Article

Missiology: An International Review

2017, Vol. 45(1) 7-24
Mission’s public ©The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
engagement: The sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1 177/0091829616680650
conversation of missiology journals.sagepub.com/home/mis

and public theology

Sebastian Kim
York St John University, UK

Abstract
The recent development of public theology, the formation of the Global Network
for Public Theology, and active scholarly discussions through the platform of the
International Journal of Public Theology demonstrate that there is significant interest in
the public engagement of theology in contemporary society. Public theology could
be identified as critical, reflective, and reasoned engagement of theology in society
to bring the kingdom of God, which is for the sake of the poor and marginalized.
As David Bosch suggests, mission transforms society and at the same time the
concept of mission is being transformed as the church interacts with the wider
society. This article aims first to highlight some key features shared by missiology
and public theology; second to discuss ways and means to enhance each discipline
in its engagement in society, particularly as regards the common good; and third to
explore a possibility of “public missiology” or “missiology of public life” in the context
of secular and multicultural societies.

Keywords
public theology, missiology, public missiology, critical engagement, transformation

In his classic book Transforming Mission, David Bosch argues that missiology per-
forms a critical function for theology by creating unrest and resisting complacency for

Corresponding author:
Sebastian Kim, York St John University, Lord Mayor’s Walk, York Y03 I 7EX, UK
Email: s.kim@yorksj.ac.uk
8 Missiology: An International Review 45(I)

self-preservation to make it “theologia viatorum” (theology on the way). He further

states that the study of mission praxis and Christianity in context contributes to theol-
ogy by informing the reading and interpretation of the texts and tradition. As a result,
Bosch argues missiology is not only the ancilla theologiae (the handmaiden of theol-
ogy) but also ancilla Dei mundi (the handmaiden of God’s world).1 I would like to
suggest that this is a good starting point when we discuss on the conversation between
missiology and public theology since both are enhancing Christian theology and both
are interested in God’s world. Public theology could be identified as critical, reflective,
and reasoned engagement of theology in society to bring the kingdom of God, which
is for the sake of the poor and marginalized, by engaging in with academy, the church,
and society. This lecture aims first to highlight some key features of public theology;
second to discuss ways and means to enhance missiology and public theology in their
engagement in society, and third to explore a possibility of “public missiology” or
“missiology of public life” in the context of secular and multicultural societies.

Public theology: its key theological developments

The recent development of public theology, the formation of the Global Network for
Public Theology, and active scholarly discussions through the platform of the
International Journal ofPublic Theology demonstrate that there is significant interest
in the public engagement of theology in contemporary society. The development of the
term “public theology” in the late 20th century could be attributed to three scholars:
Martin Marty presented his understanding of “public theology” through his publica-
tion, Public Church (1981);2 the publication of Jürgen Habermas’s influential book,
The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1962 in German; 1989, English
translation)3 stimulated much debate on the topic of the public; and David Tracy, in his
The Analogical Imagination (1981) suggested the three publics of theology as acad-
emy, church, and society and argued that there are three types of theology correspond-
ing respectively to each public: fundamental theology, systematic theology, and
practical theology.4 However, systematic and conscious development of public theol-
ogy in recent years could be grounded in the works of William Temple, Reinhold
Niebuhr, Edward Schillebeeckx, and John Courtney Murray. I would like to briefly
discuss their key contributions to the formation of public theology here.
In the context of “Christian socialism” in the early 20th century, Archbishop
William Temple developed the church’s engagement with public life. His contribu-
tions to the church’s approach to social welfare were the most significant. In his most
influential book, Christianity and the Social Order( 1942), on the question of church’s
involvement in sociopolitical and economic issues, he emphasized four things, namely:
sympathy for those who suffer, which “Christian heart and conscience cannot ignore”;
the educational influence on the social and economic system; Christian justice; and the
“duty of conformity to the ‘Natural Order’ in which is to be found the purpose of
God.” He was particularly concerned about the sufferings caused by bad housing,
malnutrition, and unemployment.5 He was adamant that the church needs to challenge
the existing system and “find an appropriative social order which provides
Kim 9

employment, steadily and generally... Christian sympathy demands this.” He further

argued that the “Church cannot, without betraying its own trust, omit criticism of the
economic order.”6 Temple’s significance for public theology could be identified in
several ways: he provided the church with the tools for a critical analysis of the whole
economic and social order; he showed the significance of “intermediate groupings”—
families, churches, and voluntary organizations in-between the individual and the
state; he affirmed the voice of the weaker sections of society; and he emphasized
choice, freedom, and responsibility when it comes to the church’s involvement in
social transformation.7
While Temple was engaged in the socioeconomic problems of mid-20th-century
England and effectively persuaded Christians as well as the general public as the head
of the Church of England, Reinhold Niebuhr dominated Christian social thought in the
USA. Niebuhr was regarded as a “theologian of public life” not only because he related
Christian theology to the secular age but also because of his “ability to reach a theo-
logical interpretation for a wider audience.”8 The key importance of his approach was
that his public discourse did not require knowledge of theology for the secular audi-
ence to listen to it and respond to its messages. For Niebuhr, according to Larry
Lasmussen, “theology is to aid the ethical reconstruction of modern society by forging
a religious imagination which sustains a strong commitment to public life.” He
attended to “morality and power” in political liberation and, influenced by prophetic
eschatology and the ethics of Jesus, he called on Christian realism for the establish-
ment of justice.9
In his book, Nature and Destiny of Man (1955), Niebuhr examined two Christian
attitudes to government: first, the government is an ordinance of God’s and its author-
ity is attributed to God, and second, the authorities are subject to divine judgement. He
thought that, although the principle of order and its power prevent anarchy, its power
is not identical with divine power.10 He acknowledged the tension between prophetic
criticism and priestly sanctification towards the state authority, and believed that
Calvinistic thought came close to his understanding of authentic justice as Calvin
allowed his followers disobedience, though not resistance, against authority.
Furthermore, Niebuhr argued that later Reformers understood the importance of
human action in the formation of government and the responsibility of human beings
to seek justice, and that therefore a triangular covenant of justice between God, ruler,
and the people was articulated. He further presented his case by using John Knox’s
argument that justice rather than mere order and peace was vital in the relationship
between authority and the people.11 Temple and Niebuhr were effective in their
engagement with public life by presenting insights and interpreting wisdom from
Christian theology and faith in a secular age. They therefore paved the way for
Protestant Christians to be actively involved in wider issues without on the one hand
bringing exclusively Christian notions nor on the other hand shying away from the
discussion on the wider topics as well.
While Temple and Niebuhr appealed to a wide audience on the issues of politics
and socioeconomic life, Edward Schillebeeckx, a Catholic theologian, provided his
insights through the media to a broad audience in the Netherlands on Christian praxis
10 Missiology: An International Review 45(I)

for the transformation of society. He saw that the relationship between theory and
praxis as articulated by the Frankfurt School of critical theory was of vital importance
in the hermeneutical process of theology.12 The importance of Schillebeeckx for public
theology could be summarized in four areas: first, his emphasis on theology as a criti-
cal self-consciousness of Christian practice and the importance of the integral nature
of theory and practice; second, his emphasis on hermeneutics anchored in Scripture,
tradition, and practical experience of common life; third, his firm challenge to the
secular notion of the monopoly of public engagement by dominant bodies in the public
sphere and his insistence on Christian contributions to the public discussion and deci-
sion-making in the whole spectrum of life in wider society; and fourth, he saw change
as best brought about by a reforming process rather than a radical replacement. This
reforming process should involve the various parties bringing their own expertise into
the debate and contributing to the formation of policy for the common good, and this
in turn will transform the Christian community as well. The emphasis of Schillebeeckx
on the balance between theology as hermeneutical enterprise and theology as critical
reflection on Christian praxis is an important tension13 which is relevant to public
theology.
On the issue of the separation of the church and state and Christian involvement in
public life, John Courtney Murray, a Jesuit theologian, addressed primarily Catholics
in the USA. In his widely read book, We Hold These Truths (1960), Murray presented
a Catholic defense of American constitutionalism and argued that the Catholic com-
munity could participate fully in American public life with religious integrity. His
argument can be summarized thus: First, he argued that the “American consensus”
recognizes the sovereignty of God over nations as well as over individual people. It is
based on the tradition of natural law and the principle of consent. He further pointed
out that, in the US constitution, the state is distinct from society and limited in its
offices toward society and that the freedom of the people is not libertarianism but a
“moral and spiritual enterprise,” that is, the freedom to do what is right.14 Second,
because Murray worried that this “political freedom is endangered in its foundations
as soon as the universal moral values ... are no longer vigorous enough to retrain the
passions and shatter the selfish inertia of men,”15 he emphasized the need for strength-
ening the “public philosophy” already present in the Declaration of Independence,
which is the foundation of American public life. He regarded this as already compati-
ble with Catholic faith but, in view of tendencies to the “philosophical error of prag-
matism,” he argued the need for the church to work with society to establish a “new
moral act of purpose and a new act of intellectual affirmation.”16
Murray’s work is closely related to the development of Catholic Social Teaching
(CST) and the theology of the common good. While the churches in Europe and the
USA continued to wrestle with church-state relations, a significant area of theological
thought developing in the late 19th century in the Catholic Church was the relationship
with the church and the market system. In terms of theology of economic and political
life in a national and global setting, CST, which was systematically articulated in the
Catholic Church from 1891, has been immensely influential in Catholic communities
and beyond. At the very heart of its principles is the concept of the common good.17 In
Kim II

Figure I. Main bodies engaged in the public sphere. Kim (201 I: 13).

the most comprehensive documentation of CST, the Compendium of the Social

Doctrine of the Church (2004), the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (PCJP)
identified the common good as one of the three key principles of the church’s social
doctrine, along with subsidiarity and solidarity.18 Furthermore, The PCJP insists on the
common good as the primary goal of society; that it has to be achieved together and
that it should be closely connected to the notion of respect for and integral promotion
of fundamental rights. It also asserts that the raison d’être of the political authority is
to further the common good and that the state must ensure the common good by keep-
ing the requirements of justice for individuals and groups within the state.19 In the
Middle Ages and following the Reformation, the church was preoccupied with the
relationship between political authority and the church. But today CST is more
12 Missiology: An International Review 45(I)

concerned to address the economic system, which is closely related to the problem of
the poor and the structural issues of economic and social organization.

Public engagement of theology: public theology and

missiology
In my previous publication, I have made some comparisons between political theol-
ogy, liberation theology, and public theology.20 Public theology takes its place in the
different contexts of plural and secular societies as a complementary approach along-
side many other theologies and philosophies. Public theology tends to share its meth-
odology with liberation theology and political theology, but differs from them in
significant ways.21 I have argued that liberation and political theologies, in spite of
their differences, share many common features in contrast to public theology, whereas
public theology has a different emphasis from the other theologies (see Table 1 below).
First, the key aims of theological engagement are to challenge any kind of monopoly
in public life and seek for a fairer and more open society by employing advocacy, criti-
cal dialogue, and debate. The attitude of public theology toward existing systems is not
that they are necessarily evil or entirely wrong. In terms of method of engagement,
public theology takes a reforming position rather than a revolutionary one. Second,
public theologians try to create common ground and methodologies for engaging in
public issues with various conversation partners in the public sphere. This does not
mean losing a Christian identity or distinctiveness, but rather, while keeping them,
actively searching for a shared solution so that theological insights will not be excluded
in public conversation. The aim is a fair and open society and realizing the common
good for all. Third, public theology regards the church as a catalyst for advocacy and
civil engagement and works mainly with civil societies and other religious communi-
ties by employing critical enquiry, open debate, and consensus politics. Fourth, major
issues for public theology are inequality, the privatization or marginalization of reli-
gions in public life, sociopolitical justice, the dominance of the state, and the market
or the media in the public sphere. Fifth, theological emphases are the kingdom of God
and God’s involvement in human wisdom and systems. It works with the disciplines
of Christian social ethics and political philosophy. For the purpose of challenging the
main bodies of the public sphere regarding these concerns, public theology is actively
involved in policymaking both within and outside of local and central governments.
Public theology takes the role of the prophet within the existing system.
I have made some attempts to compare liberation theologies and public theology
with missiology (see Table 2). Missiology is a much broader discipline whereas vari-
ous forms of liberation theologies and public theology address specific areas of con-
cern, so it is rather difficult to compare them. However, at the risk of oversimplification,
I have tried. In spite of their distinctive approaches, I would argue that there are certain
areas in which the two discourses of public theology and missiology can share their
findings, which include: transformation of society—through advocacy and open
debate (public theology) or through words and deeds (missiology); the pursuit of the
common good (public theology) or dialogue with openness and respect (missiology);
Kim 13

Table 1. Liberation theologies and public theology.

Liberation theologies Public theology

Characteristics Revolutionary Reforming

Prophetic voice challenge sociopolitical and Challenge monopoly of any
economic status quo kind
View of existing System is evil or wrong System is not necessarily evil or
system entirely wrong
Course of action Radical change of system Gradual reformation through
advocacy and debate
Starting position Side with the poor and Negotiating between opposing
marginalized parties
Aim for society Just and equal society Fair and open society
Expectation of Tool for raising prophetic Tool for advocacy and civil
church voice and protesting against engagement
injustice
Working with Workers, marginalized, and Civil societies and other
oppressed religious groups
Political process Conscientization and Advocate for reforming and
mobilization of the poor and revisioning of systems or
marginalized attitudes
Methodology Critical rereading of the Critical enquiry and open
Scriptures, current systems, debate/ social ethics and
contexts, and history consensus politics
Theological Liberation, justice, Jesus’ life Kingdom of God/ God in the
emphasis and teaching/ God (Christ) midst of history/ God in
as poor, marginalized, black, human wisdom and systems/
Dalit, minjung and female/
salvation as liberation
Tools for social Marxist and socialist analysis/ Christian social ethics/ political
analysis black and feminist critique philosophy
Conversation with Economics/ politics/ sociology/ Philosophy/ politics/ economics/
other academic cultural studies peace studies/ environmental
disciples studies/ governance

and critical engagement of theology in the public or “public missiology.” I would like
to expand these points further by using some of the discussions in both fields.

Transformation of society—through advocacy and open debate (public

theology) and through words and deeds (missiology)
I would argue that one of the key common concerns for both discourses is the transfor-
mation of individuals and society, although the mode and process of achieving this
transformation differs. The emphasis on salvation and liberation has been an ongoing
tension within missiology, but as we all are aware, missiology has been quite radically
14 Missiology: An International Review 45(I)

Table 2. Liberation theologies, public theology, and missiology.

Liberation theologies Public theology Missiology

C haracteristics Revolutionary Reforming Transforming

Prophetic voice Challenge sociopolitical
and economic status
quo
View of existing System is evil or wrong
system
Course of action Radical change of
system
Starting position Side with the poor and
marginalized
Aim for society Just and equal society
Expectation of Raising prophetic voice
church and protesting against
injustice
Working with Workers, marginalized,
and oppressed
Political process Conscientization and
mobilization of the
poor and marginalized
Methodology Critical rereading of the
Scriptures, current
systems, contexts, and
history
Theological Liberation, justice, Jesus’
emphasis life and teaching/ God
(Christ) as poor,
marginalized, black,
Dalit, minjung, and
female/ salvation as
liberation
Tools for social Marxist and socialist
analysis analysis/ black and
feminist critique
Conversation with Economics/ politics/
other academic sociology/ cultural
disciples studies
Challenge monopoly of sharing of Christian
any kind message of salvation
and liberation
System is not necessarily work within the existing
evil or entirely wrong system
Gradual reformation Transformation of
through advocacy and individual and society
debate through word and
deed
Negotiating between God’s love for the world
opposing parties
Fair and open society/ Society under the
seeking the common kingdom of God
good
Advocacy and civil Proclamation and
engagement service/ faith in action
Civil society and other Churches, mission
religious groups agencies, and partners
Advocate for reforming Change of individuals and
and re-visioning of society by actualization
systems or attitudes of God’s love and
justice
Critical enquiry and open Witnessing, dialogue,
debate/ social ethics evangelism, social care,
and consensus politics development
Kingdom of God/ God M/ss/o Dei/ trinitarian
in the midst of history/ mission/ mission as
God in human wisdom witnessing, dialogue,
and systems quest for justice,
prophetic dialogue
Christian social ethics/ Practical theology/
political philosophy anthropological and
social analysis
Philosophy/ politics/ Anthropology/ sociology/
economics/ peace geography/ history/
studies/ environmental religious studies/
studies/ governance development studies

shaped, especially in the latter part of the last century, largely by the watershed Vatican
II, by the ecumenical movement led by the WCC, and by evangelicals through the
Lausanne movement and the World Evangelical Alliance. Among these various devel-
opments, there has been a clear move toward broadening the concept of mission as
dealing with the spiritual and religious realm (evangelism, conversion, and church
Kim 15

expansion) to include sociocultural and economic realms (inculturation, people with

other faiths, and development) and to the more political realm of the public sphere
(justice, liberation, and state issues). David Bosch identified “mission as the quest for
justice” as one of his emerging ecumenical paradigms in Transforming Mission and
points out that the evangelistic and societal dimensions of the Christian mission have
often been a tension. He suggested that in the course of the Enlightenment, the differ-
enees between the public world of facts (politics and the state) and private world of
ideas (religion and morals) deepened and that the church has largely confined itself to
charity and development in its public engagement. Bosch then used Niebuhr’s argu-
ment on the differing emphasis of rational ethics for justice and religious ethics for
love. But at the same time, he found that within this religious ideal, a “mystical” or
spiritual emphasis exists closely—but also in tension—with the “prophetic” emphasis.
This tension between “two mandates” of Christian mission—evangelism and social
responsibility—between ecumenical and evangelical groups—continued throughout
the second half of the 20th century, particularly in the USA. Bosch saw “convergence
of convictions” from both camps across the Christian denominations to overcome the
“old dichotomies.”22 Also seeing the potential for mission as a key actor for social
change, Gregory Leffel, in his monograph Faith Seeking Action, argues for revitaliza-
tion in mission. He argues that the people of God acting collectively can transform the
powers and distortions of social life for the common good as he examines the ways
and means for these movements to transform the theology and action of the church.23
He defines mission as faith seeking action and in his case studies he argues for the
power of religious motivation in social mobilization and calls for revitalization of mis-
sion through introducing “missio-ecclesiology,” which is a way of understanding the
church in the light of its action in the world.24
Of course, the concept of public engagement of mission is not entirely new—mis-
sionary activities have always interfaced with aspects of public life. Mission has never
been confined as “private” within ecclesiological boundaries, as Bosch’s definition of
mission as “church crossing boundaries in the form of a servant” makes clear. The
discussion of the priority of evangelism and social involvement was at its peak in the
1960s and 1970s when evangelical and ecumenical discussions were heated over the
issue, but both parties gradually came to a certain consensus over the issue. More
recently, “The Cape Town Commitment” contains the section on “truth and public
arenas,” which says, “we encourage Christ-followers to be actively engaged in these
spheres, both in public service or private enterprise, in order to shape societal values
and influence public debate” (7A).25 More explicitly in the section on “Christ’s peace
for the poor and oppressed,” the statement mentions modern slavery, human traffick-
ing, poverty, disabilities, HIV, and ecological issues. “The Common Call” from
Edinburgh 2010 called for mission to be involved in “liberation for all poor and
oppressed,” to “critical reflection on systems of power, and to accountable use of
power structures.”26 The WCC has been a leading protagonist on the expansion of the
scope and definition of mission in the 20th century, through the work of the Commission
on World Mission and Evangelism. The recent WCC statement prepared by the
CWME, “Together towards Life: Mission and Evangelism in Changing landscapes,”
16 Missiology: An International Review 45(I)

states that “mission from the margins calls for an understanding of the complexities of
power dynamics, global systems and structures, and local contextual realities” (37)
and acknowledges that mission has “generally aligned with the privileges of the centre
and largely failed to challenge economic, cultural, and political systems which have
marginalized some peoples” (41). It also emphasizes that “Christians are called to
acknowledge the sinful nature of all forms of discrimination and to transform unjust
structures” (49).27
Missiology has been shaped significantly during the last century, especially toward
concern for social and economic justice and engagement in the public sphere. As a part
of Christian theology, it also has been developed to deal with the changing contexts of
secularism, multireligious contexts, globalization, and political conflicts. It is evident
that the scope of mission is not limited to the religious and spiritual realm but deals
with all realms of public life, including the socioeconomic and cultural life of indi-
viduals, communities, and nations, but equally there is evidence that there is a certain
reluctance to engage in the area of politics, especially dealing with state politics.
Throughout mission history, we find numerous cases of the struggle of missionaries
over the issue of church and state politics, but by and large, missionaries traditionally
tended to maintain a certain distance from state politics. In recent years, the discussion
of “public missiology” has stimulated thinking on this issue: Gregg Okesson, in his
article in the journal Missiology, points out that one cannot witness to institutions
without also challenging how those institutions have related to power. He argues for
the development of a theology of power taking a more active role in dealing with insti-
tutional powers rather than spiritualizing them. He emphasizes this engagement since
the kingdom of God is to do with power, rulers, and authorities (Eph 3:10) and since
the very heart of the gospel relates to power and the kingship of God.28 Here I can see
that conversation with public theology could enhance missiology’s engagement in the
public sphere, since state politics is the main body in the public sphere in most contem-
porary situations.29
For public theology, the initial discussion on the topic of social transformation was
stimulated by Jürgen Habermas in his classic, The Structural Transformation of the
Public Sphere. Habermas regarded the “public sphere” as an open forum which
emerged in modem Western societies in the situation where the state and the market
economy predominated in daily life. In his observation of 18th-century Europe, he saw
the bourgeois public sphere as formulated between the sphere of public authority,
which consisted of the state and the court, and the private realm, which included civil
society (the realm of commodity exchange and social labor) and the conjugal family’s
internal space.30 As a result, the public’s rational-critical debate on political issues was
practiced in the gatherings of the bourgeoisie and through various forms of journals
that created and formed general public opinion.31 He argues that the public sphere was
created by the recognition of three sets of rights: first, the right of radical-critical
debate and political representation—freedom of speech and opinion, the free press,
freedom of assembly, and so on; second, the right to personal freedom and the invio-
lability of the home; and third, the right of private ownership which required equality
before the law.32 He argued that the bourgeois public sphere was in decline and
Kim 17

replaced by mass media in the context of the dominance of state and economy and
political institutions and later conceptualized it as voluntary associations or civil soci-
ety. In addition, he noted that these changes took place in the context of the empower-
ment of corporations and unions and the increasing intervention of welfare states into
people’s private lives.33
Habermas’s initial theoretical framework was based on emerging male Western
bourgeois liberal democratic societies, and was therefore criticized for its limitation to
this sector of society and its inability to recognize religions as part of the public
sphere.34 Perhaps Nancy Fraser provides the most convincing critique from the femi-
nist perspective by employing critical theory. She points out that the problem of
Habermas’s idealization of a liberal public sphere is his failure to examine the “non-
liberal, nonbourgeois, competing public sphere”; lack of scope for the change in social
status in his theory; public sphere in the singular form; lack of clear distinctions
between state and civil society in modern democracy.35 Theologically, “public” is not
just limited to the physical space of the public sphere, nor does the concept of public
merely sit in-between the state and domestic or civil society, but it is do with openness
of theology. The key concern for developing public theology is that the concept of
public is not a matter of the difference between public and private—it is to do with the
openness of theology. Being public means that theology is open to engage in public
issues wider than religious matters, and also open to be engaged in receiving critique
from outside the church circles.
Jürgen Moltmann, in his book, Godfor a Secular Society: The Public Relevance of
Theology, asserts that theology must publicly maintain the universal concerns of God’s
coming kingdom because “there is no Christian identity without public relevance, and
no public relevance without theology’s Christian identity,” and that “as the theology of
God’s kingdom, theology has to be public theology” in the mode of “public, critical
and prophetic complaint to God—public, critical and prophetic hope in God.”36
Theology, he insists, should exhibit “general concern in the light of hope in Christ for
the kingdom of God” by becoming “political in the name of the poor and the marginal-
ized in a given society,” by thinking “critically about the religious and moral values of
the societies in which it exists,” and by presenting “its reflections as a reasoned posi-
tion.” One of the key characteristics of public theology is seeking to find a methodol-
ogy suited to address various contemporary issues in order to directly engage with
individuals with no faith commitment and various secular groups in a society.
Traditional theologies tend to convey their insights to the wider society through indi-
vidual Christians and Christian communities, but public theology articulates a meth-
odology suitable to both Christian communities and the wider society.

The pursuit of the common good (public theology) or dialogue with

openness and respect (missiology)
CST and its emphasis on the common good have significantly shaped the political and
economic aspects of the theologies of public life of Catholics and other Christians. The
idea of the common good or the good society has been discussed widely among
18 Missiology: An International Review 45(I)

Christian communities. John de Gruchy, in his examination of Christianity and democ-

racy, sees the common good as binding its members together in mutual accountability
and as a process rather than a static set of principles. He argues that it is a necessary
vision of a just social order, which challenges individualism and promotes the welfare
and fulfilment of society as a whole. He insists that the doctrine of the common good
will provide an important challenge to the possessive individualism which lies at the
heart of liberal democratic capitalism, on the one hand, and, on the other, to the sacri-
fice of human rights by social collectivism. He points out that the relationship between
power and powerlessness has always been a struggle for democratic theory and that
the church’s role is important in keeping those who are in power accountable and at the
same time empowering those who are weak to exercise their rights for the good of the
whole society.37 He challenges the notion that a democratic system will produce mor-
ally responsible citizens as a matter of course. Rather he sees that it is the morally
formed and empowered who are able to make democracy work.38
Similarly, Jim Wallis, the Protestant evangelical and campaigner, in his The (Un)
Common Good, insists that the common good is a “new ethic of civility” and a “vision
drawn from the heart of our religious traditions that allows us to make our faith public
but not narrowly partisan.” For Christians, the idea of the common good derives from
Jesus’ commandment to love our neighbors, which he regards as “the most transforma-
tional social ethic,” and that our treatment towards the most vulnerable is the “moral
test” of any society’s integrity.39 He believes that when religion serves politics, rather
than dominating it, it will provide a source of moral values and that the separation of
church and state should not mean the segregation of moral values from the public
life.40 Responding to the question of how to bring prophetic values rather than paro-
chiai and partisan interests into political and public life, on the basis of his understand-
ing of the image of God as the foundation of a “theology of democracy,” he argues for
two key aspects of democracy: the absolute worth of every human person and funda-
mental respect for every individual together with equal rights for political participation
and social opportunities. Furthermore, he sees it is the relational capacity of human
beings within these two aspects as what makes democracy possible.41 There are prob-
lems with the understanding of the common good, such as the questions of how to
protect individual rights while seeking the common good; of who should define the
common good within a modem plural and secular state; and of who says so, on what
grounds, and in whose interests.42 Nevertheless, the theology of common good pro-
vides alternative approaches to the problem of minorities and makes meaningful con-
versation between liberal democracy and socialist democracy.
Here I see the discussion between public theology and missiology is helpful by
introducing a theology of dialogue and working together for a common cause. Lesslie
Newbigin, for example, argued that Christians should be willing to engage in projects
in society which are in line with a Christian understanding of God’s purpose in history,
and that true dialogue occurs in this “shared commitment” to the world.43 Some theo-
logians may regard plurality as a blessing rather than an obstacle to harmony, and see
active engagement in dialogue with neighbors of other faiths, with respect, as part and
parcel of, if not essential to, any religious life. The discussion of the theologies of the
Kim 19

common good and dialogue lie in the finding of a shared platform for interaction
between the Christian community and other religious communities and with secular
society. The key aspects of scriptural wisdom in developing public theology help us to
deal with the issue of the difficulty of the methodology of utilizing theological insights
in the public sphere. The wisdom tradition is deeply imbedded in the sacred text of the
Hebrew Bible and yet its concern and scope are not limited to the people of Israel or
to faith matters—it is more to do with practical guidance for the ethical, moral, and
social life of individuals together with others in Israel and beyond. This gives us a clue
that we can take an option of biblical wisdom in public life. While our wisdom is
drawn from the Scripture, this wisdom can be shared by people of other faiths and
non-faith and, equally importantly, churches can utilize wisdom from other religious
traditions and secular society in their engagement in public life. Doing mission in the
public sphere from the point of view of Christian tradition could then be articulated as
identifying “shared wisdom” from biblical wisdom (not just from the wisdom litera-
ture) and applying it into the public engagement of the church. In turn, public theolo-
gians are also prepared to join in with any initiatives based on wisdom from other
traditions (both religious and secular).

Critical engagement of theology in the public or “public missiology”

The idea of “public missiology” has recently been intensely discussed in the issue of
the journal Missiology guest-edited by Gregory Leffel. In his search for pubic missiol-
ogy, Leffel helpfully provides a definition of “public” from a phenomenological per-
spective: first, the public, which is the sum of the people in general who make up a
community or commonwealth; second, public interest, which is the sum of that which
is shared by, open to, or pertains to everyone (what is of public interest can be con-
tested); third, in public, which means a field of action, a performance—publicity, pub-
licness, participation, and action—sociocultural interaction:

“Public” means, for our missiological purposes, a discernible community of individuals

living within political, linguistic, historical, cultural, and (at various scales) geographical
boundaries: sharing common goods and knowledge; and interacting with each other to create
a common life out of individual interests ... a discernible community, which forms a field
of action for the performance of meaning-making and relationship-forming acts by knowing
agents (actors), who produce a shared life together.44

Leffel further sees that public life is constructed each time individual or group actors
express themselves. Employing Samuel Mateus’s idea of public as a social experience
and Margaret Archer’s of the relationship between structure and agency, he argues that
public life means to publicize one’s self-action of making something collective and
social. He sees that in the dynamic relationship between people (“actors”) and struc-
tural systems (“parts”), “public frames” is vital for a meaningful interaction of missiol-
ogy of public life.45 In addition, Robert Hunt suggests that public missiology should
seek public good on the basis of shared values, while Charles Fensham sees public
20 Missiology: An International Review 45(I)

missiology as “public transformation” and “imaginative transformative conversation”

and calls for public response since “public response at its core is missiological” for
church’s “transformative life-giving mission in the world.”46
Here the important discussion is that the critical engagement of theology or missi-
ology in the public means that the criticality should be applied to theology and the
church (and religious communities).47 When we talk about the prophetic role of the
church, we often see the one-sided critique of “others.” Let me illustrate this. During
February 2008, Britain witnessed an unprecedented debate over a lecture given by the
Archbishop of Canterbury on “Civil and Religious Law in England: A Religious
Perspective” at the Royal Courts of Justice.48 He was heavily criticized by the media,
politicians, and other church leaders for his seemingly naïve and positive suggestion
that Sharia law could be adopted into the British juridical system.49 However, what the
critics and the supporters are in agreement on is that the Archbishop’s lecture touched
on more than the matter of Sharia law. The heart of the issue here is in what way reli-
gious allegiance and secular ideology meet in the public life and Williams explained
his idea of “interactive pluralism” in which a “complementary” legal system helps in
the promotion of human dignity for all members of society by allowing the full exprès-
sion and exercise of their aspirations.50
This “interactive pluralism” advanced by Williams has two dimensions of mutual
accountability: one explicit and one implicit. On the one hand, it calls for the acknowl-
edgement of the potential contributions of religious communities, the obligation on the
state to provide this possibility in the public sphere, and the challenge to the state’s
holding the monopoly over the conduct of the law. On the other hand, it brings religious
communities into the public discussion. Interactive pluralism helps religious communi-
ties to be more open to scrutiny of the public and hence encourages them to integrate
into the wider society. This should be welcomed as the two dimensions would mutually
benefit both religious communities and the wider society. Williams is challenging both
the secular state for monopolizing public discussions and the religious communities for
their tendency to exclusive approaches to matters relating to wider society.
If I may expand this further in the current discussion: Yes, it is important for the
wider society to accept and appreciate the contributions of religious communities as
Williams has insisted, but the initiative and sustaining energy should be from the reli-
gious community. This calls for “placing religions in the public sphere” or developing
“public theology” or “public missiology” within a religious community. As I have
argued elsewhere, the key idea of public theology has two components: pursuing the
“openness” of religious tradition and “critical engagement” of one’s own tradition.51
This theoretical framework was based on the Frankfurt School of critical theory which
specifies that the task of theory is not just to correct understanding but to create social
and political conditions more conducive to human flourishing, resulting in a transfor-
mation of society. Edward Schillebeeckx, who was a Catholic theologian who took up
the key aspects of critical theory, emphasized that theory and action should come
together to enhance the transformation of society and that the two should mutually
inform each other.52 Schillebeeckx saw that a purely theoretical and philosophical her-
meneutic was untenable because understanding can be severely frustrated by social
Kim 21

and political structures and that hermeneutics must have an emancipative, practical,
and critical interest that fosters human freedom and understanding.53 In order to link
Christian understanding of faith with social and political exigencies, Schillebeeckx
argued that although knowledge is the result of the interaction of the “inner bond” of
praxis and theory, praxis determines theory. Schillebeeckx, in his reformulation of
theology, saw theology as “the critical self-consciousness of Christian praxis in the
world and the church.”54
Employing the “interactive pluralism” of Williams and “self-critical consciousness
of Christian praxis” of Schillebeeckx, I would argue that a religious community has to
constantly shape its faith and practice with “openness” and “critical engagement” with
its own traditions and with wider society, and this has to be realized from within and
not imposed by others.

Conclusion
The International Missionary Council meeting in Willingen in 1952 stated that “There
is no participation in Christ without participation in His mission to the world.”55
However, the interpretations of “mission” and “the world” have changed significantly
and perhaps missiology has been focusing its investigation more on the meaning of
“mission” and public theology more on “the world” or the public sphere, respectively.
Public theology is very much a theologia viatorum—theology in the making, but I
would envisage that, in spite of its weakness and shortcomings, it will make signifi-
cant contributions to theology in terms of the nature of the public sphere, rationale for
public engagement, and the modes and methods of Christian engagement in the public
sphere. Chris Wright, in his recent book, The Mission of God’s People, discusses the
significance of the role of Christians in the “secular” public square and their work of
Christian witness as a wider mission, and he justifies the importance of the engage-
ment in the public square since God created, audits, governs, and redeems it.56 With
the development of public missiology, the conversation between missiology and pub-
lie theology has already begun and it is indeed an exciting endeavor for the furtherance
of participating in his mission to the world and in the world.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.

Notes
1. Bosch, 1992: 489—498.
2. Marty, 1981.
3. Habermas, 1989.
4. Tracy, 1981.
5. Temple, 1942: 17-21.
6. Temple, 1942: 21-22.
7. Wilding, 1992: 40-49; Suggate, 1987: 34.
22 Missiology: An International Review 45(I)

8.. Rasmussen, 1989: 3.

9.. Rasmussen, 1989: 17-21. See also Smith, 2014.
10.. Niebuhr, 1955: 269.
11.. Niebuhr, 1955: 270-284.
12.. Schreiter, 1987: 118-119.
13.. Schreiter, 1987: 91.
14.. Murray, 1960: 28-36.
15.. Murray, 1960: 37.
16.. Murray, 1960: 79-87.
17.. For in-depth discussion on Catholic Social Teaching, see Curran, 2002; Rhonheimer, 2013.
18.. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, 2004: 83.
19.. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, 2004: 84-85.
20.. Kim, 2011: 20-25.
21.. See Martinez, 2001.
22.. Bosch, 1992: 400^108.
23.. Leffel, 2007: xix, 6.
24.. Leffel, 2007: xix, 13,249.
25.. https://www.lausanne.0rg/content/ctc/ctcommitment#p2-l.
26.. http ://www. edinburgh2010 .org/fileadmin/Edinburgh_2010_Common_Call_with_
explanation.pdf.
27.. https://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/commissions/mission-and-
evangelism/together-towards-life-mission-and-evangelism-in-changing-landscapes.
28.. Okesson, 2016.
29.. See Kim, 2011: 10-14.
30.. Habermas, 1989: 30-31.
31.. Habermas, 1989: 72-73.
32.. Habermas, 1989: 83-85.
33.. For Habermas’s reconstruction of critical theory, see How, 2003: 115-142. For the concept
of bourgeois society among the scholars of the Frankfurt School, see Stirk, 2000: 93-110.
34.. See Calhoun, 1992; Crossley and Roberts, 2004.
35.. Fraser, 1992. See also Fraser, 2007.
36.. Moltmann, 1999: 5-23.
37.. De Gruchy, 1995: 264-267.
38.. De Gruchy, 1995: 244-247.
39.. Wallis, 2013: xi-xiii.
40.. Wallis, 2013: 182.
41.. Wallis, 2013: 183-84.
42.. See d’Emtreves, 1967: 225.
43.. Newbigin, 1989.
44.. Leffel, 2016: 170.
45.. Leffel, 2016: 171-178. See Mashau, 2014. See also Ross andBevans, 2015.
46.. Hunt, 2016: 139; Fensham, 2015.
47.. Robert Hunt argues that Christian mission is closely related to public discourse with social
and political transformations and that public missiology and Christians as agents of social
and political change “must justify their intentions and action in public, to the public.” Hunt,
2016: 130.
48.. http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575.
49.. For discussions of the lecture, see Higton, 2008; Chaplin, 2008.
50.. See Kim, 2011: 173-194.
Kim 23

51. Kim, 2011: 3-26.

52. Schreiter, “Edward Schillebeeckx: An Orientation to Elis Thought,” in Schreiter, 1987: 18-19.
53. Kennedy, 1993: 50, 52.
54. See Schillebeeckx, 1974: 154, 142.
55. Goodall, 1953: 190.
56. Wright, 2010: 223-229.

References
BoschD (1992) Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in the Theology ofMission. Maryknoll:
Orbis.
Calhoun C (ed.) (1992) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chaplin J (2008) Legal monism and religious pluralism: Rowan Williams on religion, loyalty
and law. International Journal ofPublic Theology 2(4): 418-4T
Crossley N and Roberts JM (eds.) After Habermas: New Perspectives on the Public Sphere.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Curran CE (2002) Catholic Social Teaching, 1891-Present: A Historical, Theological and
Ethical Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
D’Emtreves AP (1967) The Notion of the State: An Introduction to Political Theory. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
De Grachy J (1995) Christianity and Democracy: A Theology for a Just World Order.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fensham C (2015) Faith matters: towards a public missiology in the midst of the ecological
crisis. Toronto Journal of Theology 31(1): 17-28.
Fraser N (1992) Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing
democracy. In: Calhoun C (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, pp. 109-42.
Fraser N (2007) Transnationalizing the public sphere: on the ligitimacy and efficacy of public
opinion in a post-Westphalian world. Theory, Culture & Society 24(4): 7-30.
Goodall N (ed.) (1953) Missions under the Cross: Addresses Delivered at the Enlarged Meeting
of the Committee of the International Missionary Council at Willingen, in Germany, 1952:
with Statements Issued by the Meeeting. London: Edinburgh Elouse Press.
Elabermas J (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a
Category of Bourgeois Society. Trans. Thomas Burger. Cambridge: Polity (1962).
Eligton M (2008) Rowan Williams and Sharia: defending the secular. International Journal of
Public Theology 2(4): 400-417
Flow A (2003) Critical Theory. New York: Palgrave.
Elunt R (2016) Public missiology and anxious tribalism. Missiology: An International Review
44(2): 129-141.
Kennedy P (1993) Schillebeeckx. London: Geoffrey Chapman.
Kim S (2011) Theology in the Public Sphere: Public Theology as a Catalyst for Open Debate.
London: SCM.
Leffel G (2007) Faith Seeking Action: Mission, Social Movement, and the Church in Motion.
Plymouth: The Scarecrow Press.
Leffel G (2016) The “public” of a missiology ofpublic life: actors and opportunities. Missiology:
An International Review 44(2): 167-79.
Martinez G (2001) Confronting the Mystery of God: Political, Liberation, and Public Theologies.
London: Continuum.
Marty M (1981) Public Church: Mainline-Evangeical-Catholic. New York: Crossroad.
24 Missiology: An International Review 45(I)

Mashau T (2014) Reimagining mission in the public square: engaging hills and valleys in the
African city of Tshwane. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 70(3): 1-11.
Moltmann J (1999) God for a Secular Society: The Public Relevance of Theology. London:
SCM Press.
Murray JC (1960) We Hold These Truths: A Catholic Reflection on the American Proposition.
New York: Sheed and Ward.
NewbiginL (1989) The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. London: SPCK.
Niebuhr R (1955) The Nature and Destiny of Man: A Christian Interpretation. New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Okesson G (2016) Christian witness to institutions: public missiology and power. Missiology:
An International Review 44(2): 142-54.
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (2004) Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the
Church. London: Bums & Oates.
Rasmussen L (1989) Introduction. In: Rasmussen L (ed.) Reinhold Niebuhr: Theologian of
Public Life. London: Collins, pp. 1—41.
Rhonheimer M (2013) The Common Good of Constitutional Democracy: Essays on Political
Philosophy and on Catholic Social Teaching. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University
of America Press.
Ross C and Bevans SB (2015) Mission on the Road to Emmaus: Constants, Context and
Prophetic Dialogue. London: SCM.
Schillebeeckx E (1974) The Understanding of Faith: Interpretation and Criticism, trans. by
N.D. Smith. London: Sheed & Ward.
Schreiter R (ed.) (1987) The Schillebeeckx Reader. London: Crossroad.
Smith G (2014) Taking sides: an investigation into Reinhold Niebuhr’s rise to the position of
public intellectual. International Journal ofPublic Theology, 8(2): 131-57.
Stirk PMR (2000) Critical Theory, Political and Society: An Introduction. London and New
York: Pinter.
Suggate A (1987) William Temple and Christian Social Ethics Today. London: T & T Clark.
Temple W (1942) Christianity and the Social Order. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
TracyD (1981) The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the Culture ofPluralism.
New York: Crossroad.
Wallis J (2013) The (Un)Common Good: How the Gospel Brings Hope to a World Divided.
Grand Rapid: Brazos Press.
Wilding P (1992) Re-review: William Temple’s Christianity and Social Order: The Modern
Churchman 34(2): 40-9.
Wright C (2010) The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission.
Grand Rapid: Zondervan.

Author biography
Sebastian Kim holds the Chair in Theology and Public Life in the School of Humanities, Religion
and Philosophy at York St. John University. He is a F ellow of the Royal Asiatic Society and the
author of In Search of Identity: Debates on Religious Conversion in India (Oxford University
Press, 2003), Theology in the Public Sphere (SCM, 2011), and co-author of Christianity as a
World Religion (Continuum, 2008) and A History ofKorean Christianity (Cambridge University
Press, 2014). He is the editor and co-editor of twelve volumes, including Christian Theologies
in Asia (Cambridge University Press, 2008), Peace and Reconciliation (Ashgate, 2008), and
Cosmopolitanism, Religion and the Public Sphere (Routledge, 2014). He is the editor of the
International Journal of Public Theology and executive member of the Global Network for
Public Theology.
 License and Permissible Use Notice

These materials are provided to you by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) in
accordance with the terms of ATLA's agreements with the copyright holder or authorized distributor of
the materials, as applicable. In some cases, ATLA may be the copyright holder of these materials.

You may download, print, and share these materials for your individual use as may be permitted by the
applicable agreements among the copyright holder, distributors, licensors, licensees, and users of these
materials (including, for example, any agreements entered into by the institution or other organization
from which you obtained these materials) and in accordance with the fair use principles of United States
and international copyright and other applicable laws. You may not, for example, copy or email these
materials to multiple web sites or publicly post, distribute for commercial purposes, modify, or create
derivative works of these materials without the copyright holder's express prior written permission.

Please contact the copyright holder if you would like to request permission to use these materials, or
any part of these materials, in any manner or for any use not permitted by the agreements described
above or the fair use provisions of United States and international copyright and other applicable laws.
For information regarding the identity of the copyright holder, refer to the copyright information in
these materials, if available, or contact ATLA at products@atla.com.

Except as otherwise specified, Copyright © 2016 American Theological Library Association.