The playing field of public theology
Following this short overview of what it means when we speak about public theology, we
need to define the playing field where public theology operates. In this I do not attempt to
provide a definition for public theology, but rather to take the first step in defining some
of the possible boundaries within which public theology will be found. This does not
imply that all who use the term public theology fall within these boundaries. As others
have noted, the term public theology does not mean the same thing for everyone
(Bezuidenhout 2007:8), and even within the Global Network of Public Theology,
different centres are defining their roles in a variety of ways (Smit 2008). However, some
boundaries seem to be crystallizing out of the conversation, and noting these can help us
in our later task of evaluating David Bosch through the lens of public theology.
The public in public theology
To this day David Tracy’s 1981 work, The Analogical Imagination (1981), remains an
often-cited book within public theology. Tracy’s approach was to argue that all theology
is public discourse, but that different publics are addressed by the theologian (1981:3).
“The specific audience requires the theologian to tailor a theology that acknowledges the
various social realities with their distinct traditions, values, and assumptions”
(Bezuidenhout 2007:8). This, however, is simply the acknowledgement of a specific
audience for theology at a specific instance (Smit 2008). But if all theology is public
theology, and any sphere within which theology speaks could be called public, then the
need for a public theology, which is defined as such, and is differentiated from that,
which then would not be public theology, again becomes vague.
However, other interpretations of the word public in public theology also exist. When
analyzing the different understandings of public in public theology, Smit notes that
Tracy’s approach is to be found on one end of the spectrum of descriptive
understandings, in the above mentioned wide understanding of public (Smit 2008). On
the other end of this spectrum, the interpretation of someone like Bernard Lategan is
found, which limit the public of public theology to Tracy’s third public, that of society,
the public life in the world (Smit 2008).
Smit also investigates a more normative understanding of public. In this understanding
public is a specific sphere of life separate from politics and the economy, a place where
opinions can be formed. This can range from either civil religion, practiced independently
from churches and religious organizations on the one hand, to the formation of advocacy
groups that would help enhance democracy on the other (Smit 2008).
All of the above mentioned interpretations use the descriptive public. This leads to a wide
array of interpretations of public theology. Looking at recent publications will make it
clear that this is still an ongoing discussion. At this point we could say that the
descriptive public points to the fact that at this point in history not all theology is
necessarily public, in spite of the inherent public character of theology. Flowing from the
understanding that faith does not only have individual personal relevance, but that the
gospel has something to say about society, public then points to those theologies which
take the welfare of the city, rather than the welfare of the church as their agenda
(Forrester 2004:6). This specifically, and in some cases primarily (see Storrar 2008),
involves the participation in spheres of public discourse, those places where public
opinion is formed, as well as the way in which Christians theologize within these spheres.
In the way in which centres of public theology see their own tast, it is clear that it also
includes contributing to the formation of a sound economic and political sphere, among
others.
Two ends in the spectrum of language in the public sphere?
So, if public theology is necessary in this day and age, and if what is meant by this is that
a certain public, which is broader than the church, needs to become the sphere within
which Christians theologize, then before we proceed to look at what the task of this
public theology would be, we need to ask ourselves how public theology speaks within
the sphere? What language does it use (Marshall 2005)?
Marshall (2005:14-16) points to the two ends of the spectrum when it comes to the
language the church has used within the public sphere:
On the one hand we find the common currency approach, the main strategy the church
has used in its public discourse. According to this understanding, shared public truth,
derived from rational reflection or human experience, is appealed to, with no explicit use
of religious or revelatory language. This approach is seen in Roman Catholic natural law
theory, where human reason alone is enough to know moral truth, and it can also be seen
in Nazi Germany, where a free-floating natural theology ended up sanctifying the Nazi
ideology. A more typical protestant approach is to derive moral guidance from the Bible
and the theological tradition, and then to translate this into secular language. The most
unique elements of the Christian moral tradition, for example loving of enemies, is
almost impossible to translate into secular language, and thus this approach tends to lose
what is distinctive within the Christian tradition.
The second approach used by the church, which is found at the other end of the spectrum,
is the distinctive discourse approach. This approach seeks to provide a distinctively
Christian ethical practice, a Christian narrative that seeks to out-narrate the story of
liberal secularism. It seeks to provide an alternative, namely public not in the sense that it
seeks commonalities within the public realm, but that it is publicly visible as an
alternative social reality. This approach becomes problematic when the Kingdom of God
is no longer regarded as wider than the church; the church then tries to gain a monopoly
on the kingdom. It also tends to ignore the places where consensus can be found outside
the Christian tradition. More advantages and criticisms of both approaches are provided
by Marshall (2005:14-16). Noting these two extremes within the spectrum help us in
gaining perspective when we look at how public theology generally tends to seek
language to use within the public sphere.
Morton (2004:27) writes that for Forrester public theology is advocacy, and in this sense
it is evangelism. Forrester (in Storrar & Morton 2004:1) makes it clear that public
theology is not seeking to articulate consensus, but to make a unique contribution to the
issues of public concern from the tradition of which it is steward, and yet aims to be
publicly accessible truth. It listens to the Bible while also attempting to discern the signs
of the times. Storrar (2007:25) notes that one of the things that those identifying with the
Global Network for Public Theology all recognize is that, in their participation in the
global public sphere and in their critique of economic, social, political and environmental
issues, they need to be dialogical and pastoral, as well as analytical and prophetic. Again
we find the tension between having enough in common to be in dialogue, while still
having a voice that is distinctive enough to be prophetic.
Maybe we can further clarify this by stating that public theology is not civil religion.
While civil religion is largely optimistic about society, and describes how society relates
itself to ultimate reality, public theology is largely critical, pointing out what is wrong
within society. It emphasizes that action based on religious belief supersedes other
considerations (Bezuidenhout 2007:9), yet still it does not present the gospel to society in
the hope of repentance and conversion (Forrester 2004:6). It rather search for an
integrated approach in public theology, an approach that derives its insights, not from
some objective ahistorical rational reflection on nature, but from revelatory sources, and
is open for truth from outside the Christian tradition. It is an approach that attempts to
speak of God in the public sphere neither too early, nor too late, that uses both the
language of faith and the language of mediation in the public sphere, and knows when to
use which (Marshall 2005:16-17).
Looking at the motivation behind something like public theology is important and needs
looking into. We could say that public theology seeks to avoid stepping into the
secularization trap of late Christendom, which asked of theology to speak in the same
manner that all public conversation is held, and simply use the language of rational
reflection, having a voice of faith only when it agrees with the generally held consensus.
Still, public theology acknowledges the end of Christendom, and therefore the need to, at
times, translate its voice into publicly accessible language. If it wants to have a public
voice at all it has to recognize where consensus can be found. Also, public theology
moves away from an approach that limits the language of theology only to the private
sphere, and argues that the language of faith does have public truth.
Public theology and its relation to academic theology
To use the descriptive theology when talking about the task of “…mak[ing] a plausible
and principled Christian contribution to matters of public life and debate” (Marshall
2005:12) might also be problematic according to Marshall (2005:11-12). He points out
the criticism of Moltmann’s idea that all Christian thinking is Christian theology.
Theology, according to him, needs to be limited to the task of studying the sources and
grammar of Christian confession, and what we then furthermore would need is not public
theology but Christian thinking about economics, politics or ecology. Although
seemingly not sharing this narrow understanding of theology with Marshall, Van Aarde
(2008) argues for a similar understanding of public theology - one which says that public
theology is not that which is done by academic theologians and pastors at universities or
seminaries, but the theology that people are doing in the public square. According to him
academics should then only engage with the theology that people are doing in the public
square.
Public theology has, however, within the short time of its existence, understood that
theology, as a discipline, also has a role within the public sphere. Tracy’s three publics
within which theological discourse happens said this, and the way in which centres for
public theology function also point to the understanding that a specifically public
theology can be practiced by academic theologians and pastors. Morton (2004:30) writes:
“But what are the public in which public theology is practiced? Professional theologians
are most aware of two of them, the Church and the academy; for it is to these two that
most of them belong, these two which in some sense they serve, these two which have
given them their qualification or appointment.” Within the understanding of public set
out above, we must say that theology that has only the publics of Church or academy in
mind, which determines its agenda from these two, would not be considered public
theology. And how easy it becomes to be trapped by Church or academy, since, as
Morton said, it is these two which theologians in some sense serve. To talk of theology
for the public, professional theology would thus need to explicitly move beyond
theologizing for the sake of church and academy.
This being said, I immediately want to qualify myself by adding that today it is accepted that
the sphere of the church and academy should not be missing from public theology. More will
be said on the church in later chapters, but what is said about theology here, can similarly be
said about the church. The academy, the classroom, has its role within public theology. It
forms a place of learning, a place in which “…we are in conversation with viewpoints that
challenge and bring into question our unexamined prejudices about faith, politics and life”
(Storrar 2007:12). As such the academy form a key site for doing public theology, but not the
public for which public theology is done. It is not just another audience for theology. For
public theology, church and academy form key sites for doing public theology, but they do so
as ‘truth-seeking communities’ (Storrar 2007:12). Within the above understanding of public,
the relation between public theology and the academy (and the same can be said for the
church) would not be doing theology “on behalf of” (see the language of Tracy (1981:29))
church or academy, but church and classroom form part of the collaborators doing public
theology (Storrar 2007:12). Public theology arise both out of “theological reflection as
well as the life and worship of the church, and such theology could be as much the
activity of members of Parliament, NGO workers and congregations, as it might be of
academics” (De Gruchy 2007:28-29).
Contrary to Marshall and Van Aarde, public theology, as it is more generally understood,
does have room for the professional theologians and pastors: they are collaborators in
talking to a specifically defined public.
