models of public theology

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 DOI: 10.1163/156973212X617154

International Journal of Public Theology 6 (2012) 7–22 brill.nl/ijpt

Models of Public Theology*

Eneida JacobsenEscola Superior de Teologia, São Leopoldo, Brazil

AbstractIn 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 mod-els) and the ways proposed for its realization (action models). There are three empha-ses of identifĳied foundations: the fĳirst 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 fĳinding of the public presence of religious discourse in contemporary society (factual model). With regards to the prospects for action, three principal ways are identifĳied, which afffĳirm the possibility of the publicization of theology: addressing diffferent audi-ences, 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 Marty’s elaboration of the concept, fĳirst 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

*) Translated from Brazilian Portuguese by Thia Cooper.

8 E. Jacobsen / International Journal of Public Theology 6 (2012) 7–22

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 reli-gious truth claims.2 Currently, the available bibliography on the theme of pub-lic theology is extensive and has representatives in several countries.

The diversity of theorists occupied with a public theology brings a concep-tual diversity: there is no univocality in defĳining 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 defĳinition 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 conclu-sion that ‘there exists no single and authoritative meaning of public theology and no single normative way of doing public theology’.5 Hence, Breitenberg’s fĳinding 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 fĳixed forms, but of mapping and grouping similar contributions. Such mapping will not be able to do justice to the specifĳicity of each author’s 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), 332–59. 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 Quar-terly Review, 34:1 (1978), 23–34 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. 18–27 at 19–20.5) Dirk Smit, ‘Notions of the Public and Doing Theology’, International Journal of Public Theology, 1:1 (2007), 431–54 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), 55–96 at 56.

Administrator

강조

E. Jacobsen / International Journal of Public Theology 6 (2012) 7–22 9

production of public theology makes this efffort consciously provisional, sub-ject to review and even a restructuring of the proposed systematization.

The identifĳied models of public theology can be grouped into two catego-ries: 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 defĳine how theology can and must act. The concept of a back-ground 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 pub-lic theology.

Theoretical Foundations for a Public Theology

In the literature on public theology, one can identify three main foundational principles: the fĳirst is theological (a model of disclosure), the second is existen-tial-philosophical (a universal model) and the third is sociological (a factual model). The model of disclosure is characterized by defĳining the public role of theology as a task driven by God that reveals Godself to the world. The universal model considers theology as public knowledge for answering existential questions of any individual; thus, universal questions. The factual model, fĳinally, is based on the fact that faith does not need to go through a process of publicization because it naturally behaves this way: it is a factual fĳinding that gives theology the need to reflect on the relation between faith and public action.

Model of Disclosure

The ability to be disclosed is in opposition to the duty of silence and secrecy. ‘Public’ here is synonymous with clear and manifest, as opposed to things made secret; so that what becomes public can be seen and heard by many people. A public ceremony, for example, does not happen in secret, but can be attended by anyone. The work of Jesus also is illustrative of this point: “I have said nothing secretly”, he afffĳirms before the high priest (RSV, Jn 18:20). Jesus healed, preached, taught and discussed in the open, in synagogues and in the temple; testifying to the truth that the word of God must be proclaimed to the people. That is why Luther, turning to Erasmus—for whom there are certain things that even if they are true and could be known, should not be exposed to


public ears—argues 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 defĳinition can assume diffferent faces, as Smit demonstrates. He presents four theological emphases, which are used to support a public theology: the fĳirst 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 com-munity); thirdly, is the emphasis addressed to the church to promote recon-ciliation, 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 Jürgen 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 oppres-sions 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) Martinho Lutero, ‘Da vontade cativa’, in Martinho Lutero, Obras Selecionadas, vol. 4 (São Leopoldo: Sinodal; Porto Alegre: Concórdia, 1993), p. 35 [available in English as Martin Luther, ‘On the Bondage of the Will’, in Martin Luther, Basic Theological Writings, ed. T. F. Lull (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989)]. 8) Stackhouse relates the extent of the ecclesial testimony and the divine nature as follows: ‘Christians believe that we humans can see the universal love of God in creation, experience it in the sustaining grace of providence, know it in Jesus Christ and hope for its fulfĳillment in a coming Kingdom where all the peoples can bring their gifts and fĳind fĳinal healing. All who know this God must go public and be a witness to a possibility that changes souls and civilizations’ (Max Stackhouse, ‘Reflection on How and Why we go Public’, International Journal of Public Theology, 1:1 (2007), 421–30 at 426). 9) Smit, ‘Notions of the Public and Doing Theology’, 449–54.10) Jürgen Moltmann, ‘A paixão de Cristo: por uma sociedade sem vítimas. Entrevista com Jürgen Moltmann’, Cadernos IHU em formação, 2:8 (2006), 78–82 at 81.


to the middle of the fĳields 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 contex-tuality, 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 fĳirst perspective, the contextual can refer to the many theologies that have redeemed the experience of certain groups of soci-ety (blacks, women, indigenous peoples and so on) through the (re)construc-tion 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 charac-ter 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 fun-damental 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 existen-tial questions. When dealing with such questions, theology is automatically

11) Ivone Gebara, discussing the method of an ecofeminist epistemology, observes that the reli-gious 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 religião (São Paulo: Olho D’água, 1997), p. 58). 12) Tracy, The Analogical Imagination, p. 3.


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 particu-larity.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 partic-ularity is seen in opposition to universality, in the context of systematic theol-ogy 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 particu-lar (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 tradi-tional Aristotelian language, fundamental theology deals principally with ‘dialetics’ and ‘meta-physics’, 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), 350–56 at 353.15) Tracy, The Analogical Imagination, p. 132.


empirical reality for granted independent of possible theological justifĳications. It is a factual perception taken as a starting point for a public theology that critically and constructively analyses that reality. In other words, the crucial issue for a public theology is not the question of publicizing faith, but the criti-cal analysis of the way in which that faith is already being made public.

For Ronald Thiemann, Christians deal constantly with issues of a public nature. Decisions regarding, among other things, abortion, the care of disabled newborns or racial divisions within the community of faith itself move beyond the limits of the purely individual and private.16 The socio-political context greatly influences the moral judgement of each individual. The line between public and private, as well as between the personal and political, cannot be precisely defĳined, to which Ronald Thiemann concludes that, if moral deci-sions have, inevitably, a public and political dimension, moral and theological reflection must help Christians to deal responsibly with that dimension. It is public theology, therefore, that must seek to understand the relationship between Christian beliefs and the broader sociocultural context.

In the view of Max Stackhouse, the convictions of faith possess a deeply per-sonal character. Each person holds a belief—religious or not—concerning the reality of a deity or cosmic power. Even people who claim to have no religion have some belief that takes its place (such as an ideology or life philosophy).17 Nevertheless, religions are not only a personal and private fact; they are inevi-tably expressed publicly through movements, temples, monuments and so on. Religions, ‘they spill over the boundary of inner beliefs and individual convictions; they shape, at least, the public presence of the individual. If beliefs live in the inner heart and mind; they also have an outer face’.18 In sum,

16) ‘These cases not only illustrate the conflicting demands that characterize contemporary Chris-tian decision making; they also reveal the inevitable public dimension of situations that once might have been considered to be purely private. Although decisions regarding abortion and the care of handicapped newborns are intensely personal, they are influenced by contexts that are public and political in nature. The line between private and public, between the personal and the political, can no longer be drawn with absolute clarity’ (Ronald Thiemann, Constructing a Public Theology: The Church in a Pluralistic Culture (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), p. 19).17) Stackhouse, ‘Reflection on How and Why we go Public’, 422. Stackhouse shows his appropria-tion of the Tillichian conception of religion. For Tillich, faith, as unconditional concern that demands total commitment and, at the same time, promises ultimate fulfĳillment, is independent of what or whom it is directed toward. Paul Tillich, Dinâmica da fé (7th edn, São Leopoldo: Sinodal/IEPG, 2002) [available in English as Paul Tillich, Dynamics of Faith (New York: Harper Perennial, 2001)].18) Stackhouse, ‘Reflection on How and Why we go Public’, 423.


Stackhouse concludes that religion, despite having a private dimension, forms associations and constitutes practices that express people’s beliefs; frames the space and time of society, as the manifestations of faith are assimilated by it over time; forms the character of a person and how s/he will behave in society, which is nearly always unconscious.19

Perspectives on Actualizing Public Theology

The action models are characterized by answering the question as to in what way it is possible or necessary to proceed so that the publicity of theology is reached: by addressing diffferent audiences, sticking to the issues at stake in society, being a contextual and politically militant theology or through dia-logue in the public sphere? The answers to these questions determine the models of public theology identifĳied as distinct perspectives of acting: the audi-ence model, the apologetic model and the contextual model.

Audience Model

The term ‘public’, as a noun, denotes a set of people for whom a particular message or event is intended or who possess common characteristics or inter-ests. There are younger publics, the consuming public, the audience of a show. Tracy speaks of diffferent ‘publics of theology’: society, academy and church. The publicity of theology, for Tracy, must be reached from and speak to these three audiences that form the public; that is, the audience of theology.20 Among these diffferent audiences, there will certainly be a primary recipient, although not exclusively so. For example, in the case of the public theology programme in the Humanitas Institute of the University of the Vale do Rio dos Sinos, in São Leopoldo, the focus is dialogue with the academy and, by

19) Ibid., 424.20) David Tracy, A imaginação analógica: a teologia cristã e a cultura do pluralismo (São Leopoldo: Unisinos, 2006), pp. 19–72 [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 Ethi-cal Judgement’, Theology Today, 54:2 (1997), 165–79 at 166–7. 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. 75–99 at pp. 88–95.


extension, contemporary society. Sometimes, asserts Tracy, the influence of a social locus can prove powerful enough to efffectively determine theology.21

First, ‘society’, for Tracy, is composed of three realms: the realm of techno-economic structure, the political realm and the cultural realm.22 In the techno-economic realm, we are faced with the ineptitude of values focused on technology to defĳine the ends of politics and culture.23 The ‘domain of politics’ concerns social justice and the use of power: ‘This involves the control of the legitimate use of force and the regulation of conflict (in libertarian societies under the rule of law), in order to achieve the particular conceptions of justice embodied in a society’s traditions or its constitution’.24 The ‘cultural fĳield’ refers to the symbolic expressions of a society, covering aspects such as art and reli-gion and even reflection on these expressions in the forms of cultural critique, philosophy and theology.25

Secondly, the ‘academy’ describes the social locus where the study of theol-ogy happens more often, although the proper place of theology in this context is still an open question.26 Ethicist José Roque Junges, in an interview, defĳines public theology as the presence of Christian faith in the university in two spe-cifĳic senses: letting itself be questioned by the challenges of science and, at the same time, being a critical presence in the face of the assumption of the para-digm of modernity present in science and in society. Thus, he states: ‘There-fore, public theology, on the one hand, lets itself be challenged by the sciences and, on the other hand, also critically challenges the sciences in their assump-tions’.27

Thirdly, the ‘church’, as an audience, is a ‘community of moral and religious discourse’ in which the theologian is embedded. One objective of the discourse directed to the churches is to clarify the contents of Christian faith among

21) Tracy, A imaginação analógica, p. 23 [in English, The Analogical Imagination, p. 5]. 22) Ibid., pp. 26–42 [in English, pp. 6–14].23) Ibid., pp. 30–31 [in English, pp. 8–9].24) Ibid., pp. 27–8 [in English, p. 7]. 25) Ibid., p. 28. Tillich, whose theology is marked by a deep interest in the relation between reli-gion and culture, points to the need to articulate a theology in dialogue with the human situation, responding to questions of contemporary existence. The analysis of the human situation, accord-ing to Tillich, employs materials used for the creative self-interpretation of the human being in the diffferent realms of culture. Paul Tillich, Teologia Sistemática (São Paulo: Paulinas; São Leo-poldo: Sinodal, 1984), p. 60 [available in English as Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology: Reason and Revelation—Being and God (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967)]. 26) Tracy, A imaginação analógica, pp. 42–3 [in English, The Analogical Imagination, pp. 14–21].27) Inácio Neutzling, ed., ‘O que a teologia pública traz de novo: entrevista com José Roque Junges SJ’, Cadernos IHU em formação, 2:8 (2006), 5–8 at 6.


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 sufffĳice simply to appeal to Scripture or Christian tra-dition; this does not mean that it has to renounce elements that are specifĳic 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 com-munication.30 God’s 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 man-ner; 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 theol-ogy: the confessional, the dogmatic and the apologetic. The confessional approach does not believe that faith can be universally expressed and under-stood. 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, ‘Prolegômenos à dogmática cristã’, in Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson, eds, Dogmática crista, vol. 1, 3rd edn (São Leopoldo: IEPG/Sinodal, 2005), pp. 29–31 [available in Eng-lish as Carl Braaten, ‘Prolegomena to Christian dogmatics’, in Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson, eds, Christian Dogmatics (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1984)]. 29) Tracy, A imaginação analógica, 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 Naudé, ‘Some Thoughts on ‘Public Theology’ and its Relevance for the South African Context’, Scriptura, 79 (2002), 3–13 at 10.31) ‘When criticized, theology should not simply appeal to something as ‘God’s secret’ or the ‘par-adox 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 Zusammenhänge theolo-gischer Grundgedanken (München: Kaiser, 1994), p. 115) [available in English as Dietrich Ritschl, The Logic of Theology (London: SCM, 1986)].


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 apolo-getic model, the ‘stronger form of public theology’ in the perception of Stack-house, ‘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 commit-ment 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) crite-ria 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. 179–94 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 don’t 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, con-textual, dogmatic and apologetic theologies: ‘Confessional theology articulates what a specifĳic community of faith believes; contextual theology is based on the experience of a particular sub-culture and dogmatic theology clarifĳies specifĳic 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. 105–107).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 philosophi-cal 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-scientifĳic method or


Theology articulated through universally accepted criteria does not imply negating its origin in a particular tradition. Linell Cady, while maintaining an important aspect of the Enlightenment model: the call for a public form of inquiry against heteronomous authority, believes that a critical review of the Enlightenment construction of public rationality is necessary, especially in its abstract and reductionist concept of the public, which does not take into con-sideration the historicity of human reason. According to the model of public theology proposed by Cady, theology need not ignore the contextual nature of its reflection,36 but, at the same time, must abandon the dogmatic assumptions of a traditional way of argument; in other words: ‘Particularity need not pre-vent publicity’.37 It was a fallacy of the Enlightenment interpretation to assume that reason could operate outside local contexts, and without the influence of particular traditions of interpretation.38

Contextual Model

Juan Luis Segundo writes that the content of theology is given, on the one hand, by Christian tradition itself; on the other hand, it is given by the situation in which the theologian lives.39 Public theologians similarly demonstrate great interest in the contextuality of their theological task, arguing for the need to be attentive to the issues at stake in a society, in order to articulate the content specifĳic to them in ways relevant to the context. Rudolf von Sinner, for exam-ple, considering the relevance of the theme of citizenship in the Brazilian con-text, proposes a theology of citizenship as public theology.40 Nico Koopman,

source available for theological dialogue, learning from empirical types of social sciences as well as more critical types of social-hermeneutical theories. See David Tracy, ‘Public Theology, Hope, and the Mass Media: Can the Muses Still Inspire?’, in Max Stackhouse and Peter Paris, eds, God and Globalization: Religion and the Powers of the Common Life, vol. 1 (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000), pp. 231–54.36) Linell Cady, ‘H. Richard Niebuhr and the Task of a Public Theology’, in Ronald Thiemann, ed, The Legacy of H. Richard Niebuhr (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), pp. 107–29 at p. 115.37) Ibid., p. 118.38) Ibid., p. 114. Cady argues it is necessary to combine both the senses of public presented by Tracy, recognizing the legitimate influence of a particular tradition and, at the same time, criticiz-ing and reformulating this same tradition (Cady, ‘A Model for a Public Theology’, 197). 39) Juan Luis Segundo, Libertação da teologia (São Paulo: Loyola, 1978), p. 10 [available in English as J. L. Segundo, The Liberation of Theology (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1984)].40) Von Sinner argues that citizenship must go beyond the mere notion of rights and responsi-bilities as provided by law. People must experience themselves as an integral part of history; thus the concept of citizenship ‘must include the real possibility of access to rights and the recognition of the responsibilities of the person, as well as the attitude toward the constitutional state as such,


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 specifĳics. Such a defĳinition 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 global-ization. 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, Confĳiança e convivência: reflexões éticas e ecumênicas (São 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, 1:3–4 (2007), 338–63. 41) Nico Koopman, ‘Public Theology in (South) Africa: A Trinitarian Approach’, International Jour-nal of Public Theology, 1:1 (2007), 188–209. 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 specifĳic 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), 230–48; 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:


In addition to the defence of a theology that deals with issues contextually situated, the contextual model of theology, in its communal sense, can also point out, against the apologetic model, the need for a greater connection to the particularities of the Christian faith. Thiemann warns of the fact that, from the intention to reach secular culture, the link to Christian roots has been very easily lost. Therefore, ‘our challenge is to develop a public theology that remains based in the particularities of the Christian faith while genuinely deal-ing with issues of public signifĳicance’.44 In the United States, the universalist and contextual perspectives are represented, respectively, by the so-called Chicago school, with David Tracy as its most eminent representative, and the Yale School, with representatives like George Lindbeck, Stanley Hauerwas and Ronald Thiemann. In some cases, the merging of both perspectives is argued for.45

Conclusions: A Public Theology for Brazil?

The identifĳication of diffferent models of public theology shows that the com-mitment to a public theology is truly pluralistic and inclusive. In the north or south of the globe, public theology has been able to accommodate elements from various theological currents of the last centuries, such as the missiologi-cal, the contextual or even liberal.46 The possibility of establishing connections

Public Theology in an Age of Pluralism (Manchester: International Academy of Practical Theology, 2004), 31–40; Elaine Graham, ‘Power, Knowledge and Authority in Public Theology’, International Journal of Public Theology, 1:1 (2007), 42–62; James Haire, ‘Public Theology—A Latin Captivity of the Church: Violence and Public Theology in the Asia-Pacifĳic Context’, International Journal of Public Theology, 1:3–4 (2007), 455–70; Heather Walton, ‘You Have To Say You Cannot Speak: Feminist Reflections Upon Public Theology’, International Journal of Public Theology, 4:1 (2010), 21–36; Sebastian Kim, ‘Freedom or Respect? Public Theology and the Debate over the Danish Cartoons’, International Journal of Public Theology, 1:2 (2007), 249–69; Clint Le Bruyns, ‘The World of Work in South Africa: Succeeding and Struggling under Globalization’, in C. Le Bruyns and G. Ulshöfer, eds, The Humanization of Globalization: South African and German Perspectives (Frank-furt am Main: Haag/Herchen, 2008), 177–92; Marion Maddox, ‘Religion, Secularism and the Prom-ise of Public Theology’, International Journal of Public Theology, 1:1 (2007), 82–100; Dirk Smit and Nico Koopman, ‘Human Dignity and Human Rights as Guiding Principles for the Economy?’, in Le Bruyns and Ulshöfer, eds, The Humanization of Globalization, 59–70.44) Thiemann, Constructing a Public Theology, p. 19.45) Ernst Conradie, ‘How Should a Public Way of Doing Theology be Approached?’, Scriptura, 46 (1993), 32–8. 46) The idea of mission as a divine activity of love that involves both the church and the world (as found in David Bosch, Missão transformadora (São Leopoldo: Sinodal, 2002) [available in English


between theologies developed by authors as diverse as Gebara, Segundo and Tillich shows the pluralistic and inclusive character of public theology. There is no exclusive model but rather several public theologies, able to interact, so that most authors can combine more than one model of public theology. In the Brazilian case, in particular, the factual model shows its relevance due to the new religious institutions that, contrary to Weber’s prognosis, are being established in the country, with diverse public expression.47

The most recurrent models in the literature on public theology are that of disclosure and that of audience: it is understood that God motivates the exis-tence of a public theology, realized through dialogue with diffferent publics like the church and society. The universal and apologetic models are specifĳic to North American literature, while the contextual model is strongly present among South African theologians. North American theologians like Tracy, Stackhouse and Cady tend to use the term ‘public’ as a synonym for ‘universal’; hence the importance of public theology using criteria of argument accessible to all, at least in principle. South African theologians like Koopman, de Gruchy and Smit, in turn, show that they see the term ‘public’ to be a synonym of ‘com-mon’, as a political category. In this latter sense, public theology is perceived as

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 afffĳirms, an important char-acteristic 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 século XX , 2nd edn (São Paulo: Loyola, 2002), p. 19.47) According to Paula Montero, these new institutionalities reflect an historical process of con-sensual constructions of what could be accepted as legitimate religious practice instead of the purely magical threat to the public order. Due to the difffĳiculties 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 mobiliza-tion, expanding the public manifestations of these practices (Paula Montero, ‘Religião, plural-ismo e esfera pública no Brasil’, Novos Estudos—CEBRAP, 74 (2006), 47–65). 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 fĳield, 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, Confĳiança e convivência, p. 63; Rudolf von Sinner, ‘Öfffentliche Theologie—neue Ansätze in globaler Perspektive’, Evangelische Theologie, 71:5 (2011), 327–43).


able to contribute contextually in the struggle against racism, poverty, violence and so on toward the ‘common good’ of society.

The way public theology is conceived in South Africa approximates the Latin American conception of theology, concerned with the liberation of oppressed peoples. While the incipience of the reflection on public theology in Brazil does not let a determinant perspective be identifĳied, one would expect that this Latin American tradition of liberation presents itself as determina-tive, generating a kind of ‘public theology of liberation’. Through the contribu-tion of the various theologies of liberation, the global debate on public theology can be deeply enriched. The commitment of these theologies to the oppressed faces in our history reminds us especially of the fact that it is not enough for theology to be noticeable in the public arena. If theology is not incarnate in the pains, faith and hopes of all people, in each context, then it will be an empty and irrelevant discourse. A public theology ‘anchored in the lifeworld’ (to use an expression of Jürgen Habermas), would be the appropriate form for any theology that, mobilized by the sufffering of people, seeks to contribute to the expansion of the communicative effforts of a society.

models of public theology

Documents