Rethinking the Nature of Theological Scholarship
By Rod Dreher
Rawlings School of Divinity
CLED 720: Biblical & Theological Foundations of Education
Genevieve Hamer
July 1, 2022
Rethinking the Nature of Theological Scholarship
[15] Theological scholarship is seldom free from cultural bias. Nonetheless, scholars tend
to operate with the notion that their interpretations of texts transcend cultural limitations. In
the area of Biblical studies, for instance, there is the operating notion that all the critical tools
that we use in Western biblical interpretation are value free or neutral. When we encounter
non-Western biblical interpretations, we tend to label them as hermeneutical or contextual
application of the Bible rather than strict Biblical Studies. For Western scholars, Biblical Studies
refer to courses in historical criticism, literary criticism, social scientific criticism, rhetorical
criticism, etc., in short, the worlds behind the text. Biblical hermeneutics, on the other hand
explores the worlds in front of the text. The distinction between Biblical Studies and Biblical
Hermeneutics is widely acknowledged in theological and Biblical studies. And yet, making a
distinction between the two as two distinct endeavors seems problematic. There is long history
of cultural hermeneutics being assumed and rendered invisible under the guise of historical
critical studies. This is not to deny that the interpretation of the Christian tradition inescapably
involves use of certain analytic methods in dealing with biblical and historical texts, but the
notion of scholarly “objectivity” in interpreting texts and the importance of particular methods
in Biblical Studies originated in the Western academies is the normative way to study Biblical
texts is questionable.
[16] The point is that we continue to harbor the notion of scholarship as generic learning
reduced to a set of abstract principles or methods without any reference to cultural contexts. It
is based on particular assumptions about critical inquiry, scholarly objectivity and dependence
on rules and methods of interpretation in Biblical and theological studies. The interaction
between text and context is now recognized by most interpreters ever since Gadamer wrote
about the fusion of horizons in Truth and Method. A binary or dualistic thinking however is still
entrenched in modern Biblical scholarship and critiqued by many non-Western scholars.
Interpreters, as is obvious to most of us, are not disembodied persons, they inhabit particular
social, political and cultural space and are never free from historical and cultural conditioning.
Recognition of this reality will lead theological scholarship in the global context to be
increasingly hermeneutical, not in the sense of application of particular rules and methods of
interpretation, but reading from the perspective of one’s lived experience. The Biblical Studies
guild, it seems to me, has been less receptive to global perspectives, although in the AAR/SBL
there is now a proliferation of program groups offering contextual and postcolonial
perspectives in reading texts suggesting a change is in the offing and a recognition that there is
more than one way of faithful reading of scriptures.
[17] In theological institutions there is some tension, if not outright resistance to alternate
readings of Biblical texts or methods of exegesis in our curriculums. What most curriculums
attempt to resolve this is to separate, “required” and “elective” courses, the former focusing on
traditional methods of interpretation and the latter more perspectival exegesis and
interpretation (feminist, womanist, Black, etc.). Revisiting the structure and assumptions of our
theological curricula in all theological disciplines would reveal to what degree it reflects our
global awareness, whose voices does a school hear or ignore in its course offerings, who
determines what to include and exclude some courses from being required, what texts are
assigned, etc. These questions may raise the issue of academic freedom in relation to scholarly
accountability to the community, an issue that requires further consideration.
Scholarship of Praxis
[18] In the contexts of Africa, Asia and Latin America, there is now a widespread
acceptance of the notion that the purpose of scholarship is not so much about acquisition of
new information but rather a profound recognition that learnings arise from the life of
communities and their lived experiences. The primary focus of scholarship is not abstract
theorizing about the meaning of God and the gospel in particular cultural contexts but a search
for justice, liberation and human transformation in the face various forms of oppression and
human suffering in the world. A major insight of the Latin American liberation theology in this
regard is the reframing of the theological task as a “critical reflection on Christian praxis in light
of the Word”[8] The new way of doing theology emerging in the global South with an emphasis
on Christian praxis, the call to act in opposition to structures of injustice in society and the
importance of theology being accountable to the communities it serves is something that
classical and modern Western theologies have long ignored. To whom theology is addressed
and who are the beneficiaries of theological reflection is a persistent question among
theologians of the global South as well as in the global North. If theology is concerned about
human transformation then it should include people, especially the poor, marginalized,
“forgotten,” “dalit,” the “non-people,” women and those crushed by dominant cultures.
Accepting the presence of these people in our society as partners in theological reflection will
lead to new theological agendas, priorities and forms of theological inquiry. Curriculum theories
in North America too have begun to rethink that the objective of education from information to
formation to transformation of society.
[19] It may be appropriate here to make a parenthetical comment that the language of
“praxis,” “orthopraxis,” “action,” “liberation” and “human transformation” found in the
theologies of the global South appear suspicious to Lutheran ears. Lutherans generally continue
to frame their theological self-understanding in the framework of Medieval and Reformation
world-views and their theological engagement with contemporary social, political and cultural
realities seldom goes beyond that framework, especially in theological education. Loyalty to the
received tradition is so strongly entrenched that the culturally (and religiously) circumscribed
character of the received traditions is ignored or seldom questioned. In this regard Lutheran
theologians from the global South too have found it difficult to breakout out of the confessional
hegemony. The end result is that confessional theology is uncritically imposed or translated to
cultural contexts that do not necessarily share the cultural assumptions of the Reformation
traditions.
[20] The contemporary turn to the context and praxis based theological reflection in the
majority world has meant that the disciplines that the traditional interlocutors of theology are
no longer confined to the disciplines of Western philosophy, history, literary or textual inquiry.
In the global South, partners in theological reflection now include the disciplines of social
sciences, politics, economics, cultural, postcolonial, subaltern studies and the like. As a result,
even history, especially the history of Christianity as presented in standard books is under
severe scrutiny. So called discipline of “missiology,” which traditionally meant the history of
Western missions, missionaries and mission societies in establishing churches in the global
South, is now renamed as “World Christianity,” or “Global Christianity.” The role of indigenous
Christians, often ignored in mission histories is now beginning to be recognized and texts are
rewritten from the perspective of people’s history.
[21] The scholarship of praxis includes truthful description of the contributions and the
lived experiences of indigenous converts to the Christian faith in the global South. History of
Christianity or Church History as taught in Western educational institutions tend to focus on
primarily the Western history of the church, from the early church to Augustine to Luther’s
Reformation and then on to North America. Church history, East of Antioch, seldom makes it
into the syllabus of history of Christianity courses, let alone the history of churches in Africa and
Latin America. Such a truncated view of Christian history is problematic if we were to take our
global context seriously. The rapid expansion of Christianity in the global South today warrants
a new look at our understanding of Christian history in its global dimensions.
Religious and Cultural Identity in a Global Context
[22] It hardly needs to be said that in a globalized world migration, mobility and constant
border crossing of people across regions and cultures is an everyday reality. In many respects it
involves dislocation of people, not only in a geographical sense but also, more importantly, in a
cultural sense. People’s identities, affiliations, socio-political and cultural allegiances are
increasingly redefined or rearticulated. This is not simply an issue for new immigrants to the
Western societies but also for those of us who have been exposed to or influenced by ideas and
world views through the media, global travels, modern communication technologies, and
through cross cultural and interreligious encounters. We have entered into an era where
people are opting for multiple belonging, acquiring multiple identities, hybrid identities or “in-
between” identities in an ever-increasing manner. The emerging multi-cultural consciousness
and inter-religious sensitivity has already begun to impact on theology and theological
education.
[23] The globalization of religions, for instance, has exposed us to depth and riches of
other religious traditions and influencing people’s religious preferences. We are aware of the
critical questions posed by the emergent situation of religious and cultural pluralism in our
midst and its implications for our inherited religious and cultural self-understanding. In
religiously pluralistic contexts, Christian theological articulations cannot continue to remain
“self-referential,” that is to draw exclusively on the resources of our canons, creeds and
community. The assumed “self-sufficiency” of traditional sources of theological reflection has
now come under increased pressure in an age of pluralism. The public accountability of all our
theological reflections and assertions now demands cognizance of alternative beliefs and
worldviews in society. All “self-legitimizing” claims of religious superiority are today radically
questioned in the context or religious and cultural pluralism. The adequacy and relevance of
Christian theology will now be tested less by internal discussions of people of Christian
allegiance than by critical questions raised by those outside of the faith. It was inconceivable in
the past that Christian theological reflection include resources from other faiths but today a
“cross-referential” and dialogical engagement has not only become unavoidable but also an
imperative.
[24] As Western societies become increasingly multi-cultural and multi-religious our
approach to ministerial training will need to undergo change. Already our classrooms are
increasingly becoming multicultural, multiracial, multi-denominational, trans-national, and in
some theological institutions even multi-religious, raising critical questions about the adequacy
and effectiveness of theological curriculum and pedagogy. According to a recent global survey
of theological education, theological institutions in North America are better at transmitting the
historical traditions of the church than helping students develop the skills and competencies to
navigate complex realities of our globalized world.[9] I should mention in passing that the so
called “practical” disciplines in our institutions are by and large dependent on Western cultural
and psychological assumptions and have not sufficiently taken cognizance of cultural and
religious diversity in our midst. The implications of multicultural perspectives in teaching
pastoral care, counseling, Christian education, patterns of ministry, etc., needs more attention.
[25] In the non-Western world too the issue of cultural and religious identity has become
a serious issue given the effects of globalization on societies, exacerbating tribal and inter-
religious conflicts. As much as theologians in the global South want to draw on contextual,
indigenous or cultural materials and resources for doing theology over against Western
“universalist” modes of theological discourse, they too have to grapple with the question of
their Christian identity in relation to the larger Christian tradition. It is no longer possible to
create a simple contextualization program for theological education in any one situation. Just
about every culture now is in tension with a global, Western influenced culture and a local
culture. So the critical question is what are the common points of reference or unifying factors
within all forms of theological reflections and research emerging from diverse contexts in a
globalized world? How may we articulate a coherent and relevant theology that affirms the
unity or the constants that bind Christians across the globe despite the diversity of cultural
contexts in which we are located, the diversity of resources we employ in theological reflection,
differences in modes and methods of theologizing and the demands that theological reflection
be attentive to socio- economic and religious realities that divide the world?
[26] Questions such as these, although not new, force us to rethink that the divide
between the global North and the global South, the local versus global or the universal versus
particular become problematic due to growing interconnectedness that we are experiencing in
today’s world. A binary and dualistic mode of understanding our contemporary realities and the
ongoing geographical and cultural border crossing makes theological reflection complex and
ambiguous. In conclusion, theology and theological education in a global context, at the very
least, demands that we engage in dialogue and collaboration with theologies and scholarships
emerging from diverse contexts and contextual experiences. It is only, to cite Ephesians 4,
“together with all the saints” we will understand and appreciate the height, depth, length and
breadth of the love of God. Acknowledging that we are embedded in our context makes it a
necessity that we participate in a wider community of scholarship and globalization of our
world makes it possible.
NOTES
[1] Robert J. Schreiter, The New Catholicity, Theology between the Global and the Local
(Maryknoll, Orbis, 1997); Craig Ott & Harold A. Netland,eds. Globalizing Theology, Belief and
Practice in an Era of World Christianity (Grand Rapids, Baker Academics, 2007); Robert Evans
and David Roozen, eds., The Globalization of Theological Education, (Maryknoll, Orbis, 1993).
[2] See, Ann Coulter’s column in http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-06-25.html
[3] Robert Schreiter, The New Catholicity, pp. 15-27.
[4] Published in four issues of ATS publication, Theological Education (1986-93)
[5] ATS, Colloquy Online, April 2014
[6] See, American Academy of Religion program unit on “Teaching Theology in a Global
and Transnational World,” https://www.aarweb.org/publications/spotlight-on-theological-
education-march-2014. Some of my observations are drawn from presentations and discussions
at the AAR program named above.
[7] Justo L. Gonzalez, Mañana, Christian Theology from a Hispanic Perspective (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1990), p 52
[8] Gustavo Guiterrez, A Theology of Liberation, rev ed., (Maryknoll, Orbis, 1998) 11).
[9] ATS Colloquy Online, April 2014
