Exploring new pathways in contextual theology

In his 2025 article “Nicaea today? The logic of contextual theology,” published in the open-access HTS Theological Studies journal, Daniel J. Pratt Morris Chapman proposes a fresh epistemological and methodological framework for navigating the complexities of contextual theology. By revisiting the Council of Nicaea in conversation with the Akan worldview of Ghana, he challenges the prevailing dominance of postmodern skepticism and offers epistemological particularism as a constructive and optimistic alternative.

AOSIS spoke with Pratt Morris Chapman to explore the motivations behind his research, his innovative theoretical contributions, and the personal intercultural experiences that shaped his thinking. His work opens exciting possibilities for theologians seeking to bridge traditions, cultures, and historical moments in meaningful dialogue.

As you read this interview, we invite scholars, practitioners, and emerging researchers to consider how their own work might contribute to the rich conversations fostered by HTS Theological Studies. If you are exploring new frontiers in theology, intercultural studies, philosophy, or related fields, we warmly encourage you to submit your manuscript for consideration.

In the interview below, Pratt Morris Chapman reflects more deeply on the ideas behind his article, offering the background, personal motivations, and methodological insights that shaped this significant contribution to the field.

1. Framing the Motivation

1. Your article challenges the dominance of postmodern outlooks in contextual theology. What, in your view, are the most significant limitations of postmodernism when it comes to cross cultural or historical theological dialogue?
While Postmodernism is difficult to define, those associated with this view (a) challenge the idea that our descriptions of reality correspond to the way things really are. For this reason, they suggest that (b) the plethora of interpretations situated within different times and places are projections offering little more than a sophisticated attempt to make sense of the world. However, because these interpretations have no demonstrable connection with reality (c) they lack a basis for meaningful comparison. This seriously complicates the desire of contextual theologians to bring particular contexts into dialogue with particular theological traditions.

2. What prompted you to revisit Nicaea specifically as a conversation partner for a contemporary contextual setting like the Akan of Ghana?
My wife Grace is from Ghana and we regularly explore how we can share both our cultural and christian beliefs with our children. This delicate transmission of faith and culture inevitably raises questions for us as a family. If Jesus was both human and divine how do we relate this to an Akan worldview? Essentially, I was trying to locate an alternative theoretical framework that enables someone to navigate the differences between Akan ontology and the Nicene Creed.

2. Epistemological Particularism

1. You propose epistemological particularism as an alternative theoretical framework. How did you come to identify it as a more suitable approach for contextual theology than prevailing postmodern models?
I stumbled upon epistemological particularism during my doctoral research on the philosophical legacy of Saint John Henry Newman. Essentially, Newman tried to justify his religious opinions by looking back over his experience and drawing out the underlying logic that had guided his journey to faith. This is perhaps the reverse of what we might expect: he began with his theological conclusions and then sought to retrospectively offer a justification for them. This resonates with epistemological particularism. The particularist is essentially an optimist. Instead of giving up on knowledge, because we cannot identify a universally acceptable criteria, it holds that people (and cultures) possess real knowledge claims, even if they cannot articulate reasons for them. On this basis, the contextual theologian can assume that (a) a particular culture and (b) a particular theological tradition both contain knowledge. From this starting point it is possible to explore how the differences between (a) and (b) might be evaluated by (c) developing criteria appropriate to the knowledge claims already in our possession.

2. In your view, what does epistemological particularism allow theologians to “see” or engage with that postmodern perspectives obscure?
A symptom of the postmodern condition is a deep scepticism about whether our theories about reality correspond to the way things really are. As a result, these writers are suspicious of any individual or group who claim a privileged access to truth. Moreover, these writers assume that an alienation from concrete reality leaves us with no common basis for comparison—making different cultures, languages, and historical periods effectively incommensurate. All this makes it difficult to render meaning from one tradition in terms that are intelligible within another. Particularists refuse to play this game. Though it may be impossible, to demonstrate a connection between our understandings of reality and the way things really are, we can (a) begin with the knowledge claims in our possession. From this epistemological starting point, we can try to (b) uncover reasons for these claims. This is useful for contextual theologians because it allows them to presuppose the knowledge claims contained within (a) a culture or theological tradition and (b) retrospectively evaluate how these claims might fit together.

3. Could epistemological particularism itself be susceptible to the same criticisms often directed at postmodernism—such as relativism or fragmentation? How do you guard against that?
Particularism does not resolve the problem highlighted in postmodernism. It simply proposes an alternative reaction to the problem. Instead of a default epistemological pessimism, it embraces optimism. Even if we cannot prove our claims about the world to be objectively true, we can continue to engage with each other in meaningful discussion. Sharing wisdom together, evaluating it as best we can through continued dialogue and conversation.

3. Methodological Insights

1. Your method seeks to bridge historical and cultural distance. What criteria did you use to determine which aspects of Nicaea and Akan thought could be legitimately compared or placed in dialogue?
Epistemological Particularism (a) begins with claims to knowledge. It then (b) formulates criteria for retrospectively evaluating those claims to knowledge. As my wife and I (a) acknowledged the value in the theological and cultural wisdom we had inherited in Nicaea and Akan culture we observed various similarities and differences in these knowledge claims. We then (b) struggled to see how these differences might be navigated, given our shared desire to ensure that the wisdom contained within both these traditions should be transmitted to the next generation.

2. How do you navigate the risk of anachronism—reading modern categories back into ancient contexts—when constructing this dialogue?
Particularists would begin by seeking to affirm the wisdom and truth contained within different cultures and traditions. This presupposition of the inherent value of the knowledge claims contained within a specific tradition or worldview is then evaluated retrospectively according to the objectives of the contextual theologian. The risk of anachronism would depend entirely on the priorities of the researcher. If, during the retrospective evaluation, they seek to prioritise the said culture over and above faithfulness to the historical tradition then it is entirely possible that this configuration would lead to anachronism.

4. Dialogue Between Nicaea and the Akan of Ghana

1. What were the most surprising points of resonance between the theological formulations of Nicaea and the Akan worldview? Conversely, where did you encounter the most profound points of tension or incommensurability?
An Akan worldview contains belief in an Almighty God who is Creator of all things. This resonates with the Nicene formulae which declares belief in “one God” who is “maker of heaven and earth.” However, an essential tenet of the Nicene Creed is that Jesus is fully human and divine. Ghanaian theologians, such as John Pobee and Kwame Bediako, acknowledge that while Jesus’ humanity is relatively easy to explain the idea of Christ’s divinity is difficult for the Akan.

2. How does this specific case study illustrate the strengths of particularism as a guiding methodology?
This case study illustrates a central difficulty for contextual theologians. Where a concept central to a particular theological vision appears to challenge a particular cultural context the process of contextualisation reaches an impasse. While a postmodern framework does not offer a theoretical basis for the critique of one culture or tradition on the basis of another, a particularist approach would enable this. Thus, if one wanted to prioritise a particular theological belief, one could begin by affirming elements within the said culture that cohere with their theological vision while critiquing those that do not. In contrast, those seeking to prioritise a particular cultural perspective could affirm those aspects of Christianity which resonate with their particular culture and reject those which seem to conflict with it. Put simply, whichever pole one chooses to emphasise, this theoretical framework enables contextual theologians to critique features that contradict the chosen point of reference. Moreover, a via media or synthetic approach is also entirely possible on this view.

5. Contribution to Contextual Theology

1. You position your work as contributing to a new subdiscipline in epistemology within theology. How do you envision this influencing the broader field of contextual theology?
It is important for contextual theologians and theologians generally to critically reflect upon the philosophical assumptions influencing their work (“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy” Colossians 2:8). This requires us to engage more fully with different philosophical traditions and to render explicit the epistemological moves being made under the surface. Thus, I would want to encourage contextual theologians to engage more fully with wider developments in the field of epistemology.

2. Many contextual theologies prioritize local experience as the primary source of theology. How does your model reposition the role of historic Christian doctrinal moments—such as Nicaea—in shaping local theologies today?
What I like most about this approach is that it lends itself to each of the different poles within contextual theology. Those who seek to prioritise the knowledge generated within the context can do so. On the other hand, it is equally possible to prioritise the knowledge generated within a particular theological tradition. Thus, if a contextual theologian in Ghana wanted to prioritize the theological claims contained within the Nicene Creed, over and above their cultural inheritance, it would be theoretically permissible. Put simply, if a culture does not contain a concept that has been central to a particular Christian tradition then it is possible to give priority to the latter. It all depends on the chosen starting point.

6. Practical and Pedagogical Implications

1. How might your approach change the way theology is taught in African seminaries or theological faculties globally?
I used to teach at a seminary in Cameroun. Cameroun has been divided by colonial languages, and this has led to a violent conflict between the government and the marginalised Anglophone community. I taught contextual theology within this setting and one of my students asked me: “How should we do theology here?” This inspired me to investigate how this approach might be used as a framework for contextual theology in my book An Ambazonian Liberation Theology?. In my book, I prioritised the knowledge emerging from the marginalised voices within that context. Combining a particularist approach with a Tri-Polar exegetical framework I illustrated how this epistemological orientation can (a) endorse the knowledge claims generated by ordinary readers of certain biblical texts. I then (b) engaged with the knowledge generated within biblical scholarship concerning the same texts. I then (c) brought these ordinary readings into dialogue with biblical scholarship. This I believe illustrates the utility of this approach for seminarians (and others besides) in that it encourages them to recognise the intrinsic value of both the knowledge claims emerging from within their context as well as those generated within biblical/theological scholarship.

2. What would a liturgical or ecclesial expression of contextual theology grounded in epistemological particularism look like in practice?
My wife and I worked in Italy for seven years where we served intercultural congregations. The Methodist Church in Italy has been blessed abundantly by migrants – white Italian congregations would have closed if it were not for the rejuvenation brought about by the gifts and abilities of people coming to Europe from a variety of continents. Ministering within this context was a blessing. It was also very stressful. The native population had its own values, language and tradition of christianity. Methodist christians arriving from other parts of the world embodied different expressions. The potential for conflict, misunderstanding and division was considerable. Nevertheless, I found a particularist approach practically helpful within this setting. In a congregation near Torino attended by Italians and Ghanaians we tried to affirm both (a) the local expression of Italian Methodism and (b) the cultural and spiritual gifts given to us by brothers and sisters from overseas. Where there were disagreements, we (c) sat together and explored what would be the most appropriate course given the rich diversity contained within the congregation. I reflect on this experience in an essay on intercultural theology and ministry intercultural theology.

7. Future Directions

1. What further case studies—historical, doctrinal, or intercultural—do you think would most effectively test or refine your methodological proposal?
Over the last few years, I have been wrestling with these questions. It has led me to explore how this approach can be related to ecumenical theology, missiology and interreligious dialogue. I am currently engaged in developing this research further and hope to publish a collection of essays.

2. If your model were taken up widely, how might it reshape global theological discourse over the next two decades?
I believe that a “paradigm shift” away from a postmodern, nonfoundational epistemological theological orientation is long overdue. It is clear however that much more needs to be done if this theoretical reorientation is to take concrete form. Nevertheless, I am hopeful that this model will open space for constructive engagement between Christian traditions and a multiplicity of different cultural and religious settings. Within contextual theology, my hope is that this approach can enable fruitful interaction between historic Christian doctrinal moments and a plethora of different cultures. Within missiology it would be interesting to see how a wide variety of cultural contexts and Christian traditions could be practically engaged using this model. Moreover, I believe this epistemological orientation can be useful for those engaged in ecumenical, intercultural and interreligious dialogue.

I should add that I myself am an unlikely candidate for this work, seriously ill-equipped for the task of exploring these various different avenues of enquiry. I am from a small village in Leicestershire. I had to repeat a year at school and was advised against going to university. All the same, my faith in the reality of the incarnation compels me to continue wrestling with these questions. A luta continua!

Pratt Morris Chapman’s reflections illuminate the remarkable potential of epistemological particularism to reshape how theology is done in diverse cultural settings today. By beginning with the knowledge claims communities already hold, rather than dismissing them through postmodern doubt, his approach empowers contextual theologians to engage traditions like Nicaea with both intellectual honesty and cultural sensitivity. Whether applied to Akan Christianity, African seminaries, global intercultural congregations, or emerging forms of ecumenical and interreligious dialogue, his model opens new pathways for constructive theological engagement.

We hope this conversation inspires you to pursue your own innovative theological research. HTS Theological Studies remains committed to publishing rigorous, original scholarship that advances dialogue across cultures, contexts, and disciplines. If you are working on research that contributes to these ongoing discussions, we invite you to submit your manuscript and join our growing community of authors shaping the future of theological inquiry.