Integrating African Indigenous Knowledge Systems (AIKSs) into Public Theology: Towards Contextualized Theological Engagement in Southern Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for this interesting manuscript and the important topic it addresses. However, I found that several areas require expansion and greater clarity.

In the introduction, the author(s) give the impression that decolonisation is best situated within Public Theology. This is misleading, as all theological disciplines stand to benefit from decolonisation processes.

The author(s) note that the conceptualisation of AIKS (African Indigenous Knowledge Systems) remains fragmented and lacks clarity. However, how is this fragmentation demonstrated? Was this not an opportunity for the author(s) to address and resolve some of these concerns?

While the author(s) provide characteristics of AIKS, they do not offer a definition, as they do for Public Theology. I recommend that a clear definition of AIKS be included, particularly for international readers who may be unfamiliar with the term.

The author(s) also state that AIKS is excluded from theological training. This appears to be an overgeneralisation. Many faculties do not offer theology in isolation but include religious studies as well, where traditions such as African Traditional Religion (ATR) are taught to theology students. Furthermore, some theology faculties collaborate with other departments to offer interdisciplinary modules. I encourage the author(s) to revisit and nuance this assertion.

The definition of Public Theology appears misplaced. It would be more effective if introduced earlier in the manuscript, alongside a definition—not only characteristics—of ATR. This would ensure that readers understand these foundational concepts from the outset.

The manuscript suggests that AIKS has not been integrated into Public Theology at all. However, figures such as Desmond Tutu have contributed significantly to this integration, for example through the development of Ubuntu theology. I suggest the author(s) acknowledge such efforts to reflect the nuance and diversity within this field.

The manuscript’s structure could also be improved for better flow and coherence. I propose the following restructuring:

• After the introduction, define the two core concepts: AIKS and Public Theology.

• Section 3.3.2 could follow these definitions to provide contextual grounding.

• Sections 3.3.3 and 3 could be reorganised under a new heading: Public Theology and AIKS – Their Integration and Challenges.

• Sections 3.3.1 and 4 could then form part of the recommendations section.

Lastly, the author(s) should ensure consistency in their referencing style. In some in-text citations, page numbers are included, while in others they are not. Please ensure a uniform referencing format throughout.

 

 

Author Response

The responses to the reviewer are attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title:

1. Although the chosen title is somewhat  descriptive enough, I think it is unnecessarily too long and may be reduced into a more memorable title
2. To the extent that this analysis is done within the framework of decolonisation as it relates to university knowledge systems, it is perhaps important to integrate both decoloniality and university/higher education in the title

Abstract:

Please remember that academic abstract must always represent a summary of your own work, reflect on its key contribution in what has been attained thus far. Although your abstract is well written, it does not clearly and concisely communicate the current work's contributive elements as currently suggested by the title. I really think it can be improved into a much succinct version of itself. 

Integration (Decolonisation and Public Theology)

Decolonisation 

The discourse surrounding decolonization in Africa is a rich and intricate topic with a history that stretches back long before today's contemporary movements. Therefore, it’s crucial to establish a clear context for this discussion.

As a result, your paper should reflect a wide range of interpretations regarding how university theology—both in its current form and historical context—has been shaped by Western ways of knowing, highlighting the need for profound decolonization efforts.

Public Theology 

Essentially, the intellectual conversation about decolonization has its roots in the colonial era and continues to develop, which must be acknowledged as the foundation for understanding the decolonization of higher education.The discourse surrounding decolonization in Africa represents a complex and nuanced topic, with roots that extend beyond contemporary movements. Therefore, it is imperative to establish a comprehensive context for this discussion. Fundamentally, the intellectual inquiry into decolonization originates from the colonial era and continues to progress, which is vital for understanding the context of decolonizing higher education. Moreover, if your examination specifically pertains to the decolonization of theological education, it is crucial to critically assess the impact of colonialism on theology and religious studies. As a result, your paper should encompass a variety of viewpoints regarding how university-level theology—both in its current manifestation and historical context—has been influenced by Western epistemological frameworks, thereby highlighting the pressing necessity for substantial decolonization efforts.

All the best to you and I cannot wait to read the published version of this paper soon. 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

The responses to the reviewer are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a significant and original paper that makes a sustained and meaningful argument. However, the call to integrate AIKs into theological education is neither new nor absent from ongoing discourse. African theology, whose sources are deeply rooted in AIKs, has itself long been marginalized, and regrettably, even this paper does not sufficiently engage with the rich resources of African theology in addressing the subject.

The definition of Indigenous knowledge employed in the paper, citing Dei as “‘encapsulat[ing] the common-good-sense ideas and cultural knowledge of local peoples concerning the everyday realities of living’” (p. 3), is overly reductionist. It fails to account for the more nuanced and philosophically grounded definitions developed within African theology and philosophy. The paper would benefit from engaging these richer conceptualizations to strengthen its argument.

Moreover, it is important to ask how this manuscript’s argument advances or meaningfully diverges from existing scholarship on the subject. As I understand it, particularly in practical and political terms, AIKs have historically functioned as a public epistemology, actively shaping African politics, governance, and social life. Gerrie ter Haar and Stephen Ellis (2004), along with numerous African scholars, have persuasively argued along these lines. The issue, therefore, is not simply about integrating AIKs into public theology, but rather how public theology might legitimize, animate, and provide a coherent framework within which AIKs can continue to function meaningfully and critically within contemporary contexts.

Public theology, in this sense, must ask what it brings to AIKs — not merely regard them as marginalized knowledge systems waiting to be incorporated. Indeed, AIKs have long been active and influential in the public sphere. For example, Ubuntu was foundational to South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission and continues to inform conversations around humane governance, social justice, and communal well-being. It is often scholars, through the framing of their discourse, who marginalize AIKs by failing to acknowledge their evolving presence and role in African publics.

Kalu (2008) rightly contends that scholars must attend to how AIKs have evolved and continue to operate dynamically within African societies. Public theology can, and should, engage these realities critically, offering frameworks that interpret and orient them meaningfully within contemporary theological and socio-political debates.

For this reason, the central research question the paper proposes — “How can African Indigenous Knowledge be meaningfully incorporated into public theology to create a contextualized and impactful theological engagement in Africa?” (p. 16) — is not as helpful as it might initially appear. It risks downplaying the existing work in the field and overlooking AIKs’ ongoing public relevance. A more fruitful approach would be to explore how public theology can frame, articulate, and enhance the public function of AIKs within African societies.

This also requires the author to clearly define what is meant by public theology, ideally engaging with recent decolonial turns in public theology. I would suggest looking at, for instance, Chammah J. Kaunda’s work, such as “Baptising Zambia’s Edgar Chagwa Lungu: Critiquing the Utilization of the Declaration of Zambia during the Presidential Campaign of 2016” and “The Denial of African Agency: A Decolonial Theological Turn”. While I do not usually refer scholars to my own work, these publications introduce a decolonial public theology framework that could significantly enrich this paper’s theoretical foundation. It is also important to recall that African theology itself has often been described as essentially public theology.

In short, this paper presents a valuable contribution but would benefit from reframing its core question, engaging more robust definitions and sources, and clarifying the nature and purpose of public theology in relation to AIKs.

Author Response

The responses to the reviewer are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a timely and relevant manuscript that addresses a pertinent issue n Suh African theology.

Please address all my comments on the margins.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I've attached the responses to the reviewer. Please check the clean version of the revisions

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors I am very happy and impressed with the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has adequately revised the manuscript.