This third volume of Practical Matters is devoted entirely to questions of ethnography and theological inquiry. The following round table between theologians, anthropologists and scholars of religion asks each participant to reflect on the limitations of their own major field of inquiry

The purpose of this article is to introduce the Ecclesiology and Ethnography conversation by highlighting some of its character- istícs. According to the inquiry, significant contributors to the conversation understand ethnography as a form of theology and see ethnographic and ecclesiologicalmodes of theologising as an alternative to idealist ecclesiological accounts. The article also shows how participation is a key theological theme as well as a research approach. Two pressing issues, that are highlighted, concern normativity in relation to doctrine and tradition and the role of theology in qualitative theological and ecclesiological research. The article ends with discussions on two dilemmas in ethnographic ecclesiology and with suggestions on how to deal with them responsibly.

https://doi.org/10.18566/cueteo.v49n111.a13 Theologians are widely embracing ethnographic research to accomplish their theological work. However, since most theologians are not substantively trained in social scientific methods, their sophistication with this methodology is limited, leading to distortions in recorded observations and proffered interpretations. This essay seeks to address this lack of depth by articulating some of the most essential sensitivities that are crucial to the best practices associated with exemplary scholarship emerging at the intersection of ethnography and theology. Among the most important distinctions that theologians must recognize is a simple, heuristic distinction between “found theologies” and “imposed theologies”. Ethnographers know that reporting our findings always requires a careful examination of the assumptions that may unwittingly constrain what we recognize, let alone “see.” The distinction offered between “found theologies” and “imposed theologies” serves to remind theologically concerned field workers that unexamined ideals and prejudices as well as deeply held values and convictions can radically direct our attention and creatively reshape our perceptions. It also allows insightful focus on the dynamics of power as well as inclusion of marginalized peoples. My modest goal, therefore, is to further equip theologically-oriented scholars to produce original, social-scientifically conscientious, yet substantively rich and responsible works that further innovate the use of social science methodology among theologians. Ultimately, by further substantiating the ethics of ethnographic practice among theologians, students and scholars will accentuate the integrity of findings and produce streams of scholarship that will foster the unexpected and urgently needed theologies of the future.

Theologians are widely embracing ethnographic research to accomplish their theological work. However, since most theologians are not substantively trained in social scientific methods, their sophistication with this methodology is limited, leading to distortions in recorded observations and proffered interpretations. This essay seeks to address this lack of depth by articulating some of the most essential sensitivities that are crucial to the best practices associated with exemplary scholarship emerging at the intersection of ethnography and theology. Among the most important distinctions that theologians must recognize is a simple, heuristic distinction between “found theologies” and “imposed theologies”. Ethnographers know that reporting our findings always requires a careful examination of the assumptions that may unwittingly constrain what we recognize, let alone “see.” The distinction offered between “found theologies” and “imposed theologies” serves to remind theologically concerned field workers that unexamined ideals and prejudices as well as deeply held values and convictions can radically direct our attention and creatively reshape our perceptions. It also allows insightful focus on the dynamics of power as well as inclusion of marginalized peoples. My modest goal, therefore, is to further equip theologically-oriented scholars to produce original, social-scientifically conscientious, yet substantively rich and responsible works that further innovate the use of social science methodology among theologians. Ultimately, by further substantiating the ethics of ethnographic practice among theologians, students and scholars will accentuate the integrity of findings and produce streams of scholarship that will foster the unexpected and urgently needed theologies of the future.

Book review essay on Boddy and Lambek's _Companion to the Anthropology of Religion_.

Anthropologists have been addressing the issue of risk in the eld since the early 1990s, but have yet to detail on what grounds and in what cir- cumstances such risk is warranted. After surveying developments in epis- temology in anthropology, this article makes two challenges to the disci- pline. The rst is to consider the strengths of virtue theory for navigating the relationship between ethnographic particularity and broader moral claims. The second challenge is to engage in conversation with religious agents who themselves demonstrate solidarity with the af icted in situa- tions of risk. Throughout, I draw on my fieldwork in northern Uganda and South Sudan.

Drawing on autoethnographic experiences, the author of this chapter explores the visceral moment of trauma as a source of embodied knowing within lived religion studies. She argues that the visceral impact of trauma uniquely elicits the religious impulse to making meaning in the aftermath. Trauma has a capacity thoroughly to disrupt what the author has described as “world-sense,” the metaphysical foundation of one’s sense of the world, which in turn fosters moral injury as well as a desire to transcend and repair one’s meaning-making frame on an experiential level. This chapter explores implications of this for ethnographic methods as well as for ethics, power, and interdisciplinary approaches in the academy, including an expansion of the concept of “queerness” to embodied knowing in the disciplines.

This essay reflects on the ethnographic turn in recent comparative religious ethics (CRE). Comparative religious ethicists should be lauded because they privilege engagement with non-western intellectual sources. Such engagement is important since it undermines the erroneous view that non-western sources are either soft or are part of someone else’s commitments and therefore irrelevant. Yet some recent comparative work often stops at describing these non-western sources, moving ethics away from its normative tasks. If CRE is to remain relevant to broader conversations in moral and political theory, comparative religious ethicists should perform two tasks. First, they should evaluate the object under consideration. Second, they should illustrate how thinking about the object under consideration may contribute to broader thinking about common moral and political problems.