brill.nl/ijpt
Abstract
In this article, diffferent models of public theology are characterized according to the
reasons given for the importance of and need for a public theology (foundational models) and the ways proposed for its realization (action models). There are three emphases of identified foundations: the first understands public theology as a task driven by
God (model of disclosure); the second anchors the need for public theology in religious
questions that afffect all of humanity (universal model); the third bases itself on the
finding of the public presence of religious discourse in contemporary society (factual
model). With regards to the prospects for action, three principal ways are identified,
which afffirm the possibility of the publicization of theology: addressing diffferent audiences, such as the academy and the church (model of the audience); articulating itself
through a style and an accessible form of argument (apologetic model); addressing
contextual challenges (contextual model).
Keywords
public theology, foundational models, action models
Introduction
In recent decades starting from the notion of a public theology, several authors
have argued in favour of the publicization of theology. This is due to Martin
Martys elaboration of the concept, first used in an article on the thought of
Reinhold Niebuhr, published in 1974. For Marty, by reflecting on the religious
behaviour of people in the light of biblical, historical and philosophical
positions, Niebuhr offfered to subsequent generations a paradigm for all public
DOI: 10.1163/156973212X617154
theology.1 In brief, the term is adopted by other authors, among them, David
Tracy, who, in 1981 publishes The Analogical Imagination, a work that defends
the need to escape particularity through a public theology that articulates religious truth claims.2 Currently, the available bibliography on the theme of public theology is extensive and has representatives in several countries.
The diversity of theorists occupied with a public theology brings a conceptual diversity: there is no univocality in defining its purposes, its theological
foundation or the meaning of the term public theology. In 1978, Charles Strain
notes that as with all initial effforts to specify the parameters of a particular
genre, the definition of the term varies from person to person.3 Two decades
later, Max Stackhouse writes that the term public theology, of course, is in
dispute and has taken several forms.4 In 2007, Dirk Smit comes to the conclusion that there exists no single and authoritative meaning of public theology
and no single normative way of doing public theology.5 Hence, Breitenbergs
finding seems to present itself as inevitable: in short, the more I read about
public theology, the less clear I am that everyone engaged in discussion and
debate about it is talking about the same thing.6
In this article, the aim is to explore the diversity starting with the diffferent
models of public theology. It is not a question of proposing the unique and
fixed forms, but of mapping and grouping similar contributions. Such mapping
will not be able to do justice to the specificity of each authors thought, but it
has its value in providing a systematic view of the diffferent perspectives that
are presented in the name of a public theology. It aims to facilitate, in this
way, the analysis of the relevance and viability of each model in light
of new contexts, as in the case of Brazil. The impossibility of covering all
1)
Martin Marty, Reinhold Niebuhr: Public Theology and the American Experience, Journal of
Religion, 54:4 (1974), 33259.
2)
David Tracy, The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism (New
York: Crossroad, 1981).
3)
Charles Strain, Walter Rauschenbusch: A Resource for Public Theology, Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 34:1 (1978), 2334 at 23.
4)
Max Stackhouse, Broken Covenants: A Threat to Society?, in Gabriel Fackre, ed., Judgment
Day at the White House: A Critical Declaration Exploring Moral Issues and the Political Use and
Abuse of Religion (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1999) pp. 1827 at 1920.
5)
Dirk Smit, Notions of the Public and Doing Theology, International Journal of Public Theology,
1:1 (2007), 43154 at 443.
6)
E. Harold Breitenberg, To Tell The Truth: Will The Real Public Theology Please Stand Up?,
Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics, 23:2 (2003), 5596 at 56.
production of public theology makes this efffort consciously provisional, subject to review and even a restructuring of the proposed systematization.
The identified models of public theology can be grouped into two categories: foundational models and action models. The claim of the public character
of the gospel as a task driven by God, for example, refers to a theological basis
that does not define how theology can and must act. The concept of a background that sustains a public theology does not necessarily determine the
required practical consequences, which makes the distinction between the
two categories useful, although no model or category excludes others. As I
shall seek to show, the same author can combine diffferent perspectives of public theology.
10
public earsargues that the sacred Scriptures are clear and salutary, and can
and must therefore be divulged, learned and known.7
The model of disclosure is based on the public being of God, who reveals
Godself to people in diffferent ways and, so, it is incumbent on the church to
testify publically its faith.8 That very broad definition can assume diffferent
faces, as Smit demonstrates. He presents four theological emphases, which are
used to support a public theology: the first is the public nature of God (either
based on one person of the Holy Trinity, or having a Trinitarian perspective);
secondly, is the emphasis addressed to the church to testify the Gospel through
words and deeds (with prominence to the experience of baptism and the community); thirdly, is the emphasis addressed to the church to promote reconciliation, justice and peace (based on concrete situations, such as the struggle
against apartheid); the fourth emphasis is directed to the church to, despite its
flawed character, obediently testify to the goodness and mercy of God (that is,
the divine call is understood to be independent of the fallibility of the public
action of the church).9
Another perspective that also can be included in the disclosure model is
represented by Jrgen Moltmann. Moltmann calls attention to the coming
character that has to permeate a public theology. According to him, the church
is not the point of reference of public theology, but the kingdom of God: just as
an ecclesial theology, Christian theology needs to unfold in the direction of a
public theology, and, thus, participate in the suffferings, the joys, the oppressions and the liberation of the people.10 This means that theology not only
presents itself in the public realm, but also puts public things in the light of
the coming kingdom, bringing the place of a theology concerned with Christ
7)
11
to the middle of the fields of conflict in the world, and not behind the walls
of the churches.
Universal Model
Universality, understood as the possibility of reaching all human beings, is, on
the one hand, in opposition to that which is restricted and private. On the
other hand, what is restricted and individual can also oppose the notion of
contextuality, in reference to what is shared by people locally or as a group.
Thus, the model presented here can be diffferentiated into two dimensions:
universality and contextuality. The principle of universality can reject contextuality, criticizing it for its private character; while that of contextuality can
reject the universalist proposition that eschews the experience of particularity.
These perspectives come together only through the fact of being opposed to
that which is merely individual, referring to something in common, pertaining
to a collective.
As representatives of the first perspective, the contextual can refer to the
many theologies that have redeemed the experience of certain groups of society (blacks, women, indigenous peoples and so on) through the (re)construction of theology: theology no longer belongs to solitary intellectuals of faith,
but is a way toward democratization of the discourse about God.11 The model
of the contextuality of theology as public theology is further explored in the
section dedicated to the factual models.
As for the second perspective, which opposes universality and particularity,
David Tracy has been its principal representative. For Tracy, the public character of theology is anchored in the nature of religious questions that are faced
by any human being or society and to which the theologian seeks to provide
answers. The question of the meaning of existence and the possibility of a fundamental trust amid fears of life would be, according to Tracy, examples of
questions that, given their universality, require publicity. He states that All
theology is public discourse,12 because it provides answers to universal existential questions. When dealing with such questions, theology is automatically
11)
Ivone Gebara, discussing the method of an ecofeminist epistemology, observes that the religious hierarchy tends to institutionalize religious knowledge: To ask a question from experience
is to democratize the powers making them see that they exist in various ways in diffferent human
beings and groups (Ivone Gebara, Teologia ecofeminista: ensaio para repensar o conhecimento e a
religio (So Paulo: Olho Dgua, 1997), p. 58).
12)
Tracy, The Analogical Imagination, p. 3.
12
driven to publicity, having to use criteria accessible to all for the exposition of
its arguments, especially in the context of fundamental theology.13
Unlike fundamental theology, systematic theologies are concerned with the
interpretation of a particular religious tradition, which enables them to reach
audiences in a diffferent way. According to Tracy, while fundamental theology
seeks to become public in the sense of being accessible to any reasonable and
rational person, systematic theology, although initially private, also can achieve
a genuine publicity precisely because of, and not despite, a heightened particularity.14 For Tracy, all classic work of humanity, in the radical particularity of its
origin and expression, is public in the following sense: grounded in an already
realized experience, bringing attention to something; the classics are presented
as revealing cognitive meaning and truth and are able, therefore, to operate an
ethical transformation of historical, social and personal life.15 The particularity
of religious experience thus can be relativized in favour of the universality
which it expresses and represents.
In any case, the emphasis on aspects shared by all human beings remains in
the universal model of Tracy. If in the context of fundamental theology particularity is seen in opposition to universality, in the context of systematic theology particularity is envisioned as integral to universality, in a metonymic
function. The recognition that the deep contents of faith are universally shared
will require, according to Tracy, the development of a theology capable of
articulating these contents in an accessible way. The universal model must
unfold, therefore, in an apologetic model, which uses criteria accessible to all
people to present its claims to truth.
Factual Model
The publicity of theology is not a task to be pursued: it, through the action of
diverse religions and their faiths, is inevitably made public, in the sense of
achieving visibility (the model of disclosure) and/or scope beyond the particular (the universal model). The factual model difffers from the previous two for
taking the public existence of religion and, by extension, of theology as an
13)
Tracy distinguishes between fundamental, systematic and practical theology: in more traditional Aristotelian language, fundamental theology deals principally with dialetics and metaphysics, systematic theology with rhetoric and poetics, and practical theology with ethics and
politics (Tracy, The Analogical Imagination, p. 85).
14)
David Tracy, Defending the Public Character of Theology. The Christian Century, 1 (1981),
35056 at 353.
15)
Tracy, The Analogical Imagination, p. 132.
13
14
19)
Ibid., 424.
David Tracy, A imaginao analgica: a teologia crist e a cultura do pluralismo (So Leopoldo:
Unisinos, 2006), pp. 1972 [in English, The Analogical Imagination]. The idea of diffferent publics
is recurrent in the literature on public theology. Stackhouse, for example, mentions four publics:
the religious, political, academic and economic; see Max Stackhouse, Public Theology and Ethical Judgement, Theology Today, 54:2 (1997), 16579 at 1667. Smit, in turn, diffferentiates between
the political sphere, economic sphere, civil society and public opinion; see Dirk Smit, Modernity
and Theological Education: Crises at Western Cape and Stellenbosch?, in Dirk Smit, Essays
in Public Theology: Collected Essays, ed. E. Conradie (Stellenbosch: Sun Press, 2007), pp. 7599
at pp. 8895.
20)
15
16
those who already believe or to guide Christian practice in the world.28 The
second objective implies the idea that the churches have a mediating role
between individuals and society; hence, by their practice, theology can have a
wider reach. Tracy maintains: Through their individual members and more
rarely through their institutional weight, the churches may directly afffect the
policies of the society as a whole.29 In this sense, theological discourse directed
at the churches has a chance, through its actions, to reach the wider society.
Apologetic Model
If Christian theology wants to contribute to discussions concerning matters of
public interest, it will not sufffice simply to appeal to Scripture or Christian tradition; this does not mean that it has to renounce elements that are specific
but, rather, to defend its truth claims in a way accessible to others in the public
sphere, through a form of argument that is open and an accessible style of communication.30 Gods logic is not identical to the logic of the discourse about
God; the latter can be critically evaluated.31 The apologetic model is based,
thus, on the assumption that theology can be articulated in a universal manner; in a way accessible to anyone using methods of reasoning accepted by all.
The apologetic model is opposed to a dogmatic and confessional stance and so
does not resort to authority or faith assumptions.
According to Stackhouse, there are three competing models of public theology: the confessional, the dogmatic and the apologetic. The confessional
approach does not believe that faith can be universally expressed and understood. Nevertheless, it seeks to address public issues, like abortion and war,
understanding that every public position is equally confessional. The dogmatic
approach, based on its own assumptions, makes doctrines explicit and, while
28)
Carl Braaten, Prolegmenos dogmtica crist, in Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson, eds,
Dogmtica crista, vol. 1, 3rd edn (So Leopoldo: IEPG/Sinodal, 2005), pp. 2931 [available in English as Carl Braaten, Prolegomena to Christian dogmatics, in Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson,
eds, Christian Dogmatics (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1984)].
29)
Tracy, A imaginao analgica, p. 55 [in English, The Analogical Imagination, p. 21].
30)
Linell Cady, A Model for a Public Theology, The Harvard Theological Review, 80:2 (1987), 193
212. See also Ronell Bezuidenhout and Piet Naud, Some Thoughts on Public Theology and its
Relevance for the South African Context, Scriptura, 79 (2002), 313 at 10.
31)
When criticized, theology should not simply appeal to something as Gods secret or the paradox of faith. Knowing that it the object is not Godself, but God-talk, it does not have this type of
attitude (Dietrich Ritschl, Zur Logik der Theologie: kurze Darstellung der Zusammenhnge theologischer Grundgedanken (Mnchen: Kaiser, 1994), p. 115) [available in English as Dietrich Ritschl,
The Logic of Theology (London: SCM, 1986)].
17
knowing that its points of view are not shared on a universal level, presents
them in public forums, in order to influence public opinion. Finally, the apologetic model, the stronger form of public theology in the perception of Stackhouse, claims that the deepest assumptions of faith are, and can be shown to
be, as reasonable, as ethical and as viable for an authentic, warranted commitment as any other known religion or philosophy and, indeed, indispensible to
other modes of public discourse.32
The apologetic model of public theology is closely linked to the idea of the
universality of faith. As Tracy explains, given the universal character of the
existential questions with which theology deals and the nature of the reality of
God upon which theology reflects, it should develop public (not private) criteria of discourse,33 which involves argument and evidence,34 especially with
regard to fundamental theology, which deals with areas like metaphysics and
dialectics. For Tracy, fundamental theology should seek to present arguments
that all people, whether religious or not, can accept as reasonable. In this form
of public discourse, theology appeals to experience, intelligence, rationality
and the responsibility of humanity according to criteria, in principle, accepted
by all, even if subject to refutation.35
32)
Max Stackhouse, Public Theology and Political Economy in a Globalizing Era, in William
Storrar and Andrew Morton, eds, Public Theology for the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Duncan
B. Forrester (London and New York: T&T Clark, 2004), pp. 17994 at p. 191. A similar distinction is
outlined by Stackhouse between the dogmatic, polemical and apologetic modes of theology: The
dogmatic approach strives to clarify dogma among those who already believe, the polemic
approach seeks to unmask false teachings and the apologetic aims to make the propositions of
faith accessible to those who doubt or dont believe. Public theology has to have aspects of all
these approaches, but its emphasis is strongly apologetic (Stackhouse, Public Theology and
Ethical Judgement, 168). More recently, Stackhouse distinguishes between the confessional, contextual, dogmatic and apologetic theologies: Confessional theology articulates what a specific
community of faith believes; contextual theology is based on the experience of a particular subculture and dogmatic theology clarifies specific formulations of faith, based on Scripture and in
the historical development of dogma. The apologetic, the primary focus of a public theology,
combines elements of these three perspectives, but emphasizes the possibility of articulating
their claims through a common language, given by secular, philosophical, or non-Christian
religious guidelines (Max Stackhouse, God and Globalization: Globalization and Grace, vol. 4
(New York and London: Continuum, 2007), pp. 105107).
33)
Tracy, The Analogical Imagination, p. xi.
34)
Ibid., p. 6.
35)
Tracy, The Analogical Imagination, p. 57. Consistent with the universal status of theology, it
should not take personal beliefs as support for the defence of truth, but some form of philosophical argument (normally an implicit or explicit metaphysic) (ibid., p. 64). Tracy considers it not
just possible but also necessary for theologians to remain open to any social-scientific method or
18
19
from the South African context, considers issues such as economics, health,
racism, religion, crime and ecology as relevant to a public theology.41
The contextual model emphasizes the ways in which public theology already
may be contextually experienced, even without the explicit use of such terms.
John de Gruchy, for example, writes that located as it was within the Church
struggle against apartheid, public theology was deeply rooted in the life and
witness of the churches.42 Even academic theologians, he writes, were directly
linked to ecclesial life: academic reflection did not occur in isolation from
the practice of testimony; it was a theology of testimony, in which ethics,
especially social ethics, and ecclesiology were integrated. The contextuality
of theology is, in this view, largely achieved through the mobilization of people
and churches, so the concept of public theology tends to approximate public
church.
Due to the constant challenges that emerge in each context, public theology
needs to be permanently rearticulated, offfering new theological responses.
As contextual knowledge, theology has to be able to move between diffferent
themes, dealing with the issues of each time and seeking to contribute from its
specifics. Such a definition of public theology can, often, lead it to a concern for
the global, as issues that transcend the local and national environment are
considered. The literature on public theology has numerous examples of
approaches occupied by concerns not restricted to a particular context, though
deeply contextual, as is the case with gender, environmental issues and globalization. In a contextual perspective, it is assumed that each of these themes
can be glimpsed in distinct ways from each context. Globalization, for example,
has brought various consequences, depending on the country in question.43
and also the constant training and extension of citizen participation in the social and political life
of their country (Rudolf von Sinner, Confiana e convivncia: reflexes ticas e ecumnicas
(So Leopoldo: Sinodal, 2007), p. 53); see also R. von Sinner, Brazil: From Liberation Theology
to a Theology of Citizenship as Public Theology, International Journal of Public Theology, 1:34
(2007), 33863.
41)
Nico Koopman, Public Theology in (South) Africa: A Trinitarian Approach, International Journal of Public Theology, 1:1 (2007), 188209.
42)
John De Gruchy, From Political to Public Theologies: The Role of Theology in Public Life in
South Africa, in William Storrar and Andrew Morton, eds, Public Theology for the 21st Century:
Essays in Honour of Duncan B. Forrester (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 45.
43)
Here are some examples of approaches that, although not restricted to a specific context, are
consciously contextual or, if you prefer, inter-contextual: Heinrich Bedford-Strohm, Tilling and
Caring for the Earth: Public Theology and Ecology, International Journal of Public Theology, 1:2
(2007), 23048; Duncan Forrester, Theological and Secular Discourse in an Age of Terror: Two
Monuments, Two Worlds, in E. Graham and A. Rowlands, eds, Pathways to the Public Square:
20
21
as D. Bosch, Transforming Mission, new edn (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1991)]), for example, is especially
present in the model of disclosure. Elements of a liberal theology, in turn, are noticeable in the
idea of the articulation of theology through language and criteria of argument autonomous from
the Christian faith, as proposed in the apologetic model. As Gibellini afffirms, an important characteristic of liberal theology was precisely to harmonize the claims of the Christian religion with
the cultural conscience of the time (see Rosino Gibellini, A teologia do sculo XX , 2nd edn (So
Paulo: Loyola, 2002), p. 19.
47)
According to Paula Montero, these new institutionalities reflect an historical process of consensual constructions of what could be accepted as legitimate religious practice instead of the
purely magical threat to the public order. Due to the diffficulties of the state in implementing a
comprehensive health care policy, compacts were established with the Catholic church that
resulted in an appropriation of the Christian code of charity in the public arena. Over time, other
groups began, in the name of charity, to draw on their religious rituals to serve people. Currently,
social assistance operating from the notion of charity has taken on a great capacity for mobilization, expanding the public manifestations of these practices (Paula Montero, Religio, pluralismo e esfera pblica no Brasil, Novos EstudosCEBRAP, 74 (2006), 4765). Public theology as a
form of critical reflection on the role of churches in the public arena has been deepened, in Brazil,
by Rudolf von Sinner. Facing an increasingly diverse religious field, he considers important a
theological mediation both between faith communities and between these communities and
society in general, accepting as possible a contribution without imposition by theology (Von
Sinner, Confiana e convivncia, p. 63; Rudolf von Sinner, fffentliche Theologieneue Anstze
in globaler Perspektive, Evangelische Theologie, 71:5 (2011), 32743).
22