Public Theology

 

 

 

 

An Essay Engaging:

‘What is Public Theology?’ By Harold Breitenberg Jr. and

‘Speaking the Truth in Love: Elements of a Missional Hermeneutic’ 

By James V.  Brownson

 

 

 

        In this paper I will engage ‘What is Public Theology?’ by Harold Breitenberg Jr.[1]   

 And ‘Speaking the Truth in Love: Elements of a missional Hermeneutic’ by James V. Brownson[2] to make comparisons and demonstrate the necessity of a missional hermeneutic in public theology. 

       Breitenberg filters out the numerous confusing definitions for Public Theology and defines it first as: A “theologically informed discourse” seeking to be knowable to those within its own religious institution and those external to it. Second, public theology, “is concerned with issues, institutions, interactions, and processes that are of importance and pertinence both to the church and or other religious communities and the larger society.” This definition includes those of the same faith and those of differing faiths, and ones claiming no faith and religious affiliation. Breitenberg notes on this point that “public theology interprets public life, engages society and its institutions, and offers guidance to and for society and its different sectors, interactions, and organizations,” making public theology in essence an ethical exercise. Lastly, Breitenberg claims that public theology, “draws on and makes use of sources of insight, terminology, and forms of discourse and argument that are in theory available and open to all,” outside of ones that are specifically religious (Hainsworth & Paeth, 4-5).

      Theology is human speech about God. It is humanity’s best attempts at naming and responding to a gift that God has given us- life and language. The best way to know God is to speak to God, and read God’s Word where one discovers what God is doing in revealing God’s self to us, in our own language. Everyone is a theologian; theology is any reflection on life’s ultimate questions directed toward God. Specifically, Christian theologians are ones who reflect on and articulate the God-centered life and beliefs that Christians believe and embody, and it is done that God might be glorified in all Christians are and do. 

      This exercise takes place in a moving, and changing world. The issue is that we don’t stand removed and bracketed out. Our reading of the Bible is taking place within a moving and changing world; it is a “public theology.” We are embedded in our world, there’s no safe place to hide. We do theology in the midst of the cultural, or as Breitenberg claims, the “public,” and this needs to be interpreted well and often. This is why I point to Brownson’s work on the elements of a Missional Hermeneutic.

      Brownson draws attention to the need specifically in North America for Christians to claim a fresh vision for what it means to live and be Christian in a post-Christian context. Secondly, Brownson believes the Christian faith offers good news and hope to our context (and I’ll add the world in general), but this truth has to be “lived out and proclaimed with courage and wisdom,” (Hunsberger & Van Gelder, P. 228). This is where I detect a useful intersection between the work of Breitenberg and Brownson. Both authors though not identical in analyses, each begin with theology and end with its application to life.

      Brownson notes that to further aid in the process of visioning, discernment is needed. First, look at our own cultural context and see what’s taking place and take action. I would add here that it is our mission as Christian believers to take action daily in the way we live out our faith. Brownson points to the enlightenment and uses Newbigin’s analysis of our current worldview. Newbigin points to empiricism as the dominant hermeneutic for our context, one that looks to the “empirical- what can be measured and qualified- has resulted in an unhealthy split between the public and the private realm,” (Hunsberger & Van Gelder, 229). This is where Brownson points to religion, generally speaking, and the Christian faith, particularly, as having been “relegated to the private realm,” (Ibid). Resultantly, the public realm is emptied of the hope of a moral framework leaving our world without a common good or sense of purpose. 

      Secondly, Brownson points to postmodernism as the as a powerful force affecting our context and mission. The move has shifted from an enlightened way of thinking-“grand synthesis of all human arts under the banner of reason and science, a postmodern perspective consciously and explicitly eschews such a goal,” (Ibid, 229). Within a postmodern world the pluralism causes fragmentation and a constant grasping for control and the inevitable violent resultants. The attention now turns toward the gospel and it’s claims and power to influence the public sphere, I would define this as the Christian mission. 

      Brownson moves into a hermeneutical understanding of the gospel that seeks to move beyond terminology toward an identification of available hermeneutical models and how they should work for our context. Brownson proposes: A Hermeneutic of Diversity to include a missional hermeneutic, A Hermeneutic of Coherence, and Gospel as Hermeneutical Framework to lay out a model for interpretation that actively incorporates the truths of the biblical text and our current context. 

      I was specifically drawn to Brownson’s use of “A Missional Hermeneutic” because it takes the truths of scripture to include the Christian movement it sprang from to reveal a missional character. This was a boundary crossing movement that crossed the cultural, and engaged the world not only with a message but also as the embodiment of that message. Brownson’s model assumes plurality in its interpretation not as a factor for failure in its task, but to demonstrate that this allows for effectiveness by accepting each context and reader. Here Breitenberg’s definition gives another point of comparison “public theology interprets public life, engages society and its institutions, and offers guidance to and for society and its different sectors, interactions, and organizations.” 

      The good news of an incarnational gospel is that it has power to transform the public sphere by defragmenting the chaos of pluralistic society and teaching love as a means to suppress the violence. In my tradition I support and incorporate John Wesley’s hermeneutic of interpretation translated by Albert Outler as: Scripture, reason, experience, and tradition as a framework for interpreting my world and mission, and allowing me to proclaim with my life Jesus is Lord.”    

         

                

---

[1] Hainsworth, Deirdre and Paeth, Scott. Public Theology for a Global Society (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans 2010) PP. 3-17 

[2] Hunsberger, George and Van Gelder, Craig The Church Between Gospel & Culture (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans 1996) PP. 228-259

Public Issue: Gun Control

Public Issue: Gun Control

 

     I had to write a paper in seminary for a course on Public Theology: Engaging the World. Below is my argument that Christian theologians have a word to speak in the arena for gun control debate. I demonstrate that Christians do have a word to speak and it is established that the word be spoken publicly. Every individual Christian is a public theologian who actively proclaims with their life and words the gospel of Jesus Christ that has the power to transform individuals and societies.

     “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” “Doesn’t more guns equal more crime?” “When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.” “Control humans, and you control guns.” “It’s not a gun control problem; it’s a cultural control problem.” These are only a small sample of popular responses to the issue of gun control in North America today. Gun control is an issue that most Americans have been exposed to, and most have an opinion on. The rhetoric on both sides of the debate is heated and consistent. In this paper I will posit the question, “Shouldn’t a Christian theological position be permitted in the arena for this public debate?” 

     Almost all human societies have had some sort of religion and governing framework. Each is a deeply ingrained body of human existence. “As a result of the enduring presence of and power of both the church and the state in all human societies, one of the perpetual issues with which all societies must struggle is how these two vital spheres of human endeavor should relate to each other.”[1]  

     The second amendment of the U.S. Constitution is the most often sited source of rhetoric for the debate and it states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”[2] The fight over the second Amendment to the Constitution and the bearing it has upon society is everywhere and being made available daily by all sources of media. There are many giving voice to this public debate, government agencies, the NRA (Nation Rifle Association), and individuals. Most claim that the argument isn’t over gun control but essentially one over individual liberty, states rights, and the role of federal government. Many gun control advocates will point to the 2^nd Amendment as not guaranteeing the individual right to bear arms but that of the state for protection against federal and foreign invasion. 

    Those pushing against gun control essentially argue that any laws against the right to bear arms and protect oneself is unconstitutional and should be stopped. America was founded on the people of this country owning guns and protecting what they considered right. Americans are slowly having their rights removed because some people would rather feel safe than have true freedom. America is best with a limited government. Which constitutional right will be taken away next? If the government takes away “our” guns then only criminals and law enforcement will have guns, and there isn’t enough law enforcement to protect everyone. Therefore, gun control is bad. 

    The NRA offers an effective message mobilizing grassroots supporters and efforts through local laws and Supreme Court decisions to keep ease of access to guns available to the American public. “To achieve it goals the gun lobby uses its significant financial resources to influence legislators and couches its public message in American values such as personal freedom, patriotism, religious faith and family.”[3]  

    In an article for Patheos,[4] Dr. Ben Witherington a seminary professor and biblical scholar had the NRA in his sights when he challenged them to make five meaningful adjustments that would, according to him would strengthen gun control. In a response the NRA’s comments were: “Dr. W3, I think people would take you more seriously if you stuck to topics you were informed about. Sincerely.”[5] Why shouldn’t a theologian, (and I assume all Christians to be theologians to some degree or another) have the right to an opinion as it relates to the issue of gun control in the public sphere?  Shouldn’t the arena for this public debate be structured in such a way as to allow theological rhetoric? 

     “Theology, (from the Latin theologia, which comes from two crucial Greek root words: theos, God, and logos, discourse, language, study), is reasoned discourse about God gained either by rational reflection or by response to God’s self-disclosure in history. The essential purpose is to study and bring into a fitting, consistent expression the Christian faith. Christian theology is the orderly exposition of Christian teaching. It sets forth the understanding of God that is made known in Jesus Christ. It seeks to provide a coherent reflection on the living God as understood in the community whose life is “in Christ.”[6]

     Due to the increasing violence our society is experiencing, the church has a word to the spiritual concern as well as public responsibility regarding effective gun control and regulations. The time is fitting for reasonable Christians to bring to bear the teachings of God made known in Jesus Christ as part of any debates over gun control. James Krauss-Jackson claims, “Gun violence is of deep, valid concern to the community of faith whose members are called to a vision of the ‘peaceable kingdom,’ or ‘New Jerusalem’- a society where God’s justice prevails, where reconciliation replaces acted-out anger, where a welcoming hand and a turned cheek replace retaliation, where love of enemies is as important as love of neighbor.”[7]   

     The church has a message for the world. But the messengers must be indwelt by God’s Spirit and informed on the subject at hand. The public policy of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) declare that handguns have, ‘have no social purpose.’ The Bureau of alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms estimates that the United States has 90 million handguns, with 3.5 million added annually. Since the 1960s the denomination has consistently asked for their strict control. James Atwood a Presbyterian Pastor claims that, “God calls each Christian to help build safe communities. To do so we must first educate ourselves about the problems of gun violence. Once we grasp its all-pervasive threat, we must wherever possible enter into dialog with gun owners and those who promote gun safety, so that we can build a safer and saner America.”[8]

     The United Methodist Church offers this statement, “We believe in the right and duty of persons to work for the glory of God and the good of themselves and others and in the protection of their welfare in so doing; in the rights to property as a trust from God, collective bargaining, and responsible consumption; and in the elimination of economic and social distress. We dedicate ourselves to peace throughout the world, to the rule of justice and law among nations, and to individual freedom for all people of the world. We believe in the present and final triumph of God’s Word in human affairs and gladly accept our commission to manifest the life of the gospel in the world. Amen.”[9]

     Mary Ann Walsh, the director of media for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, recently commented that Gun control is a pro-life issue. “The church’s pro-life stand against abortion is undisputed. So is its pro-life stand in opposition to the death penalty. And in the most recent and all to common threat to human life, the church opposes the growing preponderance of lethal weapons on the streets. It stands as another important pro-life position. More than ever, the church and all people of good will must work together to confront the pervasive culture of violence and instead build a culture that values life, peace, and the inherent dignity of all.”[10]

     The church in North America is facing crises. The social role the church once played is gone. No particular church affiliation will be protected from the issues now causing deep skepticism and anxiety in churches now removed from positions of prior cultural influence. “The distress caused by this radical change in social role and cultural value manifests itself in various ways: a lack of focus, in the midst of a proliferation of church programs, loss of meaning in the work of clergy and laity alike, and an uneasiness that our faith does not really fit in the world we where we live. All these contribute to a dis-ease in our congregations.”[11]

     The church must admit that things have changed, humble herself, and follow God into the world offering a faithful response to the Gospel in every context the church finds itself, including the public sphere. This call to action is more than claiming a lost privileged position in society. Our culture has a need, moral and spiritual, and the church has the needed response. “It will mean learning to be a church that by its nature lives always between gospel and culture, recognizing, on the one hand, the cultural dynamics that shape us as well as everyone else in this society, and on the other hand, hearing the gospel that calls us to know and value and intend things in a very different way.”[12]

      There may not exist one single method for the church to adopt to speak to the issue of gun control but she must be allowed to speak and be prepared to do so as necessary. Ron Sider offers some basic goals of public theology: “to wholeheartedly submit our politics to the Lordship of Christ; to be uncompromisingly biblical; to be factually correct; to establish a comprehensive framework that helps us make consistent faithful and effective political decisions about very concrete questions.”[13]

     As I set out in the beginning of this paper I have posited that Christian theologians should have a word to speak in the arena for gun control debate. As I have demonstrated Christians do have a word to speak and it is established that the word be spoken publicly. The answer may best lie in every individual Christian becoming a public theologian who actively proclaims with their life and words the gospel of Jesus Christ that has the power to transform individuals and societies.

   

---

[1] Monsma, Stephen & Soper, Christopher. The Challenge of Pluralism (Lanham; Rowman & Littlefield Publisher Inc. 2009) P.1 

[2] Congressional Research Service, Second Amendment, Legal Information Institute.  www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment. Accessed 04/15/2013

[3] Boyd, Drick. “Mobilizing for gun control: Limited Access” Christian Century, 128 no 15 Jul 26 2011, PP. 10-11. ATLA Religion Database, accessed 04/15/2013. 

[4] Witherington, Ben. “The Aurora Debacle.” Patheos.com, July 12^th 2012. Accessed 04/10/13 

[5] Mcginniss, Mark. “Theologians and Gun Control.” Outsidemydoor.com. Aug. 9^th 2012. Accessed 4/10/13. 

[6] Oden, Thomas. Systematic Theology Vol.1 ‘The Living God’ (Peabody, Hendrickson Pub. 2006) P.5 

[7] Krauss-Jackson, James. Source: The New Jerusalem and Gun Control, Church & Society, 87 no 5 My-Je 1997, p. 47-49. Article ATLA Religion Database. Accessed 04/15/2013

[8] Atwood, James E. “Gun Control: Wrestling with the Principalities and the Powers.” Church and Society. 87 no. 4 Mar-Ap. 1997, P.74-81. ATLA Religion Database Accessed 04/16/13 

[9] The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church, ¶ 166 Portion of ‘Our Social Creed’ (Nashville: The UM Pub. House 2012) P.141

[10] Lefebvre, Elizabeth. “Gun control: A pro-life issue” U.S. Catholic. Blog. www.uscatholic.org. accessed 04/16/13

[11] Hunsberger, George. & Van Gelder, Craig, The Church Between Gospel and Culture (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans 1996) P. xiii

[12] Ibid. p. xvii

[13] Edgar, Brian. “Reflections on Evangelical Public Theology.” Evangelical Public Theology, Part 4 on “evangelical Method.”