







































Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(2), Winter 2024  

Kurlberg et al., Further Discussion on Decolonization  131 
 

 

Further Discussion on Decolonization  
 

Moderated by Nina Kurlberg, with Contributions from Bikita Mahdi, 

Thobes Ncube, Liz Muir, Rebecca Shah, Alfred Sebahane, Clark Buys, 

and Emma Smith Cain. 
 

 
 

On January 17, 2024, the Accord Research Alliance Faculty Group organized a webinar to provide a 

space for discussion on the Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy (CRDA) journal’s special 

issue on decolonization published a few months before in November 2023. The webinar was 

moderated by Nina Kurlberg, one of two co-editors of the special issue, and started with remarks by 

two main discussants, Mafer Madriz, director of Compassion International’s partnership efforts 

focused on mobilizing and strengthening the capacity of local church partners, and Charlotte Bray, 

currently studying anti-racism and power in international development from a Catholic theological 

perspective at the Lincoln Theological Institute at Manchester University. These two responses were 

followed by a discussion that included insights from the authors of four of the journal articles: Bikita 

Mahdi and Thobekile Ncube, Rebecca Supriya Shaw, Clark Buys, and Emma Smith Cain. This third 

response is a collation of these insights, along with additional brief comments from Liz Muir and 

Alfred Sebahene.  

 

The full recording of the webinar is found at https://vimeo.com/903813593?share=copy, and further 

online discussion on the topic can be accessed at https://groups.google.com/g/ara-faculty-group-forum. 

The special issue of the journal with all the articles is located at 

https://crdajournal.org/index.php/crda/issue/view/69.  

 

 

Bikita Mahdi 
We all know, from the outset, that we can't undo 

in a few years what has taken centuries to ingrain. We 

are grateful that the build up to Tearfund's Jubilee year 

in 2018 allowed us to pause as an organization to lay the 

foundation for a spiritual shift to happen, a deliberate 

path towards healing by rebalancing power and 

restoring relationships. We must apply to ourselves the 

same underlying theology of restoration of broken 

relationships that we believe can help end poverty and 

injustice. But the path is not always easy. Obviously, we 

were operating in a funding environment that's more 

restricted than ever. Protecting investment in translation 

budgets, for example, investment in relationships built 

on allyship and friendship and not money, and building 

equity, diversity, and inclusion considerations into all 

our processes, resources, and tools. These all take 

effort, resources, and energy. In an era of shrinking, 

unrestricted budgets, these things can be very hard and 

present us with some real practical considerations and 

obstacles.  

 

 

Thobes Ncube  
 I will add one thing. There is the financial cost, but 

there is also the emotional toil that happens when you 

go on this journey, because there is a lot of letting go of 

ways of thinking, there is a lot of giving up power, there 

is a lot of receiving power. And it can be quite costly. 

Sometimes that can be a barrier because it is too much. 

And then there can be a temptation to put a pause on it 

when it gets to be too much, whether it is on the well-

being of staff or the financial cost that comes with it. In 

spite of all this, the journey is worth it.  

 

Liz Muir 
In relation to the cost, the question organizations 

must really ask themselves is whether they are prepared 

for the cost. One, in terms of power; two, in terms of 

budget. And if they are not, they must think about the 

cost to the people who suffer if we do not decolonize. 

There are two different angles we must face when 

thinking about cost, because there is a great cost to 

humans, to our workforces, to individuals when we do 

https://vimeo.com/903813593?share=copy
https://groups.google.com/g/ara-faculty-group-forum
https://crdajournal.org/index.php/crda/issue/view/69


Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(2), Winter 2024  

Kurlberg et al., Further Discussion on Decolonization  132 
 

not do this well. If we are going to say that we are going 

to do it, we really must back it, because if we do not it 

becomes a burden to people, which impacts well-being 

and performance, among other things.  

 

Moderator Nina Kurlberg then asked author 

Rebecca Supriya Shah about her focus on data 

collection, especially as it relates to monitoring and 

evaluation, which Rebecca addresses in her 

contribution. Are standard evaluation methods 

appropriate in a decolonized world, or should Christian 

organizations change how they approach data, data 

gathering, and program evaluation?   

 

Rebecca Shah 
To answer that question is very difficult. So let me 

do what most self-seeking authors do and point you to 

my paper to read it. In the meantime, I just want to raise 

a couple of points. The first way in which Christian 

organizations can effectively seek to decolonize, and 

might I even say “deWesternize,” their practices is to 

avoid predatory extractive practices of data collection 

and abstract digitized quantification. How do they do 

that? As I mention in my paper, it is by seeking 

informed consent. You may say, of course, everyone 

seeks informed consent, but many Christian 

organizations, unlike universities that conduct research, 

aren’t governed by the kind of internal review boards 

(IRBs) that I was governed by when I do research, 

where they ask you many questions about the type of 

research you are doing. So seeking informed consent is 

important.  

The second one, and this is where I think the 

rubber hits the road, is for Christian organizations to 

avoid paternalistic framing of their effort because they 

are the only ones who know best and because they 

happen to have the resources and skills to engage in the 

kind of data collection and analysis required. Of course, 

the answer always is “but we will do capacity building.”  

That's how they “fix” the Global South. Capacity 

building is all well and good. There are problems with 

it, but my issue here is that much of the power 

imbalance lies in the structural issues and inequities 

inherent in grant making. If you were to ever apply for 

a grant in the U.S., at the Department of Health and 

Human Services for Religious Freedom, to the UK’s 

Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office 

(FCDO), the John Templeton Foundation, or the 

Templeton Religion Trust, as I have done on 

numerous occasions, you would discover that it is an 

onerous process. You need to have experts. There are 

pages and pages and pages one fills out. Do local 

agencies and independent local actors have these 

opportunities? Most do not. So this becomes a 

monopoly of large-scale Christian organizations like 

World Vision and Tearfund, and the whole way of 

understanding how grants are given, how grants are 

constructed, is itself a structural imbalance and a power 

issue.  

Finally, the methods used are very important, 

because the kinds of methods that create distance, the 

categories used, for example that they are “oppressed,” 

or “she was abused,” a “victim,” these all distance the 

data-gatherer from the person whose data is being 

collected. The second way the methods are 

problematic is that they have become so large-scale and 

digital that they are impersonal, and people really don't 

have a chance to provide their own voice and their own 

perspective. I suggest an alternative to such methods. I 

have used large-scale methods and I have worked on 

monitoring and evaluation, and I do not for a moment 

think this is an easy thing. Forgive me if I have conveyed 

this.  

Finally, and this is a deep problem, large-scale 

Christian organizations, northern Christian 

organizations, and their counterparts in the Global 

South have discussions that disparage certain aspects of 

culture, reinforce Western cultural imperialism, and 

sustain a false narrative about the purity of Western 

Christian culture. I did a large-scale evaluation for a 

large Christian organization based here in the United 

States, which was looking at how biblical principles can 

foster human flourishing. And one of the things to talk 

about was witchcraft in Africa; a quick aside from the 

fact that I am not for one moment advocating witchcraft 

and terrible things in indigenous cultural practices that 

need to be avoided. But this organization went and 

started discussing the baobab tree and how it was evil 

and how people ought to stop protecting it, because if 

they did, they would flourish. This is a problem, 

because these discussions are cultural, and they are 

often pejorative. One has to do it, these organizations 

and people tell me, because their donors demand it. 

But to deWesternize and decolonize research, 

Christian organizations should not start from a default 

posture of hostility or skepticism towards traditional 

culture, and particularly cultural practices. They should 

recognize that, more often than not, there is value in 

protecting and preserving cultural values and traditions 

such as those aspects that support marriage, marital 

stability, family life, and domestic harmony.  

 

Alfred Sebahene 
Alfred Sebahene speaking from Tanzania. I'm not 

actually responding to the question, but I want to make 

a small contribution that might help us think more 

broadly when we talk about decolonization. My worry 

is that in most of the writings we come across today, 

including some of the writings we ourselves have done, 

the agenda on decolonization is mainly based on 

theories, arguments, history, a bit of practice, and trying 

to see whether we can have good practice. And we are 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(2), Winter 2024  

Kurlberg et al., Further Discussion on Decolonization  133 
 

missing out, because I don't see much on the role of the 

gospel in our discussions. If you come to talk about 

decolonization in the Global South, in particular in my 

area of East Africa, you need to mention what the Bible 

says, and how we respond to the power of the gospel as 

we speak about decolonization. I challenge us to think 

about this. Finally, it is a bit trickier when we keep 

talking about Global South whenever we talk about 

decolonization. Decolonization is not about Global 

South and Global North. It has to do with the 

transformation by the power of the gospel, and on both 

sides, involving all practitioners. If people are 

transformed, then they would know what to do with the 

grants. The need to think about the power of the gospel 

is very, very important. 

 

Moderator Nina Kurlberg took this opportunity to 

focus again on the theological, especially the theologies 

that underpin and motivate Christian organizations. 

Clark Buys of Tearfund and Maria Andrade wrote an 

article for the special issue that explained the 

theological research process Tearfund engaged in on 

environmental and economic sustainability. She asked 

Clark why they believe Christian organizations must 

decolonize their theology, and why such decolonial 

theologies are relevant for Christian NGOs. 

 

Clark Buys 
To some it might sound quite abstract to talk about 

theologies of Christian NGOs. Does it really matter 

thinking about such abstract concepts? In fact, yes, 

there are profound and significant implications for our 

impact both on people and on planet. Our case study 

contribution explores the research methodology of 

some of our theological research around economic and 

environmental sustainability and of our research 

consultations in various contexts around the world. The 

research kept unearthing a recurring issue we were 

faced with, which is the issue of dominion theology. 

This perspective is rooted in an interpretation of 

Genesis 1 that proposes that Christians are not only sort 

of invited, but also obligated and responsible in some 

sense, to dominate and control all of creation in a self-

seeking way. Of course, this is incredibly concerning, 

and the application of this theology has been devastating 

in all sorts of ways. But there is for me an unexpected 

sort of encouragement and reminder here. Dominion 

theology serves as a reminder of the tangible connection 

between theology, action, and the resulting impact on 

the world. Theology is not merely an intellectual 

exercise. It carries the potential to shape and influence 

our actions, which in turn shape the world. My first 

point, then, is that theology matters for Christian NGOs 

because of the way theology concretely impacts people 

and planet.  

Second, it is important to scrutinize the voices that 

shape our theology. As has been said in different ways 

already, too often, and in many contexts, the voices 

influencing our theology so disproportionately 

represent the Global North, people who are White, 

English-speaking people, often men. This imbalance in 

representation perpetuates the biases within our 

theology, which then impact the actions that stem from 

it. For Tearfund, a UK-based NGO serving 

economically impoverished communities in the Global 

South, this has become a critical concern. Our 

fundraising primarily occurs in the UK, and it is 

essential that our theology is not only inclusive, but also 

reflective of the voices of the economically 

marginalized. One of the great gifts to the world from 

Latin American liberation theology is the way it 

underscores the necessity of including the voices of the 

marginalized, of the economically impoverished, of the 

“poor” in shaping our theologies, and at times lies in 

intentionally decolonizing theology and ensuring that 

the voices we elevate are diverse, thus breaking away 

from historical biases that have shaped our theologies.  

Lastly, we must acknowledge the historical legacy 

of colonialism, a legacy in which colonial Christianity 

has sadly played a significant part, as Charlotte 

mentioned earlier. Crafting theology within the 

historical context demands recognition and 

accountability. Decolonizing our theology is not just 

about inclusivity, as important as that is. It is about 

seeking as best we can to move towards actively 

dismantling the power and wealth inequalities that 

colonial theologies have entrenched and created 

around the world.  

So, three quick points to try and answer the 

question. First, it is important because theology impacts 

action, which has an impact on people and planet. 

Second, decolonizing our theology needs to include the 

hard work to further diversify the voices that shape our 

theology, not least of which are the voices of the 

economically poor. And third, we are working not in 

the context of a historic vacuum, but within the 

historical legacy of colonialism, which means we must 

actively seek to dismantle the systems of power and 

wealth inequality established through colonialism. I 

hope those quick thoughts are helpful and stimulating.  

 

To close the webinar, the moderator asked Emma 

Smith Cain, who co-wrote a contribution with Alan Epp 

Weaver on the Mennonite Central Committee's 

experience of decolonizing aid, to review key practical 

tools or approaches organizations can turn to in order 

to address decolonization.   

 

Emma Smith Cain 
In terms of what we find at MCC to be practical 

tools or approaches, MCC functions primarily as a 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(2), Winter 2024  

Kurlberg et al., Further Discussion on Decolonization  134 
 

funding agency. We accompany our partners in long, 

long, long-term relationships in 45-plus countries 

globally. The most important aspect of this relationship 

is the focus on accompaniment and mutual 

transformation. You will see that come out clearly in the 

article about MCC and ANADESA, one of the partners 

in Guatemala that Mafer talked about; you will see this 

practice of accompaniment, but also the focus on 

mutual transformation come out quite clearly in that 

article.  

One thing that Alain Epp Weaver and I 

highlighted is just the tension related to evidencing our 

global impact. I'm not going to talk about the challenges 

of that in the formal part of this webinar, but that is one 

of the biggest challenges we face. There are practical 

ways that MCC has been able to address that. Some of 

you might be involved in similar conversations 

happening in more secular spaces like InterAction. 

About five or six years ago, InterAction commissioned 

a report that showed that evidencing global impact is 

highly problematic on one end and nearly impossible 

on the other end. At MCC we have really resisted the 

urge to try to aggregate global impact in terms of 

outcome indicators, because when we try to say, okay, 

here is the percent decrease in global hunger directly 

attributed to the work of MCC and its partners, that 

forces us to dictate to our partners the indicators they 

must use. I think Rebecca would also agree with us that 

this devolves into an extractive process of gathering data 

in the Global South for the benefit of us in the Global 

North, and particularly for funding agencies like 

USAID, or charity-rating agencies, like Charity 

Navigator here in the US or Charity Intelligence in 

Canada. Ultimately, what does that show? At MCC, we 

really try to value the relationships with our partners 

over logframe data. Part of that for us is making sure 

that even though we do have standardized tools, these 

tools are flexible. If a partner says that this logframe tool 

does not work for them and they do not want to use it, 

that is totally fine. We can adapt our practices to share 

the evaluation data plans in a format that works for that 

partner.  

Something inspiring and innovative I saw recently 

with our Zimbabwe program, is a partner who said, 

“you know, writing these reports semi-annually is such 

a drain on our time and is not how we normally convey 

the results of our work.” Instead, they submitted a video 

report where they shared verbally the types of changes 

they had seen in their communities. Being open and 

flexible to using reporting formats, logframe tools, and 

planning tools that really fit with the partner's priorities 

is important to us at MCC, while simultaneously 

resisting that urge and that pressure to demonstrate 

global evidence of impact and instead relying on 

qualitative case studies to drill down deep into what that 

work looks like globally.  

 
 

 

 

Clark Buys is a Theology Development Officer at 

Tearfund. Clark leads Tearfund's global Young 

Theologian.  

 

Emma Smith Cain is Learning & Evaluation 

Coordinator at Mennonite Central Committee in 

Akron, Pennsylvania, United States. Smith Cain is 

also a 2023-2024 Accord Fellow. 

 

Nina Kurlberg is postdoctoral research associate in 

theological education at the University of Durham, 

UK. She served as guest editor for the journal’s 

special issue on decolonisation. 
 

Bikita Mahdi is a business analyst and horizon scanner 

in Tearfund's Strategy & Impact team working on a 

wide range of corporate projects.  

 

Liz Muir is Head of Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion 

at Tearfund, with responsibility for embedding 

effective change management and inclusion across 

the organization globally. Liz is an experienced 

trustee with experience across the public, 

education, and charity sectors. 

 

Thobekile Ncube is an organisation development 

manager at Tearfund Zimbabwe.  
 

Alfred Sebahene is Senior Priest and Canon 

Theologian in the Anglican Church of Tanzania. 

He serves as Head of the Department of Theology 

and Religious Studies at St John’s University of 

Tanzania in Dodoma, where he also coordinates 

the Unit for the Study of Corruption. 

 

Rebecca Supriya Shah is Special Advisor to the 

President for Global Initiatives at the University of 

Dallas, and principal investigator for the Religion 

and Economic Empowerment Project (REEP). 

Based in Bangalore, India, and Washington, DC, 

Shah consults with international organizations, and 

governments on development policy and practice. 

 

Author emails:  

Clark Buys: clarkbuys@gmail.com 

Emma Smith Cain: emmasmithcain@mcc.org  

Nina Kurlberg: nina.kurlberg@durham.ac.uk 

Alfred Sebahene: asebahene@sjut.ac.tz  

Rebecca Sjupriya Shah: rshah2@udallas.edu  
 

mailto:clarkbuys@gmail.com
mailto:emmasmithcain@mcc.org
mailto:nina.kurlberg@durham.ac.uk
mailto:asebahene@sjut.ac.tz
mailto:rshah2@udallas.edu

