradigm for conservative Afrikaner believers must be critical, legitimising and free of foundationa-

tic theological approach is also guilty of foundationalis tic reasoning and intolerance.Furtherm ore, the need for a balanced theological paradigm for the conserva tive Afrikaner believer, who desires an own land for the A frikaner nation is shown.Contextual theological re flection has not only a criticising function, but also a le gitimising responsibility.The balanced contextual theo logical paradigm for conservative A frikaner believers must be critical, legitimising and free of foundationalism.
In the H um an Sciences R esearch Council's publication Paradigms and Progress in Theology (1988), the holistic theological paradigm is presented as an alternative to foundationalistic exclusivist theology.'Holism is seen as progress in theological rea soning while it offers the possibility of moving away from foundationalism with its exclusivism in reasoning and its intolerance' (M outon & Pauw 1988:183).
The terms 'paradigm ' and 'progression' in theological reasoning require further explanation.
Theology is practised from a variety of divergent ideologies.The divergent re search traditions were referred to as scientific paradigms by Kuhn (1970:182w).He described the term 'paradigm' as a 'disciplinary matrix'.He states that a paradigm is 'disciplinary because it refers to the common possession of the practitioners of a particular discipline...' (Kuhn 1970:182), and a paradigm is a '"matrix" because it is ISSN 02S9 9422 -HTS f7 /3 (1991) TTicolopal paradigms ««wi conservative Afrikaners com posed of ordered elem ents of various sorts.... ' V orster (1988:32) agrees with K uhn's definition and states: 'The matrix forms the framework in which solutions are sought for acknowledged problems, and problems are solved.'A paradigm can be referred to in the following context: 'The methods and ways in which problems are solved are certain.Members of the scientific community share common beliefs, they have a sim ilar world view and use the same concepts in explaining problems they investigate' (V orster 1988:33).A theological paradigm can therefore be defin ed as 'die sam ehangende geheel van grondoortuigings, modelle en teorieë wat as om vattende interpretasiekader in die beoefening van Teologie funksioneer' (Van Huyssteen 1987:7).
Van Huyssteen (1987:206), in his search for criteria for a trustworthy systematic theological rationality model, believes that the rationality of theological judgements, theories and ideologies depends on the ability of theory choices to reduce or solve problems -empirical or conceptual.The rationality of a specific theory is described in term s of the progressivity of the theory.Progress as the criterion for rationality in theological reflection relates to the ability of a theological paradigm to solve pro blems.
Holism is seen as progress in theological reasoning while it offers the possibility of moving away from foundationalism with its exclusivism in reasoning and its into lerance.Mouton & Pauw (1988:183) point out that holism is an interesting alterna tive to foundationalism .Sentences that form part of a theory are always part of a bigger whole.Together they form a single interwoven web of belief or context.In dividual sentences cannot thus be verified or falsified on their own.They are always part of a bigger whole, a theory.Eventually no sentence in a theory is completely immune from revision.The inevitable result of M outon & Pauw's reasoning is that all proposed holistic theological solutions are com parable (M outon & Pauw 1988: 184).In this sense, they are of the opinion th at we have progress while holism moves away from the intoleristic tendencies of foundationalism.
The progress-claim of holism goes hand in hand with the claim of moving away from any kind of individualism.In holistic thinking the emphasis is placed on the whole rather than the individual parts.This tendency is evident in the reflection on exegetical-methodological thinking.According to Vorster (1988:32) we are, exegetic-m ethodological speaking, heading towards a phase where the historico-critical approach with its focus on the parts is going to be displaced by a holistic paradigm with its focus on the whole.

C RITICISM O N T H E SO -CALLED FO U N D A TIO N A LIST EXCLUSIVIST REASONING IN C ON TEX TUA L CONSERVATIVE A FRIKANER B E U E F
Not only are certain approaches in the scientific community being accused of foundationaiism with its exclusivism, but contextual conservative Afriicaner belief is also accused of foundationalism with its exclusivism.The foundationalist exclusivism that is criticised here is not the exclusivist approaches of an individual, but rather the view of a certain group of people in South Africa.The criticism is about 'a set of beliefs and attitudes' that are manifested by the beliefs of conservative Afrikaners.Deist (1990:124-139), by applying W est's definition of civil religion, as 'a set of beliefs and attitudes that explain the meaning and pur|>ose of any given political so ciety in terms of its relationships to a transcendent, spiritual reality, that are held by the people generally of that society, and that are expressed in public rituals, myths, and symbols' (D eist 1990:126), is of the opinion that A frikaner civil religion was born in the social context of the Afrikaners during the 1930s and 1940s.He points out that the form er farm owners had, via urbanisation and the coupled social cir cumstances of finding themselves at the bottom of the social ladder and experienc ing a new competition with former black farm workers, made use of foundationalism as th eir theological paradigm and K uyperianism as th eir cultural m odel (D eist 1990:129) to explain their circumstances and ideals.
Ekiwards (1988:242) speaks of the 'dom ination paradigm ' where 'separation' is encouraged.She presents the 'com m union paradigm ' as an alternative (Edwards 1988:243).Afrikaner nationalism that emphasises separation is seen as contra-productive individualism.The paradigm of individualistic contra-productive nationa lism contrasts with the holistic 'communion paradigm', and is called a 'heresy'.Kruger (1988:220) argues that we must progressively overcome limitations and partiality, and that we have to attain a disinterestedness as far as possible to get to an 'ethic of universal solidarity, responsibility and compassion'.Edwards (1988:239) states that theologies are justified when 'they facilitate development, integration and w holeness of persons and societies'.Holism thus becom es a philosophy of life where 'human unity' serves as political model.

FO U N D A TIO N A U ST TEN D EN CIES IN H O U S T IC APPRO ACH ES
I want to adm it that most A frikaner conservative reasoning in favour of separate ness is based on foundationalist reasoning.However, the question may also be put w hether poiitico-theological-holistic-approaches are really moving away from foun dationalism.
ISSN 0259 9422 -UTS <7/3 (1991) Theological parxligm» and conservative Afrikancn It seems to me that the same accusation of foundationalism might be applicable to exponents of holistic jwlitico-theological reasoning as well as exponents of libera tion theology.
W hat approach in foundationalism is it against which holism reacts?In reduc Notice must be taken o f the fact that Vorster (1988:45), in his exegetic-methodological approach, when putting the emphasis on the "w hole', says that there is a search for a uniform paradigm within which 'norm al' science can be practised.It seems as if any kind of atom istic approach is going to be viewed as abnorm al.The uniform paradigm will be the sjeholet for any methodology in exegetical practices.
The question may be asked: Are W here Scripture has been the certain and indubitable basis of knowledge, the holis tic uniform ed paradigm forms the new inspired and erro r-free authority.This authoritative holistic mode of thinking has sedim ented in politico-theological rea soning.
Kruger (1988:220) argues that we must progressively overcome limitations and partiality, and that we have to attain a disinterestedness as far as possible to reach an 'ethic of universal solidarity, responsibility and compassion'.
Edw ards (1988:239) goes even fu rth er when she authoritativ ely claims that theologies are 'justified' when 'they facilitate developm ent, integration and w hole ness of persons and societies'.'Interconnectedness' is the passf>ort to 'genuine trans form ation' (Edwards 1988:248) and it is 'only the free, only those who are liberated and humanized in this way, who can liberate' (Edwards 1988:249).
Again we meet pronouncem ents o f 'only'-interconnectedness. Individualism is seen as breeding and reinforcing racism and ideological separatism (Edwards 1988: 246).Are we at a point in holistic thinking that claims of tolerance towards other viewpoints can be made?
Even V an Huyssteen, when writing about progress in theology, shows this kind of foundationalist intolerance in his reasoning.When discussing progress in theolo gy he reasons that the rationality of theological pronouncem ents depends on the question of w hether there is any progress in so far as problems have been lessened or solved (V an Huyssteen 1987:206).The contextualising o f theological problems, such as the question concerning the visible unity of the church, and specifically the question of whether apartheid as a political system is not fundamentally heretical, is seen as valid progress in systematic theology (Van Huyssteen 1987:207).Two con cepts, 'unity' and 'apartheid', are used.O ne is used in a positive sense, as if there will be progress when the unity of the church is really visible, while the other is used in a negative sense, as if there will be progress when it can be theologically shown that apartheid as a political system is fundam entally heretical.By suggesting that apartheid as a political system could be heretical, Van Huyssteen (1987:207) disclos es an attitude of unsympathetic intolerance.Surely it would be unfair to catagorise him, and accuse him of holistic reasoning and intolerance on the basis of his sugges tion.However, when this suggestion is seen against the background of the intole rance of foundationalist holistic thinking, my meaning may become clear.

T H E ID E A L AND T H E R E A U T Y
It is interesting that both Kruger and Edwards acknowledge that individuality is part of reality.Kriiger (1988:214) speaks of 'the internal pluralism of religions, the fac tions and schools ', and Edwards (1988:247) of ideological structures that 'are inter woven with our various theological and philosophical theories and value systems'.However, both of them want this reality to apply to an idealistic holistic world.Kru ger (1988:214) is of the opinion that these pluralisms are polishing one another and by way of inter-religious dynamics the ideal of a stabilised final synthesis is attain able.Likewise Edwards (1988:249-250) has the ideal of a new humanity of intercultural and interconfessional human experience: 'In such interpersonhood domination falls away, conflicting worlds come together, and authentic fusion of horizons can take place, with all that that can mean for justice and peace' (Edwards 1988:250).
However, it is not the ideal that constitutes real progressive theological reason ing.It is the answers given to real faith questions of a community that turn theologi cal reflection into theological reasoning.Heyns & Jonker (1973:128-131) describe theology as the systematic scientific re flection of that which takes place in the pre-theological and pre-scientific stages of religious reflection.Van Huyssteen (1987:1) asks the question: 'W at presies gebeur in die proses van teorievorming waarin ons alledaagse geloofstaal skynbaar getransform eer kan word tot teologiese teorie wat inderdaad daarin sou kon slaag om sowel op ons insig as op ons ervaring te appelleer?'Real progress in theology cannot be attained by idealistic paradigms, but only by moulding pre-theological and prescientific everyday faith language into scientific theological theories.Faith ques tions are being put into a certain context.Answers will only be satisfactory and pro gressive when the context into which these faith questions were put is taken into ac count.
According to Van Huyssteen (1987:173f) the reality-involvement of theological claims is the first criterion for a valid systematic-theological rationality model.Smit (1988:107) agrees with Van Huyssteen but points out that, even though Van Huys steen refers to the social context of theology, he avoids analysing this reality-related context.He accuses Van Huyssteen of neglecting 'social and political issues as part of the reality on which theology ought to be directed' (Smit 1988:103).
The question may be asked whether we are not busy explaining away the resul data that pertain to human beings in general, so as to illuminate those data and thus provide explanation and in terp re tatio n of the data.In this function theological statem ents extend their significance from the community to general hum an expe rience'.According to him 'theology's claim to convey truth a n d /o r genuine know ledge is directly related to its success in accomplishing the wider explanatory func tion' (H efner 1988:12).
O ne can agree with H efner's point of view in that all contextual theology will be submitted to the test of time and, in the end, the criterion will be w hether the p ara digm had a wider explanatory function for human exp>erience in general.
Theologies that have stood the test of time, because they had a wider explanato ry function for hum an experience in general, are found in Scripture. D eist (1988: 335-346) showed that these theologies sometimes contradict each other.However, the different theologies have stood the test of time while each of them had, and still has, a message for general human experience.They were taken up in the canon be cause they succeeded in accomplishing a wider explanatory function.However, part of their success is also the fact that they originated in the real hum an experience of individuals or individual societies with their particular experiences.Prozesky (1988:265) says that we need a progressive, critical paradigm that is the product of scientific and humane -rather than ecclesiastical and political -prio rities.According to him this is not a 'rejection of realism, but a plea for a more sub tle and humane form of it' (Prozesky 1988:266).
The following question may be posed: Is it by any m eans possible to create a paradigm free o f any such priorities?The new herm eneutics has pointed out that the ideal of 'vorverstandlose' understanding is impossible.Part of any kind of un derstanding is the pre-understanding that we have.Even the paradigm which is 'freed', as it were, from ecclesiastical and political priorities has the 'm ore subtle and humane form' of political and ecclesiastical holistic priorities.The difference is that paradigms which acknowledge their own political and ecclesiastical priorities, are at least related to reality.The reality-orientated reflection will always be done from within real social and political situations.Religious convictions always find contextual expression (Deist 1990:126).Social, ecclesiastical and political priorities will be part of religious reflection and the resulting paradigms.Individualism, as a result of different social, ecclesias tical and political circumstances, will not and cannot be reasoned away.W hen one tries new m ethodologies there will always be different paradigms.
Scientific theological research will always be done from certain points of view.The

BALANCED TH EO LO G ICA L PARADIGMS
The present dualism betw een foundational holism and foundational individualism rem inds one of the two contending elem ents in the reasoning of the post-exilic Je wish community, when there was the elem ent of realism on the one hand, and the elem ent of vision on the other hand.According to Hanson (1979:29-30), Africa.I think that we also have to take cognisance af the fact that it is not only fears that are at stake, but also the determ ination of the A frikaner to protect his right to govern him.self.He did it previously in history, and he will do it again.His leaders gave him contextual faith answers in the past to do exactly this, and in the modern context he asks his theologians to give him similar answers to do the same.The neglect on the part of Afrikaner theologians to answer their own people's faith questions leads to all kinds of theological outgrowths, such as the so-called Israel vi sion.This vision, which propagates the supremacy and election of the Afrikaner, is the result of a legitimising theology w ithout leaving itself open to the critical pro phetic idealistic elem ent of which Hanson (1979) spoke.
Liberation theology opened people's eyes as to their right to liberate themselves from physical oppression.It is strange that this right is aknowledged for all people, but the Afrikaner is only expected to liberate himself from his ideas.The Afrikaner certainly also has a right to physical freedom.
In an attem pt to obtain a balanced contextual paradigm for the conservative Afrikaner believer, we must also keep in mind the need for success in accomplishing the wider explanatory function of which Hefner (1988:11-28) spoke.In this regard it is interesting that the freedom struggle of the Soviet nations has found approval all over the world.National sentiments are honoured all over the world.T here is not only a need for contextual faith answers to be given to the A frikaner society, but individual nations also need well-balanced non-foundationalistic contextual faith answers in response to the faith question: 'May we ask G od whether this particular nation is entitled to its own country, and has this nation the right to govern itself?' 834 HTS 47/3 (1991) ing foundationalism to its simplest form,M outon & Pauw (1988:177)  establish three claims; * The elem ents of icnowledge are divided into two classes, namely basic proposi tions and non-basic propositions; * The truth or acceptability of the non-basic propositions, however interpreted, is guaranteed by their being grounded in the basic propositions; * Basic propositions are non-inferential (im m ediate) and indubitable, and there fore, form the foundation of knowledge.M outon & Pauw (1988:180) indicated that both Bacon and Descartes infused their thoughts with a belief in the divine source of knowledge.Both aimed at arriving at knowledge which is guaranteed by divine authority.This kind of reasoning resound ed in the R eform ed tradition, where basic propositions in Scripture imply non-basic propositions of theology.A ccording to M outon & Pauw the weak point in this mode of reasoning lies in the grounding of one proposition in another.It means that the truth of one proposi tion (non-basic) is dependent on the truth of another or others (basic propositions).It is the truth of the one that makes the other true (M outon & Pauw 1988:181).The question is put: 'How does a basic proposition in Scripture imply a non-basic propo sition of theology?' (M outon & Pauw 1988:181).Thus, in the end it is a question of implication.The relationship between the elem ents of the two classes of proposi tions is a truth-functional one, namely of implication.Proposition A is im plied by the truth of another proposition, B. 'It involves making a non-deductive inference, i.e. it is supported by the antecedent but is not derived from it' (M outon & Pauw 1988:181-182).When the explanation of Mouton & Pauw is taken as a criterion of foundationa lism, we can measure holism against it.
we not on our way to a new form of foundatio nalism with its dogmatic absolutism?It does sound very close to the foundationa lism of which M outon & Pauw speak.The truth of the proposition that atomistic 828 HTS <7/3 (1991) H C G Robbcrtze approaches are abnorm al (A ) is im plied by the proposition th at the holistic a p proach is the normal uniform paradigm (B) (M outon & Pauw 1988:181): B implies A B is basic Thus A is true.
tant subjectivism.In trying to avoid this pitfallH efner (1988:11)  makes a distinction between 'Christian theological statem ents' which 'may be viewed in their function of articulating the experience of the community o f faith in which they originate' and theological statem ents that must be viewed 'in their function of conjoining the arti culation of the faith-community's experience with certain configurations of empirical 830 ISSN 0259 9422 = HTS <7/3(1991)  Theological paradigms and conservative Alrikaiien sociological context o f the researcher will influence his reasoning and the theologi cal questions that he must answer will always come out of a specific society.Although contextualised theology is perhaps more related to reality and can possibly stand the test of tim e in its accomplishing wider explanatory function, it must be said (negatively) that the problem s o f foundationalism and individualism are not solved.Most contextual theologies of our time are based on chosen indivi dual texts or text-complexes, out of the Old a n d /o r the New Testam ent.In South A frica the blacks, with liberation theology, claim th at G od sides with the poor in their struggle for freedom against the oppressive whites.They put all the emphasis on the events of the history of Israel during the Exodus.On the other hand we have the right-wing Afrikaners with the vision that they are the chosen Israel.These peo ple em phasise the concept of election in the O ld Testam ent.The Bible is used foundationalist m anner by both these views.Bible texts are u.sed in an eclectic man ner, and fundamental points of view are formed that suit the practitioners of the dif ferent points of view.W hat is true of the liberation-and white-contextualised theo logies is also true of the current debate between the 'unity-seekers' and the 'separate churchgoers' in the ranks of the Afrikaner believers.In argum ents both parties use biblical texts as their fundamental points of departure.The foundationalist holistic and foundationalist individualist points of view can be distinguished in both argu ments.
[t]hese two elements...constitute the heart of all ethical religions.Tlie visionary elem ent is the vision of a divine order transcending all mun dane institutions and structures, a vision which constantly calls those institutions and structures under judgment, stubbornly refusing at the same time to become identified with them.The elem ent of realism is concerned with the day-to-day m aintenance of those same mundane institutions and structures, and with preserving continuity so as to as sure a context for the continued life of the community.When separat ed from the realism the vision leads to a retreat into the world of ecs tasy and dream s and to an abdication of the social responsibility of translating the vision o f the divine order into the realm of everyday earthly concerns.When separated from the vision the realism becom-832 HTS <7/3 (1991) H C G R obberae es a sterile preserver of the status quo which absolutizes and eternaliz es the existing order together with all of its inequities.He continues: 'The history of Yahwism in the post-exilic period is the history of ten sion and struggle between those two elem ents which often led to their polarization' (H anson 1979:30).In the struggle for a new progressive theological paradigm we experience to a certain extent the sam e kind of tension betw een the visionary elem ent and the ele m ent of realism .F oundationaiist holistic reasoning represents the visionary e le ment, and foundationaiist individualist contextualised reasoning represents the ele ment of realism.H anson (1979:23-30) points out th at in Israel's religious history the prophets stubbornly integrated realism and vision into an highly creative force.It was espe cially D eutero-Isaiah who succeeded in bringing about the balance betw een these two elements.5.AN A T T E MP T A T C O N ST R U C TIN G A B A LA N C ED C O N SE R V A T IV E A FRIKA NER P O L IT IC aT H E O L O G IC A L PARADIGMIn trying to find a way out of the theological impasse in which we find ourselves we must try to integrate realism and vision.This also implies getting rid of intolerant foundationalism .How we are going to achieve it rem ains an open question.VanHuyssteen(1987), with his realisation that we use m etaphoric language in theologi cal reflection, opens the possibility of 'kritiese geloofsverantw oording'.We also have to acknowledge the fact that the conservative Afrikaner theological paradigms, based upon the Kuyperian cultural model, where white dom ination over blacks was propagated on a foundationaiist basis, never succeeded in finding significance for general hum an experience.H efner's idea(1988:11-12)  was that theological state ments should be viewed in their function of conjoining the articulation of the faithcommunity's experience with certain configurations of empirical data that pertain to human beings in general, so as to illuminate those data and thus provide explanation and interpretation of the data.In this context theological statem ents extend their significance from the community to general human experience, which is applicable in this sense.Contextual Kuyperian Afrikaner theology failed to convey truth an d / or genuine know ledge th at could successfully accom plish the w ider explanatory function.Let us start by asking what the faith questions being put by the conservative A frikaner believer are.The basic question is w hether he can have a country in which he can govern him.self.Surely there are many conservative A frikaners who believe in the answers that they get out of the bible.But all these 'faith answers' are ISSN 0259 9422 -UTS 47/3 (1991) Tbcotogical paradigms and cuoscrvative Afrikaners basically an answer to the faith question; 'Can we have a land of our own where we can govern ourselves?' Turning to the Bible for an answ er to the question o f w hether a nation (as a particular individual group) has the right to ask for its own country, we see that most of the promises that G od gave to Israel had to do with land and descendants.The New T estam ent does not give an answ er to this question, but we must rem em ber that the New T estam ent gave faith answers to another set of faith questions.The contextual faith question needs a contextual faith answer.In analysing, as far back as 1904, the character o f the Afrikaner who fought against British imperialism, Andricssen (1903-1904:1) stated: '[D]e meest naar voren tredende eigenschap van den Boer is zijn zucht naar vrijheid.'We often hear of the fears of the whites in South