Prof Tinyiko Sam Maluleke
Executive Director, Research
President of the SACC

10 APRIL 2008, Cape Town

1. Towards Theologies

My very strict and thorough friend and mentor, Professor Mokgethi Motlhabi would not be amused with the title of my talk. He is especially allergic to any theological essay which starts with the word ‘towards'. Motlhabi's basic view is that the time for ‘towards theologies' and ‘introductions-to theologies' is past. Now is the time to get on with it, he insists. Having been part of that first generation of Black and African theologians who not only witnessed but also participated in the first tentative and foundational attempts to build local theologies (as Robert Schreiter has Christened them) Motlhabi can be pardoned for being a little fed up with ‘towards theologies'. He was afterall a youngster when the likes of Bantu Biko was and Sabelo Ntwasa were urging theology students to do something called Black Theology. He read, at that time John Mbiti's frustrated apologetics for a theologia Africana - a cause also taken up, even more polemically, by Gabriel Setiloane. As a young participant in the first seminars and workshops on Black Theology, organized by the University Christian Movement of Basil Moore, Motlhabi listened to far too many ‘towards theology papers'.

Motlhabi's suspicion is that there is a sense in which our extended flirtations with ‘towards theologies' are a refuge within which we shirk our responsibility to get on with the job and submit something concrete on the table. ‘Towards theologies' are also a shock-absorber devise that anticipates and absorbs in advance whatever criticism we may encounter in response to our tentative theologies. The problem becomes acute when every other theologian and every other theological school presents ‘toward versions of theologies' each hoping that others will produce real deal theologies. Before we know it, we all become ‘towards theologians' and ‘towards theological communities' - producing theologies which are overly tentative, apologetic to the point of incoherence -   theologies which become inconsequential and not likely to be taken seriously.

Part of the problem with towards theologies is that behind most towards theologies there is an element of dishonesty. Such dishonesty obtains because most of the theologies we are supposed to be constructing, or their opposites, actually exist already, in reality. Both the raw material and the glue we need for the construction of such theologies is often already there. Our challenge is to unmask the faces and guises in which such theologies present themselves. The suggestion here is that African Theology existed a long time before the first article on African Theology was written; Black Theology existed a long time before it was called by name and Feminist Theology likewise. That the first article on African Theology and the first book on Feminist Theology took so long   before appearing is but a comment on our theological/intellectual astuteness/or lack thereof. These theologies did not start to exist the day we took notice of them, anymore than the Victoria Falls began to exist the day David Livingstone ‘discovered them'.

Our first challenge in the exploration of a theology of restitution is to recognize the theologies of restitution and the theologies of anti-restitution which though often unspoken, are already in existence.   This is the first and basic theological task, the first point of insertion in the hermeneutical cycle as we ponder over a theology of restitution.

2. Setting the Scene and Mapping the Terrain

I have probably started my talk by jumping the gun. One is supposed to start such a talk as this one with the usual pleasantries and definitions. Let me turn to these now.

I cannot begin to express my excitement and joy at the fact that an organization focusing on restitution exists in South Africa. The new and young South Africa is sometimes puzzling in its avoidance of discourse on some of the very issues which ought to be central to the unfolding story of its own birth. Such avoided issues include restitution, racism and violence. The word restitution is itself not preferred much in our land.

Our preferred concept by far is reconciliation - usually seen both as a means and as an end. It is a word that is more pleasing to our sensibilities. A slightly more controversial related term is transformation - but it can be made as elastic as reconciliation. Not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with the wonderful (and Christian) notion of reconciliation. The Christian faith revolves around the realization that God so loved the world that God has taken concrete and costly steps towards the world with a view to reconciling all creation to God's self. Yet, this term can be and has been grossly misunderstood, misappropriated and softened. Until now the notion of reconciliation appears to have been thoroughly abducted into the discourse of the dominant classes in South Africa. From this perspective reconciliation appears to be something which the powerless must do for the powerful; a necessity for the wronged and an optional extra for beneficiaries and perpetrators; some ritual to be performed by the poor; a rite for Blacks and a right for whites; something women should consider more seriously than women.

Restitution on the other hand appears more disagreeable, rougher, more divisive and less amenable to taming and down-toning.   We are frightened of this term even though it should sound less ominous than the term repossession . Perhaps there is a general suspicion than the two terms are interchangeable - in real life that is. So we avoid the former and detest the latter intensely. The related but not synonymous term ‘reparation' appeared briefly on our national radar, during the Truth and Reconciliation process. But it too was never quite embedded into national memory, even less so in the national psyche. The weakest aspect of the work of the South African TRC both during, at the end and after was the reparations The very act of naming yourselves the Foundation for Restitution in the prevailing atmosphere briefly described above is therefore almost subversive if not altogether revolutionary.

I am especially elated that the full name of your organization is the Foundation for Church-led Restitution. It is inspiring to find an organization that still believes - or should I say insists - that the church has particular leadership qualities and responsibilities - even in post-Apartheid South Africa. Furthermore, by placing the church at the centre of restitution you are implicitly insisting on a particular approach to the question of restitution - an understanding that is less legalistic. I believe that there is a complex discourse on restitution purely as legal remedy to past wrongs. Here the distinction between restitution and compensation takes particular importance. For example, if a court of law instructs a defendant to provide restitution to a defendant the general suggestion is that the defendant must give up his/her gains (probably acquired unethically, unfairly, illegally or all of the above) wholly and fully to the claimant. If one were to use the famous a African Theology fable that says ‘when the white man came to Africa, the African had land and the white man had the Bible. The white man said to the African, ‘close your eyes and let us pray'. At the end of the prayer, the white man had the land and the African had the Bible'. Were we to agree that this is an instance of wrongful or illegal acquisition of land and probably also an unethical use of prayer; and should the African in question pursue the matter in a court of law; then the white man of the fable would be ordered to provide restitution.

In short he would be required to restore/return the land of the African. In this regard, compensation is a milder, second-level remedy - here the defendant would be required to compensate the African for the unfair loss of land. Restitution is therefore a most radical attempt to return a wrongfully altered state of affairs to its original condition. There are many possible complications. First there could be dispute as to whether the acquisition was really, decidedly and deliberately wrongful. Second there could be problems with the altered nature of the object of restoration. The land may have been originally acquired rich and green but returned either nude and arid or worse still returned as a concrete jungle. Another complication come when the original claimant and/or defendant is no longer alive, but only their representatives. Not only can the bona fides of the claimants and/or defendants be disputed but the matter may be further complicated when the injury or loss suffered is not reduce-able to a concrete and tangible thing. How do we restore such intangibles as integrity, relationships, dignity, reputation and even livelihood? The situation can be equally vexatious in instances where either the existence or type (or both) of original or authentic ‘ proof' of ownership is contested.   These complications are partly intended to illustrate some of the difficulties with purely legal and mainly European notions of ownership, loss and injury.

The ambitious threat I am making behind everything I am saying here of course is that a theological understanding of restitution may help mitigate these problems. It is very ambitious of me. Restitution is no less complicated and no less disagreeable when viewed theologically. No discipline is more aware of the gap between the ideal and the actual and no discipline is more aware of the virtual impossibility of the restorative measures of mere mortals. No discipline fathoms these difficulties better than theology. If anything, theology should be even more skeptical of some of the platitudes not only about reconciliation and restitution but also about human development and nation-building ambitions found in our constitution. No that these ideals are invalid or undesirable, but that they are ideals. Ideals for which we should do everything in our power to foster, claim and pursue for ourselves and for erveryone; but never forgetting that they are but mere ideals whose pursuit can be perverted and the access to which can be most unequal.

3. Towards a Theology of Restitution

3.1 Theological Rationale

We operate from the assumption that restitution is a desirable and necessary course of action - one which is both contextually and theologically justifiable. Restitution is for us at once a human ideal and a God sponsored objective. The basic intention and outcome of God's revelation is restoration and restitution. In reconciling the world to Godself, God also means to restore the world to its original and ultimate state. Restitution is therefore at once an aspect of the doctrine of atonement and a dimension of the doctrine of creation. Restitution is at heart of both Christology and Trinitarian Theology. Even the old legalistic-theological understandings of atonement as ransom, while strange to our modern ears, do highlight the centrality of restitution in the archetypal act through which we have been saved.

It is the language with which God bridges the divide between God and creation. It is God's ultimate response to the brokenness of the world an d the sinfulness of human beings between and among themselves; between themselves and other creatures and between themselves and God. In this sense the world cries out for restitution and restoration.

To return to the Bible and land fable; restitution is at once about humans; about human interaction; about human relations to the environment; about human use and abuse of and by prayer (religion) as well as human use and abuse of the Bible. Restitution is about justice, but an expanded notion of justice - restorative form of justice with a difference. Ultimate restitution entails the restoration of just relations between and among humanity, creation and God. When isolating areas in need of restoration and restitution we must be able to see the dependencies between various forms of injustices and justicies. Theologically speaking God is the author and grand architect and driver of restitution. Ultimately - only God can restore. Restitution is God's. But we are invited and pledge to participate in restitution both in penitence and in gratitude. In penitence because ultimately none of us are above and beyond restitution - which is why we need to be saved. In gratitude because in spite of the scale of damage we have done to ourselves to others and to other creatures, God still invites and accepts us.

Restitution is therefore not merely a social gospel fad. It is apt for South Africa and South Africans but it is ultimately about the human condition, the world and relations with God. Theologically speaking, restitution, like reconciliation which is facilitative of restitution, is as costly as it is necessary.   While corporate social investment may facilitate restitution, it should not be confused with it. Similarly while charity - personal and communal charity - may ferment and inspire restitutive actions, restitution should nevertheless not be confused with charitable acts. Corporate social investment, like charity may stem from philanthropy emanating from excessive profit and the desire for even more profit, it may be a corporate marketing ploy; it may even be a strategy to achieve maximum tax savings. Charity while commendable thrives on and needs the very conditions it seeks to address. Not surprisingly, charity is seldom intended to address root causes, seeking rather to address urgent, illustrative, obvious and excessive symptoms.   Charity tends to be merely and only pragmatic. Restitution is different. Restitution starts with an admission of personal and communal guilt. It starts from an awareness that whatever it is we can do in pursuit of restoration, we must do and do NOW. However, even as we do what we can and have to do, we know also that what we do alone will not be enough to effect restoration. We also realize that restoration work spans beyond our sphere of influence and even beyond our life time. This realization does not send us into a the dark cave of apathy; rather it spurs us on because we realize that we have so much restitution to do with little time and scant resources. Charity and CSI are often about the giver and the investor, intending them to feel good about themselves and intending to make others feel good about the investors and the givers. But restitution focuses our attention on the injured, whether the injured be the women in our country, the blacks among us, the aliens, the forests of our country, the fish in our oceans or the ozone layer. In short, restitutive acts stem from a realization that we owe God so much there is not enough time and wherewithal to pay it back. It stems from the realization that individually and communally, across the generations we have wrought so much havoc and pain and destruction in the lives of other human beings and in the environment we can only do a very little in our attempt to make up for it. It als stems from the realization that while we may not have caused each and every individual injury we may have occasioned it, permitted it, not acted against it or benefited fro its ill-gotten gains. But restitution is not inspired by narrow, short-term or factional guilt. Restitution is a the grateful joyful response of a penitent sinner who has been saved by the bell, clutched from the jaws of death, as it were.

  3.2 Unmasking existent Restitution Theologies as well as Anti-Restitutive Theologies

As highlighted earlier above, one of the most elementary steps in the construction of a theology of restitution is the recognition of the array of restitution, non-restitution and anti-restitution theologies that fill the theological landscape - a landscape that spans the pulpit, parliament and the treasury. There is for example the political restitution theology called ‘the war against poverty' - a programme adopted by our own government and our own ruling party. There is a latent restitution theology behind the many projects of the war against poverty. Our duty is to unmask this theology and lay it bare. We live at a time where every one speaks the language of either poverty alleviation or poverty eradication. Even the G8 informs us - at least in words - that the eradication of poverty is important to them. But achieving economic growth is probably more important to them. There is the restitutive theology behind the fiscal policy which is galvanized by inflation targeting, gear and ASGIsa - with growth being the operative word. There are theological assumptions latent in these programmes and projects. The restitutional theologies of the markets - the sensitive markets which react and act in particular ways to particular developments.

They need to be unmasked. Similarly, there are the latent restitution theologies of political electioneering which span the five years during which a particular politician is in office. In terms of these we see hastily tarred roads, increased revolutionary rhetoric as we move closer to election time. But the church remains mainly beholden to restitution theologies of charity and miracle. Alas even charity has become harder and rarer. We have seen an increment of miracle theologies all designed to restore people's health and people's relations with God.

4. Restitution Theology: An Illustrative Case Study

At the human level the focus of restitution should always be on those members of society who are left out - on and off the margins of societal structures and processes - the un-people: ubanked, unemployed, unmedical aided people, unskilled, uneducated, unreached; the homeless, the non-citizens, the hordes of illegal immigrants, refugees and asylum-seeking people who descend on our cities and villages by boat, car, on foot, by hook or by crook. These are the persons on whom our restitutive focus should be.

These people stand like ugly warts and blots in the enchanting and smooth narrative landscapes of glorious stories of progress, reconciliation and development. These are the squatter camp dwellers who come and spoil the beauty of the Cape Town landscape and its serene suburbia by installing their dirty, toilet-less, electricity-less and road-less ugly dwellings. These are the people who remain disenchanted and dissatisfied despite living in the ‘greatest economic boom' South Africa has experienced since the Second World War. They are the thankless people who, primarily because of ‘their own fault', have failed to grasp the opportunities of our times. These are the people we would rather not see. Such people should hide themselves - even they should see the shame that they are. Or else we will find ways and means to keep them hidden. They spoil both our landscapes and scuttle our progressive statistics.

But restitution is not merely what goes on among and between human beings.

Humans need to be restored to the environments and vice versa. We must remember that in the Christian story God sends Jesus into the world because God loves the WORLD. Jesus is send to the WORLD not merely to human beings - perhaps that is why he curses the barren fig tree! Perhaps that is why he sends for a donkey before his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. If God so loved the world that God sent Jesus. Then we, selfish human beings that we are, may have to contend with the possibility that Jesus did not just die for me my clan, my race and gender. Jesus died for the mountains and for the ozone layer too. For God so loved the world .. That then is the span and range of the restitution of which we speak.

Most importantly, there is a connection between environmental disregard and human disregard. Land is often personified as a woman and men treat land as badly as they treat women.

5. How Shall we Restore Lazarus?

To conclude, allow me a brief reflection on the brief parable of Lazarus and the rich man, in Luke 16.

Luke 16:19-21 There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar   named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

As far as I could gather, the new Testament has two famous Lazaruses. Both are infamous characters. One is character in real life and the other is a fictitious character. Both acquire their fame in and through death. The one is rescued from death by the intervention of Jesus. The other dies of hunger and sores and goes to heaven. Both Lazaruses are miserable characters. My focus is on the Lazarus who was not rescued from death - the one who was allowed to die.

In the Rich Man and Lazarus parable; Lazarus interrupts, spoils and aggravates what could otherwise have been a flowing and innocent narrative about a Rich Man - probably a hard-working and strategic rich man. Lazarus comes and installs his smelly, sore-smitten and flea-ridden body in the front gate (nogal) of the Rich Man's homestead. In this way, Lazarus ‘exposes' himself to all who come in and go out of the rich man's homestead. But in positioning himself thus, Lazarus also exposes the rich man. By his action he casts doubts on the justness of the larger society in which he and the rich man live. Surely, there were richer and more evil men in that town? Why pick on this particular poor Rich Man? Surely there were colonies and squatter camps in which he could have gone to live. (He was lucky that there seems to have been no gated security villages at that time.) Surely, there were also men poorer than Lazarus who either wore their poverty with dignity or who simply worked harder to improve their lot in life?   Why could he not wear his poverty with dignity and why did he not work harder to improve his lot?

5.1   The Contrasts

The contrast between Lazarus and the nameless rich man is too stark not to arouse our curiosity. In two relatively short sentences we are introduced to two contemporaries who nevertheless could not be more different. The one is so rich he does not need to have a name - his riches define and announce him wherever he goes. The other is so poor all he has is a name and a body full of sores. The one is so rich he is surrounded by servants, friends and family; the other is so poor only dogs see some use in him. The one is so rich he lives in luxury everyday ; the other is so poor he lives on his dreams and hopes and fantasies spurred by the smell of good food coming out of the windows of the rich man's house. The profession of the one is to be rich while the profession of the other is to be a beggar. Yet these two persons are contemporaries, living in the same world, citizens of the same country, residents of the same city - they live a stone throw from one another. Or should we say the one lives and the other survives? For all we know, they went to the same primary school. But the one lives in a house and the other is a street beggar.

The contrast between them is too stark to be explained merely as accidental or merely in terms of personality and individual traits. What are the economic, cultural and developmental choices that manufacture such contrasts? Where are they located? Above all; now that we have Lazarus, how can we rescue him? Can Lazarus be rescued? Is Lazarus worth rescuing? These are restitutionary questions. Can Lazarus be rescued apart from the dogs that lick his wounds?

5. How to Restore Lazarus: Six Proposals and Considerations

•  Lazarus must be seen: In order to restore Lazarus we must see Lazarus. Lazarus is difficult to see. We spend lots of resources trying to hide away from Lazaruses or to hide our Lazaruses away - to explain them away. We do not see the Lazaruses. Part of the answer is research. But the rest of it is psychological. So we manufacture and manipulate our statistics, but still our Lazaruses have no human face. There is a stubborn refusal to acknowledge and to see the Lazaruses of our times. As Jesus says, ‘there is none as blind as those who will not see'.

•  Lazarus is an Emergency: In order to restore Lazarus, we must not bank on the patience and the discipline of Lazarus. That he sits there, smells the good food, and still just sits there is the real miracle in this story. Such Lazaruses have become fewer and far between. Our plans for rescuing Lazarus must assume that Lazarus will lose patience - the only thing he has to lose! Our plans must be decisive and urgent.  

•  Recognise the link between the poverty of Lazarus and the Wealth of the Rich man: While daily soup packet and left-over bread from the table of the rich man will keep Lazarus going, Lazarus will need more than soup packets and left-overs to rescue. Lazarus will only have been restored once the plane-fields have been levelled enough for him to fend for himself. It is therefore important that we have a good grasp of all the things, that keep Lazarus at the gates of the rich man's homestead begging and sniffing for food. We must unmask and seek to break the linkages between Lazarus's abject poverty and the rich man's filthy wealth.

•  Lazarus must be Consulted: For Lazarus to be restored Lazarus must be engaged and Lazarus must be involved. Lazarus has a history, a context, a story and a culture. These must be taken into account if Lazarus is ever to be rescued.

•  Recognizing Lazarus's Initiative and Building on it: By positioning himself strategically at the gate of the rich man's house, in that wealthy suburb in which the rich man lives, Lazarus has already shown exceptional initiative. Similarly, the ‘Lazarus' of John 5, manages to get himself to the banks of the pool of Bethesda, one of the only places he was sure to get help.   Lazarus will bring himself to the brink of salvation, but like the rest of humanity, Lazarus cannot save himself - he needs help in order to compete when the waters are stirred. But given the ruthless competition that ensures every-time opportunities for advancement occur, Lazarus needs help. Perhaps we need to change the ground rules and ethics of the competition? Perhaps we need ways and means to fast track Lazarus?

•  Blame is not the Only way to Speak of Lazarus:

•  Before he dies: Last but not least, Lazarus must be restored BEFORE he dies not AFTER he has died. Lazarus must be restored in this life and not in or after death. Lazarus must be helped so that he does not die needlessly and prematurely. This I say because, depending on one's understanding of global economics, the death of Lazarus is not necessarily bad for the economy and the GDP.   I come from a country where premature and widespread death is itself becoming a lucrative industry.