This book (originally a doctoral thesis defended at Utrecht University and supervised by Vincent Brümmer, Nico Smith and Marcel Sarot) is an excellent contribution to two, until now largely unrelated contexts of theological research, i.e. the discussion of the criteria determining theological reasoning in philosophical theology and the debate about the character of salvation in African Christian theology. This dual perspective of two sets of questions that are to be distinguished but should be seen in their intrinsic interrelationship constitutes the unique character of this book. In the conventional structure of research areas in theology, the question of criteria belongs to the domain of that branch of systematic or philosophical theology where questions about the criteria of doctrinal proposals and the arguments supporting them are analysed by analytic and hermeneutical methods. The understanding of salvation in African Christian theology, on the other hand, is seen as an exercise in contextual theology or missiology. Consequently, criteriological issues are usually based on material from the doctrinal history of Western Christianity or modern Western theology, while the soteriological debate in African Christian theology rarely addresses criteriological issues that go beyond hermenutical questions of contextuality. The juxtaposition of these two perspectives of theological reflection, the criteriological and the soteriological in a specific cultural, social and religious context is the distinctive mark of Gerrit Brand’s contribution to this discussion: Why should criteriological issues not be discussed with regard to African views of salvations, and why should the debate on the nature of salvation in African Christian theology deal with the issues of the criteria of doctrinal proposals only in an implicit fashion?

This dual perspective is rooted both in the personal background of the author of the book and in his engagement in theological research both in Africa and in the Netherlands. Is there a way of combining the riches of both contexts of life and research in an integrated vision while eschewing the impoverishment which a one-sided reliance on only one context would produce? Gerrit Brand succeeds very well in offering such an integrated vision. He first discusses the criteria of theological proposals as they have been analysed in recent inquiries in philosophical theology and systematic theology. However, this discussion based on extensive acquaintance with the literature and guided by an acute perception of the problems addressed in the literature, is already ‘bracketed’ by the question: How can African Christians speak of Salvation? The ‘legitimacy’ of African Christian discourse on salvation has to be decided by confronting a threefold challenge: reflection on the adequacy of traditional Western Christian accounts of salvation, reflection on the salvific value of insights from African religious traditions and reflection on the attempt to do justice to the realities of the African situation. The question of the criteria is thereby not addressed as an abstract issue of systematic theological methodology. Rather, it is approached as a concrete question that shows how these criteria are already (in most cases implicitly) employed (descriptive question) and how their employment can be improved by addressing the criteria question explicitly (normative question).

The African conceptions of salvation, broadly defined as ‘the dynamics by which humans reach their good’, are analysed with regard to the guiding issues of the understanding of the nature of salvation, the view of the agents of salvation and the conception of the means of salvation. These chapters, which form the material core of the book, document an extensive knowledge of the discussions of English-speaking African Christian theology. The author carefully sets out his arguments by comparing and contrasting important views in African Christian theology and by carefully exploring the central questions in the debate. In some cases he can show that, e.g. on the personal agency that constitutes evil, are much closer to Biblical views than modern Western views emphasising impersonal causal effects. Thus traditional African views and Biblical views agree on an important aspect of the view of reality. This view retains its significance over against a mechanistic world-view which ultimately displaces not only personal evil agency but also divine agency. Conversely, Brand shows by contrast that the moral interpretation of sin as (my) guilt undercuts elements of the biblical traditions which are echoed in African views of personal evil. In other cases he can show that understanding Christ’s salvific role within an African view of the role of ancestors has both a critical and constructive function for developing a Christ-centred view of salvation. Finally, he shows that the question of sacrifice, which is regarded as morally unacceptable by all traditions influenced by the Enlightenment, nevertheless remains absolutely central to African religious practice. For an African theology the significance of the sacrifice of Christ must be understood in the framework of a ‘sacrificial universe of meaning’. These chapters belong in my view to the best accounts of African Christian theology. While many other accounts remain purely descriptive, Gerrit Brand’s treatment shows that asking analytical questions will produce what Brian Gerrish has called ‘thick descriptions’ which point directly to the theologically pertinent issues. I would in quite a number of cases come to different conclusions, but they would also be based on the perceptive analysis that Gerrit Brand offers.

In the concluding chapter Gerrit Brand draws the two strands of the discussion together. From the criteria that, according to his analysis, are already operative in African Christian theology he develops normative guidelines which are grouped under three headings: cultural criteria, contextual criteria and Christian criteria. These clusters of criteria correspond to the three challenges he set out at the beginning of the discussion. These criteria are clearly outlined, concisely expressed and provide a very helpful grid for the descriptive reconstruction and normative assessment of African Christian theologies. In passing, I would like to remark that the distinction and the order of the criteria is, from my perspective, not without problems. The distinction between ‘cultural’ and ‘contextual criteria’, the latter ‘liberationist’ and ‘situational’, is in danger of duplicating on a criteriological level the debate between contextual theologies and liberation theologies. I would also prefer to put the ‘Christian criteria’ first, because the relationship to the cultural context and the social and political situation must in my view be assessed from the perspective of a Christian view of reality, as it is rooted in revelation, witnessed in the plurality of the scriptural sources, expressed in the Christian traditions and embodied in the life of Christian communities. From this perspective some of the other criteria would have to be re-assessed. I do not think that one can automatically assume that the task of African Christian theology is to ‘reconcile Christianity with the African worldview’. If the Christian faith implies a coherent view of reality then any given ‘worldview’, be it African or Western, must be assessed by the criteria implied in this view of reality. To give but one example: While the Nicene Creed addressed the problems of the Hellenistic church and was rooted in the Hellenistic church it did not reconcile Christianity with the Hellenistic world-view as it was represented by the different schools of middle and neo-Platonism. Quite the contrary, in drawing a sharp ontological distinction between the created being of the world and the uncreated being of God, it offered a decisive criticism of all ontologies based on the notion of a chain of being mediating the uncreated One and the created many, thus depopulating a complete universe of half-gods and supermen by the claim that Christ and only Christ is homoousios to the essence of God and homoousios to us created beings. While this is a good example of contextual theology, engaging with the cultural situation, it is certainly not a ‘reconciliation’ of Christianity with the Hellenistic world-view, but rather a consistent demythologisation of that world-view. It is neither a ‘hellenisation’ of the gospel nor a theological ‘de-hellenisation’, but the theological critique of Hellenistic world-view by applying the tools for expressing such a world-view from the perspective of Christian faith. Would it not be possible to apply the distinction between ‘created’ and ‘uncreated’ as a distinctive corollary of a Christian view of reality to traditional African notions of the spirit-world? Again, this would not deny the significance of the spirit-world – also from a Christian perspective – but locate it firmly in the realm of created being. Could this still be called ‘reconciliation’ or would one have to use a more differentiated description of such a process of interpretation that comprises both elements of critical and constructive adaptation and contradiction?

The second part of the fifth chapter of the book succeeds in demonstrating the main objective of the book: the criteria of Western philosophical theology are already operative in African Christian theology, but in such a way that their abstract universality is challenged because their presupposition of an abstract universal character of ‘reason’, ‘experience’ or, for that matter, ‘revelation’ is shown to be misguided. In this conclusion the argument of this book comes very close to ‘post-modern’ criticisms of the abstract de-historicised and culturally disembodied character of ‘modern’ reason. Needless to say, I would have preferred to develop these criteria from the third cluster of criteria (‘criteria relating to revelation’), because it is the specific content of the Christian revelation and the specific way in which it is mediated which (in my view) provides the ground for the understanding of such criteria as coherence, intelligibility or relevance and adequacy.

I would like to add that apart from the major contribution which this book makes to research, it is beautifully constructed, well written and concisely presented. Clarity of conceptual reconstruction, economy of expression and a well-balanced structure of presentation characterise it throughout.

I have included a few indications of my criticism of the conclusions which Gerrit Brand draws in order to underline the point that in spite of my occasional disagreement I regard this doctoral thesis as a major scholarly achievement. The author is to be applauded for such a fine piece of work.