spirit and healing in africa - University of the Free State

that healing is located outside the individual person, and within the community. Healing,
therefore, needs to be sought within the patient’s close network of relationships, for it is the
context of interpersonal as well as spiritual relationships in which one’s physical and social
identity can be rebuilt.
The observation that the notion of relationality is recognized as an indispensable element in
various health approaches, of which the ngoma paradigm is perhaps the most important in the
African context, stresses the significance of the motif of relationality for reflecting on health,
illness and healing within theological discourse. In other words, what happens to theological
ideas of healing when the notion of relationality is brought within theological discourse? Does
the notion of relationality have anything to add to speaking about God and health? The question
that is raised by the African health discourse notion is: is it possible to speak about God and
healing based on the notion of relationality?
Since the end of the twentieth century the concept of relationality has moved to the center of
Trinitarian thinking (Grenz 2004:117). Already within the theological approaches of Moltmann,
Pannenberg, and Jenson, a shift in the center of attention occurred, so that the relationship
between God and creation was no longer understood in a spatial framework, but rather in a
temporal and narrative context. The focus moved to the actions of the Trinitarian persons in
(salvation) history. This shift also implied serious attention for the threeness of the divine
subject. The methodological preference to think about God’s nature by moving from the three
persons to the oneness of God (instead of reflecting on God’s actions by starting with the
supposed unity of God) has led to a prominent place for the concept of relationality within
Trinitarian discourse. Particularly theologians like Zizioulas (1975, 1985, 1995), Boff (1988),
LaCugna (1991), and Moltmann (1981, 1985, 1990, 1992) made tremendous contributions to the
understanding that Trinitarian thinking about God is not an abstract exercise, but rather a
relational matter (see Grenz 2004; Kärkkäinen 2007). Thanks to their contributions, the motif of
relationality gained a prominent place in reflections on the ontology and the self-communication
of the triune God. In various ways, they emphasized that the Trinitarian history is about God’s
relational movement towards people, out of love, in Christ and through the Spirit. Thinking
Trinitarian life in terms of relationships has had tremendous implications for understanding
creaturely life. Dynamic notions like perichoresis, communion and participation became the
grammar for articulating God’s love and salvation, as well as for grasping human responses to
Uchino 2004; Roy 2010; Valente 2010). So the aspect of relationality has become meaningful within multiple health
discourses.
207