Decolonizing Curriculum Debates at Arizona State University
At my university, Arizona State University, there’s been a push for faculty to “decolonize the curriculum.” On the surface, this seems like a positive step—highlighting marginalized voices and challenging power structures. Yet, digging deeper reveals a more complex reality.
Many academics define “decolonization” as not merely addressing material exploitation, but rather as a challenge to the entire Christian worldview.
There’s a prevailing notion that decolonization constitutes a critique of Western civilization: its moral premises, epistemology, and notably, its biblical roots. The movement leans heavily on Marxist ideas. It frames existence as a conflict between the oppressor and the oppressed, where true salvation comes through revolution rather than faith.
Christian teachings have long denounced greed and injustice, advocating for compassion and humility. The ethics found in the Bible already challenge exploitation. So, when exploring “decolonization,” one must ask: is the objective truly to combat exploitation, or is it to undermine the very foundations of Christian morality—creation, sin, salvation, and divine authority? Without these, we find a void, a potential breeding ground for ideologies like Marxism or postmodernism disguised as liberation. Just think of the Antifa narrative, for instance.
The Church Mimics University Dynamics
This same trend is evident in the Church of England. The recent selection of Sarah Mullally as Archbishop of Canterbury—the first female in the role—was celebrated as a triumph for representation. However, it has polarized the Anglican Church. Many congregations in Africa and the Global South have vowed not to acknowledge Canterbury’s authority anymore.
Leaders within these communities argue that this decision contradicts Biblical teachings. They hold that the pastoral office should be reserved for men, primarily as a model of service and not as an expression of dominance. It’s a calling defined by the Bible, not by patriarchal traditions.
The irony is palpable. The church that once sent missionaries to Africa is now educating African believers on theology under the guise of “decolonization.” British progressives, who claim to stand up for the oppressed, seem to overlook the autonomy of African churches, instead imposing a Western moral framework that they no longer hold dear.
Understanding “Liberation” Logic
The underlying academic rationale bears a striking resemblance to what’s playing out on campus. Decolonization theory frames patriarchy as a system of oppression; dismantling it is viewed as liberation. But, the Christian model of leadership does not equate masculinity with authority. Instead, it emphasizes that pastoral authority should come as a burden of service, rather than a privilege.
This distinction carries weight. In ancient paganism, priestesses wielded ritualistic authority, yet in Biblical faith, priesthood is characterized by obedience and sacrifice. Christianity adopted this model not as a form of oppression but as a countercultural narrative. To eliminate these distinctions in the name of equality misconstrues service for conquest and hierarchy for injustice.
The Paradox of “Progress”
The left views the appointment of the new archbishop as a hallmark of progress. Yet, coinciding with this celebration is a notable decline in church attendance in England. Belief is dwindling; the light they once claimed to share has dimmed.
Conversely, Christianity remains vibrantly alive in areas often labeled “backward.” The African church is flourishing, engaging theologically, and stands in stark opposition to the prevailing trends in the UK. This historical continuity can be traced back to Augustine of Hippo, an African theologian whose ideas significantly influenced European Christianity for centuries.
If the essence of decolonization indeed revolves around redistributing power, it should embrace models like Augustine’s—rooted in Scripture rather than ideological frameworks. It’s a global perspective, anchored in divine order, not mere social theories.
Final Thoughts
When prompted by my university to engage in “decolonization,” I find myself asking: To what end? If the response points to figures like Marx, Freud, or Foucault—the thinkers who effectively replaced faith with a critique of power—then isn’t this merely a rebranding of colonization?
However, if our aim is to reclaim the Biblical vision emphasizing creation, fall, salvation, and service through Christ, then I wholeheartedly support decolonization. We should reclaim what is rightfully ours from the clutches of ideology. Because the alternative is a church that sacrifices revelation for mere relevance—ultimately preaching nothing.
It’s worth noting, Christians should be cautious: the light emanating from Canterbury may not endure in England.
