The task of public theology: participating in public
discourse
Having pointed out that although theology understands itself to have public relevance,
that all theological discourse will not necessarily be undertaken within the public sphere,
and that much of Christian life could currently be reduced to that, which has no impact on
the public life, we now have to attempt to say what the task of public theology is.
I have purposefully steered clear of giving a definition of public theology, of saying what
public theology is. Indeed, the term has become quite ambiguous, with the definition
differing from person to person (Bezuidenhout 2007:6-8). In the choice for a specific
understanding of public, however, certain boundaries are immediately set up within
which public theology is understood to function. Furthermore, as we have noted before,
our specific understanding of theology, and, so we will see, especially our understanding
of ecclesiology (Smit 2008) to a large extent determines our understanding of public
theology. Moving within the playing field that has been demarcated up to this point, let
me go one step further by making some notes on the task of public theology.
“There is general agreement amongst … theologians [concerned with the ethical quality
of life] that the Christian faith has public implications and should form part of public
discourse” (Bezuidenhout 2007:8). This involves the formations of a public opinion, as
well as participation in the formation of healthy political and economical systems and
contributing to whichever other public spheres are identified. Public theology does not
simply let the world set its agenda, as was popular in the 1960’s, but takes the welfare of
the city as its agenda, rather than the welfare of the church (Forrester 2004:6). Often this
does involve making parts of the world’s agenda its own, but it also attempts to critically
read the signs of the times, and set its own agenda accordingly, which might sometimes
differ from that of the world. Sometimes this involves challenging the agenda of the
world and its priorities. Public theology “seeks to deploy theology in public debate, rather
than a vague and optimistic idealism which tends to disintegrate in the face of radical
evil” (Forrester 2004:6). The task of public theology may never become to confirm the
status quo, but it must always seek its ongoing transformation (De Gruchy 2004:59).
We can say that the task of public theology would be to make a distinctly Christian
contribution to the building of a just society. Public theology takes part in public
discourse in a way that is distinctly Christian, but uses language that is accessible within
this discourse. It seeks to help in the building of a decent society by offering distinctive
and constructive insights from its treasury of faith.
Towards understanding Bosch’s public theology
This study does not have as its primary concern whether David Bosch should be
considered a public theologian. Not that there is a common answer to this question. South
African theologian John de Gruchy is noticeably silent about Bosch when talking about
public theology in South Africa. And he is quite specific that the ‘third-way theology’
from the Apartheid era is not considered public theologies (De Gruchy 2004:50). As we
will see in the next chapter, this is exactly where we would find the theology of Bosch. In
other circles, however, Bosch would be considered as providing the best articulation for
public theology, especially in his vision of an ecumenical missionary paradigm set out in
Transforming Mission (Storrar 2007:11).
Within the current impossibility of finding a common understanding of what public
theology is, it should however be understandable if different theologians give different
answers on the question whether or not a certain approach should be considered public
theology, or a theologian a public theologian. In the following chapters, we are searching
for the public role of theology in the writings of Bosch, thus working from the
assumption that Bosch is a public theologian, and describing his public theology, rather
than focusing primarily on an evaluation of his writings in the light of some specific
understanding of public theology.
Dirkie Smit ended his contribution at a conference on public theology held at the University
of Pretoria in August 2008 with these words:
Wat “publieke teologie“ is, word nie slegs bepaal deur die betekenis van
die woord “publiek“ nie, want daar is geen enkele, vaste gebruik van die
woord nie. Dit word eerder vandag in hierdie volle spektrum van
betekenisse gebruik, vanaf baie spesifiek modern tot baie algemeen en
vaag. Wat mense daarom op die oog het as hulle politieke teologie
beoefen word grootliks mede-bepaal deur hulle ekklesiologiese en daarom
weer deur teologiese redes en keuses – hetsy onbewus of bewus. Dis op
grond van wat mense dink dat die kerk is en behoort te wees, wat weer
berus op hoe hulle dink oor God en Gods bedoelinge met kerk en wêreld,
dat hulle menings vorm oor wat die publieke rol van teologie eintlik
behoort te wees1.
(Smit 2008)
From this some questions could be formulated which can help in attempting to
understand the public theology of a specific theologian, in this study David Bosch. The
first questions would be: “What does some one think the church is, or is supposed to
be?”, and underlying this the question “How does someone think about God and Gods
intention with church and world?”. In the next chapter we will turn our attention to the
question: “What did Bosch think the church is, or is supposed to be?” It is thus a question
of ecclesiology. Smit’s underlying question would be answered in the theology of Bosch
primarily through his eschatology, which we would also consider during the course of the
next two chapters.
Bosch’s ecclesiology has been summarized with the term “alternative community”,
which he himself has used extensively (Livingston 1990:11). However, in the same paper
in which Bosch gets credited for providing the most helpful articulation for public
theology, Storrar (2007:11) critiques the work of Hauerwas for urging the church to
become exactly this: an alternative community. In answering the question derived from
the work of Smit, we thus also focus on this possible tension between Hauerwas and
Bosch, or misunderstanding of Bosch by Storrar. By doing this we may get a clearer view
of how Bosch’s ecclesiology could fit in the contemporary conversation of public
theology.
