The myth of normal theology

Often, things that appear normal contain so much more complexity and depth than meets the eye.

In fact, now that we are thinking about it, the very word “normal” itself is far more complex and ideologically loaded than it first appears.

I mean, normal is just… well… normal, right?

But what constitutes “normal”?

Normal for who?

Shampoo for normal hair – on special for R64.99 at Shoprite.[1]

But what exactly is normal hair? Normal hair in Langa might well be substantially different from “normal” hair in Constantia or Lenasia.

What about skin-coloured crayons or flesh-coloured plasters? I regard my childhood as fairly “normal”, but growing up in apartheid-era South Africa, my childhood would have been anything but “normal” for the majority of people my age. What about just going to a “normal” school? Or growing up in a “normal” family, in a “normal” house in a “normal” neighbourhood? Nothing about my experience was “normal” for the vast majority of people in our country to this day. And that is not even considering issues of gender, sexuality, blended families, divorce, single moms and physical or learning challenges.  

There is nothing universally valid regarding our concept of normality.

Theology with Adjectives

What about “normal” theology?

Why do some theologies have adjectives while others don’t?

Black theology, feminist theology, African theology, liberation theology, womanist theology, Latino/a theology, Minjung theology… and the list carries on…

Yet there is no need for descriptors like “white theology”, “male theology” or “Western theology”?

The Hidden Adjective

What we often call “normal theology” is largely Westernised theology shaped by European Enlightenment assumptions and supported and propagated through white Western power. This is the normalising “orthodoxy” against which all other contextual theologies will be “weighed and found wanting.” [2] Theological colonisation reserves for itself the right to declare what is “normal” or orthodox, both in terms of content and method. Relegating all other contextual theological wrestling to the scrutiny of this one true and uniquely orthodox theology.

The question is not whether theology is contextual. All theology is contextual. The crucial question is what context gets called “normal.” Orthodoxy, built on Western Enlightenment methodology and assumptions, is neither neutral nor without adjectives but rather a contextual theology among many other contextual theologies.  

White Theology:

There are several characteristics of “white theology” which are often presumed to be normative for all theology, and thus exported, as such, to the rest of the world.

  • Orthodoxy (right thinking) is given clear precedence over orthopraxy (right living) and orthopathos (right affection).
  • The individual as opposed to the community, is regarded as the foundation of identity and spirituality, giving rise to an expression of Christianity that is largely individualistic. Church communities are generally regarded as a collection of individuals rather than having any significant sense of communal identity.
  • Sin is viewed primarily, or even exclusively, in individualistic categories, with little to no room for sin as communal, systemic or structural. When the systems and structures are built for your benefit, it is difficult to see them as sinful.
  • Salvation and mission are, similarly, viewed in almost exclusively individualistic categories, primarily concerned with the rescue of individuals from eternal punishment, whilst culture, people groups, economic policies, opposition to injustice or creation care, are regarded as outside the scope of salvation and thus not of primary concern for the mission of the church.
  • The influence of Greek dualistic thinking, expressed through Enlightenment rationalistic categories, has left strong dichotomies in white/Western theology between the sacred and the secular, the natural and the supernatural, the mind and the body, faith and reason and subject and object  
  • The death of Jesus is similarly understood in almost exclusively spiritual and individualistic categories with little regard for the political nature of his death (“king of the Jews”) or atonement theories focused on the cross as the cosmic victory over evil (Christus victor), liberation or as an expression of solidarity with the oppressed (liberation theology).
  • Order, discipline and control are often regarded as theological or moral virtues, giving rise to a “theology of the status quo” that resists protest, prophecy or disruption of existing theological, political or economic systems.[3] The Kairos Document (1985) called this Church Theology “the comfortable neutrality of the privileged. Reconciliation without justice, pious prayers without praxis, an abstract gospel that avoided real suffering.”[4]
  • The intricate connection between Western Christianity and Western economic and political systems, such as free-market capitalism and neoliberalism, is not only considered normative but often biblical or even God-ordained.  

Decentring and Decolonising:

Naming white theology as contextual frees others to name their own contexts and theologies as equally valid. Decolonising our theology requires, among other things, the decentring of the European and the Western world, and a re-centring of those voices that have previously been ignored or silenced, those on the margins, the poor and the oppressed.

This is not a call to “cancel” or ignore the theological contributions of white, Western men. There is a place for them (us) too in the Kingdom of God. Western theology must be de-centred and its sacral position as the sole or primary formulators and arbiters of theological method and “orthodoxy” must be rejected. White-male-Western theology is not inherently wrong, but it must be put back into its place as one contextual theology among many contextual theologies.[5]  

[1] Inspiration for this idea comes from Micah Bournes’ incredible spoken word poem, Normal Hair https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v64z9wmoYls

[2] Daniel 5:27

[3] Concerned Evangelicals 1986. Evangelical Witness in South Africa: A Critique of Evangelical Theology and Practice by South African Evangelicals. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, p.28-31. The Kairos Document (1985) similarly refer to this type of theology as “Church Theology” as opposed to “Prophetic Theology”.

[4] Molo Z 2025. Sharpening the Kairos Spear: A Theology of the People. The Warehouse https://www.warehouse.org.za/2025/10/07/sharpening-the-kairos-spear-a-theology-of-the-people/

[5] These ideas are developed from Carl Ellis’ book Free at Last: The Gospel in the African American Experience (1996. Downers Grove: IVP, p.142-147.

Photo by Nothing Ahead