Public Theology and its necessary relation to the liberation paradigm in a new kairos – A Response to Clint Le Bruyns – by Felipe Gustavo Koch Buttelli

Getting into the conversation

I am approaching this conversation from a different place, neither from South Africa nor from Palestine. However, I still can say that I feel close to the theme suggested by Le Bruyns, even sitting in Brazil. And I would say that it is so for three main reasons. First, we are still dealing with the need to have a radical social transformation, what means, we continue working under the liberation paradigm; second, we are also working to construct a tool called public theology, which eventually can help us to build this radical social transformation, i. e., liberation; third, we are living in a new and completely different kairos in Brazil, which needs to be properly read and calls us to a theological response. In that sense, I think even from a different perspective it is possible to bring some other elements to this debate about public theology and social transformation.

Public Theology and the South African Kairos Document

I have been recently working on another Kairos Document[i], the first South African Kairos Document of 1985[ii]. I had two main purposes on that reflection: first, to identify that the South African way of doing public theology is (and must be) necessarily related to the different liberation theologies of that country, and the South African Kairos Document is one of the major pieces of this theological tradition. This is what Charles Villa-Vicencio points to, when he says: “In South Africa, Black theology and liberation theology were born in the late 1960s, reaching their highwater mark with the publication of the Kairos Document in 1985”.[iii] The second purpose was to show that it is necessary to construct a new theological grammar in the democratic contexts, in which South Africa and Brazil are involved. In that sense, it agrees with Le Bruyns’ contribution when he says that public theology – considered as a way to do science – must be done in a different manner today because it:

“demands reception, ownership and participation throughout the public arena where politics, economics, civil society and public opinion interface. Science thus moves from vision to action. The relevance for public theology is that, indeed, our theological capital for the constructive transformation of life must not remain stuck within the ecclesial quarters or among the professional elite of the churches, but must most certainly be ‘received’ by the broader community of people.”[iv]

I have argued that the Kairos Document and the way theology is done on that should be considered as a model to a public theology today in South Africa, which remains connected with the liberation theology’s tradition. The main point on considering that as a model is that it recognizes the kairos we are living in. It “reads the signs of the times”.  The challenges of the specific situation, the social and human demands, the injustices being perpetrated, and the opportunities to find God emerging in our reality, taking sides, this is the context from which we must start to talk about public theology, rather than in an universal, global and dominant approach. So public theology can be understood as a prophetic theology as well, once it reads the signs of the times and suggests a theological interpretation of reality, prophetically. Nolan describes this type of theology:

“Theological interpretation here means discerning what kind of time we are living in and what God is saying to us at this particular moment of time. […] Still more important is the recognition that when we read the signs of the times or interpret our kairos we are saying something about the future. Prophetic theology is concerned not only about the present but also about the future. In fact prophetic theology can see the future, or various possible futures, in the present crisis. It can predict the future catastrophes if nothing is done now, and it can promise great blessing if the present opportunity is taken seriously.[v]”

Some words on Le Bruyns’ contributions

Some aspects of Le Bruyns’ article help us to move forward on the construction of a public theology committed to social transformation, especially in contexts in which people keep struggling and suffering:

• Le Bruyns sees the importance of the link between liberation theology and public theology:  “A credible world-affirming public theology would, therefore, be one that continues the liberationist impulse of taking social analysis and kairos consciousness seriously coupled with a self-critical, re-forming nature”[vi];
• Public theology is not a repetitive theology, but must work constructing and deconstructing realities, trying to promote social changes: “The quality of public theology required today cannot simply ‘pass on’ in a ‘repetitive’ fashion dogmas of the past; rather, it must help us engage with and change social realities for a better life for all being”[vii];
• Public theology must jump the fences of the limits of the churches and of the academy, which keeps the theological production from being shared in the broad community: “ Furthermore, our theological contributions must transcend mere visionary activity, but must extend to broader aspects of our life together, such as the domains of public policy, international law, political practice, economic ideologies, and so on”[viii];
• Mentioning Tundisi, Le Bruyns affirms that public theology has a responsibility with the planet and must introduce the dimension of the hope into the public debates (Not a passive hope, but an engaged one, a transformative hope);
• Analyzing the Palestinian Kairos Document, Le Bruyns mentions that there has already been a public theology, legitimizing the Occupation and violence. Zionist theology can be understood as a public theology. Similarly, the Kairos Document in South Africa identified a State Theology as well, which gave theological arguments to sustain apartheid. It reminds us that a public theology is not necessarily a transformative one, nor prophetic, nor liberative, etc. Thinking briefly about the Brazilian context, there is a public theology operating by so-called “evangelicals” or “neo-pentecostals”. For them, the media and the public square are the spaces to get more clients, to sell their products. This “public theology” operates under the “market rules” and the neoliberal economics, creating even more suffering and inequalities.
• As a last point Le Bruyns suggests that it is possible to live under other paradigms, to start to create new realities, transforming our perspectives of what “is” and what it “could be”. Mentioning Boff and Sodre, Le Bruyns makes a claim for a “re-invented education [which] should help us with decolonization, and overcoming the one-thought-only” paradigm.”[ix]

A Word About Public Theology in Brazil:

Public theology is emerging in Brazilian theological reflection in recent years. It is not clearly defined how and if this concept can contribute to our reality[x]. What can be said is that the Brazilian socio-political context has changed considerably in the past 25 years and this is certainly a new “kairos” in which theology should be able to see where, how and what side God is taking in the new “struggles” for justice and life today.

Some challenges must be faced when we try to read the signs of the times in Brazil:

• The already mentioned over-influence of evangelicals or neo-pentecostals in the public debates in Brazil (in themes like abortion, homosexuality, corruption, use of media, etc. – on some of these aspects we can also include the role of conservative catholics). It means that a transformative or prophetic or liberative public theology must be done against another type of public theology, which works for the status quo, celebrating the market rules and the neoliberal order.
• The consolidation of democracy and the path to learn how to be present in the public square. The churches must get out of their confines and take part in the construction of the Brazilian society. As the prophetic and liberation tradition show us, we must do theology in the public square against a sort of “other theologies” or ideologies. This is something we can also learn from South African public theology, as Cochrane’s contribution shows us:

“Cochrane is of the opinion that the split between public anger and public spirit that lies within Storrar’s distinction between oppositional and public theologies is problematic. It is Cochrane’s view that both these moments necessarily belong together, and that both are forms of public theology. In such a way that the critical, excluded moment of public anger is not opposed to the reconstructive, included moment of civic spirit.”[xi]

• Like South Africa, Brazil is considered a developing nation. Although we can discuss this concept critically, it is a fact that Brazil is growing economically and starting to overcome centuries of inequality[xii]. This fact leads us to ask how we are growing and what perception of development are we nurturing[xiii]. A burning discussion is happening in Brazil about the ecological and social consequences of the type of development that is being implemented. The question public theology should face is: what type of development should we prophetically denounce and announce? What development perception should we publicly foster? How should we work publicly to construct another development, which takes the human being and its social conditions of life as a cornerstone for the development of the country, rather than the “economicist” perception. The human being cannot be defined by its “consumption level” but by the quality of life, quality of the social relations, quality of the environment, etc.

Certainly there are many other aspects that should be considered by an emerging public theology in Brazil. Le Bruyns helps us to see that it is possible and necessary to construct a public theology under the paradigm of liberation. The colonial and neoliberal paradigm has alternatives, and public theology should find ways to carry it out. As Boff and Sodre state, we need to learn again how to get decolonized and how to overcome this “one-thought-only paradigm”.

Felipe G. Koch Buttelli lives and works in Florianópolis, Brazil. He is writing his doctoral dissertation on Public Theology, bringing South African contributions to the reflection in Brazil. Felipe Buttelli is also currently a lecturer at the Religions Science Faculty of the University of São José in Santa Catarina – Brazil (www.usj.edu.br). The doctoral research is fostered by CAPES (Coordination of Improvement of Higher Level Personnel) and CNPq, national research agency, under supervision of Rudolf von Sinner at Faculdades EST (www.est.edu.br). E-mail: felipebuttelli@yahoo.com.br

---

[i] On this issue I presented a paper at the meeting of the Theological Society of South Africa (June, 2011). Felipe G. Koch Buttelli, “Public theology as theology on kairos: The South African Kairos document as a model of Public Theology”, awaiting publication.

[ii] The Institute for Contextual Theology on behalf of the Kairos Theologians, The Kairos Document: Challenge to the Church. A Theological Comment on the Political Crisis in South Africa, Revised Second Edition (September 1986).

[iii] Charles Villa-Vicencio, “Liberation and Reconstruction: the unfinished agenda”, in The Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology, edited by Christopher Rowland, 2^nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 183.

[iv] Clint Le Bruyns, “Public Theology and Social Transformation: Insights from the Palestinian Kairos Document”, available in [http://www.ecclesio.com/2012/06/public-theology-and-social-transformation-insights-from-the-palestinian-kairos-document-%E2%80%93-by-clint-le-bruyns/]. (06-05-2012).

[v] Albert Nolan, “Kairos Theology”, in Doing Theology in Context. South African Perspectives, edited by John de Gruchy and Charles Villa-Vicencio (New York/Cape Town: Orbis Books/David Philip, 1994), 216.

[vi] Le Bruyns, “Public Theology and Social Transformation”.

[vii] Le Bruyns, “Public Theology and Social Transformation”.

[viii] Le Bruyns, “Public Theology and Social Transformation”.

[ix] Le Bruyns, “Public Theology and Social Transformation”.

[x] See, for instance, R. Von Sinner and R. Cavalcante, “Teologia Pública – em Debate”, vol. 1 (São Leopoldo: Sinodal), 2011.; R. Von Sinner; R. Zwetsch; E. Jacobsen, “Teologia Pública – Desafios sociais e culturais”, vol. 2 (São Leopoldo: Sinodal), 2012; Julio Zabatiero, “Para uma Teologia Pública” (São Paulo: Fonte Editorial), 2010.

[xi] Etienne de Villiers, “Public Theology in the South African Context”, in International Journal of Public Theology, Nº 5 (2011), 16.

[xii] For a detailed description of this perception see: Jorge A. S. Iulianelli, Pobreza, Riqueza e Economia: Uma revisão da literature sobre causalidades da pobreza no Brasil in “Pobreza e Riqueza no Brasil: Perspectivas ecumênicas da América Latina e Caribe” Edited by R. Mashna and N. Giese (São Leopoldo/Quito: Sinodal/CLAI), 2011. 63-130.

[xiii] An institute for Public Theology in Brazil (Instituto Humanitas Unisinos) brought the theme to a debate. See the reflection in [http://www.ihuonline.unisinos.br/index.php?secao=392] (06 – 05 – 2012)