Community development

At the heart of community development is our relationship with the world we live in. To be human is essentially to exist in concrete social relationships or a social paradigm: to be concretely ‘the person’ belonging to ‘these people’ while at the same time open to and responsible for the good of all people. The social connectedness, however, spills over into the physical environment – thus humans are embedded in a social and physical environment – literally to be interconnected in a ‘web of life’ (cf. Osmer, 2008:16–17).

The person-environment construct encompasses the inter-relatedness of human beings with one another and with their environment and emphasises our dependence on biodiversity for our survival and quality of life. These relationships of exchanges and continuous transactions resembles a process of ‘fitting’ together, as people express their needs and requirements (needs-perspective), and, in turn contribute to the environment (strengths perspective) (Gitterman & Germain, 2008:52). Similarly, the environment offers both resources as well as challenges for the individual to handle (ecological perspective). The balance or ‘fit’⁵⁸ between people and the environment and the give-and-take processes generated by this mutuality becomes an important focus, determining to a large degree the well-being of the community. The inter-relatedness and process of exchange is reflected in Jim Ife’s view of community development:

Community development is not about defining and establishing something called the community – it is an ongoing and complex process of dialogue, exchange, consciousness raising, education and action aimed at helping the people concerned to determine and develop their own version of community (Ife, 1998:94).

The phrase “…their own version of community” immediately raises the question of meaning – which clearly would differ from person to person and community to community, and which can only be defined and restored to the ‘prescription’ of those involved (Coetzee, 1986b:106). It follows that there is no single version or method or recipe for development – it will differ from group to group and community to

58 Coulton (1981:26) describes the ‘fit’ as follows “…person-environment fit refers to the degree of congruence or correspondence between an individual’s needs, capabilities, and aspirations and the resources, demands, and opportunities characteristic of the environment”.

community. It is a complex process, full of dilemmas and problems which require unique and creative solutions. In the context of this study,

Community development is the integrated people-centred, participative, planned evolution of all aspects of community well-being, including the economic, social, environmental, cultural, political and spiritual spheres (cf. Frank & Smith, 1999:2; Ife, 1998:94, 132).

The notion of integrated development links with the previously discussed interconnectedness: the person-environment fit is the interface where development takes place, thus involving or integrating the total ‘web of life’.

The second notion, that of ‘people centred’ development⁵⁹ is based on the principle that all people have the right to live in a life-world which is meaningful to them – and towards which they can actively contribute (Coetzee, 1986a:5). People-centredness brings with it the attentiveness to human needs, strengths, aspirations, creativity, wisdom, participation, relationships, and a strong belief that people should grow to realise their full potential (cf. Korten, 1984:300; Davids, 2005a:20). To be able to grow, people need a critical awareness or consciousness of their own “potential to initiate and manage positive change for the benefit of oneself and others” (Davids, 2005a:20). Therefore the purpose of community development is to facilitate or guide people towards growth, equity, and well-being, by acknowledging and encompassing the richness and complexity of human life and of the experience of community (cf. Ife, 1998:131; Korten, 1984:299; Graham, 2009:10–11). Indicators of well-being (and thus potential focus areas of community development) are family relationships, income, and work, networks of community and friends, health, personal freedom and personal values and philosophy of life (Graham, 2009:10).

The third notion – participation – resonates with Ife’s view that people should determine their own version of community and thus well-being. A main objective of community development is to enhance the ability of communities to respond effectively to their needs within the social, economical, cultural, personal/spiritual and political spheres (Ife, 1998:132). In other words, community members should be equipped to become full partners in determining their own future. The partnership aspect of development offers the opportunity for the ‘outsiders’ (researcher, facilitator or community practitioners) and ‘insiders’ (indigenous community members) to have equal

59 Cf. Chapter 5, section 5.2.2: Detailed discussion of development focussed on people.

control and to recognise the value of each other's contribution to accomplish what neither can do alone (cf. Cassano & Dunlop, 2005:5–6).⁶⁰

The fourth notion, planned evolution, implies a process or strategy which unfolds to bring about a more desirable state or a better person-environment fit. Since social relationships are central to community and the well-being of individuals, one of the key objectives is to increase social contact and mutual support among community members, thus improving community cohesion and building a sense of community belonging. It also entails the incorporation of diversity as a component of community building, working towards an increased sense of compassion (being tolerant and accepting of differences) (Stehlik & Chenoweth, 2005:2).

A final objective ^– arguably the most important in the scope of this study ^– is the development of a consciousness or sense of the sacred and a respect for spiritual values as an essential part of people’s (and the community’s) lives (Stehlik &

Chenoweth, 2005:2; Ife, 1998:172–173). Community well-being is only possible if communities have a consciousness of their interrelatedness – each creature being “… in symbiotic relationship with every other and in such a way that any act reverberates out and affects the whole” (Fretheim,2005:19).⁶¹ In the African context this interrelatedness is captured in the following saying: Matlo go sha mabapi, translating into: “A burning hut affects those in close proximity”. Thus, what affects me, affects my neighbour (Qalinge, 2003:3).

Acknowledging the inter-connectedness of systems, Ife (1998:132–133) argues for a holistic approach utilising an integrated ‘model’ for community development. He identifies six different spheres or dimensions of community development, namely the social, political, economical, environmental, cultural, and the personal/spiritual spheres.

The critical point is that all of these dimensions of community are vitally important and fundamental to a truly healthy and functioning community (Ife, 1998:133–134). Even though the dimensions are not always distinct, they are in interaction with each other in complex ways, thus emphasising the symbiotic interrelatedness of all parts – crucial to integrated or balanced development (Ife, 1998:173–174). The focal and

60 The notion of equal partnership between insiders and outsiders is comparable to the roles in the TAR-process, i.e. the researcher, the practitioners and the community participants (cf. section 1.1, footnote 10).

61 Professor Terrence E Fretheim, Old Testament scholar, is currently connected to the Lutheran Seminary faculty of Old Testament. His work God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (2005) helped shape the researcher’s understanding of God’s relationship of with people in community, and community transformation (cf. also Chapter 5, section 5.2.2; 5.3 ).

dimensional approach has been incorporated in the praxis framework with special reference to the centrality of (Christian) spirituality, as discussed in Chapter 6.

1.8.3 Practical theology

The field of practical theology was first developed by Schleiermacher (1768–1834), followed by Karl Immanuel Nitzsch (1787^–1868) who defined it as the “theory of the church’s practice of Christianity” (Anderson, 2001:24). During the previous century is was Karl Barth’s classic work A Theology of Pastoral Care and the work of Don Browning that greatly influenced current conception of practical theology (Anderson, 2001:25). Since the early sixties a process of rethinking the approach to practical theology has taken place by discarding “…the old deductive approach, thinking from the Bible and dogmatic theology towards the praxis of the church as an application of the deductive truths” (Pieterse, 2009:7). There is a growing consensus amongst theologians to move towards an inductive approach ^– where “…experience in the contextual situation and the praxis of the church and society” now dictate how Scripture and theological theories are approached (Pieterse, 2009:8). It is in this space of interaction between the concrete experiences and the theological interpreted message of the Scripture that the interpretation (hermeneutics) towards the development of theological-action theories for praxis takes place.⁶²

For the purpose of this study the following summation of practical theology by Anderson (2001:22, 23) is relevant:

Practical theology is a dynamic process of reflective, critical inquiry into the praxis of the church in the world and God’s purposes for humanity, carried out in the light of Christian Scripture and tradition, and in critical dialogue with the other sources of knowledge. It seeks to guide the church in its ministering in its contemporised context – thus it is something lived and experienced by a particular community.

62 Frans Wijsen (2005:108–123) refers to the longstanding debate within the Ecumenical Association of the Third World Theologians (EATWOT) on “the divide between ‘academic’ theology and

‘applied’ theology, and between practitioners of the two forms of theology, academics and activists”

(:108), stating that, in his opinion this ‘false’ dilemma is solved, at least in part, by the pastoral circle or spiral. According to him, the practical-theological spiral, “…is not just a pastoral method aimed at problem solving but also a strategy for developing theories in the scientific sense of the word – a grounded theory approach to theology” (:109). With reference to African theologians, Wijsen says,

“[they] may become less hesitant to accept scientific methods if they are shown that academic theology can be very practical and relevant to transformation of church and society” (:110). Many third word theologians find the distinction of popular, pastoral (practical) and professional (academical) theologies artificial or even unethical, since in their minds scientific research should serve the needs of the people (and not the need to know more of the academics).

Since practical theology is currently seen as contextual, implicating that there are many different contexts for ministering actions – it follows that reflecting on and developing theory is an ongoing element of practical theology (cf. Pieterse, 1981:155). The contextualization of theology and the development of new theory are of import in the multi-religious African context (Oduyoye, 1993:109). Rather than reflecting from a so-called universal or classical Christian theological stance, theological reflection should acknowledge the temporal situation to address the human condition and reflect upon what God is doing about the situation to alleviate it (Oduyoye, 1993:113^–114).

Practical theology should thus “…reflect upon what God is doing in Africa, and how they recognize the gospel at work” (Oduyoye, 1993:114), recognizing that this active or dynamic theological process is an ongoing process, since God continues to reveal his nature to people even after Jesus’ death on the cross. Through His resurrection and the Pentecost, the true empowerment of the Holy Spirit became clear and is continuing to empower the ministry. Consequently, each generation is shaped by their specific historical experiences, going through a process of reflection upon and adaptation of inherited truths and creating or disclosing new truths (Oduyoye, 1993:118).

Practical theology addresses what is (reality) and what might be (ideal) by reflecting upon what is normative in Jesus Christ,⁶³ as the inspired source of the written Word and the objective reality of Christ as the praxis of the Holy Spirit in the context of ministry (cf. Cameron, et al., 2010:20; Anderson, 2001:38^–39; Sobrino, 2005:xiv^– xvii). It seeks to find these revelations within the context of life, asking what relevance it has for living in the now, and how it should shape their actions (“How then do we live?”).

Indeed, practical theology has as its central task “to propose anew the deep connectedness of the Christian theological tradition and human experience” (Cameron, et al., 2010:13). This is done by reflecting on Scripture and concrete experiences ^– finding oneself in the ‘interactive loop’ between ‘theory’ (interpreting God’s Word) and

‘practice’ (the human spirit giving substance to the ‘Word’ in real-life situations). It

63 Jon Sobrino (2005:i–xvii) emphasises the importance for practical theologians/researchers to

“…become affected by reality in order to analyze it properly”, thus reclaiming the centrality of justice and injustice, by focussing on how, according to the Scriptures, Jesus of Nazareth deals with these issues. Jesus shows indignation, denouncing oppression and hypocrisy; takes sides against injustice;

and expresses His love and mercy freely to the extent that He was “…crucified by human injustice and resurrected by the justice of God” (:xvi). Practical theologians need to follow the example of Jesus – His love for and defence of the oppressed and His struggle to turn that oppression around in real life.

This can be done by firstly “getting a grip on reality” (:ix) by means of being truly and actively involved in reality; secondly, by taking on the burden of the reality, thus being willing to take charge of reality in order to transform it (praxis); thirdly, by taking ethical responsibility for reality, thus accept the demands and bear the hardships; and finally, by letting reality carry them, thus accept the grace (guidance of the Holy Spirit) in order to be enlightened by reality (:ix–x).

constitutes praxis. Praxis is thus action informed by the telos of God’s Kingdom rules (Anderson, 2001: 21–20, 49–50; Pieterse, 1981:142). Theological reflection⁶⁴ is key to the process, since it is through reflection on life that the human spirit (practitioner/parisher) comes in touch with the divine revelations from which new insight arises (Oduyoye, 1993:112).

The focal area of practical theology is the praxis of the church and Christian faith community as it interacts with the praxis of the world or life itself. It encompasses all areas of life ^– work, sexuality, marriage, education, recreation, environmental care, youth, ageing, dying – in its efforts to articulate the grounds for practical living (Anderson, 2001:26, 32). Functioning at the critical interface between the church and the world where it is confronted by the interaction of persons and contexts of personal and social formation and transformation, practical theology is necessarily interdisciplinary, drawing on hermeneutic aids from various fields, such as the humanities and social sciences (Cameron, et al., 2010:29–30; Osmer & Schweitzer, 2003:2, 6–7;

Anderson, 2001:33).

It would seem that the field of practical theology could provide the contextual space for fruitful reflection and development of theory and practice guidelines in terms of “What then should we do?” In the marginalised African communities ^– the focal point of this study – practical theology provides the scope for examining “[t]he rising spirit of selfhood found among the poor … reflected today not only in beliefs and practices they create for themselves, but also in theological expression…” manifesting in a

“theology of the poor by the poor” (Oduyoye, 1993:115).⁶⁵ This reflective and critical, yet sensitive inquiry⁶⁶ could provide the foundation for the praxis framework.

64 The Pastoral Circle – a model of action-reflection inspiring to wise change (Cameron, et al., 2010:27) – has been introduced in 1993 by Joe Holland and Peter Henriot as one of the key processes or tools for theological reflection. The circle guides the reflective process firstly, to interpret particular episodes;

secondly to focus on relevant ethic principles, guidelines and rules; and thirdly, to provide normative guidance by exploring the past and present practices. Kritzinger refers to five moments within the praxis cycle (his preferred term) namely the involvement, context analysis, theological reflection, spirituality and planning (Kritzinger, 2002:149). Karecki argues for the central position of the ‘spirituality moment’ – she is of the opinion that all other moments are influenced or informed by spirituality (Karecki, 2009:32). Cf.

also Chapter 6, section 6.4: Application in the praxis framework.

65 Cf. Chapter 3 where ‘the voice of the people’ is heard through their statements, constituting a

‘theology of the poor’.

66 Wijsen (2005:114–115) classifies the practical-theological spiral as theory developing research, following a design that allows the researcher to start wherever he/she sees fit; moving backward and forward as necessary. This approach sets no starting point or end point, but comes to a conclusion at some stage, which, again, is open to further criticism. According to Wijsen, “the practical-theological spiral is best seen as a grounded theory approach to theology, based on a real dialectic relation between data sources (qualitative or quantitative empirical facts gathered through field work) and knowledge sources (existing insights and theories developed previously by others that can be studied through secondary research)” (:114). The focus on the research object – “reflection based on experience and experience

1.8.4 Praxis

The paradigm of praxis emerged during the nineteenth century as an American philosophy (Osmer, 2008:75). It, however, has its roots as far back as Aristotle who differentiated between Theoria (concerned with knowing for its own sake) and Praxis (acting with the goal to change the conditions) (Anderson, 2001:4). The act of praxis also includes the final meaning or telos – in other words the act is towards and informed by the final goal (Anderson, 2001:50). Kemmis (1985:38) views praxis as informed, committed action – a response to a present, immediate and problematic action context. It has its roots in the commitment of the practitioner (such as theologians, social workers or community workers) to wise and prudent action in a practical situation. Praxis can only develop with direct exposure to these situations or contexts – it is by participating in real life or community that we learn to consider and evaluate the lives of others and how our actions in turn influence their lives (Graham, 2009:18). Thus praxis is about how practices shape our moral selves and build ethical practices sensitive to others and lives well-lived, whether that is framed in terms of telos and informed by our reflection regarding what is prudent or ‘wise’. From a Christian perspective, Graham (2009:20–21) argues that:

For Christians, all human activities of healing, nurturing, sustaining and transforming are, ultimately, varieties of “God-talk” in action and the place where God’s grace is shown forth in human relations. The primary language of theology is articulated in the practical wisdom of human care; only at a second stage does it find expression in systematically doctrinal propositions.

When this response – informed, committed actions – comes in the form of a strategic action informed by a ‘practical theory’ and is in turn informed by and transforming the theory which informed it, it constitutes a praxis model. Models are constructed with the goal to promote insight or to focus attention on a specific segment of a reality. A praxis model or framework helps to inform practice and for that purpose the variables are organised according to specific criteria which stay constant. This guides practitioners in the sense that it provides definitions and descriptions as well as predicting what can be expected under specific circumstances. By focusing on the process, values, relationships and techniques, practice models provide a criterion for systemising literature; make

based on reflection” (:114) or praxis (implying co-constituting theory), brings the actor (people/community doing things in a physical setting or situation) back into the study of religion and theology, making “…the practical-theological spiral very different from a systematic-theological approach, which is primarily interested in the contents of faith, more particular in a coherent interpretation of those content” (:115).

knowledge more accessible and practical; help to analyse complicated and complex practical situations; and provide broad guidelines for implementation (cf. Weyers, 1991:131; Hefferman, 1979:47; Compton & Galaway, 1989:1–4).⁶⁷