What Is Public Theology? Another Attempt To Define An Emerging Discipline

One of the defining marks of my current stage of life is that I am pursuing a PhD in Public Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary, so it often comes up in conversations. I usually get the following responses:

“Public theology? What’s that?”

“Is that just like political theology?”

“I didn’t really know public theology was a thing.”

I will normally respond by admitting that sometimes I’m not sure what public theology is either, or that until I was admitted into the PhD program I had never even heard of the discipline. When I was first accepted into the program, I assumed public theology was just Christian ethics. On the contrary, public theology is a distinct field with its own history, methods, and challenges that need to be understood as a particular resource available to the church.

An Emerging Discipline

While public theology is a relatively new term in scholarship (being coined in the 1970s), it has proliferated publications, centers, and interest. However, despite exponential growth in attention over the last few decades, a precise and agreeable definition has been elusive. Instead, what one finds in the emerging field is a diversity of definitions, sometimes conflicting and contradictory, as it struggles to identify itself.

The first formal definition was offered by Martin Marty in 1981 (fitting, as he coined the term in 1974). He defined public theology as “an effort to interpret the life of a people in light of a transcendent reference” that flows from a particular communal tradition as an interaction with the broader public (Public Church, 16). For Marty, this kind of theology has more to do with “ordering faith” – that is, with the structure and operation of society – than “saving faith” (Public Church, 17). In other words, it was the effort of a religious community (i.e., the church or a specific denomination) to understand the life shared by multiple communities (i.e., the nation or the world) and to contribute to this life out of the community’s own theological resources.

Various definitions followed this initial offer, revealing the tensions within this emerging movement. Some definitions highlight the struggle against marginalization or authoritarianism. Others emphasize a concern for the poor and oppressed. Still others prioritize political or structural dimensions or democratic values. These definitions each identify important aspects of public theology, but sometimes do so at the expense and exclusion of others. Often these definitions seem to define not the field as a whole but a scholar’s own approach to public theology, which leaves the student of public theology still grasping for a definition.

This tension was was well observed by E. Harold Breitenberg, who noticed that there seemed to be no consensus among scholars – the friendly and hostile alike – as to what exactly was being discussed. In a monumental article, Breitenberg made a great effort to delineate genres, definitions, and consistent marks of the growing field, ending by offering his own attempt at a unifying definition.

According to Breitenberg, “public theology intends to provide theologically informed interpretations of and guidance for individuals, faith communities, and the institutions and interactions of civil society, in ways that are understandable, accessible, and possibly convincing to those inside the church and those outside as well” (“To Tell the Truth: Will the Real Public Theology Please Stand Up?”, 66). While there are multiple kinds of public theology, Breitenberg thought that this definition served to unite the discipline around what it had in common.

My Working Definition

This clarification offered by Breitenberg was in many ways a helpful move away from parochial or disconnected definitions and toward one that could sustain the variety of ways that public theology was practiced and performed. However, what it accomplishes is perhaps rendered inaccessible by the unnecessary verbosity.

It seems to me that the discipline would benefit from a basic definition that can sustain the multiplicity of public theologies, in the plural, rather than my own aspirations for the practice of public theology. This definition would hopefully establish a common foundation by which various schools, methods, and traditions of public theological thought could flourish, compete, and collaborate for the common good.

Thus, my minimal definition of public theology:

public theology is any theological engagement on matters that transcend the ecclesial community in a way that pursues dialogue rather than domination.

I believe that this definition serves to include the work of public theologians who offer competing definitions while remaining distinct enough that the doors are not open to any and every theological endeavor. In a short sentence, it encompasses the several marks of public theology that are necessary and essential to its practice.

Essential Marks

First, any theological engagement signals that public theology must of necessity be theological. Of course, this is a matter of degree, and I want to affirm the importance of the debate over distinctiveness and relevance, but to whatever degree they are rendered explicit or implicit the biblical and theological motivation, reflection, and support must be present and recognizable. Otherwise, it is ceases to be public theology.

Second, on matters that transcend the ecclesial community means that the issues engaged must must be issues that exist beyond the community of believers. This does not mean that ecclesial matters such as worship or the sacraments are out-of-bounds for public theology, but rather that in order for these issues to constitute public theological topics they must be handled in a way that emphasizes their significance for life outside of the congregation. For instance, when Matthew Kaemingk discusses the importance and influence of liturgy, sacraments, and worship on a Christian responses to Muslim immigration, he is handling ecclesial matters in a way that emphasizes and evaluates their public significance, and so doing the work of public theology (Christian Hospitality and Muslim Immigration in an Age of Fear, 196-236).

This also means that while public theology tends to focus on economics, politics, and civil society, more existential conversations about doubt, faith, friendship and the like are not excluded. While the earlier days of public theology emphasized concerns of polity or societal structure, the field has grown to include theological reflection on sports, art, beauty, and cinema. For an example of this sort of public theology, see Kutter Callaway and Barry Taylor, The Aesthetics of Atheism.

In other words, public theology emphasizes, highlights, evaluates, and otherwise explores the public face of doctrine. It is not about theological precision (although it is not necessarily opposed to it) as much as it is about theological action. What difference does theology make in the way we live our lives in connection with the public?

Third, pursues dialogue rather than domination is perhaps the most important part of the definition, as it emphasizes what is most distinctive about public theology. Public theology is, before anything else, a conversation (Sebastian Kim, Theology in the Public Sphere, 3). When one is doing public theology, they are not trying to win and argument but to achieve common ground and communal orientation and direction while remaining publicly accessible and accountable. Public theology does not stand at a critical distance from the world, relying solely on dogmatic confession or revelation for condemnation of that which is “out there”, but instead enters into a dialogue with those inside and outside of the church and seeks to contribute, out of a distinctively Christian identity, to the public good.

These are, in my estimation, the necessary marks of any and all public theology. Any theological project that strives to engage in such a way will also likely be to some degree interdisciplinary and multilingual, prophetic and critical, and global in its perspective and awareness. It is also the case that, as with any good theological project (whether biblical, systematic, analytical, confessional, or academic), public theology must be in some way performed in our worship, work, and living. Whether these marks are met in a way satisfactory to one public theologian or another – or whether they are met at all – is not a litmus test for public theology. However, I would like to see public theology that employs each of these marks to the degree appropriate to context.

Personal Preferences

On top of the above marks of public theology, I would also like public theology to expand upon the basic definition to include three further marks, which by no means garner universal support in the scholarly community.

First, public theology should maintain a missional and evangelistic impulse. While aware of its intent to restore the fullness of the gospel in proclamation and action, it should be seen as evangelism expanded upon, but not at the expense of, concern for faith in Christ and inclusion in the redemptive community (the church). If public theology is a concern for the common good, it should be concerned with the common and universal need for Christ.

Second, public theology should endeavor to cut through the partisanship of politics, not for bipartisanship but for something else altogether. It is not the goal of public theology to support the civil religion of the day in any of its expressions, but to tell a better story of the beginning and end of the world. Thus, public theology should attempt neither a synthesis of the left and the right nor a rejection of the true and good concerns emphasized by both, but should instead pursue the unique and distinct manifestation of faith in the context within which it is found. This is not to say that a public theologian may not vote in one way or the other, but that the project of public theology is simply much broader and deeper than the categories of (bi)partisanship can maintain.

Third, public theology should strive to include all voices (especially marginalized voices) in the conversation, not out of a religiously embellished savior-victim complex, but because privileged voices are truly insufficient and lacking without the full witness of human experience. Not only should excluded voices be included, but privileged voices should not be marginalized from the discussion. If theology has suffered from their over-saturation, certainly it will suffer from their absence, and if any voices are excluded, one may question whether or not a theological project is truly public. Importantly, this is not an appeal to welcome domineering and abusive players to the table of conversation, as their presence would from within destroy the project of public theology; still, disagreement must be welcome and a willingness to hear and learn must be forthcoming.

The Conviction that Theology Matters

Dirk Smit closes his contribution to A Companion to Public Theology (edited by Katie Day and Sebastian Kim) by stating that public theology is constituted by the conviction that theology matters:

“public theology should be about what counts in public life, about what makes a difference, about what affects human beings and the created world, about what matters to real people in real life… it should understand what the matter is, what the full story is, what the truth of the matter is, what the real concerns and possibilities are… it thereby claims to know what is good for life, for human beings and the world, and that its intention is to contribute to this, whether this state is described as flourishing, well-being, or the common good” (“Does It Matter?”, 88).

Public theology is about “discipleship as transformation” (“Does It Matter?”, 89). It is about becoming more like Christ in the ways that we interact with the world in which we find ourselves. It is about joining in with the work that God is doing in the world to pursue flourishing, well-being, and life, and to become an player in that grand story by grace.

What do you think of when you hear the phrase “public theology”? Who are some public theologians that you admire? What are some questions you still have about this emerging discipline? Let us know in the comments!