Defining the playing field of public theology
Introduction
Although public theology has become popular worldwide in the last two decades, it is not
always clear what is meant by the term (Smit 2008; Van Aarde 2008). When one starts to
read on the topic of public theology a wide range of overlapping opinions and contrasting
viewpoints are found (Bezuidenhout 2007:5). In order to speak about public theology in
the work of David Bosch, we will need to find some clarity about what is understood
with the concept public theology, or at least what possible understandings of public
theology there could be.
A number of recent publications point out that our understanding of the concept public as
well as our understanding of theology will to a large extent determine our approach as
public theologians (Smit 2008; Bezuidenhout 2007:21). Although this might seem like
simply playing with words, and that the meaning is obvious, what underlies this is the
fact that our understanding of the notion of “public” is not obvious, and that different
understandings thereof will lead to different understandings of public theology (Smit
2008). Furthermore, our theology, which determines our ecclesiology, will to a large
extent determine our public theology (Smit 2008).
Why the need for public theology
Since the use of the term public theology has been popular for only the past two decades,
one must ask whether theology has not had a public voice before the emergence of this
field. And if theology did take part in a public conversation, why did a field like public
theology become necessary? In his important work, The Analogical Imagination, which
has had a mayor influence on the field of public theology, David Tracy (1981:3) argues
that all theological discourse is public discourse, and that the theologian needs to identify
the public that is being addressed, which would then influence the theological language
that is used.
In a similar way, Jűrgen Moltmann (in Marshall 2005:11) said that “From the perspective
of its origins and its goal, Christian theology is public theology, for it is the theology of
the kingdom of God”. “As such it must engage with the political, cultural, educational,
economic and ecological spheres of life, not just with the private and ecclesial spheres”
(Marshall 2005:11). Both Moltmann and Tracy by implication challenge the idea that
there is a part of theology that is public, while another part is not. Why then the sudden
need for public theology that is explicitly identified as such, which would by implication
say that there are parts that are not public? (Marshall 2005:11) At least two important
reasons for this can be identified.
The end of Christendom
Although there is no consensus among historians as to whether the rise of
Constantianism was a positive development or not, they do agree that the church was
decisively changed by the decisions taken by Emperor Constantine after A.D. 313
that ultimately led to Christianity being recognized as the official religion of the
Roman Empire in 380 under Emperor Theodosius I. Christianity was transformed
from a movement located on the margins of society into the official religion of the
Roman Empire, from being perceived as a threat to the security of the empire into a
guardian of the status quo. Such a profound change in the identity of the church could
not fail to have far-reaching implications. Indeed Europe would be known as
Christendom until the twentieth century.
(Shenk 2005:74)
In Hauerwas and Willimon’s Resident Aliens (1989), as well as the first article published in
the International Journal of Public Theology (2007), we find similar pictures of Christendom
in the mid twentieth century: It was a time when children grew up to be Christian simply by
growing up. That which was taught at home, school, church, community and even the media,
all contributed to Christian formation (Hauwerwas & Willimon 1989:16; Storrar 2007:6-7).
This was a time when biblical faith and society lived in a symbiotic relationship, when
society was eager to receive the moral fruit of the church (Hunsberger 2006:16).
Since the time of the Enlightenment, attempts were made to moderate or restrict the public
role of religion. Public policy was to be formed using reason, positive law and individual
human rights. Theology was welcome at the public table, as long as its voice conformed to
the truths of reason, and could be validated by social consensus (Marshall 2005:13). As long
as the consensus remained nominally Christian, theology continued its potent public role, but
with the growth of secularisation and the final fall of Christendom, this positive reception
was lost. Although the right of Christian theology is protected by the democratic principle,
and therefore Christian theology has the right to take part in public conversation, its voice is
tolerated, not welcomed (Marshall 2005:13). On a tacit level a Christian consensus remained
part of society until the 1960’s, but churches continued to operate within this supposed
Christendom-consensus well after this time (Drew 2005:21). Even today attempts at a
continuation of Christendom are found (Drew 2005:23).
Hauerwas & Willimon (1990:15-16) speaks of the night in Greenville, South Carolina, when
a Fox theatre opened their doors on a Sunday evening and the church suddenly had to
compete with the theatre for the worldview of the youth. Although the end of Christendom
didn’t happen overnight, the picture they sketch does ring true for anyone who has
experienced this shift, like the sudden shift in the South African society when professional
sport was allowed on a Sunday. Looking back, we can point to certain events which should
have warned us that this symbiotic relationship was over, but for a long time church and
society was still perceived to be one, but since our eyes were trained to see them as such,
church and society were for a long time, still perceived to be one. Whether church and
society could ever have been one, or was one, is open for debate, but by the time that it
became clear that is was impossible to see them as one any longer, they were totally apart
and the whole image was scrambled (Hunsberger 2005:315-316).
Today, however, the post-Christendom era contrary to what was predicted, is not
characterized by the victory of secularism, and philosophical materialism, over religion.
Rather a pluralism of spiritualities is now available, but none of these are allowed public
control (Drew 2005:23). The secularisation thesis predicted the demise of religions, but as
some studies appeared to be proving this thesis, others point to the fact that religion did not
disappear, They did not even remain completely privatised (Maddox 2007:84).
“…just as the adoption of the church into the cultural center in the fourth-
century radically changed the nature of its existence, the recognition of its
end has created a radical sense of loss and marginalization to which the
churches are responding in a variety of ways. The fourth and twentieth
centuries form bookends marking transition points in the history of the
church. Just as the fourth century adoption of Christianity by Constantine
forced the church to struggle with it’s self-understanding as the new center
[sic] of the culture, twentieth-century Christians must now struggle to
understand the meaning of their social location in a decentered [sic] world.
(Roxburgh 1997:7-8)
The end of Christendom cost Christian theology and the church its privileged position in
the public conversation. It had to take part within the public conversation using the rules
of modernity, and was tolerated as long as it supported the consensus. However, the
church mostly remained tied to this irrelevant self-understanding, found in the former
authoritative role it played within Christendom (Drew 2005:21). If Christian theology,
after the demise of Christendom and the shift in consensus still claims to have public
relevance, a new approach towards the public conversation needed to be found.
Religious faith constricted to the private realm
Together with the demise of Christendom, a second factor contributes to the need for a
specifically public theology. Pre-enlightenment and pre-twentieth century times knew a
worldview where religious faith had a definite impact on all aspects of life. Now
Enlightenment brought the idealisation of reason and positivism. This made faith
redundant within the public realm, since all moral truth was supposedly accessible via
reason. By the twentieth century, religion, at least within the European context, was
confined to the private realm of an over sharpened public/private distinction (Morton
2004:26).
This view was not only propagated by those outside the church, but also from within.
Christian pietism has long provided the soil for fideism, and from within theology many
theologians followed Rudolf Bultmann by accepting the positivist constraints, agreeing
that the Christian faith is not a matter of public truths, but of privatised, individual truths
(Drew 2005:21). As discussed above, the consensus within society remained Christian.
However with Christian faith privatized, and within a society that was no longer
distinctively Christian, the end of Christendom left Christian theology without a way of
showing its public relevance.
Maybe Marshall (2005:11) is correct when stating that the label public theology is an
unhappy one, since it suggests that one part of theology is public, while another is not. As
I have pointed out above, theology is by its very nature public (see also Drew 2005 21-
23), however, similar to the way the demise of Christendom caused Christian theology to
lose it’s public voice, the relegation of religious faith to the private realm did the same.
This development further contributed to the need for the rise of this unfortunate label. For
theology to be public, the notion that religion affects only private life must be rejected
(Morton 2004:25).
