Category: Uncategorized

A word collage image of words in the Nicene Creed

‘Nicene Creed’ +1700

Leave a comment

In September 2024, a friend of mine who was writing a paper on the Nicene Creed, requested my thoughts on the creed. I share an adaptation of the reflection on the Creed and what it means to me today that I shared with my friend. My reflections may seem to cover aspects far removed from the context in which the Creed arose. But in as far as it is an affirmation we, as a reformed and reforming church, still use as a public affirmation in our liturgical practices 1700 years later, I feel it is relevant to critique it in the light of our own faith journeys and experiences as people belonging to various marginalised groups who are still at the fringes of the institutionalised church.

The World Council of Churches in its web page announcing activities to commemorate the 1700th anniversary, says:

In Nicaea, Christians who only recently had been persecuted in the Roman Empire were able to gather under the patronage of the emperor to affirm their faith and witness to the society around them. Then, as now, the call to unity was heard within the context of a troubled, unequal, and divided world.

If, therefore, the Nicene creed, is to be understood as a call to unity within the current context of “a troubled, unequal, and divided world,” then must we not introspect whether it speaks to the experiences and aspirations of the marginalised communities who are part of the body of Christ?

And so I reflect here from the perspective of the many spaces and identities I inhabit: as a woman, an Indian, a feminist theologian, a mother, and as one who is in spaces of advocacy for gender justice, disability rights, child rights, and LGBTQI rights. I critique each of the clauses in the Creed from these multiple identities and roles that have shaped my life and faith.

We believe in one God, the Father, the almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

For me as a woman, a feminist, a mother, and as one who is in advocacy for gender justice, disability rights, and child rights, the terms “Father” and “almighty” are problematic in a global confession meant for all Christians.

The term ‘father’ is not a form of address comfortable for groups like survivors of domestic violence and rape, wherein family members, like fathers, are abusers. Personally, I had the best father who loved me with an abiding and empowering love. Despite this, I am not comfortable using the term Father in God language or in any confessional creeds and prayers.

I also find the term “almighty” problematic because from the perspective of a person with disability, it raises questions about why the almighty is unable to “heal” or “cure” people living with multiple disabilities who wish to be cured. Simultaneously I must also acknowledge that there are enough persons with disabilities who embrace the term in the sense that they fully believe that being born with multiple disabilities attests to the wholeness of their disabled selves reflecting the image of God and that their disabilities are part of the diversity of all creation (by the creator of “all that is”)! – There is this spectrum of understanding within disability perspectives – ranging from the parents, siblings, and care givers who pray for the healing of their children/siblings because they see them “suffer” and be dependent for every bit of their daily routine on another person; to people with cerebral palsy who are wheelchair users and have limited control of their limbs, who declare and affirm with power and conviction -”I am created in the image of God and I am whole as I am and I don’t need to be prayed over for healing!”

The ‘overlord’ or ‘master’ overtones to this term ‘almighty’ also does not lend itself as enabling for a person who is at the bottom of a caste hierarchy not of their choosing. A dalit would much rather not use a term that reminds one of the ‘almighty’-ness of an upper caste over the lives, labour, and bodies of dalits.

So rather than the term “almighty,” we would be able to relate more to a “vulnerable God” who is still the creator of all things, seen and unseen, and who walks alongside us in all that we experience in our bodies and in our living as those belonging to marginalised spaces that invisiblise and villify our identities.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made.

Over the years as I have evolved, I have come to distrust any tendency that drives towards “one God/ one Lord/ one true God” as being limiting, and divisive of the plural fabric which is the reality of our shared inter-faith living in this world.

In as much as we oppose Hindutva, we need to oppose the Christian-Taliban-like tendencies, and saying these words in our creed/affirmation of faith reinforces our own exclusivist and triumphalistic thinking that is not helpful for plural living in this multi-religious world.

While being grateful that the Church Fathers found it justified to use the phrase “begotten not made,” I find it infinitely problematic, as a feminist, that this is followed by the phrase “of one being with the father” – almost implying a total erasure of the mother who begot Jesus in her form and body as an embodied woman!

I find it much more natural, healing, and joyful to say with some of the creative indigenous religious liturgies that affirm the woman as the mother of all creation, “Through her all things were made.”

“Light of Light”- As one who has been struggling with PTSD and mental health issues like depression, anxiety, and panic attacks over the past few years, I have also found it increasingly difficult to relate to “light” as against darkness, as empowering or affirming. It is in the darkest of dark times that the deepest of epiphanies happen, and the profoundest of theologies arise. God was already hovering in the deep…God did not come into existence after the light (and night) was created, She was brooding over all of the universe even before there was the word and then the light.

I believe it is that ancient primordial spirit that held me in my darkest times when I couldn’t breath, and brooded over me, prevented me from submitting to the so-called “dark” thoughts of ideation, and kept saying, “breath, you are more than this, I will see you through!” Through that brooding spirit hovering over the dark I found my way back. It was she who wrapped me in darkness but promised me that the darkness would not consume me, but would be a fecund place from which I will rise again – bruised and battered, but stronger, and able to handle the harshness of the glaring light again!

For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.

I find these words totally alienating from the understanding of sin, suffering, and salvation, that I have come to understand, believe, and live by. Again the “men” language is annoying! But that apart, the need for the Church Fathers to insist on virginity as the only possible route through which God could be incarnated only manifests their deep misogyny and distrust for the female body and the reproductive powers that lie in biologically female bodies, which men had no control over. The repurcussions of this misogyny and need to control a woman’s body is still evidenced in the fact that many churches still use the biological aspects of women (reaffirmed by gendered socialisation) to exclude them from priestly roles and significant leadership roles in faith spaces.

The inherent sinfulness of all humanity and this need for an external saviour – is not the soteriological understanding that the Jesus story has come to mean for me. The penal substitution theory of sin and need for a God to be satisfied with the death of his son- is not based on the God of the Bible that I believe in.

The passive language of “was crucified, suffered death, and was buried,” goes against the grain of the historical facts of the active forces that ‘killed’ Jesus. Jesus was not “crucified for our sake”! Jesus was “murdered” for questioning and challenging the oppressive kyriarchal Empire of his time and the religious authorities of his time. “He was killed.” He did not voluntarily flog himself, place a crown of thorns on his own head, carry a cross (while being forced to do so with whips and) as a form of public humiliation, climb himself on to the cross to be nailed and speared and killed like a criminal! It was political, religious, economic powers of his time that colluded to murder the ordinary man from Nazareth, son of a carpenter, and son of Mary who sang him revolutionary lullabies about the tumbling of those in power and the rich being brought low, who dared to question, and inspired others to question. He was murdered to make him an example! And this was a threat, so that others would not follow his path ever again! So why don’t we turn the language on its head and name it for what it is in our Creed to say, “He was killed by religious and political forces of Empire, and made a public example to silence all dissent to death-dealing forces.”

On the third day he rose again in accordance with the scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the father.

The resurrection understanding that I believe in is that despite being killed for challenging the oppressive powers of his time, the Jesus movement did not end with his murder. His path of resistance without violence, against all that was death-dealing, lived on. His lessons of forgiveness, and the principle of ‘the first one who was sinless throwing the stone,’ and walking and living in the company of the most marginalised in his times – the women, the lepers, the disabled, the tax-collectors, the so-called “sinful” according to Jewish legalities – lived on in and through all his followers, not just through the apostles. That the Christian faith continued to thrive in the face of persecution in the years soon after Jesus was killed, and that it survives persecution today, is thanks to those who committed to following the path of Jesus (not that of the institutionalised religion that the apostolic hierarchical Church would later become!)

As a feminist, I cannot help but wonder at the omission from this creed of the role of women who defied Roman threats to their lives to visit Jesus’ tomb, and also cultural practices that considered dead bodies polluting (who better than women understood what ‘polluting’ meant as they were considered polluting every month of their biologically reproductive lives and even when they gave birth!); women who were the first to announce that the tomb was empty, and the first resurrection witnesses to formulate that “Jesus Lived! Jesus is Risen” The lack of reference to women resurrection witnesses in this creed is an abiding testament to the absence of women at Nicea 1700 years ago, and a continued indictment of the institutionalised church that to this day actively excludes women around tables that fromulate matters of faith in the form of creeds, and policies of the institutionalised church. It is also evidence that women birth life-giving declarations that sustain movements such as the Jesus movements, and are not interested in dogma that limits.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

Rather than a legalistic judge, I believe that the kingdom that Jesus kicked off in his lifetime, incarnates again in each time and in each person who fights for justice even at the cost of personal trials and sacrifices, and in every community that bears the scars of unjust systems yet resists with resilience to name the oppressors and tear down unjust kyriarchal systems.

 It is not a time in the far future, it is here and now, every time a child is born despite the forces of death trying to destroy all of life as we know it on this planet; it is here and now each time a woman with trembling legs and fear in her heart still rises to speak at the tables of powerful men who look on her with derision and veiled disrespect; it is here and now in every little act of kindness we teach children and see them carry through; it is in the here and now when each survivor of rape pushes back and resists the shaming; it is here and now in the story of every dalit who pushes back against the all-pervasive casteism to claw their way through the pain and humiliation to claim fullness of life as a right; it is in the here and now in every woman street vendor who with resilience and courage faces each day despite the crushing global capitalist empire whose tentacles seek to crush life and the flourishing of life! – And I truly believe such a kingdom will indeed “have no end,” as long as we continue to resist, to fight, and “surthrive” with resilience!

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets.

I do believe in “God, the creator, provider, and sustainer of life” who continues to accompany and walk with all of god’s creation – human and non-human- to ensure the flourishing of and fullness of life” The God I believe in, doesn’t depend on our worship and glorification to continue to be God. Because that God is in each of us created in God’s image. The Holy Spirit, as wisdom Sophia, is always near and waiting for us to listen to her and invite her to walk with us. It doesn’t matter to me that I go for long times without singing praise or praying. When I do break forth in praise and worship, it is not addressed to the gendered “Father and Son” but to Jesus my liberator and friend. My god is in me and moves me in everything I do for justice – for self, for neighbour, and in the eyes of my god of justice- who indeed spoke through the prophets! I’m inspired by Isaiah, Hosea, and Amos as much as I am by Bathsheba, Rahab, Jael, Deborah, Hagar, Zelophehad’s daughters, Vashthi, Esther, Mary Magdalene and Mary mother of Jesus! The Creed talks of ‘spoken through the Prophets’ as a thing of the past. I believe the canon is not closed and we continue to be inspired by prophets of justice throughout history and in our times. Our God is a living God who continues to speak and move us towards establishing the fullness of life amidst soul crushing kyriarchal forces in this world.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I’m sorry this last bit I have totally no resonance for. I think the “holy catholic and apostolic Church” is just code for “male patriarchal authoritative (‘power-over’) institution” that has no place for women, for the LGBTQ, for the disabled, the dalits or the poor. I absolutely DO NOT believe in such a church.

And I believe and consistently work towards dismantling such a church.

I believe in the body of Christ that Jesus called all of us to be a part of, regardless!

I believe I/we are Church, whenever we become a safe and welcoming space for all, and do the difficult work to dismantle all ‘isms’ – sexism, ableism, casteism, racism – in every area of our lives.

I believe in the Luke 14 feast rather than the Eucharist of the institutionalised church that still discrimates on the basis of gender, disability, and caste.

I believe in the solidarity and camaraderie of the one standing next to me in the protest on the street, rather than the “one baptism” which is a ritual of the institutionalised Church exclusive to those who have paid subscription to that particular Church.

“The resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come” is not so much on my radar rather than living a life of kindness, justice, and working to bring peace in the world here and now. Rather than the resurrection of the dead, I believe in the invitation in John 21:1-14 where the resurrected Jesus invites his disciples to join him for a breakfast he had cooked, emphasising the importance of food shared as friends in a community and where what one eats does not become a license to label or lynch.

And Here I Stand!✊🏾✊🏾✊🏾 So help me Wisdom Sophia to stay true – to self, to God, and my neighbour!!!

  • Jessica Richard, Chennai, India, 25 Sep 2024.

The 11th WCC Pre-Assembly on JCWM, Caste, and Disability

How long must we wait for ‘global’ ecumenical fora to accept that the categories of caste and the violence of casteism cannot be subsumed within racism? And when will we realise that not having disability explicitly expressed as a cross-cutting issue when discussing gender is a missed opportunity.

Why are the voices of dalits, dalit women, and women with disabilities not represented in the report of the recently concluded pre-assembly on “Just Community of Women and Men” of the World Council of Churches that met in Karlsruhe, Germany? 

A woman on a wheelchair and another woman sitting chatting opposite her on the ground, to be on eye-level with the woman in the wheelchair.
Barriers create disabled persons. Disability is part of diversity in creation and life. (Photo by Judita Tamošiūnaitė, www.pexels.com)

To my memory, there was a long-drawn struggle of about seven odd years in the late 1990s and early 2000s when delegations and various groups from India tried in several global platforms to have caste and casteism included as separate categories, alongside racism yes, but still as separate categories to be mentioned. UN (CERD) to my knowledge included caste/casteism within racism and said caste is racial discrimination.[1]

I would have thought that within global faith-based ecumenical spaces like the WCC at least, there have been enough debates and discussions over these past two decades to lead to platforms like the WCC making the token effort to include the words ‘caste’ and ‘casteism’ when mentioning categories of peoples and systemic forms of discrimination[2] in any reports from the Assembly.

It is my contention that “Caste is not entirely the same as Race” [3] and I believe, along with Meena Dhanda that, “Caste continues to be seen as a birth-ascribed status, and, even though historical ties to occupations have loosened for those who accept the religious hierarchical order, caste is still connected to ritual purity/pollution. It combines elements of social class, hierarchy and privilege sustained by endogamy (marrying restricted within a group).”[4]

And any celebration of ‘difference’ that subsumes caste identity under other rubrics fails to hear the seminal voice of Babasaheb Ambedkar and thousands after him who called for the ‘annihilation of caste,’ if necessary, by legal means.

It is therefore with much sadness that I note that the “Pre-Assembly Report – Just Community of Women and Men, 29 and 30 August 2022 | Karlsruhe, Germany,” has not deigned to mention the word caste or casteism anywhere in the report. I also note with sadness that this report has no mention of disability as a factor contributing to discrimination, inequality, and violence, nor does it mention “women with disabilities.”

While I am excited to note that sexual and gender identity, class, ethnic and racial identity are mentioned, I am disturbed that caste and disability find no mention. Under ‘violence and abuse’ the report mentions conflict and war, racism and migration, as exacerbating factors in the pandemic context. But it does not mention caste and disability as factors exacerbating violence and abuse nor casteism and ableism as systemic parameters of discrimination. 

I also find it ironic (and painful) that this section goes on to talk about intersectionality without any reference to caste or disability. How do you talk about intersectionality without at least a token mention of the south-asian context where intersectionality of necessity MUST talk about caste and disability and how a dalit woman with disability is probably the most marginalised in this framework of intersectionality that leads to violence, abuse, and invisibility of unimaginable proportions?

Few paragraphs later tracing the effects of gender based violence (GBV) throughout our communities, again racism and xenophobia are mentioned, indigenous and minority women are mentioned, but no mention of caste, casteism, disability or ableism.

In the ‘praxis (policy and practice)’ section of the report “patriarchy or power imbalances between women and men” finds mention, but no mention of systemic analysis necessary to expose power imbalance in ALL “power-over” systems (kyriarchal systems), primary of such systems being caste.

While acknowledging the need to talk of gender diversity in the context of “rights and responsibilities,” there is no mention of disability too as part of diversity, and the need to create accessible spaces for dalit women, and wo/men with disabilities to be visible, listened to, and accompanied in solidarity against the violence of unimaginable proportions perpetrated on them on a daily basis.

Calls to gender justice that do not take seriously ALL systemic forms of discrimination miss the  opportunity to be truly intersectional, and marks a reluctance to create a space for the ‘full and just participation’ of ALL peoples who are victims fighting with resilience the systemic discrimination of casteism and abelism.

I am deeply disturbed and disappointed to contemplate if it was the lack of the participation of dalit wo/men and women with disabilities at the pre-assembly of JCWM that caused this lapse and total exclusion of these issues and voices being represented in this report? I hope this presumption of mine is proved wrong and they were indeed represented in this pre-assembly.

However, my disappointment will still remain at why then were they not heard, and if they were, why not represented in this report? and if they were not heard at all, why were there no intentional mechanisms in place to facilitate them to articulate?

We must do better as faith-based ecumenical spaces to facilitate with intentionality to truly hear the unheard and create space for the invisibilised.

* I received the JCWM pre-assembly report circulated as a pdf through the WhatsApp broadcast group of the National Council of Churches in India. 

[1] Sheila Mathrani, “Caste system is racial discrimination: UN rights panel” in The Economic Times last modified Mar 30, 2007, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/caste-system-is-racial-discrimination-un-rights-panel/articleshow/1830276.cms?from=mdr

[2] For a detailed study on the problems in efforts to subsume caste within race, see Meena Dhanda, “Anti-castism and misplaced nativism: Mapping caste as an aspect of race” Radical Philosophy 192, (July/Aug 2015):31-43. https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/article/anti-castism-and-misplaced-nativism

[3] Izza Ahsan, “Are Casteism and Racism Blood Brothers?” Countercurrents.org last modified June 9, 2020 https://countercurrents.org/2020/06/are-casteism-and-racism-blood-brothers/ 

[4] Meena Dhanda, “Anti-castism and misplaced nativism: Mapping caste as an aspect of
race” Radical Philosophy 192, (July/Aug 2015):38. https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/article/anti-castism-and-misplaced-nativism

 

Objectivity in Academic Writing in Social Sciences

Two and a half minutes read

A woman standing among flowers atop a hill at twilight
Your location decides the lenses you use

Is it necessary to prove ‘objectivity’ in reporting research? This is the elephant in social sciences and humanities higher education spaces that is seldom talked about!

From my student days I have been baffled by how to be ‘objective’ when what I write is something I chose to study and research precisely because I have a passion for it and a bias towards it!

There are areas of academic writing in particular like theological writing, and writing on social justice issues, where it is necessary to take sides while writing on certain topics. And I do not just mean that one takes sides only when writing about certain issue-based topics. When writing on methodological or technical tools in theological writing too, I believe it is necessary to exercise a bias in favour of, for example, certain hermeneutical methods or tools that could lend themselves more to certain types of theological inquiry.

In academic writing one is expected to have a reasonable handle on literature on similar and allied topics and one is expected to reference them in the course of one’s own writing. However, the choice to reference authors who could add strength to my argument cannot be adjudged a ‘subjective’ decision that discounts my writing altogether. It can be argued that I would lack integrity as an academic only if I refused to reference any other authors whose views were contrary to my own argument in an academic piece.

Having a clear position that is considered ‘subjective’ per se is therefore not the problem in academic writing. The problem is when one does not clearly outline this position as the location, stand point, and scope of one’s writing as you begin your piece. This is when you may be critiqued as being subjective when your reader assumed that you were supposedly setting out to cover a topic from varied angles whereas you set out confining yourself to pursue one line of inquiry based on a particular locus, but failed to spell out that this was your intent.

To understand more about the use of subjectivity in academic writing, you can read a well-researched study by Nunn, Brandt and Deveci that explores how ‘subjectivity’ and ‘objectivity’ are deployed in written reports of scholarship and research here. The study makes an important conclusion that I quote below:

We conclude that, while ‘subjectivity’ is an inevitable part of any act of understanding, we question whether ‘objectivity’ is a useful or tenable guiding concept for authors to embrace when reporting a contribution to knowledge. We propose transparency in displaying and thereby acknowledging assumptions, agency and inevitable subjectivity as an integral part of reporting knowledge creation as a more tenable position.[1]

[1] Roger Nunn, Caroline Brandt, & Tanju Deveci. “Transparency, Subjectivity and Objectivity in Academic Texts” in English Scholarship Beyond Borders Vol. 4.1 (2018) 72-102.

Literature Review in a Master’s Level Dissertation

A pile of books, with a spectables, a cup of tea and biscuits beside it
So many books to read. . . but choose you must, only those relevant to your argument

You have a great hypothesis in mind. You have a brilliant theological or missiological or hermeneutical breakthrough in your head that you wish to convey. You have a compelling argument to support your hypothesis and build the conceptual understanding in your head. Now, you have to commit all of this to paper. You sit down purposefully to do it. And then boink! Things simply don’t go according to the lofty plans in your head! Sounds familiar?

Those of you who have laboured through long hours working on a Master’s level thesis/dissertation within theological education in India will recognise this feeling of being in limbo while you are in the process of writing each section or chapter. Trying to translate all your ideas into the required thesis format leaves you feeling confused and alienated. Although you went through a ‘methodology seminar’ before you started your Master’s course, it does not equip you with an understanding of the whys and wherefores of each section required in a thesis format.

In this post, I handle one part of the required format, namely, ‘Literature Review’ or the ‘Previous Research’ section, and some tips to, hopefully, help you feel less alienated from what you are required to do in a literature review as a Master’s student. Although I write from the perspective of and for the field of academic writing within theological education in India, I daresay this could be helpful for other fields of academic writing in general as well.

Tip: If you could be a bit more organised about this ‘Literature Review,’ it will immensely simplify the not-very-inviting task of compiling your bibliography and footnotes sections as well. But more about this at the end of this post!   

Before we get into it, let me share with you what my awesome Masters’ Supervisor told me when I was whining to her about why she wanted me to add footnotes for everything that I had said in my first draft submitted to her, which, according to me, contained all my own thoughts and ideas!

She said, “Your first draft is beautiful and I know it’s all coming from your head. But my dear girl, someone has most likely already said what you want to say. So just find those to quote. Your time will come when you can write your own book without footnotes. But this is not yet that time. When you write a dissertation, this is the academic requirement.” Keeping this wisdom in mind helped me to cope with some of the rigour required in academic writing ever since.

So, like she said, remember the required formats in academic writing need to be fulfilled, but it will be helpful, and less alienating, to know how parts of this format fit into the bigger scheme of the research superstructure. So here we go . . .

Purpose of a literature review section

It needs to show that you have done three things as a Master’s level student:

1) read enough about the broad area of research in which you are situating your specific topic/study;

2) know how to answer critical questions in existing research on your specific topic, are familiar with questions that have been asked and answered, and have a grip on which aspects have received more attention and which ones have not; and

3) identified which areas have not been addressed and why, and show how you are going to address these gaps in your research/study; or alternately specify why your study does not address said gaps, but that you wish to show how the previous literature provides context for your own thesis.

What it IS NOT and what it IS?

A literature review cannot be just a list of books/articles you read while you were zeroing in on your thesis title and specific area of research.              

A literature review should be written in a narrative form, and be organised chronologically or thematically, grouping together similar arguments, identifying significant trends in the research area, and interlacing all of this with what these arguments are missing or lacking, that your research will address. You can read more about this in this helpful article put together by St. Mary’s University, California.

Your literature review should identify significant prior research, explain whether the questions you propose to deal with in your thesis have been asked before, and what answers have been obtained. It should outline, evaluate and synthesise current state of critical/ theoretical debate. It could also point out misinterpretations, contradictions, or conceptual problems in exisiting literature. Your literature review should explain how you will build on strengths of past literature, and overcome the limitations found in them. In short, the literature review should be situated within a line of inquiry and a developing body of knowledge, while pointing out how you diverge from it, agree with it, or use it to ground your own hypothesis or research questions.

How to organise a literature review?

Shona Mc Combes lists five steps in the process of putting together a literature review that you may find helpful, and I quote them here as it affords repeating:

1) Search for relevant literature

2) Evaluate sources

3) Identify themes, debates, and gaps

4) Outline the structure

5) Write your literature review

A rather more detailed article on how to go about these five steps has also been put together by the University of Pennsylvania, if you have time for a heavier read.

Tip: In your enthusiasm to show ALL that you have read, don’t forget to always connect each work you talk about with how it relates to your own thesis/research idea or research question.

How long should a literature review section be?

Depending on your chosen area of research, a literature review could be a full chapter by itself in a Master’s Thesis, or one of the longer sections (at least 4 to 5 pages) in your introductory chapter, or it could be a few pages long if it is for a research paper.

Warning: One paragraph citing three titles or articles with a line about who wrote each, and enumerating the three titles cannot be considered a ‘literature review’ and will reflect poorly on your capabilities as a Master’s student. On the other hand, do not use lengthy quotes from the literature you are reviewing but provide summaries in your own words.

Finally, a tip about something that will add many gainful hours to your life as a student! From year one of your Master’s course, before you zero in on your thesis title and specific area of research, you are required to be reading existing literature. Each time you feel that there are resonances in something you are reading, to the research idea/question that you have in mind, insert the bibliographic details of the book/article into existing free or reasonably priced software like Mendeley or some such.

This will save you many hours of trying to remember and find the books later when you get into the actual task of writing and need to insert footnotes and compile the bibliography. And you will also save time trying to manually follow the particular referencing style your seminary/ university requires you to follow (In the Senate of Serampore University system, Hunter Mabry’s Guide based on the Chicago Manual of Style or the Turabian citation style is followed). Try some of the existing software from year one of your course, until you find one that is user-friendly, and doesn’t pinch your pocket. Believe me, you will not regret it!

So that’s all there is to it. Don’t let it overwhelm you. Be organised. Your well-written literature review will give you clarity of thought and become a solid launchpad to organise the rest of your chapters.