Pioneering a Theological Curriculum for Our Time and Place—The Case of Akrofi-Christaller Institute of Theology, Mission and Culture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attached file for my detailed critique. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

No problems except one sentence. Please see the report attached 

Author Response

Response to reviewer 1

I thank the reviewer for his comments, which have made me think more deeply about the article and I trust improve it.

• I have addressed the issue of ‘Western’ by amplifying what was assumed in the article as understood (1.34). Indeed, it is established in global academic discourse that there is such an entity as ‘the West’, (see Lamin Sanneh, Encountering the West, Christianity and the Global Cultural Process – The African Dimension, 1993), which has emerged out of European and North American imperial expansion, and that “In a strict sense, the European connection was a tragic one for Africa” (Basil Davidson, Black Mother: Africa and the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1980:271); see also Ali Mazrui’s “three interrelated systems of humiliation: the slave trade, European colonisation of Africa and the continuing racial discrimination wherever black people live with white people” (Mazrui, The African Condition, 1980:28). This was a view with which Kwame Bediako largely concurred, with respect the “Christian and missionary dimension” (Bediako, ‘Toward a New Theodicy: Africa’s Suffering in Redemptive Perspective”, Journal of African Christian Thought, Vol.5, No.2, 2002:49) and in terms of theological scholarship (Bediako 2006: 43–48) now added to article text). There has emerged, since the 1970s, a counterpoint in the terms Non-Western world (cf. Andrew Walls’ Centre for the Study of Christianity in the Non-Western World, in the University of Aberdeen) or Two-Thirds World (the preferred term of INFEMIT in its early days. Majority world is another such descriptor. It is against such a backdrop that the discourse around decolonization may be seen as a response. So, although I could argue to keep ‘the West’ where it has occurred in my own narrative, I have qualified in each case, except where it is in a quotation.
• ‘Western forms’ occurred in a context of summarizing Andrew Walls’ contribution at the Missions Conference that had such an impact on Kwame Bediako. I have amplified the meaning and added a reference. To amplify at length Enlightenment thought and its impact on Western Christianity (which I could do or refer to chapters of Gillian Bediako’s book (Primal Religion and the Bible, Sheffield, 1997) where it is discussed in terms of the emerging consensus of a European worldview), would seem to me to be a digression from the focus of the article. But I have expounded at more length with more quotations Kwame Bediako’s own perceptions of the impact of the Enlightenment on mission Christianity and its engagement in Africa at appropriate points in the narrative.
• “[falling] victim to the secular and reductionist, largely western, view of the world” was a quote from Bediako in the article, and not a comment by the author of the article. However, I have amplified the unstated meaning. I have also referenced all the Bediako quotes, so that it should now be clear what are his views and what are the author’s.
• Changed ‘Western models’ to ‘models established in the West’.
• I have addressed the suggestion to elucidate the impact of the Enlightenment in its impact on the mission Christianity that came to Africa, without, I trust, deviating from the thrust of the narrative.
• On the referencing to INFEMIT and OCMS, I have added website addresses for both, a couple of the reviewer’s helpful bibliographical references on OCMS which are known to me, and given INFEMIT’s full name(s).
• I have clarified the first sentence in section 8 on p. 8.
• On the issue of the argument having a ‘split personality’,since this is the most serious of the reviewer’s comments, I shall respond at greater length. I would respectfully disagree with the suggestion that the article lacks coherence. As a case study, the article is intended to outline the context in which ACI emerged and the backstory that led up to it in the learning gained by Kwame Bediako through the years which enabled him to establish an institution and subsequently academic programmes at tertiary level. It sought to be a faithful account, leading to my analysis of what has emerged and identification of what is new. I should point out that in tracing the trajectory of Bediako’s learning, I did give due weight to the context of this learning,e.,‘imbibed in the West’, both at the Lausanne Congress (where it was his exposure to other non-Western participants that ignited the breakthrough), and in ‘conventional theological education in London’,where it was Andrew Walls’ contribution at the missions conference in demonstrating the non-normative nature of Western theology as just one manifestation of a series throughout Christian history, that was decisive (p.3,101), and incidentally was determinative of Bediako’s decision to do PhD studies in Aberdeen under Andrew Walls; and then in Aberdeen and the creative models developed there from which he learnt, so this second of the reviewer’s two ‘problems’ would seem to bemisplaced. The fact that the article has been submitted to a special issue on ‘Decolonization of Theological Education in the African Context’ would seem to require an acknowledgement of the Western (colonial mostly) impact and the attempts to move away from it. In Bediako’s case, he was on a journey of learning, which I sought to portray in terms of significant highlights, as backstory to the emergence of ACI. So, I respectfully disagree with the reviewer on there being a ‘structural issue’ since I sought merely to be faithful to the evidence. I would like also to draw attention to my comment on p.7, lines 331–5: “If historically this [pastoral nurture and social transformation] has been the task of theology through the ages, then it follows that Western theology need no longer be understood as normative, or even as the starting point, as has been the assumption behind the curricula operating in the Western world and inherited from Western institutions, but as equally culturally rooted and provisional. It may then find its appropriate (non-normative) place in non-Western curricula.” I would hope that this explanation would further address the charge of ‘split personality’.
  The hypothetical question in the reviewer’s comments, ‘Would Kwame have emerged without his exposure to the West, with a clarity of individual vision to introduce new ways of thinking into the traditional Christian society that was present in West Africa?’ makes two assumptions, first, that there were no persons of individual vision in traditional society (there were, as those conversant with the early history of the Gold Coast may know), and second, that it was Bediako’s contact with the West that somehow ‘made’ him. I have not denied influence, and Kwame Bediako himself was always fulsome in his acknowledgement of others’ impact on him, Andrew Walls for example. The name of ACI itself (Akrofi-Christaller Institute) acknowledges the Basel missionary, Johannes Christaller as, in effect, one of ACI’s ancestors. Yet he was nevertheless clear sighted enough to discern where Western influence negatively impacts Africa and African churches. He was seeking to recover his cultural roots as an African Christian and to witness to, and serve, Christ faithfully in that context, a journey that other non-Westerners can identify with. He is quoted as saying “The West made me an atheist (French existentialism). When I discovered Jesus Christ, I found I was becoming African again.” He then gave his reasons for this assessment. (See James Ault video: https://jamesault.com/documentaries/kwame-bediako-his-life-and-legacy/) I hope the above sufficiently addresses the issue of ‘split personality’ and gives adequate account of the structure I have chosen to use in the article.
• With respect to the contrasts between Western theological curricula and the emerging curricula at ACI, I intended that the whole article should be about elucidating them, by expounding the model on which the curriculum is based, and then going into more detail on the ACI curriculum (especially 6.1,2,3 that focuses on the ‘new’), and the concerns it seeks to address, as well as pointing to ways in which it looks at ‘received curricula and theological disciplines with fresh eyes’. I have amplified this in the article by including the Objectives for each programme, which were drawn up at the start and which help to situate the curricula in relation to what has gone before. The point being addressed by the new curriculum was that, as I quote Bediako’s words: ‘theological education in Africa ought to be about producing persons able to make an impact for the gospel [195] both in the African context and in the wider world, ...able to be at home anywhere in God’s world, who are [196] liberated by being in Christ and so are not driven by purely reactive impulses’, by which latter he meant not being driven by merely reacting against what is found in the Western world. This statement also implies drawing on what, from an African perspective, may be found to be positive in the Western tradition. (He had his own favourite authors – JV Taylor, Kenneth Cragg, Henri Nouwen, Thomas Merton, for example.) Finally, going back to the approach I have used in the article, Bediako wrote in several places about curriculum redesign, but it was always with the purpose of casting a vision and not to be prescriptive. I have sought to be faithful to that way of approaching the matter.

 

1. The changes in my article in response to this reviewer’s comments are in red.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The article presents a well-written and highly significant evaluation of Kwame Bediako and ACI. However, there are certain areas that require revision:

The abstract is currently unclear and confusing, failing to accurately capture the essence of the author's content in the full manuscript.

On page 2, lines 100 to 102, incorporating Lamin Sanneh’s work "Translating the Message: The Missionary Impact on Culture" (Maryknoll, New York, US, Orbis Books, 1989) into the argument would enhance its strength. The concept that all languages and cultures hold equal potential in conveying God's message could be emphasized.

Certain statements within the article demand further clarifications and proper referencing. For instance, on page 4, lines 169-178, the discussion regarding the "demotion of theology and theological method in favor of religious studies and an increasingly secularized interpretative framework" at UKZN requires both proper referencing and substantial supporting evidence.

Additionally, there are numerous direct quotations extracted from Bediako’s work, lacking the necessary page numbers to pinpoint their origins. This omission should be rectified to maintain proper scholarly integrity.

The article needs some revision for typographical, and grammatical errors and a few missing words.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 2

I found this reviewer’s comments substantially helpful, and I thank him for helping me strengthen the article. On specific issues mentioned:

• Although the reviewer did not spell out the details of what was ‘unclear and confusing’ in the Abstract, I have sought to clarify it and modify it slightly in the hope that these emendations address the concerns.
• I have incorporated the helpful Sanneh reference and added others to strengthen the referencing.
• On the requirement of referencing and supporting evidence for the shift in focus at UKZN, the most concrete evidence I can supply is that of the successive name changes for the School of Theology. I have inserted them. I have removed the comment about shift in focus of the interpretative framework, as this was drawn from verbal comments by Kwame Bediako and others on the faculty of the School of Theology at the time, who were experiencing the changes, and I’m not sure that any of them ever articulated these thoughts in writing, since it was assumed among them that they had to accommodate the changes as best they could. I have added however a quote from the epilogue of a Festschrift to Kwame Bediako which captures his thinking on what that name change represents.
• On the issues relating to Bediako referencing, one without page reference (Bediako 1992) refers to the whole work. I have sought to address the rest of references that were inadvertently deficient in pagination and needed it. I thank the reviewer for pointing them out. All the other references without page indications were to whole works.
• On spelling, grammar and typos, I did a careful read through of the whole and subjected it to the Word spell and grammar check. I have changed some words and simplified some sentences and made one or two corrections. I trust I have dealt with most of what the reviewer saw, since he did not specify.

1. The changes in my article in response to this reviewer’s comments are in green.

Reviewer 3 Report

It is well-known that the phenomenal growth of African Christianity far outstrips theological training resources. Moreover, that what is available in terms of programs and institutions suffers from longstanding deficiencies; the most insidious being intellectual captivity to inherited European models and the Western theological tradition. Exceptions to this state of malaise are few; and perhaps the most notable is the Akrofi-Christaller Institute established in Ghana (in 1998) by eminent African theologian, Kwame Bediako (1945-2008). The writer draws on extensive insider knowledge to lay out the processes, inventiveness, and strategic thinking behind ACI’s distinctive program of theological education that uniquely equips students for ministry and deep engagement in the African context. The article covers the formation of Bediako’s vision, the “theological indigenous methodology” at the heart of the curriculum, and the painstaking efforts to develop forms of training and research freed from captivity to Western norms and theological models.

For the most part, the treatment is uncritical; in part because the focus is on introducing readers to the remarkable story of Bediako pioneered an exemplar of theological education on the continent. Still, more could have been offered on the structural pitfalls, efforts to attract/nurture qualified instructors, the impact of economic conditions, and relations with the church hierarchy. But these are minor omissions. By providing a thorough review of the approaches, design, and curriculum innovation central to the ACI story, this article is both timely and valuable. The writer makes it clear that academic excellence, collaborative networks, and cultivating younger faculty are critical elements. Among many sobering insights is the observation that establishing new degree programs from scratch, rather than seeking to rehabilitate outmoded ones, is promises the most fruitful approach.

Author Response

I am grateful to this reviewer for their clear grasp of what I was hoping to achieve in this article and their affirming comments, also for their understanding of the purpose of producing a largely uncritical work. I have noted though the areas identified as minor omissions and I have addressed them briefly under the final section of challenges and lessons to be learnt. Since the focus of the article, as the reviewer rightly notes, is on the ‘the processes, inventiveness, and strategic thinking behind ACI’s distinctive program of theological education that uniquely equips students for ministry and deep engagement in the African context’, I have dealt with these issues here, rather than in the main body of the work.

1. The changes in my article in response to this reviewer’s comments are in blue.