The first issue of 2024 continues the international, collaborative, and contextually centred approach to theological reflection that grounds Practical Theology. As the peer-review and editorial processes for these articles were overseen by Nigel Rooms’ careful editorial hand, I introduce them here in the spirit of a herald, celebrating the good work that others have done and inviting the broader practical theology community to take part in the ongoing conversation. I am pleased to feature seven articles in this issue.
The first article, ‘The Future of Practical Theology’, by Saiyyidah Zaidi complexifies prominent appeals toward internationalisation and inclusivity in practical theology. Combining a careful review of the state of the field with autoethnographic reflections, Zaidi presents the complexity of navigating multiple intersectional identities within a field and professional society that has historically prioritised normative forms of theological inquiry that can relegate Zaidi’s work to a margin. As Zaidi insightfully notes, the consequence of this assessment pertains equally to the language that is used to guide practical theological as it does to the structures of belonging that provide the conditions of possibility for formation, theological reflection, and the ordering of a common life. Those invested in the future of practical theology will be enriched by Zaidi’s vision for a global approach to practical theology.
The next three articles are purposefully paired because of how they explore the interplay between speech, silence, and self-silencing. If, as Zaidi notes in the opening article, the language that guides practical theology has social, material, and theological consequences, how does attending to the practice of silence order and enrich the theological enterprise? Caroline Yih’s ‘Theological reflection on self-silencing’ provides a first probing engagement. As Yih notes, the practice and experience of silencing can be imposed by others, following systematic efforts by individuals and institutions, as well as self-imposed, in the wake of abuse to avoid future retribution. Yih’s work combines field-driven concepts with practical theological reflection to offer a substantive account of self-silencing expressed by Hong Kong clergywomen.
The next article from Seán McGuire considers the theological imagination and corresponding practices the increasing use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) represent in ecclesial communities. Writing from a North American context, McGuire’s measures work notes how, on the one hand, NDAs often ‘function to promote secrecy’, while, on the other hand, they are often used to offer legal protections for victims of personal and professional abuse. In practice, the use of NDAs requires theological discernment to determine the appropriate individual and organisational mediums for truth telling that avoids the silencing NDAs may promote. McGuire concludes congregations and ministries should carefully consider the use of NDAs, questioning if and how they promote a central task for Christians: giving glory to God.
The fourth article in this issue is from Rebecca Tyndall and it explores the speech about class that is present in the Church of England’s General Synod from 2018 to 2022. The article aims to make implicit forms of speech explicit, and then to invite faith leaders and communities to develop theologically robust speech that can address classism. Much as the first three articles in this issue have persuasively argued, the speech that guides individuals and communities has material and theological consequences. Accordingly, Tyndall’s careful thematic analysis of General Synod documents provides the basis for theological reflection and the renewal of institutional practice and speech the article envisions.
The final triad of articles demonstrate the breadth of contexts and topics that guide practical theological reflection. Amid their brilliant variety, they are paired here because a kindred negotiation of the complexity of place, geography, and politics organise the reflections across these pages. The articles remind us that the work of practical theology is inseparably bound up with the particularity and complexity of individual and collective bodies, drawing theological reflection into the space of possibility, as well as the sites of historic and enduring pain.
Hence, the fifth article, ‘Autism Theology “from the outside in”’, considers contemporary theological approaches to autism. Co-author by Eilidh Galbraith and Stewart Rapley, who note their partnership combines neurotypical and neurodiverse perspectives, the article maps the history of research on autism and identifies five different themes that organise theological thinking about autism. If ‘autism is inherently resistant to categorisation’, as Galbraith and Rapley note, individuals and communities may benefit from centreing theology from an autistic perspective. Instead of reducing work at this intersection to theological reflection about autism, in which autism is a subject for theological inquiry, autism theology celebrates the distinct mode(s) of knowing neurodivergence offer(s) to faith communities.
The next article is a single authored piece from Eilidh Galbraith that explores the ‘uneasy relationship’ between Christian theology and suffering. Galbraith’s measured reflections notes how contemporary theological reflection on suffering may draw resource from the history of reflection on theodicy, which provides pathways to consider why individuals and communities suffer. However, turning to trauma theologies provide an alternate pathway, drawing attention to the lived experience of those who suffer. This article complements the batch that opened this issue by arguing for an approach to theological reflection on suffering that does not silence the complex, embodied experience of suffering.
Finally, Benjamin Isola Akano’s article, ‘Encounterlogical Competence’, brings this issue to a close. Writing from a faculty post at Nigerian Baptist Theological Seminary, Ogbomoso, Akano argues Christian engagement in politics requires ‘encounterlogical competence’ to guide Christians’ interaction with other faiths. According to this article, seven competencies may guide Christian engagement with politics: personal agency, contextual analysis, ecclesial analysis, theology of religion, personal spirituality, concrete faith projects, and reflexivity. With Nigeria as its contextual centre, Akano’s article demonstrates how a contextual commitment may guide missiology, practical theology, and political engagement.
These seven articles demonstrate the breadth of contributions to Practical Theology, each offering a distinct account that combines theological reflection, interdisciplinary perspectives, and synthetic analysis of relevant literature in the field. Contributors also write from at least three different global regions, describing the forms of practical reasoning that are at once local and relevant to individuals working or serving in other contexts. I anticipate future issues over the next year will demonstrate a similar breadth of perspective, contexts, and organising concerns. In addition to the regular issues, work is underway on a BIAPT Conference special issue, a special issue devoted to theological reflection on AI, and our annual special issue devoted to adult theological education.
Before concluding, I will offer a final word of gratitude and invitation. Practical theology is a craft that only benefits from collaboration and the wisdom drawn from a vibrant intellectual community. When I first began contributing to Practical Theology, I realised the journal emerges from a living community of practice, one that models careful scholarship and a commitment to the wellbeing of contributors, reviewers, and the friendships that make this work possible. I have seen this expressed in my work as a Book Review Editor, as the Associate Editor, as a contributor to the journal, and as a peer reviewer. For those who have fostered a culture of curiosity and care, I will simply offer my gratitude and appreciation. Amid growing polarisation, heightened loneliness, and acute crisis/es in many communities, I am mindful that a culture of generosity, care, and intellectual inquiry is fragile, and should not be taken for granted. Hence, as we continue our work together in the months and years ahead, I will conclude with a humble invitation: let us continue in a kindred spirit, offering our words, reviews, and various forms of service to enrich the various living communities that nourish our shared work and practice.