You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October, 2007.
For those who have been following this journalic space, and I can’t imagine who would be, I have been struggling to finish my PhD Research proposal this year. My deadline for my first draft was about a month ago… and I eventually finished a few weeks ago. My final draft deadline was today… but as irony would have it… the proposal that I was working on for over four months has been shot-down and I have to adapt/develop a new proposal.
Basically I had adopted a category oriented approach… where instead I was urged to choose a ‘person’-oriented approach. This I found out three days ago… and eventually, as much as I tried… I couldn’t get it done by today.
In fact, I think I need about a week or two to finish my new proposal. Of course it seems like as if a person oriented approach is simpler… it is certainly more manageable. However, the same issues… like a legitimate problem, research questions etc need to be applied… and that does take time. Most importantly, I need to revisit my literary review… and justify my choice of studying Chenchiah.
Right now, as it stands, my proposal will be a study of Chenchiah’s Theology of religions, and I need to see this in relation to his concept of “pure religion”. For critique I will be looking at Barth, Balagangadhara and the book of James (1:26-27).
So, I still have a long way to go… but thankfully I also have an extension. I guess, what will happen, will happen.
(updated: February 2009) Recently a seminar was held in Bangalore on Child Theology, and I must say that for many, the nature of “child theology” was a little confusing. In the seminar, Child Theology was seen as the theological reflection on issues related to children, especially children at risk. So it was like ecological theology, where a theologian reflects on issues related to the environment.
I propose that this view of “child theology” differs from other kinds of theologies. For instance, child theology is different from contextual theology, because contextual points to the nature of the theology, affecting the method of doing theology. The content, in effect, could be anything (contextual), but contextual refers to the kind of theology. Similarly, feminist, dalit or even prosperity theology, are methodological approaches that affect how theology is done, though of course have content issues as well.
Child theology is more practical theological insights. Rather than just thinking about God, a child theologian would think about what is God’s purpose for children, and more particularly, how to help/defend children at risk etc.
Hence, Child theology comes properly under the field of Practical theology; and is a sub-division of the Christian attempt to reflect meaningfully on issues of the world.
I have a feeling, however, that for many Child Theologians, they want their theology to be more than a theology of childhood, and something with actually the child as center. For instance, one Child theology site urges:
In Child Theology, we are invited to take good note of the child in the midst as we think about, for, to, from and with God in Christ. As we do that, we expect our theology to change for the better. In Child Theology, we embark afresh on the journey with Christ into the open secret of God in the world.
Here the effort is literally to affect the way we think about theology and God and discipleship etc as we rethink children. If this was possible, it would be a new methodological approach to doing theology. However, I argue that putting the child in the center (for adult theologians) is impossible. Because it remains an “adult” exercise… something from the “other” about “another”. In effect, any attempt to put the child in the center, the child is only interpreted, or reinterpreted, from the adult world, and if a voice of the child truly exists, it remains directly inaccessible to adults because of the many interpretions of what that child actually is.
Even Jesus’ attempt at putting the child in the center is like putting a fig-tree in the center of his teaching; I think it is illustrative rather than formative. Jesus’ call was for his disciplines to be children, and not to re-conceive everything they know about God through the eyes of “that” (or any) child. In fact, if there is any reconfiguring that needs to take place, Jesus clearly says that it is He (Jesus himself) who is the door, the way to the father (not the child).
The only way child theology can be possible is the same way that Feminist theology can be possible. A feminist (or womanist, whatever we prefer) reading of the Bible (hence feminist theology) is simply reading the Bible from a clearly woman’s point of view (seen critically, as different from a man’s point of view). This same unique perspectival approach is reflected in Dalits who form their readings (often in opposition, but certainly different from, the traditional readings of the scripture). Thus, for a child to read the Bible for herself/himself, (especially in the effort to bring out the unique understanding of scripture from the child’s own point of view), we then have the makings of Child Theology. Yet, it is difficult to see children (at what age does a child become a child???), being able to do this, both in view of their cognitional and linguistic abilities. Furthermore, it is difficult to see whether such a reading is even necessary to be systematized, since there are many potential problems (not mentioned here) with Feminist or Dalit theologies per se.
My own assertion is that while a reflection on issues related to the Child is much-needed in the church today (thus by theologians as well), I would warn against any attempt to reformulate what a child is thinking about God in adult terms and purposes. We must recognise that oppressive adults will have an oppressive view of children; so, if an aggressive/oppressive/(or even blind to the actual needs of the child) adult tries to reconstruct what the child actually thinks and needs, it will be within his/her own oppressive(limited) framework.
For instance, I can foresee adult theologians going to children and asking them what they think about God, without realising that the situation(context) as well as the answer can evoke forced reactions from children who can construct their answers according to what they THINK the adults want (for further proof of this, read John Holt’s How Children Fail).
I assert therefore that “Child Theology” is a misnomer if it means something like Feminist Theology (some theology done from the persepctive of a certain kind of woman). Instead, Child Theology that we have today is better understood as the Theology of (and for) the Child, something like Eco-theology, where the attempt is to understand God and His world, but here putting the topic (and issues) of the Child, and especially the Child’s protection, in the centre of Godly reflection.
Right now, my draft proposal is being read by my Mentors. They’ve said that they’re happy with my work, but recently my content mentor suggested to alter the proposal. According to me, altering it could mean an entire change in focus and so I posted an argument to defend my own proposal and am waiting for his comments. Basically, if I can convince him, then I don’t think I’ll have too much of problem with others. But I really want/need to convince him. Right now, I just wait…
Well, my proposal draft was completed about two weeks ago. But I haven’t had time to write about it here because my wife and I have proposed our first thesis together, our little baby girl. We’re busy working on the first chapter… a lot of sleepless nights and a lot of research included! :)
Academically, I wasn’t too happy with the final thesis proposal, as a proposal goes, thought I feel better about where I am conceptually. I think with a little more time (and that’s what’s happening right now), I should be able to sharpen my thinking and be able to defend it adequately before the SAIACS doctoral committee.
I need to have my thesis defense before 27 October, because one theology professor, Dr. Ian Payne, is giving lectures for this month at SAIACS and I do need some Theology perspective during my thesis defense.
When I asked Cor, my structural mentor, whether Ian could be present at the “defense” Cor aptly said, “Defend you?” In some ways, it may indeed be like that.
My proposal, because it’s range is so vast, may find itself weak in certain areas, and the strongest area must indeed by my theological method that brings it all together. Hopefully I can get that sorted within a few weeks.
For now, it’s back to some reading and re-reading, in preparation of my thesis defense. Hopefully I will be ready.
Recent Comments